U.S. Forest Service wants to charge $1,500 to take photos on federal wild lands

[manumuskin]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...ge-1500-to-take-photos-on-federal-wild-lands/

The U.S. Forest Service is finalizing plans to fine photographers who shoot on federal wild lands without a permit.

 

[manumuskin]

Can I say Bulls$%t on here?

 

[Teegate]

Yea, that is illegal and has to be stopped. Next ...each state will do the same and it will be illegal to take photo's in the pines.

I am sorry Al but I had to edit your post and remove most of the text. It is illegal apparently to post the text of a news article. How ironic is that?????

Guy

 

[Teegate]

If you read below the article there is a link to send your opinion in. It is in the "Addresses" area. I believe the link is

reply_lands@fs.fed.us

 

[Teegate]

You know, with the barrens being a Congressional National Reserve, this could have implications for us.

 

[Teegate]

Can someone else read the legal info over and see if this pertains to commercial photography only? I am confused over this.

 

[oji]

The first fine will be sent to Ansel Adams!

 

[Gibby]

Commercial filming and photography... with fees ranging from $30 up to $1500.

If you show up with a set, a crew, a few models and a caravan of support vehicles, you will need a permit, otherwise carry on.

 

[imkms]

One of the links in the article states that the fee is for the media, reporters, etc. I guess we would need to read the full law to be certain.
It also applies to documentary crews and even private citizens if the photos were taken and used for profit or while earning a salary in the wilderness area.
The bill has actually been in place since 2010, but with this latest attention The National Press Photographers Assoc and the Reporters Committee is already considering suing. Others are expected to follow.

 

[46er]

One of the links in the article states that the fee is for the media, reporters, etc. I guess we would need to read the full law to be certain.
It also applies to documentary crews and even private citizens if the photos were taken and used for profit or while earning a salary in the wilderness area.
The bill has actually been in place since 2010, but with this latest attention The National Press Photographers Assoc and the Reporters Committee is already considering suing. Others are expected to follow.

They have already rescinded it. It appears the rooster did not know what the hens were up too

http://www.oregonlive.com/environment/index.ssf/2014/09/forest_service_chief_tom_tidwe.html

 

[Boyd]

There has always been a ban on commercial photography in the National Parks. I used to shoot a lot of video and was a moderator at a popular video forum. The topic was discussed frequently. Gibby is right, nobody is likely to question you taking pictures for yourself. From discussions I've seen in the past, if you are using a large video camera on a professional tripod, that might arouse the interest of a Ranger. I have equipment like this but I doubt many other forum members do.

 

[46er]

There has always been a ban on commercial photography in the National Parks. I used to shoot a lot of video and was a moderator at a popular video forum. The topic was discussed frequently. Gibby is right, nobody is likely to question you taking pictures for yourself. From discussions I've seen in the past, if you are using a large video camera on a professional tripod, that might arouse the interest of a Ranger. I have equipment like this but I doubt many other forum members do.

This was for the US Forest Service, not the NPS. The NPS went thru this a couple years back when they began enforcing it, but is well documented as to what does and does not meet the criteria. It includes still photography as well.

 

[manumuskin]

Yea, that is illegal and has to be stopped. Next ...each state will do the same and it will be illegal to take photo's in the pines.

I am sorry Al but I had to edit your post and remove most of the text. It is illegal apparently to post the text of a news article. How ironic is that?????

Guy

didn't know that.thanks.you'd think they'd want the publicity,especially with the link included.

 

[46er]

Can someone else read the legal info over and see if this pertains to commercial photography only? I am confused over this.

The state has similar regs in place for state parks and forests.

 

[46er]

didn't know that.thanks.you'd think they'd want the publicity,especially with the link included.

It is in the WP's terms of service, specifically copyright. Just about every online publication has them. Most allow the posting of the URL to an article, just not the text/pictures, etc. of the article. Its all about the money