Posted by George Hager on December 12, 2007 at 2:09 PM
Just saw this today:
The oversight hearing is being held to allow concerns about the proposed rule changes to be addressed by organizations such as NPPA. Under the Department of Interior's proposal, the new rules would establish a permit system for some commercial filming and photography in National Parks and other federal lands. Some of these proposed revisions contradict a set of regulations put forth in Law 106-206 by Congress in 2000 that NPPA found to be very acceptable. Specifically the revisions call for fees on documentary films deemed “commercial”, permits for audio taping and the denial of permits for still photography when deemed “inappropriate” by the agency, which NPPA opposes.
Full story here: http://www.nppa.org/news_and_events/news/2007/12/parks01.html
Maybe it is nothing, but it is the last sentence that scares me a little. Seems a bit broad and open to interpretation to me. Only makes me wonder when the sunrise/sunset permit, the flower picture permit and the autumn leaf change permit will be inacted.
Like I said, maybe it is nothing, but do you really trust the Bush administration on something like this?
Posted by Jesse Speer on December 12, 2007 at 2:44 PM
This honestly does not bother me. I don't have to get permits as is (nor do most photographers - the really important point here), so I'm not worried about language referring to potential denial of permits. I wouldn't be surprises if the park service has had problems with idiots who present real problems when trying to get the picture at all possible costs. And this issue was a thorn long before Bush came around. I'm no fan of Bush, but come on.
If this ever truly leads to photographers like me having to pay fees, then I'll worry about it. I doubt the permit issue applies to anyone here. And the NPS actually likes to see most types of photographers promoting the parks with great images.
Given how under-funded this agency is, I'm all for commercial fee permits that might possible lead to added protection in national parks. Better than raising the entrance fees for everyone that much more. But I don't want to open a can of worms about enforcing permits and fees for ALL commercial photography (not just the limited types that require permits now).
But then again, I don't think it's a concerted policy scheme by a "regime" either - to step on the little guy. But I'm sure if the democratically-run House Natural Resources Committee shares your insight into regime policy, this won't be an issue anyway.
Posted by John Mumaw on December 12, 2007 at 3:31 PM
This doesn't bother me either.
Posted by Brent Murphy on December 12, 2007 at 4:36 PM
There is nothing political about this. This issue seems to come up almost every year when they look at modifying the language regarding photography in the Parks. This only applies to permits for commercial filming and photography.
The NPPA is concerned about this proposal because it apparently doesn't clearly define where photojournalism lies in the definition of commercial photography. But you can rest assured that the photography most of us participate in does not qualify as commercial and is not restricted by this proposed regulation. Shoot away!
As for the jerks who have gone over the line to get "the shot", this really doesn't have anything to do with them either. They can continue to put themselves in harm's way without the hassle of getting a permit. The DOI is just making sure they get their money from people shooting weddings, advertising, etc in the Parks.
Posted by Mel Ladewig on December 12, 2007 at 5:55 PM
From the political side of things, the chronic underfunding of certain components of the DOI and USDA and the expectation that the agencies be self-funded has led to the situation where these agencies are having to charge fees to function.
I don't believe this particular decision is going to affect us as I don't think that my photographic outings can be considered commercial. But it doesn't mean that the changes should be ignored if the agencies are moving in that direction.
Posted by Bill Pelzmann on December 12, 2007 at 7:48 PM
George, what specifically in the proposed regulation do you have a problem with?
The quote you have above is from the NPPA press release that appears to have an axe to grind. Have you actually read the proposed regulation? http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2007/E7-15845.htm
It appears quite reasonable to me, and they are quite specific in what constitutes commercial photography.
Heck, it is even readable by someone without a law degree!
If it's Section 5.3 that concerns you, then I'm on board. Anything that gives that kind of discretion to a governmental agency opens up a door for potential abuse by both well-meaning-but-misdirected federal employees and those who rule their fiefdom with a heavy hand. I spent the early years of my law practice fighting just such people and I don't want to have to resume the fight just so that I can take "commercial" images in national parks. If that section already exists and I'm just now becoming aware of it, then ignorance was truly bliss.
Posted by George Hager on December 13, 2007 at 2:14 AM
Yes Bill, I did read the entire document. And yes, I admit it may in fact be a noble effort to unite the three government entities to have the same policy concerning commercial photography. On the other hand, I have been around long enough to see that on rare ocassions, politicians have been known to tell a fib or two. You might even be able to think of a recent example or two yourself. Once the organizations have been united in their regulations, it can be a very minor internal move that changes the definition of commercial photographer to include anyone that publishes in a book, sells prints or does slide shows. Ah, but you say I am paranoid. Well, that could be, but then I think of the situation on Mt. Evans and say to myself....Hmmmmmmmm. If you lived in Colorado a few years back folks voted to allow the lottery in Colorado with the stipulation that all profits collected would go to parks and recreation. Once it was in place, the politicians grabed all the money for other purposes. Neat trick. Put out a piece of legislation everyone will vote yes on and then change it to what you wanted later when it doesn't require a vote. The result was we had to vote on it again and this time make it unchangable. All I'm saying here is our political leaders don't exactly have a stellar track record and they have been known to change things when it is to their advantage.
CAZ, you are correct in my concern over Section 5.3. So very much depends on the defintion of "commercial" and it would be so easy for them to change it. Now, as many have stated, the organizations are strapped for cash. All the more reason we should be concerned. With one minor change, they could make a major increase in revenues. As for why they are strapped for cash I can only guess. I know I have worked for both the state and federal governments and saw incredible amounts of waste. One project I worked on which would run about 2 billion in today's dollars was abandoned when it was 95+% complete. It still sits empty today.
So, am I crazy? Heck, that's a given - I'm a photographer. Am I wrong? No one hopes so more than me. Will I lose sleep over this? Not a wink. I do however think it is our responsibility to keep an eye on things that may affect our future as photographers and that is why I brought it to the attention of this group. I would much rather be taking pictures.
Posted by Craig Schultz on December 13, 2007 at 3:32 PM
I don't know about everyone else, but commercial to me means anyone who sells an image/video/movie/book/etc of the parks. Webster defines it as "Having profit as a chief aim". So if you are selling the photography you took in any national park, it could be defined as commercial. That wording is way to broad to be acceptable.
This definitely concerns me.
Posted by Bill Pelzmann on December 13, 2007 at 5:42 PM
Craig, the regulation specifically defines what is considered "commercial".
As written, it can NOT be interpreted as broadly as you fear.
Read the document and tell me if you still think otherwise.
Would somebody try to broaden the definition in the future?
Well, anything is possible, but that would be a new law.
Posted by Paul Gana on December 14, 2007 at 8:41 PM
just like our government has told us what our rights are based on THEIR interpretation of the Bill of Rights, and their "interpretation" of so many other laws and their abuse of our money, I wouldn't put it past this government to really put a big stick to us
Posted by Don George on December 17, 2007 at 11:59 PM
This issue has raised its ugly head for many years. Someday the term commercial may be changed to professional but I doubt it as no one can define what a professional photographer is. A person used to assume that if someone was standing along the road with a 600f4 and a tripod that they were a professional. Today a great % of hobbyist have them. I can see the Rangers running around challenging every one with a large lens. In fact quite a few of the park personnel are photographing for future buisness purposes. Don't think it will happen myself but then anything can happen in this world of greed.
By the way the photographers who lead groups in the National Parks have been paying a fee for years and you don't hear them complaining.$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
It is not the limitations on commercial photography that concern me. It is the potential for abuse of discretion regarding "still photography".
(b) Still photography requires a permit if...
(3) The agency would incur additional administrative costs to
monitor the activity; or
(4) The agency would need to provide management and oversight to:
(i) Avoid impairment or incompatible use of the resources and
values of the site; or
(ii) Limit resource damage; or
(iii) Minimize health or safety risks to the visiting public.
Regarding (3) - Who determines whether or not the agency "would incur additional administrative costs to monitor the activity"? The agency itself? What are the guidelines? Is any administrative cost enough to trigger the permit requirement? (the cost of gas for a ranger to deviate from his normal route to check on a photographer's car that has been parked in one place too long, for example)
Regarding (4) - Could human presence alone be "incompatible use of the resources and
values of the site"? (I'm thinking Category 2 archaeological sites here) Since walking off trail can cause erosion, could all photographers be required to set up tripods only on the trail to "limit resource damage"?
Discussion
12 repliesThe oversight hearing is being held to allow concerns about the proposed rule changes to be addressed by organizations such as NPPA. Under the Department of Interior's proposal, the new rules would establish a permit system for some commercial filming and photography in National Parks and other federal lands. Some of these proposed revisions contradict a set of regulations put forth in Law 106-206 by Congress in 2000 that NPPA found to be very acceptable. Specifically the revisions call for fees on documentary films deemed “commercial”, permits for audio taping and the denial of permits for still photography when deemed “inappropriate” by the agency, which NPPA opposes.
Full story here: http://www.nppa.org/news_and_events/news/2007/12/parks01.html
Maybe it is nothing, but it is the last sentence that scares me a little. Seems a bit broad and open to interpretation to me. Only makes me wonder when the sunrise/sunset permit, the flower picture permit and the autumn leaf change permit will be inacted.
Like I said, maybe it is nothing, but do you really trust the Bush administration on something like this?
If this ever truly leads to photographers like me having to pay fees, then I'll worry about it. I doubt the permit issue applies to anyone here. And the NPS actually likes to see most types of photographers promoting the parks with great images.
Given how under-funded this agency is, I'm all for commercial fee permits that might possible lead to added protection in national parks. Better than raising the entrance fees for everyone that much more. But I don't want to open a can of worms about enforcing permits and fees for ALL commercial photography (not just the limited types that require permits now).
But then again, I don't think it's a concerted policy scheme by a "regime" either - to step on the little guy. But I'm sure if the democratically-run House Natural Resources Committee shares your insight into regime policy, this won't be an issue anyway.
The NPPA is concerned about this proposal because it apparently doesn't clearly define where photojournalism lies in the definition of commercial photography. But you can rest assured that the photography most of us participate in does not qualify as commercial and is not restricted by this proposed regulation. Shoot away!
As for the jerks who have gone over the line to get "the shot", this really doesn't have anything to do with them either. They can continue to put themselves in harm's way without the hassle of getting a permit. The DOI is just making sure they get their money from people shooting weddings, advertising, etc in the Parks.
I don't believe this particular decision is going to affect us as I don't think that my photographic outings can be considered commercial. But it doesn't mean that the changes should be ignored if the agencies are moving in that direction.
The quote you have above is from the NPPA press release that appears to have an axe to grind. Have you actually read the proposed regulation? http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2007/E7-15845.htm
It appears quite reasonable to me, and they are quite specific in what constitutes commercial photography.
Heck, it is even readable by someone without a law degree!
If it's Section 5.3 that concerns you, then I'm on board. Anything that gives that kind of discretion to a governmental agency opens up a door for potential abuse by both well-meaning-but-misdirected federal employees and those who rule their fiefdom with a heavy hand. I spent the early years of my law practice fighting just such people and I don't want to have to resume the fight just so that I can take "commercial" images in national parks. If that section already exists and I'm just now becoming aware of it, then ignorance was truly bliss.
CAZ, you are correct in my concern over Section 5.3. So very much depends on the defintion of "commercial" and it would be so easy for them to change it. Now, as many have stated, the organizations are strapped for cash. All the more reason we should be concerned. With one minor change, they could make a major increase in revenues. As for why they are strapped for cash I can only guess. I know I have worked for both the state and federal governments and saw incredible amounts of waste. One project I worked on which would run about 2 billion in today's dollars was abandoned when it was 95+% complete. It still sits empty today.
So, am I crazy? Heck, that's a given - I'm a photographer. Am I wrong? No one hopes so more than me. Will I lose sleep over this? Not a wink. I do however think it is our responsibility to keep an eye on things that may affect our future as photographers and that is why I brought it to the attention of this group. I would much rather be taking pictures.
This definitely concerns me.
As written, it can NOT be interpreted as broadly as you fear.
Read the document and tell me if you still think otherwise.
Would somebody try to broaden the definition in the future?
Well, anything is possible, but that would be a new law.
By the way the photographers who lead groups in the National Parks have been paying a fee for years and you don't hear them complaining.$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
(b) Still photography requires a permit if...
(3) The agency would incur additional administrative costs to
monitor the activity; or
(4) The agency would need to provide management and oversight to:
(i) Avoid impairment or incompatible use of the resources and
values of the site; or
(ii) Limit resource damage; or
(iii) Minimize health or safety risks to the visiting public.
Regarding (3) - Who determines whether or not the agency "would incur additional administrative costs to monitor the activity"? The agency itself? What are the guidelines? Is any administrative cost enough to trigger the permit requirement? (the cost of gas for a ranger to deviate from his normal route to check on a photographer's car that has been parked in one place too long, for example)
Regarding (4) - Could human presence alone be "incompatible use of the resources and
values of the site"? (I'm thinking Category 2 archaeological sites here) Since walking off trail can cause erosion, could all photographers be required to set up tripods only on the trail to "limit resource damage"?