Posted by Roger Rouch on June 26, 2008 at 10:51 AM
I took a bit of an exporatory trip into the Holy Cross wilderness area and this was taken along Cross Creek. While dinking with the composition a Forest Service trail clearing fellow stopped for a second and politely told me that it would be illegal to sell any prints from photos taken in the wilderness. I did my best correct him, though I doubt that he believed me (not that I'll be selling prints of this). He was probably a seasonal employee trying to do his job, but a little disconcerting.
Posted by Kalin Wilson on June 26, 2008 at 11:04 AM
Interesting concept, he might want to notify Fielder!
I like the light and placement of the branch of flowers. How was the trail?
Posted by Roger Rouch on June 26, 2008 at 11:15 AM
Kalin, the Cross Creek trail was fine and lots of flowers, though the road was closed lower down and required an extra mile or so of hike to the trailhead. There is still a lot of snow higher up. I tried to go to Missouri Lakes and the trail was snow bound within a short distance of the trailhead.
Posted by Todd Caudle on June 26, 2008 at 11:32 AM
This is some tough light, but you sure made it work. This is a really nice shot.
As for the USFS employee's statement, makes you wonder why he would even bother to bring it up just by seeing someone taking pictures along a trail. What a joke.
I agree that you did well in very tough light - we can't just order up a nice lightbox cloud.
The conversation with a forest service employee is VERY disconcerting. Unfortunately, it comes up from time to time and there are misunderstandings about legal photography on public lands. Generally, COMMERCIAL photography requires a permit and all other uses do not. NANPA recommends carrying their public use statement to produce when challenged in the field:
http://www.nanpa.org/docs/PublicLandsAccess.pdf?PHPSESSID=d3771d1fe9a07906cbf353aa9c120e5e
Use of a tripod is not a criminal act! We pay our freakin' taxes and own the land!
Dave, I actually would like to email something credible to the Forest Service office (probably Minturn) to help clarify. For what ever good it would do. The discussion with the USFS guy was very decent and the use of a camera or tripod was not in question. This fellow claimed it was a violation to make private profit in any way from use of designated Wilderness areas, without a permit. The NANPA article is good, but I didn't obviously pick how it addresses this, though it comes close in it's implications. From my ignorance, would it not be "commercial" use, if you take photos and then make a movie scene or publish a book from the photos? How would a person explain this to the USFS guy?
Thanks for the photo comments. I actually did have a cloud lightbox come over, but prefered the touch of light. The photo is a blend of two exposures. l guess it was a breaking rule day.
Still photography on public lands is legal, period. I have heard that in some instances, photo workshops require a permit. Producing a book, magazine article, sale of a print are all within our rights with images made on ALL public lands. We don't know whether an image will sell when we make the photograph. Maybe we're just serious photographers planning to make a nice print for mom's wall. The casual p&s photographer may make a spectacular picture that wins a contest and nets them a prize - that is compensation for a picture.
Commerical use - the making of a movie, or using a set for advertising being the most common examples - requires a permit. We can make it more complicated, but for us, it's pretty straightforward. An no one is going to kick my butt off of a wilderness area for having a tripod - you know that's why the guy picked on you. I applaud your plan to send a letter and hope that you will state your rights, rather than ask for clarification. The NANPA statement is a great guideline. Let us know how it turns out.
Dave, you are correct, except in the California State Park system. Apparently they do regularly kick out photographers with "professional" looking equipment and no photo permit.
So, I plan to boycott those parks. Too many places to visit without dealing with that BS. It's incredible how a regulation intended to manage the commercial film industry can be so misused. So, Roger, your Forest Service guy must have California State Park training.
Nice shot Roger. You did a great job of creating a pleasing comp from the chaos of the forest. I especially like how the sharp foreground subjects separate from the blurred background.
That's pretty comical about the FS guy. I would have laughed in his face.
I have been reading lots of crazy stories of photographers taking photos of various subjects being harassed by other people, I heard one in the UK recently of a guy you liked photographing buses and trains, but he had to give it up because he was constantly being harassed by people and the police, they even went as far as calling him a terrorist AND a pedophile. Let's not forget Denver Water security harassing people who take photos around Lake Dillon near the Dam. YUP we photographers are a bunch of terrorists and pedophiles that need to be monitored aren't we
I have been reading lots of crazy stories of photographers taking photos of various subjects being harassed by other people, I heard one in the UK recently of a guy you liked photographing buses and trains, but he had to give it up because he was constantly being harassed by people and the police, they even went as far as calling him a terrorist AND a pedophile. Let's not forget Denver Water security harassing people who take photos around Lake Dillon near the Dam. YUP we photographers are a bunch of terrorists and pedophiles that need to be monitored aren't we
Sorry this got a little off topic. This really wasn't harassment for me and aside from me wanting to straighted things out with the FS a little, I think Jack has the best attitude to adopt.
Now...if you really want to feel like a terrorist, try bringing a box of northern pike lures from Canada to the US as carry on!
This is the email I sent to the USFS office in Minturn. We'll see if I get a response.
Dear USFS Folks,
"On June 25 I was on the Cross Creek trail in the Holy Cross Wilderness area and ran across two of your good employees - a lady and gentleman doing trail clearing with saws. I was set up with a tripod and camera taking photos. In the course of our discussion the gentleman cautioned that I would be in violation of USFS rules if I were to sell any prints of my photos taken in the wilderness area. This wasn’t a confrontational discussion and both of your FS people were very polite and professional.
However, I don’t believe they were providing accurate information. I am not a professional photographer, therefore this isn’t a personal issue. I am writing in order for you to provide accurate information to the public and allow the most optimum use of our public lands. And also to reduce likelihood of similar discussion with some of my associates, who are professional photographers, and who do take photos on public lands and wilderness areas that may be used in books, stock photography, or fine art photos for sale and are low-impact activities that don't involve props, sets, professional models, or depiction of commercial products.
There are probably several simple examples of Colorado nature photographers in the public eye who have used wilderness and forest service lands in their books and photos for sale. John Fielder is probably the most notable, but would also include Willard Clay and David Muench. I would say with at least some certainty that these photographers didn’t pay any fee or obtain any permit for these photos taken on public lands.
The specific rules that apply to this are in summary below. They are, unfortunately not written in the most clear cut language, yet I believe they agree with my premise. You may have a better accurate clarification of this somewhere. (I don’t know if the links will be active).
(... rules from other post cited)
If I’m in error in my beliefs could you please correct me with the appropriate information? Otherwise perhaps you could pass this information along to those in your service and maybe even to the gentleman I met on the Cross Creek trail, as he seemed interested in learning more about this issue.
This is the email I got back from the USFS (David Van Norman / Recreation Staff /
Eagle/Holy Cross Ranger District). There were several on the distribution and I'd assume who ever it was that was misinformed will have the correct information now.
"Please review what Mr. Rouch has sent via email below. His information is
correct. In summary, a permit is required for all commercial filming using
video. However, a permit is not required for still photography unless it
involves actors, sets, props, etc or unusual administrative costs. This is
a new rule that went into effect before the 2002 Winter Olympics. Bottom
line, landscape photos (whether for personal use or commercial use) does
not require a permit unless it meets the above criteria. Thus, just like
John Fielder, Mr. Rouch does not need a permit either. If you would like
more information there is a guidebook in my office I obtained from the
three-day class I attended in Salt Lake City....."
Discussion
13 repliesI like the light and placement of the branch of flowers. How was the trail?
As for the USFS employee's statement, makes you wonder why he would even bother to bring it up just by seeing someone taking pictures along a trail. What a joke.
I agree that you did well in very tough light - we can't just order up a nice lightbox cloud.
The conversation with a forest service employee is VERY disconcerting. Unfortunately, it comes up from time to time and there are misunderstandings about legal photography on public lands. Generally, COMMERCIAL photography requires a permit and all other uses do not. NANPA recommends carrying their public use statement to produce when challenged in the field:
http://www.nanpa.org/docs/PublicLandsAccess.pdf?PHPSESSID=d3771d1fe9a07906cbf353aa9c120e5e
Use of a tripod is not a criminal act! We pay our freakin' taxes and own the land!
Thanks for the photo comments. I actually did have a cloud lightbox come over, but prefered the touch of light. The photo is a blend of two exposures. l guess it was a breaking rule day.
Commerical use - the making of a movie, or using a set for advertising being the most common examples - requires a permit. We can make it more complicated, but for us, it's pretty straightforward. An no one is going to kick my butt off of a wilderness area for having a tripod - you know that's why the guy picked on you. I applaud your plan to send a letter and hope that you will state your rights, rather than ask for clarification. The NANPA statement is a great guideline. Let us know how it turns out.
So, I plan to boycott those parks. Too many places to visit without dealing with that BS. It's incredible how a regulation intended to manage the commercial film industry can be so misused.
That's pretty comical about the FS guy. I would have laughed in his face.
Now...if you really want to feel like a terrorist, try bringing a box of northern pike lures from Canada to the US as carry on!
Dear USFS Folks,
"On June 25 I was on the Cross Creek trail in the Holy Cross Wilderness area and ran across two of your good employees - a lady and gentleman doing trail clearing with saws. I was set up with a tripod and camera taking photos. In the course of our discussion the gentleman cautioned that I would be in violation of USFS rules if I were to sell any prints of my photos taken in the wilderness area. This wasn’t a confrontational discussion and both of your FS people were very polite and professional.
However, I don’t believe they were providing accurate information. I am not a professional photographer, therefore this isn’t a personal issue. I am writing in order for you to provide accurate information to the public and allow the most optimum use of our public lands. And also to reduce likelihood of similar discussion with some of my associates, who are professional photographers, and who do take photos on public lands and wilderness areas that may be used in books, stock photography, or fine art photos for sale and are low-impact activities that don't involve props, sets, professional models, or depiction of commercial products.
There are probably several simple examples of Colorado nature photographers in the public eye who have used wilderness and forest service lands in their books and photos for sale. John Fielder is probably the most notable, but would also include Willard Clay and David Muench. I would say with at least some certainty that these photographers didn’t pay any fee or obtain any permit for these photos taken on public lands.
The specific rules that apply to this are in summary below. They are, unfortunately not written in the most clear cut language, yet I believe they agree with my premise. You may have a better accurate clarification of this somewhere. (I don’t know if the links will be active).
(... rules from other post cited)
If I’m in error in my beliefs could you please correct me with the appropriate information? Otherwise perhaps you could pass this information along to those in your service and maybe even to the gentleman I met on the Cross Creek trail, as he seemed interested in learning more about this issue.
Thanks,
Roger Rouch"
Eagle/Holy Cross Ranger District). There were several on the distribution and I'd assume who ever it was that was misinformed will have the correct information now.
"Please review what Mr. Rouch has sent via email below. His information is
correct. In summary, a permit is required for all commercial filming using
video. However, a permit is not required for still photography unless it
involves actors, sets, props, etc or unusual administrative costs. This is
a new rule that went into effect before the 2002 Winter Olympics. Bottom
line, landscape photos (whether for personal use or commercial use) does
not require a permit unless it meets the above criteria. Thus, just like
John Fielder, Mr. Rouch does not need a permit either. If you would like
more information there is a guidebook in my office I obtained from the
three-day class I attended in Salt Lake City....."