There is a new fee/permit coming for all federal lands that folks here might be interested in http://www.nppa.org/news_and_events/news/2006/04/fees.html
At this point it is very unclear what the definition of commercial will be but, I would bet it will impact everyone with a tripod at some point.
Jess, I don't know if you've seen the discussion on the "other" forum, but I was disappointed (again) by NANPA's lack of leadership on political action on this type of issues. As a committee chair, I'm wondering what your personal take is.
Thanks,
Guy
Posted by Richard Wong on April 25, 2006 at 1:15 PM
"This revised regulation will allow the Park Service to collect reasonable fees for use of federal lands as a result of both commercial filming and certain still photography activities.”
Is this any different from what they were doing beforehand? I think the law should spell things out, say, "Photographers photographing for personal enjoyment or for speculative endeavors shall be exempt from fees." That way if a ranger tries to stop us, you could pull out the laws and interpret them in the same manner.
In my own opinion, I don't think this is going to put money back in the parks anyway. They'll just collect it for the government, and siphon it off to the "war" anyway just like they do with our entrance fees.
Posted by Mel Ladewig on April 25, 2006 at 2:33 PM
Although I don't have first hand knowledge with where the fees collected in the Parks goes, I would seriously doubt that it goes anywhere other than back into the Parks. I would doubt that the fees collected are sufficient in most Parks to pay for the upkeep and salary expenses of the Park. I do know from first hand experience that there are oil, gas and mineral royalties that go directly to the National Park Service. So not everything goes directly to the war coffers, just the majority of your tax dollars and China's investment in our government's bonds.
I think it's clear from at least the article you've pointed us to that it's 'commercial' activities that they are after, not solo photographers shooting rocks and trees and such.
I will never voluntarily comply with such a thing even if directed at solo photographers. As the song says, this land is your land. The Feds are going to have start charging the extractive industries fairly (mining, timber, grazing, etc) - not by standards of the late 1800's and early 1900's - if they expect me to cough up money to go for a walk by myself with my camera.
Well, they better have set rules on what constitutes a "commercial shoot" and not leave it up to each park, leo, ranger etc. If they are going to charge me, one person shooting with a tripod, they better be charging people using spotting scopes, we both take up the same amount of space. My lens just happens to have a camera attached to the end of it. This fee/permit thing on our federal lands is getting out of hand
Duane
Posted by Doug Andrews on April 25, 2006 at 9:26 PM
This may or may not answer some of your questions as to the still photography we typically engage in. Of course this new ruling may negate this.
This is a result of two things: 1) an OMB "audit" of the NPS which told them they were not making enough money from their commercial photography permitting and 2) a flat 20% reduction in the NPS budget. Because most of any agency's budget is fixed costs, they're scrambling to increase revenues so they can have some discretionary dollars. The fees will likely go back to the Parks, the 20% has likely already gone to Iraq.
As far as I can tell, this just affects existing permit holders and is not an attempt to require other people to have permits. Simon sent me this:
The policy of the National Park Service will not change in regards to still
photographers. As a rule, if the commercial photography is doing what most
visitors are doing there is no requirement for a permit. If the
photographer needs special consideration, such as access to closed areas,
or access during times when the park is closed to the public, or is using
models, sets, or props a permit is required.
If you have any additional questions please feel free to give me a call.
Lee Dickinson
Special Park Uses Program Manager
Visitor and Resource Protection
National Park Service
I don't know what the official status of the NANPA policy is, but they see pretty wimpy as Guy says.
On the other hand, a good friend of mine has been a freelance filmmaker in Yellowstone for years. He does the same thing we do except with a movie camera, but Yellowstone has always required him to have a permit. This would cost him $45,000 / yr for the average 300 days he films in the Park.
After all, we are driven by unbridled capitalism, and we can't have the government providing a handout to a bunch of eco-commie nature-fairy photographers. It's not like we're the backbone of the west - like public land ranchers.
Posted by Simon Allenby on April 26, 2006 at 8:17 PM
Pete,
From your post, "we are driven by unbridled capitalism, and we can't have the government providing a handout to a bunch of eco-commie nature-fairy photographers. It's not like we're the backbone of the west - like public land ranchers.".
As the NPS slogan states, "Experience America" -- they are just trying to give the complete experience :-)!
Pete, I've always suspected your communist leanings. (ha). Regarding, stock film makers; they must be the least intrusive users of anyone in the parks. They usually are far, far away from wildlife- often up to a mile or more away. If impact on the parks is the criteria, then those with small cameras who walk right up and spook wildlife are the ones with the most impact. Of course, all this underlines the importance for all serioius still nature photographers to uphold the strictest of standards in the parks.
Discussion
10 repliesAt this point it is very unclear what the definition of commercial will be but, I would bet it will impact everyone with a tripod at some point.
Jess, I don't know if you've seen the discussion on the "other" forum, but I was disappointed (again) by NANPA's lack of leadership on political action on this type of issues. As a committee chair, I'm wondering what your personal take is.
Thanks,
Guy
Is this any different from what they were doing beforehand? I think the law should spell things out, say, "Photographers photographing for personal enjoyment or for speculative endeavors shall be exempt from fees." That way if a ranger tries to stop us, you could pull out the laws and interpret them in the same manner.
In my own opinion, I don't think this is going to put money back in the parks anyway. They'll just collect it for the government, and siphon it off to the "war" anyway just like they do with our entrance fees.
I think it's clear from at least the article you've pointed us to that it's 'commercial' activities that they are after, not solo photographers shooting rocks and trees and such.
I will never voluntarily comply with such a thing even if directed at solo photographers. As the song says, this land is your land. The Feds are going to have start charging the extractive industries fairly (mining, timber, grazing, etc) - not by standards of the late 1800's and early 1900's - if they expect me to cough up money to go for a walk by myself with my camera.
Duane
http://www.nps.gov/applications/digest/permits.cfm?urlarea=permits
Kent in SD
As far as I can tell, this just affects existing permit holders and is not an attempt to require other people to have permits. Simon sent me this:
The policy of the National Park Service will not change in regards to still
photographers. As a rule, if the commercial photography is doing what most
visitors are doing there is no requirement for a permit. If the
photographer needs special consideration, such as access to closed areas,
or access during times when the park is closed to the public, or is using
models, sets, or props a permit is required.
If you have any additional questions please feel free to give me a call.
Lee Dickinson
Special Park Uses Program Manager
Visitor and Resource Protection
National Park Service
I don't know what the official status of the NANPA policy is, but they see pretty wimpy as Guy says.
On the other hand, a good friend of mine has been a freelance filmmaker in Yellowstone for years. He does the same thing we do except with a movie camera, but Yellowstone has always required him to have a permit. This would cost him $45,000 / yr for the average 300 days he films in the Park.
After all, we are driven by unbridled capitalism, and we can't have the government providing a handout to a bunch of eco-commie nature-fairy photographers. It's not like we're the backbone of the west - like public land ranchers.
From your post, "we are driven by unbridled capitalism, and we can't have the government providing a handout to a bunch of eco-commie nature-fairy photographers. It's not like we're the backbone of the west - like public land ranchers.".
As the NPS slogan states, "Experience America" -- they are just trying to give the complete experience :-)!
Regards, Simon