NPS to charge Photographers...

[Joe Forks]

Check this out:
wcinews.blogspot.com/2006/04/national-park-service-issues-new-rules.html (http://wcinews.blogspot.com/2006/04/national-park-service-issues-new-rules.html)

This will put a damper on my Photography - some of it anyway.

[tim atherton]

they are finally implementing this - much photography SHOULD be allowed without permit, but it depends how they interpret it in implementation.... :

114 STAT. 314 PUBLIC LAW 106–206—MAY 26, 2000
Public Law 106–206
106th Congress
An Act
To allow the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture to establish
a fee system for commercial filming activities on Federal land, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. COMMERCIAL FILMING.
(a) COMMERCIAL FILMING FEE.—The Secretary of the Interior
and the Secretary of Agriculture (hereafter individually referred
to as the ‘‘Secretary’’ with respect to lands under their respective
jurisdiction) shall require a permit and shall establish a reasonable
fee for commercial filming activities or similar projects on Federal
lands administered by the Secretary. Such fee shall provide a fair
return to the United States and shall be based upon the following
criteria:
(1) The number of days the filming activity or similar
project takes place on Federal land under the Secretary’s jurisdiction.
(2) The size of the film crew present on Federal land
under the Secretary’s jurisdiction.
(3) The amount and type of equipment present.
The Secretary may include other factors in determining an appropriate
fee as the Secretary deems necessary.
(b) RECOVERY OF COSTS.—The Secretary shall also collect any
costs incurred as a result of filming activities or similar project,
including but not limited to administrative and personnel costs.
All costs recovered shall be in addition to the fee assessed in
subsection (a).
(c) STILL PHOTOGRAPHY.—(1) Except as provided in paragraph
(2), the Secretary shall not require a permit nor assess a fee
for still photography on lands administered by the Secretary if
such photography takes place where members of the public are
generally allowed. The Secretary may require a permit, fee, or
both, if such photography takes place at other locations where
members of the public are generally not allowed, or where additional
administrative costs are likely.
(2) The Secretary shall require and shall establish a reasonable
fee for still photography that uses models or props which are
not a part of the site’s natural or cultural resources or administrative
facilities.
(d) PROTECTION OF RESOURCES.—The Secretary shall not permit
any filming, still photography or other related activity if the Secretary
determines—
(1) there is a likelihood of resource damage;
(2) there would be an unreasonable disruption of the
public’s use and enjoyment of the site; or
(3) that the activity poses health or safety risks to the
public.
(e) USE OF PROCEEDS.—(1) All fees collected under this Act
shall be available for expenditure by the Secretary, without further
appropriation, in accordance with the formula and purposes established
for the Recreational Fee Demonstration Program (Public
Law 104–134). All fees collected shall remain available until
expended.
(2) All costs recovered under this Act shall be available for
expenditure by the Secretary, without further appropriation, at
the site where collected. All costs recovered shall remain available
until expended.
(f ) PROCESSING OF PERMIT APPLICATIONS.—The Secretary shall
establish a process to ensure that permit applicants for commercial
filming, still photography, or other activity are responded to in
a timely manner.
Approved May 26, 2000.

[Emre Yildirim]

This just makes me angry. It's bad enough that we have Homeland Security types giving us a hard time photographing buildings in cities.

They need to define what "certain still photography activities" means, because as of right now it could mean anything. It probably only applies to commercial still photography. But whatever it means, I'm still going to continue taking pictures at national parks (without a permit), and sell them in limited quantities. My taxes support the preservation and maintenance of these _public_ lands, and therefore I should be able to photograph as I please.

[Emre Yildirim]

Tim, thanks for posting this. I guess I don't have to worry about it afterall.

[Joe Forks]

So basically they will just now "enforce" a law that was enacted in 2000?

I was not clear on that point at all. The law as cited by Tim is no problemo.

Forks

[Bill_1856]

It says "COMMERCIAL film and still photography". They SHOULD pay.

[tim atherton]

well - there are still some grey areas. But to date the NPS regualtions have basically reflected (fairly sensibly) the Public Law requirements. What they are now doing is adding in the required fee structure for the permits.

lets hope they keep the existing fairly sensible (if not allows understood or followed) regulations as a basis.

[Frank Petronio]

Vagueness is often preferable to spelling out every possible interaction in 2000-pages of legal briefings. The key to effective and fair protection and enforcement is in hiring good NPS people - i.e. common sense. Which everybody needs more of. I no more want to see a photographer trampling delicate flora than an overbearing McRanger charging me for photographing with a tripod.

[Ed K.]

"Certain types of still photography" have been subject to fees, insurance and permit requirements for some time now in BLM and park lands. In particular, shots with a model or car or something like that fall into the commercial category, and have. There was also a requirement for wedding photographers and the like shooting in the parks. What's new?

It's not just the parks though. The film codes in many cities prohibit photography without a permit. Four years ago, my fair city prohibited ALL, that's right, ALL photography whether inside one's house/studio or outside without a permit. I wrote to my representative, who got it changed to be more reasonable, at least excluding non-commercial photography.

While the cost of a permit can be fair enough at times, the other costs and requirements can be burdensome. Insurance AND permit for more than one jurisdiction for the same shoot can come into play too - everyone wants a piece.

The real trouble at times is that while they want to charge even the smallest photographer as if they were the film crew of a major Hollywood production, it takes a lot of work sometimes to get them to cooperate.

Not far from me, BLM land requires a preview visit, a plan and or script which must be preapproved, a minimum of 4 hours police, fire and medical plus an expert on certain endangered species in case one happens to see one of the critters dead or alive. See, not touch or disturb. There are permit centers than consolidate the process, however it can take months to get responses.

The last time I tried to get some permits for a commercial shoot with a three person crew, they told me the above, however their handouts said that I was entitled to site scouting services and guided tours. Unfortunately, when I told my contact that he should get his jeep and take me around to all the places I was considering, he laughed at me and said that "only Spielberg gets a tour, but we've been burned before, and we have to treat you the same otherwise". In the end, the costs and complexities were so great that I used photoshop for more of the images instead of a real location.

There is an upside though, for your two grand+ per 1/2 day ( four hour minimum for ranger, fire and Highway Patrol ), you can at least get a highway closed for your shot, and just think, for 10 times the insurance, you can fly your helicopter over at low altitude.

Meanwhile, countless "amateurs" are still, and probably will continue to be, shooting with no fees, insurance or permits, however then they will sell any shot that comes out well enough.

The insurance requirements are interesting too. While typical for film shoots ( 1, 2 and 10 million ) policies depending upon activity, isn't it odd that one can drive their car, a big and potentially destructive device, through the park with no special certificate of insurance made out to each jurisdiction, and have less insurance?

It should be a relief to large format shooters that there is no "large format film" clause mentioned. There is a "filming / digital media" part mentioned. Use a digital card without a permit, and boy, that's a permit requirement! More reason to use the old trusty 8x10.

It seems like an "Annual National Parks scenic Photographer's Pass" wouldn't be so bad, coupled with perhaps a short training requirement and modest fee. That way, they could get their message across in terms of safety and conservation and collect small fees. They need to consider how little profit a typical photographer makes per hour spent shooting in the nature field. They act like every shooter is going to reap a one million dollar per image profit, while in their spare time, they chip away with things like the "orphaned works" legislation.

They seem to forget so quickly how much all those illicit photographs benefit their cause, or how much those photographs celebrate the beauty of our country and most of all our freedoms. How many great photos of the parks and public lands would we have if photography were outlawed? They also forget that even people with cameras have paid taxes and have at least some interest in the commons.

Where are the camera makers, the film manufacturers and all those who make big bucks from people who use cameras? Doesn't it seem odd that they are not contributing to keep photography legal and permissible? Why aren't the "keepers of the light" helping out here?

We all need to write our representatives, and meanwhile, shoot as much as possible before it's too late.

[Bruce E. Rathbun]

So maybe I missed the point. According to the information from Tim there would be no charge for an amateur photographer using a large format camera even on a tripod. It seems this is more pointed to commercial photography. Is this correct? Even so how does one prove that the use of a large format camera is for personal and not commercial use. Sounds like the same old problem that we have been facing for the past 5 years or so. Rather difficult to prove that we are at the park for fun and not commercial work.

-Bruce

[Tim Hyde]

For as long as I can remember, commercial activity in a National Park has required a permit and a fee: fly-fishing guides, photography workshop leaders, hot-dog and t-shirt vendors, and commercial photographers have been required to have a permit and pay a fee--though it has been unevenly enforced for sure. I think this is entirely reasonable. Fees are better than taxes to support this sort of activity, in my view.

By the way, I am not a commerical photographer, per se, but I must seem like one with my large formats because I get stopped weekly around the monuments in Washington DC and asked for my permit. Yes, it has gotten worse since 911, but I resent the restrictions on access a lot more than the questions about my permit. I'm tempted to register and get a permit hoping that my access limits might be loosened. Does anybody have experience with that issue?

[Henry Ambrose]

Read some of those search links of the NPS site provided on the blog referred to in the original post.

Like this:
Commercial Filming program: Guidelines (http://www.nps.gov/dena/home/visitorinfo/programs/propho/cfguidelines.html" target="_blank)

Or here:
Commercial Filming and Still Photography Permits. (http://www.nps.gov/applications/digest/permits.cfm?urlarea=permits" target="_blank)


It appears they are going to start charging larger fees for FILMING (like making a movie) not still photography. And it seems that nothing changes for still photographers who shoot from areas that are open to the rest of the public. Just as always.

[Jeff Conrad]

I think people are getting excited over a problem that probably never will
arise. Tim hit the nail on the head with the citation of Public Law
106-206: if you're a still photographer working without models, props, or
sets, the NPS (or the BLM, or the FS, or the FWS) cannot require a
permit or charge a fee except in a few unusual circumstances.

In most cases, that law represented no change in long-standing policies for
all four federal agencies. With the NPS, the policy derived from law (36
CFR 5.5[b]). With the BLM and FS, the policies derived from favorable
interpretations of the regulations: 43 CFR 2920 in the case of the BLM, and
36 CFR 251.50 in the case of the FS; accordingly, the polices were subject
to the whims of the agency directors. There hasn't been a problem in
recent years, at least with those who actually set the rules. I've heard
reports of some field personnel who weren't quite with the program, but a
call to the right people usually would sort things out.

With the adoption of Pub. L. 106-206 in May 2000, protections for still
photographers were covered by statutory law, and no longer subject to the
whims of agency personnel in the BLM and FS. In many respects, it was the
best thing ever to happen to still photographers working without models,
props, or sets.

At the time Pub. L. 106-206 was signed into law, I cautioned people that
it's never over until it's over, and in this case, that means issuance of
rules to implement Pub. L. 106-206. To date, only the FS have done so,
but it now looks as if the NPS will be doing so as well. The next step
will be a proposed rule, published in the Federal Register, and with at
least a 30-day period for public comment. If the proposed rule faithfully
implements Pub. L. 106-206, most of us have nothing to worry about. If
someone gets creative, however, we need to let the NPS know. I suggest
that photographers keep an eye on the Federal Register in the near future
(and frankly, until the BLM and FWS issue rules as well).

These agencies do respond to public comment. Recall the proposal last year
to charge hefty fees in the U.S. National Arboretum. In response to about
a hundred comments, the USNA decided to revise the rule and eliminate fees
for still photographers who met the conditions in Pub. L. 106-206.

The most likely outcome is that the proposed rule will be fine. In this
case, the statutory language is so clear that even the Decider would have
difficulty circumventing it. I suggest that we wait and respond to what
the NPS actually propose rather that react to pundits who may not really
understand what's happening.

As with most things, the devil can be in the details. The revision to 36
CFR 251 issued by the FS in 2003 was a faithful (if convoluted)
implementation of Pub. L. 106-206, but the FS came up with a few creative
definitions in a separate document that I found a bit disconcerting. My
opinion remains as stated in my comment at the bottom of QT's article
Photographing in US National Parks and other federal public lands (http://www.largeformatphotography.info/travel/national-parks.html),
although quite honestly, I have yet to hear of any actual problems in the
field.

I cover Pub. L. 106-206 and some of the history of permit requirements by
the four main federal agencies in my article (http://largeformatphotography.info/photo-permits/) on
permit requirements.

[Jeffrey Sipress]

While I believe this ruling will never affect they way we actually must act, it is staggering how low our government will go. Just when you thought it couldn't get any worse than the current administration....

[Kirk Gittings]

Isn't the wording on this for still photography virtually identical to what it has been for years? What am I missing?

[Keith S. Walklet]

The original legislation came down while I was in the PR role for the concessioner in Yosemite. At the time, the motivation was clearly to recoup costs incurred by NPS staff to manage commercial film crews.

In the instance of the filming of Mel Gibson's Maverick, NPS actively sought having the film crew to use the park as a means to actually pay for some restoration costs. With regard to the legislation, the battle that proved most contentious, and from a PR perspective, the most disconcerting, was the attempt to levy fees and permit restrictions on television crews up to do puff pieces on the park. If television magazine shows get swept up in the fray, how can they ignore editorial still photographers on assignment?

The blurry line between hard news and editorial led to some conflict, not only from my perspective, but within NPS as well, as we struggled to adapt to the evolving interpretation of the law and when it applied, trying plan every single move the crews made in advance. In concept, it is a good idea to have some structure, but there needs to be flexibility from the management end. I still feel that editorial should be exempt.

[Jeff Conrad]

Kirk, you aren't missing a thing. The only difference is that now it's a
lot more difficult to revoke permit exemptions for most still
photographers.

[Jeff Conrad]

Keith, anyone working without models, props, or sets is exempt.

[Frank Petronio]

Rather than attributing these burdensome regulations to the Bush Administration, Homeland Security, or some perceived "conservative" or "right-wing" cause, you should realize that the US government's stifeling bureaucracy has never cared about party lines or idealogies. Bureaucracies suck regardless. Even Ronald Regan and Newt Gringrich couldn't shrink them.

If you must complain about post 9-11 security, why don't you blame the real culprits? Evil Islamic Fascists.

[Keith S. Walklet]

Jeff,

That is precisely how I saw it. The problem was the individual tasked with administering the regulations sought to define their reach as broadly as possible. Hence, the conflicts within their own organization. I'm not sure how things have settled out, but I share your understanding of not only the letter of the law, but the spirit as well.

[Scott Knowles]

If I read the old rules and changes, I don't see any real change for still photographers, but it may be dependent upon the particular NP and their rules for rangers, see the NPS
rules for Denali NP (http://www.nps.gov/dena/home/visitorinfo/programs/propho/cfguidelines.html). Some NP's may impose some rules and fees if it's a common photographic area or has a high usage by photographers, such as professional lead workshop groups, which inhibits tourist access. But before folks get angry, perhaps we need to see what happens and consider calling our elected officials. Whatever permits and fees required will have to be advertised by the NPS when you enter the NP, such as a fee schedule, newspaper, and/or when you pay for your entry pass. Also, it's a GAO recommendation, so the NPS has the right to review it and respond to GAO what they plan to do. The worst case scenarios is that they may simply agree and say they'll "work on it." Can you see them asking everyone, "Do you plan to take photographs? We have an additional fee for such activity." Or stopping everyone with a "professional look camera", "Excuse me, do you have a permit?" Try that in Yosemite and Yellowstone at the common areas.

[Christopher Nisperos]

Without getting into the legal nitty-gritty of this issue, I'd just like to note the moral irony of the situation; Afterall, wasn't it still photography which, ---in a real sense-- by revealing and popularizing the beauty of these spaces to the public-at-large, helped to build the National Park Service to what it is today? As Laurel (or Hardy?) might have said, "A fine thank you THIS is!".

I think there should be special consideration for Fine Art photographers, regardless of the commercial aspect. This type of arrangement would benefit both the NPS and FA photographers. The NPS certainly benefits from all the "purdy pictures" taken by professionals and serious amateurs in the parks (and, afterall, we don't charge *THEM* ... neither the photographic service, nor the distribution of the images which implicitly promote the parks!), and they couldn't have a more environmentally-conscious group of tripod schleppers, even if they paid us! (Maybe I'm generalizing here, but don't you guys --and gals-- try to be as 'zero impact' as possible when you shoot in the field? I know I do). Don't forget, one problem about paying for use is what I call, "rental mentality" (like when you rent a car and don't care as much if you scrape the paint). I wonder how many photographers will now trample where they want or snap off a few trigs to get the better shot, thinking, "What the heck . . . I paid for the *right* " ?

[Christopher Nisperos]

Oops. Twigs, not trigs.

And, about "rental mentality", it reminds me of the comedy bit (by a comedian whose name escapes me .. apologies to him) where his dad use to threaten him with, "I'll beat you like a rented mule!".

Don't tell that joke in Yosemite.

[Andre Noble]

Whenever a "commercial photography" ban/fee is actively imposed/enforced you had better believe they will apply that to ANYONE setting up a professional looking camera on a tripod.

You are naive to think that by telling them you are a starving, amateur artist, they will let you off the hook.

Just setting up a tripod in general ANYWHERE makes you an easy target for ALL FORMS of graft.

[Jay W]

When I heard about this topic a few years ago, I thought the main aim was to charge the Hollywood movie studios for using Natl Parks as their movie set. I seem to remember a pretty good point being made that the studios _should_ pay pariticularly when other set locations are compared...meaning it's typical to pay to film, and the parks are odd that they don't charge.

I don't believe this rule will have any effect on the photographers who resemble the average park visitor. If you show up with a truck, generator, banks of lights, and some serious equipment, you can probably expect to be questioned. If you show up with a 16x20 Wisner, no problem. If you add a model, you probably have to explain more to your spouce than the Park Ranger.

Jay Wenner

[Christopher Nisperos]

"Whenever a "commercial photography" ban/fee is actively imposed/enforced you had better believe they will apply that to ANYONE setting up a professional looking camera on a tripod. " --André***2006-04-29 08:12 PDT

Here in Paris (and perhaps in other large cities?) this is especially true. If you show up, for example, in Luxembourg Gardens with a tripoded camera, the park guardians are suddenly all over you like white-on-rice asking for your "permit to photograph". The city of Paris requires you to have one of these permits to photograph a major monument or building --as well as in even the smallest public park. Ostensibly, this means a seperate permit for each different monument. Atget must be spinning in his grave!

Between model releases --and payment-- to photograph people in the street (under certain circumstances), property releases --and payment-- to photograph a tree at Point Lobos or volcanic landscapes in France, and permits --and payment-- to photograph in the national parks, pretty soon the only thing left to photograph in a free-and-easy creative spirit will be your cat or a bowl of fruit (lest trademarked catbreeds or trademarked apples become the next forbidden fruit!!).

[Ted Harris]

What Jeff said and then a question. For all the displeasure with the bureaucracy, do we have any examples of any non commercial fine art/landscape photographers being inconvenienced, made to obtain permits, etc? Has it happened to any of us? It has certainly never happened to me and I spend a lot of time in the parks.

Tuan, you have likely spent time in the National Parks than the rest of us combined, any comments?

I want to make a plug for the other side. I work closely with the staff of the Fish and Wildlife Service, Park Service and Forest Service at several different National Parks and Forests. These are on-the-ground rangers and administrators and I have found them to be knowledgeable and helpful. A number of years ago I wrote a book on the History of the Conservation and Environmental Movement in the US. For the past year ++ I have been involved, as time permits, starting a revision of the book which incorporates a massive section on the influence of the graphic arts on the movements, mostly the influence of painting and photography. Park Service and Fish and Wildlife Service personnel have been very helpful in leading me to many treasures and allowing me full access to them (e.g. glass plates and negatives in their collections, seldom seen prints and paintings).

They are more than just "doing a job." For the most part they are dedicated men and women who fully understand the importance of the images we capture to the preservation of the wild areas they manage and protect.

[Kirk Gittings]

Ted,

I have been harrassed by Park Rangers at two sites in Arizona (Wupatki twice and Red Cliffs by Sedona) who simply did not know their own rules. They insisted that I needed a permit to "use a professional camera" and when I pointed out their error with my own copy of the rules became insensed and followed me around all day about 10 feet from my set up locations just waiting for me to do something horrendous like step off the path a foot. At Wupatki also one ranger spent a good time looking in our car with a flashlight (we could see her do this from a distance) and when I approached her she said she was "looking for evidence that we were going to break the rules". I asked her what kind of evidence would that be and she told me "books on petroglyphs", because the petroglyphs were in a protected area that required special permit. We of course at no time were anywhere near the petroglyphs. This was total bull and harrassment. They had no reason for this behaviour. I had never even been there before.

In all circumstances my only crime was to carry a 4x5.

Ironically at one site where I was harrassed, there was a stock shooter there with a handheld Nikon F5 working on a shoot for a travel magazine, with no permit and no comminication with the rangeers about his assignment.

[Ralph Barker]

That must have been an annoying experience, Kirk. Did you inform park management of the incident?

On the flip side of the coin, I was in Death Valley a couple of years ago. Well before sunrise, I was loading my gear onto my little golf cart to haul it up the hill at Zabriski Point (I was having problems with my back at the time). A park ranger who was there to supervise a six-person film crew came over, introduced himself, and said, "Sorry, but wheeled carts aren't allowed up there. But, I'll be happy to help you carry your equipment for you." He did, and came back after the film crew was finished and helped me carry it back down the hill. I made a mental note of his name and sent a letter of appreciation later.

My conclusion is that it's a "luck of the draw" sort of thing. A few rangers seem to have taken the job because they get off on the authority. Others know their stuff and really try to be helpful.

[Kirk Gittings]

I did not Ralph. I was on my way to a long stressful shoot in Vegas and just made a mental note of it. I should have.

[Paul Metcalf]

From NPS press release: "The law still directs the NPS to recover costs associated with this service and continues to require filming permittees to conduct their activities in ways that minimize or eliminate disruptions to visitors."

I know around the monuments on the mall in Wash DC (which is a NP), they're pretty touchy about tripods because of the number of people. I've asked and have had no problems as long as I heed/listen to their advice. In the western parks, shouldn't be a problem, because in my experience, 99.999% of NP visitors don't show up until after 10am and leave by 4pm. I'm usually quite lonely when out photographing, even at some of the bigger parks (e.g. RMNP, Glacier).

I gave some free prints to the NFS in Oregon a few years back as I witnessed the start of what turned out to be about a 30k acre forest fire (delayed lightning strike that burst spectaculary into flames right in front of me - just happened to be set up to take the picture). They appreciated it. Just a bit of giving back. My dad's a retired forester and was in charge of a fair amount of public land usage in the western US when he retired, so I take a lot of his leads. Most/99.999% of NPS and NFS employees want you to be able to do what you do and will help if asked.