NPPA opposed to photography restrictions in parks

[darr]

The National Press Photographers Association (NPPA) plans to voice its opposition to proposed regulation changes in National Parks (http://www.nppa.org/news_and_events/news/2007/12/parks01.html) and Wildlife Refuges which would restrict still photography in these areas.

[Jeff Conrad]

Testimony given before the House Resources Committee on 12 December 2007 is available (http://resourcescommittee.house.gov/index.php?option=com_jcalpro&Itemid=54&extmode=view&extid=128) on the Committee web site.

Most of the testimony expressed concerns about exempting only "breaking news" from permit requirements, and even then suggesting the possibility of time, place, and manner restrictions. There has been a long delay between the enactment of Public Law 106-206 in May 2000 and the publication of proposed rule. A source inside the NPS told me that a major issue was the U.S. Department of Justice's concern that the restrictions imposed on the press ran afoul of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

In this thread (http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?p=274677), my concerns were more about the lack of definitions of "model" and "prop"; those concerns remain in addition to the issues raised by today's testimony and the public comments submitted by some of the same orgainzations that testified today.

We should remember that the primary intent of Pub. L. 106-206 was to eliminate the prohibition of charging location fees by the NPS and the Fish and Wildlife Service for motion pictures made on public land, which seems reasonable enough. Unfortunately, the result may have gone far beyond this.

At the time Pub. L. 106-206 was enacted, it was generally seen as a victory of sorts for photographers, because it supposedly extended the NPS policy to all agencies under the USDA and the DOI. Nonetheless, I expressed concerns about pedantic interpretations of some of the wording even before the bill actually became law. The consensus (or at least the hope), however, seemed to be that neither the USDA nor the DOI would actually be so petty. Apparently, I'm now not the only one with these concerns. I think most of the issues could be addressed fairly easily, but it remains to be seen whether the Department of the Interior will do so. It would behoove us to stay on top of this until it is finally resolved.

[mdd99]

This is lengthy but it may help clarify some issues for all. NANPA, to which I belong, recently had an e-mail Q&A with Lee Dickinson, Special Parks Uses Program Manager for the National Parks Service, about the proposed Interior Department regulations under Public Law 106-206. Following is a slightly shortened version of the Q&A.

Q: Is the proposed rule's intent to standardize procedures and the collection of fees for Department of Interior (DOI) agencies?
A: The intent is to provide uniform criteria where a permit will probably be needed. Since the Federal lands are so different, there are occasions where one agency might require a permit when another would not. One example that is cited frequently is wedding photography. On most BLM land a permit would not be needed. But at the Lincoln Memorial, a national park unit here in DC, a permit would be needed to try to avoid conflict between our many visitors and other permitted activities such as marathons... The more people associated with the photography activity and the more days the activity uses Federal lands, the higher the location fee. Cost recovery would be based on the actual cost to the agency of processing and monitoring the activity.

Q: Will the criteria that trigger a photography permit change?
A: If a person is using models, sets, or props, requesting special access, etc., they would need a permit.

Q: Will this rule in any way affect the amateur photographer entering DOI land and photographing for their own enjoyment?
A: It does not matter whether the individual considers themselves a talented amateur or a professional. If they enter the park, remain in areas open to the public and do not use models, sets or props, they will not need a permit. Additionally, there are sometimes restrictions that apply to all photographers. For example, in a historic building managed by the National Park Service, we frequently don't allow tripods, since the space is limited and the tripod presents a trip hazard to others. That's not a restriction on professional photographers, but photographers in general. If a person wanted to use a tripod in this situation, they would probably need to apply for a permit and shoot their shot before or after public hours so as not to interfere with other visitors.

Q: Would this rule affect a professional photographer entering DOI land and photographing if they were not using models, props, sets, requesting special access, etc.? For example, if someone shot photographs from a car or on trails in a wildlife refuge for possible use in an upcoming book.
A: Same answer as above

Q: Would this rule affect a professional photographer shooting a story for a magazine if they were not using models, props, sets, requesting special access, etc.?
A: Same answer as above.

Q: Did the proposed rule pass?
A: The regulation that appeared in the Federal Register was a draft regulation open for public comment. The job now is to take the public comments received and discuss them, either incorporating the suggested changes into the draft, or drafting a response to the comment explaining why the comment was not adopted. We received about 50 comments. The process will take at least six months, and involve folks from three agencies and the Department of the Interior.

Mike