Photography on BLM. FWS, and NPS Lands

[Jeff Conrad]

The US Department of the Interior have issued a final rule implementing Public Law 106-206. The new rule was published in today’s Federal Register at 52087–97; it covers lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management, the US Fish and Wildlife Service, and the National Park service, and takes effect on 23 September 2013.

There is also a proposed fee schedule, published in today’s FR at 52209–11.

Both documents are available on the US Government Printing Site site at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/; search the Federal Register for “filming”. I’ll also have an updated summary in my article at http://www.largeformatphotography.info/photo-permits/ by the time the new rule takes effect.

[Kirk Gittings]

Thanks. It looks to me that the new interpretation of the regs clearly states that we do not need a permit except in three very specific situations. This is good and should stop the harassment of photographers at NPs by overzealous personnel. Just a couple of weeks ago at Pecos NM I was queried by a ranger about what my pictures were going to be used for (full frame DSLR) and told if they were for commercial use I would need a permit.......................which I knew was nonsense.

[Leigh]

Jeff,

Perhaps you should clarify your post in that the rules and fees govern commercial activities.

- Leigh

[Kirk Gittings]

Are you referring to me? I don't think so. It only requires a permit for even commercial still photography under the three circumstances, when using props models etc, when going into closed areas not generally accessible or when staff is required to protect or control visitors. For years off and on, primarily in AZ but recently NM too, I have been harassed when making images under none of those conditions for gallery shows as that was "commercial" and I needed a permit. Bullshit. I always carry a copy of the regs and ask them to show me. They never could cause they don't know their own regulations or how to interpret them. Maybe with this clarification they will get it.

[Leigh]

Are you referring to me? I don't think so.

Hi Kirk,

No. We doubled. My comment was directed at the OP.

I edited my previous post to add the OP's name. Sorry for the confusion.

- Leigh

[Jeff Conrad]

This is good and should stop the harassment of photographers at NPs by overzealous personnel.

Kirk, I certainly hope that’s the case. Unfortunately, I’m less optimistic that the new rule will work to that end. As I’ve indicated in several previous posts, Public Law 106-206—and now the new DOI rule— afford us less protection than we had in National Parks under the previous 36 CFR §5.5. Under that rule—which still controls until 23 September—a permit was required for still photography only when the photography

1. Used vehicles or other articles of commerce or models, and
2. Was for the purpose of commercial advertising.

With the new rule, only the latter criterion applies—and it raises the questions “Who is a model?” and “What is a prop?” Both terms are defined in 43 CFR 5.12. The definitions are decidedly unconventional; that for the former probably works to no harm, but the latter may pose a problem, because it includes the statement

The use of a camera on a tripod, without the use of any other equipment, is not considered a prop.

Grammar aside, does this mean that the use of any other equipment (e.g., external light meter, handheld flash, collapsible reflector or diffuser) does require a permit? The legal eagles here can better comment on how this would come under expressio unius, but honestly, I’m less concerned with a judge than I am with People with Guns.

Interestingly, no regulation covers noncommercial filming. I guess if you get hassled for using a current DSLR, you simply say that you’re shooting moving images for non-commercial purposes ...

But I suppose we shall see.

[Jeff Conrad]

Perhaps you should clarify your post in that the rules and fees govern commercial activities.

Except that this isn’t really the case. The rule covers commercial filming but applies to all still photography that meets certain criteria—see my reply to Kirk for more extensive comment.

[Drew Bedo]

Never had a problem myself, but then . . .I do not shoot in the field very often, and have only been in a few places.
However, a couple years ago I did manage to wangle a two week appointment as an Artist In Residence at a National Park. As such I was "on staff" (as a volunteer)—and the Rangers treated me like a VIP. They couldn't do enough to help me go where ever I wanted.



It worked for me.

[Jeff Conrad]

Though I’ve expressed concern here several times about regulations, I should make it clear that, for the most part, my experience with field personnel from the BLM, FS, NPS, and state and local parks in California has been nothing but positive—these folks are usually far more eager to help than to hassle. Yet I hear all too many stories like Kirk’s. I suspect such incidents represent a small fraction of photographer–ranger interaction, but if it happens to you, the frequency doesn’t really matter.

I consider myself a person of at least average intelligence, and one who is well informed on this topic. When I need to guess at what conduct may be required of me, I tend to wonder what might happen with someone who is bent on misinterpretation. The current regulation for photography in national parks—36 CFR 5.5(b)—is nearly impossible to misinterpret in the manner the ranger who hassled Kirk apparently did—yet it happened. And the language of the new regulation is in some areas less clear, so the potential for misinterpretation seems greater.

For years, the people at the BLM and NPS who handle filming have assured me that the new rule will bring little change—and I’ve asked them once again for clarification on a couple of items. So perhaps my concerns will prove unfounded, and things will be fine—and I certainly hope that’s the case. But just because I’m paranoid doesn’t mean the NSA aren’t reading this post ...

As I said, we should find out soon enough.

[Kirk Gittings]

I truly have no idea why I have so much trouble. The times I have been hassled I have been doing absolutely nothing but carrying a camera around. The last tie at Pecos I simply walked into the visitor center with my Canon and an 80-200 lens on it and set it on the counter while I payed my entry fee.