Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 31

Thread: NPS to charge Photographers...

  1. #1
    Big Bend
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    San Antonio, Texas
    Posts
    367

    NPS to charge Photographers...

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

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

  2. #2
    tim atherton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1998
    Posts
    3,697

    NPS to charge Photographers...

    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.
    You'd be amazed how small the demand is for pictures of trees... - Fred Astaire to Audrey Hepburn

    www.photo-muse.blogspot.com blog

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Eugene, Oregon
    Posts
    127

    NPS to charge Photographers...

    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.

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Eugene, Oregon
    Posts
    127

    NPS to charge Photographers...

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

  5. #5
    Big Bend
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    San Antonio, Texas
    Posts
    367

    NPS to charge Photographers...

    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

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Posts
    4,589

    NPS to charge Photographers...

    It says "COMMERCIAL film and still photography". They SHOULD pay.
    Wilhelm (Sarasota)

  7. #7
    tim atherton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1998
    Posts
    3,697

    NPS to charge Photographers...

    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.
    You'd be amazed how small the demand is for pictures of trees... - Fred Astaire to Audrey Hepburn

    www.photo-muse.blogspot.com blog

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    9,487

    NPS to charge Photographers...

    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.

  9. #9

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Pasadena, CA
    Posts
    389

    NPS to charge Photographers...

    "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.

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Location
    Southern New England
    Posts
    158

    NPS to charge Photographers...

    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

Similar Threads

  1. What to charge?
    By Dave Schneidr in forum Business
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 18-Feb-2006, 11:00
  2. How much $$ to charge for ad work?
    By Scott Rosenberg in forum Business
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 12-Jun-2004, 09:07
  3. Linhof- Who Is In Charge In Munich?
    By Mark Nowaczynski in forum Cameras & Camera Accessories
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 8-Nov-2001, 11:19

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •