Legislation: the thinking seems to be that, because nothing is likely to happen in the current session of Congress, we should wait until the next Congress and see if similar legislation is introduced.
The bills to which I referred, S. 1241 and H.R. 2031, would limit fees to $200/day for filming on U.S. public lands by crews of five or fewer people to $200/day. More information about the bills can be obtained at http://thomas.loc.gov.
Though I think the concept is reasonable, the language might need some fine tuning; in particular, I think it ill-advised to lock the fee in statutory law when the fees for all other filming and photography are set by the affected agencies. I'd also like to hear the affected agencies' responses before taking a position.
If indeed this or similar legislation were to proceed, it would seem reasonable to at least ensure that fees for still photography involving the same number of people be no greater than those for filming. I'd also change the conditions under which a permit is required for still photography. Current language requires a permit when the photography involves "models or props," without defining or qualifying either. I would change the wording to require permits only when the photography involves "models or props for the purpose of commercial advertising," the same as the current requirement in National Parks, which was the original intent of the law (Public Law 106-206) that the two bills seek to modify.
The problem with the current wording is that it's conceivable that "models or props" could be read to mean anyone or anything appearing in an image under any circumstances, requiring a permit to photograph one's family, vehicle, or campsite. Although this is just plain nuts, the current wording could leave the requirement to the whims of enforcement personnel. The Forest Service went even further in an agency directive defining "prop" to include any equipment other than a camera and tripod; conceivably, this could require a permit for a handheld lightmeter, handheld or camera-mounted flash, collapsible reflector or diffuser, and so on. Although this may sound crazy, there have been issues with such items in the past; better to get the wording to discourage needless creativity.
There also are a few issues that have arisen from changes in technology: many digital cameras now record video as well as stills, and it would seem absurd to have permit requirements that varied with the recording mode.
So what does what I've discussed have to do with the current bills? Not much, really. But my point is that if changes eventually are made to Public Law 106-206, we should insist, in the interest of fairness, that some of our issues be addressed as well. My sense is that addressing them in separate legislation would be a tall order. Getting every issue addressed might be asking too much; I'd settle for getting "models and props" qualified.
Again, It's very doubtful that anything will happen with either bill in the remainder of the current session, so at this point, there probably is no action to take except to see if similar legislation is introduced in the 112th Congress, and decide what action, if any, is appropriate.
In this thread, we discussed in detail a similar situation in the context of a proposed agency rule that would have formally implemented Pub. L. 106-206. As a result of public comment, a final rule was not issued, but a another attempt at a rule will probably be made some time in the future. The timing is anyone's guess, but we should keep an eye out for it as well.
As I said earlier, proposals that might adversely affect us are often made not because those making them are out to get us, but because they're simply unaware that we exist and consequently don't even realize that there is an impact. Unless we comment when such proposals are made, we ensure that we remain invisible.
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks