Updated: Photo Permits on US and California public lands

[QT Luong]

There is a new version of Jeff Conrad's Still Photography and Permits On US and California Public Land.

Here's are comments from Jeff about the update:

My article on photography permits is over five years old; I've been waiting
for the NPS, BLM, and FWS to issue a new rule implementing Public Law
106-206, but after ten years, nothing has happened and I am not led to
believe that anything will happen soon.

In the mealtime, much of the article has become out of date. Many contacts
have moved on or retired, many links have broken, and even a few laws have
changed. So much has changed that the current article may be more of a
disservice than a help.

I've updated the contacts, fixed the links, checked all the laws (updating a few), and
slightly expanded the material for a few agencies.

Based on the discussion last December
(http://www.largeformatphotography.in...ad.php?t=56544) about
photographers getting unlawfully hassled in California State Parks, I've
included the rulemaking history of that law, suggesting that the current
interpretation is dead wrong. Interestingly enough, I found a very similar
situation with Palo Alto parks, in which the wording of the regulation
(yes, Palo Alto actually has administrative law) is very much at odds with
the explanation given at the commission meeting at which the regulation was
adopted.

I normally try to keep advocacy out of the descriptions of the laws and
policies for the various agencies; I've added the information mentioned
above because it seems obvious that the regulation based on commercial
intent is not what was intended, and if someone were to challenge a
citation based on the stated intent, the laws would probably be either
voided or construed to mean what was intended. Making such a challenge
would be a fairly big deal, so I don't seriously expect anyone to do it,
but I think making the information available is a start, especially because
it is exceedingly difficult to come by unless one goes to great lengths.

I think I've handled it quite gently, letting the language of the
descriptions make the case without much additional comment. Perhaps it
will at least get a few people thinking. No one should have to endure
petty harassment like that to which Boots McGhee, David Karp, and a few
others were subjected.

I've long maintained that in most cases, the intent was to require permits
for disruptive activity, and that the authors, typically unfamiliar with
photography, simply equated "commercial intent" with "large and
disruptive." I now have at least two smoking guns, suggesting that I
probably could find many more if I were to research the legislative history
of other similar laws. Unfortunately, that's a task for which I simply
don't have the time, so I'll need to leave it to others.

I keep forgetting how much work it is prying this information out of
various people (some are far more helpful than others), so I'm not sure
when I'll get around to another update. I will update the relevant
sections if the US DOI ever issue a new rule, though this may not happen
any time soon.

[Scott Knowles]

You're right that nothing on the federal level has changed in quite a few years since there hasn't been any reason to change. The rules work well and no one for any side has complained or any member of Congress has offered legislation. I follow the NPS rules, which is very similar to FWS rules, and their rules have been consistent for at least a decade. Any changes are local for the site, such as for those in D.C. or other areas which are often busy and some uses, like tripods, are restricted if not prohibited.

In short, just write the information has been reviewed and update the date of your information, and then let people let you know when it's not. As for the history of the rules, you're right, it would take considerable time and effort to dig out the agencies' administrative history regarding photography and the legislative efforts, and only really interesting to photography history buffs. But then it would be interesting. No, not going there...

[GabrielSeri]

I was taking photos today with my pentax 67 on a tripod and a park ranger asked me for a permit and said that I needed one and that he could give me a $175 ticket. I am not a professional and shooting a picture of a tree. He gave me a card with the Deputy Chieg of Developed Resources Operations and a name to get a permit. I emailed this person to ask what is the deal. I don't understand this is my hobby and not doing a pro shoot with models or lights or anything.

[Brian Vuillemenot]

I was taking photos today with my pentax 67 on a tripod and a park ranger asked me for a permit and said that I needed one and that he could give me a $175 ticket. I am not a professional and shooting a picture of a tree. He gave me a card with the Deputy Chieg of Developed Resources Operations and a name to get a permit. I emailed this person to ask what is the deal. I don't understand this is my hobby and not doing a pro shoot with models or lights or anything.

Which park was this in?

[GabrielSeri]

Santa Monica mountains in the san fernando valley. I can find the name in a second.

Here is the location.
http://www.lamountains.com/parks.asp?parkid=36

And here is the name of the Deputy Chief of Developed Resources Operations
Marsha Feldman.

[GabrielSeri]

Michael D. Antonovich Regional Park at Joughin Ranch

[Darin Boville]

Michael D. Antonovich Regional Park at Joughin Ranch

Just to be clear to readers not in the area, this is a California Park under management by the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy. It's an odd duck, not your regular state park. Their mission seems to be to buy up land and then turn it over (i.e. sell it) to the regular state and national parks services.

My point being that you shouldn't extrapolate from an experience there to any other park or government land.

--Darin

[GabrielSeri]

Just to be clear to readers not in the area, this is a California Park under management by the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy. It's an odd duck, not your regular state park. Their mission seems to be to buy up land and then turn it over (i.e. sell it) to the regular state and national parks services.

My point being that you shouldn't extrapolate from an experience there to any other park or government land.

--Darin

You sir are absolutely right. After emailing and researching I got up to talking with Lee Dickinson who is the Special Park Uses Program Manager, Visitor and Resource Protection for the National Park Service. He told me the following:

"I am sorry you had such an unpleasant experience while you were shooting in
Antonovich Regional Park. The Santa Monica Mountains are a magnificent
resource that are managed by various land management organizations,
including Federal, State, local and private. While the policy and guidance
you quoted in you message are correct for areas managed by the National
Park Service, the Antonovich Park is not one of our sites, and our policies
do not apply.

Should you have questions about National Park Service managed sites within
the Santa Monica Mountain please feel free to contact the park at
805-370-2301. And I'll be glad to answer any questions concerning still
photography that you might have."

In essence, you are right this is a fluke regional park that have this stern policy but I can feel free to photograph at any NPS sites and everything is fine. I feel much better although it is a shame this regional park is so strict, nice scenery there to photograph.

ER

[Marko]

In essence, you are right this is a fluke regional park that have this stern policy but I can feel free to photograph at any NPS sites and everything is fine. I feel much better although it is a shame this regional park is so strict, nice scenery there to photograph.

ER

Well, I wouldn't call it a fluke, it is pretty clear that they maintain a great many resources for the State. And their policy, as stated in that email, is not really all that different from most other public places here.

The only potential problem, as I see it, is the interpretation of the terms "commercial use" and "potential commercial use" by the enforcement staff.

If the push really comes to shove, you do not need to prove that you are not breaking the rules, they need to prove that you are. If it does come to issuing a citation, I can imagine that it could be pretty successfully challenged in court. Much more successfully than a traffic citation, for example.

[joselsgil]

I would let them give you the citation and then fight in court, if it came down to that.
I have been hassled when shooting a building at night. The person wanted ID and who I was shooting for. I told them I was just shooting for myself and was a photography student.
I know that in the Hollywood area, if you try to setup and take some photos in front of famous landmarks, you can get hassled and asked for permits.
This has come about due to motion picture companies going way back in time. They used to film all over the place causing crowd problems. Not too far from my house McDonalds' has one of their restaurants just for shooting commercials. I have seen up to 4 Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs controlling traffic in the area, just for a TV commercial. This is one of the reasons why Hollywood has lost so much filming business in the area. The cost of permits and hiring traffic control, off duty police for control has made the area too expensive.
Maybe next time they stop you while shooting, tell them the camera doesn't have any film and you can't figure out how to load the 35mm roll of film or where the flash card is supposed to go.