And I have been up there with an 8x10 and with an 11x14 in the past year or so without a word from the rangers.
And I have been up there with an 8x10 and with an 11x14 in the past year or so without a word from the rangers.
"Landscapes exist in the material world yet soar in the realms of the spirit..." Tsung Ping, 5th Century China
John - I only shoot 8x10 about twenty weekends a year in GGNRA. With exactly one exception - a brand new Ranger on horseback imported from the East, who didn't know the rules yet - the most problem I've ever gotten from them is getting plied with a lot of film development questions and updates on modern view cameras, and where to purchase film and darkroom gear these days. I also interact with their remodeling crews here rather frequently. A rather friendly lot in general. But I'll admit I never hang out right beside the GG Bridge. That seems to be an ideal hunting ground for the Highway Patrol, bagging careless gawking drivers. In fact, I've never even taken a shot of the Bridge in my whole life!
This was several years back. I doubt if these gals are still there.Originally Posted by Vaughn
"I would feel more optimistic about a bright future for man if he spent less time proving that he can outwit Nature and more time tasting her sweetness and respecting her seniority"---EB White
I have not had time to read through all the stuff...been out producing works on public lands...;-)
But one thing I am wondering about is the artist in residency programs at the national parks which happens to be open to professionals as well as amatuers.....how in the heck is that going to play out? I was ready to apply for one for next year but now I am having second thoughts as to not potentially put my name on a list of professionals and come under permit scrutiny.
Simplified news release on what's really happening...
http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_...rdb5355613.pdf
I don't find this exact language elsewhere, but it's encouraging to see the words "Generally, professional and amateur photographers will not need a permit".
John,
The NPS ranger was simply dead wrong. A permit was required for photography of “any vehicle, or other articles of commerce or models for the purpose of commercial advertising.” And the ranger would be wrong today as well, even with the murkier regulations. In the late 1980s, a photographer shooting 4x5 in the GGNRA was threatened with arrest if he didn’t leave (he did). Galen Rowell’s column on the incident in Outdoor Photographer spooked photographers for at least a decade, and gave rise to all sorts of mythical nonsense about what was required. But 36 CFR 5.5(b) was unchanged from 1966 to late last year, so that ranger—like the others—was dead wrong. The gist of that column was included in Galen Rowell’s Vision, where he mentions 36 CFR 5.5(b); I can’t remember whether he did so in the original column.
Golden Gate Park is run by San Francisco, and you need a permit for any commercial photography (whatever that may be). Doesn’t sound like you were close in either case.
The Golden Gate Bridge is a special district, and any commercial photography (specifically including stock) on (but of course not necessarily of) District property requires a permit. And for stock, they charge $2000 per day. How they could ever determine you were shooting stock is beyond me.
For the most part, my experience has been like Drew’s (and many others here)—rangers are the nicest folks you could ever meet. The handful of jerks are the ones who give rise to all the horror stories.
The section on still photography is a very interesting take, and one that’s slightly different from what’s in 36 CFR 251.50–51. Here the interpretation is the same as former 36 CFR 5.5(b) and similar policy that was in the Forest Service Manual—and what almost certainly was the intent of Pub. L. 106-206.
Last edited by Jeff Conrad; 29-Sep-2014 at 23:43. Reason: Corrected citation of Pub. L. 106-206
Galen was pretty well known for exaggerating stories for the sake of getting his foot in the door with publishers. Nice guy, but had his career persona to cultivate
too. Not uncommon with the climber crowd, e.g., Greg Mortensen etc. And as time went by, Rowell developed a conspicuous stock business virtually married to the
heyday of that whole SUV commercial mentality. It's allegedly where most of his income came from. Now I suppose action cam sequences have largely taken over.
I've hauled all kinds of view camera around that part of the world without incident going clear back to 70's, and as I already indicated, was confronted exactly once,
and that took less than a minute to resolve. The new ranger went back and studied the rules, and that was that. I can understand how the Bridge itself and key
infrastructure does need to be monitored for homeland security purposes, as well as far its known track record regarding suicides, or how in the City itself one needs
to be responsible and safe on things like sidewalks. It's a common sense thing. But overall, a lot of fuss about nothing. But what people from the outside looking in
do need to understand is that some of these spaces involve a lot of different agencies, each in charge of this and that. For example, the intersection of the Bay
Bridge and Eastshore State Park involves twelve different public agencies, and they don't always get along with each other. Each has different priorities; so a degree
of confusion is inevitable for any uncommon usage. I know the people in charge. One of them has a silver print from one of my view camera shots hanging on his
own living room wall.
Drew,
Neither of us was there (and neither was Rowell), so who knows what really happened? Rowell was certainly known for sometimes treating rules (e.g., closed areas) as advisory, and complaining about the consequences. But I’ve heard enough similar stories from all manner of people in all manner of places (including a few in this thread, where you and I made similar comments) that I have no problem believing this one. In almost all cases, the photographers involved did not know the law, so they may have been more pliable than if they had been better informed.
Sometimes, the situation gets more serious. Several years ago, a person was photographing a nude model in the Island in the Sky region of Canyonlands. Nothing in NPS regulations prohibit nudity under the circumstances, and there was no one else nearby—so there were no issues that merited intervention. Nonetheless, a ranger cited the photographer for not having a permit, and told the photographer that because of the area’s moral standards, a permit would not have been issued. The ranger confiscated all the photographer’s equipment (it was returned a couple of days later). There are at least a couple of problems with this. First, I cannot think of a law that would have required a permit. Pub. L. 106-206, which required the DOI to require a permit for photography involving models, imposed an obligation on the DOI, not photographers—the latter would require an implementing rule, which wasn’t issued until several years later. In short, the citation and equipment were illegal, and should be properly described as armed robbery. Now this all happened right at the edge of the Grand Overlook; had things gotten testy, the outcome could have been pretty ugly. What would I have done? Well, I certainly would have set the ranger straight on the law; if that didn’t work, I really don’t know—it’s one thing to comment here, and quite another to comment when facing People with Guns. Second, if the ranger was correct about the capricious denial of a permit application, there is a serious Fifth Amendment issue—but that’s one for the courts to sort out.
Again, as so many of us have said so many times, incidents like this are a tiny fraction of agency–visitor interactions, so they need to be kept in perspective. I’ve never been hassled by the NPS, BLM, or FS. But incidents like this are the ones that get attention (and probably make for good columns ...).
I agree with the need to protect resources and infrastructure, but it needs to be done lawfully. Otherwise those who purport to protect us are every bit as bad as those from whom they would protect us. I suppose there’s no problem with enforcement personnel asking a photographer what he’s doing, but the photographer can tell those people to get lost, and in most cases, that should be the end of it. I don’t suggest that this is the best response; it’s generally not a good idea to finish the day with more enemies than you started out with (anyone remember Jay Garner?).
Interagency turf wars are as American as cherry pie. But they are no excuse for not following or knowing the law.
As usual, we’re getting a bit off the original topic. Though I don’t care for the current regulations, I don’t think the latest FS proposal will lead to many photographers being led away in handcuffs. As dsphotog stated, the regulations were always about commercial filming—they just didn’t get worded very well.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks