SummitPost.org

A warning for professional photographers. Starting in December, the USFS will require a permit for commercial photography in US Wilderness Areas.......at a cost of $1500!

Source.

Who gives a shit. I will take photos of this incredible scenery anywhere... Big brother was a bully then, this in now. It is hard for me to believe that anyone can regulate this other than commercialization. I just want to share the experience and route, that is all.

Phenom here on SP. Cory out there on the routes.

Ugh, where do these so-called reporters come up with this? You can read the draft rules for yourself right here:

https://www.federalregister.gov/article ... gister.gov

Short version:
1) There's very little new here. This is a renewal of an existing regulation, with additional clarification around motioin pictures. The statute has been in effect for a while

2) There is a very specific definition of "still photography" in 36 CFR 251.51:

Still photography—use of still photographic equipment on National Forest System lands that takes place at a location where members of the public generally are not allowed or where additional administrative costs are likely, or uses models, sets, or props that are not a part of the site's natural or cultural resources or administrative facilities.

In other words, taking a still camera on the trails is not affected by this regulation AT ALL, unless you're doing a fashion shoot on the trails.

3) Even if you're shooting video, you still don't need a permit unless the "primary purpose" of your trip is to sell something. In other words, this affects almost nobody.

4) The $1500 number is nowhere to be found in the proposed rule. Apparently a Forest Service spokesman mentioned this number at a press conference as a possible *maximum* fee, presumably for large film productions.

In practice, a small film crew gets charged about $30 a day. You won't find that info at the link above, though. In fact the pricing process is quite opaque. The regulations are designed for situations like cattle ranching or operating a ski resort, where you rent the land by the year. For a small film crew you shouldn't need a permit at all, see CFR 251.50(e)(1), though that's at the USFS discretion. It's a funny bureaucratic world we live in: "a special use authorization is not required" if they review your proposal and give their approval.

The only reason this is in the news is that there have been a few incidents where the USFS has insisted that folks apply for permits for activities that have historically been unregulated, like a public TV series shooting a documentary within a USFS lands. (The USFS took the position that this was commercial use since the TV station planned to offer DVDs for sale.) Those generally have ended in embarrassment for the USFS.

The USFS does seem to feel that regulations and permit applications are "necessary to allow the public to use the land" - see the preamble to the proposed rule. That's the sort of attitude that does nothing to quell the sort of alarmist reporting we're seeing with this story.

Note that I addressed this to "professional photographers" and "commercial photography" in the OP. No need for an amateur photographer to get excited about this (unless you're contributing to this album).

The article states that there is a $1000 fine per photo though. So if you are a professional photographer, and there are some pros here on SP, you better be careful. A violation could quickly get expensive.

Is it called "click-bait" when someone posts a vague and/or misleading statement as a headline, in order to entice many views of the article? The premise seemed like a reach right from the start, but I clicked on it earlier in the week, so I am one of the enablers of this garbage.

Yahoo can post nonsense, but nartreb can undermine it with the truth. Good stuff.

Alpinist wrote:A warning for professional photographers. Starting in December, the USFS will require a permit for commercial photography in US Wilderness Areas.......at a cost of $1500!

Source.

Dude, you got punked by Yahoo, and you're not making yourself look reliable by posting Yahoo "News" articles (always light on facts/heavy of speculation and sensationalisim).

Nartreb's psot pretty much explains the reality. Special use permits have been used for years for film shoots and photography shoots. They typically allow the group to use an area as long as they provide security, adhere to safety rules, clean up after they leave ('leave no trace'), and designate when they can shoot (usually midweek around So Cal, when the public traffic in the backcountry is sparse) . Lots of times they'll have equipment trailers, power generators, tents, etc. I've come across a western movie being filmed in the Holcomb Valley (San Bernardino Mtns/San Bernardino Natl Forest of Southern California; staff there wouldn't tell me what it was), and a swimsuit fashion shoot on the beach in Orange County (actually quite an extensive array of lighting, power equipment, tents, staff, etc). Nothing new in that article.

BTW: I wonder how much the pro photographer got fined for taking that photo of the Maroon Bells peaks in the article, or did Yahoo just rip the photo from some unsuspecting person's family digital photo album?

phydeux wrote:

Alpinist wrote:A warning for professional photographers. Starting in December, the USFS will require a permit for commercial photography in US Wilderness Areas.......at a cost of $1500!

Source.

Dude, you got punked by Yahoo, and you're not making yourself look reliable by posting Yahoo "News" articles (always light on facts/heavy of speculation and sensationalisim).

Nartreb's psot pretty much explains the reality. Special use permits have been used for years for film shoots and photography shoots. They typically allow the group to use an area as long as they provide security, adhere to safety rules, clean up after they leave ('leave no trace'), and designate when they can shoot (usually midweek around So Cal, when the public traffic in the backcountry is sparse) . Lots of times they'll have equipment trailers, power generators, tents, etc. I've come across a western movie being filmed in the Holcomb Valley (San Bernardino Mtns/San Bernardino Natl Forest of Southern California; staff there wouldn't tell me what it was), and a swimsuit fashion shoot on the beach in Orange County (actually quite an extensive array of lighting, power equipment, tents, staff, etc). Nothing new in that article.

BTW: I wonder how much the pro photographer got fined for taking that photo of the Maroon Bells peaks in the article, or did Yahoo just rip the photo from some unsuspecting person's family digital photo album?

But you gotta remember: If you want to sell the news you've got to be an alarmist! The truth is dull and boring.