Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[SBB]

Credit to ABC News for this story,

In the worst bit of news for professional (and amateur) photographers since personal drones were banned from National Parks, The U.S. Forest Service has set into motion plans to fine picture-takers at least a grand for snapping images in any of the wilderness areas under their care, nearly 36 million acres of wilderness in all.

If the plans are finalized in November, any media with a camera, even a simple cell phone camera, will have to purchase a permit from the Forest Service if they plan on taking photographs in places like Mount Hood orMount Jefferson, permits that can cost nearly $1500. If they refuse, they risk being fined $1000 for the infraction. As you can imagine, this has given photographers everywhere a reason for concern.

"It's pretty clearly unconstitutional," Gregg Leslie, legal defense director at the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press in Alexandria, Va told Oregon Live. "They would have to show an important need to justify these limits, and they just can't."

According to Leslie, the Forest Service hasn't shown any real-world justifications for the new law. Others belive that the new limitations are being set into place for a more nefarious purpose: to punish media outlets that report unfavorable stories about wildnerness areas by refusing future shooting permits.

"The Forest Service needs to rethink any policy that subjects noncommercial photographs and recordings to a burdensome permitting process for something as simple as taking a picture with a cell phone," U.S. Sen. Ron Wyden, an Oregon Democrat, said. "Especially where reporters and bloggers are concerned, this policy raises troubling questions about inappropriate government limits on activity clearly protected by the First Amendment."
The only time that new rules wouldn't apply is in regard to breaking news, such as a natural disaster.

Regardless of the reasoning, it's easy to see why such a change is a terrible idea, particularly when it comes to the fuzziness between who qualifies as media. Would a national news network with the ability to throw away nearly two grand be considered the same media as a self-funded photography blog? Is a journalism student with an iPhone comparable to a salaried news anchor for a local network? The new rules don't answer these questions, and the room for interpretation could mean that media access to wilderness areas will be only be available to those who can afford it.
*******************************************************************************************************


SBB

[SBB]

Then from Snopes,


Claim:   The U.S. Forest Service is proposing new rules that would require permits for commercial filming and photography in federally designated wilderness areas.


   TRUE
 

Example:   [Collected via E-mail, September 2014]

THE U.S. FOREST SERVICE WANTS TO FINE YOU $1,000 FOR TAKING PICTURES IN THE FOREST
 

Origins:   On 25 September 2014, a new rule proposed by the U.S. Forest Service pertaining to photography and film permits sparked internet outrage. According to circulating posts about the issue, the agency would like to charge fees of up to $1,500 before

 
allowing "commercial filming and photography in federally designated wilderness areas." When the proposal is finalized in November 2014, reporters and other media outlets who do not obtain permits could face fines of up to $1,000. (Tourists and park visitors snapping photographs for personal, non-commercial use would not be affected by the proposed regulations.)

The U.S. Forest Service manages public forests, grasslands, and wilderness throughout the United States. It administers areas ranging from boat ramps in Indiana to a volcano observatory in Oregon to campsites in New Hampsire, and the proposed regulations would affect over 200 million acres under Forest Service jurisdiction.

Liz Close, acting director of the U.S. Forest Service, said that the tightened restrictions have been informally practiced for the past four years. Close indicates that they fall under the auspices of the larger Wilderness Act of 1964, and that the agency aims to protect the country's forests from commercial exploitation:

Under the rules, permit applications would be evaluated based on several criteria, including whether it spreads information about the enjoyment or use of wilderness or its ecological, geological, scientific, educational, scenic or historical values; helps preserve the wilderness character; and doesn't advertise products or services. Officials also would consider whether other suitable film sites are available outside the wilderness.
 

Advocates for the First Amendment, however, object on the grounds that such fines and permit requirements infringe upon specific constitutional protections concerning free speech. Oregon Senator Ron Wyden says that new media outlets and independent journalists are disproportionately impacted by the proposed fines:

The Forest Service needs to rethink any policy that subjects noncommercial photographs and recordings to a burdensome permitting process for something as simple as taking a picture with a cell phone ... Especially where reporters and bloggers are concerned, this policy raises troubling questions about inappropriate government limits on activity clearly protected by the First Amendment.
 

Close was unable to reference any specific situations for which such restrictions might be necessary but said that the goal was to follow the existing law when it comes to photographing U.S. forests:

It's not a problem, it's a responsibility ... We have to follow the statutory requirements.
 

Legal defense director for the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, Gregg Leslie, said that the U.S. Forest Service restrictions constitute a clear violation of the First Amendment. Leslie does not believe the move is legally justified:

It's pretty clearly unconstitutional ... They would have to show an important need to justify these limits, and they just can't.
 

The USFS is currently accepting comments on the issue here. The period of public comment will be open until 3 November 2014.
Read more at http://www.snopes.com/info/news/forestfine.asp#sxu7Ul3LwbgTbWEC.99


So much for taking pictures on the GTG rides.



SBB

[Royalroadie]

   This is all about censorship.  You have to tell the NPS what your purpose is and the May or may not grant the permit.  As usual they got it backwards the fine is less than the permits.

Government at it's best.

[ultrarider123]

Would be interesting to see (if this actually does become a law) how they would enforce this for folks that take pictures/video for personal use but post (or another word would be publish) it to buttface/tweeter/you'unstube.  I would think our fearless leaders could easily project that as reporting and fine/require a permit.
It never ceases to amaze me that someone in the g'vment sitting in an office somewhere came up with this idea never considering how asinine it sounds.  My, my......

[moscooter]

 
"(Tourists and park visitors snapping photographs for personal, non-commercial use would not be affected by the proposed regulations.) "

A quick scan thru the whole writeup,  I must have missed where they gave some (rationale) that would or might support a ban on commercial picture taking.  What was it.

[FlaHeatWave]

Drones, Definitely Not!! I don't want those things buzzing around while I'm getting my NatGeo on.

But, having to buy a permit for taking pictures in the National Forests, what a joke!!

"Commercial Photography" shouldn't have to have a permit either as long as they don't encumber the public's general use of the Forests with (large scale) "productions" A notification depending on the amount of personnel involved (with a nominal evaluation fee) should suffice and be fair.

We all pay (including Commercial) taxes that support the National Forests...

Unless the Government doesn't want pictures of fracking on/near the NFs  

[kiro]

National Wildlife Refuges have always had this permitting in place, however the license is nowhere near that cost and is good for one year. If they think you can or may sell an image they'd consider you a 'professional photographer' - doesn't matter what level you may be in photography. Interpretation of the law and by whom would be the issue probably. Sounds more like yet another fee gathering device imposed on the general public. Can you imagine getting busted/going to court over a mobile phone photograph - the judge would laugh the case out of the courtroom...

[sinner]

We don't even own the nation parks.... They were given to the UN so we actually don't have any rights to them now.  All moneys and rights have been going to UN for a long long time.

A bit of info on it....
http://judicialmisconduct.blogspot.com/2011/11/does-un-own-us-national-parks.html?m=1

[Robmay]

So....they're NOT fining for personal use but ARE for people shooting commercial documentaries WITHOUT a permit and what not for the purpose of making money from those films? I see nothing wrong here.

[2 ROSE]

So....they're NOT fining for personal use but ARE for people shooting commercial documentaries WITHOUT a permit and what not for the purpose of making money from those films? I see nothing wrong here.

Anytime your government taxes, levies a fine or charges a fee it is not the companies that pay that tax, fine or fee...it is you and I the end users. The companies are nothing more than an instrument that the government uses to collect the monies then they the companies turn around and charge us, the little guys.
Ok I step down off my soap box.   

[Robmay]

They aren't charging me if I don't buy their product.

[mark]

The sad part is they want to charge the very public that providers the taxes that paid for the wildlife area.

[Eagle Eye]

The permitting process is understandable. I've seen film crews take up large sections of parking areas in Yosemite.
This should have no effect on the average tourist.
At this point, I would assume the driver is to control the number of film crews on site at any given time. Unmitigated, it could be very hard to balance demand. Otherwise, just another fund raising opportunity.
I'm not clear how they will be able to tell individual bloggers or professional photographers from the well equipped amateur.
 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[smkymtnboy]

hard for me to feel any sympathy towards the media!!! they have attacked the second amendment for years!! I have always said they( the media) have promoted taking away or reducing the second amendment,someday it will back fire and it will the be first amendment infringed upon and nobody will stand with the media. maybe,that day has arrived??