U.S. Forest Service May Require Photographers to Purchase $1,500 Permits

[stompyq]

http://petapixel.com/2014/09/24/us-...s-controversial-expensive-photo-permit-rules/

What is going on? I feel like photographers are under attack.

 

[Timmyjoe]

Pay off the national debt on the backs of photographers. 🙂

 

[css9450]

So this includes each and every tourist with a cameraphone, no?

 

[Bingley]

So this includes each and every tourist with a cameraphone, no?

No, it does not. Read the proposed rules. They expressly exempt "non-commercial still photography" and they only apply to designated wilderness areas in national forests.

 

[sdotkling]

No, you're freaking out over nothing. They're talking about commercial production. If you're shooting a feature or a TV show with a crew, trailers, generators, craft service, the whole schmear, you'll need a permit. I bet your home town has the same rules, but you never knew it.

 

[cosmonaut]

Well let's see. Permit=$1500.00 Fine = $1000.00. My saving $500.00 for breaking the law.
I think I would sneak in and risk it.

 

[Guaranteed]

Much ado about nothing really, I recall reading about that permit nonsense a few years ago.

Prove I'm "plying my trade", otherwise Ranger Smith can go back to protecting picnic baskets from Yogi and Booboo.

 

[Bingley]

No, you're freaking out over nothing. They're talking about commercial production. If you're shooting a feature or a TV show with a crew, trailers, generators, craft service, the whole schmear, you'll need a permit. I bet your home town has the same rules, but you never knew it.

This is exactly right. These are intended to apply to commercial photography in a wilderness area in a national forest that either "takes place at a location where members of the public are generally 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."

I would venture to say that RFF members can continue to snap away without needing a permit...

 

[charjohncarter]

Wait, isn't it our property (what's next a fee to photograph any public property from public property; i.e. no commercial photography at the coast line)? So when on public property you can't photograph, I guess not. These bureaucrats: when I got old enough, drove me away from wanting to deal with them and I closed my business.

 

[Bingley]

Sigh. You know, if you're going to go into a designated wilderness area within a national forest to conduct a commercial photo shoot with models, props, lights, etc., you might need a permit from the forest service to do so. Why? Because the Wilderness Act prohbits "commercial enterprises" in designated wilderness. Congress wrote the law, and the forest service has to apply it. Only applies to wilderness areas in national forests, not other public land or public property. Ansel Adams would have nothing to fear.