or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Snowsports Video, Photography, Software and Graphics › ALL Photos Taken in National Forests Illegal Without a Special Permit??
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

ALL Photos Taken in National Forests Illegal Without a Special Permit??

post #1 of 11
Thread Starter 

Is this legit or just some crazy paranoid gibberish??  Yahoo Travel seems to think it is legit..

 

Don't Take That Photo! The U.S. Forest Service Might Fine You $1,000

 

Quote:
 

Hey hikers, that scenic forest photo you just posted on Instagram may cost you a thousand dollar fine. According to a proposed update to U.S. Forest Service regulations, still photography or video taken in any of its 439 Federal Wilderness Areas is subject to permitting (costing up to $1,500) or you can face a $1,000 fine per photo.

A little-noticed USFS “interim rule” has been in place for four years, and is now being updated to include new restrictions on vaguely defined “commercial filming” in wilderness areas. The new regulation was set to go into effect at the end of October, but due to a recent social media and political uproar, the USFS has graciously allowed the public to comment on the regulation an extra month until December 3. You can post your opinions their website, but keep in mind, the USFS says it will merely “consider such input” but it “may not be implemented, and we wish for the public to understand that.”

post #2 of 11

old news, and no, its not ALL photos, its just those taken for professional use such as advertising and only in certain locations. They are desperate for revenue.  

post #3 of 11
And I think there is some mention that it is in places not open to the general public and/or requiring some type of logistical assistance from the Forest Service or whatever. Models, lots of equipment, yada-yada.

Standing there with lenses and taking your shot on the normal trail? No problem.
post #4 of 11

The title of this thread is misleading. Maybe "All" should be changed to "Commercial".

post #5 of 11

..but then it wouldn't be as salacious ;)

post #6 of 11

Does that include photos taken by artists with the intention of painting the scene and selling the work?

post #7 of 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finndog View Post
 

old news, and no, its not ALL photos, its just those taken for professional use such as advertising and only in certain locations. They are desperate for revenue.  


I went to the federal web site and the wording used in every case is "still photography and commercial filming" to describe what is being regulated.  To me this reads like it's regulating all still photography and only commercial filming, so non commercial filming would be OK.  I doubt that that is the intent, but I was unable to figure out how to access the actual rule, just it's various descriptions which all use that phrase.

post #8 of 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by Posaune View Post
 


I went to the federal web site and the wording used in every case is "still photography and commercial filming" to describe what is being regulated.  To me this reads like it's regulating all still photography and only commercial filming, so non commercial filming would be OK.  I doubt that that is the intent, but I was unable to figure out how to access the actual rule, just it's various descriptions which all use that phrase.

 

yeah that would be poor writing skills

 

Still photography and commercial filming ...  meant to read commercial still photography and commercial filming........ 

post #9 of 11

I was thinking that if the sentence was restructured to read "commercial filming and still photography", would that change the meaning?

post #10 of 11
Thread Starter 

It doesn't say "COMMERCIAL still photos"  It says "still photography and commercial filming".  Technically that translates to "all photos".  I know it probably wasn't meant to say that but the thread title got your attention didn't it?  

:D

You should see all the paranoid conspiracy chatter about this suddenly popping up lately.. I saw someone write that it is so big oil can send the law after people that take photos to try to expose fracking damage and stuff like that..


Edited by crgildart - 10/15/14 at 5:45pm
post #11 of 11
I know I spent a lot of time with this weeks ago. Federal link: https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2014/09/04/2014-21093/proposed-directive-for-commercial-filming-in-wilderness-special-uses-administration?utm_campaign=email+a+friend&utm_medium=email&utm_source=federalregister.gov

Can't find the link I finally got this from:
Quote:
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.

Local article:
http://flatheadbeacon.com/2014/09/25/forest-service-seeks-clarify-new-wilderness-rule/

Clarification news release:
http://www.fs.fed.us/news/releases/us-forest-service-chief-i-will-ensure-first-amendment-upheld-under-agency-commercial
Edited by sibhusky - 10/15/14 at 5:50pm
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Snowsports Video, Photography, Software and Graphics › ALL Photos Taken in National Forests Illegal Without a Special Permit??