Dept. of Interior to charge for photography and filming

zweiblumen

Found this on another forum I'm on. Haven't had time to read in detail, but it looks like the DOI is going to start charging for filming (video and still) on/at National Parks.

Story about it.
Proposed Change.


Please move to the best location for this, just stabbed at the big pic.

claudermilk

Note that it specifying commercial shoots before we all get our panties in a wad.

jamesl

To me, this is pretty troubling. Technically, anyone who shoots a picture and may eventually end up selling it in any form would be considered "Commercial". There are some comments here http://www.nppa.org/news_and_events/news/2007/12/parks03.html about just how vague the proposed rule change is. I think this is a very bad change, and hopefully the backlash they are currently getting will cause them to reconsider it.

James

Harryb

The devil is always in the details. How will the DOI determine what is commercial or non-commercial photography? In NYC a few years ago I was run out of Bryant Park because I was shooting with a DSLR. When I pointed out all the tourists shooting away with their P&Ss the security person said that they weren't professionals and I was a pro because of the camera I was shooting with.

Foochar

From what I can see the NPS is essentially codifying the regulations that were implemented in April and May of 2006. At that point NANPA (North American Nature Photography Association) weighed in on the issue and basically declared it a non-issue. They comment this about half way down on their news page (http://www.nanpa.org/news.html).

In Section 5.2 the define still photography as "Still photography means the capturing of a still image on film or in a digital format" I've included the part of the proposal that address the time when still photography requires a permit(Title 43, Subtitle A, Part 5, Section 5.3 (b)) below.

<QUOTE>
(b) Still photography requires a permit if:
(1) It takes place at location(s) where or when members of the
public are generally not allowed; or
(2) It uses model(s), sets(s), or prop(s) that are not a part of
the location's natural or cultural resources or administrative
facilities; or
(3) The agency would incur additional administrative costs to
monitor the activity; or
(4) The agency would need to provide management and oversight to:
(i) Avoid impairment or incompatible use of the resources and
values of the site; or
(ii) Limit resource damage; or
(iii) Minimize health or safety risks to the visiting public.
</QUOTE>

Here is my breakdown on the reasonableness of this -
(1) If it takes place where the public is not generally allowed then obviously you would need a permit to allow you to be there
(2) Models sets and props that are not part of the natural or cultural resources - In order to get noticed as something more than "typical visitor" use your model/set/prop would have to be fairly substantial in the first place, and if it that substantial then there is a good chance it is going to impair the use of the park by other visitors, I can understand the need for a permit to allow that.
(3) If they are going to incur additional costs to monitor what you are doing, they should be able to recover those costs through permit fees
(4) Same as above if they are to incur costs for management and oversight

The second piece that is getting a lot of attention is the "vaugeness" of Section 5.2's definition of "commercial filming", which always requires a permit. I've included that text below:

<QUOTE>

Commercial filming means the digital or film recording of a visual
image or sound recording by a person, business, or other entity for a
market audience, such as for a documentary, television or feature film,
advertisement, or similar project. It does not include news coverage or
visitor use.
</QUOTE>

While this seems vauge at first glance I don't think it is any worse than the determination of editorial versus commercial use photographers and filmmakers have to apply on a regular basis regarding model releases. And again the commercial filming clause is specific to filming, it does not apply to still photography.

When all is said and done I think the realistic effect of this on most of us is minimal, its not like there is a ranger around every corner looking to nab you. If they don't have a regulation on the books it is more difficut to address the film crew whose vehicles take up a whole parking lot while they are shooting, or the Sports Illustrated crew that is keeping people from walking down a trail because it is in the background of the stream where they are shooting swimsuit models.

gus

They have been doing this in Australia in some parks for a long time & everyone duly ignors it including those that are paid to enforce it.