National Park filming legislation - Page 7 at DVinfo.net

Go Back   DV Info Net > Special Interest Areas > Under Water, Over Land

Under Water, Over Land
Tools & Techniques for Nature, Outdoors, Wildlife & Underwater Videography.


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old May 5th, 2008, 12:22 PM   #91
Trustee
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Deep South, U.S.
Posts: 1,381
Just got back from filming for a week in the Gulf Islands National Seashore which is NPS operated. Met no oposition on my one man operation and I did not inquire about permits. I did talk to several other videographers and photographers I met there and discussed HR 5502. The group was pretty evenly split between "This is our public lands and I don't support any type of permit system" and "$200 a year sounds reasonable. " I have recieved no responses to my email inquires from NPS personnel in DC.
__________________
Mark
videos: http://vimeo.com/channels/3523
Mark Williams is online now   Reply With Quote
Old May 5th, 2008, 04:56 PM   #92
Trustee
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Cedar Rapids, Iowa
Posts: 1,499
I think you'll find a wide range as far as how park, forest, BLM staff treat permits.

At Effigy Mounds National Monument I can get a two year film permit for $50. I can go anywhere the public can go and shoot to my hearts content.
Yellowstone on other hand will do whatever they can to discourage you from shooting by throwing huge fees in your face.

I talk to a head ranger about the situation and had some great insight into all of this but I think it would take this thread to far into politics which is something I don't want to do and get this thread shut down.

I think we should be treated just like professional photographers. If we're a small film company and we're doing what the public can do then we shouldn't have to pay a cent.
But, I'm willing to compromise and pay $200 for a yearly fee that will allow me to film on Federal lands.

When you start asking me to pay thousands of dollars and my friend shoots stills for free and sells the image to a magazine for a $1500 cover, then yeah, I get torqued about it.
__________________
--==Kevin==--
http:filmmakingnaturally.com
Kevin Railsback is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 14th, 2008, 09:44 PM   #93
Trustee
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Deep South, U.S.
Posts: 1,381
Any new developments. I see the bill is still in committee. As a side note I have been reading TITLE 36--Parks, Forests, and Public Property CHAPTER II--US FOREST SERVICE and can't seen to find anything that mentions a filming permit requirement. Just a prohibition on commercial activity but the definition is very vague and seems to address selling items or services on thier property.

http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text...61_main_02.tpl
__________________
Mark
videos: http://vimeo.com/channels/3523
Mark Williams is online now   Reply With Quote
Old July 23rd, 2008, 01:33 AM   #94
Major Player
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 904
I am very interested to know any outcome of all this. I understand politics and realize it may never see the light of day out of committee..... but none the less any info is appreciated.

I find is exquisitely painful that the members of a committee to whom a bill is committed - a bill of national importance - will ONLY communicate with their own constituents. MEANING, that if YOUR congressman is not on that comittee, you have zero opportunity to interact on the treatment of that legislation at that phase - regardless of whether the legislative proposal has an impact beyond the geographical boundaries of the members who are on that committee... Incredible.

Two things one should never watch in the process of making. Sausage. And Law.
Chris Swanberg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 1st, 2008, 03:31 PM   #95
Trustee
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Cedar Rapids, Iowa
Posts: 1,499
I got this in my email this morning...

Dear Mr. Railsback,


Thank you for contacting me regarding H.R. 5502. I appreciate you taking the time to share your concerns with me.


H.R. 5502 amends PL.. 106-206 by allowing commercial film crews that consist of five or less people to film in public areas on federally owned lands with less restriction and for a cheaper fee. P.L. 106-206 created regulations concerning commercial film crews who film on federally owned lands. H.R. 5502 creates a permit system that would allow commercial film crews with five or fewer individuals to receive a one-year permit at a cost of $200. This legislation has been referred to the House Agriculture Committee's Subcommittee on Department Operations, Oversight, Nutrition, and Forestry.


Unfortunately, I am not a Member of this Subcommittee, but I am proud to be the lead Republican cosponsor of this legislation. This legislation will allow a greater number of commercial film crews to document the pristine beauty and unique features in many of America's National Parks and Reserves and will give others, who may not be able to visit, the ability to see these remarkable sights. I look forward to this legislation coming to the House floor for a vote.


Sincerely,

DON YOUNG

Congressman for All Alaska
__________________
--==Kevin==--
http:filmmakingnaturally.com
Kevin Railsback is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 4th, 2008, 07:52 PM   #96
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 192
The members of the House Subcommittee on Department Operations, Oversight, Nutrition, and Forestry are:

* Joe Baca, CA, Chairman
* Earl Pomeroy, ND
* Nick Lampson, TX
* Steve Kagen, WI
* Nancy E. Boyda, KS
* Travis W. Childers, MS

* Charles W. Boustany, Jr., LA, Ranking Minority Member
* Jerry Moran, KS
* Steve King, IA
* Randy Neugebauer, TX

If you live in their state or district or even if you don't you may want to express your sentiments to them on this bill. The Subcommittee's email address is:

agriculture@mail.house.gov

Their postal address is:
House Committee on Agriculture
1301 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Best wishes,
Peter
______________________
http://www.parkfilms.com
Peter Rhalter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 14th, 2008, 03:59 PM   #97
Major Player
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: California
Posts: 230
I just found this thread... fascinating. I'm a still photographer and now I'm going into wilderness adventure high-def videography. I did not know that I can't shoot video the same as I do photography. I don't see the difference? I have a tripod with a Sony EX1 on it instead of my Canon 5D, and that makes a difference? Odd. I hope this legislation passes. I wouldn't mind paying an annual permit fee for a couple hunnerd bucks that covers all my filming on federal/state public lands, but not a permit fee for each time I backpacking with my video camera. My gosh, that could be every single weekend. And if I take a week vacation with my EX1 in the backcountry? Whoa. As it stands now, it's absurd for a small indie guy to pay such fees when he's just hiking with a video camera.
Buck Forester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 22nd, 2009, 10:49 PM   #98
Major Player
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 904
Well, to resurrect a dead thread, I wonder if this is not the time for videograpghers to make another stab at this issue. As I understand it the old legislation died.

Anyone have an update on efforts to have another go or what is "cooking" so to speak on this issue?
Chris Swanberg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 23rd, 2009, 08:01 PM   #99
Major Player
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Colorado
Posts: 288
I have approached two national parks recently about one-person shooting for stock wildlife/bird and landscape footage. In both cases, I was told I didn't need a permit, didn't need an escort, didn't need to file any paper work. I know it varies from park to park. In each of my recent cases their policies allowed them to require any one of these if they decided it was appropriate. In the last instance (Hawaii Volcanoes) I was told they wouldn't want to put a burden on me, and the film permit contact was extremely helpful. I was only asked to avoid certain areas and certain subjects. I am sure the requirements they choose to apply can vary for different projects (in some cases even a one-person project might require fees, permits, and escorts), but the point is not all park employees are mindless bureaucrats. I think most of them are sensible and dedicated to serving the public and the conservation goals of their parks.

I would still like to see the rules changed, so that they are uniformly applied and never put unreasonable burdens on one or two-person projects. In the meantime, you might be treated quite well at some of the parks. I think asking ahead of time is still the best approach to take.

Pat
Pat Reddy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 31st, 2009, 10:58 AM   #100
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Fort Lauderdale, Florida
Posts: 68
I just recently inquired about a video permit in Everglades and Dry Tortugas National Parks and the reply was $350 for each park.

I was told that all the National Parks are charging the same fees now.
Bob Magill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 31st, 2009, 01:29 PM   #101
Major Player
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 904
Bob... was that for a day's shooting? or ?
Chris Swanberg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 2nd, 2009, 01:46 AM   #102
Major Player
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Denmark
Posts: 491
Hi
Strange rules you have over-there. It's probably like that, some places in europe too. In Denmark we do not have that kind of practice. The nature belongs to all of us - or all of us belong to the nature. The more the nature comes on television - the better understanding there will be of wildlife. Last year we got our first nationalpark in Denmark and I do not see any movements for the board to wish payment for filming - they are more than happy to get the Nationalpark exposed. I cannot see why anybody should pay for filming in a park - Nature filming is not profitable although we try to make a living out of it.
Sorry for my english.

Bo
Bo Skelmose is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 10th, 2009, 12:46 PM   #103
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Fort Lauderdale, Florida
Posts: 68
Chris, The fee would have been for a Travel DVD I'm working on which will take the rest of this year of intermitent filming. I live near the Park.
Bob Magill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 10th, 2009, 07:37 PM   #104
Major Player
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 904
So, let me rephrase what i understand you to be saying....

1. You were charged a fee of $350 for an entire summer's worth of intermittent shooting... a two or less man crew.

and 2. They say that is now a standard fee in all the National Parks?

I ask because the website for Glacier National Park quotes still a $150 a day fee.
Chris Swanberg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 10th, 2009, 08:32 PM   #105
Trustee
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Cedar Rapids, Iowa
Posts: 1,499
I was told by one ranger that the fees can vary. For instance, one national monument was willing to give me a permit valid for a year for $50.

Yellowstone on the other hand wanted $200 for the permit and $65 an hour for a ranger escort.
__________________
--==Kevin==--
http:filmmakingnaturally.com
Kevin Railsback is offline   Reply
Reply

DV Info Net refers all where-to-buy and where-to-rent questions exclusively to these trusted full line dealers and rental houses...

Professional Video
(800) 833-4801
Portland, OR

B&H Photo Video
(866) 521-7381
New York, NY

Z.G.C.
(973) 335-4460
Mountain Lakes, NJ

Abel Cine Tech
(888) 700-4416
N.Y. NY & L.A. CA

Precision Camera
(800) 677-1023
Austin, TX

DV Info Net also encourages you to support local businesses and buy from an authorized dealer in your neighborhood.
  You are here: DV Info Net > Special Interest Areas > Under Water, Over Land

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

 



Google
 

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:08 PM.


DV Info Net -- Real Names, Real People, Real Info!
1998-2017 The Digital Video Information Network