Mark, I think this legislature is a slippery slope leading only down. The next thing we know you'll need a permit to set up a camera to film your family in a park. Because how are you going to distinguish a person filming a stock footage vs a few guys climbing a rock route while filming for a private use? And like I said- even stock footage is considered "private use" till actually sold.
BTW a lot of stock footage/ picture companies will require model and location releases, so again- why regulate things twice?
Also looking at this regulation it doesn't include USFS or BLM, so yet again back to square one and legislate through them?What about State Parks? Separate legislature- yet again. I am sick and tired of paying stupid fees. First of all- these entities are part of budgets, which are financed by taxes. Yet every one of them also charges user fees on the top. USFS charges yearly permits for parking at the trailheads, BLM does the same, NP charge entry fees. In one year any outdoor person is forced to pay over 200 bucks in order to go anywhere in the Western US!
Sorry, but if the legislature goes through I am not paying any more stupid fees! I am simply fed up

Robert,

Not to get you fired up but you might find this interesting reading.
Three cited by USFS for illegal filming | Aspen Daily News Online

“The message is that folks that are going to be doing any filming on the national forest, other than for their home use, most likely need to have a permit. They should be contacting the Forest Service in advance.”

Well, I'd like to see these guys or someone else push it and see what happens.

Mark, yet again 2 issues. When the contract is in place it is a commercial work. If there is not it is private use. When you bid a job know the rules and costs (like permits). When you film something hoping it might sell in the future it is a private use till the work sells.
In this case it will be hard to argue private use while filming with 35 mm camera and having contract in place.

H.R. 2031 Introduced April 22, 2009
 

I stumbled upon this thread today and was fascinated. There does appear to be a double standard between NPS treatment of photographers and videographers.

It looks like this issue is not dead yet! Check out this link:

H.R. 2031: To amend Public Law 106-206 to direct the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of... (GovTrack.us)

So, it looks like we need to get a email/letter campaign going again.

What can we do to advance this bill?

Ryan

I emailed Congressman Boswell from my home state who is on the House Committee on Agriculture.

I'll give him a call next week to see if there's anything he can do to push it forward.
If any of the committee members are from your state, you should write them and let them know.

I'm writing the CA representative now.. although I am not in his District. We HAVE to get this out of committee... I think if we do it will be the equivalent of a "consent item" in the House and senate. I'll own permit number 1. (or in the first few anyway.)

Any suggestions on how one should handle this after the filming has been done? I took a trip a few years back and went through a couple of parks. I did some minimal shooting in the Grand Canyon, Zion and Death Valley. All of the shots were from my VW bus or along the road and in parking lots. At the time I really didn't think fees would be required but in researching all of this I'm now seeing that I should have inquired. I was and still am pretty new to all this. I just find it odd that you would be charged for promoting a park. I can understand if rangers are required but one person with a camera?

I wouldn't even worry about it. Most people I know are simply ignoring the rule and shooting whatever they want.

That's what I was thinking. It's not like I was out in a helicopter trapping and releasing bears with Marlin Perkins or anything. :)

Any progress on this or is it dead in the political waters?

I haven't heard a peep about it.

Re: National Park filming legislation
 

Am I reading this wrong, or did the senate resurrect this?

Bill Text - 112th Congress (2011-2012) - THOMAS (Library of Congress)

Says it went to committee in May of 2011.

I discovered this today during a google search I made after calling my Senator's (Mike Lee, Utah) Office for an appointment to discuss this issue. I'll be meeting with one of his staff sometime in the near future. I figured emails are just too easy to ignore, so I'm going personally.

Re: National Park filming legislation
 

I'm reading that I would need to pay $200 per year and give 48 hours notice if I was to shoot in a public area. Would this include hauling out the video gear for a commercial shoot of Yellowstone?

Re: National Park filming legislation
 

Scott,
That definitely wouldn't fly in Yellowstone. See this site for details:
Yellowstone National Park - Film, Photography and Sound Recording Permits (U.S. National Park Service)

I know this is an old thread, but this is an issue that has been eating at me for a long time. I finally resolved a few months ago to start contacting my representatives. I spoke at length on the phone to Congressman Jim Matheson's office (D, Utah) two days ago, and I just got off the phone with Senator Mike Lee's Office (R, Utah) a few minutes ago. I've written a persuasive letter to them, and I've been given a meeting with Senator Lee's office tomorrow morning. Senator Lee is a big supporter of the people having access to public lands, so I think he would be a good "champion" for this cause. I'll report back when I have something to report. Otherwise, here's the letter I've sent to both representatives (wish me luck!):

Dear <representative>,

I am a small, independent film-maker in southern Utah. I've lived within 30 minutes of Zion National Park for my entire life and I love the scenery and wildlife that are available for the public to enjoy there. Having said that, I believe that the current film-permit system in our national parks is unfair, unequally implemented, and may even be unconstitutional. I would like to bring this issue to your attention.

My main points of consideration:

1. As photography and film-making have shifted to digital formats, they have become less expensive by orders of magnitude. A $500 camera can now film with a picture quality that would have cost hundreds of thousands of dollars less than ten years ago. With these advances, the number of people charging for photo and video services has also increased exponentially. Hence, with the competition, rates for services have also plummeted. However, the cost of film-permits in our national parks has remained relatively static. Requiring a small, independent videographer to pay for a film-permit in a national park will usually result in the job becoming a net loss for the videographer. The policy essentially amounts to a “Stay out unless you're one of the big boys” rule for permit-requiring public lands.

2. Well-made, thoughtful videos published on such outlets as YouTube, Vimeo and other internet media aggregators essentially amount to free publicity for the park being filmed. They also often encourage conservation and responsible use.

3. Because of the advances in technology, many videographers are now filming their footage on the exact same equipment that still photographers are using (See for instance, the Canon 5D Mk II, Canon 7D, Canon T2i, Nikon D7000, Nikon D90, Sony A77, Sony NEX-5n, etc). The permit suddenly becomes required, literally, at the flip of a switch.

4. A good Case-study is Yellowstone National Park. Yellowstone requires the following:
a non-refundable, $200 application processing fee.
An additional $65/hour if processing takes over three hours.
A minimum of $150/day for “location fees.” (up to $750/day)
A Ranger monitoring all filming (or location scouting) activities at a rate of $65/hr (to be paid in advance). The Ranger also limits the film-maker's flexibility, because he/she cannot work longer than 12 hours in a day.
A $1,000,000 insurance policy.

5. In addition, many parks require a copy of a script and/or storyboard to be submitted before a permit can be approved. While the purposes of this are ostensibly to protect against anything dangerous being filmed in the parks, it certainly provides an opportunity for curtailing the freedom of speech of an independent film-maker as well.
6. It is not just the national parks who have been implementing these policies. Increasingly, national forests, national monuments, and other federal lands have started implementing their own film-permit fee structures, along with some state government agencies. In a state such as Utah, that is 62% federally owned, it is getting difficult to find any scenic places where it is legal to turn on a video camera without paying a fee or a fine. Especially when factoring in the additional lands owned by the state government.

Conclusion: These rules were obviously made to minimize damage and offset the impact caused by large, Hollywood-style film crews and productions. A small (5 people or less) group making a video can have less impact than a group of backpackers, and can even help to promote a park's cause. In our digital age, these small groups are now the norm, not the exception, but they are still being hindered from enjoying the parks in the same manner as still photographers by rules that were not designed with the digital age or small groups in mind. Such groups are further limited by monetary requirements that are simply out of reach. Charging such exorbitant amounts to these small, independent film-makers who have little or no impact for the park to mitigate, or from which the park must recover, essentially amounts to taxing photons at best, and prohibiting them entry at worst.

I would ask that <representative> introduce legislation similar to the failed H.R. 5502 from 2008 (died in committee) to correct this problem. We small producers need a true champion on this issue or we will continue to be marginalized. Please feel free to contact me for any questions.

Alex Chamberlain
Blue Desert Digital

Re: National Park filming legislation
 

It's not just for National Parks. Filming Permits and Fees are required for "all Federal Lands" including Bureau of Land Management. BLM, all Federal Forests, all lands administered by the U.S. Forest Service and Department of Agriculture, Department of Energy, Historical Monuments, and even some navigable inland waters administrated by the Federal Government.

Some Government Agencies enforce the new laws more stringently than others. Stick a pro-sized video camera on a tripod, and eventually you will get some attention from a young, and well armed enforcement officer.

Some states are looking at similar filming restrictions on State Lands.

the world, it's a changing.

Re: National Park filming legislation
 

Right you are, David. See point 6 of my letter. I'll be discussing this with Mike Lee's office tomorrow morning.

Re: National Park filming legislation
 

Basically these fees, originally disguised as a way to protect the environment from herds of filmmakers, have now been revealed for what they truly are...an income stream. It's truly unfortunate because the government is penalizing people for promoting their resources. Free advertising. I was going to shoot some travel docs down through the U.S. but I might just bee line into Mexico and leave the headaches behind me.

Re: National Park filming legislation
 

I talked to a retired US Forest Service Administrator. He told me that the final goal of the US Forest Service is to monitor and track every individual, and activity on Federal Lands in "real Time" using a combination of regulation, permit, and GPS chip which will be attached to the permit. He said the goal was to better control the flow of people, eliminate over use, and better utilize the forest resources. He said that in the name of security, and personal safety, the program will be phased in during the next ten years.

I believe he was telling me the truth.

For filming, I see things getting more restrictive, not less.

Even here in the wilds of Alaska:

Larry Csonka fined $5K for filming without permit

Associated Press

ANCHORAGE, Alaska -- Larry Csonka's mother used to tell him, "Don't make a federal case out of it." Now, he says, he knows what she meant.

Csonka, the host of a cable television show filmed in Alaska, was fined $5,000 on Wednesday for conducting commercial work in a national forest without obtaining a special use permit, a case he said could have been handled administratively.

"The National Forest Service and the prosecutor's office wanted to make an example out of it," he said.

Csonka is host of "NAPA's North to Alaska," a show that appears weekly on OLN and features fishing, hunting, history and customs from around the state.

He called his prosecution "going to the guillotine for running a traffic light."

In January, Csonka reached an agreement to plead guilty to two misdemeanor counts of filming on national forest land without proper permits, once on Mitkoff Island and once last year near Cordova.

Besides fining Csonka the maximum $2,500 on each count, federal Magistrate John Roberts ordered him to pay $3,887 in restitution and placed him on probation for one year. That could be shortened once Csonka completes a public service announcement using footage shot in the Cordova area violation.

Retta Randall, an assistant U.S. attorney, said Csonka and his company, Zonk! Productions, were warned in the first incident that they needed a permit.

"They were told to go to the office to get a permit retroactively," she said. "That did not happen."

In the second, she said, Csonka claimed he relied on a lodge owner to vouch that the area in which filming occurred was not on Forest Service land.

"Frankly, the lodge owner does not do the filming," she said.

She acknowledged that the case would likely be noted by others who use Forest Service land.

"The fine is basically to sort of get his attention, but more importantly, it's to send a message to other film makers who use this land," Randall said.

Audrey Bradshaw, executive producer of the show, said 26 episodes of Csonka's show have been produced annually over nine seasons. Many were shot on Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management or Native Alaskans' land, and that the company consistently has obtained necessary permits, she said.

"There was no intent of skirting the law," she said.

The first incident in 2002 resulted from a miscommunication between a crew in the field and the Zonk! Productions office, Csonka said after sentencing.

"The check was supposed to be sent in," he said. "We thought it had. By the time the accountant caught it, it was too late."

The production company itself reported the second incident after filming scene-setting shots near a glacier and spotting a Forest Service truck drive by.

Csonka said Alaska's patchwork pattern of land ownership creates confusion for people operating in rural Alaska, where ownership can vary widely along a single river.

"I've relied heavily on the information of locals in the areas we visit but in most cases they're as confused about the invisible boundaries of the national forests as I am," he said.

Csonka's attorney, Kevin Fitzgerald, asked Roberts to impose no fine. Between restitution, fees, and possible loss of sponsorships, the demands of the law had been satisfied, he said.

Judge Roberts, however, used a football analogy to address Csonka. He told the Hall of Fame fullback that he needed a game plan in researching land ownership and obtaining permits before taking to the field.

"The way of doing business does not give you license to disregard the law," Roberts said.

Re: National Park filming legislation
 

The Csonka incident was definitely a "lets make an example of them" case. As a federal land manager (now retired) for over 30 years, I can say it is doubtful that this issue will resolved with a fair regulation that is applied equally by all federal agencies. But hey, you got to try. As one who used to administer the "permits" program on the lake I worked I thought a $200 annual fee would be fair. You pay your fee then you are free to go about your business. But, I can't see each federal agency making it that easy and there will be additional red tape and "administrative support" fees. There is always some bureaucrat wanting to make a new position or office to extend an agency's involvement. I watched this happen with my own agency after this thread started where a simple permit to film issued upon walking into the park office has now become a complicated and costly process now handled by one district office in L.A. US Army Corps of Engineers - Los Angeles District - Film Permitting Information

Here is some recent observations. During my filming travels over the past several years doing "stock" video work on federal lands in the southeast I have rarely run into the authorities . In fact with federal budget cuts there are fewer enforcement rangers in the field as most vacancies go unfilled. A one man show filming scenery in a remote area has a pretty good chance of going unobserved. If you are encountered and not working under some type of contract then basically it should be argued that you are a tourist. It is up to them to prove otherwise. With wider use of professional gear for recreational purposes these days, the type gear you use does not in itself indicate that you are a commercial enterprise.

If you are doing a commercial project then by all means get a permit and pass the cost on to your employer. Your employer would probably require location authorization anyway. As a side note I did get permission from the Forest Service a year ago to shoot and produce a DVD for sale at one of their park visitor centers. There was no permit fee involved and they agreed that it would benefit the park. I will hang on to that email authorization for ever.

Also, from what I am reading it might be more reasonably priced to get a permit to commercially film on state land.

Re: National Park filming legislation
 

This is just crazy. Small time productions should be exempt from this kind of thing. I just finished a 2 month trip filming in about 12 national parks and the only place we had a problem was in Bryce. The ranger was off-duty and let us off the hook. The crazy thing is my producer called about 3 national parks and they all told him he didn't need a permit since we were just basically running around with a camera and a collapsible reflector.

Oh well, hope he doesn't get fined retroactively.

If there is anything I can do to get a bill passed that makes it clear and simple for us videographers, I will... but I am ticket off by having to pay fees to film on public lands when you aren't disturbing anyone.

What a load of crap... so what are we supposed to do if some day we decide we want to sell stock footage of these places? Get a permit for something we did in the past?

Re: National Park filming legislation
 

Professional photographers were the smart ones. They were included in the original legislation but lobbied to have professional photographers removed from the bill.
So, we can stand right next to a Nat Geo photographer who can shoot anywhere the public is allowed to go without a permit but because we shoot video, we need one.

Re: National Park filming legislation
 

Kevin,
I'm still involved in what I feel are very productive talks with two of my representatives here (Mike Lee, Utah Senator, and Jim Matheson, Utah Representative). For the purpose of my discussion, can you give me a source for the Still Photographer lobbying thing? I think that might be a good thing to show them. Thanks!

Re: National Park filming legislation
 

It was NANPA ( North American Nature Photography Association )that lobbied to have still photographers excluded from the law.

When this all happened to me with Yellowstone, I talked to then president Susan Clark about it.
But it would talk to the NANPA people. They were the ones that had photographers removed because they were initially on the original bill.

Re: National Park filming legislation
 

Their URL is North American Nature Photography Association - NANPA
I know when I talked to Susan about it, some NANPA members were starting to talk about it since video was starting to be incorporated into DSLR's.
So as more photographers started adding video to their portfolio the topic was being tossed around since by flicking a switch, the would be breaking the law.

Re: National Park filming legislation
 

Uh, how about Kathy Adams Clark
Don't know where the heck I got Susan from!!

Re: National Park filming legislation
 

As I read through this thread that is all I could think about. Today there is a very very fuzzy line between photography and videography. One minute I am snapping away at the grizzly and her cubs, the next I am rolling some video as they cross the river. Where do I fit in? I have the exact same footprint as shooting the video as I did shooting the photos. Heck, I didn't even have to reach in my bag to grab a different camera to put on my tripod! The government does not understand this. Not sure if that is a good or bad thing, but flying under the radar with a dslr to shoot some video may be one way around this madness.

Re: National Park filming legislation
 

Just got off the phone with Senator Mike Lee's office, and they are contacting NANPA to see if they're interested in being listed as a group that supports this legislation. They've also asked me to try to gather evidence of support. So my question is this: What form could we use to show evidence of a number of people who would support a change in the law here? I could create a Google Doc that we could all list our names/contact info. if everyone would feel comfortable with that, or is there a more effective way? At the very least, I'd like to quote some of the sentiments from this thread. Thoughts? Thanks!

Re: National Park filming legislation
 

I see NANPA has added video to their Filming on Public Lands position as something that should not require a permit.
http://www.nanpa.org/docs/PublicLandsAccess.pdf

Re: National Park filming legislation
 

It might be good to see what Chris Hurd thinks about allowing the petition link as a new thread.

Re: National Park filming legislation
 

I am very sorry folks, but as a rule DV Info Net does not point to third-party petition sites.

The reasons are complex, but in a nutshell it's a matter of precedent -- if I allow one, I really have to allow all, and in the past I have seen some pretty nutty and poorly written "petitions" revolving mostly around unrealistic expectations from camcorder manufacturers.

Clearly this is a different type of issue altogether, and having been to a NANPA national meeting before, I fully support the effort. I am more than willing to expose an online petition to our membership, but the condition for undertaking it is that we need to keep eyeballs on the site. In other words, I'm happy to make DV Info Net a driving force for this matter, provided that the petition is hosted right here -- and not on a third-party "petition" site.

I am not in the business of driving traffic to other sites -- quite the opposite, in fact. We need to bring people in, and we can set it up in such a way that DVi membership is not required. If that's acceptable to you guys, then we can proceed with this (in a new thread, obviously). Hope this helps,

Re: National Park filming legislation
 

Chris,
Thanks for the response. Anything you can do to help would be appreciated. We'd obviously love it if DVInfo could host a petition here instead. What do we need to do?

Re: National Park filming legislation
 

It looks like we'll be able to manage an online petition using the Articles side of the site, not the forum. The benefit is that no forum registration process is required. I'll put it in work, and will contact Alex when we're ready to put in the text of the petition.

As always, I have lots of irons in the fire currently, so please keep on me via email. I'll try to have it ready by Monday morning, if that's not too far away for you.

Re: National Park filming legislation
 

Monday would be fantastic. Thanks so much for your support, Chris!

Re: National Park filming legislation
 

In case anyone is wondering, I'm still waiting to hear from Chris. I'm sure he's plenty busy at the moment, so I'm going to wait a little longer before sending another email. Thanks again for your support!

Re: National Park filming legislation
 

Alex, any update on this?

Re: National Park filming legislation
 

Sorry for the delay folks, I have had an update from Chris. He told me he's been out of town but is installing the software and will update me on it very soon. Thanks for your patience! Lets keep this with DVINfo in every way we can.

Re: National Park filming legislation
 

Any update on this?

Re: National Park filming legislation
 

The petition feature is in place on the articles side of the site. I just have to finalize the verbiage and test it to make sure the email confirmation process is working. Should have it ready later today. Will post the link here.

Re: National Park filming legislation
 

Chris, just to be sure, are you waiting on me for verbage, or do you have what you need from me end? Thanks!