$1500 fee for “commercial” use in USFS wilderness lands

I saw Chris Townsend posting about this earlier. Seemed like a storm in a tea cup until I read more broadly. This is some serious over-reaching by the Forest Service. The lines between amateur and professional have blurred so much since the onset of affordable digital photography. It's worse now many newspapers have laid off their photojournalists, and expect their writers to capture the essence for a story with their smartphones. From what I can tell, if you as an amateur photographer sell a photo taken in wilderness area, you can be fined. Mainstream media will pay it as an additional cost of doing business, but the rest of us will see our rights eroded further. I'm disgusted.

I quit posting in Chaff a long time ago because these kinds of things are making me go insane.

So… USFS interprets the Wilderness Act to require a permit to film/photograph for commercial use in USFS Wilderness areas.

But it appears that the NPS and BLM haven't come to that conclusion (yet). I am tired of renegade Government employees.

I guess I'll be writing a lot of letters; as soon as I finish my latest letter writing campaign addressing serious inconsistent policy and procedure problems within the TSA.

NPS has generally had the opinion that if the film crew requires NPS monitoring, then they need to pay a fee. Similarly, if the film crew needs special access, unlocked gates, and all that hand-holding.

Besides, hardly anybody uses film anymore, so the terminology needs to be updated.

–B.G.–

http://www.backpackinglight.com/cgi-bin/backpackinglight/forums/thread_display.html?forum_thread_id=95541

Big commercial outfits like dude ranches and rafting companies can figure out how to deal with this. Its the little guys like bloggers, BPL and small guide services that are going to suffer.

So hopefully enough of a fuss is raised that they shut this nonsense down.

Of course we could just not say where pictures were taken…

Ken,

Your link is in the chaff section which most BPLers, myself included, don't wade into too much.

I mean, with such topics as "The Question of Militarism/Empire" and "The real reasons why Israel is bombing Palestine" maybe I should reconsider??? :D

The topic of a new fee for a rather broad category for "commercial" photography seems much more appropriate to the main BPL forums than the usual BS in chaff.

The reason they are doing this is probably due to exhausting their firefighting budget on these western mega fires for the second year in a row.

http://www.outsideonline.com/news-from-the-field/Federal-Funds-For-Wildfires-Depleted.html

$1500 seems very excessive (compared to BLM at $300, … ref chaff) and the FS rules way too open-ended so that any media that could possibly generate revenue (but for who?) could be fined. Could also be the business advisers charged with modernizing the USFS … doubt rangers could think of this legalese on their ownworried about rapid chipmunks attacking car campers beer (ok, fires and wayward bears).

Some Oregon congressmen are questioning the USFS on 1st amendment grounds in any case. However, if these Western fires persist, might have to get all chaffy on this topic (or start saving money to fly and hike in Europe or Vermont).

Add: to fully address this issue, you need to ask why has USFS starting charging 50 years after the passage the Wilderness Act?

Ed: add

The reason the Forest Service says they're doing this is that the Wilderness Act prohibits commercial uses inside wilderness

@ Jerry. True but again …. why now? I've seen guided hikes over 10 years ago in the wilderness of the southern Rockies and there's always been horse-packing (lama, goat), fishing guides, hunting guides, etc… while there's been a wilderness act.

Just to add, I think USFS is going to have to tone it down substantially as Senator Wyden (Oregon) correctly brought up 1st Amendment rights.

It seems the Forest Service is already feeling the heat:

https://celebrity.yahoo.com/news/proposal-require-permit-media-filming-073145270.html

I don't see how the permit could be enforceable. I have never seen a ranger on a trail in Arizona wilderness. And I don't think the Forest Service has the resources to go patrol the entire Internet, looking for bloggers who have posted pictures of wilderness areas.

Chaff – not for the meek or faint of heart:)

Spoke with a ranger at MRNP last month. From what he explained, their budget for trail maintenance is more or less pre 2009 crash levels but USFS has been decimated and their trail crews and resources are are a small fraction of what they once were. He's seen a surge in hikers within the national park and he thinks that this is partly to blame.

Starve them of tax revenue and nonsense such as this is likely to arise from time to time.

"why now?"

There was recent lawsuit that prevented the Forest Service from maintaining a building inside wilderness. They keep refining just what it means to be wilderness.

"I think USFS is going to have to tone it down substantially as Senator Wyden (Oregon) correctly brought up 1st Amendment rights."

I voted for him : )

Maybe this is just going to be for major uses, like making a movie or a commercial.

I can't believe they'll go after Joe Blow taking a picture and getting small commision.

Maybe all of us complaining about this will result in toning it down.

"brought up 1st Amendment rights"

"Chaff – not for the meek or faint of heart:)"

Okay, let's argue about 2nd ammednment

Nevermind, that's a different site : )

@john: I've seen USFS rangers and other personnel in areas with a lot of use.

The USFS also has had MBA* interns and contractors for the past decade to become more efficient (less a drag on the budget), so scanning profit-oriented websites and blog posts may make a suitable project for those specializing in copyright/trademark issues.

(*MBA / Masters of business admin – graduate school – for non – US readers)

"Maybe this is just going to be for major uses, like making a movie or a commercial."

My experience has been that Federal policy and CFRs tend to be as surgical as a ball peen hammer which are then interpreted widely and inconsistently by the rank-and-file due to a lack of understanding and communication from the leadership.

Many municipalities require and charge for film permits within their jurisdictions. Most have some form of a "reasonableness" test. An amateur or even professional photographer out shooting landscapes, cityscapes, etc. would not be required to obtain a permit in most circumstances, even if the images are eventually used to make money.

A small commercial outfit using public property for a catalog shoot or similar would likely be required to obtain a nominal film permit. A major motion picture production or car commercial, etc. filming in public property would likely be required to obtain a full blown film permit (depending upon the municipality, these can run into the $100s or even $1000s of dollars per day or week), particularly if it requires closure of areas to the public or hiring of additional law enforcement/public safety staff for the shoot.

The way the new FS regulations are worded is troubling and suggests that it could be applied to a wide range of photography/filming as others have already noted. My personal hunch is that the FS will tone it down or clarify that the intent is to require permits for those larger-scale productions like many local cities and counties do.

* No, it will not be across-the-board enforceable, and that's especially pernicious. They won't go after/reject a pretty calendar project, but a documentary or blog critical of USFS could get targeted.

* It sucks for those of us goody-goodies who don't want to be on the wrong side of the rules.

* The penalty fee is silly. I could pay $1,500 for my permit, or I could see what happens and get fined $1,000. Um, I won't point that out in my official comment, but the see-what-happens route seems like the no-brainer!

* They might need to revise the "….take nothing but pictures" slogan.

"Ken,

Your link is in the chaff section which most BPLers, myself included, don't wade into too much.

I mean, with such topics as "The Question of Militarism/Empire" and "The real reasons why Israel is bombing Palestine" maybe I should reconsider??? :D

The topic of a new fee for a rather broad category for "commercial" photography seems much more appropriate to the main BPL forums than the usual BS in chaff."

Yeah, i mean our voices only matter when talking about really important things like gear, what the best hiking places and times are, park fees, etc.

Not about things less important things like human suffering, corruption, etc. Chaff was a place to talk about anything other than hiking, gear, etc. but i suppose we should be talking about gear, hiking, etc, there too? Oy to the Vey and word to the matriarch.

The topics themselves are laudable.

The discourse themselves are often turn into above 4Chan or maybe "grad-student angry ranting" if I am feeling charitable.

Hence the BS comment.

Washington Post

Well, that's called an opinion, feel free to have one, but it's not objective truth. I'm not saying i completely disagree with you, and it would be nice if the discourse could get raised to higher levels, but for that to happen, people apparently like yourself, need to take part.

You're kind of missing the big point i was trying to make…which i sort of of just spelled out for you in the just above. Our voices matter, and why not talk about important issues even at BPL?

I'm an unrepentant Chaffer but I get his point. Unlimited opportunities to see, discuss and live chaff in all it's chaffiness outside of BPL so backpacking, gear, and gear swap pricing protocol may serve as welcome brain candy and distraction from the day to day misery that is the news for many if not most people.

Anyways…

This topic is certainly germane to backpacking. I could see a really overzealous public servant who's bored paired with a court that has a slow docket trying to fine a blogger who receives advertising revenue to cover the cost of his/her hosting fees associated with the website.

I think Nico's view on this seems reasonable. Hopefully USFS will exercise good discretion and steer this policy in similar direction as to what he described.

re: overblown concerns

The USFS, who is issuing the new proposal, said "Not to worry"???? Really.

Reminds me of when my old company was bought out, said "Not to worry" and laid off 130 people less then two months later.

re: Chaff

"Well, that's called an opinion, feel free to have one, but it's not objective truth."

No sh** sherlock. :D

If you want to post in chaff, great! But why should my opinion matter to you? Go forth, post and let me not wade into the mess as I prefer these kind of discussions in person in a more civilized form. Sounds like you are not trying to convince me of your opinion..but yourself. ;)

In fairness, most political and religious discourse online IS BS slinging….

In person, I am less likely to get the online discourse which usually equates to: "I disagree with you. You are a poo poo head".

…