News about USFS proposed photography fees

J

J-see

Senior Member
Give it another ten years and you have to get a permit for looking.

"Let's see, you looked at 5 trees and a rabbit. Hmm, that's 140$ please."
 
Last edited:
Bob Blaylock

Bob Blaylock

Senior Member
It won't fly. It rather blatantly violates the First Amendment.

There've been plenty of court cases that have rather solidly established that the First Amendment broadly protects the right to take photographs in public places.
 
T

traceyjj

Senior Member
I dont understand how they can do this! Its not like you are taking anything physical away from the Wilderness.

There is a chap in Jersey who does sand sculptures (and they are amazing works of art - so detailed) he has a sign asking that if you take a photo, please make a donation... all of his donations go to the charity listed on the board. He doesnt force you to make a donation to take photos though!
 
F

FastGlass

Senior Member
How would they enforce it? A wilderness can get pretty stinkin big. As far as the chap in Jersey. I would have no problem giving a donation in a situation like this.
 
Horoscope Fish

Horoscope Fish

Senior Member
Call it logical, but I have a feeling this is directed at commercial photography interests (not tourists and visitors and such) and the rest is just knee-jerk response. The title of the proposal is, "Proposed Directive for Commercial Filming in Wilderness; Special Uses Administration" after all.

....
 
K

Krs_2007

Senior Member
^ The key word does seem to be Commercial, and the price would indicate that as well if its really 1500.00. I doubt it will gain too much ground.
 
T

traceyjj

Senior Member
Commercial... so if I went there, took a few images for myself, posted one or two online and got a sale, I would need to then pay for the "licence"?
 
K

Krs_2007

Senior Member
I dont think thats the intent, but only scanned over it. I would think more for those film crews and such that have a lot of people on a set, but I didnt see their definition of commercial. The one thing that makes me think this is the actual price, no individual photographer is going to pay this.
 
A

Anco

Senior Member
This is just out of control. It may say commercial, but it also says you would require the permit to take photos with a smart phone. Just seems all kind of wrong to me.
 
Horoscope Fish

Horoscope Fish

Senior Member
Anco said:
This is just out of control. It may say commercial, but it also says you would require the permit to take photos with a smart phone. Just seems all kind of wrong to me.
Click to expand...
I think the intent is cover commercial photography, including the commercial use of cell phones.

In actually reading the directive, it says it's simply making permanent certain policies which ave been de facto policy for some time and integrates them into existing documentation.
...
 
Bob Blaylock

Bob Blaylock

Senior Member
Krs_2007 said:
I dont [sic] think thats [sic] the intent, but only scanned over it. I would think more for those film crews and such that have a lot of people on a set, but I didnt [sic] see their definition of commercial. The one thing that makes me think this is the actual price, no individual photographer is going to pay this.
Click to expand...

If that's the intent, then they are pursuing it incorrectly.

As long as the restriction is on photography itself, there is simply no possibility that it will pass Constitutional muster. Government simply does not have the authority to impose restrictions on photography in public places. Period.

If the concern is large crews associated with a major photography or filming project coming into these areas, and causing damage or disruption, then the policy needs to address that directly. They'd need to address the issue of groups of people and equipment over some objectively-specified size, engaging in any activity (not singling out photography or any other specific activity) that might cause damage or disruption, and imposing what reasonable restrictions are necessary to prevent or mitigate this damage or disruption.
 
K

Krs_2007

Senior Member
^preaching to the choir, honestly dont think this will pass. Shoot for the moon and see what you get appears to be the approach. If they were not already charging film crews then thats their mistake.

I have no objections to paying a small membership fee to help with funding parks, but this amount is ridiculous.

"ha, I see I screwed up my own original post", can't even figure out what I was trying to say with the last line. Other than no photographer I know will ever pay that amount.
 
cwgrizz

cwgrizz

Senior Member
Challenge Team
As I read the proposal, I think it is in reference to US "designated wilderness" areas that have been set aside to protect from destruction, not the entire US Forests. The designated wilderness areas are already under strict regulations pertaining to vehicular travel, people access, etc. I believe the intent of this (even though they probably aren't getting it right) is to give a way for someone (commercial or Other) to get access under some very strict guidelines and of course the FEE. I could really get into my feelings on all of this stuff; protection, restrictions, fees, etc. but it would really get political and this is not the place for it. Ha!!
 
J

JohnFrench

Senior Member
Unless the photographer is with an entourage, i.e. full blown photo op etc., etc., this certainly smacks of tactics only seen before back in the 1930's, you know, just before World War II. We are already close to a "papers please" society now, this issue will only bring us closer. I, as an individual photographer would tell them to kiss my (bleep) and leave the park.
 
Last edited:
M

mikeh32217

Senior Member
I heard they're also considering taxing air in Wilderness areas, if you are caught breathing in a wilderness area there will be still fines.

Screw em they will never get a cent from me, just another way to bilk the common folk out of there money. Oh and the king will send his henchmen around to collect IRS taxes from now on!
 
Top