For all of us that take pictures on Forest Service land, and especially for those of us that sell some of our photos, we should keep an eye on how this comes out. You can read about it here proposal
The proposal appears to only making it clearer what conditions need to be met for a filming permit to be issued. The changes are documented in section 2 of the proposal:
The rules on whether you need a commercial or still photography permit are not (as far as I've seen) changing, and have been in place since at least 2008. They also don't seem either vague or particularly objectionable to me. Here is when you'd need to apply for a permit (for still photography):
'A special use permit is not required for still photography when that activity involves breaking news (sec. 45.5). A special use permit:
1. Is required for all still photography (sec. 45.5) activities on National Forest System (NFS) lands that involve the use of models, sets, or props that are not a part of the natural or cultural resources or administrative facilities of the site where the activity is taking place.
2. May be required for still photography activities not involving models, sets, or props when the Forest Service incurs additional administrative costs as a direct result of the still photography activity, or when the still photography activity takes place at a location where members of the public generally are not allowed.'
That's my understanding anyway, having read the actual documents.
@abirkill Thanks Alexis, as always, you are able to get down to the nitty gritty of things and put them into laymen's terms. I kind of took it that way also, but didn't get a chance to look into it as well as I would have liked. I still feel it is a good idea to keep up on the actual out come. The outcome could be bad, if we just claim ignorance to the laws.
'The proposal does not change the rules for visitors or recreational photographers. Generally, professional and amateur photographers will not need a permit unless they use models, actors or props; work in areas where the public is generally not allowed; or cause additional administrative costs.'
Write a Reply
Sign up for a free account or Sign in to post a comment.
Tweets ahoy!
Join the Group
Pin With Me
https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2014/09/04/2014-21093/proposed-directive-for-commercial-filming-in-wilderness-special-uses-administration
The rules on whether you need a commercial or still photography permit are not (as far as I've seen) changing, and have been in place since at least 2008. They also don't seem either vague or particularly objectionable to me. Here is when you'd need to apply for a permit (for still photography):
'A special use permit is not required for still photography when that activity involves breaking news (sec. 45.5). A special use permit:
1. Is required for all still photography (sec. 45.5) activities on National Forest System (NFS) lands that involve the use of models, sets, or props that are not a part of the natural or cultural resources or administrative facilities of the site where the activity is taking place.
2. May be required for still photography activities not involving models, sets, or props when the Forest Service incurs additional administrative costs as a direct result of the still photography activity, or when the still photography activity takes place at a location where members of the public generally are not allowed.'
That's my understanding anyway, having read the actual documents.
http://www.fs.fed.us/news/releases/us-forest-service-chief-i-will-ensure-first-amendment-upheld-under-agency-commercial
Excerpt:
'The proposal does not change the rules for visitors or recreational photographers. Generally, professional and amateur photographers will not need a permit unless they use models, actors or props; work in areas where the public is generally not allowed; or cause additional administrative costs.'