Updated: Is The U.S Forest Service About To Charge Photographers To Take Photos?

I don't see how they could possibly collect this from anyone unless they come in with a large crew and ton of equipment. This is still really disappointing because as someone who shoots a lot of nature and landscape, I certainly don't have an extra $1500 just laying around. I may go out and shoot something I can sell, or I may not get anything at all and just lost 2 months rent. Surely there is a better way for them to raise money for operations. Charging, say $20, to be able to photograph in the forests is something that wouldn't break the bank and they'd probably get more people willing to pay, therefore collecting more money than on a $1500 fee.

Restricting photography inside the parks and forests, either by unreasonable fees or whatever legal hoops they come up with, is the single most harmful thing they could do. The parks and forests were established to be protected and unless people can see them, they don't care as much to protect them. One of the reasons the national parks have so many visitors is because of the photographs people see. Photographers are instrumental in protecting these areas and operations.

I wonder if Ansel Adams would have been keen on paying for the privilege of creating the images that have brought so much attention these areas.

It's the vague language that concerns me. I do understand the need to control things to keep the areas nice, and the recent craze with GoPros and Quadcopters can threaten the pristine nature of nature, but I have been on the other end of park rangers who abuse their authority and I can see this going against the small guy who goes out and shoots, and tries to sell pics. Hopefully this update to the pre-existing legislation that Mary Wagner and her cronies made will not be detrimental to us who use photography to make a small living and enjoy nature in the process.

When I first saw this coming across social media yesterday I immediately jumped onto the government sites to start reading some of the regulations to see if this was just an over reaction. The irony is it would seem they are making this change to add more clarity to the existing regulations but are instead adding more ambiguity. I think the main issue at place is their definition and use of "Commercial" as the metric for permit. Permits are intended to limit access to a limited resource or protect a resource within the forest\park. I think that permits should not be issued solely on the basis of whether the end resulting media is commercial or not but instead on the impact it has on a protected\limited resource or the impact on forest services. There are many commercial activities that add no additional burden to resources more then a standard visitor - case in point for Landscape photographers such as myself. I think this would put them more in line with the intent behind the permit. With all that in mind I won't attempt to go into the complexity and arbitrary rules that appear to be in place already within the Forest Service that prevent many photography workshops and other endeavors from even bothering to work within forest lands - can you imagine that being applied to all photography - it's all a totally insane proposition!

There are lots of rules, some are easier to enforce than others.

Unfortunately this isn't someone trolling the net. And the issue isn't resolved yet. The USFS put out a press release last night to clarify, but it's still not clear. http://1.usa.gov/1BgAAhv They're very clear, they don't want to be perceived as infringing on the First Amendment, but the concept of "commercial still photography" is not clear at all.

"The fact is, the directive pertains to commercial photography and filming only – if you’re there to gather news or take recreational photographs, no permit would be required. We take your First Amendment rights very seriously,” said Tidwell. “We’re looking forward to talking with journalists and concerned citizens to help allay some of the concerns we’ve been hearing and clarify what’s covered by this proposed directive.”

I think they really need to clarify on commercial photography. If you're a landscape photographer showing in a gallery, your images are commercial. So, where do such photographers fall in a permit system? Not clear.

Thanks, Aimee Tetreault for that link that explains it so much better than anything else I've read about this. Also missing from this discussion is that the permitting is only in regards to WILDERNESS areas, which are the most protected of USFS lands, no mechanical vehicles (bikes included), no development, no roads, just trails accessible by foot and horseback. They are usually some of the most rugged mountain terrain as well. This seems to be to protect those places from larger crews which can impact a wilderness area unfavorably. I've seen the old application for filming on USFS lands and it was not a simple "write your name and go shoot whatever you want" type of permit, they are looking for scope of project and potential impacts to the land, and that wasn't even necessarily for a wilderness area which is watched even more carefully. One further distinction is that wilderness areas are administered by the USFS, a division of the USDA, while national parks and BLM fall under the Dept of Interior, and would not be subject to this same permitting process.

So much misinformation! Call your Congressman or Senator and ask for a copy of Congressional Research Service report #R43267, "Commercial Filming and Photography on Federal Lands" by Laura B. Comay.

The report contains a good explanation of the history, reasoning, and fee schedule - including key facts such as "Still photography does not always require a permit or fee. The law directs that a photography permit or fee is required only if the activity takes place in an area that is not ordinarily open to the public, if additional administrative costs are likely, or if models or props other than the unit’s own
resources are used."

Also, under the proposed fee schedule, the $1,500 fee applies only if a COMMERCIAL shoot uses 70+ people a day. Still photography using 30+ people costs $450 a day. Commercial filming using 1-3 people, camera and tripod is only $10/day or $250/month. Still photography using 1-3, camera and tripod only $10/day or $250/month.

By props, what does it mean?