# $1000 fine to take pictures in the wilderness?



## phorisc (Feb 2, 2011)

http://www.esquire.com/blogs/news/1000-dollar-fine-for-pictures-in-the-forest

Just noticed this posted on camofires facebook...this worries me alot...

another article: http://www.oregonlive.com/environment/index.ssf/2014/09/forest_service_says_media_need.html
we can do somthing about it

https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2014/09/04/2014-21093/proposed-directive-for-commercial-filming-in-wilderness-special-uses-administration?utm_campaign=email+a+friend&utm_medium=email&utm_source=federalregister.gov

-phorisc


----------



## 30-06-hunter (Sep 22, 2013)

Oh wow, that can get expensive in a hurry.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

Why does it bother you? Are you a commercial photographer or make videos that are available commercially and profit from them? From what I read it doesn't stop the common person from taking their pictures.


----------



## phorisc (Feb 2, 2011)

Critter said:


> Why does it bother you? Are you a commercial photographer or make videos that are available commercially and profit from them? From what I read it doesn't stop the common person from taking their pictures.


why does that not bother you?


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

If you are making a profit off of taking pictures of the outdoors then you should be required to purchase a special use permit to do so. Guides and outfitters have to so why not a person that is taking pictures?


----------



## phorisc (Feb 2, 2011)

Critter said:


> If you are making a profit off of taking pictures of the outdoors then you should be required to purchase a special use permit to do so. Guides and outfitters have to so why not a person that is taking pictures?


I can understand something like this on private land...


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

If you are on private land then you need the owners permission. He may give it to you for free or he may charge you. 

It just comes down to the fact of why should one group be singled out and have to pay a fee to operate on federally owned land and another not?


----------



## phorisc (Feb 2, 2011)

Critter said:


> If you are on private land then you need the owners permission. He may give it to you for free or he may charge you.
> 
> It just comes down to the fact of why should one group be singled out and have to pay a fee to operate on federally owned land and another not?


I'd rather take the position of why are any of the groups paying a fee to operate on federally owned land?


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

If they are profiting from it why not?


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

Should a coal mine or a lumber operation be able to just go out onto federal land and start mining or cutting trees without paying anything? How about the livestock grazing permits, should the rancher be able to just let his cattle or sheep free range without paying anything? 

I think that what a lot of the companies or groups pay is not enough for what they get out of it and perhaps some pay too much, but that is the way that it is set up.


----------



## 30-06-hunter (Sep 22, 2013)

Sometimes you will hear of the photographers auctioning off some of their work to support wildlife programs, and some of the publications they work for will make annual donations as well from what I have been told. But I can see the fee if they are making a lot of money off their pictures, every profession has its associated costs.


----------



## phorisc (Feb 2, 2011)

Critter said:


> If they are profiting from it why not?


this is a question of politics now...so ill end it here.


----------



## Trooper (Oct 18, 2007)

I'll just say this, if you don't submit a comment- then you can't get too bent out of shape about it. A lot of people don't realize that regulations are very strongly affected by the submitted comments...


----------



## Fishrmn (Sep 14, 2007)

If a movie production films in a National Park, or many other places, they have to pay for the privilege of doing so. There is no reason not to charge someone who intends to make a profit from their photographs a fee for the privilege.

⫸<{{{{{⦇°>


----------



## phorisc (Feb 2, 2011)

Fishrmn said:


> If a movie production films in a National Park, or many other places, they have to pay for the privilege of doing so. There is no reason not to charge someone who intends to make a profit from their photographs a fee for the privilege.
> 
> ⫸<{{{{{⦇°>


So does a blog that posts photos of national parks require a permit? does a youtube channel require a permit? Im sure there is some money made on both of those even if its a small amount through ads etc...will they require the small guy to get a permit? I doubt a permit for a movie company is going to break their piggy bank...i'm more concerned with the gray areas of this than the black.


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

The issue I see is one of a social media world, where everyone can publish a photo. Heck, put a hunting snapshot on this website and it's owners can profit from the content that pushes traffic. And if your picture of monster buck in the High Uintas, or Wasatch Front Extended big bull from Mount Olympus, then this website would be in violation unless you obtained a special use permit to publish your hunting photos on any kind of site that generates profit from web traffic. The idea that those profiting from photography taken in wilderness areas should pay to do so, is as old as the box of 35 mm slides in my basement. But in an instant world where everyone can and does publish photos from everywhere - it is not practical. That doesn't even address the SHOULD the FS charge a fee. The simple thing is that it is not practically enforceable. 

The bigger question I would ask is why? and What will the money be used for? Truthfully, if the point is that the agency needs funding to better deal with management issues in wilderness areas, then I'm OK with that. But spray-paint a turd and tell me it's a gold nugget.


----------



## Fishrmn (Sep 14, 2007)

If this website profits from your photo that is not the same thing as you profiting from your photo.
They profit from a website. If you profit from your intentions to work as a photographer then you should pay for the privilege.

⫸<{{{{{⦇°>


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

I'm not sure I would agree with that. But fair enough. I just see it differently. For casual use of the National Forest, or National Park for that matter, that comes with the entrance fee you pay at the gate, I really don't think additional fees should be assessed. Would the same apply to an artist that paints a picture of the scenery to sell? As the photographer that will sell a photo? Sell of sound recordings recorded in National Parks or wilderness? What about a writer that describes the feeling of standing atop Yellowstone Falls to publish in a magazine? A state that depicts a rock formation within a national park on license plates? A hotel that shows natural features to promote their hotel as a base to enjoy the national parks? Where is that line?


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

Say you are a wildlife photographer, and are set up on the side of a road that forms the boundary of the wilderness area. If you take a picture pointing towards the wilderness side of the road you pay a fee? But pointing to the other side of the road you don't? Is the fee according to what is in the picture? or according to where the picture was taken? 

For example, a picture taken in the Salt Lake Valley, with Mount Olympus in the background that is sold directly as a city scape. The picture was taken from someone's front porch in Olympus Cove, but shows the Mount Olympus Wilderness area. Would that be different than a photographer that hiked to the summit of Mount Olympus and took a picture of the Salt Lake Valley below, but the picture itself doesn't show any of the wilderness area. Is that different?


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

As I see it, the difference between the photographer and the cattleman, oilman, outfitter, etc. is that the photographer removes NOTHING from the property. The property remains as he/she found it and all he/she has done is produce a physical image of a public area. If we go that route then we must fine a hunter/fisherman who photos his trophy in a public area without a Forest Service permit and sells the physical image to a magazine. Or, for that matter, maybe we need to fine a hunter/fisherman who paints a mental image in a magazine article of the public area where he fished or hunted! Where's the fine line?

And the difference between a single photographer and a movie production company is the time, space, manpower and security/public relations protocol needed to produce the movie. The movie producer impacts the Forest Service staff/budget. The photographer does not. (Unless, of course, FS staff is assigned to investigate where the photos end up and then prosecute the offender in court, in which case they spend much more money than they'll ever take in fines.)

Bottom line, it's a foolhardy law that's largely unenforceable.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

How about PBS? I guarantee they get a free ride along with their government funding of $400 million +.


----------



## brookieguy1 (Oct 14, 2008)

"I vividly remember the cool crisp Fall morning, the aspens aglow, and the mirror waters of that Boulder Mountain lake being shattered by the explosion of a thick-bodied brook trout". 
How much will that memory cost me?


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

brookieguy1 said:


> "I vividly remember the cool crisp Fall morning, the aspens aglow, and the mirror waters of that Boulder Mountain lake being shattered by the explosion of a thick-bodied brook trout".
> How much will that memory cost me?


I'll go $475.11

.


----------



## hoghunter011583 (Jul 21, 2008)

No no no you guys are missing the point!! See, the government owns the land, yeah yeah they told you that you own it cause you pay taxes but that is just to make you feel good about something. 
So, they own the land, the air and the sunlight within it. So, when you own something you set the rules!! It doesn't need to be fair or make sense I mean what the heck are little ol you going to do about an unfair rule/law.... NOTHING you are going to just deal with it.
Plus many will agree with the unfair rule because it doesn't effect them and they for whatever reason will fuss with the people who think it is unfair. 
So, here is how it works, they own the land and they are going to make money any way they can on that land, you hunt, hike, fish, take pictures, they will find a way to make money. You might not like it, and its not fair but you aint going to do anything but deal with it.
As for those who agree with it, well... some slaves polish their chains, I mean they are proud that they have those chains on them and heck if they are going to drag them around they are going to be a good little slave and polish and defend them!

So, polish away boys and take up for our government yet again sticking its hands in your pockets to take just a little bit more of your money because they own the light that shines inside that forest!! Feel honored that they cherish you so much and just feel good that they even think of you to stick there hands in your pockets!!


----------



## brookieguy1 (Oct 14, 2008)

Hoghunter , how much do you spend on tin foil?:grin:
Just jabbing at 'ya. I agree, the gov'ment has their sticky paws in everything, but we can and will draw lines! We sportsmen are a tough and ornery bunch.....with guns!


----------



## hoghunter011583 (Jul 21, 2008)

Much less than most spend on polishing compound!!


----------



## hoghunter011583 (Jul 21, 2008)

When people have no facts they poke fun!!:grin:


----------



## phorisc (Feb 2, 2011)

Really you shouldn't be thinking about money with this topic...this about rights...about freedoms...The people who have money will continue to use the forest as they wish...those that don't will not. There are plenty of "creative" commercial companies that do documentaries and stuff that don't make much money and they will be the ones that will lose their freedom of speech.
the more the government takes the less you will be able to do unless you can "pay for it"


----------



## svmoose (Feb 28, 2008)

Non-invasive/non-impact activities shouldn't be regulated on public lands.


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

svmoose said:


> Non-invasive/non-impact activities shouldn't be regulated on public lands.


Not always. I feel birdwatchers should have to buy a duck stamp when they are on any Federal Refuge, especially waterfowl photographers that sell their photos. In all fairness note that there are a fair number of birdnuts that do purchase duck stamps even though they are non-hunters or even anti-hunting.

We already do this with little complaint: Locally daily fees are charged for non-impact activities at Flaming Gorge and the Mirror Lake Highway corridor. The money derived from these fees goes to a good cause: boat ramps, restrooms, designing signage, installing signs, and paying for ****tails, steak, and lobster while attending meetings about boat ramps, restrooms, sign design and installation.

.


----------



## svmoose (Feb 28, 2008)

Maybe you don't complain. 

Seriously though, I don't mind paying for entrance to state parks and other places where there are obvious facility and personnel needs. I disagree that someone needs a duck stamp to photograph waterfowl...maybe a duck stamp should be a requirement for entrance to a federal waterfowl reserve. Just because someone makes money from something doesn't mean they need to own a permit to do it. If you hand craft a fly rod and go do a little R & D out on some public waters, do you need to have a permit for that? 

They'll pay their share of self employment or business taxes to the government in the end, and a part of that goes to the FS to operate and manage the forest. 

This law just seems a little bit off the wall and not defined very well to me, and maybe my point of view is skewed because I do run a few outdoor websites and spend a lot of time taking photos and things on forest land. A $1500 fee would shut down most hobby/small website operators. And why buy a permit, when the fine for not having one is $500 less?

What keeps a business owner from sending his brother out to take the photo who then gives it to the business owner?

Would a hunter be in trouble for taking a "hero shot" that is later submitted to a magazine and in return they get a pair of binoculars? They're compensated for an activity that happened on FS land...

Why would news outlets get a mulligan when many of them are VERY profitable and have more impact than one guy with a camera taking some scenery or wildlife photos?

Here's how my blog posts will go from now on: BREAKING NEWS: Elk are bugling in the high country of Utah. Let's check in with our wildlife correspondent, Bob, who just happened to get a nice double lung pass through on a bull elk...


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

The last that I heard on the subject was that what came out was the first draft of the Forest Service proposal which they have taken a lot of flack over. They have said that they are going to look at it again and see if it needs to be revised.


----------



## svmoose (Feb 28, 2008)

This is the last I've seen on it: 
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...sal-on-news-photos-in-wilderness-after-first/


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

Did anyone read it?

The part that bothers me most is this:

"a reporter who met a biologist, wildlife advocate or whistleblower alleging neglect in 36 million acres of wilderness would first need special approval to shoot photos or videos even on an iPhone."

So basically, if you are alleging that if some wrong doing is going on you first need to file a permit. This gives the forest service time to cover up what you are going to report before you can legally report it.

I understand the laws protecting farmers and industries from hiring spies because they waste time and money paying someone who is actually trying to harm their business.

The FS isn't paying these people. They should report wrongdoing.

Also, stupid to pay for a $1500 permit when you can just take the $1000 fine. 

This goes well beyond people making a profit. Seems to me that if you film you dads hunt on federal land you are a criminal. Once something like this passes it allows a slippery slope of additions and hidden language.


----------



## phorisc (Feb 2, 2011)

Joe blow really likes the outdoors...he spends his free time out of work in the forest.

Joe blow also is a amateur photographer...he does it to remember some of his hikes and to revisit the beauty he sees in nature.

Joe blow on occasion takes some really good pictures that he makes a bit of cash on occasionally.

Joe blow also has gas bills, food bills...etc

for the most part Joe blow pays off his costs of going into the forest with the few pictures he sells...


So heres my example...Joe blow is not an actual person...but i bet he could be. My question is do you think Joe blow would pay for a permit to take pictures/film in the forest if he isn't actually making money off the pictures but rather just paying the gas/food costs of going into the woods?

I can understand someone saying "He should pay since he got money for his photographs" but I don't think this helps the small business. Small business thrives best in an environment where government does not tax the crap out of it and restrict it till it cant make a profit...

So my point is...Joe blow isn't making a living off his pictures but the small bit of cash he gets keeps he actively getting out into the forest and enjoying it...it also is money going into the economy that he makes and also he pays taxes on that money he makes...at least in most cases if a company pays out more than $500 they must report it in the taxes and so Joe blow would be responsible to report it too...

Now lets say Joe blow needs a permit...and it costs $1500 but he only is making about $1000 from his photos yearly...which used to pay for his gas and food expenditures...

would he buy that permit? 

If he doesn't buy the permit his "creative arts" will only be seen by himself/family/friends on facebook etc...and that $1000 he made yearly is no longer money into the economy...

I know this is totally hypothetical as Joe blow isn't a real person, but I am trying to portray an aspect of this that doesn't fit into the big corporate commercial world that this may be aimed at...

And maybe this permit thing they want to pass doesn't even apply to Joe blow

meh ill stop my rant now...


----------



## 30-06-hunter (Sep 22, 2013)

phorisc said:


> Joe blow really likes the outdoors...he spends his free time out of work in the forest.
> 
> Joe blow also is a amateur photographer...he does it to remember some of his hikes and to revisit the beauty he sees in nature.
> 
> ...


My common sense approach is that they don't care about the Joe blow types, they are likely targeting the types with obvious signs or markings on vehicles and gear that set them apart as a business or commercial entity.


----------



## phorisc (Feb 2, 2011)

30-06-hunter said:


> My common sense approach is that they don't care about the Joe blow types, they are likely targeting the types with obvious signs or markings on vehicles and gear that set them apart as a business or commercial entity.


hope so


----------



## WasatchOutdoors (Sep 26, 2007)

Oh my... that's going to be really interesting the first time the USFS tries to impose the fine. It directly treads upon the 1st amendment, and frankly isn't enforceable or in any way constitutional.

There are copyright laws that directly affect the ability of a photographer to profit from iconic architecture or other privately held features. For instance if I wanted to profit from pictures of the castle at Disneyland I wouldn't be able to because it is a privately owned and trademarked landmark.

However, public land I can shoot pictures of all day long. Now there are some distinctions that define what's ok and not ok regarding that. 

For instance, if I want to go out to antelope island and take pictures of the wildlife, the island itself and the sunset, and then later make a calendar that you consumers can purchase, there's nothing they can do about it. Look at the calendar KSL publishes every year, perfect example. The theory of that is that I pay my entrance fee to the park just like you, and my ability to record the images falls within my freedom of speech. 

However, if I want to go out and operate my business on that same piece of property, as an example, shoot bridal pictures, or film a movie on that same piece of property, I then need a permit. 

But the idea of needing a permit to just record the image of public land, whether I choose to later use the images commercially or not.... that's completely unenforceable and the first time they try to write a ticket to the crew of National Geographic or Discovery Channel, the whole thing will get overturned. I'm not going to give it any stock, if for no other reason than the USFS would blow it's entire budget on trying to stop it, and can't possible back it up.


----------



## LostLouisianian (Oct 11, 2010)

Words you should never believe...."we're from the government and we're here to help you"


----------

