New Forest Service Rules

[Majortrauma]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014...ntcmp=trending
Our government seems to have no end to bad ideas and ways to extort money from it's citizens.
For starters, the criteria is wildly subjective and I'm certain that if you were caught filming in a Wilderness Area and did not have this permit, even if you were not doing it for commercial use, the burden of proof would end up on the person filming, you're gear would be confiscated and you'll spend God only knows how much time in the Federal Court system trying to avoid a felony conviction. Mr. Osterreicher is correct.
The evaluation criteria for permit applications includes whether the project spreads information about the enjoyment or use of wilderness or its ecological, geological, scientific, educational, scenic or historical values; helps preserve the wilderness character; and doesn't advertise products or services. Officials also would consider whether other suitable film sites are available outside the wilderness.
Mickey H. Osterreicher, general counsel for the National Press Photographers Association, told the AP such rules would be a clear violation of the First Amendment and raises concerns about press freedom, including whether denying a permit would amount to prior restraint.
"What if they deny you a permit because they don't like the story you're working on?" he asked.

[Coffee]

I don't have problems with a commercial fee for use of public lands, but I cannot see how the government can determine who should receive a permit based on the message they are intending to convey without running into first amendment issues. This seems sure to be defeated well below the level of the supreme court.

[Rain Man]

What's the difference in setting up a kiosk to make money for an afternoon and setting up audio/video equipment for an afternoon to make money?

Rain Man

.

[Majortrauma]

The kiosk is an obvious and deliberate commercial endeavor. I think their is a genuine risk of an overzealous government employee jumping to the conclusion that a few people with "GoPro" cameras are possibly engaged in a commercial endeavor and then they would be forced to prove they are not. They won't be able to prove they are not engaged in a commercial endeavor and they do not have permits to film so cameras are confiscated tilll they get their day in Federal Court.
In the end, HIGHLY doubtful this wuilll survive the first genuine legal review.

[Alligator]

Access to public property is not the same as limiting freedom of the press. There are public places to which the press can be denied access or have their access limited.

The article linked in the first post has the number of acres administered by the Forest Service wrong. It is ~36 million acres.

[Starchild]

From the clip, permit cost $1,500, fines are up to $1,000 if you are caught without one, um I'm sure something was left unsaid or else it is cheaper to get caught without a permit then to get the permit in the first place, and hey you may get away with it free.

[Another Kevin]

post deleted by author

[Alligator]

There is a prohibition of commercial enterprises by the Wilderness Act, Section (4)(c). Commercial services are limited, see Section (4)(d)(6).

The fee arises out of Public Law 106-206.

Seems like for non-breaking news that press access is being limited similar to that for a commercial service. It does not seem like the general public has new restrictions in place, the restrictions were always there, although some of the language in the rule appears to update to include video devices. This is pretty much just new rules ​for the media.

[Alligator]

Alligator - True, but there are still constitutional limitations - the government can impose "time, place and manner" restrictions equally upon all comers, but cannot arbitrarily impose a content-based condition on photography, filming or writing. The quote:

The evaluation criteria for permit applications includes whether the project spreads information about the enjoyment or use of wilderness or its ecological, geological, scientific, educational, scenic or historical values; helps preserve the wilderness character; and doesn't advertise products or services. Officials also would consider whether other suitable film sites are available outside the wilderness.

This is close to, if not crossing onto, what is forbidden. It is certainly lawful for the regulators to consider the impact of the project upon the "ecological, geological, scientific, educational, scenic or historical" value of the wilderness, and exclude projects whose environmental impact is unacceptable, but where the government crosses over into considering the message sent:

whether the project spreads information about the enjoyment or use of wilderness

the restriction begins to stand on shaky ground. Reduced to the simplest case, it's the difference between, "we will not allow filming because the proposed project will disrupt a fragile ecological community" (entirely permissible) and "we will not allow filming because the proposed project advocates legislation to permit the sale and development of a particular tract of forest land" (impermissible, no matter how odious the message). The first controls the time, place or manner in which the project is conducted, and is content-neutral. The second crosses over into restraint of political speech.

Section (2)(a) "...and for the gathering and dissemination of information regarding their use and enjoyment as wilderness;..."

SECTION 2. (a) In order to assure that an increasing population, accompanied by expanding settlement
and growing mechanization, does not occupy and modify all areas within the United States and its
possessions, leaving no lands designated for preservation and protection in their natural condition, it is
hereby declared to be the policy of the Congress to secure for the American people of present and future
generations the benefits of an enduring resource of wilderness. For this purpose there is hereby established
a National Wilderness Preservation System to be composed of federally owned areas designated by the
Congress as "wilderness areas," and these shall be administered for the use and enjoyment of the American
people in such manner as will leave them unimpaired for future use and enjoyment as wilderness, and so as
to provide for the protection of these areas, the preservation of their wilderness character, and for the
gathering and dissemination of information regarding their use and enjoyment as wilderness; and no
Federal lands shall be designated as "wilderness areas" except as provided for in this Act or by a
subsequent Act.

[Slo-go'en]

These rules aren't aimed at an individual with a camera or GoPro, but for large scale projects with commercial intent. This could involve dozens of people and trailers full of equipment.

Although I wonder if the speed hikers with a crew filming the trek for monetary gain would be subject to these rules, even though the film "crew" is only one or two people with a small hand held camera.

In theory, you can't take a picture from the street in NYC without a permit.

[Alligator]

Dept of Interior (includes BLM, NPS, FWS) also has a requirement for when a permit is required for newsgathering, see 5.4. They proposed a rule change in 2007. It was finalized last year. It has conditions for when a permit is needed for newsgathering, no fees. So two different versions.

Note I am not arguing for or against the proposed rule, just noting some of the relevant laws and rules.

[Alligator]

These rules aren't aimed at an individual with a camera or GoPro, but for large scale projects with commercial intent. This could involve dozens of people and trailers full of equipment.

Although I wonder if the speed hikers with a crew filming the trek for monetary gain would be subject to these rules, even though the film "crew" is only one or two people with a small hand held camera.

In theory, you can't take a picture from the street in NYC without a permit.

They might, see 5.1, but jurisdiction is for Interior on that link and it says all commercial activity. Probably not in any wilderness at all, Interior or Forest Service unless it was cast in some sort of commercial service light (per The Wilderness Act). The AT has a lot of jurisdiction differences though. So for instance, might be differences on state lands.

[Mags]

My own rant..

http://www.pmags.com/this-post-will-soon-be-worth-1500

[Alligator]

My own rant..

http://www.pmags.com/this-post-will-soon-be-worth-1500

This is the definition of still photography used in the interim regulation and proposed as the final rule. See 251.51 http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/retrieveECFR?gp=1&SID=344418fbe1161b7d2aaae0d53d00 41bb&ty=HTML&h=L&r=PART&n=pt36.2.251#se36.2.251_15 4

Still photography—use of still photographic equipment on National Forest System lands that takes place at a location where members of the public generally are not allowed or where additional administrative costs are likely, or uses models, sets, or props that are not a part of the site's natural or cultural resources or administrative facilities. No permit necessary if not one of those, no matter if you are an amateur or commercial. Filming is a different story. (See link following.)

Also, the permit fee is up to $1500, but the following article states that a crew of three people would only pay $30. The article also quotes Chief of the Forest Service Tidwell concerning the proposed rule.

[ChuckT]

As a practical matter a professional film crew is not just a couple of folks with a go pro. If the intent if this is to offset the impact of crew + gear in a wilderness area I'm for it. If, on the other hand this is meant to codify that impact as acceptably low or non-existent I am not in favir.

[Tuckahoe]

I have been pretty consistent with my views regarding user fees and I do not have an issue with them when applied appropriately as usual AK and Mags have nailed it. And in this age of the increasing loosening of what is commerce or commercial, the creation of fee schemes and "may issue" permits based on and as a way to control content is an anathema to American liberty.






(And all it takes is the right administrator to come along and determine that Whiteblaze is commercial -- after all it sells advertising and subscriptions -- and that the posting of photos is commercial activity and that each photo uploaded means that a fine/fee is owed.)

[Mags]

But these regulations are about the designated wilderness lands as opposed to "just" USFS lands.

From https://www.federalregister.gov/arti...alregister.gov

1. “…for still photography and commercial filming in wilderness.”
45.1c.5.g “Would not advertise any product or service.”Unless I am missing something, the new proposal specifically mentions still photography in addition to film.

Furthermore, Liz Close, a high ranking USFS person to say the least, confirmed as such. Finally, your link mentions "news gathering" as not needing such a permit. All the articles mention that. But, again, we are on a slippery slop as to what is news gathering vs a media production.

From your article: "but reporters and news organizations would not need to get a permit to shoot video or photographs in the nation's wilderness areas", Who defines this? The same govt peeps who proposed the new permit fee?

At worst, we have yet another bureaucratic onus on the American people. At best, we have a law with no teeth that is just wasting a lot of time for many people.

[rocketsocks]

But these regulations are about the designated wilderness lands as opposed to "just" USFS lands.

From https://www.federalregister.gov/arti...alregister.gov

1. “…for still photography and commercial filming in wilderness.”
45.1c.5.g “Would not advertise any product or service.”Unless I am missing something, the new proposal specifically mentions still photography in addition to film.

Furthermore, Liz Close, a high ranking USFS person to say the least, confirmed as such. Finally, your link mentions "news gathering" as not needing such a permit. All the articles mention that. But, again, we are on a slippery slop as to what is news gathering vs a media production.

From your article: "but reporters and news organizations would not need to get a permit to shoot video or photographs in the nation's wilderness areas", Who defines this? The same govt peeps who proposed the new permit fee?

At worst, we have yet another bureaucratic onus on the American people. At best, we have a law with no teeth that is just wasting a lot of time for many people.

Either way, one would have to compear...what would Ansel Adams think?

[Mags]

(And all it takes is the right administrator to come along and determine that Whiteblaze is commercial -- after all it sells advertising and subscriptions -- and that the posting of photos is commercial activity and that each photo uploaded means that a fine/fee is owed.)

Bingo. I think that is the argument many people, myself included, are concerned about.

[rocketsocks]

Bingo. I think that is the argument many people, myself included, are concerned about.

what, no more awesome screen savers for me....ugh! I love them so