"Commercial" Filming Permits on Federal Lands

[Colter]

I just thought I'd give folks a heads up on this. The interpretation of the rules for commercial permits on federal lands (Forest Service, Park Service etc.) varies on a case-by-case basis, but many law enforcement types require a permit for ANY commercial filming on public lands under their jurisdiction. Permits are almost certainly required if you have a crew, but even if you're taking "home videos" of your solo hike and later turn them into a DVD you hope to sell, you may be asked for your permit(s) by someone who runs across your film. You may be subject to big fines if you just "hope for the best." I had to go through some permitting for potential "commercial photography" during my Alaska hike last summer, and with one land manager it was clear that there would have been no slack if I hadn't and later turned it into a DVD.

If you'll be taking video to later possibly sell, you'll want to talk to people who specialize in Commercial Photography Permits. Other people are likely to give you inaccurate information.

Of course, if you are just filming for your own use, no permits are required.

[Tha Wookie]

thanks for the heads up.

I'll be sure to pass that along to Ansel.

[fiddlehead]

reminds me of when my brother in law wanted to go into business making and selling soap but decided not to cause he was afraid of getting sued.
there are so many things to worry about in this world, aye?
i'll put this on my list.

[Colter]

I'm not exactly a worry wart. People are getting fines of at least $2,000, at least in Alaska, for this very thing. Times have changed. They are writing tickets to make a point, and if you release a DVD filmed on federal land without a permit you're not going to keep it a secret. I know for a fact that some land manager's won't care, and others will fine you with relish. Anyone is certainly welcome to make their own calls. Just make your call based on all the facts.

[fiddlehead]

Thanks, i do appreciate the warning.
I just think it's a bit silly for us hikers who are trying to put our hike on video that the govt would want a piece of us. Another freedom, aye?

[The Weasel]

Some thoughts (alas!) from the Weasel Department of Law:

(1) Permits aren't necessary, it appears, for newsgathering for news organizations. This would likely require you to be accredited to a news outlet and for the filming to have news value. One set of definitions from the BLM says this:

"The reporting of events or other information by members of the media for the purpose of regularly scheduled news and other information programs that are typically broadcast on network and cable outlets. Nightly news, weekly outdoor recreation programs, and monthly public affairs programs are examples of news and media related reporting tha t do not require a
film permit."

In this day and age, I would argue that other "news sources" such as blogs and the like would be included; the DrudgeReport (ack!) is an excellent example. I think the key would be "is it something that is newsworthy" with an intention of "reporting" it. Yeah. Wow. First Amendment lawyers call that kind of thing "void for vagueness."

2) I think "advocacy" filming would be allowed by a court without a permit, even if the film/dvd was sold, if the "advocacy" aspect was the primary purpose, not commerical gain.

3) I think there are other defenses to 'incidental use', i.e. if there is filming/recording for personal use at the the time, and a later decision to use the recording as part of a commercial sale, I think the regulations would not be violated. I'm not sure of this, but a 'rule of reason' would say that I can use a photo of myself on the AT in GSMNP in my business website.

The Weasel

[The Weasel]

More checking:

Still photos do not require permitting - even for commercial use - if taken where the public is generally allowed.

The Weasel

[Lion King]

I dont know of a sinlge AT/PCT/CDT film that has made a million yet.

If that happens, maybe they can raise a stink, until then...

[Lion King]

In what study I have done IF it involves a crew, three or four people, trucks, cables, lots of camera and the possibility of destruction or molestation of land then it is a permit issue, usualyl ---and this is what I was told, even when I interviewed three seperate forest rangers---one perosn with a camera aint a problem and very unlikely that you will get hassled.

[Tha Wookie]

More checking:

Still photos do not require permitting - even for commercial use - if taken where the public is generally allowed.

The Weasel

Ray Jardine told me he and Jenny were hasseled in a national forest when they were taking a picture of their tarp for the cover of their tarp book. The guy told them they needed a permit for their stil photo.

Pretty silly, if you ask me. It's completely non-consumptive.

[The Old Fhart]

This subject has been covered once before and the policy isn't new or confined to the park service. In one of the photography magazines they mentioned that the lone cypress tree overhanging the ocean at the Pebble Beach Golf Course is actually copyrighted as well. And it doesn’t stop with ‘real’ people or scenery either. Local daycare providers cannot use the likeness of any Disney character without the threat of being sued if they don’t remove the character from the sign. A Mexican restaurant not too far from the A.T. in NH was named Margaritaville® but that is a registered trademark of some Parrothead and it had to be changed.

Oh, Tha Wookie is correct. Still photos are NOT exempt from requiring permits.

[The Owl]

Well that's odd. I thought WE owned that land. I think I'll go read Gordon Liddy's " When I was a Kid this was a Free Country" again. Then, a follow up with "1984".
geesh.

ok, but what if you share then on bearshare? heh.

[The Old Fhart]

The Owl-"Well that's odd. I thought WE owned that land."

Another way to look at it is that the land managers are being good stewards and protecting OUR land from exploitation.

[RedneckRye]

If you'll be taking video to later possibly sell, you'll want to talk to people who specialize in Commercial Photography Permits. Other people are likely to give you inaccurate information.

Anyone here specialize in Commercial Photography permits? Or are we getting inaccurate information?

Just a question.

[Photofanatic]

The only somewhat loophole that I found in one of my commercial manuals is as follows. "Fair use offers another way in which the photographer may avoid having to obtain a permission, even though the work is protected by a valid copyright. The copyright law states that copying "for purposes such as criticism, comment, news, reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research is not an infringent of copyright." To evaluate whether a use is a fair use depends on four factors set forth in the law. "(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit education purposes; (2) the nature of the copyrighted work; (3)the amount and substantiality of the portion used...and (4)the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work." These guidelines hav to be applied on a case-by-case basis. If there is any doubt, it is best to seek permission to use the work.

My point here is that I would speak with my attorney before I used that cypress tree in my commercial work.

For that matter I would consult with my attorney before I embarked on any lengthy commercial project. You would want your rights as the creator to be protected in the midst of creating the unfinished project. It only takes a whisper then someone could easily steal your idea. I use my manual to decide whether or not I would need an attorney, not to decide if the law is on my side. Take a peak inside the law library at your local court house then decide if you would want to represent yourself in ANY legal battle.

[Photofanatic]

The only somewhat loophole that I found in one of my commercial manuals is as follows. "Fair use offers another way in which the photographer may avoid having to obtain a permission, even though the work is protected by a valid copyright. The copyright law states that copying "for purposes such as criticism, comment, news, reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research is not an infringent of copyright." To evaluate whether a use is a fair use depends on four factors set forth in the law. "(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit education purposes; (2) the nature of the copyrighted work; (3)the amount and substantiality of the portion used...and (4)the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work." These guidelines hav to be applied on a case-by-case basis. If there is any doubt, it is best to seek permission to use the work.

My point here is that I would speak with my attorney before I used that cypress tree in my commercial work.

For that matter I would consult with my attorney before I embarked on any lengthy commercial project. You would want your rights as the creator to be protected in the midst of creating the unfinished project. It only takes a whisper then someone could easily steal your idea. I use my manual to decide whether or not I would need an attorney, not to decide if the law is on my side. Take a peak inside the law library at your local court house then decide if you would want to represent yourself in ANY legal battle.

[The Old Fhart]

RedneckRye-"If you'll be taking video to later possibly sell, you'll want to talk to people who specialize in Commercial Photography Permits. Other people are likely to give you inaccurate information.

Anyone here specialize in Commercial Photography permits? Or are we getting inaccurate information?

Just a question."

Actually you would need to go to the source to get up-to-date information. While there is generally a blanket policy on commercial filming (video or still), there are local considerations that may also apply. You can check some of the following to see what is involved. Note that one of the references concerns getting a permit to film weddings in National Parks.
http://canyonlands.areaparks.com/par...html?pid=17728
http://www.cameraontheroad.com/06/19...ational-parks/
http://www2.nature.nps.gov/geology/permits/
http://home.nps.gov/applications/dig...rlarea=permits
http://www.nps.gov/dena/parkmgmt/propho.htm
These rules and regulations change from time to time so make sure you have up-to-date info. Here is what The Canyonlands National Park has to say and it will give you a good idea of what you'd have to go through. The information following covers from an individual photographer up through larger operations of 50 people, don't assume that if you go it alone the rules do not apply to you. Also don't assume that if you go in as an individual or with a tour group that that excludes you from the commercial use regulations. If the photo images you plan on taking are going to be used commercially, check with the park authorities.

It is the policy of the National Park Service to allow filming and photography consistent with the protection and public enjoyment of park resources. Therefore, the primary consideration in the evaluation of permit requests in the Southeast Utah Group is the potential for resource damage and the disruption of normal public use.

Permits are not generally required for:

* Visitors engaged in filming/photography intended for their personal use and enjoyment
* The filming of a breaking news event by news crews
* Filming conducted pursuant to a cooperative agreement or contract with the National Park Service

A request for a filming or photography permit may be denied if:

* The requested activity represents a potential for an adverse impact on the parks natural, cultural, wilderness or recreational resources or the visitor experience, or poses health or safety risks
* The requirements for supervising the project exceed the staffing capacity of the affected park
* The applicant fails to obtain insurance/bonding, or to agree to pay assessed cost recovery
* The request includes entry into areas closed to the visiting public or activities not permitted to the average park visitor

How to Apply

Complete Form 10-932 [27k PDF File] and return it to the address on the form with a check for $100.00 made payable to the National Park Service. This non-refundable processing charge covers up to two hours of documented staff time for permit negotiation, preparation and processing. It is not a guarantee that you will be issued a film permit.

In addition, we are required to recover additional costs for time spent beyond the first two hours at a cost recovery rate of $50.00 per hour, assessed in fifteen minute increments. Work related to the permit requiring the use of off-duty personnel will be billed at a minimum two hour call-back rate of $100.00. Finally, permit compliance monitoring by a park ranger is required for many filming projects. The cost for this is $50.00 per hour. In compliance with the requirements of the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996, the applicant must submit his or her Social Security number or Federal Tax ID number when completing the permit application.

Fees

Below is the current location fee schedule for commercial photography and filming:

MOTION PICTURES/VIDEOS
1 to 10 people: $150/day
11 to 30 people: $250/day
31 to 49 people: $500/day
Over 50 people: $750/day

COMMERCIAL STILL PHOTOGRAPHY
1 to 10 people: $50/day
11 to 30 people: $150/day
Over 30 people: $250/day

Processing Time

Please allow at least two weeks for permit processing. If the permit request is approved, restrictions and conditions will be stipulated in the permit. Permit activities may be restricted according to seasonal conditions and visitation levels.We require that all relevant details and changes regarding permitted activities be confirmed at least 72 hours prior to the activation of the permit. Prior to issuance of the permit, we must be in possession of the following items:

* Original copy of your insurance certificate
* Completed application
* Permit processing charge and the bond.

You will need to secure and sign your film permit in person prior to initiating any activity in the park.

Insurance

Commercial general liability insurance is required for most projects in the following amounts:

* $300,000.00 for simple still photography
* $1,000,000.00 minimum for electronic media and commercial motion photography
* $3,000,000.00 minimum for special activities (feature films, elaborate stunts, etc.)

The United States Government must be named as additionally insured.

Bond

A bond may be required in the form of cash, cashiers check or similar negotiable currency. All or a portion of the bond may be retained to pay for the costs of site rehabilitation, damage to park property/resources and/or unpaid chargers associated with the permit. The balance will be returned upon the completion of filming activities and payment of all outstanding bills.

Closures & Traffic Control

If your plans include road closures within the park, arrangements for traffic control must be made with local or state law enforcement agencies. You will be billed by these agencies for officer overtime. The contact number for these agencies is (435) 259-8115.

Location Assistance

For additional assistance with locations, local scouts and other logistical needs, you may wish to contact the Moab Film Commission at (435) 259-6388. The Canyonlands Natural History Association may be contacted at (435) 259-6003 for publications about the parks in the area.

As to Photofanatic's-

"My point here is that I would speak with my attorney before I used that cypress tree in my commercial work.

For that matter I would consult with my attorney before I embarked on any lengthy commercial project. You would want your rights as the creator to be protected in the midst of creating the unfinished project."

That is a good point. Keep in mind that 'your' attorney isn't the one who's going to sue you, it is their attorney. They can still sue you whether your attorney says you have the right to film or not. If you have the proper permits, etc., it shouldn't be a problem.

[mudhead]

Maybe there exists a need.

I think of the dufus that cut a portion of a very, very old juniper to get a shot for a calendar at Garden of The Gods. Can't just glue the trunk back on...

Now of course you wouldn't do this, but you don't litter, either.

[Colter]

There are, of course, two factors, the actual law, and how it is applied.

I did a lot of research on the subject last year. I'd get answer "A" one time, and answer "B" another time. That is why I mentioned to make sure you talk to the person in charge of permitting. At times even they don't fully understand the regs, and someone who doesn't specifically have that job almost certainly doesn't know the regs. If they say a permit isn't required, it would be wise to get it in writing.

When I have been required to get a permit (one person out on a fun hike, hoping to possibly make a DVD out of it), it was quite simple. An easy form, no bonding, and it was only $100 for the whole year.

It was also clear that with one agency I would have gotten a fine, for sure, of at least $1,000 if I hadn't gotten a permit. This one fellow was specifically watching for unpermitted films that were being sold, and it didn't matter if it was a "fun" trip without a crew or anything else. When I asked I was quite sure they weren't going to require a permit and I'm mighty glad I asked. I personally know at least one person who got a breath-taking fine for filming a fun trip and then selling it without a permit.

In general, unless you are a professional photographer, you aren't required to get a permit for still photography and personally I'm never going to worry about still photography.

Again, the interpretation of the law varies from place to place, person to person, and time to time. I thought it wasn't a big deal for small timers, but last year I found out it can be a very big deal.