Taking Pictures in a National Forest could cost you $1000 fine
Sep 27, 2014 20:09:03 #
JimBart
Loc: Western Michigan
Taking a picture in a National Forest could cost you a minimum of a $1000 fine if done for profit or professionally per the website listed below. I attempted to research it on Snopes but nothing turned up.
I dont want to see any of us get hurt by this.
http://thefreethoughtproject.com/agency-impose-1000-fine-unlicensed-photos-nature/#XwvU5UGHbakuvd0f.99
I dont want to see any of us get hurt by this.
http://thefreethoughtproject.com/agency-impose-1000-fine-unlicensed-photos-nature/#XwvU5UGHbakuvd0f.99
Sep 27, 2014 20:12:29 #
More topics on this subject recently on UHH:
http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-247207-1.html
http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-247620-1.html
http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-247361-1.html
http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-247207-1.html
http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-247620-1.html
http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-247361-1.html
Sep 27, 2014 21:54:52 #
This has already been clarified in a Forest Service press release. It doesn't apply to non-commercial photography.
Sep 27, 2014 22:37:24 #
Does this mean a $1,500 license is required to photograph a tree in a public park but a pappratszzi (sp) can chase human beings, sell their images for profit, no license needed?
Sep 27, 2014 22:48:27 #
Yup sounds right....govt where it dont belong. We taxpayers have to pay for these. Natl parks and now have to pay again to photograph it. Like was said earlier. Shoot brad pitt with his kids or so and can sell for nothing.....maybe we should start shooting ( with cameras) politians and put down what they vote for so tbe tax payers can see.
Sep 28, 2014 01:01:50 #
Read the previous posts on this. There has been clarification that it doesn't apply to non-commercial photography.
Sep 28, 2014 07:56:57 #
lovitlots
Loc: Tottenham, Ontario, Canada
nicksr1125 wrote:
Read the previous posts on this. There has been clarification that it doesn't apply to non-commercial photography.
Even if it doesn't apply to non commercial photographers. The pros are tax payers too. A national forest is owned by the people and already paid for by the people. You shouldn't have to pay extra just because you're lucky enough to sell one. Maybe the government should be more concerned about their people doing things more efficiently and wasting less money for their operating costs then trying to recoup their loss from the people. I think Americans should fight this, otherwise this trend will lead other permits for other things. It's time the government needs to be made responsible for their incompetence rather than letting them to come after us for more.
Sep 28, 2014 10:24:01 #
Looking at the Federal Register, they are taking comments on this pending piece of legislation until November 3rd and they tell you how and where to respond if you have comments. Dealing with the FAA (just another branch of the government) this is the only way to voice your concerns and can be very effective at getting them to change or back down from a proposed change. If we don't like it, let them know. It is the only way to have any potential affect on the outcome. I will. Will any of you?
http://federalregister.gov/a/2014-21093
http://federalregister.gov/a/2014-21093
Sep 28, 2014 13:40:43 #
nicksr1125 wrote:
Read the previous posts on this. There has been clarification that it doesn't apply to non-commercial photography.
As of now it doesn't..........
How about if you're carrying a semi-pro or pro camera?
Sep 28, 2014 13:48:28 #
Sep 28, 2014 14:55:33 #
nicksr1125 wrote:
Read the previous posts on this. There has been clarification that it doesn't apply to non-commercial photography.
My understanding is that the Forest Service dropped any registration fee even for commercial photography because of overwhelming negative public response. I don't think they have the right to restrict or charge for any photography on land that belongs to you and me, commercial use or not. It's not like photographs are extractive or damaging in any way.
They recently changed the last date to accept comments on this issue from Nov. 3 to Dec. 3. The site to comment is at https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2014/09/04/2014-21093/proposed-directive-for-commercial-filming-in-wilderness-special-uses-administration . Please let them know how you feel about this. It seems that even bureaucrats listen and change their policy if enough of us speak up.
Sep 28, 2014 18:13:00 #
romanticf16
Loc: Commerce Twp, MI
Racin17 wrote:
Yup sounds right....govt where it dont belong. We taxpayers have to pay for these. Natl parks and now have to pay again to photograph it. Like was said earlier. Shoot brad pitt with his kids or so and can sell for nothing.....maybe we should start shooting ( with cameras) politians and put down what they vote for so tbe tax payers can see.
Follow the Politicos on all the "free information gathering trips" paid for by lobbyists and publish the photos, along with their expense vouchers.
Sep 28, 2014 21:27:17 #
Just read in the paper yesterday that there is no fine for taking pictures in a national forest/park.
Sep 29, 2014 02:30:22 #
From what I've read, it was only for "Wilderness" areas where human intrusion can cause damage. Most National forests are open for use by the public. As for taking pictures, the permit question is for commercial use where equipment like lights, props, etc are involved. Backpacking photographers are probably exempt.
Sep 29, 2014 09:54:01 #
That just doesn't make sense. No photos at Grand Canyon National Park?? I don't think so.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.