As an aside I particularly like that dog wood photograph. Lovely composition, the white petals balance well with the white extruded time capture of the water.
I understand there are reasons for every law and guideline, but fuck the government if they want to tell me (past or present) on what I can film or photograph - especially when they've profiteered off Americans for so long. Sorry for my rant but enough is enough for private citizens trying to make a living from their abilities.
James, I've tried to figure out the best way to phrase this politely and to avoid the kind of tenor that you used in your comment. I also debated about just hiding your comment, but I've heard your opinion from others and have had your frustration in the past but not to the extent of hate that your comment seems to suggest but frustration for sure.
The original law was designed before people had access to easily portable video cameras that could be used to film high quality footage. It was written before YouTube was around. It was designed to protect the land against large video productions that not only could hurt the land that the government protects for you and I and everyone not yet born, and it was designed to protect normal visitors and guarantee that people could have access to their lands without some movie production intern ushering them off.
For photography, we had the Ansel Adams law, which protected photography on federal lands even if use commercially, unless it involved stuff like hauling products into the parks with lighting systems, etc. If you weren't doing that, you could sell your nature photography without issues. This was to protect the land and average user experience.
Bigger commercial groups could do movies, such as when Star Wars filmed in Death Valley, and advertisements could be photographed, but there were required permits. Typically, in the past those types of things required large productions that caused major impacts. The last time I was in Death Valley a large production company was filming a commercial and shooting photos for a new electric car. That was all done under a permit.
The reason that they charge money for those types of permits is because the federal government is required to do cost recovery. Cost recovery isn't profiting. I can go into this further if you want, but basically it costs money to run parks and make sure that large productions are sticking to the rules that prevent damage to the land or impact other users. The federal government is required to recover the cost that they spend on that. You can agree with or disagree with whether or not the government should be forced to recover their costs when involved with large productions (as outlined above), but I don't think that politicians are going to say that the tax payer should foot the bill for a Hollywood movie.
Now...
The new law recognizes that not all video production impacts the land and other users like it did in the past. Because of that, the new law doesn't require a permit for what I'd call low impact filming (as outlined above). I personally fall into this category, and the new laws allows me to do more and will allow me to tell stories in a new way without having to get a permit. I can't imagine doing something that doesn't fit within the eight criteria.
It also standardizes rules for photography and filming. In the past, there were two sets of rules that were somewhat confusing.
This new law simplifies everything, makes the rules clear, and is based on your impact to the land and other users instead of final usage of whatever you make.
Now, if you think that your ability film is more important than protecting the land from damage, ie you think that you can wreck the land for a photo or video, or if you think that your ability to film is somehow more important than other users' experiences, then I'd disagree with you. I'd call that a selfish view. I hope you don't believe that, but that's where I stand.
The federal government and federal land management agencies have to follow the laws, and the old law wasn't relevant to new technology. That it wasn't updated until now is directly the fault of previous elected politicians. The last president and previous Congresses could have changed it. They didn't I'm glad that they got it done now, because based on the new House rules it looks like they are going to start giving away federal lands. If/when that happens, you won't have any rights to use them. Just based on their rules, the incoming Congress doesn't look friendly to the outdoors and our jointly owned federal lands.
Finally, the government needs to balance competing usages of our federal lands. If it was a free for all, then a nudist could freely walk around in parks and park visitor centers. Maybe nudists would love that, but I know I wouldn't and most people wouldn't. This new law attempts to balance the needs of photographers and filmmakers, commercial or noncommercial, and the needs of the general public who encounter them and the health of our public lands. I think the balance seems good. I have concerns about how land managers might interpret the restriction about busy areas, but I'll have to wait to see if there are any issues that arise.
I won't apologize for my freedom of speech or my disdain of our government and politicians because of how the system has mostly benefitted white privileged men for centuries, including those who helped protect the lands we are talking about here. And I will further say, in agreeance with you, the "wonderful" upcoming administration people voted in will only go to hurt the future of this country, including our private and public lands.
However I will commend you on your detailed response which is very beneficial and practicing your own right to censor or not censor your comments.
I see and agree with many of your points. I too believe in conservationism and doing our best to protect cultures, animals, and land that would be completely wiped out today if many of those laws weren't in place. I also get angry when I see the millions of stupid tourists place their own selfish interests over the laws and regulations such places have enacted for good reason - many of which do more harm individually than a larger filming crew.
So I truly understand and get it.
Perhaps it was my own ignorance on how this specific law worked in the past or now, but what I know is indie videographers and bloggers were being told to take down their work because they didn't get a permit or couldn't afford it, sometimes even being threatened by legal action. For big productions I see the reasoning, but not an every day Joe trying to tell a story or make a living. So I'm thankful people in the government woke up and did something right for a change.
One aspect that appalls me is how the government talks about "saving our land" while not investing more money or resources into protecting it, while wasting billions of dollars on other non-important pursuits or agendas that bring more harm to people and our environment. Wind farms and fracking come to mind, as does the "war on terror" many in my community suffered from.
I know people will disagree and believe the government acts in the best interest of the public, but after what I've researched and experienced in life so far, this is rare because it always relates to what they gain from their policies.
I'm always open to listening to the views of other people and learning because I'm not perfect or always right, but it will be difficult to convince me most modern lawmakers are thinking of you or me as a beneficiary in their pursuits.
For that one, I already operate under a Commercial Use Authorization. Where this law changes things is that because we are permitted, we can now film without any worry.
This is great news! Maybe I'm confusing rules for National Parks vs wilderness areas, but I thought there was an exception for artistic endeavors vs commercial activity. In any case, the rules really seemed outdated and not applicable to someone, by themselves, photographing or filming with a camera, GoPro, etc.
I made a film with a GoPro of a trip to Gregory Bald a couple of years ago and posted it on YouTube. I figured, with only 25 subscribers to my channel it would be well below anyone's radar! 🤣
I spent a night on Mount LeConte back in October. There were a ton of people there, but how do the parks define 'crowded'? Every other person was carrying a GoPro!
Artistic endeavors was never called out in law as far as I know. The distinction was commercial versus noncommercial.
The biggest issue is going to be what land managers decide a "very high level of visitation" means. I can see photography banned where it was allowed before if the land managers get out-of-control with this new criteria.
Yeah, I just looked it up. You're right, it doesn't state that in the law. I think I may have heard that in a podcast, but they might have just been giving examples of noncommercial, or something.
right on
Thanks very much for this detailed analysis!
Excellent info, thanks for sharing.
As an aside I particularly like that dog wood photograph. Lovely composition, the white petals balance well with the white extruded time capture of the water.
Thanks for your report, Bryan! Another "for the people" bit of policy/legislation left to us by the Biden administration.
I understand there are reasons for every law and guideline, but fuck the government if they want to tell me (past or present) on what I can film or photograph - especially when they've profiteered off Americans for so long. Sorry for my rant but enough is enough for private citizens trying to make a living from their abilities.
James, I've tried to figure out the best way to phrase this politely and to avoid the kind of tenor that you used in your comment. I also debated about just hiding your comment, but I've heard your opinion from others and have had your frustration in the past but not to the extent of hate that your comment seems to suggest but frustration for sure.
The original law was designed before people had access to easily portable video cameras that could be used to film high quality footage. It was written before YouTube was around. It was designed to protect the land against large video productions that not only could hurt the land that the government protects for you and I and everyone not yet born, and it was designed to protect normal visitors and guarantee that people could have access to their lands without some movie production intern ushering them off.
For photography, we had the Ansel Adams law, which protected photography on federal lands even if use commercially, unless it involved stuff like hauling products into the parks with lighting systems, etc. If you weren't doing that, you could sell your nature photography without issues. This was to protect the land and average user experience.
Bigger commercial groups could do movies, such as when Star Wars filmed in Death Valley, and advertisements could be photographed, but there were required permits. Typically, in the past those types of things required large productions that caused major impacts. The last time I was in Death Valley a large production company was filming a commercial and shooting photos for a new electric car. That was all done under a permit.
The reason that they charge money for those types of permits is because the federal government is required to do cost recovery. Cost recovery isn't profiting. I can go into this further if you want, but basically it costs money to run parks and make sure that large productions are sticking to the rules that prevent damage to the land or impact other users. The federal government is required to recover the cost that they spend on that. You can agree with or disagree with whether or not the government should be forced to recover their costs when involved with large productions (as outlined above), but I don't think that politicians are going to say that the tax payer should foot the bill for a Hollywood movie.
Now...
The new law recognizes that not all video production impacts the land and other users like it did in the past. Because of that, the new law doesn't require a permit for what I'd call low impact filming (as outlined above). I personally fall into this category, and the new laws allows me to do more and will allow me to tell stories in a new way without having to get a permit. I can't imagine doing something that doesn't fit within the eight criteria.
It also standardizes rules for photography and filming. In the past, there were two sets of rules that were somewhat confusing.
This new law simplifies everything, makes the rules clear, and is based on your impact to the land and other users instead of final usage of whatever you make.
Now, if you think that your ability film is more important than protecting the land from damage, ie you think that you can wreck the land for a photo or video, or if you think that your ability to film is somehow more important than other users' experiences, then I'd disagree with you. I'd call that a selfish view. I hope you don't believe that, but that's where I stand.
The federal government and federal land management agencies have to follow the laws, and the old law wasn't relevant to new technology. That it wasn't updated until now is directly the fault of previous elected politicians. The last president and previous Congresses could have changed it. They didn't I'm glad that they got it done now, because based on the new House rules it looks like they are going to start giving away federal lands. If/when that happens, you won't have any rights to use them. Just based on their rules, the incoming Congress doesn't look friendly to the outdoors and our jointly owned federal lands.
Finally, the government needs to balance competing usages of our federal lands. If it was a free for all, then a nudist could freely walk around in parks and park visitor centers. Maybe nudists would love that, but I know I wouldn't and most people wouldn't. This new law attempts to balance the needs of photographers and filmmakers, commercial or noncommercial, and the needs of the general public who encounter them and the health of our public lands. I think the balance seems good. I have concerns about how land managers might interpret the restriction about busy areas, but I'll have to wait to see if there are any issues that arise.
This is a good law that strikes a good balance.
Bryan,
I won't apologize for my freedom of speech or my disdain of our government and politicians because of how the system has mostly benefitted white privileged men for centuries, including those who helped protect the lands we are talking about here. And I will further say, in agreeance with you, the "wonderful" upcoming administration people voted in will only go to hurt the future of this country, including our private and public lands.
However I will commend you on your detailed response which is very beneficial and practicing your own right to censor or not censor your comments.
I see and agree with many of your points. I too believe in conservationism and doing our best to protect cultures, animals, and land that would be completely wiped out today if many of those laws weren't in place. I also get angry when I see the millions of stupid tourists place their own selfish interests over the laws and regulations such places have enacted for good reason - many of which do more harm individually than a larger filming crew.
So I truly understand and get it.
Perhaps it was my own ignorance on how this specific law worked in the past or now, but what I know is indie videographers and bloggers were being told to take down their work because they didn't get a permit or couldn't afford it, sometimes even being threatened by legal action. For big productions I see the reasoning, but not an every day Joe trying to tell a story or make a living. So I'm thankful people in the government woke up and did something right for a change.
One aspect that appalls me is how the government talks about "saving our land" while not investing more money or resources into protecting it, while wasting billions of dollars on other non-important pursuits or agendas that bring more harm to people and our environment. Wind farms and fracking come to mind, as does the "war on terror" many in my community suffered from.
I know people will disagree and believe the government acts in the best interest of the public, but after what I've researched and experienced in life so far, this is rare because it always relates to what they gain from their policies.
I'm always open to listening to the views of other people and learning because I'm not perfect or always right, but it will be difficult to convince me most modern lawmakers are thinking of you or me as a beneficiary in their pursuits.
- James
Thanks for going over this. This will be "news you can use" for those joining you in the Smokies come April
For that one, I already operate under a Commercial Use Authorization. Where this law changes things is that because we are permitted, we can now film without any worry.
This is great news! Maybe I'm confusing rules for National Parks vs wilderness areas, but I thought there was an exception for artistic endeavors vs commercial activity. In any case, the rules really seemed outdated and not applicable to someone, by themselves, photographing or filming with a camera, GoPro, etc.
I made a film with a GoPro of a trip to Gregory Bald a couple of years ago and posted it on YouTube. I figured, with only 25 subscribers to my channel it would be well below anyone's radar! 🤣
I spent a night on Mount LeConte back in October. There were a ton of people there, but how do the parks define 'crowded'? Every other person was carrying a GoPro!
Artistic endeavors was never called out in law as far as I know. The distinction was commercial versus noncommercial.
The biggest issue is going to be what land managers decide a "very high level of visitation" means. I can see photography banned where it was allowed before if the land managers get out-of-control with this new criteria.
Yeah, I just looked it up. You're right, it doesn't state that in the law. I think I may have heard that in a podcast, but they might have just been giving examples of noncommercial, or something.
Thanks for the info, though!
I’m glad the current administration has enacted this common sense measure.
The Biden administration did a good job in getting this passed.
I never realized there are rules like this. Thank you for letting me know!
You're welcome. The old rules were terrible. These make much more sense.