Bob... was that for a day's shooting? or ?

Hi
Strange rules you have over-there. It's probably like that, some places in europe too. In Denmark we do not have that kind of practice. The nature belongs to all of us - or all of us belong to the nature. The more the nature comes on television - the better understanding there will be of wildlife. Last year we got our first nationalpark in Denmark and I do not see any movements for the board to wish payment for filming - they are more than happy to get the Nationalpark exposed. I cannot see why anybody should pay for filming in a park - Nature filming is not profitable although we try to make a living out of it.
Sorry for my english.

Bo

Chris, The fee would have been for a Travel DVD I'm working on which will take the rest of this year of intermitent filming. I live near the Park.

So, let me rephrase what i understand you to be saying....

1. You were charged a fee of $350 for an entire summer's worth of intermittent shooting... a two or less man crew.

and 2. They say that is now a standard fee in all the National Parks?

I ask because the website for Glacier National Park quotes still a $150 a day fee.

I was told by one ranger that the fees can vary. For instance, one national monument was willing to give me a permit valid for a year for $50.

Yellowstone on the other hand wanted $200 for the permit and $65 an hour for a ranger escort.

I guess I just need to present my lovely self and see what they say on the day I am there. It really ought to be standardized. (sigh). This sucks.

This document, found on the Glacier web site --
http://www.nps.gov/glac/planyourvisit/upload/Filming%20&%20Photo%20Applications%20-%20Permit%20Information%20092606.pdf

--says 1-2 people, camera and tripod only, there is no fee.


Duane

No, it says you don't have to pay LOCATION fees. Says you are still subject to cost recovery fees etc.

It was going to cost me thousands to film in Yellowstone with no LOCATION fees. They wanted to have a ranger follow me all over to make sure I was following the rules and because my tripod was a "trip hazard". Even though pro still photographers would have been right next to me with their cameras mounted on tripods.

This document, found on the Glacier web site

This defines commercial filming as digital or film--so if you still shoot Beta SP, you should be fine.

Commercial videographers, cinematographers or sound recording crews of up to two people with only minimal equipment (i.e. a camera and a tripod) working in areas open to the public are required to obtain a commercial filming permit and are subject to appropriate permit terms and conditions and cost recovery charges but are not subject to location fees

You're screwed with Beta SP too.

You're screwed with Beta SP too.

Hey, I'm just reporting what I read.

Commercial videographers, cinematographers or sound recording crews of up to two people with only minimal equipment (i.e. a camera and a tripod) working in areas open to the public are required to obtain a commercial filming permit and are subject to appropriate permit terms and conditions and cost recovery charges but are not subject to location fees

You're screwed with Beta SP too.

This is not true. I was involved with filming 2 docs in Yosemite and on 2 separate occasions we had no problems whatsoever.
First of all- know your rights. Your problem was you talked to some idiot ranger. You are on a public property. That means you can film, unless the areas are closed to the public. If the ranger had a different opinion he should have quoted you an RCW governing this area of the park law. There are no such RCW, as they would be in violation with 1st amendment. Even ban on firearms in national park was overturned last year (not that i like it), but it shows the trend.
The worst come to worst they would have cited you. National parks have federal judges, who would gladly hear your case .
I think the whole issue is absurd- my approach- keep low profile and DON'T ASK RANGERS! (for a period of 10 years I spent numerous months in national parks, so i am talking from the first hand experience)
After more digging:
"Permits are generally are not required for:
Visitors using cameras and/or recording devices for their own personal use."
Unless you have contract in hand any work is considered "personal use" till actually sold.

The idiot ranger I talked to was Lee Dickinson in Washington.

There will be cost recovery charges to cover the cost of processing the application and if approved, issuing the permit. For crews of 1 - 2 people, camera and tripod only the location fee is zero. There may be places where you will wish to film that a monitor will be necessary. Please discuss this specifically with the park filming permit coordinator Stacy Vallie. You can find her contact information and other information about obtaining a permit at Yellowstone at Yellowstone National Park (U.S. National Park Service) (http://www.nps.gov/yell)
Lee Dickinson
Special Park Uses Program Manager
Visitor and Resource Protection
National Park Service
202/513-7092
202/371-1710 (fax)

The problem was Stacy wanted me to have a monitor the whole time I was there.


I guess I just need to be like everyone else and just ignore the rules and shoot anyway.

Unless you have contract in hand any work is considered "personal use" till actually sold.

Excellent point.

Robert,
I guess I am one of those idiot park rangers. At my location staying under the radar (one or two persons) generally works. We require filming permits for events such as concerts, commerical advertisements, movies etc. Those that fit this catagory may require rangers to facilitate traffic control, safety, perimeter security and to prevent damage to public property. Permit fees are calculated by me based on a $50 initial fee then the time/equipment charges of the rangers. I recall a permit I issued to HBO to film a part of the movie "Warm Springs". They used a closed campground on the lake for about 5 days with a 30 person crew. We prepared the park for thier use (electricity and restrooms etc.) and had a ranger with them to facilitate any issues that came up during the shoot about use of the property. The total cost of thier permit was $800 which was reasonable to both parties. HBO was greatful for the ranger presence.

Of course what is really at issue here is every federal agency and even parks may have different rules and interpretations to follow. Some reasonable and some not. The proposed bill defines a small crew and IMO is fair. I don't have a problem (myself) paying $200 a year to film on all federal property if it alleviates possible arguement with the authorities. Also, it would be fine with me if H. R. 5502 was reauthored to define that the "small crew" does not require a permit.

As far as the outcome of filming w/o a permit, I have issued 4 citations in my career for filming w/o a permit. They were large operations (over 15 man crews) and were generally uncooperative. They were evicted from the property and all went before a federal magistrate. I won all 4 cases. Fines ranged from $125 to $500. In all but one instance the defendants came back several weeks later with a better attitude and got the proper permit.

Mark,

Can you get a job in Yellowstone! :)

I'd happily pay $200 for an annual permit, especially if the money stays in the park system.

I've seen the parks and its services deteriorate because their budgets are some of the first to be cut. So if I can film on Federal land for $200 a year and it all stays for Parks, BLM, Forests etc then I'm all for it.

I think it'll also help out with all the people who don't live in the US and pay taxes that maintain the parks etc from kicking in some too.

But don't ask me to pay $4k in fees to stand next to a still photographer who is shooting the same thing I'd be shooting and not even require a permit period.

Hi Kevin,

I keep tracking the progress of H. R. 5502 and it seems to be going no where. I think its time to rekindle the e-mail campaign to our legislators. I think this bill has a better chance of going forward under the "new" administration than the old. My experience is that funding for federal recreation agencies has generally faired better under the democrats. As far as the condition of the federal parks you might find this interesting. I spent the afternoon today responding to our agency participation in a stimulus spending package exercise. Look's like there is a 50/50 chance of addtional $$$ for facility maintenance, road paving, modernization and energy conservation. I think this may apply in some fashion to most federal agencies.

As far as working in Yellowstone...not my cup of tea. I have heard way to many horror stories about working there. Also, this will be my last year with the feds as I am retiring and plan to be shooting video full time.

Hey..... I just thought of a new angle.

It is based on Canon's new DSLR that cans also shoot some pretty awesome video.

I go into the park to shoot commercial stills. No permit. Just me, camera and tripod

At some point I change the camera to shoot some commercially intended video. Same camera, same tripod and still just me.

Did that trigger a need for a permit? Recovery fees?

WHY???????

Food for thought.

Chris

Mark, as far as you describe:
"As far as the outcome of filming w/o a permit, I have issued 4 citations in my career for filming w/o a permit. They were large operations (over 15 man crews) and were generally uncooperative. They were evicted from the property and all went before a federal magistrate. I won all 4 cases. Fines ranged from $125 to $500. In all but one instance the defendants came back several weeks later with a better attitude and got the proper permit."
There is a big, big difference between 1 or 2 person party filming something that might sell and 15-30 person crew working on a budgeted commercial project. I filmed a few climbing documentaries in Yosemite 2 times, and I filmed recently in Canadian Rockies (Banff and Jasper NP). In Yosemite we decided to "fly under radar" upon the advice of a friendly ranger; in Canada nobody cares at all. Anyway, from a legal stand point any work is considered a "private use", unless there is actual contract for sale in place. If a party wants me to do a commercial in Yosemite NP, they pay for the work it is a commercial filming venture. If I am filming a climbing party on El Capitan, hoping to sell it to Versus or ESPN later on it is a private use till the sale goes through. You'd have mighty hard time convincing any federal judge otherwise. (I checked with my DA friend on this one).
As you see I am against this stupid micro management on public lands. Reminds me situations, where land managers regulate anchor placements in rock climbing areas, next to highways and several power lines running through within few hundreds of feet. Simply doesn't make any sense.

Robert,

I agree with most of what you said. Its all in how the regulations are written. NPS and USFS have specific filming regulations. Mine (USACE) does not but includes it under special event permits and unauthorized commercial activity which covers basically anything you want it to. You are entitled to your intepretation of the regulations and feel free to test them. I am just stating my experiences as a private citizen videographer and regulatory enforcer. Actually it all comes down to how the US Magistrate interprets things. I have had two different Magistrates render different rullings on almost identical offenses. The key to resolving this whole situation IMO is to get legislation passed to exempt small crews from permits or have a yearly low cost permit that is good on all federal lands regardless of which agency manages it.

Mark, I think this legislature is a slippery slope leading only down. The next thing we know you'll need a permit to set up a camera to film your family in a park. Because how are you going to distinguish a person filming a stock footage vs a few guys climbing a rock route while filming for a private use? And like I said- even stock footage is considered "private use" till actually sold.
BTW a lot of stock footage/ picture companies will require model and location releases, so again- why regulate things twice?
Also looking at this regulation it doesn't include USFS or BLM, so yet again back to square one and legislate through them?What about State Parks? Separate legislature- yet again. I am sick and tired of paying stupid fees. First of all- these entities are part of budgets, which are financed by taxes. Yet every one of them also charges user fees on the top. USFS charges yearly permits for parking at the trailheads, BLM does the same, NP charge entry fees. In one year any outdoor person is forced to pay over 200 bucks in order to go anywhere in the Western US!
Sorry, but if the legislature goes through I am not paying any more stupid fees! I am simply fed up

Robert,

Not to get you fired up but you might find this interesting reading.
Three cited by USFS for illegal filming | Aspen Daily News Online (http://www.aspendailynews.com/section/home/127875)

“The message is that folks that are going to be doing any filming on the national forest, other than for their home use, most likely need to have a permit. They should be contacting the Forest Service in advance.”

Well, I'd like to see these guys or someone else push it and see what happens.

Robert,

Not to get you fired up but you might find this interesting reading.
Three cited by USFS for illegal filming | Aspen Daily News Online (http://www.aspendailynews.com/section/home/127875)

Mark, yet again 2 issues. When the contract is in place it is a commercial work. If there is not it is private use. When you bid a job know the rules and costs (like permits). When you film something hoping it might sell in the future it is a private use till the work sells.
In this case it will be hard to argue private use while filming with 35 mm camera and having contract in place.

I stumbled upon this thread today and was fascinated. There does appear to be a double standard between NPS treatment of photographers and videographers.

It looks like this issue is not dead yet! Check out this link:

H.R. 2031: To amend Public Law 106-206 to direct the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of... (GovTrack.us) (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-2031)

So, it looks like we need to get a email/letter campaign going again.

What can we do to advance this bill?

Ryan

I emailed Congressman Boswell from my home state who is on the House Committee on Agriculture.

I'll give him a call next week to see if there's anything he can do to push it forward.
If any of the committee members are from your state, you should write them and let them know.

I'm writing the CA representative now.. although I am not in his District. We HAVE to get this out of committee... I think if we do it will be the equivalent of a "consent item" in the House and senate. I'll own permit number 1. (or in the first few anyway.)

Any suggestions on how one should handle this after the filming has been done? I took a trip a few years back and went through a couple of parks. I did some minimal shooting in the Grand Canyon, Zion and Death Valley. All of the shots were from my VW bus or along the road and in parking lots. At the time I really didn't think fees would be required but in researching all of this I'm now seeing that I should have inquired. I was and still am pretty new to all this. I just find it odd that you would be charged for promoting a park. I can understand if rangers are required but one person with a camera?

I wouldn't even worry about it. Most people I know are simply ignoring the rule and shooting whatever they want.

I wouldn't even worry about it. Most people I know are simply ignoring the rule and shooting whatever they want.

That's what I was thinking. It's not like I was out in a helicopter trapping and releasing bears with Marlin Perkins or anything. :)

Any progress on this or is it dead in the political waters?

I haven't heard a peep about it.

Am I reading this wrong, or did the senate resurrect this?

Bill Text - 112th Congress (2011-2012) - THOMAS (Library of Congress) (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:S.1136:)

Says it went to committee in May of 2011.

I discovered this today during a google search I made after calling my Senator's (Mike Lee, Utah) Office for an appointment to discuss this issue. I'll be meeting with one of his staff sometime in the near future. I figured emails are just too easy to ignore, so I'm going personally.

I'm reading that I would need to pay $200 per year and give 48 hours notice if I was to shoot in a public area. Would this include hauling out the video gear for a commercial shoot of Yellowstone?

Scott,
That definitely wouldn't fly in Yellowstone. See this site for details:
Yellowstone National Park - Film, Photography and Sound Recording Permits (U.S. National Park Service) (http://www.nps.gov/yell/parkmgmt/filmpermit.htm)

I know this is an old thread, but this is an issue that has been eating at me for a long time. I finally resolved a few months ago to start contacting my representatives. I spoke at length on the phone to Congressman Jim Matheson's office (D, Utah) two days ago, and I just got off the phone with Senator Mike Lee's Office (R, Utah) a few minutes ago. I've written a persuasive letter to them, and I've been given a meeting with Senator Lee's office tomorrow morning. Senator Lee is a big supporter of the people having access to public lands, so I think he would be a good "champion" for this cause. I'll report back when I have something to report. Otherwise, here's the letter I've sent to both representatives (wish me luck!):

Dear <representative>,

I am a small, independent film-maker in southern Utah. I've lived within 30 minutes of Zion National Park for my entire life and I love the scenery and wildlife that are available for the public to enjoy there. Having said that, I believe that the current film-permit system in our national parks is unfair, unequally implemented, and may even be unconstitutional. I would like to bring this issue to your attention.

My main points of consideration:

1. As photography and film-making have shifted to digital formats, they have become less expensive by orders of magnitude. A $500 camera can now film with a picture quality that would have cost hundreds of thousands of dollars less than ten years ago. With these advances, the number of people charging for photo and video services has also increased exponentially. Hence, with the competition, rates for services have also plummeted. However, the cost of film-permits in our national parks has remained relatively static. Requiring a small, independent videographer to pay for a film-permit in a national park will usually result in the job becoming a net loss for the videographer. The policy essentially amounts to a “Stay out unless you're one of the big boys” rule for permit-requiring public lands.

2. Well-made, thoughtful videos published on such outlets as YouTube, Vimeo and other internet media aggregators essentially amount to free publicity for the park being filmed. They also often encourage conservation and responsible use.

3. Because of the advances in technology, many videographers are now filming their footage on the exact same equipment that still photographers are using (See for instance, the Canon 5D Mk II, Canon 7D, Canon T2i, Nikon D7000, Nikon D90, Sony A77, Sony NEX-5n, etc). The permit suddenly becomes required, literally, at the flip of a switch.

4. A good Case-study is Yellowstone National Park. Yellowstone requires the following:
a non-refundable, $200 application processing fee.
An additional $65/hour if processing takes over three hours.
A minimum of $150/day for “location fees.” (up to $750/day)
A Ranger monitoring all filming (or location scouting) activities at a rate of $65/hr (to be paid in advance). The Ranger also limits the film-maker's flexibility, because he/she cannot work longer than 12 hours in a day.
A $1,000,000 insurance policy.

5. In addition, many parks require a copy of a script and/or storyboard to be submitted before a permit can be approved. While the purposes of this are ostensibly to protect against anything dangerous being filmed in the parks, it certainly provides an opportunity for curtailing the freedom of speech of an independent film-maker as well.
6. It is not just the national parks who have been implementing these policies. Increasingly, national forests, national monuments, and other federal lands have started implementing their own film-permit fee structures, along with some state government agencies. In a state such as Utah, that is 62% federally owned, it is getting difficult to find any scenic places where it is legal to turn on a video camera without paying a fee or a fine. Especially when factoring in the additional lands owned by the state government.

Conclusion: These rules were obviously made to minimize damage and offset the impact caused by large, Hollywood-style film crews and productions. A small (5 people or less) group making a video can have less impact than a group of backpackers, and can even help to promote a park's cause. In our digital age, these small groups are now the norm, not the exception, but they are still being hindered from enjoying the parks in the same manner as still photographers by rules that were not designed with the digital age or small groups in mind. Such groups are further limited by monetary requirements that are simply out of reach. Charging such exorbitant amounts to these small, independent film-makers who have little or no impact for the park to mitigate, or from which the park must recover, essentially amounts to taxing photons at best, and prohibiting them entry at worst.

I would ask that <representative> introduce legislation similar to the failed H.R. 5502 from 2008 (died in committee) to correct this problem. We small producers need a true champion on this issue or we will continue to be marginalized. Please feel free to contact me for any questions.

Alex Chamberlain
Blue Desert Digital

It's not just for National Parks. Filming Permits and Fees are required for "all Federal Lands" including Bureau of Land Management. BLM, all Federal Forests, all lands administered by the U.S. Forest Service and Department of Agriculture, Department of Energy, Historical Monuments, and even some navigable inland waters administrated by the Federal Government.

Some Government Agencies enforce the new laws more stringently than others. Stick a pro-sized video camera on a tripod, and eventually you will get some attention from a young, and well armed enforcement officer.

Some states are looking at similar filming restrictions on State Lands.

the world, it's a changing.

Right you are, David. See point 6 of my letter. I'll be discussing this with Mike Lee's office tomorrow morning.

Basically these fees, originally disguised as a way to protect the environment from herds of filmmakers, have now been revealed for what they truly are...an income stream. It's truly unfortunate because the government is penalizing people for promoting their resources. Free advertising. I was going to shoot some travel docs down through the U.S. but I might just bee line into Mexico and leave the headaches behind me.

I talked to a retired US Forest Service Administrator. He told me that the final goal of the US Forest Service is to monitor and track every individual, and activity on Federal Lands in "real Time" using a combination of regulation, permit, and GPS chip which will be attached to the permit. He said the goal was to better control the flow of people, eliminate over use, and better utilize the forest resources. He said that in the name of security, and personal safety, the program will be phased in during the next ten years.

I believe he was telling me the truth.

For filming, I see things getting more restrictive, not less.

Even here in the wilds of Alaska:

Larry Csonka fined $5K for filming without permit

Associated Press

ANCHORAGE, Alaska -- Larry Csonka's mother used to tell him, "Don't make a federal case out of it." Now, he says, he knows what she meant.

Csonka, the host of a cable television show filmed in Alaska, was fined $5,000 on Wednesday for conducting commercial work in a national forest without obtaining a special use permit, a case he said could have been handled administratively.

"The National Forest Service and the prosecutor's office wanted to make an example out of it," he said.

Csonka is host of "NAPA's North to Alaska," a show that appears weekly on OLN and features fishing, hunting, history and customs from around the state.

He called his prosecution "going to the guillotine for running a traffic light."

In January, Csonka reached an agreement to plead guilty to two misdemeanor counts of filming on national forest land without proper permits, once on Mitkoff Island and once last year near Cordova.

Besides fining Csonka the maximum $2,500 on each count, federal Magistrate John Roberts ordered him to pay $3,887 in restitution and placed him on probation for one year. That could be shortened once Csonka completes a public service announcement using footage shot in the Cordova area violation.

Retta Randall, an assistant U.S. attorney, said Csonka and his company, Zonk! Productions, were warned in the first incident that they needed a permit.

"They were told to go to the office to get a permit retroactively," she said. "That did not happen."

In the second, she said, Csonka claimed he relied on a lodge owner to vouch that the area in which filming occurred was not on Forest Service land.

"Frankly, the lodge owner does not do the filming," she said.

She acknowledged that the case would likely be noted by others who use Forest Service land.

"The fine is basically to sort of get his attention, but more importantly, it's to send a message to other film makers who use this land," Randall said.

Audrey Bradshaw, executive producer of the show, said 26 episodes of Csonka's show have been produced annually over nine seasons. Many were shot on Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management or Native Alaskans' land, and that the company consistently has obtained necessary permits, she said.

"There was no intent of skirting the law," she said.

The first incident in 2002 resulted from a miscommunication between a crew in the field and the Zonk! Productions office, Csonka said after sentencing.

"The check was supposed to be sent in," he said. "We thought it had. By the time the accountant caught it, it was too late."

The production company itself reported the second incident after filming scene-setting shots near a glacier and spotting a Forest Service truck drive by.

Csonka said Alaska's patchwork pattern of land ownership creates confusion for people operating in rural Alaska, where ownership can vary widely along a single river.

"I've relied heavily on the information of locals in the areas we visit but in most cases they're as confused about the invisible boundaries of the national forests as I am," he said.

Csonka's attorney, Kevin Fitzgerald, asked Roberts to impose no fine. Between restitution, fees, and possible loss of sponsorships, the demands of the law had been satisfied, he said.

Judge Roberts, however, used a football analogy to address Csonka. He told the Hall of Fame fullback that he needed a game plan in researching land ownership and obtaining permits before taking to the field.

"The way of doing business does not give you license to disregard the law," Roberts said.

The Csonka incident was definitely a "lets make an example of them" case. As a federal land manager (now retired) for over 30 years, I can say it is doubtful that this issue will resolved with a fair regulation that is applied equally by all federal agencies. But hey, you got to try. As one who used to administer the "permits" program on the lake I worked I thought a $200 annual fee would be fair. You pay your fee then you are free to go about your business. But, I can't see each federal agency making it that easy and there will be additional red tape and "administrative support" fees. There is always some bureaucrat wanting to make a new position or office to extend an agency's involvement. I watched this happen with my own agency after this thread started where a simple permit to film issued upon walking into the park office has now become a complicated and costly process now handled by one district office in L.A. US Army Corps of Engineers - Los Angeles District - Film Permitting Information (http://www.spl.usace.army.mil/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=42&Itemid=32)

Here is some recent observations. During my filming travels over the past several years doing "stock" video work on federal lands in the southeast I have rarely run into the authorities . In fact with federal budget cuts there are fewer enforcement rangers in the field as most vacancies go unfilled. A one man show filming scenery in a remote area has a pretty good chance of going unobserved. If you are encountered and not working under some type of contract then basically it should be argued that you are a tourist. It is up to them to prove otherwise. With wider use of professional gear for recreational purposes these days, the type gear you use does not in itself indicate that you are a commercial enterprise.

If you are doing a commercial project then by all means get a permit and pass the cost on to your employer. Your employer would probably require location authorization anyway. As a side note I did get permission from the Forest Service a year ago to shoot and produce a DVD for sale at one of their park visitor centers. There was no permit fee involved and they agreed that it would benefit the park. I will hang on to that email authorization for ever.

Also, from what I am reading it might be more reasonably priced to get a permit to commercially film on state land.

This is just crazy. Small time productions should be exempt from this kind of thing. I just finished a 2 month trip filming in about 12 national parks and the only place we had a problem was in Bryce. The ranger was off-duty and let us off the hook. The crazy thing is my producer called about 3 national parks and they all told him he didn't need a permit since we were just basically running around with a camera and a collapsible reflector.

Oh well, hope he doesn't get fined retroactively.

If there is anything I can do to get a bill passed that makes it clear and simple for us videographers, I will... but I am ticket off by having to pay fees to film on public lands when you aren't disturbing anyone.

What a load of crap... so what are we supposed to do if some day we decide we want to sell stock footage of these places? Get a permit for something we did in the past?

Professional photographers were the smart ones. They were included in the original legislation but lobbied to have professional photographers removed from the bill.
So, we can stand right next to a Nat Geo photographer who can shoot anywhere the public is allowed to go without a permit but because we shoot video, we need one.

Kevin,
I'm still involved in what I feel are very productive talks with two of my representatives here (Mike Lee, Utah Senator, and Jim Matheson, Utah Representative). For the purpose of my discussion, can you give me a source for the Still Photographer lobbying thing? I think that might be a good thing to show them. Thanks!

It was NANPA ( North American Nature Photography Association )that lobbied to have still photographers excluded from the law.

When this all happened to me with Yellowstone, I talked to then president Susan Clark about it.
But it would talk to the NANPA people. They were the ones that had photographers removed because they were initially on the original bill.

Their URL is North American Nature Photography Association - NANPA (http://www.nanpa.org/)
I know when I talked to Susan about it, some NANPA members were starting to talk about it since video was starting to be incorporated into DSLR's.
So as more photographers started adding video to their portfolio the topic was being tossed around since by flicking a switch, the would be breaking the law.

Uh, how about Kathy Adams Clark
Don't know where the heck I got Susan from!!

So as more photographers started adding video to their portfolio the topic was being tossed around since by flicking a switch, the would be breaking the law.

As I read through this thread that is all I could think about. Today there is a very very fuzzy line between photography and videography. One minute I am snapping away at the grizzly and her cubs, the next I am rolling some video as they cross the river. Where do I fit in? I have the exact same footprint as shooting the video as I did shooting the photos. Heck, I didn't even have to reach in my bag to grab a different camera to put on my tripod! The government does not understand this. Not sure if that is a good or bad thing, but flying under the radar with a dslr to shoot some video may be one way around this madness.

Just got off the phone with Senator Mike Lee's office, and they are contacting NANPA to see if they're interested in being listed as a group that supports this legislation. They've also asked me to try to gather evidence of support. So my question is this: What form could we use to show evidence of a number of people who would support a change in the law here? I could create a Google Doc that we could all list our names/contact info. if everyone would feel comfortable with that, or is there a more effective way? At the very least, I'd like to quote some of the sentiments from this thread. Thoughts? Thanks!

I see NANPA has added video to their Filming on Public Lands position as something that should not require a permit.
http://www.nanpa.org/docs/PublicLandsAccess.pdf

It might be good to see what Chris Hurd thinks about allowing the petition link as a new thread.