I hear ya Bob! There is so much beauty out there to film that I really don't miss going to Yellowstone.

I'm headed out this afternoon to do a bit of filming and I doubt I'll see a single person out there.

So who knows, maybe this turns out to be a good deal that they're forcing me to look elsewhere to get my nature fix. All I know is that there are no souvenir shops, no laundromats, no restaurants where I film now. Just the stuff that turned me on to nature and wildlife filmmaking years ago, nature!

In California shooting in State Parks is the same as shooting in National Parks. It cost me just south of $1000 for a day of shooting elephant seals at Ano Nuevo. I don't know if they are policing it the way NPS appears to be by going after people post-shooting, but I don't think they have the resources for that at present. To me it's not the permit fee that bothers me (although I'd love to see it a bit lower), it the the ranger monitor requirement that is so burdensome. It was me, an assistant, camera and sticks. The ranger sat in a chair, read a book all day and told me not to fall off the cliff onto the beach. I paid $700+ for that!?

I have since found another location that is not on State Park land and it is soooo much better and no one cares that I am there.

In Utah, nearly 80% of the state is government controlled, so there's almost no chance of being able to find places to shoot where the law doesn't apply. That said, the National Parks are certainly more likely to be a problem than, say, a tract of BLM desert south of town. I thought I might chime in here for a second. Please don't think that the low number of signatures on the petition means its a failure. The petition is already a success. Senator Lee's office asked me to put the petition together to show interest in the topic beyond my own correspondence with them. I think it has already done that. I have a conference call sometime within the next two weeks with the Senator, the Utah film commissioner (who is now actively supportive) and a few other great folks to hammer out language, which we're hoping can be presented to the Senate after the November elections. Don't despair yet. Things are still moving - albeit at the speed of government.

David,

I think most of us would be fine paying like an annual permit fee. I totally agree with you about the ranger escort fees. As long as you are doing the same thing that you allow the general public to do, you should not have to pay an escort fee.

One filmmaker and an assistant shouldn't even have to pay a fee in my opinion if you allow commercial photographers to shoot for free so they can get their Nat Geo covers. But I'd go along with an annual fee just to get them off my back.

I don't think I need to be paying $65 an hour to a ranger in Yellowstone because my tripod is a tripping hazard when a photographer with two Nat Geo covers is right next to me with the same tripod.

Kevin,
I agree. When a video set-up's footprint is the same as a stills photographer and I am paying a permit fee and they are not is utterly ridiculous. A yearly fee I would be game to especially if it was transferable to all parks much like the Golden Eagle passes are for entrance fees. But, really, it would be nice to get everyone on the same ground and establish a threshold that triggers a fee such as crew size or amount of gear being used.

I also can't help but think of all the timelapsers out there doing mo-co shots that is technically video but they fall under the stills guidelines. I'd love to tell a ranger "yeah I am shooting stills too, just 24 per second!"

It's interesting that the Nat Geo cover photographer I was going to go with on a winter tour before the permit fiasco isn't offering any Yellowstone trips for the rest of 2012 or 2013.

He used to have some video that was shot on the tour to promote it. I'll have to ask him of the park contacted him about the video or if he's just moving on to better venues overseas.

David raises an excellent point. I've often wondered if the intervalometer time lapse crowd would fall under the permit requirement or not. When the law was made, interlaced, standard def footage was the norm. Now it's progressive 1080p: 2 megapixel frames. I've often used frame grabs from my GH2 in printed materials. The shots are good enough to print at smaller sizes. It could be argued that the difference between a still and a video is the method of display, which means that the parks, et al, could also be construed as exercising control over the display of our captured images, which I would think is a stretch, legally. I'm no lawyer. Just my 2p.

Something else to mention Alex in your call is that the park service wants a detailed itinerary of where you will be and when.

So if you were scheduled to be at Old Faithful in the morning to film the geyser basin and you came across a wolf pack circling an injured bison you technically couldn't stop there to film because your ranger escort would be waiting for you at Old Faithful.

As independent filmmakers, we have to take an opportunity when it presents itself. Having to stick to a fixed itinerary doesn't work for most of us.

Maybe I'm just naive, but if you are alone, or with one other person, how does a ranger know if you are shooting for profit or just for vacation memories? Even if you have a "professional" looking camera? Lots of people have fancy cameras.They can't search you for contracts or business cards. They have to take your word for it. And a lot of the time we just shoot what we come upon with no definite plan or hope of selling it at all...for all intents and purposes it IS just a leisure time movie. I might avoid Yellowstone just for its notoriety, but not anywhere else.

Thomas, you're very correct. Most of the time, you can, in fact, just "get away with it." However, my personal problem there is feeling like I'd have to lie to be able to shoot. It just needs to be legal in the first place. I've had to explain my equipment to a ranger several times. Fortunately, I had the necessary permit, but they will sometimes stop you and ask if your gear looks expensive. In my opinion, the principle alone is wrong enough here, without even going into the practical problems.

Thomas, all they have to do is look at my drivers license, call back to HQ, do a Google search and there's not much I can really say to defend myself at that point.

With Yellowstone and other parks actively searching for footage shot at their park it makes it hard to say I'm just shooting for vacation.

One of the people that talked to me said they were contacted by Yellowstone after the fact because they saw their footage online. So now if this guy ever goes back and the ranger asks for some ID, he's in trouble.

So the old, I'm just here on vacation isn;t going to fly anymore.

It is so sad to me that we are having this conversation about places that have been set aside by our government for the enjoyment of the people.

It sounds a lot more like we are talking about private land when in fact these places belong to all of us.

David,
You have basically voiced the alpha and omega of this issue. I suspect that eventually one of these cases will end up in court, and the Park Service will be told where to put it.

I'm just hoping we can get the law changed to something reasonable.

If you look at one definition of tyranny:

" 1.*arbitrary or unrestrained exercise of power; despotic abuse of authority.2.*the government or rule of a tyrant or absolute ruler."

Does a law or Park Service policy fit that definition? If NYC has the authority to ban the sale of Big Gulps, is that tyranny? I don't think so but what if authorities went about checking what vendors were putting in the cup? I might think that was going too far. And I might think it is going too far if park rangers are interrogating videographers. But what should they do if videographers are otherwise going to try to cheat the law? What you are trying, which is to amend the policy to make it more fair is laudable, yet unlikely to succeed in your lifetime.

In summary, I find the situation disappointing, but not unique. Even more sad, that as a country, as we silently let these and other little rights, freedoms and liberties slip away, for the most part (your's excepted) we don't care or bother to get involved except for the particular causes we care about.

It is so sad to me that we are having this conversation about places that have been set aside by our government for the enjoyment of the people.

Yes, for the enjoyment of PEOPLE. MOST filmmakers (and granted some photogs) will perch for lengthy periods of time in the best spots to get the shot they are looking for and screw the lay public who are looking to view an attraction for themselves. And as a videographer, I can tell you MY footprint is significantly larger than most digital stills shooters.

I'm not a NATURE videographer, but I AM a doc videographer who does most of his work outside. Can I conduct a 45 minute interview in front of Old Faithful at no cost to the Parks system, inconveniencing thousands of viewers? How about my other 25 colleagues who want to shoot at the same time?

Now... where you folks have VERY valid points is that if a stills photog is going to "perch" for any length of time, he/she is JUST as much of a "nuisance" to the general public as a video shooter is.

A JUST rule would be: if you can't get your shot in 90 seconds or less and then move on, you are inconveniencing the lay public and either need to move on OR be regulated (ie. MOVED on so the rest of the folks can see the attraction as well).

My two cents, which I'm sure you all disagree with because EVERYONE today thinks they are entitled to EVERYTHING for free... The injustice as I see it is the different treatment of stills and moving picture.

I'm not a NATURE videographer, but I AM a doc videographer who does most of his work outside.

The difference between the type of videography is an important point. Using a national park as the setting for a documentary interview, narrative thriller or music video is definitely different than using the park as the subject of nature videography.

How is this handled for still photography? Can a still photographer hold a fashion shoot with paid models, makeup artists and so forth in front of old faithfull without a permit?

Shaun,
Loitering isn't a valid excuse to charge people an arm and a leg. What about the wolf watchers that set up their scopes and line up along the road all day long? How about the person that sits and waits for Grand Fountain Geyser to go off. What about the person who just sits by Riverside Geyser and reads a book all day long just because they want to be out in the sunshine?

I don't know, maybe I'm different than a lot of shooters. I'll let other people come in and get their shots, I'll offer advice if they ask. Heck, when I was shooting stills I'd let people attach their Nikon's to my big glass so they could get a great shot of some wildlife.
About the only place I've seen where there was a lot of jostling around was Mesa Arch at sunrise.

Last I checked, I'm a people and filming nature and wildlife brings me much enjoyment. So why should I have to pay to film what my tax dollars maintain over someone who sits at Artist Point all day long and meditates?

You have Geyser Gazers that sit and watch geysers all day long. They're very knowledgeable and will tell you a lot about a geyser if you ask. I've had them point out the signs leading to an imminent eruption as well as where the best spot was to set up my camera.

If you want to conduct an interview and you need to block off some space or kick people out of the way then yes, I think you should have a permit. Otherwise, I think you follow the same rules as the public does and you shouldn't have to pay to sit all day by a park feature when no one else does.

Eric,

No, a fashion shoot or a car shoot for an advertisement needs to have a permit.

I was going to chime in here, too. Shaun brings up some good points, and even though for me personally, we seem to feel differently about some of the particulars here, I really appreciate his input in that this conversation is a search for solutions. Still Photographers are currently required to get a permit if they are using lights or models. They can point the camera at the park, but not at a person. We're seeking the same status for Videographers. I can only speak for what I believe to be the case here, but I think that filming an interview in front of Old Faithful is outside the scope of our goals here, and always has been. We simply want the same exemptions as still photographers as spelled out already in Public Law 106-206. Further, I'd point out that the current law applies to all Federally administered land, not just the parks. While there are certainly a number of potential congestion points, (such as Old Faithful, as mentioned) there are literally millions of acres of wilderness that are simply off limits to us. Particularly for westerners, such as myself, who lives in states that are around 80% government owned. That's a lot of land I'm locked out of. I'm from Utah, Nevada's percentage is in the 90's.

"My two cents, which I'm sure you all disagree with because EVERYONE today thinks they are entitled to EVERYTHING for free... "

I don't want to really go too far into this, other than to say that I think this statement is not entirely justified. We're certainly fired up about this topic, otherwise we wouldn't be posting here, but I think you have some valid points, and have also misinterpreted our intentions on a few particulars. Either way, welcome to the discussion, and thanks for your input.

Well and technically it's not free. I pay taxes as well as entrance fees.

Well and technically it's not free. I pay taxes as well as entrance fees.

I PAY to get into a film. Does that mean I get to tour the projection booth and make popcorn for theatre guests?

The entry fee covers just that... your entrance to the park for your enjoyment, which in my OPINION, does not supersede MY right to my own enjoyment of the facilities.

And Alex, thanks for the support and for "calling me" on my statement. Please understand that I'm getting weary of specific market segments claiming they are somehow DIFFERENT than another market segment: the wedding and dance recital folks think they should be able to skirt copyright issues, the nature folks think they should be allowed to film whatever they want for as long as they want, INDIE guerrilla filmmakers don't see a need for location insurance or a wrangler when handling guns... the list goes on... you see my point (although raised through generalizations...)

Again, the unfairness here seems to me to be around the difference for photos and video folks.

Having to pay for a parkie to sit on his/her butt is VERY likely due to some self-righteous arse that came before you and ruined it for everyone... Park fees (and taxes collected for parks) go toward upkeep and things like fighting fires, rescuing people stupid enough to wander off without a compass and/or enough water etc... They don't (and in MY OPINION shouldn't) cover commercial usage. In fact, I would fully support the park patrol demanding to see your location insurance policy. I play by the rules and have location insurance BECAUSE I make money doing video. Besides, if this is a business, you get to write the fees off anyway as a cost of doing business (unless your specific jurisdiction doesn't allow claiming these as a legitimate business expense - please talk to your accountant. You DO have an accountant, right?)

I already have a liability policy with the National Park Service added as an additional insured.
And yes, I do have an accountant.

Sorry Kevin... I was responding to your post but ot everything that followed was aimed at you... it was a discussion in general. I get tired of typing in the second person (and find it quite pretentious...)

"ONE would have an accountant"... "One pays for a movie ticket"... blah blah blah.

Please don't take my response as a personal attack or a two way debate. It is a GENERAL discussion from my point of view to "everyone 'listening'"

I can't help but take exception to the following statement:

"My two cents, which I'm sure you all disagree with because EVERYONE today thinks they are entitled to EVERYTHING for free... "


I think most here have not expected anything for "free", but would simply like to be able to film on federal lands without paying outrageous fees, and most seem receptive to the idea of a yearly permit, valid on all Federal Lands for a reasonable fee.

Most of the still photographers and videographers that I know go to these places because they enjoy seeing and recording the wildlife and scenery with their chosen type of camera. They do not have signed contracts, and are not working on a project that they has a great chance of financial gain. They would simply like to have the possibility of selling photos to publications, stock footage to agencies, or perhaps at some point to incorporate footage in some type of a video project.

In my experience in Shenandoah National Park, most of the serious still photographers, and videographers are among the most considerate people one encounters. while a few of the casual tourists are far more likely to run close to the wildlife, stick, a camera in its, face and drive it away from everyone else.

I can see restrictions in certain areas where it is difficult finding standing room, but this is not the vast majority of the public lands I am interested in.

It boils down to there being no distinction between the person who is basically a tourist and who leavies the same "footprint" as a tourist but who may at some point show his work to a "target audience" by showing it to a school group, post it on the web, or sell a bit of stock footage etc. and the person or organization that is shooting with contract in hand to make a full blown documentary that will receive national distribution.

Having to pay for a parkie to sit on his/her butt is VERY likely due to some self-righteous arse that came before you and ruined it for everyone.

I think the US laws were written before HD nature videography was possible with an iPhone and probably need revising. I wonder if there are similar rules about making sound recordings, say of birds, in a national park? Note that this thread will maintain a more professional tone if only words that are acronyms are spelled using all capital letters. What are the rules like in Canada?

Eric,
Audio recording needs a permit too.

The absurdity of permits for commercial video work lies in the fact that many videographers like myself use still photo cameras (7D, GH2, etc...) to capture video. Well, some of us at least.

Without a permit and with this single camera, if we take photos, we can sell them, if we take video and sell it, we're breaking the law.

The whole thing seems to be about impact, as made obvious in the need for photography shoots involving impact requiring a permit. The problem is that the NPS or Federal Government cannot also make the distinction with video.

Note that this thread will maintain a more professional tone if only words that are acronyms are spelled using all capital letters. What are the rules like in Canada?

Since italics are not an option, I capitalize words that require emphasis to get across my meaning, as if I was SPEAKING the words instead of TYPING them. I'm not shouting one word... I don't think that capitalizing one word constitutes a departure from professional and/or courteous discourse...

Again, my 2 cents...

Has this law changed?

Hi Bob,
Not yet. We're still working on it. Apparently not much is getting done in the senate at the moment, so we're doing a lot of "hurry up and wait" stuff.

Like Bob, I'm curious to know if there has been any change in the law. With another winter coming to an end, more folks will be out in the parks filming. I was keeping up with this thread, but had forgotten about it until Bob's post.

Interestingly, I've had a couple of park Rangers coming up to me and politely asking about my big camera. One, at a mission in San Antonio, was very subtle asking about my camera and a couple of other questions. Knowing the law, I'm sure he was trying to tactfully find out if I was filming professionally. Had I not known, I would have assumed he was just curious about a larger-than-normal camera. I politely told him I was just having fun with my expensive "toy" and filming for myself -- which was true.

My wife and I spent a couple of days at Denali in Alaska last summer and I expected someone to come up to me, but no one did.

Thanks for the update, Alex. I was writing at the same time you were posting!

It sure is an absurd law considering the modern merge of photo and video equipment.

And the saga continues but now with the USFS.

The U.S. Forest Service Wants to Fine You $1,000 for Taking Pictures in the Forest - Esquire (http://www.esquire.com/blogs/news/1000-dollar-fine-for-pictures-in-the-forest)

https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2014/09/04/2014-21093/proposed-directive-for-commercial-filming-in-wilderness-special-uses-administration?utm_campaign=email+a+friend&utm_medium=email&utm_source=federalregister.gov

The thing is if they are needing to protect the natural resources, regulations already exist to prevent destruction of public property. All they have to do is enforce them thus making permitting unnecessary except for large events that could impact use by other visitors.

I went to Yellowstone this past July for a few weeks. Filmed some great stuff but I'll never post anything but frame grabs until the law changes.

I think it's really going to take someone getting arrested and fined to bring the absurdity of this law to the surface and bring about change.

The first service is now backing off since this went public and caused a big stink.

I'd love to know how they can justify allowing a Nat Geo photographer stand right next to me and shoot all the pictures they want for free, but I have to have a permit and pay a ranger $65 an hour to do the same thing two feet away from the Nat Geo photographer.

The ironic thing is that the woman that runs the Yellowstone film permit office is paid with film permit funds.
So her paycheck depends on her getting film permits from as many people as possible. Sounds like a conflict of interest there to me.

Anyway, I'll continue to film on public lands, I'll just never use the footage for anything but I'm not going to miss out on the beauty of my country just because someone wants to make easy money and extort money from filmmakers.

Hi
Well I had a little fun of your troubles "over there" Never had I head something so absurd as you had to pay for filming in the nature......
This summer I did not laugh anymore - Here in Denmark I have been filming nature documentaries for 20-30 years. I was in another part of our small country and I asked the forest agency for a permit for parking along a road in the forest. The asked if it was commercial filming and I told them that it was. Nature documentaries for our national television. They wanted to fine me after the budget of the film. I told them that I do not have a budget as the film was not sold yet. They wanted to fine me 1000 dollars for 2 day of filming in the forrest!!! This was just a forrest that belong to us all - the state of Denmark and everyone have the right to be there. Not even a National Park.
I decideed not to film or to pay. I told my freinds here on facebook about it - after 4 days spreading on facebook - the danish minister of environment, told the forest agency not to fine me for filming in the forrest!
I had calculated with a week to film in the forrest but I got the last two days to film there. The day I have to pay for filming in nature I'll stop. In this country there is just no money in producing this so it is more like a Public Service thing.

Well, nothing much has changed for this. Except for the Yellowstone film office has a nice map now to show you all the areas that you need to pay a ranger $65 an hour to babysit you in addition to the liability insurance and ther permit fee.

I went back to Yellowstone last year and shot a fair amount of footage. Since the only way I can shoot video in the park without a permit is for personal use only, I've never posted any footage or used it in a film that I put out in the Internet.

I was only asked once if I was shooting professionally and once they heard that I wasn't they were very helpful in telling me where I coulld film an osprey nest.

I'm not sure if the law will ever change and I know I can't afford thousands of dollars to have a ranger escort on the boardwalks.

But I love Yellowstone so I will continue to go there and film for my own personal use which is sad because I have some amazing footage!