National Park filming legislation

[Kevin Railsback]

Since more and more filmmakers are using DSLR's to film on Federal land, I wonder how soon it will be before they start going after still photographers?

The biggest problem I see is that nature and wildlife filmmakers are a much smaller niche than photographers. We don't have the numbers to really be effective to make a difference. I think it will only change once they start going after photographers for permits and ranger escort fees.

[Mark Williams]

I don't think they will go after photographers. The photography special interest groups are by far much more organized and represented. Fact is many camera manufacturers have supported and partnered with the national parks for years. In other words it is not wise to bite the hand that feeds you. Professional video represents such a small niche as illustrated by this thread and the low number of signatures on the petition that I don't think we stand a chance.

I was really disappointed that dvinfo.net did not take a stand officially on this and become an advocate for us after the promise was made that "I'm happy to make DV Info Net a driving force for this matter" back on page 11 of this thread. Nothing since. I feel really let down.

[Kevin Railsback]

I think the parks solution is what we are already seeing even if you shoot with a DSLR. They will have people scouring the Internet looking for footage shot in Yellowstone and other Federal lands and come after filmmakers after the fact. So even if you are able to slip under the radar by shooting with a DSLR, they'll come after you after the fact and find some way to show that the footage is recent and you didn't have a permit.

The one good thing about this is that I have discovered so many state parks and other non-Federal land to film on. These are areas where there's not been a lot of coverage and I really enjoy filming in these smaller much lower trafficked areas.

I just read that the month of June Yellowstone had like 675,000 visitors. I can count the number of people I've seen in one of my state parks on one hand. I often have the whole area to myself. Sure there's no grizzly bears, mountain lions or geysers but I have access to nature like I think it should be. No huge crowds and traffic jams, no rangers harassing you, just me an my thoughts and my eyes being opened to the little things that Yellowstone forgets.

I don't worry about the petition ever getting on here, that's why I periodically just tell people to do a search for it. The people on here that want to sign it have already signed it and what's the point of driving people here when we already have a petition elsewhere.

Would have been better to have it here at one point but I think that point is long gone and I'm looking for other avenues to get signatures.

[Kevin Railsback]

Oh and I did a keyword search for nature filmmakers with KeywordXP and came up with 31,400 hits a month.
There has to be a way to get that many people organized to sign the petition.

[Bob Safay]

Kevin, I have also found other, less visited areas to video in. Over the last few years I have been visiting National Wildlife Refuges all over the southeast. I was very surprised at how many there are and how accessible. There are several within a few hours of Atlanta. No crowds, no rangers, no fees, just lots of nature, pure nature and time to set up tripods and video to your hearts content. Bob

[Kevin Railsback]

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!

[David Elkins]

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.

[Alex Chamberlain]

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.

[Kevin Railsback]

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.

[David Elkins]

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!"

[Kevin Railsback]

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.

[Alex Chamberlain]

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.

[Kevin Railsback]

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.

[Thomas Quinton]

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.

[Alex Chamberlain]

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.