| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/26/2014 12:43:48 AM · #1 |
I apologize if this has been discussed before. There was a story on our local news about proposed rules to charge photographers (amateurs as well as professionals) up to $1500 for a permit to take pictures on lands managed by the U.S. Forest Service. It was reported there will fines up to $1,000 per incident for being caught taking pictures without the permit.
Here is a link to a print story.
and another here - includes exclusions
Updates today here
And the obligatory Snopes review here
Several articles claim that non-commercial photographers would not need the permits; however, the news report on our local news (and 47% of Colorado lands fall under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Forest Service) indicates that it would be extremely difficult to escape the need for the permit under any circumstances.
It is interesting to note that lands under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management do not require permits.
What do you think?
|
|
|
|
09/26/2014 12:58:13 AM · #2 |
Originally posted by ancientimages:
...
What do you think? |
The text of the proposed directive seems to exclude "non-commercial" use.
I'm thinking that "The USFS is currently accepting comments on the issue here. The period of public comment will be open until 3 November 2014."
It's time to respond. Tell your friends.
Message edited by author 2014-09-26 01:06:41. |
|
|
|
09/26/2014 12:58:55 AM · #3 |
| Only YOU can prevent forest fines. |
|
|
|
09/26/2014 01:47:01 AM · #4 |
Originally posted by ancientimages:
What do you think? |
 |
|
|
|
09/26/2014 01:56:12 AM · #5 |
Originally posted by ancientimages:
$1500 for a permit to take pictures on lands managed by the U.S. Forest Service. It was reported there will fines up to $1,000 per incident for being caught taking pictures without the permit. |
I'm not very good at math, but I'll take my chances. |
|
|
|
09/26/2014 08:40:58 AM · #6 |
UP TO $1500
allowing "commercial filming and photography in federally designated wilderness areas." When the proposal is finalized in November 2014, reporters and other media outlets who do not obtain permits could face fines of up to $1,000. (Tourists and park visitors snapping photographs for personal, non-commercial use would not be affected by the proposed regulations.
yet again, the people fly of the handle over headline.
Message edited by author 2014-09-26 08:43:28. |
|
|
|
09/26/2014 09:01:36 AM · #7 |
This is a lot of scare over nothing. If you read the entire packet around the legislation you will find that the revisions are due to a lack of provisions for commercial filming - the still photo wording is the same as it's been for years. A vacationer taking photos, even with pro gear, MIGHT get a question or two if they've got someone posing for shots dressed for a shoot and not a walk, but I suspect this will change nothing.
Stuff like this gets written to drive up website hits, and blood pressure, it apparently is rather successful. LOL |
|
|
|
09/26/2014 11:16:23 AM · #8 |
Frankly, I'd rather be informed of potential legislation which could adversely affect my enjoyment of public lands, than be "surprised" with a potential large fine. Just my humble opinion, of course, but as one of "the people", I still have a right (I think) to express it.
This is the story from the local news outlet here. Doesn't it sounds like it would affect a vacationer or others who take pictures and then later decide to submit to even a micro-stock agency or sell a print on DPC, or print and sell in a local venue?
|
|
|
|
09/26/2014 11:18:05 AM · #9 |
I think Paul should get to printing these t-shirts, already!!!
Incidentally, this seems closely related to the trademarking of the Lone Cypress on the 17-Mile Drive...
Message edited by author 2014-09-26 11:36:09. |
|
|
|
09/26/2014 11:29:46 AM · #10 |
Originally posted by tanguera:
I think Paul should get to printing these t-shirts, already!!!
|
+1!!!! I want one of them T-shirts!!! Actually make that 2, cause I'm pretty sure they'll get worn a lot! |
|
|
|
09/26/2014 11:35:32 AM · #11 |
Originally posted by tanguera:
I think Paul should get to printing these t-shirts, already!!!
|
That would be awesome! |
|
|
|
09/26/2014 11:49:20 AM · #12 |
UPDATE: Forest Service Says Media Don't Need Permit
"..Professional and amateur photographers will not need a permit unless they use models, actors, props; work in areas where the public is generally not allowed; or cause additional administrative costs, the agency said in a release�."
The Forest Service is part of the USDA. The National Park Service is part of the Department of Interior. We are approaching the anniversary of the shutdown of the national parks by the government. Note my propagada poster:  |
|
|
|
09/26/2014 12:32:51 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by hahn23:
UPDATE: Forest Service Says Media Don't Need Permit
"..Professional and amateur photographers will not need a permit unless they use models, actors, props; work in areas where the public is generally not allowed; or cause additional administrative costs, the agency said in a release�." |
This makes a LOT more sense. Commercial shoots typically employ a LOT of people, involve tons of equipment, and basically monopolize an entire area, restricting access to anyone not on the shoot. This would certainly be disruptive to anyone visiting the park, while a lone photographer/painter/etc., would not. |
|
|
|
09/26/2014 12:36:29 PM · #14 |
you mean, people got all riled up over... nothing???
you mean the government isnt out to squash our freedoms and steal our money???
sigh... |
|
|
|
09/26/2014 01:26:28 PM · #15 |
Been there ... 
There are many objects/locations which have similar restrictions on commercial use of images. |
|
|
|
09/26/2014 01:29:02 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Been there ... |
With a Bear no less! Hard to believe that was 6 years ago... |
|
|
|
09/26/2014 01:39:29 PM · #17 |
As lawyers interviewed for the article note, their enforcement of that trademark stands solely because no one has dared to challenge it in court (or had the funds to try). The legal opinion is that such a trademark on a natural thing would NOT stand up in court. They could trademark a specific image of the cypress, but not the tree itself.
Imagine if companies could trademark anything in nature...!!!!
ETA - that very important "NOT" in my sentence!!!!
Message edited by author 2014-09-26 15:26:52. |
|
|
|
09/26/2014 03:09:06 PM · #18 |
dog almighty, are we having fun or what? maybe we need a Forbidden Images challenge. |
|
|
|
09/26/2014 07:06:08 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by tnun:
... maybe we need a Forbidden Images challenge. |
Special Rules: The last bullet point under "You may not.." is suspended for this challenge. O.o
We can call it the "Leroy Challenge"
|
|
|
|
09/26/2014 07:07:12 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by tanguera:
...The legal opinion is that such a trademark on a natural thing would NOT stand up in court. They could trademark a specific image of the cypress, but not the tree itself...
|
Isn't the legal opinion also that it WOULD stand up in court? The opinion of the legal team for Pebble Beach. :) Is there anything that doesn't have two lawyers that fall on opposite sides of the argument? |
|
|
|
09/26/2014 08:29:15 PM · #21 |
LOL! Well I guess this is true for ALL legal arguments, Jason. In this case, the "opposing" side isn't representing anyone, just weighing in on the legality of Pebble Beach's trademark claim on the tree itself. They found that what MIGHT hold up in court was limited trespass, which would represent a negligible win, if upheld.
It was also my belief that you could not trademark something that wasn't man-made. As they stated, a specific image or set of images of the cypress could be trademarked but not the tree itself. From the article "According to that logic, a company could trademark all images of the sun, the coastline, deserts. It''s just silly. I wouldn''t expect them to get very far in court."
Another example would be the MGM lion. While the lion itself is not trademarked, the lion roaring inside the company logo is.
The bottom line is that it's all about money, and hardly a dilution of their "image", which is what Pebble Beach Co. is claiming. |
|
|
|
09/26/2014 09:09:45 PM · #22 |
| Someone should just take a photo of the darned tree from a boat and post it with a Creative Commons license ... |
|
|
|
09/26/2014 09:37:39 PM · #23 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Someone should just take a photo of the darned tree from a boat and post it with a Creative Commons license ... |
From a boat, it's just another tree.
And why they trademarked it wasn't really about money, actually. It had just become so iconic that production companies were regularly creating traffic snarls in that very limited space trying to film it for commercials and so forth. That 17-mile drive is a private road as anyone who pays to traverse it is well aware, and the residents value their privacy and ease-of-movement a LOT more than they care about whatever revenue might be generated from licensing use of it, which I understand they almost never do. Certainly, they've buio;t a viewing area there that didn't even come CLOSE to existing when I lived in Carmel in the late 70's-early 80's... |
|
|
|
09/26/2014 10:09:05 PM · #24 |
| not sure I understand: you have to/you can PAY to drive/walk/by the iconic position from which to view/draw/photograph her druidic majesty, but you may not? |
|
|
|
09/26/2014 11:37:45 PM · #25 |
Originally posted by tnun:
not sure I understand: you have to/you can PAY to drive/walk/by the iconic position from which to view/draw/photograph her druidic majesty, but you may not? |
you may not sell the resulting image from your view/draw/photograph.
Bear, they do NOT license their image ever, as they use the image to brand a TON of their own products. Regarding production companies, since the tree is on private property, production companies would have to pay anyway in order to access the site to film it. If, in fact, they valued their privacy, and since this is a private road, then why not just close the road to commercial/tourist traffic? In any case, how is a single painter obstructing traffic...?
Perhaps in the past it was not about the money, but things have changed. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/09/2025 04:45:45 AM EDT.
