DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Photography Discussion >> Stopped by park ranger on the way out of park
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 25 of 30, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 07/08/2004 06:59:02 AM · #1
I had a photoshoot with a model Wednesday (July 7th) where we shot downtown (Chattanooga, TN) and also in a local national park. I've shot in that park on at least 5 other occasions with models. I've taken my family there and photographed them and I've even gone to photograph a Civil War reenactment event to try and hone my photojournalistic experience. Never been a problem so far. Wednesday on the way back out of the park a ranger is sitting at the gate in his truck and he stops the model and me. Now it wasn't exactly a hassle but it was an attitude that I had to defend our activities inside the park. He kept trying to tell me that we couldn't perform professional or commercial work in a national park without a permit. I kept telling him that no one was (A) a professional and (B) no money was involved for either of us. He wanted no part of that. To him, we apparently looked professional. He even went so far as to say that he had to be sure we weren't taking "risque" pictures "down there" (which I took to mean out of site on one of the trails).

Now I gave him one of my cards which links to my sites that shows that I don't charge any money (yet) and that I'm still practicing portraiture and expect to be practicing portraiture for the next several years. I have to call the head ranger for this district or whatever it is to again explain my activities.

OK. So no one tried to take away my camera or photos but its still annoying that I have to go through this process just because I have a 10D with some pro-grade lenses, a flash bracket and a reflector.

The real kick in the seat of the pants . . . I sat and talked with this same ranger (he has a LARGE bushy, red mustache) about 60 days ago right outside this same park and he talked with me about my equipment and what I do and he never once mentioned that I needed a permit to photograph the model that was with me. He checked to make sure I'd paid and I showed him the receipt for myself, the model, her boyfriend and the makeup artist that was with us and he never said I needed any special permission. Just invited us to have a nice day. Oh the joys of getting to annoy someone.

Kev
 07/08/2004 07:10:25 AM · #2
This is just another example of the chilling effect on our civil liberties brought on by our hysterical leadership in this country. George Bush is an incompentent fool and needs to be replaced. I took some pictures recently of our local post office and I was asked by a civilian if he could see some ID because he thought it might be illegal to photograph government buildings. I said "Bite me asshole. Call a cop" That's as far as it went though.
 07/08/2004 07:23:05 AM · #3
Sounds like you have some anger issues there SMW409.
 07/08/2004 07:27:54 AM · #4
Originally posted by KevinRiggs:
I have to call the head ranger for this district or whatever it is to again explain my activities.


Why exactly do you have to call?


07/08/2004 07:57:08 AM · #5
Ya know the only thing I understood out of the exchange was that apparently if you are taking "professional grade" photos (explain that one to me) on a national park then you need some kind of a paperwork permit. The ranger yesterday said I needed to call the head ranger as he could assess whether I, a non-paid photographer, would indeed need the permit and then if I did he could help expedite me getting the permit. All-in-all not too negative a discussion. As I said he never asked to see the photos or even hinted at taking away the camera. He did say he didn't remember talking with me a couple of months ago about this very same thing which I found odd considering how much he remembered about having to write a citation to a film crew from New York because they used "professional equipment" inside the park. I thought that if my equipment looked "professional" grade yesterday then odds are it looked the same 2 months ago since I haven't added anything. The part that ticked me off I guess wasn't that he told me I needed a permit and then let me go (which is really what he did). It was the manner in which he said, "I need to know more about what you're doing." and left it open ended. I told him we were taking pictures and he huffed like I knew exactly what he wanted to know and just wasn't telling him. I even said, "What would you like to know about?" and he just responded that he needed to know "more" about what I was doing. Finally he came around to asking if I was taking "risque" photos.

It seemed like a bungled attempt to just bully someone and make them feel . . . intimidated or bad or something. I didn't get in his face but I didn't back down and so he simply took my card and gave me the phone number of the ranger to talk with. I hope this guy can help straighten out whether I need a permit or not. Frankly I don't really care if someone puts me in a database to keep track of me taking photos on a national park but I know that not everyone may have as innocuous a past as I have and I don't want my info sitting some federal data pool for people to go fishing in. Even though I haven't done anything all it takes for some people is the mere suggestion that someone's done something.

I'll let you know what the ranger says or how it turns out.

Kev
 07/08/2004 07:58:34 AM · #6
More and more these days ordinary US citizens, who haven't done anything wrong, are having to defend themselves against harrassment by the authorities for partaking in ordinary activities. All are suspect until proven innocent. We are fast approaching a martial state in the US and fast loosing our civil liberties. The new citizen for which the state will exist will be the corporation, and the ordinary common man/woman will become a second class citizen. It's the civil liberties of the corporations that are being most protected, here and overseas. All in the name of security against terrorism. Does this make us any safer? Patriot Act II is coming.

07/08/2004 08:05:02 AM · #7
Kev, I have a PDF of Public Law 106-206, May 26, 2000 which seems to apply here. I'll be happy to email it to you if you want. It's 2 pages long and easy to understand. PM me if you'd like a copy.

Basically I read it as saying that they cannot deny you access or charge you a fee as long as you're in publically accessed areas of the park and aren't causing or likely to cause damage with your activities. The kicker comes when they state, "The Secretary shall require and shall establish a reasonable fee for still photography that uses models or props which are not a part of the site̢۪s natural or cultural resources or administrative facilities."

Good luck with the red tape!
07/08/2004 08:06:05 AM · #8
I don't think its strcitly fair for this to turn into a "you can't photograph things in case you are a terrorist" discussion. The park obviously requires permits for commercial photography, simple as that.

I know lots of places I have visited such as castles or stately homes ban "commercial photography" (not sure how they can tell though) but on the other hand many cathedrals I have visited, ask you to buy a £2 permit for photography inside the building
 07/08/2004 08:14:07 AM · #9
Oy! Guys- this has NOTHING to do with the Patriot Act. It's actually just part of Park Service policy. If you are shooting for commercial purposes (documentary, film, weddings, graduation etc) you need a permit in any of the US National Parks across the country. If I shoot a wedding at the Jefferson Memorial- I need a permit.

Now, depending on the park and the ranger you will get more or less hassle. In Kevin's case, he had all the markings of a pro out on a shoot. Pro level gear, model, possible assistant (the boyfriend), and a make-up artist. I'm thinking the make up artist probably did him in. :) Kevin, you are in a bit of a grey area due to the type of shots you were doing. It's also possible that someone saw you guys and reported you to the ranger. Did the model and her bf hug at any time? That could lead to those types of questions.

The ranger eased off because he can't determine specifically if you were actually a pro who was lieing to him (which probably happens) or what you said you were. They tend to err on the side of you being a normal patron.

I've gotten asked what I was doing when I shoot 4x5 in national parks. Valid question, since most hobbyists don't shoot that format. I explained at the time I was a photo student and presented my ID. I shot at the Vietnam Memorial using a tripod during the day- the ranger came over, asked what I was doing. I explained I'm working on a gift for a friend who's brother died in Vietnam. He said, not a problem just make sure that I let the tourists in to see things and don't upset the flow of foot traffic.

It's part of the joys of being an advanced photographer. Call the head ranger, and if he says you need a permit say great! I didn't know that, can you help me get one set up. It usually doesn't take too long.

Happy shooting.
07/08/2004 08:29:43 AM · #10
Here's the text of a statement issued in 1996 by the Office of the Secretary, U. S. Department of the Interior, regarding its policy on commercial still photography in National Park areas.

It is the policy of the National Park Service to permit and encourage photography within the National Park System to the fullest extent possible consistent with the protection of resources and the enjoyment of visitors.

As a general rule, permits are not required for either commercial or non-commerical photographers. This is true whether or not the photographer uses tripods, flashbulbs, strobe lights, or interchangeable lenses.

Permits can be required when the photography involves product or service advertisement or the use of models, sets, or props, or when such photography could result in damage to the resources or significant disruption of normal visitor uses. Permits shall be required for photographers granted access to areas normally closed to the visiting public except that oral approval can be given for such access to a photographer engaged in bona fide newsgathering activities.

Photographers should not need a permit to go anywhere that members of the public are generally allowed to go without a permit. Nor should a permit be needed for photographers to do anything that members of the public are generally allowed to do without a permit.

If a photography permit is deemed appropriate in any particular situation, NPS personnel should impose only those conditions necessary to accomplish the needed resource protection, visitor use, or legal limitation. For advertising photography, it is appropriate to impose a permit condition that prohibits implied or stated Park Service endorsement of the advertised product or service.

Care should be take that conditions be reasonable. Liability insurance requirements and other limitations should not be made unduly burdensome.

If you have any questions you can contact the Chief of the Division of Rangers, Chris Andress, at 202-208-4874.
07/08/2004 08:41:30 AM · #11
(start paranoia)

See?! They started with the civil liberty imposing rules and laws back in 1996 just to get us ready for the "Patriot Act". This must have been some FEMA plot to make use all placid sheeple...

(/end paranoia)
 07/08/2004 08:41:51 AM · #12
There seems to a lot of hysterical nonsense in the early posts about civil liberties or Bush and terrorism. But the parks have been charging for commercial use for a long time. More specifically they are trying to get some money back for commerical usage which would benefit the people using the land, rather than the general public at large - particularly if that usage impacts other park users. Taking nude pictures in the park would fall under this for example.

//www.nanpa.org/committees/resource_relations/nps_response.html for the North American Nature Photography Association opinion on permits.

I realise Kevin that you probably feel harassed by this guy - but it would probably have been easier to obtain permission in the first place to shoot essentially professional work in a national park. (hint: if you are frequently taking different models there, with a full camera rig, you look professional - whether you are charging for it or not. That would seem pretty self evident) Maybe the first time he saw you with a different model he gave you the benefit of the doubt, assuming it was a family member or something. The next time you are there, with a different model, it sure looks like it would be for work.

Wedding/ portrait photographers typically have to pay $50 per use for shooting in a national park.

Message edited by author 2004-07-08 08:46:19.
 07/08/2004 09:02:30 AM · #13
Originally posted by blemt:
The ranger eased off because he can't determine specifically if you were actually a pro who was lieing to him (which probably happens) or what you said you were. They tend to err on the side of you being a normal patron.


Yes, in other parks though, where permits are required, they make it a little easier to determine what a "pro" is. For example in some locations using a tripod would make you a "pro" and require a permit.
 07/08/2004 09:12:06 AM · #14
I agree with Gordon, this has NOTHING to do with civil liberties.

I have seen on some state and national parks web sites that they charge up to $5,000 for commercial photography per day.

I am just guessing here, but if a BIG company like Sports Illustrated wanted to do a shoot in a State/National park, they would have no problem paying the fee.

In Kevins experience, I can totally see why the ranger stopped him and questioned him. I do agree the Rangers attitude was maybe some what rude, but thats his job.
To most people when they see camera equipment different than a point and shoot,they immediatelly think "hey that person is a pro photographer".

I never get bothered when using my 707, but using my D60, I get asked a lot if im a pro, or from a media source. People get dissapointed when you say "No,im just an amature."

James
 07/08/2004 09:15:36 AM · #15
Originally posted by jab119:
I never get bothered when using my 707, but using my D60, I get asked a lot if im a pro, or from a media source. People get dissapointed when you say "No,im just an amature."


I've often been asked if I work for the paper. However, when I say no it usually isn't a look of disappointment on their face but one of... you geek. lol
 07/08/2004 09:38:20 AM · #16
I think judgeing from how your models often look he maybe just wanned an excuse for a closer look :))
 07/08/2004 09:52:36 AM · #17
... and don't forget that you are getting something out of the shoot too. You are getting prints for your portfolio. That has monetary value even if you didn't actually charge an additional fee.

This thread is enlightening though. I didn't know you needed a permit. Now I do. :)
 07/08/2004 09:54:03 AM · #18
Ok boys and girls, here's the scoop.

The head ranger of these two national parks just needed to alert me to the rules/laws(?) regarding commercial work inside a park. After hearing that for me this is just a step in learning and defining my skill set and that I don't sell photos of models unless I'm expressly commissioned for that work he said it would be best if I just called his office anytime I plan on having more than just me and the model or either of us will be carrying excessive equipment. From his explanation that means that if she carries a makeup bag or any type of extra clothing into the park or I carry anything other than my camera bag and camera we should probably contact his office so that he can let the local rangers know what is happening (1) so that they don't have to bother us during a shoot to see if our work is commercial in nature and (2) they can explain if anyone asks what we're doing (eg. No ma'am, they are not shooting for an advertisement down there. Yes, I know she was a lovely model and he looks like a dirty old man but this is completely innocuous. or maybe that's how it'd sound in my head).

Overall it was annoying to me to feel like the initial ranger could have told me the same thing about calling the head ranger's office or needing a permit when I felt like our conversation was at a very relaxed pitch some time ago but I can understand that she looked like she was with her mother and they didn't carry anything extra into the park (she changed back at the park station in the rest room). This time the model carried a small makeup bag and my wife carried the reflector. I can see how someone walking on a trail might feel like we'd interrupted the natural feeling and flow so I have no problem with being careful of other people's trips into the parks and I see no problem with letting the head ranger know what's up. I'll keep using these locations because this really doesn't seem to be any hassle and the settings are natural and beautiful.

Kev
 07/08/2004 10:36:30 AM · #19
sorry, I jumped the gun. I didn't know about the required permit for professional use.
 07/08/2004 11:04:36 AM · #20
FYI,

SMW409 is totally off the wall. This started in the Clinton Administration for a way to tax/fee photographers/non-consumers(wildlife watchers) since they have no other way to tax non-consumers. All hunters/fishermen pay an excise tax on guns/shells, binoculars, fishing poles, lures, etc... and they could not stand non-comsumers not paying for non-consumption. They just want all our money folks. Socialism at its finest.
 07/08/2004 11:16:16 AM · #21
Originally posted by vtruan:
FYI,

SMW409 is totally off the wall. This started in the Clinton Administration for a way to tax/fee photographers/non-consumers(wildlife watchers) since they have no other way to tax non-consumers. All hunters/fishermen pay an excise tax on guns/shells, binoculars, fishing poles, lures, etc... and they could not stand non-comsumers not paying for non-consumption. They just want all our money folks. Socialism at its finest.


****
Not exactly sure I understand how you make the jump to socialism. Would you explain that please?
 07/08/2004 12:07:57 PM · #22
Originally posted by vtruan:
FYI,

SMW409 is totally off the wall. This started in the Clinton Administration for a way to tax/fee photographers/non-consumers(wildlife watchers) since they have no other way to tax non-consumers. All hunters/fishermen pay an excise tax on guns/shells, binoculars, fishing poles, lures, etc... and they could not stand non-comsumers not paying for non-consumption. They just want all our money folks. Socialism at its finest.


Fees for use of national parks have been around for a long time but really got a major boost when Reagan was president. The users that I wonder about most are the canoe and raft outfitters, and others, whose entire business is based on using publicly owned resources to generate their profits. These users are likely to have more impact on the parks than photographers.

Message edited by author 2004-07-08 12:25:57.
 07/08/2004 12:17:07 PM · #23
can't tell its an election year in the US :)

I blame Ansel Adams. If it hadn't been for him, these places would have been bulldozed years ago - you wouldn't have to pay anything then!

Message edited by author 2004-07-08 12:17:43.
 07/08/2004 12:31:15 PM · #24
Kevin,

on a positive note, I think you acted reasonably considering you were confronted with aggravating obstacles. Given my personality, I might have returned with an easel in the trunk of my car and everyone wearing a hunter's outfit, plus the 'alleged pro' photo equipment.

On entering the park, I'd explain that the easel is there to paint the model, the hunters' outfit to avoid looking like a 'professional' painter and the 'pro' camera to document any 'newsworthy' encounter I'd have come to expect from my last visit. ;-)
07/08/2004 07:10:56 PM · #25
Originally posted by TechnoShroom:
Yes, in other parks though, where permits are required, they make it a little easier to determine what a "pro" is. For example in some locations using a tripod would make you a "pro" and require a permit.


Actually, the only time a tripod is a hassle in a United States National Park is if it's impacting the ability of others to use the area. Just be willing to move it for a bit if need be. :) If you don't want to- get the permit. *shrug* No big deal. :)
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 07/29/2025 08:20:38 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


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: 07/29/2025 08:20:38 PM EDT.