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

DPChallenge Forums >> Out and About >> National Park System Screws it's owner ... America
Pages:  
Showing posts 26 - 41 of 41, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 02/03/2007 01:50:08 PM · #26
I was outside the US capitol building one night taking photos with my tripod... i was on the sidewalk out front. the capitol police said that i needed to register for a free permit to use a tripod. they said if i stepped a few feet back into the street, or on the sidewalk across the street, it would be ok. Seemed a little strange to me, but they were polite and I didn't argue. I know that the capitol has its own police force and is not the same as the NPS. Additionally, tripods are not allowed within the statue room of the lincoln memorial.

There are likely many other restrictions elsewhere. It's a balance of our individual rights as photographers and the right of other visitors to have minimal intrusions (and not getting yelled at by an annoyed photographer saying not to walk in a certain area...). I haven't yet encountered anything I've felt to be excessive restrictions. I also know that I have been severely annoyed when I am at a museum or somewhere and people filming movies haven't allowed me to access areas that I want to go to... that's why they have to get permits, i guess...

02/03/2007 03:06:35 PM · #27
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
Originally posted by kirbic:
Mike, you present a well-reasoned counterpoint. It's true that if there were no restrictions, things would be a mess. What we really need is the current restrictions to be enforced in the spirit in which they were written.


To be fair, we don't know that they aren't being so enforced.

All we know so far is that the OP was asked if he was a professional photographer. We don't know whether he was asked to stop shooting.

For that matter, we don't even know if he answered "yes" to the question. The OP does shoot stock, and if he was in the park for that purpose, it may be entirely appropriate for NPS to require a permit.

In any case, though, all we know at this point is that the ranger saw a photographer with professional-caliber equipment and asked if he was, in fact, a professional. I think that's an entirely reasonable action for him to take. If Don said no and the ranger still told him to stop shooting, then I'd have a problem with it -- but until we know that to be the case, I think it may be too early to judge the actions of the ranger.

~Terry


Many of the issues have merit. In this case I was with my wife who was taking photos for her college class in photography. Today I was not a "pro" but and husband instructor. When asked I told them I was not taking commercial photos today. One ranger stated that sometimes they ask for ID and if caught again there is a large federal fine and the Federal Marshal is called.

I fully understand if time or effort is required by the NPS to help the photog or if the photog has set up a studio then it should not be allowed until after hours and then charge for the time and expenses. I believe the intent of Congress to not allow professional gain financial rewards at the expense of other tax payers. I do not believe they meant a single camera and tripod. One of these missions has no fences or barriers, the rangers leave at 5 pm, there is no expense to them to allow photogs to be there. The other missions close the gates at 5 pm and no access is allowed. There I would charge for after-hour access. They are very popular for Bridals but these are never out of place and most tourists enjoy looking at a pretty girl anyway.

Oh and also these missions have no entry fees. If they need money they need to charge a couple of bucks to everyone. I think the main issue is the actual buildings are owned by the Catholic Church and the grounds are financially supported ny NPS funds. Kind of a thin line of Church and Governemnt cross funding. BUT the Catholic church in these areas are poor and could not maintain the missions alone. All in all a good thing.

My beef is $100 just for an individual with a tripod. It doesn't affect me but nationwide it is a real restriction on our access to our property.
 02/03/2007 03:25:01 PM · #28
Originally posted by kirbic:
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
...I think it may be too early to judge the actions of the ranger.

~Terry


Agree, in that case. I've seen quite a few reports of overzealous enforcement of these rules, though. It's definitely not a non-problem.


I agree. Overzealous. It is the diffrence between Andy and Barny.

02/03/2007 04:11:15 PM · #29
Been there, done that, from both sides of the tripod: I'm both a Ranger and a photographer. It's not just the Park service but the National Forest Service along with other federal agencies, state and county agencies that charge for the commercial use of their land. I really don't understand what the problem here is other than people always want something for free.

I know it's public land that is partially owned by photographers along with all the other citizens of the US. Because it is public land that is at issue, we've charged congress to make laws for the management and thus given the authority to charge for use. Photographers pay their models for a shoot so why shouldn't they pay for the sceniery they shoot that's owned by others? In both cases professional photographers are making a profit and that profit is shared through fees for use or salary.
 02/03/2007 04:26:20 PM · #30
Originally posted by d56ranger:
Been there, done that, from both sides of the tripod: I'm both a Ranger and a photographer. It's not just the Park service but the National Forest Service along with other federal agencies, state and county agencies that charge for the commercial use of their land. I really don't understand what the problem here is other than people always want something for free.

I know it's public land that is partially owned by photographers along with all the other citizens of the US. Because it is public land that is at issue, we've charged congress to make laws for the management and thus given the authority to charge for use. Photographers pay their models for a shoot so why shouldn't they pay for the sceniery they shoot that's owned by others? In both cases professional photographers are making a profit and that profit is shared through fees for use or salary.


I totally see the point of why they have to do it. If they didn't, they would have Hollywood trepin huge rigs of gear through the parks and tearing them up for nothing. I totally get it. I just think that if some little guy is shooting a wedding in the park, maybe there should be a little good judgement used on that. Some times authority figures go a little overboard on the enforcement of these rules. If I guy is charging $10 to do a shoot, then technically he is a pro, and if he is being charged $100 to take the photo, then I don't see where the profit comes from.

That is why I don't do this for money. Money screws up everything.
 02/03/2007 04:49:17 PM · #31
Originally posted by boomtap:
Originally posted by d56ranger:
Been there, done that, from both sides of the tripod: I'm both a Ranger and a photographer. It's not just the Park service but the National Forest Service along with other federal agencies, state and county agencies that charge for the commercial use of their land. I really don't understand what the problem here is other than people always want something for free.

I know it's public land that is partially owned by photographers along with all the other citizens of the US. Because it is public land that is at issue, we've charged congress to make laws for the management and thus given the authority to charge for use. Photographers pay their models for a shoot so why shouldn't they pay for the sceniery they shoot that's owned by others? In both cases professional photographers are making a profit and that profit is shared through fees for use or salary.


I totally see the point of why they have to do it. If they didn't, they would have Hollywood trepin huge rigs of gear through the parks and tearing them up for nothing. I totally get it. I just think that if some little guy is shooting a wedding in the park, maybe there should be a little good judgement used on that. Some times authority figures go a little overboard on the enforcement of these rules. If I guy is charging $10 to do a shoot, then technically he is a pro, and if he is being charged $100 to take the photo, then I don't see where the profit comes from.

That is why I don't do this for money. Money screws up everything.


I do believe there are three areas where photogs work. 1) as a hobyist (no charge to themselves here and thus no profit) 2) for themselves as freelancers (obviously they're out to make a buck) and 3) for a client.

In both two and three they need to pay their fair share which, in my 30+ years of experience as a ranger, is always on a sliding scale based on the number of people involved and the cleanup/rehabilitation of the area. If there is only an individual, there is seldom a charge for general photography. And, I have yet to see a contract where a client doesn't pay all reasonable and necessary fees. As to 1) above, I've yet to see a charge.
 02/03/2007 05:27:11 PM · #32
Ever since this incedent. the NPS rules that have been in place are now watched more closely.

Story

I don't blame them. I see no problem with requiring a permit even for a solo shoot (no models extra equipment, etc.). If nothing else its just good for them to know WHO was there and where. Especially if extra access is needed or after hours access. You can go to the NPS website and find out what the requirements are for any individual park and even apply for the permit in advance for some (I didn't check all the parks)

Kind of akin to getting a permit for a backcountry hike or camping. They just need to know who's out there & roughly where they are in case of an emergency.... it can save your life is they know where to look.

I have to commend Mesa Verde Ntl. Park for setting up special events after hours for the public. Last winter I went to an after hours feature where they lit up Cliff Palace with Luminaria for their 100 year anniversarsy. Only done 2x in the history of the park. (they do Spruce Tree Ruin every year) they Invited photogs from all over and waived permits for the night.

02/03/2007 06:15:40 PM · #33
Originally posted by boomtap:
I just think that if some little guy is shooting a wedding in the park, maybe there should be a little good judgement used on that. Some times authority figures go a little overboard on the enforcement of these rules. If I guy is charging $10 to do a shoot, then technically he is a pro, and if he is being charged $100 to take the photo, then I don't see where the profit comes from.


IF you are shooting for $10 and it cost you $100 in fees, you aren't a pro, you're quite frankly an idiot. :-) Sorry, but that's how it is.

Look at it this way... do wedding photographers pay for wedding chapels or churches? No, the bridal party pays for that. If the wedding party wants a wedding shoot at a national park, it is the professional photographers job to add the cost of fees to the bill, IMO. Likewise for portrait sessions.

And we all, if we use a studio, pay for it one way or another. If it's your own home, you are paying for extra energy for lighting and extra cooling. If you are renting space, you are paying. A national park should be no different in the mind of the working pro.

Now, that said, I can see why amateurs with "pro-level" equipment have the right to complain if asked to stop shooting. But, as soon as you take cash to do a gig, even if you are small-time or a newcomer, you are working as a "professional". That includes weddings, portraits, microstock... etc.
 02/03/2007 06:52:34 PM · #34
To play the devil's advocate a bit, it does seem like there is a great deal of "setting the bar just below our feet" here. Most opinions are "I don't mind them charging pros, but what I'm doing does not count." Basically, charge someone else, but not me.

I think the parks should just interpret the laws as written. It does seem like the single guy with a tripod does not qualify under the rules on their site.
 02/03/2007 07:34:09 PM · #35
It has to do with training. Not all park service personel are professional rangers... that is, with the training and experience that goes with the responsibilities they have. And then you have a lot of volunteers that get a 4 hour training and told a lot of things, half of which they forget. Or they like to act more important than they really are. My wife uses a service dog and he goes with her where ever she goes. We run into people at stores, resturants, even doctors offices that haven't a clue about ADA laws and access for service animals. All they know is that during their 4 hour training they were told "No animals allowed". Costco has been our biggest training challenge on ADA laws. LOL! But people that meet and greet and wonder around the parks and public areas are told a bunch of things. They probably have a 500 page handbook at home but all they remember when they are working is "No tripods without a permit".

The best thing to do is ask where the Chief Ranger's office is or the administrator in charge and go talk to him or her. If the guy telling you no is that person, try tact. If you try the approch that you, as a citizen own the land, he might very well point out the 1/8th square inch that is yours and tell you if you stand there and you can shoot all you want.

Remember though... every time you run into a situation that you can't do something, it's probably because there was someone (or a bunch of someone's) there ahead of you that brought that situation on.

Mike
 02/03/2007 07:36:05 PM · #36
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
To play the devil's advocate a bit, it does seem like there is a great deal of "setting the bar just below our feet" here. Most opinions are "I don't mind them charging pros, but what I'm doing does not count." Basically, charge someone else, but not me.

I think the parks should just interpret the laws as written. It does seem like the single guy with a tripod does not qualify under the rules on their site.


Just for clarification: A few individual Parks do have their own extra rules. There are a few that are different from the NPS guidelines. It would be a good idea to check before you go and the information is all online on the individual parks websites within the NPS website.

Edit to add: You can print out the individual Park's photo rule and take them with you to the park.

Message edited by author 2007-02-03 19:38:09.
 02/03/2007 07:59:01 PM · #37
Originally posted by MikeJ:
If you try the approch that you, as a citizen own the land, he might very well point out the 1/8th square inch that is yours and tell you if you stand there and you can shoot all you want.

LOL -- I'm glad now that I have small feet!
 02/03/2007 08:12:53 PM · #38
Only 1/3 fee for mono-pods ;)
 02/07/2007 11:40:33 PM · #39
Well Holy Crap, Bush asks for $3Bln in money for the parks.
 02/07/2007 11:43:16 PM · #40
Originally posted by wavelength:
Well Holy Crap, Bush asks for $3Bln in money for the parks.


Well, exactly how much do ya think they make off of photographers? ;-)
 02/07/2007 11:46:17 PM · #41
This should thrill the environmentalist and photographers. Now if they would cut the $13 million in the NW US for a proposed National Ice Age Glacier Flood hiway signs. Some kind of a flood 13,000 years ago that moved some dirt around and the only way to see it is by putting up hundreds of signs telling people. Stupid. How about keeping the popular parks running and maybe save some wildlife.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 07/31/2025 02:36:56 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: 07/31/2025 02:36:56 PM EDT.