!U.S. Photographers! This effects you!

[CyberDyneSystems]

I received this as a memebr of North American Nature Photograohers Association,..

Although this is aimed towards nature photogrphers,. it really effects all photographers in the US.

Fellow NANPA Members:

As nature photographers we are constantly faced with challenges that we learn to overcome in order to perfect our craft. Today we are faced with a greater challenge--one that could ultimately affect our very ability to pursue our subjects on public lands.

The National Arboretum in Washington D.C. has proposed a fee and set of regulations for photography at its facility. This proposal, which can be seen at http://************/4hhtz section 23, is so sweeping that if the National Arboretum's parent organization, the Department of Agriculture, and other government agencies were to adopt these fees and restrictions for public lands, nature photography could be seriously hampered in the future.

I believe this proposal is poorly thought out at best and illegal in the worst case. This proposed regulation is in opposition to the congressionaly- enacted P.L. 106-206 which states that professional and amateur photographers do NOT need a permit and do NOT need to pay a fee to take still photographs unless the still photography will:


Use models, sets or props that are not part of the site's natural or cultural resources or administrative facilities;
Take place where members of the public are generally not allowed; or
Take place at a location where additional administrative costs are likely.

As you can see, this law reaffirms our right to conduct most common nature photography on public lands. Below is NANPA's official response to the National Arboretum's proposed regulation.

*********************************

Thomas S. Elias
Director
US National Arboretum
Beltsville Area Agricultural Research Service
3501 New York Avenue, NE
Washington, DC 20002

Dear Dr. Elias:
We are writing this letter with respect to the proposed new schedule of fees as described in the Federal Register of December 20, 2004, under 7 CFR 500, National Arboretum. It is the position of the 2500-member North American Nature Photography Association (NANPA), that we strongly support the right reaffirmed by the congressionally enacted P.L. 106-206 and that these proposals violate that law. P.L. 106-206 states that professional and amateur photographers do NOT need a permit and need NOT pay a fee to take still photographs unless the still photography will:

Use models, sets or props that are not part of the site's natural or cultural resources or administrative facilities;
Take place where members of the public are generally not allowed; or
Take place at a location where additional administrative costs are likely.
As you are most likely aware, this law is specifically directed at the United States Department of Agriculture and the United States Department of the Interior. We believe that since the Arboretum is administered by the Department of Agriculture, P.L. 106-206 is binding upon it.

While NANPA appreciates that your proposals mention that they do not intend to hamper the right of free speech by the press, we must insist that the rights clearly given by P.L. 106-206 not be infringed by your proposal.

Darrell Gulin
President
North American Nature Photography Association

********************************


Along with the NANPA board, I encourage you to forward your individual input on this proposal to Mr. Elias using the address at the top of the letter before the public comment period ends on February 18.

Jess Lee
Chair, NANPA Resource Relations Committee

[Steven M. Anthony]

Hmmm. Tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans, and fees to snap photos in a park... something's not adding up for me... :)

[Turbowolf]

This is no different than the requirements for commercial photographers in the National Park System. If they make money from a tax-payer underfunded park, building or other public property, why not pay a fee to take the shot. Not really any different than a hunting license if you think about it.

According to the linked proposal, there will be no fee for individual photographers taking personal use pictures. Commercial photographers will need to pay $30 if the photographer receives a fee for or which are for other than personal use.

So, take the photo's, use them as gifts, and accept cash gifts in return. :evil:

[Scottes]

As Turbowolf implies, this isn't so bad. At a local NWR you can get a Photographer's Permit that will let you get into [some] restricted areas. This can be extremely important as some of those areas could get you some most awesome shots.

CDS: This is Parker River, the place you repeatedly cursed out the "Restricted Areas" signs. This might be worth $30 - though I wouldn't make a habit of paying it since I don't make anything from pics.

[slejhamer]

Er, did NANPA actually read the proposal? Dept. of Agriculture has had authority to charge a fee to commercial photographers at the Arb since 1996... Nothing in the proposal seems to change that.

Amateurs with "small non-commercial tripods" will not be charged. Sounds like I'll have to scratch the "pro" off of my 3021Pro 'pod.

[IndyJeff]

Hmmm. Tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans, and fees to snap photos in a park... something's not adding up for me... :)



Correction, that is tax breaks for ALL American taxpayers and the fees for shooting in national parks have been like that for a long time. Get your facts straight before you start launching your left wing talking points.

[Belmondo]

I really tried to get upset about this, but I just can't.

Of greater concern to me would be going to the National Arboretum and being denied access to certain photo opportunities by a professional who has paid his $30 and taken over one whole area of the park with lights, models, assistants, and so forth. That kind of useage should be after hours, done in such a way that it doesn't interfere with average visitors, and should proabably cost a lot more than $30.00.

But what do I know?

[Scottes]

Checking a little bit from http://parkerriver.fws.gov/information/photography.html

PHOTOGRAPHY PERMIT INFORMATION
PARKER RIVER NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE
261 Northern Boulevard, Plum Island
Newburyport, Massachusetts 01950
978-465-5753

USER FEES

* Commercial Operations (filming commercials, shooting advertisement print work, etc.) - $100/hour plus $20/hour for a Service representative if it is deemed necessary. A Certificate of Insurance is also required naming the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service as certificate holder with the filming company assuming all liability for losses and damages. A Special Use Permit (see below) is required.
* Commercial Photographer (any person who sells photographs whether or not he or she operates a business for such a purpose) - apply for a Special Use Permit (see below) only if your request includes access to a closed area(s) of the Refuge. $50/permit.
* Recreational Photographer (any person who takes photographs exclusively for personal use) - apply for a Special Use Permit (see below) only if your request includes access to a closed area(s) of the Refuge. $25/permit.

So $50 for a commercial photographer or $25 for a recreational photographer for access to normally-closed areas. Reasonable, I'd say, and while I'd like to see the recreational permit be lower the price does keep out the less-than-serious. I'll most likely look into this more in the spring, as it seems like it has potential to be worthwhile. Many of the key locations at this NWR are closed to the general public.

[slejhamer]

should proabably cost a lot more than $30.00.




It's $30 for the license, then $40/hour for "supervision costs."

[Belmondo]

Oh. :oops: I never was very good at fine print.

Even so, I don't think it's enough money to greatly influence their annual budget which is heavily subsidized by taxpayer funds. I would still be pretty steamed if I went to a public facility on Federal land only to learn that I was being denied access to parts of it because someone had paid a fee of even several hundred dollars and was using it for profit-making purposes.

The bottom line, though is the precedent is dangerous.....not the specific numbers. It doesn't take a great stretch of imagination to envision a day when they might try to implement a charge for all cameras. If they decide they can charge for a professional using a camera, how about an amateur using professional equipment?

Darn.

I just tried again to get excited about this and once again, failed.

[Steven M. Anthony]

Correction, that is tax breaks for ALL American taxpayers and the fees for shooting in national parks have been like that for a long time. Get your facts straight before you start launching your left wing talking points.

That's a good one, IJ. While on paper the breaks go to all taxpayers, the bulk of the benefits go to the wealthiest. And when you factor in the additional costs low-income families will pay for some services because federal subsidies for those services were eliminated or cut to pay for the tax breaks, the low end of the economic ladder is WORSE off than without the tax relief.

[IndyJeff]

What this all comes down to is making money. If your shooting with the intent of selling the photos then your looking to make money off the parks. Could you find another setting that would do just as well? Probably not, so you will pay the fee. Why should you be allowed to shoot for commercial purposes and not compensate the land managers or owners?

If it was a private farm and the owner wanted to be paid would anyone have a problem with it?

Belmondo, I agree with you that if someone had an area reserved and you wanted to shoot there too and were denied I would be steamed but, if he paid for it, it is his for the day.
We have wanted to go to a park for a picnic and the area we wanted had been reserved by someone else having a family reunion. We were disappointed sure but, we just found another place. Next time if we really want that spot, we will reserve it ourselves in advance.
People paying to shoot just pass that cost on to the end user/consumer and the park makes a little money. Granted it won't solve their money shortfalls but, it will add up if enough people pay for a permit.

I have been in this discussion before with another photographer. He thinks that because it is public land it should be free for everyone. When I suggested that instead of selling his wildlife shots, why not just give them away. His answer was because he is doing it to make money. When I pointed out that the park was charging him to make money his only response was "Oh yeah, well I guess you make your money where you can. I will just raise my prices a couple of bucks."

[Steven M. Anthony]

What this all comes down to is making money. If your (sic) shooting with the intent of selling the photos then your (sic) looking to make money off the parks. Could you find another setting that would do just as well? Probably not, so you will pay the fee. Why should you be allowed to shoot for commercial purposes and not compensate the land managers or owners?

I think the issue is that, as taxpayers, we are already paying for the park. So, unlike land owned by someone else, the parks are owned by us. With that in mind, it would be like making yourself pay a fee to shoot photos of your own back yard.

[Longwatcher]

I fall under the I am already paying for the park. If going into a closed area or performing an activity that imposes on other visitors then I have no problem with a fee. If not intruding on anyone else, then the only fee should be one that everyone pays for the parks use if there is a use fee. There should be no special fee for photographers on puplic lands whether they make money off it or not. There is no lose of the resource from taking a picture of it and in some cases the value can increase, so there should be no fee for taking pictures.

As to taxes. I am not seeing any tax break. I am single and the only break in my range is I get to deduct my sales tax if more the certain amount. And that is not looking likely for me.
So it certainly doesn't apply to every American. I am still trying to figure out how you can lower taxes while fighting a war. But that is politics and and I will stop now.

[Steven M. Anthony]

Quote deleted---Belmondo

So much for the open exchange of ideas...


Longwatcher: Yes--I agree: the entrance fee should cover taking pictures as long as you aren't keeping others from access. What will be next, an extra fee to walk in the park once you enter! :)

[scottbergerphoto]

It's sad when two people can't have a disagreement without needing to denigrate the other's opinion or make a personal attack on the other's intelligence quotient to make a point. It serves no educational value nor does it help to maintain an open forum in which to discuss differing viewpoints.
In other words, please keep it civil or please take it outside!
Scott

[Scottes]

Yup, this crap gets very tiring quickly. Take it private or shut up in public.

[IndyJeff]

Yup, this crap gets very tiring quickly. Take it private or shut up in public.


Oh I will shut up alright, no worry about that!

[Avalonthas]

By reading this post, im stunned. So much conflict of intrest in America lol.

Us Canucks get to snap photo's for free in any national park and it only costs like 0 to 6 bucks to get in depending on the park. Of course i am willing to pay the small 2-8 bucks as it supports the great efforts of those managing the parks. Although I wish Canada had an everglades :)

[scottbergerphoto]

Sure. How many pictures of a moose with a six of Molson can you take? ;)
Scott

[PacAce]

Sure. How many pictures of a moose with a six of Molson can you take? ;)
Scott
Now what I'd really like to see is a guy kissing a moose. :shock:
On second thought, scratch that idea. Someone just might take me up on that! :confused:

[Steven M. Anthony]

It's sad when two people can't have a disagreement without needing to denigrate the other's opinion or make a personal attack on the other's intelligence quotient to make a point. It serves no educational value nor does it help to maintain an open forum in which to discuss differing viewpoints.
In other words, please keep it civil or please take it outside!
Scott

I agree. I always find something of value when debating a point with someone with a different pov than mine. After comments that some of my previous posts were a bit too pointed, I took great care in addressing IJ's ideas in a way that wouldn't be misconstrued as a personal attack. I hope I was successful.

[Turbowolf]

Oh. :oops: I never was very good at fine print.

Even so, I don't think it's enough money to greatly influence their annual budget which is heavily subsidized by taxpayer funds. I would still be pretty steamed if I went to a public facility on Federal land only to learn that I was being denied access to parts of it because someone had paid a fee of even several hundred dollars and was using it for profit-making purposes.



Good point -

While I was in Yellowstone, I had the unfortunate instance of being in the right place at the wrong time. While at Old Faithful, I staked out my location to take photo's 30 minutes ahead of the eruption. Five minutes to go, I had a German film crew tell me to move as they had paid a fee to shoot the park, so that gave them the right to tell me to move. When I refused they started to move my stuff.

After the a** bitched me out for ruining his 'experience', the Ranger accompanying them stated, in no uncertain terms, that they had paid a fee to take images, NOT TO IMPACT a visitor's experience. At that point he revoked their permit and told them to pack up. Commercial photographers in a National Park are behind the tourists in priority ... visitors come first. When the a** pointed to my 20D, white lens and all, claiming that only pro's owned that caliber of equipment, I calmly produced my college student ID, and asked how many college students could really be pros...

I then turned nasty, something about taking and moving my equipment. And since one of his crew was still holding my backpack containing the laptop, extra 300D bodies, etc., I made a comment about exerting unauthorized control over property which was not theirs, well, one theft citation later...

[rssfhs]

What about authors and musicians who go to parks for inspiration and then make money off of their books and music? Will they be charged too?

[Scottes]

What about authors and musicians who go to parks for inspiration and then make money off of their books and music? Will they be charged too?
Yeah! And what about all those darn painters? They're just making stuff up, practically.
:-)


Humor off, this is a good point. Why do the photogs get bagged with the extra charge? I'm not sure that I follow this reasoning of photogs only.

[Steven M. Anthony]

What about authors and musicians who go to parks for inspiration and then make money off of their books and music? Will they be charged too?

My guess is that "the man" :) would say the writers and musicians are inspired by the park and then interpret it on their own. But the same is true for photogs. Each image is but a fraction of the total experience, as interpreted by the photog.

[Bodog]

Are these fees on top of any other "use" or entrance fee?

[Avalonthas]

Sure. How many pictures of a moose with a six of Molson can you take? ;)
Scott

Well you can take one CF card worth of the 6 pack. Drink one beer. Take one CF card worth of the 5 pack. Drink one beer. Take one CF card worth of the 4 pack. Drink one beer. Take one CF card worth of the 3 pack. Drink one beer. Take one CF card worth of the 2 pack. Drink one beer. Take one CF card worth of the 1 can. Drink one beer. And then u can take some shots of the mooses rump because ur so wasted u cant tell the difference from his head :P Us canadians sure love our molson and moose rump!

So with 7 CF cards (1 Gigabyte Lexar 80x), you can get 7000 megabytes of raw footage, which amounts to approximately 1300 photographs, and after post processing, a good 10 gigs worth of data. YAY@ME. lol im a loser.

[slejhamer]

Are these fees on top of any other "use" or entrance fee?

If you are referring to the original post, then no, the Arb is otherwise free.

[dphotomania]

So it sounds like we need to remove all labeling from our equipement and just use it as an amauter if being amauter is free. They cant tell what model is a Pro. Camera if there is no labeling.

But I do hate the additional fees. Now in NYC, if you are carrying a camera, you can be stopped and questioned. Imagine they make us (photogs) to pay a fee just to carry a camera with a flash because we are all a pro-photog..... Hmmmm more money to the Government.

Turbowolf, good going, You stand up for your rights, and I truely agree on the park ranger for writing them up. They have no right to touch your equipment as well. They are lucky that the laptop and 300D wasnt broken. :p

Also owning a 20D doesnt mean we have to be a Pro. I have 1. I dont make any $$ out of my pictures. That a** needs to be educated. :p

Thanks for reading.;)

[Monito]

Now in NYC, if you are carrying a camera, you can be stopped and questioned.

I found a very supportive and useful link about photographers' rights (http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm), updated 2003 and 2004, which points to a one page guide (http://www.krages.com/ThePhotographersRight.pdf) I printed and put in my camera bag.

[dphotomania]

Monito, Thanks for the link. I am going to print a few copy incase the tear the one I show them up or some how missing. :lol: Anything can happen in NYC. Hahhahaaa.Thanks again

[CyberDyneSystems]

Just to clarify,. and sorry I dropped this little bomb and disappeared for a day....

I belive that the issues at hand are two fold.

First,. the existing standard is similar to the areas that Scottes refers to in his posts,..

Currently in any federal wildlife area a photographer may be charges for the following conditions;

* Use models, sets or props that are not part of the site's natural or cultural resources or administrative facilities;

*Take place where members of the public are generally not allowed; or

*Take place at a location where additional administrative costs are likely.

There for at PArker river a fee would be paid to gain acces to non public or restricted ares.

This is not being challenged.

What is being proposed is ANY commercial photography would be charged a fee regardless of where it took place (at the Arboretum). And this is against the current law.

The second concern is the big picture:

As Belmondo says,. it is not the cost of the fee,. it is the precedent it sets that is dangerous to photographers that my own interests. It tosses aside the existing regulations that give specific permissions for every other Federal or National W.R...

I've got no problem with paying a fee for special acces etc..

But by this precedent it could mean that just trying to go to Parker River and walk the trails with professional looking gear could result in either paying a fee or turning around and going home.

Again, currently you can go and take photos of birds at a national park and sell the images for commercial use without paying ANY fee. You only have to pay fees when you are requesting special access etc. as outlined in the quote above.

Try to imagine a "hobbiest" with a back pack full of professional gear on the trail face to face with a parks management officer,..

How would we explain that our intentions are not commercial?

What defines commercial? And I don't mean legally in a civial court,. I mean right then and there face to face with the enforcement officer in question?

How can he do his job without making life really tough for the hobbiest that looks pro?

What if I do sell the images later to "Wild Birds Magazine" etc... ?

[slejhamer]

What is being proposed is ANY commercial photography would be charged a fee regardless of where it took place (at the Arboretum). And this is against the current law.



And that's why I asked my question above: This is NOT against the current law, and in fact is consistent with rules established in 1996 which allowed the Arb to charge these fees. The proposal codifies the fee schedule for photography, but does not materially change the authority to charge fees.

These rules are specific to the Arb, not to other federal properties. You can argue that this sets a precedent for other federal lands and I would agree with you, but the precedent was established nine years ago, not by the current proposal.

Section 890(b) of the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996, Pub. L. 104–127 (1996 Act) expanded the authorities of the Secretary of Agriculture to charge reasonable fees for the use of USNA facilities and grounds. These authorities included the ability to charge fees for ... commercial photography and cinematography.

There are indeed many changes being proposed, such as new limitations on intoxicating beverages and narcotics, pet leash requirements, illegal parking ...

[CyberDyneSystems]

If they have been charging fees in teh arboretum then the two sets of laws are conflicting.

(c) STILL PHOTOGRAPHY.—(1) Except as provided in paragraph
(2), the Secretary shall not require a permit nor assess a fee
for still photography on lands administered by the Secretary if
such photography takes place where members of the public are
generally allowed. The Secretary may require a permit, fee, or
both, if such photography takes place at other locations where
members of the public are generally not allowed, or where additional
administrative costs are likely.
(2) 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 site’s natural or cultural resources or administrative
facilities.
(d) PROTECTION OF RESOURCES.—The Secretary shall not permit
any filming, still photography or other related activity if the Secretary
determines—
(1) there is a likelihood of resource damage;
(2) there would be an unreasonable disruption of the
public’s use and enjoyment of the site; or
(3) that the activity poses health or safety risks to the
public.

[slejhamer]

If they have been charging fees in teh arboretum then the two sets of laws are conflicting.

Seemingly, yes. But really, that's only true if the intention of Pub. Law 106-206 was to override Pub. Law 104-127, which was very specific with respect to the Arb. I think NANPA will have a tough time proving that.

Originally Posted by Public Law 104-127, 104th Congress,
Section 890(b):

... the Secretary of Agriculture, in furtherance of the mission of the National Arboretum, may ... charge such fees as the Secretary of Agriculture considers reasonable for the use of the National Arboretum for commercial photography or cinematography;

Unfortunately, the Arb administrators and security guards take this law a little too seriously, and will question anyone with professional-looking gear. I know some people who went there recently with their camera club, and they were given quite a hassle before finally convincing the guards they weren't a crew of pros. :rolleyes:

[Jon]

Seemingly, yes. But really, that's only true if the intention of Pub. Law 106-206 was to override Pub. Law 104-127, which was very specific with respect to the Arb. I think NANPA will have a tough time proving that.



Unfortunately, the Arb administrators and security guards take this law a little too seriously, and will question anyone with professional-looking gear. I know some people who went there recently with their camera club, and they were given quite a hassle before finally convincing the guards they weren't a crew of pros. :rolleyes:

IANAL, but I don't think that intent to supercede PL 104-127 is a requirement. In order for PL 106-206 to not apply to the National Arboretum, it would have to have been specifically listed within PL-106-206 as a non-covered area. PL 106-206 specifically states that it applies to "Federallands administered by the Secretary". It makes no exceptions, and applies to the Secretaries of the Interior and of Agriculture. Me, I'll just make sure I have my USDA ID with me.

[slejhamer]

Me, I'll just make sure I have my USDA ID with me.


LOL.

Uh, hey Jon, can you get one for me? I work in Bethesda ... I'll come pick it up... (for photography purposes only, of course!)
;)

[Jon]

Sorry, it's not quite that easy. I work there . . . but in IT, not photography.

[Avalonthas]

Tell ur employer that u lost ur ID, request a new one, and then sell the old one lol.

[Jon]

Wouldn't work - you don't even look like me . . . not grey enough!

[Tom Reichner]

I am so angered by this I feel a case of heartburn coming on . . .

[cosworth]

This thread was four years old when you dug it up. As you can see it was never enacted.