Fees/fines for commercial photography in US Forests

[BajaSportsmobile]

Originally Posted by photographix

Exactly! The rule applies to Forest Service wilderness lands, not any Park Service lands, nor BLM lands, either. Nor does it apply to Forest areas that are not designated as "wilderness" by Congress. The rule is pretty specific about that.

Don't buy the lie!

The BLM already has a similar policy and they implement it randomly, like when they want to intimidate or harass someone or extort more funds out of a event, and this is what the Forest Service will do.

One more of "one thousand cuts", they are boiling us frogs.

Before you trust these stewards of OUR LAND read this article and watch the video. This is a friend of mine from before she, Brooke Fantelli, was Rodd Fantelli. I have talked to her since this happened and it was very bad.

http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2012/...otch-tasering/

The BLM alleges they were taking "commercial photographs" as justification for their actions.

Rodd and now Brooke is an off-road racer and fabricator (on a very limited budget) who has a "vintage" Datsun race truck she races in the Mexican 1000. They were out in the middle of the desert by Plaster City, bothering no one, hanging out with friends and taking pictures of her truck. We are talking about a less than $10,000 race truck that makes her no money and only costs to own. But, because it is considered professional racing and she does fabrication out of her home in Ramona, it was deemed "commercial".

So, you never know when Ranger Rick is going to decide your photos for your blog are commercial and use it as a ruse to control you or fine you.

Don't buy the lie, "I'm from the government, and I'm here to help".

[youtube:bmykep2s]

[E350]

Bless her for suing. It will be hard on her and it will take a big part of her time, money, and life and I appreciate her fortitude and wish her strength and Godspeed for doing it.

Most people will look for the good parts in Govt oppression and the personal safety (or God forbid "protection of the environment"*) which is promised to the many by killing off (in this case tasering) individual freedom.

Happy talk, happy thoughts. Nothing to see here. Close your eyes, close your mind. Move on.
Ignore that her hands were up and she was not moving for minutes and was not a threat when the taser was fired into her crotch. Into her crotch!

She asked for it. I mean, All women "Ask for it," right? It's her fault.
It won't happen to you because you voted for them...right?**
At the very least we should avoid being involved for fear that we might be the one that the Govt singles out from the herd for punishment.***

But for those of us who are honest, if not with others, at least with ourselves...
Can't we just call fascism, "Fascism!" when we see it?


*Life is a choice. In our lifetime, in America right now, isn't one of our choices freedom vs fascistic environmentalists wearing the uniforms of Govt including FS, BLM, PS? At this point in history, America is the cleanest nation on Earth. We chose to clean up our environment as a people because we love our Country. Our Govt didn't do that. We did that. We aren't going to change our love for and insistence on a clean Country regardless of what the Federal Govt does. So, do we really have to continue to strengthen our fascist Gov't in the name of protecting the environment?

**Hmm, maybe voting for them won't protect you. LGBT... maybe she didn't vote conservative but actually voted for these fascist bastards?

***The Govt calls it "selective enforcement." But at this point, can't we all agree that it is really no more than "selective punishment?"

[rob_gendreau]

Originally Posted by photographix

The reg cited earlier in this post applies to both Ag and Interior Depts, "The Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture (hereafter individually referred to as the “Secretary” with respect to lands under their respective jurisdiction) shall require a permit...." yadda yadda.

So BLM, USFS, and NPS have the same requirement for permitting. Here's the USFS hit on it:

http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/r5/passes ... RDB5349053

The key is in the last paragraph. Wilderness Act lands by definition proscribe uses. There are a few commercial uses allowed (like the horse packers you see). And the filming photography regs apply there.

It appears the recent clamor occurred because the USFS said that meshing the Wilderness Act uses with the regulations on photos means that only certain types of commercial filming, i.e. filming with certain content objectives, should be allowed. In other words, they distinguish the ACTIVITY of filming from the CONTENT of the film in deciding whether to permit. The upshot is that while you could get a permit to film Terminator 6 on regular old USFS or NPS or BLM land, you couldn't in Wilderness Act land; on that land they'd only allow the exact same filming activity only if the movie/photo promotes certain objectives (they're listed in that link). News is still excepted.

No one has ever had an objection to the commercial uses and special permits. It's the restrictions on the subject of filming shot in Wilderness Act lands that set off the outrage.

Frankly, I think it'll be tubed. Since Exxon now has the same First Amendment rights you do I imagine the current court would allow them to shoot a movie in the Ansel Adams Wilderness promoting the use of their motor oil....