Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoHauler
Nothing in the discussion so far has implied anything other than applying to commercial work, but how you define commercial could get sticky. So Daveb takes some pictures in one of the subject areas and posts it to his blog. Well maybe his blog is sponsored, or he generates some revenue by having some ads on it. Is his the photo now used for commercial purposes, and is Daveb not subject to a $1000 fine?
Also, the disclaimer of "Only to Congressionally designated wilderness areas that are under the purvue of the US Forest Service" doesn't make me feel better one little bit. Why are those areas subject to this permit/fee/fine? How do we see major shifts in public policy? Start small and then expand it, like the Forest Service Recreation Fee.
Herb
|
Good points. I agree with you. The rule is vague, and although I am not a lawyer, it appears to give the FS the power to approve or deny permits willy-nilly.
Some excerpts from here:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/16/460l-6d
(Emphasis is mine.)
"(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."
The Secretary "may require a permit"? And "...where members of the public are generally not allowed..."?
Sounds like the Secretary is now empowered to decide on a case-by-case basis who can get a permit, and can suddenly close areas that were previously open, at will.
"(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;..."
What constitutes "damage"? Footprints? Broken twigs? Litter? Again, pretty vague.
Like the FAA ban on commercial photography by R/C aircraft, this rule also sounds like agency overreach. IMO.