SoCalAngler
Senior Member
That ruling was overturned by Federal Appellate Court last August. Most recent current state regarding commercial work is here
Loading…
sgp.fas.org
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
heads up on taking videos in US national parks
- Thread starter foot
- Start date
you can't find any, period, because your claim was wrong.
you just can't admit it.
no, the o.p. said nothing at all about profit, it was *you* that brought it up, out of nowhere.
read what you posted, not what you imagine.
you just stated that "if the nps starts fining", now you contradict yourself by claiming that they have been fined.
here, i'll highlight your own quoted words above.
now you are trying to attach conditions to your own contradictory claims.
i don't know why you think that the overall income of a youtuber matters, but as usual it's illogical.
no, as i've repeatedly stated, the nps does not list application fees.
welcome to my ignore filter.
Michael Fryd
Forum Pro
Yes. The triggers for requiring a permit are whether you have a model, whether you have a crew, the amount of gear you have, your impact on the park, and whether or not this is a commercial shoot.
A dad shooting family on his iPhone for personal enjoyment would typically not need a permit. Posting your personal videos on YouTube, Facebook, etc., does not make it commercial, as most people do not make any money from this sort of posting.
Nothing in the rules suggests that sharing the video triggers a need for a permit.
I assume the park management gets to decide,
Yes, when there is a disagreement on how the rules are being interpreted, the courts may be called in to resolve the situation.
As has been mentioned, that ruling was overturned.
.
But let's talk about the real world.
Imagine someone shooting a video with their iPhone or small Interchangeable Lens Camera. It looks the same, whether the video is for personal enjoyment, or for publishing on a profit making YouTube account.
To a park ranger, they look the same, and it is unlikely that in either case a park ranger would take an interest.
Now if the YouTube guy has a larger production, he might attract attention. Have a cameraman, a sound guy, a PA taking notes, someone holding a light/reflector, and do multiple takes, and it is more likely that you're going to get asked for your permit and insurance certificates.
My suspicion is that if a YouTube blogger is getting asked for permits, then the nature of his shoot is bigger than some dad making a personal video.
.
Remember, if you have a small shoot, then do it with the intention of personal use. Then you don't need a permit. Should, at a later date, you decide to monetize that video, you haven't broken the rules, as it was not a commercial shoot when it was created.
sybersitizen
Forum Pro
I can find lots and lots of national park videos - far more than I'll ever need:
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=national+park+videos
The subject of the thread always was profit* considerations of video shooters. If they're not profiting* from them, they don't have to pay for permits or insurance.
* profit: obtain a financial advantage or benefit
You forgot about poor. It's an actual word with meaning.
I'm sorry if you read your own meanings into what was written. Not my fault.
It should be easy to understand. Poor YouTubers will have more trouble dealing with fines than well-to-do YouTubers will, and fining poor people could turn public sentiment harshly against those NPS rules.
If you say so, okay. I won't dispute it.
I'm so glad this is over then. As I said, it will never go anywhere useful. I've been careful to remain nice in our discussion, and that is the way I'll leave it.
Last edited:
exactly... a park ranger wouldn't take an interest because a guy with a smartphone is not having a negative impact on the park, nor the visitor experience for other people.
the fact that his footage might be monitized for pennies on youtube doesn't change any of that, if anything allowing it increases the visitor count, because some people will go to other parks to shoot for youtube distribution.
the problem is with people turning shooters in to nps for monitizing it on youtube, which is what happened with the youtubers in the article.
hmmmm.....unfortunately there exists the possibility that the infringement could be found later, after the video has been posted...
when it comes to revenue, no rock goes un-turned...lol
I totally agree with large shoots, more than personal gear (ie lights, sound recording boom mics, that sort of thing) should need a permit and pay for their use...
Craig Gillette
Forum Pro
I think the "permit" triggers should be the impact, if any, on the resources, potential need for deconflicting multiple users/uses, etc. A clutch of hobbyists could have as much impact as a workshop. A dad shooting family videos recording the fun on their trip and narrating with a bunch of kids running around or being posed can easily have as much impact or be as disruptive or more so than a videographer couple narrating their travel clips, etc.
Also, by defining visual clues, such as use of props, models, lighting gear, or special services, timing, support, etc. it avoids any subjective claims about looking like it was intended to make money or discussing that I'm doing this for fun, I'm not trying to make money and is an objective pointer to impacts beyond the typical visitors.
The fees and bureaucratic hoops should be directly related to the management costs for providing the necessary services or opportunities. If this to generate revenue, make it a tax. And, as is happening, expect to defend oppressive fees and/or taxes applied with the effect of discouraging or precluding protected expressive activity in court.
Also, by defining visual clues, such as use of props, models, lighting gear, or special services, timing, support, etc. it avoids any subjective claims about looking like it was intended to make money or discussing that I'm doing this for fun, I'm not trying to make money and is an objective pointer to impacts beyond the typical visitors.
The fees and bureaucratic hoops should be directly related to the management costs for providing the necessary services or opportunities. If this to generate revenue, make it a tax. And, as is happening, expect to defend oppressive fees and/or taxes applied with the effect of discouraging or precluding protected expressive activity in court.
If the information on the NPS website doesn't answer your question, contact the park you plan to visit.
Awesome.
NPS has responsibility for the management of US national parks. They set and enforce the policies and fee systems.
If you want to hire a lawyer and sue, that's your right.
davel33
Senior Member
Vey well thought out post thanks 
There may be a benefit in it for us regular national park users, you may be able to find an open spot
There may be a benefit in it for us regular national park users, you may be able to find an open spot
Michael Fryd
Forum Pro
Traditionally, photographers charge usage fees based on how the photos will be used, not how much effort was involved in creating the photo.
Imagine a photographer who takes a single DSLR into a National Park to grab a quick photo for a client’s national advertising campaign. The photographer might take the position that he shouldn’t have to pay a fee to the park, as his quick photo had almost zero impact on the park. He might also take the position that even though it was a quick photo, the client should pay a huge licensing fee, as the image will used in a national campaign.
In other words, the photographer shouldn’t pay fees based on how the product is used, even though he demands exactly that from his customers.
Mackiesback
Forum Pro
This "profit" thing is a little thorny. Profit is only realized when expenses are covered. At the time you have to pay for this permit, there is no way of realizing that there will be any profit. All that is established is that there will be some compensation for the YouTuber if they post the video. That in no way determines if it will be profitable.
Mackiesback
Forum Pro
Will you now?
Arches National Park. Sunny Day. Dozens to hundreds of people there, taking selfies, filming short video clips of themselves or friends that can be used on Insta, Tik Tok, Facebook, Zoom, YouTube, etc. Some platforms that compensate, some that don't.
So, you gonna go up and interview every one of them to see what their intent is, and where they are going to post the content, and then turn in the ones that say "YouTube"?
Good luck with that.
Same thing if you take a picture in a national park and sell a print to somebody right?
One of the qualifiers widely used between amatuer and professional photography is the use of a tripod, if you want to argue that we can find lots of examples, it's been a qualifier over and over again.
Be fun when this video permit spills over to still photography and if you want to use a tripod in a national park to create amateur photographs you will have to pay a fee. go through a permitting process.
--
Thanks,
Mike
https://www.travel-curious.com
Last edited:
sybersitizen
Forum Pro
That particular definition of profit is not the one I'm using here. People focusing only on the other definition are wasting bandwidth. This is the one, which was already explained above:
* profit: obtain a financial advantage or benefit
The criterion is 'with the intent of generating income' and that is stated on the page.
So, apparently, you can say you never had any intent to generate income, even if that eventually happens, and everything will be fine.
Last edited:
sybersitizen
Forum Pro
It's apparently not the same to the NPS.
Perhaps that qualifier exists at some parks, but I don't see it mentioned in this example:
https://www.nps.gov/yose/planyourvisit/filming.htm
Still PhotographyWhen is a permit needed?
Price v. Barr had no impact on how the National Park Service regulates still photography, so there are no changes in how the National Park Service regulates that activity. Still photographers require a permit only when:
- the activity takes place at location(s) where or when members of the public are generally not allowed; or
- the activity uses model(s), sets(s), or prop(s) that are not a part of the location's natural or cultural resources or administrative facilities; or
- a park would incur additional administrative costs to monitor the activity.
A crystal ball tells you it will? Is there a predicted date?
The ball even predicts the tripod verbiage change. Wow.
Last edited:
Mackiesback
Forum Pro
The definition of "profit" you are using is not the definition of profit. Per Oxford:
*a financial gain, especially the difference between the amount earned and the amount spent in buying, operating, or producing something.*
That is what profit is, and what every business realizes. You are talking about compensation.
That said there is no way NPS can know what your expenses are, what compensation your work will generate etc, so the have to mostly go by walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, its a duck. If you make your efforts look commercial a ranger will probably address it, if it looks like a rando taking a video for Facebook, highly unlikely.
We have probably spent more time debating it than NPS does enforcing YouTubers.
sybersitizen
Forum Pro
You seem to think that profit has just one definition. That is incorrect.
For one thing, that refers to the noun form.
Secondly, especially is a word that is not synonymous with exclusively. Look it up.
The verb form, per pretty much any dictionary:
obtain a financial advantage or benefit
It doesn't even have to be financial if it's an advantage or a benefit. A contextual example from the King James Bible:
“For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?”
Finally, if you can't accept the word profit in my posts, just substitute generate income or generating income or generated income so the focus can return to the NPS rules.
Please let this unproductive line of discussion about one word go. If it's important for you to disagree with me about something, take a different tack.
Last edited:
Michael Fryd
Forum Pro
Do not make the mistake of assuming that the legal meaning of a word or phrase matches the dictionary meaning.
When it comes to the law, certain phrases have special meanings. These meanings are determined by tradition, law, and court rulings.
For instance, the courts might determine that an activity qualifies as a "profit making activity", if it was done with the hope of making a profit. This can be the case even if the activity is so poorly conceived, that it can't possibly make a profit.
Furthermore, the classification of something can vary with context. For instance, in the context of whether or not you need a permit, it might qualify as a for-profit, commercial endeavor. However, in the context of federal income tax, it might be classified as a "hobby."
When it comes to the law, common sense does not always apply.
tbcass
Forum Pro
When I was working I would sometimes help proofread contracts. What I found was much of it was repeating the same thing in multiple different ways so no matter how it was interpreted the intended meaning was in there. All one has to do is see how often posts here in these forums are misinterpreted to realize why it is necessary.
Another example is the way people can read different parts of the US constitution and come up with different meanings. These interpretations are influenced by an individual's bias so it means what they want it to mean.
--
Tom
Last edited:
Craig Gillette
Forum Pro
They charge both. But this is about the legality or processes of the NP fees and some nebulous "intent to profit."
He didn't use any extraneous resources, interfere with others, etc. Two cars are driven up the 41 from Fresno. Both are driven through the Wawona tunnel. Turn left at Tunnel View, exit the car and take a picture. Driver A used his "pass" of some sort. Driver B is charged an additional $150 to be allowed to take the same picture, after having had to fill out a permit request 2 weeks (whatever) before providing his info, having his motives reviewed, and some minion of the Park Service determines, as a professional, that there is an intent to profit. Which quite directly is a constitutionally protected expressive activity.
Exactly. He pays taxes on his "profit." He doesn't pay higher rent on the car if he flew in for the shoot, doesn't pay more for his camera because he makes money with it. Doesn't pay a "business user" additional gas fee when filling the car. Doesn't sit with that image in his stock portfolio for years until it fits a campaign and gets used or can't be used because he didn't pay a fee before taking it.
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum