Revising Law: Federal Lands Photography

[L Roebuck]

Feds want journalists to obtain and pay for permits before reporting in national parks
Congress is investigating if Bush Administration abused law
By Melissa Mahony, Plenty

The National Parks belong to the American people, yet more of us learn about them through news coverage than camping or spelunking. Even so the government is currently considering a scheme that could limit—or even block—journalists’ access to federal lands.

The Department of the Interior (DOI) is revising a law that requires permits and fees for commercial filming and photography on federal lands in an attempt to update and standardize what lucrative activities fall under the restriction. The move prompted a Congressional Hearing in December because, as chairman of the Committee on Natural Resources Rep. Nick Rahall (D-WV) said in his opening statement, “This President has shown nothing short of open hostility to the public's right to know. As a result, we take seriously the possibility that in formulating these new regulations governing media activity on federal lands, the Administration may have exceeded Congressional intent when we passed the legislation authorizing these fees back in 2000.”

Full Article

[Azurerana]

Lynn,

As a working journalist, often photographing on federal lands, I read the actual *@!&(&*^~! regulation.

While the employee looking for the $200 fee from the radio reporter was definitely overzealous, I found nothing in the law which restricted reporters, staff, freelance writers or photographers doing "stories" (i.e., text with illustrations) for publication. I hope he or she asked to see the supervisor on duty. Actually, the employee should have cleared the press contact with the supervisor in the first place, and the whole incident would not have happened.

Basically, there are a couple of sentences which essentially say that as long as a writer/journalist/photographer is on the same walkways and areas permitted to the general public, and they haven't hauled in any equipment beyond that normally carried by a tourist (manual tripod, handheld video cam without lights) etc., they are under the same rules as a tourist, and are protected under the 1st Amendment.

If they go to a park and expect special access and shepherding by park personnel, or they are making some sort of installation (like a movie crew would use) they are under the 'commercial use' stipulations. Another determination of what is "commercial" is: is the use of the park scenery for editorial (informational, artistic or aesthetic) purposes, or is Old Faithful being used to sell a product beyond the visitation to the park? A book of photographs of the park being used to illustrate poems or a geology text written about the park is editorial; a book of photographs which are also punch-out postcards of the park would be considered commercial, since the photos have another, purely commercial use (as postcards). A tourist might buy either as a souvenir, however, the geology book would be considered as a protected, free-speech use, since the majority of the original value of the book is in the text, not in the value of the photos. (Anyone could take the photos; few people could write the text.)

Something like the documentary cited by Barna would have to be judged on the basis of content and intent --whether it is primarily educational, or primarily promotional -- using the park to promote a commercial interest or a commercial agenda. It's sort of like the tightwire a 501(c) 3 non-profit corporation walks: a 501c3 can 'educate' until the cows come home; it can even have a particular clear stance on an issue, and it can even lobby its members and the general public to promote that view; but it cannot use substantial amounts of its money to promote a candidate or lobby government directly for action.

There is also an unwritten rule that the common property of the people is not to be used to present the park in an obscene, vulgar, defamatory, or untrue light. Cross that line "Hot Chix at Yellowstone" or a book seriously promoting "The Grand Canyon was dug by Havasu Indians from 5000 BC to 1492 AD" without humorous or parody intent , and both will get you shut down by the NPS. This is the reason for the big controversy over the creationist story of the Canyon, which was originally placed in park bookstores under geology, and which was later moved to the "inspirational" section. Intent is very important when you deal with the NPS, USFS, and other federal agencies. You don't hold Mr. Ranger, sir, at gunpoint, and you don't light the toes of Smokey Bear with matches. Big no-nos, and you will be hanged in the court of public opinion.

I'm personally of the bent that journalists should cooperate with parks wherever possible, and promote them where it can, but never let anything stand in the way of the truth if there is really something unpleasant which needs to be brought to light. And people who are just out there to profit off the parks, without contributing something of value in understanding them need to be regulated, just like I can sue if someone takes my picture, puts it on a box of condoms, and then writes "For a Good Time, call..." on the side of the box.

[L Roebuck]

azurerana said:

Lynn,
As a working journalist, often photographing on federal lands, I read the actual *@!&(&*^~! regulation.

Azurerana can you post the link?

[Azurerana]

Oh, lord, I knew someone would ask this.
Here are some links to active rules:

www.fs.fed.us/recreation/permits/

NPS lets each place make their own regulations, within reason, but here are a few:

www.nps.gov/grba/parkmgmt/film-permits.htm
www.nps.gov/archive/fiis/permits/film/film.html
www.nps.gov/brca/parkmgmt/filmphotoguidelines.htm

These rules aren't that different from those in force on many state lands, nor those which are taught in J schools. I presume since digital equipment has gotten smaller, and all parks are scrambling for funding, that's what brought this to the forefront, but it's just codification of common courtesy, after all-- probably brought on by abuse of the parks.