1.
Be Careful Who You Photograph
in National Parks
Posted by: "stonieorl99" stonieorl@xxxxxxx stonieorl99
Sat Oct 6, 2007 5:56 am (PST)
- A few weeks ago, I was issued a citation in a national park for
- photographing a model without a permit.
- The offense was "failure to obtain permit," 36 CFR 1.6(g)(1);
- the citation did not mention the law or
- regulation that actually required the permit. The citation imposed a
- $150
- fine, and required a mandatory court appearance. I might have
- contested the
- charge, but the court appearance would have been in Salt Lake City,
- Utah,
- and I live in Florida.
- The ranger took my camera, tripod, and three exposed rolls of film. I
- was
- not rude or uncooperative. As a matter of fact, he said if I had not
- been so
- cooperative he would have made it a lot worse on me.
- After talking to his supervisor, he did return the camera and tripod
- the
- next day, but kept the film as evidence. He was very courteous, and
- when we
- began to chat about it, it came out that the real reason he issued
- the citation
- was that my model was nude. Although nudity is legal in national
- parks (as
- the ranger himself admitted), he didn't approve personally, and this
- was the
- strongest citation he could find to issue. By the way, he gave the
- model the
- same citation that he gave me, imposing a $150 fine and requiring a
- court
- appearance.
- He stated that if I decided to fight the citation, "community
- standards"
- would come into play and I would for sure loose the fight (He kept my
- film
- to prove my shots were not up to "community standards"). He also said
- if I
- had applied for a permit I would have been denied because of the same
- "community standards."
- I shoot art nudes, sometimes in landscapes. None could possibly be
- considered
- pornographic or distasteful. All the shots on the day I was cited had
- the
- model framing the landscape; all that was visible was her back or
- side as
- she looked out over a canyon, and most people would have to look
- twice to
- even notice her in the image. By the way, we were in a remote area
- early in
- the morning. No one had complained. The ranger apparently had seen us
- as he
- made routine early morning rounds through the park. It seems the
- citation
- was issued solely because of the ranger's personal tastes and his
- interpretation of "community standards."
- I looked at the NPS web page for permits for Commercial Filming and
- Still
- Photography at
- http://home.nps.gov/applications/digest/permits.cfm?urlarea=permits,
- and
- noticed that photography in national parks requires a permit when;
- "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"
- There are no definitions of any of these terms, so it is not clear
- who is a
- "model." Looking at the fee schedule at the bottom of the web page,
- it does
- not even appear that a permit is needed for still photography
- involving only
- a camera and tripod and 1?2 people. After seeing this, I wish I had
- been
- able to fight the citation, but I simply could not afford the time
- and expense.
- NOW TO THE BOTTOM LINE.
- I just learned that there is a proposed rule formalizing the permit
- requirements for lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management,
- the
- U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the National Park Service.
- Reading the
- proposed rule, especially after my recent experience, I am concerned
- that a
- "model," "set," or "prop" may be interpreted to mean whatever a
- particular
- ranger wants it to be. Perhaps a "model" could even include a
- photographer's
- spouse, son, daughter, and dear ole Mom if the ranger disliked
- something
- else the photographer was doing. With my delay shutter release, I
- could have
- also been a model. [Although not one I would want in my images.]
- Would my model and I have been cited if she had not been nude?
- I have seen suggestions on several forums for definitions of "model"
- and
- "prop" to be added to the rule:
- Model means a person who poses for filming, photography, videotaping,
- or
- recording by other means for the purpose of promoting the sale or use
- of a
- product or service. A commercial-professional model.
- Prop means an object such as a vehicle, boat, article of clothing,
- food and
- beverage product, or other commercial article filmed, photographed,
- videotaped, or recorded by other means to promote its sale or use.
- These seem to be reasonable definitions; had they been in effect,
- neither my
- model nor I would have been cited.
- The proposed rule was published in the Federal Register on August 20,
- 2007.
- The description of the rule can be obtained from the GPO Access web
- site at
- http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html; search for "filming". The
- relevant
- result is fr20au07P.
- I submit this for your information, and encourage you to submit
- comments on this
- proposed rule change.
- I personally think this something every American should be concerned
- about and
- especially every photographer.
- If you wish to submit a comment re these definitions, the time is
- short: the
- rule is open to public comment only until October 19, 2007.
- Again.
- http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html; search for "filming". The
- relevant
- result is fr20au07P
- Back to top
- Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
