If you took the park and superimposed a
nude taken a studio or an electrically made image from ‘poser’
program would that be an offence? Probably it would be.
From:
owner-photoforum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-photoforum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of JOSEPH GUERRA
Sent: 07 October 2007 16:22
To: List for Photo/Imaging
Educators - Professionals - Students
Subject: Saw This On Digital
BW,The Print forum
I saw this on Digital BW,The Print, forum, and think some of you might
be interested in the issue. JG
1.
Be Careful Who You
Photograph in National Parks
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
