Ya gotta luv clueless bloggers. Always ready to create a controversy about something they know absolutly nothing about. Meh
I just don't understand this negative post. Someone wants to info the photography community of a proposed fee aimed at photographers and you dis them as clueless.
Read UPDATE THREE
below. He's revised his original article. Looks to me like he did a poor job of reporting and fact checking the original story. As I said before, Meh.
UPDATE THREE: According to the Washington Post, Tom Tidwell, chief of the United States Forest Service says “If you’re news media, it has no effect at all,” he said. “If you’re a private individual, this doesn’t apply. Individuals who want to shoot on wild lands won’t need a permit, even if they plan to sell their photographs, except if it involves props. Fees for permits vary by size. Groups of up to three will pay $10 a day, while crews of 80 shooting movies usually pay around $800 a day”
Ok, so it sounds like we will finally get some clarification on this issue. The question is, why wasn't the above stance conveyed by the first two high ranking officials of the USFS to be questioned?
I've been involved with Commercial Filming and Still Photography since the 1970s. And very little has changed with the proposed new rules. If your photos/videos are part of an Advertising Campaign you will need a permit, same as it ever was -- nothing new here.
Few, if any, people who read the f/stop blog
will be effected.
Photography of scenery has traditionally been part of a visit to a national park. Photography does not require a permit if it involves only hand-carried equipment (tripod, interchangeable lenses or flash), and does not involve professional crews, product or service advertisement, or use of models, props or sets.