Permits for Filming on Public Lands

Mark Williams

Mark Williams

Veteran
Long story short, if you plan on filming commercially on federal public lands you may need an expensive permit. Each agency has different rules as to permits and fees. Recently, new rules have been implemented that are so restrictive many videographers are driven away. In many cases a still photographer is not required to have a permit at all but someone standing right next to them with a video camera is. If interested in supporting an exemption of small or one man crews from restrictive policies, please take a look at this online petition. http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/allow-professional-videography-on-public-lands.html

Also, and I hope this link on another forum is allowed since it affects many of us, background can be read at http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/under-water-over-land/116938-national-park-filming-legislation.html
 
Last edited:
Since it appears the law was introduced in 2008, and there are at least 11 pages of discussion on the other forum....is there anyway to point us toward the Government official link...or, just give us a quick summary??
 
Here is a link to http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-5502. Basically, small productions that wanted to film on public lands were treated to extensive red tape and fees. Although the bill The H.R. 5502 died in the house it would have allowed for small crews to get a $200 yearly permit. As it now stands various parks are all over the map on how they handle film crews. Here is a summary of provisions of the bill.

(3) SPECIAL RULES FOR FILM CREWS OF 5 PERSONS OR FEWER-

(A) For any film crew of 5 persons or fewer, the Secretary shall require a permit and assess an annual fee of $200 for commercial filming activities or similar projects on Federal lands administered by the Secretary. The permit shall be valid for commercial filming activities or similar projects that occur in areas designated for public use during public hours on all Federal lands administered by the Secretary for a 12-month period beginning on the date of issuance of the permit.


(B) For persons holding a permit described in this paragraph, the Secretary shall not assess, during the effective period of the permit, any additional fee for commercial filming activities and similar projects that occur in areas designated for public use during public hours on Federal lands administered by the Secretary.


(C) In this paragraph, the term `film crew' includes all persons present on Federal land under the Secretary's jurisdiction who are associated with the production of a certain film.'.
 
And BTW, if you paid federal income taxes, then your portion of a federal park is probably somewhere in the neighborhood of 1/100,000,000th. You could try arguing that you can do what you want on YOUR 1/100,000,000th. :)
 
David W. Richardson said:
And BTW, if you paid federal income taxes, then your portion of a federal park is probably somewhere in the neighborhood of 1/100,000,000th. You could try arguing that you can do what you want on YOUR 1/100,000,000th. :)
Click to expand...

Yep, and I say let the other 100,000,000 people, if they so choose, film commercially or not-for-profit on the land WE THE PEOPLE paid for. But hey, they have more guns and more man power and run the prisons so I'll happily pretend I'm a still photographer and run the video stream on my DSLR. F 'em!

If you read the law it's only commercial videographers that have to obey the law. Still photographers, who as someone mentioned on the other forum, oftentimes make a higher profit on stock photography than videographers. It's a double standard.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
adamr316 said:
Yep, and I say let the other 100,000,000 people, if they so choose, film commercially or not-for-profit on the land WE THE PEOPLE paid for.
Click to expand...

Most likely the vast majority of the rest of the 100,000,000 would rather enjoy the park as a PARK, and not as a film location. You would trample on their rights to do so?

If you read the law it's only commercial videographers that have to obey the law. Still photographers, who as someone mentioned on the other forum, oftentimes make a higher profit on stock photography than videographers. It's a double standard.
Click to expand...

It might help if you posted a link to the law you're referring to, instead of just a link to the one that you like better, but which didn't pass. I don't know about anybody else, but I'm not going to wade through pages of forum postings to find the relevant info.

Keep in mind that a still photographer is likely to be a LOT less disruptive to other park visitors than a videographer will be. A still photographer usually only needs to command an area for about 1/1000th of a second or so. A still photographer also doesn't need for everyone else nearby to be quiet.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The guidelines are pretty clear at dvxuser. No political comments.

We've cleaned up the thread a little, but please stay away from politics.

Thanks for your kind cooperation.
 
David W. Richardson said:
Most likely the vast majority of the rest of the 100,000,000 would rather enjoy the park as a PARK, and not as a film location. You would trample on their rights to do so?



First, there's just no need for the abusive gutter language.

Second, you're treading dangerously close to a political rant, I think. And politics is verboten here -- with good reason.



It might help if you posted a link to the law you're referring to, instead of just a link to the one that you like better, but which didn't pass. I don't know about anybody else, but I'm not going to wade through pages of forum postings to find the relevant info.

Keep in mind that a still photographer is likely to be a LOT less disruptive to other park visitors than a videographer will be. A still photographer usually only needs to command an area for about 1/1000th of a second or so. A still photographer also doesn't need for everyone else nearby to be quiet.



Too late. You've already gotten too political.
Click to expand...

Laws and politics go hand in hand. Me and my tripod/Sony EX1 are no more intrusive than me and my DSLR + tripod. If we're talking an all out film production with a 50 man crew then that is not what I'm talking about. Although I personally don't have a problem with it because national parks = public land. As long as you aren't destroying it then *I* don't have a problem with it. Just like I don't have a problem with the Occupy Wall Street protestors setting up tents on public property (although the ones in NYC aren't technically).

But there should be a distinction drawn between the solo guy and the Hollywood film crew. In my humble opinion, this is a federal government money-grab and that's where my anger comes from. $4,000 or whatever they want is nothing to the government or a Hollywood production. For the little guy who just wants a pretty picture in his documentary that will be watched by 100 people but his production is technically commercial, yeah. Ahh well, I'll just buy some cheap stock footage I guess...
 
David Saraceno said:
The guidelines are pretty clear at dvxuser. No political comments.

We've cleaned up the thread a little, but please stay away from politics.

Thanks for your kind cooperation.
Click to expand...

No problem. You'll hear no more from me on this topic because political discussions/legal discussions make my skin crawl/boil my blood. I just want to shoot pretty pictures without taking out a mortgage. :-)
 
I also do not understand the government's distinction between photographer and videographers. Anything handheld, or on an unobtrusive tri or monopod should be treated identically.

And so long there is no encroachment on the enjoyment of other park visitors, and any rules pertaining to delicate areas are observed, they should be treated identically.

But politics are not permitted here.

Continue to shoot pretty pictures.

best
 
If we want this law changed, we need to write our representatives. The problem is that our focus is on making films, not politics, and the people who got this law passed are full-time professionals.
 
As I said, if you could provide us a link to the law you object to, we could read it and we might find ourselves in complete agreement with you. As it is now, all we know is what you tell us. No offense intended. I would just like to study the issue myself.

My question would be why? Why would they object to one person with one video camera? There has to be some logic to it, beyond some irrational desire to punish or "control" videographers. What could it possibly be? I mean, if what you're saying about the law is correct, it sounds like it would also prohibit even vacationers from shooting video in the park. So there has to be more to it. Can you link us to the actual law?
 
Commercial Filming and Still Photography Permits Lands of the United States were set aside by Congress, Executive or otherwise acquired in order to conserve and protect areas of untold beauty and grandeur, historical importance, and uniqueness for future generations. This tradition started with explorers who traveled with paint and canvas or primitive photo apparatus before the areas were designated as a national park. The National Park Service permits commercial filming and still photography when it is consistent with the park’s mission and will not harm the resource or interfere with the visitor experience.



When is a permit needed?
All commercial filming activities taking place within a unit of the National Park system require a permit. Commercial filming includes capturing a moving image on film and video as well as sound recordings.

Still photographers require a permit when

1. the activity takes place at location(s) where or when members of the public are generally not allowed; or
2. 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
3. Park would incur additional administrative costs to monitor the activity.

How do I apply for apply for a permit?

Permit application are available through each park administrative office or on some park web sites. Park Headquarters’ addresses are found on the web at http://www.nps.gov/parks.html.

You should submit a completed application along with the application fee to the park where you want to film or photograph as far in advance of your planned date at possible. In addition, you should request a meeting with park staff if your proposed activity is unusual or complex. Early consultation with park staff will help them process the application in a timely manner once it is submitted.


What fees will I have to pay?

The National Park Service is authorized to collect two fees; cost recovery and a location fee. Cost recovery includes an application fee which must be submitted with your application and well as a charge to cover the costs incurred by the National Park Service in processing your request and monitoring your permit. This amount will vary depending on the size and complexity of your permit.


In addition, the National Park Service has been directed by Congress to collect a fee to provide a fair return to the United States for the use of park lands. The National Park Service uses the following fee schedule:


[TABLE="class: contenttable"]
[TR]
[TD="colspan: 2, align: center"] Commercial Filming/Videos

[/TD]
[TD="colspan: 2, align: center"] Still Photography

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]1 - 2 people, camera & tripod only
[/TD]
[TD]$0/day[/TD]
[TD] [/TD]
[TD] [/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD] 1 - 10 people

[/TD]
[TD] $150/day
[/TD]
[TD] 1 - 10 people
[/TD]
[TD] $50/day
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD] 11 - 30 people

[/TD]
[TD] $250/day
[/TD]
[TD] 11 - 30 people
[/TD]
[TD] $150/day
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD] 31 - 49 people

[/TD]
[TD] $500/day
[/TD]
[TD] Over 30 people
[/TD]
[TD] $250/day
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD] Over 50 people

[/TD]
[TD] $750/day
[/TD]
[TD] [/TD]
[TD] [/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

Are there other permit requirements?

You will be required to obtain liability insurance naming the United States as additionally insured in an amount commensurate with the risk posed to park resources by your proposed activity. You may also be asked to post a bond to ensure the payment of all charges and fees and the restoration of the area if necessary.


Permit forms and information.

Federal Register Vol. 71, No. 71 (pdf - 56k)
Benefit-Cost/Unfunded Mandates Act Analysis & Small Business and Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis (pdf - 110k)

(Source: http://www.nps.gov/applications/digest/permits.cfm?urlarea=permits)
 
Here is some more information. To my knowledge there is no public law that directs commercial videographers to obtain a permit and pay fees to shoot on federal public lands. Instead, each federal agency has developed its own rules, regulations and administrative procedures to address commercial activities. In many cases different parks, national forests etc. have developed widely different procedures. Some much more restrictive and costly than others. In most locations they just look the other way with one man operations. In other locations such as high profile parks they aggressively enforce the regulations which are part of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). Violating the CFR can result in being charged with a misdemeanor. To add morel confusion, each federal land management agency has its own rules and regulations resulting in no uniformity across agency lines.

H.R. 5502 was an attempt to straighten out this mess on lands under the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture. One of its flaws was that it did not include all federal agencies that manage public lands. The advocates of the Bill mainly desired for small or one man video crews that had little or no impact on the land or park visitors to be treated more "fairly" than large scale operations which had impacts. Early on it was debated whether they should be able to video for free or be charged for a permit. I think the consensus was a $200 a year fee would not be prohibitive for being left alone by the authorities. Most of this group were actually one man operations like myself that shoot wildlife and landscapes for "feel good" DVD projects or for stock video sales. It was also argued that folks in this group were actually promoting the park through their art. It was felt that a one man or small operation would have no more impact on the natural resource than any other park visitor.

H.R.5502 failed to pass so now the process is being initiated again, first with the petition. This is important in light of more restrictive federal budgets that may impact how current regulations affecting commercial videographers are enforced. On a side note a part of the film "Hunger Games" was recently shot in Dupont Forest N.C. and I think they reimbursed the park $6,000 to use the area for 3 weeks. Another film "American Pie Reunion" was shot at a park on Lake Lanier G.A. and paid $23,000.

In regards to David's post above, the fee chart is for location fees. Application, administrative and hourly management fees are added to this. http://www.nps.gov/grca/parkmgmt/upload/FilmGl200812.pdf
 
Last edited:
The DuPont Forest in NC is owned by the state, not the federal government.

As far as I can tell, there are no federal parks near Lake Lanier, GA.

So if both areas were owned by the states of NC and GA, then it would be those states which set the fees, and no federal agency would be involved. The fact that different states would have different fee structures doesn't surprise me.

Having some bit of inside knowledge about 'Hunger Games', I would be very surprised if it had a fraction of the budget that 'American Pie: Reunion' had. Most likely a much smaller cast and crew in the park, and smaller demands to be accommodated. But that's just a guess.

Whatever the case, since no federal laws or regulations would have been involved in either location, I'm not quite sure what the point is.

One other thing.... You keep saying it's up to "each federal agency" to determine fees and permits. How many federal agencies are involved in operating a national park? And what are those specific agencies? I would think the fee schedule I posted earlier, from the Dept. of the Interior / National Parks Service, would be fairly definitive.
 
Yes, you are correct. Dupont is a state park. I listed it just as an example of a typical fee that was charged to a large scale operation . I have no problem with the amount they paid. As far as Lake Lanier, yes it is federal property. It is administered by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The $23,000 charged was probably equitable considering the size/extent of the film operation. Lanier would not have come under HR 5502 as it only addressed Dept. of Interior. One of the faults of the bill is that it did not address all federal land/water management agencies. IMO any new bill should apply to all federal public land management agencies including the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), the National Park Service (NPS), the Forest Service, Bureau of Reclamation and the Army Corps of Engineers.
 
Mark Williams said:
Yes, you are correct. Dupont is a state park. I listed it just as an example of a typical fee that was charged to a large scale operation . I have no problem with the amount they paid. As far as Lake Lanier, yes it is federal property. It is administered by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The $23,000 charged was probably equitable considering the size/extent of the film operation. Lanier would not have come under HR 5502 as it only addressed Dept. of Interior. One of the faults of the bill is that it did not address all federal land/water management agencies. IMO any new bill should apply to all federal public land management agencies including the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), the National Park Service (NPS), the Forest Service, Bureau of Reclamation and the Army Corps of Engineers.
Click to expand...

But the thing you have to understand is that not all federal and public land is created equal. Some parks are designed for recreation of the public, while others are intended to preserve natural wildlife habitats and pristine natural settings. One law probably couldn't fit them all.
 
David W. Richardson said:
But the thing you have to understand is that not all federal and public land is created equal. Some parks are designed for recreation of the public, while others are intended to preserve natural wildlife habitats and pristine natural settings. One law probably couldn't fit them all.
Click to expand...

Well I agree. The agencies should always retain the right to deny a permit based on potential for endangerment to the natural resources. That's what they do now and IMO that should continue.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top