Last week, I posted a story about how the U.S. Forest Service wants to start making all photographers who might sell even a single print at some point in the future get a CUA permit and pay the fee. Since then many photographers have taken an unsubstantiated apologist view towards the U.S. Forest Service that this isnt a problem and they wont be affected. I disagree. These rules as written are a problem for any photographer that takes a shot that might sell at some point in the future -- even hobbyists. We need the language clarified before they become codified, because as theyre written they give the U.S. Forest Service a broad power to limit photography in wilderness areas. The real story is attached from the guy that broke the story. -------------------- This is my official public comment that I submitted to the Forest Service: Im an outdoor photographer who lives within the Superior National Forests boundaries and near the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness. I often canoe or visit the BWCAW for enjoyment and along the way photograph in the BWCAW and sell prints and stock images from the area. Under the proposed rule whether or not I was engaged in commercial photography with the intent of providing images for sale, Id be required to obtain a CUA for each wilderness area that I visit if I might sell a photo taken there at some undetermined future point. Ive obtained CUA before for national parks and forests and the paperwork and expense is a burden. Most of the permits take two days of paperwork, mailing, remailing and calling or emailing to get questions answered on the confusing forms, which are different for each area, and consulting with my insurance company and obtaining for a fee a certificate of additional insured. They also take over a month to obtain, and Ive had one that took over three months to obtain. This is an unusual amount of time and burden for shooting photos that may or may not ever be sold as a print, put in a book, used by a magazine or sold as stock. Im also troubled by the following definition of still photography. This definition in part determines whether a photographer must obtain a CUA. The language needs to be clarified. The problem comes not from a lack of good intent to preserve our wilderness areas, but from a lack of understanding of the accepted professional terminology of photography. ---------------- Still photography—use of still photographic equipment on National Forest System lands that takes place at a location where members of the public generally are not allowed or where additional administrative costs are likely, or uses models, sets, or props that are not a part of the sites natural or cultural resources or administrative facilities. ---------------- * I recommend that the U.S. Forest Service consult with national photography trade groups, such as the Profession Photographers of America and the American Photographic Artists, to determine the proper definitions commercial photography and craft regulations based around the accepted definition among professional trade associations instead of assuming that models, sets or props define commercial photography. By doing so, it would avoid confusing friends for models and equipment as props, i.e. the use of a canoe that someone is traveling in and including in a shot then the U.S. Forest Service considering it a prop. There is at least one example of this happening that I know of. * I recommend that the U.S. Forest distinguish between photography done for commercial reasons as defined by the industry, such as portrait and wedding photography or advertising photography, and other photographic activities that might generate money, such as stock photography, editorial photography and fine-art photography. The later should not need a CUA, because the requirement could entrap an unsuspecting amateur or hobbyist photography who takes a photo for fun and gets an unsolicited request for a sale, such as in a situation where she posts a photo on social media and gets a print request. * Most types of photography do not require an additional administrative costs nor do they impact the land; they dont take place in restricted areas or disturb other users. In situations such as these that dont require additional administrative costs, even if they use models, sets, or props, , a permit should not be required, a fee should not be charged and year-end usage paperwork should not be required. If there is no impact, then there is no reason to collect a fee and no administrator needs to be involved. If user day statistics need to be captured, then a free self-issued permit should be the only requirement. This should be the case even for commercial photographers -- commercial defined by the industry standard usage of the term. All Americans pay for these lands -- even commercial photographers -- and if there is no unusual or additional impact, then photographers shouldnt be double taxed on our shared lands. * If the U.S. Forest Service is to continue to use the third clause that lists models, sets, or props it must be regulated as only a part of commercial photography as defined by professional photography associations. This type of loose language can turn a friend into a model if she poses for a shot or a canoe used to traverse lakes or a tent could be considered a prop when it appears in a photo. That must be clarified. This regulation will adversely affect me monetarily but also impacts me with the requirement of burdensome paperwork. I urge you to revise the rules so that when there is no impact beyond a regular forest visitor, there is no required CUA. I also urge you to revise the rules to provide clarification, so that there is no ambiguity in what the regulations mean or how forest managers could interpret the rules.
Posted on: Mon, 29 Sep 2014 18:20:01 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015