Photographers Oppose Government’s Proposed Permit Requirements

[Janie]

Jeez, now look what they want to do!

http://www.ppa.com/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=414

Photographers Oppose Government’s Proposed Permit Requirements

Four major photography organizations have united in opposition to a proposal that would require photographers to apply and pay for permits and fees when creating images “for which a fee will be received or which are for other than personal use” at the United States National Arboretum in Washington, DC.

The groups, Professional Photographers of America, Commercial Photographers International, the International Association of Professional Event Photographers and the Student Photographic Society represent some 16,000 professional photographers and students.

The primary argument against the proposed rule is that it violates a federal law that is already on the books giving still photographers a permit exemption unless their activities go well beyond the kinds of activities one would expect from a regular visitor. Not willing to rely on the Department of Agriculture to agree with their interpretation of the statute, the groups made two additional arguments. The first is that the proposed rule would be a source of confusion since it is inconsistent with the permit rules on almost all other lands administered by the Secretary of Agriculture. They also point out that any permit process that depends on the end use of the image, as opposed to the physical acts of the photographer on-site, makes even-handed enforcement of the rule impossible.

Speaking on behalf of the groups, PPA CEO David Trust noted, “While most of our members will never attempt to photograph at the National Arboretum, stopping this proposal should reduce the chances of similar proposals being made at other USDA and Forestry Service facilities located throughout the nation.”

In addition to opposing the proposed definition of the types of photography requiring a permit, the organizations also pointed to the need for a clarification of a section of the rule allowing only “non-commercial tripods” on Arboretum grounds. Instead of a vague standard, the groups suggest that the rule contain specific references to the actual specifications that will result in a tripod being prohibited from the area.

No date has been set for the Department of Agriculture to respond to the comments or amend the proposed rule.

Get the full text of the organizations’ comments: http://www.ppa.com/i4a/pages/Index.cfm? pageid=415

The text of the rule proposed by the Department of Agriculture:

http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/06jun20041800/edocket.access.gpo.gov/2004/pdf/04- 27394.pdf

[drg]

Thanks for posting this item. There are several rumours about similar restrictions and prohibitions of all kinds that need to be watched and seriously evaluated if not opposed. Hopefully it won't come to litigation. One explanation I've heard regarding this, the damnable workplace rule (which I made reference to in another post) about the conflict between public access and commercial access.

The question though here is really that as a taxpayer do I need to pay double fare if I take a photo and then sell or use it as a part of something else?

Now, I'd pay a BUNCH, if as a pro working photographer, I got special access, didn't have to follow a tour guide, or would be allowed to hire an escort that would smooth the road so to speak. Other wise I'll just take a small camera with a small tripod, and be inconspicuous.

This type of thing does generally bother me though in a location of anything that is Federally Funded. There is one other part to this, not all photographers are journalists (I'm not) and don't necessarily look at the world that way.

-CDP dr g

[Speed]

[QUOTE=Janie]Jeez, now look what they want to do!

Rediculous! This should be opposed, for a variety of reasons. Violating previous rules and laws is just the beginning. Then, how long before it applies to Yosemite? The Sierra Mountains? The Blue Ridge Mountains? Where does it stop? Next thing you know, only special interests (pro photog's, conservancy groups, etc) will be allowed. Or those with the deep pockets who can afford to pay the fees (which always go up, and never go down).

I'm glad there are folks with the foresight to oppose this, and I will gladly stand with them.

[lidarman]

Yep, the irony of it all!