Author Topic: liability legal protection for artists selling via stock agencies. (Read 13201 times)

WaterView · « **Reply #25 on:** October 18, 2014, 07:13 »

I read the forest service in the United States is updating their regulations for shooting on national forest land and are inviting public comment. What do you all think of this?

I added this question here because there are a lot of references to permits for this sort of thing in this thread. Tyler, if you think this should be its own topic, please feel free to move it and title it accordingly. Thanks.

Here is a link to the topic followed by the site for public comment. The time for public comment ends November 3, 2014.

www.aclu.org/blog/free-speech/smokey-says-get-permit-shutterbug

www.federalregister.gov/articles/2014/09/04/2014-21093/proposed-directive-for-commercial-filming-in-wilderness-special-uses-administration?utm_campaign=email+a+friend&utm_medium=email&utm_source=federalregister.gov

cascoly · « **Reply #26 on:** October 18, 2014, 12:51 »

we visited several national parks in Utah last year just before they shut the parks down. zion has a major highway running thru it that couldn't be closed -- when the parks shutdown they had rangers making sure no one used the highway pullouts to snap a picture from within the now closed park!

stockastic · « **Reply #27 on:** October 18, 2014, 13:51 »

I think a big reason for changes in regulation and enforcement is to prevent sites from being overrun by wedding and fashion shoots. And I agree with that goal. Yes, photography is a civil liberties issue, but there also has to be some 'right' to enjoy the scenery unobstructed by a phalanx of bridesmaids in gowns.

Similarly, we should be able to visit those iconic spots and stand there enjoying the view without being surrounded by a forest of guys with recently purchased carbon tripods, all shooting exactly the same thing.

I was in Chicago not long ago, and our enjoyment of the Bean was limited due to its being surrounded by wedding parties being photographed. And I mean big groups, tripods and formal poses, and that hugely inflated sense of importance and entitlement. It was really a drag and this isn't the purpose of public art.

Uncle Pete · « **Reply #28 on:** October 18, 2014, 19:22 »

Do I have to read this on every photo forum in the world? Do the people posting it, take time to read the first paragraph or read the limitations and regulations, or just go off claiming their freedom is being abridged unfairly. Or crying that we can't take nature photos in the parks anymore:

"The proposed amendment would address the establishment of consistent national criteria to evaluate requests for special use permits on National Forest System (NFS) lands."

True if you are going to bring models, paid clients (weddings, graduations, Etc.), lighting, tripods, crew, or ask for special permission to restricted areas, or possibly block the general public from enjoying the area, you will be asked to pay for a license.

New York has laws to cover this, I know San Francisco and LA do, because of the entertainment industry. Aren't people going to shout that the streets are free and open and we shouldn't need a license to take photos. Museums and zoos that have any private funding, even if they are County operated, will have restrictions. Public gardens and parks in your city.

We are free to take photos on the streets and in the National Parks and NFS lands. Just not a production company or commercial enterprise. It's not about shooting pictures that you might print or sell on Microstock.

From the link provided: "The previous directive addressed still photography in wilderness and did not provide adequate guidance to review commercial filming in wilderness permit proposals."

In other words, this is not new.

michaeldb · « **Reply #29 on:** October 18, 2014, 21:50 »

Quote from: Uncle Pete on October 18, 2014, 19:22

...True if you are going to bring models, paid clients (weddings, graduations, Etc.), lighting, tripods, crew, or ask for special permission to restricted areas, or possibly block the general public from enjoying the area, you will be asked to pay for a license.

Let me get this straight: I live in a place with a national forest all around me. I hike in it often and have for many years. I have yet to see any fashion photographers or bridesmaids blocking the trails. But in order to be protected from them, I now must buy a permit to carry a tripod with me if I want to take some snaps using a long lens?

And that's a good idea?

stockastic · « **Reply #30 on:** October 20, 2014, 11:35 »

Quote from: michaeldb on October 18, 2014, 21:50

Quote from: Uncle Pete on October 18, 2014, 19:22
...True if you are going to bring models, paid clients (weddings, graduations, Etc.), lighting, tripods, crew, or ask for special permission to restricted areas, or possibly block the general public from enjoying the area, you will be asked to pay for a license.
Let me get this straight: I live in a place with a national forest all around me. I hike in it often and have for many years. I have yet to see any fashion photographers or bridesmaids blocking the trails. But in order to be protected from them, I now must buy a permit to carry a tripod with me if I want to take some snaps using a long lens?

And that's a good idea?

I'd say that's an extreme interpretation. If you're out on a trail and set up a tripod for a few minutes I really doubt there'd be any enforcement even if you were violating the letter of the law. I agree that laws should be unambiguous and not dependent on the whims of people enforcing them, but I don't know offhand how this restriction could be worded so that you can carry a tripod for an occasional shot in an isolated area, while I - back at the scenic overlook - can be free of the plague of bridal parties. But I think in practice it can be worked out.

I have to say, though, that my preference would be to err on the side of preserving the park experience vs. the individual right to use a tripod. Sorry but things have just gone too far, there are too many people all wanting to do the same things in the same places. Something has to give.

Uncle Pete · « **Reply #31 on:** October 20, 2014, 11:46 »

No you don't need to buy a permit. Did you read the actual proposal and information?

Quote from: michaeldb on October 18, 2014, 21:50

Quote from: Uncle Pete on October 18, 2014, 19:22
...True if you are going to bring models, paid clients (weddings, graduations, Etc.), lighting, tripods, crew, or ask for special permission to restricted areas, or possibly block the general public from enjoying the area, you will be asked to pay for a license.
Let me get this straight: I live in a place with a national forest all around me. I hike in it often and have for many years. I have yet to see any fashion photographers or bridesmaids blocking the trails. But in order to be protected from them, I now must buy a permit to carry a tripod with me if I want to take some snaps using a long lens?

And that's a good idea?

michaeldb · « **Reply #32 on:** October 20, 2014, 14:56 »

No, I admit that I did not read the whole proposal and information.

I was assuming that what you said was true when you said, "True if you are going to bring models, paid clients (weddings, graduations, Etc.), lighting, tripods, crew, or ask for special permission to restricted areas, or possibly block the general public from enjoying the area, you will be asked to pay for a license."

Quote from: Uncle Pete on October 20, 2014, 11:46

No you don't need to buy a permit. Did you read the actual proposal and information?

Quote from: michaeldb on October 18, 2014, 21:50
Quote from: Uncle Pete on October 18, 2014, 19:22
...True if you are going to bring models, paid clients (weddings, graduations, Etc.), lighting, tripods, crew, or ask for special permission to restricted areas, or possibly block the general public from enjoying the area, you will be asked to pay for a license.
Let me get this straight: I live in a place with a national forest all around me. I hike in it often and have for many years. I have yet to see any fashion photographers or bridesmaids blocking the trails. But in order to be protected from them, I now must buy a permit to carry a tripod with me if I want to take some snaps using a long lens?

And that's a good idea?

Jonathan Ross · « **Reply #33 on:** October 22, 2014, 11:52 »

Hi All,

Check out E & O coverage, I wouldn't shoot without it.

Cheers,
Jonathan

Uncle Pete · « **Reply #34 on:** October 23, 2014, 00:56 »

You won't need a permit. That's the point.

Quote from: michaeldb on October 20, 2014, 14:56

No, I admit that I did not read the whole proposal and information.

michaeldb · « **Reply #35 on:** October 23, 2014, 01:10 »

You said, "...if you are going to bring models, paid clients (weddings, graduations, Etc.), lighting, tripods, crew, or ask for special permission to restricted areas, or possibly block the general public from enjoying the area, you will be asked to pay for a license."

That is, people (me) bringing tripods will be asked to pay for a license, you say. So are you making a distinction between a 'license' and a 'permit'?

Quote from: Uncle Pete on October 23, 2014, 00:56