Its illegal to film in national parks?

canndo

canndo

Well-Known Member
You folks seem a little more...um..
Conscious than those I encounter online so... wanna talk about legal stuff?

First one is the recent outrage on YouTube. The case started with price v barr.

It seems that one cannot make videos in national parks without obtaining specific permission and paying a fee which may exceed $150 .

At issue is.

1. What and WHEN is free speech?
2. What is "commercial"?

Mr garland appealed a lower courts decision allowing the general public to film in national parks. The appeal taken up from barr finds that the process of filming is not speech but...a sort of pre speech and is not protected.

Currently, anyone who profits in any material way, i.e. a youtube content provider who makes travel videos and is sponsored by square space or monetized is now prohibited from filming in parks. Unless it applies 10 to 14 days in advance, aquires insurance, permission from the government and pays a fee.

This falls in the same Hopper as the recent scotus case 303 creative.

But the whole thing is ominous.
 
Dorian2

Dorian2

Well-Known Member
I'm assuming Youtubers fall under the commercial portion if it's a monetized channel. You make money off the vids, you pay.

COMMERCIAL FILMING
The law requires you to obtain a permit and pay a fee if you film on federal public land with the intent of generating income from the footage:

“Commercial filming means the film, electronic, magnetic, digital, or other recording of a moving image by a person, business, or other entity for a market audience with the intent of generating income. Examples include, but are not limited to, feature film, videography, television broadcast, or documentary, or other similar projects. Commercial filming activities may include the advertisement of a product or service, or the use of actors, models, sets, or props.”

If you don’t plan to make a profit from the footage shot on public federal land and the footage is intended for personal use only, you are not required to obtain a permit and pay a fee.
Click to expand...
https://nimia.com/filming-national-parks-simple-guide/#:~:text=Filming in national parks is regulated by Public,‘still photography’ when it comes to permit requirement.
 
Fallguy111

Fallguy111

Well-Known Member
Dorian2

Dorian2

Well-Known Member
Yuppers. I have plenty of footage in pics and video from National parks. It's not an issue.
 
canndo

canndo

Well-Known Member
Fallguy111 said:
Dorian, how dare you look up the topic and realize a truth. I believe op would prefer you hop on his bandwagon and spread hate about whatever politician.
Click to expand...

Really. Which politician might I be urging someone to hate given that I posted the case name and given further that no politician has anything to do with this legal dispute neatly contained within the confines of our courts and our national parks?

I had hoped that this might be an interesting discussion. Have I hoped in vain?
 
canndo

canndo

Well-Known Member
xtsho said:
You can film all the video you want. Nobody is prevented from taking videos while visiting National Parks.
Click to expand...

How do you know? Because you weren't stopped the last time you did so? Because it just seems like an insidious make believe indictment of our regulatory state? The burgeoning police state we are all so fearful of? Jack booted thugs and all? Or have you actual, recent, legal knowlege?

From nps.gov

"Commercial filming" means the film, electronic, magnetic, digital, or other recording of a moving image by a person, business, or other entity for a market audience with the intent of generating income. Examples include, but are not limited to, feature film, videography, and documentaries. Commercial filming may include the advertisement of a product or service, or the use of actors, models, sets, or props".

"
Federal law requires a permit for all commercial filming, no matter the size of the crew or the type of equipment. This includes individuals or small groups that don’t use much equipment, but generate revenue by posting footage on websites, such as YouTube and TikTok. The primary focus of the NPS, however, is on commercial filming that has the potential to impact park resources and visitors beyond what occurs from normal visitor use of park areas. .





All filmers, no matter the size, must comply with all rules that apply in park areas, just like other visitors. "
 
PadawanWarrior

PadawanWarrior

Well-Known Member
canndo said:
You folks seem a little more...um..
Conscious than those I encounter online so... wanna talk about legal stuff?

First one is the recent outrage on YouTube. The case started with price v barr.

It seems that one cannot make videos in national parks without obtaining specific permission and paying a fee which may exceed $150 .

At issue is.

1. What and WHEN is free speech?
2. What is "commercial"?

Mr garland appealed a lower courts decision allowing the general public to film in national parks. The appeal taken up from barr finds that the process of filming is not speech but...a sort of pre speech and is not protected.

Currently, anyone who profits in any material way, i.e. a youtube content provider who makes travel videos and is sponsored by square space or monetized is now prohibited from filming in parks. Unless it applies 10 to 14 days in advance, aquires insurance, permission from the government and pays a fee.

This falls in the same Hopper as the recent scotus case 303 creative.

But the whole thing is ominous.
Click to expand...
Looks like the 2 main sections of this site you visit on here are Politics and Hallucinatory Substances. You can't make this shit up, :lol:. I love RIU,:bigjoint:
 
DIY-HP-LED

DIY-HP-LED

Well-Known Member
canndo said:
You folks seem a little more...um..
Conscious than those I encounter online so... wanna talk about legal stuff?

First one is the recent outrage on YouTube. The case started with price v barr.

It seems that one cannot make videos in national parks without obtaining specific permission and paying a fee which may exceed $150 .

At issue is.

1. What and WHEN is free speech?
2. What is "commercial"?

Mr garland appealed a lower courts decision allowing the general public to film in national parks. The appeal taken up from barr finds that the process of filming is not speech but...a sort of pre speech and is not protected.

Currently, anyone who profits in any material way, i.e. a youtube content provider who makes travel videos and is sponsored by square space or monetized is now prohibited from filming in parks. Unless it applies 10 to 14 days in advance, aquires insurance, permission from the government and pays a fee.

This falls in the same Hopper as the recent scotus case 303 creative.

But the whole thing is ominous.
Click to expand...
You can't fly a drone in a national park in Canada and the same basic rules apply with videos, though we don't go after people for monetized Youtube videos. I was once in the National Park dinosaur museum in Alberta and could take pictures, but not use a tripod, people had to pay a fee for that.

The issue is one of technological adaptation, not long-ago professional documentary makers with bulkier equipment and special needs requested this stuff. Now anybody with a cellphone can be a documentary maker and publish it on YouTube but professionals still need special access and have lighting, crowd control, after hours use and other requirements. In America if you are a drone pilot and your YouTube videos are monetized you need a professional pilot's license.
 
cannabineer

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
canndo said:
When was the footage taken and did you in any way profit from publishing it in any way?
Click to expand...
I think it is near impossible to run afoul of this restriction without intending to monetize the film or video.
It’s not different in kind than the proscription to farm, ranch or mine on park acreage.
I would wager the BBC has paid its share of license fees.
 
Dorian2

Dorian2

Well-Known Member
canndo said:
When was the footage taken and did you in any way profit from publishing it in any way?
Click to expand...
Multiple decades of footage from all around the Rockies. No, I haven't posted it to a commercial vehicle like Youtube or Tiktok.

I do charge all my friends and Family under the table so the Jack-Booted Police State don't come crackin skulls and kicking down doors in my 'hood.

Keep this between us, will ya please.

:rolleyes:

EDIT: But considering that I've just learned that I can now monetize it all because I'm Canuk, mayhaps I'll throw it into the American Youtuber's faces. Which channels on Youtube are complaining?
 
Last edited:
MtRainDog

MtRainDog

Well-Known Member
Maybe I'm crazy, but I agree with the law here...

I'm pretty sure the spirit of the law was written to prevent National Parks being overrun by commercial camera crews.

That said, I'd wager the vast majority of YT'ers who post monetized videos of the park taken with their go-pro, smartphone, or dslr camera go unscathed.
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
A reasonable case could be made if there is a prohibition or license required, Feds are violating at least 3 articles from the Bill of Rights.
First, ninth and tenth amendments.

Also, to be required to ask permission from government to exercise a right is Orwellian. If it's a right, you don't have to ask, if it's a privilege you need permission.

I'm too lazy to go searching, but I'm pretty sure there is case law which says rights are not subject to licensure. Not that logic wouldn't already tell us that. The fact that the Feds have gotten away with reducing some rights to privileges, (think prohibition of substances, gun licensure etc.) isn't reason for them to continue to do so. In fact it's reason for people to film in Parks en masse, while open carrying and tell the little Park Ranger guys to go rescue a squirrel up a tree or something.

Thank you for bringing this up @canndo. Next time I'm anywhere near a "federal park" I will be sure and film and tell any Park Rangers I would love it if they issue me a citation.
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
canndo said:
You folks seem a little more...um..
Conscious than those I encounter online so... wanna talk about legal stuff?

First one is the recent outrage on YouTube. The case started with price v barr.

It seems that one cannot make videos in national parks without obtaining specific permission and paying a fee which may exceed $150 .

At issue is.

1. What and WHEN is free speech?
2. What is "commercial"?

Mr garland appealed a lower courts decision allowing the general public to film in national parks. The appeal taken up from barr finds that the process of filming is not speech but...a sort of pre speech and is not protected.

Currently, anyone who profits in any material way, i.e. a youtube content provider who makes travel videos and is sponsored by square space or monetized is now prohibited from filming in parks. Unless it applies 10 to 14 days in advance, aquires insurance, permission from the government and pays a fee.

This falls in the same Hopper as the recent scotus case 303 creative.

But the whole thing is ominous.
Click to expand...
link to the article, please. A bit more information is needed before I'd start talking about the 1A.
 
xtsho

xtsho

Well-Known Member
canndo said:
How do you know? Because you weren't stopped the last time you did so? Because it just seems like an insidious make believe indictment of our regulatory state? The burgeoning police state we are all so fearful of? Jack booted thugs and all? Or have you actual, recent, legal knowlege?

From nps.gov

"Commercial filming" means the film, electronic, magnetic, digital, or other recording of a moving image by a person, business, or other entity for a market audience with the intent of generating income. Examples include, but are not limited to, feature film, videography, and documentaries. Commercial filming may include the advertisement of a product or service, or the use of actors, models, sets, or props".

"
Federal law requires a permit for all commercial filming, no matter the size of the crew or the type of equipment. This includes individuals or small groups that don’t use much equipment, but generate revenue by posting footage on websites, such as YouTube and TikTok. The primary focus of the NPS, however, is on commercial filming that has the potential to impact park resources and visitors beyond what occurs from normal visitor use of park areas. .





All filmers, no matter the size, must comply with all rules that apply in park areas, just like other visitors. "
Click to expand...
Nothing in the ruling prevents people from recording video. The ruling pertains to commercial entities. And it doesn't prevent them from filming it just requires that they obtain a permit.

Big nothing that has absolutely no effect on the millions of people that visit national Parks and Lands.


Aug. 23, 2022 - In a disappointing turn, a decision that enjoined commercial film permit requirements on federal lands was reversed today and if it stands, commercial videographers and filmmakers may once again need to obtain permits for filming in national parks, forest land and other federal lands.

The case was brought by filmmaker Gordon Price, who was fined for failing to obtain a film permit by the National Park Service (NPS) when he released the film Crawford Road. Certain scenes were filmed in Yorktown Battlefield in the Colonial National Historical Park, which is NPS land and because of that, a permit was required under 54 U.S.C. § 100905. NPS ultimately dropped its case against Price, but Price sued to overturn the statute for violating his First Amendment rights. A district court agreed and found that the statute was an unconstitutional violation of the First Amendment, overturned the law and enjoined enforcement of the law and the regulations that implemented it.

In today’s opinion in Price v. Garland, written by Judge Douglas Ginsburg, the 2 to 1 panel reversed the district court. The panel held that although some portions of the national park system are public forums, a public forum analysis does not apply to filmmaking. Judge Ginsburg wrote that because “a filmmaker does not seek to communicate with others at the location in which he or she films, the filmmaker does not use the location as a ‘forum’.” Having made this determination, the appellate court declined to apply a public forum analysis, and further held that filmmaking “is not itself a communicative activity; it is merely a step in the creation of speech that will be communicated at some other time, usually in some other location.” Rather, the court determined that filmmaking was “non-communicative first amendment activity” [sic].

www.imdb.com

Crawford Road (2018) ⭐ 8.8 | Thriller

Crawford Road: Directed by James Person, Gordon Price. With Gordon Price, Ricky D'Alonzo, Alex Michalos, Herb Banks. Crawford Road tells the story of areas of Yorktown Virginia, Crawford Road and The Colonial Parkway. The movie explores the decades of murders that have occurred dating back to...
www.imdb.com www.imdb.com


nppa.org

Price v. Barr reversed — National Park permit scheme for commercial filming is reinstated

nppa.org nppa.org
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top