film permits on public land

[7Bartman]

I'm sure bigFin and some others may be happy to see this.

National Park Service Can’t Require Permits and Fees for Commercial Filming, Judge Rules

In a huge win for filmmakers, a D.C. federal judge has ruled that it's unconstitutional for the National Park Service to require permits or charge fees for commercial filming on its land.

www.hollywoodreporter.com

 

[Big Fin]

Yup. When that came out on Friday, our entire white board got reshuffled this weekend. Opens up so many options that we did not have in the past. We will still operate in the same manner, try to promote responsible public land use, provide videos for the agencies when helpful, follow the No Trace principles, and the things we've always done.

It might be appealed and overturned, but I've shared it with some attorneys and they were surprised to learn how restrictive film permit rules were in light of "expressive content" being protected under 1A. Not sure if it will be appealed. I suspect what will happen is that regulations will be adopted to all users, commercial and otherwise, to protect the resource.

The question I've been asked is whether or not I intend to request a refund of my film permit fees that range from $15K-25K for each of the last 13 seasons.

For some, this is no big deal, as they did not follow film permit rules to start with. So, they continue to operate as they always have. For us, we now have a lot of areas that were previously off limits due to film permit restrictions and it provides a huge amount of flexibility for us to move around the landscape to wherever the animals area, rather than be limited to whatever areas we put on our film permit application four months prior.

 

[Gerald Martin]

Wow! That is some positive news that was not on my radar!

Not only is this a big deal for professionals like Bigfin who want to play by the rules, it’s also a big deal for guys like myself who have a love for videography and hunting who couldn’t make the numbers work to commercialize any of their content and stay within the boundaries of the law.

The only sour taste in my mouth about it is that there are multiple YouTube and social media personalities who have been flagrantly ignoring the requirements for years. They haven’t paid their dues like Bigfin or Steve Rinella or remained non commercial like myself and many others, yet they built brands and businesses that have profited from sponsors and revenue for years.

At the end of the day however, I call this a win!!!!

 

[Salmonchaser]

While we largely gave up hosting Out door channel crews 10 years or so ago, there is still one we work with occasionally. We have a couple of “no tellum creeks” we fly into we’ve never filmed because of the permit process. As the Judge pointed out technology has greatly reduced the impact a film crew would have on a park relative to everyone else using the park. Happy for Big Fin and others. I’m pleased to be able to ignore the NPS on one more issue.
Now I just need someone to fight them on getting a permit for my dogs when I hunt ptarmigan in Becharof.

 

[TheTone]

The only sour taste in my mouth about it is that there are multiple YouTube and social media personalities who have been flagrantly ignoring the requirements for years. They haven’t paid their dues like Bigfin or Steve Rinella or remained non commercial like myself and many others, yet they built brands and businesses that have profited from sponsors and revenue for years.

This! I know of at least three groups filming in an area in Idaho last year where I have previously elk hunted. I suspect one of them had a film permit, the others I highly doubt and they are making a killing off Instagram/YouTube, etc. i asked one of them about his film permit on Instagram and he promptly blocked me, lol. I know of another group in Wyoming that the FS was looking to cite for lack of permits, I bet it goes away now. My guess is this ruling will only make it worse with the number of people out making a buck off being “content creators”

 

[MThuntr]

I can see how this will be beneficial to many who have followed the along with the rules before but I really don't think this is a 1st amendment issue. It's not like the government was suppressing their freedom of speech, they were charging people who profit from use of public lands...it's a stretch (a very huge stretch) but who's going to stop empathizers of Bundy and Co from saying their cattle are a form of 1st amendment expression and thus don't have to pay their permit fees.

I get that the permits were unnecessarily restrictive and that needs to change but blanket removal isn't the answer.

 

[Big Fin]

...... My guess is this ruling will only make it worse with the number of people out making a buck off being “content creators”

I doubt it will increase much, if at all. The quick bucks guys never let these rules get in their way to start with, so change in a rule they ignored is not likely to change their behaviors.

 

[Salmonchaser]

Yep, similar to the unlicensed guides, always a few but they come and go.

 

[bluespruce]

So does this mean Vin Diesel can just start filming "Fast and Furious 17: Supervolcano" on the loop road in Yellowstone?

But, seriously, is there still some mechanism in place to prevent a situation like that?

 

[Bowhuntrben]

Sweet deal. Hopefully this means fewer hunting spots stolen by FOIA requestors. I'm guessing they can still get some info, but at least it's less specific data they can access....

 

[Gerald Martin]

So does this mean Vin Diesel can just start filming "Fast and Furious 17: Supervolcano" on the loop road in Yellowstone?

But, seriously, is there still some mechanism in place to prevent a situation like that?

There are other rules in place to address the impacts of user groups and certain practices. This ruling doesn’t affect those rules.
Group sizes and environmental impact rules are unchanged.

As far as the Bundys grazing their cattle under a free speech clause, unless you can make the case that audible bovine flatulence is speech, I don’t see that argument holding up. I wouldn’t put it past them to try though.

 

[Irrelevant]

I can see how this will be beneficial to many who have followed the along with the rules before but I really don't think this is a 1st amendment issue. It's not like the government was suppressing their freedom of speech, they were charging people who profit from use of public lands...it's a stretch (a very huge stretch) but who's going to stop empathizers of Bundy and Co from saying their cattle are a form of 1st amendment expression and thus don't have to pay their permit fees.

I get that the permits were unnecessarily restrictive and that needs to change but blanket removal isn't the answer.

Does it really matter if their cows are free speech or not? I mean they still get to graze for free either way...

 

[Oak]

What's the status now of permit requirements on USFS, FWS, BOR, etc. lands?

 

[TheTone]

Sweet deal. Hopefully this means fewer hunting spots stolen by FOIA requestors. I'm guessing they can still get some info, but at least it's less specific data they can access....

Yeah now they’ll just blow out places by naming where they are or sharing very identifiable features and places

 

[MThuntr]

Does it really matter if their cows are free speech or not? I mean they still get to graze for free either way...

As far as the Bundys grazing their cattle under a free speech clause, unless you can make the case that audible bovine flatulence is speech, I don’t see that argument holding up. I wouldn’t put it past them to try though.

true but it did qualify with the term "empathizers" since the Bundys obviously don't care but I know several ranches here that drink the Bundy koolaid in some form...just takes one to say hey my lifestyle is an "expression of art" you violated me rights by making me pay a permit fee. I stated it was far fetched but once you go down the road it opens a lot of doors for interpretation.

The issue here is the person was butthurt they had to pay for a permit to sell the pictures they took. They profited off the commercial use of a public resource.

 

[Irrelevant]

true but it did qualify with the term "empathizers" since the Bundys obviously don't care but I know several ranches here that drink the Bundy koolaid in some form...just takes one to say hey my lifestyle is an "expression of art" you violated me rights by making me pay a permit fee. I stated it was far fetched but once you go down the road it opens a lot of doors for interpretation.

The issue here is the person was butthurt they had to pay for a permit to sell the pictures they took. They profited off the commercial use of a public resource.

Yeah I get it. And my comment wasn't really directed at you. More just b!tching that nothing really matters with them, they are still breaking the law, and no one is holding them accountable.

 

[Gerald Martin]

true but it did qualify with the term "empathizers" since the Bundys obviously don't care but I know several ranches here that drink the Bundy koolaid in some form...just takes one to say hey my lifestyle is an "expression of art" you violated me rights by making me pay a permit fee. I stated it was far fetched but once you go down the road it opens a lot of doors for interpretation.

The issue here is the person was butthurt they had to pay for a permit to sell the pictures they took. They profited off the commercial use of a public resource.

Some of this I agree with. Some is not an apples to apples comparison.

 

[TOGIE]

What's the status now of permit requirements on USFS, FWS, BOR, etc. lands?

i was scared to bring this up cause it seemed foregone given what everyone was saying, including randy, and i didn't wanna look dumb. it seems from what randy initially said this ruling greatly frees him up. but i thought the ruling was specific to park service? you can't hunt park service

or are all the rules intertwined with all federal land and the ruling just happened to be concerning park service? ergo, park service ruling applies to other federal lands? @Big Fin

or maybe i should just buckle my boot straps and hit the google a little harder to figure this out....

 

[Carl 9.3x62]

i was scared to bring this up cause it seemed foregone given what everyone was saying, including randy, and i didn't wanna look dumb. it seems from what randy initially said this ruling greatly frees him up. but i thought the ruling was specific to park service? you can't hunt park service

or are all the rules intertwined with all federal land and the ruling just happened to be concerning park service? ergo, park service ruling applies to other federal lands? @Big Fin

or maybe i should just buckle my boot straps and hit the google a little harder to figure this out....

I was/am in the same boat

 

[Oak]

i was scared to bring this up cause it seemed foregone given what everyone was saying, including randy, and i didn't wanna look dumb. it seems from what randy initially said this ruling greatly frees him up. but i thought the ruling was specific to park service? you can't hunt park service

or are all the rules intertwined with all federal land and the ruling just happened to be concerning park service? ergo, park service ruling applies to other federal lands? @Big Fin

or maybe i should just buckle my boot straps and hit the google a little harder to figure this out....

I'm never afraid to look dumb. The ruling in the original article was against the NPS and the Department of Interior (which manages BLM lands). It doesn't explicitly address the other lands I mentioned, but the inference would be that the same ruling would be made on those other lands. But the question is whether they will proactively change their rules?