BiggWimm
New member
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2009
- Messages
- 635
Not to get in a pissing contest, but wouldn't videos placed on you tube be against the law as well due to the fact that you tube pays royalties to videos that garner a lot of hits?
Wild & Clear
- Thread starter MontanaWild
- Start date
Gerald Martin
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2009
- Messages
- 8,637
Yep.
Isn't that splitting hairs? What's the difference between three guys fishing in on a public stream and recording 60 frames per second and sharing that with the world and 3 guys hunting together, shooting a big bull and sending the picture into Eastmans to make the cover?
Last edited:
ridge-runner
New member
The difference is the advertising part of it, at least on NFS land. People making videos and posting them is perfectly fine, it's the advertising part of it coming into the mix. A lot of us have videos of our hunts, and I'm sure we all have pictures, but most people aren't snapping that picture or taking video footage and advertising something either in the process or later in editing. When someone is on public land, filming, and then using that film to advertise, that is when a permit is required. Seeing the name of the fly shop they stopped at and the optics they use is promoting those businesses or items. Nothing wrong with filming an outing for sharing with others.
Bambistew
Well-known member
Sweet bull trout!
Gerald Martin
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2009
- Messages
- 8,637
Ridgerunner- You do realize that its also perfectly legal to take a still shot, send it to Eastman's or any other mag and get something in return for helping promote and sell their magazine. However, if you take multiple stills in the form of video and put it on a dvd and enclose it in the same magazine to promote it you have now broken the law.
Filming permits have much less to do with protecting resources than they do with agencies trying to garner fees for commercial use of public lands. I have no problem with permits being required. However if you have ever checked into trying to get permits you will find that unless you are a fully funded television show the price of being legal is far out of reach for guys that would like to be recompensed for sharing their art.
No other commercial permitting that I am aware of is so far out of balance concerning fees than filming permits. I can get permits to cut firewood commercially, pick rock commercially, and many other activities for a reasonable price. Yet if a single guy wants to carry a video camera, record a hunt and get a free pair of binoculars or other swag for his efforts, he is required to buy a permit costing $150 or more per day to be legal.
That's why I get frosted when I see guys who have taken the time and effort to share their passion are met with. " Do you have all your permits?"
Do you ask everyone who hauls a load in their pickup across town for someone and gets $20 for it if they have the proper DOT permits to be a licensed hauler? Its all the same to me.
Filming permits have much less to do with protecting resources than they do with agencies trying to garner fees for commercial use of public lands. I have no problem with permits being required. However if you have ever checked into trying to get permits you will find that unless you are a fully funded television show the price of being legal is far out of reach for guys that would like to be recompensed for sharing their art.
No other commercial permitting that I am aware of is so far out of balance concerning fees than filming permits. I can get permits to cut firewood commercially, pick rock commercially, and many other activities for a reasonable price. Yet if a single guy wants to carry a video camera, record a hunt and get a free pair of binoculars or other swag for his efforts, he is required to buy a permit costing $150 or more per day to be legal.
That's why I get frosted when I see guys who have taken the time and effort to share their passion are met with. " Do you have all your permits?"
Do you ask everyone who hauls a load in their pickup across town for someone and gets $20 for it if they have the proper DOT permits to be a licensed hauler? Its all the same to me.
Jon Boy
Active member
Montana Wild you guys make awesome videos and most every one know you dont sell your videos for profit and post them on the net for free, I would suggest you quit posting them on hunttalk though. Some d-bag always likes to tear your posts and videos apart. The videos are awesome and keep them coming, ill keep watching them on your sight and facebook. If you guys ever get the chance to hit the beartooths or crazies hit me with a pm and ill get you guys set on some areas.
Last edited:
ridge-runner
New member
Gearld--Couldn't agree with you more on your Eastman's scenario but the still photography isn't want I'm talking about.
You make a good point; why are the permits for filming so much more than those others? I have no idea since we get to do all those things you listed pretty much for the price it takes to produce the permit. The filmmaker of "Wardens" I'm sure has some pretty good stuff to say on this issue. I've looked into a film permit as well, and I'm not going to say anything contrary to your sentiments about it.
However, I don't think you are correct when saying that someone has to get a permit to get free binos or other stuff. That would be a pretty far stretch to say the FS can regulate who can give gifts to which people. It's only to advertise a product, not film and then receive some swag, that a permit is needed on FS land (not saying I agree with the cost of a permit). And I'm not trying to crush the passion of the outdoors and sharing the experience, just trying to make a point.
MW said that what they were doing was non-commerical. We could go way into left field and say that every thing we use on film is a product, so when we film, and then put it out there on the web to share we are advertising (for example on the current debate the hats, waders, boots, stove etc.) The difference begins to exist when someone is putting the name brand of a product or, in the film the name of a fly shop, in the opening shots. That style is safe to say either advertisement or sponsorship recognition, or else why would it be there added in later? (MW has a section of their site listed "our products" which includes Vortex optics, and stuff like "Vortex Optics has by far some of the best optics at a reasonable price, with a VIP warranty that can’t be beat!" as well as a link to the Vortex website. If MW has a sponsorship, or swag, or bought it, it's certainly fine to use it on film. When you promote (advertise) those products or services though, the game changes. Having the fly shop and the floating name as a part of the film it is a step above someone simply sharing their experiences and story.
I certainly don't ask everyone about their cutting permits nor do I ask everyone about their filming permits. In this case, you've got a pretty invested film group saying they aren't advertising. I'm just saying they are.
You make a good point; why are the permits for filming so much more than those others? I have no idea since we get to do all those things you listed pretty much for the price it takes to produce the permit. The filmmaker of "Wardens" I'm sure has some pretty good stuff to say on this issue. I've looked into a film permit as well, and I'm not going to say anything contrary to your sentiments about it.
However, I don't think you are correct when saying that someone has to get a permit to get free binos or other stuff. That would be a pretty far stretch to say the FS can regulate who can give gifts to which people. It's only to advertise a product, not film and then receive some swag, that a permit is needed on FS land (not saying I agree with the cost of a permit). And I'm not trying to crush the passion of the outdoors and sharing the experience, just trying to make a point.
MW said that what they were doing was non-commerical. We could go way into left field and say that every thing we use on film is a product, so when we film, and then put it out there on the web to share we are advertising (for example on the current debate the hats, waders, boots, stove etc.) The difference begins to exist when someone is putting the name brand of a product or, in the film the name of a fly shop, in the opening shots. That style is safe to say either advertisement or sponsorship recognition, or else why would it be there added in later? (MW has a section of their site listed "our products" which includes Vortex optics, and stuff like "Vortex Optics has by far some of the best optics at a reasonable price, with a VIP warranty that can’t be beat!" as well as a link to the Vortex website. If MW has a sponsorship, or swag, or bought it, it's certainly fine to use it on film. When you promote (advertise) those products or services though, the game changes. Having the fly shop and the floating name as a part of the film it is a step above someone simply sharing their experiences and story.
I certainly don't ask everyone about their cutting permits nor do I ask everyone about their filming permits. In this case, you've got a pretty invested film group saying they aren't advertising. I'm just saying they are.
DreaminofMT6X6s
Member
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2010
- Messages
- 800
Keep it up gang! Great stuff!
WV Hunter
Active member
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2009
- Messages
- 1,763
GIRLS, GIRLS, You're both pretty, can we get back to hunting now?
mlbuck84
Member
- Joined
- Feb 20, 2012
- Messages
- 173
Sweet video. Sounds like someone has a Hard On for your films.
Gerald Martin
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2009
- Messages
- 8,637
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm pretty? Why thank-you WV Hunter. All is well. We now return to hunting.
I'm pretty? Why thank-you WV Hunter. All is well. We now return to hunting.
sweetnectar
New member
Your film should be on TV for thousands to enjoy. I say sell it just like Randy sells his. You have too much talent to be keeping it small. If you need a permit get one or change the law. I don't agree with this stupid law and I'm not about to go around doing a citizen's arrest when someone brings country like that into my living room. Belly Deeps comments are tacky at best. I doubt he is looking out for your good.
spook12
New member
Like it or not, the law is the law.
If you don't like it change it but don't break it.
If you don't like it change it but don't break it.
belly-deep
Active member
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2009
- Messages
- 3,459
Tacky? Please explain...
And you're right, I'm not looking out for MontanaWild.
I'm looking out for two other interests. The first is everyone else who is trying to start up a hunting or fishing show and is playing by the rules. The very fact that you enjoyed the video so much is indicative of the advantage a start-up show who doesn't follow the law has. Now just because you don't like a law it doesn't mean you can break it. I don't think I need to explain that to you, because I'm sure you get the point.
Second, I'm looking out for the resource. As Geraldo pointed out, its not poaching. But neither is littering, illegal ATV use, wanton waste, trespassing...I could go on. This is something that a law has been created to regulate. As much as politicians like to go around spreading BS, they usually don't create laws without a need or percieved need arising first in the absence of a law.
When the thread is tagged as "Bob Marshall Wilderness" and includes filming for a seemingly commerical purpose, it raises questions. When someone is doing something possibly illegal and boasts about it on a public forum, I'm going to call them on it. You don't have to like that, and you don't have to agree with it. You being an outfitter, I know you view fish and animals as something to make money off of. That's fine. But as an outfitter, I hope you are following all laws, even those you don't like.
Hem
Well-known member
Great footage with great music! I've got fifty days in on the river this year (Yes, I do work full time) but these films make me want to jump ship.Keep up the good work and thanks for sharing.So much water,...not enough time.
Nameless Range
Well-known member
Bummer.
Hopefully some clarity is provided.
All the more interesting given the conversations that occurred earlier in this thread.
Hopefully some clarity is provided.
All the more interesting given the conversations that occurred earlier in this thread.
MThuntr
Well-known member
I've always been curious how that got hashed out. Now we know.
Similar threads
