$1,500 fee to take pictures, and sell them when on protected wilderness lands

[Oregonhunter5]

This was broadcasted here last nights news out of Boise. It don't matter which side you vote for, I think everyone would freak out over this. I'm truly shocked daily in what I read about.


http://www.oregonlive.com/environme...ice_chief_tom_tidwe.html#incart_most-comments

Read More

 

[PiratePast40]

Another poorly conceived and worded piece of legislation. Would this make all of the Ansel Adams photographs contraband?

 

[U201491]

Its what happens when marxists and socialists get into government.
Taxes, fees and controls. That is OUR land. They do not recognize that. They treat it like their own private revenue stream from your pocket.

 

[balaperdida]

I-594 for photographers.

 

[Just Jim]

This sucks big time, we need to vote the bustards out.

 

[Just Jim]

What will it be next, no pictures of beach?

 

[richdav]

Many of my friends have been dealing with this for a while. It's normally a local ranger that wants to beat his/her chest.

http://www.redbull.com/us/en/advent...aterfall-steve-fisher-will-never-drop-(again)

 

[PiratePast40]

I do understand one of the concerns, and that is having someone shoot a commercial and then use it for profit. Same with a massive movie film crew setting up on public lands without paying for the resources they use. Not saying that our public lands can't be used by anyone, just that there should be a fee for commercial use.

I don't know what the laws are concerning commercial use. Can I set up a snack stand at the Grand Canyon without paying a use fee? Is shooting a movie on public lands the same thing? What about setting up a lumber mill on public lands without a permit or fees?

Looks to me like the devil is in the details.

 

[U201491]

Another poorly conceived and worded piece of legislation. Would this make all of the Ansel Adams photographs contraband?

It is one step away from metering the air you breath and taxing you for every cubic foot you use. It really is time for another 1776 or drag these freaks from their government sanctioned robbery jobs.
It only gets worse and worse every year because everybody wimps out on doing anything.

 

[Oregonhunter5]

It is one step away from metering the air you breath and taxing you for every cubic foot you use. It really is time for another 1776 or drag these freaks from their government sanctioned robbery jobs.
It only gets worse and worse every year because everybody wimps out on doing anything.

Well, what's the plan? I think we are ready.

 

[Oregonhunter5]

I do understand one of the concerns, and that is having someone shoot a commercial and then use it for profit. Same with a massive movie film crew setting up on public lands without paying for the resources they use. Not saying that our public lands can't be used by anyone, just that there should be a fee for commercial use.

I don't know what the laws are concerning commercial use. Can I set up a snack stand at the Grand Canyon without paying a use fee? Is shooting a movie on public lands the same thing? What about setting up a lumber mill on public lands without a permit or fees?

Looks to me like the devil is in the details.

Why is it a concern to film a movie? They clean up there mess and leave. Big deal.
It's freaking trees and dirt....

 

[Redcap]

I'll take pictures any damn place I please.

 

[Oregonhunter5]

True story. My ex brother in laws brother, and him were snowmobiling in a protected area in eastern Idaho. They should not of been there. But, they are not the type to give a crap. An avalanche pops up. His brother gets caught in, and is dead. But, they couldn't find him for days. The cops and forest Pansy's show up and tell them they are not aloud in the area, and can't even try to find his brother. This is before they knew he was dead. They come back with shotguns, and say get the hell out of my way. They eventually found his body. They was about 1990. Some say times have changed. Others say I don't give a damn, I will do what I think is right. Law or not.

 

[The Heretic]

I do understand one of the concerns, and that is having someone shoot a commercial and then use it for profit. Same with a massive movie film crew setting up on public lands without paying for the resources they use. Not saying that our public lands can't be used by anyone, just that there should be a fee for commercial use.

I don't know what the laws are concerning commercial use. Can I set up a snack stand at the Grand Canyon without paying a use fee? Is shooting a movie on public lands the same thing? What about setting up a lumber mill on public lands without a permit or fees?

Looks to me like the devil is in the details.

After reading the article (what a concept), that is what it sounds like; you would expect that there some kind of fee and permit if you went out filming True Grit in some wilderness area or something like that.

The title of this thread makes it sound like if you were hiking around and saw a good photo to shoot, then turned around and sold it as a photographer, that you would have to pay $1500 - I don't think that is what they are talking about.

However, the article is very light on details and doesn't seem to provide any links or references to what regulations/etc. the FS is proposing.

 

[Oregonhunter5]

After reading the article (what a concept), that is what it sounds like; you would expect that there some kind of fee and permit if you went out filming True Grit in some wilderness area or something like that.

The title of this thread makes it sound like if you were hiking around and saw a good photo to shoot, then turned around and sold it as a photographer, that you would have to pay $1500 - I don't think that is what they are talking about.

However, the article is very light on details and doesn't seem to provide any links or references to what regulations/etc. the FS is proposing.

No. They do have the pay the fee if they sell the photo for profit.
And, even if films are done out there, they should NOT be given a fee!
That's our beautiful wilderness that should be celebrated and shared.
Everything for profits is not the country I shoot for. Watch the end of a John Wayne movie, and you will see statements like, thanks to the dechutes national forest, for allowing us to shoot the film in that area. If folks want to start charging, I say have the movie producer charge the state, for marketing that area for them.
We need to wake off 80% of all fed and state taxes and employees. We NEED things to take a total reverse in this country. Otherwise, most Americans WILL loose everything. And more. There's a reason why suicides are up these days. People are suffering, and bad....

 

[The Heretic]

No. They do have the pay the fee if they sell the photo for profit.
And, even if films are done out there, they should NOT be given a fee!
That's our beautiful wilderness that should be celebrated and shared.
Everything for profits is not the country I shoot for. Watch the end of a John Wayne movie, and you will see statements like, thanks to the dechutes national forest, for allowing us to shoot the film in that area. If folks want to start charging, I say have the movie producer charge the state, for marketing that area for them.
We need to wake off 80% of all fed and state taxes and employees. We NEED things to take a total reverse in this country. Otherwise, most Americans WILL loose everything. And more. There's a reason why suicides are up these days. People are suffering, and bad....

Ooookay.

So, we need to let Hollywood make movies in wilderness areas for free or people will commit suicide?

Don't you think that is a bit of a stretch?

 

[Oregonhunter5]

Ooookay.

So, we need to let Hollywood make movies in wilderness areas for free or people will commit suicide?

Don't you think that is a bit of a stretch?

Lol. I got wild.
I just think I'm against all fees and taxes like this.
I also believe folks are on the edge of financial disaster these days. Which leads to no hope. That's when people make bad decisions.
Dude who makes a living selling photos gets hit with a $1,500 fee?
So does that mean one day, those same photographers need to make sure they always know what's in the background of any picture, even around town? Cause they might start charging a fee for a photo of a famous building. It never ends.

 

[The Heretic]

I really doubt it will go that far - if it does then we have cause to complain.

I don't think the Forest Service has people cruising the internet or photo mags looking for someone who took a pic of Mt. Rainer so they can retroactively charge them a fee.

I think this is for film crews and such - so the FS can go out and monitor that they don't make a mess and not clean it up, etc. - in short, pay for the time of the gov. employee who is working on the scene.

Like I said, the article is short on details.

 

[Oregonhunter5]

I really doubt it will go that far - if it does then we have cause to complain.

I don't think the Forest Service has people cruising the internet or photo mags looking for someone who took a pic of Mt. Rainer so they can retroactively charge them a fee.

I think this is for film crews and such - so the FS can go out and monitor that they don't make a mess and not clean it up, etc. - in short, pay for the time of the gov. employee who is working on the scene.

Like I said, the article is short on details.

I see your point also.

 

[clearconscience]

I can see it now. Me taking a picture of a majestic squirrel and boom! Bang! Predator drones dropping hellfire missles, whoaaaa!
Here comes the MRAPs mowing down the trees federal storm troopers tackle me, taser my balls, knee in my neck, where's you papers, where's your papers, he's resisting!!!
Shoot him in the face!!
He said gun!!
It sounded like I'm sorry, but he meant gun!!