PhotoshopNews.com
May 1, 2006

National Parks To Start Charging Photographers “Location Fees”

Source: National Press Photographers Association (NPPA)
Written By William Campbell

LIVINGSTON, MT (April 20, 2006) – The National Park Service, a branch of the U.S. Department of the Interior, has published new rules authorizing the NPS to begin collecting location fees for video, film, and commercial still photography projects. The new regulations appeared in the Federal Register (Vol. 71, Number 71) published April 13, 2006, and will take effect on May 15, 2006.

The news came in the form of a press release issued Friday by the NPS Office of Public Affairs saying that they will now implement “location fees for commercial filming and still photography.” Currently film and video permits are required in National Parks but there have not been location fees until now. Administration charges to issue the free permits have ranged from no cost at all up to $200 per project.

“This is a first step in a process of departmental regulations that will apply to the Bureau of Land Management, National Park Service, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,” Lee Dickinson, special use coordinator for the National Park Service, told News Photographer magazine today.

The new location fees start at $150 per day and – with monitors and other charges – could exceed $500 per day.

The new rules are modeled after the existing film permit regulations and fee structures that are used by the Bureau of Land Management and now will be applied to all federally operated National Parks.

Read entire article

Text of the notice shown below:

[Federal Register: April 13, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 71)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 19127-19129]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr13ap06-15]

================

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Office of the Secretary

43 CFR Part 5

RIN 1093-AA10

Making Pictures, Television Productions, or Sound Tracks on
Certain Areas Under the Jurisdiction of the Department of the Interior

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, Interior.

ACTION: Final rule.

———————————————————————–

SUMMARY: The Office of the Secretary is revising regulations found at
43 CFR 5.1 to allow implementation of legislation that directs the
establishment of a reasonable fee for commercial filming activities or
similar projects and still photography where a permit is required.

DATES: Effective Date: April 13, 2006.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lee Dickinson, Special Park Uses
Program Manager, National Park Service, 1849 C Street, NW., ORG CODE
2460, Washington, DC 20240, telephone: 202-513-7092, or e-mail:
Lee_Dickinson@nps.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Public Law 106-206 (codified at 16 U.S.C.
460l-6d) directs the Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture to
establish a reasonable fee system (referred to as a location fee in
this publication) for commercial filming and still photography
activities on lands under the Secretaries’ jurisdiction.
The Department of the Interior (DOI) regulations at 43 CFR part 5
prohibit the National Park Service (NPS) from collecting fees “for the
making of motion pictures, television productions or sound tracks * * *
”. The Office of the Secretary is revising the current regulation by
removing the prohibition.

Background

Lands of the United States were set aside by Congress or the
Executive Branch to conserve and protect areas of untold beauty and
grandeur, historical importance, and uniqueness for future generations.
Often it is the uniqueness of the land that attracts filmmakers. This
tradition started with explorers who traveled with paint and canvas or
primitive photo apparatus before the areas were designated as a
national park, wildlife refuge, or forest. Generally, land management
agencies allow commercial filming and still photography when it is
consistent with their mission and will not harm the resource or
interfere with the visitor experience.
While many commercial filming and still photography permits issued
by the land management agencies are for small productions involving
educational material or commercial advertising, a significant number of
commercial filming permits have been issued to makers of major motion
pictures.
Public Law 106-206 specifically requires permits, reasonable fees
for use of federal lands and reimbursement of costs incurred by the
government as a result of both commercial filming and certain still
photography activities. Congress recognized in this law that when
commercial filming and certain

[[Page 19128]]

still photography activities are allowed on Federal lands, it is
necessary to manage the activity through a permitting process to
minimize the possibility of damage to the cultural or natural resources
or interference with other visitors to the area and the agencies will
incur costs in providing this management.

Key Issues

The Department of the Interior (DOI) regulations at 43 CFR part 5
which prohibit the NPS from collecting fees for commercial film
productions are in conflict with the Pub. L. 106-206. Therefore, to
implement the fee requirement of the law the Office of the Secretary is
revising the current regulation by removing the prohibition.
In June 2004, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) at the
request of some members of Congress began a review of NPS policy and
guidance related to issuing special use permits for special events and
for commercial filming and still photography. In a report issued May 6,
2005, the GAO concluded that the NPS could have collected and retained
at least $1.6 million in location fees for commercial filming and still
photography activities permitted on park lands if Pub. L. 106-206 had
been implemented. One recommendation of the report was that the NPS
“Expedite the implementation of the law that requires the Park Service
to collect location fees and costs for commercial filming and still
photography, when appropriate.”
In order to expedite the implementation of Pub. L. 106-206, the
Office of the Secretary will implement this final rule which will
remove from current regulations found in 43 CFR 5.1(b)(1) the statement
that prohibits the National Park Service from charging a fee “for the
making of motion pictures, television productions or sound tracks. * *
*” This rule will allow the NPS to charge fees during an interim
period while a Department-wide rule, which includes the Bureau of Land
Management and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, is promulgated. The
Department-wide rule will establish a fee schedule specific to this
rule.

Compliance With Other Laws

Regulatory Planning and Review (Executive Order 12866)

This document is a significant rule and has been reviewed by the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under Executive Order 12866.
(1) This rule will not have an effect of $100 million or more on
the economy. It will not adversely affect in a material way the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or
communities.
(2) This rule will not create a serious inconsistency or otherwise
interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency.
(3) This rule does not alter the budgetary effects of entitlements,
grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights or obligations of
their recipients.
(4) While this rule follows the direction of Congress by
implementing the provisions of Public Law 106-206, OMB has determined
that the rule raises novel legal or policy issues.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Department of the Interior certifies that this rulemaking will
not have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small
entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.).

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA)

This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. This rule:
a. Does not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or
more.
b. Will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for
consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government
agencies, or geographic regions.
c. Does not have significant adverse effects on competition,
employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of
U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

This rule does not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or
tribal governments or the private sector of more than $100 million per
year. The rule does not have a significant or unique effect on State,
local, or tribal governments or the private sector.

Takings (Executive Order 12630)

In accordance with Executive Order 12630, the rule does not have
significant takings implications.

Federalism (Executive Order 13132)

In accordance with Executive Order 13132, the rule does not have
sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a
federalism assessment.

Civil Justice Reform (Executive Order 12988)

In accordance with Executive Order 12988, the Office of the
Solicitor has determined that this rule does not unduly burden the
judicial system and meets the requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2)
of the order.

Paperwork Reduction Act

This proposed regulation requires individuals and companies wishing
to do commercial filming and still photography park lands to obtain a
permit from the superintendent managing the park land. The permit
holder is also responsible for reimbursing the agency for costs
incurred and to pay a land use fee. The mechanics of applying for the
permit and the forms involved are not addressed in this proposed
regulation, but are addressed in existing NPS regulations and internal
guidance. The NPS uses application forms NPS 10-931 (Film–Short Form)
and NPS 10-932 (Film–Long Form). Both forms are assigned OMB Control
Number 1024-0026 and expire December 31, 2006. Therefore, these
regulations do not contain information collection requirements that the
OMB must approve under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq.

National Environmental Policy Act

This rule does not constitute a major Federal action significantly
affecting the quality of the human environment, health, and safety
because it is not expected to:
(a) Increase public use to the extent of compromising the nature
and character of the area or causing physical damage to it;
(b) Introduce noncompatible uses that might compromise the nature
and characteristics of the area, or cause physical damage to it;
(c) Conflict with adjacent ownerships or land uses; or
(d) Cause a nuisance to adjacent owners or occupants.
Based on this determination, the regulation is categorically
excluded from the procedural requirements of the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) by Departmental guidelines in 516 DM 6, (49 FR
21438). Therefore, neither an environmental assessment nor an
environmental impact statement has been prepared.
The location fee authorized by Public Law 106-206 and governed by
this proposed regulation is a fee collected when a permit is issued by
the NPS for a commercial filming or still photography activity. Any
analysis required by the NEPA, as well as the National Historic
Preservation Act, would be conducted in conjunction with the permitting
process and would

[[Page 19129]]

evaluate the impact of the requested activity on the resource.

Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes

In accordance with Executive Order 13175 “Consultation and
Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249), the
President’s memorandum of April 29, 1994, “Government-to-Government
Relations with Native American Tribal Governments” (59 FR 22961), and
512 DM 2, we have evaluated potential effects on federally recognized
Indian tribes and have determined that there are no potential effects.

Clarity of This Regulation

Executive Order 12866 requires each agency to write regulations
that are easy to understand. We invite your comments on how to make
this rule easier to understand, including answers to questions such as
the following: (1) Are the requirements in the rule clearly stated? (2)
Does the rule contain technical language or jargon that interferes with
its clarity? (3) Does the format of the rule (grouping and order of
sections, use of headings, paragraphing, etc.) aid or reduce its
clarity? (4) Would the rule be easier to understand if it were divided
into more (but shorter) sections? (A “section” appears in bold type
and is preceded by the symbol “Sec. ” and a numbered heading; for
example Sec. 14.10 Purpose). (5) Is the description of the rule in the
“Supplementary Information” section of the preamble helpful in
understanding the proposed rule? What else could we do to make the rule
easier to understand?
Send a copy of any comments that concern how we could make this
rule easier to understand to: Office of Regulatory Affairs, DOI, Room
7229, 1849 C Street, NW., Washington, DC 20240. You may also e-mail the
comments to this address: Exsec@ios.doi.gov

Administrative Procedure Act

In this rulemaking, we are revising existing regulations in order
to implement Public Law 106-206, a law to allow the Secretary of the
Interior to establish a fee system for commercial filming and certain
still photography activities on Federal land. The existing regulations
at 43 CFR 5.1 prohibit charging fees for these activities and the new
law, Public Law 106-206, (codified at 16 U.S.C. 4601-6d), requires the
Secretary to charge fees for these same activities. This rulemaking
will delete the prohibition in the existing regulation. Therefore, we
are publishing this action without prior proposal because we view this
as a nondiscretionary revision that is required by law. We find good
cause, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b) and 553(d), that notice and public
procedure are unnecessary and this rule will take effect upon
publication. However later this year we will publish in the Federal
Register and request comments on a proposed rule on commercial filming
and still photography activities for Department of the Interior
agencies, including the National Park Service, Fish and Wildlife
Service, and Bureau of Land Management.

List of Subjects in 43 CFR Part 5

Motion pictures, Recordings, Television.

0
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Department of the
Interior amends 43 CFR part 5 as follows:

PART 5–MAKING PICTURES, TELEVISION PRODUCTIONS OR SOUND TRACKS ON
CERTAIN AREAS UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF THE
INTERIOR

0
1. The authority for part 5 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1, 3, 9a, 460(q), 462(k); Sec. 7.96 also
issued under DC Code 8-137 (1981) and DC Code 40-721 (1981).

Sec. 5.1 [Amended]

0
2. Revise Sec. 5.1(b)(1) to read as follows:
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) No fees will be charged for the making of motion pictures,
television productions or sound tracks on areas administered by the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The regular general admission and other
fees currently in effect in any area under the jurisdiction of the
National Park Service are not affected by this paragraph.
* * * * *

Dated: April 6, 2006.
P. Lynn Scarlett,
Deputy Secretary of the Interior.
[FR Doc. 06-3529 Filed 4-12-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4312-52-P

7 Responses to “National Parks To Start Charging Photographers “Location Fees””

  1. Phil Pool Says:

    After living 28 yrs. in CA. and moving back to Iowa two years ago, I’d be livid if I felt I couldn’t go and enjoy photographing my family clients in the beauty of our national parks.

    Large film companies that will make millions of dollars will be able to afford to pay a fee and should, because many times they bring many people and trucks into the parks and can cause interupptions.

    Small businesses that will take portraits or do landscape photography should be treated no differently than a tourist.

    This is an unfair form of more taxation and will do more harm than good.

  2. Dwayne Bradley Says:

    You might want to read this:

    http://www.nps.gov/dena/home/visitorinfo/programs/propho/cfguidelines.html

  3. Charles Geer Says:

    What would Ansel Adams say if he had to pay every time he shot pictures at Yosemite?

  4. Ho Yin Au Says:

    After reading the link posted by Dwayne Bradley, I think that you’re generally safe if you follow the general guidelines and principles of Leave No Trace ( see http://www.lnt.org/ )… it appears that the NPS wants to make sure that whatever you’re doing aren’t impacting the environment, and that if you are, you’re paying a fee for any impact/damage they have to take care of.

  5. Koz Says:

    This is really no different than policies currently in place at some of the more sought-after parks. I have been shooting professional video in national parks, national forests and on BLM land for the last decade and every single time I needed to file for a permit before any shooting took place. Sometimes we were charged a fee for filing the paperwork, sometimes they call it a “location fee”. I shot in Sedona 8 years ago and they waived the normal $250/day commercial shoot fee because we were small (2 guys) and our activities “did not disturb the land” aka digging up stuff or cutting down trees. Yet, the week before, apparently, a crew shooting a mountain bike video used a chopper (without permit) in some sensitive areas.

    On a different project we worked with a national forest to produce a historical documentary on the area and we were actually allowed to shoot in a federal wilderness aera (unprecidented). Since we were deemed non-commercial we were allowed in the wilderness area. We still had to file the paperwork but all fees were waived.

    I hear Grand Canyon will cost you the most. Actually, the federal fees are quite tame compared to shooting in, say, Monument Valley, where location fees are in the thousands per day, and doesnt even include your required Native American guide.

    As far as Ansel Adams goes, there is no fee or need for a permit for fine art photography. The feds only want a way to fund the studies they’re required to do before you haul your talent and props and craft services trailers and occupy a site for 3 days with that new Jeep Wrangler perched on the edge of the cliff.

    This “new” rule puts into writing what most parks and forests have been doing independently for years.

    BK

  6. Ken Duncan Says:

    Wake up America as this is the thin edge of the wedge. We have tried to warn you that heavy changes are coming to your parks system as we have realy coped it down here and it still is getting worse.
    As photographers we all want to see the beauty of nature perserved. We also understand that any body wanting to take Photographs that is possible going to have an adverse impact on our natural wonders then that person should pay to have Park people present so there is no damage done to the resourse for future generations. The trouble is, we as Landscape photogrhers are being bundled in with the bigger impact users. I read some remarks on your forum that Ansel Adams would still be able to take his photos but I can gaurantee from our history here in Australia that that will not be the case. As beauracy works in small bites taking your rights slowly until one day you wake up and say how did we ever allow this to Happen.
    We have tried to warn you as fellow Photographer. We even sent an article to outdoor Photography but they didn’t even bother to respond as I pressume their attitude was, how could anything happening Downunder effect mighty America?
    If you think these changes are bad this is only the beginning, year by year they will get worse. The Parks system will bombard you with reports that are hundreds of pages long all in the name of bio diversite and enviromental protection or wording like this. These terms sort of sound good because as Landscape photographers we are all about protecting the beauty of creation. This is what really motivates most landscape photographers, the desire to show the wonder of creation and spend time in it. But seeded through these documents will be paragraphs that effect greatly our ability and rights to take photos of nature as we have been able to in the past. Then just when you are trying to get your head around the changes that Parks are trying to impose then there will be more documentation. We as photograhers begin to feel overwhelmed and wonder how beauracrates ever came up with such regulations. We are busy just trying to make a living at what we love. By this point the changes will then start to be about Parks owning the interlectual property rights on the natural phenomina. For anyone to use photos of their park they will have to pay royalties to the park. So when a photographer takes a photo they will say he owns the copyright on the photo but he won’t. The photographers rights will be overriden by the copyrights issues of the park. By Parks will get you to sign permission forms to take photographs in their parks. These forms will start sort of inocently and then head towards the direction of having wording like, photographers may use the images to promote only things which are appropriate to Park values. Of course when you actually ask the park to state there values they will try to avoid that or otherwise photographers will then see how screwed they are. Really in the end it is all about copyright over natural creation if the Parks or individuals get this then they can control the usages of all photographers work as tis is where these people think the money is. Another thing that will also appear in Parks documents is that relating to traditional values of indiginous groups. This is really open ended, as some small group of people all of a sudden believes that a certain part of nature is of spiritual importance and should not be showen because of their ever changing beliefs. Of course if you pay them the apprpriate amount of money then these thing maybe able to be got around.
    Now when Parks and Groups get interlectual proprty rights on the natural creation this then puts them in the possition of power and then allows them to deal with image libarys who buy the rights for image usages for the areas in question.
    These idiotic pencil pushing burecrates see photographers making money and they have this grand dillusion that they are making a fortune out of images from their Parks and they want a bit of the action. They have this false impression that photographers are in it for the money and they want their pound of flesh. The reality in fact is quite diffent most landscape photographers are doing what they do because of the life stile and their love of nature and with out our gifts and talent many of these parks would never have come to the attention of the nation unless photographers had opened people eyes to these beautiful locations. It is ironic that now we the ones who where used to champion the cause of protection of our natural wonders are now being put in the crosshairs of the beauracates guns. They should not be shooting the messengers who have helped them but benifit from the additional tourism that our expose has bought their parks. What they need to do is manage their park fee incomes better and work with photographers to provide their own Official Park products where all the proceeds go back to the upkeep of the park. This would make far more for them than any fees they want to charge. It doestn’t mean that they restrict other people selling product in the parks as they are already making a hundred percent mark up on those products that they buy from supliers (far more than the photographers) The Parks have a great market advantage. What person would not support the park product if they new the proceeds were going back to the upkeep of the resource. This is true user pays as people want to buy soveniers of their visit so this is a way for the parks to really benifit from the increased tourism and give them extra finances to manage their areas.

    DownunderIn Australia the restrictions on photography are out of control and representitives of your parks services have come here to see how they operate in view of incorporatiing changes into your park service. The main Park they have been looking at is Uluru Kata Tjuta National Park here in Australia and this has been spoken of as agreat example of Park Management yet it is off the planet and totally out of touch with reality. Photographers are treated like criminals at this location and restriction are so great that it is a real sorrow to be even out their as you are made to feel like a oppertunist. The restriction on where you can shoot are so bad that it really will upset any landscape photographer. The rangers in these parks have the power to arrest you and remove you from the park as well as confiscate your equipment. They can also fine you tens of thousands of dollars if you breach any of their regulations. And when they take you to court and intimidate you with legal action the government pays for all their expenses and you the lone photographer have to deal with all your own expenses. This would be sad enough if it was only happening at this Park but now the cancer is spreading all throughout Australia on all levels Federal, State and Local councils.
    In Australia we are so upset at what is happening with the loss of our freedoms as Artists that we have set up a new group called Arts Freedom Australia and it is acting as a group to get different photographic groups together to start fighting back.
    Please America take this threat on your freedom seriousl or otherwise you will have to fight to regain stolen rights. Just as we having to do now.

    Good Luck And God Bless you as your fight will not be just for you but will strenghten our resolve.

    Ken Duncan
    Landscape Photographer
    Australia

  7. Ken Duncan Says:

    ANSWER TO PHOTOSHOPNEWS – PHOTOGRAPHERS RIGHTS
    Corrected Article

    Wake up America as this is the thin edge of the wedge. We have tried to warn you that heavy changes are coming to your parks system as we have really coped it down here and it still is getting worse.
    As photographers we all want to see the beauty of nature preserved. We also understand that any body wanting to take Photographs that is possible going to have an adverse impact on our natural wonders then that person should pay to have Park people present so there is no damage done to the resource for future generations. The trouble is, we as Landscape photographers are being bundled in with the bigger impact users. I read some remarks on your forum that Ansel Adams would still be able to take his photos but I can guarantee from our history here in Australia that that will not be the case. As bureaucracy works in small bites taking your rights slowly until one day you wake up and say how did we ever allow this to Happen.
    We have tried to warn you as fellow Photographer. We even sent an article to outdoor Photography but they didn’t even bother to respond as I presume their attitude was, how could anything happening Down under effect mighty America?
    If you think these changes are bad this is only the beginning, year by year they will get worse. The Parks system will bombard you with reports that are hundreds of pages long all in the name of bio diversity and environmental protection or wording like this. These terms sort of sound good because as Landscape photographers we are all about protecting the beauty of creation. This is what really motivates most landscape photographers, the desire to show the wonder of creation and spend time in it. But seeded through these documents will be paragraphs that affect greatly our ability and rights to take photos of nature as we have been able to in the past. Then just when you are trying to get your head around the changes that Parks are trying to impose then there will be more documentation. We as photographers begin to feel overwhelmed and wonder how bureaucrats ever came up with such regulations. We are busy just trying to make a living at what we love. By this point the changes will then start to be about Parks owning the intellectual property rights on the natural phenomena. For anyone to use photos of their park they will have to pay royalties to the park. So when a photographer takes a photo they will say he owns the copyright on the photo but he won’t. The photographer’s rights will be overridden by the copyrights issues of the park. By Parks will get you to sign permission forms to take photographs in their parks. These forms will start sort of innocently and then head towards the direction of having wording like, photographers may use the images to promote only things which are appropriate to Park values. Of course when you actually ask the park to state there values they will try to avoid that or otherwise photographers will then see how screwed they are. Really in the end it is all about copyright over natural creation if the Parks or individuals get this then they can control the usages of all photographers work as this is where these people think the money is. Another thing that will also appear in Parks documents is that relating to traditional values of indigenous groups. This is really open ended, as some small group of people all of a sudden believes that a certain part of nature is of spiritual importance and should not be shown because of their ever changing beliefs. Of course if you pay them the appropriate amount of money then these thing maybe able to be got around.
    Now when Parks and Groups get intellectual property rights on the natural creation this then puts them in the position of power and then allows them to deal with image libraries who buy the rights for image usages for the areas in question.
    These idiotic pencil pushing bureaucrats see photographers making money and they have this grand delusion that they are making a fortune out of images from their Parks and they want a bit of the action. They have this false impression that photographers are in it for the money and they want their pound of flesh. The reality in fact is quite different most landscape photographers are doing what they do because of the life stile and their love of nature and with out our gifts and talent many of these parks would never have come to the attention of the nation unless photographers had opened people eyes to these beautiful locations. It is ironic that now we the ones who where used to champion the cause of protection of our natural wonders are now being put in the crosshairs of the bureaucrats guns. They should not be shooting the messengers who have helped them but benefit from the additional tourism that our expose has bought their parks. What they need to do is manage their park fee incomes better and work with photographers to provide their own Official Park products where all the proceeds go back to the upkeep of the park. This would make far more for them than any fees they want to charge. It doesn’t mean that they restrict other people selling product in the parks as they are already making a hundred percent mark up on those products that they buy from suppliers (far more than the photographers) The Parks have a great market advantage. What person would not support the park product if they new the proceeds were going back to the upkeep of the resource. This is true user pays as people want to buy souvenirs of their visit so this is a way for the parks to really benefit from the increased tourism and give them extra finances to manage their areas.
    Down under In Australia the restrictions on photography are out of control and representatives of your parks services have come here to see how they operate in view of incorporating changes into your park service. The main Park they have been looking at is Uluru Kata Tjuta National Park here in Australia and this has been spoken of as a great example of Park Management yet it is off the planet and totally out of touch with reality. Photographers are treated like criminals at this location and restriction are so great that it is a real sorrow to be even out their as you are made to feel like a opportunist. The restrictions on where you can shoot are so bad that it really will upset any landscape photographer. The rangers in these parks have the power to arrest you and remove you from the park as well as confiscate your equipment. They can also fine you tens of thousands of dollars if you breach any of their regulations. And when they take you to court and intimidate you with legal action the government pays for all their expenses and you the lone photographer have to deal with all your own expenses. This would be sad enough if it was only happening at this Park but now the cancer is spreading all throughout Australia on all levels Federal, State and Local councils.
    In Australia we are so upset at what is happening with the loss of our freedoms as Artists that we have set up a new group called Arts Freedom Australia and it is acting as a group to get different photographic groups together to start fighting back.
    Please America, take this threat on your freedom seriously or otherwise you will have to fight to regain stolen rights. Just as we having to do now.
    Good Luck And God Bless you as your fight will not be just for you but will strengthen our resolve.
    Ken Duncan
    Landscape Photographer
    Australia

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.