I'd love to see one of own win this. We have the talent here, and I bet (though I really have no idea) that they don't get a lot of freshwater under water photos submitted. It is a contest for amateurs, though.
http://activeoutdoor...erd7aN37s5Nql85
Show 'em how it's done!
Started by
mattknepley
, May 06 2014 05:25 AM
15 replies to this topic
#1
mattknepley
-
- NANFA Member
- Smack-dab between the Savannah and the Saluda.
Posted 06 May 2014 - 05:25 AM
Matt Knepley
"No thanks, a third of a gopher would merely arouse my appetite..."
"No thanks, a third of a gopher would merely arouse my appetite..."
#2
Guest_Uland_*
Guest_Uland_*
-
- Guests
Posted 06 May 2014 - 08:17 AM
Just as a heads up....If you take photos on federal land/parks, you need to purchase a permit if you think someone may want to give you a couple of bucks for photo use. You also can't barter the photos as I sometimes do in order to get donations to NANFA. You must not only pay for the appropriate permits, but you also provide proof of insurance and other. So be careful where where you snap your shutter!
#3
Guest_Subrosa_*
Guest_Subrosa_*
-
- Guests
Posted 06 May 2014 - 08:38 AM
Or at least be careful who you show the pics to!Just as a heads up....If you take photos on federal land/parks, you need to purchase a permit if you think someone may want to give you a couple of bucks for photo use. You also can't barter the photos as I sometimes do in order to get donations to NANFA. You must not only pay for the appropriate permits, but you also provide proof of insurance and other. So be careful where where you snap your shutter!
#4
mattknepley
-
- NANFA Member
- Smack-dab between the Savannah and the Saluda.
Posted 06 May 2014 - 08:39 AM
Good to know; thanks for pointing that out. Don't know if that info was somewhere in there or not. I was pretty lazy about reading the fine print.
Matt Knepley
"No thanks, a third of a gopher would merely arouse my appetite..."
"No thanks, a third of a gopher would merely arouse my appetite..."
#5
Guest_Erica Lyons_*
Guest_Erica Lyons_*
-
- Guests
Posted 06 May 2014 - 09:39 AM
Wow, $10,000 as the grand prize. That's a contest worth entering.
So, it's only open to photos taken on federally or state owned land, and you need a permit first before you can submit?
So, it's only open to photos taken on federally or state owned land, and you need a permit first before you can submit?
#6
mattknepley
-
- NANFA Member
- Smack-dab between the Savannah and the Saluda.
Posted 06 May 2014 - 12:01 PM
Has to be federal, but that still leaves a lot open because it isn't just the National Parks.
Here are the rules. If you scroll to the bottom you can download the real nitty gritty by clicking on "rules".
http://www.sharethee....org/guidelines
Doesn't specifically spell out permits, but DOES say all federal rules need to be followed. I'm sure that'd mean permitting, as Uland pointed out. So, contact the rangers, kids!
Here are the rules. If you scroll to the bottom you can download the real nitty gritty by clicking on "rules".
http://www.sharethee....org/guidelines
Doesn't specifically spell out permits, but DOES say all federal rules need to be followed. I'm sure that'd mean permitting, as Uland pointed out. So, contact the rangers, kids!
Matt Knepley
"No thanks, a third of a gopher would merely arouse my appetite..."
"No thanks, a third of a gopher would merely arouse my appetite..."
#7
Guest_Doug_Dame_*
Guest_Doug_Dame_*
-
- Guests
Posted 07 May 2014 - 12:24 AM
Just as a heads up....If you take photos on federal land/parks, you need to purchase a permit if you think someone may want to give you a couple of bucks for photo use. You also can't barter the photos as I sometimes do in order to get donations to NANFA. You must not only pay for the appropriate permits, but you also provide proof of insurance and other. So be careful where where you snap your shutter!
You have to pay money to get a permit to take (commercial) photos in a FEDERAL PARK or lands that We the People Own ??? That is just wrong.
#8
Isaac Szabo
-
- NANFA Member
- Marble Falls, AR
Posted 07 May 2014 - 01:25 AM
Just as a heads up....If you take photos on federal land/parks, you need to purchase a permit if you think someone may want to give you a couple of bucks for photo use. You also can't barter the photos as I sometimes do in order to get donations to NANFA. You must not only pay for the appropriate permits, but you also provide proof of insurance and other. So be careful where where you snap your shutter!
Actually, this is a incorrect. This webpage explains it pretty well: http://www.photoatto...-public-lands/. In short, normal folks taking photos/video do not need a permit and are even allowed to use their media commercially. Film crews definitely need a permit. Commercial photographers with models/props probably need a permit, though common portrait photography does not require a permit. So, the average individual does not need to worry about a permit, even if they intend to sell the images. Uland, it's possile phototank equipment could fall under props that require a permit (but maybe not).
So, it's only open to photos taken on federally or state owned land, and you need a permit first before you can submit?
No, you don't need a permit to enter the contest. Uland was referring to rules regarding commercial filming/photography on federal lands. However, the majority of people don't sell their photos, and those rules have nothing directly to do with this contest.
#9
Guest_Uland_*
Guest_Uland_*
-
- Guests
Posted 07 May 2014 - 09:30 AM
Thanks for the link Isaac.
That is interesting.
I was told flat out last year (by park officials), that ANY photos in federal parks/lands could not be exchanged for any goods, services or charge any fees without a permit. I wonder if the new law or clarified law, has filtered down yet?
Anyone who uses a "backdrop" needs a permit and insurance etc. Not to mention all the other things that qualify as a "prop".
Isaac, you may very well need a permit to accept the contest winnings. If they insist on the right to use the photo (most contests do), I don't see how that is not a commercial exchange. After all, you are getting taxable money as a result of a photo on public lands. So, a permit to enter? - NO, but you may need a permit should you WIN!
Doug - everything is illegal and it's up to you to know the thousands of new laws every year!
That is interesting.
I was told flat out last year (by park officials), that ANY photos in federal parks/lands could not be exchanged for any goods, services or charge any fees without a permit. I wonder if the new law or clarified law, has filtered down yet?
Anyone who uses a "backdrop" needs a permit and insurance etc. Not to mention all the other things that qualify as a "prop".
Isaac, you may very well need a permit to accept the contest winnings. If they insist on the right to use the photo (most contests do), I don't see how that is not a commercial exchange. After all, you are getting taxable money as a result of a photo on public lands. So, a permit to enter? - NO, but you may need a permit should you WIN!
Doug - everything is illegal and it's up to you to know the thousands of new laws every year!
#10
Isaac Szabo
-
- NANFA Member
- Marble Falls, AR
Posted 07 May 2014 - 09:24 PM
No problem Uland. Sorry if my post came off as disrespectful. I was just trying to provide helpful information.
It sounds like your park officials didn't have a proper understanding of the law, but perhaps the recent clarifications have changed that. Here's a link to the official law on the government website: http://www.ecfr.gov/....90.2&rgn=div8. Here's a link to how my local federal park, the Buffalo National River, enforces the law: http://www.nps.gov/b...nformation.pdf. In both cases it is quite clear that commercial photography does not require a permit except in limited circumstances outside the realm of most average visitors. If you are just using standard photo equipment (camera, tripod), then you are fine to use the images commercially without needing a permit.
The main thing that might affect the average NANFA member is that phototank equipment might qualify as a prop and thus require a permit. It would probably depend upon the interpretation of the law by the local park officials. I could see how they might let it slide since it is probably not as big a distraction/disruption as the props the law was intended to regulate.
The reason permits don't factor into the contest is because normal photography, commercial or otherwise, does not require a permit.
I actually think these laws are pretty sensible. They allow most normal activity. They are only trying to regulate things that are outside the scope of the average visitor and might cause a disruption to the park.
It sounds like your park officials didn't have a proper understanding of the law, but perhaps the recent clarifications have changed that. Here's a link to the official law on the government website: http://www.ecfr.gov/....90.2&rgn=div8. Here's a link to how my local federal park, the Buffalo National River, enforces the law: http://www.nps.gov/b...nformation.pdf. In both cases it is quite clear that commercial photography does not require a permit except in limited circumstances outside the realm of most average visitors. If you are just using standard photo equipment (camera, tripod), then you are fine to use the images commercially without needing a permit.
The main thing that might affect the average NANFA member is that phototank equipment might qualify as a prop and thus require a permit. It would probably depend upon the interpretation of the law by the local park officials. I could see how they might let it slide since it is probably not as big a distraction/disruption as the props the law was intended to regulate.
The reason permits don't factor into the contest is because normal photography, commercial or otherwise, does not require a permit.
I actually think these laws are pretty sensible. They allow most normal activity. They are only trying to regulate things that are outside the scope of the average visitor and might cause a disruption to the park.
#11
Guest_Uland_*
Guest_Uland_*
-
- Guests
Posted 08 May 2014 - 06:57 AM
Isaac, I recognized no disrespect in your post. Besides, facts may be uncomfortable, but they cannot disrespect the reader. Facts are what you have provided.
I wish had kept the pamphlet from the National Forest so I could provide the previous interpretation of the law! It was so much better when the gist of he law was...."you can photo anything you want, any way you want, but you must have permits to sell them".
It is clear the ACT of photographing with props is a crime and subject to federal enforcement without permit. Backdrops are spelled out specifically as prop (SS5.12), and therefore all of my activities are federally prosecutable.
While some my think such laws are sensible, I fail to see what is sensible about casually criminalizing my photography. I don't see why anyone would find the need to separate the photography styles and turn me into a criminal. I also resent that so many daily activities would benefit from legal advice.
**edit - sorry for the derail.....I will now leave this topic so I can continue my underground photography
I wish had kept the pamphlet from the National Forest so I could provide the previous interpretation of the law! It was so much better when the gist of he law was...."you can photo anything you want, any way you want, but you must have permits to sell them".
It is clear the ACT of photographing with props is a crime and subject to federal enforcement without permit. Backdrops are spelled out specifically as prop (SS5.12), and therefore all of my activities are federally prosecutable.
While some my think such laws are sensible, I fail to see what is sensible about casually criminalizing my photography. I don't see why anyone would find the need to separate the photography styles and turn me into a criminal. I also resent that so many daily activities would benefit from legal advice.
**edit - sorry for the derail.....I will now leave this topic so I can continue my underground photography
#12
Guest_Skipjack_*
Guest_Skipjack_*
-
- Guests
Posted 08 May 2014 - 07:07 AM
This could get political quite easily, but I have to agree, it would seem that one would be smart to have a lawyer on retainer just to keep himself safe from daily activities. It is sad that you guys even need to have this conversation.
#13
Michael Wolfe
-
- Board of Directors
-
- North Georgia, Oconee River Drainage
Posted 08 May 2014 - 07:30 AM
.....I will now leave this topic so I can continue my underground photography
wow, thats impressive... I mean I knew that you did underwater photography, but underground!
Either write something worth reading or do something worth writing. - Benjamin Franklin
#14
Isaac Szabo
-
- NANFA Member
- Marble Falls, AR
Posted 08 May 2014 - 10:33 AM
Uland, your initial post indicated that all commercial photos on federal lands require a permit. I have just been responding to that statement in a broad sense, pointing out that general nature/landscape/wildlife photography does not require a permit. I wanted folks to know that they do not need to worry about permits to go to national parks and take photos appropriate for this contest and even to use them commercially.
I was focusing on the laws regarding general photography, however, now I realize that you have probably mostly been talking about phototank photography. If so, I apologize that didn't pick up on that sooner. My personal feeling is that simple phototank photography should not require a permit. I don't think it creates much of a distraction/disruption to normal park activities, and I would hope that some park officials might feel similarly.
Are you sure a phototank qualifies as backdrop? In my mind, photography backdrops are generally much bigger (big enough to put people or sets in front of). The law defines sets and props as "backdrops, generators, microphones, stages, lighting banks, camera tracks...", etc. It's pretty clear the law is meant to regulate commercial operations on a much larger scale than a simple little phototank. If it's the case that most park officials interpret the law as to not allow phototank photography without a permit, then I don't think the law is sensible.
I was focusing on the laws regarding general photography, however, now I realize that you have probably mostly been talking about phototank photography. If so, I apologize that didn't pick up on that sooner. My personal feeling is that simple phototank photography should not require a permit. I don't think it creates much of a distraction/disruption to normal park activities, and I would hope that some park officials might feel similarly.
Are you sure a phototank qualifies as backdrop? In my mind, photography backdrops are generally much bigger (big enough to put people or sets in front of). The law defines sets and props as "backdrops, generators, microphones, stages, lighting banks, camera tracks...", etc. It's pretty clear the law is meant to regulate commercial operations on a much larger scale than a simple little phototank. If it's the case that most park officials interpret the law as to not allow phototank photography without a permit, then I don't think the law is sensible.
#15
Guest_Uland_*
Guest_Uland_*
-
- Guests
Posted 08 May 2014 - 06:58 PM
Isaac, I know where you're coming from and I get your position. I don't think we differ except in the philosophy. I cannot photo fish due to laws passed by unelected officials. I cannot vote out the people denying a moral and ethical activity of mine. Well, I'm exaggerating a bit......I can form a company, buy insurance then set up permits well in advance etc. at great burden both financial and otherwise. I am not denied the activity, but it's supremely burdensome.
In my original post, I was simply stating not only what was written but also what I was told by federal employees. It appears the law changed in 2013 (?) and I find this problematic for a few reasons. The difference between defining commercial photography by what you DO with the photo and HOW you take a photo is preposterous. Another problem is how exactly will I interface with federal employees regarding the law? Since previously the action was legal but my actions afterward made the activity legal or illegal, I was in control of my destiny (staying out of the courtroom). Now, if I choose to continue this activity, I am at the mercy of local agencies interpretation of "model, background, set or prop".
Isaac, I use a backdrop in all of my photos. This simple action automatically makes my activity commercial. A tank may be a prop or perhaps a model but it is not clear.
In my original post, I was simply stating not only what was written but also what I was told by federal employees. It appears the law changed in 2013 (?) and I find this problematic for a few reasons. The difference between defining commercial photography by what you DO with the photo and HOW you take a photo is preposterous. Another problem is how exactly will I interface with federal employees regarding the law? Since previously the action was legal but my actions afterward made the activity legal or illegal, I was in control of my destiny (staying out of the courtroom). Now, if I choose to continue this activity, I am at the mercy of local agencies interpretation of "model, background, set or prop".
Isaac, I use a backdrop in all of my photos. This simple action automatically makes my activity commercial. A tank may be a prop or perhaps a model but it is not clear.
#16
Michael Wolfe
-
- Board of Directors
-
- North Georgia, Oconee River Drainage
Posted 01 December 2014 - 10:29 PM
An older topic from the spring, but some new news on the whole permit discussion. I got this forwarded to meand thought it was worth sharing with everyone.
http://www.hatchmag....hackles/7712317
http://www.hatchmag....hackles/7712317
Either write something worth reading or do something worth writing. - Benjamin Franklin
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users
NANFA Youtube Channel 
