[Fwd: 63FR51370 Notice of Publication of Final Procedures and
John Fowler
>
>
>Now if only someone could ban the filming of SUV's driving through streams
>and rivers for no other reason than having fun. Oops, I guess that -is- off
>topic. ;>
I guess it is a bit off topic, Keith, but it is something that that really
p's me off - especially all the commercials. I think we, as nature stock
photogs, should protest publicly about the auto manufacturers and no-brain
ad agency types who persist in this stuff.
John T. Fowler
Fine photography from Canada
http://www.magma.ca/~jfowler
---------------------------------------------------------------------
For More Info on The STOCKPHOTO Network, contact jo...@stockphoto.net,
or Visit The STOCKPHOTO Network Web Site => http://www.stockphoto.net
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Keith Clark
Agreed.
Equally as bad are the photos of hikers, mountain bikers and campers (hey, I do
all three, but responsibly, ok...) tearing up alpine meadows, camping right next
to the water, and otherwise acting irresponsibly so that some tourist agency can
attract more yuppie-adventure-seekers. Or the photography magazine showing some
moron tramping through a field of wildflowers for one perfect close-up (that
could be better done in a greenhouse or studio).
I call it "eco-porn".
And if there's some ad agency type reading this who is offended, then all I can
say is GOOD. Maybe you'll think about the massive amount of damage caused to our
wilderness areas by unthinking types who see something in an ad and figure it's
acceptable behavior.
Sorry if this isn't quite worded "professionally" or non offensively, but the
nature (no pun intended ;>) of those ads is extremely offensive to anyone with
brains.
Stepping off the soapbox. ;>
Keith
Keith Clark
I hope this isn't considered too of-topic. There's been lots of discussion
about permits necessary for commercial photography in US National Parks, so
I thought there would be interest in this. It was just posted to usenet
this morning. Now, I admit I haven't read the whole thing yet...still on my
first cup of coffee.
I did skim over it though, and it sounds like they're trying to be
responsive to us. They're resisting permits for aerial photography permits
in the back-country, but let's face it, that's a good thing for those of us
who go there for solitude. ;> It does sound like they're trying to speed
the whole process up and make it more consistent.
Now if only someone could ban the filming of SUV's driving through streams
and rivers for no other reason than having fun. Oops, I guess that -is- off
topic. ;>
Keith
--------------------------------------------------------
robop...@us.govnews.org wrote:
> Archive-Name: gov/us/fed/nara/fed-register/1998/sep/25/63FR51370
> Posting-number: Volume 63, Issue 186, Page 51370
>
> [Federal Register: September 25, 1998 (Volume 63, Number 186)]
> [Notices]
> [Page 51370-51371]
> From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
> [DOCID:fr25se98-103]
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
>
> National Park Service
>
>
> Notice of Publication of Final Procedures and Guidance for the
> Permitting of Filming and Photography in Units of the National Park
> Service
>
> AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior.
>
> ACTION: Public notice.
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> SUMMARY: The National Park Service (NPS) announces finalization and
> publication of the guidance and procedures document dealing
> specifically with Filming and Photography in units of the NPS. This
> information was developed to provide guidance and procedures to all
> units of the National Park System who deal with requests for the making
> of motion pictures, video taping, sound recording, or still
> photography. This document will appear as and may be found in Appendix
> 20 of NPS-53, the NPS Guideline on Special Park Uses which master
> document is already approved, finalized and published.
>
> ADDRESSES: Copies of the guidance document will be made available upon
> request by writing to National Park Service, Ranger Activities
> Division, 1849 C St. NW, Suite 7408, Washington, DC 20240, or by
> calling 202-208-4874. The guidance document is also available on the
> Internet at the following web site: http://www.nps.gov.refdesk then
> selecting Director's Orders and Procedures.
>
> FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dick Young at 757-898-7846, or 757-
> 898-3400, ext. 51.
> On Tuesday, February 3, 1998, the NPS published a notice in the
> Federal Register requesting public comments on the proposed guidance
> and procedures document for filming and photography in all units of the
> NPS. The NPS received 15 responses to that notice. Those comments of
> significance, and the responses to those comments are as follows.
> Comment: Approval time line needs to be clearer and needs to be
> shorter.
> Response: The NPS has intentionally generalized this issue to
> ensure that Superintendents have the flexibility to apply these
> guidelines, as they are appropriate in his or her park unit. The
> alternative, establishing a set time line and applying it Servicewide,
> would potentially lock many less complicated projects into a lengthy
> permit process.
> Comment: Several responders commented on the proposed time
> restrictions for visitor use in filming locations.
> Response: The types and quantity of acceptable disruptions to
> normal visitor use vary from area to area and situation to situation.
> Time restrictions may be adjusted by the individual park as needed.
> Comment: Some respondents commented on a certain lack of detail
> when it came to determining which applicants are required to pay fees
> and how much those fees would be.
> Response: The NPS points out that the proposed filming guideline is
> part of a larger document (NPS-53) that speaks to all aspects of cost
> and fee recovery which are, therefore, not repeated in this Appendix.
> In addition, because of the unique resource concerns of each area,
> costs to the permittee will vary according to the amount of resource
> and visitor protection needed.
> Comment: Responders expressed concern about access to closed areas.
> Response: The Superintendent has the authority to provide access to
> a closed area under the conditions established in a permit if such
> access does not violate statute or regulations, and the request does
> not adversely impact the resource or visitor experience.
> Comment: Some responders expressed concern about limiting filming
> activities during times of peak visitation.
> Response: The introduction of a commercial film project, or any
> other special park use, at times of peak visitation, would potentially
> burden the park resources and compromise the visitor experience beyond
> reasonable and manageable levels in some park units. As visitation
> continues to increase in our National Parks, placing limitations on
> special uses, especially during periods of peak visitation, may become
> increasingly necessary.
> Comment: Some respondents were concerned about the guideline
> treatment of aircraft used for filming.
> Response: Although aircraft use over many NPS areas is generally
> considered undesirable, the ultimate decision to permit rests with the
> Superintendent.
> Comment: Several responders commented that the NPS should allow
> last minute changes and give on-site managers discretion to deal with
> them.
> Response: In many parks the level of visitation and sensitivity of
> the
>
> [[Page 51371]]
>
> resources prohibit significant changes, however in most situations the
> on-site monitor has the authority to approve minor last minute changes
> that would not create resource damage or visitor impact.
> Comment: One commenter questioned the number of permits allowed and
> approved, who makes this determination, and how is the determination
> made.
> Response: The determination of the allowable number of permits is
> made by the Superintendent of the individual park unit, in accordance
> with existing statutes and regulations, by compiling information
> related to carrying capacity, visitor expectations and the potential
> for adverse impact to the resource in specific areas of the park unit.
> Comment: One responder questioned whether the NPS should be
> accommodating, allowing or encouraging filming on the lands or in the
> structures it administers.
> Response: The NPS allows filming when it is consistent with the
> protection and public enjoyment of park resources, and encourages
> filming when it is for the specific use of the park or when it assists
> the NPS in fulfilling it's mission. The NPS has the authority and
> responsibility to permit, deny and manage these projects consistent
> with the mission of the NPS.
> Comment: One responder believes that the use of the word
> ``likelihood'' when referring to possible resource damage should not be
> used.
> Response: The NPS agrees and the language will be strengthened in
> the final guideline.
> Comment: Several respondents commented on the prohibition on
> issuing permits for activities that the general public would not be
> allowed to do.
> Response: Although it is not the policy of the NPS to censor story
> content, it is appropriate for the NPS to restrict the portrayal of
> activity that is illegal in the parks.
> Comment: The guideline should not allow filming to risk historic
> objects or facilities.
> Response: The section from which this quote was taken addresses
> insurance and liability. It does not mean that film permittees will be
> allowed to conduct activity that would place historic objects or
> facilities at increased risk.
> Comment: One responder believes that deliberate infractions of the
> permit terms should result in automatic revocation and termination of
> the permit.
> Response: The guidelines allow for the NPS representative on site
> to determine the seriousness of a permit violation and, in consultation
> with the park manager, take the appropriate action. Current rules
> promulgated at 36 CFR say violation of a term or condition of a permit
> may result in suspension or revocation of the permit by the
> Superintendent.
> Comment: Several respondents objected to various sample conditions
> provided as exhibits in the guidelines.
> Response: These conditions have been suggested as samples which, if
> used at all, must be modified for each park unit.
> Comment: One respondent questioned the prohibition on the NPS
> renting equipment to permittees.
> Response: Title 16 of the United States Code prohibits the NPS from
> renting their equipment to private individuals or companies.
>
> Dated: September 15, 1998.
> Chris Andress,
> Chief, Ranger Activities Division.
> [FR Doc. 98-25650 Filed 9-24-98; 8:45 am]
> BILLING CODE 4310-70-P
John Fowler
>
>I call it "eco-porn".
>
I like that name!
John T. Fowler
Fine photography from Canada
http://www.magma.ca/~jfowler
Howard M Paul
>At 05:48 AM 25-09-98 -0700, Keith Clark wrote:
>>Now if only someone could ban the filming of SUV's driving through
>streams
>>and rivers for no other reason than having fun. Oops, I guess that
>-is- off
>>topic. ;>
>
>really
>p's me off - especially all the commercials. I think we, as nature
>stock
>photogs, should protest publicly about the auto manufacturers and
>no-brain
>ad agency types who persist in this stuff.
I suppose my signtaure would not be welcomed on such a protest, would it?
You see, on more than one occasion I have driven a 4WD through a stream,
and then shot a stock photo somewhere on the other side.
Howard M. Paul
Whose favorite shooting locale is a *real* USFS wilderness, under the
Wilderness Protection Act.
Somewhere on the road
___________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
------------------------------------------------------------------
For Info on Professional Photography Organizations Worldwide
John Fowler
>
>I suppose my signtaure would not be welcomed on such a protest, would it?
> You see, on more than one occasion I have driven a 4WD through a stream,
>and then shot a stock photo somewhere on the other side.
Well, Howard, from reading your posts it would seem you have a fine respect
for our natural world and conduct yourself accordingly. Fording a stream
responsibly is one thing - roughing it up stupidly, as shown on so many tv
commercials, is quite another.
You post does bring up another issue, however. Here, and in many
juriosdictions I expect, it is quite illegal to interfere with a stream bed
in any way. Mostly to prevent "mining" of washed gravel for construction,
etc uses. Strictly speaking, however, removing even one stream-polished
stone is a no-no.
As soon as I get the time and a little spare cash, perhaps I'll sue an
advertising agency under our environmental laws. That otta get some good
press in the ad trade media?
John T. Fowler
Fine photography from Canada
http://www.magma.ca/~jfowler