No permits required to film in national parks judge rules

People making money off these films hunting had to put in permits for areas they were hunting and couldn't film outside of the permitted areas and dates. Old outdated laws that need changing. Almost every single outdoorsman has a capable filming device in their pockets theses days versus 40 years ago nobody did
 
Unless a person is going to film a hunt in a national park, it means nothing. If a person wants to film a hunt and not try and make money or plug sponsors on the video, you don't need a permit to film on public land. If a person plans to benefit from it, get a permit.
 
I don't get the boo hoo permit folks. Outfitters on public land need permits. Miners need permits. As far as I'm aware the most prominent commercial users of public lands do so with a permit. Why should commercial filming be any different?
 
its not commercial filming when every hunter has that ability with a phone in pocket. The law was made for hollywood and big production and intruding on to the landscape with sometimes hundreds of people, equipment etc. Far different times now and that law is far outdated
 
Idaho Brad said:
Unless a person is going to film a hunt in a national park, it means nothing. If a person wants to film a hunt and not try and make money or plug sponsors on the video, you don't need a permit to film on public land. If a person plans to benefit from it, get a permit.
Click to expand...
does mean something that ruling is setting a precedent for things to come
 
I feel like anyone using public lands to make a profit should pay into the system to help with conservation. The lands are set up for multiple use and the other users making a profit have to pay to operate. I don't think it should really be all that different for Youtubers, etc. That said, I do agree that the system in place now is a little ridiculous and in need of an overhaul. As I understand things, it's a difficult, time consuming process to get a permit and it's not cheap. For a youtuber with one or two cameras being a non-consumptive user I think it should really be a simple process and a nominal charge to get a permit. All that said, I won't claim to have all the answers as enforcement wouldn't be easy or simple, especially when you consider that anyone can already film freely if it's for personal use and not for profit.
 
Huntnnw said:
its not commercial filming when every hunter has that ability with a phone in pocket. The law was made for hollywood and big production and intruding on to the landscape with sometimes hundreds of people, equipment etc. Far different times now and that law is far outdated
Click to expand...

If someone is profiting off of it, it's commercial filming and should be regulated the same as any other business that profits off of the public resource. I don't think the fees should be exorbitant or cause an undue burden, but it should be regulated/taxed.
 
Idaho Brad said:
Unless a person is going to film a hunt in a national park, it means nothing. If a person wants to film a hunt and not try and make money or plug sponsors on the video, you don't need a permit to film on public land. If a person plans to benefit from it, get a permit.
Click to expand...

I suspect the NPS enforcement folks would LOVE for someone to film a hunt in the NP and put it up on YouTube. Talk about a slam - dunk collar
 
Huntnnw said:
its not commercial filming when every hunter has that ability with a phone in pocket. The law was made for hollywood and big production and intruding on to the landscape with sometimes hundreds of people, equipment etc. Far different times now and that law is far outdated
Click to expand...
Not illegal to film for fun on public land. Never has been. For compensation via money or product of any sort does and should require a permit.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk
 
Does a wildlife/landscape photographer need a permit if they sell prints ?? What if nobody buys them ?? Just curious..not playing an angle

I also believe if your profiting from the land you should give back but it's hard to know where to draw the line...is gritty making profits ? He seems to be living well..which is awesome...but its hard to determine how much his films contribute to that..

Tough case
 
Idaho Brad said:
Unless a person is going to film a hunt in a national park, it means nothing. If a person wants to film a hunt and not try and make money or plug sponsors on the video, you don't need a permit to film on public land. If a person plans to benefit from it, get a permit.
Click to expand...
Correct. It's a commercial use permit. Just like other commercial uses.

Pay attention folks.
 
Elkangle said:
Does a wildlife/landscape photographer need a permit if they sell prints ?? What if nobody buys them ?? Just curious..not playing an angle

I also believe if your profiting from the land you should give back but it's hard to know where to draw the line...is gritty making profits ? He seems to be living well..which is awesome...but its hard to determine how much his films contribute to that..

Tough case
Click to expand...
In some cases, yes, they need a permit before taking any pics. BLM law is the same as the NFS laws.
When do I need a film permit? | Bureau of Land Management (blm.gov)

Your statements kind of hit the nail on the head. How do they determine where to draw the line. This is really just one of the many cases of where technology has changed, and the laws need to keep up. The laws were updated a few years back, but apparently there was still too much left to interpretation. This is the main portion that relates to those making a living from a youTube channel:

For purposes of this definition, creation of a product for sale includes a film, videotape, television broadcast, or documentary of participants in commercial sporting or recreation event created for the purpose of generating income.

The people who were being fined look to be making some of their income off their youTube channels, or trying to, for the most part. The law rewrite a few years ago emphasized that the point of the law was to protect the land/resource, not to prevent people from taking pictures or video. This has actually been a hot topic in video and photography circles for a couple decades now.

It is kind of like how illuminated reticles in scopes were illegal for big game hunting in Idaho for some time. The laws eventually were updated to align with the realities of modern sporting technologies but there were most likely a few people who didn't pay attention to the law and got burned. Now, the range finding and automated ballistics compensating scopes that are becoming popular are still illegal in ID (for big game hunting) but you can hunt with a battery or tritium powered reticle if you want. I would be willing to bet there are guys using those new ranging/ballistics scopes that never even thought to check the local laws before heading out to fill their tags. Some of them may even be posting incriminating videos to youTube for all to see!

I agree that people or corporations should not be able to profit at the expense of the land or interfere with the general public's ability to use the land (closed film set etc.), but I am not so sure someone shouldn't be able to take a video of their vacation and post it on the web without fear of getting a fine or jail time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

H
CO National Forests and Accessing Via Roads/Trails
2
Replies
24
Views
1K
huntercooper84
H
Swamp Fox
Non- and anti-hunters on game commissions
2 3
Replies
46
Views
3K
Macintosh
M
H
Ashley National Forest
Replies
3
Views
1K
HighUintas
H
C
Hunting Journey to 2022 So Cal Success!
Replies
4
Views
929
cjdewese
C
Carlin59
Inherited 7 RUM-Where to start/WWYD?
Replies
15
Views
2K
260madman
260madman

Latest posts

Featured Video

Stats

Threads
353,265
Messages
3,726,656
Members
80,661
Latest member
olsont2

Latest Articles

Back
Top