Something I’ve been wondering is why would the NPS pursue overturning it. If the court ruled, why spend tax dollars on legal teams to get it overturned?
Check out , Wedding Industry Law Podcast. The attorney that took this to court talks about this. I do believe as of last month the attorneys appeal is active.
Enough! This is so upsetting to learn. I am not a UA-camr but I do love watching you and others like Trailrecon, only because I can’t afford to do this full time but I love outdoor weekend trips and summer camping. The overland community have given me an appreciation for caring for our trails and off grid environment and a respect to keep it clean and safe for my children. We live in such a beautiful country that it would break my heart not being able to see it through your eyes and that of others. I am so sorry that you can’t film and share because you can see the love and joy that you have for what you do. Thank you so much for your time, money and sacrifices for giving us these experiences from our own homes. I support you; I wish I had money to contribute to fighting this but I will continue to watch you. If there is a movement within the Overland businesses since they make profits out of your work, then please inform us so that we can all collectively support.
I am not a UA-camr and this is disappointing news. I'm genuinely sad for you. I love how you share your experiences. I'm sure what you produce from the rest of the trip will be great.
Matt, thank you for bringing attention to this. I hadn't even considered a filming permit in a National Park until now (it's been years since I've been to a NP). This video underscores your integrity to the craft and the outdoors. The first time we chatted online was you rightfully calling me out on a video I posted of the Ozark National Forest that went against Tread Lightly. I'm glad to see your values are still on point. Regarding the permit process, you're right that a channel of your size is caught in the middle of this. I come from a multi-generational family in the film and video production business, and permits are nothing new. There's often an entire Locations department dedicated to sorting out things like permits and parking. I understand both sides of this. From NP's perspective, you're producing commercial content, and so you're held to the same standard as other productions. This process, while relatively expensive for you, sets a barrier to entry. Our parks are a National resource, and if production crews were trapsing through them, the wear would be evident. A typical production with up to 10 people is accompanied by a swath of vehicles, gear, equipment, and movement. A monitor is understandable for that, to keep everything in check (years ago I was on a night shoot at an art museum, and a member of the crew walked out into a pond to set up a piece of gear and was immediately chastised by someone from the museum. It turns out that "pond" was a piece of artwork, which we wouldn't have known without them telling us). On shoots with animals there's a rep from the American Humane society to ensure animals aren't harmed, so the park ranger is likely fulfilling that role on the park's behalf. I get your sentiment, that you're "just a guy making a UA-cam video about a trail," but the park doesn't have the resources to make accommodations for that distinction. Regarding the 1st Amendment, we as individuals still have that. But once we introduce monetization, that changes the intent. I also view this in step with NP's drone rules. It's necessary to keep the parks in a more natural state that doesn't disturb the experience for others. Thanks again for making this video. It's one of the best I've enjoyed lately because of your honest and humble approach.
This is a problem for us tiny UA-cam creators. I hope the higher court will reverse this, but for me I am writing my US Representative and Senators. I urge others to do the same.
This is a scary trend towards loss of freedom. I imagine before long someone will challenge it in court and hopefully win! What I am also hoping to see is a general avoidance of the National Parks. You can bet I’d this type of oversight starts costing them money, there will be a quick change. Maybe you guys as influencers can start a movement in that direction too. I love the National Parks, but having to stress about where I post photos or videos is not ok and as you said, they are taking the fun out of the experience.
Many of the parks are horribly overcrowded. They are being loved to death. Nothing would be healthier for them than a bit of a rest from the hoards of people.
Matt, great video. While it sucks, it does provide us with some great info. I have been thinking about starting my own channel here lately and now I know to never film in a National Park. Keep the great content coming, love it all!
Thanks, Matt. Very informative video that shows this is even worse than I would've guessed. I have a lawyer friend with whom I overland frequently who, though currently in private practice, argued constitutional cases for the Institution for Justice for years. I'm going to ask him to watch this video and see if he might have some ideas for you, should you wish to be the test case.
That’s insane! National Park Services should catch up with the world and make some type of affordable flat fee or annual permit of some sort for UA-camrs.. we are only promoting the beautiful nature to share with others who can’t be there or soon to visit! 😢😢
This law is fundamentally broken. It's so far removed from what the original intent of this law was. I suspect things will change soon once Google / UA-cam gets involved, because the way it currently reads Google can also be held accountable, because THEY are the ones making revenue off the videos even if the creator is not monetized. So any filming that happens and gets posted to youtube would technically be commercial. It's going to have to work it's way back up to the Supreme Court I'm sure, but eventually they will have to make a better definition than "Commercial". Best of luck to you! I hope someone has the power / skills / expertise to fight this for all of us.
Thanks for sharing this valuable information. What a crazy situation. Hopefully some reasonable process will get worked out, but having a lifetime of experience working for government, I won’t hold my breath.
Matt, I have friends who are fishing UA-camrs, and I occasionally appear on their shows as a guest. Out of concern for them, I have been looking into this as well, and many of the comments are accurate in that pretty much all federal lands can be impacted by this ruling. One thing that caught my attention was the stated justification for the ruling by this judge which was that pre-recorded video did not fall under the category of being free speech. Free speech was how the UA-camr who brought the case in lower courts won. I feel like the key here is that since the video was not live-streamed, it could not be considered as Free speech according to the appeals court judge. A news agency, for example, covering a live news story and putting it out live to the public cannot apparently be held to the same standard as those pre-recording and posting at a later date, and I don't think that they are held accountable to the permitting process (how could they be?). As I personally know how much time and effort goes into the filming, editing, and production of a UA-cam video, knowing this may not help you. However, I am not sure that a live-streamed video could be touched according to my understanding of the judge's ruling on what is and what is not free speech when if comes to video. Food for thought. As you and many others posting here have grave concerns about this, I share your sentiments. I sincerely hope that this gets resolved quickly in the courts. And, as others have stated, contacting your state and federal representatives, tactfully explaining your grievances about this is your right, and is a great way to have your voice heard in an appropriate way.
Kudos to you for being honest and abiding by the law even if you don't agree with it. Like everything else I know, once money is involved things go bad.
Our Federal Government is beyond corrupt and illegitimate. We have hundreds of billions to send to Ukraine but we have to charge Americans money to visit land that WE THE PEOPLE own. Ignore all unjust laws and regulations. Film anyways. Become ungovernable.
I work on the side for the Forest Service on the side, and I have seen the Forest Service write tickets on not just National Parks but also National Forest as well for filming a commercial and not obtaining a permanent.
I'm Not at UA-camr, and I subscribe to your channel for the awesome videos that you will not be able to make on this trip. You showed great restraint in your opinion on this matter. I don't care for Government bashing, as it doesn't often get results.... I wonder if they charged Ansel Adams back in the day.... The only reason I visited Yosemite was because of his breathtaking photographs!!! Don't lose hope, keep making content where you can, and I love your Channel!! OOA!!
The National Forest requires permits for any filming that is monetized and functions such as weddings. I saw so many receive tickets for this, and one overlander was banned from the forest for non-compliance.
That's too bad! We will be their in March also! Although we will not have a trail rated vehicle to tackle any of those sweet trails like ya'll! Wish I could live vicariously through you with a video of your experiences out there! Traveling from Kansas City, MO out there for spring break with my wife and 3 kids.
Wow so confused! National Park! Owned by the government! I guess We the People, By the People, For the People was skipped over during this decision making process in the National Parks Service
Was it though? Just thinking out loud here but 'we the people' aren't being stopped, just the people trying to make money from it by monetitzation of the filming. Shouldn't 'we the people' get paid for use of people's land for financial gain? Might be heavy handed et al, but think about what if instead of the nice use, it's some klout chasing idiot that is ramping cars and damaging rock formations for klout? there's where the babysitter comes from. Wasn't it just last year some idiot pushed over a formation in Utah and filmed it to show how cool he was? I mean this is more of a sledgehammer approach, but it's not as cut and dried as 'free speech'
@@CrankyOldNerd you're definitely not wrong. That said the damaging of the lands and other things are already illegal so no need for additional regulations imo. I think the happy medium there is limiting of equipment. Drones should require it, large productions should require it. But a guy with small cam and 1 tripod should not.
@@SirWilliamGoes have you met our way of dealing with problems legally? MOAR RULEZ. Not saying it's perfect, but I can see where the changes came from. The outrage politics age we live in, hence my sledgehammer comment :) We don't allow for subtlety and nuance in our legal system when there are diametrically opposed 'sides'
As a new UA-cam channel jeepNdirt, I was inspired to get out and start going to places like this and put my own spin on the trip with B roll, music and a little narration. What's crazy about this law or rule or whatever this mess will be referred too is that people watch youtube video's and then go out and visit the same places they watch which means we're helping to promote these places for the parks which means more visitors and more revenue. This is absolutely crazy. The other thing I question is how do they manage 5, 10, or more youtubers or photographers visiting at the same time? Will they have "babysitters" on call? Will their availability (or lack of it) hinder a youtuber or photographers visit dates? Wow this is really soaking in on me right now and I'm blown away. So are these the same rates they charge actual movie studio film crews and if so, then why would youtubers like us be charged the same? Absolutely crazy. Thanks for this video Matt, this one seriously needs like a million views to get this message out there.
Me too. I started trail reviews for people who rc crawl and trail. You would figure photography is the best advertisement to visit parks. My favorite place to film is in a national forrest.
I have worked in television media before and have seen it first hand so part of the reasons they have to be so strict on commercial outfits is partly because lots of media personnel think they are above any rules and will 'get the shot' no matter what they have to trample on, wade through, break, cross over or go around any barriers or fences because they are 'the media' and think they are entitled. Just watch any time you are near them and you will see for yourself.
The same could be said for some photographers. But the one person/one tripod fee for those are $50 and models need to be in service of selling something non-park related. It makes zero sense when your impact on the park is less than some photographers that the permits and fees are so onerous.
Following. I get the commercial aspect as it may have large teams that may not follow the "tread lightly" mentality or even follow the restrictions placed on access to environmentally sensitive areas. However, many of your points are very valid, no crew, no set ups, and following the rules then you are more a private taxpayer documenting your adventure to share - not exploiting the area strictly for financial gain. HA - don't want to get political, but how can you not? Good luck to you and thank you for your insight, enjoy the trip and see you on the trail when we can't see you on the UA-cam!
We've been watching this playout for several months. Haven't heard of anyone actually going all the way through the process and then filming but would be interested in hearing about that. I can see if there is a huge crew filming a movie that it makes sense to require permitting. Where to draw the line seems to be the question.
I get the concept of a paid permit if it is legitimately a sizable filing crew & equipment - such as a movie studio. That would allow for oversight by a ranger, recognizition and compensation for any damage, etc. However, if the filming consist of someone sticking their iPhone out the window of their job as them and their friends, then the concept of a permit, insurance, etc. is ridiculous. The parks service needs to re-evaluate how they set the limits on usability for the $0 permit. Of course, I'm a libertarian so I don't really believe in permits in generally and I'm generally not that fond of government either. As for the lawsuit, it seems to me that it is highly problematic charging exuberant fees for this type of use of public property. It seems like this an issue that needs to be taken to Congress.
I canceled my Death Valley trip because of these rules. I can’t justify spending hundreds or even thousands on a permit when a video might make a few hundred dollars.
@@DjkommodeI don’t think family trip videos get monetized. That’s the issue. Monetization. Commercial purposes. What happened to just enjoying a trip without seeing $$$
I had no idea it cost that much to film. I could understand if a full film crew was doing it. I fail to understand why you should have to pay if these parks are funded by the government.
I feel like this is a classic example of the government not understanding our industry. I'll explain: Permits and fees are 100% reasonable and expected for production film companies. Those are commonplace and important for sizable productions because of the potential negative impact on the park. Having a park conservation overseer or "babysitter" is also expected on film sets and most commercial productions. It's important to protect the land and some commercial film equipment does damage that needs to be regulated and repaired. This oversight however, is not necessary for 99% of UA-cam productions. If the government better understood the industry they'd know that fees should be assessed on the production size. It sounds like they are trying to do that by basing the fee amount on the crew size but they are still missing the mark. If a UA-camr has a DSLR, a gopro, a drone and a tripod, there is virtually no impact the filming can have on the environment. The vehicles running these trails cause much more damage and are an astronomically higher threat to the park yet are comparatively unregulated. Hear me out... some regulations are important and should exist. But charging $500 - $1000 for a tiny, single man production making a UA-cam video is misguided and uninformed.
I agree with you. One thing to consider is foreigners that don’t pay US taxes get to enjoy our national parks paid for by our tax money. Many of them are careless and destroy public lands.
I'm surprised that proof of insurance wasn't a requirement for you as well. We run a video production company in the day job and we have never shot on government property without having to provide a Certificate of Insurance to show we had business general liability insurance. Honestly this whole thing is a mess, and if I had to make a prediction, I would predict that this legal battle ain't over yet. Great informative video, thanks for sharing it!
I had to get a permit to film a cyclist for a project on the Natchez Trace Parkway, which is a National park. It wasn’t too bad but it did feel unnecessary for the size project we put together. I understand large films when large areas, traffic, parking, power, etc start to become issues. This is one of those “the government hasn’t caught up” situations. This same thing happened with drones. It took years for the FAA to adapt and allow new technology to operate in the national air space. I can totally understand the permitting requirements for larger productions and films but the “UA-cam” size productions are not in that same category.
Owning a drone is becoming more and more regulated. I can't record/fly in Wilderness areas, National Monuments areas, city parks, some state parks, National Parks, etc... Now you can even record your adventures in National Parks with a GoPro. Unbelievable...
I've heard other content creators facing the same issue. I'm going to contact my congressman about this it's ridiculous that we the people pay for the upkeep of our national parks, and a UA-camr cannot record a video without paying a fee it's insane.
This is not just for national Parks, it’s really for all federal public land. Most people get away with not having a permit (outside parks) because no one complains about it. The hunting industry has dealt with it for years. If you want an in-depth review of the permit issue take a look at the Gritty podcast episode 618: Do you need a film permit?. On the Gritty episode 618, time stamp 25:20 Jeep/overland conversation. However the whole podcast is a good listen.
Our tax dollars already pay for the national parks! That price is absurd! I would like to think this will be overturned but it will take time for it to be heard by the Supreme Court
It is not just National Parks, it is for all areas that are administrated by the National Park Service. From what I have gathered, the ruling was overturned as much as the rules for the permit was supposed to have changed to fit the ruling, basically by having the free permit for the self filming crew. And from what I have understood, there is potential that if the rules holds, it might get extended into the National Forest and BLM properties as well.
Outrageous! Especially knowing they are doing this is Australia too, not just cameras, people! No swimming, no stepping off the tracks. Starting with Victoria (nazistate). Greetings, first video of yours I have seen. Liked & Sub’ed. I drive a TJ Wrangler, waiting on an ECU from USA. Primary vehicle. This permit problem is why I bought my own 11 acre conservation forest next to national park accessible only by foot and our 4x4 driveway/road. Living the dream, with debt nightmares still. Stupid permits don’t help. We can’t fish without a permit in Queensland 🇦🇺 Our saviour King is coming for these times and the time at hand.
WOW! First of all thank you for covering this! I do have some questions as a small audience You Tuber I’m not sure if this includes non monetized you tube channels? I was just in Joshua Tree National Park this last weekend and filmed the entire time we were out exploring. The group was four vehicles and five people total. I have not even started editing and now I’ve gone to the web site for the park and sure enough the fees are similar or the same. $315 non refundable for the application fee, $0 for 1-2 people with a tri pod, $150 for 1-10 people and up from there for more people. There is a $50 monitor fee and they “may” insurance required with a $1,000,000.00 coverage. The commercial filming definition states filming by a person, business, or other entity for a market audience, such as for a documentary, television or feature film, advertisement, or similar project under P.L. 106-206, all commercial filming requires a permit and is subject to a location fee and cost recovery charges. I am sorry this is so long but my real question is do those who make no money from the making and posting of videos fall under these permitting requirements? Love your channel and I hope this doesn’t put a huge damper on your filming and release of more amazing videos.
Great info. Go with your wife’s idea. Document the Goverment overstep. Does the babysitter have a vehicle to keep up? Or charge him rental space for a seat.
Thank you for sharing. Absolutely ridiculous when our tax paying dollars pay for such amazing places. Sad because so many folks will never see this beauty which you could share with others. This is why we've held off on buying a drone. The laws just keep changing and changing. At the end of the day just not worth it. I'm kind of surprised that on UA-cam you're not required to post your license when showing any aerial footage regardless of location. One way to keep from traveling to a National Park. After all just about everyone has a social media presence that is monetized in this day and age. Thank you again for the very informative video. Mark (& Teresa) Maryland
I am moving toward drones because I can fly from my privet property and as long as i keep the drone in sight i can and will fly over parts of the national forest, but New Mexico state parks require all aircraft to fly no lower than five hundred feet and drone laws require a drone to stay at four hundred feet or less. My question though is video from a drone flying legally over national forest land also need to be permitted. They can't stop me from flying but won't give a permit. The FAA part 107 may save my UA-cam channel.
The language is very similar on the National Forest website as well. From what I am reading now it doesn’t seem like it’s going to be legal to film in those areas without a permit either. You got me thinking and I checked our state park filming rules and the language was a little more confusing but similar. I emailed for clarification if it’s legal to film vlogs in NC state parks. Now I’m nervous we’re going to need to remove some videos from our vlog channel. Hopefully this gets overturned but it’s not looking great.
National Forest rules make it clear that they are focused on larger film productions. I have spoken to them and they don't care about youtubers vlogging their trips.
@@OzarkOverlandAdventures that is great news thank you for that! We were shocked when you said that they were going to require you to have a babysitter! What a mess. I understand if it’s a large production but for a one or two cameras for vlogging is insane.
I work as maintenance at Death Valley NP. I know any video filmed with the intention of making money is permited. What if you demonitize that one video. They can't go after everyone that films their trip in a National Park, then postes on UA-cam for their freinds........AS LONG AS YOU ARE NOT MAKING MONEY FROM THE VIDEO.
I like Cara's idea. Film the entire trip with the park Ranger. Also, the applying and paying for the permits, etc. The whole process. Another thought? Do they allow filming in the park for private citizens? You can still do a video but, you wouldn't be able to monetize it.
I doubt that would technically work if it's seen as promoting your for-profit organization. Just because you don't monetize that one video doesn't mean you won't use it to get more people to watch future videos, thus making more money in the future from this video. Almost certainly not worth the risk should they choose to interpret it that way.
❤ do what the government does. Do what you want first and ask questions later lol😂 Man screw all that. Do it anyway and later up and sue the crap out of them
@@WolfOverland exactly! they won't be able to enforce this on any large scale, way too many people visiting national parks and filming. Most of these places a short staffed to begin with. It is estimated there are upwards of 35 million active social media influencers just on IG in the US only.
I’m torn about this. I used to own a guide service and had special use permit for guiding and outfitting. Dealing with the Federal government was an absolute nightmare and some of the requirements were nuts. They placed restrictions on everything. I hated it and I think the government should remove red tape especially for independent people like you. It stifles business, restricts freedom and is may be unconstitutional. I feel for you and hope it works out. Here’s where I’m conflicted, you say you do this for fun but you do UA-cam full time and make money off of it so in a way you are a self employed sole proprietor of a business. The NPS, FS, and BLM need to strike a balance between business, recreation, and conservation. For every responsible person such as yourself there’s always irresponsible people who ruin it for everyone. I experienced this first hand when I met a famous outdoors UA-camr on trail one day. These 2 UA-camrs have hundreds of thousands of subscribers, household names in the outdoor community. They were extremely annoying and loud, and while I can’t prove it I’m convinced they were harassing a bull to try to get a reaction out of him for their video. It kind of ruined the day. This sort of example happens nationwide with fake guides, influencers, UA-camrs, filmmakers, ticket sellers, food vendors, large group events, etc…. My solution is they need to find a happy medium or offer 1 year special use permits for UA-camrs. I really hope this works out. Good luck!
Agree. I don’t think we should be expected from paying a fee, but the structure of the application and approval process is designed for a “More traditional” commercial filming project. Not for content like youtube.
Imagine if you were trying to enjoy your trip in a national park, and a bunch of people were shooting a large production, leaving trash, flying drones, being loud, doing stunts, etc. I realize that's not what YOU were wanting to do, but in order to keep the parks pristine for everyone, they needed to come up with these regulations. I've been in television production for 46 years, and I absolutely understand why they have these rules. Without the rules, it's a slippery slope to having the parks be overrun with production crews taking advantage, without paying adequate location fees (which is something we have to do almost anyplace else we shoot). I don't look at it as a first amendment issue, I look at it as a licensing issue. Tomato/tomahto? Maybe. But I certainly understand (and appreciate) why the parks service is doing this. The goal is to keep the parks enjoyable for all citizens, whether they're shooting video or not.
Price’s attorneys have filed for a Supreme Court Writ… So hopefully, the high court takes the case. Also, the rules do not currently apply to still photography.
Thanks Matt for info. This is insane. So everyone taking video and photos in a National park needs a permit? A family of 4 can’t shoot old faithful without a permit? The 100 people an hour at Mesa arch filming and photographing need a permit? So not only am I charged a fee to enter lands we all own were technically not allowed to record anything of our land without paying a fee. I can understand a drone fee but everything else is absurd. What’s the reason? I say screw it and just do it just don’t draw attention. Will UA-cam allow posting of video without proof of permit?
So do you have to get a permit every time you film driving around and camping in the OZARKS ? or are you staying off national forest land ? I ask because i live in ARKLATX area and plan on getting in to overlanding and posting on youtube.
This is very unfortunate. To be honest, I was considering making some really cool videos about my local national parks. I wanted to capture the beauty of the changing seasons and show a different side of New York. All of this would have been done with handheld cameras and 2 people(my GF and I). Basically just a hike that every other person does on daily basis there. These types of restrictions stopped me in my tracks. Im a small UA-camr with no crew or budget. I simple cant afford to follow these rules. Unfortunately this means i stay away from National Parks.
Oh man,,, I've been looking into this as we have been getting some comments on the topic and I just wish we could fast-foward time past this arcaic law already. The law was written at a time before everyone was walking around with a portable film studio in their pocket and there's so much grey area now. What about the solo hiker with a GoPro strapped to their chest and doesn't talk? Just uploads straight footage or maybe includes a VO later on? What about someone filming a NP quietly and creating a Short or quick video and sharing on UA-cam to share with friends/family around the world? What disturbance are these people really creating as that appears to me to be what the original law had in mind - larger scale commercial filming than just a single person with a camera. That's primarily what one would see from our videos - just my husband out by himself with one camera keeping away from crowds because believe it or not, not everyone on UA-cam is an extrovert or enjoys people around them (much less a ranger "babysitting" and probably hating it themselves). If I ever go with I'm far FAR away snapping stills and quick b-roll shots not uttering a peep as I just prefer to remain behind the scenes (I edit and handle everything post-filming). So I may run a risk and I'm not even in the park!! It would take us YEARS just to recoup the cost from one single permit. It's all so grey and just needs to be amended already. 😩
So hypothetically, if you just go out and make a video by yourself and happen to have people that end up following you and you just happen to catch them in your videos would you still have to pay for the 1-10 people group?
Judge Tatel who rendered the dissenting opinion on the DC Circuit Court the reinstated the NPS rules on commercial filming: "Before standing outside Yosemite National Park's visitor center using a cell phone to record commentary on our national parks that will air on an advertisement-supported UA-cam channel, an individual must obtain a permit and pay a fee. Before filming a protest on the National Mall, tourists must obtain a permit and pay a fee if they have any inkling that they might later make money from this footage on social media. And when the filming is spontaneous, these individuals will be criminally liable and face up to six months in prison even though they could not possibly have obtained a permit ahead of time." NPS non-commercial filming rules: "Individual parks may require a permit for non-commercial filming if necessary to manage the activity, to protect park resources and values, minimize conflict between user groups, or to ensure public safety. Examples of non-commercial filming include, but are not limited to, filming for tourism bureaus, convention and visitor bureaus, student filming, and filming for personal use and enjoyment. If you have questions about whether a non-commercial film project requires a permit, please contact the park where you intend to film in advance. In most cases, a permit is not necessary for visitors filming for personal enjoyment." www.nps.gov/aboutus/news/commercial-film-and-photo-permits.htm#:~:text=Federal%20law%20requires%20a%20permit,such%20as%20UA-cam%20and%20TikTok. I'll let you figure out what you want to do. For me, who runs a non-monetized YT channel, I figure at this point it's easier to get forgiveness than permission. And I'll leave my Elephant Hill/Bobby's Hole video online. Along with all my other videos shot in national parks. And will continue with my plans for an upcoming trip.
Only if you try to monetize it. Its only requires a permit if the intent is to make money off it. Because then you are operating a business in the park.
I used to shoot tv car commercials in national parks and other public locations. We routinely paid 20 to 30k to shoot there. It’s fair at least for us. We bring in crews, grip trucks, generators and helicopters.
Even for the trails on the Moab BLM land require a trail monitor and permit. At least the last time I was there (2019) it was still the case. Luckily a lot of industry folks are trained monitors so we had a friend with us. But kind of sucked because we were shooting stills and video for 4 days straight.
According this, permits are not needed for our type of filming on BLM land. www.blm.gov/programs/lands-and-realty/leases-and-permits/filming-on-public-lands/film-permits
Filming and also patron meetups / paid trail leading require permits,licenses and insurance… it’s why all my trips are free and I don’t film inside “parks” with a drone. Also I don’t monetize.
The fee is essentially a write off, I could swallow that.. but, I definitely don't want the babysitter telling me what I can and can't film of the great outdoors...
Thanks for sharing this Matt I had no idea of all the government money grab taking place in NPs. I don't film and take pictures for money and I'm outraged. We overland and take Gopro videos and take pictures with our nice Canon EOS full frame to document out experiences with our family. We have a annual NP membership and don't know if I'll renew it now. We recently was surprised that we had to abtain a back country permit for $$$ just so we could take some trails and camp. Our tax dollars paid for the places and we still have to pay to see them I'm confused about it all being a free country where's the free part we paid for to enjoy.
There's a variety of reasons/excuses given for paid back country permits. People get themselves in trouble and require rescue operations. Demand outweighs supply so they are trying to lower demand, etc.
Doing some research as well for our UA-cam channel. In Washington they also have a permit procedure with fees for state park filming. This will really make travel vlogging hard for us. They need to have a grey area in the middle of not making money to having a full out motion picture production. Smaller channels can’t afford the cost of these permits to make a couple of bucks.
I'll start by saying I think this process is overly burdensome for the type of filming you are doing, and I think you have more than demonstrated through your videos your respect for the rules/regulations in the areas you travel to. This may be the unpopular take: Unfortunately, a ton of people are not as concerned about protecting places for future visitors and leaving things the way they experienced it and that literally ruins opportunities for the rest of us because these people think they are special and can do whatever they want. The people who carve their initials in Sequoia National Park on the trees, carve their names into rock faces, trounce through areas marked off limits like crypogamic soils or the arctic tundra - ultimately you can thank those people for the multitude of regulations that now exist on public lands and I'm sure why NPS is appealing the court ruling. Imagine what happens when those irresponsible people film themselves doing it and now you potentially have 1,000s of people who think that's fine and dandy to do, because so-and-so did it and so why can't they. The permit required to hike to Hanging Lake in Colorado is a direct result of improper use by visitors, that spread all across social media. That NPS is tasked with trying to protect these places - I can guarantee that's where the escort and the insurance policy comes in - to ensure damage doesn't happen and to be able to generate the money to address damage if its done by the activity. I do think it would be worthwhile if content creators, tourist boards, outdoor adventure groups etc. came together to propose some modified regulations for consideration by NPS, but that might not be possible until things work their way through the courts.
Thanks for the info and sharing as a new youtube creator myself nice to learn do' s and dont' s of the business. I do see it both ways as a national park wants to protect Gods land and country for the enjoyment of others including our children and childrens children. So I would not be opposed as a filmmaker with the potential of making a profit or earning income and benefiting from the Private land, but that cost is absurd. Sadly they do not see the benefit creators such as yourself and others do for these national parks in sharing our experience with the world. In which because of the free advertisement that has made millions of people get out and go to these parks so they can share in that beauty and experience. So hopefully they will see the benefits and at least lower such permits and restrictions making it feasible for lower cost filmmakers to be able to afford it in which I would assume many, such as yourself wouldn't be opposed if cheaper paying such fees. Til then keep doing you and enjoying your passion and maybe we will see you on the road sometime. 😉
I’d be curious if you only need a permit if you plan to “sell” your photos and videos, vs just taking pics and video for your own personal satisfaction. If so I’d still film it and post it. Just don’t monetize that particular video until another ruling is made, saying it’s ok again, maybe? I mean, even unmonetized, a well-watched video will bring a lot of traffic to your channel and other videos that can be monetized. So it wouldn’t be a total loss. Just a thought.
The argument is it's still promoting my channel which is considered commercial filming. Same rules apply if you are doing it for a non profit. It's still promoting a business (non profit or not) which counts as commercial work.
@@OzarkOverlandAdventures in that case, couldn’t anyone just being there be some sort of “promotion”? I mean, who doesn’t have some sort of social media account these days?
@@OzarkOverlandAdventures Which could lead to issues for any YT etc media sharing person, monetized or not. You provide the video, they provide the platform as legal consideration…If a govt bureaucrat was in a bad mood that day. Having that gray area they can hide behind in their language of the rules isn’t reassuring.
As a UA-camr, are you allowed to film it for personal us? Just because you are a professional shouldn't prevent you from acting as an individual. If the rules change in the future, release all your formerly private videos.
As a UA-cam wildlife photographer these rules actually shut me down. How can i get a permit that will allow me to film wildlife? And yes, I have tried to get info about filming in the Cibola national forest and can get no return on my calls. My home is surrounded by either national forest or state park land and I have been told by the forestry department I need permits to video or photograph at state and federal parks and national forest here in New Mexico. the Code of federal regulations require the NPS the BLM and the US game and fish to enforce all these permitting laws.
I'll be running the White Rim Trail in June and will definitely be filming. But my channel is not monetized so I'm pretty sure I don't fall under the commercial filming law?
Im a bit late to this one but sounds like the initial intent was for the govt to get a slice of the pie from movie productions. It probably made sense back before UA-cam to help clean up messes from production and support the parks but now they should carve out some exceptions for that or at most make you sign something saying its just for UA-cam and not a full scale commercial movie
First we have covid and than they drop a bombshell ! i see the disappointment's in your eyes. . . . i hope that the babysitter brings his own food ! i got a email back from "Golden Gate National Recreation Area" : [ While still photography of the park often does not require a permit, the law says that all filming requires a permit, even if there is just one person. A b-roll permit is usually about $100 and can sometimes include multiple dates, and always includes multiple locations. We generally need 10 days notice minimum to issue permits, and during some times of the year we need longer. ] i hope they go back to normal so we can live our dreams ! Come to europe no permits over here. . . mark
So according to the NPS link for still photography it's basically not needed. What about shooting timelapse with a DSLR, which takes thousands of stills and then is assembled into a video later?
According to both Park Junkie ( ua-cam.com/video/iXCaBqC14jk/v-deo.html ) & RV Miles ( ua-cam.com/video/sE4KfEd9boo/v-deo.html ) interpretations, the new law applies to ALL public lands (BLM, National Forests, etc…) not just National Parks. I haven’t read the law myself but if it truly applies to ALL public lands it will be very difficult to make a living as a UA-camr while abiding by these ridiculous restrictions. Both acknowledged that they’re simply going to ignore it and keep filming for now since their channels depend on that type of content. It will be interesting to see how this pans out.
That hurts to hear, because these were things I was gearing up and wanting to do, and now I'm feeling like that might be crushed. I guess I'll figure out other places to go, other things to do. I don't honestly understand the purpose of this restriction. You do what you do, that should be fine, you should be able to make money on it. Same with drones. I think anyone who can operate one and get the initial license, should be able to fly/record/photograph and make money off it if they can figure out how. All these permits and requirements and whatever... it's just trying to shut us down. But my honest question is, why? Don't they know this inspires more people to come? Which in turn makes them more money? The ONLY reason I'm even excited to go to parks now is because of what I've seen on this channel and many others. If not for you all, I'd be a lost customer. I guess I am now. I was gonna buy a national park pass for the year. Guess I won't =/ I just don't understand =(
Wow. That’s crazy and I had no clue. It’s ridiculous for someone to have to do this crap to even just film your family having fun on your vacation in a park… like wtf
I would like to see the trail - guess one option is to go back by yourself for filming. If just you and one tripod and one camera, still free - right? I am working on my commercial drone liicense right now myself.
They certainly won't admit that they are after your money, but what do they say their reason for all this BS is? Let me guess on the court that overturned the previous ruling. 9th....
You would think this would not be a think. I didn't know anything about this until your video. It seems like it would be free advertisement for the forestry. It help get more people interested in the park system. Which would bring money to the government. And, lord knows they love money..
The perils of going pro. Seems like a lot of the people leaving comments fail to realize that once you are making money from this, you aren't just Joe Citizen...you are a business, just like Sony, MGM or your local ice cream truck. All are subject to regulations and permit fees. But yeah, the current situation IS over the top and needs an adjustment.
I thought that if your intent was for fun and not for money then you did not need the permit. I know that does not help you, but I was wondering if that was true.
Well, that sucks! Looks like I’ll avoid parks this year. Maybe it’ll get ironed out before too long. It makes me wonder if this is being done because parks are so overrun the last few years so they want less publicity on them? Elephant hill is an awesome trail, I’ve been wanting to go back but looks like I’ll hold off! Thanks for this update Matt!
I had No idea you guys had to pay fees like this at all to film at parks. $730!?? That is insane!! I am infuriated that the government thinks this is okay! And like another commenter said, How will they keep up with the demand for these monitors? Are they supposed to stop you from making specific videos?
Thanks for the updated information. As a Canadian UA-camr we visited and filmed our trip to Elephant Hill last July. I was aware of the regulation changes and figured we were in the clear. Any idea what the retroactive implications might be regarding videos shot and made public during that time? By the way, Elephant Hill and Devil's Kitchen is my all time favorite trail and camp spot anywhere in he US or Canada, fantastic experience!
I cant answer your question but wanted to put this out there. I watch a car channel. The guy has street raced in the past. Some video was put on youtube years ago. The law took these old videos and raided the guys home, arrested and charged him. He ended up taking a deal , paying fines and probation. Another county took a different video he posted, stuff i myself did when younger, and charged, jailed and fined. He has deleted these videos now. He had home security footage of the raid. This was total abuse of power and waste of tax dollars. You have to watch your back always.
![[UA] NAVI vs MOUZ | BO5 | IEM Rio 2024](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/CMBYk0cbGoA/mqdefault.jpg)
Something I’ve been wondering is why would the NPS pursue overturning it. If the court ruled, why spend tax dollars on legal teams to get it overturned?
Because it's not their money they are wasting. It is our money, ( the tax payers money ), your money etc and they have an unlimited supply.
Wow how stupid is that so sorry Matt for you and me I would love to see it I am unable to travel
Government power grab. Enough said
Check out , Wedding Industry Law Podcast. The attorney that took this to court talks about this. I do believe as of last month the attorneys appeal is active.
Let us know if you need funds to hire a team of Lawyers, I will donate
Enough! This is so upsetting to learn. I am not a UA-camr but I do love watching you and others like Trailrecon, only because I can’t afford to do this full time but I love outdoor weekend trips and summer camping. The overland community have given me an appreciation for caring for our trails and off grid environment and a respect to keep it clean and safe for my children. We live in such a beautiful country that it would break my heart not being able to see it through your eyes and that of others. I am so sorry that you can’t film and share because you can see the love and joy that you have for what you do. Thank you so much for your time, money and sacrifices for giving us these experiences from our own homes. I support you; I wish I had money to contribute to fighting this but I will continue to watch you. If there is a movement within the Overland businesses since they make profits out of your work, then please inform us so that we can all collectively support.
I am not a UA-camr and this is disappointing news. I'm genuinely sad for you. I love how you share your experiences. I'm sure what you produce from the rest of the trip will be great.
Matt, thank you for bringing attention to this. I hadn't even considered a filming permit in a National Park until now (it's been years since I've been to a NP). This video underscores your integrity to the craft and the outdoors. The first time we chatted online was you rightfully calling me out on a video I posted of the Ozark National Forest that went against Tread Lightly. I'm glad to see your values are still on point.
Regarding the permit process, you're right that a channel of your size is caught in the middle of this. I come from a multi-generational family in the film and video production business, and permits are nothing new. There's often an entire Locations department dedicated to sorting out things like permits and parking. I understand both sides of this. From NP's perspective, you're producing commercial content, and so you're held to the same standard as other productions. This process, while relatively expensive for you, sets a barrier to entry. Our parks are a National resource, and if production crews were trapsing through them, the wear would be evident. A typical production with up to 10 people is accompanied by a swath of vehicles, gear, equipment, and movement. A monitor is understandable for that, to keep everything in check (years ago I was on a night shoot at an art museum, and a member of the crew walked out into a pond to set up a piece of gear and was immediately chastised by someone from the museum. It turns out that "pond" was a piece of artwork, which we wouldn't have known without them telling us). On shoots with animals there's a rep from the American Humane society to ensure animals aren't harmed, so the park ranger is likely fulfilling that role on the park's behalf. I get your sentiment, that you're "just a guy making a UA-cam video about a trail," but the park doesn't have the resources to make accommodations for that distinction. Regarding the 1st Amendment, we as individuals still have that. But once we introduce monetization, that changes the intent. I also view this in step with NP's drone rules. It's necessary to keep the parks in a more natural state that doesn't disturb the experience for others.
Thanks again for making this video. It's one of the best I've enjoyed lately because of your honest and humble approach.
This is a problem for us tiny UA-cam creators. I hope the higher court will reverse this, but for me I am writing my US Representative and Senators. I urge others to do the same.
This is a scary trend towards loss of freedom. I imagine before long someone will challenge it in court and hopefully win!
What I am also hoping to see is a general avoidance of the National Parks. You can bet I’d this type of oversight starts costing them money, there will be a quick change.
Maybe you guys as influencers can start a movement in that direction too.
I love the National Parks, but having to stress about where I post photos or videos is not ok and as you said, they are taking the fun out of the experience.
Many of the parks are horribly overcrowded. They are being loved to death. Nothing would be healthier for them than a bit of a rest from the hoards of people.
Matt, great video. While it sucks, it does provide us with some great info. I have been thinking about starting my own channel here lately and now I know to never film in a National Park. Keep the great content coming, love it all!
Thanks, Matt. Very informative video that shows this is even worse than I would've guessed. I have a lawyer friend with whom I overland frequently who, though currently in private practice, argued constitutional cases for the Institution for Justice for years. I'm going to ask him to watch this video and see if he might have some ideas for you, should you wish to be the test case.
That’s insane! National Park Services should catch up with the world and make some type of affordable flat fee or annual permit of some sort for UA-camrs.. we are only promoting the beautiful nature to share with others who can’t be there or soon to visit! 😢😢
This law is fundamentally broken. It's so far removed from what the original intent of this law was. I suspect things will change soon once Google / UA-cam gets involved, because the way it currently reads Google can also be held accountable, because THEY are the ones making revenue off the videos even if the creator is not monetized. So any filming that happens and gets posted to youtube would technically be commercial. It's going to have to work it's way back up to the Supreme Court I'm sure, but eventually they will have to make a better definition than "Commercial". Best of luck to you! I hope someone has the power / skills / expertise to fight this for all of us.
Great point. It’s a very bad money grab and very deceiving. I hope we get some big players to speak up for us.
Bingo.
Thanks for sharing this valuable information. What a crazy situation. Hopefully some reasonable process will get worked out, but having a lifetime of experience working for government, I won’t hold my breath.
Matt,
I have friends who are fishing UA-camrs, and I occasionally appear on their shows as a guest. Out of concern for them, I have been looking into this as well, and many of the comments are accurate in that pretty much all federal lands can be impacted by this ruling. One thing that caught my attention was the stated justification for the ruling by this judge which was that pre-recorded video did not fall under the category of being free speech. Free speech was how the UA-camr who brought the case in lower courts won. I feel like the key here is that since the video was not live-streamed, it could not be considered as Free speech according to the appeals court judge. A news agency, for example, covering a live news story and putting it out live to the public cannot apparently be held to the same standard as those pre-recording and posting at a later date, and I don't think that they are held accountable to the permitting process (how could they be?). As I personally know how much time and effort goes into the filming, editing, and production of a UA-cam video, knowing this may not help you. However, I am not sure that a live-streamed video could be touched according to my understanding of the judge's ruling on what is and what is not free speech when if comes to video. Food for thought.
As you and many others posting here have grave concerns about this, I share your sentiments. I sincerely hope that this gets resolved quickly in the courts. And, as others have stated, contacting your state and federal representatives, tactfully explaining your grievances about this is your right, and is a great way to have your voice heard in an appropriate way.
Wake up people. It’s all about control and access, or restrictions to access. They are killing everything.
Kudos to you for being honest and abiding by the law even if you don't agree with it. Like everything else I know, once money is involved things go bad.
That process is very cumbersome and expensive for the little guys like us.
Our Federal Government is beyond corrupt and illegitimate. We have hundreds of billions to send to Ukraine but we have to charge Americans money to visit land that WE THE PEOPLE own. Ignore all unjust laws and regulations. Film anyways. Become ungovernable.
I work on the side for the Forest Service on the side, and I have seen the Forest Service write tickets on not just National Parks but also National Forest as well for filming a commercial and not obtaining a permanent.
I'm Not at UA-camr, and I subscribe to your channel for the awesome videos that you will not be able to make on this trip. You showed great restraint in your opinion on this matter.
I don't care for Government bashing, as it doesn't often get results....
I wonder if they charged Ansel Adams back in the day.... The only reason I visited Yosemite was because of his breathtaking photographs!!!
Don't lose hope, keep making content where you can, and I love your Channel!! OOA!!
We can’t lose hope. We have to fight back.
The National Forest requires permits for any filming that is monetized and functions such as weddings. I saw so many receive tickets for this, and one overlander was banned from the forest for non-compliance.
That's too bad! We will be their in March also! Although we will not have a trail rated vehicle to tackle any of those sweet trails like ya'll! Wish I could live vicariously through you with a video of your experiences out there! Traveling from Kansas City, MO out there for spring break with my wife and 3 kids.
Remember still pics are more expensive than video.
Wow so confused! National Park! Owned by the government! I guess We the People, By the People, For the People was skipped over during this decision making process in the National Parks Service
Right!!
Was it though? Just thinking out loud here but 'we the people' aren't being stopped, just the people trying to make money from it by monetitzation of the filming. Shouldn't 'we the people' get paid for use of people's land for financial gain? Might be heavy handed et al, but think about what if instead of the nice use, it's some klout chasing idiot that is ramping cars and damaging rock formations for klout? there's where the babysitter comes from. Wasn't it just last year some idiot pushed over a formation in Utah and filmed it to show how cool he was?
I mean this is more of a sledgehammer approach, but it's not as cut and dried as 'free speech'
@@CrankyOldNerd you're definitely not wrong. That said the damaging of the lands and other things are already illegal so no need for additional regulations imo. I think the happy medium there is limiting of equipment. Drones should require it, large productions should require it. But a guy with small cam and 1 tripod should not.
@@SirWilliamGoes have you met our way of dealing with problems legally? MOAR RULEZ. Not saying it's perfect, but I can see where the changes came from. The outrage politics age we live in, hence my sledgehammer comment :) We don't allow for subtlety and nuance in our legal system when there are diametrically opposed 'sides'
As a new UA-cam channel jeepNdirt, I was inspired to get out and start going to places like this and put my own spin on the trip with B roll, music and a little narration. What's crazy about this law or rule or whatever this mess will be referred too is that people watch youtube video's and then go out and visit the same places they watch which means we're helping to promote these places for the parks which means more visitors and more revenue. This is absolutely crazy. The other thing I question is how do they manage 5, 10, or more youtubers or photographers visiting at the same time? Will they have "babysitters" on call? Will their availability (or lack of it) hinder a youtuber or photographers visit dates? Wow this is really soaking in on me right now and I'm blown away. So are these the same rates they charge actual movie studio film crews and if so, then why would youtubers like us be charged the same? Absolutely crazy. Thanks for this video Matt, this one seriously needs like a million views to get this message out there.
Me too. I started trail reviews for people who rc crawl and trail. You would figure photography is the best advertisement to visit parks. My favorite place to film is in a national forrest.
I have worked in television media before and have seen it first hand so part of the reasons they have to be so strict on commercial outfits is partly because lots of media personnel think they are above any rules and will 'get the shot' no matter what they have to trample on, wade through, break, cross over or go around any barriers or fences because they are 'the media' and think they are entitled. Just watch any time you are near them and you will see for yourself.
The same could be said for some photographers. But the one person/one tripod fee for those are $50 and models need to be in service of selling something non-park related. It makes zero sense when your impact on the park is less than some photographers that the permits and fees are so onerous.
One small step for man. one giant step for man kind. or is it? lol.. nice to bump into you at Moore. Keep up the good work. See you out on the trails!
Following. I get the commercial aspect as it may have large teams that may not follow the "tread lightly" mentality or even follow the restrictions placed on access to environmentally sensitive areas.
However, many of your points are very valid, no crew, no set ups, and following the rules then you are more a private taxpayer documenting your adventure to share - not exploiting the area strictly for financial gain.
HA - don't want to get political, but how can you not? Good luck to you and thank you for your insight, enjoy the trip and see you on the trail when we can't see you on the UA-cam!
We've been watching this playout for several months. Haven't heard of anyone actually going all the way through the process and then filming but would be interested in hearing about that. I can see if there is a huge crew filming a movie that it makes sense to require permitting. Where to draw the line seems to be the question.
I get the concept of a paid permit if it is legitimately a sizable filing crew & equipment - such as a movie studio. That would allow for oversight by a ranger, recognizition and compensation for any damage, etc. However, if the filming consist of someone sticking their iPhone out the window of their job as them and their friends, then the concept of a permit, insurance, etc. is ridiculous. The parks service needs to re-evaluate how they set the limits on usability for the $0 permit. Of course, I'm a libertarian so I don't really believe in permits in generally and I'm generally not that fond of government either. As for the lawsuit, it seems to me that it is highly problematic charging exuberant fees for this type of use of public property.
It seems like this an issue that needs to be taken to Congress.
I canceled my Death Valley trip because of these rules. I can’t justify spending hundreds or even thousands on a permit when a video might make a few hundred dollars.
Yeah it sucks!!
Or even document your family trip.
@@DjkommodeI don’t think family trip videos get monetized. That’s the issue. Monetization. Commercial purposes. What happened to just enjoying a trip without seeing $$$
I get it costs money but why cancel a trip completely? Why not just go out there to enjoy time with your family without having to record every moment?
@@Mandingobull it would cost him about a thousand dollars a day. You don’t get it.
I had no idea it cost that much to film. I could understand if a full film crew was doing it. I fail to understand why you should have to pay if these parks are funded by the government.
I feel like this is a classic example of the government not understanding our industry. I'll explain: Permits and fees are 100% reasonable and expected for production film companies. Those are commonplace and important for sizable productions because of the potential negative impact on the park. Having a park conservation overseer or "babysitter" is also expected on film sets and most commercial productions. It's important to protect the land and some commercial film equipment does damage that needs to be regulated and repaired. This oversight however, is not necessary for 99% of UA-cam productions. If the government better understood the industry they'd know that fees should be assessed on the production size. It sounds like they are trying to do that by basing the fee amount on the crew size but they are still missing the mark. If a UA-camr has a DSLR, a gopro, a drone and a tripod, there is virtually no impact the filming can have on the environment. The vehicles running these trails cause much more damage and are an astronomically higher threat to the park yet are comparatively unregulated. Hear me out... some regulations are important and should exist. But charging $500 - $1000 for a tiny, single man production making a UA-cam video is misguided and uninformed.
I agree with you. One thing to consider is foreigners that don’t pay US taxes get to enjoy our national parks paid for by our tax money. Many of them are careless and destroy public lands.
Needs to be appealed. I don’t make money off UA-cam but I love sharing my adventures.
I'm surprised that proof of insurance wasn't a requirement for you as well. We run a video production company in the day job and we have never shot on government property without having to provide a Certificate of Insurance to show we had business general liability insurance. Honestly this whole thing is a mess, and if I had to make a prediction, I would predict that this legal battle ain't over yet. Great informative video, thanks for sharing it!
I had to get a permit to film a cyclist for a project on the Natchez Trace Parkway, which is a National park. It wasn’t too bad but it did feel unnecessary for the size project we put together. I understand large films when large areas, traffic, parking, power, etc start to become issues. This is one of those “the government hasn’t caught up” situations. This same thing happened with drones. It took years for the FAA to adapt and allow new technology to operate in the national air space. I can totally understand the permitting requirements for larger productions and films but the “UA-cam” size productions are not in that same category.
Owning a drone is becoming more and more regulated. I can't record/fly in Wilderness areas, National Monuments areas, city parks, some state parks, National Parks, etc... Now you can even record your adventures in National Parks with a GoPro. Unbelievable...
These National Parks belong to the people. This needs to go to the Supreme Court.
I've heard other content creators facing the same issue. I'm going to contact my congressman about this it's ridiculous that we the people pay for the upkeep of our national parks, and a UA-camr cannot record a video without paying a fee it's insane.
This is not just for national Parks, it’s really for all federal public land. Most people get away with not having a permit (outside parks) because no one complains about it. The hunting industry has dealt with it for years. If you want an in-depth review of the permit issue take a look at the Gritty podcast episode 618: Do you need a film permit?. On the Gritty episode 618, time stamp 25:20 Jeep/overland conversation. However the whole podcast is a good listen.
Our tax dollars already pay for the national parks! That price is absurd! I would like to think this will be overturned but it will take time for it to be heard by the Supreme Court
If it is heard by SCOTUS. It may not be.
It is not just National Parks, it is for all areas that are administrated by the National Park Service. From what I have gathered, the ruling was overturned as much as the rules for the permit was supposed to have changed to fit the ruling, basically by having the free permit for the self filming crew. And from what I have understood, there is potential that if the rules holds, it might get extended into the National Forest and BLM properties as well.
Yes all areas managed by National Park Service including National Monuments and National Rivers.
How convenient
This is absolutely insane. I had no idea!!!! Will have to look into this. Crazy!!!
Outrageous! Especially knowing they are doing this is Australia too, not just cameras, people! No swimming, no stepping off the tracks. Starting with Victoria (nazistate). Greetings, first video of yours I have seen. Liked & Sub’ed. I drive a TJ Wrangler, waiting on an ECU from USA. Primary vehicle. This permit problem is why I bought my own 11 acre conservation forest next to national park accessible only by foot and our 4x4 driveway/road. Living the dream, with debt nightmares still. Stupid permits don’t help. We can’t fish without a permit in Queensland 🇦🇺 Our saviour King is coming for these times and the time at hand.
WOW! First of all thank you for covering this! I do have some questions as a small audience You Tuber I’m not sure if this includes non monetized you tube channels? I was just in Joshua Tree National Park this last weekend and filmed the entire time we were out exploring. The group was four vehicles and five people total. I have not even started editing and now I’ve gone to the web site for the park and sure enough the fees are similar or the same. $315 non refundable for the application fee, $0 for 1-2 people with a tri pod, $150 for 1-10 people and up from there for more people. There is a $50 monitor fee and they “may” insurance required with a $1,000,000.00 coverage.
The commercial filming definition states filming by a person, business, or other entity for a market audience, such as for a documentary, television or feature film, advertisement, or similar project under P.L. 106-206, all commercial filming requires a permit and is subject to a location fee and cost recovery charges.
I am sorry this is so long but my real question is do those who make no money from the making and posting of videos fall under these permitting requirements?
Love your channel and I hope this doesn’t put a huge damper on your filming and release of more amazing videos.
If your channel isn’t monetized you shouldn’t have to worry about it.
@@OzarkOverlandAdventures thank you for the response and information.
100% make a vlog with the monitor as the focus of the video while on the trip!
Film the monitor the entire time and remind him Nazis were also just following orders too.
Great info. Go with your wife’s idea. Document the Goverment overstep. Does the babysitter have a vehicle to keep up? Or charge him rental space for a seat.
Thank you for sharing. Absolutely ridiculous when our tax paying dollars pay for such amazing places. Sad because so many folks will never see this beauty which you could share with others.
This is why we've held off on buying a drone. The laws just keep changing and changing. At the end of the day just not worth it. I'm kind of surprised that on UA-cam you're not required to post your license when showing any aerial footage regardless of location.
One way to keep from traveling to a National Park. After all just about everyone has a social media presence that is monetized in this day and age.
Thank you again for the very informative video.
Mark (& Teresa) Maryland
I am moving toward drones because I can fly from my privet property and as long as i keep the drone in sight i can and will fly over parts of the national forest, but New Mexico state parks require all aircraft to fly no lower than five hundred feet and drone laws require a drone to stay at four hundred feet or less. My question though is video from a drone flying legally over national forest land also need to be permitted. They can't stop me from flying but won't give a permit. The FAA part 107 may save my UA-cam channel.
The language is very similar on the National Forest website as well. From what I am reading now it doesn’t seem like it’s going to be legal to film in those areas without a permit either. You got me thinking and I checked our state park filming rules and the language was a little more confusing but similar. I emailed for clarification if it’s legal to film vlogs in NC state parks. Now I’m nervous we’re going to need to remove some videos from our vlog channel. Hopefully this gets overturned but it’s not looking great.
National Forest rules make it clear that they are focused on larger film productions. I have spoken to them and they don't care about youtubers vlogging their trips.
@@OzarkOverlandAdventures that is great news thank you for that! We were shocked when you said that they were going to require you to have a babysitter! What a mess. I understand if it’s a large production but for a one or two cameras for vlogging is insane.
They’re not gonna win, that is some bullll! Thanks Matt I hope some more people speak up and help.
I work as maintenance at Death Valley NP. I know any video filmed with the intention of making money is permited. What if you demonitize that one video. They can't go after everyone that films their trip in a National Park, then postes on UA-cam for their freinds........AS LONG AS YOU ARE NOT MAKING MONEY FROM THE VIDEO.
UA-cam makes money.
Matt, what is the fine/ticket for not getting a permit?
My neck hurts from shaking my head. This is ridiculous and yet another cash grab by the gov… 🤬
Thanks for sharing. I had no idea that permitting was required.
I like Cara's idea. Film the entire trip with the park Ranger. Also, the applying and paying for the permits, etc. The whole process.
Another thought? Do they allow filming in the park for private citizens? You can still do a video but, you wouldn't be able to monetize it.
My thoughts exactly!
I doubt that would technically work if it's seen as promoting your for-profit organization. Just because you don't monetize that one video doesn't mean you won't use it to get more people to watch future videos, thus making more money in the future from this video. Almost certainly not worth the risk should they choose to interpret it that way.
❤ do what the government does. Do what you want first and ask questions later lol😂
Man screw all that. Do it anyway and later up and sue the crap out of them
Do it! Documentary style. Journalism should be free in this country
@@WolfOverland exactly! they won't be able to enforce this on any large scale, way too many people visiting national parks and filming. Most of these places a short staffed to begin with. It is estimated there are upwards of 35 million active social media influencers just on IG in the US only.
How anyone could ever think more government is a good thing is beyond me.
It’s lack of fear of history repeating itself because many don’t know history.
I’m torn about this.
I used to own a guide service and had special use permit for guiding and outfitting. Dealing with the Federal government was an absolute nightmare and some of the requirements were nuts. They placed restrictions on everything. I hated it and I think the government should remove red tape especially for independent people like you. It stifles business, restricts freedom and is may be unconstitutional. I feel for you and hope it works out.
Here’s where I’m conflicted, you say you do this for fun but you do UA-cam full time and make money off of it so in a way you are a self employed sole proprietor of a business. The NPS, FS, and BLM need to strike a balance between business, recreation, and conservation. For every responsible person such as yourself there’s always irresponsible people who ruin it for everyone. I experienced this first hand when I met a famous outdoors UA-camr on trail one day. These 2 UA-camrs have hundreds of thousands of subscribers, household names in the outdoor community. They were extremely annoying and loud, and while I can’t prove it I’m convinced they were harassing a bull to try to get a reaction out of him for their video. It kind of ruined the day. This sort of example happens nationwide with fake guides, influencers, UA-camrs, filmmakers, ticket sellers, food vendors, large group events, etc….
My solution is they need to find a happy medium or offer 1 year special use permits for UA-camrs. I really hope this works out. Good luck!
Agree. I don’t think we should be expected from paying a fee, but the structure of the application and approval process is designed for a “More traditional” commercial filming project. Not for content like youtube.
If your story is true you need to call them out by name. Show pictures or video.
Imagine if you were trying to enjoy your trip in a national park, and a bunch of people were shooting a large production, leaving trash, flying drones, being loud, doing stunts, etc. I realize that's not what YOU were wanting to do, but in order to keep the parks pristine for everyone, they needed to come up with these regulations.
I've been in television production for 46 years, and I absolutely understand why they have these rules. Without the rules, it's a slippery slope to having the parks be overrun with production crews taking advantage, without paying adequate location fees (which is something we have to do almost anyplace else we shoot). I don't look at it as a first amendment issue, I look at it as a licensing issue. Tomato/tomahto? Maybe. But I certainly understand (and appreciate) why the parks service is doing this. The goal is to keep the parks enjoyable for all citizens, whether they're shooting video or not.
Wow, this is good to know information. Thank you so much for explaining it in easy terms. Looks like National Parks will no longer be filmed in☹
Price’s attorneys have filed for a Supreme Court Writ… So hopefully, the high court takes the case.
Also, the rules do not currently apply to still photography.
Thanks Matt for info. This is insane. So everyone taking video and photos in a National park needs a permit? A family of 4 can’t shoot old faithful without a permit? The 100 people an hour at Mesa arch filming and photographing need a permit? So not only am I charged a fee to enter lands we all own were technically not allowed to record anything of our land without paying a fee. I can understand a drone fee but everything else is absurd. What’s the reason? I say screw it and just do it just don’t draw attention. Will UA-cam allow posting of video without proof of permit?
So do you have to get a permit every time you film driving around and camping in the OZARKS ? or are you staying off national forest land ? I ask because i live in ARKLATX area and plan on getting in to overlanding and posting on youtube.
National Parks and National Forests are not the same thing.
This is very unfortunate. To be honest, I was considering making some really cool videos about my local national parks. I wanted to capture the beauty of the changing seasons and show a different side of New York. All of this would have been done with handheld cameras and 2 people(my GF and I). Basically just a hike that every other person does on daily basis there. These types of restrictions stopped me in my tracks. Im a small UA-camr with no crew or budget. I simple cant afford to follow these rules. Unfortunately this means i stay away from National Parks.
Oh man,,, I've been looking into this as we have been getting some comments on the topic and I just wish we could fast-foward time past this arcaic law already. The law was written at a time before everyone was walking around with a portable film studio in their pocket and there's so much grey area now. What about the solo hiker with a GoPro strapped to their chest and doesn't talk? Just uploads straight footage or maybe includes a VO later on? What about someone filming a NP quietly and creating a Short or quick video and sharing on UA-cam to share with friends/family around the world? What disturbance are these people really creating as that appears to me to be what the original law had in mind - larger scale commercial filming than just a single person with a camera. That's primarily what one would see from our videos - just my husband out by himself with one camera keeping away from crowds because believe it or not, not everyone on UA-cam is an extrovert or enjoys people around them (much less a ranger "babysitting" and probably hating it themselves). If I ever go with I'm far FAR away snapping stills and quick b-roll shots not uttering a peep as I just prefer to remain behind the scenes (I edit and handle everything post-filming). So I may run a risk and I'm not even in the park!! It would take us YEARS just to recoup the cost from one single permit. It's all so grey and just needs to be amended already. 😩
So hypothetically, if you just go out and make a video by yourself and happen to have people that end up following you and you just happen to catch them in your videos would you still have to pay for the 1-10 people group?
Judge Tatel who rendered the dissenting opinion on the DC Circuit Court the reinstated the NPS rules on commercial filming:
"Before standing outside Yosemite National Park's visitor center using a cell phone to record commentary on our national parks that will air on an advertisement-supported UA-cam channel, an individual must obtain a permit and pay a fee. Before filming a protest on the National Mall, tourists must obtain a permit and pay a fee if they have any inkling that they might later make money from this footage on social media. And when the filming is spontaneous, these individuals will be criminally liable and face up to six months in prison even though they could not possibly have obtained a permit ahead of time."
NPS non-commercial filming rules:
"Individual parks may require a permit for non-commercial filming if necessary to manage the activity, to protect park resources and values, minimize conflict between user groups, or to ensure public safety. Examples of non-commercial filming include, but are not limited to, filming for tourism bureaus, convention and visitor bureaus, student filming, and filming for personal use and enjoyment. If you have questions about whether a non-commercial film project requires a permit, please contact the park where you intend to film in advance. In most cases, a permit is not necessary for visitors filming for personal enjoyment."
www.nps.gov/aboutus/news/commercial-film-and-photo-permits.htm#:~:text=Federal%20law%20requires%20a%20permit,such%20as%20UA-cam%20and%20TikTok.
I'll let you figure out what you want to do. For me, who runs a non-monetized YT channel, I figure at this point it's easier to get forgiveness than permission. And I'll leave my Elephant Hill/Bobby's Hole video online. Along with all my other videos shot in national parks. And will continue with my plans for an upcoming trip.
Only if you try to monetize it. Its only requires a permit if the intent is to make money off it. Because then you are operating a business in the park.
I’m newer to Overlanding and Al this video stuff. I’m surprised to hear this. Thanks for all the info.
I used to shoot tv car commercials in national parks and other public locations. We routinely paid 20 to 30k to shoot there. It’s fair at least for us. We bring in crews, grip trucks, generators and helicopters.
Even for the trails on the Moab BLM land require a trail monitor and permit. At least the last time I was there (2019) it was still the case. Luckily a lot of industry folks are trained monitors so we had a friend with us. But kind of sucked because we were shooting stills and video for 4 days straight.
According this, permits are not needed for our type of filming on BLM land. www.blm.gov/programs/lands-and-realty/leases-and-permits/filming-on-public-lands/film-permits
Filming and also patron meetups / paid trail leading require permits,licenses and insurance… it’s why all my trips are free and I don’t film inside “parks” with a drone. Also I don’t monetize.
The fee is essentially a write off, I could swallow that.. but, I definitely don't want the babysitter telling me what I can and can't film of the great outdoors...
Thanks for sharing this Matt I had no idea of all the government money grab taking place in NPs.
I don't film and take pictures for money and I'm outraged. We overland and take Gopro videos and take pictures with our nice Canon EOS full frame to document out experiences with our family. We have a annual NP membership and don't know if I'll renew it now. We recently was surprised that we had to abtain a back country permit for $$$ just so we could take some trails and camp. Our tax dollars paid for the places and we still have to pay to see them I'm confused about it all being a free country where's the free part we paid for to enjoy.
There's a variety of reasons/excuses given for paid back country permits. People get themselves in trouble and require rescue operations. Demand outweighs supply so they are trying to lower demand, etc.
Doing some research as well for our UA-cam channel. In Washington they also have a permit procedure with fees for state park filming. This will really make travel vlogging hard for us. They need to have a grey area in the middle of not making money to having a full out motion picture production. Smaller channels can’t afford the cost of these permits to make a couple of bucks.
Hey, thanks for this. I never would have known. Looks like I have a change of plans.
Sorry to be the bearer of bad news.
I'll start by saying I think this process is overly burdensome for the type of filming you are doing, and I think you have more than demonstrated through your videos your respect for the rules/regulations in the areas you travel to.
This may be the unpopular take:
Unfortunately, a ton of people are not as concerned about protecting places for future visitors and leaving things the way they experienced it and that literally ruins opportunities for the rest of us because these people think they are special and can do whatever they want. The people who carve their initials in Sequoia National Park on the trees, carve their names into rock faces, trounce through areas marked off limits like crypogamic soils or the arctic tundra - ultimately you can thank those people for the multitude of regulations that now exist on public lands and I'm sure why NPS is appealing the court ruling. Imagine what happens when those irresponsible people film themselves doing it and now you potentially have 1,000s of people who think that's fine and dandy to do, because so-and-so did it and so why can't they. The permit required to hike to Hanging Lake in Colorado is a direct result of improper use by visitors, that spread all across social media.
That NPS is tasked with trying to protect these places - I can guarantee that's where the escort and the insurance policy comes in - to ensure damage doesn't happen and to be able to generate the money to address damage if its done by the activity.
I do think it would be worthwhile if content creators, tourist boards, outdoor adventure groups etc. came together to propose some modified regulations for consideration by NPS, but that might not be possible until things work their way through the courts.
You’re spot on.
Thanks for the info and sharing as a new youtube creator myself nice to learn do' s and dont' s of the business. I do see it both ways as a national park wants to protect Gods land and country for the enjoyment of others including our children and childrens children. So I would not be opposed as a filmmaker with the potential of making a profit or earning income and benefiting from the Private land, but that cost is absurd. Sadly they do not see the benefit creators such as yourself and others do for these national parks in sharing our experience with the world. In which because of the free advertisement that has made millions of people get out and go to these parks so they can share in that beauty and experience. So hopefully they will see the benefits and at least lower such permits and restrictions making it feasible for lower cost filmmakers to be able to afford it in which I would assume many, such as yourself wouldn't be opposed if cheaper paying such fees. Til then keep doing you and enjoying your passion and maybe we will see you on the road sometime. 😉
I’d be curious if you only need a permit if you plan to “sell” your photos and videos, vs just taking pics and video for your own personal satisfaction. If so I’d still film it and post it. Just don’t monetize that particular video until another ruling is made, saying it’s ok again, maybe? I mean, even unmonetized, a well-watched video will bring a lot of traffic to your channel and other videos that can be monetized. So it wouldn’t be a total loss. Just a thought.
The argument is it's still promoting my channel which is considered commercial filming. Same rules apply if you are doing it for a non profit. It's still promoting a business (non profit or not) which counts as commercial work.
@@OzarkOverlandAdventures in that case, couldn’t anyone just being there be some sort of “promotion”? I mean, who doesn’t have some sort of social media account these days?
@@OzarkOverlandAdventures Which could lead to issues for any YT etc media sharing person, monetized or not. You provide the video, they provide the platform as legal consideration…If a govt bureaucrat was in a bad mood that day. Having that gray area they can hide behind in their language of the rules isn’t reassuring.
As a UA-camr, are you allowed to film it for personal us? Just because you are a professional shouldn't prevent you from acting as an individual. If the rules change in the future, release all your formerly private videos.
Insane! What a bummer!
Wow. Absolutely crazy.
As a UA-cam wildlife photographer these rules actually shut me down. How can i get a permit that will allow me to film wildlife? And yes, I have tried to get info about filming in the Cibola national forest and can get no return on my calls. My home is surrounded by either national forest or state park land and I have been told by the forestry department I need permits to video or photograph at state and federal parks and national forest here in New Mexico. the Code of federal regulations require the NPS the BLM and the US game and fish to enforce all these permitting laws.
I'll be running the White Rim Trail in June and will definitely be filming. But my channel is not monetized so I'm pretty sure I don't fall under the commercial filming law?
Just being on UA-cam makes it commercial since UA-cam makes money off of it whether you do or not.
@@OzarkOverlandAdventures I am going to contact them and see what they say.
Im a bit late to this one but sounds like the initial intent was for the govt to get a slice of the pie from movie productions. It probably made sense back before UA-cam to help clean up messes from production and support the parks but now they should carve out some exceptions for that or at most make you sign something saying its just for UA-cam and not a full scale commercial movie
First we have covid and than they drop a bombshell ! i see the disappointment's in your eyes. . . . i hope that the babysitter brings his own food ! i got a email back from "Golden Gate National Recreation Area" : [ While still photography of the park often does not require a permit, the law says that all filming requires a permit, even if there is just one person. A b-roll permit is usually about $100 and can sometimes include multiple dates, and always includes multiple locations. We generally need 10 days notice minimum to issue permits, and during some times of the year we need longer. ] i hope they go back to normal so we can live our dreams ! Come to europe no permits over here. . . mark
Great channel Dutchman!
@@danielk7111 thanks 👍
So according to the NPS link for still photography it's basically not needed. What about shooting timelapse with a DSLR, which takes thousands of stills and then is assembled into a video later?
More than likely depends what permit you apply for. You create a video and have a still pic permit… I don’t know. It’s all stupid.
This is horrible. If you know anyone taking on this issue, that needs donations, I think us creators will pitch in. We need to stand up to this.
Very helpful. Any updates to this that you know of? How about shooting in state parks? Heard anything about state laws?
No updates yet other than each national park handles it differently. Some are more strick than others. No issues in state parks that I know of.
According to both Park Junkie ( ua-cam.com/video/iXCaBqC14jk/v-deo.html ) & RV Miles ( ua-cam.com/video/sE4KfEd9boo/v-deo.html ) interpretations, the new law applies to ALL public lands (BLM, National Forests, etc…) not just National Parks. I haven’t read the law myself but if it truly applies to ALL public lands it will be very difficult to make a living as a UA-camr while abiding by these ridiculous restrictions. Both acknowledged that they’re simply going to ignore it and keep filming for now since their channels depend on that type of content. It will be interesting to see how this pans out.
Is there a petition or someone we can contact in regards to this? I do believe this is unconstitutional.
That hurts to hear, because these were things I was gearing up and wanting to do, and now I'm feeling like that might be crushed. I guess I'll figure out other places to go, other things to do. I don't honestly understand the purpose of this restriction. You do what you do, that should be fine, you should be able to make money on it. Same with drones. I think anyone who can operate one and get the initial license, should be able to fly/record/photograph and make money off it if they can figure out how. All these permits and requirements and whatever... it's just trying to shut us down. But my honest question is, why? Don't they know this inspires more people to come? Which in turn makes them more money? The ONLY reason I'm even excited to go to parks now is because of what I've seen on this channel and many others. If not for you all, I'd be a lost customer. I guess I am now. I was gonna buy a national park pass for the year. Guess I won't =/
I just don't understand =(
And I’m surrounded by national parks… awesome
If you want to make things expensive and complicated, let the government run it.
Wow. That’s crazy and I had no clue. It’s ridiculous for someone to have to do this crap to even just film your family having fun on your vacation in a park… like wtf
You can go and have fun and film. The problem is when you monetize it.
Sorry you guys are going through this, it seems quite ridiculous actually. I enjoy your channel hopefully there will be a solution to this soon.
I would like to see the trail - guess one option is to go back by yourself for filming. If just you and one tripod and one camera, still free - right? I am working on my commercial drone liicense right now myself.
The permit would be free. But there’s still the application fee, administration fee, and monitoring fees that you have to pay.
They certainly won't admit that they are after your money, but what do they say their reason for all this BS is? Let me guess on the court that overturned the previous ruling. 9th....
I wondered the same lol.
Quick question. Does this stop you from just taking pictures and filming or just filming? I don’t mind watching a slide show.
I can still take photos because I don't make money from photography.
You would think this would not be a think. I didn't know anything about this until your video. It seems like it would be free advertisement for the forestry. It help get more people interested in the park system. Which would bring money to the government. And, lord knows they love money..
The perils of going pro. Seems like a lot of the people leaving comments fail to realize that once you are making money from this, you aren't just Joe Citizen...you are a business, just like Sony, MGM or your local ice cream truck. All are subject to regulations and permit fees. But yeah, the current situation IS over the top and needs an adjustment.
I thought that if your intent was for fun and not for money then you did not need the permit. I know that does not help you, but I was wondering if that was true.
@Tranquil Reality thanks
Thank You Matt, very informative
It is ridiculous. I have been following along on this myself. I have not seen any sign of a appeal as of now. Thanks for sharing.
Well, that sucks! Looks like I’ll avoid parks this year. Maybe it’ll get ironed out before too long.
It makes me wonder if this is being done because parks are so overrun the last few years so they want less publicity on them?
Elephant hill is an awesome trail, I’ve been wanting to go back but looks like I’ll hold off! Thanks for this update Matt!
Honestly, are they watching our videos for infringement? Doubtful! I'll still film.
@@OverWaterOverLand well all the government has to do is watch UA-cam and we are all screwed. The government wants all the monies.
I had No idea you guys had to pay fees like this at all to film at parks. $730!?? That is insane!! I am infuriated that the government thinks this is okay! And like another commenter said, How will they keep up with the demand for these monitors? Are they supposed to stop you from making specific videos?
you have to be a famous youtuber to get by that
Rory at Trail Mater does a commercial business of recovery on Elephant Hill a lot
I’m not sure how that works for a company like his.
Thanks for the updated information. As a Canadian UA-camr we visited and filmed our trip to Elephant Hill last July. I was aware of the regulation changes and figured we were in the clear. Any idea what the retroactive implications might be regarding videos shot and made public during that time?
By the way, Elephant Hill and Devil's Kitchen is my all time favorite trail and camp spot anywhere in he US or Canada, fantastic experience!
I cant answer your question but wanted to put this out there. I watch a car channel. The guy has street raced in the past. Some video was put on youtube years ago. The law took these old videos and raided the guys home, arrested and charged him. He ended up taking a deal , paying fines and probation. Another county took a different video he posted, stuff i myself did when younger, and charged, jailed and fined. He has deleted these videos now. He had home security footage of the raid. This was total abuse of power and waste of tax dollars. You have to watch your back always.