I Applied for National Park Filming Permits, Here's What Happened
Вставка
- Опубліковано 2 кві 2023
- This is my experience applying for filming permits to record video in National Parks and post the content on UA-cam. The First Amendment to the Constitution guaranteeing freedom of speech and freedom of the press should protect us from unreasonable permit and fee requirements when visiting public lands.
Detailed Description of Onsite Activities (from my permit application):
A single vehicle will use regular park roads and parking lots. Filming locations will be limited to marked trails and other outdoor spaces which are specifically shown on National Park Service maps obtained at the park Visitors Center, and will be selected on the day of arrival based on favorable weather and trail conditions. Locations will be accessed by a single photographer on foot carrying only a daypack, including one iPhone, one GoPro, and a compact tripod. None of the photographer’s vehicle, equipment, or clothing will include any advertising or marketing, and the photographer’s activity in the park will be indistinguishable from an ordinary park visitor. Filmed footage will consist of park scenery and the photographer speaking to the camera. The purpose of the project is for posting a brief video of personal travels on social media, such as UA-cam. The requested use is an exercise of a First Amendment right, and therefore no fee is included.
National Park Service Response (all 7 parks had the same response):
Dear __________,
We have received your application for a Special Use Permit for Commercial Filming/Still Photography at _________ National Park. Based upon the description of the activities provided in your permit application, it does not appear that they would constitute commercial filming under federal law. As a result, you are not required to obtain a special use permit for commercial filming or pay associated fees. You are responsible for securing any necessary permissions or releases if you will be filming other people in the park. In addition, all filmers must comply with regulations that apply in the park, just like other visitors. Thank you for your interest in visiting _________ National Park. We hope you enjoy your time in the park.
I do hope this is the case across the board. We have been working on this issue with other channels, as well as the lead attorney in the Price case and the NPPA. There have been multiple amicus briefs filed. The FILM act is also working its way through committee to undo the language restricting low impact creators. Is it possible all of these parties are misinformed about this decision? Doesn’t seem likely. We are doing all we can to spread the word about this unprecedented, unconstitutional ruling, as allowing language like this to stand is sure to cause future issues. Hopefully as creators we can all get a in the same page to ensure the rights of the public are protected. Thanks again.
From what I hear in the Price case. They threw out the violation, then after that he sued. I am going with this and filming wherever I want then I will say to the office it is personal filming. If I am send a violation in the mail you can bet I will show up in court with my argument of first amendment rights.....RIght to report news. Freedom of the press. Everything is potentially news.
Is there any place to follow this case???
As far as I can tell the regulation can't really be held up in court. Id be fine with taking the risk personally.
@@mikesrandomvideos we’ve continued to film. The Supreme Court just decided not to hear the case. Would like to see the FILM act pass, but it’s business as usual around here.
@@SmokyMountainFamilyWhat’s the situation now? Do we need to take a permit or permission for filming for UA-cam?
Thank you so much for this!
Great info - thanks for sharing.
Absolutely brilliant
Thank you for this.
Thank you for this information.
Thank you so much!
Thanks for the video. Here is my experience. I recently (July 2024) submitted applications for a filming permit at Mount Rushmore and Devils Tower. I was planning on filming for my UA-cam Channel. I did use your narrative with minor changes. I just received a response from Mount Rushmore. "Filming for UA-cam is NOT protected under the 1st amendment." I was not denied, but told I need to reapply with the application fee.
Sorry it didn’t work out for you. I think the Park Service is frustrated that they have to deal with all this permit BS for individuals recording video of their experiences in the Parks and then posting on UA-cam. The law was never intended to be used against individuals using small cameras, and was written in a time when “filming” was a much more disruptive activity. Maybe now they’re just refusing answer applications unless the ridiculous fees are paid. In addition to the Federal Appeals Court case, there’s a law working its way through Congress to remove all of the permit and fee requirements for small creators, so I really don’t think the Park Service is wasting their time going after anyone who is discreet and respectful in the Parks, regardless of whether they post on UA-cam and regardless of whether they make any “income”. For my ongoing Park visits, video recordings, and UA-cam posts, I have no intention of submitting any applications or paying any fees, and I’m not worried.
Good to know. Thanks for sharing your experience.
Thank you so much for making this video. I will try the same approach and see what happens!
Great information. Thank You.
Thanks for your video, outstanding.
this is awesome.
you are awesome.
you got my subscription.
ill be following your lead and mailing out about 10 applications this coming week. thanks for this great video!
Very interesting. Seems like a good way to go about it. Gives you some coverage and justification in case you get static down the road. Well done!
Thank you so much for this video! I'm going to use your example. Fingers crossed!
Great stuff to know and thanks for posting your note info and the response. Sounds like the parks are getting on the same page. Thank heavens‼️
Thank you for sharing this.
Great job!
Thank You
Nice job Rob
Thanks for watching!
First off, im glad to see some clarifications on the subject, but secondly, i understand why or how this all started, and i think it's important it's addressed. The " influencers" out there have been playing hell with our parks, causing great damage to them. I feel this law was just an attempt to give the parks a tool to stop this behavior because, let's be honest here, too many can't behave on their own now.
Even though i have no insider information, the responses to your requests to film seem to confirm my belief that the parks department dont have an intention to censor anyone but were just thrust into a desperate situation.
Great information! Thanks for taking the time to look further into this issue.
Glad it was helpful!
Great video Rob. I wish I watched this video a few weeks ago before going to moab and canyonlands but great info for the future!
Thank You
Thank you so much for your video! I took your advice as we are going to Badlands, Windcave, Mt. Rushmore, Devil's Tower and a few others in that area at the end of the Month and start of June. So far have heard back from 3 parks and they all said the same thing no permit required. Great advice and so far a not so difficult process. Each sent me an email so I have documentation and Wind Cave went so far as to let me know they would alert staff they day I will be there that I am cleared to film and post with no issue. I am so glad I found your channel as another National Park fan and will mention your channel when I eventually post my vlog from our travels there this summer!
Thanks for your comments, I’m so glad it worked out for you!
We have 5 national parks on our list for the summer. Thank you so much for the information. It is very concerning. Lynn and Danny
Thanks for the comment, enjoy your trip!
Hey Rob,
This great content ! I didn’t even know that this was an issue. You are a great narrator and videographer. You are clear, concise, very informative, and articulate. Great job!!!. Keep Living Your Best Life !!!!
Thanks, I really appreciate your comments!
I was just researching this subject when I came across this video. I am super excited to hear the responses you were given as I had just read all of the legal mumbo jumbo on the national parks site. It specifically states that as long as you are not using models, entering parts of the park that aren't accessible to the public, and must have a crew of 3 or less. This has been very upsetting for a lot of us travel creators who want to document and share our thoughts and the visual impact of the park with our subscribers. I'm glad to see that some of these parks are waving the $350 fees for us. It's not like we're making a freaking movie or destroying property. Anyways, thanks again for this video it was very helpful. ~ London
This is one of the few great informational videos I have seen in a long time. Thank you for sharing your experience on this, and doing the leg work for the rest of us who will also be going though this process. Loved the van build and tips there too. Drive safe, and thank you.
Thank you so much, Rob! I watched this morning and quickly printed out the applications for Teton, Yellowstone, and Glacier. I hope I hear back by early July🤞🤞🤞
Did you get a response?
@@SweetSouthernLiving yes, actually! I got letters back from all three saying it was ok. Teton and Glacier called first to ask questions, then send the letters. So I'm all good, Rob's method works!
Thank you 😊
I was unaware of this. How brazen, it's insanity that you can be punished for monetizing content YOU create in a park YOU fund.
I agree; hopefully this law will be corrected soon
@@travelswithrob4970 please keep us updated when this dumb law is removed
Excellent strategy and outcome. Thank you for pursuing this and for letting us know how it went. I filmed (video) for my recent feature documentary, now on YT, called A Circle in the Desert, in part in Canyonlands, Capitol Reef, and Arches NPs just before all this blew up. If you had passed me on the trails, you would never have known as I was just one more visitor with a phone, a GoPro, and a selfie stick. Technology has evolved drastically but the NP’s application of fees and rules have not, nor has the law itself caught up yet. I think you are correct that the NP's are somewhat caught in the middle of this and are still trying to figure it out. Beyond the legal and First Amendment issues, it doesn’t help that we also have the imposition of the greed-driven and basically unregulated private company, Rec.gov. It is another major stumbling block that must be fought and weeded out of our public access to parklands.
I will employ your methods when I revisit the parks for a new project. Thanks, again!
This is great information! Thanks for sharing. I was planning a trip to Great Smoky Mountains National Park later this year and after researching what permits and insurance are required per their website I decided it wasn’t feasible, but my video would definitely fall under these guidelines.
Thanks for your comments, have a great trip!
🌷Thank You🌻
This is a form of censorship... For example, you can simply deny someone like Graham Hancock a permit and keep him quiet...
When the issue changes from the fact you need a permit or get a fine into you needing a permit, being told you don't need one and then getting a fine anyways.
Thank you for the video ! ( i copied your applied info maybe i need it in the future ) if your channel is monetized and gain revenue must be commercial filming ( i think ) my plan was to do some national parks in 4 weeks , but planning a 4 week travel journey with film permits sounds very difficult .with getting a permit . . . i don't know when i'm at that day in the park . . . i hope they get rid of the park permits to difficult
Thank you for this information. I will add those National Parks to my list to visit and contact because I did not get those results out in the Western National Parks, they were pretty cut and dry that somehow my husband and I on our iPhones are the same as a Hollywood movie studio.
Sorry you didn’t get the result you wanted. When I was deciding how to describe my activities for the permit applications, I wanted to make it impossible for the park service to claim I was presenting any sort of burden on park staff, other visitors, or any park lands, and to make the point that I would have no commercial visibility, and that I would be indistinguishable from any other park visitor. Even though I told them I would be posting to UA-cam, none of the parks asked me about monetization or whether I was trying to make income. I think they accepted my position that under those circumstances, individuals have a First Amendment right to discreetly film in the parks without the burden of an expensive permit, regardless of whether or not they later post to UA-cam
@@travelswithrob4970 yeah I even explained I wasn’t monetized at the time and just filming our family’s vacations like everyone else and posting it on UA-cam, and they did not accept that idea at all. I had to fill out the forms and tell them exactly what time and where I would be filming in the park and couldn’t use a general open timeframe even though I explained we were on vacation and things change, it was crazy. The person I was in contact with was very nice but there was no way we would have been able to comply with their demands so I called the trip off. Hopefully they will resolve this soon.
I really hope you have success with this process. With @NateandKara being fined $1000 for the same act, I'm not 100% convinced what you are attempting will work. Thanks for sharing your experience and posting this video.
I hope so too, thanks for watching!
Did Nateand Kara pay the fine or are they fighting this, does anyone know?
Thank you so much for this video! I volunteer for a government agency as a park host and I find they often make rules that are not well defined so they can make a judgement based on the situation. They use discernment and discretion when they need to. Best not to get too hung up on the details. 🇺🇸in this case, they would be wise to be a little more specific 😂
Thank you for the video! Do you know anything about State parks?
I’ve never heard of any restrictions about filming in state parks, as long as the photographer is discreet and respectful
Hi there! I'm very grateful for this video. Can you share with us, on your application did you identify specific dates you'll be at the park? I was considering doing something similar but adding a free range of dates. However, I'd prefer to do what will most likely have the same outcome that you had. Thanks so much for taking the time to create this video and share it with us!
Thanks for your comments. Yes, I specified the dates, but I included a range of dates over about a week to keep it flexible. Since the Park Service indicated that my activity didn’t need a permit, I probably could have included a much broader date range, and would likely have received the same response. Good luck!
I applied this month (February 2024), using the same language you provided in your video description, to Carlsbad Caverns, San Antonio Missions, and Big Bend. So far I’ve heard back from San Antonio Missions and Big Bend and they said that I would need to pay the fees associated and follow through with the application if I wanted to film and monetize on UA-cam. Big Bend also specifically told me that it was not within my first amendment rights. So looks like it is unfortunately not consistent across all National Parks, Monuments, Historical Parks, etc.
I’m sorry to hear that you didn’t get a favorable response. However, as far as I know, the Park Service is not going after individual creators whose activities in the park are identical to regular park visitors. I’m still planning to visit parks, film, and post. If they issue me a citation, I’ll see them in court
That’s good to hear. I’m glad that overall it seems parks are allowing individuals to film/photograph and post/share their content.
I will say that I also looked at Bandelier’s webpage on filming/photographing and it says,
“Do I need a permit to film?
Low-Impact Filming
“Low-impact filming’ is defined as outdoor filming activities in areas open to the public, except areas managed as wilderness, involving five people or less and equipment that will be carried at all times, except for small tripods used to hold cameras. Those participating in low-impact filming activities do not need a permit and are not required to contact the park in advance. If low-impact filmers have questions about areas where they want to film, they should contact the park directly.
All applicable laws and regulations governing activities and public use in parks still apply, including park hours and areas open and closed to the public. Videographers, filmers, producers, directors, news and other staff associated with filming are reminded that rules and regulations that apply to all park visitors still apply to filming activities even if no permit is needed for their activity. Check with the park staff for more information on closures, sensitive resources, and other safety tips.”
So it seems that some places are just letting people know on their website that it’s fine. Good to see things that are heading in a positive direction.
@@travelswithrob4970 This is exactly our thoughts as well. If what you are doing in the park is indistinguishable from a visitor and the only difference is you are posting to a monetized youtube channel as opposed to non-monetized social media channel, to me (not a lawyer) they are legally over their skis. -J
Thanks for your insight and info. I sent an application for Mount Rainier. Hopefully I get the same positive result.
I would be interested to hear how it goes for you.
@@travelswithrob4970 Of course I'll get back to you! It will help the community navigate all the gray area with facts and to thank you for starting this path.
@@travelswithrob4970 I emailed NPS and they replied within a week and this was how the exchange went.
NPS: Thank you for your application. Will you be generating any income from your filming activity?
NPS: If the film, electronic, magnetic, digital, or other recording of a moving image by a person, business, or other entity is for a market audience with the intent of generating income, then a commercial filming permit is required.
Me: No, I am not looking to be paid for this endeavor. I just want a keepsake. Is there anything I need to write in the description of the video to express this, which will align with the NPS's rules? I appreciate you getting back to me so soon!
NPS: No permit will be needed. Thank you for confirming this. No additional information is needed or required. We hope you have a wonderful trip to Mount Rainer with your family.
My takeaway is the "sponsored" pros may be who are being regulated. Us regular folk should email them and follow your line of thought. We are not being paid to do videos, no income to declare. Your thoughts?
@@soy78 I’m glad it worked out for you! None of the parks that I applied to for a permit asked me about generating income, and I didn’t include that information in my application because I have no idea what might happen with my UA-cam channel in the future. In any event, if the Park Service changes their mind and tries to assess me a fine in the future, then I’ll see them in court. As I said in my video, I believe that the permit law as it applies to individuals posting to UA-cam (whether or not the channel is monetized) is unconstitutional, and there are lawyers and federal judges who share that opinion
Which application did you use for MRNP? The link I'm finding on their site for filming goes to a Department of the Interior login page.
I think one of the very important things you included in your letter was "None of the photographer’s vehicle, equipment, or clothing will include any advertising or marketing". I have seen recently that some of those who film in the park have all sorts of branding on their clothing, vans, and backpacks. It makes them seem more like a business and less like a private individual enjoying the park. I hope this all gets settled soon so we can film and share without fear.
Thanks for your information. It's crazy because in 2019 they threatened to arrest a pair of youtubers and gave them a 1K fine and banned them from filming in nps (so they wouldn't approve a request from them in the future)
There's more to that story. They were flying a drone in the park. It's my understanding the NPS was upset that more rules were being broken so they threw the book at them with everything they could. -J
I will certainly try this approach! I did notice that the permit application for Mount Rainier National Park is broken and goes to a Department of the Interior login page. Hopefully I can get the correct form from them through email.
The very fact you have to apply for a permit is absolutely outrageous
Great video Rob! Like some of your other viewers, I'm Canadian. I'm planning to do a big trip thru the US in 2024 and visiting many of your National Parks. I too am planning to send out several applications using your template. I'm just curious if you filled out the entire form (all 7 pages) or just the first page accompanied by your detailed Description of Onsite Activities statement? Thanks for figuring this out!
Best wishes for your trip. Yes, I filled out all of the relevant sections of each application, because I didn’t want to give the Park Service any excuse to reject it based on incompleteness. Some parks offer a short-form application which is easier to complete. Since I didn’t have have exact dates and filming locations at the time of submitting the application, I indicated several days range for each park, and stated “specific filming locations and times to be selected based on weather and trail conditions.” However, I made clear that all filming locations would be at unrestricted publicly accessible trails and landmarks shown on maps issued by the Park Service. They are very concerned that UA-camrs do not go into unauthorized areas or disturb culturally sensitive sites
Great video, Rob. I am curious as a Canadian if I need to take any additional steps when filming in USA National Parks?
I think the rules are the same for everyone. The Park Service has many responsibilities, and policing UA-camrs is really not worth their time unless someone really stands out. Be discreet and you should be fine
Much as I hate to say it, the point you make about there being no difference between two people filming the same thing, based on later use, I’m afraid is not true. I am legally entitled to photograph anything I can see from any public place I am entitled to be, but I am not necessarily entitled to all uses of that photographic product. It becomes a violation when I actually use the product in a way not permitted by law, not when I obtained that product. On the other hand courts have indeed ruled that park authorities can impose FEES for access, but the argument here is that a FINE is not a FEE, and the park service is not authorized to impose any criminal fine or penalty for violations NOT occurring on park property, and obviously UA-cam is not on park property. I think the final verdict here will be that the Park Service has overstepped its authority and is not an arm of government authorized to enforce any federal law regulating activities not happening on property where they have specific jurisdiction.
As I understand the law and the penalties levied against the defendant filmmakers in the pending federal appeals case, the fines imposed were for the act of filming without a permit, not for a subsequent legal use of the footage. As you correctly point out, the Park Service has no business enforcing any law not occurring on its property. This law has all the hallmarks of creating a bogus retroactive crime, wherein a first legal activity (filming without causing any disturbance) later becomes illegal in view of a second legal activity (such as posting content on UA-cam). My expectation is that this law will be struck down as too broad and partially unconstitutional, or perhaps Congress will pass a fix. In the meantime, I’m going to continue to film, post, and not worry about silly permits.
I used to travel on my motorcycle ,on vacation and when I saw something interesting I would take pictures or video of it. I did not plan any certain place for doing this, just what came along. Needing to check with the park service ahead of time for every video is crazy, and pretty much impossible. I can see this for a camera crew but not for somebody going on vacation, never knowing when a great shot may show up. Also , I was wondering, what if you have a dash cam in your car and want to post that video ?
The Park Service policy, and their interpretation of the law, does not make any distinction between one person filming with an iPhone, or one vehicle using a dashcam, or an entire Hollywood production crew; it’s crazy. However, it seems like they don’t waste their time chasing individual creators doing essentially the same thing as any other park visitor, regardless of whether they post to UA-cam. The responses I’ve received seem to indicate that if photographers are respectful and discreet, they will leave us alone. Also, there is a bill in Congress which would fix this entire problem, but it’s delayed like everything else on Capitol Hill
@@travelswithrob4970 I am not worried about when I am taking the videos, but when they see them on UA-cam and hunt me down. LOL
Park outside of park property , you can fly your drone over np dont own air space only restrict when parked n fly inside park.🎉
Since, taxes pay for the Federal Land and parks this seems rather as another tax by the government.
Have you done any update since the case on appeal was overturned? The original requirement is now back in place. Have you applied lately with your process? I would be interested to know.
There is a new bill that passed the House called the EXPLORE Act, which defines the parameters of low impact filming and allows it without a permit, but it is still working through Congress. I think it will eventually pass, but who knows.
Yes, it’s great that the Explore Act passed the House in April with overwhelming bipartisan support, but the harshness of the current political climate may delay final agreement on anything until after the election. Park policy is definitely going to get better, but it may take a while longer
Great info Rob, and thanks for sharing! Based on your research and experiences, how do you think the park service might respond to a request following your format above, but adding something to the effect of "Still images will be taken, and may be posted to social media, printed and/or sold in the form of single prints, calendars, posters or books."
According to the Park Service website, still photography does not require a permit unless the activity takes place in an area closed to the public; or the activity uses a model, set, or prop to promote a product or service; or the Park Service would incur additional administrative costs to monitor the activity. So it seems like you wouldn’t even have to mention it in a permit application, and if you did, they shouldn’t have any problem
Thanks for the info, Rob. That’s a relief to hear!
@@dougheizenrader2280 That is the irony of this policy. As a still photographer, I can set up a tripod and take stills to my heart's content - , show the photos on my UA-cam channel(s), and even sell the photos on my website. BUT if I switch my camera to video and post the video, I could be fined. My still gear is much larger than my video gear (GoPro, DJI Pocket, iPhone). I often do photography tutorials on my photography channel, filming my self for posting is illegal, but selling the photos is not. Crazy!
@@airstreamer , that’s crazy. It does seem like things are moving in the right direction from where they were a year ago. Hopefully, in time logic will prevail!
@@airstreamer If you want to hear something else a bit crazy I asked the question of one of the National Forests I was dealing with if I took 30 still pictures a second and then in post back at my home edited them together into a moving image that I then monetized if that would require a permit? The answer was yes because I turned my still images into a video. What was driving as was if the defining factor was that I made video on the Federal land or video at all given as you said I could take pictures and monetize them without any issue. At least to the permitting official I spoke to the issue was that I made video at all.
Great info. Thanks. I usually film in National Monuments, National Forests and BLM lands and have wondered where all this is at currently. Seems like there was a lawsuit, a judgment in favor of content creators, and then a reversal on appeal in favor of NPS commercial permit requirements, which is where we're at now. Any new info? I might have to see how the BLM is about issuing filming permits. Thanks for the video! ~ Mike
I haven’t heard any update on the appeals court case. I did hear that there is pending legislation in congress which would fix the whole problem by expressly allowing filming in the parks by individuals and small groups. But that’s not likely to become law any time soon because members of congress can’t seem to accomplish anything
I contacted Mount Rainier National Park to ask if I needed a permit for UA-cam or social media if I didn’t monetize my content. This was their reply: “Thank you for contacting our office. For filming, as long as your intent is not to generate income or sponsorship, no permit is required. The only other time a permit may be required is if you'd request to use props, models, or access into a restricted area of the park.”
I’m glad you got a positive response!
Monetization has been the issue all along. If you intend on generating income off of using images of the national park system, then they want you to have a permit.
So in your opinion should we do what you have done and request the permit like you did to cover our butts or do we just film and post? it feels like they could attempt to fine you either way, and having a letter from them saying you don;t need a permit is the best thing.
I don’t think the Park Service is wasting much time or effort chasing small-time UA-camrs like me, so I think anyone doing similar activities would be fine. However, it gives me great peace of mind to have at least one letter from a Park official stating that no permit is required. If you have the time (3-6 weeks), there’s no harm in trying the permit application (with no fee) at least once, and see what happens. Good luck!
Is it possible to a normal send a petition to the state of California to live in the national park there ? Do you know if theres a way or something
I have shot video in all the Wests big national parks. Never bothered by authorities. Of course I don’t use my videos for commercial reasons.
I appreciate that you made this video, but the problem is the way the laws written it is still illegal to do and they can still fine you at there whim
If that happens, then I’ll see them in court. The the law is on shaky constitutional grounds, and it’s really not worth anyone’s trouble going after me. Furthermore, there was a 21 month gap from January 2021 until October 2022 when the permit requirement was suspended because the Park Service lost the first court case. Perhaps all of my filming was done during the gap … hard for anyone to prove otherwise. I have no worries.
@@travelswithrob4970 well for you that works but im talking for everyone else now is the time to rise up and fight this injustice before it gets cemented into law
Great info! I was checking the NPS site moments ago, they currently list the following fee schedule for small crews:
"In addition, Federal law also requires the National Park Service to collect a location fee that provides a fair return to the United States for the use of park lands for commercial filming and for still photography requires a permit. The National Park Service uses the following fee schedules for filming and photography:
Commercial Filming
1-2 people, camera & tripod only - $0/day
1-10 people - $150/day " (continues with higher fees for larger crews)
We are hitting some of the parks east of the Mississippi in a few months. I'll see what they say about permit requirements but at least there would be no fees for me and my wife!
That’s correct, but although the “location fee” may be small, it’s the additional “permit application fee” which is the whopper for most small creators. For many parks, while the filming fee may be low, the permit application fee is many hundreds of dollars. Be sure to read the application carefully; that’s why my strategy was to refuse paying the application fee from the start, claiming my rights under the first amendment
I used your advice for my application. I got a bit of a different response. This is what they said:
If you meet the following definition, you will need a special use permit to film in Arches and Canyonlands: ""Commercial filming" means the film, electronic, magnetic, digital, or other recording of a moving image by a person, business, or other entity for a market audience with the intent of generating income. Examples include, but are not limited to, feature film, videography, and documentaries. Commercial filming may include the advertisement of a product or service, or the use of actors, models, sets, or props."
If you do not meet the definition, a permit is not required.
I don't think I meet that definition since I don't have a market audience (I don't use target marketing to sell a product or service) and I don't have the intent of generating income. Would you agree?
It’s their job to act on every permit application filed by the public, either by: 1) granting the application, 2) denying the application and providing specific reasons for the denial, or 3) stating that the activities described in the application do not require a permit. In your case, the Park Service’s response failed to do any of these, it merely repeats what’s written on their website. If it was me, I would reply back to them, requesting they either act on my application or state that I don’t need a permit, because it’s also the Park Service’s job to determine who does and who doesn’t need a permit. However, for filming and posting activities which are similar to what I wrote in my applications, the Park Service has much better uses for their time and limited resources than to chase down UA-camrs and give them tickets long after they’ve left the park. They already have federal lawsuits against them over this issue, and there’s also pending legislation in Congress which would repeal their entire filming policy, so I think we’re safe as long as we keep a low profile while filming, don’t disturb other visitors, and treat Park lands with the respect they deserve.
@@travelswithrob4970 I replied and said I didn't think I fit that description. I will keep all the emails, but your additional information here is helpful for future reference.
Another approach would be for everyone to report every UA-cam video from a covered location for a violation and flood them with paperwork.
Well, I just submitted my application to film in GSMNP. I sent an email with all of this basic info and was told "if you are profiting from any filming/photographs taken in the park, a permit IS required." :-(
Did you send in an actual permit application or just an email request? An email is not the same thing, because submission of a US government permit application with either the application fee or a first amendment claim for fee waiver requires them to provide an official response, not just more information. If you filled out the complete application, you should have received either a denial, an approval, or a statement that you don’t need a permit
@@travelswithrob4970 Both. I am waiting on a response from the permit. I will come back and update when I hear something 👍
@@SweetSouthernLiving did you ever hear back from the park?
Yes. @@otown0802 I filed for the permit, using the exact method shown in this video
and was told the same thing by 3 different permit officials. The 1st one said "if you are profiting from the photographs and/or videos taken in GSMNP, you must have a permit." The 2nd: "if you are monitized, you must have a permit to film and share to ANY platform where you will (potientally) earn money from footage taken within the park." The 3rd just simply came back with, "here's the link to pay."
I filed the permit app several weeks prior to our trip. After going round and round with them, I paid the fee. But in the end, was told they could not issue the permit because we were already there by the time someone finally got around to it and they need " a minimum of two weeks notice from the begining of the project."
In the end, the person I was working with stated he agreed with me on the First Amendment Right issue but as it stands right now, "if you are making money on your filming endeavors, then you are required to have a permit."
The ruling used by federal land management agencies to support enforcement of the fiming permit requirements was issued by the DC Circuit. However, the 9th Circuit has very clearly stated the public has a First Amendment right to film on public lands. The vast majority of federally managed public lands are located within the jurisdiction of the 9th Circuit. A ruling by one Circuit is NOT binding on the other 11 Circuits. Thus, the DC rulling carries no weight in the 9th Circuit. Explained in this video. ua-cam.com/video/hNNzTI3bWJ0/v-deo.html
Thank you but honestly its ridiculous you have to even think about this.
So after 8 months (the most recent comment below) >>> nothing has changed!
Its time for people to stop being non confrontational and start getting plaintiffs and begin to restore our constitutional rights.
I applied for a National Park VIDEO Permit, Here's What happened. :-) You do not film, you video. Besides no need to state the obvious. Film, filming, and filmmaking are the most misused words in the industry. 🙂 Digital Video and film require different skill sets. Having DIFFERENT historical and TECHNOLOGICAL timelines spanning 150 years. Have PRIDE and KNOWLEDGE of the gear we use including the words that describe what we do. Our tools are Digital Video, Non-linear, and CGI. We are moviemakers, not filmmakers and we do what film wishes it could. We are Videographers and/or cinematographers. 🙂 We video or are videoing, we do not film. That's the other RARE professionals who know how to use film and film cameras, like an ARRIFLEX 435 Panavision R-200 and Steenbeck flatbed film editors. Know the difference and have a better understanding of the craft. You will also stand out in an industry polluted with point-and-shoot "pros". Respect to you.✌♥
I just don't go to national parks anymore.
I understand your frustration, but the national parks are there for all of us to enjoy, and there are ways to make it work!
I don't think this is right. The attorney that argued the case for that other guy said it infringed on his first amendment right. The judge specifically said it did not infringe on his right so do you but but what you're saying has already been shut down. That being said, there's a section on the national parks website that says they are not worried about little UA-cam channels with one person. I'm guessing your request was approved because you're one person with a camera and not because they're honoring your first amendment rights because, again, the judge in that case ruled the fees do not harm our first amendment rights.
The case currently under federal appeal was initially won by the film crew, which is why the Park Service was no longer requiring permits after Jan 2021. The Park Service appealed, and won by 2-1 of a three-judge appeals panel, and reinstated permit requirements in Oct 2022. The third dissenting judge wrote an absolutely blistering criticism of the other two judges’ opinion, and the film crew immediately appealed to the full en banc appeals court, which is still pending. The issue of first amendment rights is at the center of this case, and the final result has yet to be written
@@travelswithrob4970 Very true. But the current law of the land is first amendment rights doesn't negate the fees. Hopefully they'll win - which means we'll all win - in appeal.
ROB! Just aother exampale of govermentiterfearing with the people, The park does. NOT belong to them.
I will never go to any National Parks again
I hear you, but the park service didn’t write the law, they’re stuck in the middle trying to deal with a silly outdated law. I think common sense will ultimately prevail, and the law will change 🙂
@@travelswithrob4970 I understand that. I support you 100% maybe what i said was little bit too much. But the comin sense will prevail
So, you’re cutting off you’re nose to spite you’re face? You’re the only one whose suffers from such an action, if you’re not a professional photographer you have every little to worry about.
Illegal filming 😂🤣 that's funny. They've just been getting away with highway robbery because people would rather pay $350 then to exercise their rights.
First, before I say anything else thanks 🙏 so much for taking the time to create this video and making the info contained a resource for the rest of us.👍 I was searching for info on if I needed a special GOVERNMENT permit to use my PERSONAL drone footage in my videos, and found your video. I know the Internet is always looking for a fight BUT, as much as I understand regulating big movie companies from making millions of Dollars that they share with the GOVERNMENT anyway, from ruining the natural beauty of the state parks and country at large by trampling the plants and otherwise (add damage type here) there are 2 things I've never understood.
1st if I decide to take the initiative to spend MY FREE TIME and money creating content (Video documentary, fictional story or WTF ever) as opposed to sitting my fat ass on the couch, eating cheetoes and watching YT, Netflix or some independently produced project out some creators pocket. (for your Amusement.) WHY do other people who only do the latter (cheetoes aside.) feel they have the right to call ANYONE who creates something they wanted to make, that YOU happily consume for free, Unlike the Cheetoes. (Video in this instance.) that we share with others to gain social proof by posting on YT, Netflix or where ever!? that the thought, Story or idea is or was a good interesting or valid one only for some consumer to make accusations (I saw them in comments below about Advertising, logo's and Merch) that We are disingenuous because we made money, (which is somehow bad?!) and in the case of YT is like a fraction of a FN cent. But even if it were millions, the America in the days of my youth (pre Clinton era) , "The land of opportunity" where if you bought the tools and did the work you could reap the rewards.If i went around charging little old lady's to cut up fallen trees in their yards after storms and then charged the yet again, to remove those trees from their yards and then took those same trees and chopped, split and bundled them AND sold them YET AGAIN, to unsuspecting people as campfire wood at a premium price, these same people wouldn't say a word!!! (I'm not crapping on tree removal services... their genius, Paid 3X for the same trees they got for free!)
2nd the little independent guy can't succeed. as if putting up with all the people who don't create content (But expect it.) or who do create and shame others, who are wanting that polished vision in their head to work out which, un delusionally costs money, calling you a sell out for hoping to make a little money back from the platform that is in bed with the same GOVERNMENT and both of them are making money of your labor of love anyway. (the .3333% of a cent, which honestly will likely be spent on more equipment to make more quality free content which isn't appreciated.) I buy the tools, (pay sales Tax) I devise the content and take crap from my spouse and family, on top of the taxes on the taxes that are taxed before I even get to say the money (from my day job.) is mine, NOW I have to grease the palms of whatever GOVERNMENT entity wants their $350 permit fee? $110 drone permit fee? Or they'll levy thousands of dollars ( I've never made.) in fines, for using land I'm entitled within reason to film because it's public property or in New York, California or Illinois it's $1000 for permit on a city street, Because Hollywood has filmed ICONIC BS here, they don't want a piece of my .33333% of a cent maybe made (every 4 months maybe?) , they want to either bleed you dry of ALL resources Or stifle any creativity at all. on top of the monthly subscription for editing tools and other assets needed to create the thing I envision in my head, I have to risk paying fines for pictures of places No one would have ever seen, known existed or reasonably could ever find even when provided with the video unless the looked at the GPS location data embeded into the video by order of the GOVERNMENT. and even when you went to the exact location could never tell I had been there without MY VIDEO AS PROOF. in the Immortal words of R.R. "Government is not the answer to the problem, GOVERNMENT IS THE PROBLEM" the fact that this is even a debatable topic is disgusting. and accepting it as normal and reasonable is disturbing. our children and theirs are doomed to slavery to a GOVERNMENT that is sliding into tyranny. because of the immortal words of N.P. under B.O. "I know the Bill is 4600 pages. We have to pass it into Law so we can find out what's in it! "😆 this is what's in it .. more Governmental overreach. drone pilots started finding Government secret sites, content creators started finding secret pot farms, Cartel and otherwise, and toxic waste dumps and other things the general public wasn't supposed to know about. my .3333% of a cent, and footprint where no one is looking doesn't explain this level of Governmental overreach. the encroachment of the Constitution to defend Government corruption does.
I submitted the long form to Acadia NP and was told that I did not qualify as exercising a First Amendment right in my form filing. After same additional reading I have come to the conclusion that I made a mistake on the form, I included some detail for Location schedule and put down 2 for each day for "# of Cast and Crew" and under Talent I included Myself and my wife as I never knew if either of us would be in frame during a video or still image. It seems the rules classify "Talent" or "model" as "a person or object that serves as the subject for still photography for the purpose of promoting the sale or use of a product or service." Since neither of us are promoting any product but are just posing as part of the scenery I am pretty sue that neither of us are cast, models or talent (not sure of the crew part).
I used the short form to file to Capitol Reef NP and was sent an email to get some additional information.
They asked: "We received your film application in the mail. Thank you for your interest in filming in the park. Are you filming with the intent to generate revenue, including from UA-cam?"
I answered: "My social media presence is not for generating revenue but to share my experiences with friends, family, and others with similar interests. Kind of like the showing of home movies and slides from the latest vacation that my father used to do but without having everyone showing up at my house to be “entertained (bored)” with the show. My presence on social media is far from the threshold for generating revenue for myself even if that were my goal or desire, which it is not."
They responded: "After evaluating your request, we have determined that the activity you described is general public use and does not need a permit, and therefore no fees are required. Thank you for your responsiveness and patience. "
I will include that additional explanation of my social media presence in future forms and not list any "Talent" or "Cast".
I will also recently visited Death Valley NP and talked to a ranger at the visitor center and was told that I did not need a permit based on my explanation that expressed that my social media presence was not to generate revenue but to preserve memories and share them with family and friends.
I'm glad it worked out for your situation. In my permit applications, I told them I was posting to UA-cam, but I didn't say whether or not I had an "intent to generate revenue," and the Park Service didn't ask. Since all ten parks responded the same way, saying that my activities did not require a permit, I will not be submitting any more permit applications for my upcoming filming trips. All of this permit nonsense will probably end soon, because the U.S. House has passed the "Explore Act", which removes permit requirements for small creators. The Senate has not yet passed a similar version, but I suspect they will later this year. Better days are ahead! Best of luck with your adventures.
I found this video specifically because I have planned to start filming my hiking activities, and Acadia NP is the closet to me. I watch a ton of backpacking/camping content on UA-cam and have seen the national park discussion come up so it sparked my interest.
I don’t currently have a UA-cam channel but may create one down the road, I would hate to be prosecuted for something at this time would not be a violation but if I share them videos later on could create issue.
If I manage a trip to Acadia this season, I will do the paperwork as described in the video and come back here.
Any tips in advance would be greatly appreciated.