Social media vs. wilderness, forest and parks

[chumley]

Apparently this article is a year old, but I just saw it today. It's long and covers a lot of different situations.

The gist of it is that any photos that you post on Instagram or videos on YouTube that were filmed in a National Park or National Forest are commercial in nature and are in violation of a policy requiring a permit for commercial photography.

Any such activity in a Wilderness Area is prohibited completely ... permits are not issued.

Obviously, this is not enforced--for the most part. But there are instances where the feds are in fact looking into situations where the policy is being abused. Typically it involves adventure athletes with sponsorships, or social media pages with large numbers of "followers". It has been especially active when images or videos are posted that show damage to park or forest land (as was the case just recently with the actress who carved a heart in the rock near Sedona.)

It will be interesting to see if new policies are enacted that address today's social media / sharing culture.

There are many possible variables on what qualifies as commercial.

But if you have a YouTube page and you receive any revenue from it, your videos from parks and forests require a permit, and your videos from Wilderness Areas are just plain illegal.

Interesting read:
http://www.outsideonline.com/1930546/wh ... eaking-law

[flagscott]

This post is a little hyperbolic. The government is not coming after any HAZ users for their photos. As far as I can tell, no one who is an amateur hiker has been prosecuted for taking or posting photos. If you are a professional filmmaker or athlete and you use federal lands for ventures that make you money, I think you should have to get a permit--national forests and parks are not your private studio. In most cities or towns, you would have to get a permit to shoot on the streets or in public places.

And if people damage public lands or poach and film it, then the government should come after them in every way possible.

If I start to hear that amateurs are being prosecuted for snapping photos with their iphones, I will change my tune. But I don't see how this policy crosses any lines. It's not like you can't get a permit--you just have to fill out the forms and pay the fee.

Also, this article http://www.backpacker.... suggests that merely selling a photo or video or making money off of one does not mean you need a permit. The real restriction is on activities that would create a disturbance, like staging a scene, setting up backdrops or lighting, etc. That makes a lot of sense to me. And it suggests that the OP has it wrong.

Like I said, if someone knows of amateur hikers being prosecuted, I'd love to hear about it so I can write nasty letters to whatever agency is doing that.

[Jim]

Just an example of an outdated law that needs updating by the legislators (ha ha ha ha!, that will happen) to meet the changed times. No doubt, when originally written it would have not been a problem for the average person as we didn't have the ability to distribute stuff the way we can broadcast on the internet today. I wouldn't worry about anything unless being stupid and publicly posting destruction of Federal Property, which is just stupid, or suddenly finding myself very popular. In case you weren't aware of it, Federal intrusion in to the average person's life is not terribly popular, but photos of people and their trips to public lands being posted on social media websites are, so I don't expect anyone here to have much of an issue with the NPS or FS.

[chumley]

If you are a professional filmmaker or athlete

I think that's what is potentially the issue. What makes somebody a professional anything? If you are making money from it perhaps that's all it takes?

The article states that a South African kayaker was fined for running a waterfall in the Columbia River Gorge Scenic Area and posting it on youtube. (Is there such a thing as a professional kayaker?) Anyway, he ended up paying a fine as part of his punishment, he was required to post the following on his social media

while it is legal to run the falls, you probably shouldn’t film or photograph it, since posting the images of a model/person to Facebook and YouTube constitutes publishing, which constitutes commercial photography.

I don't think that anybody thinks this applies to the average HAZ user (none of whom would qualify as a model ). But there is obviously some level of popularity where it gets noticed.