National Forest Service may start fining photographers for taking pictures
$1,500 photography permit may be required
Greg Newkirk, Roadtrippers.com
In the worst bit of news for
professional (and amateur) photographers since personal drones were banned from
National Parks, The U.S. Forest Service has set into motion plans to fine
picture-takers at least a grand for snapping images in any of the wilderness
areas under their care, nearly 36 million acres of wilderness in all.
If the plans are finalized in
November, any media with a camera, even a simple cell phone camera, will have
to purchase a permit from the Forest Service if they plan on taking photographs
in places like Mount Hood orMount Jefferson, permits that can cost nearly
$1500. If they refuse, they risk being fined $1000 for the infraction. As you
can imagine, this has given photographers everywhere a reason for concern.
"It's pretty clearly unconstitutional,"
Gregg Leslie, legal defense director at the Reporters Committee for Freedom of
the Press in Alexandria, Va told Oregon Live. "They would have to show an
important need to justify these limits, and they just can't."
According to Leslie, the Forest
Service hasn't shown any real-world justifications for the new law. Others
belive that the new limitations are being set into place for a more nefarious
purpose: to punish media outlets that report unfavorable stories about
wildnerness areas by refusing future shooting permits.
"The Forest Service needs to
rethink any policy that subjects noncommercial photographs and recordings to a
burdensome permitting process for something as simple as taking a picture with
a cell phone," U.S. Sen. Ron Wyden, an Oregon Democrat, said.
"Especially where reporters and bloggers are concerned, this policy raises
troubling questions about inappropriate government limits on activity clearly
protected by the First Amendment."
The only time that new rules wouldn't apply is in regard to breaking news, such as a natural disaster.
The only time that new rules wouldn't apply is in regard to breaking news, such as a natural disaster.
Regardless of the reasoning, it's
easy to see why such a change is a terrible idea, particularly when it comes to
the fuzziness between who qualifies as media. Would a national news network
with the ability to throw away nearly two grand be considered the same media as
a self-funded photography blog? Is a journalism student with an iPhone
comparable to a salaried news anchor for a local network? The new rules don't
answer these questions, and the room for interpretation could mean that media
access to wilderness areas will be only be available to those who can afford
it.
Luckily, the Forest Service have
opened themselves up for comment. Photogs, give 'em hell.
____________________________________________
Meanwhile...
#13 Obama's favorite!
No comments:
Post a Comment