YouTube creators and federal parks charging a fee/license

[Morgana]

Land of the fee.

Well, it never was "land of the free lunch."

 

[tx2sturgis]

The same as for any copywrited work. There are companies that look for and prosecute illegal use of copywrited material. The laws and mechanism is already in place, just add NPS permits. You probably hardly even notice Used by Permission at the end of an attribution of some work.

What if we change the 'money making' endeavor from creative works of photography to canvas art, or how about physical conditioning?

Take for instance, an artist with a canvas, some oil paints, and a few small paint brushes, and they sit outside their camper van and paint the sunset they see. Or maybe the saguaro cactus, and a hilly landscape, and a cute little ham-can camper that's parked nearby. All captured on canvas, but looks as good as any scenic painting you have ever seen. Inspired by our public lands.

They paint a few of these and then go home, and sell them on ebay.

One of our members here is doing something kinda similar. Creating a product, while they happen to be parked on public lands. Commercial use, yeah maybe, but absolutely a VERY LOW impact.

Or how about a couple, they show up with bicycles and ride them for 20 miles a day all over the BLM or LTVA or national forest roads and trails....Physical conditioning, in a nice public area, and then they go home after a few weeks of physical conditioning and compete in a triathlon and get first place in mens and ladies, and then get sponsorship and start earning a small supplemental income, because they were able to train on public lands.

I mean, where, and HOW do you draw the line? As long as the 'impact' is minimal or essentially zero, there is just no need for a fee or a permit for that activity.

In the context of a US citizen on public lands, I see no difference between pushing a shutter button, hitting a record button, applying paint on a canvas, or pedaling a bicycle, they are all low impact and any attempt at imposing a fee or requiring a permit is government over-reach.

 

[bullfrog !]

^^^Again it is the damaging effects of increased visitation on the parks encouraged by the number of viewings ( which by the way number of viewing determines profit on many social media platforms ) of informative and entertaining videos. A single painting, or athlete without huge exposure via the social media platforms had little effect in the past on the park, but even then they were still underfunded and had difficulty “preserving the resource” which by the way is their prime directive. When commercial films started being made and had negative effects on the park the permit system was instituted many years ago to try help cover the costs of the negative effects. Not unlike today with videos that are made for profit and out on social media platforms have created a huge negative effects to a point some areas have become a public safety issue as well as endangering the privilege of the public to access resource while destroying certain aspects of the resource permanently. I agree it does not matter what art form the creator uses but it does matter if it is displayed on mass media in order to make a profit and creates a stampede of visitation that destroys the beauty of the park and its wildlife. If you are worried about over-reach of the government how will you feel when areas of federal lands are closed to the public in order to protect the ecosystem of unique plants and wildlife because of over visitation and use created by commercial videos. Until enough funding for crowd control measures can be put in place often areas will be closed to the public which they have had to do in the past. Sort of common these days for large crowds and mobs of people to blame the government for not doing anything then scream government over-reach when they do. Spend some time in a park or better yet volunteer in a park on a busy day. I think you will be wishing there was a little more “government over-reach”. Lol!!! Sort of like another National Monument, the US Congress when they had too many “visitors” on January 6!

 

[user 22017]

I mean, where, and HOW do you draw the line? As long as the 'impact' is minimal or essentially zero, there is just no need for a fee or a permit for that activity.

In the context of a US citizen on public lands, I see no difference between pushing a shutter button, hitting a record button, applying paint on a canvas, or pedaling a bicycle, they are all low impact and any attempt at imposing a fee or requiring a permit is government over-reach.

Maybe the rules changed over time. Twenty years ago I'm sure they witnessed a massive increase in the number of ppl filming in state and national forests, because blogs, social media and youtube were introduced. Perhaps the regs were expanded to include low impact videography, as well. If looking at the numbers of people involved, big difference between social media & YT ppl in parks versus painters & runners. So maybe it has to do with the numbers of people.

Edit: Just saw ur post bullfrog

 

[Spaceman Spiff]

I mean, where, and HOW do you draw the line? As long as the 'impact' is minimal or essentially zero, there is just no need for a fee or a permit for that activity.
In the context of a US citizen on public lands, I see no difference between pushing a shutter button, hitting a record button, applying paint on a canvas, or pedaling a bicycle, they are all low impact and any attempt at imposing a fee or requiring a permit is government over-reach.

So, where is your line?
A high priced lawyer can take a term like 'low impact' and ram it through the court system so we need to hire a lawyer to determine what we can and cannot do.

I like [If you make money off your activity in the park you need a permit] because it is simple, concise, easy to understand.

...... Take for instance, an artist with a canvas, some oil paints, and a few small paint brushes, and they sit outside their camper van and paint the sunset they see. Or maybe the saguaro cactus, and a hilly landscape, and a cute little ham-can camper that's parked nearby ..... They paint a few of these and then go home, and sell them on ebay.

If they make money off of an activity they need to be in a National Park for - they need a permit. They are using the NP to make money.

..... Or how about a couple, they show up with bicycles and ride them for 20 miles a day all over the BLM or LTVA or national forest roads and trails .... and then get sponsorship and start earning a small supplemental income, because they were able to train on public lands.

I am limiting my discussion to NPS. BLM, LTVAs, NFS operate under different rules.

Is bicycling in the park necessary for their training or are they training in the park just because they are there? If necessary (and an advantage), how long will it be before lots of bicyclists are using our National Parks as a permanent training site?

In the context of a US citizen on public lands, I see no difference between pushing a shutter button, hitting a record button, applying paint on a canvas, or pedaling a bicycle, they are all low impact and any attempt at imposing a fee or requiring a permit is government over-reach.

Our National Parks are a national treasure. What I take exception to is people there not to enjoy the park but to make money. Some of our parks are way overcrowded. What I don't want is these money makers crowding out families wanting to show their children these treasures.

 

[bullfrog !]

^^^ Problem is in my opinion the parks were and are not funded or have the infrastructure and personnel to accommodate all that wanted to visit before the YouTube influencers starting selling the rest of the public on the idea of visiting.

 

[Spaceman Spiff]

I would have to agree.

A lot of the parks were designed for vehicle traffic in the 1920s, a lot of the infrastructure was built by the WPA and CCC. The popular parks are not big enough to accommodate the volumes of people that they see.
Add to that underfunding, understaffing, and some bonehead moves by the park service.

 

[tx2sturgis]

I would have to agree.

...and some bonehead moves by the park service.

And I would agree with that!

 

[tx2sturgis]

So, where is your line?
A high priced lawyer can take a term like 'low impact' and ram it through the court system so we need to hire a lawyer to determine what we can and cannot do.

This is the same reason I think it's really hard to determine who is 'making money' on the park system lands or any other public lands.

No matter what definition you come up with, some lawyer somewhere will argue the opposite in court.

We have both placed our bets (made our points)...so now I'm just gonna 'let it ride'.

I do enjoy a lively debate now and then, and I just dont get to do that anymore as a moderator, so, thank you!