YouTube creators and federal parks charging a fee/license

[Southbound]

https://www.nps.gov/aboutus/news/commercial-film-and-photo-permits.htm
A YouTuber I watch was talking about how this can impact people with a YouTube channel that films in national parks and BLM land.
I know some nomads make extra funds by doing this.

Have you seen this and could it effect you?

 

[user 22017]

https://www.nps.gov/aboutus/news/commercial-film-and-photo-permits.htm
A YouTuber I watch was talking about how this can impact people with a YouTube channel that films in national parks and BLM land.
I know some nomads make extra funds by doing this.

Have you seen this and could it effect you?

I've known about the permit requirement and fees (for videos) for many years. I believe it applies in Illinois State Parks, as well.

 

[bullfrog !]

A while back there were a number of court cases that have helped define the laws a little better. Hopefully people will figure out drones are not allowed in National Parks with few exceptions as well.

 

[Frood]

I know for a fact that there are regulations in both California State Parks and National Parks regarding commercial filming. Neither one permits flying drones, even if you have a drone pilots license. California State Parks have more restrictions on filming (even forbidding 'student film projects' from filming) and seem to be worded to have the broadest possible interpretation... BUT... I haven't heard of anyone getting sued/fined for violating them which seems to indicate a less stringent enforcement perhaps?

National Parks, last I heard, still forbid all drones but was relaxing filming restrictions to take YouTube and other individual filming into account (ie filming that didn't require production facilities, crews, etc). It seemed like the intent was to allow filming when it was done by a person using a single tripod or handheld cameras. Frankly I was utterly flabbergasted at how sensible it seemed the proposed rules were going to be. I have no idea if these rules were actually implemented though.

** RE: Drones in National Parks - DON'T DO IT! Don't even fly your drone into the park from outside the park! Enforcement is by either being caught on-site or by having your posted video or online footage reported... A quick you-tube search for drones and national parks will get you some informative first-hand stories about this.

 

[tx2sturgis]

The OP's question was more about shooting youtube videos, and not really about drones, which is a whole 'nother topic.

A couple of youtubers are reacting to the news....negatively...and I can't say I blame them, after all, that land is our land. (apologies to Woody Guthrie)

 

[Frood]

<< ORIGINAL POST REMOVED >>

** EDIT 3 ** Upon more research the only thing I have to say is... "I'm calling shenanigans!"

The rules say: https://www.nps.gov/aboutus/news/commercial-film-and-photo-permits.htmFrom the "Does... individuals or small groups" section:
"...The primary focus of the NPS, however, is on commercial filming that has the potential to impact park resources and visitors beyond what occurs from normal visitor use of park areas..."

From the "What fees will I have to pay" section:
"1–2 people, camera & tripod only - $0/day "

<< Deleted commentary made without making adequate research >>


** EDIT **
So it seems there may be an application fee for some parks, if you look here...
https://www.nps.gov/articles/000/commercial-filming-photography.htm

** EDIT 2 **
So the "application fee" seems something different from the permit fee... Still trying to find out through research. Maybe I'll apply for a few permit just to see what happens.

 

[Frood]

So the stated reason and rules for filming in National Parks:
https://www.nps.gov/aboutus/news/commercial-film-and-photo-permits.htm

The main problem I see with this is that it's so utterly inconsistent and confusing for people who are TRYING to follow the rules but are not a big enough organization that can afford a lawyer to go through the permitting process.

While you may not have to pay for your permit, it seems like you do have to pay a fee to apply for a permit and each park seems to have a different schedule of fees or requirements, with the more heavily visited parks having heavier financial burdens which are completely separate from the actual permit itself. See below for some links to different national parks "filming permit" pages.

Joshua Tree
https://www.nps.gov/jotr/planyourvisit/permitsandreservations.htmYosemite
https://www.nps.gov/yose/planyourvisit/filming.htmPipestone National Monument
https://www.nps.gov/articles/000/commercial-filming-photography.htmYellowstone
https://www.nps.gov/yell/planyourvisit/filmpermit.htm

 

[bullfrog !]

I know it seems really crazy but most parks superintendents determine how the rules are interpreted and enforced. Almost every park has a superintendent’s compendium in fact. Checking with each park’s superintendent’s office is probably best if you have questions.

 

[DLTooley]

This would be a good subject for a Nomad legal fund.

 

[Southbound]

I wonder if Bob Wells and his group for the YouTube channel has seen anything about this yet.

 

[maki2]

I do not recall Bob Wells ever having posted a YouTube video filmed in a National Park. His public videos are not focused on sightseeing. They are focused on how-to for living the lifestyle.

 

[egilbe]

I've been sorta following the whole recording on federal lands rule kerfuffle for a few years. There are several YouTube videos on it. The original challenge was on 1st Amendment grounds. I still think there is a challenge there where in order to apply for a permit, you have to pony up ~ $100 and even then, your application can be denied. It applies to all federal lands, even BLM and National Forest lands.

 

[bullfrog !]

It was sort of a knee jerk reaction to the tremendous increase in visitation thought to be promoted by the many video blogs trying to create income on YouTube that park superintendents just couldn’t deal with on limited budgets, they started looking for ways to increase budgets based on what they perceived had caused the problem. Places like Horseshoe Bend in Page Arizona went from a few visitors a day to having the main highway blocked for hours and several people having medical problems in the long lines. It took a few years for the park and community to get a handle on visitation and was actually an unsafe situation for the public due to a lack of sufficient emergency personnel for quite sometime.

 

[maki2]

Fortunately I have no interest in filming for commercial use. If I did then I guess the fees would be something I would complain about to the Department of the Interior.

 

[Southbound]

I do not recall Bob Wells ever having posted a YouTube video filmed in a National Park. His public videos are not focused on sightseeing. They are focused on how-to for living the lifestyle.

I was thinking he used a lot of BLM lands, and other members use BLM land. And when I heard about this I was thinking BLM and the nomads.

 

[john*thomas]

The OP's question was more about shooting youtube videos, and not really about drones, which is a whole 'nother topic.

A couple of youtubers are reacting to the news....negatively...and I can't say I blame them, after all, that land is our land. (apologies to Woody Guthrie)

It would kind of depend wouldn't it? If some guy is taking a video with his cell phone, IMO no big deal. Now if they have an elaborate set up that gets in the way of others enjoying the park, that would be another thing.

 

[Morgana]

Besides getting in the way of others, though, you could make a case for charging them based on whether they make money off what they do.

People are producing impressive YouTube videos using just a smartphone or small camera. So "commercial" doesn't necessarily equate to "large and obviously intrusive."

Many parks are over-stressed and under-funded. If there's a viable income source (e.g. licenses for commercial photo/videography), why shouldn't they consider using it? Private destinations do.

And trendy online videos can bring more people into the parks, including people who maybe aren't used to treating nature gently or taking care of themselves outdoors, thus stressing the parks more and creating the need for additional services.

What you can get and do for free in public spaces is subject to change and often controversial (moooo). I'm not saying yay or nay that people should be charged, just that you could make a case for it. (Just like you could make a case for making me pay for all the YouTube videos I now watch for free ... not all good things last forever.)

 

[Spaceman Spiff]

My understanding from talking with rangers is that the rule has been in National Parks 'if you make money off your activity you need a permission'.

 

[bullfrog !]

^^^Yes and I believe that includes YouTube videos posted on sites that make money from advertising, although there have been and are I assume people looking for court cases to clarify the rules.

 

[tx2sturgis]

It would kind of depend wouldn't it? If some guy is taking a video with his cell phone, IMO no big deal. Now if they have an elaborate set up that gets in the way of others enjoying the park, that would be another thing.

Certainly it should be a case-by-case or common sense basis...I would think.

If a youtuber is set up in a campsite, he or she is already 'occupying' that space.

Suppose they set up a camera and tripod 10 feet from their RV, a couple of reflectors, maybe a table and a couple chairs, and film an hour long 'talking heads' or 'explainer' video....I see no harm or wear-and-tear or disruption to the park or forest, even if the background is visible in the video.

Of course if a bunch of adrenaline charged and rowdy athletes and sports enthusiasts blast in to the park with 10 loud fast dune buggies or turbo-charged ATVs and each with multiple go-pro cameras and powerful LED driving lights and a huge entourage of cast and crew, a food trailer, support vehicles, and lots of extras and plans to make the next youtube viral mega-block-buster, then we have a different situation.

Or so it seems to me.