# Jam!!!!!



## wdbrand (May 24, 2007)

This one is only another grab on our tax dollars. And on land we already own. Sound familiar to the beaches? Totallybygodunbelievable.

https://www.yahoo.com/travel/dont-take-that-picture-the-u-s-forest-service-might-98484656432.html


----------



## StillSearchin (Apr 9, 2007)

Curious what you mean by "grab on our tax dollars". Please elaborate.


----------



## wdbrand (May 24, 2007)

I mean being fined for using what we already own. Hell, if I have to explain it, it would go over your head anyway. Our taxes bought it to begin with. Now we are expected to pay to take a picture of it. Like a bank that holds your mortgage telling you need a permit to take a family picture in the back yard because you were using props. No difference.


----------



## dena (Jun 20, 2010)

I guess my pics of Bodie Island Light are a no no.
I am in big trouble mister.


----------



## aln (May 29, 2006)

It's all BS and a scam man. According to "The Enclave Clause" of The Constitution the federal government is not allowed to own any land unless it's underneath a federal building or in use as a military installation. The criminal.gov illegally possesses and controls land all over the country that it has no legal right to have. But since when did Constitutional law matter to the criminals that have co-opted the legal government ? Just my worthless 2 cents


----------



## fleaflicker (Jul 24, 2014)

Read again…It is for commercial use….meaning money changes hands. 

I am a professional photographer and take photos on Nation Forest lands. OUR lands. As an amateur and as long as the photo is not used for commercial purposes no permit is required and no fine can be imposed. I do have a permit for those photos professionally taken on our national lands for commercial sale and have no issue paying a fee nor having to go through the permitting process. I DO object to those who commercially use our public lands and DONT pay anything! 

If National G wants to buy your i phone pic of your grandma backpacking then be sure to include the added cost to pay the National Forest their part for being Stewarts of our land. They aint getting much our of tax dollars at a local level


----------



## pods (Sep 10, 2013)

But the story said "commercial use" was ill defined. Certainly most will automatically infer what they mean by "props, models" etc, but if it is NOT explicitly clarified in the regulation, you might find yourself fighting this in court, which will cost you just the same as the permit or fine.
The bigger issue is that this further expands the "pay to play" system for using land that was supposed to be set aside for use of the People.
It is the never ending thirst for $$ and control that irks most, including me. For instance, toll roads. 
Here is the actual definition from the CFR:
_"Commercial filming—use of motion picture, videotaping, sound recording, or any other moving image or audio recording equipment on National Forest System lands that involves the advertisement of a product or service, the creation of a product for sale, or the use of models, actors, sets, or props, but not including activities associated with broadcasting breaking news, as defined in FSH 2709.11, chapter 40."_
http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/retriev...y=HTML&h=L&r=PART&n=pt36.2.251#se36.2.251_151

Now from this I cannot see how still photography would be affected, as it explicitly lists ONLY moving images, but the reg also has the conjunction "or" instead of "and" where it states whether this is for commercial gain and the use of props, models, etc.
So if you are filming in a NF not for commercial gain but use a prop or model, you fall under this jurisdiction.
This cannot be on accident as everyone involved writing these regs is a lawyer, and if I can catch it, so can they. So we must assume this was on purpose to increase the scope of the regulation. Which brings me back to the problem if them increasing the scope of their authority.


----------



## JAM (Jul 22, 2002)

aln said:


> It's all BS and a scam man. According to "The Enclave Clause" of The Constitution the federal government is not allowed to own any land unless it's underneath a federal building or in use as a military installation. The criminal.gov illegally possesses and controls land all over the country that it has no legal right to have. But since when did Constitutional law matter to the criminals that have co-opted the legal government ? Just my worthless 2 cents


I guess you should tell that to the BLM, Bureau of Land Management and the National Park Service, I think your Two Cents are worth Thousands... I m with you... JAM


----------



## JAM (Jul 22, 2002)

fleaflicker said:


> Read again…It is for commercial use….meaning money changes hands.
> 
> I am a professional photographer and take photos on Nation Forest lands. OUR lands. As an amateur and as long as the photo is not used for commercial purposes no permit is required and no fine can be imposed. I do have a permit for those photos professionally taken on our national lands for commercial sale and have no issue paying a fee nor having to go through the permitting process. I DO object to those who commercially use our public lands and DONT pay anything!
> 
> If National G wants to buy your i phone pic of your grandma backpacking then be sure to include the added cost to pay the National Forest their part for being Stewarts of our land. They aint getting much our of tax dollars at a local level


As they should not get "LOCAL LEVEL TAXES" they are National Entities and have federal budgets and are controlled by the Dept of Interior ... It did mention in article Pictures in Instragram and Face Book.. Where I believe they are going is that if you USE a Picture in FB or Instagram you could be seen as advertising for a Service or a Good.. Interpretation of the LAW is Determined by Who is doing the Interpenetrating.. I read it the way WD Presented it... 

JAM


----------



## JAM (Jul 22, 2002)

pods said:


> But the story said "commercial use" was ill defined. Certainly most will automatically infer what they mean by "props, models" etc, but if it is NOT explicitly clarified in the regulation, you might find yourself fighting this in court, which will cost you just the same as the permit or fine.
> The bigger issue is that this further expands the "pay to play" system for using land that was supposed to be set aside for use of the People.
> It is the never ending thirst for $$ and control that irks most, including me. For instance, toll roads.
> Here is the actual definition from the CFR:
> ...


O Come on man, don't you want Government in EVERY Aspect of your Life, Except your Womb or the Bedroom, step in line man and be a Good Little Liberal, Big Government says so.

JAM


----------



## StillSearchin (Apr 9, 2007)

fleaflicker said:


> Read again…It is for commercial use….meaning money changes hands.
> 
> I am a professional photographer and take photos on Nation Forest lands. OUR lands. As an amateur and as long as the photo is not used for commercial purposes no permit is required and no fine can be imposed. I do have a permit for those photos professionally taken on our national lands for commercial sale and have no issue paying a fee nor having to go through the permitting process. I DO object to those who commercially use our public lands and DONT pay anything!
> 
> If National G wants to buy your i phone pic of your grandma backpacking then be sure to include the added cost to pay the National Forest their part for being Stewarts of our land. They aint getting much our of tax dollars at a local level


You say "read again". Most often with these type posts, the original poster never took the time to read it the first time. Some just like to piss, moan, whine, and stir things up.


----------



## fleaflicker (Jul 24, 2014)

StillSearchin said:


> You say "read again". Most often with these type posts, the original poster never took the time to read it the first time. Some just like to piss, moan, whine, and stir things up.


Well said


----------



## fleaflicker (Jul 24, 2014)

Jam, I would hope that a few of the tax dollars I paid made it to the local level and were put to good use so that we all would benefit, including me…. but you are right. It is controlled, budgeted, trickled down, all from a huge wheel that s very slow to turn….too bad most of our tax dollars goes to the hands of others who don't give a #%[email protected] except to better themselves and spend our money carelessly. I can say that the fee we pay for our special use permit to operate a business in the Nat'l Forest does go to our local Nat'l forest. The one we use. No I can't control how they spend it but at least it made it this far and I hope they put it to good use. In fact because it is spent where I am, I can see what they are doing with it…or not doing. 

Yes the article mentioned and implied a lot of things, except stating the exact wording of the law in question. Media has got to make the article interesting don't they? In my opinion, this article is all about the Media (or business advertising…also media related) having to pay for their commercial use on NF lands and they don't want that. So let's spin it so everyone thinks it's an infringement of our basic and individual rights. Thanks to others though the law was provided and as you can see it is part of a larger code that covers all commercial operations on NF lands, including the harvesting trees, minerals, guiding, outfitters and many other commercial operations that use OUR NF lands. 
Commercial operations are defined in 251.51 as: 
"Commercial use or activity—any use or activity on National Forest System lands (a) where an entry or participation fee is charged, or (b) where the primary purpose is the sale of a good or service, and in either case, regardless of whether the use or activity is intended to produce a profit.

This law/code has been in existence for many more than 4 years that the article stated but it was mentioned in Yahoo news so also must be fact. Is the law being updated as technology and time changes? Yes, to cover the loopholes that some use not to pay their part. I think this is why many outdoor companies advertise these days with "send us your photos using our products"? To avoid permits, taxes, copy-write laws and other issues that cause them to spend money on advertising. Drones are the newest thing, but don't get me started on that either cause trying to explain this is taking much more of my time than I want to spend on it. I should be fishing! (in our Nat'l forests)

FB, Instagram and other forms of media are part of our lives, like it or not. They are used for commercial activity, advertising and the sale of goods or services and if one is to post a photo taken on NF lands using one of these medias (or any other) for these purposes, one better have a permit. Otherwise they are poaching on OUR land. Using OUR lands for commercial use without renumeration. 



Hi Pods. Still photography is defined elsewhere in 251.51 as;

"Still photography—use of still photographic equipment on National Forest System lands that takes place at a location where members of the public generally are not allowed or where additional administrative costs are likely, or uses models, sets, or props that are not a part of the site's natural or cultural resources or administrative facilities."

Again the whole thing is about commercial use. (recreational use is defined in 250.1 c 1-3) If the average Joe uses our lands for commercial use then I for one want our lands to be compensated. 

"Commercial use or activity—any use or activity on National Forest System lands (a) where an entry or participation fee is charged, or (b) where the primary purpose is the sale of a good or service, and in either case, regardless of whether the use or activity is intended to produce a profit."

Anyway, enuf politics for me…. 

That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

All the best


----------



## JAM (Jul 22, 2002)

fleaflicker said:


> Jam, I would hope that a few of the tax dollars I paid made it to the local level and were put to good use so that we all would benefit, including me…. but you are right. It is controlled, budgeted, trickled down, all from a huge wheel that s very slow to turn….too bad most of our tax dollars goes to the hands of others who don't give a #%[email protected] except to better themselves and spend our money carelessly. I can say that the fee we pay for our special use permit to operate a business in the Nat'l Forest does go to our local Nat'l forest. The one we use. No I can't control how they spend it but at least it made it this far and I hope they put it to good use. In fact because it is spent where I am, I can see what they are doing with it…or not doing.
> 
> Yes the article mentioned and implied a lot of things, except stating the exact wording of the law in question. Media has got to make the article interesting don't they? In my opinion, this article is all about the Media (or business advertising…also media related) having to pay for their commercial use on NF lands and they don't want that. So let's spin it so everyone thinks it's an infringement of our basic and individual rights. Thanks to others though the law was provided and as you can see it is part of a larger code that covers all commercial operations on NF lands, including the harvesting trees, minerals, guiding, outfitters and many other commercial operations that use OUR NF lands.
> Commercial operations are defined in 251.51 as:
> ...


fleaflicker

While I agree with what you said, and I used to get a Concessions License or Permit each Year to do My Guiding Trips. I No LONGER use the National Park for ANY of MY Guiding trips, I now run them out of PRIVATE PROPERTY. I would not P!SS On the National Park Service if it were on Fire. I look at it as we are at WAR with them so I wIll not give them a Dime. Any Monies given to them are only used to HURT my Community and the Business's there in.. 

JAM


----------



## Drumdum (Jan 6, 2003)

Wonder if those pics that are sent to Audubon and posted into their magazines (for the purpose of selling magazines,placing those on the net, and collecting donations for lawyers) will count in the grand scheme of that law?????


----------



## StillSearchin (Apr 9, 2007)

Drumdum said:


> Wonder if those pics that are sent to Audubon and posted into their magazines (for the purpose of selling magazines,placing those on the net, and collecting donations for lawyers) will count in the grand scheme of that law?????


Good question.
National Audobon is classified as a non-profit/ tax exempt organization. Not necessarily so with local chapters. Sounds like we may need a modern day Solomon for interpretation.


----------

