Digital BW, The Print

A few weeks ago, I was issued a citation in a national park for 
photographing a model without a permit. 
The offense was "failure to obtain permit," 36 CFR 1.6(g)(1); 
the citation did not mention the law or 
regulation that actually required the permit. The citation imposed a 
$150 
fine, and required a mandatory court appearance. I might have 
contested the 
charge, but the court appearance would have been in Salt Lake City, 
Utah, 
and I live in Florida.

The ranger took my camera, tripod, and three exposed rolls of film. I 
was 
not rude or uncooperative. As a matter of fact, he said if I had not 
been so 
cooperative he would have made it a lot worse on me.

After talking to his supervisor, he did return the camera and tripod 
the 
next day, but kept the film as evidence. He was very courteous, and 
when we 
began to chat about it, it came out that the real reason he issued 
the citation 
was that my model was nude. Although nudity is legal in national 
parks (as 
the ranger himself admitted), he didn't approve personally, and this 
was the 
strongest citation he could find to issue. By the way, he gave the 
model the 
same citation that he gave me, imposing a $150 fine and requiring a 
court 
appearance.

He stated that if I decided to fight the citation, "community 
standards" 
would come into play and I would for sure loose the fight (He kept my 
film 
to prove my shots were not up to "community standards"). He also said 
if I 
had applied for a permit I would have been denied because of the same 
"community standards."

I shoot art nudes, sometimes in landscapes. None could possibly be 
considered 
pornographic or distasteful. All the shots on the day I was cited had 
the 
model framing the landscape; all that was visible was her back or 
side as 
she looked out over a canyon, and most people would have to look 
twice to 
even notice her in the image. By the way, we were in a remote area 
early in 
the morning. No one had complained. The ranger apparently had seen us 
as he 
made routine early morning rounds through the park. It seems the 
citation 
was issued solely because of the ranger's personal tastes and his 
interpretation of "community standards."

I looked at the NPS web page for permits for Commercial Filming and 
Still 
Photography at 
http://home.nps.gov/applications/digest/permits.cfm?urlarea=permits, 
and 
noticed that photography in national parks requires a permit when;

"the activity uses model(s), sets(s), or prop(s) that are not a part 
of the 
location's natural or cultural resources or administrative facilities"

There are no definitions of any of these terms, so it is not clear 
who is a 
"model." Looking at the fee schedule at the bottom of the web page, 
it does 
not even appear that a permit is needed for still photography 
involving only 
a camera and tripod and 1–2 people. After seeing this, I wish I had 
been 
able to fight the citation, but I simply could not afford the time 
and expense. 

NOW TO THE BOTTOM LINE.
I just learned that there is a proposed rule formalizing the permit 
requirements for lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management, 
the 
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the National Park Service. 
Reading the 
proposed rule, especially after my recent experience, I am concerned 
that a 
"model," "set," or "prop" may be interpreted to mean whatever a 
particular 
ranger wants it to be. Perhaps a "model" could even include a 
photographer's 
spouse, son, daughter, and dear ole Mom if the ranger disliked 
something 
else the photographer was doing. With my delay shutter release, I 
could have 
also been a model. [Although not one I would want in my images.]
Would my model and I have been cited if she had not been nude?

I have seen suggestions on several forums for definitions of "model" 
and 
"prop" to be added to the rule:

Model means a person who poses for filming, photography, videotaping, 
or 
recording by other means for the purpose of promoting the sale or use 
of a 
product or service. A commercial-professional model.

Prop means an object such as a vehicle, boat, article of clothing, 
food and 
beverage product, or other commercial article filmed, photographed, 
videotaped, or recorded by other means to promote its sale or use.

These seem to be reasonable definitions; had they been in effect, 
neither my 
model nor I would have been cited.

The proposed rule was published in the Federal Register on August 20, 
2007. 
The description of the rule can be obtained from the GPO Access web 
site at 
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html; search for "filming". The 
relevant 
result is fr20au07P.

I submit this for your information, and encourage you to submit 
comments on this 
proposed rule change.
I personally think this something every American should be concerned 
about and 
especially every photographer. 
If you wish to submit a comment re these definitions, the time is 
short: the 
rule is open to public comment only until October 19, 2007.

Again. 
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html; search for "filming". The 
relevant 
result is fr20au07P