Digital BW, The Print

Jeez, this is buried. Here is the link for searching for the  
document. plugin the document number DOI-2007-0035-0001. Then click  
on the comments link. http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/ 
main

Here are my comments for what they're worth.

I am distress at the broad and vague language in the proposal to  
redefine the rules for photographing in National Parks. The use of  
the words model(s), sets(s), or prop(s) without defining any context  
puts all visitors to the National Park System at risk of violation.  
All your terms could be easily clarified by adding "for the purpose  
of promoting the sale or use of a product or service." Even this is  
too broad of a net. A commercial photography should be defined as any  
event of filming, photography, videotaping, or recording by other  
means that brings into a National Park equipment and/or persons that  
requires use of the resources of the national park beyond that of a  
casual visitor." This would include bringing in props that could  
restrict or impede the enjoyment of casual visitors. Setting aside  
for the moment the issue of use of resources (which a still or motion  
picture photographer does not consume simply by pointing a camera at  
a scene), having a friend or family member stop and stand to be  
included in a photograph causes no damage or use of national  
resources any more than any visitor to the park. The open ended  
language proposed puts all users of the national parks as suspect and  
thus at the mercy of a ranger's discretion for citation and the  
burden of proof on that user.

The ultimate purpose of the rules seems to me to insure that the  
natural beauty of the park is not compromised for commercial gain  
without compensation and regulation. This can only happen if support  
equipment beyond the usual (i.e. lights, stands, reflectors, but  
should not include tripods, backpacks and other personal equipment  
that many professional and amateurs alike use) and props beyond the  
usual (cars, boats, etc.) that that any other casual user might bring  
with them when enjoying the park (which could with certain types of  
parks include that the same). To put the emphasis on commercial gain  
is a slippery slope. There are photographers that are  
indistinguishable from casual park users who photograph like any  
other park user and whose photographs may at some possible point in  
the future be used commercially. Even a casual user's photographs may  
be use commercially someday. The point is that at best these  
photographs are made purely on speculation. To require a permit to  
photograph simply because there might be a possibility that someone  
some where might make a dollar on his or her photograph is absurd and  
onerous on the people simply enjoying and physically taking nothing  
away or consuming in the park. In light of these facts, "commercial"  
should be defined as assigned work that involves use of the park  
above and beyond that of the casual park visitor as outlined above.

In identifying commercial use of the parks by photographers you tread  
a fine line that could cause unwarranted restrictions on stock  
photographers, artists, and the casual visitor that wishes to enjoy  
the natural beauty of the parks in this nation when they cause not  
one iota of damage or use of our natural resources beyond the right  
to visit them.

Kindest regards,
Hal Gage