Digital BW, The Print

So... did you remember on your way out the door to the ranger if he 
was a Mormon, and if so, how many wives he had?

Steve Karafyllakis


>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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
>