What You See is What You Get: Landscape, Photographs & Memory

When a landscape is photographed, it becomes a record(at least to my

way of thinking) not only on film, but in memory, of what a place

looked like at the time. A photograph, sketch or painting of the

landscape, then, is another way, a visual way, of sharing that

record as opposed to a written, oral, or other method. My point is,

the experience is recorded in One's memory first, before it can be

commited to film, pen and ink, words, watercolor or oils(and who

knows what else!) These records are the basis of human experience---

first hand education. My question then, is this: Why is it

acceptable for landscape photographers (recording the earth with

photographic materials)to be discriminated against while other

visual artists aren't? Or why should any visual artist be

discriminated against, while virtually anyone else who can mentally

record and 'retrieve' a scene with verbal or written words isn't?

Public Safety or National Security issues accepted, why is the

visual experience of the world, free and at its worst, unavoidable

to all, considered a source of revenue(through permits or other

fees) for city governments?

Sorry, that should be "Public Safety and National Security issues excepted..." I ought to know how to spell by now!

It is not acceptable, it is simply that photographers can be caught and charged more easily than others. In the interest of increased revenue they would charge poets if they could catch them in the act. Its all about getting the money.

because, at it's most crass and capitalistic, the bureaucratic mind sees a photographer with a tripod as a commercial photographer making money - that some may be "artists" rather than commercial photographers is too nuanced (and indeed, artists make plenty of money too don't they - look at that Andy Warhol guy...?). And if you can throw in a worry about Liability (never mind that someone is more likely to trip on the City's unrepaired sidewalks than stumble over your tripod legs, all the better...).

 

Interestingly, Congress has actually taken the time to differentiate between not only commercial and non-commercial photographers on Government lands, but also between commercial photographers who actually should get a permit because they are potentially causing extra costs and congestion (i.e. 6 Victoria's Secrets models and the new Jeep Wrangler) and those who aren't - Fred Blogs with his 4x and tripod shooting stock - they've even enacted it onto the statute books. Only for Federal Lands though...

Anyone here heard of a tripod permit for watercolor painters?

If there are any lawyers out there willing to fund a challenge to these stupid regulations, I�d gladly initiate an �offense� to put them to a test.

 

But to try to answer your questions: Government agencies establish regulations because they can.

<i>Government agencies establish regulations because they can.</i>

 

In the United States, they establish regulations because the electorate allows them to.

 

The fact that we voted in (or, in the case of the apathetic and/or uninformed, let other people vote them in) bureaucrats who restrict our activities just points out how important it is to pay attention, get and stay informed, and vote. The local elections are must as important, if not more important, than the national elections.

Yep, agree with all the above. Funny how I could unobtrusively make some commercial shots in a National Park and be changed a fee for doing so, while someone can write a book about the park, or use it as a plot setting, make more money, and not be charged a thing ... but maybe I have it all wrong.

 

In any case, it seems that the capitalistic mindset has been taken too far. The notion of something being free is ananthema to those running the show. They'd charge us to see see the sunsets and breath the air if it were possible. But what else do can you expect of life in our pay-as-you-go democracy? (and this is not to say the US of A still isn't a great country)

 

RJ

I dont know where all this got started but it has spread around the world. Here in Mexico if you want to take pictures of pyramids, spanish missions or anything managed by the INAH (instituto nacional de antropologia e historia) you have to jump through hoops to get a tripod permit. Of course they have this provition for "personal use" but then if you show up to the place with a tripod then you become a "professional." Seems the mark of a professional is a tripod, even if it is a 5 dollar one.

John`s comment while rational and logical has nothing to do with the beaurocratic mind and their need to scalp the tax payer, be that in the US or anywhere else, seems this is a behavior without borders.

"Funny how I could unobtrusively make some

commercial shots in a National Park and be changed a fee for doing so"

 

you shouldn't be - a permit is not required for "unobtrusive" commercial photography

Public Law 106�206

106th Congress

An Act

To allow the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture to establish

a fee system for commercial filming activities on Federal land, and for other purposes.

May 26, 2000

[H.R. 154]

 

 

http://www.nanpa.org/docs/pl-106-206.pdf

 

pertinent section:

 

© STILL PHOTOGRAPHY.�(1) Except as provided in paragraph

(2), the Secretary shall not require a permit nor assess a fee

for still photography on lands administered by the Secretary if

such photography takes place where members of the public are

generally allowed. The Secretary may require a permit, fee, or

both, if such photography takes place at other locations where

members of the public are generally not allowed, or where additional

administrative costs are likely.

(2) The Secretary shall require and shall establish a reasonable

fee for still photography that uses models or props which are

not a part of the site�s natural or cultural resources or administrative

facilities.

 

 

This establishes that a professional/commercial still photographer has the right to photograph on Public Lands, WITHOUT a permit or fees, unless they require special access, or are using models, props (that new Chevy + Diana Krall...) etc.

 

 

(This is also very close to the wording that was already established in the NPS Regs that say the same thing very clearly)

John, you need to take along an easel and canvas with a bit of watercolor splashed on as a ruse. Then set up your camera and photograph so that the "real" art can be finished later by using the photographs.

Tim, Interesting, however it's not the Feds that are charging the fees in question, but municipalities and other government entities. To further confuse the issue: what if a National Park is within a City, such as the Golden Gate National Recreaton Area? As to another issue, the wording in the law you qouted:"...shall not..." reminds me of Steinbeck's East of Eden and the chinese housekeeper's attempt to understand the meaning of the word "timshel"(not sure of the correct spelling as I'm working from memory here, also I know diddly squat about hebrew) and the difference between "thou shall" and "thou mayest." My head is starting to hurt! I think THE GRAPHIC AVENGER "shall" take Jim Galli's advice and raid my late mother-in-law's paint box for a suitable "smoke screen!"

We shouldn't blame such things on "bureaucrats". We get the laws, regulations, etc. that we deserve. When people have got annoyed enough about restricted access and made a political issue of it, generally agencies which implement our laws back down. The responsibility for such restrictions lies with our leaders and legislators and ultimately with ourselves, because we chose them.

 

Tim's point is that federal regulations distinguish between obtrusive commercial use and normal use, and states should follow suit.

In cynical mode, I'd say it's obviously far easier to impose a tax on tripod users (the photographic minority) through bogus permit schemes than it would be to tax people with young children (who probably cause more disruption and damage). Minorities, by definition, have fewer people to squawk about such things. Ever see a dollar-a-bite tax on burgers? Or, a $10/bottle tax on Chardonnay? ;-)

 

My guess would be that state parks are likely to get worse about such things before they get better. National parks may tighten the noose, as well. Both are desparate for funds, and looking for "creative" ways to increase revenue to soften their budget cuts.

Maybe a tripod fee is not the worst way to collect funds for the operation and maintenance of our parks and forests. Let's face it, the photographers who are serious enough to take the time and go to the expense and effort to carry a tripod into a park/nat'l forest etc., are probably among the more affluent of our society. If we have to pay a little extra to drag our rigs into a park so that the less well-heeled members of our society can enjoy the same park without the benefit of a camera, who are we to complain? If the fees are so prohibitive that they opress your artistic freedom, then by all means, contact your elected representation. If not, I suggest you pay your dues, or shoot elsewhere.

Jay, I think the term double taxation applies here. We are taxed to maintain the parks, more often than not charged fees to enter the parks we already paid to maintain, charged fees for using the facilities we've already paid for (through taxes and fees) such as camp grounds & picnic areas, and now we are being charged for permits to record the enviornment on film(or if you use a digi cam on a trippod, a flashcard) If you consider a photograph to be a visual re-telling of your experience in a park(like a talented storyteller might retell, or a diarist might write in a journal, the discription of a past experience) it is absurd that a government agency should charge you for the permission(which is what a permit entitles) to do so. I am not opposed to supporting parks, but the parks, at least where I grew up, belonged to the people, not to Jungian/Illuminati bean counters selling a sick philosphy requiring a citizen to obtain government permission to recollect a visual experience on film. Now that is too close to the criminally flawed logic of Adolph H. and Josef S. to tolerate. ----Cheers!

One day in Richmond, CA I was driving around taking pics by the bay. I came to a place that had interesting street signs like 'Tulagi Way' (from the WW2 battle) and others that I really can't remember. As I stood there with my camera a guy comes flying up in a 4x4 with a uniform, gun, etc. and hollers 'WHAT ARE YOU TAKING PICTURES OF?' When I told him just of the unusual street signs he sneers 'THIS IS GOVERNMENT PROPERTY AND TAKING PICTURES IS NOT ALLOWED!'

Well, looking around you could have fooled me as there was nothing but old brick buildings as far as I could tell. I did see the Gov't. property sign but not a thing about 'PHOTOS VERBOTEN'

Anyway, he didn't take my film, so whatever he was freaked out about couldn't have been too important!

Maybe those spy cameras are worth a look see afterall? =^)

Freedoms, rights, and even democracy itself are fragile creations of mankind at its' best. Unfortunately, we are living thru fragile times wherein even our right to take pictures is threatened by regulations & fees. A sheepish populace should not expect freedoms to win out over fascism.

I'm not American, but my recollection is that you became independent as a protest against "government regulation." If you weren't prepared to accept it then, why do so now? Ask Louis Farrakan how to organise a protest march :-)

Peter , that was well said .

The logic that you displayed in that statement was disarming .

All the excuses we find for giving up those rights that many

people have fought for , are only rationalizations to make our life

not complicated ......

We become more stupid , .....but at least we are on the " right "

side .

I have not read the actual wording of these legendary statutes which prohibit tripod use, but perhaps some creative "loop-hole-ing" is in order.

 

For example, suppose I showed up with a 4-legged "tripod". Now its a quadrapod. Does the wording of the statute(s) prohibit just 3-legged camera stands?

 

What if I attach bright-white athletic shoes to the bottom of each camera stand leg? Does this now throw out the validity of any tripod prohibition? After all, if they permit me to walk into an area, can't my tripod "walk" there too?

 

In a more serious vein, John asks a very interesting question. Photography is not just an art form, but its a MEDIA, as well as a hobby practised by millions. However, those that control access to our public lands do so with the idea that those who do the most disruption to the area should pay the higher fee. Camping fees verses just driving through the park, for instance. Unless you're a "corporate citizen", in which case a special congressional exemption allows mining and drilling for profit.

 

What I really like about John's question is the issue of memory. My grandparents once visited the Everglades; I have no personal memory of their visit, since I was too young, and didn't travel with them. Since they're both dead, their personal memories have passed on, too. The only family memory we have of their trip, indeed of the Everglades itself, is through the legacy of pictures they took. And unless I visit the Everglades myself, I will have no other memory either.

 

When or if our wild spaces are gone forever, or regulated into corporate theme parks, the only memory of them will be the photos we took. Then, even painters will have to refer to photos for visual reference. Taken in that context, the presence of photographers of all kinds in our nation's parks should be seen as a last, desparate act of preservation.