agesilaus Posted January 22, 2021 Report Share Posted January 22, 2021 Volokh Conspiracy-legal blog If I'm reading this correctly. The parks were requiring a commercial permit which was very pricey and had a lot of nitpicking requirements if you posted your video on YouTube. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twotoes Posted January 22, 2021 Report Share Posted January 22, 2021 The ban only involved commercial filming/video that was intended to generate income from sources including but not limited to, in a movie theater, television or YouTube. Personal recording for family use, news media etc did not require a permit. Quote 2015 Itasca Ellipse 42QD 2017 Jeep Wrangler Unlimited Rubicon Hard Rock Edition 2021 Harley Street Glide Special Fulltimer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
agesilaus Posted January 22, 2021 Author Report Share Posted January 22, 2021 The ban was completely illogical. First it only applied to film and video. Still photographers only needed a permit if they brought a bunch of commercial lighting, models and assistants into the park. And that could be disruptive. That might require the park to provide a LEO ranger or two. Some guy walking around with his gopro and posting the videos to youtube needed a permit. At what point does a youtube video become commercial? Undefined in the regs. That guy would not be disruptive and costs the parks nothing. An may be posting the videos on YT for his family and friends. From what I've heard the park management knew this would not get by the courts and dropped complaints against anyone who threatened to take it to court. Somehow this got by that filter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirk W Posted January 22, 2021 Report Share Posted January 22, 2021 16 minutes ago, agesilaus said: From what I've heard the park management knew this would not get by the courts and dropped complaints against anyone who threatened to take it to court. Do you mind sharing where you heard that information? I have read of that case before as it has been in process since 2918. I have mixed feelings on the issue of commercial use permits, but understand that the parks are looking for much needed revenue, which is probably how that all began. Quote The case stems from an incident in late 2018 when national park police criminally cited an independent filmmaker, Gordon Price. Price had filmed a portion of his independent feature film entitled Crawford Road, which involved a desolate stretch of road in York County, Virginia, long the subject of rumors of hauntings and unsolved murders. A portion of the filming for the feature took place on the Yorktown Battlefield in Colonial National Historical Park. After Crawford Road premiered, park police visited Price and issued him a criminal citation for failing to obtain a permit. Quote Good travelin !...............KirkFull-time 11+ years...... Now seasonal travelers.Kirk & Pam's Great RV Adventure Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
agesilaus Posted January 22, 2021 Author Report Share Posted January 22, 2021 I had never heard of it but I subscribe to the the Volokh Conspiracy blog and it just popped up there this morning. The blog is a by a group of libertarian law professors and they cover a lot of interesting issues, not especially political tho. They often cover constitutional law issues and are just entertaining writers even for a non-lawyer like me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jinx & Wayne Posted January 23, 2021 Report Share Posted January 23, 2021 Here is a pretty good case history. Wayne & Jinx 2017 F-350 diesel, dually 2006 Carriage Carri-Lite 36KSQ Quote Jinx and Wayne 2006 Carriage Carri-Lite 36KSQ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
agesilaus Posted January 23, 2021 Author Report Share Posted January 23, 2021 Very interesting. This makes it plain that the nps was running an extortion operation. They demand money but if you lawyer up they want to drop the charges--because they knew that they would lose in court. Of course at this point you have suffered lawyer and court costs, plus your time in fighting them. They do you an injury but want to say "forget it". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jinx & Wayne Posted January 24, 2021 Report Share Posted January 24, 2021 11 hours ago, agesilaus said: They do you an injury but want to say "forget it". Reading between the lines it sounds like the Magistrate is not buying the NPS position. if the Mag agrees and issues an order finding a constitutional violation the next step might be to sue the government for the constitutional violation, damages (if any exist) and attorneys fees. That's a maybe. Quote Jinx and Wayne 2006 Carriage Carri-Lite 36KSQ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
agesilaus Posted January 24, 2021 Author Report Share Posted January 24, 2021 If you look on their page about permits for photography they have already inserted a paragraph making skill photography and videography newly equivalent. Permit only required if it uses a lot of gear and people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.