Ansel Adams Act

**grog85361** · 01-11-2015, 10:00 PM

"The purpose of the legislation is to stop individuals in authority from abusing their authority. "I don't think you should take pictures of that so give me your memory card" would not be discretionary. The legislation would affirm that photography, per se, is not a crime. (On Federal property, anyway.)"

Thank you Parallax. That was the point of starting this thread.

**geomez** · 01-11-2015, 10:16 PM

Originally posted by lmd91343

So PRIVATE photographers are the same as COMMERCIAL photographers?

I am an amateur photographer. I am also a tourist. Are you saying that I would be charged to take photos? If that is not true, than this is just self promotion by a congressman, rallying support on falsehoods.

I believe the permits for PROFESSIONAL photographers in national parks is a different issue than the Ansel Adams Act.
Regarding the national parks, the permits are for pros only. Your average visitor will still be allowed to photograph the park without the need for a permit.

**lmd91343** · 01-11-2015, 10:49 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by geomez

I believe the permits for PROFESSIONAL photographers in national parks is a different issue than the Ansel Adams Act.
Regarding the national parks, the permits are for pros only. Your average visitor will still be allowed to photograph the park without the need for a permit.

Gomez,
Parallax was making the point the he owns the parks, therefore he should not be charged.

I was trying to get him to separate the photographic uses into commercial and private. He is conflating the two. They are separate issues. The AA bill as I understand it conflates the two also.

I read the bill as a back door mechanism to allow free, unfettered commercial use of the parks. As a private citizen, I do not wish to have MY parks further clogged by commercial uses while I try to enjoy nature. With the set aside of Yosemite in the 1860s and the NP system about 40 years later, the intent was clear by the presidents and legislators, to set aside the land for the enjoyment of the public, saving it from commercial use!

**geomez** · 01-11-2015, 11:43 PM

Originally posted by lmd91343

Gomez,
Parallax was making the point the he owns the parks, therefore he should not be charged.

I was trying to get him to separate the photographic uses into commercial and private. He is conflating the two. They are separate issues. The AA bill as I understand it conflates the two also.

I read the bill as a back door mechanism to allow free, unfettered commercial use of the parks. As a private citizen, I do not wish to have MY parks further clogged by commercial uses while I try to enjoy nature. With the set aside of Yosemite in the 1860s and the NP system about 40 years later, the intent was clear by the presidents and legislators, to set aside the land for the enjoyment of the public, saving it from commercial use!

Thanks for the clarification.

MD Optofonik · 01-12-2015, 12:07 AM - **1 Like**

Take the darn picture and stand up for you darn rights. It's that simple and no photographer needs a congressperson's permission to exercise their constitutional rights. It's high time for all this weak kneed nonsense to stop; for photographers to stand up for themselves and quit giving away their freedom (and their gear) to the every bully in a uniform that comes along trying to abuse their position in uniform.

Get arrested? That's what the ACLU is for and I can tell you from personal experience that they do not **** around. The ACLU is not to be trifled with.

I'm just sayin'.

**interested_observer** · 01-12-2015, 08:09 AM

Here is a site that is interpreting the proposed law with a much darker intent - actually limiting photography and circumventing the First Amendment. It's a case of being careful of what you ask for, or a wolf in sheep's clothing....

Caught in the Act? | 2812 photography

**Just1MoreDave** · 01-12-2015, 10:49 AM

This is a typical news article on the recent US Forest Service proposal on commercial photography:

Feds' proposal to charge, limit access to wilderness areas draws fire - The Denver Post

The official proposal I think:

https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2014/09/04/2014-21093/proposed-dire...administration

The Ansel Adams Act would conflict with this. Here's a quote from section 3:

Quote:

(c) Prohibition on Fees, Permits, or Insurance.--No Federal
Government agency shall require fees, permits or insurance as a
condition to take still or moving images on Federal lands, National
Parks and Forests, and public spaces, whether for private, media, or
commercial use.

I have to agree with lmd91343 - the Act sounds nice when it keeps a rentacop from demanding your camera for shooting a tree or rock. But when a crew of 18 shows up with a helicopter to produce a commercial, that's not nice.

01-12-2015, 08:09 AM	#21
interested_observer Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Tumbleweed, Arizona Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,707	Here is a site that is interpreting the proposed law with a much darker intent - actually limiting photography and circumventing the First Amendment. It's a case of being careful of what you ask for, or a wolf in sheep's clothing.... Caught in the Act? \| 2812 photography

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Landscape My best Ansel Adams impression	mr tibbs	Post Your Photos!	7	07-27-2018 08:43 AM
For Sale - Sold: Book, biography of Ansel Adams	ivanvernon	Sold Items	3	02-08-2013 10:20 PM
NYT Ansel Adams Yosemite	weatherwise2	General Talk	7	01-23-2012 12:43 PM
Ansel Adams Plates Founds	zinj	Photographic Technique	3	08-14-2010 09:15 AM
Question about Ansel Adams books	little laker	Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras	18	12-18-2007 07:43 AM

01-11-2015, 10:00 PM	#16
grog85361 Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2010 Location: Phoenix Arizona Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 894 Original Poster	"The purpose of the legislation is to stop individuals in authority from abusing their authority. "I don't think you should take pictures of that so give me your memory card" would not be discretionary. The legislation would affirm that photography, per se, is not a crime. (On Federal property, anyway.)" Thank you Parallax. That was the point of starting this thread.

01-11-2015, 10:16 PM	#17
geomez Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2013 Location: Roanoke, Virginia, USA Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,760	Originally posted by lmd91343 So PRIVATE photographers are the same as COMMERCIAL photographers? I am an amateur photographer. I am also a tourist. Are you saying that I would be charged to take photos? If that is not true, than this is just self promotion by a congressman, rallying support on falsehoods. I believe the permits for PROFESSIONAL photographers in national parks is a different issue than the Ansel Adams Act. Regarding the national parks, the permits are for pros only. Your average visitor will still be allowed to photograph the park without the need for a permit.

01-11-2015, 10:49 PM - 1 Like	#18
lmd91343 Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Los Angeles, CA USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,027	Originally posted by geomez I believe the permits for PROFESSIONAL photographers in national parks is a different issue than the Ansel Adams Act. Regarding the national parks, the permits are for pros only. Your average visitor will still be allowed to photograph the park without the need for a permit. Gomez, Parallax was making the point the he owns the parks, therefore he should not be charged. I was trying to get him to separate the photographic uses into commercial and private. He is conflating the two. They are separate issues. The AA bill as I understand it conflates the two also. I read the bill as a back door mechanism to allow free, unfettered commercial use of the parks. As a private citizen, I do not wish to have MY parks further clogged by commercial uses while I try to enjoy nature. With the set aside of Yosemite in the 1860s and the NP system about 40 years later, the intent was clear by the presidents and legislators, to set aside the land for the enjoyment of the public, saving it from commercial use!

01-11-2015, 11:43 PM	#19
geomez Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2013 Location: Roanoke, Virginia, USA Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,760	Originally posted by lmd91343 Gomez, Parallax was making the point the he owns the parks, therefore he should not be charged. I was trying to get him to separate the photographic uses into commercial and private. He is conflating the two. They are separate issues. The AA bill as I understand it conflates the two also. I read the bill as a back door mechanism to allow free, unfettered commercial use of the parks. As a private citizen, I do not wish to have MY parks further clogged by commercial uses while I try to enjoy nature. With the set aside of Yosemite in the 1860s and the NP system about 40 years later, the intent was clear by the presidents and legislators, to set aside the land for the enjoyment of the public, saving it from commercial use! Thanks for the clarification.

01-12-2015, 12:07 AM - 1 Like	#20
MD Optofonik Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: California Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 962	Take the darn picture and stand up for you darn rights. It's that simple and no photographer needs a congressperson's permission to exercise their constitutional rights. It's high time for all this weak kneed nonsense to stop; for photographers to stand up for themselves and quit giving away their freedom (and their gear) to the every bully in a uniform that comes along trying to abuse their position in uniform. Get arrested? That's what the ACLU is for and I can tell you from personal experience that they do not **** around. The ACLU is not to be trifled with. I'm just sayin'.

01-12-2015, 10:49 AM	#22
Just1MoreDave Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Aurora, CO Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,340	This is a typical news article on the recent US Forest Service proposal on commercial photography: Feds' proposal to charge, limit access to wilderness areas draws fire - The Denver Post The official proposal I think: https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2014/09/04/2014-21093/proposed-dire...administration The Ansel Adams Act would conflict with this. Here's a quote from section 3: Quote: (c) Prohibition on Fees, Permits, or Insurance.--No Federal Government agency shall require fees, permits or insurance as a condition to take still or moving images on Federal lands, National Parks and Forests, and public spaces, whether for private, media, or commercial use. I have to agree with lmd91343 - the Act sounds nice when it keeps a rentacop from demanding your camera for shooting a tree or rock. But when a crew of 18 shows up with a helicopter to produce a commercial, that's not nice.