Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
01-09-2015, 08:43 PM   #1
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
grog85361's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Phoenix Arizona
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 766
Ansel Adams Act

I got this from C.J. Chilvers "A Lesser Photographer" newsletter.

"The Ansel Adams Act is introduced in the US congress. It attempts to remind lawmakers of the existence of the first amendment."

https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-bill/5893/text

Finally, perhaps something that makes sense will come out of congress. I'm not holding my breath, though.

01-09-2015, 08:59 PM   #2
Emperor and Senpai
Loyal Site Supporter
VoiceOfReason's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Mishawaka IN area
Photos: Albums
Posts: 6,081
Writing my congressman and urging a yes on this.
01-09-2015, 09:26 PM   #3
Pentaxian




Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 2,917
It has to be re-introduced in order to be of any use. This is for the 113th Congress. Now we have the 114th Congress. After each seating of a new congress the hopper is cleaned out. Which means this is already dead unless it's re-introduced.
01-10-2015, 01:36 AM - 1 Like   #4
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
geomez's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Preskitt Arizona
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,756
Check this...

Opinion: When It Comes to the 'Ansel Adams Act,' the Devil is in the Details

From the Act...
"Should a Federal agency seek to restrict photography of its installations or personnel, it shall obtain a court order that outlines the national security or other reasons for the restriction. Such court order shall allow restrictions of photography when such photography may lead to the endangerment of public safety or national security. Nothing in this Act shall restrict Federal agencies from taking lawful steps to ascertain whether or not photography may consist of reconnaissance for the purpose of endangerment of public safety or national security or for other unlawful activity."

01-10-2015, 07:57 AM   #5
Pentaxian
rangercarp's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Southern Michigan
Posts: 418
QuoteOriginally posted by geomez Quote
From the Act... "Should a Federal agency seek to restrict photography of its installations or personnel, it shall obtain a court order that outlines the national security or other reasons for the restriction. Such court order shall allow restrictions of photography when such photography may lead to the endangerment of public safety or national security. Nothing in this Act shall restrict Federal agencies from taking lawful steps to ascertain whether or not photography may consist of reconnaissance for the purpose of endangerment of public safety or national security or for other unlawful activity."
I do not have a problem with that clause. There certainly are some places that could pose a national security risk to have photographs made public. But then, most of those places we could not get into anyway, so maybe the clause is superfluous. (Or maybe it creates a potential to restrict our rights where none should exist.)

What I really like about this bill is countering some of the new requirements that any professional photographer purchase a permit to photograph in certain parks. Just what makes one a professional anyway? If you occasionally get paid for a photo shoot or a print are you a professional?

On the other hand, the bill seems to lift all restrictions on shooting on federal lands. If I wanted to shoot a major motion picture in Yosemite, would this bill mean I could do that without permit, insurance, and compensation to the park for disruptions to operations or extra staffing?
01-10-2015, 11:39 AM   #6
Senior Moderator
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
Parallax's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: South Dakota
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 17,520
This thread will not turn into a discussion about guns, or terrorism, or politics not directly related to the bill or photographers rights.

Please note that I did not say "should not", or "hopefully won't" I said will not. Two posts have been deleted with no action taken against the members who posted them. Any further deletions will be accompanied by a ban from the thread.
01-10-2015, 05:51 PM   #7
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Los Angeles, CA USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 675
Maybe I am uninformed, but I am unaware of issues (other than crime scenes and riots) where this law would be needed. Is this just a congressman making a political point, creating publicity, or acting on misinformation?

If no commercial permit is required, this could put a major dent in my next Yosemite Valley visit. Movement on the valley floor is tough enough without a motion picture crew in your way!
01-10-2015, 06:48 PM   #8
Pentaxian
rangercarp's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Southern Michigan
Posts: 418
QuoteOriginally posted by lmd91343 Quote
Maybe I am uninformed, but I am unaware of issues (other than crime scenes and riots) where this law would be needed.
I do not remember the details but I read that either the NPS or the forest service is considering requiring a paid permit for any professional photography in the park/forest. Wish I still had the article handy so I could report the details better. I am certain that is what this law is about.

01-11-2015, 10:20 AM   #9
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Los Angeles, CA USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 675
QuoteOriginally posted by rangercarp Quote
I do not remember the details but I read that either the NPS or the forest service is considering requiring a paid permit for any professional photography in the park/forest. Wish I still had the article handy so I could report the details better. I am certain that is what this law is about.
So we are trying to make a law for a problem that does not exist? Is this self promotion or promoting a group of congressmen?

It looks like all of this is to allow free COMMERCIAL use of NPs under the guise of freedom of the individual.
01-11-2015, 04:59 PM   #10
Pentaxian
rangercarp's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Southern Michigan
Posts: 418
QuoteOriginally posted by lmd91343 Quote
So we are trying to make a law for a problem that does not exist?
No, we are trying to make a law to counter a ridiculous new policy that infringes on my enjoyment of the park if I happen to be a "professional."
01-11-2015, 05:12 PM   #11
Senior Moderator
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
Parallax's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: South Dakota
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 17,520
National parks are public property. They are owned and payed for by the taxpayers (me). Why should I have to pay a fee to photograph something that I own?
01-11-2015, 05:22 PM   #12
Emperor and Senpai
Loyal Site Supporter
VoiceOfReason's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Mishawaka IN area
Photos: Albums
Posts: 6,081
They also charge to get into national parks even though we pay taxes on them. Of course ones like Death Valley I simply ignore it due to it being crossed by public roads.
01-11-2015, 06:10 PM   #13
Senior Moderator
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
Parallax's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: South Dakota
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 17,520
QuoteOriginally posted by VoiceOfReason Quote
They also charge to get into national parks even though we pay taxes on them. Of course ones like Death Valley I simply ignore it due to it being crossed by public roads.
It costs the NPS (taxpayers) more to maintain the park if people use the park than if they don't; so an entrance fee is certainly reasonable. Lets say in a given park 1,000,000 people enter a particular park in a week. The cost of maintaining that park is EXACTLY the same whether one person takes photographs while there as it is if all 1,000,000 people take photos.
All of that is irrelevant though. 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.)
01-11-2015, 08:06 PM   #14
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
geomez's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Preskitt Arizona
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,756
QuoteOriginally posted by Parallax Quote
National parks are public property. They are owned and payed for by the taxpayers (me). Why should I have to pay a fee to photograph something that I own?
Here's my view on the whole pros needing a permit for shooting in the park...
Professional photography is a for profit endeavor, somewhat like shooting a movie in public in the city is a for profit endeavor which also requires permits. I see them as being analogous. Also professional photographers are likely to have a lot of gear and weight that could do damage to the environment. They also like to take up space and direct traffic (car and foot traffic) around what they are doing as if they have a greater entitlement to the area because they are pros that are doing their job. I've run into such people and they are a pain. I imagine they're also more likely to enter restricted areas to get good shots, which is hazardous.
I have friends that work and live in Yosemite (both for NPS and DNC, the park's service contractor) and I know NPS is trying to decrease the amount of visitors and do a lot of other drastic reductions in services because of the negative human impact on the park. It is possible that permits for pros is a way to keep a handle on the increased traffic, traffic jams, and environmental impact on the park.
01-11-2015, 08:45 PM   #15
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Los Angeles, CA USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 675
QuoteOriginally posted by Parallax Quote
National parks are public property. They are owned and payed for by the taxpayers (me). Why should I have to pay a fee to photograph something that I own?
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.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
act, adams, ansel, ansel adams, congress, photography
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


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 Pentax Film SLR Discussion 18 12-18-2007 07:43 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:22 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top