H.R.5893: The Ansel Adams Act

Subtitled "To restore the First Amendment Rights of Photographers."

A bill introduced by Steve Stockman (Republican from Texas) in the U.S. House of Representatives on January 2nd.

Read it here. Won't take you long—it's short.

Mike
(Thanks to Jim Hughes)

UPDATE: It turns out that this bill was introduced on Jan. 2 and Rep. Stockman's last day in Congress was Jan. 3rd, which is also the first day of the 114th Congress. So the bill either needs to be reintroduced by someone else in the new Congress or it's already dead, since bills cannot be carried over from one Congress to the next prior to being signed into law.

Thanks to my friend Bruce Katz for clarifying this.  —Mike the Ed.

P.S. Learning this does make me very curious, though—do exiting members of Congress do this sort of thing regularly, and, if so, what's the point?

Original contents copyright 2014 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

TOP's links!

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:

Ben: "I wonder if this 'Ansel Adams Bill' might have anything to do with this. Others would know the law better than I.... Anyway I would be surprised if the law doesn't increase significantly in length before it gets out of committee."

Mark Hespenheide: "Interesting. But I'm in favor of charging for commercial-use photography on public lands. I previously lived near Sedona, Arizona and came across some commercial full-scale photo shoots for new SUVs. They were a big production and intrusion. I'd hate to see a flurry of similar actions in Yosemite, Yellowstone, Canyonlands, etc.

"If we're talking about commercial use that has at least a potential to impact the resource, I think it's entirely appropriate to charge for permitting. As a photographer, you either pass those charges on to your client, or shoot somewhere else."

Gene Forsythe: "I am sure that many readers will jump on this as a positive action. I tend to disagree, for at least two reasons: First, the two exclusions in the bill allow security personnel to continue to act in just the way that they do now...threaten to stop photography or actually confiscate photography because it 'might' be related to potential terrorist activity. Second, the absolute prohibition on charging fees for commercial photography means that the taxpayer will be forced to pay the costs of private commercial movies and photographers who wish to use public lands in a manner that requires assistance and support from the responsible agency overseeing the land or buildings. We currently have acceptable and rational permit systems that require those commercial activities to pay for their costs, and that should continue."

Peter Lewin: "Simply excluding commercial photography and filming from the class covered by the bill would make it easy to support with enthusiasm. As it is written, it is hard to tell whether the bill is meant at giving photographers more freedom, or if it is a giveaway aimed at commercial businesses."

Geoff Wittig: "If you're a devoted amateur landscape photographer who's been hassled by Park Service employees in the past because you used a tripod, don't be fooled. This bill is not meant for you. Instead it's yet another subsidy to giant corporations, courtesy of the Republicans in Congress.

"The whole point of this bill is to forbid the Park Service from charging big advertising firms and their wealthy corporate clients any fees for their exploitation of our common property—the National Parks—in advertising campaigns.

"The Park Service is already billions of dollars behind on maintenance due to massive and relentless budget cuts dating back to the 1980s. Anyone who has visited the National Parks over that period of time has seen how shabby many of them have become as a result of this intentional, almost vindictive, defunding. Fees for commercial usage for corporate advertising provided one of the few alternate sources of funding for the Park Service. Now Rep. Stockman wants to further impoverish the Park Service by eliminating this revenue source, and, in a lovely Orwellian twist, puts Ansel Adams's name on it! That's like naming a bill to drown baby Chimpanzees after Jane Goodall."

Mike replies: I tried to find a YouTube clip of comedian Kathleen Madigan's bit about how, if she were in Congress, she'd name every bill the "Be Nice To Retarded People Bill." "I dare you to vote against that. And then if you run for re-election, I come out and make that one commercial, and go, 'look, I don't want to have to bring this up, but my opponent voted against being nice to retarded people....'"

Art Gross: "I'm a little surprised at the concerns photographers are voicing over this bill. Fees for photography in national parks are a pretty recent thing, and I don't remember there being a huge concern about commercial projects being a great threat to these resources. Even if there's no fee charged, there are still prohibitions on causing damage to a park. On the flip side, there seems to be an increasing problem with authorities both public and private trying to make photography in all sorts of public venues difficult or even illegal. Although photography around defense infrastructure may still be prohibited (which has pretty much always been the case), it sounds like this would apply to most photography in public areas. I would err on the side of photographers rights, so that sounds like a positive to me."

BH: "I was recently driving through the wonderful Valley of Fire State Park in Nevada. I'd never been in the area before, so I took a day to explore and photograph. For the most part it was a wonderful day.

"As I drove through the Park, in which I'd seen very few people, I came across a police officer blocking the road. He stopped me and told me to wait. He then got on the radio, talked with someone, came back and told me to hold on a few minutes. I figured maybe someone was on the run and they were scanning any vehicles that came through the area. After a couple of minutes he told me I was free to proceed, and I drove on. Soon I came upon a group of what had to be about twenty people, with various different types of unmarked cars and trucks, a load of camera equipment, and what I can only assume was some kind of concept car they had hidden under a tarp. They took up an entire designated parking stop in the park, and when I asked a man if I could park in order to get out and explore the area, I was told I had to park further on. I continued to the final parking lot, at the mouth of which was stationed another police officer.

"I got out of my car and went exploring and took some photographs I was very happy with. I didn't fail to notice the men with two way radios on top of the rock formations, stationed there to make sure you didn't walk over to the other side and take a peek at whatever magical vehicle was under that tarp.

"When I left the officer stopped me and I waited about five minutes before I was allowed to proceed. I assume they had to get the tarp on the car again before I drove by. As I passed the film crew and the covered vehicle, they all waved to me nicely and said hello.

"It cost me $10 to visit this Park, alone, for my own personal enjoyment. I can't see why a massive company with deep pockets shouldn't have to pay a decent fee for their intrusive use of public lands. To be honest it really ticked me off that I couldn't see everything in the park, and I made a modest effort to hike my way around the giant rock formations to get a peek at that car, just to spite them. I failed not because their security team caught me, but because my own fatness was no match for the monolithic rock formations of the Nevada desert."

Comments

[Scott L.]

Unfortunately this does nothing to eliminate the Ag-Gag photo/video bans:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ag-gag

[John Seidel]

Hi, Mike,

Okay, so how do we show support for this excellent bill? I'm liking Steve Stockman for his sense of freedom from interference by repressive goons.

John

[Kodachromeguy]

An Ansel Adams Act is long overdue! I remember a story my father told me: In World War II, he visited a dam and tried to take a photograph (he used a Perfex camera back then). The guard yelled at him and said photography was prohibited. Then in the gift shop, he saw post cards for sale with the same scenes. Sigh....

[Torsten Bronger]

I doubt that this bill has got any chance -- unfortunately, authorities in the US (and elsewhere) succeeded in making people think that security is the meaning of life.

[Steven Willard]

It's about time.

[G Dan Mitchell]

Yes. But be careful what you wish for. I am personally in favor of being able to do my own landscape and similar photography without restrictions, as has been the case in the past. I'm also very much against restrictions on photography of public spaces, police officers, and so forth.

However... sometimes the brush is a bit too broad. The current regulations on "photography" also _regulate_ things that otherwise damage or interfere with _our_ access to these subjects, including the use of large crews to make commercial movies and advertisements in public parks, activities which keep the public away from normally accessible areas.

Clarity about what is and is not regulated is important, and there have been abuses (or potential) abuses in recent memory. But let's not let go of our critical faculties when we read a bill like this!

[Andrew Kelley]

While I support the general spirit of this proposal, the details are concerning. The "unilaterally get a court order" mechanism is odd. We usually don't use the federal courts to regulate agencies in this manner. Instead, our system waits for someone to complain that the agency overstepped. But the prohibition on charging any fee is bizarre. Surely if someone films an elaborate Hollywood production in a national park, the park service out to charge them a fee? This reads like a legislative publicity stunt, not a serious bill.

[Doug Howk]

Though Saint Ansel might appreciate the Congressman's compliment, Yosemite was already a National Park (1890) before Adams had taken his first picture in the Park.

[Chuck Albertson]

Better title might be the "Ad Agency Wilderness Shoot Relief Act." As others have commented, there are valid reasons for permits/fees/insurance requirements for shoots on federal lands.

It won't affect the ability of security personnel to hassle you for photographing defense facilities, as it leaves in place 18 USC 795, which provides:

"Sec. 795. Photographing and sketching defense installations
(a) Whenever, in the interests of national defense, the President defines certain vital military and naval installations or equipment as requiring protection against the general dissemination of information relative thereto, it shall be unlawful to make any photograph, sketch, picture, drawing, map, or graphical representation of such vital military and naval installations or equipment without first obtaining permission of the commanding officer of the military or naval post, camp, or station, or naval vessels, military and naval aircraft, and any separate military or naval command concerned, or higher authority, and promptly submitting the product obtained to such commanding officer or higher authority for censorship or such other action as he may deem necessary.
(b) Whoever violates this section shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both."

[Steve D]

Just curious. I wonder if this is strictly photography or film making. What about drones. I expect this bill to go through some tortured amendments. But at least the conversation is being had by the lawmakers.

[J Mark]

Yet another end run attempt to prove the best way to become a self made 'person' is to have the Gov't give you something. While not likely to pass, it wouldn't hurt any to encourage your elected reps to make sure it doesn't. Anyone so adverse to paying the People nominal amounts for use of their property have ample opportunity for alternative market solutions ranging from private property to CGI.

Nay

[Robert]

Further to Doug's comment, it was actually a national park (1890) before Ansel was born (1902). Are all acts of Congress this sloppy? Perhaps they are...

[Manuel]

First, re. Gene Forsythe's featured comment: it appears that any restrictions to freedom of photographing must be preceded by a court order, which should limit the chances of arbitrary prohibitions taking place.
It is a tragic irony that I got to know about this bill the same day freedom of speech came under attack: this morning, french satiric magazine 'Charlie Hebdo' was attacked by three mentally disturbed men acting under the invocation of Islam. The casualties, among which is cartoon veteran Charles Wolinski, paid a very high price for freedom of speech.
The news of an act meant to reinforce freedom of speech doesn't heal my sadness for this barbaric attack, but it conveys a very strong message. Freedom of speech is one of the most important values of mankind. It is necessary to preserve it by any legitimate means.

[Joe Kashi]

In many ways, a bigger problem are some state laws that criminalize making photographs of farms and other commercial enterprises visible from public rights of way. The clear intent is to deter investigative journalism.

[Robert Roaldi]

What is this fetish that just because public park lands are owned by the "public" that anyone should be allowed to do as they please on it without fees or cost? Why would anyone think that? I own my house, but I still have to pay for maintenance on it. Maybe the public "owns" federal park lands, but we still have to pay to keep it maintained, and commercial users should have to pay more to use those areas because they cause it more stress. This is not a difficult concept to understand.

[Bruce Katz]

Only a couple of small problems - Stockman is no longer in congress, and the bill was introduced last session. It's dead already.

[Rick D]

Cheers Mike,

This doesn't pass the "smell test" and I believe Ben's link to the "Variety" article tells the tale here. If the NPS is to oversee commercial use of Park Service lands then they must be given the resources to do so, fees will help that happen.

As it is, decades of budget cuts have made it very difficult to staff and maintain our parks as things are, without having to babysit gigantic film crews. Because there is no such thing as a "50-71 cast and crew members" shoot that will have zero impact, and it would be irresponsible to trust any commercial outfit to self-monitor that they conduct their shoot within legal bounds, then implicitly, they need to be be advised and supervised by technical experts, such as NPS field biologists. There are actual costs beyond potential impacts on the land and wildlife (not to mention disruption to park visitors).

What is the purpose of our National Parks?

"The National Park Service preserves unimpaired the natural and cultural resources and values of the national park system for the enjoyment, education, and inspiration of this and future generations. The Park Service cooperates with partners to extend the benefits of natural and cultural resource conservation and outdoor recreation throughout this country and the world."

I don't see keeping commercial filming "cost-competitive" anywhere and Stockman's bill seems to be a ruse for doing just that. Ansel himself would thump Stockman upside the head for hijacking his good name.

In the meantime I'd love to meet just one hobbyist threatened by an NPS employee for merely taking photos or video. Perhaps it was bigfoot.

Best.

[David Bennett]

It's five years old now, but here is my view of what was introduced then in the UK to forbid photography.

Photographing In Public Places And The Preservation Of Democracy

http://www.nomorepencils.com/photographing-in-public-and-the-preservation-of-democracy/

[Dennis]

I think Geoff nailed it!! And BH. Seems fine on the surface but you gotta check under the tarp. And if this Stockman dude is no longer in Congress, seems moot.

[Herman]

I took a series of photos of prisons in the scenery, "Prison Scene", but I would be hasseled by guards who said it was illegal to make a photo of a prison (public building) from a public way.

[Most guards of all sorts are just bored and looking for something to do. Hassling photographers is a good diversion for them. --Mike]

[Patrick Dodds]

Can I nominate BH's comment for some sort of award? Lovely from start to amusing finish.

[hugh crawford]

Having been a commercial photographer at one time, having lived in NYC for 35 years, having friends and family in all aspects of film production, and involved off and on with film production myself, I have a few comments.

Generaly it is not the taking of photographs that they care about , but if you use a tripod or light stands, and stop traffic then you need a permit , and to get a permit you need insurance. I never bothered with permits or insurance, but I was always ready to run if need be. The permits are about real estate

If you use the work commercialy, then you might need a property release if it you are on private property . Don't get the metropolitan opera in the background, they will sue unless you pay about a thousand dollars per arch.

If you use the photography in fine art or news context , then it's not commercial. Use it for advertising or charge money to see it or rent it out, then it's commercial. You would not believe the forms you have to fill out to rent artwork to a film company or TV show to indemnify them.

The tricky part is that in the minds of the park police, if you sometimes do commercial work for hire, then anything you put in your portfolio is "commercial" because you are using it to advertise yourself.

The law now does not restrict taking photographs, but it does restrict bringing in equipment and crews.

The amature with a view camera is screwed however. Talking your way out of things is an essential skill.

On the other hand if you want to close off streets, drive 100 mph, or herd sheep through Times Square, all you need is a film permit. Sometimes you see some crazy publicity event, and some kid with a VHS camcorder will be standing off to the side fulfilling the technicality of it being a film shoot.

This law doesn't seem to change anything, I thing it's more about mining , oil drilling and ranching.

Oh, if you get hassled on public land that isn't a park, I've heard that "timber survey" or "geological survey" are often useful,

[Chuck Albertson]

Hugh, always wear a ReflectaVest in that sort of situation -- nobody messes with someone in a ReflectaVest. It's a store-bought badge of authority.

[ABC]

For those who don't see the need for such a bill, I would encourage you to listen to the audio in this taped telephone conversation from this summer between a Yellowstone National Park Official and a private photographer.

It's truly hard to listen to if you are a photographer, or even a citizen.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGFTma7NuEQ&list=UUTo7NWbI1fDInjbqJrwfvEQ

[Winsor]

"P.S. Learning this does make me very curious, though—do outgoing members of Congress do this regularly, and, if so, what's the point?"

Without a doubt he is going to a highly paid lobbyist position and they probably asked him to do it as part of their overall strategy. They will probably push for some other business oriented fellow to pick it up and run with it.

[c.d.embrey]

This isn't a Freedom of Speech issue. It's more about the damage that commercial use causes.

I spent a great deal of my life working in Hollywood, doing both TV Commercials and Movies. When you bring in 100 people and several dozen vehicles you need to get the streets posted as No Parking (causing problems for the residents and businesses).

Same goes for public property. Here in costal Orange County, CA, Wedding Photographers were trying to run families off the beach. Now the Beach Communities have very expensive permits (about $500.00, varies). Nice going Wedding Photographers!

Same goes for National Parks, if you are disrupting the park goers experience, you should pay for a permit. It's just a Cost of Doing Business. Remember that this is a Capitalist Country, and you should not expect the Public to Subsidize you.

[hugh crawford]

Yes the reflective vest thing works well. I have one around that says "contractor" on it. That way you are explicitly not on staff or an official if someone gets testy about impersonating an official. A white hardhat and a clipboard with a couple dozen pink and yellow pieces of paper, one of which you write the name of everyone who talks to you will make a certain type of official busybody find something else to do.

[Benjamin Marks]

I hate to frame things this way, but Congress cannot "restore" a first amendment right by passing a law. They had no power to take a first amendment right away. I applaud the sentiment, but I don't think the bill passes the constitutional smell test.

[Bill Tyler]

This is a more nuanced problem than simply being nice to photographers. The problem is that there are all sorts of photography, ranging from pulling out a cell phone to mounting a major movie production. These obviously need different levels of permitting from none to substantial. The laws and regulations need to reflect the different levels of impact on the park, not simply whether photography is happening or not. But sadly, this is not always true.

I see this at an egregious level in the California State Park system. In this system, any commercial photography requires a permit. That means that if I want to sell a print of a cell-phone shot I made in a state park, I must have obtained a permit prior to making the photograph. The permit fee is at least $50, and the permit covers one day. Note the "prior to" bit. If I take a photo with no commercial intent, and later decide to sell prints, I'm out of luck. I either have to violate the regulations or forego selling the prints. And yes, I've double-checked this with the relevant park officials. The permitting process is designed for large productions. You have to say how many catering trucks you plan to have on-site, for instance. And you have to have insurance with specific requirements. Try to find someone to write you a one-off policy for a day of shooting at the local state park that's at all affordable.

So I'd like to see sensible regulations designed to promote reasonable use. If I have a production large enough to need catering trucks, it's entirely reasonable that this should be subject to prior approval and fees. If I'm walking around with a camera and tripod, not blocking trails, not impacting the environment any more than a non-photographer visitor, I shouldn't have to get special permission.

The Stockman bill, already dead as previously noted, doesn't do anything to distinguish between the movie production and the individual photographer. So while it may or may not have been intended to make life easier for large, deep-pocketed productions, that's certainly one effect.

[DavidB]

If they eliminate Sec. 3 (c), then there might be some value here. Unfortunately, I think Sec. 3 (c) is the entire point of the bill and the rest is just camouflage and cover.

Unless the bill is reintroduced, it's all moot anyway.

[Dillan K]

I'm a Canadian, so my opinion isn't worth a hill of baked beans, but this bill seems like a step in the right direction to me. Despite trying times and set backs since 9/11, America is still an a place where real political freedom has a chance to survive. I think that if this became law, it would certainly help. It may not be perfect, but the spirit of the bill is pro freedom of speech and pro photography. It's too bad it's more or less dead.

[vincent bilotta]

"(8) Ansel Adams' photographs helped build public support to make Yosemite into a National Park."
New to me that Yosemite didn't become a National Park til the mid 20th century. Wikipedia says it got that status in 1916.

[Hugh]

Sometimes having a Queen as a head of state seems like a better option.

I'm sure she'd take you back if you asked politely.

[Keith I.]

The Kathleen Madigan reference made my morning. That was a hilarious bit!

[Jim Gamblin]

For twenty years I was a location scout for the film industry. In 2003 I quit the business, at that time the fees to film on Federal lands, i.e. National parks was either nonexistence or nominal. There were however many costs involved directly related to the filming i.e. the use of park rangers and or police, sheriffs, etc. The same with most state parks. There were a number of rules that the film companies needed to obey (how can one not when you have rangers overseeing everything) that the general public did not need to obey.

The comments here suggesting that this bill is only for commercial enterprizes is sadly mistaken. This bill whether altered to charge a fee to commercial enterprizes or not needs to be passed. In the end it protects all of us from unfair laws passed through the infamous "Patriot Act".

As a sidenote after I had quit the business, I accompanied a former collegue of mine on a scouting day. His assignment included scouting a mothball fleet in the SF Bay Area. He had gotten permission beforehand. Even then we were accosted by men in all black uniforms (later identified as Blackwater personnel) with shotguns leveled at us. It was not a warm and fuzzy feeling we got.

[hugh crawford]

Carleton E. Watkins not Ansel Adams took the early photos of Yosemite

[Ray K]

"RESTORATION OF FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS TO
PHOTOGRAPHERS."

I really wasn't aware that part of the constitution had been repealed. Education not legislation is a far more pressing problem it would seem. Try as they might congress won't be able to pass a bill that makes folks smarter or better at doing their job.

[G Dan Mitchell]

I posted a comment on this right out of the gate, and I'm gratified to see that lots of other people see right through this. Because photographers are — justifiably in some cases — sensitive about being hassled while making personal photographs in national parks, monuments, forests, and other lands, they tend to jump to the conclusion that anything that sounds like it protects them is a good thing.

Make no mistake though — this bill is not from people who are your friends, it is not for you, and it is not designed to ensure your access to these areas. It has two primary goals. One is to further restrict the park service, et al by limiting their ability to reasonably control what happens in parks and by reducing their already meager funding. The second is to gratify a few big companies who currently have to pay (a small portion of) the reasonable costs to the system when they, for example, shut down access to parts of the park and require rangers to control citizen access while they make movies and film car advertisements.

I can assure you that Ansel Adams would be aghast at the use of his name to promote such a scam. THAT is the real story here.

[Bryan Hansel]

So far the Feds haven't required a landscape photographer who is selling his work like Ansel Adams did to get a commercial permit, but that isn't the case at the state level. For example, in Wisconsin state parks if you are going to sell landscape shots made in the parks as prints or otherwise, you're required to obtain a permit that covers your visit.

We need to make sure that never happens on federal land. If there is no impact greater than the average park visitor there should be no fees even for commercial photography. If there is greater impact then there should be.