The FIFTY

[Skidog]

You see, the nature of that argument comes entirely from one's perceptions. So first off, is a logo at the beginning of a film, placed within the boundaries of the film, an actual "advertisement" with the intent of selling more products? I could point you to a hundred years of marketing studies that show there is no direct correlation between advertisements and selling products. Or are theses logos simply acknowledgment of being producers of the film, i.e. every Hollywood film ever listing the funders of the film as Producers and Executive Producers. The main difference is those Hollywood producers are specifically looking for a return on investment thru film distribution. How exactly are corporations looking for a return on their investment when they are films given away for free online like The Fifty? Well we go back to the advertisements argument. But within my series, are their endorsements of products and / or direct influence of products within them? If you look carefully, I am very very careful to never use language to promote or endorse products within these boundaries. So how exactly is the series 'commercial'? There are no endorsements in Wilderness land, the logos could be argued to be simply 'producer credits' with zero return on investment and these producers are funding this project because they see it as a good for skiers, the sport and the mountains. I know this last argument sounds far fetched, but I've had plenty of companies I work with say they don't use athletes to sell products, but to make sure the sport at the highest level is continuing to evolve and inspire the next generations of skiers. I mean, where would you all be if Scot Schmidt, Glen Plake, and / or McConkey didn't exist? I know I wouldn't be nearly as drawn to the sport if I didn't get to watch movies, read magazines and continually be inspired by the stories, athletes and places of skiing.

I mean, this is how it could be argued, and are along the lines of some of the arguments I've utilized successfully. This gets deep into the woods and I totally see one could easily argue either side in the court of law. One of the most successful of my arguments was telling a NPS employee that wanted to deny me a permit because even if I removed logos, I was still a professional skier, therefore I could benefit from imagery on public land. I said and noted down that what they were telling me is that if I was an independently wealthy rich kid, I could shoot movies on public land, but because of my job, I cannot. It wasn't a legal thing at that point, just a moral thing. Which ultimately is why Price vs Barr won because the NPS was issuing citations and permits based upon character of content, character of individual and what their source of income was, which proved to be a massive violation of the government not infringing individual speech.

My boys wicked smaat

Sent from my Pixel 4a (5G) using TGR Forums mobile app

[bodywhomper]

Mt St Elias?!

[altasnob]

In this day and age, anything you put on the internet could be argued as done for commercial purposes, even if it might be done for other purposes as well. We're all managing our own, personal, "brand," so to speak, by how we portray ourselves on the internet. It's ridiculous to make government bureaucrats decide if something is, or is not, "commercial" on a case by case basis. Much easier, and much more fair, to treat both commercial and non-commercial the same.

However, the Wilderness Act specifically bans all "commercial enterprise." But to make it even more confusing, the Wilderness Act also has an exception that allows "commercial services" . . "to the extent necessary for activities which are proper for realizing the recreational or other wilderness purposes of the areas."

Edit: thanks Benneke10 for specifying how that phrase is defined by the Forest Service below.

[Benneke10]

is a logo at the beginning of a film, placed within the boundaries of the film, an actual "advertisement" with the intent of selling more products?

This is the only question that matters, and its tricky. While you don't directly advertise products in the videos, the logos are deliberately placed.

Here is the definition of commercial filming, according to the Forest Service Special Uses Handbook:
"Use of motion picture, videotaping, sound-recording, or anyother type of moving image or audio recording equipment on National Forest Systemlands that involves the advertisement of a product or service, the creation of a productfor sale, or the use of actors, models, sets, or props, but not including activitiesassociated with broadcasting breaking news. For purposes of this definition, creationof a product for sale includes a film, videotape, television broadcast, or documentaryof historic events, wildlife, natural events, features, subjects or participants in asporting or recreation event, and so forth, when created for the purpose of generatingincome"
https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE...rdb5109390.pdf page 55

So if the videos are advertisements then they would be illegal.

Here's some more detail from the Interim Directive for Wilderness Filming from the FS:

"Q. How will the Forest Service determine which proposals for commercial filiming areappropriate in wilderness?Section 4(d)(6) of The Wilderness Act allows for commercialservices but only “to the extent necessary for activities which are proper for realizing therecreational or other wilderness purposes of the areas.” The responsible Forest Service officialwill use the criteria in FSH interim ID 2709.11-2010-1 to determine if there is a need for thecommercial filming activity described in the proposal that matches the wilderness purposes asdescribed in Section 4(b) of the Wilderness Act. For example, a proposal could meet wildernesspurposes if the primary objective is an educational film about wilderness values and benefits thatis unique to that area and cannot be produced outside wilderness. In contrast, a proposal to makea Hollywood style adventure film or documentary film in wilderness, because of a desire to usewilderness locations as settings, would not meet the criteria, even if wilderness recreation use orLeave no Trace is mentioned in the film." https://www.fs.fed.us/specialuses/do...ovedjune10.pdf

The tragedy is that these are pretty dated regulations that don't take into account the nuance of what modern advertising is, and the Fifty could definitely go either way.

[altasnob]

So if I am a ski guide, I can film myself skiing powder in wilderness and put it all over the internet in hopes of attracting clients and the video would not be deemed "commercial." But if, in the same video, I place a product logo, or hold up my skis so everyone can see what I'm riding, then that is commercial?

Important to note, it is not the Park Service or Forest Service that wrote these confusing laws, it is Congress when they passed the Wilderness Act in 1964 and never bother to clarify or modernize anything because they all have their head up their ass.

[MakersTeleMark]

To not acknowledge that the 50 is a clear cut commercial endeavor is ridiculous. You folks can argue the grey areas around the fringes all you want.

[tgapp]

To not acknowledge that the 50 is a clear cut commercial endeavor is ridiculous. You folks can argue the grey areas around the fringes all you want.

+100

Super cool project, but let's be real for a minute: the goal of it is to sell Salomon skis and ski gear.

As an exercise to see if this was true I opened up a random video from The Fifty and I jumped to a random time in it (3:55):

https://youtu.be/ItIfihwVkds

If that isn't blatant advertising and product placement then I don't know what is.

Sent from my Pixel 4a (5G) using Tapatalk

[altasnob]

I would agree that Fifty is "commercial" if you use a regular definition of "commercial." But that doesn't matter. What matters is do the videos violate what the Forest Service/National Park defined as "commercial" in their handbook, as provided by Benneke10. And reading over that definition, you can see it is more of a grey issue and I can see how Glacier would say a video is commercial, but Rainier says a video isn't.

[Benneke10]

One of the most successful of my arguments was telling a NPS employee that wanted to deny me a permit because even if I removed logos, I was still a professional skier, therefore I could benefit from imagery on public land. I said and noted down that what they were telling me is that if I was an independently wealthy rich kid, I could shoot movies on public land, but because of my job, I cannot.

I've been thinking about this and you are trying to mindfuck us by phrasing this in a misleading way. Yes, a rich kid or anyone else can make a NON-COMMERCIAL video in the Wilderness, but you can't because it's your job. Your job is to SELL SKIS FOR SALOMON. You are allowed to make videos in the Wilderness but you're not allowed to profit off them. I wouldn't be so confident that you were the winner of that argument.

[meter-man]

Tough and challenging legal issue to be sure. Here's the NPS webpage on the same: https://www.nps.gov/gero/planyourvis...constitutional.

Note the exception for "low-impact filming" in wilderness (actually, "Wilderness"), which still requires a permit. That's just, oh, 40 million acres.

If the prior regulation violated the Constitution, it is hard to see how a government prohibition on speech (creating films) on 40 million acres could survive similar scrutiny. What's the compelling governmental interest in preventing us from getting STOAKED on the Fuhrer Finger?? Ain't none, hun.

Sounds like we need a test case --- Townsend v. United States comin' at ya.

[brutah]

I've been thinking about this and you are trying to mindfuck us by phrasing this in a misleading way. Yes, a rich kid or anyone else can make a NON-COMMERCIAL video in the Wilderness, but you can't because it's your job. Your job is to SELL SKIS FOR SALOMON. You are allowed to make videos in the Wilderness but you're not allowed to profit off them. I wouldn't be so confident that you were the winner of that argument.

I gotta side with this guy.

Trying to argue The Fifty project (or any ski movie) isn't a commercial is pretty far-fetched. Most ski movies don't even feature the best skiers, they feature the most well-known. Certain athletes film with certain companies because those companies are funded by the athlete's sponsors.

I think an argument saying the handbook is dated and needs to be revised for the 21st century would go further than gaslighting statements like "There are no endorsements in Wilderness land, the logos could be argued to be simply 'producer credits' with zero return on investment and these producers are funding this project because they see it as a good for skiers, the sport and the mountains. I know this last argument sounds far fetched, but I've had plenty of companies I work with say they don't use athletes to sell products, but to make sure the sport at the highest level is continuing to evolve and inspire the next generations of skiers."

Saying The Fifty doesn't get ROI for your sponsors is crazy talk and doesn't give you the credit you deserve. Your impact on ski sales, bringing attention to the guidebook and the ski descents within the book are undeniable and huge. I've certainly seen an uptick in sales of the products you pimp and in crowds on the 50 classics ski descents listed in the book. Maybe not all the ski lines but certainly the low-hanging fruit.

and I wanna see the footage! I love this series, its been one of the best ski documentaries I've watched.

[PNWbrit]

To not acknowledge that the 50 is a clear cut commercial endeavor is ridiculous. You folks can argue the grey areas around the fringes all you want.

Yep.

[Alkasquawlik]

I've been thinking about this and you are trying to mindfuck us by phrasing this in a misleading way. Yes, a rich kid or anyone else can make a NON-COMMERCIAL video in the Wilderness, but you can't because it's your job. Your job is to SELL SKIS FOR SALOMON. You are allowed to make videos in the Wilderness but you're not allowed to profit off them. I wouldn't be so confident that you were the winner of that argument.

No it's not. That's your interpretation of my job. There is literally not one line in any contract I've ever signed with any sponsor ever that says my job is to sell Company X's product. Generally, all the phrasing as about being an ambassador. In fact, here is the actual language from a contract,

"The ATHLETE wishes to enter into an agreement to obtain from COMPANY NAME equipment and /or financial support to facilitate his performance and competitive goals and enable him to act as a community ambassador for the Sport."

As far as profiting of them, I don't profit a lick of the project. In fact, I've poured my own money into it, money I get to do the above as stated in my contracts. Thing is, if you continue to go down this rabbit hole, you go down one that's never ending. For instance, let's say you post a photo from the Wilderness to help prove you're an outdoorsy person so that if anyone were to ever Google ya they see that. Then you go ahead and list "Outdoorsy" on your resume and it helps ya land a job, is that profiting off the Wildeness? This is partly why the commercial / non-commercial designation got shredded in court in Price vs. Barr. From talking to multiple 1A lawyers about this case, the same designation could be handed down for Wilderness areas as well.

I'm playing devil's advocate here in many ways but ultimately, there is truth that these policies have a history of squashing 1A rights, not just for filmmakers but for Native Americans wishing to practice religious ceremonies on public lands and preserve cultural traditions on the lands they once called home.

[Alkasquawlik]

+100

Super cool project, but let's be real for a minute: the goal of it is to sell Salomon skis and ski gear.

As an exercise to see if this was true I opened up a random video from The Fifty and I jumped to a random time in it (3:55):

https://youtu.be/ItIfihwVkds

If that isn't blatant advertising and product placement then I don't know what is.

Sent from my Pixel 4a (5G) using Tapatalk

Ha. That was about the least 'random' moment you could find as it was the one clip of the entire project where I thought this may be pushing it a bit...even though it's just a true thought when going into planning a line.

All in all, it is a very grey area. Luckily, of the 20+ FS and NPS people I've talked to, communicated with and applied permits through, they have all generally been very helpful and see that it's not really blatantly breaking any rules and that it in fact has communicated good values and ethics to backcountry users. Hell, I had one park staff employee tell me he used our Joffre Rescue video to help train his own staff. So ultimately, yeah, could there be commercial benefits...yes...but according to a majority of the federal employees I've worked with, they've mainly seen this project as non-commercial and have given me permission or written approval every place I've gone. Oh and I've been very very much by the book on this project and communicating with local agencies and offices nearly everywhere I've gone.

[yeahman]

The only product I've ever bought because of a Fifty video is miso soup.

Interesting debate though.

[jackattack]

Man, if pack trains are allowed to be permitted to destroy Wilderness for profit, why not make a movie or two? The modern interpretation of the Wilderness designation is about as flawed as any piece of dated legislation. It’s beyond time for an overhaul.

[altasnob]

This is a fascinating issue. Does the First Amendment override the Wilderness Act, that is the question. Has the Wilderness Act ever been gutted by a law suit, I don't think so? So Alka can go down as the first person in US history to take a chink out of the armor of Wilderness Act. I don't think winning is a gimme, as Price v. Barr involved the rule in non-wilderness lands. There is a greater compelling governmental interest keeping tabs on commercial filming in wilderness than in non-wilderness. The right-wing, libertarian think tank, Cato institute is all about Price v. Barr. Here's a podcast they put out with the attorney in the case:

https://www.cato.org/multimedia/medi...-federal-parks

No way the sponsors can have their name associated with anything viewed as weakening the Wilderness Act though. They will definitely take heat for that, even if they are financially benefitting from it.

[Supermoon]

There’s just absolutely no compelling government interest in curtailing an output (film/photos) when they really are looking to limit impact. So yeah, they can say you can’t bring in a production crew and lights and whatever to make huge productions, but Bjarne hauling a dSLR up a mountain he was climbing anyway does no harm to the Wilderness.

That’s at least the logic I took from the ruling.

[plugboots]

This is really interesting to see played out in real time.
For example:

Bjarne hauling a dSLR up a mountain he was climbing anyway does no harm to the Wilderness.

Of course not. But somebody with some vested interest may say the videos he takes will bring more people into the area and cause "harm". That somebody may also be very good at getting this point across.
The "line" has obviously not been established yet. There's essentially a "line" in every law, which if you cross, there's consequences. Is The Fifty crossing that line? Where's the line?

[MakersTeleMark]

No it's not. That's your interpretation of my job. There is literally not one line in any contract I've ever signed with any sponsor ever that says my job is to sell Company X's product. Generally, all the phrasing as about being an ambassador. In fact, here is the actual language from a contract,

"The ATHLETE wishes to enter into an agreement to obtain from COMPANY NAME equipment and /or financial support to facilitate his performance and competitive goals and enable him to act as a community ambassador for the Sport."

As far as profiting of them, I don't profit a lick of the project. In fact, I've poured my own money into it, money I get to do the above as stated in my contracts. Thing is, if you continue to go down this rabbit hole, you go down one that's never ending. For instance, let's say you post a photo from the Wilderness to help prove you're an outdoorsy person so that if anyone were to ever Google ya they see that. Then you go ahead and list "Outdoorsy" on your resume and it helps ya land a job, is that profiting off the Wildeness? This is partly why the commercial / non-commercial designation got shredded in court in Price vs. Barr. From talking to multiple 1A lawyers about this case, the same designation could be handed down for Wilderness areas as well.

I'm playing devil's advocate here in many ways but ultimately, there is truth that these policies have a history of squashing 1A rights, not just for filmmakers but for Native Americans wishing to practice religious ceremonies on public lands and preserve cultural traditions on the lands they once called home.

C'mon Cody, don't be a fucking dolt. It doesn't pass the smell test for your character. Do you know what "in kind" contributions are?

Just admit it and move on. That's why you have been asking for permission all along.

Just to be clear, this has nothing to do with what I think about your mission, but there is a huge separation between what you are doing and others. Just like the 14'rs.

You are a kind, driven soul, but a media hoar. That is what you do with your talent to pay your bills.

The folks who wrote that book were doing the same thing. Fred Becky never asked for a dime, except for a cup of coffee or he might steal your woman or your couch or a ride.

I hope you see the vast difference.

[Benneke10]

I think an argument saying the handbook is dated and needs to be revised for the 21st century would go further than gaslighting statements like "There are no endorsements in Wilderness land, the logos could be argued to be simply 'producer credits' with zero return on investment and these producers are funding this project because they see it as a good for skiers, the sport and the mountains. I know this last argument sounds far fetched, but I've had plenty of companies I work with say they don't use athletes to sell products, but to make sure the sport at the highest level is continuing to evolve and inspire the next generations of skiers."

Its pretty insulting that Alka expects us to believe this. I'm a big enough fanboy that I listened to your Blister podcast where he says:

"You have to show what you're gonna deliver to someone for their money. No one just gives you $20,000... it just doesn't work that way"


"No one's gonna give you money for free so you have to show them what value they will get out of this"

https://blisterreview.com/podcasts/b...ownsend-ep-146 around 43:00

Alka has a legitimate argument to make for the legality of his videos, not sure why he's being disingenuous with this nonsense. I hope he has a good lawyer because if he makes these kinds of arguments in court its not gonna go well.

[total_immortal]

I'm no lawyer type but I think the 'commercial' aspect is more if alka was bundling these videos and selling them as DVDs or something. Isn't that what Davenport was doing with the 14ers project and why he got shut down? Social media isn't really addressed in the current law. Does some Instagram 'influencer' need to get a permit to take a selfie in a wilderness area? I don't think what alka is doing is any different. Just logos instead of hashtags

[MakersTeleMark]

I'm no lawyer type but I think the 'commercial' aspect is more if alka was bundling these videos and selling them as DVDs or something. Isn't that what Davenport was doing with the 14ers project and why he got shut down? Social media isn't really addressed in the current law. Does some Instagram 'influencer' need to get a permit to take a selfie in a wilderness area? I don't think what alka is doing is any different. Just logos instead of hashtags

Stick to your day job.

[Benneke10]

there is truth that these policies have a history of squashing 1A rights, not just for filmmakers but for Native Americans wishing to practice religious ceremonies on public lands and preserve cultural traditions on the lands they once called home.

Its pretty cringe to hear you compare your experience with the federal government with the oppression of Native Americans. I'm a white dude from Santa Cruz, just like you. We're as privileged as it gets. I think most of us in this thread think that you should be allowed to post your videos, but based on the current laws its probably not legal to post the ones in Wilderness. Your entitlement is shining through in the way you are arguing your case here.

[PNWbrit]

I'm no lawyer type but I think the 'commercial' aspect is more if alka was bundling these videos and selling them as DVDs or something. Isn't that what Davenport was doing with the 14ers project and why he got shut down? Social media isn't really addressed in the current law. Does some Instagram 'influencer' need to get a permit to take a selfie in a wilderness area? I don't think what alka is doing is any different. Just logos instead of hashtags

What the fuck is a DVD?

And would it have his sponsor's logo in the credits?