Davenport=denied

[skier666]

Do you think the FS sees any of that or do you think it's spent in the middle east?

Yes, of course I thought of that, but I think its pointless to even mention it anymore...

[Toadman]

We can always look forward to the Coors commercials. Rocky Mtn. water is so hot right now.

[Lone Star]

this law was policy when I began working in a USFS Wilderness department in 2000, so it's nothing new or surprising.

The case is strange because some of the film footage was shot before Forest Service authorization was sought, according to the agency.

That probably hurt Davenport's case tremendously. What kind of message would the agency be sending if they allowed the film to go forward with video that was shot illegally?

$5,000 fine, up to six months in jail or some combination

Those are the maximum punishments allowable by law. Would be the same if you were to cut a switchback on a trail, illegally camp, that sort of thing.


Showing Wilderness areas in film tends to expose more people to those areas. More exposure = more use = more impacts and abuse. a Wilderness Manager's goal, among other things, is to minimize human impacts in Wilderness.

[Lone Star]

I've been saying this for years and nobody notices.

Environmentalists don't like skiers.

They don't want us in the mountains.

They don't want anyone to enjoy nature.

They just wanna be nature nazis and lock it all up and return it to what it was pre Lewis and Clark, I've actually heard hairy legged subaru drivng lesbo forest circus freaks say that.

Skiers, the new endangered species.

If Rush Limbaugh were a skier.....


This has nothing to do with skiing and everything to do with commercial filming. I know, though, that it's a lot easier to cloud the issue and make an asinine statement about how The Man is just trying to keep us skiers down.

[sledneckripper]

Showing Wilderness areas in film tends to expose more people to those areas. More exposure = more use = more impacts and abuse. a Wilderness Manager's goal, among other things, is to minimize human impacts in Wilderness.

Your full of shit. Do you honestly think the amount of people going into those particular areas will increase from showing that film? What about the car commercials filmed in the Maroon Bells Wilderness? What about all the big screen movies and tv shows that film in wilderness areas?

[cj001f]

Your full of shit

and you my fine friend fellate rhinocerous in between Asian elephant felching sessions.

[Lone Star]

Your full of shit. Do you honestly think the amount of people going into those particular areas will increase from showing that film? What about the car commercials filmed in the Maroon Bells Wilderness? What about all the big screen movies and tv shows that film in wilderness areas?

Yes, I think it's possible that a film with top notch skiing and lines and scenery will attract more people to some of those areas. It really doesn't matter, though: when you create policy, you have to make things as black and white as possible. Davenport's project clearly fell under the definition of "commerical film" from the get-go.

If the application had been filed before filming commenced, there's a damn good chance that the agency and Davenport would have been able to negotiate an agreement allowing him to show those sequences. Bitch about the lack of common sense in this decision all you want--- it wasn't a good idea to apply for the permit that late.

Let's say you are an outfitter/guide administrator, and you receive an application to operate a snowmobile guide service on FS land. Would you even consider an application by someone that you know has began guiding clients on Forest land before even applying for the permit?

[Tippster]

Right! BUT,, you cannot film for profit or gain. Just what I heard in a previous article.. It is reasoned that it affects the wilderness in a negative way, therefore it is illegal.

I don't really know what I'm talking about but this is what I was lead to believe from what I have read on the subject so far....

You can, as long as you get a permit.

chewgotta trust me on this one....the profit motive isn't discussed when filmed, the goal is to film a current event as is no staging or requirements to affect the public....if a film is later produced from said captured events, no law is broken....all the way davenport, I will film you anywhere, anytime here in the sierra....I am especially intersted in filming north cooler williamson

If that was true I wouldn't need a permit, ever -- yet I do, every time. I work for an accredited news agency, and the rule is that if I want to use a tripod on National Park or Forest Land (the basic difference between footage captured for personal use and that captured for professional use) I need a permit. These guys are not members of the media, and clearly "filmed" their exploits for Profit.

the above pretty much sums it up eh.....once they sought permission for some unknown reason, they were screwed....rookie mistake...they will learn and just git-r-dun and show the film later....

The National Park Service can (and does) fine people ex-post-facto for using footage in a for-profit setting that was captured without permission.

Skiing is not a crime.

This isn't about skiing. Nobody has a problem with the fact they skied it, nor for the fact they shot it. They have a problem with them wanting to profit from it.

Bottom line is if he had applied for a permit, this wouldn't be an issue. I agree with the intent of the regulation, but do think it's been poorly applied in this case.

Werd. They'll come to a resolution of this that benefits all parties. You cannot make exceptions for a couple of ski bums - then the next slightly bigger company - say one whose website we're using - would think they have the precedent to do the same.

Oh - Ansel Adams shot his pictures before permits were mandated. He also had verbal permission from the Ranger Stations to do what he did, since he usually informed them where he would be so, should something happen, they would come look for him. These Park Rangers knew what he was doing, so by not prohibiting it they gave his activity tacit approval.

Oh, he also donated copies of his images to the Park Service to use in their stations.

[3DB]

Why not release the film for retail everywhere but the US? It wouldn't be hard to establish a production company in Canada and transfer the footage to them "for free". Maybe the Canadian company won't pay Dav for his footage, but will coincidentally sponsor another film for the exact dollar amount that he hoped to make from the 14er film. Is the gov't really going to throw up an embargo to make sure no copies make it down stateside? Anybody got some Cuban cigars?

[hairy]

You can, as long as you get a permit.

If that was true I wouldn't need a permit, ever -- yet I do, every time. I work for an accredited news agency, and the rule is that if I want to use a tripod on National Park or Forest Land (the basic difference between footage captured for personal use and that captured for professional use) I need a permit. These guys are not members of the media, and clearly "filmed" their exploits for Profit.

The National Park Service can (and does) fine people ex-post-facto for using footage in a for-profit setting that was captured without permission.
This isn't about skiing. Nobody has a problem with the fact they skied it, nor for the fact they shot it. They have a problem with them wanting to profit from it.
Werd. They'll come to a resolution of this that benefits all parties. You cannot make exceptions for a couple of ski bums - then the next slightly bigger company - say one whose website we're using - would think they have the precedent to do the same.

Oh - Ansel Adams shot his pictures before permits were mandated. He also had verbal permission from the Ranger Stations to do what he did, since he usually informed them where he would be so, should something happen, they would come look for him. These Park Rangers knew what he was doing, so by not prohibiting it they gave his activity tacit approval.

Oh, he also donated copies of his images to the Park Service to use in their stations.

that is your agencies rule....I really have the experience with this that othes are still grappling with....it is not illeagal to film in the wilderness, or show the film for profit....the only time a permit is needed is when costs are incurred by the government...it can be argued successfully that they incur costs when they analyze your project, and when they analyze the impacts of your film after the fact, still however the main point remains, public filming on federal land is a constitutional right that they can't impede....

[hairy]

I thought you guys had balls...triple six excluded for obvious reasons....one more time...sing along....ask and you need a permit, no ask, no need for permit...got it...good....where the hell is dank?

http://www.nppa.org/news_and_events/...6/04/fees.html


The National Park Service says that news coverage of breaking or spot news will not require a permit, but it is unclear how the new regulations will apply to television news features, magazine-type video journalism, and long-form natural history documentaries that cover wildlife and environmental issues within the National Parks.

For example, news crews covering a plane crash in the Great Smoky Mountain National Park would not be required to have a permit, but a television news crew shooting a feature story on ginseng poaching, or the effects of wild pigs on the environment, may require permits and fees. In story-rich parks like Yellowstone, covering the opening of a new interpretive center would not require a permit, but a feature on difficult to photograph grizzly bears or wolves could take weeks to shoot and cost thousands of dollars in daily fees.

[cj001f]

that is your agencies rule....I really have the experience with this that othes are still grappling with....it is not illeagal to film in the wilderness, or show the film for profit....the only time a permit is needed is when costs are incurred by the government...it can be argued successfully that they incur costs when they analyze your project, and when they analyze the impacts of your film after the fact, still however the main point remains, public filming on federal land is a constitutional right that they can't impede....

wwwhhhatttt.... thheeee... fuck.... r.... u... trying................. to say?

aside from "I'm a dumbass" with your constitutional right crap

[Tippster]

Sorry - it's the Dept. of Interior's rule. (RM-53)

Permits are required for any project that generates an electronic media, film, still photography or video production for television, the motion picture industry, public interest or private multi-media which consists of production crews and vehicles, broadcast equipment, props/sets, talent/actors, construction, trailers, housing, animals, or aircraft. Projects may involve feature films, documentaries, game shows, soaps operas, shopping networks, religious telecasts, talk shows, docu-dramas, travelogues, commercials, infomercials, public TV presentations, or DVD’s, CDs, CD-Roms or videos for training, sales, education, promotions, entertainment, etc.

Private individuals engaged in photography for their own personal use and enjoyment generally do not need a film permit. Commercial still photography does require a permit and may be subject to additional permit fees when:

1. the activity takes place at location(s) where or when members of the public are generally not allowed; or

2. the activity uses model(s), sets(s), or prop(s) that are not a part of the location’s natural or cultural resources or administrative facilities; or

3. Park would incur additional administrative costs to monitor the activity.

[hairy]

and for the record, I have a commercial website that features video and digital pics from the wilderness and have discussed it with the head honchos of all agencies involved, and what I say is actually reality....

[hairy]

wwwhhhatttt.... thheeee... fuck.... r.... u... trying................. to say?

aside from "I'm a dumbass" with your constitutional right crap

read my other post above...calling bullshit...

[hairy]

I cover radical ski decents as timely and newsworthy video or film.....even though I can't ski....am I at 1500 YET!!!

[skier666]

^^^^

To me, by reading the regulation, only if Dav was in an area in which was closed (seasonal/animal migration etc) than he would need a permit.

[Tippster]

OOOh - here's what the BLM Permit policy is:

Commercial Filming

A permit is required for all commercial filming activities on public lands. Commercial filming is defined as the use of motion picture, videotaping, sound recording, or other moving image or audio recording equipment on public lands that involves the advertisement of a product or service, the creation of a product for sale, or the use of actors, models, sets, or props, but not including activities associated with broadcasts for news programs. For purposes of this definition, creation of a product for sale includes a film, videotape, television broadcast, or documentary of participants in commercial sporting or recreation event created for the purpose of generating income.

[hairy]

OOOh - here's what the BLM Permit policy is:

so if intent to profit is the cause of the permit requirement, then the target is really those who live in a dream....most filming can be stated as art that then later becomes a commercial product...intent to create art is all that is needed to bypass the requirement....back to the original point I made...c'mon, you can sing along can't you....don't ask, don't need a permit....do not intend to profit, end of song....maybe another verse if you rebutt somore

[skier666]

Since its a ski film, it won't be making any income, so they're exempt.

[hairy]

it's really all about not talking shit, and then later breaking out some art...

[hairy]

Since its a ski film, it won't be making any income, so they're exempt.

why is it yer the only smart one around here...must be a frisco thing....

[IridePow]

That FS verdict blows.

I was really looking forward to this film.
Now I might have to watch some mediocre version.

[Kya]

This is freakin retarded. Our filming laws are more strict then our gun laws. The government can control a few skiers filiming skiing but can't control who gets guns

Bit of a stretch I know, but it shows how wacked our government's priorities are IMO.

[powder11]

so if intent to profit is the cause of the permit requirement, then the target is really those who live in a dream....most filming can be stated as art that then later becomes a commercial product...intent to create art is all that is needed to bypass the requirement....back to the original point I made...c'mon, you can sing along can't you....don't ask, don't need a permit....do not intend to profit, end of song....maybe another verse if you rebutt somore

since Davenports sponsors paid to film the project, I'd say its commercial, so they fucked up and should've had a permit beforehand. seems pretty black and white. Im sure the other footage they can use will be fine for his purposes anyway. its a moot point