New Hampshire man told he needs permit to film inside state park
From coast to coast, Americans are being told they need special permits to pursue their First Amendment freedoms in tax-funded parks.
First it was California where a photographer was told he needed a permit to photograph his family.
Now it’s New Hampshire – the state that prides itself on its Live Free or Die motto – where a videographer was told he needed a permit to film a Youtube clip.
Jonathan C. Doyle, who was attempting to film a performance art video that included himself dressed in a Bigfoot costume atop of Mount Monadnock, was told he needed a permit for “organized or special events which go beyond routine recreational activities.”
But he is claiming the New Hampshire law is vague and a violation of First Amendment rights. And the New Hampshire Civil Liberties Foundation is backing him up on his claim.
In a Dec. 14 letter to George Bald, commissioner of New Hampshire’s Department of Resources and Economic Development (which includes the Parks Department), Foundation Staff Attorney Barbara R. Keshen says the special permit rule is vague, giving “unchecked discretion” to the park director.
“The Permit requirement is unconstitutionally broad on its face and as applied to Mr. Doyle and his production team,” the letter said.
Doyle said he hasn’t received any reply from the parks department.
Amy Bassett, a spokeswoman for the N.H. Division of Parks and Recreation, said the letter had been forwarded to the state Attorney General’s office.
“At the time we were following our administrative rules,” she said.
“At this point (we’re) just waiting to hear back from the AG’s office.”
Doyle said he and his friends were filming the video on a trail away from the general crowds, so they were not interfering with anybody else’s right to use the park.
Can you fix the focus on a blurry photo after the fact?
The birth of Mirrorless Cameras
The Joy Of Winning A Photo Contest
Choosing your first dSLR camera
New York City can be beautiful!
Choosing the Right Light Stand
Photojojo iPhone Telephoto Lens review — AudioCast
My week with Q
How To Become A Successful Photographer
"When the Wind Stopped" — poem with 4 photos
Creating The New Family Portrait
Tips for Textures
Cast aways - saving those photographic memories
One Man Show: My 25 Years With Digital Photography
Studio, Flash, & Available Light — Three Books Reviewed
Portrait styling: dangerous pairings
Adobe Photoshop CS6 Product Managers Interview Audiocast
A gift of flowers: unfold your senses
On Set of "Love & Robots" the Film
No-Brainer Setup For A Digital Photo Frame Exhibit - Part 3











Planning “National Geographic” style photo travel
Wilderness Travel 1 Rainforests – Essential Gear
Backlighting Basics
What Moves You?
FIGURES IN MOTION: Decades of Evolving Personal Imagery in Photography, Part 7
Lomography Store, Austin, Texas — GALLERY
GALLERY — Up to $1,000 Reward for Cattle Rustlers
25% off on photography eBooks
eyePhone: The eBook for iPhone Photographers
Interview with Harold Davis — Closeup Maestro of Flowers & Water Drops
Interview with Steve Caplin — Photoshop Digital Artist, Commercial Illustrator, & Author
A Brief History Of Light & Photography: Part 3 of 3
A Brief History Of Light & Photography: Part 2 Of 3
Easy technique to select, edit and sequence keywords for web
How much should you charge for a photograph?




























Comments
Why can’t the rule be simple like “free for all personal use”. Even a serious hobbyist with 10 strobe lights could then use the park without having to worry about park rangers. All commercial and professional uses then would require the said license. Of course the main argument is that how do you prove that you’re just a serious hobbyist but I think if the rangers have reasonable belief that it’s not the case they could then enforce the license fee with a complaint period or something. Probably a bad way to handle it but just one idea from the top of my head.
“The Permit requirement is unconstitutionally broad on its face and as applied to Mr. Doyle and his production team,” the letter said.
Unfortunately he will loose this one… Reason: production team
Bigfoot? Heh…
In all most every state/national park rules and regulations there are clauses stating that permits must be filed for commercial photography/videography. Even if he didn’t think it was commercial, Doyle was filming a video for self promotion and for his website (listed at the end of the video) nycreator.com – a production company and had with him a “production team.” Common sense and normal business practices say for anyone filming or shooting on location (aside from editorially) you better have a permit or face the consequences.
Man Utd dominated, roll on Nov 24 and we’ll stuff them at Ibrox
Post new comment