The FIFTY

[Alkasquawlik]

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.

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.

Two things, well yeah, this is why I am not a lawyer at all. My threads of argument would probably be shredded in a court of law. That's why I've talked to the lawyer who argued Price vs Barr multiple times since the ruling. That being said, I'm not being disingenuous, I'm being truthful in how hard it is to color with the lines of the black / white nature of law when it comes to the commercial / non-commercial aspects of these policies. The original intent of these policies on filming were to specifically address impact to land, wildlife and visitation in NPS land and Wilderness areas. Since the policies were created in the 1960's and the best way to define "Big Hollywood Film That's Gonna Trample The Land vs. Individual" was commercial / non-commercial. That commercial / non-commercial designation and its side effects were shown to be unconstitutional and the NPS policy that fell is probably going to fall in the Wilderness Act as well since the NPS policy was based upon Wilderness Act language. Hopefully the language is updated to adapt and go back to the original intent of the law that intends to guard against development, degradation and land impacts.

Okay, so to the next point, yeah, I apologize for lobbing that one in there, I really debated whether I should say it or not but the only reason I did was because I've been getting it said to my face by many indigenous friends over the past couple years. I am no way trying to connect myself to their oppression, that's like comparing soggy apples and systematic oppression. I know how privileged I am, how easy I've had it cause I'm a white guy, with a good education, from a good stable family and am afforded plenty of second chances because of who I am. The career arc and path I've had compared to my own wife is vastly different even though she's been arguably more successful, more awarded and athletically better than her field of peers than I. So I've witnessed my own luck for being born with a pair of balls first hand...amid other things. Again, I bring it up because I've heard it time and time again that some of the origination of federal land policies are based upon indigenous removal, along with religious and cultural oppression. The side effects of some of those policies causes me a petty annoyance, so not even in the same stratosphere of issues and it shouldn't have been said within the same post. I brought it up because there are a lot of 1A rights for Native Americans that are still being squashed because of these old federal land policies set for in things like the Wilderness Act. Seeing small challenges and reversals is potentially a good thing moving forward, less for me, and more for my friends and their cultures.

Oh and lastly, so far everyone of my videos have proven to be legal. So far...

[MakersTeleMark]

What the fuck is a DVD?

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

"DVD is a business model, patterned after the efforts of Christopher Davenport, in which the 'athlete' consumes the funding source to become the ultimate source of the funding model, and thus, its profits. It was a landslide era in outdoor exhibitionism in which the 'ambassador' turned the tables on their corporate sponsors and broke through to financial freedom by accepting 'gear' in exchange for distribution through corporate and social media channels to a breaking point where the athlete made more gains than the product sponsors. The term hearkens back to the advanced media form from a CD, or 'compact dick', which advanced to a larger format data carrying object of the same size. The DVD swallowed the CD. From then on, the 'DVD' became the symbol for the Davenport Virus Derivative model in which it is known today."

[MakersTeleMark]

FIRST SENTENCE:

In order to assure that an increasing population, accompanied by expanding settlement and growing mechanization, does not occupy and modify all areas within the United States and its possessions, leaving no lands designated for preservation and protection in their natural condition, it is hereby declared to be the policy of the Congress to secure for the American people of present and future generations the benefits of an enduring resource of wilderness.

shall be administered for the use and enjoyment of the American people in such manner as will leave them unimpaired for future use and enjoyment as wilderness, and so as to provide for the protection of these areas, the preservation of their wilderness character, and for the gathering and dissemination of information regarding their use and enjoyment as wilderness

wilderness, in contrast with those areas where man and his works dominate the landscape, is hereby recognized as an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain.

Except as specifically provided for in this Act, and subject to existing private rights, there shall be no commercial enterprise and no permanent road within any wilderness area designated by this Act

I've spent years on this. It is one of the boldest acts of congress right behind the civil rights act. If you don't think that contemplates the impact of the internet and computers and influencers, then you are blind to the congressional intent of the act and might as well buy some Virtika.

1964.

[MakersTeleMark]

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.

I think it's time that you take a lap or five in the wilderness to see if you can find your brain outside of your fast moving give me a latte ego.

[mfcf13]

FIRST SENTENCE:









I've spent years on this. It is one of the boldest acts of congress right behind the civil rights act. If you don't think that contemplates the impact of the internet and computers and influencers, then you are blind to the congressional intent of the act and might as well buy some Virtika.

1964.

If it's such a bold act, then explain how CruiseAmerica uses images from within Rainier Natl Park to hawk their smoke spewing shitboxes.
https://www.cruiseamerica.com/rv-adv...-national-park

And the Vitrika guy violated wilderness rules. There is no restriction on him posting insta pictures of himself in wilderness areas to promote his brand. There *is* a restriction on him riding his snowmobile on wilderness land or entering a prohibited area (hanging lake).

It seems like the NPS administrators Cody has been dealing with see that he's promoting ethical low-impact travel and that the commercial aspect is indirect and they are (mostly) letting him film. So is MTM more uptight than a NPS administrator? I never knew such a thing was possible.

[PNWbrit]

As far as I can tell none of those images are taken within the park.

[abraham]

The best time to visit picture might be. And the one of the Tatoosh at the bottom must be.

[mfcf13]

The best time to visit picture might be. And the one of the Tatoosh at the bottom must be.

That was my conclusion too. My guess is that CruiseAmerica lawyers get around it by saying that the company did not take the photo, they used existying photos.

But MTM's argument that "If you don't think that [Wilderness Act] contemplates the impact of the internet and computers and influencers...blahblahblah" is shown to be completely wrong in the face of corporate RV rental companies using images shot from within a National Park to hawk those nasty shitboxes. I'm sure I could find plenty of other corporations using images shot from within national parks for commercial purposes. CruiseAmerica was just the first to come to mind.

[MakersTeleMark]

My Lordie, do you know what a stock photo is, how it is obtained, and how many layers it goes through? It's like a wilderness wash of all your sins. I have so many, some of me that have actually been ads. Do you want to buy them to take me to the moon, or do you want to honestly discuss the intent of the Act and where an altruistic behavior pattern should be encouraged.

Sure, you can hold some weed in your pocket or a gun in your belt in a school zone and flaunt the law, but, we are talking about more macro shit here, ammirite?

[mfcf13]

MTM, your post is only slightly more coherent than the PokerLounge post.

I'll say this: If Rainier NP doesn't let Cody and Bjarne shoot footage of human powered ascent/descent, than they should certainly insist that CruiseAmerica removes photos taken from within the park that have been used on the CruiseAmerica ads (even if the photos are stock).

[danmelon]

Poker? I barely know 'er.

[altasnob]

You can commercially film and photo shoot in wilderness, so long as you get a permit and pay the fees. Filming is more intrusive than video. Getty Images (stock image co) stands to benefit more than anyone from relaxing commercial filming rules in wilderness, and that is why they filed an Amicus (friend of the court) brief in the Price v. Barr case.

This is criminal law, and like all criminal laws, the government does not always prosecute. In this case, the government rarely prosecutes so most who violate go unpunished. The government goes after the more egregious violators, and has been ramping up prosecutions as social media expands. Outside has a great article on the subject:

https://www.outsideonline.com/193054...t-breaking-law

So for instance:
-Jimmy Chin filming Alex Honnold in Yosemite wilderness for a Squarespace ad, ok, because they got a permit.
-Valley Uprising, documentary on the history of climbing in Yosemite done without a permit, ok, because there is also an exception for "news."
-Wide Boyz, an indie movie about UK offwidth climbers in Canyonlands without a permit, not ok. But the director likely would have never gotten in trouble except the UK climbers scratched the name of the route into the rock. This was not in the film but the NPS was pissed and so they went after the director. He now has a criminal conviction on his record.

So Alka can say fuck it, throw the Rainier vid on the internet and see what happens. Maybe NPS lets it slide and he's never prosecuted. But maybe he gets himself summoned into Federal criminal court. And then he can try his First Amendment argument. If he wins, case dismissed, and you can look forward, to REI/Patagucci live streaming adds from your favorite wilderness. Lose, and he might spend some time in the federal pokey (probably just probation like the Wide Boys director). Win or lose, he would instantly become the Dean Potter of the ski world, and no sponsor would touch him with a ten foot pole. And if Alka doesn't want to become the poster child test piece, I guarantee douche libertarian instagrammer surely will.

With all due respect, this issue is way bigger than the Fifty or some ski movie. Go re-read the exact language of the Wilderness Act that MTM posted. It's not hyperbole to call it one of America's finest legislative achievements. And it's not difficult to imagine all the ways America's wild lands will be compromised if one has unfettered ability to commercially film there. The status quo may not be fair because so many violate and get away with it. But it captures the most egregious violators, which has a deterrent effect on others.

[Alkasquawlik]

What's really good about this thread is I've always wondered how the public would respond if I were to get in legal hot water. It's a good thing to see that yeah, I probably would become the Dean Potter of skiing and would be crucified upon the public cross. Which is why I've tried incredibly hard to walk the thin line, play by the rules, get permits when necessary, communicate with land managers and generally promote decent backcountry ethics and safety while on public lands.

As Altasnob said, most of the prosecutions I've seen fall under the "Don't break two laws at once" rule. For instance, one such prosecution went after a fly fishing film shot in Glacier National Park that filmed without a permit while targeting species that are illegal to target and purposefully catch in NW Montana. Among a host of other violations, the fact that they were showing fishing for an illegal species while filming without a permit caused the NPS to throw the book at the film makers. That's been the good thing I've found is generally the NPS has been friendly and has seen what I'm doing as something that potentially has positive impacts on the park so they've given me permits and / or permission to film.

[CirqueScaler]

Having read this thread I am now even more anti-Miles Clark than I was before.

[Supermoon]

What's really good about this thread is I've always wondered how the public would respond if I were to get in legal hot water. It's a good thing to see that yeah, I probably would become the Dean Potter of skiing and would be crucified upon the public cross. Which is why I've tried incredibly hard to walk the thin line, play by the rules, get permits when necessary, communicate with land managers and generally promote decent backcountry ethics and safety while on public lands.

As Altasnob said, most of the prosecutions I've seen fall under the "Don't break two laws at once" rule. For instance, one such prosecution went after a fly fishing film shot in Glacier National Park that filmed without a permit while targeting species that are illegal to target and purposefully catch in NW Montana. Among a host of other violations, the fact that they were showing fishing for an illegal species while filming without a permit caused the NPS to throw the book at the film makers. That's been the good thing I've found is generally the NPS has been friendly and has seen what I'm doing as something that potentially has positive impacts on the park so they've given me permits and / or permission to film.

Nah man, don’t let a couple of grumpy TGR trolls get you down. This is clearly a letter of the law vs spirit of the law thing which is where lawyers make all their money and keyboard warriors find their moral high ground.

I doubt if you ran afoul of a technicality while doing your best that many people would blame you. IMO you’ve show. Great respect for the places you’ve been and are a great advocate for them. 180 degrees from those fishing douches.

[Buke]

It seems to me that the general theme is that the law is antiquated and need to be updated. It also needs to be clarified and as Plugboots said, the line needs to be drawn somewhere.

I wouldn't make Cody out to be the Dean Pottter of Skiing if he ends up in court over this.

Regarding the commercial nature of the film; I bought a new pair of skis this year. I was considering several skis from various manufacturers. I ended up buying QST 106. I'm not going to say that I bought that ski because it was featured in the Fifty Project videos. That's not the case at all. But I did consider the ski in the first place because I really appreciate all of the money that Salomon invests in producing "free" video content like Salomon Freeski TV, and their support of athletes like Cody, Greg Hill, Kilian Jornet, Francois D'Haene, etc. The consistent messaging of pro athletes talking about how much they like the ski certainly didn't hurt.

So, are those videos "advertising" or "commercial"? Whether or not The Fifty Project videos are commercial as defined by public agencies, I have no idea. Regardless, whether it's easily quantifiable or not, the money that Salomon, et. al. spend to support these endeavours does have a positive impact on their brand identity and in turn that does help sell their product so clearly there's a commercial benefit to sponsoring this sort of endeavour.

[Benneke10]

We would support you if you treated us like adults and didn't gaslight us by saying that your videos aren't intended to sell products. Its insulting that you expect us to believe nonsense like "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."

[skibrd]

Slightly still confused and if I just need to reread (again) the last 5 pages, just say so.

A buddy in the PNW makes small YouTube videos of his adventures with friends in the Cascades, even did one of him skiing Rainer with his 14 year old daughter a few summers back, you PNW crowd can probably guess who I’m thinking of now. Clearly not under contract with Volkl, but gets a free pair (or 2) every year to ski on. It’s clear that Volkl (of their rep in the area, these are the grey areas of the ski industry I don’t know) keeps him on his skis because he makes touring and skiing pow look like a TON of fun. I know this buddy doesn’t ask for permission to film, doesn’t add sponsors to the credits, only might sneak in a subtle shot of his skis sticking out of the snow when ripping skins. If I got this right, that’s alright, but what Cody is doing isn’t? I sort of get it but it seems like the NSP has their heads up their asses here. Yeah, Cody, you have to get paid, and this is your job (cool ass job FYI, sort of excited to see the video do you Heli skiing again after a few years off it), but it seems like the NSP should see the difference between a major Hollywood production and 4/5/6 guys/girls skiing off Rainer.

Second, I don’t think the Blank has made it into any of the 50 project videos, but I’d do try, and buy them because of the 50 project. I never liked a Salomon ski before, mostly because I wished the QST 108 was a 194 (I’m Cody’s size by 1/3 the skier and rely on length to make up for balance/skill) but the Blank for a shot because of the cool shit the 50 Project has been doing, and I really liked them. So their is an advertising part with the intention to sell ski in the 50 Project.

Third, the 50/50 Project is way cooler then the 50 Project, so idk why we aren’t talking about that more. The potential for filming world wide is exponentially larger. I mean, how many epic log rides are their in the world, and Cody only has 50 lines to ski!


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[MakersTeleMark]

Your buddy is an internet shill. Get over it.

Why the fuck would anyone put a video of them skiing with their 14 year old daughter on youtube?

Think about that. It's fucked up.

Good job Dad.

[skibrd]

Your buddy is an internet shill. Get over it.

Why the fuck would anyone put a video of them skiing with their 14 year old daughter on youtube?

Think about that. It's fucked up.

Good job Dad.

How many 14 year olds do you know who have skies Rainer? What’s more fucked up, that or what Kai Jones has been up to? The kid is literally on Red Bull’s team now. The list goes on and on of kids who are doing rad shit with their parents. Are you jealous these kids are more bad ass then you? Think before you speak. Don’t be a dick.


Back to Cody’s project. Hopefully AK was (is?) successful.

Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[::: :::]

We would support you if you treated us like adults and didn't gaslight us by saying that your videos aren't intended to sell products. Its insulting that you expect us to believe nonsense like "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."

where do you stand on financial support for olympic athletes? is that commercial?


it strikes me that you are taking a stand on a anthill that is pedantically correct but missing the larger context of how & why this project exists...

there is no adventure without support
true adventure isn't a commercial venture -- it doesn't make money & that isn't the point
this project is truly adventure

[ex-powderbroker]

Frye is not sure if Alka climbed delicate arch or everyone got a law degree in the last year

[CirqueScaler]

I think that I'm very supportive of the wilderness designation. I don't think it's outdated at all. Anything but. Some areas that remain conserved to the maximum extent possible... I thought that the law text that MakersTeleMark cited was great. Again:

to assure that an increasing population, accompanied by expanding settlement and growing mechanization, does not occupy and modify all areas within the United States and its possessions, leaving no lands designated for preservation and protection in their natural condition

wilderness, in contrast with those areas where man and his works dominate the landscape, is hereby recognized as an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain.

I love that.


Some have suggested that the wilderness designation is used too much, that it stops people from enjoying the areas themselves, for example because you can't snowmobile in. That's possible. Here in Salt Lake City we have some wilderness areas that are pretty damn close to a city of one million people. But out in the Uintas, or truly remote areas such as the Bob Marshall Wilderness? I really support these wilderness restrictions, even if it obstructs some things that I also like such as, no offense cody, filming the fifty project.

No idea about the NPS. I've heard they can be tightasses.

[altasnob]

You realize that allot of National Parks are also wilderness (or at least everything but the roads and structures)? Like Rainier and Olympic and most of the others at issue here.

[altasnob]

A buddy in the PNW makes small YouTube videos of his adventures with friends in the Cascades, even did one of him skiing Rainer with his 14 year old daughter a few summers back, you PNW crowd can probably guess who I’m thinking of now. Clearly not under contract with Volkl, but gets a free pair (or 2) every year to ski on.

Your buddy likely committed a crime, although as stated above, the government only goes after egregious violators. Or maybe the feds are reading this and you just ratted him out.