The FIFTY

[altasnob]

So what's the procedural history here? Alka has been contacting various Forest Service and National Park's in advance to request permission to film, and most have said yes for whatever reason, without requiring him to apply for a permit and pay a fee. But Rainier said no. So why not just apply for a permit at Rainier and pay the fee just like Jimmy Chin and Alex Honnold did for their commercial? What's the problem with that?

[yeahman]

YouTube (aka Google) has recently changed its terms of service and granted itself the right to "monetize" (put ads on) any video on its platform. Whether the channel owner wants ads or not. This essentially turns millions of videos shot in wilderness areas and national parks into de facto commercial ventures.

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/19/yout...-creators.html

[total_immortal]

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.

Where do you draw the line between personal/commercial? It's ridiculous to think some guy is shooting a "commercial" on Rainier when he is arguably just shooting and sharing a home video of his kid skiing. Just because he gets a pair of skis (which he probably would receive regardless if he shoots a video of his kid in a wilderness area) doesn't make it a criminal act. I sometimes get free gear from industry types, am I breaking the law when I post to Instagram and my skis can be seen in a wilderness area? Most states and local governments have commercial film permits, should Alka be getting permitted by California and Placer County to film? What about some 'influencer' who makes their money using hashtags, are they breaking the law when they post a selfie in Yellowstone?

I'm starting to suspect MTM and altasnob are the permitting rangers at Rainier....

[altasnob]

We can argue all night about the nuances in the law. But the bottom line is it doesn't matter because the government isn't going after people who get free skis for posting a video. They are going after egregious violators. Can anyone name an instance where the government enforced this law wrongfully? So what's the problem with the status quo? In Alka's situation, if Rainier was his very first video, and he just threw it up on the internet, sponsor logos and all, I assume nothing would happen because it is pretty innocuous. But now, Fifty has some exposure, and he contacted Rainier in advance and they said no (correct me if I am wrong). So I could see the government being pretty pissed off if, despite them saying no, he went ahead and posted it anyway as middle finger solute.

He's in a tough situation because it seems he wants to post, and you all want him to post, but I guarantee his sponsors don't want to be involved in this can of worms. That's why he should just pony up for the permit.

And everyone talks about the law being flawed and needing to be updated. But the status quo is that most big commercial uses get in trouble, and more minor, benign commercial uses get away with it. Isn't that basically what everyone thinks the law should say?

[twat]

hey cody,
i like your project. it is very inspiring!

this guy cooks scrambled eggs / rice / spam & soup and gets 20.000.000 clicks


what tha fuck ....
maybe you should post more non ski related footage of you putting on socks in a small pickup and making breakfast or what so ever : )

sorry for the thread drift.

[altasnob]

Here's another idea. Do a documentary on all the people who skied lines on Rainier pre-internet, before any resort blue square skier figured out it wasn't that hard and that they could ski it too. You could narrate the documentary as you are climbing the Furher Finger. Then it would be "news" and it doesn't matter if you are making money off the video or not. Just like Valley Uprising.

[toast2266]

This whole discussion started because of Price v. Barr, which basically said that requiring fees for commercial filming was a violation of the 1st Amendment.

But now it's devolved into a discussion of whether Cody's films are commercial in nature. Which under Price v. Barr doesn't matter - the 50 Project is just a person / entity exercising their first amendment right, and any commercial aspect of it is irrelevant.

That said, Cody's films seem pretty clearly commercial in nature. Commercial filming is defined in the CFR as a "recording of a moving image by a person, business, or other entity for a market audience with the intent of generating income." The existence of sponsor logos is irrelevant. Cody is a professional skier, and thus generates income from his skiing. We, as fans of skiing, are a market audience.

So ultimately, I think he would need a permit under the CFR for lines that are located in a place subject to the regs, but doesn't need a permit because of Price v. Barr. But regardless of that, I'm 100% in favor of permits being issued because I think the risk of any negative impact associated with skiing one line by a small crew is a tiny iota above zero, and I think the denial of any permit request is unreasonable.

[altasnob]

Price v. Barr did not interpret the law as it applies in Wilderness lands. In Wilderness lands, you have to the Wilderness Act. So Price v. Barr is completely irrelevant to the discussion. It is not precedent.

Another note, Rainier is within 2 hours of 4 million people, probably the the most people in close proximity of any of the 50 lines. The park is a top 20 most visited national park in the country. The mountain is heavily guided, and that commercial guide service is heavily regulated. So not surprised they said no.

[teleee]

I love all the lawyers jumping on here to spray legalese while some poor sap is paying them $350 an hour to do so.

[toast2266]

Price v. Barr did not interpret the law as it applies in Wilderness lands. In Wilderness lands, you have to the Wilderness Act. So Price v. Barr is completely irrelevant to the discussion. It is not precedent.

Another note, Rainier is within 2 hours of 4 million people, probably the the most people in close proximity of any of the 50 lines. The park is a top 20 most visited national park in the country. The mountain is heavily guided, and that commercial guide service is heavily regulated. So not surprised they said no.

But Price v. Barr relied on a constitutional argument. If a law regarding national parks was unconstitutional, a functionally identical law regarding wilderness is also unconstitutional. So actually not at all irrelevant.

[skibrd]

What does a permit to film on Rainer cost? I can’t find it with a quick google search. Is it $100? $10,000? $100,000?


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[altasnob]

In Price, the court analyzed whether the law survived strict scrutiny. To survive strict scrutiny, “the Government [must] prove that the restriction furthers a compelling interest and is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest.” If the government proves this, it is ok that the law violates your First Amendment rights.

Price involved filming at Colonial National Historic Park. The government argued the primary compelling interest the law furthered was to make money for the NPS (weak sauce). The court shot that down.

Now turn to wilderness. The compelling interest is to keep it fucking wilderness. Prevent for profit live blog streaming of the PCT. Prevent further exploitation of our wild lands for profit. Keep wilderness 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.” It's one thing to throw videos up online that increase use in wilderness just because you like sharing stoke. It's another when you are doing it for your job. And you best believe every environmental group in the nation will be filing a friend of the court brief trying to keep unpermitted commercial filming out of the wilderness.

I am not saying the Price First Amendment argument won't work. I am saying neither I, nor the attorney who argued for Price, can predict the outcome with 100% certainty. Who knows. We'll all find out soon enough because like I said, some intstagram schmuck will surely push this issue to the limit and find themselves in court.

[toast2266]

What does a permit to film on Rainer cost? I can’t find it with a quick google search. Is it $100? $10,000? $100,000?


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

I'm sure Cody can be more specific, but my understanding is that they're in the <$500 ballpark.

[meter-man]

I love all the lawyers jumping on here to spray legalese while some poor sap is paying them $350 an hour to do so.

That's cheap!

Price v. Barr did not interpret the law as it applies in Wilderness lands. In Wilderness lands, you have to the Wilderness Act. So Price v. Barr is completely irrelevant to the discussion. It is not precedent.

Another note, Rainier is within 2 hours of 4 million people, probably the the most people in close proximity of any of the 50 lines. The park is a top 20 most visited national park in the country. The mountain is heavily guided, and that commercial guide service is heavily regulated. So not surprised they said no.

But Price v. Barr relied on a constitutional argument. If a law regarding national parks was unconstitutional, a functionally identical law regarding wilderness is also unconstitutional. So actually not at all irrelevant.

Toast is mostly right. The Constitution always is superior to federal laws, even the Wilderness Act. [ETA: altasnob later post is right on.]

But the court's injunction only applies to DOI agencies (NPS, BLM, USFWS), NOT to Dept of Ag (USFS). So while the First Amendment ruling should apply equally on Wilderness managed by USFS, a court has not yet applied the ruling in that context. Until USFS/Ag recognizes Price, or is forced to do so by a court, they could still apply the commercial permitting/fee requirements. As someone said upthread, however, I'm sure they want to avoid a lawsuit, so are just focusing on large commercial operations.

Toast isn't completely right though. A government's restriction on free speech (filming) must survive strict scrutiny. A court evaluating USFS's restrictions on filming would need to identify a "compelling governmental interest" to justify the restriction (the permit requirement). Preserving "Wilderness" might be a "compelling governmental interest" but that depends on case law and where the good lawyering comes in. Gonna cost you goons $350/hour for that analysis.

skibrd: Rainier's old fee schedule is here: https://www.nps.gov/mora/planyourvis...y-july2012.pdf $150/day...

Oh yeah, you need to apply at least two weeks before you shoot. That's easy to plan for filming ski trips on exposed and technical condition-dependent lines, right??

And fat chance they will approve it in two weeks. I bet more like 2 months.

BUT, NPS isn't collecting fees, and haven't figured out how to respond to Price. So Alka is stuck in limbo...

Anyway, I think it's pretty dumb to apply the same rules to 2-4 person parties with no heavy equipment or machinery as applied to a Hollywood-style production. Hope we get to see all the footy someday!

[toast2266]

In Price, the court analyzed whether the law survived strict scrutiny. To survive strict scrutiny, “the Government [must] prove that the restriction furthers a compelling interest and is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest.” If the government proves this, it is ok that the law violates your First Amendment rights.

Price involved filming at Colonial National Historic Park. The government argued the primary compelling interest the law furthered was to make money for the NPS (weak sauce). The court shot that down.

Now turn to wilderness. The compelling interest is to keep it fucking wilderness. Prevent for profit live blog streaming of the PCT. Prevent further exploitation of our wild lands for profit. Keep wilderness 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.” It's one thing to throw videos up online that increase use in wilderness just because you like sharing stoke. It's another when you are doing it for your job. And you best believe every environmental group in the nation will be filing a friend of the court brief trying to keep unpermitted commercial filming out of the wilderness.

I am not saying the Price First Amendment argument won't work. I am saying neither I, nor the attorney who argued for Price, can predict the outcome with 100% certainty. Who knows. We'll all find out soon enough because like I said, some intstagram schmuck will surely push this issue to the limit and find themselves in court.

Agreed with your assessment. But I think the government will have a hard time distinguishing for profit live blog streaming of the PCT and every other wanna be influencer who's already live blog streaming the PCT but not getting paid for it.

Either filming degrades the wilderness character (in which case no one should be allowed to do it), or it doesn't degrade wilderness character (in which case everyone should be allowed to do it). Otherwise you're just arguing that making money off your film degrades wilderness character, and that isn't gonna fly. (edit: I didn't pay meter-man for that assessment, but I'm assuming that's what he would've told me).

[Dantheman]

So what's the procedural history here? Alka has been contacting various Forest Service and National Park's in advance to request permission to film, and most have said yes for whatever reason, without requiring him to apply for a permit and pay a fee. But Rainier said no. So why not just apply for a permit at Rainier and pay the fee just like Jimmy Chin and Alex Honnold did for their commercial? What's the problem with that?

IIRC, he has been applying for and receiving permits. The Rainier NPS office denied his permit application for reasons that I don't believe have been disclosed.

Can you all go start a separate thread and stop thrunting this one? JFC what a goatfuck this otherwise awesome thread has turned into.

[grskier]

IIRC, he has been applying for and receiving permits. The Rainier NPS office denied his permit application for reasons that I don't believe have been disclosed.

Can you all go start a separate thread and stop thrunting this one? JFC what a goatfuck this otherwise awesome thread has turned into.

Well, it survived pretty long, and is in it's 2nd or 3rd summer season, so, if this is the threads demise, I can't say that it was untimely.

[MakersTeleMark]

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

Who gives a fuck about your buddy and his daughter? Have her make a class presentation.

If you throw that on the internet, you are nothing beyond jonbenet ramsey, who would have been the biggest internet douche had it been possible.

Pure narcissism, accept it. And I'll gladly do a backcountry ski off with either or both of them and I won't have to post about it.

Your buddy, is, an, internet, douchenozzle.

[toast2266]

IIRC, he has been applying for and receiving permits. The Rainier NPS office denied his permit application for reasons that I don't believe have been disclosed.

Can you all go start a separate thread and stop thrunting this one? JFC what a goatfuck this otherwise awesome thread has turned into.

Everyone will settle down once content resumes. In the meantime, it's summer, so we're required to have pointless arguments.

[total_immortal]

Your buddy, is, an, internet, douchenozzle.

Pot, meet kettle...

[MakersTeleMark]

Pot, meet kettle...

Well, your massive 300 posts have been an amazing contribution to this community. We all thank you, and will be sure to bail you out when shit hits the fan, or you want a bro deal.

Suck it, JONG.

[toast2266]

Pot, meet kettle...

This thread may have turned into a goatfuck, but that's pretty funny.

[bodywhomper]

I prefer “goat rodeo”

So, Mt St Elias?

Did y’all get to stand on a glacier for days in socked in conditions and throw tennis balls?

[meter-man]

I prefer “goat rodeo”

So, Mt St Elias?

Did y’all get to stand on a glacier for days in socked in conditions and throw tennis balls?

More importantly...did he have a permit so we'll get to see it someday????

C'mon, stay focused - this is a thread about The Fifty Greatest Permitting Debacles of North America

Sent from my Pixel 5 using Tapatalk

[Skidog]

I love all the lawyers jumping on here to spray legalese while some poor sap is paying them $350 an hour to do so.

Heart emoji.

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