Galen Rowell lost such a court case at least once. it was for a long time "prove you will never sell any of these photos" and then we will give your equipment and film back. if you could, sometimes, you got some of your equipment back within a year. his climbing friends had lost several such cases. possession of a camera during a newsworthy event, such as a climbing rescue in Yosemite that many of his friends volunteer for, was considered enough to be intent. what really irked Galen though was that getting a permit was incredibly hard and expensive during the entire time he fought for a clarification of the ruling. eventually, the interpretation was clarified to mean professional photography where "substantial" equipment was involved. this meant "substantially" more than camera bag and tripod. there are several essays about his brushes with the Park Rangers on the legality of professional photography in National Parks.
Herb.... ----- Original Message ----- From: "tom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, February 07, 2004 12:49 PM Subject: RE: photographer arrested > I seem to recall a story of some national park where you basically couldn't > do any shooting with a "nice" camera without a permit. The hearsay was > basically that it was defined as commercial photography if you were using a > "professional" camera.
