Re: U.S. Forest Service proposes photo permit rules (still & video)

2014-10-08 Thread P.J. Alling 

On 10/7/2014 6:43 PM, steve harley wrote:

on 2014-10-03 17:42 P.J. Alling wrote

On 9/29/2014 9:08 PM, steve harley wrote:

on 2014-09-28 20:16 P.J. Alling wrote

It was widely believed
that the law would not stand, as the constitution strictly forbids 
Ex Post

Facto legislation.


… for criminal law only




The Constitution makes no such distinction. It is simply mentioned in 
the
same sentence as the prohibition on bills of Attender. Article 1, 
Section

9.  Which is consists of limitations on the powers of Congress.


i can see why you might interpret it that way, however the Supreme 
Court's interpretation (Calder v. Bull, 1789) is the one that 
continues to hold





Yes, as if the Supreme Court was infallible, you could ask Dred Scott 
his opinion.  Laws last only as long as they are seen as fair.


--
I don't want to achieve immortality through my work; I want to achieve 
immortality through not dying.
-- Woody Allen


--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: U.S. Forest Service proposes photo permit rules (still & video)

2014-10-07 Thread steve harley 

on 2014-10-03 17:42 P.J. Alling wrote

On 9/29/2014 9:08 PM, steve harley wrote:

on 2014-09-28 20:16 P.J. Alling wrote

It was widely believed
that the law would not stand, as the constitution strictly forbids Ex Post
Facto legislation.


… for criminal law only




The Constitution makes no such distinction. It is simply mentioned in the
same sentence as the prohibition on bills of Attender. Article 1, Section
9.  Which is consists of limitations on the powers of Congress.


i can see why you might interpret it that way, however the Supreme Court's 
interpretation (Calder v. Bull, 1789) is the one that continues to hold



--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: U.S. Forest Service proposes photo permit rules (still & video)

2014-10-03 Thread P.J. Alling 

On 9/29/2014 9:08 PM, steve harley wrote:

on 2014-09-28 20:16 P.J. Alling wrote
No, first Clinton administration, his party owned both houses, In 
March of

his first year, congress passed and Clinton signed a tax increase
retroactive to the beginning of his administration.


and Reagan signed a retroactive tax into law in 1987; and Ford singed 
a retroactive tax in 1976


Yes, but that's not the point, John asked me for an example of someone 
who had paid a retroactive tax, and I have one in the Case of Clinton, me.






It was widely believed
that the law would not stand, as the constitution strictly forbids Ex 
Post

Facto legislation.


… for criminal law only





--
I don't want to achieve immortality through my work; I want to achieve 
immortality through not dying.
-- Woody Allen


--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: U.S. Forest Service proposes photo permit rules (still & video)

2014-10-03 Thread P.J. Alling 

On 9/29/2014 9:08 PM, steve harley wrote:

on 2014-09-28 20:16 P.J. Alling wrote
No, first Clinton administration, his party owned both houses, In 
March of

his first year, congress passed and Clinton signed a tax increase
retroactive to the beginning of his administration.


and Reagan signed a retroactive tax into law in 1987; and Ford singed 
a retroactive tax in 1976




It was widely believed
that the law would not stand, as the constitution strictly forbids Ex 
Post

Facto legislation.


… for criminal law only




The Constitution makes no such distinction. It is simply mentioned in 
the same sentence as the prohibition on bills of Attender. Article 1, 
Section 9.  Which is consists of limitations on the powers of Congress.


--
I don't want to achieve immortality through my work; I want to achieve 
immortality through not dying.
-- Woody Allen


--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: U.S. Forest Service proposes photo permit rules (still & video)

2014-09-29 Thread steve harley 

on 2014-09-28 20:16 P.J. Alling wrote

No, first Clinton administration, his party owned both houses, In March of
his first year, congress passed and Clinton signed a tax increase
retroactive to the beginning of his administration.


and Reagan signed a retroactive tax into law in 1987; and Ford singed a 
retroactive tax in 1976




It was widely believed
that the law would not stand, as the constitution strictly forbids Ex Post
Facto legislation.


… for criminal law only


--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: U.S. Forest Service proposes photo permit rules (still & video) Warning, contains a F-Bomb

2014-09-29 Thread Bill 

Enough of this shit, both of you.


On 28/09/2014 8:27 PM, P.J. Alling wrote:

Yes you did, I was keeping away from naming names or parties, just
ragging on Government in General. However I've given you enough of the
specifics and yes My taxes went up retroactively and I was paying on
1099s so I'm very aware of it, unlike those who paid in advance out of
their payroll, who had their withholding adjusted pretty much
automatically.   The Clinton years have taken on a rosy glow with the
passage of time but they didn't start out that way.


On 9/28/2014 4:28 PM, John wrote:

I didn't inject politics into the discussion. Under the circumstances
I don't believe I deserve censure.

... nor censoring.

On 9/28/2014 3:18 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote:

No politics please. There are sites where you can debate this endlessly.

Paul via phone


On Sep 28, 2014, at 1:56 PM, John  wrote:

Oh, yes. He screwed an intern.

While Reagan and the two Bushes screwed the whole country.

I'm still looking for specifics on whose taxes were raised
retroactively. Now, I want to know exactly *when* it happened as well.


On 9/27/2014 3:51 PM, P.J. Alling wrote:
Shit! Did you not live through the Clinton administration?


On 9/27/2014 2:35 PM, John wrote:
Can you provide specific information as to whose taxes have been
raised retroactively? Name names?


On 9/27/2014 12:51 PM, P.J. Alling wrote:
Tell that to those who's taxes have been raised retroactively, in
contravention of clear constitutional principals, yet that law
was found
to be constitutional.  This shouldn't even be a decision of the
bureaucracy, it should no matter how trivial it seems be a matter
for a
vote in congress, If those idiots were actually forced to do the job
they were elected for, there would be a lot fewer stupid laws.


On 9/27/2014 11:33 AM, John wrote:
New rules wouldn't apply to any photos you had already taken before
those rules went into effect anyway.


On 9/26/2014 7:16 PM, Ann Sanfedele wrote:
That is certainly "more better" :-)
Now I can feel free to make a calendar of places in my favorite
parks
from photos I took 30 years ago

Hurray for the outcry
ann


--
Science - Questions we may never find answers for.
Religion - Answers we must never question.

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above
and follow the directions.










--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: U.S. Forest Service proposes photo permit rules (still & video)

2014-09-28 Thread P.J. Alling 
Yes you did, I was keeping away from naming names or parties, just 
ragging on Government in General. However I've given you enough of the 
specifics and yes My taxes went up retroactively and I was paying on 
1099s so I'm very aware of it, unlike those who paid in advance out of 
their payroll, who had their withholding adjusted pretty much 
automatically.   The Clinton years have taken on a rosy glow with the 
passage of time but they didn't start out that way.



On 9/28/2014 4:28 PM, John wrote:
I didn't inject politics into the discussion. Under the circumstances 
I don't believe I deserve censure.


... nor censoring.

On 9/28/2014 3:18 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote:

No politics please. There are sites where you can debate this endlessly.

Paul via phone


On Sep 28, 2014, at 1:56 PM, John  wrote:

Oh, yes. He screwed an intern.

While Reagan and the two Bushes screwed the whole country.

I'm still looking for specifics on whose taxes were raised
retroactively. Now, I want to know exactly *when* it happened as well.


On 9/27/2014 3:51 PM, P.J. Alling wrote:
Shit! Did you not live through the Clinton administration?


On 9/27/2014 2:35 PM, John wrote:
Can you provide specific information as to whose taxes have been
raised retroactively? Name names?


On 9/27/2014 12:51 PM, P.J. Alling wrote:
Tell that to those who's taxes have been raised retroactively, in
contravention of clear constitutional principals, yet that law 
was found

to be constitutional.  This shouldn't even be a decision of the
bureaucracy, it should no matter how trivial it seems be a matter 
for a

vote in congress, If those idiots were actually forced to do the job
they were elected for, there would be a lot fewer stupid laws.


On 9/27/2014 11:33 AM, John wrote:
New rules wouldn't apply to any photos you had already taken before
those rules went into effect anyway.


On 9/26/2014 7:16 PM, Ann Sanfedele wrote:
That is certainly "more better" :-)
Now I can feel free to make a calendar of places in my favorite 
parks

from photos I took 30 years ago

Hurray for the outcry
ann


--
Science - Questions we may never find answers for.
Religion - Answers we must never question.

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above 
and follow the directions.







--
I don't want to achieve immortality through my work; I want to achieve 
immortality through not dying.
-- Woody Allen


--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: U.S. Forest Service proposes photo permit rules (still & video)

2014-09-28 Thread P.J. Alling 
No, first Clinton administration, his party owned both houses, In March 
of his first year, congress passed and Clinton signed a tax increase 
retroactive to the beginning of his administration.  It was widely 
believed that the law would not stand, as the constitution strictly 
forbids Ex Post Facto legislation.  However the it did.  I know this for 
certain because I was a single male making a fare amount of money a lot 
of it reported on 1099s, and had damned few tax deductions.  It screwed 
up my tax planning that year.  So yes he screwed an interne but then he 
screwed a lot of other people as well.  Unlike the intern, very few of 
us enjoyed it.


On 9/28/2014 1:56 PM, John wrote:

Oh, yes. He screwed an intern.

While Reagan and the two Bushes screwed the whole country.

I'm still looking for specifics on whose taxes were raised
retroactively. Now, I want to know exactly *when* it happened as well.

On 9/27/2014 3:51 PM, P.J. Alling wrote:

Shit! Did you not live through the Clinton administration?

On 9/27/2014 2:35 PM, John wrote:

Can you provide specific information as to whose taxes have been
raised retroactively? Name names?

On 9/27/2014 12:51 PM, P.J. Alling wrote:

Tell that to those who's taxes have been raised retroactively, in
contravention of clear constitutional principals, yet that law was 
found

to be constitutional.  This shouldn't even be a decision of the
bureaucracy, it should no matter how trivial it seems be a matter 
for a

vote in congress, If those idiots were actually forced to do the job
they were elected for, there would be a lot fewer stupid laws.

On 9/27/2014 11:33 AM, John wrote:

New rules wouldn't apply to any photos you had already taken before
those rules went into effect anyway.

On 9/26/2014 7:16 PM, Ann Sanfedele wrote:

That is certainly "more better" :-)
Now I can feel free to make a calendar of places in my favorite 
parks

from photos I took 30 years ago

Hurray for the outcry
ann












--
I don't want to achieve immortality through my work; I want to achieve 
immortality through not dying.
-- Woody Allen


--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: U.S. Forest Service proposes photo permit rules (still & video)

2014-09-28 Thread John 
I didn't inject politics into the discussion. Under the circumstances I 
don't believe I deserve censure.


... nor censoring.

On 9/28/2014 3:18 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote:

No politics please. There are sites where you can debate this endlessly.

Paul via phone


On Sep 28, 2014, at 1:56 PM, John  wrote:

Oh, yes. He screwed an intern.

While Reagan and the two Bushes screwed the whole country.

I'm still looking for specifics on whose taxes were raised
retroactively. Now, I want to know exactly *when* it happened as well.


On 9/27/2014 3:51 PM, P.J. Alling wrote:
Shit! Did you not live through the Clinton administration?


On 9/27/2014 2:35 PM, John wrote:
Can you provide specific information as to whose taxes have been
raised retroactively? Name names?


On 9/27/2014 12:51 PM, P.J. Alling wrote:
Tell that to those who's taxes have been raised retroactively, in
contravention of clear constitutional principals, yet that law was found
to be constitutional.  This shouldn't even be a decision of the
bureaucracy, it should no matter how trivial it seems be a matter for a
vote in congress, If those idiots were actually forced to do the job
they were elected for, there would be a lot fewer stupid laws.


On 9/27/2014 11:33 AM, John wrote:
New rules wouldn't apply to any photos you had already taken before
those rules went into effect anyway.


On 9/26/2014 7:16 PM, Ann Sanfedele wrote:
That is certainly "more better" :-)
Now I can feel free to make a calendar of places in my favorite parks
from photos I took 30 years ago

Hurray for the outcry
ann


--
Science - Questions we may never find answers for.
Religion - Answers we must never question.

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.




--
Science - Questions we may never find answers for.
Religion - Answers we must never question.

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: U.S. Forest Service proposes photo permit rules (still & video)

2014-09-28 Thread Paul Stenquist 
No politics please. There are sites where you can debate this endlessly.

Paul via phone

> On Sep 28, 2014, at 1:56 PM, John  wrote:
> 
> Oh, yes. He screwed an intern.
> 
> While Reagan and the two Bushes screwed the whole country.
> 
> I'm still looking for specifics on whose taxes were raised
> retroactively. Now, I want to know exactly *when* it happened as well.
> 
>> On 9/27/2014 3:51 PM, P.J. Alling wrote:
>> Shit! Did you not live through the Clinton administration?
>> 
>>> On 9/27/2014 2:35 PM, John wrote:
>>> Can you provide specific information as to whose taxes have been
>>> raised retroactively? Name names?
>>> 
 On 9/27/2014 12:51 PM, P.J. Alling wrote:
 Tell that to those who's taxes have been raised retroactively, in
 contravention of clear constitutional principals, yet that law was found
 to be constitutional.  This shouldn't even be a decision of the
 bureaucracy, it should no matter how trivial it seems be a matter for a
 vote in congress, If those idiots were actually forced to do the job
 they were elected for, there would be a lot fewer stupid laws.
 
> On 9/27/2014 11:33 AM, John wrote:
> New rules wouldn't apply to any photos you had already taken before
> those rules went into effect anyway.
> 
>> On 9/26/2014 7:16 PM, Ann Sanfedele wrote:
>> That is certainly "more better" :-)
>> Now I can feel free to make a calendar of places in my favorite parks
>> from photos I took 30 years ago
>> 
>> Hurray for the outcry
>> ann
> 
> -- 
> Science - Questions we may never find answers for.
> Religion - Answers we must never question.
> 
> -- 
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
> the directions.

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: U.S. Forest Service proposes photo permit rules (still & video)

2014-09-28 Thread John 

Oh, yes. He screwed an intern.

While Reagan and the two Bushes screwed the whole country.

I'm still looking for specifics on whose taxes were raised
retroactively. Now, I want to know exactly *when* it happened as well.

On 9/27/2014 3:51 PM, P.J. Alling wrote:

Shit! Did you not live through the Clinton administration?

On 9/27/2014 2:35 PM, John wrote:

Can you provide specific information as to whose taxes have been
raised retroactively? Name names?

On 9/27/2014 12:51 PM, P.J. Alling wrote:

Tell that to those who's taxes have been raised retroactively, in
contravention of clear constitutional principals, yet that law was found
to be constitutional.  This shouldn't even be a decision of the
bureaucracy, it should no matter how trivial it seems be a matter for a
vote in congress, If those idiots were actually forced to do the job
they were elected for, there would be a lot fewer stupid laws.

On 9/27/2014 11:33 AM, John wrote:

New rules wouldn't apply to any photos you had already taken before
those rules went into effect anyway.

On 9/26/2014 7:16 PM, Ann Sanfedele wrote:

That is certainly "more better" :-)
Now I can feel free to make a calendar of places in my favorite parks
from photos I took 30 years ago

Hurray for the outcry
ann









--
Science - Questions we may never find answers for.
Religion - Answers we must never question.

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: U.S. Forest Service proposes photo permit rules (still & video)

2014-09-27 Thread P.J. Alling 

Shit! Did you not live through the Clinton administration?

On 9/27/2014 2:35 PM, John wrote:
Can you provide specific information as to whose taxes have been 
raised retroactively? Name names?


On 9/27/2014 12:51 PM, P.J. Alling wrote:

Tell that to those who's taxes have been raised retroactively, in
contravention of clear constitutional principals, yet that law was found
to be constitutional.  This shouldn't even be a decision of the
bureaucracy, it should no matter how trivial it seems be a matter for a
vote in congress, If those idiots were actually forced to do the job
they were elected for, there would be a lot fewer stupid laws.

On 9/27/2014 11:33 AM, John wrote:

New rules wouldn't apply to any photos you had already taken before
those rules went into effect anyway.

On 9/26/2014 7:16 PM, Ann Sanfedele wrote:

That is certainly "more better" :-)
Now I can feel free to make a calendar of places in my favorite parks
from photos I took 30 years ago

Hurray for the outcry
ann







--
I don't want to achieve immortality through my work; I want to achieve 
immortality through not dying.
-- Woody Allen


--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: U.S. Forest Service proposes photo permit rules (still & video)

2014-09-27 Thread John 
Can you provide specific information as to whose taxes have been raised 
retroactively? Name names?


On 9/27/2014 12:51 PM, P.J. Alling wrote:

Tell that to those who's taxes have been raised retroactively, in
contravention of clear constitutional principals, yet that law was found
to be constitutional.  This shouldn't even be a decision of the
bureaucracy, it should no matter how trivial it seems be a matter for a
vote in congress, If those idiots were actually forced to do the job
they were elected for, there would be a lot fewer stupid laws.

On 9/27/2014 11:33 AM, John wrote:

New rules wouldn't apply to any photos you had already taken before
those rules went into effect anyway.

On 9/26/2014 7:16 PM, Ann Sanfedele wrote:

That is certainly "more better" :-)
Now I can feel free to make a calendar of places in my favorite parks
from photos I took 30 years ago

Hurray for the outcry
ann




--
Science - Questions we may never find answers for.
Religion - Answers we must never question.

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: U.S. Forest Service proposes photo permit rules (still & video)

2014-09-27 Thread P.J. Alling 
Tell that to those who's taxes have been raised retroactively, in 
contravention of clear constitutional principals, yet that law was found 
to be constitutional.  This shouldn't even be a decision of the 
bureaucracy, it should no matter how trivial it seems be a matter for a 
vote in congress, If those idiots were actually forced to do the job 
they were elected for, there would be a lot fewer stupid laws.


On 9/27/2014 11:33 AM, John wrote:
New rules wouldn't apply to any photos you had already taken before 
those rules went into effect anyway.


On 9/26/2014 7:16 PM, Ann Sanfedele wrote:

That is certainly "more better" :-)
Now I can feel free to make a calendar of places in my favorite parks
from photos I took 30 years ago

Hurray for the outcry
ann

On 9/26/2014 18:37, Darren Addy wrote:

Follow-up:
http://petapixel.com/2014/09/26/forest-service-delays-decision-controversial-permit-rules-amid-public-outcry/ 






On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 7:43 PM, steve harley  
wrote:

on 2014-09-24 16:07 Darren Addy wrote


I can perhaps understand the rationale for film crews, but the still
photography requirement is SILLY, IMHO:

http://petapixel.com/2014/09/24/us-forest-service-proposes-controversial-expensive-photo-permit-rules/#more-146255 






today Denver Post digs in a little bit further than that article:

 




and the Forest Service is trying to clarify, but it still seems
pretty muddy
to me; i had gone over the comment page and tried to to read the
regulations, but never really found the




--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and
follow the directions.











--
I don't want to achieve immortality through my work; I want to achieve 
immortality through not dying.
-- Woody Allen


--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: U.S. Forest Service proposes photo permit rules (still & video)

2014-09-27 Thread Ann Sanfedele 
That had occured to me, but wasn't sure - and of course I still would 
like to take more


ann

On 9/27/2014 11:33, John wrote:

New rules wouldn't apply to any photos you had already taken before
those rules went into effect anyway.

On 9/26/2014 7:16 PM, Ann Sanfedele wrote:

That is certainly "more better" :-)
Now I can feel free to make a calendar of places in my favorite parks
from photos I took 30 years ago

Hurray for the outcry
ann

On 9/26/2014 18:37, Darren Addy wrote:

Follow-up:
http://petapixel.com/2014/09/26/forest-service-delays-decision-controversial-permit-rules-amid-public-outcry/





On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 7:43 PM, steve harley 
wrote:

on 2014-09-24 16:07 Darren Addy wrote


I can perhaps understand the rationale for film crews, but the still
photography requirement is SILLY, IMHO:

http://petapixel.com/2014/09/24/us-forest-service-proposes-controversial-expensive-photo-permit-rules/#more-146255





today Denver Post digs in a little bit further than that article:





and the Forest Service is trying to clarify, but it still seems
pretty muddy
to me; i had gone over the comment page and tried to to read the
regulations, but never really found the




--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and
follow the directions.










--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: U.S. Forest Service proposes photo permit rules (still & video)

2014-09-27 Thread John 
New rules wouldn't apply to any photos you had already taken before 
those rules went into effect anyway.


On 9/26/2014 7:16 PM, Ann Sanfedele wrote:

That is certainly "more better" :-)
Now I can feel free to make a calendar of places in my favorite parks
from photos I took 30 years ago

Hurray for the outcry
ann

On 9/26/2014 18:37, Darren Addy wrote:

Follow-up:
http://petapixel.com/2014/09/26/forest-service-delays-decision-controversial-permit-rules-amid-public-outcry/




On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 7:43 PM, steve harley  wrote:

on 2014-09-24 16:07 Darren Addy wrote


I can perhaps understand the rationale for film crews, but the still
photography requirement is SILLY, IMHO:

http://petapixel.com/2014/09/24/us-forest-service-proposes-controversial-expensive-photo-permit-rules/#more-146255




today Denver Post digs in a little bit further than that article:




and the Forest Service is trying to clarify, but it still seems
pretty muddy
to me; i had gone over the comment page and tried to to read the
regulations, but never really found the




--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and
follow the directions.








--
Science - Questions we may never find answers for.
Religion - Answers we must never question.

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: U.S. Forest Service proposes photo permit rules (still & video)

2014-09-26 Thread Ann Sanfedele 

That is certainly "more better" :-)
Now I can feel free to make a calendar of places in my favorite parks 
from photos I took 30 years ago


Hurray for the outcry
ann

On 9/26/2014 18:37, Darren Addy wrote:

Follow-up: 
http://petapixel.com/2014/09/26/forest-service-delays-decision-controversial-permit-rules-amid-public-outcry/



On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 7:43 PM, steve harley  wrote:

on 2014-09-24 16:07 Darren Addy wrote


I can perhaps understand the rationale for film crews, but the still
photography requirement is SILLY, IMHO:

http://petapixel.com/2014/09/24/us-forest-service-proposes-controversial-expensive-photo-permit-rules/#more-146255



today Denver Post digs in a little bit further than that article:



and the Forest Service is trying to clarify, but it still seems pretty muddy
to me; i had gone over the comment page and tried to to read the
regulations, but never really found the




--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and
follow the directions.






--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: U.S. Forest Service proposes photo permit rules (still & video)

2014-09-26 Thread Darren Addy 
Follow-up: 
http://petapixel.com/2014/09/26/forest-service-delays-decision-controversial-permit-rules-amid-public-outcry/



On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 7:43 PM, steve harley  wrote:
> on 2014-09-24 16:07 Darren Addy wrote
>>
>> I can perhaps understand the rationale for film crews, but the still
>> photography requirement is SILLY, IMHO:
>>
>> http://petapixel.com/2014/09/24/us-forest-service-proposes-controversial-expensive-photo-permit-rules/#more-146255
>
>
> today Denver Post digs in a little bit further than that article:
>
> 
>
> and the Forest Service is trying to clarify, but it still seems pretty muddy
> to me; i had gone over the comment page and tried to to read the
> regulations, but never really found the
>
>
>
>
> --
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and
> follow the directions.



-- 
Photographers must learn not to be ashamed to have their photographs
look like photographs.
~ Alfred Stieglitz

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: U.S. Forest Service proposes photo permit rules (still & video)

2014-09-25 Thread steve harley 

on 2014-09-24 16:07 Darren Addy wrote

I can perhaps understand the rationale for film crews, but the still
photography requirement is SILLY, IMHO:
http://petapixel.com/2014/09/24/us-forest-service-proposes-controversial-expensive-photo-permit-rules/#more-146255


today Denver Post digs in a little bit further than that article:



and the Forest Service is trying to clarify, but it still seems pretty muddy 
to me; i had gone over the comment page and tried to to read the 
regulations, but never really found the




--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: U.S. Forest Service proposes photo permit rules (still & video)

2014-09-25 Thread Jack Davis 
"Wilderness" areas are specifically referenced in the summery. Let's see if 
that's confirmed in the eventual finalized wording.
Solves nothing, but may indicate the water will warm slowly.

Jacl  

- Original Message -
From: "Mark Roberts" 
To: "PDML" 
Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2014 12:27:30 PM
Subject: Re: U.S. Forest Service proposes photo permit rules (still & video)

John Francis wrote:

>On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 06:36:08PM -0400, Bruce Walker wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 6:07 PM, Darren Addy  wrote:
>> >
>> > It strikes me as very odd that an environmentalist like Ansel Adams
>> > might be precluded from photographing in Yosemite (if he were alive
>> > today) when it was his photographs that helped spur the care and
>> > conservation of our National Parks (and in some cases, the creation of
>> > NEW parks) by bringing their stunning beauty to the public's
>> > consciousness.
>> 
>> I think that qualifies as ironic.
>
>Do your homework, guys.  It's just a badly-researched fear-mongering article.
>
>First and foremost, what Ansel Adams did would still be allowed by this.
>The rules contain a very clear definition of "commercial work", and selling
>prints of half dome is not "commercial work" under that definition.
>
>Secondly: this isn't really anything new.  You already require a permit
>for these kinds of things today (model shoots, film crews, etc.) 

According to the article this *is* new. It's an additional proposed
set of rules that are so vaguely written they could, in fact, result
in fines against photographers who sell prints of photos taken in
national parks. The "vaguely worded" bit is the key: It gives them the
ability to do what they like.

But as these are *proposed* rules and have therefore not been adopted
yet (by definition), there is a government site where you can make a
comment:
https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2014/09/04/2014-21093/proposed-directive-for-commercial-filming-in-wilderness-special-uses-administration?utm_campaign=email+a+friend&utm_medium=email&utm_source=federalregister.gov
 
-- 
Mark Roberts - Photography & Multimedia
www.robertstech.com





-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: U.S. Forest Service proposes photo permit rules (still & video)

2014-09-25 Thread Mark Roberts 
John Francis wrote:

>On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 06:36:08PM -0400, Bruce Walker wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 6:07 PM, Darren Addy  wrote:
>> >
>> > It strikes me as very odd that an environmentalist like Ansel Adams
>> > might be precluded from photographing in Yosemite (if he were alive
>> > today) when it was his photographs that helped spur the care and
>> > conservation of our National Parks (and in some cases, the creation of
>> > NEW parks) by bringing their stunning beauty to the public's
>> > consciousness.
>> 
>> I think that qualifies as ironic.
>
>Do your homework, guys.  It's just a badly-researched fear-mongering article.
>
>First and foremost, what Ansel Adams did would still be allowed by this.
>The rules contain a very clear definition of "commercial work", and selling
>prints of half dome is not "commercial work" under that definition.
>
>Secondly: this isn't really anything new.  You already require a permit
>for these kinds of things today (model shoots, film crews, etc.) 

According to the article this *is* new. It's an additional proposed
set of rules that are so vaguely written they could, in fact, result
in fines against photographers who sell prints of photos taken in
national parks. The "vaguely worded" bit is the key: It gives them the
ability to do what they like.

But as these are *proposed* rules and have therefore not been adopted
yet (by definition), there is a government site where you can make a
comment:
https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2014/09/04/2014-21093/proposed-directive-for-commercial-filming-in-wilderness-special-uses-administration?utm_campaign=email+a+friend&utm_medium=email&utm_source=federalregister.gov
 
-- 
Mark Roberts - Photography & Multimedia
www.robertstech.com





-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: U.S. Forest Service proposes photo permit rules (still & video)

2014-09-25 Thread John 

On 9/25/2014 2:09 PM, John Francis wrote:

On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 06:36:08PM -0400, Bruce Walker wrote:

On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 6:07 PM, Darren Addy  wrote:


It strikes me as very odd that an environmentalist like Ansel Adams
might be precluded from photographing in Yosemite (if he were alive
today) when it was his photographs that helped spur the care and
conservation of our National Parks (and in some cases, the creation of
NEW parks) by bringing their stunning beauty to the public's
consciousness.


I think that qualifies as ironic.


Do your homework, guys.  It's just a badly-researched fear-mongering article.

First and foremost, what Ansel Adams did would still be allowed by this.
The rules contain a very clear definition of "commercial work", and selling
prints of half dome is not "commercial work" under that definition.

Secondly: this isn't really anything new.  You already require a permit
for these kinds of things today (model shoots, film crews, etc.)


Reminded me of the flap over Flickr's terms of service a couple of years 
back.


--
Science - Questions we may never find answers for.
Religion - Answers we must never question.

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: U.S. Forest Service proposes photo permit rules (still & video)

2014-09-25 Thread John Francis 
On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 06:36:08PM -0400, Bruce Walker wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 6:07 PM, Darren Addy  wrote:
> >
> > It strikes me as very odd that an environmentalist like Ansel Adams
> > might be precluded from photographing in Yosemite (if he were alive
> > today) when it was his photographs that helped spur the care and
> > conservation of our National Parks (and in some cases, the creation of
> > NEW parks) by bringing their stunning beauty to the public's
> > consciousness.
> 
> I think that qualifies as ironic.

Do your homework, guys.  It's just a badly-researched fear-mongering article.

First and foremost, what Ansel Adams did would still be allowed by this.
The rules contain a very clear definition of "commercial work", and selling
prints of half dome is not "commercial work" under that definition.

Secondly: this isn't really anything new.  You already require a permit
for these kinds of things today (model shoots, film crews, etc.) 


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: U.S. Forest Service proposes photo permit rules (still & video)

2014-09-24 Thread Ken Waller 
I've photographed in Denali N P since 1980, there were bans then on 
professional photography in the park and only a very limited number of 
verified professional photographers were able to get a permit to photograph. 
The permits were for a few days and were highly sought after by the pros.


One of the reasons I would stay at Camp Denali when they had a pro 
photographer during their enlightenment sessions, was that we could wander 
the road on their specially outfitted bus to our hearts content and not have 
to rely on the parks buses.


Kenneth Waller
http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/kennethwaller

- Original Message - 
From: "Stan Halpin" 

Subject: Re: U.S. Forest Service proposes photo permit rules (still & video)


The workshops I have participated in were mostly within National Forest 
Service lands, and the organizers had the proper permits. I wouldn't take 
a workshop with anyone who was not following the rules, any more than I 
would buy firewood from someone cutting in a National Forest without a 
permit.


If I go onto NFS land and take photos for my personal use, nobody is going 
to question it before, during, or after. People need to take a deep breath 
and go back to worrying about FF cameras.


stan

On Sep 24, 2014, at 6:07 PM, Darren Addy  wrote:


I can perhaps understand the rationale for film crews, but the still
photography requirement is SILLY, IMHO:
http://petapixel.com/2014/09/24/us-forest-service-proposes-controversial-expensive-photo-permit-rules/#more-146255

The article above links to the Federal Parks Service comment page, if
anyone is interested in having their voice heard.

It strikes me as very odd that an environmentalist like Ansel Adams
might be precluded from photographing in Yosemite (if he were alive
today) when it was his photographs that helped spur the care and
conservation of our National Parks (and in some cases, the creation of
NEW parks) by bringing their stunning beauty to the public's
consciousness.


--
Photographers must learn not to be ashamed to have their photographs
look like photographs.
~ Alfred Stieglitz



--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: U.S. Forest Service proposes photo permit rules (still & video)

2014-09-24 Thread Stan Halpin 
The workshops I have participated in were mostly within National Forest Service 
lands, and the organizers had the proper permits. I wouldn't take a workshop 
with anyone who was not following the rules, any more than I would buy firewood 
from someone cutting in a National Forest without a permit.

If I go onto NFS land and take photos for my personal use, nobody is going to 
question it before, during, or after. People need to take a deep breath and go 
back to worrying about FF cameras.

stan

On Sep 24, 2014, at 6:07 PM, Darren Addy  wrote:

> I can perhaps understand the rationale for film crews, but the still
> photography requirement is SILLY, IMHO:
> http://petapixel.com/2014/09/24/us-forest-service-proposes-controversial-expensive-photo-permit-rules/#more-146255
> 
> The article above links to the Federal Parks Service comment page, if
> anyone is interested in having their voice heard.
> 
> It strikes me as very odd that an environmentalist like Ansel Adams
> might be precluded from photographing in Yosemite (if he were alive
> today) when it was his photographs that helped spur the care and
> conservation of our National Parks (and in some cases, the creation of
> NEW parks) by bringing their stunning beauty to the public's
> consciousness.
> 
> 
> -- 
> Photographers must learn not to be ashamed to have their photographs
> look like photographs.
> ~ Alfred Stieglitz
> 
> -- 
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
> the directions.


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: U.S. Forest Service proposes photo permit rules (still & video)

2014-09-24 Thread Bruce Walker 
On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 6:07 PM, Darren Addy  wrote:
>
> It strikes me as very odd that an environmentalist like Ansel Adams
> might be precluded from photographing in Yosemite (if he were alive
> today) when it was his photographs that helped spur the care and
> conservation of our National Parks (and in some cases, the creation of
> NEW parks) by bringing their stunning beauty to the public's
> consciousness.

I think that qualifies as ironic.

Ugh.

-- 
-bmw

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: U.S. Forest Service proposes photo permit rules (still & video)

2014-09-24 Thread Zos Xavius 
Ugh. I will write a comment, but this one makes me too mad to even
write anything approaching rationality at this moment. The first
amendment issues alone are troubling.

On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 6:07 PM, Darren Addy  wrote:
> I can perhaps understand the rationale for film crews, but the still
> photography requirement is SILLY, IMHO:
> http://petapixel.com/2014/09/24/us-forest-service-proposes-controversial-expensive-photo-permit-rules/#more-146255
>
> The article above links to the Federal Parks Service comment page, if
> anyone is interested in having their voice heard.
>
> It strikes me as very odd that an environmentalist like Ansel Adams
> might be precluded from photographing in Yosemite (if he were alive
> today) when it was his photographs that helped spur the care and
> conservation of our National Parks (and in some cases, the creation of
> NEW parks) by bringing their stunning beauty to the public's
> consciousness.
>
>
> --
> Photographers must learn not to be ashamed to have their photographs
> look like photographs.
> ~ Alfred Stieglitz
>
> --
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
> the directions.

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

U.S. Forest Service proposes photo permit rules (still & video)

2014-09-24 Thread Darren Addy 
I can perhaps understand the rationale for film crews, but the still
photography requirement is SILLY, IMHO:
http://petapixel.com/2014/09/24/us-forest-service-proposes-controversial-expensive-photo-permit-rules/#more-146255

The article above links to the Federal Parks Service comment page, if
anyone is interested in having their voice heard.

It strikes me as very odd that an environmentalist like Ansel Adams
might be precluded from photographing in Yosemite (if he were alive
today) when it was his photographs that helped spur the care and
conservation of our National Parks (and in some cases, the creation of
NEW parks) by bringing their stunning beauty to the public's
consciousness.


-- 
Photographers must learn not to be ashamed to have their photographs
look like photographs.
~ Alfred Stieglitz

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.