Photography is Not a Crime

It’s a First Amendment Right

Photography is Not a Crime header image 2

New Hampshire man told he needs permit to film inside state park

January 6th, 2010 · 4 Comments

By Carlos Miller
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.

Popularity: 3% [?]

  • Share/Bookmark

Tags: First Amendment

4 responses so far ↓

  • 1 JR // Jan 6, 2010 at 4:35 PM

    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.

  • 2 bj // Jan 6, 2010 at 5:20 PM

    “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

  • 3 Simon Jester // Jan 6, 2010 at 8:29 PM

    Bigfoot? Heh…

  • 4 mike // Jan 6, 2010 at 11:17 PM

    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.

Leave a Comment

CommentLuv Enabled