In a win for filmmakers, the U.S. Senate has given final approval to a bill loosening restrictions around shooting in national parks without a permit.
The passage on Thursday, a day after a lawsuit was filed seeking to overturn federal permit and fee requirements on free speech grounds, cleared the bill for consideration by President Biden, who’s expected to sign the measure.
In a statement, Alexander Rienzie, the filmmaker who sued the government, said the move will spur production from “outdoor filmmakers who struggled to navigate the outdated and arbitrary permit system.” He added, “We’re deeply grateful for the legislators on both sides of the aisle that stood up for free speech and the rights of Americans across the country.”
National Press Photographers Association President Carey Wagner called the bill’s approval a “remarkable victory for the First Amendment rights” of members, who sought protections for the “freedom to take pictures and film in our parks and other federal lands.”
Under the measure, filming in national parks in places where the public is allowed will no longer require a permit for productions involving fewer than six crew members as long as it doesn’t impact other visitors or damage park resources. It eliminates a provision mandating advance permission for filmmakers intending to profit off of content they shoot.
A bill loosening permitting requirements passed the House in April. That language was incorporated into another measure, the Expanding Public Lands Outdoor Recreation Experiences Act, which passed by unanimous consent on Thursday as the government hurtles toward a shutdown.
Filmmakers have been sparring with the government over federal permit and fee requirements to shoot in national parks for years. In 2019, indie director Gordon Price sued after he was issued a citation for filming without a permit in public areas of the Yorktown Battlefield in Colonial National Historical Park in Virginia. A federal appeals court held in that case that filmmaking in a national park is not covered under the First Amendment, reversing his win at the district court level.
The permitting scheme dates back to 2000, when lawmakers passed a law regulating commercial filming on federal lands motivated in part by major studios shooting in national parks. Fees are intended to provide a “fair return” to the government based on the duration of the production, size of film crew, and the amount and type of equipment involved.
Rienzie and Connor Burkesmith, represented by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, on Wednesday renewed the legal battle after they were denied a permit to film an attempt to break the record for the fastest time to ascend a mountain in Grand Teton National Park. They alleged violations of the First and Fifth Amendments.
Central to the lawsuit was whether the commercial nature of a project qualifies as a content-based restriction that violates free speech protections. It pointed to “arbitrary distinctions” in the permitting regime requiring permission to film video expected to be commercialized but not photography or content recorded under “news-gathering activities.” It claimed that the framework encourages overly discretionary decision-making by park officials to reject applications for allegedly unpredictable reasons.
If a tourist, reporter and documentary filmmaker each filmed the same vista in a national park using the same equipment, the lawsuit alleged, only the filmmaker would be required to obtain a permit and pay a fee if the purpose was found to be commercial and not news-gathering.
The regulations “do not serve any legitimate governmental interest in protecting national park resources,” stated the complaint, filed in Wyoming federal court. “A tourist recording video in a national park with a hand-held camera or cell phone is not required to obtain a permit, but he may become subject to the law if he later posts the video on YouTube, which pays some users for popular content.”
That lawsuit is expected to be dismissed once the bill is signed into law.
National Park Service didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.