I had read that the National Park Service (in the USA) requires a permit to film at a National Park. I was unfamiliar with this rule, but wanted to do some videography inside the Grand Canyon National Park in Arizona, so I began to research and figure out the process. Since some of you might be in a similar position, I decided to share my experience, hoping to provide you with some clarity.
There was a legal case in 2022 that apparently changed how you must go about filming inside a National Park or any property that is a part of the National Park System. I don’t want to spend time going over this (you can read about it in detail here if you are interested), but the basic thing to know is that, beginning in 2022, if you are a Creative, you probably need a permit to film in a National Park. Perhaps you needed one before, too (I’m not certain), but you definitely need one now. You might not think that you do, but most likely you do (we’ll get to this in a moment). And apparently if you don’t get the required permit, the National Park Service might just come for you with a hefty fine or worse.
Wanting to do things right and avoid any sort of legal trouble, I began to research if I was actually required to get a permit, and how to go about it. The National Park Service website states that “all commercial filming that occurs within a unit of the National Park System requires a permit.” But recording some clips of the South Rim for a small YouTube channel is surely not considered commercial filming, right? I mean, I’m just me, not some corporation.
They go on to define what exactly commercial filming means: “‘Commercial filming’ means the film, electronic, magnetic, digital, or other recording of a moving image by a person, business, or other entity for a market audience with the intent of generating income. Examples include, but are not limited to, feature film, videography, and documentaries. Commercial filming may include the advertisement of a product or service, or the use of actors, models, sets, or props.” So far it sounds like I’m ok to not get a permit. I’m not making a documentary or feature film, I don’t have a market audience, and I’m not using any actors or props. It’s a bit fuzzy, but it sounds like I’m fine.
But they continue. “Federal law requires a permit for all commercial filming, no matter the size of the crew or the type of equipment. This includes individuals or small groups that don’t use much equipment, but generate revenue by posting footage on websites, such as YouTube and TikTok.”
Wait, what?
If you could potentially earn money from posting the footage to YouTube or TikTok or any other website, you’re required to get a permit, because you’re considered to be “commercial filming” by the NPS. If you are monetized on YouTube or push affiliate links in the description, you could potentially earn money. The “generate revenue” wording is a bit ambiguous, though, because the $7.42 I might earn from Adsense for a video (it’s probably not even that much) is nowhere near the cost of producing the content, not even enough to cover the gas to get there, or the lunch I had on the way, or even the park entry fee. It paid for my coffee, but not the blueberry scone. Whatever video I create, the Adsense money will not generate any net revenue, because I’m not actually a commercial outfit, I’m just a regular guy who happens to have been approved for monetization on my small YouTube channel. If I’m not actually earning anything, but losing money, does that still require a permit? It shouldn’t, but apparently it does.
“The primary focus of the NPS, however, is on commercial filming that has the potential to impact park resources and visitors beyond what occurs from normal visitor use of park areas,” the NPS website continues. “Examples of this type of filming are productions that use substantial equipment such as sets and lighting, productions with crews that exceed 5 people, and filming in closed areas, wilderness areas, or in locations that would create conflicts with other visitors or harm sensitive resources. All filmers, no matter the size, must comply with all rules that apply in park areas, just like other visitors.”
If the “primary focus” of these rules are for production crews that use substantial equipment and that exceed five people, then surely I’m all good to go, correct? I wasn’t completely confident, so I reached out to the National Park Service and spoke to someone at the Public Affairs Office. I told them my exact situation and plans. They confirmed that I indeed needed a permit to film in a National Park. Apparently the “primary focus” statement doesn’t actually mean anything, it’s just there to give false hope and confuse people.
To be clear, even if you’re just pulling out your cellphone to record a couple of short clips while vacationing with your family at a National Park, if you might use those clips in a YouTube or TikTok video (this surely applies to Instagram and Facebook, too), and in some way you could potentially earn income from those clips (even if just one penny), you need a permit, and you must get it in advance before you visit the park. You are a commercial filming crew, whether you consider yourself one or not. If you won’t earn anything (your channel isn’t monetized, you’re not sponsored, and you’re not pushing affiliate links, for example), you’re likely fine, and no permit is required.
This is all very arbitrary and puzzling. It’s as clear as mud. It doesn’t make much sense. It could and should be very simple: answer three questions to find out if you need a permit to film. The first question should be: will you appear to be an ordinary visitor? If the answer is yes, you don’t need a permit. The second question should be: will you interfere with anyone else’s park experience? If the answer is no, you don’t need a permit. The third question should be: will you need any resources from the park service beyond what regular visitors receive? If the answer is no, you don’t need a permit. If you can enter and leave the park and nobody was the wiser that you were doing anything potentially “commercial” then you shouldn’t need a permit. NPS: this is my free gift to you, so please use it. The way it is currently is extraordinarily convoluted, and (in my opinion) dumb.
The other thing that the National Park Service could do is: “[primarily] focus… on commercial filming that has the potential to impact park resources and visitors beyond what occurs from normal visitor use of park areas.” The solution is right there in their own words. Stop focusing on the little guys who are really just ordinary tourists who happen to have a YouTube channel or TikTok account. The Park Service has the power to do this right now today if they were to so choose. It’s literally that easy. If someone in a similar situation as myself inquires about a permit, they could simply respond, “We’re primarily focused on commercial filming that has the potential to impact park resources and visitors. Enjoy your your time in the park.”
Now, you might be worried that all of this applies to other forms of art, too—say, photography or painting. But, no. Only motion pictures. Only videography. For still photography, there is a different set of rules: for the most part, unless you have a model or props, you don’t need a permit. You could professionally photograph a wedding inside a National Park, and that apparently doesn’t require a permit; however, as soon as you record some clips on your iPhone, you probably do. There doesn’t seem to be any rules for painting canvas inside National Parks.
Now, to the process of obtaining a filming permit.
Each location within the National Park System (which, by the way, isn’t just the 63 National Parks, but 428 “units” across the country) has it’s own exact procedures. It’s not standardized from one park to the next. It seems that most are pretty similar, but there are definitely some variances. Grand Canyon National Park is where I visited, so my personal experience is with that park. You must visit the webpage for the park you plan to visit for exact instructions.
For the Grand Canyon, in order to obtain a filming permit, you have to first inquire and request a form by emailing grca_public_affairs@nps.gov or calling 928-638-7779 (I tried calling that number a handful of times but never got through to anyone other than their voicemail). The form they will send you to fill out is called NPS Form 10-930; however, there is a unique version of this form for each individual park. Some parks have this form on their webpage, but if not (and the Grand Canyon did not), simply Google “NPS Form 10-930 for [enter National Park here]” and it will likely turn up. The form is five pages long, but only three are filled out by you. It’s clear when you fill out this form that it is intended for an actual production company, and isn’t designed for just some person with their GoPro or iPhone or mirrorless camera. The form was easy enough to fill out. I kept my answers short and simple. I scanned it and emailed it back. And waited.
If the National Park Service is serious about you obtaining a filming permit (and purportedly they are), they should have a standardized form that can be filled out and submitted online. There should be a one-stop-shop for this (kind of like the LAANC system for drones, maybe), and not vary depending on the park. In other words, the process shouldn’t be confusing, difficult, or long (like it is currently).
The Grand Canyon requires that your application be submitted a minimum of 10 days in advance of your planned filming. This means no spur-of-the-moment visits. My trip was nine days from my initial inquiry, but the kind folks (and they were indeed very kind and professional) at the Grand Canyon Public Affairs Office assured me that they would expedite my request. Even though I had nine days (and not 10), it seemed like it worked out by the skin of my teeth, and there was little margin for error. Other parks might have different time requirements, so be sure to pay close attention to that.
Five days after I had submitted the application (granted, it was near a holiday weekend), I received a phone call from the Grand Canyon saying that my permit had been approved, and that I needed to pay a $100 application fee. There are a number of other potential fees, including a $150-per-day fee, that I didn’t have to pay, but that you should be aware exist because it’s possible that your filming project might be subject to them. I paid the hundred dollars over the phone (which apparently is how you have to pay it). The permit also allows you entrance into the park, and there is no need to pay the $35 park entry fee. I had already paid for a pass, so this didn’t help me, but maybe it is useful information to you. If you need a pass, then the filming permit will actually “only” cost you $65, since you won’t have to pay the entrance fee. Note that the fees might vary from park-to-park. Also, I had read that some parks require you to purchase insurance, but the Grand Canyon didn’t mention anything about that, nor did I ask.
After paying the fee, I was then emailed a six-page agreement, which is known as NPS Form 10-114 (like the other form, this one also has a unique version for each park). This contract states what rules I must follow while filming in the park. It’s all common-sense type stuff, like obey all the park rules and be responsible. It only required a signature. I scanned it and emailed it back. At this point I thought that I was good-to-go, but I didn’t realize I wasn’t quite done yet. The day before my arrival, on the eighth day after submitting the application, I was informed that my permit had been finalized, and now I was good-to-go. I just needed to make sure I had a copy of the permit (NPS Form 10-114 signed by them, which they had emailed to me at that time) while filming inside the National Park.
Now that I know the process to obtain a National Park filming permit, it’s not a terribly difficult thing to do (although more difficult than it needs to be). It’s a bit time-consuming and confusing and does cost money. It’s a shame that it is even required. The process is not standardized (it absolutely should be). You do need some amount of preplanning, and is not something that can be accomplished last-minute.
I love visiting National Parks, but this does sour it a little for me. It might cause me to travel elsewhere instead. I feel like just because my YouTube channel happens to be monetized, that the National Park Service wants to penalize me for that fact. The reality is probably more like this: some people are making lots of money on social media, and the NPS wants a piece of that pie. Well, so do I, but they just took my entire tiny crumb and then some! Whether you are earning money or not shouldn’t matter. It should be: are you a regular tourist who happens to be filming, or are you an actual production company who will interfere with other people’s National Park experience? They seem incapable of making that distinction, or unwilling to do so.
While visiting the Grand Canyon, which was an absolutely wonderful experience otherwise, my wife commented to me that she didn’t understand why we needed a permit. “We’re just tourists, like everyone else. How would anyone know that we’re making a video?” The fact is that we were ordinary tourists taking our four kids to see this Natural Wonder of the World. I’m sure nobody noticed or cared that we recorded some clips of the big ditch, because that’s what everyone was doing. Nobody there had any idea that we have intentions of publishing a video to YouTube, and even more that the channel happens to be monetized (nor that the monetization status even matters). We weren’t approached by any Park Rangers, and nobody asked to see our paperwork.
I feel like we went through this whole process for nothing. But, you know, we want to follow the rules and (especially) avoid hefty fines, so we did what the National Park Service required. Honestly, they need to change this, and it would be pretty simple for them to do. In the meantime, I have to consider if it is even worth the effort, or if I should just avoid visiting National Parks until someone with an once of common sense finally fixes this. I get that someone doing actual commercial filming would need to jump through these hoops, but the way-too-broad definition used by the NPS forces many to choose one of three things: 1) go through this potentially confusing, overly-arduous, and slightly-expensive process, 2) ignore the rules and hope not to get caught, or 3) avoid the many great National Parks that are meant to be for the “inspiration of this and future generations.” That’s a part of their mission statement. If your art is videography, you might need to find that inspiration elsewhere, which is a real shame.
Do all these regulations include still photography? Or is it just for video or moving pictures?
For stills it’s more straightforward. Basically, if you have models or props, you need a permit. Otherwise, for the most part, you don’t.
Whilst I agree that it can seem a bit daft, I guess it’s a way to somewhat control the amount of “van life” and “orange and teal influencers” that swarm to the NP’s at different times of the year for their content creation. Places like the PNW seem to be ripe with them. Playing devils advocate, not making a profit or even losing money is not the NPS problem nor fault. Imagine if they had a look at your YT channel (royal you, not you you 😅) and they said “ah that’s cr*p, no permit needed cause you won’t make a dime “
I would say that it is a questionable action on the National Park Service if they are indeed targeting one specific group because they spend a lot of time in National Parks, and if this is their way to combat that it is a pretty poor solution. I personally don’t believe that is the case at all, but I’ve been wrong before, so you never know. Either way, it’s a crappy situation.
As far as “not making a profit or even losing money is not the NPS problem or fault.” Exactly! Absolutely exactly! So why does the mere fact that my YouTube channel happens to be monetized matter to them one iota? It shouldn’t. As you said, it’s not their place or problem. Yet they’ve made it their place and problem by being concerned about it. Thank you for proving my point. 😀
My visit would have been 100% identical if my channel was or was not monetized, or if I even had a YouTube account or not. The only difference is that because I happen to have a YT channel, and it happens to be monetized, I had to fill out a bunch of paperwork, send several emails, be on the phone, and pay $100 dollars. That’s really absurd. The fact of my channel being monetized is a very arbitrary reason. The fact that this applies only to videography and not other art forms is also quite arbitrary. Why not demand that anyone planning to wear a bright-colored shirt jump through a bunch of holes and pay a fee to avoid a fine? It is just as arbitrary and the “logic” is similar (not identical, just similar). The NPS should not concern themselves over the money people may or may not be making as a result of visiting the parks, as it is none of their business. What should matter is will some activity affect other people’s experience. For instance, I visited Yosemite NP a number of years ago, and a painter had three canvases set up on easels partially blocking a path and view. Apparently that is perfectly acceptable because painting is acceptable. But someone with an iPhone recording some clips completely out of the way while being an ordinary tourist is not acceptable (without prior permission). It’s just bizarre when you think about it.
I do appreciate the feedback. I think it’s good to play “devil’s advocate” now and then…
My first comment wasn’t intended to condone or agree with the NPS’s MO or the rules for that matter. Just to highlight a possible reason. I agree there’s a broad variety of scenarios that maybe should require a permit but don’t. At the same time though a painter with a couple easels, while comical and bizarre, won’t reach an audience of thousands of people that will in turn flock to the NP to do the same. It only applies to videography cause it is the medium that will have the greatest impact. There are holes in the process of course. A big channel that is not monetised could be an example, but how many channels with thousands of followers are not monetised? Rules and regulations are more often than not written following rules of thumb, and the rule of thumb here is, a videographer with a monetised channel is running a business with the potential of reaching a really big audience and thus having the greatest impact in fragile ecosystems. If painters start congregating en masse then that should too be regulated.
“As far as “not making a profit or even losing money is not the NPS problem or fault.” Exactly! Absolutely exactly! So why does the mere fact that my YouTube channel happens to be monetized matter to them one iota? It shouldn’t. As you said, it’s not their place or problem.”
I dont think I explained myself correctly there. It matters because you are effectively running a business in public land which is maintained with taxpayers money, just like the photographers with props and models. If I want to run a donut truck on the streets I have to pay a permit. If I dont sell donuts that’s not the local council’s problem. Either I make better donuts, invest on marketing, you name it.
I guess to the first paragraph: yeah, I suppose they have to draw a line somewhere. To me, it’s quite puzzling and arbitrary where it was drawn, and effects a lot of people that I don’t believe should be affected. The flip side of the coin is that the National Park Service used to pay Creatives to create content promoting their parks. Now not only do they get it for free in droves, but they’re requiring that YOU pay THEM, which is like the opposite of how it used to be. So they’re doubly-benefiting now. But, yeah, somewhere a line had to be drawn—I just think it would be more logical if it had been drawn much differently (like how I described in the article).
To the second paragraph: I think it’s more like the donut maker bringing some of his delicious pastries to the park to eat for breakfast; however, he had some leftover, so he gave it away to a nearby person, but in the process told that person about his donut shop. Now he might potentially earn money from that encounter in the future, so the NPS goes after him for conducting business in the National Park without a permit. In the most technical sense, did I conduct business in the National Park by filming? That’s a bit grey, but I can see that argument holding up. In a practical sense, did I? I don’t think so. It’s no different than if the donut maker had a bumper sticker on his car for his business. Should he have to remove it or pay a fine? This gets into a ticky-tacky scenario of trying to define in the most minute and technical ways of what is or isn’t a business activity. That shouldn’t be a concern of the National Park. The defintion should be simple: does it affect anyone else’s experience and/or does it require resources from the NPS? If not, it should be good to go. The donut guy should be able to give away his extra donut and happen to mention that he has a business, and he shouldn’t have to remove his bumper sticker. And, in fact, he doesn’t have to do any of those things, it’s just videographers who are subject to these rules.
Sorry, trying to reply to your second reply but can’t seem to figure out how!
I agree, and apologies if I seem confrontational or argumentative. Not my intention at all. These laws are always a slippery slope and because they’re written as blanket statements, more often than not lead to these absurd situations. I 100% agree that “what if” or “you might” shouldn’t be the basis for you to fork out 100$, but as you say, lines have to be drawn and this is usually done by the least informed individuals. Reminds me of a stupid rule we have here in the UK for the recycling centers. You can take your rubbish and recycling in a car for free but not in a van cause a van is considered a trade vehicle and therefore you need to pay. Even if a campervan is the only vehicle you have. You can do unlimited trips with your car. Again, a blanket statement that leads to the frustration of many.
I’m sure most of the times people won’t even bother to investigate if a permit is needed and I seriously doubt rangers have the resources to do anything at all anyway. However, like you, I too would have looked into it and paid.
I knew you were just playing “devils advocate” 😀
The recycling center/van story is pretty similar. Stuff like that drives me nuts because it just doesn’t make sense and isn’t helpful.
“At the same time though a painter with a couple easels, while comical and bizarre, won’t reach an audience of thousands of people that will in turn flock to the NP to do the same. It only applies to videography cause it is the medium that will have the greatest impact.”
I guess they need to charge the Ansel Adams estate for all the “hordes” and “droves” of people flocking to national parks after being inspired by his photographs.
Or how about that John Muir fellow that inspired millions to get out in nature and heal their souls in our national parks with his poems. Sure he didn’t take pictures but he’s bombarding our parks with people!
I have a radical idea. Nature is fast becoming a commodity. Our future is more people and less wild places.
How about the US Gov’t stop selling resource extraction permits on our public lands to corporations that bank billions in profits from timber, oil, gas, and minerals and then wreck the environment and bribe their way to U.S. tax payers paying for the cleanup.
Instead, make it easy to pay for filming permits. Non citizens visiting can can buy an inclusive national wide park pass for $X dollars and a basic non-commercial filming permit for $X more. Institute a “economic impact zone” around parks with an added “NPS Sales tax”. Locals don’t pay it. Everybody else does.
Use the money to hire more rangers to oversee and preserve the parks. Excess money not used for preservation, expansion, or protection should be given as a tax break to U.S. citizens.
It should be a lot easier to get a filming permit, if they are going to continue to insist that you have to have one. An annual filming pass for YT/Social Media would be one simple solution; although I think it is ridiculous to require it in the first place.
Obviously, park rangers/officials have serious matters to attend and to be on the watch. With great difficulty, I’m trying to imagine a scenario where an already understaffed crew goes through even more training to (1) identify “anyone who appears to be filming” (i.e. anyone holding up a mobile between themselves and the scene in front of them), (2) distinguish between casual visitor with a mobile- or image-capture device and an “influencer” doing their shtick, and (3) fining rule-breakers on the spot for “filming without a valid permit at the National Park” to somehow avoid the risk of being escorted out of the park. It sounds like an ill-conceived policy at best (or attempted money-grab at worst) with a small chance of active on-site monitoring and enforcement.
I worked for the federal government for about 20 years… you might be shocked at the directives that come down. They’re from people who have never done the job or even seen the job be done, but who seem to somehow “know best” how it should be done. And it’s always funny: someone high up will create some rule or procedure, and use that as a point for promotion, then the next guy will undo that rule or procedure, and use that as a point for promotion. It’s an easily identifiable cycle that keeps going because, if you are trying to climb the bureaucracy, it works for that purpose.
This is crazy. I filmed a video on my iPhone with the sole intention of putting it on YouTube (not monetized at all) at the Painted Forrest National Park in AZ and had no idea this was a thing for little old me. I had the phone on a handheld tripod with an external mic attached, drove through the entrance with it all on my lap and the park rangers either didn’t notice or didn’t care as nothing was said. I hope they don’t come looking for me if the video ever gets monetized.
It is crazy!
I believe that most people are simply unaware, and some purposefully ignore. It is my understanding that the NPS has gone after some videographers, but I’m not privileged to the details of their specific situations, so it could be special circumstances.
I have my suspicions on who is driving this ridiculous (in my opinion) rule, but there are even more ambiguous points on this. If I take videos in the park for my private use and without posting the video publicly, do I still need a permit? My understanding of the rule is that I don’t. What about if I post it on YouTube but keep it private or unpublished so I can share it with my friends and family? Am I still OK? I think so. Going up to the next step what if I post it publicly but do not monetize it? I’m not making any money, but YouTube is making money. So now I’m on the borderline. On the other side of this, still photography is allowed, so if I make a slide show, put it on YouTube and monetize if, and it goes viral with millions of views and I make lots of money, is this OK? Per my understanding of the rule, I don’t need a permit (no models or props), so it is OK. Assuming this is OK, how frequently can I take the pictures and how frequently can they change on the slide show? Is a picture taken every hour with the slide show changing every minute OK? How about a picture taken every second and the slide show changing every second? How about a picture taken every 1/60th of a second and the slide show updated every 1/60th of a second, which is obviously now a video. I’m not going to stop going to national parks as I really love them. But when I go into a gift shop in one of the parks and the Grand Canyon association or Yellowstone Association asks me to be come a member, I’m going to say no and cite this rule as one of the reasons, and maybe change my mind and not buy anything.
Yeah, it’s very grey. A timelaps is not a video, but a long series of photographs; however, it might appear to be a video, and the park service might assume that it is because it looks like one. It’s a really convoluted rule that makes little sense. I hope it changes.
I know there’s possibly a lot more to this. But in the eyes of the IRS, I can have a hobby, and hobbies rarely makes money. When they do, you report the income. When they don’t, they could care less if you get a little lucky and have some offsetting cash here and there. Imagine putting thousands into a dog, and then selling a few puppies for chump change… And then all of a sudden, you win a prestigious award.
I really enjoyed this post. I’m a fairly small, but monetized YT channel. I use my phone and have essentially no equipment. This permit fee is ridiculous. It is only feasible for large YouTubers to swallow this kind of fee. I think being able to share these places through our own art of videography could benefit the people who can’t make it to the parks (disabled? financially unable to travel to specific parks, etc?) -Sarah, @tinyshedlife
I agree. I certainly didn’t earn enough from my video to cover the permit fee, let alone all the other expenses. I think it only discourages people from documenting and sharing the park with the world.
Going through the process now and also have a small YT channel that earns next to nothing. I think I might just upload the videos and have monetization turned off on the videos so I don’t have to go through the process. Also if you are filming on a gopro or phone how do they even know if it is commercial? You could just be someone who films their holidays or doesn’t have a monetized channel!
Good news: the law recently changed, and a permit is no longer required in the USA:
https://creators.yahoo.com/lifestyle/story/new-law-brings-relief-to-travel-vloggers-why-we-stopped-visiting-national-parks-030858249.html