Now, You Probably Don’t Need A Permit to Film in a National Park (Yea!!)

Young Yucca – White Sands NP, NM – Fujifilm GFX100S II – Fujicolor PRO 160C Warm

A year ago, I published an article entitled My Experience Obtaining a Permit to Film in a National Park (you probably need one, too), which detailed my ordeal getting a permit to film a YouTube video at the Grand Canyon National Park. It was my first time going through the process, and I found it to be unnecessarily arduous and frustrating. The article got some attention, and I was even interviewed by the press regarding this topic.

The good news is that you probably no longer need a permit to film in a National Park, unless you are an actual production crew or are doing something that requires special permission. Just this last weekend, the President signed into law the Explore Act, which allows most people to freely film within the National Park Service. Essentially, the Explore Act allows photography and filming without a permit for parties of five or fewer people as long as it involves allowed activity in a National Park, regardless of whether those documenting are receiving compensation for their work.

Cold Rim, Warm Light – Grand Canyon NP, AZ – Fujifilm X-T5 – Kodak Vision3 250D v2

Because my small YouTube channel was monetized, a year ago I needed a permit, even if the video I made didn’t earn hardly anything (and cost way more to make than it earned). Even the potential of one penny of Adsense revenue meant I was a for-profit film production crew, and as a for-profit film production crew a permit was required to film, even if I were merely recording on my cellphone or a GoPro. Today, that’s not the case at all. As long as you have five or less people and you’re doing normal things that tourists are allowed to do, you can film, and can skip the permit process. This is definitely a win for small creators.

I understand why not everyone is celebrating. The National Park Service has two equal missions that oppose each other: conservation and access. They have to preserve the land, and they have to open the land to visitors. To best conserve requires closing the gate to visitors, and to best allow access greatly risks conservation. They have to walk a fine line, which is not easy to do, and not everyone will be happy. The law—as it was on Friday prior to the Explore Act—leaned more towards conservation (even if awkwardly and ineffectively), and now, as of Saturday, it leans more towards access. There are some who prefer preservation over people. I get it, and am sympathetic towards that; however, I believe that this was the right thing to do, and I’m quite happy to see this new law on the books.

Creating Controversy with my Camera

This Kodak camera isn’t a Kodak camera.

I’ve received a ton of feedback following the “Kodak Retina” video that I published two days ago. It was controversial, just as I thought it would be. While it was a joke, it was also inherently dishonest (up to the point where I came clean, which was early on). Most people seemed to understand that it was comedy. The vast majority of the feedback I received was positive, with a lot of “lol” comments and laughing emojis. Some people didn’t like it, though, and didn’t “get” the humor. A few people said some really unnecessarily mean things. A little bit of the negative feedback was constructive criticism, and so that’s actually positive, and much appreciated.

There were a few different ideas behind the video, and various things that I wanted to accomplish with it. I think it would be worthwhile to explain them to you, so that maybe they’re better understood. If you haven’t yet seen the video, I’ve included it below. You can also find it on the Fuji X Weekly YouTube channel.

First, the video was a gag. It was supposed to be funny. If you follow me on social media, you already know that I have a sense of humor—typically a dry one. If you’ve ever seen videos with two guys sitting down sipping coffee, telling each other “dad jokes” while trying not to laugh… that’s my type of humor. Some people suggested that my video would have been a great April Fools prank, and I agree. It definitely would have been. I didn’t want to wait for April 1st because I figured I wasn’t the only one with this idea (using the TTArtisan 27mm f/2.8 limited edition yellow/orange lens to make a Kodak-looking camera), so I wanted to beat anyone else doing something similar to the punch(line). Also, Kodak’s new Super 8 camera has people thinking Kodak right now. The timing was right for this video, despite the date; however, it would have been more obviously comedic had it been released on April 1st (I will have to come up with another idea for that date).

Second, I wanted this video to attract people who would not normally click on content about Fujifilm gear. This is something I’ve been thinking about for a few months now. I’ve known for awhile now that Film Simulation Recipes which mimic Kodak emulsions are the most popular, but I never really thought of the deeper implications of this. It makes perfect sense: Kodak was a more popular film manufacturer than Fuji. However, I think some people overlook Fujifilm cameras simply because it is Fujifilm. It’s not that they have anything against Fuji, it’s just that it’s not [insert brand name here]. The point of the gag was more than just for a good laugh, but to perhaps get a few people who would otherwise ignore Fujifilm to take a closer look, and to discover what they’ve been missing.

Fujifilm X-T5 + TTArtisan 27mm + Kodachrome 64

Third, I wanted to provide to you a sampling of photographs that demonstrate how well various Kodak-like Film Simulation Recipes perform for southwest-America travel photography. I tested out eight Recipes, and shared the results. You can see if any of them might work well for you, should you find yourself in a similar photographic situation. The video serves as a micro-review of the Fujifilm X-T5 and TTArtisan 27mm f/2.8 for travel, as well.

Fourth, I wanted to give a glimpse of what it’s like to ride the Grand Canyon Railway to the National Park, stay a night at the rim, and return back on the railroad the next day. This video would serve as a mini travel-vlog of the adventure. Perhaps it will be helpful to someone else considering the same thing. While this was a goal of the video, it was not the main point.

Fujifilm X-T5 + TTArtisan 27mm + Kodak Tri-X 400

Fifth… my family and I love looking back at videos we’ve made over the years of our adventures. This is one that we’ll definitely watch (especially beginning at the 3:07 mark) many times over the coming years as we remember the great time that we had. This is a huge bonus for me.

I hope that this explanation helps to shed some light on the exact purpose—why I made this video.

Was it successful? Did the video accomplish what I hoped it would? I think so. Most people seemed to find the humor in the hoax. I did’t expect that everyone would find it funny, and some didn’t. Several folks stated that they didn’t appreciate the gag. A few people told me that I need to be more serious with my content. But a couple of people said that they’re going to look into Fujifilm cameras and Film Simulation Recipes. Many of you mentioned that you appreciated the pictures and enjoyed the adventure. And a lot of you laughed. Perhaps it wasn’t a home run, but I do think the video is doing just what I wanted it to.

See also: Kodak Retina retro-style digital mirrorless camera!

New: Kodak Retina retro-style digital mirrorless camera!!

Introducing the brand-new Kodak Retina digital mirrorless camera! Inside this retro-styled body is a 40-megapixel APS-C BSI CMOS sensor. It has eight built-in presets that mimic classic Kodak film stocks. The pictures from the Kodak Retina look great straight-out-of-camera, no editing needed! This new camera is bold yet beautiful; classic yet modern; digital yet analog.

I was given a pre-production copy of the Kodak Retina camera to try out, and used that as an excuse to visit the majestic Grand Canyon in northern Arizona! I recorded the experience, which I just published to my YouTube channel. The video is my review of the new camera, plus an epic adventure by train to one of the natural wonders of the world. I’ve included it below—you don’t want to miss this one!

The Kodak Retina

Top view of the Kodak Retina

Below are example pictures that I captured on this trip using the eight built-in presets included in the Kodak Retina:

Kodachrome 64

Kodak Retina + Kodachrome 64

Portra 160

Kodak Retina + Portra 160

Portra 400

Kodak Retina + Portra 400

Gold 200

Kodak Retina + Gold 200

Ultramax 400

Kodak Retina + Ultramax 400

Ektachrome E100VS

Kodak Retina + Ektachrome E100VS

Vision3 250D

Kodak Retina + Vision3 250D

Tri-X 400

Kodak Retina + Tri-X 400

At this point, I’m sure you’re already aware that there’s no such thing as a Kodak Retina digital camera. Kodak made Retina film cameras from the 1930’s up to 1970. While Kodak pretty much invented the digital camera, and were an important early innovator of the technology, they never made an interchangeable lens APS-C model. They did produce some full-frame DSLRs in the very early 2000’s, and made an APS-C back for a Nikon SLR in the late 1990’s, and even sold a Micro-Four-Thirds interchangeable-lens mirrorless in 2014 (manufactured by JK Imagining under the Kodak brand name); however, nothing remotely like my faux digital Retina was ever produced by Kodak. This was all just for fun—sorry if I got your hopes up.

The camera is actually a Fujifilm X-T5. That might have been obvious to you. I put some silver tape over the Fujifilm logo, and added a Kodak decal. If you look closely, you can tell that I did that. The lens is a TTArtisan 27mm f/2.8 in their limited edition yellow/orange color scheme, which is very Kodak-like; the lens is actually what inspired me to do this project. The camera strap is something I’ve owned for years now, and a red soft-shutter-release completed the look.

The pictures that I captured with this camera/lens combo are straight-out-of-camera JPEGs using eight of my Film Simulation Recipes:

I chose those particular Recipes because they mimic popular Kodak emulsions, which seemed appropriate since the X-T5 was disguised as a Kodak camera. You can find them—and over 300 more—in the Fuji X Weekly App, available for Android and Apple. Consider becoming a Patron subscriber to unlock the best App experience and to support Fuji X Weekly.

My thoughts with this camera were: what if, 15 years ago, Kodak had pivoted, and began making retro-styled mirrorless cameras with built-in film emulation presets? How much different would the industry look like today if they had? While Kodak didn’t pivot, Fujifilm did. Instead of a digital Retina, we have the X-T5. You don’t need Kodak to make this camera, because it already exists. The X-T5 (or any other Fujifilm model), combined with my Film Simulation Recipes, will do what I proposed a digital Kodak Retina would do. Fujifilm is doing what Kodak should have done but didn’t.

Now it’s your turn! What do you think of this project? How much different would the camera industry look today if a digital Kodak Retina actually existed? Let me know your thoughts in the comments!

This post contains affiliate links, and if you make a purchase using my links I’ll be compensated a small amount for it.

Fujifilm X-T5 in black:  Amazon  B&H  Moment
Fujifilm X-T5 in silver:  Amazon  B&H  Moment
TTArtisan 27mm f/2.8 in black: Amazon
TTArtsian 27mm f/2.8 in yellow/orange: Amazon

See also:
My Experience Obtaining a Permit to Film in a National Park
The History & Poetry of Kodachrome

Creative Collective 064: FXW Zine — Issue 27 — February 2024

The February issue of FXW Zine is out now! Creative Collective subscribers can download it today. Not a Creative Collective subscriber? Join to gain access to this issue plus all pervious issues of FXW Zine and the many bonus articles. 

In Issue 27, I give you a sneak peek of a secret project that I’ve been working on. There are 16 pictures (including the cover) over 12 pages. Enjoy!

My Experience Obtaining a Permit to Film in a National Park (you probably need one, too)

Cold Morning at the South Rim – Grand Canyon NP, AZ – Fujifilm X100VFujicolor C200 v2

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.

Morning Shadows – Grand Canyon NP, AZ – Fujifilm X100V – Fujicolor C200 v2

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.” 

Maricopa Point – Grand Canyon NP, AZ – Fujifilm X-T5 – Expired Velvia

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.”

Canyon & Mesas – Grand Canyon NP, AZ – Fujifilm X-T5 – Xpro ’62

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.

Canyon Between the Pines – Grand Canyon NP, AZ – Fujifilm X100V – Fujicolor C200 v2

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.

South Rim Sunset Panorama – iPhone 14 Pro – RitchieCam AppSlide Film

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.