Welcome to Americanparks.info - Information on Locations of US National Parks

Contends Spot Location Shooting Would Be Adversely Affected By Proposals In House, Senate.

WASHINGTON, D.C. - The Association of Independent Commercial Producers (AICP) has voiced concern over three proposed pieces of federal legislation - two in the Senate, the third in the House of Representatives - each seeking to govern location filming on public lands within the National Parks and National Wildlife Refuge Systems. AICP president Matt Miller is scheduled to testify later this month before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources in Washington. He will formally object to the prospective bills as presently written on the grounds that they would make it virtually impossible logistically and/or financially for commercialmakers to shoot in national parks.

Miller bases that contention on key provisions in each bill. For example, one Senate proposal calls for filmmakers to pay "fair market value" that would be negotiated on a case-by-case basis. A production company would have to apply for a filming permit and negotiate the film permitting price before even being able to fully bid the job. "By that time, the commercial would already be on the air," pointed out Miller.

Another proposal defines "fair market value" as being one-half of one percent of the production budget. And at the end of the project, if actuals exceed that budget, the company would be charged one percent of that difference. The bill bases that pricing formula on the premise that a national park location can serve as a star attraction in a commercial, TV series or theatrical feature.

Miller said that producers need fees to be "fair" and "predictable" in order to facilitate shooting in national parks. As earlier reported (SHOOT, 3/20, p. 1), other segments of the industry - including the Association of Film Commissioners International (AFCI) and the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) - have expressed concern over the inexactness of "fair market value," leaving fees wide open to different interpretations.

Utah Film Commission director Leigh von der Esch testified before a U.S. House subcommittee a couple of months ago that the fee schedule shouldn't be cost-prohibitive and needs to be "consistent from jurisdiction to jurisdiction." She added that the production community should have a reasonable expectation that film permits will be processed on a more timely basis.

Miller contended that national parks should consider the system put in place by the U.S. Forest Service, which assesses the impact a production will have on a location in terms of inconvenience caused and how greatly access to that site would be impaired. The U.S. Forest Service bases that determination on the size of crew, a gauge that Miller described as being "fair and reliable."

That opinion was earlier voiced by Fritz E. Attaway, senior VP, government relations/Washington general counsel for the MPAA. In his testimony before the aforementioned U.S. House subcommittee, Attaway said that the number of people in the filming party represents "a very reliable predictor of the size and complexity of the film project and the impact it will have on the resource."

Clearly a barometer based on crew size would generally be favorable to commercials, which are usually smaller-scale productions compared to their TV program and theatrical feature counterparts.

At the same time, Miller recognized the need for some sort of uniform application fee to be established for filming in national parks. He explained that the recent emergence of congressional bills is due in part to the fact that under 40-year-old legislation still in effect, national parks cannot charge a prescribed fee for such usage. "I don't think there's any disagreement that a reasonable fee structure needs to be set," said Miller.

Toward that end, Miller said that representatives of the AICP, the Association of National Advertisers, the American Advertising Federation, the AFCI and MPAA entered into a positive dialogue during a D.C. meeting last month with the National Parks and Conservation Association, staff for the respective legislative authors of the three bills, members of the resource committees of the U.S. House and Senate, staffers from the federal Bureau of Land Management, the National Park Service and the U.S. Forest Service. The AICP delegation consisted of Miller, AICP/East president A1 Califano (executive producer of bicoastal OneSuch Films) and Jane Nunez, AICP manager of labor affairs and national government relations.

"It was an open discussion so people on the government side could understand our concerns, and they educated us as well," related Miller. "I was especially impressed by the actual park rangers, who seem to have a good grasp of what filming is about and the issues involved."

Meanwhile, some industry support has emerged for a provision within the proposed legislation that clears the way for a significant portion of fees to remain within the local park facility, thus giving public land managers greater incentive to service the production industry. Retention of this revenue locally could justify the hiring of a liaison to handle and expedite reasonable filming requests. Currently, many public land managers have a full plate of responsibilities, making it difficult for them to divert time o facilitating quick turnaround for film permit issuance.