NH Supreme Court To Rule On Bigfoot Video Shoot In Public Park

alphadogg writes with this excerpt from the Boston Globe: "On a whim two years ago, performance artist Jonathan Doyle paraded around the bustling peak of New Hampshire's Mount Monadnock in a $40 Bigfoot costume from iParty. He thought his deadpan video interviews with hikers describing their Bigfoot sightings would be worth a few chuckles on YouTube, and might boost the profile of his other artwork. But the staff at Monadnock State Park found the Yeti act abominable. When Doyle returned with friends to shoot a sequel, the park manger quashed the production and ordered Doyle off the mountain, insisting he needed a state permit to film a movie in the park. Bigfoot stepped up with a lawsuit, alleging that the park's permit regulations are unconstitutional. The New Hampshire Supreme Court next month will hear Doyle's complaint. Though many elements of the dispute border on the absurd, the case raises some serious free speech issues."

Comments

Limits are necessary, or are they?

[Great Big Bird]

There are two purposes I can see for a permit system: 1. It provides a framework to limit activities in the park, and 2. it can provide a source of funding for the park. I think in the case of the former, there are some activities one does not want done: such as building a structure. Other activities such as littering does not require the use of a permit, as normal laws quash that. In the case of the latter, it is entirely possible to just have an entrance fee for the park – if that is legal. Ultimately, I don't see a need for either need, as unsuitable excess will either happen rarely or can be punished/prevented through normal laws. Based on the text of the story, it seems to me that the park staff have no reason other than they don't like it. Which is not a valid reason in this context.

Re:Limits are necessary, or are they?

[mysidia]

How about permits for potentially disruptive activities in order to maintain public order? Do you have a right to dress up as a large creature or do other deceptive things to disturb other people's enjoyment of the park?

Re:Limits are necessary, or are they?

[Fluffeh]

I think this is a case of the "Big boy rules" being applied to the little guy. You can't shoot a Hollywood movie in a national park without the proper permits, that's something that no-one wants to argue. However, the park isn't going to stop a family busting out a video camera and recording their holiday hike.

I think what's going on here is a few friends are having fun and doing something that falls into the latter category, but the park is (for no reason that I can fathom) against the idea of some pranksters having a good chuckle with the park patrons - so they apply the only rules that they can find to stop this happening, the rules meant for Hollywood.

If you ask me, this smells like a case of the park being douchebags, but I can't really see too much that anyone can do. You certainly don't want the next blockbuster film crew coming in and trashing a park just because the courts ruled that Jonathan and his friends could have a laugh.

If you ask me, Jonathan should find another park that isn't so full of themselves to record his sequel. "The Yeti Migration" comes to mind as a title...

Re:Limits are necessary, or are they?

[shutdown -p now]

The question here shouldn't be whether it's commercial in nature or not. The only question is whether it is detrimental to other people using the park. It's clear why large production would be that - it's due to the sheer amount of people involved, not because of the mere act of pointing a camera somewhere.

Re:Limits are necessary, or are they?

[Pharmboy]

Big movies are for profit, a commercial venture.

You can shoot home movies of your children in the park, which isn't for profit, and is perfectly fine and legal.

He is trying to do something closer to home movies, as he is posting on youtube, not requiring large equipment and space, and not requiring any part of the park to be off limits. If they want to require that he first notify them (so they know to not hunt for any reporting bigfeet) and require a small fee for dealing with it, ($10 range, since entry is only $4), then I wouldn't have an issue, as the fee would be in line with the cost to them, virtually nothing. Anything more is infringing on free speech, since it wouldn't be in proportion to the "disruption" itself.

Re:Limits are necessary, or are they?

[sjames]

Perhaps it's akin to yelling "movie" in a fire house.

This is huge.

[MarkvW]

If the government wins on this one, they'll get support for making the same arguments about filming on the public highways or public sidewalks.

 

Re:This is huge.

[phantomfive]

It's not really the same, that kind of thing is already illegal.....if you get on a freeway with your camera gear and block traffic for three hours while you film something, then yeah, the police are going to come bother you (you could probably do it anyway if you have a permit, much like this guy could if he had a permit).

The purpose of the regulation is mentioned in the article:

The permit regulations are for “mitigating the impacts of commercial events’’ in state parks, and “protecting visitors from unwelcome or unwarranted interference, annoyance, or danger,’’ among other considerations, the state wrote in its brief.

Do you really want a Geico lizard harassing you while you are hiking around Yellowstone? Probably not. What this guy was doing could be interpreted as shameless self-promotion and harassing people.

I don't know if he was harassing people or not. I wasn't there, and the article doesn't give much info. Maybe he was, maybe the permit requirements are reasonable, the court needs to decide that.

The point is, even if the court lets this stand, it's can't be used as a precedent to limit us any more than we already are (and really, I don't want people blocking traffic on the freeway for their pet youtube videos).

Re:This is huge.

[phantomfive]

Right, so the question is, when is commercial activity enough to require a permit? I've never been to New Hampshire, but I assume there were plenty of other people who had cameras who were fine. It was the extra stuff this guy was doing that caused the confrontation with the park rangers.

Re:Free speech?

[hedwards]

Because restricting free speech to one particular block in the middle of Topeka would be way too easy a way of curtailing freedom of expression. And they could do the same thing for freedom of assembly or right to bear arms.

The right to free speech necessitates the ability to engage in it everywhere one can. Having these zones like at the airport is counter the purpose of having the freedom in the first place.

Re:Great Moments in American Journalism

[jd]

Well, it's better than Bigfoot telling reporters that he's quaternion.

permits sometimes needed in national parks

[NaturePhotog]

I don't know about the NH state parks, but the National Park Service spells out pretty clearly when permits are needed, under the general category "Commercial Filming and Still Photography Permits". Basically if it's a location not normally accessible to the public; you bring in models, sets or props; or the park service would need additional resources to monitor the activity. He's bringing in a costume, and he's doing it to advertise his other artwork, so it would probably require a permit in a national park. But small scale, there are no onerous fees: 1 - 2 people, camera & tripod only $0/day. The system is set up to keep advertisers and corporations from abusing the parks for their own uses. In the article, it sounds pretty similar for the NH state parks, except the fee is $100/day. As a photographer (who spends time in CA state parks and national parks), it doesn't sound to me like a question of free speech because they didn't deny him access, they just told him to follow the existing rules and get a necessary permit.

Re:permits sometimes needed in national parks

[flimflammer]

The $100 fee is misleading. He would also need to take out a $2 million insurance bond which would have cost him several hundred dollars more on top of it. They may not have physically denied him access by telling him to get the permit, but the price tag for entry was prohibitively high when all is said and done and that's the problem. They seemed to apply the permit tied to bigger things to this guy in a costume with a consumer grade camera.

The way I've read into this seems to imply they just didn't like what he was doing the first time and hid behind the permit business this time as a way to make him go away. I don't think I'd spend $700/800+ just to film some Bigfoot footage for YouTube.

Permits are OK if they are "Shall Issue"

[nicoleb_x]

I have no problem with permits as long as the the Parks have a "Shall Issue" rule so that you get a permit as long as you meet the minimum requirements.

Re:This is not a moral battle but a legal one

[sconeu]

How is a *STATE PARK* not considered a public place?