Three bills designed to govern feature, TV program and spot location filming on public lands-specifically within the National Parks and National Wildlife Refuge Systems-are being scrutinized by the U.S. Congress. Last year it appeared that a reform measure would become law after gaining passage in the U.S. House of Representatives and preliminary approval from the Senate. But in the Senate, the legislation got packaged with other unrelated bills,
including one for the establishment of a water project in South Dakota. The package of bills was then sent back to the House of Representatives where it was defeated six months ago (SHOOT, 10/30/98, p. 1).
The author of that filming on public lands legislation, Congressman Joel Hefley (R-Colorado), promised to reintroduce his bill during this session of Congress. He has done just that with H.R. 154. Meanwhile Sen. Craig Thomas (R-Wyoming) and Sen. Ben Whitehorse (R-Colorado) have introduced bills S. 568 and S. 338, respectively, which too establish standards and fee structures that aim to encourage filming without compromising governmental protection of public lands.
Last month, representatives of the commercial community weighed in with their assessment of the legislative proposals, testifying before the Senate Subcommittee on National Parks which is under the aegis of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Sen. Thomas chairs the Senate Subcommittee.
Among those offering testimony were Matt Miller, president of the Association of Independent Commercial Producers (AICP), and Daniel L. Jaffe, executive VP of the Association of National Advertisers (ANA).
"ANA believes that these bills contain the basic formula for a new, fair and uniform fee system," said Jaffe. "A reasonable, predictable permitting and fee system is a necessity for advertisers. ANA believes that the committee is well on the road to developing a fair and efficient system."
Both Miller and Jaffe singled out provisions that they viewed as progressive and others that concerned them. Miller, for example, said that the AICP supports a fee structure for NPS land based on crew size and length of stay on location. Clearly, such barometers-part of S.568 and S. 338, and to some extent H.R. 154-would generally be favorable to commercials which are usually smaller-scale productions and have shorter time spans compared with their TV program and theatrical film counterparts. In previous testimony before the U.S. House and Senate subcommittees, representatives of the motion picture and spot industries advocated crew size as a reliable, equitable measurement of a production’s impact on a location (SHOOT, 5/1 and 5/29/98, p. 1).
Timeliness
Another pivotal factor for the commercialmaking business is timely permit processing. Miller thanked Sen. Thomas for addressing this issue in S. 568. Miller then offered an AICP-suggested formula that ties permit processing time limits to the length of projected filming. For instance, for two weeks of filming or less on public lands, the AICP proposed a permit turnaround time of two days. For two-plus to four weeks of filming, a permit should be processed in one week. And for requests entailing more than four weeks of filming, permit processing should be guaranteed to take no longer than two weeks. Furthermore, the AICP recommended that a non-refundable application fee be charged to help facilitate the processing of permit applications in a timely manner.
Miller also endorsed the revenue distribution system stipulated in HR 154, S. 338 and S. 568 that would return much of the fees collected to the site where filming takes place. As previously reported, segments of the film industry support such a policy, reasoning that it would serve as additional incentive for local public land managers to service the production community. Retention of this revenue locally might also help 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 to facilitating a quick turnaround for film permit issuance.
Concerns
In his testimony, Jaffe expressed concern over some language in S. 338 that identifies a reimbursement fee, a special use fee and a regular entrance fee. "Rather than impose these multiple, cumulative fees," said Jaffe, "ANA suggests that a reasonable, single and simple uniform fee system, based on the number of people on site and the number of days they are present, be agreed upon. Such a fee system would best serve the interest of on-site managers of federal lands, filmmakers and ultimately, the federal officials whose mission is to preserve and protect the land, which is held in trust for the American people. The Department of the Interior fee schedule [based on crew size] that was used in the past should be given serious consideration as a template, with appropriate updating with regard to the amount of fees."
Miller also noted the "potential for confusion and inconsistent interpretation in S. 338 language referring to ‘appropriate’ use. While we are certain this was not the intent, the word ‘appropriate’ also could be construed to refer to content, which would have First Amendment implications."
Jaffe expounded upon this point: "Judgements by government concerning ‘appropriateness’ of commercial filming … must be confined to issues of physical protection, preservation and the convenience of visitors and should not be concerned about the content of truthful, non-deceptive commercial messages." Jaffe added that this concern appears to be properly addressed in H.R. 154.
Teaming Up
Jaffe also testified that legislators and the commercial industry should work together to define what constitutes "a reasonable fee for commercial filming activities" as stated in S. 568. He said "there is still a need to make certain that this fee is not set at a level so high that it will serve as a disincentive for film production on the public lands … ANA hopes and believes that a reasonable, predictable permitting and fee system can be worked out. We stand ready to work with the relevant federal agencies, commercial producers and others to develop a fair and efficient system."
Miller told the Senate Subcommittee that "in order for a location to be considered a viable resource, the rules and guidelines for filming there must be predictable, clear and consistent. Television commercial producers are creative boutiques that compete with one another for the opportunity to produce a commercial commissioned by an advertising agency. The producers must be able to set fixed schedules and budgets in advance in order to develop bids for these jobs."
Miller noted that filming generates revenue and other benefits for local economies. "Hotels, restaurants and merchants all profit from the presence of film crews in the vicinity. In addition, for many people, a beautifully filmed commercial or movie is their only exposure to some of our national treasures. Accordingly, an unreasonable or unpredictable fee schedule resulting in reduced production diminishes this ancillary benefit."
Jaffe too touched upon the prospect of such diminished returns. He observed that "advertising is one of the most flexible and mobile businesses. Commercial producers have numerous options, such as filming in Canada, Mexico or other foreign locations, or using other creative approaches, rather than film on domestic public lands. If the process of approval and fee determination is not timely, predictable and consistent, advertisers will avoid the public lands in the U.S. This result would be unfortunate for the creative process and for the parks and businesses surrounding them that would benefit from these activities."
