permits for shooting in NYC?

[drew]

Reminds me. While doing the review of the MKIII I decided since I only had 24 hours to review the camera initially I should carry it with me wherever I went that day, including lunch.

I took my two small children with me to Chipotle's (a fast food mexican place owned by McDonald's I believe). We frequent this place all the time, by the way.

As I walked in I decided to take a quick photo of the menu sign just for fun. Immediately, one of the guys behind the counter ran over to me and started wagging his finger at me telling me "no photos." I asked him, what? I was so floored I kept shooting just to make a point. I was shooting the menu with the MKIII and a 24-70 lens. "Store policy," he replied.

I was tentative about shooting photos of my own children sitting at the table while we ate for fear this knucklehead would come out and bug me again. Ridiculous. However, I suppose it is private property and they can have whatever rules they want. If I had been using my camera phone, do you think they would have cared? Not likely. If I were on some sort of reconnaissance mission for some subversive activity you bet I wouldn't be using something so obvious to capture images. This policy isn't protecting me or my family when visiting this establishment, one iota. It is simply fear rearing its ugly head.

[KevinStecyk]

Originally Posted by drew

I was tentative about shooting photos of my own children sitting at the table while we ate for fear this knucklehead would come out and bug me again. Ridiculous. However, I suppose it is private property and they can have whatever rules they want. If I had been using my camera phone, do you think they would have cared? Not likely. If I were on some sort of reconnaissance mission for some subversive activity you bet I wouldn't be using something so obvious to capture images. This policy isn't protecting me or my family when visiting this establishment, one iota. It is simply fear rearing its ugly head.

I side with the restaurant on this one Drew. It's their facility and they get to set the rules. They have no idea of what your intent is with your photo. You might be a competitor, malcontent, whiner, a blogger about to write a negative article, whatever. It really doesn't matter.

I am not sure about privacy laws, but the restaurant might also be concerned that you'd purposefully or inadvertently snap a picture of a customer. And that's another set of issues.

Simply put, to ignore a private individual's or corporation's right to dictate their rules on their property is rude. And that's the kind of behavior that makes it difficult for the rest of us when we want to operate within the guidelines.

[StevenRosen]

Hi,

This is my first post to this site. I read that article in the Times and got extremely angry. I'm a New Yorker, and I called the Mayor's office of Film etc. to voice my concerns.

Here's what I was told.

If you're a professional (the cops decide if you are or not), you can be questioned or stopped. Although the proposed law says you need to be two or more people in the same spot for more than half an hour, the man at the Mayor's office said you just had to be a professional. I'm sure the law is more accurate, but this hilights how those who are supposed to enforce the law (cops, Mayor's office) don't even know what it says. I was also told that if all images have to be for my personal use, so they can't be sold as stock, or shown in galleries, or even posted online (I kid you not). If you do any of those things you're considered a professional.

Also the two or more person rule includes models. So if you're a wedding photographer, you can't shoot a bride in Central Park without a permit.

But the thing that really gets to me is that you can be stopped simply for having a camera. You don't even have to be using it. If you and a friend both have "professional" cameras, and are spending too much time in the same space, you can be questioned by the police. Even if you haven't take a shot!

I already have problems with overzealous park guards who have stopped me at a local park from taking pictures of the skyline. It's truly insane.

I don't think the Mayor's office is trying to be evil, but I also don't think they have the slightest clue as to how people take pictures and what they do with their images. They're essentially lumping us in with big Hollywood productions that close off entire blocks to film.

One would think that the city would want beautiful pictures of New York circulating in stock collections. This proposed law has not a single positive aspect, and can only hurt the city.

If it does pass, I'd strongly suggest that all photographers download a copy of the law and keep it with them at all times, so if you're harassed by the cops you can show them that you're within the letter of the law.

[drew]

Kevin,

Very true. It is their private property and they can have whatever policy floats their boat. Which is why I did stop shooting, proceeded to make my large food order and moved on.

I'm not suggesting that people boycott their restaurant or anything. What I am pointing out is the ridiculousness of how their policy probably gets applied. Again, if I were someone with any of the serious intents you mention, you can bet it would be carried out in a different way. They have probably been told no photography, so this gets translated into no pro looking gear. Someone with pro gear is the least likely candidate for someone doing something illegal or subversive.

Their entire menu is available on a take out menu.

If I took out a pencil and started making notes while in the restaurant would this activity be stopped?

[Martin_Doudoroff]

Originally Posted by KevinStecyk

It's their facility and they get to set the rules. They have no idea of what your intent is with your photo. You might be a competitor, malcontent, whiner, a blogger about to write a negative article, whatever. It really doesn't matter.

I am deeply skeptical that it is in society's interest to give corporations (including the Government) this degree of say so.

[KevinStecyk]

Originally Posted by Martin_Doudoroff

I am deeply skeptical that it is in society's interest to give corporations (including the Government) this degree of say so.

Be skeptical all you want. Your lawyer and the corporation's lawyer can discuss it at length at a cost of several thousands to you.

If I were the corporation, I'd have zero--let me repeat that, zero--tolerance for cameras on the property. My desire to provide a safe, hassle free environment for my customers so far supersedes some person's needs or desire with a camera that the camera guy doesn't even show up on my radar screen. If I were the corporation's lawyer providing company policies, there would be no leniency.

This is particularly true for places like gyms--my gym has banned cell phones with camera; bring one and you're gone, no questions asked--and restaurants, where customers might not want to be photographed.

And if I were a customer, I wouldn't be too pleased with someone else wielding a camera while I am at an eating establishment or changing at a gym.

If you do want to bring a camera, contact the company's external/investment/customer relations department. They can review your needs and make a decision.

If you don't like that corporation's rules, it's easy. Take your business elsewhere.

Corporations are just mere extensions of ourselves. As a shareholder of public companies, I certainly don't want my companies accepting unnecessary risks, especially when there is no reward or benefit. And I want my companies squarely focused on satisfying the needs of their customers so that they can continue to grow and be profitable.

Best regards,
Kevin

[KevinStecyk]

Originally Posted by drew

Kevin,

Very true. It is their private property and they can have whatever policy floats their boat. Which is why I did stop shooting, proceeded to make my large food order and moved on.

I'm not suggesting that people boycott their restaurant or anything. What I am pointing out is the ridiculousness of how their policy probably gets applied. Again, if I were someone with any of the serious intents you mention, you can bet it would be carried out in a different way. They have probably been told no photography, so this gets translated into no pro looking gear. Someone with pro gear is the least likely candidate for someone doing something illegal or subversive.

Their entire menu is available on a take out menu.

If I took out a pencil and started making notes while in the restaurant would this activity be stopped?

Drew,

If I were making the rules for the company, I wouldn't go into what is and is not allowed. There's no upside in that. I simply say, no cameras without prior authorization allowed on the property. I really don't care what he is filming or his reasons. Unless there is prior written authorization, it ain't happening.

So you have an employee who is just carrying out orders (pun not intended, well maybe it is) at the restaurant. He sees you whipping out a camera and he knows his job is to stop it. Period.

I suspect, though, that if you were part of a birthday party, the management would be okay with you and the birthday party. But outside of that, which counters my earlier stuff, I'd say he was doing his job.

Pro gear is a red herring in this discussion. Cameras in whatever form are likely not allowed.

If you started making notes, would that be a problem? I doubt it. The fat couple two seats over with their large meals doubt that you can sketch them accurately within a half hour that you're there. But if you photograph them stuffing themselves and show it to the world, they might have an issue.

Again, I know you were photographing the menu. But it just takes a nanosecond to point your high powered pro camera somewhere else. And that's the real issue.

I doubt that they care that you captured the menu. As you state, you can take a copy with you.

Again, when corporate policies are developed for those in the field, they are not highly nuanced documents providing detailed instructions for how to interpret complex guidelines. Rather they tend to be blunt instruments that can be easily, readily, and accurately applied by a wide variance of individuals on a repeated basis.

So you might see something like this:

1) Unless a customer is taking personal photographs of a family or business occasion and restricts his photography to his party, no photography is allowed.

2) There might be some language prohibiting you from walking in with a film crew to film your birthday.

Anyway, I doubt we see this situation too much differently.

Best regards,
Kevin