This article, published in the NY Times, today, reports that the Mayor's Office of Film, Theater and Broadcasting in New York City is attempting to implement new legal requirements of a city permit and $1 million in liability insurance for certain classes of professional photography on city property. This would include sidewalks. Specifically,
"New rules being considered by the Mayor’s Office of Film, Theater and Broadcasting would require any group of two or more people who want to use a camera in a single public location for more than a half hour to get a city permit and insurance.
"The same requirements would apply to any group of five or more people who plan to use a tripod in a public location for more than 10 minutes, including the time it takes to set up the equipment.
The New York Civil Liberties Union is opposed to the new rules. This page provides a summary, as well as links to the actual rules and the NYCLUs full comments.
White Balance so easy, even our 5 year old can do it.- Melissa Strickland
This article, published in the NY Times, today, reports that the Mayor's Office of Film, Theater and Broadcasting in New York City is attempting to implement new legal requirements of a city permit and $1 million in liability insurance for certain classes of professional photography on city property. This would include sidewalks. Specifically,
"New rules being considered by the Mayor’s Office of Film, Theater and Broadcasting would require any group of two or more people who want to use a camera in a single public location for more than a half hour to get a city permit and insurance.
"The same requirements would apply to any group of five or more people who plan to use a tripod in a public location for more than 10 minutes, including the time it takes to set up the equipment.
The New York Civil Liberties Union is opposed to the new rules. This page provides a summary, as well as links to the actual rules and the NYCLUs full comments.
The way I read it was any two people photographing in one location (100 ft radius) for more than a half hour (including setting up and shutting down) required a permit. If I lived in NYC and the rules were in place, I suspect that I would be caught up in that bureaucratic mess, even though I am just an amateur.
I just hope that, if this lunacy does pass, it is confined to NYC and does not spread across North America. Public places should be public. And as long as you are not creating a disturbance or negatively affecting others around you, you should be reasonably free to use public spaces. I guess we can all quibble about what defines reasonably.
If this is passed, what's next?
White Balance so easy, even our 5 year old can do it.- Melissa Strickland
Last edited by KevinStecyk; 06-29-2007 at 08:05 PM.
Reason: added missing words
My first eye-opener was over ten years ago when I was visiting Detroit, wandering around the downtown taking pictures of old architectural detail. At one point, I was standing on a sidewalk with my tripod, shooting across the street and captured this photo of a security guard crossing the street to inform me that photographing the building was not permitted without the permission of the building's management.
I was challenged again that same day when trying to photograph a vast outsider art installation on a derelict inner city street.
A few years back, I was prevented from bringing a tripod onto the grounds of Chichen Itza. It was explained to me that professional photographers (i.e., anyone with a tripod) have to apply for (and pay for) a permit, in advance, from Mérida. Never mind that I was not there in any professional capacity, and that my film was too slow to take pictures hand-held. I was delighted to have lugged my medium format camera and tripod all the way out there just to be denied entry. Obviously, I was naive. Luckily, I had my first DSLR, and got some nice pictures, anyway (after carrying my prohibited gear back to the hotel).
I've observed—as we all have—an overall proliferation of rules against photography in all manner of situations. I've also overheard a few proclamations from people that photographers are making lots of money taking pictures of other people's stuff and the implication was that photographers are getting a free ride and that it isn't right or fair.
I suspect a lot of this is the natural result of the rise of the "information economy" and all that entails. But where will it end?
White Balance so easy, even our 5 year old can do it.- Melissa Strickland
An interesting issue comes up here: these rules are not supposed to interfere with tourists or "amateur" photographers, but to "set a standard" for professionals shooting in NYC (where I live, by the way.)
How would the police determine whether I am an amateur or pro? By the size of your lens! I have been stopped in several places, including Coney Island, and told that I have to get a permit to shoot, based on the 100-400mm lens I was using. I pointed out that my wife, with her Panasonic, had the equivalent of a 36-420mm lens and was more powerful than mine, but she was allowed to keep shooting.
I think that, rather than grumbling about the proposed law, we should set up a thread here, inviting photographers' comments in a well reasoned appeal (no flaming the Mayor, the police, the film commission, etc) and when we have enough postings, to send copies of the thread to the appropriate agencies.
About a year ago, a proposed change in the MTA's rules would have forbidden photography anywhere in the subway and bus system was withdrawn after a loud protest from legal and photographic groups and individuals.
__________________ --Walter Kimmel
White Balance so easy, even our 5 year old can do it.- Melissa Strickland
It is hard not to flame people coming up with such nonsensical rules. You do not need to be a Libertarian, just a liberal mided fella, to ask yourself how far governments and their bodies are willing to intrude upon individual [hence, everybody's] freedom. We are now down to two reasons given for any ruling:
a) 'We have to protect citicens from terrorist [and other criminals]!'
b) 'We have to protect artists/architects/rights holders from being ripped off.'
While the former has at least a little bit of reality in it, the latter is just a completely muddled idiocy.
There must be a reason why there's a mental in 'governmental' ...
__________________ Dierk Haasis
[DH² Publishing] - Writing and Imaging
I don't need the government's protection. I'm capable of choosing not to expose myself to undue risk, and of protecting myself and my family should it come to the need to do so.
I don't need to be restricted by the government to ensure I respect property and privacy. I am careful, polite, and respectful, and virtually always leave public places better than I found them (i.e., I pick up trash and generally take responsibility).
No one needs to lock their doors because of ME, because I'm not going to steal anything.
Why is it *I* don't need these things and yet the General Public does? Because as a general rule they're a bunch of ignorant, lazy, selfish bums who feel it's someone else's responsibility to look after them. Call me old fashioned, but this is how I feel.
We DON'T need more restrictive laws... We DO need more education, more moral teaching (i.e., "THIS is right and THIS is wrong"), more real justice, and a return to a work ethic that has everyone carrying their own weight and then some.
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
Someone must have confused the "freedom to pursue happiness" with the "freedom to do whatever the hell one wants".
I'll tell you this: I certainly don't plan to visit New York City any time soon. There's nothing there I need or want. Unfortunately, I live in a suburb of NYC (Palm Beach County, FL), and so I know EXACTLY the kind of thinking that's going on up there. It's pretty bad down here too.
Sorry for the ranting. I feel better now.
-Noel
P.S., Wasn't there a time when government catering to special interests was considered a bad thing, even illegal?
Linear Mode
