Permit May Be Required For Public Photography in NYC

G4Cube passed us a link to a New York Times article about a troubling development in public photography rights. New York City is considering requiring a permit for photographers, film-makers, and even possibly tourists who want to shoot imagery in the Big Apple. "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. Julianne Cho, assistant commissioner of the film office, said the rules were not intended to apply to families on vacation or amateur filmmakers or photographers. Nevertheless, the New York Civil Liberties Union says the proposed rules, as strictly interpreted, could have that effect. The group also warns that the rules set the stage for selective and perhaps discriminatory enforcement by police."

Absurd

[BWJones (18351)]

Oh great. Just what we need are more incidents like this [utah.edu] and this [thomashawk.com]. Who gets to define "amateur"? Or how about what is really going to happen is simply giving the police more latitude in harassing photographers who are operating from open, public spaces already paid for in taxes by the taxpayer? From this text Mr. Dunn suggested that the city deliberately kept the language vague, and that as a result police would have broad discretion in enforcing the rules. I'd say that it looks like it. Also, from the article 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. Why a tripod? Does that make for a professional? If so, I must be a triple professional, because I have three tripods. ;-) Seriously though, this is the sort of law that sounds like it was put together over a drinking game by a couple of high school students, but in reality it has been assembled by a group of mid level government bureaucrats who obviously have not thought very far down the road as to the possible implications, legal or otherwise. For instance, The draft rules say the office could take up to 30 days to issue a permit, but Ms. Cho said she expected that most would be issued within 24 hours. leading me to wonder: Will the film student, of which there are many in NYC have to now go and apply for a permit and a $1 million dollar insurance policy for every single class assignment? What about the news agencies who might have to report on breaking stories? Will they be breaking the law covering the news?

This is simply absurd and as a photographer, I will *not* be traveling into NYC if this proposed policy becomes law.

Re:

[VirusEqualsVeryYes (981719)]

the city deliberately kept the language vague, and that as a result police would have broad discretion in enforcing the rules.

Yeah. Because that always works out so well...

These politicians...

[by Anonymous Coward]

...need a kick in the face.

'Nuff said.

Re:Absurd

[BakaHoushi (786009)]

Don't worry. When they pass the new legislation that will allow police officers to shoot anyone they don't like on sight, they will only use it to protect us from the terrorists* lurking around every corner right now.

This has been a message from the US Department of Fuck the Constitution.

*Not a guarantee, if you don't like it, move to Canada you pinko commie.

Re:

[insignificant_wrangl (1060444)]

This has been a message from the US Department of Fuck the Constitution.

Awesome. Wish I had mod points. Hopefully the Supreme Court will remain sane and strike this down right quick. Otherwise I can see a lot of college photography students getting selectively harassed ...I mean investigated... in the future...

Who gets to define "amateur"?

[RobotRunAmok (595286)]

The IRS.

QuadPods selling for $99

[cheekyboy (598084)]

I hope that quadpods are not part of the law, I will make a killing selling these so you will never break the law.

Shh govt types who dont know what real work is.... i have a pentapod and sexapod and octapods ready too.

I have a proposal, sack 100% of all middle govt goons.

Re:

[ScrewMaster (602015)]

I think there might be fewer problems with bad laws if more of us had tripods like this [wikipedia.org] one.

Re:Absurd

[j00r0m4nc3r (959816)]

I did a search for "amateur pictures" on Google images, and let me tell you, I am in favor of allowing THAT kind of phototography in public places in NYC. In fact, I think there is a definite shortage of amateur photography taking place.

Re:Absurd

[vmxeo (173325)]

It's already happened to me and my friends, and more than once. Let me give you one example. I live near the Brooklyn Bridge. Next to the bridge is Fulton Ferry Park. From this park, you have a beautiful view of the Brooklyn Bridge and Lower Manhattan just beyond (shameless self-promotional shot of said park and view from just beyond) [flickr.com]). Two friends of mine wanted to record a brief video message to send to their friend in France who was getting married soon, and we thought it'd be cool to shoot in the park. Upon entry to the park, I was immediately stopped by a park employee who wanted to know what I was doing with my video camera. After explaining what we wanted to do, he told us we would need a permit, which he conveniently had nearby. He said we would need a) permit for filming (both city and state, since it's a state park), b) permit for a 'gathering' of people in the park for the 3 of us and c) proof of insurance. We then got into an arguement, since it clearly stated ON THE PERMIT it was only necessary for commercial use, and mine was clearly personal. His reasoning? My camera was "too professional looking". He then told me I could either pay for the permits then, or leave the park immediately (under threat that if I didn't, he'd call the cops!).


Another one of my friends who is a professional photographer has been...

followed by 3 homeland security helicopter as he took pictures from the rooftops of several buildings in the area

stopped and prevented by a NYC park employee from taking a picture of a building *belonging* to his employer (he just happened to be standing just off the sidewalk on a patch of grass that's technically a park)

approached by security countless times for taking pictures of buildings from public areas

Ok, I'm sorry for the venting, but there's an obvious anti-amateur photographer bent in this city. I've shot both with (for actual production projects) and without (personal). If you have a permit, you're gold. Cops let you go wherever you want. Federal marshals protecting government buildings become friendly. If you don't, you're treated worse then dirt. (end rant)

The terrorists have already won

[Macka (9388)]

Strikes me that your lives have been so transformed by all this that in many ways they can already claim victory. Your nation is now so frightened of its own shadow that one by one your personal freedoms are being stripped away in the name of "security". And the sad thing is, you're doing it to yourselves.

Re:The terrorists have already won

[MarsDefenseMinister (738128)]

You're forgetting one detail. We're going to drop a bomb on their head during their victory celebration. And, we're going to steal their camels.

Plus, we're going to steal their culture and their food and sell it at Disney World.

Re:

[nanosquid (1074949)]

We already have, pre 9/11 even:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0103639/ [imdb.com]

MOD Parent DOWN

[tiananmen tank man (979067)]

You ask, "What does this have to do with terrorism?" If you belive these new rules are for some other reason, please explain.

You say these "permits" have been required long before 9-11 happened. I agree with you on that point, movie studios and other commercial filmers shouild require some type of permit.

You say the old rules were very vague and the new rules much more specific with even the NYCLU admiting that. The following quote from the linked article seems to disagree with your statement. "Mr. Dunn sug

Re:

[DavidTC (10147)]

They are not intended to prevent terrorists (not sure how you made the connection in the first place, though I am rather curious on that front) but to prevent movie studios from shutting down the city every other day while they make a movie.

You're an idiot. Movie studios need permits because they, in essence, rent parts of the city. They gain control of a street or a park and can bar people from it at will. Quite obviously, people can't be given the ability walk around claiming sections of public areas f

Please RTFA

[nwbvt (768631)]

"This has nothing to do with someone walking around and filming or taking pictures in a public area without interfering with anyone else's use of the public space, which is what the government has recently started meddling in under the guise of 'terrorism prevention'."

Under the old guidelines, the activity which you described would need a permit. The new guidelines mentioned by this article are intended to clarify them so the guy you speak of would not need a permit. The controversy is that while the n

Re:

[Somnus (46089)]

A freedom troll -- now I've seen everything.

When the NSA stops conducting warrantless searches, I no longer have to pour my shampoo in cute little bottles to get through airport security, I can peaceably take photos at any public place, and I'm not toting a National ID with a bar code within 10 years, I'll grant you your point.

Re:

[Fulcrum of Evil (560260)]

Did you never try to fly on a plane with nail clippers prior to 9-11?

Yeah, so what? Before the current madness, my toiletries bag was just fine as carryon. Now, the toothpaste and shampoo is banned. Clippers are still fine, as well as a 6" screwdriver (which can't be used as a weapon, no sir)

The airline restrictions passed in response to 9-11 were that you couldn't bring box-cutters on the plane, which is considered perfectly reasonable by most people.

They also made airline security federal and spe

Re:

[EtoilePB (1087031)]

I live in NYC now; before that, I lived in Boston.

After 2001, Boston made regulations about photography in certain places. Namely, you're not allowed to take pictures of anything T (public transit). Not the trains, not the buses,not the employees, nothing. One day at Park Street I saw a Japanese woman (the quintessential stereotypical tourist) who clearly didn't speak a word of English get carted away by two beefy officers because she was taking pictures of her family standing next to a Green Line trai

Re:Absurd

[nbauman (624611)]

I was immediately stopped by a park employee who wanted to know what I was doing with my video camera. After explaining what we wanted to do, he told us we would need a permit, which he conveniently had nearby.
He then told me I could either pay for the permits then, or leave the park immediately (under threat that if I didn't, he'd call the cops!).

You could pay him for the permit? Right then and there? That's ridiculous. The permits are issued by the Mayor's Office for Film, Theater and Broadcasting (which is only open Monday-Friday 8:30am-4:30pm). He was trying to shake you down.

As one of the other posters said, I would have called him on it, and let him call the cops. (In NYC, you have to be confrontational just to get through the day.)

I would have asked him for his identification -- and taken his picture. Turn on the camera and ask him to tell you on camera that you need a permit and he can sell you one right there.

I think that would be a good video. Go around the City with a camera, and record park department employees and cops when they come up to you telling you that you need a permit, and record the idiotic conversations that ensue. "I'm an amateur. What makes you say I'm a professional?" etc.

Go to the Mayor's Office for Film, Theater and Broadcasting and ask them, on camera, how they tell the difference between an amateur and a professional.

Tell them at the Mayor's Office those stories you've just told us, and ask them how you're supposed to get a permit just to take a video of some friends.

Re:

[Fred_A (10934)]

have him call the cops, then.

he's wrong.

call him on his shit.

and also ask for his supervisor and the cop's supervisor, too.

Woah, now that's not something I'd try. You seem to believe that the police actually cares about that crap ? That they'd side with you for being called into a park because of some guy with a camera ?

Most likely you'd be in for a nasty (and probably expensive) surprise when the cops get there.

Re:Absurd

[Elemenope (905108)]

What's the difference between 'self-righteous indignation' and simply 'righteous indignation'? After all, the only ways a person can really register their displeasure is with either action or speech, and both proceed from the self. How is a photographer supposed to be indignant about photography rules except through photography (or a boycott thereof)? Not everyone is an eloquent writer or public speaker (re:write to your congresscritter! and such sundry crappy advice), and it seems to me appropriate that a person act or withhold action through their medium of skill and choice. That a person is personally affronted by a rule that affects their preferred activity is no call to impugn the indignation as purely self-interested; that stems from a darkly cynical view of human nature that is both basically unsupportable by evidence and nihilistic in general. I hate nihilism; it's exhausting and yet isn't even an ethos. ;)

NYC, being a large tourist-industrial city, *will* miss tourism dollars, esp. if other photographers/filmographers are as 'self-righteously indignant' as GP. Like many large cities with burgeoning service-oriented industry, NYC's economy relies heavily on visiting dollars.

On a different note, I am indignant (and I dislike photography passionately) because I happen to believe that the public space should be publicly accessible in all ways that preserve the public order (and a few that don't). We all walk around with two cameras (if we are lucky) every damn day, whose resolution and video-motion capabilities are truly impressive; their only fault is a bad I/O system and a universally incompatible codec. People in public should be able to share what they see in a format that is export-friendly, and I can for myself find no good argument why that should not be so.

Re:Absurd

[Just because I'm an (847583)]

The more corrupt the republic, the more numerous the laws. -Tacitus

Re:Absurd

[Garrett Fox (970174)]

What seems to be happening is surveillance by the government, while surveillance by the people themselves is outlawed as a violation of privacy or national security. (See Brin's The Transparent Society.)

Re:Absurd

[BakaHoushi (786009)]

It also brings up another point.

Why stop at cameras? Why not ban sketch pads? People sitting in the park drawing that sky scraper COULD be terrorists. Sure, they SAY they're an art student practicing drawing infrastructure, but better safe than sorry, right? Come to think of it, you can draw on anything. We better ban paper. Wait, You can still draw on your skin. We need to ban pens and pencils.

Of course, cell-phones can transmit sounds from far away. Terrorists could be describing locations from up close to people far away to sketch. Good-bye phones. Especially since so many have hidden cameras in them.

Of course, cops and all other law enforcement agents will have cam-corders on at all times, especially when giving your house a surprise inspection, or questioning you for "looking suspicious."

Say, all that makes you NOT want to visit NYC? Well, I'd say that's mighty suspicious. Since when were YOU a terrorist sympathizer?

Honestly, this bullshit has got to stop. We need to put our collective foot down and say "Enough is enough." We need to:
1. Locate the nearest wall
2. Locate local politicians
3. Places 2. againt 1.
4. Let the revolution begin

Re:

[Dogtanian (588974)]

Self-righteous indignation is fun, huh? I'm certain that NYC will *not* miss your tourism dollars.

If NYC itself took such a haughty attitude as you do, and constantly annoyed tourists with petty bureaucratic rules, they almost certainly *would* see a drop in tourist income. Though whether tourism is a significant source of income to the city is questionable- I certainly don't know. If it's only a minor source, they might not consider it worth their while to change their stance.

FWIW, the same could be said for the United States as a whole- I don't know whether tourism is a major enough part of the eco

1st Amendment

[Antony-Kyre (807195)]

Last I checked, cities cannot override 1st Amendment rights. I believe this falls under the freedom of the press.

Re:

[Tuoqui (1091447)]

They've been doing it for years. Ever since that PATRIOT Act was put into place.

At the rate the US Government is going there wont be any First Amendment in a few years. Maybe they should have a protest in the form of a funeral for it. It might open up people's eyes instead of just running down a street chanting slogans.

Re:1st Amendment

[STrinity (723872)]

Non-informative film making isn't "press", at least not in my country. If the law is to be applied only to professional movie recording, I don't see a clash with the freedom of the press.

Because the Supreme Court ruled in the 1950s that movie makers are covered by the First Amendment. "Freedom of Speech" covers just about every form of expression that doesn't create an immediate danger.

One Sided Article

[eldavojohn (898314)]

This article is pretty one sided (not that that is bad) so I'm wondering what happened or what is the cause of these new laws?

Usually when you change the law, it's because something happened. I would like to know what failure the current laws have suffered and I didn't really find there to be a lot of comments from the New York City government on this issue, just civil liberties groups.

So as far as I can guess, there are two possible reason. The first is the ole' terrorism card where we can't have people that might be terrorists casing targets and what not. The second possible reason is that it is becoming easier and easier to garner thousands of viewers (like the article mentions) via sites like YouTube by posting your work online. Is the city targeting these people the same way it targets major Hollywood film companies?

I'm kind of disappointed this article didn't accurately reflect both sides of the issue. I can see several downsides to these laws but is there at least a reason for changing them in the first place? Not a lot of information here from NYC.

The Mayor's Office of Film, Theatre & Broadcasting [nyc.gov] seems to be concerned primarily with fining large companies. The free permit you can apply for online states:

The permit we issue to your production is free of charge, and provides access to public locations and street parking for essential production vehicles throughout 300 square miles of public settings in the city's five boroughs, including 27,000 acres of city parks.

When your project is shooting at an exterior location which requires traffic control, or has a scene with prop firearms, weapons or actors in police uniforms, you must request that the NYPD Movie and TV Unit be assigned to your location. The police unit will assign its officers at no charge to you.

All decisions about what is permitted are made by the Mayor's Office of Film, Theatre & Broadcasting, working in close consultation with the NYPD Movie & TV Unit, and other key city agencies. We have the experience and resources to facilitate your production requests.

Filming in city parks, interiors of city buildings, bridges, subways or tunnels will require additional permissions from the controlling entities. Please contact our office to obtain specific contact information.

Which seems fairly reasonable for one of the largest & most densely populated cities in the United States. With amatures having an easier means of publication, the laws could change to keep NYC's MOFTB informed of filming on a regular or extended basis.

Now, I'm well aware of the abuse that police & law enforcement could use this for against citizens, tourists & people of certain ethnicities, but I think the article already adequately reflected the concerns.

What was glossed over was the apparent good these laws would do:

Mr. Dunn said most of the new rules were reasonable. Notably, someone using a hand-held video camera, as Mr. Sharma was doing, would no longer have to get a permit.

So, am I to believe that there's a few laws that are questionable while other laws are going to protect people (as in Mr. Sharma's case) from being arrested? Sounds pretty reasonable to me.

Still, it really causes one to wonder, what's the reason for the change in these laws?

Re:One Sided Article

[niceone (992278)]

Still, it really causes one to wonder, what's the reason for the change in these laws?

It is in the article (right at the end):

In May 2005, Rakesh Sharma, an Indian documentary filmmaker, was using a hand-held video camera in Midtown Manhattan when he was detained for several hours and questioned by police.

During his detention, Mr. Sharma was told he was required to have a permit to film on city property. According to a lawsuit, Mr. Sharma sought information about how permits were granted and who was required to have one but found there were no written guidelines. Nonetheless, the film office told him he was required to have a permit, but when he applied, the office refused to grant him one and would not give him a written explanation of its refusal.

As part of a settlement reached in April, the film office agreed to establish written rules for issuing permits. Mr. Sharma could not be reached for comment yesterday.

Re:One Sided Article

[xigxag (167441)]

So basically, they grabbed this poor guy for b.s. reasons (brown-skinned plus camera = terrorist), and now they've got to come up with a whole mechanism to justify doing it again in the future.

License to Breathe Air: Coming soon

[bzelbob (700100)]

In the United States today you need:
- A license to Drive (travel)
- A license to get married
- A license to broadcast radio
- A passport to leave the country
- A passport to enter the country (unless you're an illegal alien)
- Permits to run certain types of business
- Fee, Taxes, etc. on numerous many activities.

In Addition we have:
- A mammoth legal code (over ??? pages)
- A mammoth tax code (over 5,000 pages)
- Immense corruption in government
- More and more surveillance cameras going up in stores and in public p

Re:

[vertinox (846076)]

The first is the ole' terrorism card where we can't have people that might be terrorists casing targets and what not.

Which leads me to wonder, when was the last time anyone of us saw terrorists with tripods?

I mean... If you want to be a terrorist, you just strap on a vest of C4 and walk into the nearest crowd. Its not like the terrorists had to take pictures of the area first to plan their "get away" after the fact.

motivation is people filming/photoing police

[by Anonymous Coward]

The motivation for this proposal is the recent cases of people being arrested for filming the police. There is a serious danger that abusive officers of the Law will be caught on camera, and the best way of stopping this, is to have an excuse to confiscate the media for being potentially "unlicensed".

This was implemented very successfully in Soviet times. The excuse was "National Security", but, of course, no secrets will be revealed by taking a photograph of a random government building (and anyone with enough skill to cause trouble there will conceal his camera anyway). In fact, what was important was to hide the truth about what goes on, and you do that by only licensing people who reveal your version of the truth.

So much curtailing of liberty in the past 6 years, any thoughts I had that I might be paranoid about my government are now out of the window. It's obvious what's happening - and because the population is more educated and aware than 50 years ago, and because this time round it's going to be done peacefully, but with sufficient technology to make insurrection impossible, it'll just take a little longer to bring it about.

Kind of understandable.

[kaleco (801384)]

I can definitely see the danger in overzealous enforcement of this law, and as someone has already mentioned, there's a precedent for law enforcement to use any reason to curb photographic rights. If the law is properly limited, however, it could limit the nuisance caused by groups using tripods which can occupy busy public spaces for long periods of time. I can understand the motivation behind this law, even if it is a mere pretext to banning public photography in the long term.

Simple solution

[edwardpickman (965122)]

Tourists and tour groups avoid New York. Also people should avoid parades and public events if they intend to take pictures. If they would like to restrict taking pictures in public places then there are friendlier cities people can frequent.

What is the purpose?

[quentin_quayle (868719)]

If it's to stop people blocking the sidewalk, doesn't the city already have adequate laws on that? They wouldn't have to refer to photography either.

A more plausible explanation is driving a wedge between professional and amateur journalism. With the chilling effect, there will be less recording of police misconduct, for example, and many of the 9.11 videos would not have been made.

Next up...

[speaker of the truth (1112181)]

Next we'll require permits to for free speech in public areas for anyone whose speaking to more then one person for over 30 minutes or five people at the same time for more then 10 minutes. Beggars will be exempt as no-one pays attention to them.

Re:

[MollyB (162595)]

Next we'll require permits to for free speech in public areas [...]

We already have so-called "free speech zones" -- fenced, policed areas in which nonviolent opposition to the gummint is permitted, generally placed where the object of protest (a person or group) never need confront detractors.

As an ancient activist who's been tear-gassed numerous times, I am shocked beyond belief that we have let our civil freedoms wither to a mockery of what once was a great country. The 'free speech' zone used to extend from the Atlantic to the Pacific. (yeah, HI & AK, too)

The post

Riiiiight...

[killmenow (184444)]

"While the permitting scheme does not distinguish between commercial and other types of filming, we anticipate that these rules will have minimal, if any, impact on tourists and recreational photographers, including those that use tripods," Ms. Cho said...

She continued, "...unless, of course, they are dark skinned."

But Mark W. Muschenheim, a lawyer with the city's law department, which helped draft the rules, said, "There are few instances, if any, where the casual tourist would be affected."

He went on to say that mostly those speaking some form of Arabic would fall prey to selective enforcement. Upper and middle class white Americans needn't worry.

The draft rules say the office could take up to 30 days to issue a permit, but Ms. Cho said she expected that most would be issued within 24 hours.

Because the government is a bastion of efficiency.

Selective enforcement

[bhmit1 (2270)]

The group also warns that the rules set the stage for selective and perhaps discriminatory enforcement by police.

That pretty much sums up every law that police enforce. More and more laws are being written so that the average citizen will break them and police get to decide if they like you or not. I don't worry about who they decide to enforce the law upon, the bigger issue is who they don't enforce it upon that should raise the most attention. Friends of police officers, people with money and power, middle class america, and most importantly, the law makers would all be furious if they were actually subject to the letter of every law.

End of common sense

[rcastro0 (241450)]

I used to say that the difference between my country
and the United States was that here everything was
prohibited unless expressely allowed, while in the
US everything was allowed unless expressely prohibited.

I guess I will soon have to revise that saying.

Bad news (as a photographer)

[flar2 (938689)]

I am a photographer whose specialty is urban photography. A precedent like this would kill my favourite hobby, at least in the US. It certainly violates freedom of the press, thought they will argue "just get a permit and you're fine". I would suspect that some undesirable photographers|journalists|artists would be denied permits. Right now in many cities a permit is required for other types of "artistic" activity in the streets or public spaces (ie: busking). But really, photography? It doesn't hurt anyone. You can look at Google maps or Microsoft Live and get photos of streets. There are security cameras almost everywhere. Why can't joe photographer do it?

As someone who often takes pictures in public ....

[QuatermassX (808146)]

As has already been mentioned, the purpose of these laws is to generate revenue for the city and keep the sidewalk / pavement clear. The article mentions that two or more people who linger in a spot more than 30 minutes are subject to the new rules.

That doesn't sound terribly onerous - I recently took hundreds of photos in New York City [flickr.com] and never once had a problem. I toted around an old Yashicamat 124G [camerapedia.org] as well as a Hexar AF [cameraquest.com]. Every so often someone would strike up a conversation about that "cool old camera", but I photographed traffic cops, people in the street, quietly inside shops, throughout museums without a fuss. The cameras are both fairly low-key and quiet.

I reckon if both my girlfriend and myself had lingered outside for more than 30 minutes and I was typically snapping photographs of strangers, THEN I would be in violation - but I think she'd smack me upside the head before the 30-minute mark would pass.

Now the issue about unflattering photographs of city police - that sounds more like something that requires clarification. It should never be illegal to expose abuse of power or malfeasance. And citizen journalism has provided vivid pictures of breaking news before the big news organisations can scramble their photographers.

There are rumblings of similar laws been enacted in Britain ... which always strikes me as a wicked irony when you consider the vast amount of CCTV cameras there are.

Re:As someone who often takes pictures in public .

[GizmoToy (450886)]

I think the key, though, is that groups of five or more people have only 10 minutes. The proposed law, as written, does not even require that pictures are being actively taken, only that the group is visibly in possession of one or more cameras. So here you have a situation where tour groups would undoubtedly require permits with the law as written, despite that being "unintended", which I think is debatable. It is clear they made no effort to ensure this does not apply to amateur photographers and touri

Silliness abounds in Chicago, too

[eck011219 (851729)]

So I can't set up a tripod and take a long-exposure shot at night, but Google's CreepyTruck can drive around and take pictures for Google Street View? They're not in any one spot for more than a few seconds. Lordy.

Here in Chicago, we have a park right downtown called Millennium Park [wikipedia.org]. It was completed, ironically enough, in 2004. In it is something most Chicagoans call "The Bean" -- it's actually called Cloud Gate [wikipedia.org], and it's a big reflective kidney-bean-shaped thing that reflects everything around it. The piece was underwritten by some big corporation (Ameritech, maybe?). In the past couple of years, the artist has gotten all pissy about people taking pictures of it, because it's a copyrighted work. The sponsor got involved, leaned on the city, and now the police will often stop people from taking pictures of it without written permission from the artist. (As you might imagine, this also spawned a huge number of posted photographs of it all over the Web.)

In other words, they can plant a bigass bean in the middle of my city, but if I take a picture of it, I'm in the wrong. And while I stand there griping about it, Google can drive by and take my picture. My personal feeling is that the architects of the buildings surrounding the bean should go after the artist for reflecting images of their buildings without written permission. But that just increases the number of people being chowderheads, I suppose.

A lot depends on the camera you have

[Roblimo (357)]

My primary video camera is a Sony A1U, usually mounted on a Manfrotto tripod with fluid head. This is obviously "professional" gear. If I whip that sucker out, with or without tripod, nearby cops in big cities tend to freak.

If I haul out my little Panasonic "grandpa and the grandkids" handheld camcorder, nobody ever says a word to me.

My next cam purchase will probably be a Canon HV20 -- it does HD and gives pretty good quality in any rational amount of light, but is small enough not to alarm The Nosies. The only problem is going to be audio.... even a shortie shotgun mic suddenly makes a cam look "professional" enough to cause suspicion.

I recently taped some short takes at JFK airport in NYC -- not of security or anything -- and some Delta employees totally freaked out and called airport security, who told me not to take shots of security personnel but otherwise left me alone.

Luckily, I don't live in NYC, but in Bradenton, Florida. Here and in nearby Sarasota I *routinely* tape commercial video on the streets and beaches, often with a tripod and boom mic, and nearly as often with 3 - 5 people in cast/crew, and nobody bothers me at all. Cops just ask, "Oh what are you filming?" out of ordinary curiosity, then maybe stand around to watch if they're not busy.

Yeah, you're supposed to have a permit for most "professional film activity" here, but I've never gotten one, and I've never been hassled about permitting. Around here, even small-time professional video production is rare enough that people want to watch you do it, not keep you *from* doing it.

- Robin

Re:Absolutly Insane

[Threni (635302)]

> Arrested for gazing upon a copyrighted building design. Come on...

I was in the US a few years ago (2003, on..how you say..vacation from the UK) and was taking pictures of the big black building in Pittsburgh which looks like it should be in a Batman film, when a fat guy in a uniform came out of it and told me I couldn't take pictures. Clearly he was wrong - all I had to do was to walk around to another part of the building where he couldn't see me (or couldn't waddle up to me fast enough to stop me) but it was a little unsettling as I didn't want to spend the next few hours talking to the police about how I wasn't a terrorist, or get deported.

So I think this sort of law just formalizes harassment that I'm sure many other people have received for a while now.

Re:

[Reziac (43301)]

Obviously your "non-saving" camera is transmitting images to your hidden secret base. Into the police van, komrade!!