Permit May Be Required For Public Photography in NYC 301
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."
1st Amendment (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Absurd (Score:3, Insightful)
Put exceptions in the law! (Score:2, Insightful)
Does the law say this?
Is she aware that the police and the entire judiciary are obliged to enforce the law as written? A police officer would be obliged to arrest severy tourist who didn't have a permit. If it came to court, the "Julianne Cho said it was alright" defence isn't going to be a valid defence. The attitude of the courts is, and always has been "If that was their intent they would have said so", and the system is based around this prinipal.
motivation is people filming/photoing police (Score:5, Insightful)
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. (Score:3, Insightful)
Who gets to define "amateur"? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:1st Amendment (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Next up... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Absurd (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Riiiiight... (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Because the government is a bastion of efficiency.
Re:Absurd (Score:2, Insightful)
Honestly though, we need to change the 'land of the free' bit to 'land of the bureaucracy'.
Capta was: ceases, like ceases to care, or ceases to have liberties
Re:One Sided Article (Score:5, Insightful)
Bloomberg is a nut (Score:2, Insightful)
End of common sense (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:One Sided Article (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:Absurd (Score:3, Insightful)
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 economy for them to worry about it. My understanding is that in the UK, those convicted- or even just arrested- for the most minor (e.g. traffic) offenses now require a visa to enter the US. In many cases this can mean a long journey across the UK (with one or more possible overnight stays) to a particular centre to obtain the visa. I can't remember what sort of interview- if any- is required, nor whether the granting of the visa is almost guaranteed if the offense is trivial.
A family where one of the parents has a minor conviction for (e.g.) speeding may consider that the major inconvenience and uncertainty this throws into their holiday plans makes it worthwhile to consider going elsewhere.
Personally, I'd just stop the convicted person from hiring a car or driving in the US, but it's their country, and if they think making it a PITA to visit for people with a couple of penalty points for speeding will improve Homeland Security, it's their decision.
Bad news (as a photographer) (Score:4, Insightful)
These politicians... (Score:4, Insightful)
'Nuff said.
The terrorists have already won (Score:3, Insightful)
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:Absurd (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Absurd (Score:5, Insightful)
More than a half hour? What is the better way? (Score:2, Insightful)
This proposal only applies to situations where cameras are in use for more than a half hour. This means that nearly all situations people have brought up as potential conflicts are unrelated to this proposal.
Anyone who has spent much time trying to actually live or do business in NYC knows that sidewalks are often blocked either partially or fully for photography sessions. Most often this is done by advertising agencies in order to be use NYC and its crowds as a backdrop. Essentially they are making use of a public resource in order to produce private products, so this proposed regulation is yet another attempt to avoid the worst of an ongoing tragedy of the commons.
The way this is getting blown up into a massive homeland security basic rights breach is an unfortunate demonstration of the stupid and reactive nature of the masses. Slashdot is supposed to have people actually using their heads, yet hardly anyone has actually read the proposal that stirred this up or seriously attempted to interpret what it might mean.
The gold standard for opposition to an idea is to present a better one. Significant numbers of photographic sessions are to take place on some of the most busy streets in NYC. What is your proposal for avoiding chaos? Is asking for official notification in this way a bad way of mediating this conflict? Then what is a good way?
Re:Absurd (Score:5, Insightful)
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:One Sided Article (Score:1, Insightful)
Because... who'll think a redneck or a white is a terrorist?
Re:Absurd (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Absurd (Score:3, Insightful)
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...
A lot depends on the camera you have (Score:4, Insightful)
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:One Sided Article (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:As someone who often takes pictures in public . (Score:3, Insightful)
I assume NYC has laws prohibiting obstruction of sidewalks and traffic. Why not enforce those instead?
Re:The terrorists have already won (Score:3, Insightful)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0103639/ [imdb.com]
MOD Parent DOWN (Score:3, Insightful)
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 suggested that the city deliberately kept the language vague, and that as a result police would have broad discretion in enforcing the rules." As interpeted by Mr. Dunn of the NYCLU, the new rules are vague and could "apply to a huge range of casual photography and filming, including tourists taking snapshots and people making short videos for YouTube."
Terrorism accomplishs different goals for different groups of people. For the American Government, terrorism lets them (try to) make many new laws to rule the citizens with.
Re:QuadPods selling for $99 (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The terrorists have already won (Score:3, Insightful)
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.