Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Privacy Government Security Slashback Politics

Comment Deadline For NYC Photography Permits 238

Posted by kdawson
from the drawing-the-line dept.
DrNibbler writes "August 3, 2007 is the deadline for submitting comments on the proposed permit requirements for photographers in New York. Here is a sample submission."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Comment Deadline For NYC Photography Permits

Comments Filter:
  • by Bizzeh (851225) on Monday July 30, 2007 @03:52AM (#20039629) Homepage
    does this affect anyone who wants to use a camara in public? or does it only affect professional photographers? ie, photographers for news papers and such
  • Workaround (Score:2, Interesting)

    by fadilnet (1124231) on Monday July 30, 2007 @04:15AM (#20039737) Homepage
    The way I see it - it's just another way to make money. Anyway, I don't know if this workaround will work - an organisation is formed (consisting of film makers, and even people who are not related to the film industry). The organisation pays the city and films it from various angles - the entire bloody city! - even if it takes months. Then, the organisation offers free or paid (little fee) for the entire footage! It may be useful to filmmakers to have footage available (of course, the scenes can be edited (beauty of CGI)). As far as the av. person goes, upon registration, he's part of the organisation and can take snaps and film anywhere he wants to.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 30, 2007 @05:50AM (#20040141)
    I agree with your indignation however, if you read the legislation correctly then it does include me when
    1) I as a tourist visit New York
    2) Bring with me my Plate Camera and Tripod. Glass Plate Negative size 6x8 inches. The camera is beautifully made from Mahogany and is over 100 years old.
    3) Set it up on a sidewalk and use the build in perspective control facility to correct the verticals of the Empire State Brilding
    4) Wait a few minutes for the lighting to be perfect or the clouse to frame the building correctly
    Please note, I am an amateur phorotgrapher. I write Software for a living.

    And Wham Bang thank you sir
    New Yorks finest swoop, guns at the ready and throw me in Jail for not having the requisite permit. Oh, and because I'm not a US resident, they kindly add Terrorist charges to the list and I disappear off to god knows where for years.

    Guess which place I won't be visiting anytime soon. My tourist Dollar/Euro/Pound/Yen will go elsewhere.

    About 18 months ago I was able to photograph many of the public buildings in Riyadh (Saudi Arabia) without hassle with the same camera. The Police stopped by and were totally intrigued with the camera. It was obvious that I was doing architectural photography. One Policeman even kept the road clear for one shot!

  • by PopeRatzo (965947) * on Monday July 30, 2007 @06:42AM (#20040379) Homepage Journal
    No, the Founders were not particularly far-liberal, they were mostly decent men who were pushed to extremity.

    I disagree that Americans are mostly dismissive of the ideas of the Founders. We are a pragmatic people who just have come to forget that our freedoms our not guaranteed by history. When we are pushed to extremity, we have risen to the occasion. Perhaps you don't realize the extent of liberalism in the way the American people embraced rushing to save the rest of the world in the 1940's. I'm not talking about the decisions made by our government or corporations, I'm talking about the way regular Americans rose to the challenge. That was a completely liberal act.

    Don't mistake my disgust with the Bush administration for criticism of the American people. Most of us are pressed to make a living just like anyone else and we sometimes make the mistake of trusting our leaders. But when pushed, even those of us that are fat and comfortable will fight to stay free. It just takes a while to wake us up.

    And believe me, when it comes to certain things, all Americans who are worth less than $1mil are "troublemaking liberals" when you scratch the surface.
  • And I have some experience with this. I'm done filming (just editting), but I had a run in with the cops in the Fall of '06.

    So it was a nice October night and I had a few scenes I wanted to knock out, I was almost completely done with principle photography. I had made the fake newspaper headlines in Word and Photoshop, blew them up on the copier, then transferred them at Kinkos to the newsprint I bought at the specialty art supplier. Lot of bullshit just to make a fake newspaper. Anyways, I had arranged with the Bangladeshi dude at the deli around the way to use their newsstand for 15 minutes.

    I showed up with my actors at the deli, dropped a $20 for the dude, and placed out fake newspapers over the real ones. Then I had my lead and his dead girlfriend walk by the deli, the lead glanced over at the newsstand, saw the headlines about various gruesome attacks in Manhattan, pause, stop, pick one up, look over at his dead girlfriend, and change his mood, she showing no affect whatsoever the whole time.

    It went fine. I thanked the Bangladeshi deli dude, and went around the corner to shoot the scene that would preview that: the lead and his dead girlfriend walking down the street, him happy, her... well, what she is supposed to show the whole time: no affect.

    That was easy, wham bam, thank you ma'am I was whipping through these scenes just fine.

    Now I wanted to film a scene of him walking with his dead girlfriend after reading the headlines, to show the change in his level of concern about his place in everything at that moment. To show his happiness being replaced with worry. To establish the conflict in the next scene, which I shot weeks before.

    Anyways, so I went around the corner again, completely oblivious about where I was, just looking for something with enough lighting and no obvious commercial street signs. I found a secluded spot and had my actors wait around the corner.

    I steadied the camera, yelled action and gee, look at that in the viewfinder... flashing lights. That will ruin a shot.

    I was on the midtown tunnel access road. Oops.

    Yes officer, sorry officer.

    No officer, I didn't know it was a misdemeanor. I'm deeply sorry officer. I had no intention officer.

    Sure, here's my license... No, that's not my address, in fact I live right over there now.

    No officer, sorry officer, I didn't know I had 10 days to report to DMV my new address when I moved or I was breaking the law, again.

    My footage? Sure (bzzz... rewind...)

    Here is a scene I just shot...

    Yes, that's over on 3rd Avenue. And...

    What? Fast forward through this?

    WHAT? YOU DON'T LIKE MY F**ING MOVIE YOU F**ING... ;-)

    I mean, yes officer, right here, this is the final shot of your cop car pulling up. Last shot.

    Yes, that's all I had shot, nothing more.

    Yes officer, I'll go away I won't come back here, sorry officer for the misunderstanding...

    (PHEW)
  • Re:Photos in the UK (Score:3, Interesting)

    by ratbag (65209) on Monday July 30, 2007 @09:00AM (#20041341)
    As a fellow resident of "Great Briton", I'd like to point out to the world at large that "Simon the SoundMan" is talking out of his hat.

    I've been snapping away for many years now and I've only twice been accosted: a security guard at Canary Wharf asked me if I was a professional photographer (quantity and quality of kit, plus the fact I was taking photos in a howling gale). I assured him I was merely a keen amateur and he wished me well and went on his way. Secondly, in Verbier (not part of "Briton") I was verbally harangued by a passenger when I took a picture that included a ski lift. Supposedly I had not asked her permission. Since the field of view covered around 5 miles of countryside and ski slopes I suspect I'd also forgotten to check with one or two other people - oops!

    Rob.
  • by Archtech (159117) on Monday July 30, 2007 @04:17PM (#20047629)
    '"2. While neutral, the USA supplied food, weapons, and other goods to Britain..." and China, and France, and the Soviet Union.

    I don't believe that any definition of "help" would exclude the lend-lease program, so you have contradicted yourself completely here'.

    The full quotation, had you been honest enough to provide it, is "While neutral, the USA supplied food, weapons, and other goods to Britain. But every single item was paid for in full, then or later. (As a British taxpayer I know this only too well - we made the last repayment a year or two back). Many of the USA's far-flung military bases around the world were handed over by Britain in part payment for the supplies we needed to continue fighting".

    Instead, you cut off my words immediately before the part that refutes your opinion. Ever considered going into politics?
  • by Archtech (159117) on Monday July 30, 2007 @04:33PM (#20047899)
    Don't be absurd. Selling goods to someone is trade, not help. By your reasoning, your neighbourhood grocery store "helps" you whenever you go there to buy food. The store's motivation is not to help you, but to make a profit. Likewise, the USA's motivation in providing Lend-Lease was to look after its own interests.

    First, the USA sold war supplies to Britain - until Britain ran clean out of cash to pay for them. Then it accepted payment in property, and most of Britain's property holdings in the USA were liquidated. Then came the Destroyer deal, in which the USA lent Britain the use of 50 mothballed WW1 destroyers that it wouldn't let its own sailors go to sea in, and got 99-year leases on some valuable West Indian bases in return. Lend-Lease proper was passed by Congress in March 1941, and still required payment - if not then, later. If not in cash, something else - land, military secrets, technology, anything.

    Check this out for *American* opinion on Lend-Lease:
    http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/time/wwii/81508.htm [state.gov]
  • Re:Great (Score:3, Interesting)

    by ScentCone (795499) on Monday July 30, 2007 @11:43PM (#20052753)
    Note that it isn't limited to commercial operators.

    Right. It's driven by what people DO, not what their profession happens to be. People walking along and taking pictures, or stopping their group on a sidewalk for a family shot aren't even being considered here. They're not the ones that block a sidewalk with equipment, or take over some corner of a public park with sustained activities. Who cares if you're professional? If you DO the same things, in terms of getting under foot, or risking other people, then you need to get the same permits that the pros do, for the same REASONS the pros do.

    The whole idea of such zones, incidently, is ridiculous given that the First Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

    You've got it exactly backwards. When YOU choose to assemble in a public space - with an event or group large enough that it's going to impact traffic, media, etc., then you ALSO get the same treatment: the police are there to protect your right to carry out your event, and not have it disrupted by your political opponents. You AND they get exactly the same protection of your First Amendment rights. When we're NOT talking about large-scale event, we're STILL talking about equal protection of those rights. Neither you, nor anyone else on the political spectrum, is prevented from traditional gathering, talking, or t-shirt wearing. But if you are working up an event large enough to require your attendees to have a multi-block access route to the event's locations, you have to work it out with the municipal authorities that will be the ones making sure that your attendees aren't blocked from coming and going.

    YOUR rights to freedom of expression don't include the right to prevent someone ELSE from speaking and assembling when that someone has done the right things to obtain a permit and pay for the law enforcement presence that will keep traffic and people and media moving safely. Would you rather that large assemblies just became a contest over who can shout down or shove who else out of the way? Or, would you rather be able to assemble peaceably, just like your opponents should be able to? Large groups taking turns to use public facilities for gatherings isn't denial of First Amendment rights, it's preservation of those rights.

    "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."

    And this is a photography prohibition how? The permits for sustained use of your fellow taxpayer's crowded urban spaces are readily available... or, you can just move a little bit after half an hour using the space, and be completely within the bounds being considered in this proposal. This prohibits photography how?

The devil finds work for idle circuits to do.

Working...