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.

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: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)

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: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: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

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: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.

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.

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?

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.