Slashdot Log In
Comment Deadline For NYC Photography Permits
Posted by
kdawson
on Mon Jul 30, 2007 01:42 AM
from the drawing-the-line dept.
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."
Related Stories
[+]
Permit May Be Required For Public Photography in NYC 301 comments
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."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
An alternate open letter (Score:5, Funny)
I am writing in reference to the proposed changes to permit requirements for photography on public property. The proposed rules, as I understand them, would require a permit for "activity involving a tripod and a crew of 5 or more people at one site for 10 minutes or more" (the 10 minutes include the time to set up the tripod) or or the same activity among two people at a single site for more than 30 minutes. The permit process also requires the photographer to carry 1 million dollars in liability insurance.
I understand that it is important for the city to draw a line between amateur and professional photographers. I have often heard of cheap professionals calling themselves amateurs solely because they use a low-end SLR camera. However this rule does not do enough to make that separation and fails to protect a much-loved American city. Allow me to suggest some effective enhancements.
About once or twice a month, empower the police to conduct thorough searches of anyone who looks to be taking pictures, or preparing to do so. Necessary permits should be found on anyone who carries a camera beyond a drug store disposable. Justice should be carried out swiftly in situations where the necessary papers are not found. A modicum of brutality would suffice in reducing recidivism rates.
Only when New York is free of people carrying unlicensed cameras can its upstanding citizens be free from the threat of terrorist attacks.
Thank You for Your Time,
__________________
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Another open letter
Ms. Oliver:
My friend, I regret that I will not be able to use my camcorder to record your wedding in Central Park this weekend, as the City of New York has deemed it necessary to have a permit because more than two people are involve
Great (Score:3, Insightful)
It's amazing: first "free speech zones", then forbidding photographers from taking photos? Has the U.S. gone nuts?
Re:Great (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Has the U.S. gone nuts? (Score:5, Insightful)
240 years ago a bunch of (mostly) propertied, upper-class, far-liberal Americans got together and wrote the Constitution of the United States of America. Ever since, the majority of Americans have been simultaneously proud of this document (which allows them to feel better than everyone else), and dismissive of its actual ideas. Now, at last, a majority of them has elected a President who is prepared to put an end to quarter of a millennium of pretence. At last, Americans can relax and enjoy the authoritarian government that so many of them clearly prefer.
That's great news for Americans (except for the minority of troublemaking liberals), but rather queasy for the rest of the world.
Re: Has the U.S. gone nuts? (Score:5, Insightful)
The US would probably never have joined WWII had it not been for the Pearl Harbor attack. The US populace were on the whole quite indifferent to the war in Europe and would have been quite happy for Hitler to have taken over.
As for "rushing to save the rest of the world", the Russians did far more to defeat Hitler, at huge cost to themselves.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Russia signed a non-aggression pact with Hitler and then acted defensively after being invaded by Hitler. The "huge cost to themselves" was not of their own choosing, so they get no al
Re: Has the U.S. gone nuts? (Score:5, Insightful)
I never indulge in vulgar personal abuse, but those remarks strongly tempt me. Perhaps *you* don't realize that:
1. The USA did not lift a finger to help Britain (or Poland, or France, or Denmark, or Holland, or Belgium, or Norway, or Yugoslavia, or Greece, or the USSR) when they were attacked by Nazi Germany. The USA assiduously sat on its hands while France was conquered and Britain went through the near-death experiences of the Battle of Britain and the Blitz. It did nothing to stop Hitler conquering all of Europe, and it was only by chance that it finally entered the war shortly after the Soviets decisively turned back the Wehrmacht at the very gates of Moscow. During all of this - the first 2 years, 3 months, and 10 days of the war (very nearly the first half) - the USA remained neutral.
2. 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.
3. The USA entered the war only when Japan and, a week later, Germany, declared war on it. At that point, it became impossible to stay neutral. Congress even declared war on Germany, a redundant act since a state of war already existed after the German declaration. No doubt the Congresscritters already saw the value in future of being able to talk about "the day the USA declared war on Germany". All that "regular Americans" rose to was the challenge of defending their country against two Fascist dictatorships that had declared war on it - the very least they could do, if they didn't want to end up speaking German and being ruled from Berlin. They took the war to Europe because they had to - the Nazis already had detailed plans for nuclear weapons, and intercontinental delivery systems to hit American cities.
My father fought in WW2 (all of it) and my mother was ready to do her bit with a rifle in case of invasion, so I have a very personal interest in the facts. It is ironic that, the one time the USA had the chance to take down a really vicious, murderous dictator, it chose to remain neutral until he declared war on it. Moreover, directly contrary to what you say about "the people", historians agree that FDR would have liked to join the war against Hitler earlier - but he found it politically impossible, because the people were dead set against it.
So please, let's not have any more garbage about how America rushed to save the rest of the world in the 1940s, or any other time.
that's the definition of propaganda (Score:4, Insightful)
fact:
"john punched sally who then punched john back"
bad propaganda from a friend of john:
"sally is evil"
good propaganda from a friend of john:
"sally punched john"
good propaganda tells the truth 100%, but it doesn't actually represent what happened, because it omits the facts of the whole story, and only presents those facts which, when considered in a vacuum, leads one to an invalid opinion
same with the facts the guy i responded to writes about the usa's contribution to world war ii. i do not dispute their factuality in any way. what i do dispute is that those facts alone represent the truth of history
another word for propaganda is half-truths. that's eactly what facts without context are: half of the truth. the stuff of pointless partisan bickering
Re: Has the U.S. gone nuts? (Score:5, Informative)
That criticism is ironic, coming from a citizen of the USA - a nation that, at the the time, had turned its back on Europe through its policy of isolationism. If Nevile Chamberlain appeased Hitler, he was at least trying to do something about the problem. He could be compared to a neighbour who, seeing a house on fire, tries to cope with the problem by putting on a fire blanket, whereas in retrospect it would have been better to call the fire service. But the USA, in this analogy, was like a neighbour who closes the shutters, turns up the TV, and resolutely ignores the fire.
Chamberlain had lived through WW1, and like many of his generation found the idea of a repetition unspeakably ghastly. So he was inclined to go to great lengths to avoid war. As he said in 1938, "How horrible, fantastic it is that we should be digging trenches and trying on gas-masks here because of a quarrel in a far away country between people of whom we know nothing. I am myself a man of peace from the depths of my soul".
A glance at the totals of killed and wounded sustained by the combatants in WW1, as a percentage of their total mobilised strengths, may help us to understand. Great Britain and the Empire, together, had 2.9 million casualties (so defined) out of 8.9 million (33%). The much-maligned French, nowadays despised by many Americans for their lack of fighting spirit, took 5.5 million casualties out of 8.4 million (65%). That's two thirds, and it's not a mistake. The Germans and Austrians, together, sustained 10.7 million casualties out of 18.8 million (57%). And the USA? The Americans took a grand total of 360,000 casualties out of 4.3 million (8%).
Now 8% is bad enough, although it's nowhere near the corresponding figure for American occupying army in Iraq, for instance. But Chamberlain had seen 2 million British and Empire servicemen, 4.2 million Frenchmen, and 7.8 million Germans and Austrians, killed in a war that achieved very little. Can you see that he might cling to peace more desperately than Americans who had seen 126,000 of their brave boys killed 20 years before?
Besides, at the time when Chamberlain appeased Hitler, it was not yet entirely obvious that Hitler was a "really vicious murderous dictator". That, at any rate, was not the view of IBM and many other US corporations, which enjoyed a brisk trade with Nazi Germany. Nor was it the view of Joseph Kennedy (father of Jack and Bobby), who was US ambassador to Great Britain in 1938-40. According to Wikipedia,
'Kennedy rejected the warnings of Winston Churchill that compromise with Nazi Germany was impossible; instead he supported Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain's policy of appeasement in order to stave off a second world war that would be a more horrible "armageddon" than the first. Throughout 1938, as the Nazi persecution of Jews intensified, Kennedy attempted to obtain an audience with Adolf Hitler. Shortly before the Nazi aerial bombing of British cities began in September 1940, Kennedy sought a personal meeting with Hitler, again without State Department approval, "to bring about a better understanding between the United States and Germany."'
In 1938, Hitler had reoccupied the Rhineland (which many people thought was only fair, as it was traditionally part of Germany); united Germany with Austria, without a shot being fired (in public, at least); and seized the border area of Czechoslovakia. True, the Nazi party and its thugs had started murdering Jews and others wholesale, but there were influential elements in the USA (as well as many other countries) who had no objection to this. The fact is that, when Chamberlain met Hitler and brought home his infamous "piece of paper", Hitler had not conquered any other country - nor was it at all obvious that he intended to. As soon as Hitler invaded the rest of Czechoslovakia in March 1939, Chamberl
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And yet I'm not anti-American. On the contrary, I'm very much pro-American - you have no idea how much. I just won't let you get away with saying things that are downright untrue about the histo
Re: Has the U.S. gone nuts? (Score:5, Informative)
Like "The USA did not lift a finger to help Britain (or Poland, or France, or Denmark, or Holland, or Belgium, or Norway, or Yugoslavia, or Greece, or the USSR) when they were attacked by Nazi Germany. "?
That's downright untrue.
The first part is also untrue -- war can end in a stalemate, with no clear winners or losers. The second is speculation; IMO, without the western front, the Nazis could have held against the Soviets and partitioned Europe between them.Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That's downright untrue'.
Now please say what is unt
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't believe that any definition of "help" would exclude the lend-lease program, so you have contradicted yourself completely
Re:No, you fail again,You still contradict yoursel (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: Has the U.S. gone nuts? (Score:5, Insightful)
Likely because we did no such thing. The vast majority of Americans wanted nothing to do with the war. We were, we thought, safely cocooned in our isolationism, and after the hundreds of thousands of sons we lost too few years ago to a European war we were largely content to let the rest of the world handle its own affairs. That is why we permitted the war to rage on for several years before we had anything to do with it. It's true that our president realized we had to get involved, and was steering public opinion in that way, but he was having a tough time of it. He had to invent programs such as the Lend-Lease act just so he could offer what aid he could.
We got involved when we were attacked. What you really saw was a groundswell of indignation and patriotism, rather than a concern for others. We got involved, we did a good job and turned the tide of the war. As we found out more and more about what was going on we were probably very happy that we did, but to imply Americans were just rising up to save the world is demonstrably false.
I disagree, or else we are very slow to wake up. We can hardly be bothered--to the tune of some 62% turnout--to vote when the elections have important implications on our freedom. Even last election, after the Patriot Act, and Guantanamo Bay, and domestic spying, and Valerie Plame, and even the Iraq War itself, retention for our Congressmen was nearly 90%. At least in my estimation we are already given up too much freedom with too little fight.
As far as the Founders go, I think they tended on the liberal side of things for their time. Many of their ideas were certainly revolutionary. It was, for example, the first time in history that, enshrined in a document (constitution), was the idea that a government's power came from the people it governs. Today that gets a resounding "duh," but it was liberal back then.
The problem is really our complacency. We are so very proud of our Constitution and our Founders and the ideas we introduced to the world--and rightly so, I think--that we focus on it and lose sight of the fact that other countries have made progress and we really haven't. It reminds me of the quote, "it only takes 20 years for a liberal to become a conservative without changing a single idea."
America has become a conservative nation, and I think that is a travesty.
The price of freedom is eternal vigilance, wrote Thomas Jefferson. We've done it a great disservice by providing only complacency and living in our past successes.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I don't think you understand that quote, or you wouldn't be using it. Unless you're using it to ridicule it, but I didn't get that from your post.
The quote claim
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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 conside
Remember when... (Score:3, Insightful)
NYC was a liberal enclave?
Why don't they just make a law against breathing so that the growth of police power via selective enforcement is complete.
when was that?? (Score:2)
What's next? (Score:2, Funny)
Proposed regulations (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.nyc.gov/html/film/html/news/080107_pro
http://www.nyc.gov/html/film/downloads/pdf/moftb_
(a) Introduction. The Mayor's Office of Film Theatre and Broadcasting ("MOFTB")
shall issue permits in connection with filming, including but not limited to the taking of motion
pictures; the taking of photographs; the use and operation of television cameras, transmitting
television equipment, or radio remotes in or about city property; load-ins or load-outs supporting
1
indoor performances; or such activities in or about any street, park, marginal street, pier, wharf,
dock, bridge or tunnel within the jurisdiction of any City department or agency, or involving the
use of any City owned or maintained facilities or equipment. As defined herein, MOFTB will
issue permits for scouting, rigging and shooting activities. Obtaining such a permit does not
obviate the need to obtain approval for an activity that may also be subject to other laws, rules or
case law.
(b) Permits.
(1) The following activities require that a permit be obtained pursuant to this chapter:
(i) Filming, photography, production, television or radio remotes occurring
on City property, as described in subdivision (a) of this section, that uses vehicles or
equipment, except as described in subparagraphs (2)(i) and (ii) of this subdivision;
(ii) Filming, photography, production, television or radio remotes occurring
on City property, as described in subdivision (a) of this section, involving an interaction
among two or more people at a single site for thirty or more minutes, including all set-up
and breakdown time in connection with such activities; or
(iii) Filming, photography, production, television or radio remotes occurring
on City property, as described in subdivision (a) of this section, involving an interaction
among five or more people at a single site and the use of a single tripod for ten or more
minutes, including all set-up and breakdown time in connection with such activities.
(2) The following activities do not require that a permit be obtained pursuant to this
chapter:
(i) Filming or photography occurring on City property, as described in
subdivision (a) of this section, involving the use of a hand-held device as defined in
paragraph three of subdivision (a) of 9-02, provided that such activity does not involve
an interaction among two or more people at a single site for thirty or more minutes,
including all set-up and breakdown time in connection with such activities.
(ii) Filming or photography occurring on City property, as described in
subdivision (a) of this section, involving the use of a single tripod, provided that such
activity does not involve an interaction among five or more people at a single site and the
use of a single tripod for ten or more minutes, including all set-up and breakdown time in
connection with such activities.
(iii) Filming or photography of a parade, rally, protest, or demonstration except
when using vehicles or equipment other than a handheld device or single tripod.
Good intentions lead to bad results (Score:4, Insightful)
I know I won't be visiting New York anytime in the forseeable future; sightseeing there is getting too risky...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
What could go wrong?
Oh, so you don't want people taking photos in NY? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yours sincerely,
ABTA [abta.com]
I'm sorry but I am not feeling the indignation... (Score:4, Insightful)
I am honestly not sure why a small crew with substantial equiptment who set up camp should not get permission to do so. These rules do not seem unreasonable by any means, and in fact a smart professional photographer could easily work within the limits without the permit if they travelled light and worked quickly. They aren't outlawing amateurs or even pros with handheld cameras from taking film or video (so, say, independant journalists would not be hampered as long as they were able to be mobile), this isn't based on the quality of the camera and all that as some suggest but rather whether they block off real estate with tripods, mics and lights... And and I fail to see a "terrorist" angle at all outside of knee-jerk Slashdot comments (unless I'm missing something?) To me it just seems to be about keeping fashion shoots, Indie films and whatever else from taking over public space in an extremely congested city.
Re:I'm sorry but I am not feeling the indignation. (Score:3, Insightful)
These all seem like sensible criteria for requiring a permit. They also make the case that getting
Re:I'm sorry but I am not feeling the indignation. (Score:5, Insightful)
How about if you're sitting on a bench reviewing the day's photos? If you're by yourself and have been there for 30 minutes, you better have a permit and $1 million insurance coverage. Add in the fact that they're saying the permits may take as many as 30 days to acquire plus proof of insurance and what you've done is effectively outlawed amateur and tourist photography.
Blocking sidewalks and streets is a serious issue, but commercial photography that impedes traffic already requires permits. No changes are required for that. Chances are good that the people you're complaining about have secured all the necessary permits. I rarely if ever see an amateur causing traffic problems. Tourists often do, but they can cause problems whether they're taking pictures or not.
Despite their stated intentions, this appears squarely aimed at either deterring amateur photography or providing a reason to question and detain anyone with a camera.
Re: (Score:2)
"Filming, photography, production, television or radio remotes occurring on City property, as described in subdivi
Re: (Score:2)
Most people travel at least in pairs. A couple, a family, whatever. Are you gonna sit down alone and review your photos while your SO is going to stand 10 feet from you, watching you and waiting for you?
Re:I'm sorry but I am not feeling the indignation. (Score:2, Interesting)
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
Re:I'm sorry but I am not feeling the indignation. (Score:4, Insightful)
Then make a law that bans those things! What does this have to do with photography, other than some photographers do these things?
who does this affect? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yet if this happens, I guess
Workaround (Score:2, Interesting)
This is so brutality is kept secret (Score:5, Insightful)
Were it not for amateur videographers, it would have been the victims word alone versus the cops, and everyone knows the judge will side with the cops.
They will twist this law to confiscate any cell-phone, video camera, ipod, or other device that might bear witness to the over-reaching authority of the police-state of NY. Cops will have the ability to harass, beat, or otherwise abuse anyone they please, and no one will be able to bring in their evidence, because the shooting of such incident did not have a "permit".
I'm moving to Canada.
Re: (Score:2)
i am making a low budget horror movie in nyc (Score:4, Interesting)
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:Potential Police State (Score:4, Insightful)
Look, I don't like Rush Limbaugh any more than you do, but he deserves his rights just as much as anyone else.
Re:Potential Police State (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I've been snapping away for many years now and I've only twice been accosted: a security guard at Canary Wharf asked me
Re: (Score:3)
I had one of those 'ski lift' type of incidents the other day. I was shooting on London's South Bank, using slow shutter speed to capture movement of large numbers of people on the walkwa
No offense, but you need to read carefully (Score:4, Insightful)
I agree with you that the intended effect of this rule is entirely reasonable. The crucial point you are missing is that the actual language of the rule is so poorly worded that it would also allow all sorts of terrible, unintended side effects. The protest is simply that the law is terribly written--dangerously so. Think of it as a request for a technical correction if that helps.