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."
Absurd (Score:5, Interesting)
This is simply absurd and as a photographer, I will *not* be traveling into NYC if this proposed policy becomes law.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
These politicians... (Score:4, Insightful)
'Nuff said.
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: (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...
Who gets to define "amateur"? (Score:5, Insightful)
QuadPods selling for $99 (Score:5, Funny)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Absurd (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Absurd (Score:5, Informative)
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: (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: (Score:2)
Interestingly enough, the term "arab" as used by many westerners is actually a stereotype of its own. Iran is not an Arab country. A large percentage of the population of Iraq (at least 20%) are not Arabs. The term has become much like the term "mexican", which is widely used in the U.S. to refer to anyone from Central or South American. It's also like saying "muslim looking."
I bring this up beca
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
he's wrong.
call him on his shit.
and also ask for his supervisor and the cop's supervisor, too.
the only reason they can get away with it is because sheeple LET them get away with it.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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.
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:The terrorists have already won (Score:5, Funny)
Plus, we're going to steal their culture and their food and sell it at Disney World.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0103639/ [imdb.com]
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
What does this have to do with terrorism? These permits have been required since long before 9-11 (this law is actually just limiting who needs them). 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. However the old rules were very vague, so they were forced to revisit them. Now with this new law they are much mor
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 sug
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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 (Score:3, Informative)
"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: (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.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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: (Score:3, Interesting)
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: (Score:2)
that our country is being run by paranoid jack asses that can't
figure out that the terrorists can take pictures from inside their
vehicles with telephoto lenses.
Strong arming a tourist that doesn't speak the language
because someone lady from japan might be working for Osama...
What a bunch of "Can't think for themselves, dumb asses."
Re:Absurd (Score:5, Interesting)
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!).
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: (Score:2)
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.
Yeah, that's exactly what I thought too. I would have argued it more, but my two female friends were getting very uncomfortable with the whole situation. We left, and went to the pier on the other side of the bridge, and nobody cared. I could go on and on about that park (Fulton Ferry Park for you NYC'ers), but I won't.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Frankly its fucking dumb that you cant take a picture in public anywhere. But America is fucking dumb frankly. I'm tired of our idea of freedom.
I live in NY.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And more importanty - so what? "Professional" photographers have just as much right as a tourist to stand around taking pictures. Even (gasp!) for commercial purposes!
This is simply absurd and as a photographer, I will *not* be traveling into NYC if this proposed policy becomes law.
You won't miss out on much. I've visited once - Wouldn't go back, for anything (though Spamalot tempted me). The air sucks, you feel like you need a shower after touch
Re: (Score:2)
I'm really trying to figure out if you're kidding or just an idiot. Hate to be abrasive, but you've only been there once, and it sounds like you made a nice little tourist visit. "Times Square?" Please. "NYC really doesn't have a whole lot worth seeing in the first place"? Rube.
Re: (Score:2)
Or photograph of course.
Re: (Score:2)
No, quite serious. I won't say I hated my visit, because I went for a specific event that I quite enjoyed. But everything else about the entire city I found loathesome.
I would not go there again, and I would not recommed it as a tourist destination to anyone that asked.
Just my opinion... Take it or leave it. And if you think that makes me an idiot, well, you have a right to your opinions as well.
Re: (Score:2)
You're not an idiot for your opinion, your an idiot for your statement "NYC really doesn't have a whole lot worth seeing in the first place." That is just entirely factually inaccurate.
Actually an Improvement... (Score:2)
Reading TFA, there has hitherto been an unpublished law in NYC, arbitarily enforced against photographers.
At least now you get to know your rights.
Maybe some large studio with good lawyers could get this law (published or unpublished) struck down.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Tripod and crew.
Crew implies professional.
Bounce screens implies professional.
Crew implies professional.
Granted, it sounds like a police state but if you RTFA, I can understand the point of view from the citys perspective.
I've you've ever lived through a freaknik in Atlanta, you would want this sort of thing.
A bunch of `photographers` stopping traffic, either foot or motor vehincle, is unwanted if it's amateur.
Re: (Score:2)
So when that happens, you charge the offenders appropriately, and fine them when convicted. Make the fines large enough, and people will stop getting in the way of everyone else.
Re: (Score:2)
Timelapse photographers. The tripod is necessary to keep the camera steady, otherwise the resulting movie clip ends up looking like a 70's earthquake disaster movie. Timelapse typically speeds things up by x5 or x10, so for 5 minutes of animation, you will need to be on location for 25 to 50 minutes. And to make a good timelapse movie you need to be
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.
Re:Absurd (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Absurd (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
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 (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Last I checked, cities cannot override 1st Amendment rights."
When did you last check, prior to the passage of the 1st Amendment? Thats never been the case. The 1st Amendment only applies to laws passed by the federal government, ie congress. Cities do not fall under it. For those of you have forgotten high school government class, here is the text itself:
Re: (Score:2)
Re:1st Amendment (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Since when are you or any other individual A well-regulated Militia?
Absolutly Insane (Score:2)
Whats next? Arrested for gazing upon a copyrighted building design. Come on...
Re:Absolutly Insane (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
One Sided Article (Score:5, Interesting)
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:
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.
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:
Still, it really causes one to wonder, what's the reason for the change in these laws?
Re:One Sided Article (Score:5, Interesting)
It is in the article (right at the end):
Re:One Sided Article (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
License to Breathe Air: Coming soon (Score:3, Informative)
- 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: (Score:2)
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.
Just what is 'reasonable' about requiring paperwork to film in open areas like city parks or bridges? Or subways and tunnels for that matter? If the worry is that people will make a nuisance of themselves, then regulate THAT because there are more ways to really clog up the system than just deploying a large camera crew.
other laws are going to protect people (as in Mr. Sharma's case) from being arrested?
WTF? We need laws to protect people from getting arrested? It sounds like you've completely internalized the "9/11 changed everything" bullshit. In a free society anything and everyth
Re: (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: (Score:2)
The reason why this argument is unfortunate is that freedom of expression is a fundamental right, and the government can only restrict fundamental rights when there is a substantial governmental interest and there is no less detrimental alternative means to achieve this super important purpose. Note
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, for commercial movie productions, there is some logic to it, because these productions disrupt traffic etc. But for private parties, the ONLY possible explanation is a desire to track WHO PHOTOGRAPHED WHAT. File under "chilling effects".
Messing with NYPD? (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
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
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.
Re: (Score:2)
After all, if I made a car bomb to blow stuff up, there wouldn't be smoke coming out from the car, and the only way they are going to handle it is to blow up the car (first surrounding the car with sand bags, water barrels, explosive proof fabrics etc).
I'd just rig up car alarms (ultrasonic, IR motion detectors etc) to prevent the car and bomb from being tampered with. Depending on the situation, the first few "You are too close to the car! St
Kind of understandable. (Score:3, Insightful)
Simple solution (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
As they say in Mid-Town, "From Your Lips to God's Ears"!!!
Re: (Score:2)
rj
What is the purpose? (Score:3, Interesting)
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... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This rule is no different and no less reasonable. Nobody's rights are being trampled. A rule that would prevent casual photography would be illegal. This isn't such a rule.
A little bit of cooperation is required in order to keep society flowing smoothly. People need to
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.
LA has had these laws (Score:2)
Selective enforcement (Score:3, Informative)
How Absurd -- Best Luck NYC (Score:2)
Is NYC run by total morons?
I guess that's one city I can take off the list of places to visit.
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.
This can only be enforced discriminative (Score:2)
Unfortunately, the constitution only protects you against arbitrary arrests. It does not protect you from the creation of laws that enable arbitrary arrests. And that's pretty much the only viable way this law can be used. It does not protect your privacy. Sure, your stalker can't camp
Bad news (as a photographer) (Score:4, Insightful)
As someone who often takes pictures in public .... (Score:3, Interesting)
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: (Score:2)
How does this not violate our Constitutionally protected right to freedom of assembly??
Re:As someone who often takes pictures in public . (Score:3, 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 us
Re: (Score:2)
However, this has nothing to do with photography by individuals, even those armed with a tripod -- that won't take up any more space or cause any more disruption than would two people stan
Jaywalking (Score:2)
Does the mean Google will need to black out NYC? (Score:2)
More links (Score:2, Informative)
Maybe Judicial Action might be Allowed 2 Officers? (Score:2, Informative)
Did you know in Amsterdam marijuana is illegal, yet its sale is commonplace? The word going around is 'tolerated', but what
It isn't like it is without precedent (Score:2)
Habeas Corpus has been reduced to something we have at the whim of the commander in the United States so we are effectively a third-world government. It is hardly surprising to see other third world mechanisms of control that have survived the test of time proposed here as well.
Silliness abounds in Chicago, too (Score:3, Interesting)
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 (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
What about illustrations? (Score:2)