All the Photos That Are Maybe Fit to Print

Yesterday (we think), NY Times published a Q &A with its photo editor Michele McNally. It's very interesting and informative, with notes on what kinds of cameras are used, why color photos on actual newspapers can suck, the paper's policy on publishing pictures of wounded or dead American soldiers. But there was an odd part answering a university student's question, "after 9/11, what obstacles do your photographers encounter and how do they get the shot that they are allowed by the Constitution?" McNally wrote:

"If you are stopped by the police, I suggest that you cease shooting, explain yourself and never be confrontational. Shoot only from public spaces. You are prohibited from shooting bridges and tunnels, less so the subway."

The Daily Politics pointed out that shooting bridges isn't "a rule. Or an amendment, come to think of it." And it seems that the Q&A was updated with a question-clarification from Todd Maisel, Vice President, NY Press Photographers Association, reminding McNally of a couple things:

It is perfectly legal to photograph bridges and tunnels from public areas. Imagine if you couldn't take photos of the Brooklyn Bridge? Port Authority and TBTA have signs up indicating no photography, but where is the law? Test it one day.

Second, photography is perfectly legal of bridges and tunnels from areas that are not part of their property. Imagine if you will, that you were in the rest stop at the Verrazano Bridge and took a picture of the bridge. Wouldn't you say that is perfectly legal?

Third, you said it is even less legal to take photos on the subways. Let me say that the MTA attempted to pass rules that would have banned photography, but the NY Press Photographers Association, with the help of numerous other organizations fought and won this battle.

...I'm sending you this information because you should be best informed of the rights of your photographers. Your attorneys could confirm all this information and it can be found on-line. We are always with you as your colleagues and your counsel on photography issues is important to all of us.

Snap! McNally responds, basically saying there are some areas that are restricted, casual photos are probably fine but the police may be suspicious of photography during the night ("In fact, one of our photographers was stopped last night on the PATH line."). Maybe that's why the Times used an archive picture from the MTA of the Triborough Bridge yesterday.

Photograph of a pedestrian bridge in Queens from Bluejake

Contact the author of this article or email tips@gothamist.com with further questions, comments or tips.

By Jen Chung in News on July 12, 2006 5:59 PM

Comments [rss]

Uyikafceml

heels pantyhose russian pantyhose fetish

Uyikafceml

heels pantyhose russian pantyhose fetish

LiAps

Wow. Makes me that much gladder I sold my NYT stock. It was part of my failed experiment with buying a stake in companies I believed in. First they pay off Wen Ho Lee, now the photo editor is scared to have her staff take pictures in public?? Come on, NYT!

joe

To Avert Lawsuit, MTA Pledges To Stop Harassing LIRR Photographers

March 16, 2006 -- Under pressure from the NYCLU, the Metropolitan Transit Authority agreed this week to stop threatening people with arrest for taking pictures in MTA subway and train stations.

more at http://www.nyclu.org/mta_photo_ban_pr_031606.html

Toby

Photography on PATH is verboten (without permission) which makes taking pictures on PATH more fun.

See "IX": http://www.panynj.gov/CommutingTravel/path/html/pop_regulations.html

S.D.

Restricted areas (i.e. the Midtown tunnel) are clearly posted. This months Popular Photography has a good article("The War on Photographers", by Neal Matthews) on it.

It's Odd that she'd get that so wrong.

anon

You know, Mcnally is obviously not the right person to ask about public photography. If one of her photogs gets stopped on the PATH or wherever, they pull out their NYT press credential and the problem is solved. What if you are a blogger taking public photos? Or an art student? What if your press credential is from your college newspaper? Basically, it's OK to get trampled on ("stop immediately") as long as you are a nobody.

Unless the security guard, officer, agent, whatever is going to cite the law says I cannot take a picture of place x (and if it's an important enough landmark to prevent photography, then there should be a law passed, and not some vague regulation), I don't think anyone should be subject to threats of detention, confiscation, etc, or be made to delete photos from their cameras ON PUBLIC PROPERTY.

Case in point: My girlfriend got stopped taking a snapshot in the Astor Place Kmart. As insane as that is ("you know, 9/11" the manager mumbled, watching her shutter finger carefully), Kmart is private property and sets the rules. Now if you stood on the sidewalk in front of it, or on the subway platform in the basement, you should be able to any picture you damn well please.