Gothamist: City Proposes Limits on Public Photography, Filming

Ace

Fri, 27 Jul 2007 13:38:29 -0500

This makes sense, you can't have film crews shooting without insurance. Anything could happen. A wind can pick up a reflector, knock over a light, etc. What recourse would the injured party have? Would you drive without insurance?

guest

Thu, 26 Jul 2007 12:28:26 -0500

you can come to a rally tomorrow! The First Amendment is NOT a legend New York City You Are Free Shout! Parade! Assemble! Film! Cycle! Dance! I (heart) freedom I (heart) New York JOIN the celebration Union Square 6:30 pm Friday JULY 27 North End Recite the first amendment: "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."

guest

Fri, 13 Jul 2007 14:48:11 -0500

Is it a coincidence that this is happening at the same time that the downtown "surveillance veil" is going up? Ray Privett

guest

Mon, 02 Jul 2007 23:26:42 -0500

utterly ridickolous!!!!!!!!!!! -shveckle

guest

Mon, 02 Jul 2007 00:11:30 -0500

As someone who has grown up in this city, I have to say that I am getting fed up with the people that have been put in charge. There are more stupid rules and regulations being thought up while serious problems keep getting worse and worse. I have always loved this city and I have to say that rules like this are the reason I am able to say that I am about done with this town and will be moving on and not looking back.

guest

Sun, 01 Jul 2007 08:50:42 -0500

How can we put our two cents in?

guest

Fri, 29 Jun 2007 18:30:36 -0500

So if I want to take some shots of my friend's band on the street for the cover of their self-released CD (which I'm doing as a favor) I'll need to pay the city for a permit and give even more to an insurance company or risk the wrath of the NYPD? Wow. Stupid idea, unless... Maybe the police can start auctioning photo gear like they do with confiscated cars - then they could make even more money on this deal!

guest

Fri, 29 Jun 2007 18:24:01 -0500

I'm an artist who uses the medium of photography to make images of abastact architectural landscapes in the reflections of automobiles. Constantly people object to my working in the public space of the street and I'm hassled by building security, car owners, and police who already believe photography of property in public space is against the law. I'm fortunate enough not to have lost gear but on more than one occasion been chased, threatened with arrest, and had demands to hand over my film. Obviously I don't have to mention the kinds of things that happen when one attempts to inform the police about the law. I understand the need for bureaucracy to control professional productions and believe there should be some controls in permitting certain types of commercial use of public space. However as an individual "professional" I have not yet earned much from my personal artistic pursuits and don't feel I should have to pay for a permit to follow my passions as if I were shooting a commercial still or film production. I can only see these additional restrictions creating a worse situation where those unclear of specific "rules" will automatically assume anyone with a camera suspect and subject to punishment as is nearly the case already with our society's climate of constant fear. This will effect me more than those with advertising contracts or tourists. I suggest we also ban painters from setting up easels in the street as well. Who knows if that finely detailed oil rendering of a bridge is heading to someone with dastardly plans of destruction.

S.D.

Fri, 29 Jun 2007 17:03:50 -0500

"small group 2 or less" Would be a single person or just a couple, right? That means people going for a Flickr stroll (say 3 to 5 people) needs a permit? IMO, that's unreasonable.

guest

Fri, 29 Jun 2007 15:40:44 -0500

i dont see what all the fuss is about if you read the proposal it has clear exceptions for small groups and photographing parades/protests etc as a small group 2 or less.. i do understand there may be a concern for film students but that seems like something that could be worked into the wording.. after all it is still only a proposal and can be edited. now anyone who doesnt fall into those two groups should need a permit and i dont feel that is unreasonable. i myself being an amatuer photog who takes pictures constantly in the subway and at concerts/parades and sporting events feels not even for a second to be anymore threatened than I already am when having to deal with venue security or parks rangers...

guest

Fri, 29 Jun 2007 15:27:11 -0500

Let's see...the city has recently gone to court to rescind the Handschu consent decree forbidding the police to selectively film and photograph citizens who engage in political dissent + Most of the RNC arrestees and others wrongfully arrested have been proven innocent of any wrongdoing with videotape from citizen journalists + The recent NYPD Parade Permit regulations have made it possible for the police to arrest groups of teenagers and any others they feel free to selectively enforce the guidelines on + A ban on cameras in public which will be again selectively enforced by the NYPD as they see fit,etc. = A POLICE STATE

guest

Fri, 29 Jun 2007 14:48:45 -0500

One can also contact Commisioner Katherine Oliver.

Agent00Soul

Fri, 29 Jun 2007 14:38:08 -0500

From my personal experience, I think stopping people taking pictures is something that policemen just enjoy doing. This has been going on since before 9/11 - although it is exponentially worse now. I'm not sure why it's fun for them or why the precincts turn a blind eye to allowing the officers to get away with it. It's so trivial. What kind of person brags about stopping photos being taken - there's nothing brave or macho to brag about is there?

edEx

Fri, 29 Jun 2007 14:27:36 -0500

this will never pass or hold a grip. it's unconstitutional.

guest

Fri, 29 Jun 2007 13:59:24 -0500

Contact city hall to comment or compain: By telephone: 212.489.6710 By fax: 212.307.6237 or dial: 311

guest

Fri, 29 Jun 2007 13:55:28 -0500

so will the nypd have to register for a permit every time they want to film protests? i'm pretty sure film students are covered for restrictions like this with a blanket permit provided by their program - though who knows, I wouldn't be at all surprised if they tried to ink a deal with local film schools to line everybody's pockets just a bit more through tuition and fees to cover increased permits costs or some such bs.

guest

Fri, 29 Jun 2007 13:47:14 -0500

This is such bullshit, we cannot let this happen. Are there any campaigns to oppose this in the works?

guest

Fri, 29 Jun 2007 13:32:57 -0500

NYC is a lie.

guest

Fri, 29 Jun 2007 13:20:46 -0500

they don't care, they'll just break your camera in hopes of bankrupting you. and believe me, they'll take pleasure in breaking your camera along with any bones.

guest

Fri, 29 Jun 2007 13:16:14 -0500

Just what the *&(^*&^% is becoming of NYC? What's next? Will you have to pay a special tax to be able to pick your nose in public and flick the snot into the sewer? This is what happens when you get a billionaire as mayor. He thinks NYC is a business. When are they going to start charging for these permits? All we've seen out of this guy are increased fees, higher taxes, fines doubled... And now this nazi bullshit? To hell with them all. If they want my camera they can come try and get it. The only way they will is from my cold, dead hands. -Control ltvsquad.com

guest

Fri, 29 Jun 2007 13:15:43 -0500

They're writing the initial draft as widely as possible, people will complain, they'll make it a bit less all-encompassing, and people will think they won something when in fact the city will have gained broad new powers to arrest people. It's the same thing they do when they want to increase taxes.

guest

Fri, 29 Jun 2007 13:15:33 -0500

What about private outdoor surveillance cameras? any permit needed for that? and why the 1mil ins policy? Is there any type of insurance coverage for this? who writes this type of policy and what's the coverage?

guest

Fri, 29 Jun 2007 13:07:03 -0500

This has been done in Qubec already. Not that you need a permit, you just need to get those individuals who appeared in the photo to sign a release. See here for details. You can also do a search for Gilbert Duclos.

guest

Fri, 29 Jun 2007 13:06:14 -0500

guest

Fri, 29 Jun 2007 12:43:04 -0500

The exact text of the proposed rules: http://www.nyclu.org/pdfs/nyc_photo_permits_proposed_rules_052507.pdf The NYCLU's response letter: http://www.nyclu.org/pdfs/nyc_photo_permits_comments_062707.pdf

guest

Fri, 29 Jun 2007 12:42:23 -0500

The Gothamist community should really use its collective power here and see what we can do to fight this. Proposals such as this represent a serious threat to our right to self-expression, and can severely hinder our creative energies. It is a cruel irony that we've allowed the culture of terror to silence the diversity of voices that make this city so unique. We can't let them win...

anzelina

Fri, 29 Jun 2007 12:33:27 -0500

Ridiculous!

guest

Fri, 29 Jun 2007 12:21:55 -0500

the big question is will any news organizations step up and go to the bottom of this new rule. or, will they just kiss bloomberg's ass as usual. except for Brenden Keif of cbs.

guest

Fri, 29 Jun 2007 12:21:43 -0500

Repeat after me: When the RNC/NYPD does it, it's okay. When a peon does it, he is liable to receive bodily injury, invasion of person, kidnapping (arrest, or threat thereof). Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia.

guest

Fri, 29 Jun 2007 12:07:39 -0500

I guess the NYPD has too much time on their hands. Ya know, because there's never any real crime in this city.

guest

Fri, 29 Jun 2007 12:04:13 -0500

Bureaucratic overreach.

S.D.

Fri, 29 Jun 2007 12:03:10 -0500

(sigh) So If I got on a photowalk (As I often do) with other people, I may need a "permit"?? What about the Union Square pillow fight? Oh wait, according to the NYPD proposed rules, I'm already a law breaker for not having a "Parade" permit that day...

guest

Fri, 29 Jun 2007 11:57:46 -0500

Cops already go around "enforcing" photography bans as is even when and where no actual laws exist to enforce. I've had cops try to confiscate my camera for taking still photos all around the city (no tripod, no crew...just me and my camera.) When I talk back I almost always get threatened with arrest, etc. When I call them on it and explain that I know what the laws are, most back down but a few do actually seem to believe that they have the right to just walk up and tell you to stop shooting and/or to hand over your camera to them right there on th spot.

Alex

Fri, 29 Jun 2007 11:57:34 -0500

Imagine all the film students that are gonna have to go to court...

Pizza_Time

Fri, 29 Jun 2007 11:55:52 -0500

This is just plain ridiculous.

edEx

Fri, 29 Jun 2007 11:48:53 -0500

we're on the fast track of an iranian facism.

guest

Fri, 29 Jun 2007 11:48:18 -0500

I don't like this, this is bloomie's standard operating procedure. He wants to arrest you so you can bankrupt yourself with legal fees used to fight the ticket. Are they going to arrest everyone with a video camera during the critical mass outings? why are they really doing this?

guest

Fri, 29 Jun 2007 11:42:32 -0500

This is just truly silly. All the courts in the US, even the conservative ones would knock such a regulation down in a second. Seems Ammendment I to the Constitution says something about making no law abridging the freedom of speech, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble . . . . Is Dick Cheney working in City Hall? Joe Chinatown