Welcome To Coney Island, NO PHOTOGRAPHY Allowed?

Politicians at the opening of The Scream Zone (NYC Mayor's Office)

The Italian amusement park company that took over what was once Astroland doesn't want anyone taking photos inside the park, according a photographer who was recently hassled by security at the Scream Zone. The amusement park, it should be noted, is located on city-owned property that's being leased to the company, Zamperla. On the Coney Island message board, photographer Harold Kramer vents about his experience:

I was taking pictures and minding my own B I business when this dude wearing a white shirt polo with a corporate Zamperla logo and khaki shorts, sporting a walkie talkie over his shoulder, comes up to me as I'm trying to take a photo of the Steeplechase coaster. What I was trying to do was capture those horses just at moment they take off.
So this dude asks me if I have any relatives on this ride. I tell him no. Then he asks why I am taking so many pictures. I say I love Coney Island, that I have a history here, that my family used to own the Thunderbolt. None of this registered with him. I doubt this dude even knew what the Thunderbolt was.

Anyway, he tells me that I can't take pictures in the park unless I have permission. Really? I grab my last shot, tell him ok, and exit Scream Zone.

It bears repeating that there is no city law prohibiting non-commercial photography on public property such as sidewalks or parks. Of course, try telling that to the cops. And as Kramer puts it, "the bigger side to this story is that Coney Island has entered an age where corporate rule curtails individual freedom."

We're told by a source connected with Zamperla that there's no anti-photo policy: "We encourage visitors to photograph the parks, and love seeing the results. Last year, we even had a photo contest. We do like to encourage media to coordinate shoots in advance so we can provide special access when desired and otherwise make sure any photography or filming doesn't interfere with the visitors' experience."

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

By John Del Signore in Arts & Entertainment on July 22, 2011 2:59 PM

Comments [rss]

sharpshoota

It's not the policy of the corporation to ban photography but those "security" dudes probably all have criminal records and don't want you taping them because they're afraid you're going to show it to "the man".

Fuhgedaboudit

It's not unique to that park. I and a friend have been harassed by security at Holiday World in Indiana to the point that I had to show Mr. Cop Wannabe every photo in my digital camera. Several years ago, my friend had to give up a roll of film at another park or be arrested! And then we have Cedar Fair parks that ban photograph on ALL rides. I understand safety concerns on coasters, but come on, you can't take photos from the train which has scenes that have been photographed for decades? Don't want to take a chance that someone might make a buck from a photo or catch the park doing something wrong!

Vinny

I don't get it, though. If someone is leasing it, is it still public property?

For example, if you're leasing an apartment from the city in one of its many projects, can I just come in and take photos if I want because it's public property?

I mean, I'm not saying you should and I'm not trying to be a dick about it, but isn't it public property if there's public ownership but private if it's leased? A lease does kinda say "I'm the acting owner" doesn't it?Obviously I think that the guy who harassed the photography is a douche, but is it really a case of public property law if a private company is leasing said property?

John_Del_Signore

That's an interesting legal question, but I can't stop thinking about the $95.7 million in taxpayer money Bloomberg spent to buy this property back from Joe Sitt. We paid for it, and IMHO Zamperla goons shouldn't be able to shrug off NYC laws on land that's ultimately managed by the Parks Dept.

Vinny

Yeah I was thinking more from a legal PoV but I totally agree.

Spirit of 76

This is nothing new. Many places don't let you take photos, especially malls. Atlantic Terminal and Kings Plaza both have "no photography" rules.

PhotoHarris

What the hell? What city official agreed to let them have this provision, Mr. Mayor? Yoohoo, Mr. Bloomberg. I'm asking you how you or one of your underlings permitted this to happen. Screw Coney Island. I'm boycotting the whole place. I always carry a camera and I use it. You don't want me to use it? You don't want my business.

jaycjay

"he asks why I am taking so many pictures."

Obviously, somehow they mistook the guy for a pro doing commercial photography. No story here; no one's going to try to stop you from taking snapshots with your iPhone.

Jerry Derevyanny

Why would it be an issue if he were doing commercial photography?

banksy

how are the rides there? ngl i wanna go.

FU Boy

Talk about stupid. "Excuse me, but we don't want proof that people have fun here, please move along."

robingee

Pfft, no pictures at a park. I don't think so, douche.

zincink

You know what happens now right...someone organizes a meet-up and the entire park gets flooded with photographers.

Roger_the_Shrubber

This is the new mentality: everything is illegal unless the police state says otherwise. Forget about what the law actually says. Next thing you know, they'll be groping your gonads at JFK. Oh wait.....

Guest

you can't even fly wearing daisy dukes!!! what has this world come to???

nicemarmot

Pretty typical rent-a-cop. I love how the photographer tries to play it as "evil corporation" instead of "moron with tiny penis and a walkie-talkie."

Lisanne!

We don't know whether Zamperla is playing it both ways. Encourage photography while instructing their rent-a-cops to maintain order and protect the comfort zone of patrons. Not specifically informing them that photography is acceptable without condition they have to make a decision as to when a photographer might be violating the rights of others.

Zamperla needs to be clear as to what the rules are. If photography is allowed without condition we would hope that they would instruct their security not to harass photographers in the future. If there are conditions, than these should be stated at the gates.