ARTICLE -- New York May Require Photography Permits

[jd callow]

George,
I agree completely it is a bad regulation, open for abuse and sometimes cops abuse their power. Wow like minds and all that...

I'd suggest that maybe it would be a good idea to fix it before money is wasted on fighting it or other cities adopt it.

What was that other stuff you were talking about?

 

[firecracker]

I'm all for that. After all, why the hell do we still have our military folk stationed over there? It's been over 60 years now and everything I read here tells me we're certainly no longer wanted. So, let's start by getting out of Europe.

Oh and yes, let's get out of South Korea, Japan etc. I'm sure those folk will be well and happy without American imperialists smashing a hobnailed boot down on them. They're big boys now, they can certainly work things out with China without us being around. [And I'm lovin' the idea of how much tax dollars we can save by getting out!]

As to the OT, yes, JD, the "photo permit law" (actually it is a regulation), as proposed, is vague and could be abused. Which is why we have courts and very active civil liberties defenders.

You see, that's the difference b/w down here and a police state - there is a very viable system of legal recourse to effectively deal with pompous bureaucrats! As an attorney, I can assure you there are plenty of my colleagues at the bar who will jump at the chance to litigate this one!

I have two serious concerns over your comments. First, have you heard about the case of NYPD videotaping citizens and their political activities illegally?

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/03/26/1329201&mode=thread&tid=25

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/03/26/1329207&mode=thread&tid=25

The second link is for the comment by a civil rights lawyer in YOUR city that you might be interested in what he had to say. Considering the new regulation there, I think this is so ironic.

And secondly, about your "I'm sure those folk will be well and happy without American..." comment, why don't you do somethng about it? Just a few days ago, a US Navy man got arrested in Yokohama, Japan after stabbing two local females (one was 16 years old) whom he was hanging out with. I don't have a link to the news source in English, but it was everywhere in the Japanese news. Also, not a long ago, probably last year, there was another incident in the same area, again a US Navy man beat a local to death and got caught. I can go on the list, but this is not the point I'm trying ot make so I won't.

And you look at Okinawa, which you probably don't hear in the news anyway, but if you really start paying attention to the locals, you will get the idea that none of the locals really want the US forces in their soils because there are more troubles than safety and protection there. And most importantly the rape and murder cases by the individuals from the US forces are nothing new in this country, and you as an American citizen should be aware of how these crimes are perceived by the public. This is NOT a history yet because it's been going on for 60-some years.

I give you the clearest idea: The reality is that when the US helicopters crash and/or have to land in emergency outside of their bases during their tainings, whether in Okinawa, Yokohama, Tokyo, or wherever, no Japanese authorities (Japanese forces, police, fire department, and local government officials, etc) can step into the sites for their investigations because they are blocked off by the US forces investigation teams. I'm not talking about Iraq here...

 

[fschifano]

I don't like New York, don't go to New York, and only marginally care about whether they are still dumping raw sewage in the river or enforcing onerous requirements for photography.

You don't like it here? OK by me. One less pesky tourist getting all up in my face.

 

[mmcclellan]

. . . And you look at Okinawa, which you probably don't hear in the news anyway, but if you really start paying attention to the locals, you will get the idea that none of the locals really want the US forces in their soils because there are more troubles than safety and protection there. And most importantly the rape and murder cases by the individuals from the US forces are nothing new in this country, and you as an American citizen should be aware of how these crimes are perceived by the public. This is NOT a history yet because it's been going on for 60-some years.

I give you the clearest idea: The reality is that when the US helicopters crash and/or have to land in emergency outside of their bases during their tainings, whether in Okinawa, Yokohama, Tokyo, or wherever, no Japanese authorities (Japanese forces, police, fire department, and local government officials, etc) can step into the sites for their investigations because they are blocked off by the US forces investigation teams. I'm not talking about Iraq here...

The fact is, when a noisy group of protesters (generally leftists and anti-globalists and anti-capitalists) protest in any of these countries against a US military presence, and we start talking about pulling out, the local governments backed by the business community usually start demanding we stay! Hardly a US base has been closed down anywhere in the world without causing a lot of harm to the local economy since so many locals are employed there, so much money comes into the local economy, etc.

Sure, crimes are occasionally committed by GIs but they're also committed by diplomats abroad (and we've seen plenty of that in the US and I personally have seen plenty of it with UN personnel overseas). GIs, at least, do face justice and spend plenty of time in US prisons for their crimes overseas when convicted. How many of those diplomats from all over the world do you think get convicted by their home countries?!

And all the stuff you say about investigating helo crashes, etc., is all done in accordance with negotiated treaties (i.e., SOFA -- Status of Forces Agreement) that lay out very clearly who is responsible for what and what everyone's obligations are. Security of equipment is what is at stake in those crashes and our personnel cooperate fully with local investigators as it concerns them. Treaties are international law and that comes first in state-to-state relations.

If the local in Okinawa hate the US presence so much, why do they continue to work for the bases in such large numbers? Why don't elected Okinawan leaders simply ask Tokyo to tell us to leave? Because Japan would not want that and a large number of people in Okinawa would not want it. Don't mistake a noisy protest of people flown in from all over the country with varying agendas as "representative" of the local population.

 

[Petzi]

The "small America" in me would love to see us pull back from just about everywhere and let the rest of the world go about it's business. In fact, let's start by making our friend Petzi happy. How about the US finally pulls out of Europe?

I never said that I wanted the US military to pull out of Europe. Personally, I have no opinion about that issue. I lack information about the advantages and disadvantages of that.

If the USA wanted to make me happy, they could, for example, abolish the death penalty. That would make me very happy indeed.

Just an example. There are other issues that I have an opinion about. Military presence is not one of them.

 

[firecracker]

Forgive me if I go way too far off topic, but I'm simply responding to this and hopefully correct some of the things said here incorrectly.

The fact is, when a noisy group of protesters (generally leftists and anti-globalists and anti-capitalists) protest in any of these countries against a US military presence, and we start talking about pulling out, the local governments backed by the business community usually start demanding we stay! Hardly a US base has been closed down anywhere in the world without causing a lot of harm to the local economy since so many locals are employed there, so much money comes into the local economy, etc.

It seems it depends on the business owners. But in the case of Okinawa, if the US bases are all cleared, meaning returned to the locals, they can have a vast amount of land to open businesses to boost tourism. The fact is that the US bases are taking more space and they are expanding. Underneath of this is the strong tie with the military industry complex and the local organized mafia/yakuza in their construction businesses. And the central government is with the mafia. I'm not kidding. Also, what makes the locals want the jobs from and for the US bases are the high level of poverty. The central government cuts the ordinary funds and etc, but helps create the jobs that are related to the the services for the US bases. So, the whole thing is very systematic, and the local Okinawans are economically too disadvantaged to simply reject these US-bases-related jobs.

And all the stuff you say about investigating helo crashes, etc., is all done in accordance with negotiated treaties (i.e., SOFA -- Status of Forces Agreement) that lay out very clearly who is responsible for what and what everyone's obligations are. Security of equipment is what is at stake in those crashes and our personnel cooperate fully with local investigators as it concerns them. Treaties are international law and that comes first in state-to-state relations.

Are you sure? Well, even in Japan, there's a rather strict environmental law to protect the natural resources in the Okinawan seas, but the latest US bases expansion in Okinawa is already a violation of it, and there's been a law suit against your (the US) government in Washington.

Also, the head of the Okinawa prefectural government has always been keen on this issue, but Tokyo, the central government, doesn't do the job accordingly. Do you know what's happening right now? The Central government has sent the self-defence force to clear the protesters who are protecting their land and water. I mean, the military, not the police, is on the mission of clearing the fellow citizens.

If the local in Okinawa hate the US presence so much, why do they continue to work for the bases in such large numbers? Why don't elected Okinawan leaders simply ask Tokyo to tell us to leave? Because Japan would not want that and a large number of people in Okinawa would not want it. Don't mistake a noisy protest of people flown in from all over the country with varying agendas as "representative" of the local population.

As I said earlier, it's been going on, but due to the difficulties, they are resisting at their best, not fully being able to take their land and water back. And the rest of the country is just dead; it's so apathetic that I don't even know who to talk to in most cases. I get the same kind of responses that you have expressed here, but I doubt the trth is so cut and clear and damn simple. What you're saying sounds kind of condescending the Okinawans, if you don't get the whole picture to explain what they are going through, you know what I mean?

 

[Christopher Walrath]

OK. Who's at fault for such a travisty to the American liberties we all now know and enjoy? What will be next, a core charge on the silver content in your film by the US Department of the Treasury? This, I am afraid my dear friends, spells doom and the end of libertiy as we know it. All of the deeds from Joseph Plumb Martin of the Vermont Militia to Christopher Layton on the 182 will have been in vain.
NAYYYYYYY! NAYYYYYYYYYYY say the nay sayers. We must all from a coalition. We will call it operation LARGE EGO (Liberties and Rights Given Effusively Excluding of Governmental Origination). Or perhaps Operation Silver One(Saving Idividual Liberties in Varying Examples Requiring Our Needs and Exclamation). Or maybe Operation FILM'S NOT DEAD (Frankly, I'd Love MySelf Not Oggling Through Daetails Every Assinine Day).
Listen, Governments are poorly run. Hence they need our money to make up for it. Hence this permit which does have its functions and benefits. Keeps unnecessary idiots out of the middle of the streets. Keeps the rest of us safe.
Yes we need to keep and 'Eagle' eye on big brother to be sure they don't over step this boundary. Seems to me most people who actually photograph in the City realize its probably not so huge a nuisance as it might seem to those who don't live and photograph there. I have never been to NYC and doubt that I could EVER imagine the scope of humanity there or the need for such an act.

 

[Christopher Walrath]

In addendum to my last post and after more closely reading some of the other post that mine has the most dubious honor of being amongst, I make the following suggestion. The furthering of technology has created a hostility towards any dissenting points of view because we, each of us, singularly, think that we have the monopoly on what is right and what is not. Usually what we agree with is above reproach and other opinions are found wanting if not in agreeance with our own. Hence I propose a simpler tack, toward simpler times. As I am sure, there are none here whom were around in the time of NO FILM. Yes, charcoals and pencils on mere paper and other materials were the rave two centuries ago when the United States of America won its independence. Oils and watercolours dashed the canvases across the world during the French Revolution. There was no such thing as film other than that sheet of repulsive crap that grew on the local ponds when it was too hot, too dry and too calm. Exposure was saved for what was done to evidence in criminal suits. Stopping down was what they did after church on Sundays for dinner, quilting and a friendly game of horseshoes.
So, I cannot be part of the growing technological trend that drives man from his fellow comrades into a 'My dad is bigger that your dad' frame of mind, bullying and brandishing opinions left and right without care of wheter someone else is more knowledgeable than they themselves are.
And I am also preaching to myself here. So I am this day going to walk down the the Mulberry Street bridge in Milton Delaware which crosses over the Broadkill River at Wagamon Pond about 16 feet from the north end of the bridge and chuck all of my photographic gear over the precipice and into the drink for once and for all turning my back on my part of the technological revolution and I will then promptly drive my Jeep over the edge after them to further drive tham into the sediment and crash against rocks those pieces that may and now my shackle of transportation has been loosed as well. I feel so free. If I have nothing, then no one can tell me what to do.
WHAT FREEDOM. What JUBILATION. No more teachers. No more books. No more rounding up the crooks. Won't need to. THey don't have anything. They can do no wrong. Can't regulate them. I can now go on the grass because I have no football. I can no longer trespass because my fellow members of the movement tore down that building to make more public room.
Wait, what about my pension. What about my Social Security card. What about my driver's lisence? I know I drove it into the drink but somethings still bring me comfort. Dammit to hell I need these things to subsist after all. Maybe I'll keep burning fossil fuels. Maybe I'll keep on clicking. Maybe I will try and be less insulting to my fellow man. Maybe I will even try to value other's opinions and consider them before dismissing them out of hand.
Y'all gettin' the jist uh'dis yet? Ah think Ah'll be moseyin' on now. Good day to'ya.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Okay, getting back to the topic, here is the proposed regulation--

http://www.nyc.gov/html/film/downloads/pdf/moftb_permit_regs.pdf

The key sections for still photography purposes are these--

(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.

So photographing alone with or without a tripod doesn't require a permit at all, it would seem.

Two people (e.g., photog and model, photog and assistant) can photograph in one location for up to thirty minutes with or without a tripod.

The "ten minute" rule for use of a single tripod only applies when the shoot involves five or more people, as I read it.

If this is the case, then the new regulation would arguably be more permissive than the current regulation, which requires a permit for tripod use anywhere on city property.

 

[copake_ham]

Okay, getting back to the topic, here is the proposed regulation--

http://www.nyc.gov/html/film/downloads/pdf/moftb_permit_regs.pdf

The key sections for still photography purposes are these--



So photographing alone with or without a tripod doesn't require a permit at all, it would seem.

Two people (e.g., photog and model, photog and assistant) can photograph in one location for up to thirty minutes with or without a tripod.

The "ten minute" rule for use of a single tripod only applies when the shoot involves five or more people, as I read it.

If this is the case, then the new regulation would arguably be more permissive than the current regulation, which requires a permit for tripod use anywhere on city property.

Thanks, David, for bringing this back in perspective - the place from which it wandered after the first page or so!

BTW, the lawyer in me cannot resist seeking loopholes. What about a group of more than five people where the camera is mounted on a monopole? Doesn't seem as if a permit would be required.

 

[jd callow]

So the regulation isn't vague, only convaluted with the apparent intent of keeping comercial photography/filming under tight or tighter control.

Should we have a rule that all threads of this nature begin with the posting of all official documentation?

 

[copake_ham]

So the regulation isn't vague, only convaluted with the apparent intent of keeping comercial photography/filming under tight or tighter control.

Should we have a rule that all threads of this nature begin with the posting of all official documentation?

JD,

Then are you suggesting a "regulation" here with the intent of keeping thread postings under tight or tighter control?

 

[gr82bart]

Should we have a rule that all threads of this nature begin with the posting of all official documentation?

John,

Trying to prevent threads from going OT will waste a perfectly good new smilie!

Regards, Art.
:munch:

 

[firecracker]

So, how did the story of an Indian documentary filmmaker who got detained fit into this? Was he just a bad example of whatever it means according to the current regulation?

And what are the charges and/or penalties if people violate (or accused of violating) the new regulation?

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

So, how did the story of an Indian documentary filmmaker who got detained fit into this? Was he just a bad example of whatever it means according to the current regulation?

The relevant case is Sharma vs. New York City. As I understand it, Sharma was denied a permit under the current rules, which are even more vague than the proposal, so the proposed rules would be more narrow and precise than the current rules. The objection is that the current rules are still not sufficiently narrow and could conceivably apply to many situations where a permit should not be necessary (like a family of tourists shooting video in Times Square for more than 30 minutes).

Here's the NYCLU's page with a link to their comments on the proposal--

http://www.nyclu.org/nyc_photo_permits_pr_062807.html

While I understand and sympathize with the NYCLU's objection to the proposal, the proposed rules look to me like an improvement on the current rules, which are even more vague. The current rules are less restrictive only in the fact that they do not require proof of insurance, but they seem to apply in more situations.

 

[dferrie]

I was in NY back in 2001, got some nice shots but the thought of trying to use a tripod on a crowded sidewalk makes me shudder. I was only using 35mm kit at that stage and think if I went back I'd still use 35mm handheld. I'll keep my MF kit for the peace and tranquillity of the Irish countryside.

David

 

[copake_ham]

As to the "issue" that led to the proposed regulation - it really comes down to one of liability.

The City's intent by adopting the regulation is to provide it with a legal defense in case of a subsequent lawsuit by someone like Sharma. If it can show that the "shooter" was in violation of a regulation - then it can argue that his arrest, detainment or whatever was "reasonable" such that the City has no liability.

Assuming the regulation is adopted - once someone is "charged" with violating it, they will become a "test case" as to its constitutional validity. [Note: in the US we do not allow "moot" constitutional arguments such as is the case up in Canada - there has to be a real issue at hand]

Now, if all of this bores you, and makes your eyes glaze over, then I think you can appreciate that we here in the US are a nation of laws and due process. Whatever regulation is promulgated merely begins the process of determining if it is reasonable. This is what "liberty" is all about.

Now, as to the matter of NYC cops, as we say in law:

Res Ipsa Loquitor ("The thing speaks for itself")

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/09/nyregion/09cnd-shot.html

 

[firecracker]

The relevant case is Sharma vs. New York City. As I understand it, Sharma was denied a permit under the current rules, which are even more vague than the proposal, so the proposed rules would be more narrow and precise than the current rules. The objection is that the current rules are still not sufficiently narrow and could conceivably apply to many situations where a permit should not be necessary (like a family of tourists shooting video in Times Square for more than 30 minutes).

Here's the NYCLU's page with a link to their comments on the proposal--

http://www.nyclu.org/nyc_photo_permits_pr_062807.html

While I understand and sympathize with the NYCLU's objection to the proposal, the proposed rules look to me like an improvement on the current rules, which are even more vague. The current rules are less restrictive only in the fact that they do not require proof of insurance, but they seem to apply in more situations.

I checked the link and read the proposal/draft by the city and and the response letter by NYCLU, and I just think I would prefer not to visit a city like that, I hate to say. It's too vague to even think what this is all about. If the permits are required for a liability purpose, there can't be an exception even for the trourists with short filming, etc. And if the students have to send letters for a permit and they have to tell the city about their enrollment status, etc, this whole thing seem to be taking another wrong direction.

And still, this doesn't address the issue of the potential charges, etc. I'm dying to know, for example, if a student majouring in photography and film in a 4 year college, applies for a permit in his/her freshman year and somewhat gets denied, does that mean he/she has to battle with the city until their graduation? What about those in gradschool doing their fieldwork in city streets on a regular basis?

Well, it's not my my city (but I'm dead curious), so I don't have too much business there, but I'll probably be shocked when I visit my friends there sometime in the near future.

 

[copake_ham]

I checked the link and read the proposal/draft by the city and and the response letter by NYCLU, and I just think I would prefer not to visit a city like that, I hate to say. It's too vague to even think what this is all about. If the permits are required for a liability purpose, there can't be an exception even for the trourists with short filming, etc. And if the students have to send letters for a permit and they have to tell the city about their enrollment status, etc, this whole thing seem to be taking another wrong direction.

And still, this doesn't address the issue of the potential charges, etc. I'm dying to know, for example, if a student majouring in photography and film in a 4 year college, applies for a permit in his/her freshman year and somewhat gets denied, does that mean he/she has to battle with the city until their graduation? What about those in gradschool doing their fieldwork in city streets on a regular basis?

Well, it's not my my city (but I'm dead curious), so I don't have too much business there, but I'll probably be shocked when I visit my friends there sometime in the near future.

I am trying to figure out if there is anything rational that can be said in response to this rant.

There isn't.

:munch:

 

[firecracker]

I am trying to figure out if there is anything rational that can be said in response to this rant.

There isn't.

:munch:

I just put my personal take on it.

The issue is that like that the photographers will face more (unnecessary) risks taking photos in public, which I think is the bottom line of this discussion.

 

[SuzanneR]

Bumping this thread... there's a petition you can add your name to with regard to this dubious law they are considering...

http://www.pictureny.org/petition/index.php

 

[jovo]

Bumping this thread... there's a petition you can add your name to with regard to this dubious law they are considering...

http://www.pictureny.org/petition/index.php

Thanks for the link, Suzanne. I signed. (There are some rather formidable presences on that list. I hope it makes a difference.)

 

[highpeak]

There also will be a gathering at Union Square tomorrow. Wish I can be there. I saw about 300 people signed the petition yesterday when I signed it. The number is not enough, but like John mentioned, hope the "formidable presences" make the city seriously consider this regulation.

Alex W.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

It was over 1500 when I signed it today. Wish I could make the protest as well, but can't really get away tomorrow.

 

[MikeK]

I also signed the petition - #2038 - I also wrote the commissioner a letter of complaint - here is the response:
-------------------------------------
I write in response to your e-mail message concerning the proposed comprehensive rules governing permits issued by the Mayor's Office of Film, Theatre & Broadcasting (MOFTB) for filming and photographing in New York City. Thank you for taking the time to communicate your views to us.



MOFTB will continue to accept feedback on the proposed rules until August 3, 2007, from people such as yourself, and may determine that it is appropriate to revise its proposal.



As the rulemaking progress continues, its status and other required notifications – including notification of any further publication of rule proposals and the effective date of the final rule – will be posted on MOFTB's website. For this information, as well as a current copy of the proposed rules, please visit the website by clicking here.



This office is committed to promoting the presence of photographers and people engaged in film, whether professional, amateur or as tourists. Our goal is to craft guidelines that support these endeavors while at the same time working to preserve to the maximum extent possible the flow of pedestrian and vehicular traffic.





Katherine Oliver
Commissioner