NY-NJ Path Station Photo Permits Lawsuit

<p><br />As some of you know, the New York-New Jersey PATH rail system prohibits photography of their property without a license. A group of photographers are getting together to file a legal complaint against the PATH system. If you're a photographer who has been hassled for not having a photo permit, or if you've been denied a photo permit, please send me a brief email, and briefly describe your experience.<br>

<a href="mailto:pathphotosuit@yahoo.com">pathphotosuit@yahoo.com</a></p>

<p>It has been six or seven years since I last shot on PATH.</p>

<p>I don't recall being hassled, but then I was shooting surreptitiously.</p>

<p>If I had been challenged, I would have waited, then kept on shooting. If cited, arrested or otherwise hassled I would have followed through to challenge the law. I usually start with the individual enforcer and try to reason, as I am good at that.</p>

<p>Failing that however, I am possibly threatened with arrest or a citation which affects my freedom and would chill my ability to take good photos (and I am not obstructive in any way, as there may be legitimate rules about standing in open PATH doors, blocking them and then taking photos, for instance, but blanket prohibiting taking photos is abhorrent and chilling to me personally as a photographer and inhibiting in the type of photo I might attempt to take.</p>

<p>I shoot in Metros throughout the world, and I am not a terrorist.</p>

<p>My age is retirement age, and I'm not in any group seen as high risk (WASP), but then again why should others who are not so 'mainstream older US from the last century' be subject to prohibitions?</p>

<p>In my shooting last week, I was I was told by a cop that I could not take a photo that included a child in front of Shrek's statute on Hollywood Boulevard with my 'professional equipment' and was stopped for that. (It was on Hollywood Boulevard for God's sake).</p>

<p>I told the patrolman it was my Constitutional Right to take photos and that I had taken several hundred of people from all walks of life and he could not prevent i. , I said so cordially authoritatively and matter of factly, though, because there was reason to get his back up. I spoke with authority, as I am a onetime attorney who passed the state's bar though I didn't tell him that.</p>

<p>He said 'Where do you find that Constitutional Right' with a bit of an attitude. I didn't bite.</p>

<p>I went to law school but did not say so.</p>

<p>I just replied: First Amendment, freedom of speech, freedom of expression, freedom of assembly, freedom of association (photography had not then been invented when the Bill of Rights was written, so it's not mentioned specifically).</p>

<p>And, I said, no law prohibits such photography even by statute anyway.</p>

<p>I said 'I have an absolute right to shoot strangers on public streets, and it's guaranteed by the US Constitution. (without taking photos in toilets, upskirt or downblouse, which I specifically exempted.)</p>

<p>'I'll stand here while you call your lieutenant.'</p>

<p>He expressed the thought that somehow 'professional looking equipment' in some way changed the rules, though my camera was all handheld and I was taking hundreds of images of all sorts of people (and one or two included a kid).</p>

<p>Parents even encouraged my shooting including one grandma who had three young kids playing drums who encouragd my shooting then wanted my images (which I refused since I don't have secretaries and don'gt hve the time to do so.</p>

<p>Thousands of people were walking and taking photos almost all with digicams. It was the SIZE of the camera he felt justified the 'stop'.</p>

<p>He went to call his sergeant (not lieutenant) and came back extremely apologetic.</p>

<p>I accepted his apology.</p>

<p>It's better to be gracious when dealing with the uninformed and NOT have a chip on your shoulder.</p>

<p>People, even cops, often have very skewed idea of what you can and cannot constitutionally do.</p>

<p>New York is especially sensitive about transportation photos, but as I pointed out to the inexperienced cop, if I wanted to take forbidden photos I wouldn't be using a large, conspicuous Nikon single lens reflex which stands out like a sore thumb with a large wide to telephoto lens.</p>

<p>I could simply use a small point and shoot held clandestinely and get higher mega pixel images possibly with better resolution.</p>

<p>He saw the absurdity of his arguments, and frankly was not only apologetic but somewhat flustered.</p>

<p>I had been a little aggressive about stating my rights, saying 'I'm a member of a photo organization that claims 800,000 members and I'm named one of the top 60 'most interesting' members. I take photos of almost anyone and everyone in public, but nothing that breaks the expectation of privacy, but NO ONE has an expectation of privacy when they're on a public street or walkway.' Really I said that almost as one sentence.</p>

<p>We shook hands briefly in friendship, then I voluntarily showed him some images (I wouldn't have if he had demanded to be shown the images)</p>

<p>At first he had demanded (without seeing them) that I 'delete the images'. At the end he was a convert.</p>

<p>He was severely uninformed and needed a wise education, rather than a scolding or confrontation, and I took the opportunity to help the next photographer who happens to take a photo of people with a kid in the crowd (or in front of Shrek from afar).</p>

<p>The photos I show serially clearly demonstrated my point, and what I wanted to do was not humiliate him but educate him, as he had shown remarkable shortsightedness.</p>

<p>This may seem off topic, but the issue here really is 'first amendment rights' and photography in public places.</p>

<p>Los Angelenos are often as upsettable about photos with kids in them as NY is of those with buildings and transportation depicted.</p>

<p>I've written about this before, and we have some really toxic individuals to blame for that - horrible people whom the police MUST aggressively be watchful for and curb, and I sympathize and endorse their activity to sniff out, punish those individuals, and take them off the streets forever.</p>

<p>But I photograph people, of all ages, and not one single age. My quest, as I said to him, was to capture 'truths of humanity' in all circumstances and with ALL people, not the group he selects or others select, so long it's done safely and in public.</p>

<p>There is a national hysteria about abused kids and I endorse strictest law enforcement against those who do such awful things and am even willing not to get my back up when confronted even by a severely under informed cop trying sincerely to do his job well.</p>

<p>He's trying to protect the citizens and that could include me, if someone tries to harm me or my equipment, so I'm mostly on the cop's side, but I do have rights and want them respected, as I patiently but aggressively did at that time.</p>

<p>It is for the betterment of all amateur photographers, and that I did it without a chip on my shoulder and that should help all members here. (it may already have).</p>

<p>It is instructive that NYC has issued rules that specifically permit photography on the subways now (after lawsuits), so the PATH rule seems contrary even to carefully thought out policy of a sister transportation agency.</p>

<p>I am making the point of course by analogy . . . . .</p>

<p>And by experience.</p>

<p>I have shot on PATH, and didn't realize it was forbidden by law, but that law I believe is unconstitutional and can be flouted since it is constitutionally impermissible and I believe void.</p>

<p>Frankly people who makes laws often don't think them through -- they may even have copied NYC's prior rules and regulations about subway shooting without thinking it through, but in the wake of the World Trade Center twin tower fellings, lots of well-intentioned laws which trampeled on First Amendment grounds were permitted and even encourged.</p>

<p>I enthusiastically support your quest, and I would be happy for you to quote me in any legal argument (so long as it does not change the character and intent of what I have written.)</p>

<p>My firmly held belief is that such restrictions are unconstitutional and void, and I intend to treat them as such, but i don't want to pay a penalty for my beliefs, so have at it with my enthusiastic support.</p>

<p>Even if I have the right, I may have to change my shooting style to shoot without getting arrested and that is VERY CHILLING.</p>

<p>I am a former member of Associated Press, a photographer, writer, editor and world service photo editor, once based in New York City AP world headquarters, so I am used to shooting in unwelcome places at unappreciated times.</p>

<p>Digicams and surveillance cameras are everywhere.</p>

<p>Such rules are absurd in light of present day reality.</p>

<p>It is almost sure that a couple taking a photo of each other or friends will not be stopped but a sincere amateur photographer stands probably a manifold chance of being stopped AND maybe cited or arrested - even a warning can be extremely chilling (and unconstitutional).</p>

<p>john<br />John (Crosley)</p>

<p>Thanks John - we need more photographers who stand their ground and assert (politely) their rights because everytime a photographer sheepishly gives in to a "no photography" claim, they're putting the burden on the rest of us to defend that right. Thankfully we have found a volunteer legal association that will help use find representation (even though the PATH is a heavyweight in NYC business and most firms don't want to cross them for business reasons.)<br>

In the case of the PATH system, there is indeed a blanket "no photos without permit" rule, and the rules/standards for the issuance of the permits are ridiculously unconstitutional -- assuming you even manage to get a appliction form in the first place. Read up and laugh (or cry): <a href="http://www.subchat.com/read.asp?Id=456041">http://www.subchat.com/read.asp?Id=456041</a></p>