Beware of photographing buildings in New York!

There are two articles in today's New York Times about people being

punished for photographing landmarks in New York City. One

describes a Nepalese, who and was arrested for photographing

buildings. He had overstayed his visa, and was imprisoned for three

months before being sent home.

 

The other says that two Iranian guards were deported for

photographing landmarks.

 

So you'd better carry your US passport if you plan to make pictures

in New York.

Was the guy imprisoned for taking photos or because he was still in the

country in violation of his visa?

 

While I'm typically a rather hard-core defender of civil liberties, I can accept

that the rules are a bit different for citizens and employees of a relatively

hostile foreign government than they are for US citizens.

Check the article again. Did the New York Times actually say the Nepalese man "was arrested for photographing buildings" ...??? Or did police ask him QUESTIONS because he was videotaping landmarks, and then detain him because of the expired visa?

 

I don't think anyone can be arrested for photographing buildings in New York (yet).

 

Be well,

Think I'd better get another visit or two in whilst I'm still allowed

in! I don't think I could view Nepal as a potentially hostile

government- probably the most they could do is slap a tax on the

engagement of sherpas for Everest attempts.

My "hostile government" comment was concerning the Iranian guards.

 

The expired visa was the issue with the Nepalese guy. Not sure whether

three months of imprisonment is really justified, but I don't know the specifics

of the case.

he was questioned by the FBI because a building he included in a panning shot (he didn't

focus on it) had an aunannounced FBI office in it. <P>Here is the first few paragraphs of

the story in today's NYTimes ( http://nytimes.com/2004/06/30/nyregion/

30deport.final.html).<P>

<I><B>?2004, New York Times, <P>

 

 

 

 

 

In F.B.I., Innocent Detainee Found Unlikely Ally</B><P>By NINA BERNSTEIN<P>It took no

more than a week for

James P. Wynne, a veteran F.B.I. investigator, to confirm the harmless truth that only now,

more than two years later, he is ready to talk about. The small foreign man he helped

arrest for videotaping outside an office building in Queens on Oct. 25, 2001, was no

terrorist.<P>

 

He was a Buddhist from Nepal planning to return there after five years of odd jobs at

places like a Queens pizzeria and a Manhattan flower shop. He was taping New York street

scenes to take back to his wife and sons in Katmandu. And he had no clue that the tall

building that had drifted into his viewfinder happened to include an office of the Federal

Bureau of Investigation.<P>

 

Yet by the time Mr. Wynne filed his F.B.I. report a few days later, the Nepalese man, who

spoke almost no English, had been placed in solitary confinement at a federal detention

center in Brooklyn just because of his videotaping. He was swallowed up in the

government's new maximum security system of secret detention and secret hearings, and

his only friend was the same F.B.I. agent who had helped decide to put him there.<P>

 

Except for the videotape ? "a tourist kind of thing," in Mr. Wynne's estimation ? no shred

of suspicion attached to the man, Purna Raj Bajracharya, 47, who came from Nepal in

1996. His one offense ? staying to work on a long-expired tourist visa ? was an

immigration violation punishable by deportation, not jail. But he wound up spending three

months in solitary confinement before he was sent back to Katmandu in January 2002, and

to release him from his shackles, even Mr. Wynne needed help.<P>

 

The clearance process had become so byzantine that the officer who had set the

procedure in motion could not hasten it. Unable to procure a release that officially

required signatures from top antiterrorism officials in Washington, Mr. Wynne took an

uncommon step for an F.B.I. agent: he called the Legal Aid Society for a lawyer to help the

jailed man.<P>

 

Now, for the first time, the F.B.I. agent and the Legal Aid lawyer, Olivia Cassin, have agreed

to talk about the case and their unlikely alliance. Their documented accounts offer a rare,

first-hand window into the workings of a secret world.<P>

 

Within 10 days of the Sept. 11 attacks, the Justice Department instructed immigration

judges that all cases designated as "special interest" were to be handled in separate closed

courtrooms, without visitors, family or reporters, and without confirming whether a case

was on the docket. The secrecy left detainees with little access to lawyers.<P>

 

Visa violators would be held indefinitely, until the F.B.I. was sure the person was not

involved in terrorism. As a visa violator under suspicion, Mr. Bajracharya was among

hundreds placed in the special interest category, and his case was wiped from the public

record.<P>

Mark Corallo, a spokesman for the Justice Department, said that though he was unfamiliar

with the case, the system of secrecy Mr. Bajracharya encountered is lawful and necessary.

"The idea that someone who has violated our immigration laws may be of interest on a

national security level as well is an unfortunate reality, post-9/11," he said. Closed

hearings are legal as long as due process is provided, he said, and all abuses will be dealt

with.<P>

 

But Ms. Cassin, of Legal Aid, argues that under this secret practice, there is no way to

know whether other noncitizens are even now being unfairly detained. "By its very nature,"

she said, "it can happen again without our knowing about it."<P>

 

Mr. Bajracharya was finally returned to Nepal on Jan. 13, 2002. By then he had spent

almost three months in a 6-by-9-foot cell kept lighted 24 hours a day. The unit of the

Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn where he was kept has become notorious for

the abuses documented there by the Justice Department's own inspector general, who

found a pattern of physical and mental mistreatment of post-9/11 detainees. Videotapes

showed officers slamming detainees into walls, mocking them during unnecessary strip-

searches, and secretly taping their conversations with lawyers.</i><P>

How can we as photographers expect others to respect our copyrights when fail to respect the copyrights of others?

<P>

A simple <A href="http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/30/nyregion/30deport.final.html">link</A> will do the trick.

because this kind of posting is allowed as a "fair use" in an educational context.

I think it would be hard not to include a building when shooting in NYC.

Pretty sickening story all around. On top of all else, NYC has a police pollution problem.

Instead of making things up, please respect the author's wishes by checking the copyright policy of the site first. It's easy to do:

 

-------------------------

 

Copyright Notice

 

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company

 

All rights reserved.

 

All materials contained on this site are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written permission of The New York Times Company. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.

 

However, you may download material from The New York Times on the Web (one machine readable copy and one print copy per page) for your personal, noncommercial use only.

 

For further information, see Section Two of the Subscriber Agreement.

 

To contact other Times departments, see the Site Help area of our Member Center.

 

-------------------------

 

Section 2 of the subscriber agreement says this:

 

-------------------------

 

2. NYT WEB CONTENT AND SUBSCRIBER SUBMISSIONS

 

2.1 The contents of the NYT WEB Internet service are intended for your personal, noncommercial use. All materials published on NYT WEB (including, but not limited to news articles, photographs, images, illustrations, audio clips and video clips, also known as the "Content") are protected by copyright, and owned or controlled by The New York Times Company, NYTD, NYT WEB, or the party credited as the provider of the Content. You shall abide by all additional copyright notices, information, or restrictions contained in any Content accessed through the Service.

 

2.2 The Service and its Contents are protected by copyright pursuant to U.S. and international copyright laws. You may not modify, publish, transmit, participate in the transfer or sale of, reproduce (except as provided in Section 2.3 of this Agreement), create new works from, distribute, perform, display, or in any way exploit, any of the Content or the Service (including software) in whole or in part.

 

2.3 You may download or copy the Content and other downloadable items displayed on the Service for personal use only, provided that you maintain all copyright and other notices contained therein. Copying or storing of any Content for other than personal use is expressly prohibited without prior written permission from The New York Times Rights and Permissions Department, or the copyright holder identified in the copyright notice contained in the Content.

 

2.4 Certain Content is furnished by the Associated Press and Reuters, which will not be liable for any delays, inaccuracies, errors or omissions in any such Content, or in the transmission or delivery of all or any part thereof, or for any damages arising therefrom.

 

-------------------------

 

The authors make money when the site makes money, and the site makes money when people go there. The site doesn't make money when the copyrights are violated by unauthorized distribution. I'm sure any professional can easily understand this.

Understood, however this is a non commercial use of the material and is only the first part

of the article notthe entire thing. If you want to hoist me on my own petard , please be my

guest as my petard needs the exercise. If it will make you feel better, please feel free to

turn me in to the NYT.

And as for making things up...<P>

<B>

 

U.S. Copyright Law, title 17, section 107</B><P>

 

Sec. 107. - Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use<P>

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted

work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other

means specified by that section, <U>for purposes such as criticism, comment, news

reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or

research, is not an infringement of copyright.</U> In determining whether the use made

of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include

-<P>

 

 

 

 

(1)

 

 

the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial

nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;<P>

 

 

 

 

(2)

 

 

the nature of the copyrighted work;<P>

 

 

 

 

(3)

 

 

the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a

whole; and<P>

 

 

 

 

(4)

 

 

the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.<P>

The distinction between ?fair use? and infringement may be unclear and not easily defined.

There is no specific number of words, lines, or notes that may safely be taken without

permission. Acknowledging the source of the copyrighted material does not substitute for

obtaining permission.

 

 

The 1961 Report of the Register of Copyrights on the General Revision of the U.S.

Copyright Law cites examples of activities that courts have regarded as fair use: ?quotation

of excerpts in a review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment; quotation of

short passages in a scholarly or technical work, for illustration or clarification of the

author?s observations; use in a parody of some of the content of the work parodied;

summary of an address or article, with brief quotations, in a news report; reproduction by

a library of a portion of a work to replace part of a damaged copy; reproduction by a

teacher or student of a small part of a work to illustrate a lesson; reproduction of a work

in legislative or judicial proceedings or reports; incidental and fortuitous reproduction, in a

newsreel or broadcast, of a work located in the scene of an event being reported.?

 

 

Copyright protects the particular way an author has expressed himself; it does not extend

to any ideas, systems, or factual information conveyed in the work.

 

 

The safest course is always to get permission from the copyright owner before using

copyrighted material. The Copyright Office cannot give this permission.

 

 

When it is impracticable to obtain permission, use of copyrighted material should be

avoided unless the doctrine of ?fair use? would clearly apply to the situation. The

Copyright Office can neither determine if a certain use may be considered ?fair? nor advise

on possible copyright violations. If there is any doubt, it is advisable to consult an

attorney.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding

is made upon consideration of all the above factors.<P>Photo.net in its infinite wisdom

has been playing with how they interpret HTML code so some of the punctuation marks

are

not exactly as they are <A href = http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html> here</A>.

<i><blockquote> There is no specific number of words, lines, or notes that may safely be

taken without permission. </blockquote> </i><p>

 

However, reposting an entire article does <u><A href =

http://snipurl.com/NOLOLaw>

"not let you off the hook"</a></u>

John, believe me I agree that respecting copyright (especially artistic and creative, which are perhaps most often violated) is essencial however a non commercial, informational, partial copy of an article is probably within the bounds of reasonable pedestrian usage. I would never have seen this story, not being a Times subscriber, had it not been posted here. I'm very grateful.

Mr Ellis, you should leave law to the lawyers and stick to photography. You are out of your league. Please sit down.

A.) I did not post the entire article. If you had bothered reading the article that a link was

published to you would know that.

 

B.) I am now officially sitting down.

well me again, standing up i nthis thread one more time, to say thank you to "EyeZ' for the

link to the nolo site. Sititng down again sir.

I didn't say you posted the whole article. (I didn't know if you had or hadn't.) I was just

hoping to forestall anyone's future uploading of entire articles to the site.

 

The Nolo site, and its books, are quite good.

Better wear your hard hats, the sky is still falling.

 

Not reading it in the Times is no excuse, it's been discussed to excess in forums here, other forums, been in various other news outlets, been on the web, etc. Many photographers run around screaming that it's illegal to take pictures in New York but can't point to anything official or the incidents they point to don't hold up under scrutiny of the facts. Why? Because it's not illegal to take pictures in New York!

 

As to Ellis not understanding copyright? Get real. Some of the most common topics in some of these forums are basic copyright questions. A photographer that doesn't have a working understanding of copyright has ignored an important and basic part of the hobby or business.

This is really too bad, but I guess it's a sign of the times. Last week I took the subway (called Metro Rail) from N. Hollywood to Union Station. At last out tax dollars at work. What a joy to get to downtown without the traffic and sky high parking fees. I thought of taking a few quick shots on the subway, but being what happened in Spain, I thought I'd better just leave well enough alone. I didn't see any security cameras, but anyway my film was too fast. I also would have liked to get some shots in Union Station which is a beautiful LA landmark, but again, maybe another time.

Be Well,

Marc

It's a classic keystone cops move - only it's not funny.

 

The US spent years and years and billions of taxpayer dollars fighting the Soviets through the coldwar and now they are working fast and hard to emulate them. Should we laugh or cry? Part of the whole mess they've got on their hands is because of their policies in the 70's and 80's in Afghanistan.

 

It's almost a joke - The Christians, The Muslims and the Jew's can't get thier shit figured out and the Bhuddist get dumped in the cooler for it.

The sky is falling, the sky is falling... I guess we won't be seeing any more SP from NYC.

The hysteria continues...

Still flaunting your casual contempt, Brad?

 

Is there anything you *do* care about?

Err, shouldn't this really be "Beware of photographing buildings in

New York if you're in the country illegally or if you're UN personnel from a country we have

no diplomatic relations with who can be ejected at will"

 

It's a lesson I certainly understood when I was 19 (nearly 20 years ago) and had warrants

for unpaid traffic tickets in three states: if you're living outside the law, don't do anything

to attract their attention!

 

I find the treatment some folks have received for merely being in the country illegally

reprehensibly harsh, but that's far from the photographic issue here.

 

The Iranian UN guards we asked nicely to stop videotaping bridges, etc., and only when

they declined to comply did we kick them out.