New York photography restrictions

[Allen Herbert]

No, New York does not have crowds of still photographers blocking the sidewalk

 

I thought it did, from what Jonathan was saying...perhaps crowds of film production crews. I think when folks are are getting on in years, perhaps relevant to Jonathan, a crowded sidewalk could be a problem.

 

Perhaps that is why Jonathan feels his human rights are being challenged. Just a guess.

[rj__]

I can only assume that people who are concerned about crowded sidewalks, and the skyrocketing number of cases in which tripods have sent people to hospital, will petition the Mayor's Office to eliminate the following exemption.

 

Under the proposed rules, one needs neither a permit nor liability insurance to photograph "a parade, rally, protest or demonstration".

 

If people want to stop the carnage caused by two or more people fraternizing in a photographic endeavour for more than 30 minutes, or the devestation caused by tripods, this is surely the place to start.

 

In my opinion, only people authorized by the Mayor's Film Office, with liability satisfactory to the Mayor's Office, should be permitted to wield a camera at such events, whether one is speaking of the Santa Claus Parade, the St. Patrick's Day Parade or the Gay Pride Parade.

 

Cheers

[j_sevigny]

A number of people here obviously aren't concerned about the proposed regulations. I can only suggest that you view the petition and look at the names of some of the people who ARE. I think you'll be surprised at how many of them live in New York and how many of them are professional photographers.

 

Public comment on this issue ends tomorrow so if you're going to sign the petition, do it.

[jtdnyc]

<When you say that you don't necessarily agree with the proposed rules, what is your bottom line?>

 

RJ, I'm not going to sign the petition because I don't agree with its precise wording, but I hope it causes the city to reconsider the proposed regulations, either internally or through new public hearings.

 

I believe that any proposed regulation of activities protected by the First Amendment should focus entirely on actual conflicts between those activities and the rights of others, rather than on the size of the crew or the duration of the shoot. A ten-man crew shooting through the night in a deserted industrial area might be in no one's way, while a single tripod on a Fifth Avenue sidewalk at noon is likely to force pedestrians into the street. We need common sense in these situations more than we need detailed regs.

 

Of course, my approach might call for restoring some discretion to the police, but if we trust them to decide when to use their guns, perhaps we should trust them to detect when someone is blocking the sidewalk and tell him to move along.

 

I'm not sure that making a distinction between still photographers on the one hand, and videographers and moviemakers on the other, is a rational one. What matters is whether they're inconveniencing or endangering the public, not what medium they're using. I'd be interesting in hearing your argument for differential treatment.

 

Allen, there aren't scores of still photographers blocking the sidewalks but on more than one occasion I have had trouble with access to my own block or building because of movie shoots. Your characterizations -- of the problem, and of me -- may be humorous, but they miss the mark. I love the fact that my neighborhood is used as a movie set...but not when there are HMIs outside my bedroom window at 2 a.m. (Next time I'll send them to your block, old buddy.)

 

I still think Bob was right when he said that the proposed regulations would have minimal impact on street photographers, but on principle I would like to see the regs redrawn with more sensitivity to First Amendment considerations.

[simon p barlow]

Hi All

 

Seems a touchy subject for one and all!

 

Bob ? I don?t expect I will get hassled by NYC?s Finest if I were taking photos with my Wife stood next to me. I guess that was more of a flippant remark than anything.

 

RJ ? In over 15 years of traveling to the US I haven?t had any problems with taking photos and any Police intervention. I?ve sat and had breakfast with a bunch of motorcycle cops in Miami, Shared coffee with Boston?s finest on First Night on Boyleston Street when its been 10 below. Had lunch with Cops in East Conway and shared a beer or two in Ft Laurderdale with some of Broward County?s finest.

 

In all my time traveling to the US, the only time I had a problem was at the Airport at Bangor, Maine, when I turned up in a single engine aircraft having just flown across the Atlantic from the UK and didn?t have a visa. The US Embassy in London said I was OK to fly, didn't need a visa, but the Immigration guy?s at Bangor said as it was a private flight, the UK-US Visa waiver program didn?t apply. Being told via a bull horn ??.dont step out of the aircraft, don?t step on to US soil..? kind of put me off taking photos! Now those guys had a sense of humor failure big style! BUT, they were polite, and after two hours we had it all sorted (200 bucks later and a hand written visa)

 

We are planning our next trip, it will include Boston, NYC and Miami. I don?t think something as simple as a change in the law will put travelers off visiting from the UK.

 

Regards

 

Simon<div></div>

[Allen Herbert]

I still think Bob was right when he said that the proposed regulations would have minimal impact on street photographers,

 

Probably,Jonathan,until the next piece of legislation. However, once you get used to the taste of the first spoon ,the rest becomes a lot easier to swallow.

 

I would be wary of giving up any rights to photograph no matter how well cloaked in gentle rhetoric.....there just seems far too of this going on in the world. Even terrorists are getting into the act by killing and kidnapping photographers.

 

Perhaps i'm too paraniod, maybe i should wear a silver suit with a little antenna on top to protect me from the Governments mind control rays;)Better to be paraniod then sorry.

 

Botton line what happened to the 70 year old was no jest,and it happened in the real world in a popular public place. The fear and the emotion he must of went through beggers belief.

 

There by the Grace of God walk i...so the old saying goes.

[Allen Herbert]

There But for the Grace of God go I

[Allen Herbert]

Supporters of anti photo legislation ?<div></div>

[jack_l3]

>In my opinion, only people authorized by the Mayor's Film Office, with liability satisfactory to the Mayor's Office, should be permitted to wield a camera

 

And please remember, Comrade - anyone caught taking pictures must have a government-issued ID card matching their photo permit and must not be photographing outside their city of authorized residence.

[jtdnyc]

Good news! I just heard on the radio (NPR) that the proposed rules have been shelved. The City plans to redraft the regulations and then provide a new 30-day period for public comment.

 

Allen, it's precisely because I don't believe in giving up rights that I think any regs should address actual conflicts -- some of which are real, whether you acknowledge them or simply joke about them -- rather than be stated in arbitrary terms of crew size or shoot duration.

 

But, now that "our" side has won, let's put all that behind us and start drafting remarks for the 30-day comment period.

[Allen Herbert]

think any regs should address actual conflicts

 

To an outsider it does seem rather amusing that you have to restrict photography as there are swarms of them taking over the streets. Folks tripping over tripods, being kept up all night, and the general choas of it all. Or, is it a case of over reaction. Perhaps a few simple by-laws would suffice without any particular reference to photographers.

 

On a more gentle note ,Jonathan, i hope you sleep well tonight.

[jtdnyc]

Allen, in certain neighborhoods in New York, the issue of the same blocks being taken over by production companies again and again has become an issue. All vehicles, other than the production vehicles, have to be cleared from the streets, and people have trouble with deliveries to their homes. It's not a big deal, really, but it is the sort of thing that a few sensible regs could solve.

 

Constantly re-using the same city streets for their iconic value may have started here but, watch out, it could soon come to Manchester. ;-)