NYC MAY SEEK PERMIT FOR PUBLIC PHOTOGRAPHY

The New York Times


June 29, 2007
City May Seek Permit and Insurance for Many Kinds of Public
Photography
By RAY RIVERA

Some tourists, amateur photographers, even would-be filmmakers hoping
to make it big on YouTube could soon be forced to obtain a city permit
and $1 million in liability insurance before taking pictures or
filming on city property, including sidewalks.

New rules being considered by the Mayor's Office of Film, Theater and
Broadcasting would require any group of two or more people who want to
use a camera in a single public location for more than a half hour to
get a city permit and insurance.

The same requirements would apply to any group of five or more people
who plan to use a tripod in a public location for more than 10
minutes, including the time it takes to set up the equipment.

Julianne Cho, assistant commissioner of the film office, said the
rules were not intended to apply to families on vacation or amateur
filmmakers or photographers.

Nevertheless, the New York Civil Liberties Union says the proposed
rules, as strictly interpreted, could have that effect. The group also
warns that the rules set the stage for selective and perhaps
discriminatory enforcement by police.

"These rules will apply to a huge range of casual photography and
filming, including tourists taking snapshots and people making short
videos for YouTube," said Christopher Dunn, the group's associate
legal director.

Mr. Dunn suggested that the city deliberately kept the language vague,
and that as a result police would have broad discretion in enforcing
the rules. In a letter sent to the film office this week, Mr. Dunn
said the proposed rules would potentially apply to tourists in places
like Times Square, Rockefeller Center or ground zero, "where people
routinely congregate for more than half an hour and photograph or
film."

The rule could also apply to people waiting in line to enter the
Empire State Building or other tourist attractions.

The rules define a "single site" as any area within 100 feet of where
filming begins. Under the rules, the two or more people would not
actually have to be filming, but could simply be holding an ordinary
camera and talking to each other.

The rules are intended to set standards for professional filmmakers
and photographers, said Ms. Cho, assistant commissioner of the film
office, but the language of the draft makes no such distinction.

"While the permitting scheme does not distinguish between commercial
and other types of filming, we anticipate that these rules will have
minimal, if any, impact on tourists and recreational photographers,
including those that use tripods," Ms. Cho said in an e-mail response
to questions.

Mr. Dunn said that the civil liberties union asked repeatedly for such
a distinction in negotiations on the rules but that city officials
refused, ostensibly to avoid creating loopholes that could be
exploited by professional filmmakers and photographers.

City officials would not confirm that yesterday. But Mark W.
Muschenheim, a lawyer with the city's law department, which helped
draft the rules, said, "There are few instances, if any, where the
casual tourist would be affected."

The film office held a public hearing on the proposed rules yesterday,
but no one attended. The only written comments the department received
were from the civil liberties group, Ms. Cho said.

Ms. Cho said the office expected to publish a final version of the
rules at the end of July. They would go into effect a month later.

The permits would be free and applications could be obtained online,
Ms. Cho said. The draft rules say the office could take up to 30 days
to issue a permit, but Ms. Cho said she expected that most would be
issued within 24 hours.

Mr. Dunn says that in addition to the rules being overreaching, they
would also create enforcement problems.

"Your everyday person out there with a camcorder is never going to
know about the rules," Mr. Dunn said. "It completely opens the door to
discriminatory enforcement of the permit requirements, and that is of
enormous concern to us because the people who are going to get pointed
out are the people who have dark skin or who are shooting in certain
locations."

The rules were promulgated as a result of just such a case, Mr. Dunn
said.

In May 2005, Rakesh Sharma, an Indian documentary filmmaker, was using
a hand-held video camera in Midtown Manhattan when he was detained for
several hours and questioned by police.

During his detention, Mr. Sharma was told he was required to have a
permit to film on city property. According to a lawsuit, Mr. Sharma
sought information about how permits were granted and who was required
to have one but found there were no written guidelines. Nonetheless,
the film office told him he was required to have a permit, but when he
applied, the office refused to grant him one and would not give him a
written explanation of its refusal.

As part of a settlement reached in April, the film office agreed to
establish written rules for issuing permits. Mr. Sharma could not be
reached for comment yesterday.

Mr. Dunn said most of the new rules were reasonable. Notably, someone
using a hand-held video camera, as Mr. Sharma was doing, would no
longer have to get a permit.

Barber Shop Talk wrote:
The New York Times


June 29, 2007
City May Seek Permit and Insurance for Many Kinds of Public
Photography
By RAY RIVERA

Some tourists, amateur photographers, even would-be filmmakers hoping
to make it big on YouTube could soon be forced to obtain a city permit
and $1 million in liability insurance before taking pictures or
filming on city property, including sidewalks.

New rules being considered by the Mayor's Office of Film, Theater and
Broadcasting would require any group of two or more people who want to
use a camera in a single public location for more than a half hour to
get a city permit and insurance.

The same requirements would apply to any group of five or more people
who plan to use a tripod in a public location for more than 10
minutes, including the time it takes to set up the equipment.



Julianne Cho, assistant commissioner of the film office, said the
rules were not intended to apply to families on vacation or amateur
filmmakers or photographers.

Nevertheless, the New York Civil Liberties Union says the proposed
rules, as strictly interpreted, could have that effect. The group also
warns that the rules set the stage for selective and perhaps
discriminatory enforcement by police.

"These rules will apply to a huge range of casual photography and
filming, including tourists taking snapshots and people making short
videos for YouTube," said Christopher Dunn, the group's associate
legal director.

Mr. Dunn suggested that the city deliberately kept the language vague,
and that as a result police would have broad discretion in enforcing
the rules. In a letter sent to the film office this week, Mr. Dunn
said the proposed rules would potentially apply to tourists in places
like Times Square, Rockefeller Center or ground zero, "where people
routinely congregate for more than half an hour and photograph or
film."

The rule could also apply to people waiting in line to enter the
Empire State Building or other tourist attractions.

The rules define a "single site" as any area within 100 feet of where
filming begins. Under the rules, the two or more people would not
actually have to be filming, but could simply be holding an ordinary
camera and talking to each other.



The rules are intended to set standards for professional filmmakers
and photographers, said Ms. Cho, assistant commissioner of the film
office, but the language of the draft makes no such distinction.

"While the permitting scheme does not distinguish between commercial
and other types of filming, we anticipate that these rules will have
minimal, if any, impact on tourists and recreational photographers,
including those that use tripods," Ms. Cho said in an e-mail response
to questions.

Mr. Dunn said that the civil liberties union asked repeatedly for such
a distinction in negotiations on the rules but that city officials
refused, ostensibly to avoid creating loopholes that could be
exploited by professional filmmakers and photographers.

City officials would not confirm that yesterday. But Mark W.
Muschenheim, a lawyer with the city's law department, which helped
draft the rules, said, "There are few instances, if any, where the
casual tourist would be affected."


Central Park birders waiting for hours sometimes are going to love this.

I can see a group of birders loaded down with various long lenses and
cameras, various spotting scopes (some with T-rings and DSLRs attached)
and the tripods supporting each piece of equipment, being swooped on by
a NYPD or Homeland Security SWAT team just as the bird of the moment
makes his appearance.

This idea in NYC (or the USA) of all places is reactionary,
unconstitutional and downright stupid for a city flooded with amateur
and tourist photographers. The pro film makers or photographer are just
that and part of their professional preparation for a shoot should be to
check on local permit requirements wherever they are working.

Law enforcement at all levels should err in the favor of the hobbiest
citizen/tourist photographer/videographer by restraining animal urges
to trample Civil Rights.

Savageduck wrote:
Barber Shop Talk wrote:
The New York Times


June 29, 2007
City May Seek Permit and Insurance for Many Kinds of Public
Photography
By RAY RIVERA

Some tourists, amateur photographers, even would-be filmmakers hoping
to make it big on YouTube could soon be forced to obtain a city permit
and $1 million in liability insurance before taking pictures or
filming on city property, including sidewalks.

New rules being considered by the Mayor's Office of Film, Theater and
Broadcasting would require any group of two or more people who want to
use a camera in a single public location for more than a half hour to
get a city permit and insurance.

The same requirements would apply to any group of five or more people
who plan to use a tripod in a public location for more than 10
minutes, including the time it takes to set up the equipment.



Julianne Cho, assistant commissioner of the film office, said the
rules were not intended to apply to families on vacation or amateur
filmmakers or photographers.

Nevertheless, the New York Civil Liberties Union says the proposed
rules, as strictly interpreted, could have that effect. The group also
warns that the rules set the stage for selective and perhaps
discriminatory enforcement by police.

"These rules will apply to a huge range of casual photography and
filming, including tourists taking snapshots and people making short
videos for YouTube," said Christopher Dunn, the group's associate
legal director.

Mr. Dunn suggested that the city deliberately kept the language vague,
and that as a result police would have broad discretion in enforcing
the rules. In a letter sent to the film office this week, Mr. Dunn
said the proposed rules would potentially apply to tourists in places
like Times Square, Rockefeller Center or ground zero, "where people
routinely congregate for more than half an hour and photograph or
film."

The rule could also apply to people waiting in line to enter the
Empire State Building or other tourist attractions.

The rules define a "single site" as any area within 100 feet of where
filming begins. Under the rules, the two or more people would not
actually have to be filming, but could simply be holding an ordinary
camera and talking to each other.



The rules are intended to set standards for professional filmmakers
and photographers, said Ms. Cho, assistant commissioner of the film
office, but the language of the draft makes no such distinction.

"While the permitting scheme does not distinguish between commercial
and other types of filming, we anticipate that these rules will have
minimal, if any, impact on tourists and recreational photographers,
including those that use tripods," Ms. Cho said in an e-mail response
to questions.

Mr. Dunn said that the civil liberties union asked repeatedly for such
a distinction in negotiations on the rules but that city officials
refused, ostensibly to avoid creating loopholes that could be
exploited by professional filmmakers and photographers.

City officials would not confirm that yesterday. But Mark W.
Muschenheim, a lawyer with the city's law department, which helped
draft the rules, said, "There are few instances, if any, where the
casual tourist would be affected."


Central Park birders waiting for hours sometimes are going to love this.

I can see a group of birders loaded down with various long lenses and
cameras, various spotting scopes (some with T-rings and DSLRs attached)
and the tripods supporting each piece of equipment, being swooped on by
a NYPD or Homeland Security SWAT team just as the bird of the moment
makes his appearance.

This idea in NYC (or the USA) of all places is reactionary,
unconstitutional and downright stupid for a city flooded with amateur
and tourist photographers. The pro film makers or photographer are just
that and part of their professional preparation for a shoot should be to
check on local permit requirements wherever they are working.

Law enforcement at all levels should err in the favor of the hobbiest
citizen/tourist photographer/videographer by restraining animal urges
to trample Civil Rights.

When you photograph nature in Central Park, you are Birding with Bin Laden.

--
It Came From Corry Lee Smith's Unclaimed Mysteries.
http://www.unclaimedmysteries.net

"Savageduck"
This idea in NYC (or the USA) of all places is reactionary,
unconstitutional and downright stupid for a city flooded with amateur and
tourist photographers. The pro film makers or photographer are just that
and part of their professional preparation for a shoot should be to check
on local permit requirements wherever they are working.

Just wondering... How pro and amateurs should be distinguished? By their
cameras? By their IDs? Well, try to ask me to show my Picture ID when I'm
shooting. And especially invent the reason why you're doing that. And
finally will you find any reference to the "press" on my driver license?
Anybody can have a very good expensive camera. I shoot for my family, never
for press, and my archive is large. And I can recall how I scared the
security of Arizona Mills in Tempe, AZ about 3 years ago when I was using
Canon GL2 filming my son throwing cents to the crocodile, that's a very
popular attraction ther. These "security" idiots told me that I can't use my
camcorder inside the Mall. But why? I've never seen any restrictions,
warning on the walls, etc. And as my friend said me once, if you don't see
any warning about private property, camera restrictions, etc. you can do
whatever you want. I was shooting in the Winchester house in CA several
years ago and it was absolutely normal.

Just D.

Just D wrote in part:
How pro and amateurs should be distinguished? By their
cameras? By their IDs? Well, try to ask me to show my Picture ID when I'm
shooting. And especially invent the reason why you're doing that.

Just tell them you're with FOX NEWS.


--
It Came From Corry Lee Smith's Unclaimed Mysteries.
http://www.unclaimedmysteries.net

Just D wrote:
"Savageduck"
This idea in NYC (or the USA) of all places is reactionary,
unconstitutional and downright stupid for a city flooded with amateur and
tourist photographers. The pro film makers or photographer are just that
and part of their professional preparation for a shoot should be to check
on local permit requirements wherever they are working.

Just wondering... How pro and amateurs should be distinguished? By their
cameras? By their IDs? Well, try to ask me to show my Picture ID when I'm
shooting. And especially invent the reason why you're doing that. And
finally will you find any reference to the "press" on my driver license?
Anybody can have a very good expensive camera. I shoot for my family, never
for press, and my archive is large. And I can recall how I scared the
security of Arizona Mills in Tempe, AZ about 3 years ago when I was using
Canon GL2 filming my son throwing cents to the crocodile, that's a very
popular attraction ther. These "security" idiots told me that I can't use my
camcorder inside the Mall. But why? I've never seen any restrictions,
warning on the walls, etc. And as my friend said me once, if you don't see
any warning about private property, camera restrictions, etc. you can do
whatever you want. I was shooting in the Winchester house in CA several
years ago and it was absolutely normal.

Just D.


Agreed.
Just because somebody is carrying a Canon or Nikon DSLR with fat glass
and is using a tripod or mono-pod there is no way Law enforcement can
determine amateur or pro status.

In the same way given the melting pot nature of our nation making snap
judgments based on physical appearance or ethnicity is tempting for some
xenophobes, but not a valid test of patriotism or citizenship.

Big production units can be conspicuous and disruptive in a major city
and there is usually a liaison between producer and city, as well as a
permit process. The same would apply for obvious photo shoots for
outdoors fashion or advertising.

Guerrilla photo artists like Spencer Turnick, given their subject matter
are not likely to give authorities notice of any impending shoot.

So, if there are no private, State or Federal property notifications or
postings restricting photography for privacy or security reasons, Law
enforcement, municipalities and rent-a-cops should restrain themselves
from trying to save us from ourselves.

'duck

Barber Shop Talk wrote:
The New York Times


June 29, 2007
City May Seek Permit and Insurance for Many Kinds of Public
Photography
By RAY RIVERA

Some tourists, amateur photographers, even would-be filmmakers hoping
to make it big on YouTube could soon be forced to obtain a city permit
and $1 million in liability insurance before taking pictures or
filming on city property, including sidewalks.

New rules being considered by the Mayor's Office of Film, Theater and
Broadcasting would require any group of two or more people who want to
use a camera in a single public location for more than a half hour to
get a city permit and insurance.

The same requirements would apply to any group of five or more people
who plan to use a tripod in a public location for more than 10
minutes, including the time it takes to set up the equipment.

Julianne Cho, assistant commissioner of the film office, said the
rules were not intended to apply to families on vacation or amateur
filmmakers or photographers.

Nevertheless, the New York Civil Liberties Union says the proposed
rules, as strictly interpreted, could have that effect. The group also
warns that the rules set the stage for selective and perhaps
discriminatory enforcement by police.

"These rules will apply to a huge range of casual photography and
filming, including tourists taking snapshots and people making short
videos for YouTube," said Christopher Dunn, the group's associate
legal director.

Mr. Dunn suggested that the city deliberately kept the language vague,
and that as a result police would have broad discretion in enforcing
the rules. In a letter sent to the film office this week, Mr. Dunn
said the proposed rules would potentially apply to tourists in places
like Times Square, Rockefeller Center or ground zero, "where people
routinely congregate for more than half an hour and photograph or
film."

The rule could also apply to people waiting in line to enter the
Empire State Building or other tourist attractions.

The rules define a "single site" as any area within 100 feet of where
filming begins. Under the rules, the two or more people would not
actually have to be filming, but could simply be holding an ordinary
camera and talking to each other.

The rules are intended to set standards for professional filmmakers
and photographers, said Ms. Cho, assistant commissioner of the film
office, but the language of the draft makes no such distinction.

"While the permitting scheme does not distinguish between commercial
and other types of filming, we anticipate that these rules will have
minimal, if any, impact on tourists and recreational photographers,
including those that use tripods," Ms. Cho said in an e-mail response
to questions.

Mr. Dunn said that the civil liberties union asked repeatedly for such
a distinction in negotiations on the rules but that city officials
refused, ostensibly to avoid creating loopholes that could be
exploited by professional filmmakers and photographers.

City officials would not confirm that yesterday. But Mark W.
Muschenheim, a lawyer with the city's law department, which helped
draft the rules, said, "There are few instances, if any, where the
casual tourist would be affected."

The film office held a public hearing on the proposed rules yesterday,
but no one attended. The only written comments the department received
were from the civil liberties group, Ms. Cho said.

Ms. Cho said the office expected to publish a final version of the
rules at the end of July. They would go into effect a month later.

The permits would be free and applications could be obtained online,
Ms. Cho said. The draft rules say the office could take up to 30 days
to issue a permit, but Ms. Cho said she expected that most would be
issued within 24 hours.

Mr. Dunn says that in addition to the rules being overreaching, they
would also create enforcement problems.

"Your everyday person out there with a camcorder is never going to
know about the rules," Mr. Dunn said. "It completely opens the door to
discriminatory enforcement of the permit requirements, and that is of
enormous concern to us because the people who are going to get pointed
out are the people who have dark skin or who are shooting in certain
locations."

The rules were promulgated as a result of just such a case, Mr. Dunn
said.

In May 2005, Rakesh Sharma, an Indian documentary filmmaker, was using
a hand-held video camera in Midtown Manhattan when he was detained for
several hours and questioned by police.

During his detention, Mr. Sharma was told he was required to have a
permit to film on city property. According to a lawsuit, Mr. Sharma
sought information about how permits were granted and who was required
to have one but found there were no written guidelines. Nonetheless,
the film office told him he was required to have a permit, but when he
applied, the office refused to grant him one and would not give him a
written explanation of its refusal.

As part of a settlement reached in April, the film office agreed to
establish written rules for issuing permits. Mr. Sharma could not be
reached for comment yesterday.

Mr. Dunn said most of the new rules were reasonable. Notably, someone
using a hand-held video camera, as Mr. Sharma was doing, would no
longer have to get a permit.


Another reason to NEVER go there, if I needed another. Just the
statement by Steven Segal that he never goes there without carrying a
gun would be enough for me. If the guy who is legitimately "hell on
wheels" is afraid of walking the streets without a gun, I certainly do
NOT want to go there.