"You can't take pictures here" - Restrictions on photography

[RovingRube]

I take lots of pictures of architectural details, and today I was *told again, "You can't take pictures here!" by a security guard. *I was taking pictures of the *sidewalk* in front of office building along 6th avenue in midtown. *Which, I know some of the plaza space in the city is private, and I have been chased off them, but this particular bdg. only has a narrow sidewalk between it and sixth.

I have even been told by a guard not to take photos of a corporate building all the way over on the other side of Park Avenue (he came from a building behind me owned by the same corporation).

And down behind City Hall one time, I was asked not take pictures anywhere "in the area" by a cop.

I think this stems from 9/11 jitters, and wonder if other NYC photographers on this site have encountered this, and where, and how they feel about it. *I think it is an overreaction. *

[Stern]

I was not allowed to take a picture of the lobby of 101 Barclay Street (one of my all time favorite buildings).

This was before September 11th.

[Kris]

As long as the pictures are taken in the public realm and are not used commercially, you are propably in your right. I bet you would win a legal challenge and find such attitudes scandalous and revolting. Since when do corporations own the streets?

[Qtrainat1251]

Yeah, its quite sad that one cant even PHOTOGRAPH a building from the outside. But if you are on a public sidewalk you can tell the guards they can call the cops, because you have every right to photograph from a public place.
As far as lobbies go, its private property so they can ban photos. What's worse is when they close off lobbies to the public, which is lousy public relations. Many buildings in Rockefeller center had their lobbies closed during "Operation Iraqi freedom". Some buildings like the Celenease (1211 6th) still have their lobbies closed, even though they put in a brand new escalator from the concourse up to the street.

[DominicanoNYC]

Hmm... A bad case of over-protectiveness. I've taken plenty of pics without anyone telling me any thing, but most of them are from a distance or near the building, but with much caution.

[phxmania2001]

Quote: from DominicanoNYC on 3:18 pm on May 14, 2003
Hmm... A bad case of over-protectiveness. I've taken plenty of pics without anyone telling me any thing, but most of them are from a distance or near the building, but with much caution.

Same here. I haven't yet been stopped.

[Lightning Homer]

There's another explanation : there's many places, especially touristic ones where you can't take pictures just because there's a contract between the place -mostly a cathedral or museum- and a photographer who has exclusivity. The goal is to sell postcards, so if you want a picture, you have to buy postcards, as simple as that. Try to find out if there are postcards available, I'd bet a beer that there are, for sale off-course !

[NYatKNIGHT]

Most of the places we're taling about are regular office buildings, not cathedrals and museums. Besides, no one can stop you from taking pictures of anything from the street, no matter how "touristic" the building is.

[Lightning Homer]

Yep, some people can : those watchmen ! :biggrin:

[NYatKNIGHT]

Right. Add that to the list of things you can no longer do in New York.

[RovingRube]

I did find an ACLU lawyer's site devoted to this topic, which includes a valuable "The Photographer's Right" PDF. *The site is:

http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm

Quoting from the web page:

"The right to take photographs is now under assault more than ever. People are being stopped, harassed, and even intimidated into handing over their personal property simply because they were taking photographs of subjects that made other people uncomfortable. Recent examples include photographing industrial plants, bridges, and vessels at sea. For the most part, attempts to restrict photography are based on misguided fears about the supposed dangers that unrestricted photography presents to society.

* * Ironically, unrestricted photography by private citizens has played an integral role in protecting the freedom, security, and well being of all Americans. Photography in the United States has contributed to improvements in civil rights, curbed abusive child labor practices, and provided information important to investigating crimes. These images have not always been pretty and often have offended the sensibilities of governmental and commercial interests who had vested interests in a status quo that was adverse to the majority in our country.

* * Photography has not contributed to a decline in public safety or economic vitality in the United States. When people think back to the acts of terrorism that have occurred over the last forty years, none have depended on or even involved photography. Restrictions on photography would have not prevented any of these acts. "

Would anyone in this forum care to play Devil's Advocate and argue how documenting NYC's physical characteristics COULD aid and abet terrorists? *I.e., I read somewhere that Dave "the Bridge Man" Frieder was asked to take certain bridge photos off his site by the authorities for this reason. ...

[Qtrainat1251]

Quote: from NYatKNIGHT on 12:06 pm on May 16, 2003
Right. Add that to the list of things you can no longer do in New York.


What's suprising was that during the war, most RFC buildings still allowed cars to park in front, with no searches of them. Also suprised they never put large planters at some RFC buildings. Yet I couldnt walk in the lobby during the war. Go figure!

[Rem 311 JHF]

They Lifted Their Ban Recently About Taking Photos in The Subways!!

[Weehawken webcam]

Last time I was hassled about taking pics in the subway was in Uzbekistan in 1998. Sad to think we are now in that group.

[ZippyTheChimp]

A few weeks ago, the following letter and response was published in the Battery Park City Broadsheet.

To the editor,
In the Disturbances section of the last issue, there is an item dated June 13th about unauthorized photography at the Mercantile Exchange and the Irish Memorial.

I am not aware that it is illegal to take pictures at these two places. Could you provide further information regarding this.


Editor's note: You're right; it is not illegal to take photographs of the NY Mercantile Exchange or the Irish Hunger Memorial. The "unauthorized photography" in the item actually refers to two potential problems that Park Enforcement Patrol officers are trained to watch for. Leticia Remauro, community liaison for the BPCA explains: "Officials have asked us to watch out for photography at high-risk places like the Mercantile Exchange. The Irish Hunger Memorial is not high risk, but it's a copyrighted work of art. If it looks like a professional photo is being taken, using a tripod, we have to check to see if the photographer has a permit and also understands that the artist must be given credit. People interpret the directives given to PEP in different ways, and officers want to err on the side of caution. since it isn't always obvious whether photographers are professionals or laymen, there may be a need for a PEP officer to question them."

:rolleyes:

The use of a tripod is not exclusive to professionals.

A photographer by profession does not necessarily need a permit to set up a tripod on a public street to take photos of copyrighted art. It could be his day off.

Permits are generally needed to cover safety and public inconvenience issues, not to protect art copyrights.

Copyrights are not violated until you use the photos commercially.

These restrictions can be applied in the public spaces of private property, such as the TWC. Management can simply restrict any photography that might appear to be professional - or just ban all photography.

Some museums do not allow any photography of their exhibits, professional or amateur. But it is private property.

[thomasjfletcher]

As long as you're on public property, it's okay to photograph. Guards that want the film or for you to delete the images are actually liable for assault.

[A-shot]

But if you are on a public sidewalk you can tell the guards they can call the cops, because you have every right to photograph from a public place.

Here is what will happen next:

- The guards will call the cops
- The cops will come and ask you why are you causing trouble, and tell you not to take pictures.
- They will ask you for your ID, and if you do not have it, they will have right to lock you down.
- If they do not ask for your ID, but ask you to stop taking pictures and to leave, and you keep arguing with them, they will lock you down anyhow (causing disturbance)

Sad, but true. I will tell my story when I will have more time.

[Ninjahedge]

Lesson:

ALWAYS bring a tape recorder/MP3 Recorder with you when you start taking pictures or have to deal with authorities.

It is amazing how quiet people get when they find out you have an actual recording of what went on....

[Fahzee]

Here is what will happen next:

- The guards will call the cops
- The cops will come and ask you why are you causing trouble, and tell you not to take pictures.
- They will ask you for your ID, and if you do not have it, they will have right to lock you down.
- If they do not ask for your ID, but ask you to stop taking pictures and to leave, and you keep arguing with them, they will lock you down anyhow (causing disturbance)

Sad, but true. I will tell my story when I will have more time.

I do a lot of shooting in the city (always permitted), and I can't tell you how many times I've been approached by building security and told to cease and desist - even after I've shown them my permit.

More often then not, the cops (if / when they've been called) have been very helpful. Of course, the permit helped - so maybe that makes all the difference.

[lofter1]

I will tell my story when I will have more time.

tease ;)

[Gregory Tenenbaum]

As long as you're on public property, it's okay to photograph. Guards that want the film or for you to delete the images are actually liable for assault.

:eek: Wow Australian law must be really harsh.

I think you mean if they touch you or something necessary to you (glasses, clothing) it's battery at common law (and in some states around the common law world - "assault" in the criminal law).

Otherwise its simply trespass to goods.

Bottom Line - unless you are breaking a legislative edict (statute or regulation), or are on private property - ignore the ranks of fvcktards that proudly don their uniforms and wave their keys and torches around (security guards), lamenting the fact that they couldn't get into the "prestigious" police force. ;)

[Gregory Tenenbaum]

Here is what will happen next:

- The guards will call the cops
- The cops will come and ask you why are you causing trouble, and tell you not to take pictures.
- They will ask you for your ID, and if you do not have it, they will have right to lock you down.
- If they do not ask for your ID, but ask you to stop taking pictures and to leave, and you keep arguing with them, they will lock you down anyhow (causing disturbance)

Sad, but true. I will tell my story when I will have more time.

Your answers should be

"On whos information was it alleged that I was causing trouble - ?"

"Officer, I was not causing trouble"

"Trouble? Yes, "trouble" that exists only in the mind of that security guard"

"Im just like any tourist taking photos of New York City"

"I am permitted to take photos of New York City, and have no malintent in doing so"

"Its for my mantelpiece"

and

"Would you like me to send you a free print - I'm not actually a bad photographer and see my camera - golly it takes great photos"

I usually have no problem taking photos anywhere on the street.

[OmegaNYC]

Your answers should be

"On whos information was it alleged that I was causing trouble - ?"

"Officer, I was not causing trouble"

"Trouble? Yes, "trouble" that exists only in the mind of that security guard"

"Im just like any tourist taking photos of New York City"

"I am permitted to take photos of New York City, and have no malintent in doing so"

"Its for my mantelpiece"

and

"Would you like me to send you a free print - I'm not actually a bad photographer and see my camera - golly it takes great photos"

I usually have no problem taking photos anywhere on the street.

What if he says this:

"Mine, now please stop taking pictures."

"Didn't I say you were causing trouble? Leave now."

"I'm saying you're causing trouble, Not him."

"I wouldn't give a rats ass if you're Oprah, taking pictures of Times Square. If you can't take pictures here, please leave."

"You're starting to piss me off. Lease now"

"You think I give a damn?"

"You're going to jail. That's it. Put your hands behind your back."

[urban75]

In 2004 I had some idiot cop rush across to me and warn me off for taking an extremely distant shot in the vague direction of the Midtown tunnel entrance in Manhattan. I was using a small, zoom-free camera.

I did think about politely pointing out that there were currently two live streaming cams broadcasting live footage of the tunnel with the entire world but thought better of it...

[Gregory Tenenbaum]

What if he says this:

"Mine, now please stop taking pictures."

"Didn't I say you were causing trouble? Leave now."

"I'm saying you're causing trouble, Not him."

"I wouldn't give a rats ass if you're Oprah, taking pictures of Times Square. If you can't take pictures here, please leave."

"You're starting to piss me off. Lease now"

"You think I give a damn?"

"You're going to jail. That's it. Put your hands behind your back."

I doubt even the most pig faced officer on his worst day would behave like that. It does depend on what you say. Certainly do not get into an argument. Be polite.

If a police officer did that say, if you are a good upstanding citizen (without a criminal record ) and you retained a good word for word memory of what he said and remained calm that officer would be facing several disciplinary hearings.

Theres no probable cause for taking photos in the street. Having said that, Im tall, nordic looking and have light coloured eyes.

Another tip - use a Crown Graphic or Yashica-Mat 124 - usually I get questions from security tards and police like "Can you still get film for that?"

[stache]

I watched a lecture online recently that was about the increasing private takeover of public spaces. Very interesting. I think a good solution would be to take photos with your cell phone. Just pretend to be diaing or looking at the pod.

[urban75]

Another tip - use a Crown Graphic or Yashica-Mat 124 - usually I get questions from security tards and police like "Can you still get film for that?"Using a Ricoh GR Digital often gets you off the hook too, because to untrained eyes it looks like a cheapo camera from the front.

[Gregory Tenenbaum]

Using a Ricoh GR Digital often gets you off the hook too, because to untrained eyes it looks like a cheapo camera from the front.

I saw your post about the Ricoh. Ricoh has always had a great set of compacts with good glass too. Not sure about the glass in this one but looks like a a sound manual camera.

I would have thought that if you shelled out something for the viewfinder that sits on top of the camera that would do much do disarm any officious security tard.

[urban75]

I would have thought that if you shelled out something for the viewfinder that sits on top of the camera that would do much do disarm any officious security tard.Yeah, I've got the viewfinder too which makes it look even more cool (if you're a photographer)/ cheap and crap (if you're a punter).

It's a great little camera.

[Bob]

In the FWIW department, it's been a long-standing policy of the New Jersey Turnpike Authority that no picture-taking on Turnpike property is allowed without permission.

"Or so I have read." (apologies to Spinal Tap.)

[Ninjahedge]

/me snickers....


We all know that the Turnpike is one of NJ's greatest scenic treasures!!! :p

[meer]

I always wanted to photograph at Penn Station, of the people standing in front of the big board waiting for their tracks to come up. And leaving the shutter open just long enough to get the ghost movements of people walking in front.

Last fall, I was sitting on the floor taking this shot when two men in camo with very large guns asked me to stop. They said please. So I did.

But I've intended to photograph Grand Central too and figured that was a no-go. But I called them last week anyway. I was pleasantly surprised, they said yes that you can take photos, even with a tripod. No external props, lights, or models. No photos on the platforms and no tripod on the stairs. You have to call them ahead of time, get a memo faxed to you, bring it to the Station Master's office and they will give you a sticker for the day.

Cool.

[Zerlina]

Well, some private museums do not allow any photography of their exhibits... but in public spaces it could be only because of security troubles... just like for our Court House...

[MidtownGuy]

Zerlina! I mised you. Where have you been, hiding?

[ZippyTheChimp]

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.

Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company

[Edward]

A question to Mayor’s Office of Film, Theater and Broadcasting - why do you hate photographers?

Not enough restrictions already? I was threatened with a ticket and stopped from using a tripod on Pier 84 by park rangers - and that's late at night, me being the only person on the pier for the whole time. Obviously common sense does not apply in such situations.

So holding a camera in your hands for half an hour would be illegal? And how would they distinguish between families on vacation and professional photographers - by the size of the camera? The ghost of Giuliani.

[Ninjahedge]

They want a law that will pretty much give them the right to tell just about anyone to do what they want when they want them to.

I am just wondering what else they will try to regulate "for our safety" so that they have explicit rights to prevent gatherings, demonstrations, or any form of personal expression (photos included) based only on their judgement.

[Bob]

In Washington, D.C., last year, I took some pictures of an art deco frieze at the entrance to one of the commerce department buildings. Instant challenge from the security guards. They asked for I.D., and wrote down my name. I was most cooperative, and they scooted me along. without any fuss. And so I left, with my camera and pictures intact. I figured, "Hell, they're just minimum wage security guards, doing what they're told to do, and they were courteous."

I didn't give them any lip, and they didn't take my camera. We both won. (Sort of.)

[Edward]

To snap a picture of architectural detail, you have to show your ID and your info collected - how is that a win?

[MidtownGuy]

Far from a win, its an outrage! Sometimes I really wonder how enjoyable it will be to live in this country 10 years from now, the way things are going. And the population is so complacent and drugged (not just chemically). They watch their liberties disappear one by one.
I love New York, and I hope I never have to leave because its no longer a free and liberal place. Just in case, I would like to buy property somewhere in the Mediterranean so I have an escape. The USA is no longer a bastion of freedom, its becoming a repressive, corporate cypto-fascist state. I'm free to choose between 30 flavors of Snapple, but my meaningful freedoms and choices are being diminished every day.
Sorry forefathers, your experiment is failing. I must now show ID to scratch my ass.

[Ninjahedge]

Actually MT, you are free to scratch all you want.

You just ned the ID to buy a scratcher..........

[MidtownGuy]

Lol

[eddhead]

In Washington, D.C., last year, I took some pictures of an art deco frieze at the entrance to one of the commerce department buildings. Instant challenge from the security guards. They asked for I.D., and wrote down my name. I was most cooperative, and they scooted me along. without any fuss. And so I left, with my camera and pictures intact. I figured, "Hell, they're just minimum wage security guards, doing what they're told to do, and they were courteous."

I didn't give them any lip, and they didn't take my camera. We both won. (Sort of.)
... except that you now have a file with the FBI. Otherwise, it is A-OK

[ZippyTheChimp]

Editorial

Film permit rules make a frightening picture

If the city’s proposed new film and photography permit rules are enacted, any group of two or more people that linger with a camera could be arrested for photographing without a permit. These new additions to the rules, which have nothing to do with security concerns, are unacceptable as written, probably unnecessary, and need to be sent back to the drawing board.

The un-American rules from the Mayor’s Office of Film Theatre & Broadcasting come out of a settlement of a lawsuit by the New York Civil Liberties Union, which is one of the few groups aware of the change and is of course opposing them. The city held a public hearing on the rules last week and in a sure sign that the public notice was woefully inadequate, no one showed up, The New York Times reported.
The rules would require a permit and in most circumstances, at least $1 million in insurance if two people, e.g., a photographer and a human subject, stayed in one place for 30 minutes. A family or group of five with one camera and no permit would have 10 minutes before they would have to worry about Big Brother.

One reason New York is one of the world’s greatest cities is the large number of artists who flock here. Any rule that prohibits art and aspiring fashion photographers — not to mention hobbyists and tourists — from capturing their vision of our unique streets, poses a threat to our freedom and to the city itself.

This paper has an obvious self-interest in opposing the rule change. The mayor’s film office claims on its Web site that “the new rule does not impact press photographers, who are routinely credentialed by the NYPD,” but many of the thousands of independent news photographers in the city including our own freelancers will tell you the granting of these credentials is anything but routine. Some of our photographers who search Lower Manhattan for street scene shots that often appear on this page cannot get police passes. These new rules would make them lawbreakers. It’s easy to understand why we’re against this, but it’s hard to imagine how anyone who values freedom, art or the Constitution could be for it.

http://www.downtownexpress.com/de_217/editorial.html

[lofter1]

Gonna have to be sneakier than ever ^^^ :cool:

[Ninjahedge]

The people that need to take these pictures for nefarious purposes have other ways of getting them.

This regulation is just fear mongering BS. We might as well hide unde the desks from the Atom Bomb and keep confiscating nail clippers on planes because armageddon is coming soon!!!!

[Jasonik]

Well the Police State hates videos like THIS (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yqpo04cx28U).

*****
Protesters Turn Lens on Mayor's Office Over NY Film Ban
Video Journalists and Other Protesters Defiant at Bloomberg's Blatant Attack on 1st Amendment (http://www.jonesreport.com/articles/050707_mayor_lens.html)

The policy establishes a dangerous precedent that could threaten free speech nationwide if it is allowed to succeed, potentially prompting other localities to adopt similar policies.

As one voice in the protest video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h84QV5USbaw) put it:
"What you guys are doing, what these video cameras are doing are the only thing that's securing our liberty right now. If everybody was taping all the time, we'd be completely safe. The only people who have anything to hide from our cameras are people that are involved in something illegal or wrong. In a city where they repeat over and over again-- 'if you see something, say something,' then what could be better than getting it down on tape?"

*****

Mayor's Office of Film, Theatre & Broadcasting
(212) 489-6710
http://www.nyc.gov/html/film/
*
Public Feedback (http://www.nyc.gov/html/misc/html/feedbackform.html)

[Edward]

To send a message to Katherine Oliver, Commissioner of Mayor's Office of Film, Theatre & Broadcasting, use the following form:

http://www.nyc.gov/html/mail/html/mailfilmcom.html

[ablarc]

^ What? And get put on their shitlist? :p

[212]

Meanwhile, with security cameras on every street, *they* get to watch *us* more than ever.

(Right, Capn_Birdseye?)

[ablarc]

^ That's certainly how it's starting to look.

Them versus us.

The Government vs The People.

And the pretext --as always-- is defense against outside attack.

The People need protection.

The People need protection from malevolent and sinister outside forces.

The People need protection from The Protectors.

Wolves watching sheep.

I'm afraid owning handguns won't make the difference, jasonik.

(An 18th Century solution.)

[Smokey4009]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7442487916618413779&hl=en

Please watch that video and decide for yourself but I cant believe that this man can so blatantly ignore the people he SERVES. More people should demand answers. If you dont already know look into the Filming and Photography ban, enacted by Bloomberg himself. Please share this with whoever you can. Take care.

[Jasonik]

August 3, 2007, 2:12 pm
Revised Rules Coming on Filmmaking and Photography, After Uproar
By Sewell Chan (http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/author/schan/)

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/images/nyregion/20070803_NYCLU_VIDEO/nyclu_311x233.jpg (http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/08/03/after-uproar-revised-rules-coming-on-filmmaking-and-photography/)
Click image for link to video of NYCLU press conference.

After an outcry from videographers, filmmakers and still photographers — including a satirical rap video (http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/07/30/a-shout-out-to-the-moftb/) and an online protest petition (http://www.pictureny.org/petition/index.php) that has gathered more than 20,000 signatures — the Mayor’s Office of Film, Theater and Broadcasting (http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/07/30/a-shout-out-to-the-moftb/) announced this afternoon that it would “redraft” proposed rules (http://www.nyc.gov/html/film/html/news/080107_proposed_permit_rules.shtml) that would have restricted how images can be recorded in New York City, one of the most filmed and photographed places on the planet.

The rules would have required any two people filming or taking photographs at a single site on public property for more than 30 minutes to obtain a permit. The same rules would have applied to a crew of five or more people with a tripod spending more than 10 minutes at a site.

Katherine Oliver, the commissioner of the film office, said the rules would be revised based on feedback the office has received over the past two months. A period for public comment, which was scheduled to end today, will be reopened for another 30-day period after the redrafted rules are published.

The city appears to be modifying its position — if not backing down entirely — as a result of a settlement from a recent lawsuit brought by the New York Civil Liberties Union. The civil liberties group had threatened to a file a new suit over the proposed rules. (See the text of the proposal (http://www.nyc.gov/html/film/downloads/pdf/moftb_permit_regs.pdf) as a PDF.)

The mayor’s film office said in a statement:


By reflecting existing procedures in city rules, M.O.F.T.B. has endeavored to meet the challenge of identifying a threshold level of activity which necessitates a film permit, while at the same time substantially mirroring its current practices. The goal is to maintain a safe environment for the public, while balancing the needs of filmmakers whose work may have a significant impact on pedestrian or vehicular use of public space.


Colin Moynihan examined (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/28/nyregion/28film.html) the issue in an article in The Times last week.

The film office maintained today that the proposed rules were “designed to codify procedures that have existed in practice since the office was established in 1966 as the first film commission in any locality in the nation.” The office has always issued free permits “requiring only liability insurance under certain circumstances,” along with police assistance, if necessary.

Even though the permits are free, however, some filmmakers, photographers and videographers believed the rules would impinge on their First Amendment rights. Others raised concerns about the city tracking their activities or movements.

Donna Lieberman, executive director of the New York Civil Liberties Union, said this afternoon:


This is a welcome first step and a marked departure from the city’s previous refusal to adopt a permit scheme that comports with the First Amendment. For too long the city has had an tin ear for the First Amendment. Now with the proliferation of criticism by the film community, we’re hopeful that the city will get it.

As with street demonstrations people who are exercising their right to be on the sidewalk without interfering with pedestrian traffic should not be required under any circumstances to get government approval to take pictures.


The rules were first put forward on May 25; a hearing on them occurred on June 28. Because of an outpouring of interest, the city extended the comment period through today.

Now the film office, instead of finishing its rules, says it will instead “redraft the proposed rules, taking into account input and feedback it has received from interested parties, to more effectively strike the balance between public safety and the needs of filmmakers.”

Ms. Oliver said in her statement, “Our office remains committed to providing our customers with expedited coordination of their film location work in the safest manner possible, so that the city’s film and television industry can continue to flourish, free speech is protected and all parties can continue to film, photograph and enjoy the greatest city in the world.”

The proposed rules would not have affected press photographers, who are credentialed by the police, or student filmmakers.

The City Council speaker, Christine C. Quinn, applauded the city’s decision to reconsider the rules. She said in a statement:


Like many New Yorkers, I was concerned by the administration’s initial film and photography permitting proposal and conveyed those concerns to the Mayor’s Office of Theater, Film and Broadcasting. I am pleased that they have listened to the public’s testimony and will be revising their proposal. I look forward to working to ensure that their new proposal preserves First Amendment rights and activities while also ensuring safe use of public space for filming and photography.


The debate resembles an earlier uproar that emerged in 2005, after the Metropolitan Transportation Authority proposed restrictions on photography and filmmaking in the subways. The authority withdrew the proposal.

Colin Moynihan contributed reporting.

[Jasonik]

Might this thread be more appropriate in the News/Politics section?

[Smokey4009]

I started a new thread in the news and politics forum last night about it but it was moved to the end of this post

[ZippyTheChimp]

Might this thread be more appropriate in the News/Politics section?I thought I took care of this yesterday, when I merged the threads.

Tsk-tsk. Getting old.

[ZippyTheChimp]

October 28, 2007

Mayor to Ease Permit Rules for Capturing City’s Image

By DIANE CARDWELL

Amateur photographers and independent filmmakers looking to chronicle bird life, take snapshots in Times Square or capture the distinctive thrum of New York’s streets will not need to obtain permits or insurance under new rules being proposed by the Bloomberg administration.

The rules, to be released on Tuesday for public comment, would generally allow people using hand-held equipment, including tripods, to shoot for any length of time on sidewalks and in parks as long as they leave sufficient room for pedestrians.

The proposal, drafted as part of a settlement in a lawsuit, was revised after a passionate outcry over the summer from fine-art photographers, independent filmmakers and civil libertarians concerned that the original rules would have restricted unobtrusive video recording. Under the first proposal, any group of two or more people using a camera in a public location for more than half an hour, and any group of five or more people using a tripod for more than 10 minutes, would have needed permits and at least $1 million in insurance.

The new rules, which officials said reflect longstanding practice by the Mayor’s Office of Film, Theater and Broadcasting, are meant to distinguish between photographers and filmmakers who generally do not create congestion or unsafe conditions and those from major television, film and print productions that generally do. But instead of basing permit requirements on the number of people and the length of time involved in the shoot, the new proposal focuses on the level of sidewalk obstruction.

“I think that we’ve removed some of the restrictions that were the most worrisome to filmmakers,” said Katherine Oliver, the commissioner of the film office. “We have defined exactly what equipment is, and we’ve taken away the time constraints, and we think we’ve come up with something that is quite workable right now.”

The proposal would allow photographers and filmmakers who are not using vehicles or equipment like dolly tracks, lights and cables to proceed without permits on public property as long as they stay out of traffic and their activities do not prevent public use. The rules would also allow photographers and filmmakers to commandeer a portion of a public walkway without a permit, as long as they leave open at least half of its width, or eight feet, whichever is greater.

“The original proposed rules would have senselessly inserted film officials and police officers into everyday filming and photography,” said Christopher Dunn, the associate legal director of the New York Civil Liberties Union, which brought the original lawsuit. “Happily, city officials learned from the public outcry, and these new rules assure that virtually all photographers and filmmakers will be free from permit and insurance requirements.”

The film office originally agreed to write the rules as part of a settlement in April of a lawsuit brought on behalf of Rakesh Sharma, a documentary filmmaker who was detained by the police in 2005 after using a hand-held video camera in Midtown. Told that he was required to have a permit to film on city property, Mr. Sharma later pursued a permit and discovered that there were no written guidelines on how they were granted, according to the lawsuit.

When the original draft of regulations was released for comment in May, film officials defended it. But as criticism mounted, in the form of a passionate Internet campaign, letters and a satiric rap video, they agreed to rethink the rules, Ms. Oliver said.

“We never wanted to be hurtful, we always want to be helpful,” she said, adding that the film industry is important to the city, responsible for more than 100,000 jobs and $5 billion a year in economic activity. “We want people to have access to the streets and parks and buildings in New York City and to be creative here.”

Indeed, even critics of the first set of rules said that they were pleased with the response of the film office.

“I was really, really pleasantly surprised that a lot of the concerns about the specificity of rules about the tripods and number of people, all of that went away, and they really heard that these were obstacles,” said Michelle Byrd, executive director of Independent Future Project, which advocates for independent filmmakers and arranged meetings between filmmakers and the film office.

Adding that the office has worked to accommodate smaller productions as well as large studio movies, she said, “I think that the mayor’s office really prides itself on having free permits and lots of different concierge types of services, so this is a little bit of a black eye that they quickly sought to address.”

A similar outcry resulted in 2004 when the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, concerned about the threat of terrorism, proposed banning unauthorized photography and filming in the subways. The authority, which is independent of the city government, eventually dropped the idea.

Under the new proposal for city streets, the use of obtrusive equipment is what “triggers a permit,” said Mr. Dunn of the civil liberties union. Productions that block traffic or leave less than eight feet of open walkway would require permits and a minimum of $1 million in insurance, as would those using vehicles and equipment that is not hand-held. Officials can waive the insurance requirement if an applicant can show that it would create a financial hardship.

Filmmakers and photographers who want the comfort of proof that they are entitled to shoot in a public location would be able to get an optional permit, which does not require insurance. Film officials said they were surprised to learn how frequently independent and casual filmmakers and photographers were drawn into confrontations with building owners and the police over their rights to record.

Once they formally adopt the rules, film officials said, they plan to educate the public and government offices about the requirements. The rules are to appear in the journal City Record, as well as on the film office Web site, www.nyc.gov/film.


Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company

[Jasonik]

Film officials said they were surprised to learn how frequently independent and casual filmmakers and photographers were drawn into confrontations with building owners and the police over their rights to record.

Once they formally adopt the rules, film officials said, they plan to educate the public and government offices about the requirements.

This is the most important thing. Beligerent rent-a-cops and authoritarian police have adopted a "well... - since 9/11" attitude that is totally at odds with the law.

My only reservations about the proposed regulations (http://www.nyc.gov/html/film/downloads/pdf/fprp.pdf) is that they may claim to regulate live-web-streaming handheld cameras.

For many protesters, filming police intimidation and harassment is their only defense from such action, and it is rightly addressed:
(2) The following activities do not require that a permit be obtained pursuant to this
chapter:
(ii) Filming or photography of a parade, rally, protest, or demonstration except
when using vehicles or equipment.
Equpment being defined thusly:
(1) “Equipment” shall include, but is not limited to, television, photographic, film or videocameras or transmitting television equipment, including radio remotes, props, sets, lights, electric and grip equipment, dolly tracks, screens, or microphone devices, and any and all production related materials. "Equipment" shall not include (i) "hand-held devices," as defined in paragraph (3) of this subdivision, and (ii) vehicles, as defined in section one hundred fifty-nine of the New York vehicle and traffic law, that are used solely to transport a person or persons while engaged in the activity of filming or photography from within such vehicle.

Protesters have begun live-web-streaming and remotely archiving video coverage to prevent authorities from confiscating and destroying damning evidence.

Admittedly, there is a well accepted right to use a cell phone in public and uploading data-streams is unregulated in any other context, so this point may be moot, although I don't trust lawyers with any interpretive loophole like this:

(3) “Hand-held devices” shall mean (i) film, still or television cameras, videocameras or other equipment which are held in the photographer's or filmmaker’s hand and carried at all times with the photographer or filmmaker during the course of filming, or (ii) tripods used to support film, still, television cameras or videocameras. Hand-held devices shall not include cables or any other item or equipment not carried by the photographer or filmmaker at all times during the course of photography, filming or transmission.

And for the "crime" of uploading unpermitted live video, do my server and its hardrive become evidence? This is an important point that needs to be clarified.

[lofter1]

If you store your photos / video on your hard drive with the intent to possibly use same as evidence (should the need arise) then the opposing party would absolutely be entitled to view what you store on your hard drive. And they will demand a copy of it in discovery.

Police / Prosecutors are constantly grabbing computers when they do a search of property. No doubt this will only continue to a larger degree in the future.

Of course a warrant signed by a judge is necessary. But that isn't too difficult to obtain (for whatever reason) in this day and age.

[Jasonik]

So the next time you take a photo or 5 sec. video with your mobile phone camera and email it to yourself on the streets of NYC, you think it's reasonable for police/presecutor/judge to get access to your computer and email records because you didn't have the proper permit?

[lofter1]

Doubt that they will waste their time, but you never know ...

Aside from the numerous low level security guys on construction sites who seem to be constantly telling me I can't pictures of their sacred building projects (one at the GS HQ even had the gall to say "Because of what happened across the street" :mad: ) I've only once run into an official type who told me to cool it. A Federal Officer outside the Javits Federal Building flashed her badge at me and informed me I was not allowed to photograph Federal buildings. She was nice -- but meant business. I put the camera away.

Not sure what I'd do if anyone ever tried to confiscate my camera while I was on the sidewalks / streets of NYC.

[Jasonik]

Photographers harassed for taking photos of Union Station in Washington DC (http://www.myfoxdc.com/myfox/pages/Home/Detail;jsessionid=C5EB861DC520F425C08BB9C1199CDDE5 ?contentId=6664418&version=2&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=VSTY&pageId=1.1.1&sflg=1)

[stache]

They're just rentacops on a power trip.

[Ninjahedge]

He picked the wrong guys to harass.

Takes a real mental giant to bug a news crew, and then to do so while they are interviewing the spokes person of the company that employs them.

This is one of those things that needs to be aired. Private security should NEVER feel they have more of a right to tell individuals what to do and what not to do than anyone else.

[stache]

police will generally side with private security individuals in this kind of a dispute. :(

[The Benniest]

That video clip of that man getting "harassed" while trying to take pictures at Union Station is just ridiculous. I still don't understand why that security guard came up to them, simply said, "No photography," and when asked why, he couldn't even respond. In my opinion, I think the guard knew that when he approached both the chief spokesman and the news caster, he would get asked that question. So why do it? Ugh! :mad:

When I was in New York, the only time I remember "getting in trouble" for taking pictures was in Chinatown when a little 'ol Chinese woman came out and started yelling at us for taking pictures of her fish market. It was funny that we couldn't understand her, but we respected her and walked off.

[stache]

I'm guessing she thought you were dept. of health/sanitation inspectors.

[RandySavage]

They're just rentacops on a power trip.

That has a lot to do with it. Obviously, the number of "security" guards exploded after 9/11. They have what may be one of the worst and most mind-numbing jobs on the planet - to stand quietly for hours at elevator bank turnstiles and check IDs of building workers (as one example). So, for them to get to do something to break the monotony - like harass some poor schmo taking photos - is like Christmas for them.

[The Benniest]

I'm guessing she thought you were dept. of health/sanitation inspectors.
Yea, I guess that makes sense now. Chinatown is certainly not the cleanest place. :p But it's still an amazing place.

[Jasonik]

Are photographers really a threat?

Bruce Schneier
The Guardian, Thursday June 5 2008 (http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/jun/05/news.terrorism)

http://image.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Technology/Pix/pictures/2008/06/04/rear-window460x276.jpg

What is it with photographers these days? Are they really all terrorists, or does everyone just think they are?

Since 9/11, there has been an increasing war on photography. Photographers (http://nycphotorights.com/wordpress/?p=110) have (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7351252.stm) been (http://www.allensphotoblog.com/blog1/2007/09/photography_terrorism.html) harrassed (http://flash.popphoto.com/blog/2007/06/the-crime-of-ph.html), questioned (http://flash.popphoto.com/blog/2007/10/the-crime-of-ph.html), detained (http://flash.popphoto.com/blog/2007/09/the-crime-of-ph.html), arrested (http://flash.popphoto.com/blog/2007/11/the-crime-of-ph.html) or worse (http://www.episcopalcafe.com/daily/war_and_peace/every_day_diplomacy.php), and declared (http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=71473815&blogID=394235689) to (http://www.boingboing.net/2008/05/14/bb-reader-two-fbi-ag.html) be (http://www.andycarvin.com/archives/2008/05/almost_arrested_for_taking_photos_at_uni.html) unwelcome (http://blog.washingtonpost.com/rawfisher/2008/05/union_station_photo_follies.html). We've been repeatedly told to watch (http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/news/Antiterror_police_defend_campaign_targeting_suspic ious_behaviour_of_people_with_cameras_news_195594. html) out (http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,23553587-952,00.html) for (http://www.salon.com/tech/col/smith/2006/02/10/askthepilot173/index.html) photographers (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/20/arts/design/20shat.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1210125984-qrPPfpI/kDlEi+wMrOvtEA), especially suspicious (http://lightchasersphotography.com/blog/how-to-shoot-photographs-like-a-terrorist/) ones (http://www.memphisflyer.com/memphis/Content?oid=oid%3A41348). Clearly any terrorist is going to first photograph his target, so vigilance is required.

Except that it's nonsense (http://blog.wired.com/gadgets/2008/03/uk-politician-c.html). The 9/11 terrorists didn't photograph anything. Nor did the London transport bombers, the Madrid subway bombers, or the liquid bombers arrested in 2006. Timothy McVeigh didn't photograph the Oklahoma City Federal Building. The Unabomber didn't photograph anything; neither did shoe-bomber Richard Reid. Photographs aren't being found amongst the papers of Palestinian suicide bombers. The IRA wasn't known for its photography. Even those manufactured terrorist plots (http://www.schneier.com/essay-174.html) that the US government likes to talk about -- the Ft. Dix terrorists, the JFK airport bombers, the Miami 7, the Lackawanna 6 -- no photography.

Given that real terrorists, and even wannabe terrorists, don't seem to photograph anything, why is it such pervasive conventional wisdom that terrorists photograph their targets? Why are our fears so great that we have no choice but to be suspicious of any photographer?

Because it's a movie-plot threat (http://www.schneier.com/essay-087.html).

A movie-plot threat is a specific threat, vivid in our minds like the plot of a movie. You remember them from the months after the 9/11 attacks: anthrax spread from crop dusters, a contaminated milk supply, terrorist scuba divers armed with almanacs. Our imaginations run wild with detailed and specific threats, from the news, and from actual movies and television shows. These movie plots resonate in our minds and in the minds of others we talk to. And many of us get scared.

Terrorists taking pictures is a quintessential detail in any good movie. Of course it makes sense that terrorists will take pictures of their targets. They have to do reconnaissance, don't they? We need 45 minutes of television action before the actual terrorist attack -- 90 minutes if it's a movie -- and a photography scene is just perfect. It's our movie-plot terrorists that are photographers, even if the real-world ones are not.

The problem with movie-plot security is it only works if we guess the plot correctly. If we spend a zillion dollars defending Wimbledon and terrorists blow up a different sporting event, that's money wasted. If we post guards all over the Underground and terrorists bomb a crowded shopping area, that's also a waste. If we teach everyone to be alert for photographers, and terrorists don't take photographs, we've wasted money and effort, and taught people to fear something they shouldn't.

And even if terrorists did photograph their targets, the math doesn't make sense. Billions of photographs are taken by honest people every year, 50 billion (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/05/fashion/thursdaystyles/05photos.html) by amateurs alone in the US And the national monuments you imagine terrorists taking photographs of are the same ones tourists like to take pictures of. If you see someone taking one of those photographs, the odds are infinitesimal that he's a terrorist.

Of course, it's far easier to explain the problem than it is to fix it. Because we're a species of storytellers, we find movie-plot threats uniquely compelling (http://www.schneier.com/essay-171.html). A single vivid scenario will do more to convince people that photographers might be terrorists than all the data I can muster to demonstrate that they're not.

Fear aside, there aren't many legal restrictions on what you can photograph from a public place that's already in public view. If you're harassed, it's almost certainly a law enforcement official, public or private, acting way beyond his authority. There's nothing in any post-9/11 law that restricts your right to photograph.

This is worth fighting. Search "photographer rights" on Google and download one of the several wallet documents that can help you if you get harassed; I found one for the UK (http://www.sirimo.co.uk/ukpr.php), US (http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm), and Australia (http://www.artslaw.com.au/_documents/files/StreetPhotographersRights.pdf). Don't cede your right to photograph in public. Don't propagate the terrorist photographer story. Remind them that prohibiting photography was something we used to ridicule about the USSR. Eventually sanity will be restored, but it may take a while.

· Bruce Schneier is BT's chief security technology officer

[The Benniest]

So I guess people are believing everything they see in the movies. :confused:

[scumonkey]

You'd be surprised ;)

[ZippyTheChimp]

We've been repeatedly told to watch out for photographers, especially suspicious ones.Maybe I just need to update my attire.

http://www.mathewingram.com/work/wp-content/uploads/spy%20vs%20spy.jpg

[The Benniest]

How can you tell the difference between a "suspicious photographer" and just a normal tourist/local who wants to take a picture of a building or monument?

[Ninjahedge]

Add to it, the easiest way to do things like this would probably be with a camera that is not easily seen.

These movie people should know that all the GOOD spy cameras really fit in a suitcase, hat, shoe, or pair of glasses!!!!!


Geez!

[lofter1]

With all the new no-smoking laws my cig-cam is practically useless :(

[ZippyTheChimp]

I just realized that's Jimmy Stewart from Rear Window.

Actually, he was spying, using the telephoto lens to get a closer look.

[Edward]

How can you tell the difference between a "suspicious photographer" and just a normal tourist/local who wants to take a picture of a building or monument?
The bigger the camera, the more suspicious.

[Gregory Tenenbaum]

So since when do they let people:


with near incomprehensible English skills that make the local town idiot look like a genius, and
who want to Kung Fu a camera, and
who tell law abiding members of the public to shutup

become community police officers?

Since this guy in London.

http://current.com/items/88856223_you_can_t_picture_this

This has to be the funniest thing I have ever seen.

The words "Little Lord Fvck-knuckle" come to mind whenever I watch that video.

In brighter news, theres this:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070713.wbritaincameras0713/BNStory/International/home

[Jasonik]

Mayor's Office of Film, Theatre and Broadcasting Adopts Permit Rules

July 14, 2008 (http://www.nyc.gov/html/film/html/news/070108_moftb_adopts_rules.shtml) - Commissioner Katherine Oliver of the Mayor’s Office of Film, Theatre and Broadcasting (MOFTB) today announced the adoption of rules governing the issuance of permits in connection with filming activity in New York City. The rules, which were published today in the City Record and will go into effect thirty days after publication on August 13, will require a permit if filmmakers use vehicles or equipment, or, in certain situations, assert exclusive use of City property. Permits will not be required for casual photographers, tourists, credentialed members of the media, or other members of the public who do not use vehicles or equipment or assert exclusive use of City property. The adopted rules outline the practices of the MOFTB, codifying the procedures that have existed since the office was established in 1966. A copy of the rules and an accompanying “Q&A” document explaining them are available below.

“For more than four decades, the Mayor’s Office of Film, Theatre and Broadcasting has served as the one-stop shop for productions in New York City, and these new rules will strengthen our office’s ability to serve both the industry and the public,” said Commissioner Oliver. “We wish to thank the industry, the film community and other groups for working with us as we formulated these rules that substantially mirror our practices of assisting film and television productions shooting on location in the City.”

MOFTB first published proposed permit rules in the City Record on May 25, 2007, held a public hearing regarding the rules on June 28, 2007, and received extensive comments through August 3, 2007. MOFTB then republished the rules for comment on October 30, 2007, received additional extensive comments, and held another public hearing on December 13, 2007. Since that time, all comments received have been reviewed as the final version of the rules was prepared.

When a Permit Is Required

Under the adopted rules, a permit would be required for filming if equipment or vehicles, as defined in the rule, are used or if the person filming asserts exclusive use of City property. Equipment does not include hand-held devices (such as hand-held film, still, or television cameras or videocameras) or tripods used to support such cameras, but a permit would be required in certain situations when the person filming asserts exclusive use of City property while using a hand-held device.

Anyone wishing to apply for a permit can find the proper documents, including fillable PDFs, and other useful information for shooting in the five boroughs online at www.nyc.gov/film (http://www.nyc.gov/film). Among other information, applicants will be asked to provide their contact information, duration of project, proof of insurance, and other relevant production details for a required permit.

When a Permit Is Not Required

A permit is not required for filming that uses hand-held cameras or tripods and does not assert exclusive use of City property. Standing on a street, walkway of a bridge, sidewalk, or other pedestrian passageway while using a hand-held device and not otherwise asserting exclusive use of City property is not an activity that requires a permit.

In addition, activity that involves the filming of a parade, rally, protest or demonstration does not require a permit except when equipment or vehicles are used. The rules also provide that press photographers, who are credentialed by the New York Police Department (NYPD) do not need to obtain a MOFTB permit.

Optional Permits

When a permit is not required, it is possible to apply for an optional permit. A person wishing to apply for an optional permit would present much of the same documentation as someone seeking a required permit (e.g. request for dates, times and locations and contact information). Liability insurance is not required in connection with an optional permit. Sometimes there has been confusion as to whether or not a permit is required. As a result, and as an accommodation to filmmakers, MOFTB has routinely issued permits in those instances where a permit is not required. The rules are consistent with this longstanding practice.

Liability Insurance

Liability insurance is needed for those who obtain a required permit. However, when an applicant can demonstrate that obtaining the required insurance would impose an unreasonable hardship, MOFTB may waive the need for liability insurance. In addition, student filmmakers can meet their liability insurance obligations through coverage under their school's insurance program.

*****
Since its inception, MOFTB has always offered free permits requiring only liability insurance under certain circumstances. In addition, if warranted by the activity, MOFTB also coordinates free police assistance to streamline filming in New York City. The permit has served as the filmer’s authorization to interact with, and stage production activity, on City property. By codifying existing procedures as a rule, MOFTB has endeavored to meet the challenge of identifying a threshold level of activity which necessitates a film permit, while at the same time substantially mirroring its current practices. The NYPD is formulating a directive to inform their officers about the new rules.

The MOFTB was the first film commission established in any locality in the United States, and is the one-stop shop for all production needs in New York City, including free permits, free public locations and free police assistance. The agency markets New York City as a prime location, provides premier customer service to production companies and facilitates production throughout the City’s five boroughs.

To view the rules in their entirety, click here (http://www.nyc.gov/html/film/downloads/pdf/moftb_permit_rules_final.pdf).

To view a question and answer document explaining the permit rules, click here (http://www.nyc.gov/html/film/downloads/pdf/moftb_permit_rules_QA_final.pdf).

[bobbiesox]

You can take a picture of anything that you can see from a public space. When security guards stop me I politely explain that to them. If they insist that I stop taking pictures I tell them to call the cops if they have a problem with it. Of course 3 hours later when the cops show up I'm long gone!

I had one guard who got especially nasty and I pulled my cell phone out and threatened to call the cops on him and he quickly quieted down!

If a cop ever forced me to stop taking photos from a public place I would report it.

[lofter1]

Don't try that ^ at a Federal building site, whether you're on the property or viewing it from a distance, expecially if a Federal Officer tells you to stop.

You can find the details which allow those folks to tell you to cool it buried within the USA PATRIOT Act (http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/patriotact/) ("Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001").

Unless a person enjoys the company of lawyers and jailkeepers sometimes the best thing is to walk away.

Agreed that private security personal have no right to tell anyone what to do if you've not crossed onto the property they are supposed to be securing.

[The Benniest]

Is there a reason that people can't take pictures in the Whole Foods grocery stores? I was in the store under the Times Warner Center this afternoon and was told I couldn't take pictures.

:confused:

[ZippyTheChimp]

Private property.<br>

[bobbiesox]

Traditionally retailers haven't allowed photography in their stores for competitive reasons. They don't want their competitors coming in and snooping around and taking photos back to their own stores which could in some way give them a competitive advantage. I mean imagine you work at Gristedes and you go in and photograph Whole Foods. You might bring the photos back and use them to convince the manager you should CLEAN up your store!

[stache]

The Whole Foods near me is getting kind of skeezey looking. I think Gristedes is probably cleaner at this point.

[lofter1]

Today I had a run in with one of those insignificant twerps (http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/showpost.php?p=248825&postcount=3096) who think they run the world and can control what folks do.

:mad:

[Gregory Tenenbaum]

Yes, I saw that thread.

Did you ask him politely whether he was having a Howdy Doody Day?

Did you ask him, in your best manner, whether he was familiar with the US Federal or NY State Constitution and the NYS Penal Code?

Did you tell him that if he crossed the street to harrass you again for any unlawful reason, that you would be taking action without further notice, such as advising his employer, the project manager of the site and other relevant authorities.

Perhaps its just better to give him a fiver and say, "Hey Dude, Trying Reading Some Books and Such - Its Enlightening!"

[Ninjahedge]

Today I had a run in with one of those insignificant twerps (http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/showpost.php?p=248825&postcount=3096) who think they run the world and can control what folks do.

:mad:

Niiiiice.

yet another person feeling that the world has dealt him a crappy hand and that he now has to exercise this false power he believes to have over others.

I wonder if Cameras were on the list of potentially dangerous things for the RNC...... ;)

[stache]

Or Sarah Paulin? :p

[philvia]

me and a friend were i think on chambers street going up the long escalators, and suddenly a loud booming voice comes out of the speakers.. "MISS YOU CANT TAKE PICTURES HERE.....MISS I JUST SAID YOU CANT TAKE PICTURES OF THE SUBWAY... MISS!!!!"
then we got up and i saw the subway booth attendant complaining on her walky talkie or whatever. i ALMOST snapped a picture of HER just to piss her off more... but i couldn't get camera out fast enough lol

[stache]

I thought they relaxed that rule(?)