New York Photography ban

I believe the actual ban was for movie or video photography, not for still photography. And it involved fixed filming in one place over a period of time, more than 10 minutes or something like that.

I don't think that makes the ban any better, but it is not a ban on all photography in the streets of NYC.
 
These are the times we live in. Our government has quickly evolved into a fascist organization while we sat back a watched.
 
Rhoyle said:
These are the times we live in. Our government has quickly evolved into a fascist organization while we sat back a watched.
Click to expand...



Err, ummm,

It may have more to do with protecting the big film industry interests from small independent folks and creating another tax revenue.

It is all about $$$$$, probably not much more than that.
 
Let's not get nuts and make this a ridiculous political thread.

Yes a regulation was put in place by the City of New York. Yes there is recourse, via petition, demonstration, courts, and also the vote. That is the right of our society.

Harry and KM have brought to light a part of "the process." That alone is a right we have to protest, or from the positive side, support a cause.

No, there is not Marshall Law Magus.
 
From the linked NY Times article:

The new rules, which were proposed 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 public place for more than 30 minutes to get a city permit and $1 million in liability 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. The permits would be free.
Click to expand...

So, my memory was not 100% correct, but it still looks like a measure to protect the big film industry.
 
The Smithsonian Museums do not allow use of Tripods or Bipods. Monopods are Okay. This rule was placed after some Museum Visitors were injured tripping over the tripod legs. If you've ever been to a Museum with lots of people setting up tripods in the way of other visitors, you'll realize this is common sense.

How many Family Snapshooters run around with tripods? Usually they ask someone else to snap their digital picture if they want to be in it. Not too many take the time to set up a tripod so they can get into the shot. And if they did, someonewould probably run off with their camera, tripod and all.

This is not a ban on Photography in New York.
 
Brian Sweeney said:
The Smithsonian Museums do not allow use of Tripods or Bipods. Monopods are Okay. This rule was placed after some Museum Visitors were injured tripping over the tripod legs. If you've ever been to a Museum with lots of people setting up tripods in the way of other visitors, you'll realize this is common sense.

How many Family Snapshooters run around with tripods? Usually they ask someone else to snap their digital picture if they want to be in it. Not too many take the time to set up a tripod so they can get into the shot. And if they did, someonewould probably run off with their camera, tripod and all.

This is not a ban on Photography in New York.
Click to expand...


I think the use of tripods is banned without permit in all of DC.
 
memphis said:
Robert Heinlein wrote about the collapse of the roman empire in many of his books, and there are distinct parallells - one was the system got fat and bulky with unenforceable laws... the other main cause was postulated to human civility - i see this about to happen again -- but I'll not get alarmist here as the outcome leaves no choice but to be grim....
Click to expand...

True enough, although I do see a streak of optimism in Heinlein's work.
 
I have a problem with authority so my first reaction is "GFY!" to the new regs. But I have been working with city and county bureaucracies long enough to recognize the genesis of this kind of apparently unnecessary and intrusive regulation.

Some group with a camera on a tripod f****d up. The scenario goes like this: Maybe they blocked a merchant's store front. Maybe - god help them - they got in they way of a taxi or a garbage truck. When told to move they made an issue of their "right" to film wherever they want. Somebody complained, and more to the point - threatened to sue the city.

So yes it's about money, but it's not about Big Brother or all photography would be banned, and it's not about revenue or the permits would be a thousand bucks. Seems to me this affects fashion shoots even more than indie or art films.

Let's hope it's a while before the day when I pull out my RF and the cop yells "hey buddy - got a permit for that?"

- John
 
People are really looking at this the wrong way. The "ban" is geared at independant film makers in production sneaking around without permits and gives police officers some authority to deal with them. The whole thing is kinda silly as Ive worked on $15 million dollar jobs where we've snuck shots unpermitted. Anyhow, the legislation is the mayors office attempt to get more people to go through the permit process, which ultimately is good for the city, if you lived here you might understand that a little better. Where it gets grey is with still photography and even then, making commercial fashion shoots go through the same permit process we have to in film production is fair ground. I think by and large guy with camera on the street isnt going to be bothered, the legislation just allows for it under certain circumstances. You have to remember that jay walking is fully illegal here in NYC and if police wanted to they could write you a ticket for crossing improperly, but its pretty much every new yorkers given right to jaywalk so... The Mayors office tried to crack down on jaywalking a few years ago and that effort lasted about either seconds...

All this aside, whats happeing now is very very very real. I was stopped and questioned by a cop I guess about two weeks ago for standing on a corner in front of city hall HOLDING a camera. When I asked the cop to cite the law he was enforcing by interviewing me, he explained that this photo thing was going through so they were just starting to enforce it, this poor guy was completely unprepared to deal with a citizen that knew anything about it and the whole thing was kinda laughable.

At any rate, its definitely a good thing to protest this thing on one level, the wording of the legislation is too broad, but the general idea of it is hardly a bad thing if you work in the industry here in town. It really is focused on commerical jobs, yet its joe nobody who is making the most noise about it.
 
> They are also used to steady the camera, to give a steady platform when filming, to give even pan movements etc.

You example was the average family with a camera in New York. I rarely see the Henderson Family out with their 4MPixel P&S with a Tripod.

I use a heavy duty tripod with my 1000mm lens for nature photography. Take it on a boardwalk, where stations are set up for photographers using tripods. Of course, some of the other photographers complain about other visitors walking on the boardwalk and causing their camera to shake. I would not use a tripod in a crowded area where it would impede other people. This certainly includes indoor museums. I've seen others do it (before they were banned), and entire walkways were blocked. Same goes on most sidewalks. My tripod would certainly block use of 3/4's of the walkway.

I use a monopod for the 500mm lens, used for this shot. Much less intrusive in a crowded area. And a lot of people were on the boardwalk that day, watching these beautiful birds.

attachment.php
 
Last edited:
Well there you go, the large furry elephant has provided quite a perspective and street level assessment of the situation.

WoolenMammoth said:
People are really looking at this the wrong way. The "ban" is geared at independent film makers in production sneaking around without permits and gives police officers some authority to deal with them. The whole thing is kinda silly as Ive worked on $15 million dollar jobs where we've snuck shots unpermitted. Anyhow, the legislation is the mayors office attempt to get more people to go through the permit process, which ultimately is good for the city, if you lived here you might understand that a little better. Where it gets grey is with still photography and even then, making commercial fashion shoots go through the same permit process we have to in film production is fair ground. I think by and large guy with camera on the street isn't going to be bothered, the legislation just allows for it under certain circumstances. You have to remember that jay walking is fully illegal here in NYC and if police wanted to they could write you a ticket for crossing improperly, but its pretty much every new yorkers given right to jaywalk so... The Mayors office tried to crack down on jaywalking a few years ago and that effort lasted about either seconds...

All this aside, whats happening now is very very very real. I was stopped and questioned by a cop I guess about two weeks ago for standing on a corner in front of city hall HOLDING a camera. When I asked the cop to cite the law he was enforcing by interviewing me, he explained that this photo thing was going through so they were just starting to enforce it, this poor guy was completely unprepared to deal with a citizen that knew anything about it and the whole thing was kinda laughable.

At any rate, its definitely a good thing to protest this thing on one level, the wording of the legislation is too broad, but the general idea of it is hardly a bad thing if you work in the industry here in town. It really is focused on commerical jobs, yet its joe nobody who is making the most noise about it.
Click to expand...
 
You are not allowed to use a tripod in the street of Paris also, but you don't often get troubled. For instance, experience it at the Louvre; you get caught in a few seconds most of the time. Depends on location...
 
elude said:
You are not allowed to use a tripod in the street of Paris also, but you don't often get troubled. For instance, experience it at the Louvre; you get caught in a few seconds most of the time. Depends on location...
Click to expand...

How about a monopod?
 
WoolenMammoth said:
It really is focused on commerical jobs, yet its joe nobody who is making the most noise about it.
Click to expand...

And thank goodness for "Joe Nobody." The mischief in the proposed ordinance is not just the regulation of pretty much all on-the-street photography. Rather, it's the same problem presented by any overly broad, poorly drafted legislation -- selective enforcement and harassment.

I have no confidence that the NYPD will simply ignore this law, if it were to come into effect, and let "Joe Nobody" snap away at will. It will serve as an invitation to annoy and harass anyone with a camera who catches a police officer's eye (as your anecdote about having a camera near City Hall confirms).

If the Mayor's office wants to rein in surreptitious commercial film shooting (and I agree that's probably what they intended), then they should draft a proposed ordinance with rifled precision to do so. Or they should streamline the permit process they already have in place. Or they should beef up enforcement of the current regulations. Instead, they seem to have opted for the blunderbuss approach, which is sloppy, stupid, and serves as an open invitation to greater mischief.

(Climbing down off my soapbox)
 
If the Mayor's office wants to rein in surreptitious commercial film shooting (and I agree that's probably what they intended), then they should draft a proposed ordinance with rifled precision to do so. Or they should streamline the permit process they already have in place. Or they should beef up enforcement of the current regulations. Instead, they seem to have opted for the blunderbuss approach, which is sloppy, stupid, and serves as an open invitation to greater mischief.

(Climbing down off my soapbox)
Click to expand...

Excellent!!! Nothing wrong with holding our authorities to the highest standard. Make them get it right because the path of least resistance for enforcement is to just apply the regulations grossly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom