Slashdot Mirror
Comment Deadline For NYC Photography Permits
DrNibbler writes "August 3, 2007 is the deadline for submitting comments on the proposed permit requirements for photographers in New York. Here is a sample submission."
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
http://www.nyc.gov/html/film/html/news/080107_pro
http://www.nyc.gov/html/film/downloads/pdf/moftb_
(a) Introduction. The Mayor's Office of Film Theatre and Broadcasting ("MOFTB")
shall issue permits in connection with filming, including but not limited to the taking of motion
pictures; the taking of photographs; the use and operation of television cameras, transmitting
television equipment, or radio remotes in or about city property; load-ins or load-outs supporting
1
indoor performances; or such activities in or about any street, park, marginal street, pier, wharf,
dock, bridge or tunnel within the jurisdiction of any City department or agency, or involving the
use of any City owned or maintained facilities or equipment. As defined herein, MOFTB will
issue permits for scouting, rigging and shooting activities. Obtaining such a permit does not
obviate the need to obtain approval for an activity that may also be subject to other laws, rules or
case law.
(b) Permits.
(1) The following activities require that a permit be obtained pursuant to this chapter:
(i) Filming, photography, production, television or radio remotes occurring
on City property, as described in subdivision (a) of this section, that uses vehicles or
equipment, except as described in subparagraphs (2)(i) and (ii) of this subdivision;
(ii) Filming, photography, production, television or radio remotes occurring
on City property, as described in subdivision (a) of this section, involving an interaction
among two or more people at a single site for thirty or more minutes, including all set-up
and breakdown time in connection with such activities; or
(iii) Filming, photography, production, television or radio remotes occurring
on City property, as described in subdivision (a) of this section, involving an interaction
among five or more people at a single site and the use of a single tripod for ten or more
minutes, including all set-up and breakdown time in connection with such activities.
(2) The following activities do not require that a permit be obtained pursuant to this
chapter:
(i) Filming or photography occurring on City property, as described in
subdivision (a) of this section, involving the use of a hand-held device as defined in
paragraph three of subdivision (a) of 9-02, provided that such activity does not involve
an interaction among two or more people at a single site for thirty or more minutes,
including all set-up and breakdown time in connection with such activities.
(ii) Filming or photography occurring on City property, as described in
subdivision (a) of this section, involving the use of a single tripod, provided that such
activity does not involve an interaction among five or more people at a single site and the
use of a single tripod for ten or more minutes, including all set-up and breakdown time in
connection with such activities.
(iii) Filming or photography of a parade, rally, protest, or demonstration except
when using vehicles or equipment other than a handheld device or single tripod. I'm rather curious about how they're defining a "tripod." For example, what if somebody has a Gorillapod or a string tripod?
It affects anyone who wants to tale anything more than a quick point-and-shoot photo. There's plenty of amateur photographers out there that like taking nice pictures, and taking their time doing so. It also applies to pretty much any amateur filmmaker, and effectively bans anything more than small handheld camcorders from use in new york. I'm a film student, and it takes me 10-15 minutes just to set up for some quick shoots with my camera (it's pretty big). Taking into account my possibly shooting for more than 15 minutes in some place, that means I'd need to shell out ONE MILLION DOLLARS (cue Dr. Evil pinky + laughter), in order to make some dumb student film. It's not a matter of what they intended to do, it's a matter of what the actual effects are.
"it only takes 20 years for a liberal to become a conservative without changing a single idea."
I don't think you understand that quote, or you wouldn't be using it. Unless you're using it to ridicule it, but I didn't get that from your post.
The quote claims the country is becoming more liberal as time goes on, such that what was "liberal" in 1950 is considered "conservative" in 1970. You seem to be ignoring the "without changing a single idea" portion of the sentence.
Reality has a conservative bias: it conserves mass, energy, momentum...
"I seem to remember that when the brits first had the opportunity to fight the really vicious murderous dictator that was hitler, Chamberlain chose to just appease the sonofabitch".
That criticism is ironic, coming from a citizen of the USA - a nation that, at the the time, had turned its back on Europe through its policy of isolationism. If Nevile Chamberlain appeased Hitler, he was at least trying to do something about the problem. He could be compared to a neighbour who, seeing a house on fire, tries to cope with the problem by putting on a fire blanket, whereas in retrospect it would have been better to call the fire service. But the USA, in this analogy, was like a neighbour who closes the shutters, turns up the TV, and resolutely ignores the fire.
Chamberlain had lived through WW1, and like many of his generation found the idea of a repetition unspeakably ghastly. So he was inclined to go to great lengths to avoid war. As he said in 1938, "How horrible, fantastic it is that we should be digging trenches and trying on gas-masks here because of a quarrel in a far away country between people of whom we know nothing. I am myself a man of peace from the depths of my soul".
A glance at the totals of killed and wounded sustained by the combatants in WW1, as a percentage of their total mobilised strengths, may help us to understand. Great Britain and the Empire, together, had 2.9 million casualties (so defined) out of 8.9 million (33%). The much-maligned French, nowadays despised by many Americans for their lack of fighting spirit, took 5.5 million casualties out of 8.4 million (65%). That's two thirds, and it's not a mistake. The Germans and Austrians, together, sustained 10.7 million casualties out of 18.8 million (57%). And the USA? The Americans took a grand total of 360,000 casualties out of 4.3 million (8%).
Now 8% is bad enough, although it's nowhere near the corresponding figure for American occupying army in Iraq, for instance. But Chamberlain had seen 2 million British and Empire servicemen, 4.2 million Frenchmen, and 7.8 million Germans and Austrians, killed in a war that achieved very little. Can you see that he might cling to peace more desperately than Americans who had seen 126,000 of their brave boys killed 20 years before?
Besides, at the time when Chamberlain appeased Hitler, it was not yet entirely obvious that Hitler was a "really vicious murderous dictator". That, at any rate, was not the view of IBM and many other US corporations, which enjoyed a brisk trade with Nazi Germany. Nor was it the view of Joseph Kennedy (father of Jack and Bobby), who was US ambassador to Great Britain in 1938-40. According to Wikipedia,
'Kennedy rejected the warnings of Winston Churchill that compromise with Nazi Germany was impossible; instead he supported Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain's policy of appeasement in order to stave off a second world war that would be a more horrible "armageddon" than the first. Throughout 1938, as the Nazi persecution of Jews intensified, Kennedy attempted to obtain an audience with Adolf Hitler. Shortly before the Nazi aerial bombing of British cities began in September 1940, Kennedy sought a personal meeting with Hitler, again without State Department approval, "to bring about a better understanding between the United States and Germany."'
In 1938, Hitler had reoccupied the Rhineland (which many people thought was only fair, as it was traditionally part of Germany); united Germany with Austria, without a shot being fired (in public, at least); and seized the border area of Czechoslovakia. True, the Nazi party and its thugs had started murdering Jews and others wholesale, but there were influential elements in the USA (as well as many other countries) who had no objection to this. The fact is that, when Chamberlain met Hitler and brought home his infamous "piece of paper", Hitler had not conquered any other country - nor was it at all obvious that he intended to. As soon as Hitler invaded the rest of Czechoslovakia in March 1939, Chamberlain's attitude hardened as it became obvious that Hitler had cynically tricked him. And when Germany invaded Poland in September, Chamberlain unhesitatingly joined France in declaring war on Germany.
What did the USA do at that time?
I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
Like "The USA did not lift a finger to help Britain (or Poland, or France, or Denmark, or Holland, or Belgium, or Norway, or Yugoslavia, or Greece, or the USSR) when they were attacked by Nazi Germany. "?
That's downright untrue.
The first part is also untrue -- war can end in a stalemate, with no clear winners or losers. The second is speculation; IMO, without the western front, the Nazis could have held against the Soviets and partitioned Europe between them.Russia signed a non-aggression pact with Hitler and then acted defensively after being invaded by Hitler. The "huge cost to themselves" was not of their own choosing, so they get no altruism points for that; Hitler came within miles of Moscow.