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)
Ms. Oliver:
I am writing in reference to the proposed changes to permit requirements for photography on public property. The proposed rules, as I understand them, would require a permit for "activity involving a tripod and a crew of 5 or more people at one site for 10 minutes or more" (the 10 minutes include the time to set up the tripod) or or the same activity among two people at a single site for more than 30 minutes. The permit process also requires the photographer to carry 1 million dollars in liability insurance.
I understand that it is important for the city to draw a line between amateur and professional photographers. I have often heard of cheap professionals calling themselves amateurs solely because they use a low-end SLR camera. However this rule does not do enough to make that separation and fails to protect a much-loved American city. Allow me to suggest some effective enhancements.
About once or twice a month, empower the police to conduct thorough searches of anyone who looks to be taking pictures, or preparing to do so. Necessary permits should be found on anyone who carries a camera beyond a drug store disposable. Justice should be carried out swiftly in situations where the necessary papers are not found. A modicum of brutality would suffice in reducing recidivism rates.
Only when New York is free of people carrying unlicensed cameras can its upstanding citizens be free from the threat of terrorist attacks.
Thank You for Your Time,
__________________
Slashdot - where whining about luck is the new way to make the world you want.
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?
That's fine, what we'll do to help you is stop sending tourists over. No problem. Hope it works out for you.
Yours sincerely,
ABTA
As a former New Yorker (and hoping to be one again soon) who lived in an area that rapidly went from "ghetto" to "hip" I saw the disruption a photo or film shoot could cause. Blocking a sidewalk or part of a street, barring entry to buildings and businesses and holding up traffic both vehicle or pedestrian can cause a nightmare. This isn't an occasional thing, either; in some areas for whatever reasons (often the most trendy or fashionable) this is a daily occurance.
I am honestly not sure why a small crew with substantial equiptment who set up camp should not get permission to do so. These rules do not seem unreasonable by any means, and in fact a smart professional photographer could easily work within the limits without the permit if they travelled light and worked quickly. They aren't outlawing amateurs or even pros with handheld cameras from taking film or video (so, say, independant journalists would not be hampered as long as they were able to be mobile), this isn't based on the quality of the camera and all that as some suggest but rather whether they block off real estate with tripods, mics and lights... And and I fail to see a "terrorist" angle at all outside of knee-jerk Slashdot comments (unless I'm missing something?) To me it just seems to be about keeping fashion shoots, Indie films and whatever else from taking over public space in an extremely congested city.
Has the U.S. gone nuts? Have you been living in a cave for the past six years or something? Of COURSE it has gone nuts.
While they claim it's not targeted at amateurs and tourists, it clearly applies directly to them. For example, a tour group of 5 or more people where at least one is holding a camera cannot stay in a single area for more than 10 minutes. The way it's written no one even has to be taking photographs for it to apply. One member of the group merely having a camera visible is enough to trigger these new rules.
How about if you're sitting on a bench reviewing the day's photos? If you're by yourself and have been there for 30 minutes, you better have a permit and $1 million insurance coverage. Add in the fact that they're saying the permits may take as many as 30 days to acquire plus proof of insurance and what you've done is effectively outlawed amateur and tourist photography.
Blocking sidewalks and streets is a serious issue, but commercial photography that impedes traffic already requires permits. No changes are required for that. Chances are good that the people you're complaining about have secured all the necessary permits. I rarely if ever see an amateur causing traffic problems. Tourists often do, but they can cause problems whether they're taking pictures or not.
Despite their stated intentions, this appears squarely aimed at either deterring amateur photography or providing a reason to question and detain anyone with a camera.
For those of you who do not remember the Tompkins Square Park Police Riot, here's the Wikipedia link. Police clubbed people on the head, regardless of who they were (even the press were beaten, there only to report on the incident).
Were it not for amateur videographers, it would have been the victims word alone versus the cops, and everyone knows the judge will side with the cops.
They will twist this law to confiscate any cell-phone, video camera, ipod, or other device that might bear witness to the over-reaching authority of the police-state of NY. Cops will have the ability to harass, beat, or otherwise abuse anyone they please, and no one will be able to bring in their evidence, because the shooting of such incident did not have a "permit".
I'm moving to Canada.
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
Depends how you look at it. The way I see things, Americans as a people have never been particularly liberal. There have been many outstanding liberal Americans, but mostly they were swimming against the tide.
240 years ago a bunch of (mostly) propertied, upper-class, far-liberal Americans got together and wrote the Constitution of the United States of America. Ever since, the majority of Americans have been simultaneously proud of this document (which allows them to feel better than everyone else), and dismissive of its actual ideas. Now, at last, a majority of them has elected a President who is prepared to put an end to quarter of a millennium of pretence. At last, Americans can relax and enjoy the authoritarian government that so many of them clearly prefer.
That's great news for Americans (except for the minority of troublemaking liberals), but rather queasy for the rest of the world.
I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
That's right. Only nice people have civil rights. We all know that. And what's with these lawyers defending people in court who are clearly guilty. Eh?
>>Perhaps you don't realize the extent of liberalism in the way the American people embraced rushing to save the rest of the world in the 1940's.
The US would probably never have joined WWII had it not been for the Pearl Harbor attack. The US populace were on the whole quite indifferent to the war in Europe and would have been quite happy for Hitler to have taken over.
As for "rushing to save the rest of the world", the Russians did far more to defeat Hitler, at huge cost to themselves.
"Perhaps you don't realize the extent of liberalism in the way the American people embraced rushing to save the rest of the world in the 1940's. I'm not talking about the decisions made by our government or corporations, I'm talking about the way regular Americans rose to the challenge. That was a completely liberal act".
I never indulge in vulgar personal abuse, but those remarks strongly tempt me. Perhaps *you* don't realize that:
1. 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. The USA assiduously sat on its hands while France was conquered and Britain went through the near-death experiences of the Battle of Britain and the Blitz. It did nothing to stop Hitler conquering all of Europe, and it was only by chance that it finally entered the war shortly after the Soviets decisively turned back the Wehrmacht at the very gates of Moscow. During all of this - the first 2 years, 3 months, and 10 days of the war (very nearly the first half) - the USA remained neutral.
2. While neutral, the USA supplied food, weapons, and other goods to Britain. But every single item was paid for in full, then or later. (As a British taxpayer I know this only too well - we made the last repayment a year or two back). Many of the USA's far-flung military bases around the world were handed over by Britain in part payment for the supplies we needed to continue fighting.
3. The USA entered the war only when Japan and, a week later, Germany, declared war on it. At that point, it became impossible to stay neutral. Congress even declared war on Germany, a redundant act since a state of war already existed after the German declaration. No doubt the Congresscritters already saw the value in future of being able to talk about "the day the USA declared war on Germany". All that "regular Americans" rose to was the challenge of defending their country against two Fascist dictatorships that had declared war on it - the very least they could do, if they didn't want to end up speaking German and being ruled from Berlin. They took the war to Europe because they had to - the Nazis already had detailed plans for nuclear weapons, and intercontinental delivery systems to hit American cities.
My father fought in WW2 (all of it) and my mother was ready to do her bit with a rifle in case of invasion, so I have a very personal interest in the facts. It is ironic that, the one time the USA had the chance to take down a really vicious, murderous dictator, it chose to remain neutral until he declared war on it. Moreover, directly contrary to what you say about "the people", historians agree that FDR would have liked to join the war against Hitler earlier - but he found it politically impossible, because the people were dead set against it.
So please, let's not have any more garbage about how America rushed to save the rest of the world in the 1940s, or any other time.
I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
Likely because we did no such thing. The vast majority of Americans wanted nothing to do with the war. We were, we thought, safely cocooned in our isolationism, and after the hundreds of thousands of sons we lost too few years ago to a European war we were largely content to let the rest of the world handle its own affairs. That is why we permitted the war to rage on for several years before we had anything to do with it. It's true that our president realized we had to get involved, and was steering public opinion in that way, but he was having a tough time of it. He had to invent programs such as the Lend-Lease act just so he could offer what aid he could.
We got involved when we were attacked. What you really saw was a groundswell of indignation and patriotism, rather than a concern for others. We got involved, we did a good job and turned the tide of the war. As we found out more and more about what was going on we were probably very happy that we did, but to imply Americans were just rising up to save the world is demonstrably false.
I disagree, or else we are very slow to wake up. We can hardly be bothered--to the tune of some 62% turnout--to vote when the elections have important implications on our freedom. Even last election, after the Patriot Act, and Guantanamo Bay, and domestic spying, and Valerie Plame, and even the Iraq War itself, retention for our Congressmen was nearly 90%. At least in my estimation we are already given up too much freedom with too little fight.
As far as the Founders go, I think they tended on the liberal side of things for their time. Many of their ideas were certainly revolutionary. It was, for example, the first time in history that, enshrined in a document (constitution), was the idea that a government's power came from the people it governs. Today that gets a resounding "duh," but it was liberal back then.
The problem is really our complacency. We are so very proud of our Constitution and our Founders and the ideas we introduced to the world--and rightly so, I think--that we focus on it and lose sight of the fact that other countries have made progress and we really haven't. It reminds me of the quote, "it only takes 20 years for a liberal to become a conservative without changing a single idea."
America has become a conservative nation, and I think that is a travesty.
The price of freedom is eternal vigilance, wrote Thomas Jefferson. We've done it a great disservice by providing only complacency and living in our past successes.
"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.