Krosya
Konicaze
They way I see it - any way you look at it - this is against our constitutional right i.e. - freedom of speech. I don't really care what was the reason that city wants to implement this rule. It's plain illegal and one good law suit ( if this ever becomes a law) should put them in their place. Plain and simple.
You mean as in freedom to use tripods and impede pedestrian traffic?
Be sure to tell that to the Museum Guards when they tell you that you can't use one. Or a Police Officer when you are blocking the sidewalk.
I can usually hold the Leica steady and have yet to use a tripod or monopod with it. Guess I'll be Okay. I wonder if Pa Henderson would ever consider using a Leica? I can just see him setting up a CL on a monster tripod to get that perfect shot of the Statue of Liberty and Ma and the two kids yelling at him to hurry up, they don't want to be there all day.
Be sure to tell that to the Museum Guards when they tell you that you can't use one. Or a Police Officer when you are blocking the sidewalk.
I can usually hold the Leica steady and have yet to use a tripod or monopod with it. Guess I'll be Okay. I wonder if Pa Henderson would ever consider using a Leica? I can just see him setting up a CL on a monster tripod to get that perfect shot of the Statue of Liberty and Ma and the two kids yelling at him to hurry up, they don't want to be there all day.
Last edited:
Krosya
Konicaze
Brian Sweeney said:
Just to add: The Smithsonian is a Public Sector Museum. You can photograph any piece of art bought with Public funds. If a piece of art is loaned to the museum, the donor often requests that a photography ban is placed on that particular exhibit.
Where do you draw a limit of what's impeding and what isn't? Set up an 8x10 view camera with a big wooden tripod on a sidewalk is freedom of speech?
This reminds me of the NRA viewing ANY law concerning the right to own any kind of gun as an assault on the second amendment. Just try to take away their armor-piercing bullets and machine guns. They get up in arms.
The statement is that requiring a permit for a group to use a tripod is not a ban on photography. Viewing it as a violation of constitutional rigts is over-stated.
Where do you draw a limit of what's impeding and what isn't? Set up an 8x10 view camera with a big wooden tripod on a sidewalk is freedom of speech?
This reminds me of the NRA viewing ANY law concerning the right to own any kind of gun as an assault on the second amendment. Just try to take away their armor-piercing bullets and machine guns. They get up in arms.
The statement is that requiring a permit for a group to use a tripod is not a ban on photography. Viewing it as a violation of constitutional rigts is over-stated.
Last edited:
ChrisPlatt
Thread Killer
Heck, I have trouble not tripping over my own tripod!
They are best not used in places with lots of pedestrians.
A monopod is usually a far better choice in such situations.
Chris
They are best not used in places with lots of pedestrians.
A monopod is usually a far better choice in such situations.
Chris
Seemingly every time I am in NYC I run into a filming or photo shoot, and it is a distraction and does effect the traffic flow and perhaps you can draw that out to public safety. Good Day NY, MTV, Nickelodeon, all of the TV stations, Letterman, Opie and Anthony, add in other shows and movie sets, all regulary shoot in the streets of Manhattan.
Again, I don't think the regulation should be pointed to, or enforced against an individual photographer/person, but all of these commercial interests should have some rules.
Of course, go to Times Square and watch the crowds with cameras that the Naked Cowboy attracts right in the middle of an intersection and you may change your mind some.
Again, I don't think the regulation should be pointed to, or enforced against an individual photographer/person, but all of these commercial interests should have some rules.
Of course, go to Times Square and watch the crowds with cameras that the Naked Cowboy attracts right in the middle of an intersection and you may change your mind some.
ywenz
Mentor
What about the wedding photographers and videographers covering a Manhattan wedding? Would they be conducting themselves unlawfully if this passes?
dazedgonebye
Mentor
I think any rights based group would tell you that rights are lost incrementally, one small relatively painless step at a time.
Go along with a "reasonable" restriction and you may be laying the groundwork for the next "reasonable" restriction...till you wake up and realize you've given it all up.
Go along with a "reasonable" restriction and you may be laying the groundwork for the next "reasonable" restriction...till you wake up and realize you've given it all up.
Brian Sweeney said:
icebear
Mentor
Same topic 4 weeks ago
Same topic 4 weeks ago
Hi folks,
the exact same topic was already discussed 4 weeks ago ; this is the title of the orig thread : Fotogs May Need Permit and Insurance in NYC by bob cole.
Same topic 4 weeks ago
Hi folks,
the exact same topic was already discussed 4 weeks ago ; this is the title of the orig thread : Fotogs May Need Permit and Insurance in NYC by bob cole.
troym
Established
icebear said:
The current thread is in reference to the new online petition opposing the proposed regulations.
WoolenMammoth
Well-known
I work in the movies, so my view on this is completely jaded, from inside an industry where you dont move without a permit. This whole thing is pointed at tiny productions sneaking around, not a guy and his wife with a camera. Also, if you know anything about NYC, just because its a law doesnt mean its necesarily going to be enforced the way people might imagine it to be. This is NYC we are talking about ...
Ultimately yeah, this is a lousy thing to deal with, but its hardly the worst thing this mayor has on his agenda right now. Its ultimately something that will more than likely not effect any single person with a camera and frankly, the people who will be effected deserve to be effected...
Lobbying against it is a good thing for certain, but doing so without understanding the full scope of things turns the lobbying effort into something like the UFO lobby, its own worst enemy with people crying all levels of hysteria over the wrong stuff...
Ultimately yeah, this is a lousy thing to deal with, but its hardly the worst thing this mayor has on his agenda right now. Its ultimately something that will more than likely not effect any single person with a camera and frankly, the people who will be effected deserve to be effected...
Lobbying against it is a good thing for certain, but doing so without understanding the full scope of things turns the lobbying effort into something like the UFO lobby, its own worst enemy with people crying all levels of hysteria over the wrong stuff...
troym
Established
WoolenMammoth said:
(dusting off soapbox again)
Well, I do live in the city, and that is exactly my fear. The law will not be enforced as a reasonable person might expect but rather however an overzealous official wishes to enforce it. Of course, the more nebulous and overly broad a law is, the easier it is for officials to use it as a pretext to stop and harass whosoever they wish.
Also, although you're absolutely right that opposition to such laws should be intelligently expressed, it's perfectly right (and highly effective) to have the broadest range of people raise a ruckus about the latest stupidity proposed by City Hall. The greatest enabler of bureaucratic overreaching is the knowledge that most people will shrug their shoulders and say, "Ah, whatever; won't affect me." A little agitation is the best response.
Case in point. The MTA tried something similar a couple years ago and proposed a fairly broad ban on photography on the subways without a permit. It took a concerted response from subway buffs to put the kibosh on that one. And I can tell you that the reaction from those folks was much less refined than the reaction to the current proposal. (They don't call subway buffs "foamers" for nothing.)
(climbing off soapbox)
Tom A
RFF Sponsor
Some time in the 80's the French Legislature tried to impose a law 'controlling" images of politicians and to some extent street photography. The press photogarphers and the Video/TV crews had a simple action. They would line up for the obligatory "photo-op" in front of the Elysee Palace and the dignitaries would do the hand shake and "kiss kiss" thing. When they started to smile towards the press - every camera was sitting on the ground and the shooters were standing there with their arms crossed! The ruling was rather quickly rescinded!
Maybe if we all refused to take pictures of politicians and could get the papers to just publish a blank square or run 20 sec. of "dead air", they would rethink the effect of trying to control us!
On the other hand, banning the publication of images of politicians and quasi 'celebrities" could be a good thing. No more leering candidates and inane Lohan/Hilton shots would be a relief!
Maybe if we all refused to take pictures of politicians and could get the papers to just publish a blank square or run 20 sec. of "dead air", they would rethink the effect of trying to control us!
On the other hand, banning the publication of images of politicians and quasi 'celebrities" could be a good thing. No more leering candidates and inane Lohan/Hilton shots would be a relief!
WoolenMammoth
Well-known
troym said:
Considering that I was stopped and questioned by a police officer before this law was even put on the books, it pretty much doesnt matter much to me that it is or isnt happening, the police are very much already enforcing it. I think that happened about three weeks ago at this point.
An overzealous politician in this town hardly needs a law to get things done. The way Guiliani dealt with the proposed taxi strike was the classic case and point on that topic.
The MTA might let you on with a still camera but the lord will rain fire before the MTZ allows motion picture equipment on its lines, which is pretty much my case and point of this discussion. I cant tell the future, but if you are just a guy with a camera on a random street in this town (and not in front of city hall like I was) I think you can consider yourself pretty special if your 15 minutes is up and a cop appears to tell you you need a permit if you plan to shoot for 16 minutes...
Yes, this is some nasty stuff but honestly ask yourself the last time you had a still camera stuck to your face for 15 minutes uninterrputed. I think most people reading this would have trouble standing on the street looking through a camera for that long, uninterrupted and as I read things, thats what we are talking about here. And that is pretty silly to get upset about.
Krosya
Konicaze
Don't they have more important things in NYC mayor's office to worry about? I mean, C'mon! I suppose this is where our tax money goes.
And I fully agree with Steve (post above) - it's one little thing, and after that - another, and yet another - we already gave up too many rights and freedoms. It's time to fight for your rights!
And I fully agree with Steve (post above) - it's one little thing, and after that - another, and yet another - we already gave up too many rights and freedoms. It's time to fight for your rights!
troym
Established
WoolenMammoth said:
Yeah, but you could tell that officer, ever so pleasantly, to go pound sand precisely because the proposed regs are just that -- proposed.
And, by the way, there's nothing in the proposed regs that requires actually looking through a camera lens for a half hour on the same spot. The proposal covers any photographic "activity" involving an "interaction" between two or more people at a "single site" for a half hour or more. As you mentioned further upthread, the purpose of the proposal appears to be to crack down on guerrilla filming, model shoots, and such like. But the language is so slapdash and so incredibly broad that it could cover just about anything.
For example, an "interaction" is defined to mean "conduct involving communication" between two or more people. And a "single site" is an area within 100 feet of where photographic "activity commences."
So, let's say that you and a buddy want to go out for a little street shooting one afternoon. You head to Union Square and spend an hour snapping pictures of the skaters, street artists, and the farmers market there. The area is so dense with interesting things to photograph that you move pretty slowly around the fringe of the park. While snapping away, you pass a few comments back and forth about how the afternoon light is holding up.
A friendly member of the local constabulary walks over to you because we're in a post 9/11 world, you know, and anyone who's not obviously a pro who's taking so many pictures must be up to no good. You want to tell the officer to go pound sand, but, alas, you have violated the law. You have engaged in photographic activity involving an interaction with another human being, and you've done so at a single site for more than 30 minutes. Busted.
Gipsy
Member
The danger of laws such as this is they are subject to interpretation. Now the police will have a law no matter how vague that will legally allow them to stop and question anyone with a camera under the pretense of enforcing the ordinance. Common sense is not a prerequisite for a job in law enforcement.
M
Magus
Guest
Post deleted by posters request
Ronald M
Mentor
Why don`t you rewrite the law to cover the just rogue filmers and terrorists and send it to the mayor?
BTW, what has terrorism got to do with photography. I don`t recall a single bomber needing a photo.
In fact, just try it as an exercise. it is difficult to write a law to cover just what you want and not cover anything extra.
BTW, what has terrorism got to do with photography. I don`t recall a single bomber needing a photo.
In fact, just try it as an exercise. it is difficult to write a law to cover just what you want and not cover anything extra.
ywenz
Mentor
I'm watching the Today show on NBC right now ( don't ask me why ).. and I'm seeing the crowds of people gathered around the show hosts at Rockefeller plaza. I'm sure some of the people there have waited for hours with their camera/camcorder.. would they be law breakers if this passes?
