Discussion in 'Photographic Discussions' started by newrmdmike, Jul 30, 2007.
or at least take a look!
I'm not a US citizen .. but signed it nevertheless.
I was looking down the list to make sure that you could sign it if you didn't live in NYC...
My interpretation of this was that it was to push a permit process on film crews and groups of people photographing one area for an extended period of time (several hours). Not a casual tourist who's walking around with a dSLR / P&S. If I'm wrong, please correct me but I don't think this would apply to the general audience on this forum (thankfully). If it was a bill to actually outlaw ALL photography it would never pass.
Well, the way it is suggested now it is not hours, but half an hour, and a tripod and some accompanying persons already qualifies you for being the bad guy.
I often spend more than half an hour after I set up my tripod waiting for good light, or doing panoramas or very long exposures. OK, I am not a casual tourist then anymore maybe ... but creative photography which strays slightly from the standard tourist path might be hindered.
If you do this in the middle of a public sidewalk, are you imposing your creative issues on other peoples' convenience.
If someone trips over your bag and falls, are you responsible?
I am sort of in the middle on this but I have been stuck in traffic behind film crews too many times to think it isn't an issue.
Guys, fundamentally this is not an issue. The City is not about to take police resources and start hassling photographers. The wording is a little loosy-goosy, they need to tighten it up - but it doesn't says "just one person." You need to be a shooting team, and even then it is a question of defining a specific situation. The City has done an extremely good job of attracting and retaining production, while continuing to be a creative center and a tourist attraction. They're not about to start billing you for doing long exposures at Times Square - though God knows at any given night there's twenty hobbyists there getting effectively the same ol' shot ;-)
Sign it, let the City know you'd like it more defined, but don't think you'll be held up for a production badge the minute you set up your tri-pod.
Those guys already have paid permits, they are going to get more love from the City than us regular citizens.
I think on the surface the law is benign. But it could be ammunition for NYPD when dealing with disputes between photographers and private security guards.
I can just see some security guard calling the cops on a photographer taking photos that are within his or hers right to do from a public location. If the NYPD get frustrated with the conflict, they can just ask the photog for the permit as a way of getting rid of them.
true ... the intention of the law is one thing.. its usage and application a different thing.
I've met a photographer from National Geo who has been hasseled several times for just setting a tripod down in NYC.
I've heard San Francisco has their skyline copyrighted and will also harass photographers for shooting certain buildings from the street.
Who does it hurt?- Cities are money-hungry.
San Francisco has their skyline copyrighted? Even if this is true this would not stand up the least in court. They can also harass all they want. A building is a building. Heck if the front door is open I believe you're even legally allowed to go inside to photography. My knowledge of the American legal system is sketchy, but isn't this covered by Federal law or the constitution? In this case the states / cities can normally legislate all they want, to no end.
Separate names with a comma.