PDA

View Full Version : New Rules for NYC Photography



Pete Roody
29-Jun-2007, 06:24
Photography with large format (or any camera) will be effected if this legislation is passed:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/29/nyregion/29camera.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

We may even need liability insurance to take a picture!

Greg Lockrey
29-Jun-2007, 06:35
"Cameras don't kill people, people kill people." Or "they will have to pry my Brownie from my cold dead fingers."

Opps! Different kind of shooting.:eek:

Walter Calahan
29-Jun-2007, 07:00
Show me the money.

And how much will NYC charge for this permit? How long will it take to get a permit?

Sounds more like revenue enhancement. Interesting that the rules don't apply to amateur photographers, so photographers who shoot alone. Now how are the police to interpret this new law if it passes? That's where the rubber meets the road.

Bruce Watson
29-Jun-2007, 07:01
Photography with large format (or any camera) will be effected if this legislation is passed:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/29/nyregion/29camera.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

We may even need liability insurance to take a picture!

Well, that's certainly one way to get rid of my tourist dollars. Guess I won't be spending much time in NYC anymore. I've always liked the architecture in Chicago better anyway.

Pete Roody
29-Jun-2007, 07:38
"Cameras don't kill people, people kill people." Or "they will have to pry my Brownie from my cold dead fingers."

Opps! Different kind of shooting.:eek:

I would laugh, but the whole situation is sickening. I wonder how much $1 million in liability insurance costs. I guess you will also have to wear a sign on your back that says "Sue Me."

Marko
29-Jun-2007, 07:59
Show me the money.

And how much will NYC charge for this permit? How long will it take to get a permit?

Sounds more like revenue enhancement.

The artcile says: "The permits would be free and applications could be obtained online, Ms. Cho said. The draft rules say the office could take up to 30 days to issue a permit, but Ms. Cho said she expected that most would be issued within 24 hours."

So, it's not even the money, it's the power trip. At least it is consistent with the general direction of the country.


Interesting that the rules don't apply to amateur photographers, so photographers who shoot alone. Now how are the police to interpret this new law if it passes? That's where the rubber meets the road.

Police interpreting the law? Now that's the scary thought. They are supposed to enforce the law, and when they start interpreting it, you know that at least some checks and balances have been broken.

David A. Goldfarb
29-Jun-2007, 07:59
The article suggests the permit will be free, like the current tripod permit, which usually takes a day to get. I think they used to require liability insurance, and then they removed that requirement in the current version.

Helen Bach
29-Jun-2007, 08:11
These rules don't go nearly far enough in my opinion. I tried to get a clause added to make it obligatory that all photographers and film crews had to provide free refreshments for local residents, particularly those living near Times Square.

David A. Goldfarb
29-Jun-2007, 08:13
Heh. There should also be a $150 surcharge for every production assistant with an attitude problem.

Andrew O'Neill
29-Jun-2007, 08:29
Another reason to not go to NY.

Rakesh Malik
29-Jun-2007, 08:36
Well, that's certainly one way to get rid of my tourist dollars. Guess I won't be spending much time in NYC anymore. I've always liked the architecture in Chicago better anyway.

The architecture in Kiev is better than the architecture in NYC also :)

Pete Roody
29-Jun-2007, 08:43
The article suggests the permit will be free, like the current tripod permit, which usually takes a day to get. I think they used to require liability insurance, and then they removed that requirement in the current version.

I didn't realize there was once a requirement for insurance. Anyone living in nyc (including myself) is aware of the permit requirement for tripods and we have shot without permits. Worst case is some cop tells you to pick up your gear and move. I avoid highly trafficked areas or I shoot them early on weekends to avoid crowds. That given, the requirement for $1 mil liability insurance is absurd.

Why can't they just have a requirement that amateurs have a large letter 'A' sewn on their shirts so the police can differentiate you from the pros.

Dave Parker
29-Jun-2007, 08:46
Heck,

Here in Montana, when your a photographer for hire and advertise your services as such, we are required to carry a million in liability insurance, I have had a bond since the day I started work for hire...

Dave

Helen Bach
29-Jun-2007, 08:47
"The architecture in Chicago/Kiev/Singapore/Bradford is better than the architecture in NYC also"

Next thing you know, someone will claim that the Red Sox are whopping the Yankees*.





*They are.

Pete Roody
29-Jun-2007, 08:59
Heck,

Here in Montana, when your a photographer for hire and advertise your services as such, we are required to carry a million in liability insurance, I have had a bond since the day I started work for hire...

Dave

Why? A doctor should have laibility insurance. A photographer should be given some slack.

Bob Salomon
29-Jun-2007, 09:03
Pete,

According to yesterday's paper NYC has the largest population in the US. Over 8,300,000 people. That is larger then the next 3 city's population combined!

Add to that the number of commuters and tourists in NYC every day.

NYC has a police force of about 30,000 members last I read.

How would 30,000 police be able to enforce a rule limiting photography of casual snapshooters with the number of people they would have to watch? And how would the courts keep up processing all the offenders?

Chicken little over-reacted and it seems people who read the article did also.

If you are shooting professionally then you probably might need a permit and insurance in the future. If you are walking down the street with your camera around your neck no one is going to stop you for taking pictures of daily life in NY - or any other US city.

Sanjay Sen
29-Jun-2007, 09:13
Police interpreting the law? Now that's the scary thought. They are supposed to enforce the law, and when they start interpreting it, you know that at least some checks and balances have been broken.

That is indeed a very scary thought! :eek:

Dave Parker
29-Jun-2007, 09:13
Why? A doctor should have laibility insurance. A photographer should be given some slack.

Well what happens, if a heavy light stand falls over a conks a client in the head? or destroys a valuable piece of art your photographing for a client?

There are many reasons that a photographer would require insurance, I don't think a person working as a photographer should be given anymore of a break than any other professional business...

Dave

Pete Roody
29-Jun-2007, 09:16
Pete,

According to yesterday's paper NYC has the largest population in the US. Over 8,300,000 people. That is larger then the next 3 city's population combined!

Add to that the number of commuters and tourists in NYC every day.

NYC has a police force of about 30,000 members last I read.

How would 30,000 police be able to enforce a rule limiting photography of casual snapshooters with the number of people they would have to watch? And how would the courts keep up processing all the offenders?

Chicken little over-reacted and it seems people who read the article did also.

If you are shooting professionally then you probably might need a permit and insurance in the future. If you are walking down the street with your camera around your neck no one is going to stop you for taking pictures of daily life in NY - or any other US city.

Agreed. NYC also has law against jay-walking. They would have to lock up half the population if they decided to enforce that law.

Lee Hamiel
29-Jun-2007, 09:53
Per the article:

"New rules being considered 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 single public location for more than a half hour to get a city permit and 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.

Julianne Cho, assistant commissioner of the film office, said the rules were not intended to apply to families on vacation or amateur filmmakers or photographers. "

Note the two or more & five or more aspect.

E_Aiken
29-Jun-2007, 09:56
I get hassled probably a little under half of the times I go shooting in the daytime. Two weeks ago, week and a half... I was shooting on a public street facing the water in Brooklyn, two older Polish men and one younger Hispanic guy were just sitting at the end of the street enjoying a nice evening talking. Cops show up, lights on, got there and called in for backup, who arrived with similar fanfare. We were all charged with something teh cops wouldn't really describe. I argued with them for 15 minutes or so about how they can't charge me and not describe what I'm being charged of and why; the three other guys didn't have enough control of English to really fight the cops. Ultimately it was told to us that it was criminal trespassing because there was a sign, in an adjacent lot which was completely fenced in, that said "no trespassing." Nevermind we weren't on that lot, we were on the public street adjacent to it. Finally they told me they were letting me off, but told me to pretend I'd been given a summons so the others didn't likewise realize the charge was BS. The other three were all charged and had to go to criminal court in Manhattan. Ridiculous - they let me off because I could speak English well enough to disprove the legitimacy of the charges they were putting on us, and expected me to pretend along with them?

Absolutely NO WAY this bill is not going to affect us if it's so vague as to be left to individual police interpretation. There are tons of great cops, but also enough jerkoffs like these dudes to ensure that photographers of all stripes are going to get bent over sooner or later by this law. I myself have been hassled with frequency enough (and I look about as white-bread American as they come, by the way) to think that this is a pretty bad thing for us should it go through.

Greg Lockrey
29-Jun-2007, 10:21
Why? A doctor should have laibility insurance. A photographer should be given some slack.

Oh No....getting your picture taken steals your soul.....you need insurance for the law suit as a consequence. :rolleyes:

tim atherton
29-Jun-2007, 10:32
Per the article:


Note the two or more & five or more aspect.


not sure that will make a jot of difference. Show up on the street with a LF camera on a tripod and you will be told you need a permit and insurance

eddie
29-Jun-2007, 12:45
just go alone. it says two or more people. even if you have more than two people, if only one has a camera then it sounds like you can have alot of "assistants" as long as there is only one camera "in their hands"

eddie

cyrus
29-Jun-2007, 13:23
When I first got into the legal business, I remember a certain City Attorney's office that prosecuted the "crime" of loitering:

Prosecutor: what were you doing standing at the street corner.

Defendant: Nothing! Nothing at all! I was doing nothing, just standing there, minding my own business before I got arrested!

Prosecutor: I rest my case.

The "crime" of loitering was created in order to give the police the legal right to hassle people - particularly poor homeless people who had the temerity of blighting the view of the rich people out of the windows of their lovely multi-million dollar condos.

This law strikes me as yet another one of those intentionally ill-defined laws that are simply created to legally hassle people.

David A. Goldfarb
29-Jun-2007, 13:34
The motivation behind the law is probably Bloomberg's general campaign to reduce the city's potential liability from personal injury lawsuits.

It used to be that you could sue the city if the city knew about a flaw in the sidewalk and failed to repair it, resulting in a slip and fall injury. So several large personal injury firms sent people all over the city to inspect the sidewalks and printed a thick book annually listing all the cracks in the sidewalks and presented it as a "gift" to the city, knowing full well, of course, that they could never fix them all. Then a couple of years ago the city passed a law making landlords responsible for sidewalks adjacent to their properties.

I suppose that people might still sue the city though, if they were to trip over an errant tripod leg.

paulr
29-Jun-2007, 13:36
Another reason to not go to NY.

That's right! Stay out of NYC. Horrible place. Especially around the holidays. Big Brother wants to tax your cameras and us locals want to mug you and steal your children. Be warned!

paulr
29-Jun-2007, 13:39
Notice that it's a proposal, not an actual law, and that it already faces opposition from the ACLU.

And it covers groups of 2 or more, shooting in one place for over 30 minutes. Would that really apply to the way anyone here photographs?

But my warning to stay the hell away still stands ;)

Marko
29-Jun-2007, 14:53
The best time to oppose overly vague and ill-worded, not to mention ill-conceived, law is precisely in the proposal phase, as the chances of success are the greatest. Once it becomes a full-fledged law, it is much harder to change it.

Success or failure, it quickly becomes a precedent for other cities, so better to squash it early on.

E_Aiken
29-Jun-2007, 16:39
"two people wishing to use a camera..." could this be construed as the photographer and subject, were it to be a portrait? And the time limit thing, who's judging that? I imagine a few others here have had cops come up to them to question and say they'd "gotten a call about half an hour ago about..." their "suspicious activities" (remember the one case where the tripod was called in as a "missile launcher?")

The liability thing, sure. If commercial crews are going to set up boomstands on a crowded street, that makes a good amount of sense to make sure they're covered in case one of those stands happens to go over in a gust and land on a li'l old lady. But the vagueness of terms, combined with the spectacular conspicuous nature of our cameras of choice, make this a bill we should be keeping our eyes on, and perhaps getting involved with.

Gordon Moat
29-Jun-2007, 16:48
They tried to propose a similar action for subways and rail yards not long ago, the difference being that was an outright ban on photography. As that one turned out, it was literally unenforceable. So not much point in pushing it.

I have found that many cities have permit requirements for professionals. Yet most have an exception for student work, which would also cover portfolio building for getting into a Master's program. The burden of proof is upon the city, though that could still create problems.

It would not surprise me if this fails. How could it possibly be selectively enforced? How can a cop on the street prove you are doing professional work? My guess is that the original idea might have more to do with giving an excuse for investigating/approaching anyone with a camera. The other possibilities, as others pointed out, would be revenue generation, or liability transfer.

If you are making a living from photography, and doing commercial work, chances are you might already have a liability policy; or the companies for which you do work might have a policy that covers the shoot. The cost is actually relatively low, actually lower than a $1M policy for a plumbing company (for example/comparison).

In the end, I think this idea for a new law will be dropped. I think the reasons why will be that it will be too difficult to enforce, and the amount of negative press will become too great to go forward. So much ado about something that will become nothing.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio (http://www.allgstudio.com)

Andrew O'Neill
29-Jun-2007, 20:49
That's right! Stay out of NYC. Horrible place. Especially around the holidays. Big Brother wants to tax your cameras and us locals want to mug you and steal your children. Be warned!

ooOOooh...those rumours ARE true.:)

erie patsellis
30-Jun-2007, 09:55
"The architecture in Chicago/Kiev/Singapore/Bradford is better than the architecture in NYC also"

Next thing you know, someone will claim that the Red Sox are whopping the Yankees*.





*They are.

What next, the Red Sox winning a world series???
(I thought I'd never see the day in my lifetime)


erie

Rider
2-Jul-2007, 18:15
You'd be surprised how efficient our police force is at stopping serious infractions of the law. Try whipping out a tripod in Grand Central and see long before they boot you. In fact, just point a camera at a person in uniform in Grand Central and see what happens.


Pete,

According to yesterday's paper NYC has the largest population in the US. Over 8,300,000 people. That is larger then the next 3 city's population combined!

Add to that the number of commuters and tourists in NYC every day.

NYC has a police force of about 30,000 members last I read.

How would 30,000 police be able to enforce a rule limiting photography of casual snapshooters with the number of people they would have to watch? And how would the courts keep up processing all the offenders?

Chicken little over-reacted and it seems people who read the article did also.

If you are shooting professionally then you probably might need a permit and insurance in the future. If you are walking down the street with your camera around your neck no one is going to stop you for taking pictures of daily life in NY - or any other US city.

David A. Goldfarb
2-Jul-2007, 19:27
You can get a tripod permit for Grand Central Terminal during non-rush hours just by asking at the Station Master's office.

This one was handheld--

http://www.echonyc.com/~goldfarb/photo/mta/1.jpg

And yes, the sign says "I'm here on a research grant from Al Quaeda."

cyrus
2-Jul-2007, 19:52
You can get a tripod permit for Grand Central Terminal during non-rush hours just by asking at the Station Master's office.

This one was handheld--

http://www.echonyc.com/~goldfarb/photo/mta/1.jpg

And yes, the sign says "I'm here on a research grant from Al Quaeda."

LOL!

Photography is a form of the freedom of expression. The point is you shouldn't need a "permit" to engage in that right. And if there are some public inconveniences associated with the use of tripods etc, those should not be used as an excuse to limit that right of free expression, or to make it subject to a sweeping government permit system which invades your privacy and ultimately limits and reduces the exercise of free speech, especially when the gov't permit system is based on arbitrary and ill-defined restrictions.

Anyway, that's what they taught me in law school - but since then, a lot of things have changed: torture, "secret" evidence, civilians subjected to military tribunals, warrantless surveillance, citizens stripped of their nationality and sent to exile, cameras monitoring everyong and random police searches, posters encouraging people to report "suspicious" activity ...I'm thinking of asking my law school for a refund!

Robert Hughes
3-Jul-2007, 11:02
Cyrus, you sound like one of those ingrates who thinks that true patriots like Scooter Libby should rot in jail while terrists run free. I'll betcha noone is walking around Grand Central wearing a "Al Quaida research" sign today.;)

David A. Goldfarb
3-Jul-2007, 11:12
That photograph was taken in 2004 at a protest against a proposed photography ban in NYC subways. The proposal failed.

cyrus
3-Jul-2007, 12:22
Cyrus, you sound like one of those ingrates who thinks that true patriots like Scooter Libby should rot in jail while terrists run free. I'll betcha noone is walking around Grand Central wearing a "Al Quaida research" sign today.;)

I think there's enough room in the prisons for everyone. Building prisons is a growth industry after all.

cyrus
3-Jul-2007, 12:26
You'd be surprised how efficient our police force is at stopping serious infractions of the law.

Sigh. When did photography become a serious infraction of the law? What the hell is WRONG with this world!

Turner Reich
3-Jul-2007, 16:57
Sigh. When did photography become a serious infraction of the law? What the hell is WRONG with this world!

F***ing terrorists from the Middle East is what the hell is WRONG with this World. Eliminate them and photography can continue, keep them and the only shooting that will be legal is the shooting of terrorists from the Middle East.

cyrus
3-Jul-2007, 17:25
F***ing terrorists from the Middle East is what the hell is WRONG with this World. Eliminate them and photography can continue, keep them and the only shooting that will be legal is the shooting of terrorists from the Middle East.

Sigh again - first, the restrictions don't do jack about terrorists - and second the gov't seem to always have something scary and wants to "protect us" by asking us to give up some rights and liberties. Its happened before - who here remembers the Red Scare? This is the standard way in which democracies fall. If its not "Middle Eastern Terrorists", its "Drug Dealers" or "Communists" or . . . And tomorrow, there will be a new BogeyMonster.

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - Benjamin Franklin

paulr
4-Jul-2007, 09:14
and second the gov't seem to always have something scary and wants to "protect us" by asking us to give up some rights and liberties. Its happened before -

The real history of this kind of thing is cyclical. In times of war or other perceived threat, civil liberties have been reeled in. At other times they've been extended.

It seems to me the only difference this time is that the decisions are being made by a government that has lost its credibility and public trust in many ways, large and small. So we're in a state of constant skepticism towards our own leaders and the nature of any threat they warn us about.

This doensn't mean that the threats aren't real; just that we have fewer ways of knowing than ever before, and more reasons to react with cynicism and mistrust.

Rider
4-Jul-2007, 09:18
Maybe I'm cynical, but did anyone else notice how the level of threats and commotion dropped off after the last election?


The real history of this kind of thing is cyclical. In times of war or other perceived threat, civil liberties have been reeled in. At other times they've been extended.

It seems to me the only difference this time is that the decisions are being made by a government that has lost its credibility and public trust in many ways, large and small. So we're in a state of constant skepticism towards our own leaders and the nature of any threat they warn us about.

This doensn't mean that the threats aren't real; just that we have fewer ways of knowing than ever before, and more reasons to react with cynicism and mistrust.

cyrus
4-Jul-2007, 13:38
The real history of this kind of thing is cyclical. In times of war or other perceived threat, civil liberties have been reeled in. At other times they've been extended.

It seems to me the only difference this time is that the decisions are being made by a government that has lost its credibility and public trust in many ways, large and small. So we're in a state of constant skepticism towards our own leaders and the nature of any threat they warn us about.

This doensn't mean that the threats aren't real; just that we have fewer ways of knowing than ever before, and more reasons to react with cynicism and mistrust.

Exactly. Many of the threats are certainly real but the govt' restrictions are often not related to the threat themselves and have another hidden purpose. The War on Drugs was another excuse to infringe on civil liberties and to create yet another self-perpetuating bureaucracy with a budget demand.

erie patsellis
4-Jul-2007, 17:26
Two quotes come to mind,
John Adams - I have come to the conclusion that one useless man is called a disgrace; that two are called a law firm, and that three or more become a Congress! (seems not much has changed since the continental congress)

and Aristotle-Democracy is when the indigent, and not the men of property, are the rulers.


erie

r.e.
4-Jul-2007, 20:58
I'm familiar with the current rules administered by the NYC Mayor's Office of Film, Theatre and Broadcasting, and am following debate on the proposed new rules, because they have a practical impact on a project on which I am working.

On a strict interpretation of the current rules, a still photographer must have a permit to shoot anywhere in the city. As a practical matter, people don't worry about this unless they want to use a tripod. More importantly, a still photographer, unlike a motion picture or television production house, is not obliged to carry $1 million in liability insurance.

However, there are exceptions because the Mayor's Office rules are supplemented by additional rules in many parts of the city that are under special jurisdiction, such as the subway system, parks, etc. For example, if one phones the Council on the Environment of New York City (http://www.cenyc.org/site/), which operates New York's 44 Greenmarkets (such as the one at Union Square), one will be told that one can use a still camera at a New York Greenmarket only if one has a permit, regardless of whether one is shooting handheld or with a tripod, plus $1 million in liability insurance. If you explain that you are working on a small project, in my case a book, you will be told that the Council is used to dealing with major networks such as ABC and the Food Network, which of course carry liability insurance, and that it is not prepared to make an exception.

This is of course theoretical for the tourist or street photographer who wants to take quick snapshots at one of the 44 Greenmarkets. However, it is a very real problem for a photographer who wants to work in a way that makes him visible and quite possibly involves the use of a tripod. It means that if you go ahead, without the permit and the liability insurance, you are acting illegally, and are subject to being told at any time, either by a Greenmarket staff member or the police, to stop. Although it is unlikely to go this far, you are also subject to arrest. The net result is that you try to keep a low profile and work hand-held.

Now to the new proposed rules...

First, these rules, if enacted, will require still photographers, with certain exceptions, to have both a permit and $1 million in liability insurance to photograph anywhere in the city.

Secondly, the rules will apply to both professional and amateur photographers. Indeed, the Mayor's Office, in a gloss posted yesterday, acknowledges as much. What the Office says is that circumstances in which a permit is required should "be RARE for recreational photographers": http://www.nyc.gov/html/film/html/news/080107_proposed_permit_rules.shtml That depends a great deal on what the rules mean, which brings me to my final point.

My impression from reading the draft rules is that they are highly ambiguous. If they are not clarified, there is likely to be a great deal of confusion among enforcement officials about what they mean, and, consequently, confusion about when photographers are and are not in compliance. Equally importantly, there is likely to be a great deal of uncertainty among photographers about when they are and are not acting within the law.

Large format photographers who want to read the draft rules and try to figure out what they mean should be cognizant of the fact that the hand-held exception does not apply to a field or monorail camera, and should pay particular attention to the definitions of the words "equipment" and "interaction", the context in which the word 'tripod" is used and the odd, rather circular way in which the rules express what activities/circumstances do and do not require a permit and, hence, substantial liability insurance.

Andre Noble
4-Jul-2007, 21:02
F***ing terrorists from the Middle East ...Eliminate them and photography can continue...

Do you mean like spray them with Raid?

cyrus
4-Jul-2007, 21:45
I'm familiar with the current rules administered by the NYC Mayor's Office of Film, Theatre and Broadcasting, and am following debate on the proposed new rules, because they have a practical impact on a project on which I am working.

On a strict interpretation of the current rules, a still photographer must have a permit to shoot anywhere in the city. As a practical matter, people don't worry about this unless they want to use a tripod. More importantly, a still photographer, unlike a motion picture or television production house, is not obliged to carry $1 million in liability insurance.

However, there are exceptions because the Mayor's Office rules are supplemented by additional rules in many parts of the city that are under special jurisdiction, such as the subway system, parks, etc. For example, if one phones the Council on the Environment of New York City (http://www.cenyc.org/site/), which operates New York's 44 Greenmarkets (such as the one at Union Square), one will be told that one can use a still camera at a New York Greenmarket only if one has a permit, regardless of whether one is shooting handheld or with a tripod, plus $1 million in liability insurance. If you explain that you are working on a small project, in my case a book, you will be told that the Council is used to dealing with major networks such as ABC and the Food Network, which of course carry liability insurance, and that it is not prepared to make an exception.

This is of course theoretical for the tourist or street photographer who wants to take quick snapshots at one of the 44 Greenmarkets. However, it is a very real problem for a photographer who wants to work in a way that makes him visible and quite possibly involves the use of a tripod. It means that if you go ahead, without the permit and the liability insurance, you are acting illegally, and are subject to being told at any time, either by a Greenmarket staff member or the police, to stop. Although it is unlikely to go this far, you are also subject to arrest. The net result is that you try to keep a low profile and work hand-held.

Now to the new proposed rules...

First, these rules, if enacted, will require still photographers, with certain exceptions, to have both a permit and $1 million in liability insurance to photograph anywhere in the city.

Secondly, the rules will apply to both professional and amateur photographers. Indeed, the Mayor's Office, in a gloss posted yesterday, acknowledges as much. What the Office says is that circumstances in which a permit is required should "be RARE for recreational photographers": http://www.nyc.gov/html/film/html/news/080107_proposed_permit_rules.shtml That depends a great deal on what the rules mean, which brings me to my final point.

My impression from reading the draft rules is that they are highly ambiguous. If they are not clarified, there is likely to be a great deal of confusion among enforcement officials about what they mean, and, consequently, confusion about when photographers are and are not in compliance. Equally importantly, there is likely to be a great deal of uncertainty among photographers about when they are and are not acting within the law.

Large format photographers who want to read the draft rules and try to figure out what they mean should be cognizant of the fact that the hand-held exception does not apply to a field or monorail camera, and should pay particular attention to the definitions of the words "equipment" and "interaction", the context in which the word 'tripod" is used and the odd, rather circular way in which the rules express what activities/circumstances do and do not require a permit and, hence, substantial liability insurance.

Excellent post.

r.e.
5-Jul-2007, 06:12
The above URL for the Council on the Environment of New York City is correct, but does not link properly due to the brackets. This will work: http://www.cenyc.org/site/

The Mayor's Office of Film, Theatre and Broadcasting page that contains the July 3 gloss on the proposed rules has a link to the draft rules. This is a direct link to the proposed rules: http://www.nyc.gov/html/film/downloads/pdf/moftb_permit_regs.pdf

I find that this URL, which contains the site map for the Mayor's Office, is the easiest way to navigate the site: http://www.nyc.gov/html/film/html/home/site_map.shtml

It is perhaps helpful to understand that the principal function of the Mayor's Office is to promote and facilitate feature film and television production in New York. The concerns of still photographers, and service to still photographers (including, in my experience, the timely issuance of permits), are not necessarily high on its list of priorities.

Louie Powell
4-Aug-2007, 15:54
Good news in todays New York Times - the city has capitulated and agreed to rewrite their proposed rules.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/04/nyregion/04filmmakers.html

C. D. Keth
5-Aug-2007, 10:20
So how often does a cop really have the time to watch one or two shooters for more than a half-hour? The law is really made for production shoots or film shoots and I really doubt it will affect more than a few casual photogs hassled by bored asshole cops.

John Kasaian
6-Aug-2007, 23:41
This sounds likea job for---The Graphic Avenger! The famous 4x5 handheld 'f/8 and been there' supertog fighting oppressive tripod laws wherever they are found!

As Mae West once said to The Graphic Avenger:"Is that a Speed Graphic in your pants or are you glad to see me?"

Yes friends, The Graphic Avenger strikes like llightening wherever tripod laws raise their ugly heads.

As Alphonso Bedoya once said for The Graphic Avenger, when The Graphic Avenger couldn't speak because his mouth was full of Lindy's Cheesecake:" Tripod permit? I don't got to show you no stinking tripod permit!" ( The Graphic Avenger having good manners, doesn't talk with his mouth full)

Ha! The Graphic Avenger laughs at tripod permits! :cool: