Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: RicAgu on July 31, 2007, 11:12:34 pm
-
LINKED FROM THE APA
http://www.pictureny.org/petition/index.php (http://www.pictureny.org/petition/index.php)
The Mayor's office in New York City is seeking to instate a new rule that would require permits and proof of insurance for any group of 2 or more persons using a camera in a public area. The regulations would require that anyone using a tripod or shooting in one location for more than 30 minutes (including set-up and break down time) must obtain permits and show proof of insurance of at least 1 million dollars per occurrence. Read more about the new rules here: http://www.nyc.gov/html/film/html/news/080...mit_rules.shtml (http://www.nyc.gov/html/film/html/news/080107_proposed_permit_rules.shtml)
We all need to act now to fight these proposed regulations which will place absurd restrictions on the freedom to photograph in New York City's public spaces.
This affects not only professional photographers but the First Amendment rights of anyone with a camera to spontaneously document what happens on the streets of this city.
Due to pressure from advocacy groups, the Mayor's Office has agreed to extend the period that it will allow public commentary until August 3rd.
Picture New York has initiated an online petition opposing the new rules, which over 12,000 indidivuals have signed so far. The petition is closing on August 3rd. Please take a moment to sign if you have not already done so.
Link to the petition: http://www.pictureny.org/petition/index.php (http://www.pictureny.org/petition/index.php)
You can also voice your concerns directly to:
Julianne Cho
Associate Commissioner
Mayor's Office of Film, Theatre & Broadcasting
1697 Broadway
New York, NY 10019
jcho@film.nyc.gov
ph: 212.489.6710
fax: 212.307.6237
Thanks for your attention and please continue to spread the word about this important matter!
-
Wow! This is big brother at its worse!
I live in Philly and go to NYC a few times a year for shows and to attend the PhotoPlus Expo trade show, usually in Oct. I always carry a camera for street photography.
I signed the petition and encourage everyone to do the same, even if you never plan on going to NYC. It's that important.
Bud James
-
Wow! This is big brother at its worse!
I live in Philly and go to NYC a few times a year for shows and to attend the PhotoPlus Expo trade show, usually in Oct. I always carry a camera for street photography.
I signed the petition and encourage everyone to do the same, even if you never plan on going to NYC. It's that important.
Bud James
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=130985\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I did, I plan to go to NY within the next 5 years
-
I signed this petition and will go on other boards and suggest members do as well. This is definitely an incursion of free right of speech.
John
-
Devils advocate... Do you not think that these rules are proposed for pros using public areas for their model/architecture etc work? Doesn't seem that it would affect a street snapper. Would you not think just as any contractor in a public area that you should have public liabiltiy insurance?
Ros
-
Devils advocate... Do you not think that these rules are proposed for pros using public areas for their model/architecture etc work? Doesn't seem that it would affect a street snapper. Would you not think just as any contractor in a public area that you should have public liabiltiy insurance?
Ros
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=131159\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
So much shooting in NYC is people doing tests and spec work as well as students where there not going to make any money at all. Making these people have million dollar insurance seems a little excessive to me. When you add that to the fact that theres very few fashion mags in NY that aren't just for superstars and you may find the city falling further behind London from a creative standpoint.
-
Devils advocate... Do you not think that these rules are proposed for pros using public areas for their model/architecture etc work? Doesn't seem that it would affect a street snapper. Would you not think just as any contractor in a public area that you should have public liabiltiy insurance?
Ros
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=131159\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I think it's a good point. But while they are aimed at pros exploiting public space for their own wallets, how bright is the average police officer or security guard? They'll see a street snapper or tourist using a tripod or a camera with a zoom lens, the rusty mental cogs will click forward a notch, and they'll lurch into hassle mode.
John
-
how bright is the average police officer or security guard?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=131171\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Probably about as bright as the average photographer.
-
Probably about as bright as the average photographer.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=131191\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
That's probably true. So?
-
I hate to say it but after dealing with (or being dealt with I should say) numerous security types I think there a bunch of nit wits who enjoy nothing more than ****ing with you. There are exceptions to the rule of course.
-
Devils advocate... Do you not think that these rules are proposed for pros using public areas for their model/architecture etc work? Doesn't seem that it would affect a street snapper. Would you not think just as any contractor in a public area that you should have public liabiltiy insurance?
Ros
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=131159\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
There seems to be some murkiness to this proposed new rule, and how much it applies to filmmakers and how much it applies to photographers. I signed the Petition, but just to support having more conversation about it.
What is true is: Yes, photographers are using public property to "profit", (whether there's profit in it or not, but that's another conversation). They are using public land to conduct their business, and that business is a for-profit business, for the most part.
If you think "a million dollar policy coverage" is overkill, I'd suggest anyone to think again. If a C-Stand blew over, or a mike boom stand, and it hit someone in the head or face, a million dollars won't go far, in attorney's fees and medical bills.
All I'm saying is: Things Happen. Things blow over. People trip over things. People fall down. If it's your tripod leg that the little old lady falls over, you'd best be covered, whether you're a veteran pro, or a first-year NYU student. It's just the responsible thing to do. Again, you ARE on public land.
Just one opinion.
-
There seems to be some murkiness to this proposed new rule, and how much it applies to filmmakers and how much it applies to photographers. I signed the Petition, but just to support having more conversation about it.
What is true is: Yes, photographers are using public property to "profit", (whether there's profit in it or not, but that's another conversation). They are using public land to conduct their business, and that business is a for-profit business, for the most part.
If you think "a million dollar policy coverage" is overkill, I'd suggest anyone to think again. If a C-Stand blew over, or a mike boom stand, and it hit someone in the head or face, a million dollars won't go far, in attorney's fees and medical bills.
All I'm saying is: Things Happen. Things blow over. People trip over things. People fall down. If it's your tripod leg that the little old lady falls over, you'd best be covered, whether you're a veteran pro, or a first-year NYU student. It's just the responsible thing to do. Again, you ARE on public land.
Just one opinion.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=131214\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I think part of what pushes the rule over the edge is that it does apply to EVERYONE. Mark, you left the word "professional" out of your description and so did the city of New York. Most photographers do not shoot for profit. Most are not professional.
In the years before being professional I used to do a lot of night photography, on a tripod, more than a half hour in a location, all NOT for profit. New York is looking to make this illegal. A seventeen year old with a four by five shooting 'art' would be required to scout, get a permit, and an insurance certificate for each location (I would usually shoot at five in one night). Sooo practical.
As for true commercial production or professional photography your advice is 100% right on, but aren't the professionals required to get permits and insurance anyway? When was the last time you shot a job without insurance or a permit?
-
Probably unintentional but the petition only registers people with a US zip code?
I would like to believe that NYC is still considered the most international city in the world, no?
Yair
-
I have no problem requiring permits and insurance. I think the rule should be modified to read 3 people not 2. How many artist, students or amateurs go out with 3 people.
-
In the years before being professional I used to do a lot of night photography, on a tripod, more than a half hour in a location, all NOT for profit. New York is looking to make this illegal. A seventeen year old with a four by five shooting 'art' would be required to scout, get a permit, and an insurance certificate for each location (I would usually shoot at five in one night).
All I'm saying is, if you're shooting on public property, (and a sidewalk is that), with a tripod, is it worth risking your house for an image? Of course, if it's at night, and it's an obscure area, of course, you're going to take the risk, because the risk is minimal.
And were you shooting for "yourself', Eric, as in, you never had any plans on selling prints yourself, or in a gallery? Because once you begin selling prints, you become a for-profit enterprise, and you've got to drop the "I'm just an artist, man" complaint. That would even apply to a fine-art student in Manhattan, because they are laying the groundwork for a career in print sales.
You might say, "Hey, what does a student have to risk, they don't own a house?", which is true, but their parents might, and if a suit happened, for sure, the parents would be named, if the parent was footing the bill for that NYU education.
It's just that I've seen these "sidewalk film productions" on the streets of Manhattan, and you know, many times, they're just, as they say, "trashing the location", as in, no one applied for a permit, but there they are, on a windy day, with a boom for a microphone, and maybe an HMI on a stand, ready to blow over and hit some kid in the head.
All I"m suggesting is, think about the risk. All it takes is one guy tripping over an extension cord coming out of that tiny Honda generator, or one gust of wind blowing over a C-stand, and you find yourself in a legal nightmare that could go on for months. Especially in this sue-happy country of ours.
-
I have no problem requiring permits and insurance. I think the rule should be modified to read 3 people not 2. How many artist, students or amateurs go out with 3 people.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=131245\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I don't know what all the rules are for? It's O.K. to restrict the rights of artist, students, and amateurs on the basis that they likely would not exercise their rights in the first place?
I suppose the next time I'm in Central Park I'll have to watch out for all those dangerous amateur tripods everywhere. If anyone is shooting with a tripod I'll stop a police officer and make sure those dangerous people have proper insurance.
Maybe it's just me, but I'm more likely to get hit by a frisbee, bicycle, or bit by a dog. Are all those people required to have permits and liability insurance for their activities? Why not? What differentiates these people from amateur photographers?
Again, there are already rules regarding insurance and permits for commercial photography. Do you think there should be more rules John? Have you been having problems with rogue groups of amateur photographers at your local park? These rules are for everyone. There is nothing that refers to commercial or for-profit activity.
-
All I'm saying is, if you're shooting on public property, (and a sidewalk is that), with a tripod, is it worth risking your house for an image? Of course, if it's at night, and it's an obscure area, of course, you're going to take the risk, because the risk is minimal.
And were you shooting for "yourself', Eric, as in, you never had any plans on selling prints yourself, or in a gallery? Because once you begin selling prints, you become a for-profit enterprise, and you've got to drop the "I'm just an artist, man" complaint. That would even apply to a fine-art student in Manhattan, because they are laying the groundwork for a career in print sales.
You might say, "Hey, what does a student have to risk, they don't own a house?", which is true, but their parents might, and if a suit happened, for sure, the parents would be named, if the parent was footing the bill for that NYU education.
It's just that I've seen these "sidewalk film productions" on the streets of Manhattan, and you know, many times, they're just, as they say, "trashing the location", as in, no one applied for a permit, but there they are, on a windy day, with a boom for a microphone, and maybe an HMI on a stand, ready to blow over and hit some kid in the head.
All I"m suggesting is, think about the risk. All it takes is one guy tripping over an extension cord coming out of that tiny Honda generator, or one gust of wind blowing over a C-stand, and you find yourself in a legal nightmare that could go on for months. Especially in this sue-happy country of ours.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=131247\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
It is great for people to understand the risks involved in leaving their house. Of course it is risky setting up a tripod on a busy sidewalk where everyone is staring down at their iPhone instead of looking where they are walking. I think your advice about liability, risk, and insurance is very good.
I believe these rules were written with the "sidewalk film productions" in mind, but without ever specifying that in writing. Instead, they are written as a big dragnet, hoping that by stopping anyone from using a tripod they might snare a few rogue commercial productions in the process.
-
I'm not especially fond of these restrictions either, but having just read the actual rules, they don't appear to be as restrictive as some have suggested. Here's what I think I read:
- A permit is required if there are 5 or more people using a single tripod based device for more than 10 minutes.
- A permit is required if there are 2 or more people using a hand held device for more than 30 minutes.
That suggests to me that a single photographer with a tripod isn't effected by these rules at all. That would seem to cover most amateur's.
I can't get too excited about the city requiring pros to get a license and to have adequate insurance (these seem like reasonable expectations), so long as these rules don't spill over and impact amateurs. And from what I've read, it appears the city has made a good faith effort to avoid impacting amateurs.
Of course, any rule can, and will, be abused. And that's reason enough to worry about this proposed rule change - not necessarily for what it says, but for how the cop on the beat is going to interpret it.
Just my opinion.
-
Mort54 I agree 100% I think you might be misunderstanding the rules Eric. Did you read the NYC web page? The rules are based on misuse of the system and a lawsuit, not to bag on photographers. It even states its not looking to go after amateurs. Any production should take the 5 min it takes to get a permit in NYC. I have had a permit in the past and its a no brainer at no cost.
All the city is asking, if you shoot with 2 or more people with equipment on a production get a permit. I know a lot of photographers who shoot big commercial jobs with no safety or permits involved.
I still think the number should be raised to 3.
P.S. Eric congratulations on number two
-
I read in another forum last month that some cities in Australia ban photography in public areas like parks. There, it is a privacy matter. People just don't like having their pictures taken in public, down under. That's all I have on it -- just thought I'd throw it in.
-
Wow, I guess it was a good time to take that 300+ megapixel panorama of Manhattan when I was there last fall... I spent about 2 hours with a tripod in one location, which would've really put me over the limit. And to think the string of photos they could've confiscated from my memory cards, spanning Central Park and Grand Central Station through Wall Street and Brooklyn Bridge.
In a mostly unrelated note, I had the opportunity to talk to some guys from NYFD - it was a really nice opportunity to talk to some real world heroes in these days when Paris Hilton and her ilk occupy the headlines.
-
The law would not apply for 1 person. Did you even read the law?
Wow, I guess it was a good time to take that 300+ megapixel panorama of Manhattan when I was there last fall... I spent about 2 hours with a tripod in one location, which would've really put me over the limit. And to think the string of photos they could've confiscated from my memory cards, spanning Central Park and Grand Central Station through Wall Street and Brooklyn Bridge.
In a mostly unrelated note, I had the opportunity to talk to some guys from NYFD - it was a really nice opportunity to talk to some real world heroes in these days when Paris Hilton and her ilk occupy the headlines.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=133199\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
New York used to be the Empire State. Now it is the Quagmire State. A rule and a regulation for everything...single...thing.
If this is passed, my reasons for going to New York City will have gone to absolutely zero.
-
I have just come back from a night shoot on the alley streets beneath Canal Street. We photographed for ~4 hours with a crew of 6 and the band we were shooting. We had all the C stands, laptops, lighting and rig we needed and ran into no problems at all.
People came to watch and enjoy it, and the tenants in all parts of the surrounding buildings were very nice and non-chalant about the whole thing.
We were very kind and respectable to everyone and everyone had professional liability insurance.
I have not read the new law code specifically, and was warned that something bad could happen, but everything was fine tonight. All good here
p
-
The law would not apply for 1 person. Did you even read the law?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=133311\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Why do you ask questions you know the answer to? I have near-zero interest in laws that don't apply to me.
-
One of the problems that this would pose for some of us from abroad is the insurance thing.
My professional insurance, which is worldwide with up to £5 million liability, has now taken the US off it's cover. Period.
Whilst I would always seek correct insurance for a pro shoot, I'll be damned if i'm phoning up and paying a premium everytime I nip out with my camera to do some personal work. It's just not practical for starters.
The insane US obsession with compensation culture has a lot to answer for IMO (it's also starting to get bad in the UK as well.)
-
I think some people have their head in the sand here. The precise wording of the new rules are not as important as the fact there are new rules to arbitrarily enforce and cite and misinterpret. I was in new york last week shooting with one Hassey and one tripod, by myself, and was kicked out of the Path platform at Ground Zero ("tripods not allowed") Bryant Park ("need permission from Bryant Park Association") and, of all places, Battery Park ("move along, you are disrupting traffic." I wasn't, and when I protested: "get permission from the Battery Park Police Headquarters"). I'm not picking on New York--it's worse in DC where I live--but the fact is that police and security guards are able to force you out by citing these rules and regs, real or not, and one is powerless to resist unless you want to make a principled stand from jail.
-
Yet another reason not to visit that.... (to be polite) place....