City sued over limits on photography (article from today's (NJ) Bergen Record)

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Bob, Jan 11, 2006.

  1. Bob

    Ryan Robbins Guest

    I hope not. The First Amendment applies to such filming. The whole point of
    requiring permits for such ventures isn't to regulate the actual filming but
    to ensure that the filming doesn't interfere with the daily routine of
    others. If you can film what you need with a handheld camcorder and you
    don't need to stand in the middle of a street for long lengths of time to do
    it, and you don't require a sound technician and lighting equipment that
    would crowd the sidewalk or street, there's no reason for a permit.
    Ryan Robbins, Jan 11, 2006
    1. Advertisements

  2. At least you can tell them to get lost, without fear of arrest.
    Mike O'Sullivan, Jan 11, 2006
    1. Advertisements

  3. Bob

    Celcius Guest

    Same here when I went to New-York 2 years ago.
    Never once was I stopped, and I was taking photos continually all over
    the places I visited, some of which might have been deemed "sensible".
    Celcius, Jan 11, 2006
  4. Bob

    Celcius Guest

    ........of course, I meant "sensitive"...
    Celcius, Jan 11, 2006
  5. Bob

    BJ in Texas Guest

    ||| Here are some circumstances: your name is "Jeremy" and his
    ||| is "Rakesh Sharma."
    || True.
    || This story has the most details I was able to find:
    || Evidently he was filming the underpass at the MetLife
    || building at 39th and Park for half an hour, which might
    || justify a conversation but probably not detention.

    Depends on his reaction upon being questioned. A smartass or
    confrontational anwser would likely get him detained.

    || But his story about having a police officer charge at him,
    || shove him,
    || and grab the camera seems somewhat unlikely, without a whole
    || lot more circumstances.
    || Some of the reports make a point of noting that his
    || subsequent permit application for filming was denied, but no
    || one mentioned whether he has the required liability insurance
    || to get such a permit, so that doesn't have enough context to
    || be meaningful.
    || We also have no idea how he reacted to the police. He may
    || well have escalated the situation himself. I'd like to see
    || the police reports,
    || for the other side of the story.

    Likely there is a lot more than is being discussed in the
    BJ in Texas, Jan 11, 2006
  6. Bob

    BJ in Texas Guest

    || Jeremy Nixon wrote:
    ||| Private security guards are much worse than police. They
    ||| are, after all, just doing what they're told, and have no
    ||| interest in anything else.
    || At least you can tell them to get lost, without fear of
    || arrest.

    Not necessarily, ever been knocked along side the head and
    tossed out of someplace by a security guard?
    BJ in Texas, Jan 11, 2006
  7. Bob

    Paul Rubin Guest

    There are innumerable security cameras aimed at the streets in NYC,
    operated by banks and other businesses. Those are commercial ventures
    too. Where are their permits?
    Paul Rubin, Jan 11, 2006
  8. Per Jeremy Nixon:
    The few times I've been in NYC, the impression I got was that their force is
    weighted more heavily towards people who just wanted a job - as opposed to those
    who always had this desire to become a police officer. For my money, that's a
    good thing...
    (PeteCresswell), Jan 11, 2006

  9. I got tossed out of a lumber yard once... By the drunken owner no less!


    (They don't call Austin weird for nothing)
    Grumpy AuContraire, Jan 11, 2006
  10. Bob

    Paul J Gans Guest

    Permits are required when one intends to impede traffic,
    close streets, park where parking is normally not allowed,

    All sorts of folks use hand-held movie cameras on the
    streets of New York every day. They cause no problem.
    Just as the folks with the Canon dSLRs (who are everywhere)
    cause no problem when the stop suddenly, mutter that "they've
    got to get this shot" and proceed to do so.

    ---- Paul J. Gans
    Paul J Gans, Jan 11, 2006
  11. Bob

    Paul J Gans Guest

    Ha! There are a number of places in New York where taking
    pictures is not allowed. Someone just mentioned 1PP (aka
    One Police Plaza) which is Police Headquarters. I believe
    that the prohibition is posted.

    Another is taking rather pictures from our many bridges.
    That's forbidden (and posted) too.

    There are others as well.

    Of course all those prohibitions stop are folks who want
    to take a picture. I doubt they'd stop anyone else
    since a camera is fairly easy to disguise as a cell
    phone or PDA or what have you.

    ---- Paul J. Gans
    Paul J Gans, Jan 11, 2006
  12. Bob

    Lorem Ipsum Guest

    I was bullied by some union mopix suits in Chicago in the sixties. It did
    not go well for them at all. See, it was in the midst of a riot. Wearing a
    suit to a riot is like painting a target on your face.
    Lorem Ipsum, Jan 11, 2006
  13. Bob

    Paul J Gans Guest

    If he was charged there is no doubt whatsoever that he
    threatened the nice police man. Probably put the nice
    police man in fear of his life.

    He no doubt did this by being polite. New York city
    cops are not used to civilians being polite. The
    usual response is "Look M****r F****r, why aren't you
    out catching real criminals", followed by "I don't need
    no steeenkin permit" and a few things like that.

    The policeman, realizing that they have a fellow New Yorker
    under observation (and who is likely to have an uncle who
    is a Lieutenant on the force) discovers that he's late
    for end-of-shift at the Station House.

    ----- Paul J. Gans

    PS: For the humor-impaired ;-)
    Paul J Gans, Jan 11, 2006
  14. Bob

    Paul J Gans Guest

    Seriously, the New York City Police Force is really quite excellent.
    There are occasional real problems but in general they are very
    decent to folks.

    Anyone who was here on 9/11 or soon after got used to seeing the
    police doing duty in twos and threes with tears streaming down
    their faces.

    They sometimes get overzealous in not wanting to see it happen

    ---- Paul J. Gans
    Paul J Gans, Jan 11, 2006
  15. The ycan also be quite ill-informed. I dropped-off my wife outside of a
    store in a "No Parking" zone. I stayed in the car, which was running, in
    the No Parking zone. A shopping center security guard saw me, knocked on my
    window and informed me that I was not allowed to park there. I politely
    informed him that I was not "parked" but I was "Stopped" since I was in the
    car and the car was running. If the sign indicated "No Stopping" in
    addition to "No Parking" then I would not have remained there. He said
    they're "the same thing" and became abusive and threatened to have my car
    towed. Had he remained polite I would have moved on but I wasn't going ot
    at this point. I simply told him to go ahead and call the tow truck but
    he'd better have a police officer there to move me. The cop would have told
    him that I was not illegally parked and that would be the end of it.
    Peter A. Stavrakoglou, Jan 11, 2006
  16. The NYPD are underpaid for what they do, at least in comparison to the
    police on neighboring Long Island. after about five years on the job, a
    Long Island police officer hits six figures in salary, NYPD cops may get
    halfway to that point. They have a tougher job for a lot less money and
    many are college grads too.
    Peter A. Stavrakoglou, Jan 11, 2006
  17. Bob

    Jeremy Nixon Guest

    Sorry, that still counts. "No parking" means you can stop there while
    actually engaged in loading or unloading, or having passengers getting in
    or out of the car, but sitting there waiting is "parking".

    I frigging hate people who sit there in their car as if they're special.
    Jeremy Nixon, Jan 11, 2006
  18. Bob

    Jeremy Nixon Guest

    Which, in fairness to the people who end up getting harassed, is really
    pretty silly. There was nothing, not in the wildest stretches of the
    imagination, that NYPD could have done to prevent 9/11. It had nothing
    to do with them. And nothing they can do can prevent it from happening
    Jeremy Nixon, Jan 11, 2006
  19. Bob

    Jeremy Nixon Guest

    Their pay is actually pretty lousy for the first couple of years on the job.
    Jeremy Nixon, Jan 11, 2006
  20. Bob

    railfan Guest

    I wonder if at anytime, anywhere it has been shown that acts of
    terrorism were preceeded by the perpetrators taking photos of their
    interests before their actions? Did those who piloted the planes into
    the WTC take photos from the ground previously? Same with the
    Pentagon as an intended target? How about the train and subway
    bombers in Madrin and London? Did they need photos taken in plain site
    to plan their operations? Have any major structures, bridges or
    trains been imperiled by people taking photos?

    We keep on hearing of innocent people taking innocent photos being
    hassled for doing so. Are there any concrete reasons?

    One of my interests is trains. I take photos locally once in a while
    without any problems. But in this part of my hobby I've heard of all
    kinds of horror stories about innocent photographers being given a hard
    time and worse when trying to take photos of trains when on private
    property in daylight and in plain sight. No covert operations here at

    B. Boudreau
    railfan, Jan 11, 2006
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.