GreenGrasshoppr

https://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/29/ny...anted=print&67

June 29, 2007
City May Seek Permit and Insurance for Many Kinds of Public Photography
By RAY RIVERA
Some tourists, amateur photographers, even would-be filmmakers hoping to make it big on YouTube could soon be forced to obtain a city permit and $1 million in liability insurance before taking pictures or filming on city property, including sidewalks.

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.

Nevertheless, the New York Civil Liberties Union says the proposed rules, as strictly interpreted, could have that effect. The group also warns that the rules set the stage for selective and perhaps discriminatory enforcement by police.

“These rules will apply to a huge range of casual photography and filming, including tourists taking snapshots and people making short videos for YouTube,” said Christopher Dunn, the group’s associate legal director.

Mr. Dunn suggested that the city deliberately kept the language vague, and that as a result police would have broad discretion in enforcing the rules. In a letter sent to the film office this week, Mr. Dunn said the proposed rules would potentially apply to tourists in places like Times Square, Rockefeller Center or ground zero, “where people routinely congregate for more than half an hour and photograph or film.”

The rule could also apply to people waiting in line to enter the Empire State Building or other tourist attractions.

The rules define a “single site” as any area within 100 feet of where filming begins. Under the rules, the two or more people would not actually have to be filming, but could simply be holding an ordinary camera and talking to each other.

The rules are intended to set standards for professional filmmakers and photographers, said Ms. Cho, assistant commissioner of the film office, but the language of the draft makes no such distinction.

“While the permitting scheme does not distinguish between commercial and other types of filming, we anticipate that these rules will have minimal, if any, impact on tourists and recreational photographers, including those that use tripods,” Ms. Cho said in an e-mail response to questions.

Mr. Dunn said that the civil liberties union asked repeatedly for such a distinction in negotiations on the rules but that city officials refused, ostensibly to avoid creating loopholes that could be exploited by professional filmmakers and photographers.

City officials would not confirm that yesterday. But Mark W. Muschenheim, a lawyer with the city’s law department, which helped draft the rules, said, “There are few instances, if any, where the casual tourist would be affected.”

The film office held a public hearing on the proposed rules yesterday, but no one attended. The only written comments the department received were from the civil liberties group, Ms. Cho said.

Ms. Cho said the office expected to publish a final version of the rules at the end of July. They would go into effect a month later.

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.

Mr. Dunn says that in addition to the rules being overreaching, they would also create enforcement problems.

“Your everyday person out there with a camcorder is never going to know about the rules,” Mr. Dunn said. “It completely opens the door to discriminatory enforcement of the permit requirements, and that is of enormous concern to us because the people who are going to get pointed out are the people who have dark skin or who are shooting in certain locations.”

The rules were promulgated as a result of just such a case, Mr. Dunn said.

In May 2005, Rakesh Sharma, an Indian documentary filmmaker, was using a hand-held video camera in Midtown Manhattan when he was detained for several hours and questioned by police.

During his detention, Mr. Sharma was told he was required to have a permit to film on city property. According to a lawsuit, Mr. Sharma sought information about how permits were granted and who was required to have one but found there were no written guidelines. Nonetheless, the film office told him he was required to have a permit, but when he applied, the office refused to grant him one and would not give him a written explanation of its refusal.

As part of a settlement reached in April, the film office agreed to establish written rules for issuing permits. Mr. Sharma could not be reached for comment yesterday.

Mr. Dunn said most of the new rules were reasonable. Notably, someone using a hand-held video camera, as Mr. Sharma was doing, would no longer have to get a permit.

maddyfish

I wonder how this would apply to bike-mounted cameras that are used when riding on the street? For example this guy https://www.youtube.com/user/lfreedman500

GreenGrasshoppr

my guess is the police would not only seize the camera, but the bicycle as well

maddyfish

Well from what I've seen all it takes to get your bike siezed in NYC is to ride it, or park it. And if the cops don't steal it, some thief will. It is a real shame, it should be the perfect city for biking.

joejack951

If it's a single person filming, and not a crew or two or more, the rule doesn't apply from what I've read. I don't see how this applies to Critical Mass, other than a slippery slope argument.

GreenGrasshoppr

What about this part?

Nevertheless, the New York Civil Liberties Union says the proposed rules, as strictly interpreted, could have that effect. The group also warns that the rules set the stage for selective and perhaps discriminatory enforcement by police

joejack951

Are you saying this applies to Critical Mass somehow or that it applies to the bike mounted camera?

If the bike mounted camera, a single person on a bike with a camera is not "any group of two or more people who want to use a camera in a single public location for more than a half hour..." thus this new rule does not apply. Also "The rules define a “single site” as any area within 100 feet of where filming begins" which I interpret as you can film with a crew so long as you are move more than 100 feet away from where you started in a half hour.

If Critical Mass is what you were referring to, then the last part of the quote you posted is simply a slippery slope type argument which is what I suggested. I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with that argument just stating that this rule does not directly affect Critical Mass in any way I can think of.

GreenGrasshoppr

CMs like to take photos and videos, don't they?

joejack951

I don't know. It's certainly not a critical part of their demonstration, is it? They also move more than 100 feet in a half hour, at least I hope they do.

Eli_Damon

Even without considering discrimination, this law is a total violation of constitutional rights.

Bikepacker67

This won't pass constitutional muster.

CB HI

It is NYC, they do not pay attention to the Constitution or many of the amendments.

Cyclaholic

Wow, I'd expect this sort of law to exist in Nazi Germany of the 30's and 40's not New York in 2007.

Suttree

This seems like some law school 1L fact pattern that
screams to be written up as a prior restraint--
an illegal bar to expressive activity that functions to
stop protected expression before it can occur. . .
hope somebody like the ACLU puts the kibosh on this
booolsheeit.

dobber

Anything that disrupts CM is fine with me

donnamb 

Banning all bike riding in NYC would disrupt CM- would that be ok with you? I'm not a big fan of CM myself, but in this instance, I'm following 'ole Ben's lead:

"They that would give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Stacy

It is curious that the Mayor's Office of Film, etc would come up with a "new rule" such as this, so soon after Times-Up, the closest thing to a sponsor of NYC CM, has started a photo unit. And since it's a "new rule" as opposed to an actual law, it bypasses the usual democratic process. Of course these new rules would also put a real quash on documenting NYPD's bike removal raids too.

Here's the New York CIvil Liberties Union response

wheel

I don't think this will pass.

If it does I it will be in SC

On a more interesting note.

Every CCTV Camera recording the public place would need to adhere to the same thing?

trackhub

You are probably correct. I'm no lawyer, so I don't know for certain though. Anyone with a law background care to comment? If the point of this law is to make tourists want to forget about coming to NYC, well this is one thing that should do that.

Daily Commute

Translation: The NYPD will only enforce this against people who annoy the NYPD.

Suttree

Yeah (lawyer here)--see my post above. The issue breaks down like this:
1) filming or taking photos is part of an expressive activity of creating art--which is protected expression
under the 1st Amendment.
2) Laws, even permitting requirements, that are extremely onerous or prohibitive of expression before it can occur are often illegal because they stifle expression before it may occur or the legality of the expression can be determined. The legalese for this is a "prior restraint." There is a continuum from
simple permitting requirements that are easily obtained without excessive discretion given to the dispensing authority and permits that are so disproportionate in their burden to the goal they seek to achieve and the stifling effect they have that these latter rules are illegal prior restraints.

Under these facts ["tourists, amateur photographers, even would-be filmmakers hoping to make it big on YouTube could soon be forced to obtain a city permit and $1 million in liability insurance before taking pictures or filming on city property, including sidewalks. 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 permitting requirement could be so expensive that it would stifle creative acts before it occurs. One million $ in insurance would be more than the casual photographer or film artist could afford. Someone could then be induced to desist from their project before they even start. Benign expressive activity stifled by BS municipal permitting = NYC in federal court getting their a$$ handed to them on a constitutional platter.

Daily Commute

The protesters and the ACLU get $$$ after they win a lawsuit, but in the mean time, the NYPD gets to act like totalitarian thugs. A win-win.

bhtooefr

You know... the way that reads... if two people are standing around, and one person is yakking on a camera phone, technically THAT counts, if those same two people standing around with a camera counts.

Scary.

As for documenting the NYPD bicycle raids, just do it as one person, or stop the camera every 29 minutes, move 100 feet, start again.

donnamb 

+100. I may not be all that fond of CM, but that's some essential liberty that I'm just not willing to give up without a fight. My feelings about that are far stronger than my negative impression of CM, that's for sure.

nmanhipot

For a socialist country, we DO have a lot of Naziesque laws. The contrast really is startling.