A TAX ON PHOTOGRAPHERS IN NY!

[T.Hogan]

:evil: I hope this doesn't pass. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/29/nyregion/29camera.html?ei=5090&en=71135caff6fefe6a&ex=1340769600&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=print

[freddyco]

Man it's tragic to watch what has happened to NYC in the past year or more. Regulating food ingredients... you can cross the street with an ipod... it used to be a great city. Now nyc is as over regulated and sterilized as much as the EU. Tragic to watch from afar.

[iMigraine]

That proposed bill is too general to be helpful. I sincerely hope it doesn't pass in New York, it would be a terrible infringement on the average photographer.

[Barb42]

What is the deal with these city governments wanting to control photographers all the time. What if someone stood there with a sketch pad? Whats a camera, if not an electronic sketch pad? Geez. Unbelievable.

[Steve Parr]

"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."

When I'm out shooting, I'm not normally in the same place for more than 15 minutes, much less a half hour. I can't imagine too many people staying in one place for that long.

Anytime anyone proposes anything that might possibly affect any particular group, that particular group reacts, usually, with far more vigor and vitriol than necessary.

Honestly, I don't see it as a big deal...

[howzitboy]

crazy law and i doubt it would pass. how on earth are all the millions of tourist going to get that permit? would take a dumb politician to think up something so stupid.

[Croasdail]

They have a similar law in London, and frankly it really isn't a big deal. Two or more people in a SINGLE location for more then an hour... common, how often do you really think that is going to apply. And if you are doing a professional shoot, big deal. Every other industry needs permits to do commercial work on public property, why not this. To me, this is much to do about nothing. For 99.9999% of photos taken on the streets of NYC, this will have no impact.

[T.Hogan]

To Steve Parr, "Not a big deal"? How bout a officer just having a bad day, and for some reason you are that photographer, this is a possible law that he must enforce. This would be a law that would have a broad range.
"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."

[Barb42]

To Steve Parr, "Not a big deal"? How bout a officer just having a bad day, and for some reason you are that photographer, this is a possible law that he must enforce. This would be a law that would have a broad range.
"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."

An excellent point. And all it takes is one officer who is in a bad mood or does't like the looks of someone.

[Croasdail]

Oh common, now were being silly. You could make that same argument about a "bad day cop" with just about any law. Requiring commercial photography or filming on public areas, particularly those that are as busy as they are in NYC is not an unreasonable request. And street shooting is often very disruptive of traffic flow. And the permit is free. Having insurance is just a smart thing to do if you plan on using the city streets to create your artwork. And it is a must if you are working professionally.

[*Mike*]

We have occassional shoots in NYC. In fact, you may have seen some of our Time Square Bridals... The city already requires a permit for commercial photography on public land - see here (http://www.nyc.gov/html/film/html/permits/still_photography.shtml)

I haven't had a chance to read this article yet, but I don't think it would have much of an impact on us...

[pos]

Boy am i glad i moved out of new york city. I can see getting a permit for shooting a film or some big company shooting pic's, but the way it is worded it could become a big problem. I quess you will have to wear roller blades so you can shoot on the move!!! pos

[Wilt]

"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."

When I'm out shooting, I'm not normally in the same place for more than 15 minutes, much less a half hour. I can't imagine too many people staying in one place for that long.

Anytime anyone proposes anything that might possibly affect any particular group, that particular group reacts, usually, with far more vigor and vitriol than necessary.

Honestly, I don't see it as a big deal...

You didn't read closely enough...if you were standing in line for a Broadway show with a camera over your shoulder (prior to entering, and checking the camera since they are restricted in theaters!), you just might be unable to use that camera. Or if you were sitting in a park watching a fireworks display with five of your friends, you just might be unable to use that camera.

[JCR]

It's to give the powers that be another way to detain someone anytime they want to.
Ambiguous laws are abundant nowadays including in UK, thats how paranoid governments like it.
In 100 yrs or less you will be detained for wearing blue shirts on a friday.

Flip side there are real dangers.... from long lenses, I mean someone could lose an eye ;)

[lostdoggy]

Before long the mayor will require a fart permit just to fart.

[danpass]

Well .... New York is an occupied state after all.







Its a lot different than when I grew up there.




_

[Croasdail]

The permits would be free and available on line... how exactly is this a tax?

[T.Hogan]

Granted it should be considered a permit, but why should you need a permit to photograph on public property. Didn't this start because someone looked different. Should one complaint from one or a few, be justified to create a law that would effect all. Instead of telling that one or the few to "get over it", some have become so politicaly correct and scared of getting sued that a senseless law could happen. Please tell me, is there just so many photographers in NYC, that there is a problem, for something like this to be needed? I coold understand a pro that sets up for an hour that could be a traffic problem. But say a family on a picknick in central park?
Could common sense work for this?

[Wilt]

I just figured out...the dark is leaking out of Rochester NY much too fast, and Kodak has determined that too many simultaneous open shutters is the cause, and the center of gravity of all this is in NYC

[Cyth0n]

Applying for a free online permit: 99% of people won't need to anyway but for those that do, it shouldn't be a lot of trouble. As someone already stated, every other industry needs to have a permit to work on public property.

Insurance: Any pros working on the streets should already have public liablility insurance, especially if they're using tripods et cetera.

Overzealous policemen: Ok, it gives them another bullet but it's not like they weren't armed to the teeth already.

Uncetrainty in the law: Not good :(. All good law needs to be clear and certain.

[Tom W]

I think that it's time for all New Yorkers on this site to write to their city representatives (and to that spineless mayor) about this issue. This is nothing but a tax - there is no permit needed to exercise ones' first-amendment rights. Selective taxation (which is what this is) is a tool they use to continually raise taxes while appearing to appeal to the majority of constituents. They drastically raised taxes on cigarettes because the majority doesn't smoke (and in fact cheered when it happened). Makes 'em look like a hero while they continue to fatten the government's coffers.

Old saying: "No tax for you, no tax for me - we'll tax the man behind the tree..."

[Steve Parr]

To Steve Parr, "Not a big deal"? How bout a officer just having a bad day, and for some reason you are that photographer, this is a possible law that he must enforce. This would be a law that would have a broad range.
"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."

Yes, no big deal.

You guys are acting like the SWAT team is going to swoop down on you if you try to take a picture.

Won't happen...

[Steve Parr]

You didn't read closely enough...if you were standing in line for a Broadway show with a camera over your shoulder (prior to entering, and checking the camera since they are restricted in theaters!), you just might be unable to use that camera. Or if you were sitting in a park watching a fireworks display with five of your friends, you just might be unable to use that camera.

Sorry, but I honestly believe common sense would prevail.

I really wouldn't worry about a cop giving me a hard time if I was waiting in line to see a Broadway show...

[Steve Parr]

I think that it's time for all New Yorkers on this site to write to their city representatives (and to that spineless mayor) about this issue. This is nothing but a tax - there is no permit needed to exercise ones' first-amendment rights. Selective taxation (which is what this is) is a tool they use to continually raise taxes while appearing to appeal to the majority of constituents. They drastically raised taxes on cigarettes because the majority doesn't smoke (and in fact cheered when it happened). Makes 'em look like a hero while they continue to fatten the government's coffers.

Old saying: "No tax for you, no tax for me - we'll tax the man behind the tree..."

My understanding is that the permit is free.

How is that a tax?

[Tom W]

My understanding is that the permit is free.

How is that a tax?

It's free if you don't count the time and effort required to get one. And, of course, it won't be free for long.

Nevertheless, the bulk of the visiting public in New York will not have a permit, having not been informed that the first amendment of the United States Constitution now requires explicit permission from the local constables. As such, they can be fined when, in fact, they have committed no real crime. And THAT is a tax.

And besides all that, what exactly is the purpose of this? Nothing of value can come from this.

[Croasdail]

And besides all that, what exactly is the purpose of this? Nothing of value can come from this.

The purpose is to keep impromptu photo and film shoots from setting up on city streets and public areas that would cause traffic or congestion. It happens all the time in the city. It gives the authorities the ability to clear out a situation that is causing issues for everyone else.

And no fine has been mentioned at all.... so that is not at tax. And even if there were a fine, that still is not a tax under any definition.

[Steve Parr]

It's free if you don't count the time and effort required to get one. And, of course, it won't be free for long.

Soooooooo... No money, no tax.

Got it...

Nevertheless, the bulk of the visiting public in New York will not have a permit, having not been informed that the first amendment of the United States Constitution now requires explicit permission from the local constables. As such, they can be fined when, in fact, they have committed no real crime. And THAT is a tax.

I was going to go out shooting today, but I fear the sky is falling...

And besides all that, what exactly is the purpose of this? Nothing of value can come from this.

I believe Croasdail explained it perfectly...

[blackshadow]

From my brief scanning of the article if it is passed it will only apply to groups working over a certain length of time of people not individuals. Groups usually implies an organised photo shoot of some sort.

Hardly anything to get your knickers in a knot over as the permit is free. If you are planning a photo shoot it's just another thing to factor in to planning.

[Tom W]

The purpose is to keep impromptu photo and film shoots from setting up on city streets and public areas that would cause traffic or congestion. It happens all the time in the city. It gives the authorities the ability to clear out a situation that is causing issues for everyone else.

That would be what the politicians are saying but like all things political, the net result is rarely what's presented to the populace. I say this after watching government at various levels for the last 30 years. This is just a small first step - it will grow, and it won't be favorable to those of us that enjoy photography. Fight it now, or wait until it's too big to defeat.

And realistically, is there a significant problem in New York that can't be handled with the present laws already on the books? It's not like cameras and crews are a new phenomenon. If they're blocking the road, arrest them for obstruction of traffic. If they're harassing people, nail them for that. I frankly don't see the need for this.

And no fine has been mentioned at all.... so that is not at tax. And even if there were a fine, that still is not a tax under any definition.

A fine becomes a de facto tax when it is levied for violating a sham law. This is realistically a sham law.

I know that many here disagree, but I rarely ever favor giving government an inch of additional authority, especially over something so mundane as this.

[Titus213]

Incremental creep! Sure, it's free now but then 5 years ago there wasn't even a free permit required. It's all about control. If they can control the sheep the wolves tend to have easier pickings. In the case of the US today the wolves have turned out to be the ones we've elected to protect the sheep. Or at least the ones who own the people we've elected.

[Longwatcher]

Okay let me get this straight,
The new law was written because they wrongly detained someone for shooting without a permit and so they are now writting a law that says you have to have a permit. Ignoring for a moment that what I read is under a lot of circumstances against the 1st admentment freedom of press.
I also don't care for the fact that apparently the city was not willing to work with the ACLU on clarifications to the law because the city apparently wants it deliberately broad in scope.

Rule #1 of any democracy - never, ever trust the government.

[zacker]

here we go again... they keep this up and NYC going to be like it was back in the 70's.. crime crime crime and more crime...I remember there was actually a time when you werent even safe at the Bronx Zoo!!! There (government) just going to run all the law abiding citizens and tourists out of the city and the only ones left will be the criminals and the cops trying to enforce laws on those who could care less!

[pepsi]

Ahhh... New York City! I have never visited, and this is another reason for me to stear clear of it.

The elected officials of NYC have all but stripped the 2nd amendment from the citizens, why not go ahead and rape the 1st amendment, also?

Remember, these "officials" didn't just fall from the sky, they were elected into power. These are the "officials" that the majority wanted.

[MueveloNYC]

NYC will require photography permits for all camera use in the city, including snapshots by tourists with the language of the new law being passed. Basically all photography will require you to also have proof of 1 million dollars of liability insurance as well to obtain a permit.

NY Times Coverage:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/29/nyregion/29camera.html?ei=5090&en=71135caff6fefe6a&ex=1340769600&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=print

It's bad enough I have to apply for a stupid tripod permit everytime I do a shoot!

NYC Civil Liberties Union's stance:
http://www.nyclu.org/pdfs/nyc_photo_permits_proposed_rules_052507.pdf

Send your letters of complaints to or call:
The NYC Mayor's Office of Film, Theatre & Broadcasting (MOFTB)
1697 Broadway, 6th Floor, entrance on 53rd Street
Phone (212) 489-6710

The elected officials of NYC have all but stripped the 2nd amendment from the citizens, why not go ahead and rape the 1st amendment, also?

BTW- I'm a pro-2nd amenendment, pistol license owner, and one of the few who own a firearm legally in Manhattan. For the record it was Guiliani AND Bloomberg that made concealed carry permits unobtainable for its citizens. Only businesses that transport a minimum of $10,000 in cash and cash equivalent are allowed to have CCW. Ownership is still easy, although a very time consuming process to get the initial pistol license for residence permise license.

[MueveloNYC]

also this law will allow them heavy abuse to detain anyone. I remember taking snapshots downtown not too long ago and NYPD made me delete all my photos becuase I was using an SLR without a permit. However, that turned out not neceessary as I was only taking photos. This will really screw over tourists, amateur/hobby photographers, freelance photographers that sell pictures to the newspapers, and your basic average Joe. Think about those open roof double decker tour buses in the city - that's a group of cameras, in a bus for longer than an hour. OMG terrorists detain them all! *rolleyes*

[MueveloNYC]

"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."

When I'm out shooting, I'm not normally in the same place for more than 15 minutes, much less a half hour. I can't imagine too many people staying in one place for that long.

Anytime anyone proposes anything that might possibly affect any particular group, that particular group reacts, usually, with far more vigor and vitriol than necessary.

Honestly, I don't see it as a big deal...

take a look again at the NYTimes article. Just mere possession may count as 30 minutes if you're just holding a camera. To give you an idea, to wait in line to go up to the Empire State building takes 1 hour. To get to the Rockafeller Center tree on Christmas takes 1 hour. To take the ferry to the Statue of Liberty and Ellis island takes more than 30 minutes a piece. A subway ride from Greenwich Village to Central Park takes 30 minutes. For most tourists, you'd be screwed. Even if you're alone, you carrying a camera for 30 minutes you'd be in volation with the way the wording of this law is as it stands (as it's broad and vague). Then there's those double decker tour buses again. (sorry for what looks like multiple posts... looks like a few threads got merged)

[Steve Parr]

take a look again at the NYTimes article. Just mere possession may count as 30 minutes if you're just holding a camera. To give you an idea, to wait in line to go up to the Empire State building takes 1 hour. To get to the Rockafeller Center tree on Christmas takes 1 hour. To take the ferry to the Statue of Liberty and Ellis island takes more than 30 minutes a piece. A subway ride from Greenwich Village to Central Park takes 30 minutes. For most tourists, you'd be screwed. Even if you're alone, you carrying a camera for 30 minutes you'd be in volation with the way the wording of this law is as it stands (as it's broad and vague). Then there's those double decker tour buses again. (sorry for what looks like multiple posts... looks like a few threads got merged)

Again, I think this is much ado about nothing.

If and when someone gets fined for standing in line to get to the Statue of Liberty, I'll change my mind. Until then, though, I see this as nothing more than complaints without basis, as I think very few people will actually be affacted by it...

[zacker]

well from reading this thread it would seem as the city is going to be outlawing all cameras in the big apple... something i find both deeply disturbing and downright crazy! How ever will they be abel to do this with all the bigger problems that arise there on a daily basis?

[Steve Parr]

How ever will they be abel to do this

They won't, and only hysteria is saying they are...

[zacker]

They won't, and only hysteria is saying they are...



yeah it would seem so..

How many cameras, including cell phone cams are there in the city.. i mean out on the street, at any given time? millions right? i dont know but it seems like an awfull hhuge undertaking to try and police ALL of them. How about the guys in Times square with the cameras and printers selling portraits for $5.00 apiece? are they to go back to washing windsheilds again?? lol

[Permagrin]

It does seem rather alarming that this is what they are attempting to do. Most pro's have insurance but most average people who travel and shoot don't. And I don't know about the rest of you but my husband and I shoot together in one spot sometimes for hours...I think it's just another unfortunately movement in the direction of legislating us to death.