City May Seek Permit and Insurance for Many Kinds of Public Photography

Uhoh, here we go.... Just stumbled across this on Drudge Report...

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/29/ny...gewanted=print

So if its intended for "professional" photographers, I guess you better not try to sell something you shot while on public property.
This subject seems to be coming up more frequently all the time.
I heard a popular radio host in Seattle say a photographer wouldn't leave with his camera if he happened to catch his kid's image while shooting in a public park.

This was my favorite part :mad2:

Quote:

---

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 part about sidewalks being City property caught my eye. This is the first time I have seen this idea.

Many lawsuits in the past have taken the approach that a person cannot control his/her image in public places like the street therefore it is OK to do pictures of other people - provided of course that the photographer doesn't make a nuisance of him/herself, use an overly intrusive telephoto lens and of course doesn't publish the image.

Once the subject is on private ground then the image is protected, even if the photographer is on public property. Private ground includes anywhere there are rules and regulations that may forbid people taking pictures, including "public" parks, buses, subways, shopping malls, etc.

If the City now claims they own the sidewalks - why not the street itself? Everything becomes private property. You wouldn't be able to do photos anywhere. This is obviously wrong.

If the city owns the sidewalk, perhaps they should shovel the snow from it in the winter. :) This is just getting insane...

Surely, if the city owns the sidewalk your all tresspassing on the way to work :lol:

Roger

Things of this nature really chaps my ass.. I have had problems with a local elementary school telling my kids they can't play on the basketball courts on weekends or on holidays / school vacations. Here's what I don't get.. How can somewhere that was built with public funds be considered "private" property? I ask the same question of "public" sidewalks..

Good article. Thanks for sharing.

Quote:

---

“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.

---

Quote:

---

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.

---

There's the rub, from my point of view. If you want to regulate the profession, fine. Be clear, be concise, draw your lines.

"The officer didn't like what you were doing, so he charged you. It's within the guidelines." See now, that's just a bit too vague for me.

Color me pessimistic about giving police "broad discretion in enforcing the rules". However, I do like Ms. Cho's use of the word "scheme". It's so rare that one sees that kind of candor from an assistant commisioner.

- Joe U.