Can't Photograph In NYC Any Longer!

RolandTD20Kdrummer

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

I don't see anything wrong with this.
If you have a problem with it, it's probably because you're a terrorist, anyhow.

:rolleyes:

hehe..

but of of course...stop questioning everything.

honestly though...what idiot actually says that?

This one just gets me... 10 mins? That's like saying the cops have essentially instant intervention by the time everything gets setup and moving.

assholes...

g under p

butters wrote:

"Under the new rules, any filming or photography involving “an interaction among two or more people at a single site for thirty or more minutes, including all set up and breakdown time” would have to obtain a permit and one million dollars in insurance. The permit and insurance regulations would also apply to any “interaction among five or more people” using a tripod for more than ten minutes at a single location."

Come on.... if you are going to complain about freedoms and such, it is your duty to READ THE ENTTIRE ARTICLE to find out what its about. As described above, this does nto effect a single person with a camcorder or camera in any way whatsoever. It may still suck, but no one who has posted can say why since they clearly know nothing about it.

In I didn't read the article, however I did listen to the entire article on my way to work. Here's a bit more on the article on what's it about:

"AMY GOODMAN: Let's talk about what exactly the regulations are. Ten minutes, what have you got, Chris Dunn, New York Civil Liberties Union?

CHRISTOPHER DUNN: It’s a very straightforward rule: if you are using a handheld device, camera, still camera or video camera, and you’re with at least one other person, in any form of interaction, in a single location for more than thirty minutes, under the rules, you’d have to get a permit and you’d have to get a million dollars of insurance. In addition --

AMY GOODMAN: If you’re just hanging out on the sidewalk videoing.

CHRISTOPHER DUNN: You’re hanging out on the sidewalk, whether it’s the sidewalk in front of your home, Times Square, Ground Zero, standing in line in the Empire State Building, you would have to get a permit and insurance.

AMY GOODMAN: If you’re an independent reporter who’s there, and you're covering, say, the Republican convention and you’re covering the police interaction with the protesters, they could arrest you for not having a million dollars in insurance?

CHRISTOPHER DUNN: They could arrest you for not having a million dollars of insurance, that’s correct. Basically, this opens the door to unlimited police interactions with photographers and filmmakers, because under these proposed rules, if they were passed, basically everyone with a camera, including everyone with a cell phone, would be someone who might have to have a permit to do photography. And you can just envision the sort of interactions that are going to take place.

AMY GOODMAN: Ten minutes.

CHRISTOPHER DUNN: Ten minutes.

AMY GOODMAN: Including setting up and breaking down?"

Maybe YOU should reread the article or LISTEN carefully like did on my way to work.

I took care of the matter on the previous page, thanks RTKdrummer.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

g under p wrote:

I took care of the matter on the previous page, thanks RTKdrummer.

There's nothing worse than someone who has failed to effectively absorb the information, pointing fingers that other people are guilty of the same?!

agghhh! needles in my brain!

lol

VictoryGin

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

Did you watch the vid? They mention the use of cell phone cams as well.

Who watched and listened to what again?

who uses a cellphone to film 30 minutes of material?

let's see:
Under the new rules, any filming or photography involving “an interaction among two or more people at a single site for thirty or more minutes, including all set up and breakdown time” would have to obtain a permit and one million dollars in insurance. The permit and insurance regulations would also apply to any “interaction among five or more people” using a tripod for more than ten minutes at a single location.

what this seems to hurt most are independent filmakers with no money or maybe journalists for a major event. it looks like the city is just trying to get more money from insurance and maybe not block a potentially high-traffic area for too long without knowing so they can plan for it. the new rules mention a *single site*. it's enough dealing with all the tourists blocking the sidewalks and walking too slowly. to think of people also filming something in one area for 30 minutes too . . .

it's not like they're limiting the use of tourists taking snapshots of the corporate glory of times square or a photographer who wants to shoot a building.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

VictoryGin wrote:

who uses a cellphone to film 30 minutes of material?

let's see:
Under the new rules, any filming or photography involving “an interaction among two or more people at a single site for thirty or more minutes, including all set up and breakdown time” would have to obtain a permit and one million dollars in insurance. The permit and insurance regulations would also apply to any “interaction among five or more people” using a tripod for more than ten minutes at a single location.

what this seems to hurt most are independent filmakers with no money or maybe journalists for a major event. it looks like the city is just trying to get more money from insurance and maybe not block a potentially high-traffic area for too long without knowing so they can plan for it. the new rules mention a *single site*. it's enough dealing with all the tourists blocking the sidewalks and walking too slowly. to think of people also filming something in one area for 30 minutes too . . .

it's not like they're limiting the use of tourists taking snapshots of the corporate glory of times square or a photographer who wants to shoot a building.

or hand held video cam...have you watched the vid or read the clarification in this post itself? hint it's in red... a few posts up...

with 5 people it's 10 mins.

Are you actually trying to defend and justify this nonsense legislation? that would be interesting in and of itself...

VictoryGin

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

or hand held video cam...have you watched the vid or read the clarification in this post itself? hint it's in red... a few posts up...

with 5 people it's 10 mins.

Are you actually trying to defend and justify this nonsense legislation? that would be interesting in and of itself...

yeah. i read the red. it is still 30 minutes in a single location. that doesn't change what i think. and even with 5 people and 10 minutes---i think that goes to show more that it is about a crowd in a single space. and in new york city on what could be an already crowded sidewalk, i don't really see the huge problem with the permit alone. the cost however, may be another thing.

and i'm not really trying to defend this because i don't really care.

Drowned Out

VictoryGin wrote:

who uses a cellphone to film 30 minutes of material?.

the way this reads, you don't have to be filming the whole time...just being there, stationary, using a camera, makes you subject to the rule. What cop is going to stand there and wait 30 minutes if they want you to move...they'd ask for the permit first (then wait 30 mins?), or they'd have to rely on the word of someone saying it had been 30 minutes? How is this enforced fairly without wasting an insane amount of police time?

VictoryGin wrote:

let's see:
Under the new rules, any filming or photography involving “an interaction among two or more people at a single site for thirty or more minutes, including all set up and breakdown time” would have to obtain a permit and one million dollars in insurance. The permit and insurance regulations would also apply to any “interaction among five or more people” using a tripod for more than ten minutes at a single location.

what this seems to hurt most are independent filmakers with no money or maybe journalists for a major event. .

Do you not find that mainstream media is lacking in honest, unbiased coverage? If you do, can you justify any law that is potentially detrimental to independant filmaking and journalism, and their freedom of expression?

VictoryGin wrote:

it looks like the city is just trying to get more money from insurance .

Does the city of New York collect insurance premiums for this, or privately held corps? Am I missing what you're saying here?

VictoryGin wrote:

and maybe not block a potentially high-traffic area for too long without knowing so they can plan for it. the new rules mention a *single site*. it's enough dealing with all the tourists blocking the sidewalks and walking too slowly. to think of people also filming something in one area for 30 minutes too . . .

it's not like they're limiting the use of tourists taking snapshots of the corporate glory of times square or a photographer who wants to shoot a building.

it's not like it...but they could if they wanted to. It's too vague.
Do you not see the potential for abuse of this?

Drowned Out

VictoryGin wrote:

yeah. i read the red. it is still 30 minutes in a single location. that doesn't change what i think. and even with 5 people and 10 minutes---i think that goes to show more that it is about a crowd in a single space. and in new york city on what could be an already crowded sidewalk, i don't really see the huge problem with the permit alone. the cost however, may be another thing.

and i'm not really trying to defend this because i don't really care.

But you are defending it...which is kinda silly if you don't care.

even flow?

I waited for about an hour and a half to get to the elevator at the Empire State Building. Then went to the top and took pics and hung out for at least an hour. Seems they may have a problem on their hands.

g under p

Drowned Out wrote:

VictoryGin wrote:

and maybe not block a potentially high-traffic area for too long without knowing so they can plan for it. the new rules mention a *single site*. it's enough dealing with all the tourists blocking the sidewalks and walking too slowly. to think of people also filming something in one area for 30 minutes too . . .

it's not like they're limiting the use of tourists taking snapshots of the corporate glory of times square or a photographer who wants to shoot a building.

it's not like it...but they could if they wanted to. It's too vague.
Do you not see the potential for abuse of this?

That's the unique thing about laws like these and others like the widening of warrantless wiretapping to the kinds of torture that is acceptable @ [url=http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/08/08/1338248

]CIA Black Sites[/url]. Many of these news laws are so vague and can lead to so many abuses due to those in charge/power interpretation of those laws with a hint towards this so called war on terror. We seem to be living in a world of perpetual fear that perpetuate laws such as this and others. What and where else will they continue to take away more and more of our rights?

Peace
Earle

RolandTD20Kdrummer

VictoryGin wrote:

yeah. i read the red. it is still 30 minutes in a single location. that doesn't change what i think. and even with 5 people and 10 minutes---i think that goes to show more that it is about a crowd in a single space. and in new york city on what could be an already crowded sidewalk, i don't really see the huge problem with the permit alone. the cost however, may be another thing.

and i'm not really trying to defend this because i don't really care.

You must work for the gov't. That much seems obvious regardless of what you say at this point.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

even flow? wrote:

I waited for about an hour and a half to get to the elevator at the Empire State Building. Then went to the top and took pics and hung out for at least an hour. Seems they may have a problem on their hands.

No kidding...

g under p

evenflow wrote:

I waited for about an hour and a half to get to the elevator at the Empire State Building. Then went to the top and took pics and hung out for at least an hour. Seems they may have a problem on their hands.

I would be careful if they spotted you they could consider you to be a enemy combatant.

I work less than a mile from the VP here in DC and I've been pulled over for no reason at all in front of his Naval Observatory compound. I suspect though it was due to the particular political stickers I have on the back of my truck.

The Capital Police are as pesky as a hungry mosquito.

Peace
Earle

VictoryGin

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

You must work for the gov't. That much seems obvious regardless of what you say at this point.

you must not have a clue.

that's why this board is a waste of time anymore.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

VictoryGin wrote:

you must not have a clue.

that's why this board is a waste of time anymore.

haha thar's funny...you a funny guy! Stop wasting my time.

gue_barium

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

haha thar's funny...you a funny guy! Stop wasting my time.

She just moved from NY. She's living in the great Northwest now.

VictoryGin

gue_barium wrote:

She just moved from NY. She's living in the great Northwest now.

and it certainly is great.

but be warned gue, apparently you have a new government operative in the area!

RolandTD20Kdrummer

VictoryGin wrote:

and it certainly is great.

but be warned gue, apparently you have a new government operative in the area!

I just help up a mirror to you...ahh the irony... did you see it? ... hehe lookie the suspicion.

you are a funny one...

RolandTD20Kdrummer

gue_barium wrote:

She just moved from NY. She's living in the great Northwest now.

he/she I smell testosterone...

gue_barium

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

he/she I smell testosterone...

You've been living alone too long.

She's a good one.