Skip to content
Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(NYT)   Having banned smoking, fat and impure thoughts, New York takes another step closer to being Nanny State by requiring a permit for public photography   (nytimes.com) divider line
173
    More: Asinine  
•       •       •

10600 clicks; posted to Main » on 29 Jun 2007 at 11:36 AM (15 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



173 Comments     (+0 »)


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Newest | Show all

 
Mugato [TotalFark]
2007-06-29 11:36:29 AM  
And the war against amateur filmmakers and youtube begins.
 
m8trix
2007-06-29 11:37:37 AM  
They gonna ban picture phones?

The iphone cries.
 
cartmen34
2007-06-29 11:38:05 AM  
As an amateur photographer, I'm getting a real kick out of these replies?
 
ItchyMcknobster
2007-06-29 11:38:10 AM  
Seriously, at what point do we pick up our guns and get rid of these people that rule over us?

How much worse does it have to get people?
 
give me doughnuts [OhFark]
2007-06-29 11:38:43 AM  
Reason #62,143 to stay the fark away from New York.
 
Xerxes99
2007-06-29 11:38:45 AM  
Damn.. does this mean no more upskirt cellphone pictures?
 
AladinSane
2007-06-29 11:38:49 AM  
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.

But hey, it makes for a better Fark headline if we totally ignore that part.
 
st0rmer
2007-06-29 11:39:04 AM  
Better use a hidden camera.
 
OtitisMEDIA
2007-06-29 11:40:20 AM  
non-issue
 
EvilEgg [TotalFark] [OhFark]
2007-06-29 11:40:34 AM  
But hey, it makes for a better Fark headline if we totally ignore that part.

Still a stupid law
 
LandOfChocolate
2007-06-29 11:40:34 AM  
When are they going to ban water? The water in NYC is terrible!
 
Okie Cynic
2007-06-29 11:41:49 AM  
that which is not specifically authorized is forbidden.
 
FarkingFarkers
2007-06-29 11:41:53 AM  
I bet this has a lot to do with citizens videotaping the actions of corrupt cops and officials. Since wiretapping charges won't stick, a city ordinance will. I wonder if this applies to private surveillance cameras as well?
 
Ruffian
2007-06-29 11:42:13 AM  
So farking stupid it's not even funny. Contrary one movie's creed, greed isn't all that good.
 
phaseolus [TotalFark]
2007-06-29 11:42:30 AM  
Okay, yeah, I realize government can, and often is, all intrusive 'n stuff, but --

Every time I hear the the phrase 'nanny state' I immediately think to myself "there's that phrase again, this must be a right-wing talking point. It's safe to ignore this and go read something else."

Is it just me?
 
scseth
2007-06-29 11:43:04 AM  
Since no one is going to RTFA, here's the important part:

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.
 
SchlingFo
2007-06-29 11:43:05 AM  
AladinSane,

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.

But hey, it makes for a better Fark headline if we totally ignore that part.

Dude, c'mon.

You know as well as everyone else on Fark that the intent of legislation doesn't mean shiat.

The law, as proposed, would require permits for two or more people gathering to take photographs.

What the law says is all that matters. It doesn't matter what the proponents of the law say the law is intended to do.

We've seen it with the PATRIOT Act. When they proposed it, they said that it would only be used to go after terrorists.

We've seen it with the law used to convict that teenager of child molestation for getting head from the chick in high school.

The intent of the law DOES NOT MATTER.

It is what the law says that matters.
 
mightybaldking
2007-06-29 11:43:26 AM  
"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."

So, if you want to obstruct pedestrian traffic for more than half an hour, you need to get a permit.

Sounds ok to me.

Besides, I think we need less amateur photography, not more. 90% of youtube is crap.
 
bugmn99
2007-06-29 11:43:28 AM  
Unintentionally erotic quote from TFA:

"...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..."

/hawt
 
Shakespeare's Monkey [OhFark]
2007-06-29 11:43:51 AM  
farm1.static.flickr.comView Full Size


For a second I thought it said "pubic" photography. Of course you're going to need a permit for that!

/nevermind
//the wussification of NY continues
 
Ignominiousbob
2007-06-29 11:43:52 AM  
I'm with AladinSane.

any group of two or more people who want to use a camera in a single public location for more than a half hour

Yeah, that's really going to affect 99% of the people taking pictures in NYC.

People who talk about the Nanny State come across as the Spoiled Brats of society.
 
Sensei Can You See [TotalFark]
2007-06-29 11:44:09 AM  
AladinSane: 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.

But hey, it makes for a better Fark headline if we totally ignore that part.


FTFA: "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."
 
padraig
2007-06-29 11:44:29 AM  
Hey, great,now the city will be able to decide who can and cannot film and photograph the city ! How much are you willing to bet that those that journalists and documentarians that do not please the mayor politically, will have difficulties in getting such permits?

No, you cannot have a freedom of the press ! Not yours !

What reasons did they actually give that made those permits required? Is the city so overcrowded with photographers and filmmakers that it's becoming a nuisance? And is it evn farking constitutional ?
 
dahmers love zombie
2007-06-29 11:44:51 AM  
Papers, please.
 
Aristotle says...
2007-06-29 11:45:09 AM  
In a democracy the poor will have more power than the rich, because there are more of them, and the will of the majority is supreme.

uh...what? ...man it was a late night last night.. anything is spewing out of my mouth today.... Dionysus was a little too out of control *wink wink*...
 
illicit
2007-06-29 11:45:15 AM  
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.

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.

Ummm...
 
DaCaptain19
2007-06-29 11:45:24 AM  
But has it banned throwing green jello with carrots inside it at people while skateboarding by in a summer dress?

Because if so, I have a Southwest airline ticket to cancel...

/P.S. A big thanks to Megain for sponsoring me! I feel...so undeserving of the honor...
 
Sensei Can You See [TotalFark]
2007-06-29 11:45:47 AM  
Ignominiousbob: I'm with AladinSane.

any group of two or more people who want to use a camera in a single public location for more than a half hour

Yeah. After all, it's not like the cops in New York have anything better to do than count heads and watch the clock to see how long people are just standing there.
 
Bubonis
2007-06-29 11:45:52 AM  
Prediction: Civil war and a new Constitution within the next 30 years.
 
New_Orleans
2007-06-29 11:46:12 AM  
It's a law to do two things, neither of them to prevent youtube people:

(1) Make more money for New York City;

(2) Ensure the safety/recoverability of funds of the public by making these things insured. If an idiot is filming a car chase for his amateur film and hits a group of people, he has insurance the family can recover against.

If it's just some idiot filming a car chase without the insurance, the family will be up shiat's creek for medical and or survivor claims because the person doesn't have any money even if they succeed in court. Not a stupid law, it just needs tweaking so the police don't construe it too widely to stop people from filming non-commercial projects.

i140.photobucket.comView Full Size
 
chitownmike
2007-06-29 11:46:30 AM  
I know there are rules here about this on the CTA if you walk onto a train platform and try to set up a tripod 9 times out of 10 your going to get kicked off if you don't have a permit
 
tanager2
2007-06-29 11:46:38 AM  
So much for New York's participation in the 48 Hour Film Project...
 
revskippy
2007-06-29 11:46:39 AM  
AladinSane: But hey, it makes for a better Fark headline if we totally ignore that part.

Yeah, but every law should have to pass the "how would your worst enemy use this to screw with you unjustly" test. And this one fails that miserably.

Intent has nothing at all to do with how it would be used when a given cop of city official wants to screw with someone. And if you want to think they wouldn't and just "trust" them, then why have laws at all, just tell them to do what they think is right.
 
NYRBill
2007-06-29 11:46:49 AM  
LandOfChocolate 2007-06-29 11:40:34 AM
When are they going to ban water? The water in NYC is terrible!

then why does it win every time they test tap water from major cities?
 
BobtheFascist
2007-06-29 11:47:07 AM  
Sounds like what they're really trying to do is avoid getting blown up by a few crazy, brown people without actually saying it.
 
h8sloplay
2007-06-29 11:47:21 AM  
For the love of god. New York has become nothing but a joke. I used to love the city but Bloomberg has gotten so out of control with rules that I will not go back. I guess Chicago will be my new favorite city.
 
Ignominiousbob
2007-06-29 11:47:21 AM  
Okie Cynic: that which is not specifically authorized is forbidden.

You manage to get this exactly backward. +1 for the laff.
 
ReisFlynn
2007-06-29 11:47:36 AM  
Read further, mightybaldking.

Their definition of "a single public location" is rather vague. It in no way means "standing in the middle of the sidewalk blocking traffic".

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.
 
hecticthe13th
2007-06-29 11:48:19 AM  
this would never, ever go through.
since the practice's inception, new york has been considered the haven, the mecca, if you will, of street photography; henri cartier bresson, elliot erwitt, just about every well known street photographer has spent at least SOME time there.
I find it hard to believe that NY's government would push through something that would so thoroughly destroy a legacy like this.
 
Dick_Hertz
2007-06-29 11:48:28 AM  
FTFA --
*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*

I smell a typical A.C.L.U. lawsuit/extortion brewing.

/The only difference between the Mafia and the A.C.L.U. is the ethnicity of the thugs.
 
ReisFlynn
2007-06-29 11:48:56 AM  
NYRBill

then why does it win every time they test tap water from major cities?

Even shiat has flavors. Just because one lump of shiat tastes better than another lump of shiat doesn't mean it's good.

City water = shiat. It's been true in every city I've ever been in thus far.
 
Cormee
2007-06-29 11:49:22 AM  
I was sitting on a park bench in Amsterdam, slightly stoned, when an old guy with a camera and a young lady in a mac come along. He sets up his tripod and camera and she takes off her mac and lies down on the grass, stark naked and starts doing loads of porno poses while he took pictures, this all happened about 10' away from me.

Needless to say I was not displeased.

Public photography can be a good thing. Even in New Amsterdam.
 
Sensei Can You See [TotalFark]
2007-06-29 11:50:47 AM  
ReisFlynn: Just because one lump of shiat tastes better than another lump of shiat

Eat a lot of shiat, do you?
 
takesdeepbreathkickspuppy
2007-06-29 11:51:29 AM  
We should all be thankful that this is the biggest problem we have to worry about now that we have secured peace in the Middle East, formulated a viable national energy plan, figured out this whole health care deal, legalised weed, cured AIDS, and apprehended the douche-baskets responsible for 911.
 
Doc Daneeka
2007-06-29 11:51:33 AM  
LandOfChocolate: When are they going to ban water? The water in NYC is terrible!

I know it's off-topic, but I think the tap water here tastes better than most other places in the US I have been.

Still run it through the Brita filter before I drink it though.
 
Sensei Can You See [TotalFark]
2007-06-29 11:51:33 AM  
hecticthe13th: I find it hard to believe that NY's government would push through something that would so thoroughly destroy a legacy like this.

Your faith and naivete is so touching.
 
ReisFlynn
2007-06-29 11:51:46 AM  
No, but I have to imagine this is the case. Pigs seem to find something attractive in the notion.
 
SchlingFo
2007-06-29 11:52:04 AM  
Ignominiousbob,

Yeah, that's really going to affect 99% of the people taking pictures in NYC.

People who talk about the Nanny State come across as the Spoiled Brats of society.

In a democratic republic, such as ours, the default state of rights is "on".

This means that we have the right to engage in an action until the state can prove that the action poses serious harm, or a potential for serious harm, to society.

Standing in a park with your girlfriend for an hour while taking pictures of squirrels does not pose any potential for harm to our society, therefore any law restricting that action goes against the principles upon which our country was founded.
 
Billy Ligue
2007-06-29 11:52:47 AM  
wow permit for public photography..
that's gonna kill the asian tourism..


/no, I didn't RTFA
 
dj_bigbird
2007-06-29 11:52:55 AM  
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.

The key word phrase is not intended. Yeah, sure, NOT intended. Like we believe anything that some government hack says.
 
Displayed 50 of 173 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Newest | Show all



Redisplay/refresh comments
This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

If you like these links, you'll love

TotalFark

More funny for your money.

learn more | sign up
On Twitter

  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.