Saturday, August 4, 2007

City backs off photographers

Responding to an outcry that included a passionate Internet campaign and a satiric rap video, city officials yesterday backed off proposed new rules that could have forced tourists taking snapshots in Times Square and filmmakers capturing that only-in-New-York street scene to obtain permits and $1 million in liability insurance.

After Protests, City Agrees to Rewrite Proposed Rules on Photography Permits

In announcing the move, officials at the Mayor’s Office of Film, Theater and Broadcasting said they would redraft the rules, intended to apply to commercial film and photography productions, to address complaints that they could be too broadly applied. They will then release the revised rules for public comment.

Photo from NY Times


Anonymous said...

Photography in NYC is restricted indirectly by the ridiculous degree to which company trademarks are honored.

You can't feature any store signs or company logos in your photos, if you're looking to publish or post them anywhere, which makes it just about impossible to take a picture anywhere in Manhattan, where every blasted inch of a building's walls are plastered with blinking billboards.

Of course the sidewalks and streets are free of logos and ads, which works out fine -- if you're looking to photograph someones stinky feet!

Anonymous said...

If you're making money from photos....
commercial or advertising purposes....
you do NEED location, model & logo releases.

I don't believe that you are prevented from excluding any of these in photography
undertaken for NEWS GATHERING purposes.
First amendment rights apply here.

Insofar as art (photos) to be used in gallery
or museum shows,
you can include what you like
as subject matter.....after all that is ART.

Am I fully correct in what I say ?

Anonymous said...

I think you're pretty much right about news gathering photos. When it comes to photos or drawings of city street scenes for non-news publications though, like magazines, I'm pretty sure that a person can get themselves involved in a major lawsuit if they feature any store logo or sign in their work, without obtaining permission first, especially if the company is well known like Coca Cola or Disney. I personally have become so fed up with trying to decipher and interpret copyright and trademark laws that I stick to landscape photography which is becoming difficult too with the politicians razing all the trees in sight.

Anonymous said...

I did not refer to publication of ads in magazines.....
I said photos in art galleries and on museum walls.

But if I'm doing an article for a magazine
that, I understand is permitted .

My experience in these matters comes from working in the advertising business at a large agency.

Anonymous said...

That's good news to me. Thanks for the info.

As to photos or art displayed in galleries and museums you might want to check out this somewhat relevant link:

Anonymous said...

PS One thing I'm learning from blogging on this site is that if you're going to post something "factual" you really have to know what you're talking about, otherwise somebody is going to call you on your comment as happened to me here.

Next time I'll do research on the topic under discussion or refrain from making a comment, for the purpose of trying to sound knowlegeable and wise, which won't be an easy resolution to keep.

The ego is a hard thing to tame and keep in check.