On the proposed limits for public photography in NYC
Posted July 17, 2007 by John Menick
Like most artists in New York, I find the proposed photography permit laws outrageous and more than slightly creepy. Similar laws already in existence for film are not entirely bad, offering benefits for filmmakers far beyond their means. However, the existing film laws are meant to encourage filmmakers, poor and rich, to make their movies here in New York by giving them perks in exchange for meeting very minimal insurance needs. (Contrary to popular belief, million-dollar insurance only costs around a thousand dollars. Even on a low-budget film shoot this is within reach.) However, expanding these permit laws to include any two people with any kind of camera would do the opposite of the existing cinema laws. It would make anyone afraid to take out a camera, let alone come to New York to shoot a photo essay.
Seven years ago, I had an experience that might illustrate just how these laws would be used and misused. In 2000, I was awarded a small commission in a competition to build a new work for the Socrates Sculpture Park in Long Island City, Queens. My project was about Roosevelt Island, the northern tip of which is visible from Socrates. Without going into details, I had to take a number of 8×10 photographs of Queens from the coast of Roosevelt Island. I hired a friend of mine who had a full 8×10 set up, including a medium-sized tripod and a box or two for the camera and its accessories. In total, the two of us could move the entire kit on foot. Our plan was to spend a day on Roosevelt Island shooting and then go home. We were to shoot the view of Socrates, the Cosco next store to the park, the KeySpan power plant, and several lots further south.
Our shoot lasted literally five minutes. After spending that much time setting up, a police car rolled up and an officer emerged asked us what we were doing. We explained. He thought for a moment and asked me to get in the car. My friend stayed behind to pack up and joined us ten minutes later at the RI police HQ.
I don’t remember if the officer was NYPD, state police, private security, or some strange hybrid RI security. It’s a crucial detail, one that has a lot to do with what followed. As I understand it, Roosevelt Island is owned by the city and leased to the state, meaning that different things are run by one of the two entities. For example, the library is NYPL. The area code is 212. However, as I came to find out, the photography permit laws were those of the state.
I was brought to the officer’s boss, who asked me what I was doing. I explained again. He said I needed a permit. I said I don’t need a permit to shoot photographs in New York City. He said you do in New York State, and this island is run by the state. I asked how much it would be. He thought. After a moment of silence, he estimated one would cost about a thousand dollars an hour.
The conversation didn’t go much farther. I asked him where he got the number from and he told me some Mel Gibson movie had recently shot on the island, and that’s about how much they were charged, but he wasn’t sure. (I think the movie was Conspiracy Theory. Didn’t see it.) Trying to reintroduce reason into the discussion I mentioned that Socrates was a local non-profit and that the permit would eat up my entire measly budget in a few hours. He didn’t seem to care. I asked if I could come back without a tripod and just shoot with a handheld medium-format camera. He claimed it didn’t matter, and if I did come back with any format camera without a permit I would be arrested. I asked why I couldn’t take photos without a tripod, yet anyone else could. He claimed it was because I was a professional. I asked for a definition. The conversation circled again.
After a few more rounds, my friend and I left, and over the next three weeks, the park faxed back and forth with RI authorities. I think the amount was lowered, but it was still high enough to devour my entire budget in a day. As a result of this, the project was deeply delayed and eventually did not happen because it could never open on time and budget.
There was another interesting detail. Somewhere in this entirely absurd process I heard that the authorities were concerned I was photographing the KeySpan power plant. I don’t remember if that was part of my initial conversation with RI security or part of Socrates’ fax and phone sessions. At any rate, why exactly terrorists would use a conspicuous 8×10 set-up in full view of the public to photograph a building they want to blow up is beyond me.
At the time, the law seemed real enough. Being a little older and more experienced with obtaining permissions, I wonder whether or not we had more legal options. I don’t believe the RI office had it in for me or for Socrates. I think the officer thought he was being an honest broker. He just couldn’t differentiate between different kinds of film and photo crews. Like the proposed law for New York City, two people with a camera were enough to need warrant a permit. (Although his argument quickly changed into one professional with a camera was enough.)
The proposed photography regulations fit perfectly within a trend that started during the Giuliani administration and continue through Bloomberg: give police new powers to fine or even arrest New Yorkers for actions that were not previously illegal (smoking) or were technically so but were never enforced (jaywalking). Jaywalking is perhaps the most relevant here, because, as many New Yorkers might remember, in the late 1990s the NYPD would suddenly decide to enforce a particular violation for a short period of time, ticket and arrest dozens in a few nights, and then lay off. It will be no different with the proposed photography laws. Most of the time the laws will probably go unenforced. But given any suspicion, need for a quota, or malicious intent on the part of the police, and here come the fines and arrests.
If you are concerned about the new laws you can write the Mayor’s Office of Film, Theatre & Broadcasting. Although, one has to wonder whether quashing the proposal will even matter, since, as the Gothamist points out, police are still seizing cameras without any good reason.

July 20th, 2007 at 6:28 pm
A couple of years back I was issued a summons for using a tripod in Prospect Park. Two facts make my story especially absurd. The tripod I was using was a Gitzo 00 Mountaineer (read: tiny!) and I had a spotting scope mounted on it. You see, I’m a birder. This had nothing to do with photography, but I was still ticketed because of the tripod. The whole incident was insulting, taking over an hour before I was allowed to leave. I was questioned and detained until another officer and a supervisor were called. They then called in for a warrant check to be done!
Bottom line is I beat the ticket in court. If you are detained or ticketed my advice is to fight the charge and complain. Call in the media and ask for help from other photographers (and birdwatchers, too). I didn’t find out until recently that the Officer Lewis was transfered at the request of a someone at the Prospect Park Alliance.
Below is an excerpt from The City Birder hosted by Rob Jett, an all-around good guy who was a big help to me through this ordeal. Check out his website!
SATURDAY, OCTOBER 01, 2005
Spring “Tripod Incident” final word
I ran into a couple of birding acquaintances at the green market this morning. They asked me what finally happened with my friend who had received a summons for carrying a tripod in Prospect Park this past spring. I apologize for never posting a follow up so here is the last word from Mike:
Several people have asked me about the outcome of the ticket I received in Prospect Park back in late May. As was expected, the judge dismissed the case, and that was the end of my legal involvement with this incident.
Rather than reply to each e-mail separately, I thought I would ask the listowners’ indulgence one last time and post the text of the letter I received from the New York City Police Department. If anyone feels the need to, please contact me offlist.
“78th Precinct
65 6th Avenue
Brooklyn, NY 11220
August 3, 2005
Dear Mr. Zablocky,
I am writing to you, on behalf of the Commanding Officer, 78 Precinct, regarding your complaint against Police Officer Merline Lewis, who issued a summons to you on May 31, 2005.
Police Officer Lewis was questioned by the undersigned investigator and was instructed in the New York City Police Department’s policy of courtesy, professionalism and respect when interacting with the public. A copy of your complaint will be maintained in Officer Lewis’ permanent personnel file which is maintained for her entire career.
Thank you for bringing this matter to the Department’s attention.
Sincerely,
Lieutenant Richard Murphy
Integrity Control Officer
78 Precinct”
Michael S. Zablocky
Brooklyn, NY
So it is now safe to carry your tripods into city parks…just don’t sit on any park benchs without kids.
Woman Ticketed For Sitting On Park Bench Without Kids
July 31st, 2007 at 12:21 am
I’m a foreign tourist in NYC. Today (30.07.2007) afernoon I visited Empire-Fulton Ferry State Park (Brooklyn, between Brooklyn and Manhattan bridges).
I got there more or less by chance - my map is a bit older so there is no park in it. I was just searching a place for taking some Manhattan pictures. First of all I got into Brooklyn Bridge Park and from there I spotted the Fulton Ferry Park boardwalk so I went there. I had Canon EOS300V, no tripod, common set zoom lense,no external flash or whatsoever. I took a picture or two and then I sat on a bench eating my sendwich and watching the scenery. As I had no tipod, I used the boardwalk and the railing. I decided to wait there until the sunset to try make a snap of evening skyscrapers. From time to time I took my camera and looked around through the finder, thinking about possible composition. I had to seem suspicious to local rangers/police/security, because as I got up from a bench and took a new position next to the railing, one of them came and asked me what is the purpose of my pictures. I was completely confused. After his second question if I use my pictures commertionally I finally understud. I explained that the pictures are just for me and my friends. The ranger nodded wisely and left. I took one picture using the railing again and after that I decided to go away. I managed to move several meters and the ranger returned to me. He told me not to take my pictures in the park. He claimed his supervisor wanted him to tell that to me. And if I wish to continue I have to go to Broolkyn Bridge Park. Despite of my previous decision - go away - I made an attempt to give some more explanation and I told him that I definitely do not use my snaps for selling. And that I’m a state employee. I thought that information should be enough as in my country state employees can have the only income from their job, any other means of profit are considered as possible conflict of interests. Obviously the ranger misunderstood the meaning of my sentence as he replied: “I do not care who you are, this is a state park and I am the park ranger” and continued about my taking no more pictures.
In the evening I tried to find any relevant regulation on the internet and I came accross this web. So I was lucky that I was only banished and not deprived of my camera? Interesting. So be careful and if taking stupid touristic photos using non-professional equipment, try to do it exactly the same way as all the people around you.
BTW - I managed to google out just some permits for wedding photography, for shooting films and for special private events…
August 1st, 2007 at 7:52 pm
If they really want this to come in force, let them have it. Each of us should apply at least three times a week!