|
|
| City May Seek Permit and Insurance for Many Kinds of Public Photography (453525) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
[1 2] |
||
|
|
Page 1 of 2 |
|
|
| (453525) | |
City May Seek Permit and Insurance for Many Kinds of Public Photography |
|
|
Posted by Hoghead on Fri Jun 29 03:31:21 2007 New York Times story here. |
|
|
| (453542) | |
Re: City May Seek Permit and Insurance for Many Kinds of Public Photography |
|
|
Posted by JBar387 on Fri Jun 29 05:14:10 2007, in response to City May Seek Permit and Insurance for Many Kinds of Public Photography, posted by Hoghead on Fri Jun 29 03:31:21 2007. Yeah right, I would like to see them enforce that. Unlikely! |
|
|
| (453543) | |
Re: City May Seek Permit and Insurance for Many Kinds of Public Photography |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Fri Jun 29 05:27:33 2007, in response to Re: City May Seek Permit and Insurance for Many Kinds of Public Photography, posted by JBar387 on Fri Jun 29 05:14:10 2007. The "beauty" of the vagueness is that it leaves everything completely open to "interpretation" rather than the specific "Simon says" of laws in the past. The way I read it though, it's more like LA's "tripod tax" wherein if you're going handheld, no problem but plant a set of sticks and you're open to questioning. Then again, its vagueness also seems to allow police to question anyone with a camera based on the lack of specifics as reported. Seems pretty clear though that if you come off like an out of towner, it'll be a subway-style "ID check" and "move along."Reminds me of covering a student riot in New Paltz decades ago, told the cops "working press" flashing my sheriff's press card and they told me, "go work your press on the other side of the street" along with "your mother eats bacon, boy." Ah ... the thrills of professional videography and sound recording even when you *do* have the proper paperwork! :) |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (453549) | |
Re: City May Seek Permit and Insurance for Many Kinds of Public Photography |
|
|
Posted by Fred G on Fri Jun 29 05:47:38 2007, in response to City May Seek Permit and Insurance for Many Kinds of Public Photography, posted by Hoghead on Fri Jun 29 03:31:21 2007. 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.So much for meeting up with fellow railfans at someplace like Stillwell and waiting for a museum train or just catching the last R40's, unless of course, you can do it in 29 minutes or less. This is just plain dumb and another excuse to shake down folks for money. And this time they've invited the Great American Tapeworm along with an insurance requirement. your pal, Fred |
|
|
| (453551) | |
Re: City May Seek Permit and Insurance for Many Kinds of Public Photography |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Fri Jun 29 05:58:21 2007, in response to Re: City May Seek Permit and Insurance for Many Kinds of Public Photography, posted by Fred G on Fri Jun 29 05:47:38 2007. Non-city residents can "plead stupid" ... worked for me when I popped out a camera on PATH, got told to put it away and said, "had no idea, sorry." :) |
|
|
| (453554) | |
Re: City May Seek Permit and Insurance for Many Kinds of Public Photography |
|
|
Posted by Fred G on Fri Jun 29 06:26:03 2007, in response to Re: City May Seek Permit and Insurance for Many Kinds of Public Photography, posted by SelkirkTMO on Fri Jun 29 05:58:21 2007. That's true, let's not underestimate the value of playing dumb. That deer in the headlights look takes a lot of practice and concentration :Pyour pal, Fred |
|
|
| (453556) | |
Re: City May Seek Permit and Insurance for Many Kinds of Public Photography |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Fri Jun 29 06:38:41 2007, in response to Re: City May Seek Permit and Insurance for Many Kinds of Public Photography, posted by Fred G on Fri Jun 29 06:26:03 2007. The only downside of the game is having to endure that "in THESE times" rap from a cop who's obviously way too young to remember the RUSSKIES. :) |
|
|
| (453561) | |
Re: City May Seek Permit and Insurance for Many Kinds of Public Photography |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Fri Jun 29 07:06:45 2007, in response to City May Seek Permit and Insurance for Many Kinds of Public Photography, posted by Hoghead on Fri Jun 29 03:31:21 2007. Unbelievable.Of course no one showed up to the hearing - we didn't know about it!!! |
|
|
| (453566) | |
Re: City May Seek Permit and Insurance for Many Kinds of Public Photography |
|
|
Posted by Clayton on Fri Jun 29 07:23:41 2007, in response to Re: City May Seek Permit and Insurance for Many Kinds of Public Photography, posted by Fred G on Fri Jun 29 05:47:38 2007. The permits will be free. |
|
|
| (453588) | |
Re: City May Seek Permit and Insurance for Many Kinds of Public Photography |
|
|
Posted by AMoreira81 on Fri Jun 29 08:44:03 2007, in response to Re: City May Seek Permit and Insurance for Many Kinds of Public Photography, posted by JBar387 on Fri Jun 29 05:14:10 2007. This is likely to he challenged...and the people challenging it will likely wait until 3:29 PM of the day before it is supposed to take effect. |
|
|
| (453618) | |
Re: City May Seek Permit and Insurance for Many Kinds of Public Photography |
|
|
Posted by BMTLines on Fri Jun 29 10:09:05 2007, in response to Re: City May Seek Permit and Insurance for Many Kinds of Public Photography, posted by Clayton on Fri Jun 29 07:23:41 2007. But the $1 Million Liability Insurance ISN'T!! |
|
|
| (453676) | |
Re: City May Seek Permit and Insurance for Many Kinds of Public Photography |
|
|
Posted by PATHman on Fri Jun 29 12:49:24 2007, in response to City May Seek Permit and Insurance for Many Kinds of Public Photography, posted by Hoghead on Fri Jun 29 03:31:21 2007. Another revenue generating ruse by our elitist mayor... |
|
|
| (453677) | |
Re: City May Seek Permit and Insurance for Many Kinds of Public Photography |
|
|
Posted by orange blossom special on Fri Jun 29 12:53:54 2007, in response to City May Seek Permit and Insurance for Many Kinds of Public Photography, posted by Hoghead on Fri Jun 29 03:31:21 2007. Whatever.50million people should stop going to New York and head to Vancouver or Hong Kong instead. Let NYC go to the gutter. |
|
|
| (453690) | |
Re: City May Seek Permit and Insurance for Many Kinds of Public Photography |
|
|
Posted by Pelham R62A on Fri Jun 29 13:17:26 2007, in response to City May Seek Permit and Insurance for Many Kinds of Public Photography, posted by Hoghead on Fri Jun 29 03:31:21 2007. Sounds like another stupid law to me.I want to see the day they decide to enforce this law rather than caputuring all of the murderers and convicts we have running around on the streets. |
|
|
| (453699) | |
Attn PATHman -- Re: City May Seek Permit and Insurance for Many Kinds of Public Photography |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Fri Jun 29 13:38:17 2007, in response to Re: City May Seek Permit and Insurance for Many Kinds of Public Photography, posted by PATHman on Fri Jun 29 12:49:24 2007. Another revenue generating ruse by our elitist mayor...Could you PLEASE explain how you came to this conclusion? I would really, really appreciate it. Thank you in advance. |
|
|
| (453731) | |
Re: Attn PATHman -- Re: City May Seek Permit and Insurance for Many Kinds of Public Photography |
|
|
Posted by PATHman on Fri Jun 29 14:40:20 2007, in response to Attn PATHman -- Re: City May Seek Permit and Insurance for Many Kinds of Public Photography, posted by Terrapin Station on Fri Jun 29 13:38:17 2007. Some people like to disagree just for the sake of it. Several people made similar remarks yet you haven't criticized them. |
|
|
| (453748) | |
Re: Attn PATHman -- Re: City May Seek Permit and Insurance for Many Kinds of Public Photography |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Fri Jun 29 16:13:35 2007, in response to Re: Attn PATHman -- Re: City May Seek Permit and Insurance for Many Kinds of Public Photography, posted by PATHman on Fri Jun 29 14:40:20 2007. Some people like to disagree just for the sake of it.Huh? That's how you came to the conclusion that the permit is "Another revenue generating ruse by our elitist mayor..."??? That makes no sense. Could you please try to explain yourself further? Several people made similar remarks yet you haven't criticized them. No one else said anything about the mayor of NYC using this to generate money for the city. Only you did. So once again, please explain how you came to that conclusion. I'd really appreciate it. Feel free to quote any relevant parts of the article that would support your conclusion. Because that's your only source. Thanks. |
|
|
| (453756) | |
Re: City May Seek Permit and Insurance for Many Kinds of Public Photography |
|
|
Posted by error46146 on Fri Jun 29 16:31:24 2007, in response to City May Seek Permit and Insurance for Many Kinds of Public Photography, posted by Hoghead on Fri Jun 29 03:31:21 2007. ARE YOU KIDDING ME??? WHAT THE FUCK IS THIS???I'M NOT GETTING SOME BULLSHIT INSURANCE TO TAKE A PICTURE OF THE TRAIN!! What a way to make money.... |
|
|
| (453758) | |
Re: City May Seek Permit and Insurance for Many Kinds of Public Photography |
|
|
Posted by P-rad M on Fri Jun 29 16:32:01 2007, in response to Re: City May Seek Permit and Insurance for Many Kinds of Public Photography, posted by orange blossom special on Fri Jun 29 12:53:54 2007. You'll be surprised by the number of people coming into NJ from NY. Especially in Jersey City.... |
|
|
| (453760) | |
Re: City May Seek Permit and Insurance for Many Kinds of Public Photography |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Fri Jun 29 16:36:43 2007, in response to Re: City May Seek Permit and Insurance for Many Kinds of Public Photography, posted by error46146 on Fri Jun 29 16:31:24 2007. What a way to make money....How did you come to that conclusion? |
|
|
| (453761) | |
Re: City May Seek Permit and Insurance for Many Kinds of Public Photography |
|
|
Posted by P-rad M on Fri Jun 29 16:38:07 2007, in response to City May Seek Permit and Insurance for Many Kinds of Public Photography, posted by Hoghead on Fri Jun 29 03:31:21 2007. I think theres a high chance that this might not happen. Thats just what I think cause they don't have something else important to worry about than this, cause I know they do.Once the city hear the cry of the people, "THIS IS BULLSHUT, YOU GOT TO BE FUCKING KIDDING ME," then they should really consider. And then once people outside of NY, planning to go there, they might change their plans and go somewhere else, or make their trip really short.... |
|
|
| (453762) | |
TypoRe: City May Seek Permit and Insurance for Many Kinds of Public Photography |
|
|
Posted by P-rad M on Fri Jun 29 16:39:44 2007, in response to Re: City May Seek Permit and Insurance for Many Kinds of Public Photography, posted by P-rad M on Fri Jun 29 16:38:07 2007. Thats just what I think cause they don't have something else important to worry about than this, cause I know they do.Thats just what I think because don't they have something else important to worry about other than this, cause I know they do. |
|
|
| (453765) | |
Re: City May Seek Permit and Insurance for Many Kinds of Public Photography |
|
|
Posted by BMTLines on Fri Jun 29 16:50:28 2007, in response to City May Seek Permit and Insurance for Many Kinds of Public Photography, posted by Hoghead on Fri Jun 29 03:31:21 2007. Does any US company even offer liability insurance to amateur photographers? I tried searching Google and I get a bunch of UK companies that offer reasonable prices for such coverage but none in the US... |
|
|
| (453767) | |
Re: City May Seek Permit and Insurance for Many Kinds of Public Photography |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Fri Jun 29 16:55:03 2007, in response to Re: City May Seek Permit and Insurance for Many Kinds of Public Photography, posted by BMTLines on Fri Jun 29 16:50:28 2007. That doesn't really matter, since the in the article it states that the intent was never to require amateur photographers to obtain the permit. The problem is that the language of the proposed rule does not make that clear. |
|
|
| (453782) | |
Re: City May Seek Permit and Insurance for Many Kinds of Public Photography |
|
|
Posted by error46146 on Fri Jun 29 17:50:14 2007, in response to Re: City May Seek Permit and Insurance for Many Kinds of Public Photography, posted by Terrapin Station on Fri Jun 29 16:36:43 2007. Then, later on the city would select certain companies (that pay the city a certain amount of money so then they would be selected) to provide this insurance and then they'll make a law saying you can only buy insurance from these companies, therefore the city will make money |
|
|
| (453784) | |
Re: City May Seek Permit and Insurance for Many Kinds of Public Photography |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Fri Jun 29 17:57:48 2007, in response to Re: City May Seek Permit and Insurance for Many Kinds of Public Photography, posted by error46146 on Fri Jun 29 17:50:14 2007. (that pay the city a certain amount of money so then they would be selected)That is probably illegal. |
|
|
| (453785) | |
Re: City May Seek Permit and Insurance for Many Kinds of Public Photography |
|
|
Posted by mambomta on Fri Jun 29 17:58:52 2007, in response to Re: City May Seek Permit and Insurance for Many Kinds of Public Photography, posted by error46146 on Fri Jun 29 17:50:14 2007. Then, later on the city would select certain companies (that pay the city a certain amount of money so then they would be selected) to provide this insurance and then they'll make a law saying you can only buy insurance from these companies, therefore the city will make moneyWhat is your basis for this ridiculous argument? |
|
|
| (453788) | |
Re: City May Seek Permit and Insurance for Many Kinds of Public Photography |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Fri Jun 29 18:07:13 2007, in response to Re: City May Seek Permit and Insurance for Many Kinds of Public Photography, posted by Terrapin Station on Fri Jun 29 17:57:48 2007. Heh. Only reason why the MTA ended up with Alstoms instead of Bredas was that Breda didn't have enough cash for Al D'Amato. Illegal is illegal only when you get prosecuted. :) |
|
|
| (453819) | |
Re: City May Seek Permit and Insurance for Many Kinds of Public Photography |
|
|
Posted by BMTLines on Fri Jun 29 19:45:16 2007, in response to Re: City May Seek Permit and Insurance for Many Kinds of Public Photography, posted by mambomta on Fri Jun 29 17:58:52 2007. Try to hire a contractor to repair your sidewalk who is not approved by the city.... This type of thing is more common than you think! |
|
|
| (453823) | |
Re: City May Seek Permit and Insurance for Many Kinds of Public Photography |
|
|
Posted by mambomta on Fri Jun 29 19:52:10 2007, in response to Re: City May Seek Permit and Insurance for Many Kinds of Public Photography, posted by BMTLines on Fri Jun 29 19:45:16 2007. Try to hire a contractor to repair your sidewalk who is not approved by the city.... This type of thing is more common than you think!I have a feeling you are comparing apples and oranges. Licensing(and other municipal regulations) is not the same as what you and error are referring to. |
|
|
| (453826) | |
Re: City May Seek Permit and Insurance for Many Kinds of Public Photography |
|
|
Posted by Canton Viaduct on Fri Jun 29 19:59:59 2007, in response to Re: City May Seek Permit and Insurance for Many Kinds of Public Photography, posted by PATHman on Fri Jun 29 12:49:24 2007. I thought the Mayor was opposed to any photography permit system, and said so around the time of the proposed NYCT photo ban. |
|
|
| (453830) | |
Re: City May Seek Permit and Insurance for Many Kinds of Public Photography |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Fri Jun 29 20:10:41 2007, in response to Re: City May Seek Permit and Insurance for Many Kinds of Public Photography, posted by Canton Viaduct on Fri Jun 29 19:59:59 2007. This doesn't contradict that in intent, only possibly in practice. |
|
|
| (453835) | |
Re: City May Seek Permit and Insurance for Many Kinds of Public Photography |
|
|
Posted by Fred G on Fri Jun 29 20:20:14 2007, in response to Re: City May Seek Permit and Insurance for Many Kinds of Public Photography, posted by SelkirkTMO on Fri Jun 29 06:38:41 2007. It was scarier when we thought teh Russkies and the Red Chinese were gonna attack us, but I miss those days. At least men had cojones then, not like this new order patriot-lite®your pal, Fred |
|
|
| (453836) | |
Re: City May Seek Permit and Insurance for Many Kinds of Public Photography |
|
|
Posted by Fred G on Fri Jun 29 20:21:45 2007, in response to Re: City May Seek Permit and Insurance for Many Kinds of Public Photography, posted by BMTLines on Fri Jun 29 10:09:05 2007. Exactly, even if a permit is fi dollars, the real cost would be insurance.your pal, Fred |
|
|
| (453837) | |
Re: City May Seek Permit and Insurance for Many Kinds of Public Photography |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Fri Jun 29 20:23:18 2007, in response to Re: City May Seek Permit and Insurance for Many Kinds of Public Photography, posted by Fred G on Fri Jun 29 20:20:14 2007. I never cease to be amazed at our natioanl cowardice in the face of ... towelheads? :-\At least *WE* had something to actually WORRY about. :( |
|
|
| (453838) | |
Re: City May Seek Permit and Insurance for Many Kinds of Public Photography |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Fri Jun 29 20:23:29 2007, in response to Re: City May Seek Permit and Insurance for Many Kinds of Public Photography, posted by BMTLines on Fri Jun 29 19:45:16 2007. Try to hire a contractor to repair your sidewalk who is not approved by the city....Done it twice, once for a major rework and once for minor repairs. So far the wrath of Mike has not descended upon me. |
|
|
| (453841) | |
Re: City May Seek Permit and Insurance for Many Kinds of Public Photography |
|
|
Posted by R40SlantontheB on Fri Jun 29 20:37:43 2007, in response to City May Seek Permit and Insurance for Many Kinds of Public Photography, posted by Hoghead on Fri Jun 29 03:31:21 2007. Yet Bloomberg has a policy protecting illegal aliens within the city.Sanctuary for illegals but you need a permit to take pictures? OUTRAGOUS! |
|
|
| (453842) | |
Re: City May Seek Permit and Insurance for Many Kinds of Public Photography |
|
|
Posted by Canton Viaduct on Fri Jun 29 20:41:47 2007, in response to Re: City May Seek Permit and Insurance for Many Kinds of Public Photography, posted by Terrapin Station on Fri Jun 29 20:10:41 2007. I don't fully understand the intent. The article claims that anyone simply standing around with a camera for a period of time could be in violation. What then becomes of people speaking on their phones that have build-in cameras? |
|
|
| (453857) | |
Re: City May Seek Permit and Insurance for Many Kinds of Public Photography |
|
|
Posted by Fred G on Fri Jun 29 21:10:12 2007, in response to Re: City May Seek Permit and Insurance for Many Kinds of Public Photography, posted by Canton Viaduct on Fri Jun 29 20:41:47 2007. Now that it's later in the day, I think this story has trial balloon written all over it and the details haven't really been looked at closely. I'm not as gripped by anguish as I was this morning.your pal, Fred |
|
|
| (453927) | |
Re: City May Seek Permit and Insurance for Many Kinds of Public Photography |
|
|
Posted by Grand concourse on Sat Jun 30 00:32:00 2007, in response to Re: City May Seek Permit and Insurance for Many Kinds of Public Photography, posted by P-rad M on Fri Jun 29 16:38:07 2007. Actually I'd guess that tourists would be the most outraged if they were stopped and asked why they were taking pics on the subways. But I too hope this doesn't happen. |
|
|
| (454095) | |
Re: City May Seek Permit and Insurance for Many Kinds of Public Photography |
|
|
Posted by Bingham C50 on Sat Jun 30 13:58:14 2007, in response to City May Seek Permit and Insurance for Many Kinds of Public Photography, posted by Hoghead on Fri Jun 29 03:31:21 2007. Here is the full text of the NYTimes article.-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- June 29, 2007 City May Seek Permit and Insurance for Many Kinds of Public Photography By RAY RIVERA 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. 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. The same requirements 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, including the time it takes to set up the equipment. 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. Nevertheless, the 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 by police. “These rules will apply to a huge range of casual photography and filming, including tourists taking snapshots and people making short videos for YouTube,” said Christopher Dunn, the group’s associate legal director. 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. In a letter sent to the film office this week, Mr. Dunn said the proposed rules would potentially apply to tourists in places like Times Square, Rockefeller Center or ground zero, “where people routinely congregate for more than half an hour and photograph or film.” The rule could also apply to people waiting in line to enter the Empire State Building or other tourist attractions. 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. The rules are intended to set standards for professional filmmakers and photographers, said Ms. Cho, assistant commissioner of the film office, but the language of the draft makes no such distinction. “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. City officials would not confirm that yesterday. But Mark W. Muschenheim, a lawyer with the city’s law department, which helped draft the rules, said, “There are few instances, if any, where the casual tourist would be affected.” The film office held a public hearing on the proposed rules yesterday, but no one attended. The only written comments the department received were from the civil liberties group, Ms. Cho said. Ms. Cho said the office expected to publish a final version of the rules at the end of July. They would go into effect a month later. The permits would be free and applications could be obtained online, Ms. Cho said. The draft rules say the office could take up to 30 days to issue a permit, but Ms. Cho said she expected that most would be issued within 24 hours. Mr. Dunn says that in addition to the rules being overreaching, they would also create enforcement problems. “Your everyday person out there with a camcorder is never going to know about the rules,” Mr. Dunn said. “It completely opens the door to discriminatory enforcement of the permit requirements, and that is of enormous concern to us because the people who are going to get pointed out are the people who have dark skin or who are shooting in certain locations.” The rules were promulgated as a result of just such a case, Mr. Dunn said. In May 2005, Rakesh Sharma, an Indian documentary filmmaker, was using a hand-held video camera in Midtown Manhattan when he was detained for several hours and questioned by police. During his detention, Mr. Sharma was told he was required to have a permit to film on city property. According to a lawsuit, Mr. Sharma sought information about how permits were granted and who was required to have one but found there were no written guidelines. Nonetheless, the film office told him he was required to have a permit, but when he applied, the office refused to grant him one and would not give him a written explanation of its refusal. As part of a settlement reached in April, the film office agreed to establish written rules for issuing permits. Mr. Sharma could not be reached for comment yesterday. Mr. Dunn said most of the new rules were reasonable. Notably, someone using a hand-held video camera, as Mr. Sharma was doing, would no longer have to get a permit. Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company |
|
|
| (454147) | |
Re: City May Seek Permit and Insurance for Many Kinds of Public Photography |
|
|
Posted by BIE on Sat Jun 30 18:52:34 2007, in response to Re: City May Seek Permit and Insurance for Many Kinds of Public Photography, posted by Bingham C50 on Sat Jun 30 13:58:14 2007. Remember, DOOMberg is the scumbag nazi who is planning to be a spoiler to help the nazis maintain their grip on power. Fuck, he runs the second largest news service devoted solely to the money grubbing bloodsuckers who sold America down the toilet. VOTE DEMOCRAT, NOT NAZI. This is just more fascism from the republicans = 100% nazi traitors. |
|
|
| (454154) | |
Re: City May Seek Permit and Insurance for Many Kinds of Public Photography |
|
|
Posted by error46146 on Sat Jun 30 19:16:10 2007, in response to Re: City May Seek Permit and Insurance for Many Kinds of Public Photography, posted by mambomta on Fri Jun 29 17:58:52 2007. What is the basis of your questioning? |
|
|
| (454337) | |
Re: City May Seek Permit and Insurance for Many Kinds of Public Photography |
|
|
Posted by Dan Lawrence on Sun Jul 1 10:41:16 2007, in response to Re: City May Seek Permit and Insurance for Many Kinds of Public Photography, posted by BIE on Sat Jun 30 18:52:34 2007. John,Mike Bloomberg is a RINO!!! He was a registered Democrat when he was in Baltimore(he is a graduate of Johns Hopkins University and has benifeted both the University and Johns Hopkins Hospital with massive (150-200 Million bequests). |
|
|
| (454376) | |
Re: City May Seek Permit and Insurance for Many Kinds of Public Photography |
|
|
Posted by Karl M, Ex New Yorker on Sun Jul 1 12:58:14 2007, in response to Re: City May Seek Permit and Insurance for Many Kinds of Public Photography, posted by orange blossom special on Fri Jun 29 12:53:54 2007. Boy...every time you poor people in New York turn around you get screwed by some ass wipe from the city, I miss the city but when something like this happens I'm glad I'm away from the constant threats of my rights being taken away, sounds more and more like a police state. Karl M |
|
|
| (454522) | |
Re: City May Seek Permit and Insurance for Many Kinds of Public Photography |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Sun Jul 1 21:10:42 2007, in response to City May Seek Permit and Insurance for Many Kinds of Public Photography, posted by Hoghead on Fri Jun 29 03:31:21 2007. 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.When they started giving fines for not recycling, the Sanitation Commissioner said that the fines were for flagrant violators and you would not be ticketed if an inspector found one cup or one piece of paper in the wrong basket. Guess what people are routinely being fined in Southern Brooklyn for up to $100 for a single piece of paper and are paying it because they would lose more money to take off from work to contest these. So why should we believe anyone who says that this would not affect amateur filmmakers or photographers. Also permits free today, but would just wait until the next budget crisis and these permits start costing $25 or more. |
|
|
| (454523) | |
Re: City May Seek Permit and Insurance for Many Kinds of Public Photography |
|
|
Posted by Scrabbleship on Sun Jul 1 21:14:03 2007, in response to Re: City May Seek Permit and Insurance for Many Kinds of Public Photography, posted by Karl M, Ex New Yorker on Sun Jul 1 12:58:14 2007. Bloomberg is the worst mayor in America. I miss Dinkins, he sucked but he at least didn't take rights away.If you voted for Bloomberg, I have two letters for you: FU. |
|
|
| (454525) | |
Re: City May Seek Permit and Insurance for Many Kinds of Public Photography |
|
|
Posted by Scrabbleship on Sun Jul 1 21:16:05 2007, in response to Re: City May Seek Permit and Insurance for Many Kinds of Public Photography, posted by Dan Lawrence on Sun Jul 1 10:41:16 2007. The RINO needs to be hunted to extinction. I'd rather have the world crawling with DINOs than RINOs since RINOs are evil and should be cracked upside the head with a baseball bat. |
|
|
| (454526) | |
Re: City May Seek Permit and Insurance for Many Kinds of Public Photography |
|
|
Posted by Scrabbleship on Sun Jul 1 21:17:14 2007, in response to Re: City May Seek Permit and Insurance for Many Kinds of Public Photography, posted by R40SlantontheB on Fri Jun 29 20:37:43 2007. And yet Americans can't illegally immigrate. I wish I could illegally immigrate to leech off of Calderon or Harper. |
|
|
| (454643) | |
Re: City May Seek Permit and Insurance for Many Kinds of Public Photography |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Mon Jul 2 05:34:03 2007, in response to Re: City May Seek Permit and Insurance for Many Kinds of Public Photography, posted by Scrabbleship on Sun Jul 1 21:17:14 2007. Who says you can't illegaly emigrate? You can go to Canada and stay. There are many Americans who do that. |
|
|
[1 2] |
||
|
|
Page 1 of 2 |
|
