Re: Photography and the Law

In article <1s0924ta7k7i55nm6b1an0bsa5mn9rpvtn@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
 Mike Ross <mike@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

> On Thu, 08 May 2008 14:15:48 -0400, krishnananda <k@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> 
> >There are more Byzantine restrictions, on what can be photographed. In 
> >New York City it is illegal to photograph a bridge, 
> 
> Nonsense. It's forbidden to take photographs *from* or *on* Port
Authority 
> owned
> bridges, but it's perfectly legal to take photographs *of* the bridges,
from
> public land.

Apologies to the Brits for this diversion from OT (but a fascinating 
peek under the bonnet of US law nonetheless. Or not).

Port Authority bridges and tunnels only cross the Hudson. The East River 
bridges and tunnels and the Henry Hudson bridge are all owned and 
operated by the Metropolitan Transit Authority. If you have ever been to 
Sunnyside yards in Queens and tried to photograph the mouth of the 
Queens-Midtown tunnel, you would have had to ignore the very prominent 
"No Cameras" signs.

From the Rules and Regulations of the Triboro Bridge and Tunnel 
Authority (MTA):

"1020.8 Compliance with posted signs. Every motorist and pedestrian 
using any facility under the jurisdiction and control of the Triborough 
Bridge and Tunnel Authority shall obey and comply with the provisions of 
any posted sign on any of its facilities." Including the posted signs 
saying "Photography Forbidden".

http://www.mta.info/bandt/regs.pdf

Paul Browne, Deputy Commissioner for Public Information for the NYPD:

""...there are no photography restrictions on members of the media in 
any area under their (the NYPD's) jurisdiction. Some shooters have been 
prevented from taking photos in the subway, but there are no laws on the 
books that prevent photographers from taking photos at this point. In 
fact, it is legal for civilians to take photos on subways."

"Officials say anyone taking photos of sensitive sites on mass transit 
-- i.e., train tunnels, surveillance equipment, power supplies, etc .-- 
could expect to be questioned by police. However, Browne said NYPD 
policy is to facilitate photography."

He also cautioned "There are laws against taking photos at Triborough 
Bridge and Tunnel Authority bridges and tunnels."

http://www.freedomtophotograph.com/index.php?misc=search&subaction=showfu
ll&id=1096654398&archive=&cnshow=news&start_from=&

> 
> >or any aspect of the 
> >Office of the Chief Medical Examiner [personal experience]. 
> 
> Not sure what you mean by 'aspect' - are you saying you weren't allowed
to
> photograph the building?

In fact I was arrested for one shot of the exterior of the building with 
a digital p/s, requested to delete the photo, and released with no 
charges. The OCME has an extensive outdoors facility, in a tent and 
quite a few trailers, where the DNA testing of 9/11 remains is going on. 
This is a very sensitive area. I swapped the cards in my camera when it 
became obvious I was going to be nabbed, and didn't delete the pic. Not 
that it was particularly a keeper but for the principle.

Then there is the phenomenon of police officers making up the law as 
they go along. I was detained for taking a photo of some decorative 
ironwork on the exterior of the Park Avenue Synagogue. No one claimed I 
was breaking a specific law, but my ID was run through the system to see 
if I was a terrorist. Fine, but the lecture from the officer prompted a 
friendly "debate" on exactly why a law-abiding citizen might want to do 
something as subversive as photographing a well-known city landmark.

Things are hard for photographers here and in other cities. Trying to 
navigate the waters of legitimate law, "provisional" law, made-up law, 
and lust plain orneriness is a full-time job. It may or may not be 
illegal to photograph power stations, but it certainly is not a good 
idea without either a press pass or permission from the operator.