Pixiq

same thing happened to a friend of mine on sobe…once the cops see expensive equipment, they ASSUME its a commercial shoot and they harass you so that you’ll spend money with the city! gotta remember, law enforcement-its a business!

Hey,

I feel for these guys. But this one could go either way. I don’t think the rules in Phoenix are well written so that’s why I think it could go either way. I understand downtown is empty when he was there so take some of what I’m going to say here as my being anal as the local cops seem to have been.

If he had only an on camera flash and a tripod I’d say he was right and the cop had a mouth full of horse manure. Of course I know that and on camera flash probably doesn’t give what he’s looking for in the photos.

But he had non-handheld equipment, the off camera flash. He had models, the skateboarders. Because of this equipment he exercised exclusive use of city property. I know no one else is there but that’s the kicker most of the time in how they start defining comercial photography. He put his equipment on the city right of way and it took up that space for his exclusive use even though no one else wanted to use it at the time. His models were riding on the wall and he was standing off the wall.

If you look at what the National Park Service has done this would also probably be consider to need a permit but maybe not.

NYC rules are written much better, http://www.nyc.gov/html/film/downloads/pdf/moftb_permit_rules_final.pdf but he would have needed a permit.

yep, that’s what we marked it up as. the flash was in the right of way, that’s why i felt it was important to include it in the info i gave Carlos. If i would have had someone holding the flash instead of the stand it might not have been a big deal. He said nothing about commercial photography nor obstructing the right of way. The main problem came when he told us we could not take pictures of the court house. He said things like: “remember Oklahoma…” I want the Laws and definitions but they never seem to know them and i can’t find them. Being vague is sometimes done on purpose so they can loosely apply them to situations as seen fit. Money is definitely a factor.

Marco,

I just added the Oklahoma thing to the story and changed the headline because that is even more outrageous than the permit thing.

I really think you guys should gather as many photographers as you can and photograph the hell out of that damn building.

And do the same to the cops when they pull up with wailing sirens.

ok, good thing you can edit on the fly (unlike a newspaper). sorry that didn’t come up earlier… the ’9/11′ security excuse is kinda cliche’ and I hear it all the time. didn’t stick out as odd cuz everyone gives it. I twice was given flak at the Chase building by security guards, same reason. I used to go downtown every Saturday to take pics and watch a movie at the Arizona Center but it is kinda taxing to get bugged constantly.

I was just discussing this with my MIL yesterday. She was of the opinion that using a tripod or other stands would require a permit. I totally disagreed with her. I’m seeing now that there is a good, if somewhat grey, reason for objecting to the tripods. Sure, a whole day of shooting in a public place could be annoying and an obstruction to the public, but me with my dinky tripod on a Sunday morning is harmless. Most cops I know wouldn’t give me any grief about a tripod.

Hell, a few weeks ago, my lovely gal and I were doing some night sky photography when the local sheriff came to lock the gates. She was shocked when I asked him to let me take one more, as his headlights ruined the shot I was working on. She was beside herself.

“But he’s a COP!” she said.
“So? I’m breaking no rules or laws and I asked politely” I said as I set up the shot.
The officer was nice and turned off his vehicle. I thanked him and came up with a nice shot of Orion.

Why did you even talk to the cop?

Because I am a human being, I am civilized and I have manners.

You?

Fonzie: he said “because his headlights ruined the shot”

Talk to cop to have lights turned off… was he just going to WILL the lights to turn off?

Carlos is right, get 100 photog’s together and photograph that building. Have a couple of video cameras to capture all the fun.

If you read the relevant part of The Patriot Act 18 USC Sec. 1992 paragraph 8 it says; “(8) surveils, photographs, videotapes, diagrams, or otherwise collects information with the intent to plan or assist in planning any of the acts described in paragraphs (1) through (6)”

So all of a sudden the cops think this means that anyone with a camera is planning on blowing up something. Taking a photo can’t be an innocent act that is normal and customary. As we all know this just isn’t so. This paragraph is also where the cops come up with the, we don’t know if you are taking photos for someone else to brand us all as suspicious. If I walked around all day thinking every act I observed was suspicious I’d end up in a mental hospital.

Like I was saying on the other post about the cops with the gun disguised as a camera. The cops made one. That means all cameras suspected of being a gun until proven otherwise. Same thing with zip-lock bags. We saw zip-lock bags used to store drugs therefor all zip-lock bags are used to store drugs.

Cops take photos of citizens all the time. They use those photos to prosecute them. That’s the another reason they don’t want photos being taken of them. They are all afraid we will use our photos of them the same way they use photos.

Basically if you can see it from a public place you can take a photo of it.

hm. good one.

who skateboards in flippys?