Do you have right to take pictures in public?

HighDemonslayer · Post by **HighDemonslayer** » 11 Jan 2006 10:10

Better watch out where you set up for that next shred vid.
--------------------------------------------------------------------

NYCLU sues city over right to shoot video, pictures in public

By LARRY NEUMEISTER
Associated Press Writer

January 10, 2006, 4:52 PM EST

NEW YORK -- The New York Civil Liberties Union sued the city on Tuesday, challenging restrictions on people's right to photograph public places after an award-winning filmmaker from India was blocked from videotaping near the MetLife building.

In its lawsuit, the civil rights group highlighted the plight of Rakesh Sharma, who said he was left feeling ashamed and humiliated when he was detained in May 2005 after police saw him use a hand-held video camera on a public street in midtown Manhattan.

Sharma was taping background footage for a documentary examining changes in the lives of ordinary people such as taxi drivers after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

He was told he needed a permit to film on city streets and then was denied one without explanation when he applied to the Mayor's Office of Film, Theatre and Broadcasting, the lawsuit said. It alleged his constitutional rights were violated.

It said he would like to resume filming but fears further police detention and harassment.

The lawsuit seeks a declaration letting Sharma film in public places and compensatory damages for his May encounter with police.

Gabriel Taussig, chief of the city's administrative law division, said the city had not received the lawsuit but would evaluate it thoroughly.

"Obviously, in this day and age, it's a high priority of New York City to ensure safety on its public streets," he said in a statement.

The NYCLU has received other complaints about people being harassed for taking pictures in public places, Executive Director Donna Lieberman said.

"The NYCLU is deeply concerned about what this says about the state of our democracy," she said. "The streets of Manhattan are public spaces, and the public has a right not only to be on the street but to take pictures on the street. Nobody should risk arrest to take out his camera or video camera."

The interference by police was not the first time Sharma has encountered resistance to his work.

State censors in India have banned his awarding-winning 2003 documentary, "Final Solution," saying it might trigger unrest. It shows the 2002 religious rioting in the Western state of Gujarat, which killed more than 1,000 people, mostly Muslims.

The NYCLU lawsuit said Sharma's documentaries rely on candid footage of people, places and events since he does not use actors, sets or crews.

It described Sharma as a conscientious, law-abiding resident of Mumbai, India, who had never been arrested or detained by law enforcement officials before his New York experience.

Last May, Sharma was approached by police after he shot footage of traffic emerging from an underpass near Grand Central Terminal for about half an hour, the lawsuit said.

An officer asked him why he was filming the MetLife building, which sits atop the underpass, and he explained he was filming traffic and had only tilted his camera up to capture sunlight hitting buildings, the lawsuit said.

The officer then told him he thought it was suspicious that he was filming a "sensitive building," formerly the Pan Am building, for 30 minutes and that further investigation was necessary, the lawsuit said.

Sharma said he felt stunned and scared after he turned the camera on to show officers what his filming looked like, only to have one of them charge at him, shove him in the chest and grab the camera.

He said he felt ashamed and humiliated when he was kept on the street for about two hours as hundreds of people passed by or gathered to stare. Detectives later apologized after taking him to a police precinct, searching his camera and then returning it scratched and cracked, the lawsuit said.

Copyright 2006 Newsday Inc.------------------------------
-------

-n

Slowsis · Post by **Slowsis** » 11 Jan 2006 13:52

I know another place where you can be detained for filming in a public place......North Korea! The similarities are striking sometimes.

I bet a white person would have gotten no trouble at all.

Bagira · Post by **Bagira** » 11 Jan 2006 19:24

No. I am willing to say that a white person may have gotten less trouble, but even that may not be true.

For example, A few months ago, Slashdot: News for Nerds mentioned a story where a normal WHITE British guy in England had his mobile phone confiscated (and spent a day in custody of (not sure if they call the cops police there...)) because it was though that he was relaying soem BS information or participating in 'suspicious activities'.

I wonder in which country you can be detained for playing with your cell phone...

I'll try to find that story and I'll edit it in if I do.[/url]

Bagira · Post by **Bagira** » 11 Jan 2006 19:31

Mkay. Why can't I edit my posts?

In any case, I can't find the story and I'm not bored enough to search all of /. from today and going back, so you'l have to just believe me. >_>

Slowsis · Post by **Slowsis** » 11 Jan 2006 20:26

You can't edit your posts because this is the discussion area.......its so people don't go deleting parts of their posts to cover their big mouths.

dragonhack · Post by **dragonhack** » 15 Jan 2006 09:21

when i went to NY for new years i'm sure i got the metlife building(it's not hard to miss) and no one gave me any guff..then again i'm in no way a professional filmer...nor do i know the correct term for said person..

carl winslow · Post by **carl winslow** » 17 Jan 2006 23:30

you are allowed to take pictures in public places.

HighDemonslayer · Post by **HighDemonslayer** » 18 Jan 2006 08:01

You know, considering how many cameras are set up EVERYWHERE..... Someone could just stick a remote camera on a wall someplace and surveil their intended "target" indefinately.

As long as the camera kinda looks like it's "supposed to be there", Al Qaeda, or PETA could gain tons of intel on their next bombing target.

I'll bet the greatest threat is somebody will hack into the NYC (or other police-state city) camera network and have complete intel on EVERY site that could be a target. Knowing how this government operates, It's own surveillance system will no doubt become Al Qaedas "eyes and ears". lol

Having cameras everywhere to "keep us safe" is the biggest crock of shit.

1.
Remember that Carolina courthouse shooting last year. There is 5 or so minutes of video , showing him disarming the weak female guard( who never should have been put in a position to escort prisoners alone), and skillfully moving about the couthouse, before executing several more people, and escaping.

The camera was useless in protecting anybody, it only helps the police "clean up the bodies" after the fact.

2. London subway bombings- Cameras watched as multiple bombers moved into position and exploded.

The police bragged for weeks about they had identified who the bombers were from the video footage. Not one official, or journalist/prostitute lamented how the cameras were useless in stopping the attacks.

n

Jim · Post by **Jim** » 18 Jan 2006 08:21

in public yes 100%
in private no unless you have consent