Sorry, but similar rules already exist and have for many years in many cities including Los Angeles and Santa Barbara, California I am aware of personally. In addition others. like Seattle, that have been used as locations for major motion picture production have adopted similar liability and licensing schemes to protect the community from serious liability exposure.

In Santa Barbara if you look like a professional with pro photo gear and are on publicly owned park space it is not unusual to be questioned by police as to whether you are a professional, and if so if you have a license or permit.

In Orange County and near San Diego, beach communities have put in very restrictive rules governing photographing on their beaches because pro wedding photographers from great distances away have used the locations for "romantic" wedding portraits excessively to become a nuisance that the locals have protested against successfully. If you have a several million dollar investment in a beach-front house you don't want your "front yard" littered daily with wedding shoots.

In other words these apparently annoying rules get put in place for reasons, like I illustrated above, or that a movie car chase scene went out of control and local people and property were affected, which happened just last year.

NYC is a money town, everything is about the city making money. This is just another way of doing it. You also don't want to think of the fines to taking pictures inside the subway system, a big no-no since 9/11. And lets not forget those 140.00 parking tickets that appear 90 seconds after the meter runs out(been there). If you look to do anything in NYC be prepared to pay.

Quote:
If you have a several million dollar investment in a beach-front house you don't want your "front yard" littered daily with wedding shoots.

Oh, now you made me feel really sorry for those poor billionaires.

As for the car chase: there's a big difference between a car chase and a photo shot. Try not mixing Nikon and Canon lenses (ehm, apples and oranges).
FYI: I worked for years in the movie industry, I surely know what's involved in shooting a high budget movie versus a one-time nighttime skyline shot.
But you're welcome to be happy to see freedoms taken away, after all, that's what the current government is been doing with people too blind to see it.

Luca

You seem to be missing the point entirely, Ed. It's not about money, it's about freedom. What's next? No more tourist photos in Central Park?

Luca

First of all you have this issue backwards. It is not about freedom, it is about the other side of the coin, responsibility. Public spaces like parks and streets are just that, owned by the public and administered by the local government. If an individual causes damage to that public space it is everyone's loss, if they behave in that space to cause harm to others the public via the local government is held liable for any loss. Local ordinances to require bonds, permits and licenses are put in place to limit the public's liability for what occurs on public space.

As far as I know (other than Homeland security issues since 9-11) private citizens are not required to obtain permits, get licenses or post bonds to photograph on public spaces, only persons who are doing so professionally for the purpose of making money. And that is no different than if someone who has a farm and comes to town to sell their goods on the street at a public farmer's market, has to get a license and usually must be insured or bonded. The principle here is no different than the law in many states like California that you must have your car insured to get it licensed to drive on public streets and highways.

As to the snide remark about billionaires, I had a home on Manhattan Beach for 10 years, and my neighbors, like me were middle class people who worked for a living. Someone who has had a house on the beach for 30 years maybe paid $100,000 for it originally, but today it may be worth $2,000,000, that does not change them , it just says they paid their mortgage payments for 30 years and now have something they can retire on.

When the city of Los Angeles began requiring permits and bonds to do commercial still shoots on City property in the 70's I was a member of the governing board of the ASMP chapter, and the city did consult with us and other members of the professional photography community about the then new regulations. Some members felt the original city proposals were too high for bonds and insurance, and as a result the idea of scaling responsibility relative to different kinds of locations and inherent risk was agreed to.

Quote:
First of all you have this issue backwards. It is not about freedom

Of course I have it backward, you are right because you say so.

Quote:
As far as I know...

Obviously you don't know much. According to the proposed law you need permit and insurance if you are in a group of two or more people and use a space for 1/2 hour or longer. That means that I could not go out in the city with my brother and try to get some decent shots because I'm considered, according to you, a business trying to make money (and how do you go about proving that?). I'd like to hear the opinion of SB's editorial photographers who live in NYC.

But let me tell you about you, you're a wealthy conservative who goes about screaming outrage to big government but incites the government to get bigger, we've seen this trend from your side ever since the Reagan era. Well, I'm for more freedom and less government, sorry for you.

Luca

>>But let me tell you about you, you're a wealthy conservative who goes about screaming outrage to big government but incites the government to get bigger, we've seen this trend from your side ever since the Reagan era. Well, I'm for more freedom and less government, sorry for you.<<

You accomplish nothing by trying to paint me falsely. I am not wealthy, never have been, nor have I ever been seen as conservative politically or in any other way for that matter. All that I am saying is that communities usually do not regulate that which does not need regulation, and do so, like requiring permits and insurance because there have been too many cases of people abusing their freedom and being irresponsible causing losses and damage that must be paid for by the community out of public funds, taxpayer's money.

If some people would grow up and realize their freedom stops where it impinges on someone else's welfare, and if they would behave more responsibly in respect of the fact they are not alone but part of a community of individuals that have responsibilities and obligations to each other, many onerous and inconvenient regulations would not be necessary.

But from the gist of your remarks I have to assume like so many in New York that have given it a reputation for rude and surly behavior indifferent to others assuming everyone is their adversary, that attitude has had unintended consequences which are the reasons for the new regulations you are now complaining about.