Browsing this Thread:
2 Anonymous Users
|
Re: Illegal to take pictures in the train station?
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
 
|
Here we go again... This topic is like the Whole Foods thread, it never seems to die and keeps coming back every so often.
Despite what Joe Pentangelo says in the article (he is the PA spokesman quoted in the article) the PA very clearly states in all of their printed PATH timetables (under Service Notes) that all photography is banned in trains and stations. Direct quote: No Photography or Solicitation: Photography and solicitation are prohibited on trains and in stations. From PATH Timetable And, the PATH website states the following under PATH Policies > Safety & Security > System wide: Photographing or taking motion pictures of the PATH system is prohibited unless permission has been obtained.
Posted on: 2015/1/16 12:27
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Illegal to take pictures in the train station?
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2014/12/21 14:43 Last Login : 2015/11/15 0:07 From Harsimus Cove
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
399
 |
I remember in the mid 60s a TV show called East Side/West Side. It was claimed that the opening credits were the first to show films of the NYC subway. Filming had been prohibited before or the producer broke the law to get publicity.
Posted on: 2015/1/16 11:37
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Illegal to take pictures in the train station?
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2006/11/13 18:42 Last Login : 2022/2/28 7:31 From 280 Grove Street
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
4192
|
Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QyAcXPT_S9w https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XVCzN6eLnPE There are heaps of images, photos and video on the PATH - The PA cop must not be computer / internet savvy!
Posted on: 2015/1/16 7:28
|
|||
|
My humor is for the silent blue collar majority - If my posts offend, slander or you deem inappropriate and seek deletion, contact the webmaster for jurisdiction.
|
||||
|
||||
|
Illegal to take pictures in the train station?
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Is it really illegal to take pictures in the train station?
Transit agencies have differing policies for photographers, videographers by Joseph Passantino Reporter staff writer Jan 04, 2015 | 1282 Ever since the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, local bloggers and journalists have told stories of being stopped by police from taking photographs in train and bus stations, and near bridges and ports. But is there really a law against this, and if so, what?s behind it? As it turns out, there are no government laws against the photography, and some of the individual transit officers have been incorrect about what the transit agencies? regulations actually state. There are some regulations in place related to photography, but they predate 9/11. When the Bayonne Community News recently started taking photographs of a Bayonne Bridge gantry crane from a public sidewalk, a Port Authority police officer asked the journalist to stop. ?You?re not supposed to be taking pictures,? the officer said. ?It?s a Homeland Security issue.? Actually, that isn?t the case. According to a spokesman for the Port Authority, which oversees most of the ports, bridges, airports, and tunnels in the area, those shooting commercial photographs or video must apprise the authority in advance of their intentions. That means commercial photographs, taken by companies. Individuals do not have the same restriction ? and the policies are not related to terrorism. Read more: http://hudsonreporter.com/view/full_s ... ers-?instance=jersey_city
Posted on: 2015/1/16 6:31
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Photogaphy illegal in public places? PA didn't get the memo
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Just can't stay away
 
|
Accept that we are no longer living in a free country.
Posted on: 2011/2/5 2:22
|
|||
|
>>> IT'S TOO LATE.....<<<
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Photogaphy illegal in public places? PA didn't get the memo
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2008/5/6 6:21 Last Login : 2022/11/28 18:03 From Jersey City, NJ
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
162
|
October 18, 2010, 6:00 pm
You Can Photograph That Federal Building By DAVID W. DUNLAP The New York Times http://lens.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10 ... ph-that-federal-building/ The right of photographers to stand in a public place and take pictures of federal buildings has been upheld by a legal settlement reached in New York. In the ever-escalating skirmishes between photographers and security agencies, the most significant battlefield is probably the public way ? streets, sidewalks, parks and plazas ? which has customarily been regarded as a vantage from which photography cannot and should not be barred. Under the settlement, announced Monday by the New York Civil Liberties Union, the Federal Protective Service said that it would inform its officers and employees in writing of the ?public?s general right to photograph the exterior of federal courthouses from publicly accessible spaces? and remind them that ?there are currently no general security regulations prohibiting exterior photography by individuals from publicly accessible spaces, absent a written local rule, regulation or order.? The settlement, filed on Friday, ended a lawsuit against the Department of Homeland Security by Antonio Musumeci, 29, of Edgewater, N.J. He was arrested Nov. 9, 2009, as he videotaped a demonstrator in front of the Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse at 500 Pearl Street. His principal camera was confiscated but he recorded the encounter on a second camera. On two later occasions, he was also threatened with arrest. The protective service, which guards buildings and properties that are owned by or leased to the federal government, is part of the homeland security agency. ?This settlement secures the public?s First Amendment right to use cameras in public spaces without being harassed,? said a statement issued by Donna Lieberman, the executive director of the New York Civil Liberties Union, which represented Mr. Musumeci in Federal District Court. On behalf of the Federal Protective Service, Michael Keegan, the chief of public and legislative affairs, said in a statement that the ?settlement of Mr. Musumeci?s lawsuit clarifies that protecting public safety is fully compatible with the need to grant public access to federal facilities, including photography of the exterior of federal buildings.? At issue in the case was a federal regulation that was cited in the arrest of Mr. Musumeci but that seems ? on the face of it ? not to have prohibited what he was doing. It says, in part, that ?persons entering in or on federal property may take photographs? of ?building entrances, lobbies, foyers, corridors or auditoriums for news purposes.? Mr. Musumeci told the arresting officers that he worked for the radio talk program Free Talk Live. He was given a ticket and released on the spot. His account appeared on his Blog of Bile. As part of the settlement, the Federal Protective Service said it construed the regulation ?not to prohibit individuals from photographing (including motion photography) the exterior of federal courthouses from publicly accessible spaces.? Christopher T. Dunn, the associate legal director of the civil liberties union and lead counsel in the case, said in a telephone interview that the settlement could be interpreted to apply to any federal building anywhere in the country under the aegis of the protective service. Because the regulation speaks broadly of federal property ? not only courthouses ? Mr. Dunn said the settlement was ?tantamount to a recognition that there is no restriction on the photography of federal buildings from public places.?
Posted on: 2011/2/4 5:04
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Photogaphy illegal in public places? PA didn't get the memo
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2007/10/20 17:38 Last Login : 2012/7/18 2:23 From Not in JC anymore
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
389
|
Quote:
The argument that it jeopardizes officer safety is weak at best. I guess that the media needs to go back and blur out all the faces of officers in thousands of images. Some officers who don't want to be photographed are insecure in themselves, their knowledge of the law, and are afraid they will get caught doing something wrong inadvertently and then it will be used against them. Other officers are just plain corrupt and don't want any wrong doing caught on tape. And then most cops just don't care of they are filmed. Officers need to realize that they are under public scrutiny under all times and that at some point somewhere they may be caught on film. I think the best case of an officer being caught of wrong doing on video is the one in NYC where the officer shoved a bicyclist off his bike during a protest. I am glad the courts didn't think that video tape was unconstitutional. Quote:
Sounds like spite and vengeance than actual law enforcement. And before someone jumps all over me, I fully support law enforcement and concede that their jobs are tough enough already.
Posted on: 2011/2/3 14:10
|
|||
|
- Never argue with an idiot. They bring you down to their level and then beat you with experience.
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Photogaphy illegal in public places? PA didn't get the memo
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Cops vs. cameras: filming cops illegal
By Tim Elfrink Thursday, Jan 27 2011 When Robert Hammonds and a friend, Brent Bredwell, finished filming a DJ show at Jazid in South Beach, it was around 3 a.m. on a Sunday in September. A few minutes later, after they jumped into a car and headed down Washington Avenue, a drunk-looking driver swerved across traffic and cut them off. Hammonds leaned out the window and yelled "What the hell are you doing?" at the guy. Next thing Hammonds and Bredwell knew, a beefy cop was pulling them over. Holding his Sig Sauer .40 caliber gun at his side, the officer angrily thrust his hand into the car through the driver-side window and waved his walkie-talkie. "Are you a #OOPS#ing idiot?" the cop screamed. "Doing that in front of me? Asshole!" Hammonds, in the passenger seat, was discreetly filming the outburst. When reinforcements arrived to put Bredwell through sobriety tests, Hammonds kept taping and agitating. "Oh, it's martial law now!" he yelled. Another officer gestured at Hammonds. "Take the camera," he said to a colleague. "It's evidence now. Take it." On film, the frame shakes violently and Hammonds yells, "I do not release this camera!" But then an officer grabs it and shuts it off. That confrontation, filmed in 2009, was the first of dozens that Hammonds and three friends caught on tape. They've paid dearly, spending thousands on legal fees and tickets, and sleeping multiple nights in county lockup. They've even seen their faces plastered on a warning flyer sent to departments around Miami-Dade County. They're part of a simmering national fight between citizen journalists and police departments that believe subjects have no right to film them. The battle over whether cops can arrest you just for videotaping them is quickly becoming the most hotly contested corner of American civil liberties law. "As more professionals and amateurs use equipment to record police activity, they're facing the ire of officers who just don't want to be recorded," says David Ardia, director of Harvard University's Citizen Media Law Project. "We need a clear answer from courts that this is legal, or else police officers' instincts will always be to snatch the camera." It might seem like an open-and-shut argument ? cops are public figures, after all, and they're operating in plain view on the street. But it isn't, at least in the dozen states, including Florida, that require both parties in any conversation to consent to audio recording. Since video cameras also record voices, police argue, citizen journalists are breaking the law when they record cops without permission. Publishing cops' photos also jeapordizes their safety, says Detective Juan Sanchez, a spokesman for Miami Beach police. Miami Police Department officers, meanwhile, say they only arrest camera-toting civilians like Hammonds when they harass cops and break the law. "When you go beyond filming to trying to piss off an officer, you're subject to arrest," says Delrish Moss, a department spokesman. Police around the country agree with him. Last May, a man in Maryland named Anthony Graber posted a YouTube video made with a helmet camera. It showed a state trooper drawing a gun and threatening him during a traffic stop. A few days after the clip was posted, police raided Gruber's house and charged him with "illegal wiretapping." In Massachusetts, courts have upheld several similar convictions, including one against Jeffrey Manzelli, a Cambridge sound engineer who recorded police at a public antiwar rally. In South Florida, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) sued the City of Boynton Beach this past June on behalf of a local woman named Sharron Tasha Ford. She had gone to a movie theater to pick up her son, a minor, whom police accused of trespassing. Ford said she had "a bad feeling" about the arrest, so she took a camera with her. When she refused to stop filming, she was arrested and charged under State Statute 934.03, the "two-party consent" recording law. "It really is a perversion of this statute to try to apply it to filming or recording what public officials are doing in public," says Randall Marshall, legal director of ACLU Florida. Hammonds and Bredwell didn't know about the legal infighting when they pulled out their camera on Washington Avenue 16 months ago. They just acted on instinct. "It's your responsibility as an American to monitor authority and to speak up when it's being abused," Hammonds says. Hammonds is a 30-year-old Indianapolis native with shoulder-length hair, a goatee, and a perpetually aggrieved voice. He moved to Miami five years ago to study film at Miami International University. That's where he met Bredwell, a soft-spoken, six-foot three-inch filmmaker whose father is a cop in Fort Myers. They never planned to become police agitators. But when Bredwell tried to retrieve his seized Sony camera the day after that first incident, he says Miami Beach police claimed not to have it in the evidence room. A week later, the friends returned to police headquarters to try again. This time, they brought a full assortment of cameras and mics. They shot footage of the cops stonewalling Bredwell again. When officers noticed the cameras, they arrested Hammonds and charged him with obstruction of justice, loitering, and trespassing. He says an officer grabbed him by his hair in an interrogation room and then locked him in a sweltering van for two hours in 90-degree heat. http://www.miaminewtimes.com/2011-01- ... ras-filming-cops-illegal/
Posted on: 2011/2/3 6:31
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Photogaphy illegal in public places? PA didn't get the memo
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
No, it isn't. It is a bi-state public agency (indeed, that is what the PA calls itself), the joint heads of which are the governors of New York and New Jersey. Nor is it like the Fed, which is a quasi-public entity--"quasi" because many of its constituent members are truly private entities (i.e., the "member banks"). Nor is it like any federal agency, simply because it is not a federal entity. Nor does it operate autonomously from the state governments of New York or New Jersey. This is a misconception arising from the fact that the PA does not receive any tax revenue and must subsist solely on revenues it generates from tolls and fares. But it is controlled by the governors of NY & NJ and their appointed commissioners. A "public benefit corporation" is a creature of state law, something the PA cannot be as it exists pursuant to an interstate compact, which is expressly authorized by the Constitution (in fact, New Jersey does not have a "public benefit corporation" statutory entity, they are simply called "state agencies" even if they operate like a public benefit corporation. And Rutgers is not a "semi-private" institution, it is a public university and was created as such in 1945 and 1956 by the NJ legislature. Of course, none of this debate on the appropriate taxonomy of the PA changes the fact that nothing the PA owns or operates is "private" in any sense, which was the point of my post.
Posted on: 2008/7/21 22:33
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Photogaphy illegal in public places? PA didn't get the memo
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
The Port Authority is a public corporation, more similar to the Federal Reserve than the Department of Agriculture.
As to the Port Authority Police, for them to act as police officers, they must be granted the power by the state. For instance, Rutgers University Police are chartered by the state of New Jersey granting them powers equivalent to the NJ State Police. Rutgers is another semi-private, semi-public institution, which like the Port Authority, has a police force, but operates independently from the state.
Posted on: 2008/7/21 14:27
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Photogaphy illegal in public places? PA didn't get the memo
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
The Port is overseen by the bi-state government but is autonomous to state government providing "essential" services.
Posted on: 2008/7/21 14:10
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Photogaphy illegal in public places? PA didn't get the memo
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
The property owned by the Port Authority is not "private" in any sense of the word. The PA is a governmental agency formed via an interstate compact between New York and New Jersey, with the approval of the U.S. Congress. That is why the PA police have actual police powers and are not rent-a-cops, who, with a few exceptions, have no more "official" power than you or I. True, a rent-a-cop can order you off the premises he is charged with guarding, but so could the janitor if his employer authorized him to to do so. That said, the fact that PA property is "public" property does not mean that the PA cannot restrict photography on the land it owns. As photography is considered speech for purposes of restrictions placed on it through state action, the restrictions must pass constitutional muster under the so-called "time, place and manner" test (content-neutral, narrowly drawn, serve a significant government purpose/interest and adequate alternative channels of communication). The ability of the government to restrict is further limited by the nature of the fora the restriction seeks to cover (traditional public forum, limited public forum or nonpublic forum), which colors the analysis. As for restricting photography of government property taken from without that property, this raises a much thornier issue. As far as I am aware, there are no controlling cases on such restrictions, but I would think that it would be more difficult for the government to restrict photography from the sidewalk, for example, as that is considered a traditional public forum, although in this climate, I wouldn't bet the farm on it.
Posted on: 2008/7/20 19:52
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Photogaphy illegal in public places? PA didn't get the memo
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
The completely incompetent security guards at 525 Washington Blvd will not allow you to take pictures in the vicinity of their building. They don't know where the property line is (I'm personally curious, but am not going through the effort to research it). They threaten to assault people who are taking pictures with cheap digital cameras of their family on benches.
They also don't allow (under the threat of violence) pictures in their lobby, but since that is clearly private property it doesn't bother me as much.
Posted on: 2008/7/20 17:18
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Photogaphy illegal in public places? PA didn't get the memo
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Newbie
 
|
Twice I have been chased off in JC, once at a waterfront building " can't have photos of the building". I was not even on their property. It is always an issue, even if I don't photograph people. Soon my own sneaker will be posted " no photos"
Posted on: 2008/7/20 15:27
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Photogaphy illegal in public places? PA didn't get the memo
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Newbie
|
Thanks ianmac47, for the informative post, and for references to verifiable information.
Posted on: 2008/7/16 23:40
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Photogaphy illegal in public places? PA didn't get the memo
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Not too shy to talk
 
|
Nice collection of horror stories about the "War on Photography"
http://nycphotorights.com/wordpress/
Posted on: 2008/7/10 11:33
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Photogaphy illegal in public places? PA didn't get the memo
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2007/10/14 15:17 Last Login : 2017/11/13 17:19 From time to time
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
223
|
Quote:
Frank_M wrote: You know, just be yourself.  
Posted on: 2008/7/9 18:54
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Photogaphy illegal in public places? PA didn't get the memo
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Quite a regular
 
Joined:
2008/4/17 17:10 Last Login : 2008/12/27 1:27 From Hamilton Park
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
46
|
Funny how people are getting harassed for taking pictures of bridges and tunnels, which anyone can see from Google Maps... but I never see any cops telling the tourists gawking at (and sometimes taking pictures of) the WTC construction site to GTFO. Seriously, every morning and afternoon I have to traverse a g-damn maze of idiots standing in the middle of the station/sidewalk gawking at the hole in the ground as if it's filled with jello wrestling midgets.
Methinks observing and taking notes throughout the course of the construction of a building would be a lot more useful to a "terrist" than some pictures of the Holland Tunnel. Then again, we all know security theatre has little to do with actual security.
Posted on: 2008/7/9 18:39
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Photogaphy illegal in public places? PA didn't get the memo
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Actually, I don't believe that is the case. The MTA proposed a photography ban a few years ago, but I understand that common sense prevailed. Often police/security will tell you that photography is illegal because they either don't know any better or they just want you to move on.
Posted on: 2008/7/9 18:02
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Photogaphy illegal in public places? PA didn't get the memo
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Not too shy to talk
|
It's actually not legal to take photos in the NYC Subway anymore. My out-of-state cousins were stopped by an undercover officer when we were on the subway platform.
I agree that photography has nothing to do with terrorism. I've even had family members stopped for taking pictures of the skyline from Hoboken. It is indeed a sad state of affairs. I hope that I won't have to regale my future children with stories of how I was able to photograph anything I wanted when I was their age 
Posted on: 2008/7/9 17:48
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Photogaphy illegal in public places? PA didn't get the memo
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Quite a regular
Joined:
2005/9/23 16:31 Last Login : 2013/5/31 19:15 From Downtown JC
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
52
|
Excellent post Ianmac!
Stand up for your rights people! But you have to know what your rights are first.. Oh look.. American Idol is on!
Posted on: 2008/7/9 16:43
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Photogaphy illegal in public places? PA didn't get the memo
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
I take a lot of photographs in Jersey City and I've been harassed more times than I care to remember. Taking photographs near the Holland Tunnel resulted in two police cars being sent my way.
My advice? Don't argue with police. Be as pleasant and cooperative as possible. Make eye contact and tell them what you're up to and why. They'll be more reasonable if you don't act like an arrogant jackass (something I'm unfortunately quite good at). It's okay to let them know you're not happy about it, but stay calm. Security guards on the other hand are often completely irrational when they see a person conspicuously taking photographs. They wouldn't notice if you were doing it surreptitiously, but that's another story. In those cases make sure you're not on private property and if they threaten to call the cops, big deal. One morning this past spring, I took a photo of a sign posted on the fence at the barren PPG/toxic waste site on Garfield Ave. It was a public message on who to contact for more information. Before I knew what was going on, a female guard carrying a troublesome-looking aerosol bottle was running toward me, hollering the entire way from her trailer. I explained from the sidewalk I was doing no harm nor was I trespassing. Her reasoning: "Well, as far as I'm concerned you are!!" That's the mindset we have to deal with. Good luck to all and don't stop taking photographs just because some people don't get it
Posted on: 2008/7/9 15:52
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Photogaphy illegal in public places? PA didn't get the memo
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
On the GWB walkway there are signs stating you are not allowed to take photos. I ride my bike over it frequently and have taken pictures many times, only once was I stopped.
Biggest mistake I ever made was taking picture of Trenton State Prison. I was visiting someone imprisoned there and before going in figured I would snap a few photos of the towers outside and the prison walls. If you havent seen it, TSP is a huge structure that's literally in the middle of a neighborhood. There isn't even any space around it. There are row houses, a sidewalk, a two lane road a sidewalk then a huge 50 foot wall of the prison. Anyway, after snapping a few photos I was surrounded by cops with guns drawn. They took the film out of the camera and destroyed it on the spot.
Posted on: 2008/7/9 15:05
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Photogaphy illegal in public places? PA didn't get the memo
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Here is a good source that summarizes photographer's rights.
NJ Transit, Port Authority, and the NJ Turnpike Authority are agencies that own private property that prohibit photography ON THEIR PRIVATE PROPERTY. When NJ Transit instituted a ban on photography, they had for a time even insisted that photographing trains was prohibited, but later recanted this restriction after realizing it was unenforceable. The NJ Turnpike for a long time claimed copyright over their roadway, insisting that photography of the roadway violated their rights; this was back when the highway was new and innovative and there was no such thing as an interstate system. About their rights-- well not so much. Architecture is not copyrightable. As for the Port Authority restrictions, their carefully chosen words imply that it is prohibited and regulated to photograp their facilities, but really the restrictions are to their property. For instance, of the World Trade Center site, the PA says "Media cannot videotape or photograph inside the perimeter fence. Videotaping and photography is permitted outside the fence with hand-held cameras, provided pedestrian traffic is not hindered. No monopods or tripods are permitted." Everything in the perimeter fence is private, Port Authority property. Everything outside the fence is public right-a-way. The Port Authority is implying that they are granting permission to photograph the World Trade center site from the sidewalk, however, no permission is needed. In fact, restrictions on hindering pedestrian traffic are city ordinances which the Port Authority is repeating in an effort to show they do have the authority to regulate photography, which they don't.
Posted on: 2008/7/9 14:07
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Photogaphy illegal in public places? PA didn't get the memo
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Looks like the brainwashing has been working. You are in fact absolutely wrong. Photography can be prohibited on private property. Photography ON Port Authority property is prohibited, but not OF Port Authority Property. Photographs of Port Authority property from public property or private property without restrictions is not illegal. More over, as much as agencies would like to pretend they have the authority to enact laws, they don't. That is to say, any rules against photography on private property are regulations, not laws. Laws can only be created by a legislative body, not a board of directors. Lastly, you are not under any obligation to answer a police officer's questions. He can arrest you if there is cause, but its unlikely taking a photograph itself would be cause, though in our current police state, reality has been contorted. Don't believe the hype.
Posted on: 2008/7/9 13:47
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Photogaphy illegal in public places? PA didn't get the memo
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Not too shy to talk
|
Maybe it is not the "law", but the PA lists the photography restricitons on their website here:
http://www.panynj.gov/AboutthePortAut ... sCenter/PressCenterGuide/
Posted on: 2008/7/9 13:44
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Photogaphy illegal in public places? PA didn't get the memo
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
It doesn't mean that photography isn't a decadent medium. You have to think like an insurance company, you have to worry about the what if's..... liability, accountability, & responsibility. If you act in reverse of those words life will take care of itself.
Posted on: 2008/7/9 12:31
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Photogaphy illegal in public places? PA didn't get the memo
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Just can't stay away
|
Quote:
Taking photos on the NJ turnpike is perfectly legal. (a) To insure the health, safety and welfare of motorists, the general public and the Authority, no person shall be permitted to park, stop, stand or travel at a slow speed in violation of N.J.S.A. 27:23-27, for the purpose of taking photographs, videos or motion pictures (hereinafter collectively "film") on the Roadway, except as provided in (b) below or except as otherwise authorized pursuant to (c) or (d) below. Here's the link to the regulatoins document - http://www.state.nj.us/turnpike/TPREG.pdf
Posted on: 2008/7/9 12:23
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Photogaphy illegal in public places? PA didn't get the memo
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Just can't stay away
Joined:
2004/12/12 23:31 Last Login : 2015/12/3 0:37 From Paulus Hook
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
130
|
Quote:
Next time you're entering the turnpike stop and take a look at the big sign that lists the regulations. Or you can read a fascinating book by two Rutgers professors called "Looking for America on the NJ Turpike," published more than a decade ago but still in print, I believe.
Posted on: 2008/7/9 11:41
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Photogaphy illegal in public places? PA didn't get the memo
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Photography IS permitted on the NYC Subway -- even filming, as long as you don't have a tripod. The PATH, on the other hand, is another story -- I've seen tourists yelled at for taking a picture of their baby's first train ride.
Posted on: 2008/7/9 11:25
|
|||
|
||||