Ansel Adam Act H.R.5893

On 1/24/2015 10:23 AM, George Kerby wrote:



On 1/22/15 1:47 PM, in article , "PeterN"
wrote:

On 1/22/2015 9:30 AM, George Kerby wrote:


snip

An


That's just what the boys in DC are thinking and they have their hands in
you pocket and they AIN'T there to play "pool"...


Sounds like you like to play pocket pool.

Sounds like you like to bitch.


Reply below:

--
PeterN

On 2/1/2015 7:08 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
In article ,
says...

On 1/21/2015 3:02 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , PeterN
wrote:


Agreed. Those rights need to be spelt out to the various enforcement
agencies. Park Rangers and other LEOs need to know the difference
between a commercial shoot requiring permits and appropriate waivers,
and a hobbyist photographer, or tourist snap-shooter. They need to
understand that violations of those fundamental rights could be career
damaging. It seems like another training issue to me.
An enhanced version of the First Amendment is not necessary.


In one of our State parks the Ranger in charge insists he can tell a pro
from an amateur, just by looking at them. His theory is that if you use
a tripod and gray card, you must be a pro. A letter to his supervisor
solved the problem.

you should write a letter to the mayor of new york city, since they
also use a tripod as the differentiator.

Why!
Besides your informaton is outdated. So long as the tripod does not
cause an obstruction,you are OK

who defines what is an obstruction?

if a cop says you're obstructing something, are you going to argue or
pack your stuff and move?


Read the NYC code and the rules about photography. Then comment.

The way it works in the real world is:

COP: Stop recording.

PHOTOG: I have a righg according to blah blah blah . . .

COP: Stop recording or I'll arrest you.

PHOTOG: I have a right according to blah blah blah . . .

COP: (Cuffing photographer and seizing equipment) You have the right to
remain silent . . .

The next morning:

JUDGE: How do you plead?

PHOTOG: Not guilty.

JUDGE: Defendant is remanded to trial.

Some weeks later:

ATTORNEY FOR THE DEFENSE: Under Chapter 9 of the Rules of New York City
the defendant was within his rights in photographing blah blah blah . .
.

JUDGE: I find the defendant not guilty and order that all property
seized at arrest be returned to him.

Some hours later:

PHOTOGRAPHER: (views mangled remains of camera)

EVIDENCE CLERK: Sorry, it got dropped.

This is the problem with trusting the law--the law only works after the
fact--you still get arrested, you still get tried, you are still
deprived of your property, and bad things still happen to your property
while it is in police custody.

Not all the time--most cops are decent conscientious people who do try
to keep current, but some are just plain assholes and since the system
doesn't weed out the assholes until they commit some monumentally
bonheaded act of assholery they screw things up for everybody.

In a worst case scenario you are right. I had a similar incident where I
politely asked the cop to check with his sargent. He came back with a
sheepich grin, and told me to take all the pictures I wanted.
Depends on the cop and your attitude.
In general though, If you don't stand up for your rights, you won't have
any.



--
PeterN