[null, {"document_url": "https://www.telescreen.org/2006/08/photography_is_.html", "unformatted_src": "https://static.flickr.com/76/221278816_8cff1638d7.jpg", "src": "https://static.flickr.com/76/221278816_8cff1638d7.jpg", "formatted_filename": "cff d"}, null, null, null, null]






« No One Laughs At Mr. Fish! | Main | They really need to come up with T-shirts for this... »
 Photography Is STILL Not A Crime, originally uploaded by Vidiot.

Friday evening, seconds after I took this picture (an unsuccessful attempt to get the Silvercup sign and the sunset reflected in the side of a moving train), an NYPD cop walked up to me and asked me if I was taking pictures of the tracks. I replied that no, I was taking pictures of the sunset and the sky.

She told me that it was illegal to take pictures on a subway platform. I responded that, to the best of my knowledge, it wasn't -- and that MTA regulations specifically permit photography. She repeated that it was illegal, and said that "I'm not going to hassle you, I just want you to know that this isn't allowed."

(So she sees someone supposedly breaking the law and lets it slide?)

I reiterated that, as far as I was aware, I wasn't breaking any laws. She repeated that she was cutting me a break and that other cops might not be so nice.

She was pleasant, polite, and courteous, but very firm in her conviction that I was breaking the law. I decided not to insist, because I was tired, just wanted to take pictures, and didn't especially feel like spending the weekend in jail.

Oh -- by the way -- I was right, according to Section 1050.9(c) of the MTA's rules:


I'm really getting tired of restrictions on our liberty with little, if any, payoff in terms of security. I'm not breaking the law, so don't hassle me.

Posted on August 23, 2006 at 05:00 PM | Permalink Vidiot- she said she wasn't going to hassle you, so therefore what she was doing was not hassling you! She even went so far, out of the goodness of her heart, to warn you that other cops might not be so nice in their not-hassling you about breaking the not-law. And this is how you thank her? why do you hate America?

Posted by: Monk | August 23, 2006 at 09:34 PM First, you take pictures. What's next? Spitting on the flag??

What do you think would happen if you pulled out a copy of the rule that says you CAN take pictures? Most likely, further harrassment for calling them out on their "misunderstanding" of the law.

Posted by: z | August 24, 2006 at 12:55 PM Mike: To your first point, I don't think the permission of the auothr gets you off the hook when it comes to plagiarism. I think the most important factor is whether you are deceiving your readers, and this is where Romenesko is in the clear. He did his copying in plain view and invited all of us to look at his methods. That's why I find the we-didn't-know undercurrent of Moos' post to be lacking in credibility.Aggregation is a hot-button topic and has been for a long time, as you know. My starting point is to ask if the aggregator creates value or is just acting as a substitute for the content-creator's site. I think Romenesko clearly created value. He didn't subtract from the local audience for the stories he linked to, and he created a national audience. There is a huge difference between Romenesko and abusive aggregators like Newser and the Huffington Post.

Posted by: Mike | May 21, 2012 at 11:41 PM



