Okay bad attempt at humor. Permits and insurance came up in this or another group.
Catch 22 or intentional ambiguity? Protectionist fears? Good read here <http://www.thepomoblog.com/papers/pomo3.htm> This makes the grey area a lot grayer <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_and_British_English_spelling_diff\ erences#Miscellaneous_spelling_differences> . You want to vlog and have similar protections afforded a journalist? Better register as a Company (business license), get production insurance, be recognized by MSM and/or peers as a video blog journalist (vloggournalist <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_journalism> ? Have I coined yet another term? I claim all rights, here and now to vloggournalist (TM) and vlogournalist(TM), I am rich biatch!) Avoid the hassles and go at it like a individual could mean forfeiting protections. Another cog or piece in the puzzle of what constitutes first amendment rights. What say you my fellow Bill O'Rightsies <http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/funddocs/billeng.htm> <http://www.nytimes.com/ <http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/29/nyregion/29camera.html?ei=5090&en=711\ 35caff6fefe6a&ex=1340769600&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=print\ > > June 29, 2007 City May Seek Permit and Insurance for Many Kinds of Public Photography By RAY RIVERA ....Some tourists, amateur photographers, even would-be filmmakers hoping to make it big on YouTube could soon be forced to obtain a city permit and $1 million in liability insurance before taking pictures or filming on city property, including sidewalks. ... would require any group of two or more people who want to use a camera in a single public location for more than a half hour to get a city permit and insurance. ... requirements would apply to any group of five or more people who plan to use a tripod in a public location for more than 10 minutes... .... the rules were not intended to apply to families on vacation or amateur filmmakers or photographers. ... Under the rules, the two or more people would not actually have to be filming, but could simply be holding an ordinary camera and talking to each other. .... The rules are intended to set standards for professional filmmakers and photographers "While the permitting scheme does not distinguish between commercial and other types of filming, we anticipate that these rules will have minimal, if any, impact on tourists and recreational photographers, including those that use tripods," ... The permits would be free and applications could be obtained online, Ms. Cho said. The draft rules say the office could take up to 30 days to issue a permit, but Ms. Cho said she expected that most would be issued within 24 hours.... In May 2005, Rakesh Sharma, an Indian documentary filmmaker, was using a hand-held video camera in Midtown Manhattan when he was detained for several hours and questioned by police. .... According to a lawsuit, Mr. Sharma sought information about how permits were granted and who was required to have one but found there were no written guidelines. Nonetheless, the film office told him he was required to have a permit, but when he applied, the office refused to grant him one and would not give him a written explanation of its refusal. As part of a settlement reached in April, the film office agreed to establish written rules for issuing permits. Mr. Sharma could not be reached for comment yesterday. Mr. Dunn said most of the new rules were reasonable. Notably, someone using a hand-held video camera, as Mr. Sharma was doing, would no longer have to get a permit. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
