Casual filming is not illegal
Heard on the live police scanner about half an hour ago, some people phoned the police indicating that some man was video taping women walking on the sidewalk then heading into Romantic Depot at 606 Washington Street.
They apparently thought it was some kind of kook filming scenes for his own perverse pleasure.
It later turned out that they were supposedly “filming a commercial” for the store. Police told them to stop filming and get the necessary permits.
This is where I believe the police misled them man and gave incorrect information. This is a free country, and we should be able to film whatever we want, provided it’s in a public place, and it doesn’t “obstruct” pedestrian or vehicular traffic.
Chapter 97 of the City Code indicates the following:
“Incidental use of a public street or sidewalk which is of minimal impact and does not result in a closing of same to public use shall not be considered filming on “public land.”"
So whether your just standing on the sidewalk talking to someone, or have a hand held camera in your hand filming stuff in Hoboken, it’s perfectly OK.
Here’s a copy of Chapter 97 for you to read for yourself.
Hoboken NJ
June 27th, 2007 |
Good thing I went there last night
Login or Register to reply
June 27th, 2007 |
I hope this plays on Channel 78 – I’d like to see the local “talent” involved.
Login or Register to reply
June 27th, 2007 |
Did anyone walk by Romantic Depot this weekend and see the owner/worker sitting outside in his recliner with the mist of water coming off the Romantic Depot sign? That guy rocks!
Login or Register to reply
June 27th, 2007 |
411, where, exactly do you get the collection of “White Boys Gone Wild” stock photos?
I like this one better than the photo included with the “drive by beating” entry a couple of weeks back…
Login or Register to reply
June 27th, 2007 |
If you’re in a public place you can be video taped without your permission. The police lied to him.
For a commerial use, though, you may need to have the people sign releases.
Login or Register to reply
June 27th, 2007 |
How does that place stay in business? I never see anybody in the place when I walk by.
Login or Register to reply
June 27th, 2007 |
I work in TV and no, you don’t need a permit to film non-commercial productions (even if a pervert is filming for his own pleasure – thats a different law).
Romantic Depot cannot film for the purpose of a commercial. They have to get a permit so that if a citizen is filmed without their permission or consent, they can go to the City Hall, find out who filmed on that day/location – and sue them for illegal use of their image.
If you are on a public street & filmed, your face has to be blurred or reasonably concealed unless you sign a written release.
Login or Register to reply
June 27th, 2007 |
I love this place – still waiting on the official 411 review of all of their products………..should be an eye watering experience.
Only down side is they don’t sell cheese.
Login or Register to reply
June 27th, 2007 |
In response to bri777 who said:
A little thing call the World Wide Web
http://www.romanticdepot.com/
Check out all of the A celebrities that endorse this place.
Did anyone see Campos filing a job application here the other day?
Login or Register to reply
June 27th, 2007 |
Interesting discussion, here, around filming in town. I believe the City guidelines/permits serve to generate income. And I believe Cultural Affairs Director, Geri Fallo, is the person at City Hall who generates the permits.
I find Romantic Depot beyond tacky—more appropriate for Harmon Blvd. in Secaucus, perhaps. (Sorry if I’ve offended anyone, but it is sort of Bada-Bing, no?)
I do love some of the commercials I’ve seen on cable for this place. Especially b/c R.D. has somehow managed to get the fabulous, legendary Nina Hartley to plug this place. She’s such a wonderful, feminist, sex-positive porno-queen!
Login or Register to reply
June 28th, 2007 |
It seems that the city government wanted the old “kickback” to let the filming continue. All the guy had to say was he was filming his store for personal reasons. The city tried to shut the store down before several times. Perhaps they thought it would make a nice new real estate office!
However, a word to the wise about filming in public as the following article will both shock and anger you!
Man Faces 7 Year Sentence Under “Wiretapping Law” For Filming Police!
OK for police and government to film and wiretap US citizens though?
Steve Watson
Prison Planet
Tuesday, June 12, 2007
A man has been charged in Carlisle, Pennsylvania with filming police officers during a routine traffic stop and faces up to seven years in prison for “wiretapping”.
Brian D. Kelly is charged under a state law that bars the intentional interception or recording of anyone’s oral conversation without their consent, reports the Patriot News.
The criminal case relates to the sound, not the pictures, that his camera picked up.
His camera and film were seized by police during the May 24 stop, he said, and he spent 26 hours in Cumberland County Prison until his mother posted her house as security for his $2,500 bail. Police also took film from his pockets that wasn’t related to the traffic stop, he said.
Kelly, just 18 years old, is obviously extremely scared and has apologized profusely for not knowing the law. he has sought the help of the ACLU in the case.
The charge is invalid because it flouts privacy laws. Under the fourth amendment the expectation of privacy is not reasonable at such public places as automobile thoroughfares.
In other words filming on a public highway cannot be classed as an invasion of privacy.
Furthermore, the expectation of privacy is not reasonable if there exists a vantage point from which anyone, not just a police officer, can see or hear what is going on.
Charging someone with wiretapping for filming on a public highway in this sense would be akin to charging someone with arson for cooking burgers on a grill.
The charge also becomes bogus because the “wiretapping” law is not adhered to by police officers themselves. An exception to the wiretapping law allows police to film people during traffic stops.
In addition police routinely carry microphones that are wired up to their vehicles to record conversations without the knowledge of anyone whom they stop or question.
This is not the first time this has happened either. Last year a North Middleton Twp. man was charged in a street racing case that involved a wiretapping charge. Police claimed the man ordered associates to tape police breaking up an illegal race after officers told him to turn off their cameras.
Furthermore, just last month a 48-year-old man from Dover, New Hampshire was arrested for “wiretapping” for allegedly recording police while they were investigating him for driving while intoxicated.
In addition we have previously covered stories where camera crews have been threatened with arrest for filming peaceful demonstrations, and where cops have been caught stealing protestor’s cameras.
Filming in public is a right every American citizen has under the first amendment, which is why the cops in the case above had to steal the camera and the footage, because there was no legal basis to seize it.
It seems that filming and photographing is now deemed to be a threat per se. Pick from any number of stories archived at http://www.freedomtophotograph.com for example.
In Seattle, police banned a photography student from a public park. He was taking photographs of a bridge for a homework assignment. The officers who ban him from the park do so without the knowledge of park officials and have no authority to do so.
In Texas a man was first threatened by neighbors and then reportedly accosted and sprayed with pepper spray by police. He was walking around his neighborhood, filming with his new video camera.
In New York, National Press Photographers Association members staged a protest in the New York subway system to bring attention to a proposed law to ban photography in the subway system.
In Philadelphia a magazine photographer was detained and questioned after a parade for taking architectural shots while waiting for a subway train.
In Harrisburg, PA a man was swarmed by 8 Police and accused of being a member of Al-Qaeda after shooting pictures of his new car under a bridge.
We have recently exposed how some police now do not understand that they are violating the rights of individuals. In other cases we have witnessed police pull out pocket constitutions from cars and question their legality.
In addition we have a government which has been mired in scandal for wiretapping US citizens without warrant, yet when the tables are turned US citizens face the full wrath of the corrupt judicial system.
Though clearly Brian D. Kelly had no criminal intent and is likely to escape with just a fine, the case sets a dangerous precedent. US citizens can be arrested and charged for filming on public streets.
It also sets the precedent that those who enforce the law are also above the law.
Login or Register to reply
June 28th, 2007 |
I find it funny how on the George Washington Bridge there are signs that say “No Photography,” yet you can go on Google Street Views and see photos of every inch of the bridge.
Login or Register to reply