Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 55

Thread: Photographing inside and around JFK T3

  1. #16
    Senior Member tlabranche's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    League City, Texas, United States
    Posts
    273
    I took this photo back in March 2011 in T4. I was approached by security within a minute of setting up my tripod. They asked that I put away my camera. I asked to see their photography policy as I was looking at a group using point and shoot cameras. They left me alone after a few minutes of them giving me a hard time. I set my camera up on a railing and held it steady enough for this shot.


  2. #17
    Senior Member Mateo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Where the PARK routing crosses the Expressway Visual 31
    Posts
    1,590
    The way public photography bylaws are written in some places tripod = commercial photography = permit required. You're not allowed to use a tripod on the grounds of the Capitol, but you can otherwise shoot away to your heart's content.

  3. #18
    Senior Member gonzalu's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    The Bronx, New York
    Posts
    6,028
    Tripods = Tripping Hazard... fair enough and valid especially in crowded areas. In most museums (The Met for example) you can use tripods all week long, but not on weekends for good reason.

    Delta's T3 is a real embarrassment. I had to go in there not too long ago and vowed NEVER to EVER fly Delta because of the treatment of their passengers and the "treat-them-like-cattle" mentality. I went to use a bathroom that could be considered a Haz-Mat area... three other gentlemen were already complaining loudly about all the horrible things that they were witnessing. One even said this is "the worst airport in the world" not just worst terminal or airline. This was a Russian gentleman who had just flown in from Russia apparently. I wouldn;t say even close to worst airport (for me that's Heathrow still) but Delta definitely does not add any positive spin ton that!
    Manny Gonzalez
    Thrust Images | General Photography | R.I.P. Matt Molnar 1979-2013
    BRING BACK THE KJFK/KLGA OBSERVATION DECKS

  4. #19
    Senior Member Zee71's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Queens, NY
    Posts
    4,348
    Good call Timothy about asking for their photography policy by putting them on the spot. Just because they are security doesn't mean they know the laws and policy. Ditto on the tripod.....it becomes a hazard in crowded areas with lots of people traffic.
    Mark
    Queens, NY

    My website: http://mbsphotography.smugmug.com
    My photos at: JetPhotos and ANet

  5. #20
    Senior Member emshighway's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Middle Village
    Posts
    2,060
    I have no problems taking photos anywhere I want

    Most officers and security personnel assume there are laws against photography in airports... train stations... anywhere. If they tell someone it is against the law and they listen then they have an easier time. As has been said here the policies are vague and the property is under control of agencies who's law enforcement can tell you to stop. Failure to do so could be interpreted as interference in government administration so you don't get collared for taking the photograph but refusal to listen to an officers command.
    "The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.' "
    Ronald Reagan

  6. #21
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Morris County, NJ
    Posts
    29
    I imagine the whole "if you see something, say something" campaign probably isn't friendly to casual photographers either.
    Believe It!


  7. #22
    Administrator PhilDernerJr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Queens, NY
    Posts
    12,470
    Quote Originally Posted by Braniff View Post
    I imagine the whole "if you see something, say something" campaign probably isn't friendly to casual photographers either.
    On the contrary, such programs should INCLUDE and EMPLOY people such as spotters and photographers, as they are volunteer watchful eyes that can also document any suspicious activity. Not everyone sees it this way, unfortunately. Maybe one day. :)
    Email me anytime at [email protected].

  8. #23
    Senior Member NIKV69's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    IFP, ISP, JFK, IGM, SAN, VCV, LGA, LAX, SEE, LAS
    Posts
    4,258
    Quote Originally Posted by Phil D. View Post
    On the contrary, such programs should INCLUDE and EMPLOY people such as spotters and photographers, as they are volunteer watchful eyes that can also document any suspicious activity. Not everyone sees it this way, unfortunately. Maybe one day. :)
    Law enforcement will never include civilians in any program. Which really doesn't matter. If we see something while spotting that doesn't jive we will be on the phone dialing 9/11 anyway. This isn't the issue. The issue is the PA doesn't want to be bothered running down calls and checking IDs and is choosing to take a thug style approach by just being heavy handed with something we should be allowed to do.


    It's the same premise as law enforcement making up laws that didn't exist when trying to discourage photography from public places. PA has more of a leg to stand on since they make the laws on airport property.
    'My idea of a good picture is one that's in focus and of a famous person doing something unfamous.' Andy Warhol

  9. #24
    Senior Member moose135's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Long Island, NY
    Posts
    8,041
    Quote Originally Posted by NIKV69 View Post
    Law enforcement will never include civilians in any program.
    Except for the airport watch groups that involve spotters in many cities, and the countless neighbor watch programs in communities across the country. It can, and is done, but the PA would rather discourage it rather than see it as an asset.

  10. #25
    Administrator PhilDernerJr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Queens, NY
    Posts
    12,470
    Quote Originally Posted by NIKV69 View Post
    Law enforcement will never include civilians in any program. Which really doesn't matter. If we see something while spotting that doesn't jive we will be on the phone dialing 9/11 anyway. This isn't the issue. The issue is the PA doesn't want to be bothered running down calls and checking IDs and is choosing to take a thug style approach by just being heavy handed with something we should be allowed to do.

    It's the same premise as law enforcement making up laws that didn't exist when trying to discourage photography from public places. PA has more of a leg to stand on since they make the laws on airport property.
    I wouldn't go as far as to say it's a "thug style approach", but more of the decision makers maybe not seeing what's on the front lines with enthusiasts? Their rule is their rule, albeit an unfortunate one. We'd of course prefer the opposite, and I feel that a no-photography rule does nothing to actually improve security. Information about whatever can be cased out at an airport can be found on Google unfortunately.

    Quote Originally Posted by moose135 View Post
    Except for the airport watch groups that involve spotters in many cities, and the countless neighbor watch programs in communities across the country. It can, and is done, but the PA would rather discourage it rather than see it as an asset.
    This.
    Email me anytime at [email protected].

  11. #26
    Senior Member NIKV69's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    IFP, ISP, JFK, IGM, SAN, VCV, LGA, LAX, SEE, LAS
    Posts
    4,258
    Quote Originally Posted by moose135 View Post
    Except for the airport watch groups that involve spotters in many cities, and the countless neighbor watch programs in communities across the country. It can, and is done, but the PA would rather discourage it rather than see it as an asset.
    This is a smoke screen. Law enforcement in and around NY airports gets a million phone calls from pax and civilians so why would they enter into something like this? They gain nothing and just get double the calls about suspicious activity. Besides this campaigning for "watch groups" is just a veiled attempt at access and not much more. PA doesn't need spotters as extra eyes on airport property, which is why they have taken these heavy handed approach to photography inside terminals and other parts of airport property.

    This.
    Phil this is a discussion about photography inside of terminals. Why do you continue to pander to this fanstasy we all know the PA will never get involved in? Wouldn't we better served with a discussion on how we can somehow be allowed to photograph inside terminals without the "Hey we can be extra eyes for you" thing?
    'My idea of a good picture is one that's in focus and of a famous person doing something unfamous.' Andy Warhol

  12. #27
    Moderator mirrodie's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Me like the Robert Downey Jr of cooooooookies!
    Posts
    5,746
    ITs not fantasy, IMHO.

    On one end, the authorities implore us to SEE something and SAY something.

    yet on the other, they don't want a symbotic relationship.....


    food for thought.
    And I, I took the path less traveled by
    and that has made all the difference......yet...
    I have a feeling a handle of people are going to be very interested in what I post in the near future.

    http://www.jetphotos.net/showphotos.php?userid=187

  13. #28
    Administrator PhilDernerJr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Queens, NY
    Posts
    12,470
    Quote Originally Posted by NIKV69 View Post
    Phil this is a discussion about photography inside of terminals. Why do you continue to pander to this fanstasy we all know the PA will never get involved in? Wouldn't we better served with a discussion on how we can somehow be allowed to photograph inside terminals without the "Hey we can be extra eyes for you" thing?
    Because I feel that's the best way to get them to modify their rules to allow it. It's directly related.

    Quote Originally Posted by mirrodie View Post
    ITs not fantasy, IMHO.

    On one end, the authorities implore us to SEE something and SAY something.

    yet on the other, they don't want a symbotic relationship.....
    Exactly.
    Email me anytime at [email protected].

  14. #29
    Senior Member NIKV69's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    IFP, ISP, JFK, IGM, SAN, VCV, LGA, LAX, SEE, LAS
    Posts
    4,258
    Because I feel that's the best way to get them to modify their rules to allow it. It's directly related.
    Which has a snowballs chance in hell of happening. It's obvious the PA doesn't want to be bothered or they wouldn't have this heavy handed approach to this to begin with. They don't want the hassle so you think they want to get involved with passing out IDs to us and handling double the calls has a chance? it obviously doesn't.

    A better approach would be to try to find someone in the PA that has a halfway decent attitude towards us and try to see if an arrangement can be made as to photographing inside terminals as long as checkpoints are not involved and other things are taken into consideration. It is much better than pitching the "airport watch" thing. It's a non starter.

    Exactly.
    No Phil, they implore everyone to SAY something if we see something. Meaning everyone, not just photogs. Like I said they get plenty of phone calls of suspicious activity already that they loathe running down, they don't want more.
    'My idea of a good picture is one that's in focus and of a famous person doing something unfamous.' Andy Warhol

  15. #30
    Senior Member moose135's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Long Island, NY
    Posts
    8,041
    Quote Originally Posted by NIKV69 View Post
    A better approach would be to try to find someone in the PA that has a halfway decent attitude towards us and try to see if an arrangement can be made as to photographing inside terminals as long as checkpoints are not involved and other things are taken into consideration. It is much better than pitching the "airport watch" thing. It's a non starter.
    So rather than approach it as a way to partner with police, we should find some random person at Port - who's high enough in the food chain to actually make a difference - and convince him that we're nice guys and he should let us take pictures at the terminal? What, out of the goodness of his heart? Talk about a non-starter...

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •