OT: NYC Proposes Restrictions On Filmmaking

rs170a wrote on 7/12/2007, 9:48 AM
Apologies if this has been mentioned before but I've seen it in several on-line bulletins lately and it's implications, even as a potential tourist, bother me :-(

Here's an excerpt from the NY Times article.

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.

New rules being considered by the Mayor’s Office of Film, Theater and Broadcasting 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.

The same 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, including the time it takes to set up the equipment.

Julianne Cho, assistant commissioner of the film office, said the rules were not intended to apply to families on vacation or amateur filmmakers or photographers.

Mike

Comments

apit34356 wrote on 7/12/2007, 10:06 AM
"Julianne Cho, assistant commissioner of the film office, said the rules were not intended to apply to families on vacation or amateur filmmakers or photographers."
Until some unhappy filmmaker complaints about being recorded or being "chased" as has he does to his subjects ----- or the local insurance agents twist the locals' arm a little to increase sales ----- in every cab, hotel lobby and airport lobby, insurance vending machines---- buy your insurance policy now before you "snap"....... need a car rental, don't forgot your camera permits----
Chienworks wrote on 7/12/2007, 10:14 AM
What's the difference between "amateur photographers, even would-be filmmakers" and "amateur filmmakers or photographers"? The first group might be required by the new law to get a permit. The second group would be except because the law doesn't apply to them. Hmmm. Sounds very confusing.

So, i guess if you go into NYC and claim to be a "amateur filmmaker OR photographer" you'll be fine. Just don't forget the all important "or".
BrianStanding wrote on 7/12/2007, 10:20 AM
Is there any public purpose served by such a ridiculous regulation? (Other than collecting permit fees?)

Isn't this a clear violation of the First Amendment? I notice there's no similar restriction on print journalists or radio reporters. Why is the City singling out video and film?

If I'm obstructing traffic with my tripod, and I refuse to move, write me up a ticket for that and be done with it!

I certainly hope the Mayor and the City Council come to their senses and nix this one in the bud. I wish I had more confidence that the federal court system would declare this unconstitutional, but based on recent Supreme Court decisions, it seems the Bill of Rights has become irrelevant.
JJKizak wrote on 7/12/2007, 10:34 AM
What then does the ordinary "cell picture phone teeny boppy" come under? They number in the millions and that sounds like a lot of money.

JJK
TheHappyFriar wrote on 7/12/2007, 10:55 AM
so I can't videotape PUBLIC places any more yet Google can put my entire PRIVATE PROPERTY image on the internet, down to where my electric poles & car is?
rs170a wrote on 7/12/2007, 11:16 AM
...yet Google can put my entire PRIVATE PROPERTY image on the internet...

I wonder if anyone makes an Aluminum Foil Deflector Beanie for your entire property.
If not, I see a sales opportunity :-)

Mike
TheHappyFriar wrote on 7/12/2007, 9:30 PM
30 acres would be one hell of a huge beanie.

I thought of mowing my lawn to say something like "F!!! Google!" but i'm in such a remote area i doubt it would ever be updated. :)
Steve Mann wrote on 7/12/2007, 9:36 PM
Why so hard on Google? All the images are in the public domain, paid for by your tax dollars and available to any citizen for decades. Google and others just organized them into a searchable database.

But if NYC is playing up the fear of terrorism hysteria, Google Maps are much more useful for strategic planning than any touristy photos or videos.

No, I suspect that it's most likely a money thing.
apit34356 wrote on 7/12/2007, 9:51 PM
Forgot the aluminum foil! Go underground! Great marketing opportunity for underground homes and secret BatCaves! Or just laser the sat as it passes over --China's been doing a decent job of "blinding" commercial sats.
MUTTLEY wrote on 7/12/2007, 10:13 PM
"any group of two or more people who want to use a camera in a single public location"

lmao, cuz you know if terrorists wanted to get some video or pictures of potential targets in NY they would of course do so in a group desguised as filmmakers.

- Ray
www.undergroundplanet.com
craftech wrote on 7/13/2007, 5:19 AM
Is there any public purpose served by such a ridiculous regulation? (Other than collecting permit fees?)

=====================
The fees are new, but that regulation isn't new as far as I know. If you're just a small crew and you're being discreet and using common sense, they won't bother you about it.

They are mostly concerned with the BIG productions that can block a street or intersection. It's about the money, nothing more.

John
birdcat wrote on 7/13/2007, 6:50 AM
I live here - Bloomberg (mayor) is a giant A**hole!

Be glad if you live somewhere else.
Jay Gladwell wrote on 7/13/2007, 6:55 AM

I certainly hope the Mayor and the City Council come to their senses and nix this one in the bud.

I'm just guessing, but it's probably the mayor and city council behind all this. It's the People who need to come to their senses and do something.

Brian, interestingly enough Albert Einstien, of all people, made a comment that hits the nail on the head in this regard, that was:

"The world is a dangerous place, not because of the people who are evil, but because of the people who won't do anything about it."


TheHappyFriar wrote on 7/13/2007, 8:57 AM
Why so hard on Google? All the images are in the public domain, paid for by your tax dollars and available to any citizen for decades. Google and others just organized them into a searchable database.

Nope. NASA does that (search for "world wind"), Google uses PD images & pays for many them & has the copyright on everything you see. They do a lot more but it's their copyright. I'm not really a fan of any of their services either except for Youtube, but they didn't build that anyway.

Besides, Google is the only company spending $$ on putting high-detail images of locations up on the 'net. Who else would I write a message about? :)
vitalforce wrote on 7/13/2007, 1:36 PM
<<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.>>

We had to do that for our lo-budget feature as required for SAG experimental status, but also being a lawyer, I know the idea is not just permit fees but public safety. The permit is a way of minimizing hazards to pedestrians on sidewalks and drivers in the street next to the sidewalk (where the DP will often want to set up for an angle on the sidewalk), and the insurance protects anyone who gets burned by hot lights, injured tripping over a cable, rear-ended in traffic backed up by a shot, etc.

That said, the mayor's rule will doubtless be tested and further refined by a local court sooner or later because a run & gun filmmaker who doesn't need to spread out a lot of equipment or people has little connection to this kind of safety rationale. However, being in NYC, it smells a little like a disguised, ethnically neutral Homeland Security procedure.
.