Tuesday, July 31, 2007

New photo regs could cause trouble

Artists fight proposed filming restrictions

Proposed rules for film permits:

-Film or photography activity involving 5 or more people at one site for 10 or minutes or involving two people at one site for 30 or more minutes require a permit and insurance.

-Press and those filming political demonstrations are exempt.

-If insurance cost is more than 25 percent of total filming budget, the city may issue a waiver.

-Public comment period continues through Friday.

A broad coalition of artists and filmmakers is pressuring the NYC Mayor's Office of Film, Theater and Broadcasting to amend the rules, arguing they infringe on constitutional rights, don't make sense and give authorities legal cover for arbitrary enforcement.

Photo from AM-NY


Anonymous said...

That's ridiculous .

I can understand a large film crew shooting a docu/feature etc. needing a permit because they might be disrupting sidewalk traffic but 2 people (tourists ?) for instance, videoing an amateur soccer game in Central Park needing a permit ?

You already need a TRIPOD permit for extended filming (I believe) in parks (and you're not allowed to endanger pedestrians tripping over camera set ups) with professional type equipment.....there's no need for any more .

It's OK for gov't to photograph us without requiring a permit or model release but this cuts into the realm of Orwellian absurdity !

Big Bloomberg is watching us but, apparently, we cannot record any potentially embarrassing SNAFUs perpetrated by our city gov't!

Anonymous said...

Didn't the Soviet Union collapse a decade ago? Or did they just ship the Commissar Bloomberg to New York to exercise his hyper-control freak ambitions?

Since when is the First Amendment available for adjustment by morons? Or by anybody?

There are a few sensible filming rules, such as the prohibition from filming bridges, tunnels or other parts of the infrastructure. But, even there, in how many movies are our bridges and tunnels (especially subway) filmed in detail?

So, these rules are designed to interfere with ordinary citizens, whether residents or tourists, from recording whatever will embarrass the administration.

"Congress shall make no law ...". Who the hell do these people think they are?

RI 360 said...

Last Friday I shot video from a handheld camera the opening of the Roosevelt Island Historical Society Visitors Center where about 30 people were in attendance. Under my reading of the regs I think I'd be required to get a permit. Just nuts.

Anonymous said...

"Big Bloomberg"-- good line. To say this is infuriating is putting it mildly, but isn't it "funny" how the administration of the boss of GIANT media company would seek to restrict the work/pleasure of others.

I know we might not agree on every issue but I do hope everyone can realize that, once emboldened, the police state madness begun under Giuliani & futher emboldened in the wake of "The Patriot Act" (sic) will NOT stop, at least not without serious resistance.

As others have noted, there are already laws in place to discourage disruptive commercial shoots; why not enforce THOSE and do some ** real ** law enforcement, including environmental, building & ethics regulations?


Anonymous said...

What a ridiculous and arbitrary proposal!

georgetheatheist said...

"There are a few sensible filming rules, such as the prohibition from filming bridges, tunnels, or other parts of the infrastructure."

Do they stop tourists from photographing the skyline from the Brooklyn Bridge walk-way? How about the aviation "nuts' that photograph the planes landing by LaGuardia airport?

There are Cameras-with-red-bars-through-them signs by the Triborough Bridge and the Queens-Midtown Tunnel. You can't take a photo from a moving car on the Triborough's roadway, but you can take a picture of the bridge from the Astoria Park? How close to the bridge do you have to be physically before it is a "no-no"?
How about using an ultra-telephoto from quite a distance away?

In any event, terrorists can CLANDESTINELY photograph the infrastructure.

The only "photography-distance" prohibition I can think of was the Ron Gallela-Jackie Onassis cases from the late '70's.

When the papparazzo fotog Ron Gallela was chasing Jackie-O, he was ordered by the Federal judge to stay a certain physical distance from her. Gallela claimed he couldn't make a living photographing her from that distance; he went back to court and had the distance diminished. I believe the distances were 50 feet at first and then lessened to 10 or 25 feet. Gallela did not contest the second ruling's distance since Jackie-O's imagery became less lucrative then and he went onto higher-paying "fish".

Anonymous said...

Talk about Orwellian absurdity...

I was recently photographed and it made me quite angry.

The traffic light on Union Tpke & Woodhaven Blvd.!

Cost me 50 bucks.

Anonymous said...

Good point "Tony C" !
What about the cameras placed in all those Metro Card vending machines that snap your image while you're purchasing a card ?