The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.

Freedom of Photography

DrezDrez Registered User regular
edited August 2007 in Debate and/or Discourse
So, a few people have forwarded this to me in the last few days. Apparently, there's a civil statute up for consideration right now - Chapter 9, Title 43 of the City Rules of New York - the text of which can be found here:

http://www.nyc.gov/html/film/downloads/pdf/moftb_permit_regs.pdf

And thanks to DevoutlyApathetic, here's the full thing in text (spoilered for being massive):
CITY OF NEW YORK
MAYOR’S OFFICE OF FILM, THEATRE AND BROADCASTING
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING AND OPPORTUNITY TO COMMENT ON PROPOSED
RULES RELATING TO PERMITS ISSUED BY THE MAYOR'S OFFICE OF FILM,
THEATRE & BROADCASTING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY VESTED IN the
Commissioner of the Mayor's Office Film, Theatre & Broadcasting, pursuant to sections 389(b)
and 1043 of the New York City Charter, that the Mayor's Office of Film Theatre & Broadcasting
intends to amend Title 43 of the Official Compilation of Rules of the City of New York,
governing the issuance of permits in connection with scouting, rigging and production activities.
Matter underlined is new. The proposed amendments are set forth below.
Written comment regarding this proposed amendment may be sent to Julianne Cho, Assistant
Commissioner, Mayor's Office of Film, Theatre & Broadcasting, 1697 Broadway, New York NY
10019, on or before June 27, 2007. Comments may be submitted electronically to Ms. Cho at
jcho@film.nyc.gov.
A public hearing will be held on June 28, 2007, at 125 Worth Street, NY, NY 10013, Second
floor auditorium at 10 a.m. Persons seeking to testify are requested, but not required, to notify
Ms. Cho at the foregoing address not less than five (5) days prior to the hearing. Written
comments and a summary of oral comments received at the hearing will be available for public
inspection, within a reasonable time after receipt, between the hours of 10 a.m. and 4 p.m., at the
Office of the Mayor's Office of Film, Theatre & Broadcasting.
Persons who request that a sign language interpreter or other form of reasonable accommodation
for a disability be provided at the hearing are asked to notify Ms. Cho at the foregoing address by
June 14, 2007.
The proposed rule was not included in the Department’s regulatory agenda because the changes
to be established by the rule were not anticipated at the time the regulatory agenda was to be
published.
Title 43 of the Rules of the City of New York is amended by adding a new Chapter 9, to
read as follows:
Chapter 9. Permits Issued by Mayor’s Office of Film, Theatre & Broadcasting.
Section 9-01. Permits for Scouting, Rigging and Production Activities.
(a) Introduction. The Mayor’s Office of Film Theatre and Broadcasting (“MOFTB”)
shall issue permits in connection with filming, including but not limited to the taking of motion
pictures; the taking of photographs; the use and operation of television cameras, transmitting
television equipment, or radio remotes in or about city property; load-ins or load-outs supporting
1
indoor performances; or such activities in or about any street, park, marginal street, pier, wharf,
dock, bridge or tunnel within the jurisdiction of any City department or agency, or involving the
use of any City owned or maintained facilities or equipment. As defined herein, MOFTB will
issue permits for scouting, rigging and shooting activities. Obtaining such a permit does not
obviate the need to obtain approval for an activity that may also be subject to other laws, rules or
case law.
(b) Permits.
(1) The following activities require that a permit be obtained pursuant to this chapter:
(i) Filming, photography, production, television or radio remotes occurring
on City property, as described in subdivision (a) of this section, that uses vehicles or
equipment, except as described in subparagraphs (2)(i) and (ii) of this subdivision;
(ii) Filming, photography, production, television or radio remotes occurring
on City property, as described in subdivision (a) of this section, involving an interaction
among two or more people at a single site for thirty or more minutes, including all set-up
and breakdown time in connection with such activities; or
(iii) Filming, photography, production, television or radio remotes occurring
on City property, as described in subdivision (a) of this section, involving an interaction
among five or more people at a single site and the use of a single tripod for ten or more
minutes, including all set-up and breakdown time in connection with such activities.
(2) The following activities do not require that a permit be obtained pursuant to this
chapter:
(i) Filming or photography occurring on City property, as described in
subdivision (a) of this section, involving the use of a hand-held device as defined in
paragraph three of subdivision (a) of § 9-02, provided that such activity does not involve
an interaction among two or more people at a single site for thirty or more minutes,
including all set-up and breakdown time in connection with such activities.
(ii) Filming or photography occurring on City property, as described in
subdivision (a) of this section, involving the use of a single tripod, provided that such
activity does not involve an interaction among five or more people at a single site and the
use of a single tripod for ten or more minutes, including all set-up and breakdown time in
connection with such activities.
(iii) Filming or photography of a parade, rally, protest, or demonstration except
when using vehicles or equipment other than a handheld device or single tripod.
(3) For purposes this subdivision:
2
(i) a “single site” shall be any area within 100 feet of where an activity
commences, and
(ii) an “interaction” shall mean conduct involving a communication between two
or more people, whether verbal or otherwise, but shall not include conduct involving
filming or photographing of a parade, rally, protest, or demonstration.
(c) Press passes. The use of a press pass issued by the New York City Police
Department (“NYPD”) in accordance with Chapter 11 of Title 38 of the Rules of the City of
New York (“Press Credentials”), where an individual is acting in furtherance of the activity
authorized by such press pass, and is engaged in filming as defined in these rules, does not
require that a permit be obtained pursuant to this chapter.
(d) MOFTB Certificates: Persons who are engaged in filming or photography and are
not otherwise required to obtain a permit pursuant to subdivision (b) of this section may be
issued a MOFTB Certificate. Persons requesting such a MOFTB Certificate shall comply with
the application requirements of MOFTB, including providing proper photo identification;
accurate information concerning the person’s identity and address; accurate information as to
the location(s) of such activities; and the date(s) and time(s) during which such activities are
proposed to take place as set forth in paragraphs (2) and (3) of subdivision (b) of § 9-02 of these
rules.
(e) Authorization from other agencies: Notwithstanding the provisions of subdivision
(a) of this section, scouting, rigging or shooting activities within City parks, interiors of City
buildings, bridges or tunnels require, if applicable, separate authorization from the City agency
with jurisdiction over the location. The use of certain items or activities, including but not
limited to animals, firearms (actual or simulated), special effects, pyrotechnics, police uniforms,
police vehicles, driving shots with tow or camera rigs, and conditions that require holding of
traffic may require authorization and/or assistance from the relevant government agency.
§ 9-02. Processing of Permit Applications.
(a) Definitions. For purposes of this chapter, the following terms shall have the
following meanings:
(1) “Equipment” shall include, but is not limited to, television, photographic or
videocameras or transmitting television equipment, including radio remotes, props, sets, lights,
electric and trip equipment, dolly tracks, screens, or microphone devices, and any and all
production related materials.
(2) “Filming” shall mean the taking of motion pictures, the taking of still photography or
the use and operation of television cameras or transmitting television equipment, including radio
remotes and any preparatory activity associated therewith, and shall include events that include,
but are not limited to, the making of feature or documentary films, television serials, webcasts,
simulcasts or specials.
3
(3) “Hand-held devices” shall mean film, still or television cameras, videocameras or
other equipment which are held in the photographer or filmmaker’s hand and carried at all times
with the photographer or filmmaker during the course of filming. Hand-held devices shall not
include tripods, cables or any other item or equipment not carried by the photographer or
filmmaker at all times during the course of photography, filming or transmission.
(4) “New Project Account application” shall mean a request submitted on an MOFTB
form by an applicant indicating that the applicant intends to request one or more permits for
scouting, rigging and/or shooting activities.
(5) “Photography” shall mean the taking of moving or still images.
(6) “Pre-permit reserve” shall mean the designation by MOFTB, at the request of a
permit applicant, of a location(s) where the applicant intends to conduct rigging or shooting
activities.
(7) “Rigging/de-rigging” shall mean the loading in or loading out, loading or unloading,
of any shooting or production related equipment, including but not limited to props, sets, electric
and grip equipment, at any location, time and date where film or theatrical production is not
occurring.
(8) "Same date" shall mean the same actual calendar date (numerical date and month) or
the same day of the same week in a given month, as relevant. For example, "same date" shall
encompass the date July 11 as well as the second Sunday in the month of July, as relevant.
(9) "Same location" shall mean the location identified in the rigging permit or the filming
permit application.
(10) “Scouting” shall mean the act of viewing, assessing and photographing locations for
filming or photography during pre-production or production for, including, but not limited to,
still photography, feature films, television series, mini-series or specials.
(11) “Shooting” shall include (i) filming interiors or exteriors, and (ii) theatrical
productions whose performances are presented indoors.
(b) New Project Account application and application for scouting, rigging and/or
shooting activities.
(1) The following two steps shall be taken to obtain a scouting, rigging, and/or shooting
permit:
(i) Submission of a New Project Account application to MOFTB.
(ii) At the same time, or some time thereafter, an applicant shall seek a scouting, rigging,
and/or shooting permit.
4
(2) New Project Account Application contents.
Applicants shall complete an application, on a form prescribed by MOFTB, which shall
contain detailed identifying information about the applicant and the project. In completing such
form, applications shall provide the information set forth below.
(i) A postal address (but not a post office box) and, if available, an e-mail
address, a telephone number and a facsimile number for purposes of receiving
notification from MOFTB.
(ii) Valid photo identification of the applicant or, if the applicant is not a natural
person, a valid photo identification of the natural person authorized by the applicant to
act on its behalf in connection with the application.
(iii) If known at the time of the application, the dates and times of scouting,
rigging or shooting and location of such activity, and any special circumstances
including, but not limited to, information regarding whether the activity involves special
parking requests, traffic control issues or special effects.
(iv) Film school students shall provide a letter from the student’s school
confirming insurance coverage, and the student’s current enrollment, subject to the
provisions of § 9-03.
(3) Scouting, Rigging and/or Shooting Applications.
When applicants submit a scouting, rigging and/or shooting permit application, on a form
prescribed by MOFTB, they shall:
(i) identify the date(s), time(s) and location(s) of such activity;
(ii) identify any special circumstances including, but not limited to, information regarding
whether the activity involves special parking requests, traffic control issues or special
effects;
(iii) for applicants requesting a scouting permit, provide a letter from the applicant’s
producing/financing entity verifying the project by name and identifying the natural
person(s) on-site who will be performing scouting activities on behalf of the applicant;
(iv) for applicants requesting a scouting permit, provide documents of incorporation,
financing documents for the project or grant or foundation award letter.
(4) Processing of Permits.
All permit applications will be processed on a "first come, first served" basis. Upon
request by an applicant, MOFTB will place a pre-permit reserve on the location(s) identified in
the New Project Account application or the rigging and/or shooting application. An applicant
can request such pre-permit reserve no more than three weeks in advance of the activity, but
upon a need demonstrated in writing by the applicant, MOFTB may grant a greater period of
5
time. If two or more permit applicants request the same date and the same location, the New
Project Account application request that was received first shall be first eligible for approval.
(5) MOFTB shall respond to the applicant with one of the responses enumerated in
subparagraphs (i) through (iii) of paragraph (6) of this section in accordance with the following
schedule:
(i) for applications filed 45 days or more prior to the date for which such permit is
sought, MOFTB shall respond no later than 30 days after the receipt of such applications;
(ii) for applications filed less than 45 days but more than 15 days prior to the date for
which such permit is sought, MOFTB shall respond no later than ten days after the
receipt of such applications; or
(iii) for applications filed 15 days or less prior to the date for which such permit is
sought, MOFTB shall respond as soon as is reasonably practicable.
(iv) No application may be filed more than sixty days prior to the date of the requested
event, unless special circumstances are presented to the commissioner or her designee for
approval.
(6) Determination upon review of application. Following receipt of an application, the
MOFTB will make one or more of the following determinations:
(i) issuance of the particular permit.
(ii) written notification that more information is needed before MOFTB can make a
determination as to a particular permit application.
(iii) written notification that the particular permit application has been denied and a
statement of the reason or reasons pursuant to paragraph (7) of this subdivision for such
denial.
(7) Denial of new project account applications or scouting, rigging, and/or shooting
permit application. MOFTB may deny a permit if any one or more of the following issues exists:
(i) conditions exist that may pose a danger or a threat to participants, onlookers or the
general public;
(ii) the location sought is not suitable because the proposed use cannot reasonably be
accommodated in the proposed location;
(iii) the date and time requested for a particular location is not available because a permit
has previously been issued for such date or time or is the subject of a new project account
application, as provided in paragraph (4) of this subdivision;
6
(iv) the applicant or any person or entity connected with the applicant has been granted a
permit in this or any other jurisdiction and did, on that prior occasion, either engaged in
activity requiring a permit without having obtained a permit, or was found to have
violated a material term or condition of the permit, or any law, ordinance, statute or
regulation relating to the activity covered by the permit;
(v) use of the location or the proposed activity at the location would otherwise violate any
law, ordinance, statute or regulation;
(vi) use of the location would interfere unreasonably with the operation of City functions.
(8) If the permit has been denied pursuant to subparagraph (i), (ii), (iii), (v) (with respect
to location) or (vi) of paragraph (7) of this subdivision, MOFTB shall employ reasonable efforts
to offer the applicant suitable alternative locations and/or times and/or dates for the proposed
rigging or shooting.
(9) The denial of a permit shall be in writing and shall contain information about the
right to appeal such denial unless the applicant, in its application, authorizes MOFTB to issue an
oral determination in connection with the filing of the application. Subsequent to the filing of
such application, an applicant may request a written determination upon notifying MOFTB in
writing that such applicant now seeks a written determination. Upon receiving such request for a
written determination, MOFTB shall respond in accordance with the requirements of paragraph
(5) of this subdivision, such time to respond commencing on the date of receipt by MOFTB of
the notification.
(10) After a permit application is denied, the applicant may appeal a written
determination by written request filed with the appeals officer who may reverse, affirm, or
modify the original determination and provide a written explanation of his or her finding.
(i) If a permit application is denied more than 30 days prior to the proposed scouting,
rigging or shooting, the applicant shall have 10 days from the date that such denial is emailed
or faxed to the applicant to appeal such denial. MOFTB shall render a decision
on such appeal within 10 days of receipt of such appeal.
(ii) If a permit application is denied more than 10 days and less than 30 days prior to the
proposed scouting, rigging or shooting, the applicant shall have 5 days from the date such
denial is e-mailed or faxed to the applicant to appeal such denial. MOFTB shall render a
decision on such appeal within 5 days of receipt of such appeal.
(iii) If a permit application is denied 10 days or less prior to the proposed scouting,
rigging or shooting, the applicant shall have one day from the date such denial is emailed
or faxed to the applicant to appeal such denial. MOFTB shall render a decision
on such appeal as soon as is reasonably practicable.
(c) Responsibilities of permittees.
7
(1) Rules: Permittees are subject to the rules of MOFTB, the specific terms and
conditions of the permit, and all applicable city, state, and federal laws.
(2) Display of permit: Permittees shall have the permit in their possession on location at
the time and site of the scouting, rigging or shooting, as well as any other permits required by
MOFTB or any other governmental agency.
(3) Permit restrictions: Permittees shall confine their activities to the locations and times
specified on their permit. MOFTB may establish specific guidelines to address conditions that
exist at certain designated locations and the use of vehicles and equipment at locations based on,
among other considerations, the time of day, weather conditions, season, location, and day of the
week.
(4) Non-transferability: Permits are not transferable.
(5) Clean-up: Permittees are responsible for cleaning and restoring the site after the
rigging or shooting. The cost of any City employee time incurred because of a permittee's failure
to clean and/or restore the site following the rigging or shooting will be borne by the permittee.
(6) Accidents or injuries: Should there be any injuries, accidents, other health incidents
or damage to private or City property at a permitted event, the permittee shall notify MOFTB
immediately.
(7) Vehicle Parking: Only vehicles with permits issued by MOFTB will be allowed to
park in areas designated for the rigging or shooting activity at the time(s) and location(s)
described in the applicable permit.
(8) Dolly track or other equipment: No dolly track or other equipment may be laid
across a street or block a fire lane without prior approval of MOFTB and NYPD.
(9) Pyrotechnics: The use of pyrotechnics, fire effects and explosions, including
simulated smoke and smoke effects, shall be conducted only upon authorization by the New
York City Fire Department and subsequent approval shall be obtained from MOFTB and the
NYPD prior to shooting.
(10) Animals: Wild animals, as defined in Article 161, § 161.02 of the New York City
Health Code, shall be used only upon authorization by the Department of Health and Mental
Hygiene, and subsequent approval shall be obtained from MOFTB prior to shooting.
(11) Potentially dangerous activities: Conduct or activities associated with rigging or
shooting permits which are determined by MOFTB to cause a potential danger to persons or
property will be referred by MOFTB for approval by the NYPD or other governmental agency
having jurisdiction over such activity. Such activities shall include, but not be limited to, the use
of stunts, helicopters, firearms or simulated firearms.
8
(12) Traffic control: Where a public street is closed in connection with rigging or
production activities, a 13.5-foot lane shall be kept open. Such requirement may be waived by
MOFTB upon an appropriate showing of need or at the discretion of the NYPD.
(13) Trees and plantings: Trimming, damaging, removing or cutting trees or vegetation
on City property is prohibited without the prior approval of the New York City Department of
Parks and Recreation.
(14) Street structures: No street signs, lights, postal boxes, parking meters or any other
permanent street structure may be removed or altered without the prior approval of the New
York City Department of Transportation or other agency charged with maintaining such
structures.
(15) Production location access: If determined by MOFTB to be appropriate, permittees
shall submit a mitigation plan for minimizing the potential inconvenience to residents and/or
businesses caused by rigging or shooting activities.
(16) Food services: There shall be no sit-down catered meals permitted on public streets
or sidewalks.
(17) Code of Conduct: MOFTB shall issue a location Code of Conduct that addresses
the importance of considerate behavior on the set of all rigging and shooting activities. A copy
of the Code of Conduct shall be given to each permittee under these rules. The permittee is
responsible for providing a copy of the Code of Conduct to the cast and crew of each permitted
rigging or shooting activity. Permittees shall be required to encourage participants in the
permitted event to act in accordance with such code.
(d) Modifications to or suspension of permit.
(1) If a permittee seeks to modify its permit, it shall submit an addendum to its original
request, which will be governed by the same timetable as provided in paragraph (5) of
subdivision (b) of this section.
(2) If MOFTB determines that modifications should be made to the terms or conditions
of a permit, or that a permit should be revoked, after notice and opportunity to be heard, MOFTB
may do so, based upon reasons set forth in paragraph (7) of subdivision (b) of this section.
(3) If MOFTB revokes a permit prior to the date of the scouting, rigging or shooting, the
permittee may appeal the revocation, subject to the time limitations set forth in paragraph (10) of
subdivision (b) of this section.
(4) During the course of scouting, rigging or shooting, MOFTB or the NYPD may
suspend a permit where public health or safety risks are found or where exigent circumstances
warrant such action. Where such suspension occurs, permittees shall be given notice and an
opportunity to be heard within ten days after the suspension.
§ 9-03. Indemnification and Insurance.
9
(a) By accepting a permit, a permittee agrees to protect all persons and property from
damage, loss or injury arising from any of the operations performed by or on behalf of the
permittee, and to indemnify and hold harmless the City, to the fullest extent permitted by law,
from all claims, losses and expenses, including attorneys’ fees, that may result therefrom. This
indemnification requirement does not apply to any person or entity acting with a MOFTB
Certificate in accordance with § 9-01(d).
(b) Every permittee that requires the use of equipment or vehicles shall maintain, during
the entire course of its operations, liability insurance with a limit of at least one million dollars
($1,000,000) per occurrence. Such insurance shall include a policy endorsement naming the City
of New York as an additional insured with coverage at least as broad as provided by Insurance
Services Office (ISO) form CG 20 12 (07/98 ed.). The applicant shall provide proof of such
insurance prior to the issuance of the permit in the form of an original certificate of insurance
signed in ink to which a copy of the required endorsement is attached. For currently enrolled
film students, proof of insurance through their school and the student’s current attendance shall
satisfy this requirement. This insurance requirement does not apply to any person or entity
acting with a MOFTB Certificate in accordance with § 9-01(d).
(c) If MOFTB determines, in light of the activity for which a permit is sought, that such
activity may increase the potential for injury to individuals and/or damage to property, and that
the minimum limit of insurance should be higher than one million dollars ($1,000,000) per
occurrence, MOFTB shall determine what higher minimum limit is to be required and inform the
applicant of such higher limit. Factors to be considered by MOFTB may include, but shall not
be limited to, the number of people involved, the location of the activity and the nature of the
activity. The applicant shall thereafter provide proof of such insurance in accordance with
subdivision (b) of this section. If MOFTB determines in writing that a higher minimum limit is
to be required, the applicant may appeal such determination by written request filed with the
MOFTB appeals officer who may reverse, affirm, or modify the determination and provide a
written explanation of his or her finding.
(d) MOFTB shall have the authority to waive the insurance required by subdivision (b)
of this section where the applicant is able to demonstrate that such insurance cannot be obtained
without imposing an unreasonable hardship on the applicant. Any request for a waiver of the
insurance required by subdivision (b) of this section shall be included by the applicant in the
application submitted to MOFTB under § 9-02 of this chapter. The burden of demonstrating
unreasonable hardship shall be on the applicant, and may be demonstrated by a showing, for
example, that the cost of obtaining insurance for the permitted activity exceeds twenty-five
percent (25%) of the applicant’s budget for such activity that is the subject of the application.
MOFTB shall take into consideration the applicant’s projections of budget as well as the budget
projections for comparable productions of similar size and duration in determining whether the
cost of obtaining insurance exceeds twenty-five percent (25%) of the budget. MOFTB may also
take into consideration its determination that the permitted activity may increase the potential for
injury to individuals and/or damage to property. In the event that MOFTB denies a waiver of the
insurance requirement, the applicant may thereafter respond to the denial and appeal such denial
pursuant to the provisions of § 9-02 of this chapter.
10
STATEMENT OF BASIS AND PURPOSE
The Mayor's Office of Film Theatre & Broadcasting ("MOFTB") has for many years
issued permits in connection with various film production activities. With the recent increase in
filming activities, it has become necessary to codify the process that has been followed over
time. The purpose of this rule is to provide clear guidance to the persons and entities in the
entertainment industry who seek to obtain such permits.
Section 9-01 of the rules describes their purpose, and sets forth both the activities that
require a permit and the activities that do not require such a permit. It includes a provision
describing the MOFTB Certificate, which can be used by persons not required to obtain the
regular MOFTB permit.
Section 9-02 (a) contains definitions of the terms used throughout the rule. Subdivision
(b) of this section also describes the New Project Account application which is used for scouting,
rigging and/or shooting activities, provides details about the processing of such applications,
including MOFTB's review procedures and the right to appeal the denial of a permit application.
Subdivision (c) details the responsibilities of permittees, and subdivision (d) addresses the
subject of modifications to or suspension of permits.
Section 9-03 sets forth the requirements governing indemnification and insurance.
/s/ Katherine Oliver
Katherine Oliver, Commissioner
Mayor's Office of Film, Theatre & Broadcasting
11

It's a PDF so I can't quote it, but there it is. The second page under "permits" is the most relevant. I'm still hunting for a non-PDF version and if I find it, I'll update the OP.

The message I received, which points out some of the flaws in this statute:
The Mayor's office in New York City is seeking to instate a new rule that would require permits and proof of insurance for any group of 2 or more people using a camera in a public area. The regulations would require that anyone using a tripod or shooting in one location for more than 30 minutes (including set-up and break down time) must obtain permits and show proof of insurance of at least 1 million dollars per occurrence. Read more about the new rules here .

We all need to act now to fight these proposed regulations that will place absurd restrictions on the freedom to photograph in New York City's public spaces. This affects not only professional photographers but also the First Amendment rights of anyone with a camera to spontaneously document what happens on the streets of this city. Due to pressure from advocacy groups, the Mayor's Office has agreed to extend the period that it will allow public commentary until August 3rd.

Picture New York has initiated an online petition opposing the new rules, which over 12,000 individuals have signed so far. The petition is closing on August 3rd. Click here to sign the petition.

The petition alluded to above (which I'm not linking to because I don't want to come off as linkwhoring or something. If people want it, or a mod approves, I'll post it):
This E-Petition was initiated on Wednesday, July 25, 2007. It will be printed and hand-delivered to the Mayor's Office of Film, Theater & Broadcasting on Friday, August 3, the last day of the public comment period. Please sign by Friday and make sure to tell others!

To: Mayor's Office of Film, Theatre & Broadcasting
Cc: City Council Committee on Culture, Libraries, and International Intergroup Relations

We, the undersigned, believe that the new rules currently under consideration for Film Permits (Chapter 9, Title 43 of the City Rules of New York) will have an irrevocable impact on independent filmmakers and photographers and their ability to engage in creative work in New York.

The proposed regulations would not only jeopardize the activities of artists, but of hobbyists and tourists, as well as commercial practitioners. Furthermore, we believe these new restrictions will have far reaching impact on the tourism industry and cultural economy of New York. With limitations placed on the kind of work that can be made, the commercial galleries, museums, and theaters that present the work, as well the film processing labs and rental companies that service the production of such work would lose considerable business.

The right to photograph in public space is established by the First Amendment, which states that, "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble." These rights are not the City's possession to take away, or to restrict to the point where such free expression is rendered impossible. The impact on public space of the types of activities you propose to regulate are so minimal that requiring permits is an undue burden towards exercising First Amendment rights. Furthermore, one cannot regulate an art form or activity by negating its very premise. The proposed rules, in refusing to recognize the spontaneity that is at the core of street-based filmmaking and photography, are untenable for that reason alone.

Because there was virtually no public notice about the proposals, many advocacy groups, photographers, and filmmakers did not know about the rules or the opportunity to file objections. We therefore call upon the city to dismiss these regulations altogether, and hold a new public hearing so that the communities that will be most impacted have an opportunitiy to meaningfully input into the shaping of new and constructive policies.

I personally think this is ludicrous, and I consider photography to be an expression or the progression of free speech, but I can understand the security issues that it may present. I think the proposed restrictions are heavy-handed and it already annoys me to see signs that say "no photography permitted" around tunnels and such. Not that I really feel like photographing guard posts and toll booths, and I understand the security reasons behind it, but I think even that was a serious infringement on my rights.

Personally, the petition mimics my own sentiments on this topic. Thoughts? Does freedom of speech include freedom to photograph?

Switch: SW-7690-2320-9238Steam/PSN/Xbox: Drezdar
Drez on

Posts

  • DrezDrez Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    By the way, here's the http://www.nyc.gov take on it:
    July 3, 2007 - In an effort to better assist the public, the NYC Mayor's Office of Film, Theatre and Broadcasting (MOFTB) issued proposed "film permit rules" on May 25, 2007. It's important to note that MOFTB has issued such permits for over 40 years. The process is remaining substantially unchanged. Rather, the City is merely codifying existing procedures. This decision came as part of a settlement from a recent lawsuit brought by the New York Civil Liberties Union (NYCLU). A hearing on the new rules took place on Thursday, June 28, 2007. Please note that the new rule does not impact press photographers, who are routinely credentialed by the NYPD. Nor does the rule impact student filmmakers who are covered by their school’s insurance and have also maintained access to permit services for 40 years.

    Historical Background
    As the first U.S. film commission -- founded in 1966 -- MOFTB has always offered free permits. In addition, if warranted by the activity, it has also offered free police assistance to streamline filming in New York City. The permit has served as the filmer's authorization to interact with, and stage production activity, on City property.

    The New Rules
    The proposed rules would effect the following practical changes:
    1. Film or still photography activity involving a tripod and a crew of 5 or more persons (at one site for 10 or more minutes) would require a permit, or the same activity among two people at a single site for more than 30 minutes. However, note that this situation is RARE for recreational photographers;
    2. Applicants unable to meet the insurance requirement may be eligible for a waiver of insurance;
    3. Still photographers engaged in "permitted" activity (activity where you need a permit) would require insurance. "Permitted" activity can include those where vehicles or equipment other than hand-held cameras are used.

    MOFTB will continue to accept feedback on the proposed rules until August 3, 2007, and may determine that it is appropriate to revise its proposal.

    Drez on
    Switch: SW-7690-2320-9238Steam/PSN/Xbox: Drezdar
  • ZalbinionZalbinion Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Drez wrote: »
    I personally think this is ludicrous, and I consider photography to be an expression or the progression of free speech, but I can understand the security issues that it may present. I think the proposed restrictions are heavy-handed and it already annoys me to see signs that say "no photography permitted" around tunnels and such. Not that I really feel like photographing guard posts and toll booths, and I understand the security reasons behind it, but I think even that was a serious infringement on my rights.

    Personally, the petition mimics my own sentiments on this topic. Thoughts? Does freedom of speech include freedom to photograph?

    I also think it's ludicrous, and I don't buy the security argument one bit.

    These are public spaces and that's that. So terrorists might want to photograph tunnels to blow them up? Tough. It's not like the tunnels are going anywhere, and they can always visit in person anyway to get the information they need.

    Zalbinion on
  • Shazkar ShadowstormShazkar Shadowstorm Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    This is absurd.

    Shazkar Shadowstorm on
    poo
  • nexuscrawlernexuscrawler Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    There are some safety issues. If a person trips over our cable in a public place there's to potiental for the city to get sued since it's a public space. the first part really isn't anything new. In film school we had ot get permits all the time to shot on the street. NYC actually makes it laughably easy to obtain such permits. It really just requires you to fill out some forms detailing what you're doing and wait for like half a day. Unless you're blocking the sidewalk or using a crane or something they are going to give you any trouble. The insurance issue is troubling since few amatuer filmmakers are going to be able to afford it.

    Trouble with this law is the line between real production and casual photography is blurry. The second part saying 2 people for more than 30 minutes is silly. People have already pointed out 2 toursts with camcorder could easily fit into that classification. This could lead to selective harassment by police.

    nexuscrawler on
  • DrezDrez Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    There are some safety issues. If a person trips over our cable in a public place there's to potiental for the city to get sued since it's a public space. the first part really isn't anything new. In film school we had ot get permits all the time to shot on the street. NYC actually makes it laughably easy to obtain such permits. It really just requires you to fill out some forms detailing what you're doing and wait for like half a day. Unless you're blocking the sidewalk or using a crane or something they are going to give you any trouble. The insurance issue is troubling since few amatuer filmmakers are going to be able to afford it.

    Trouble with this law is the line between real production and casual photography is blurry. The second part saying 2 people for more than 30 minutes is silly. People have already pointed out 2 toursts with camcorder could easily fit into that classification. This could lead to selective harassment by police.

    Precisely. That's the main problem I have with this.

    Drez on
    Switch: SW-7690-2320-9238Steam/PSN/Xbox: Drezdar
  • MKRMKR Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    file->save as text

    MKR on
  • GorakGorak Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Zalbinion wrote: »
    Drez wrote: »
    I personally think this is ludicrous, and I consider photography to be an expression or the progression of free speech, but I can understand the security issues that it may present. I think the proposed restrictions are heavy-handed and it already annoys me to see signs that say "no photography permitted" around tunnels and such. Not that I really feel like photographing guard posts and toll booths, and I understand the security reasons behind it, but I think even that was a serious infringement on my rights.

    Personally, the petition mimics my own sentiments on this topic. Thoughts? Does freedom of speech include freedom to photograph?

    I also think it's ludicrous, and I don't buy the security argument one bit.

    These are public spaces and that's that. So terrorists might want to photograph tunnels to blow them up? Tough. It's not like the tunnels are going anywhere, and they can always visit in person anyway to get the information they need.

    This law wouldn't affect some terrorist doing recon anyway. They'd just make sure they stayed within the 30 minute window and therefore didn't need a permit.

    It seems like they've gone out of their way to make sure this doesn't affect tourists though. You don't want to push away a cash cow like that.

    Gorak on
  • BubbaTBubbaT Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Gorak wrote: »
    Zalbinion wrote: »
    Drez wrote: »
    I personally think this is ludicrous, and I consider photography to be an expression or the progression of free speech, but I can understand the security issues that it may present. I think the proposed restrictions are heavy-handed and it already annoys me to see signs that say "no photography permitted" around tunnels and such. Not that I really feel like photographing guard posts and toll booths, and I understand the security reasons behind it, but I think even that was a serious infringement on my rights.

    Personally, the petition mimics my own sentiments on this topic. Thoughts? Does freedom of speech include freedom to photograph?

    I also think it's ludicrous, and I don't buy the security argument one bit.

    These are public spaces and that's that. So terrorists might want to photograph tunnels to blow them up? Tough. It's not like the tunnels are going anywhere, and they can always visit in person anyway to get the information they need.

    This law wouldn't affect some terrorist doing recon anyway. They'd just make sure they stayed within the 30 minute window and therefore didn't need a permit.

    It seems like they've gone out of their way to make sure this doesn't affect tourists though. You don't want to push away a cash cow like that.

    I was visiting New York with a friend and he was taking pictures of ground zero, which mostly amounted to pictures of a fence. A cop came up and demanded he hand over his camera. After about 5 minutes of them going back and forth, my friend ended up having to delete the pictures while the cop watched before he let us go.

    BubbaT on
  • juice for jesusjuice for jesus Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    BubbaT wrote: »
    I was visiting New York with a friend and he was taking pictures of ground zero, which mostly amounted to pictures of a fence. A cop came up and demanded he hand over his camera. After about 5 minutes of them going back and forth, my friend ended up having to delete the pictures while the cop watched before he let us go.

    Oh my god... so terrorists might be plotting to attack... a hole in the ground? O_o

    juice for jesus on
  • nexuscrawlernexuscrawler Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    BubbaT wrote: »
    Gorak wrote: »
    Zalbinion wrote: »
    Drez wrote: »
    I personally think this is ludicrous, and I consider photography to be an expression or the progression of free speech, but I can understand the security issues that it may present. I think the proposed restrictions are heavy-handed and it already annoys me to see signs that say "no photography permitted" around tunnels and such. Not that I really feel like photographing guard posts and toll booths, and I understand the security reasons behind it, but I think even that was a serious infringement on my rights.

    Personally, the petition mimics my own sentiments on this topic. Thoughts? Does freedom of speech include freedom to photograph?

    I also think it's ludicrous, and I don't buy the security argument one bit.

    These are public spaces and that's that. So terrorists might want to photograph tunnels to blow them up? Tough. It's not like the tunnels are going anywhere, and they can always visit in person anyway to get the information they need.

    This law wouldn't affect some terrorist doing recon anyway. They'd just make sure they stayed within the 30 minute window and therefore didn't need a permit.

    It seems like they've gone out of their way to make sure this doesn't affect tourists though. You don't want to push away a cash cow like that.

    I was visiting New York with a friend and he was taking pictures of ground zero, which mostly amounted to pictures of a fence. A cop came up and demanded he hand over his camera. After about 5 minutes of them going back and forth, my friend ended up having to delete the pictures while the cop watched before he let us go.

    If your friend was standing on a public sidewalk the cop had zero right to do that. Anything taken from public ground is allowable even if it's of privately owned land. Businesses have long tried to be dicks abut this and demand people not take pictures of their buildings and such. It's horseshit they're not allowed to do.

    If a cop did that to me I'd tell him he;d have to arrest me first.

    nexuscrawler on
  • AzioAzio Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    My father once went to court over this type of bullshit and won handily. The city had to pay his legal fees and reimburse him for the film the cops ripped out of his camera. And he was shooting for commercial purposes. So unless the lower courts of the American judicial system are so hopelessly corrupt that they would rule against such fundamental human rights as the freedom of expression, I don't think people need to worry about this.

    Azio on
  • AdrienAdrien Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    There are some safety issues. If a person trips over our cable in a public place there's to potiental for the city to get sued since it's a public space. the first part really isn't anything new. In film school we had ot get permits all the time to shot on the street. NYC actually makes it laughably easy to obtain such permits. It really just requires you to fill out some forms detailing what you're doing and wait for like half a day. Unless you're blocking the sidewalk or using a crane or something they are going to give you any trouble. The insurance issue is troubling since few amatuer filmmakers are going to be able to afford it.

    Trouble with this law is the line between real production and casual photography is blurry. The second part saying 2 people for more than 30 minutes is silly. People have already pointed out 2 toursts with camcorder could easily fit into that classification. This could lead to selective harassment by police.

    Two tourists with a camcorder in one place for half an hour?

    The nyc.gov response seems pretty reasonable to me. Is there something I'm missing?

    Adrien on
    tmkm.jpg
  • DrezDrez Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Adrien wrote: »
    There are some safety issues. If a person trips over our cable in a public place there's to potiental for the city to get sued since it's a public space. the first part really isn't anything new. In film school we had ot get permits all the time to shot on the street. NYC actually makes it laughably easy to obtain such permits. It really just requires you to fill out some forms detailing what you're doing and wait for like half a day. Unless you're blocking the sidewalk or using a crane or something they are going to give you any trouble. The insurance issue is troubling since few amatuer filmmakers are going to be able to afford it.

    Trouble with this law is the line between real production and casual photography is blurry. The second part saying 2 people for more than 30 minutes is silly. People have already pointed out 2 toursts with camcorder could easily fit into that classification. This could lead to selective harassment by police.

    Two tourists with a camcorder in one place for half an hour?

    The nyc.gov response seems pretty reasonable to me. Is there something I'm missing?

    The fact that loitering with a camera should be legally protected, should not require any sort of silly permit, and that people shouldn't be hassled, I think. At least, that's my position.

    Drez on
    Switch: SW-7690-2320-9238Steam/PSN/Xbox: Drezdar
  • AdrienAdrien Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Drez wrote: »
    Adrien wrote: »
    Two tourists with a camcorder in one place for half an hour?

    The nyc.gov response seems pretty reasonable to me. Is there something I'm missing?

    The fact that loitering with a camera should be legally protected, should not require any sort of silly permit, and that people shouldn't be hassled, I think. At least, that's my position.

    If by loitering you mean filming, I have to say I disagree. I mean, I'm not saying I think the permits are a necessity, but I can understand their desire to be in control of what goes on on the streets, and I can't really think of a casual reason for two people to be filming in one place for half an hour.

    I mean, I can see how the most liberal interpretation is on the restrictive side. But I don't think it's a huge deal.

    Adrien on
    tmkm.jpg
  • DrezDrez Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Adrien wrote: »
    Drez wrote: »
    Adrien wrote: »
    Two tourists with a camcorder in one place for half an hour?

    The nyc.gov response seems pretty reasonable to me. Is there something I'm missing?

    The fact that loitering with a camera should be legally protected, should not require any sort of silly permit, and that people shouldn't be hassled, I think. At least, that's my position.

    If by loitering you mean filming, I have to say I disagree. I mean, I'm not saying I think the permits are a necessity, but I can understand their desire to be in control of what goes on on the streets, and I can't really think of a casual reason for two people to be filming in one place for half an hour.

    I mean, I can see how the most liberal interpretation is on the restrictive side. But I don't think it's a huge deal.

    Uh, sure, I certainly "understand" their desire to be in control of what goes on in the streets. I just don't agree with it. It doesn't really matter if there isn't a good casual reason for two people to be filming in the same place for half an hour. It's none of the cities business. That's a part of "freedom" - that you are free to do things arbitrarily without having to answer to anyone as to why.

    It's not a liberal interpretation to consider this restrictive. It's the only interpretation. That's precisely what this is: restrictive. That's the entire point of that part of the statute. To restrict.

    Drez on
    Switch: SW-7690-2320-9238Steam/PSN/Xbox: Drezdar
  • AdrienAdrien Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Drez wrote: »
    Uh, sure, I certainly "understand" their desire to be in control of what goes on in the streets. I just don't agree with it. It doesn't really matter if there isn't a good casual reason for two people to be filming in the same place for half an hour. It's none of the cities business. That's a part of "freedom" - that you are free to do things arbitrarily without having to answer to anyone as to why.

    It's not a liberal interpretation to consider this restrictive. It's the only interpretation. That's precisely what this is: restrictive. That's the entire point of that part of the statute. To restrict.

    I can only assume you have a problem with this particular piece of legislation, rather than with the concept of laws in general?

    I mean, you said that you thought it heavy-handed. So you must be able to conceive of a situation in which someone would need a permit when clearly they ought not to.

    Adrien on
    tmkm.jpg
  • AzioAzio Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Adrien wrote: »
    If by loitering you mean filming, I have to say I disagree. I mean, I'm not saying I think the permits are a necessity, but I can understand their desire to be in control of what goes on on the streets, and I can't really think of a casual reason for two people to be filming in one place for half an hour.
    This is idiotic. Perhaps they are art students filming a project. Or amateur filmmakers making a youtube documentary about how the Jews orchestrated 9/11. A lot of time can go into setting up a shot, finding the right angle, waiting for clouds and the sun to shift for the appropriate lighting. Who the fuck cares? Nobody needs a reason to exercise their freedom of expression, regardless of how long they take.

    Azio on
  • DrezDrez Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Adrien wrote: »
    Drez wrote: »
    Uh, sure, I certainly "understand" their desire to be in control of what goes on in the streets. I just don't agree with it. It doesn't really matter if there isn't a good casual reason for two people to be filming in the same place for half an hour. It's none of the cities business. That's a part of "freedom" - that you are free to do things arbitrarily without having to answer to anyone as to why.

    It's not a liberal interpretation to consider this restrictive. It's the only interpretation. That's precisely what this is: restrictive. That's the entire point of that part of the statute. To restrict.

    I can only assume you have a problem with this particular piece of legislation, rather than with the concept of laws in general?

    I mean, you said that you thought it heavy-handed. So you must be able to conceive of a situation in which someone would need a permit when clearly they ought not to.

    Well, yes. I'm just saying that the point of requiring a permit is to restrict. That's...that's what they are for. I don't believe in anarchy. Some restrictions are necessary. Permits make sense in some cases.

    But not this case. As far as I'm concerned - and I don't really care to debate the science of optics here - there is no difference between me standing around looking at stuff in one area for an hour or me recording/taking pictures for an hour. Sure, there's security/safety issues involved. But I think this needs more specific wording. Nexuscrawler said something about big wires in the street. No problem: talk about that and preventing that specifically in the statute. Don't want someone filming a specific building entrance for an extended period of time? Then talk about that specifically. But "you can't film/take pictures in one area for more than 30 minutes?" I find that kind of restriction disgusting.

    Drez on
    Switch: SW-7690-2320-9238Steam/PSN/Xbox: Drezdar
  • AdrienAdrien Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Azio wrote: »
    Adrien wrote: »
    If by loitering you mean filming, I have to say I disagree. I mean, I'm not saying I think the permits are a necessity, but I can understand their desire to be in control of what goes on on the streets, and I can't really think of a casual reason for two people to be filming in one place for half an hour.
    This is idiotic. Perhaps they are art students filming a project. Or amateur filmmakers making a youtube documentary about how the Jews orchestrated 9/11. A lot of time can go into setting up a shot, finding the right angle, waiting for clouds and the sun to shift for the appropriate lighting. Who the fuck cares? Nobody needs a reason to exercise their freedom of expression, regardless of how long they take.

    Sure, but I can't cover your house in pudding without your permission, even as part of an art project.
    Drez wrote: »

    Well, yes. I'm just saying that the point of requiring a permit is to restrict. That's...that's what they are for. I don't believe in anarchy. Some restrictions are necessary. Permits make sense in some cases.

    But not this case. As far as I'm concerned - and I don't really care to debate the science of optics here - there is no difference between me standing around looking at stuff in one area for an hour or me recording/taking pictures for an hour. Sure, there's security/safety issues involved. But I think this needs more specific wording. Nexuscrawler said something about big wires in the street. No problem: talk about that and preventing that specifically in the statute. Don't want someone filming a specific building entrance for an extended period of time? Then talk about that specifically. But "you can't film/take pictures in one area for more than 30 minutes?" I find that kind of restriction disgusting.

    Eh. Like I said, unless you can come up with some kind of specific example of how this is going to restrict freedoms unreasonably, I have a hard time getting worked up about it.

    Adrien on
    tmkm.jpg
  • AzioAzio Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Adrien wrote: »
    Azio wrote: »
    Adrien wrote: »
    If by loitering you mean filming, I have to say I disagree. I mean, I'm not saying I think the permits are a necessity, but I can understand their desire to be in control of what goes on on the streets, and I can't really think of a casual reason for two people to be filming in one place for half an hour.
    This is idiotic. Perhaps they are art students filming a project. Or amateur filmmakers making a youtube documentary about how the Jews orchestrated 9/11. A lot of time can go into setting up a shot, finding the right angle, waiting for clouds and the sun to shift for the appropriate lighting. Who the fuck cares? Nobody needs a reason to exercise their freedom of expression, regardless of how long they take.

    Sure, but I can't cover your house in pudding without your permission, even as part of an art project.
    Pointing a camera in the general direction of my house, and vandalizing my house, are two different things.

    Azio on
  • DrezDrez Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Adrien wrote: »
    Azio wrote: »
    Adrien wrote: »
    If by loitering you mean filming, I have to say I disagree. I mean, I'm not saying I think the permits are a necessity, but I can understand their desire to be in control of what goes on on the streets, and I can't really think of a casual reason for two people to be filming in one place for half an hour.
    This is idiotic. Perhaps they are art students filming a project. Or amateur filmmakers making a youtube documentary about how the Jews orchestrated 9/11. A lot of time can go into setting up a shot, finding the right angle, waiting for clouds and the sun to shift for the appropriate lighting. Who the fuck cares? Nobody needs a reason to exercise their freedom of expression, regardless of how long they take.

    Sure, but I can't cover your house in pudding without your permission, even as part of an art project.
    Drez wrote: »

    Well, yes. I'm just saying that the point of requiring a permit is to restrict. That's...that's what they are for. I don't believe in anarchy. Some restrictions are necessary. Permits make sense in some cases.

    But not this case. As far as I'm concerned - and I don't really care to debate the science of optics here - there is no difference between me standing around looking at stuff in one area for an hour or me recording/taking pictures for an hour. Sure, there's security/safety issues involved. But I think this needs more specific wording. Nexuscrawler said something about big wires in the street. No problem: talk about that and preventing that specifically in the statute. Don't want someone filming a specific building entrance for an extended period of time? Then talk about that specifically. But "you can't film/take pictures in one area for more than 30 minutes?" I find that kind of restriction disgusting.

    Eh. Like I said, unless you can come up with some kind of specific example of how this is going to restrict freedoms unreasonably, I have a hard time getting worked up about it.

    I guess my sense of reasonable and yours differs. I think the restriction is unreasonable in any given context, so there's really no example I can use to prove my point. Every example substantiates my position, or rather every example of how this restriction is in any way a good thing is irrelevant in my opinion.

    Drez on
    Switch: SW-7690-2320-9238Steam/PSN/Xbox: Drezdar
  • ThaiboxerThaiboxer Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    ... The insurance issue is troubling since few amatuer filmmakers are going to be able to afford it.

    Yeah this seems to me like the main issue here. I can see that an insurance waiver can be obtained, but I would think the methods to obtain that waiver should be more clearly delinanated. I don't see a generic form being an issue, but if at anytime the content of the project was questioned, then yeah, that would be bad.

    Thaiboxer on
    Playing WoW "only when you are bored" is like smoking "only when you are drinking".
  • Psycho Internet HawkPsycho Internet Hawk Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    If I thought this reworking of the law would have any sort of positive effect I would endorse it.

    As of right now, I fail to see any positive effect.

    Psycho Internet Hawk on
    ezek1t.jpg
  • DrezDrez Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    OP updated with the full text. Thanks, DevoutlyApathetic!

    Drez on
    Switch: SW-7690-2320-9238Steam/PSN/Xbox: Drezdar
  • AdrienAdrien Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    If I thought this reworking of the law would have any sort of positive effect I would endorse it.

    As of right now, I fail to see any positive effect.

    Yeah, it is kind of unclear what specific issues they're hoping to head off.

    Adrien on
    tmkm.jpg
Sign In or Register to comment.