Can't Photograph In NYC Any Longer!

g under p

Independent Artists Lead Fight Against Proposed New York City Regulations
Limiting Filming, Photography in Public Places *

The Mayor's office of Film, Theater, and Broadcasting is considering new
permit and insurance regulations for photographers and filmmakers that would
radically undermine the First amendment right to photograph and film in
public places. If passed they would have harsh consequences for independent
and low-budget photographers, filmmakers, journalists, artists, students,
tourists, amateurs, and really, anyone with a still or video camera and a
sense of curiosity about New York city. We¹re joined by three guests: Beka
Economopoulos from the coalition Picture New York, Christopher Dunn from the
New York Civil Liberties Union, and independent filmmaker Jem Cohen.

This was from Democracy Now..... Listen/Watch/Read @ Limited Filming in NYC.

Guess which one of us the film police will go after first, mostly the dark ones. Could this be another form of fighting terriosm or simply a way of lawfully picking and choosing who they can go after?

Peace
Earle

Drowned Out

First I've heard of this...(thanks!)
I don't really understand the justification....it appears to be a free permit?
Are they saying the insurance coverage is why they are making this a requirement? I guess I need to read more about this filmaker that was arrested....
So here's the site for these permits:
http://www.nyc.gov/html/film/html/index/index.shtml
The MOFTB is here to help (they tell us so)! They give you tips like "When your project is shooting at an exterior location which requires traffic control, or has a scene with prop firearms, weapons or actors in police uniforms, you must request that the NYPD Movie and TV Unit be assigned to your location. The police unit will assign its officers at no charge to you. " ....holy shit...is there a big problem with filmakers in NYC stopping traffic and using prop firearms without talking to the police first?

Reading on the site linked above, it appears they can approve or deny a permit based on location? You can't film near this burst steam pipe? wtf? why not? Will it become standard practise to deny public access to anything they deem fit? I don't see any explanation for why you can't film there, other than the "cleanup effort".
I also don't see anything about consequence on any of the sites I checked....do they confiscate your camera if you don't have a permit?

As is mentioned in the link go under p posted, filmakers will need a permit to film at protests and political conventions, etc. I wonder how hard it would be to lose a potentially troublesome app, then prevent the troublemaker from filming? It's also intersting to note that there would be a database of anyone with a camera in any given location at any given time....and anyone filming that is not in the database, would be in violation of this law.

Someone call me paranoid :rolleyes: or at least explain the justification...

...it will be interesting to see how this unfolds...

RolandTD20Kdrummer

This is a pretty huge hit to freedom of expression. I'm amazed filming in NY is going to be scrutinized so highly like that. This smells funny.

I don't want to sound alarmist but, maybe someone is trying to prevent filming in NY for a reason...like the possibility to compare videotape of scenes leading to an upcoming event that is going to happen to prevent people from figuring anything out across background footage captures.

See where this could be going?

You don't want every joe on the street just filming everything if you're trying to conduct something covertly in the background.

Don't laugh. It could be as simple as noticing trucks parked in various places and people coming and going in the background...offices closed "construction work" going on etc... it can all be pieced together with assorted video tape if necessary. Someone might see this as risky practice and want place a control on it.

I can hear it now...nope..you can't film anywhere on this block, street etc..
"This whole area is prohibited"

Call me crazy, but it seems highly unusual to place a control like this without rock solid and multiple reasons. Like years of ongoing complaints for one. If it's a flimsy hypothetical reason I'd be pretty much freaking out as NY'er.

...it all seems really weird

If I was living in NY I would be thinking about moving out before long unless someone can point out an obvious reason.

Maybe I missed it.

I hope it's nothing.

Drowned Out

That's pretty much what I was thinking....hence the "call me paranoid" bit
Seeing the bit about the burst pipe set off a ton of alarm bells for me...


July 23, 2007 Please be advised that due to the steam pipe explosion which occurred on July 18 and the ensuing cleanup effort, there will be no film permits issued for the affected area. As of Tuesday, July 31st, the frozen zone for filming has been reduced to the area bounded by 37th Street to 43rd Street, from Madison to Third Avenue.

Of course this doesn't mean anything malicious is happening ('cept maybe some kind of test to gauge public response to implementing the regulations in this manner?)....but my first instinct is to wonder what is happening that they don't want filmed.

I'm interested in the consequence of filming without a permit. If your camera/film/memory card can be confiscated, it eliminates one of the only ways people can effectively fight back against police oppression.

If this passes in NYC, I'll be pretty fuckin disheartened...if it sets some sort of precedent for other cities....yikes.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

Drowned Out wrote:

That's pretty much what I was thinking....hence the "call me paranoid" bit
Seeing the bit about the burst pipe set off a ton of alarm bells for me...


July 23, 2007 Please be advised that due to the steam pipe explosion which occurred on July 18 and the ensuing cleanup effort, there will be no film permits issued for the affected area. As of Tuesday, July 31st, the frozen zone for filming has been reduced to the area bounded by 37th Street to 43rd Street, from Madison to Third Avenue.

Of course this doesn't mean anything malicious is happening ('cept maybe some kind of test to gauge public response to implementing the regulations in this manner?)....but my first instinct is to wonder what is happening that they don't want filmed.

I'm interested in the consequence of filming without a permit. If your camera/film/memory card can be confiscated, it eliminates one of the only ways people can effectively fight back against police oppression.

If this passes in NYC, I'll be pretty fuckin disheartened...if it sets some sort of precedent for other cities....yikes.

I know. It's almost to the point you have to be this critical with these guys and all the things they are doing.

It takes a discerning eye...some call it conspiracy paranoia. I do constantly question it and myself when sweeping new things like this get proposed.

It doesn't sound like a safety thing to me. What about news filming the event?

I'll be interested to see if they just start prohibiting zones with no "burst pipe" scenarios

catefrances

g under p wrote:

This was from Democracy Now..... Listen/Watch/Read @ Limited Filming in NYC.

Guess which one of us the film police will go after first, mostly the dark ones. Could this be another form of fighting terriosm or simply a way of lawfully picking and choosing who they can go after?

Peace
Earle

this is the fucking most ridiculous thing i've ever heard of. probably the most photographed place on earth and they're gonna screw it up for everyone?

even flow?

Because with the invention of the computer, everybody has to travel to NYC to take pics to plan an attack. :rolleyes:

butters

"Under the new rules, any filming or photography involving “an interaction among two or more people at a single site for thirty or more minutes, including all set up and breakdown time” would have to obtain a permit and one million dollars in insurance. The permit and insurance regulations would also apply to any “interaction among five or more people” using a tripod for more than ten minutes at a single location."

Come on.... if you are going to complain about freedoms and such, it is your duty to READ THE ENTTIRE ARTICLE to find out what its about. As described above, this does nto effect a single person with a camcorder or camera in any way whatsoever. It may still suck, but no one who has posted can say why since they clearly know nothing about it.

catefrances

butters wrote:

Come on.... if you are going to complain about freedoms and such, it is your duty to READ THE ENTTIRE ARTICLE to find out what its about. As described above, this does nto effect a single person with a camcorder or camera in any way whatsoever. It may still suck, but no one who has posted can say why since they clearly know nothing about it.

too true. but its so much more fun venting like the fool i feel like sometimes. it did seem too ridiculous to be true. i just couldn't help myself.

Drowned Out

butters wrote:

Come on.... if you are going to complain about freedoms and such, it is your duty to READ THE ENTTIRE ARTICLE to find out what its about. As described above, this does nto effect a single person with a camcorder or camera in any way whatsoever. It may still suck, but no one who has posted can say why since they clearly know nothing about it.

I read the whole article, but thanks for reminding me of my duties…..
So what is the justification? And what is the consequence?
I don’t see that anywhere in the article, nor any of the other articles I found in a search for it.
you don't see potential for abuse of this law? If a cop can question you about a permit just cause you have a camera phone? Even if you're alone, how do you prove that if you are taking pictures with people in them? Does it not become a question of your word against the cops? Discrimmination and an easy way to "lock down" an area are a couple of my concerns.
Also…what about the issue I raised above, with the potential for shutting down dissident indie reporters?
I'm not saying this WILL happen, but it is another freedom/privacy issue, something a lot of people are sensitive to nowadays. Clearly Roland and I are not the only ones that feel this way….the petition to do away with the law and hold public hearings got 16k sigs in a week.

I Am Gone

even flow? wrote:

Because with the invention of the computer, everybody has to travel to NYC to take pics to plan an attack. :rolleyes:

You joke, but i mean, come on, if we buy a camera are we fucking terrorists now? Whatever fuckwad thought up this great idea, get rid of them for the love of sanity!

Bu2

the Mayor's Office.

I believe the Mayor is Bloomberg.

g under p

butters wrote:

"Under the new rules, any filming or photography involving “an interaction among two or more people at a single site for thirty or more minutes, including all set up and breakdown time” would have to obtain a permit and one million dollars in insurance. The permit and insurance regulations would also apply to any “interaction among five or more people” using a tripod for more than ten minutes at a single location."

Come on.... if you are going to complain about freedoms and such, it is your duty to READ THE ENTTIRE ARTICLE to find out what its about. As described above, this does nto effect a single person with a camcorder or camera in any way whatsoever. It may still suck, but no one who has posted can say why since they clearly know nothing about it.

In I didn't read the article, however I did listen to the entire article on my way to work. Here's a bit more on the article on what's it about:

"AMY GOODMAN: Let's talk about what exactly the regulations are. Ten minutes, what have you got, Chris Dunn, New York Civil Liberties Union?

CHRISTOPHER DUNN: It’s a very straightforward rule: if you are using a handheld device, camera, still camera or video camera, and you’re with at least one other person, in any form of interaction, in a single location for more than thirty minutes, under the rules, you’d have to get a permit and you’d have to get a million dollars of insurance. In addition --

AMY GOODMAN: If you’re just hanging out on the sidewalk videoing.

CHRISTOPHER DUNN: You’re hanging out on the sidewalk, whether it’s the sidewalk in front of your home, Times Square, Ground Zero, standing in line in the Empire State Building, you would have to get a permit and insurance.

AMY GOODMAN: If you’re an independent reporter who’s there, and you're covering, say, the Republican convention and you’re covering the police interaction with the protesters, they could arrest you for not having a million dollars in insurance?

CHRISTOPHER DUNN: They could arrest you for not having a million dollars of insurance, that’s correct. Basically, this opens the door to unlimited police interactions with photographers and filmmakers, because under these proposed rules, if they were passed, basically everyone with a camera, including everyone with a cell phone, would be someone who might have to have a permit to do photography. And you can just envision the sort of interactions that are going to take place.

AMY GOODMAN: Ten minutes.

CHRISTOPHER DUNN: Ten minutes.

AMY GOODMAN: Including setting up and breaking down?"

Maybe YOU should reread the article or LISTEN carefully like did on my way to work.

Peace & you have a goodnight
Earle

Bu2

I like you more and more each day.

jlew24asu

that blows

DriftingByTheStorm

I don't see anything wrong with this.
If you have a problem with it, it's probably because you're a terrorist, anyhow.

:rolleyes:

Drowned Out

a conspiracy against Alex Jones...go figure.

g under p

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

I don't see anything wrong with this.
If you have a problem with it, it's probably because you're a terrorist, anyhow.

Yes, I'll become the very best terrorist I can be. Please wake the fuck up!

Peace
Earle

Bu2

Earle.....

have I told you, lately, that I love you?

RolandTD20Kdrummer

even flow? wrote:

Because with the invention of the computer, everybody has to travel to NYC to take pics to plan an attack. :rolleyes:

That really logical...if you like broken logic...

oh... damn... the sarcasm...that blasted sarcasm! lol

RolandTD20Kdrummer

butters wrote:

Come on.... if you are going to complain about freedoms and such, it is your duty to READ THE ENTTIRE ARTICLE to find out what its about. As described above, this does nto effect a single person with a camcorder or camera in any way whatsoever. It may still suck, but no one who has posted can say why since they clearly know nothing about it.

Did you watch the vid? They mention the use of cell phone cams as well.

Who watched and listened to what again?