Picture New York

[Chosei Funahara]

dear artists and friends,

NY is not the only city setting up this absurdly restrictive ordinance. from what i understand, DC and downtown Silver Spring, MD may also now shut down, at will, unpermitted "street" photography - video, film, photography. please share this information with your lists and where possible, get involved. let your voices be heard. a clear signature of the times in which we currently live.

good grief, what year is this again??!


======

OFFICIAL PRESS RELEASE

Subject: Press Release - "Picture New York" Formed In Response to Mayor's Plans to Limit Cameras

For Immediate Release
Contacts: Lisa Guido (917) 573-2282 Julie Talen (through July 31) (212) 226-4651

www.picturenewyork.org
info@picturenewyork.org

Artists Band Together to Fight Restrictions on Street Photography

"Picture New York" Formed In Response to Mayor's Plans to Limit Cameras

YouTube "Video Public Comments" to be Submitted to Mayor's Office

NEW YORK CITY: Picture New York WITHOUT pictures of New York. The most photographed city in the world is about to be shut down visually by proposed regulations which would basically make it illegal to film or tape in NYC without a permit and a million dollars of insurance.

An overnight, massive grassroots fight against these proposed regulations has sprung up under the name 'Picture New York.' Fighting back with YouTube videos, petitions, handwritten letters, a website, Flickr space and a rally and press conference this Friday in Union Square, this ad-hoc group of working artists, photographers and filmmakers vow to stop the regulations going into effect as scheduled in September from the Mayor's Office of Film, Theatre, and Broadcasting (MOFTB).

Albert Maysles, Patti Smith, Michael Stipe and Amy Arbus are among the celebrated artists who have already signed on to demand the MOFTB extend the period of public comment, currently ending August 3, and eliminate the proposed regulations: 11 pages of single-spaced rules where none existed before.

Jem Cohen, the critically-acclaimed filmmaker whose alarmed e-mail prompted the first formal meeting of concerned filmmakers, says, "Because street photography is, by its very nature, inextricably born out of free and random movement through the city, street photographers cannot know exactly where and when they intend to work, or for how long. One cannot regulate an art form or activity by negating its very premise. The proposed rules, in refusing to recognize the spontaneity which is at the core of street photography, are untenable for that reason alone."

"I already have a permit for my camera," says another of the group's founders, Beka Economopoulos. "It's called the First Amendment."

Since the Mayor's Office has asked for public comments, Picture New York has come up a new form: the Video Public Comment. The first - perhaps ever - Video Public Comment has already been posted to YouTube by artist Juliana Luecking and more will follow. Picture New York wants to invite anyone who loves the city and their camera to make one and post it. (To learn how to make a Video Public Comment, please see the website at pictureny.org.)

The proposed regulations will affect every kind of filming and photography in the city, aside from artists. Industrials, fashion, wedding and architectural photographers will need a permit and insurance for anything that takes more than a half hour and two people to shoot. A film school graduate with a camcorder, four friends and a dream will now have to pay the same fee to New York City to shoot as HBO does – because the regs include anything that takes more than 10 minutes to shoot with a tripod. Even parents making home movies in public parks would fall under the new rules.

As the Daily News says the regulations "are, in a word, nuts. . . "They were written as if small bands of rogue photographers were running amok. And they won't withstand court challenge unless the cops come down equally on everyone taking pictures, including mom and dad filming junior and pals at the playground." The conservative New York Sun agrees: "It would be a sad day if New York became a place where a family has to get a permit before making a home video."

The proposed rules are reminiscent of the MTA's failed attempt to ban photography in the subways two years ago. "If we can take photographs underground without permits," points out television producer Susan Marcoux, "we certainly should be able to take them above ground."

"This is micro-management of public space taken to an absurd level. What are the police going to do – time people holding cameras?" asks Eileen Clancy of I-Witness Video who has written about conflicts between police and camera people after September 11th. "These new rules give the police another excuse to arrest anybody they don't like with a camera."

These regulations violate the First Amendment right to photograph in public places, points out the NYCLU, and follow a slew of recent laws that already restrict rights in New York City to parade, dance, meet, bike, shout, and assemble. Draconian noise ordinances and the new parade and assembly laws make constitutionally-protected dissent almost impossible. Now, with regulations on street photography, New York City adds yet another infringement on civil liberties and free expression, which is why Picture New York will be participating in a press conference and First Amendment-themed rally at Union Square at 6:30pm this Friday, July 27.

* Friday, July 27, 2007 6:30pm - First Amendment Rally with Rev. Billy north end of Union Square Park

www.picturenewyork.org
info@picturenewyork.org
Mayor's Office on Film proposed regulations text www.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=1pbHXqoxKex52O1XQcPzddbDTjrVwmsQ

View signatures on ePetition www.pictureny.org/petition/index.php
Union Square Rally: Friday, July 27 www.pictureny.org/?cat=8

Daily News and The NY Sun editorials links: www.nysun.com/article/57680
www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2007/07/03/2007-07-03_lights_camera_inaction.html

Juliana Luecking's YouTube response to the proposed regulations www.youtube.com/watch?v=DCsLBts0pw8
--

[Keith Alan Morris]

this is HUGELY important to anyone who wants to shoot in the street and doesnt have a million dollar insurance policy. GREAT post! Please everyone sign this form--the vote is Aug 3rd!

http://www.pictureny.org/petition/index.php

Those m*%#$rs are tryin' to keep the indie filmmaker down! I actually miss Guiliani! Bloomberg, bah! The bum!

[Ace]

Hell, if they wanted they could take this one step further. The image of any building is copyright by the Architect as his/her artwork.. So technically you could need a model release for every building that appears in your footage.

[Sam Druckerman]

Wow.

Sometimes you have to take a stand.

As many of us here could be impacted by this.... I'd like to say thanks for the post Chosei.

Things are really starting to get scary, here in the land of the free.

[Michael Schrengohst]

Hell, if they wanted they could take this one step further. The image of any building is copyright by the Architect as his/her artwork.. So technically you could need a model release for every building that appears in your footage.

Or almost anything manufactured for that matter.....

[Keith Alan Morris]

Hell, if they wanted they could take this one step further. The image of any building is copyright by the Architect as his/her artwork.. So technically you could need a model release for every building that appears in your footage.

shhhh!

redguy too!

[Mark L. Pederson]

I posted some comments on this subject on Mike's blogg if you are interested in another perspective - the press is really distorting the facts a bit -

http://www.hdforindies.com/2007/07/new-york-producers-take-on-nycs-new.html

in regards to releases for buildings - of course you need them - anyone who shoots features knows this - this is not NY specific - it is federal copyright laws - the exterior image of property is protected. There are federal copyright laws that allows you to shoot exteriors without releases, what is and what is not considered public domain, or free use - and I forget the specific rules, but basically, you can shoot Wall Street, pan your camera across the skyline for example, and that is "public domain" - but if you shoot a shot of an office building as a "subject" or that office building is represented in your film as a location where fictitious events take place - you need a release.

I can assure you, when delivering a feature film to a studio - if you don't have a location agreement for every location, including exteriors, that are not considered free use/public domain - you will not be delivering your film, or you will be replacing scenes.

[Jeremy Hughes]

That's terrible.

[krd]

I don't think the situation is as benign as Mark Pedersen makes out in the link. Lone filmmakers and photograhers are routinely harassed by NYC cops, and equipment and tape/film confiscated. This most often happens when shooting "infrastructure", like bridges, trains, etc., but can occur anywhere. You don't get released until you can prove you're really a "filmmaker", which can involve contacting business associates (if you have them), schools, etc., and can take hours. Even then, there are no apologies and there's no guarantee you'll get your equipment or tape/film back in decent order. And there's nothing to prevent the same thing happening a few hours later, with different cops.

These proposed regulations open the door to endless harassment, selective enforcement and arbitrary arrest -- depending on the cop's mood, whether he has anything else to do, whether he likes the look of you, whether he wants the overtime, etc. NYC cops are far from the worst in the country, but most of them live in surrounding suburban communities and regard the city as a jungle. Whether the cop on the beat knows the law, or has respect for civil liberties, can be highly variable.

"Real" producers don't care about any of this, because they have permits and insurance anyway. The situation is quite different for the non-corporate filmmaker or photographer.

Sign that petition!

http://www.pictureny.org/petition/index.php

[AftonGrant]

I cannot speak for the sole photographer, but for a film crew, even a small one, permits and insurance are as necessary and basic as food when shooting in the city. They really are not difficult to get, and they are WELL worth the time and effort.

They can provide you with police cooperation, rather than harassment. Parking in NYC is a nightmare even if you don't have equipment to deal with, but with a simple permit, you can be given convenient parking privileges. Most of all, they protect you in case something should happen - theft, damage to gear, injury to crew or civilians, damage to property, etc.

As an owner/operator of equipment, I simply won't shoot with a crew that has no permits. It's not worth the risk. At the very least, we may be asked to leave which would waste a bunch of time. At worst...well, anything - and it's my property on the line, not a rental house. My refusal to shoot isn't a jerky thing. I know I'm not asking for something impossible. I've worked on small student pictures, 3 and 4 person crews, and many other tiny, independent productions. They were all able to get the necessary paperwork without much hassle.

I really don't think it opens the door to endless harassment. They provide you with a solution which will allow you to avoid any trouble at all. Yes, it'll take a couple extra hours, phone calls and dollars in pre-production, but all it provides you is worth it. In a city as congested as NYC, even a two or three person crew on a sidewalk can cause problems. Permits and insurance are for the protection of everyone, not just to trouble a filmmaker.

[krd]

We're talking about two completely different approaches to production. If you have a formal, funded production, a salaried staff and a budget for insurance, the permit system is fine -- though by no means a guarantee that you'll avoid harassment or vehicle ticketing in NYC.

The issue, however, is those who choose (or are obliged) to shoot on the street informally, without predictable schedules or money for insurance. Would you really have these people subject to arrest, every time they take out a camera and tripod for more than 10 minutes?

[donatello b]

is anybody reading the Marks post about this at

http://www.hdforindies.com/2007/07/new-york-producers-take-on-nycs-new.html

i see that permits are FREE .. and with that FREE permit you get police for FREE ... if you can't afford insurance you might be able to get insurance waiver ... now try to get all that free in SF

no permit required if you shoot hand held ( any camera- vhs to 4k )


" those who chose (or are obliged) to shoot on the street informally, without predictable schedules or money for insurance"

well if permits, police are free and you might get a insurance waivor the least one can do is put together a schedule and if one can't at least do that ? ... schedules are a HUGE part of the business !!

[Nook Kim]

Where I live currently, we need to PAY police even with permits to film on
public streets or whatnot. Is there any resources that I can refer to the
regulations regarding use of police on filmset?


Regards,

[Mark L. Pederson]

NYC cops are far from the worst in the country, but most of them live in surrounding suburban communities and regard the city as a jungle. Whether the cop on the beat knows the law, or has respect for civil liberties, can be highly variable.

Okay ... I'm going to count to ten and try like hell not get into a pissing contest. This is, after all, a web forum centered on a digital cinema camera.

Sing that petition or don't sign the petition, but at least know all the facts.

As for "Lone filmmakers and photograhers are ROUTINELY harassed by NYC cops" - that's a GROSS exaggeration - aside from working in film for over 20 years in NYC - I have numerous friends who are "lone filmmakers and photographers" - yeah it happens, but it's RARE not ROUTINE -

again, I'm not going to get baited into a pissing contest here - it's not the place for it - I find KRD's post VERY offensive, and I assume families of police officers will concur.

I have tremendous respect for civil liberties.

And I have have tremendous respect for the NYPD.

Without them, I would already be dead.

I'm done with this thread.

[krd]

Sorry you found the post offensive, but it may be a matter of experience or emphasis. I look at the NYPD's long history of institutional violations of civil liberties, including court decrees which enjoined the force from spying on civilians, and the NYPD's more recent behavior in limiting legal assembly and its unlawful incarceration of peaceful protesters during the 2004 Republican convention (including many documented cases of police perjury, captured thanks to camcorders). And in NY's poor and minority communities, the view of the NYPD differs significantly from your own. This is a matter of public record.

If you had good or life-saving experiences with individual officers, that's another matter. I don't see, however, that the institutional picture changes. Citizens will be -- and should be -- at odds with the desires of police departments whose highest institutional interests will never be individual rights.

As for the free permits and free police protection -- whether it does you any good or is an absolute hindrance, depends, again, on the type of production.

For the life of me, I don't understand the eagerness to give up rights. Some people here may not need or want to shoot on the street without permits or insurance. Others may trust absolutely in the goodwill and discretion of the police.

But why deny those long-established rights to others? Is a guy with a tripod or 5 people in Central Park with a camera a danger to the public welfare? It looks much more like an arbitrary exercise of state power -- justified, as always, by 9/11. Or is all public behavior supposed to serve the convenience of the State and the police department now?

[Keith Alan Morris]

why not get a permit sometimes?

many photographers and filmmakers carry on an equally vital tradition in which spontaneous documentation of the urban environment is at the very heart of our work.

Being a street photographer often means standing in a random location and waiting: for the right activity, the right light, the break in the traffic; the countless other unpredictable factors that need to fall into place to make a shot worthwhile…Permits would have to be obtained for specific dates and times and exact locations, and the insurance would be out of reach for many individuals.

[Keith Alan Morris]

this whole thing stinks to high heaven.

a little history--guiliani did a great job opening up the city to filmmakers, knowing that it was great PR--couple that with cracking down on crime and putting a streetlight on every corner, people moved back to the city, vacationed there more, the whole nine.

now, however, agreed--theres tons of shoots everywhere bc the city has grown up. for example, i once tried to shoot at a corner and ran into no less than 5--count em 5 other productions under way!

the new proposed rules are left purposely vague, even hard to understand (even for the cops), and just being two people without a tripod is and will be under fire, guaranteed. who defines whats a professional shoot or not? they shot Leaving Las Vegas pseudo-guerilla style. now there will be cats with 4k cameras shooting higher quality/smaller/no crews. sometimes permits just take too long to get, and sometimes i dont want them and i dont want to pay for insurance. its all about freedom.

and i've been harrassed many times by cops--and i've been helped many times by cops too. it goes both ways.

tip--if you get harrassed even without a tripod, tell them you're a student. they usually back off.

[Joe Carney]

this whole thing stinks to high heaven.

a little history--guiliani did a great job opening up the city to filmmakers, knowing that it was great PR--couple that with cracking down on crime and putting a streetlight on every corner, people moved back to the city, vacationed there more, the whole nine.

now, however, agreed--theres tons of shoots everywhere bc the city has grown up. for example, i once tried to shoot at a corner and ran into no less than 5--count em 5 other productions under way!

the new proposed rules are left purposely vague, even hard to understand (even for the cops), and just being two people without a tripod is and will be under fire, guaranteed. who defines whats a professional shoot or not? they shot Leaving Las Vegas pseudo-guerilla style. now there will be cats with 4k cameras shooting higher quality/smaller/no crews. sometimes permits just take too long to get, and sometimes i dont want them and i dont want to pay for insurance. its all about freedom.

and i've been harrassed many times by cops--and i've been helped many times by cops too. it goes both ways.

tip--if you get harrassed even without a tripod, tell them you're a student. they usually back off.

I'm 50 and have lots of grey hair. Think they would believe me?

These regulations are crap. They show an out of touch bureaucracy NOT handling terrorism responsibly. All these regulations will do is cause the real bad guys to hide their video taping in various devices like a brief case, back pack, or miniature lenses in eye glasses (yes they exist). Truly BS and punishes innocent people.
I say again...these regulations will not stop terrorists from taking pictures/video of their intended targets.
Another Bushite masterpiece.

[AftonGrant]

These regulations are crap. They show an out of touch bureaucracy NOT handling terrorism responsibly. All these regulations will do is cause the real bad guys to hide their video taping in various devices like a brief case, back pack, or miniature lenses in eye glasses (yes they exist). Truly BS and punishes innocent people.
I say again...these regulations will not stop terrorists from taking pictures/video of their intended targets.
Another Bushite masterpiece.


But why deny those long-established rights to others? Is a guy with a tripod or 5 people in Central Park with a camera a danger to the public welfare? It looks to me much more like an arbitrary exercise of state power -- justified, as always, by 9/11.

These regulations have little to nothing to do with homeland security. They're in place for the general safety of you, your production and the public. There are over 8 million people here in NYC. It's the most densely populated area in the country. While it may seem like a breach of the first amendment to require permission to "assemble", it is simply putting the necessary measures in place to assure that assembly takes place with as little disturbance to the rest of the public as possible.

As litigious as our society is these days, I would say anybody that is doing anything but walking alone in a straight line can be a danger to public welfare. Imagine you set up your tripod, or your small crew is on the sidewalk. To avoid you, some pedestrians step out into the street and go around. You can imagine the potential danger that exists there. The minimal amount of time and money spent on organizing the production the right way is worth every ounce if it protects yourself and the public from problems.

Living in such a large, dense city, there are sacrifices we must all make to our personal freedoms in order to maintain a civil society. I don't like many of them either, but it is my choice to live and work here, therefore I accept everything that goes along with it.

[Joe Carney]

These regulations have little to nothing to do with homeland security. They're in place for the general safety of you, your production and the public. There are over 8 million people here in NYC. It's the most densely populated area in the country. While it may seem like a breach of the first amendment to require permission to "assemble", it is simply putting the necessary measures in place to assure that assembly takes place with as little disturbance to the rest of the public as possible.

As litigious as our society is these days, I would say anybody that is doing anything but walking alone in a straight line can be a danger to public welfare. Imagine you set up your tripod, or your small crew is on the sidewalk. To avoid you, some pedestrians step out into the street and go around. You can imagine the potential danger that exists there. The minimal amount of time and money spent on organizing the production the right way is worth every ounce if it protects yourself and the public from problems.

Living in such a large, dense city, there are sacrifices we must all make to our personal freedoms in order to maintain a civil society. I don't like many of them either, but it is my choice to live and work here, therefore I accept everything that goes along with it.

What you are basically saying is, if you don't have the money, you don't have the right to shoot. What does a million dollars of liability insurance cost in NYC. Do the new rules cover monpods? Does it account for disabled people who need to use camera support? Will the local unions get involved and threaten them like they do other non union productions?
We are talking very small crews aren't we? I don't buy the "danger to people argument" when a couple of individuals are trying to shoot.

btw, this isn't just an issue in NYC. Here in VA if you use a tripod and there are a few people who look like they are making a movie, the police can check to see if you have liability insurance, which is required even if you making a tiny no budget movie with just you and an actor in front of the camera.

[AftonGrant]

What you are basically saying is, if you don't have the money, you don't have the right to shoot. What does a million dollars of liability insurance cost in NYC. Do the new rules cover monpods? Does it account for disabled people who need to use camera support? Will the local unions get involved and threaten them like they do other non union productions?
We are talking very small crews aren't we? I don't buy the "danger to people argument" when a couple of individuals are trying to shoot.

I'm saying the rules are there to protect us and to protect others, and it is to everyone's benefit that they be followed. I don't know exactly, but I believe the insurance cost is in the $800 neighborhood. I do not know the fine details of the new rules. I have never had a problem with union harassment. The only time I've ever even heard of it second-hand is in the cases of union crew not reporting non-union work, and vice versa.

[krd]

I'm saying the rules are there to protect us and to protect others, and it is to everyone's benefit that they be followed.

This uproar is the result of the NYPD, in concert with the mayor's office, cooking up these "rules" without soliciting adequate public comment or heeding those comments when they came in. Unaccountable government is not a good basis for the rule of law, and there can be little expectation of compliance, when government ignores the governed.

And if safety is your highest interest, I'd note that the official studio and TV productions which clog the street and sidewalks in NYC present far greater threats to public safety than do the occasional shooters and informal productions. I'm talking about uncovered cables, loose gear, trucks pulled onto the sidewalk, stray dollies, untrained PAs directing crowd control, etc. Should we ban these productions as well?