Thanks to the New York Civil Liberties Union, the 20,000 people who signed the online petition at www.pictureny.org, and everyone who sent negative feedback to the Mayor's Office of Film, Theatre, and Broadcasting, the City of New York has decided to withdraw its proposed rules governing permits for photographers and film-makers working in public places in New York City. They now plan to redraft a new set of rules based on the public feedback they have received, and to have a new 30-day public comment period to allow people to comment on the new set of proposals.
According to the New York Times's "City Room" blog:
After an outcry from videographers, filmmakers and still
photographers — including a satirical rap video and an online
protest petition that has gathered more than 20,000 signatures —
the Mayor’s Office of Film, Theater and Broadcasting announced
this afternoon that it would “redraft” proposed rules that would
have restricted how images can be recorded in New York City, one
of the most filmed and photographed places on the planet.
....
The city appears to be modifying its position — if not backing
down entirely — as a result of a settlement from a recent
lawsuit brought by the New York Civil Liberties Union. The civil
liberties group had threatened to a file a new suit over the
proposed rules. (See the text of the proposal as a PDF.)
I really do think there need to be rules to apply to large commercial film shoots and television broadcasts, because my own neighborhood in New York City (Morningside Heights, near Columbia University) is a fairly frequent film location, and when the film crews come, they do tend to take over. They stop pedestrians from crossing the street or walking down the sidewalk, park in places where there should be no vehicles, and do various obnoxious things such as produce fake rain (this happened right in front of my building and it was real water and a lot of it!), fake violence, and unpleasant flashing lights. I remember one film shoot that involve wolves which scared me as a six-year-old, even though the wolves were being put through their paces behind a chainlink fence. This kind of activity should require a permit. But independent artists making video art or still photography, bird watchers, and citizen journalists should not be restricted at all so long as they do not break any existing laws about obstructing sidewalks or disturbing the peace.
I really do think there need to be rules to apply to large commercial film shoots and television broadcasts, because my own neighborhood in New York City (Morningside Heights, near Columbia University) is a fairly frequent film location, and when the film crews come, they do tend to take over. They stop pedestrians from crossing the street or walking down the sidewalk, park in places where there should be no vehicles, and do various obnoxious things such as produce fake rain (this happened right in front of my building and it was real water and a lot of it!), fake violence, and unpleasant flashing lights. I remember one film shoot that involve wolves which scared me as a six-year-old, even though the wolves were being put through their paces behind a chainlink fence. This kind of activity should require a permit. But independent artists making video art or still photography, bird watchers, and citizen journalists should not be restricted at all so long as they do not break any existing laws about obstructing sidewalks or disturbing the peace.
Note that no one in the City Government has claimed that these rules have anything to do with Homeland Security. The official position is that the rules are there to protect New Yorkers from having their City disturbed by film shoots and that the new rules merely codified the current situation with regard to film permits. According to the representative of PictureNY who was on this morning's Brian Lehrer Show on WNYC, New York Public Radio, the new rules were proposed after the City was sued by someone who was stopped by police from taking photos, and the City had to settle because the existing rules were unclear enough that the photographer would have won his lawsuit against the City. Of course, I do not think the police should be able to stop anyone from taking any photographs in a public place, so I have little sympathy with this. The real motivation behind the law seems to be that the City fears being sued by people whose are injured or have their property damaged by a film crew on City property.
Thanks again to anyone who participated in the public outcry. Hopefully we will not have to fight another battle when the revised proposal is released.
Millie Niss
www.sporkworld.org
www.sporkworld.org//index.php (blog)