Nyc Bans Independant Filmmaking!

D

dissentfilms

Member
Introduced quietly just before Memorial Day weekend, regulations could severely impede the ability of even casual photographers and filmmakers to operate in New York City. A group of two or more people who want to use a camera in a single public location for more than a half hour (including setup and breakdown time) could be required to get a city permit and $1 million in liability insurance. According to the NY Civil Liberties Union, “these regulations violate the First Amendment right to photograph in public places, and open the door to selective and discriminatory enforcement.”

PROPOSED.jpg



An example comment:

"The restrictions and limitations being enforced herein the document proposed would severely complicate my lively hood as an independent filmmaker and artist. The ability, now being undermined, for me to walk outside and film or photograph without a permit allows me creative freedom and time to establish my artistic vision. These proposed restrictions will harshly limit that freedom and could endanger my lively hood."



FOR MORE INFORMATION:

Original NYTimes article: http://tinyurl.com/2scoog

PDF of the proposed changes: http://www.nyc.gov/html/film/downloads/pdf/moftb_permit_regs.pdf

NYCLU Response: http://www.nyclu.org/nyc_photo_permits_pr_062807.html


Thanks for taking time to support NYC independent filmmakers, even if you arent from NY, yet would one day like to film here, all of your help is greatly appreciated.

Matt - Dissent Films.
 
That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard in my life. I guess this is their way on cracking down on terrorists?
 
I'm going to join your facebook,

And I support the regulation being repealed,

but just to put things in perspective:
  1. You've always needed $1million liability insurance to get a permit.
  2. You've never been able to put a tripod down without a permit.
If you get insurance ($800 for 10 days last I checked) then you can shoot almost anywhere in the city for almost free and even get support of police peronal if you need it at no additional charge (try $75 - $150 an hour in other cities)

So the only difference is your guerilla shoot can now only shoot for handheld for 30 minutes rather than indefinitely.

Also if you are doing your guerilla shoot, 30 minutes really means 30 minutes from the time you are observed or reported.

I think it's ENTIRELY reasonable for a city to ask people not to stand around blocking up sidewalks and things for longer than 30 minutes at a time.
Case and point: A friend of mine was involved in a guerilla shoot doing a fight scene. A dolly rolled off the curb and caused a guy to crash and nearly total a $30K motorcycle. The filmmaker was 100% liable for physical and material injuries to the motorcyclist and his bike.

That's why cities ask for permits.

In this case the filmmaker was liable. If a police officer saw the shoot and didn't ask them to leave then the city would be liable too.

Once you get a permit NYC is one of the most accommodating cities in the States to shoot in.

(and to put my background in perspective, I've made 6 shorts in New Orleans and New York, and never had a permit or insurance.)

I was involved in a guerilla project that required researching permitting and insurance in New York, LA, Utah, and Nevada. New York had the fewest fees and the easiest, most transparent process.

And given the fact that the only thing this changes is that you can only shoot hand held for 30 minutes once you've been caught vs. being able to shoot handheld all day (again you could NEVER put down sticks unpermitted) then it is hardly a "BAN ON INDEPENDENT FILMMAKING".

But I support the petition, just not the sky is falling madness, and I will send an email asking that the regulation be lifted, but it is not crazy or outlandish that a city asks people to not stand around IN GROUPS and clog public walkways etc.

It does not impinge personal freedom as an individual could stand there all day and shoot handheld as long as they wanted.
 
Last edited:
Amen Jack. Thanks for being the voice of reason. It's easy to get caught up in the "police state" hoopla, but ultimately there won't be much changing. Perhaps it'd be more reasonable if the limitation was extended to one full hour?
 
And there is no one this would hinder more than me:
We are a month behind in rent at the moment.
We were 2 months behind in rent when I shot Rekindled.
In other words, an additional $800 is a HUGE limitation to me.

Maybe it would affect someone more who is in the same starving artist financial situation and pulling of features for less than $1K as opposed to shorts for less than $1K, but that's about it.
 
It looks to me that you just have to have your act together. If you can't pull off a scene in a half hour, they'll charge you to be a "perfectionist".
 
This is simply a reinforcement of what has always been in NYC. Its not unreasonable to expect filmmakers to have insurance. This is an attempt to codify and define was a filmmaker is to avoid the situations where the cop says you are a filmmaker and you say - but I dont have a tripod.

thats all - no biggie
 
I completely understand the views expressed above and have taken all of your points into consideration previously.

The reasoning behind the application to dismiss or reconstruct these laws is that it now opens the door to police discrimination. The mayors office will, and has, discriminate under no basis to whom they wish to issue a permit.


Corporations are installing 4000 CCTV cameras in Lower Manhattan and no one asked me if I objected and I feel that they should have to abide by the same rules. Major networks wont be affected by the legislation as they control the media and influence our lives. But for filmmakers inspiring dissent, the laws prohibit our first amendment rights by forcing me to have a permit at all times, allowing the mayors office to control what we can and cannot film.

If I were filming hand held as a lone cameraman (which I can do all day with these laws in place), and simply turned to another person standing close by, who's to say that a police officer (a lawless, ignorant meathead who still think it's illegal to film in the subway, which it's not) won't take it the wrong way. "Two people filming have to have a permit."

The point:

Why does the filmmaking community not have a voice of reason when the mayors office forms these laws that so directly impact our lives.

I don't think clear cut laws are a problem, its the vague ones that open to the discrimination and loose interpretation by police officers that scares me.
 
Have you ever applied for a permit in NYC - it is the easiest thing to do (if you have insurance) - and can be turned around in a day. What other government agency works this fast. This law is not descriminatory - anyone can get the permit. And its first come first serve so you will get yours if you are standing in front of steven speilberg.

The req to have insurance is important and smart - and by having a permit system there wont be conflicts for filming in the same location. It could get out of hand without this sytem.
 
This is a frustrating bit of legislation, but it isn't an issue that should (or can) be ignored by the municipality. As Jack stated, there is a real issue of liability when you place equipment and personnel into public spaces and thoroughfares.

I've seen, in literally dozens of situations, passers-by become entangled in or nearly injured by even the most clearly demarcated pieces of equipment. Recently, in Charleston, we had no less than three people walk head-first into a 20' jib, with red flags on either end, that was parked out of the right-of-way on a wide sidewalk. We had a PA with the gear at all times and people still found a way to almost do themselves in with our parked piece of kit.

How many of us have watched people - even members of our own crew - trip over YellowJacket cable troughs? Dozens. I even saw a waiter trip over one during a live event a few years back and nearly sever his hand on the resulting broken glass from his tray.

So, how do you define what is a professional shoot? I think NYC is making a tough call in a situation where there is little legal room to err. There is certainly a reasonable middle ground, but it isn't found in simply allowing filmmakers with marginally good reason for being there in the first place to create dangerous situations for people who have equal rights to use the public space.

e
 
We can't help the ignorant Erik. Those are some comedic stories though.

If you read the NYTimes article, it states:

"In May 2005, Rakesh Sharma, an Indian documentary filmmaker, was using a hand-held video camera in Midtown Manhattan when he was detained for several hours and questioned by police.


"During his detention, Mr. Sharma was told he was required to have a permit to film on city property. According to a lawsuit, Mr. Sharma sought information about how permits were granted and who was required to have one but found there were no written guidelines. Nonetheless, the film office told him he was required to have a permit, but when he applied, the office refused to grant him one and would not give him a written explanation of its refusal."

Discrimination is there.

Now, on the other hand, I am not saying production companies with 20' jibs and 4 2k's and three silks and 10 PA's shouldn't have to have a permit and insurance. It's the small, independent filmmaker with an HVX and a tri-pod shooting a spontaneous music video cause his friend is in from out of town type situation that really requires a permit and insurance?

This also applies to still photography. Good luck with long exposure pictures if you also love large format photography.
 
dissentfilms said:
I completely understand the views expressed above and have taken all of your points into consideration previously.
Click to expand...

And after careful consideration you decided to title the thread, and label the regulation a "ban" on independent filmmaking?

dissentfilms said:
The reasoning behind the application to dismiss or reconstruct these laws is that it now opens the door to police discrimination. The mayors office will, and has, discriminate under no basis to whom they wish to issue a permit.
Click to expand...

You kind of lost me with your grammer here - just a typo I'm sure, but huh?

dissentfilms said:
Corporations are installing 4000 CCTV cameras in Lower Manhattan and no one asked me if I objected and I feel that they should have to abide by the same rules.
Click to expand...

The rules don't say you have to ask the corporation, they say you have to ask the city ... just like the corporation probably did to install the close circuit cameras. But under your logic, if they were not required to get a permit for that - they should have to ask you? If you are saying you want the same treatment then that would mean you have to ask the corporation if you can film somewhere not the city. Your one to one logic doesn't really hold up.

How about this one. If you are going to paint an abide by the same rules mantra across your chest, then compare apples to apples, not filmmaking to surveillance cameras. Steven Speilberg has to have a permit to shoot in NY. By your abide by the same rules mantra then so should you. No one is giving the big guy a free pass while charging the little guy.


dissentfilms said:
Major networks wont be affected by the legislation as they control the media and influence our lives.
Click to expand...
Huh? So they don't have to have permits and insurance ... yes they do. And here's your abide by the same rule thing shooting you in the foot again - they do infact have to abide by the same rule.


dissentfilms said:
But for filmmakers inspiring dissent, the laws prohibit our first amendment rights by forcing me to have a permit at all times, allowing the mayors office to control what we can and cannot film.
Click to expand...

No ... you can film any thing you want. No one has passed any thing that keeps you from standing somewhere all day and filming all day long if you are talking about capturing news type events. If you are talking about making narrative work - the constitution doesn't actually protect your right to impede the day to day business of a city to make your art.

dissentfilms said:
If I were filming hand held as a lone cameraman (which I can do all day with these laws in place), and simply turned to another person standing close by, who's to say that a police officer (a lawless, ignorant meathead who still think it's illegal to film in the subway, which it's not) won't take it the wrong way. "Two people filming have to have a permit."
Click to expand...

1) you would still have 30 minutes
2) this last argument is worthless, you could just apply it to any law you don't like and say what if. "What if I'm standing next to some stranger whose smoking pot and the policeman says we're sharing the joint." "What if the police plant evidence in my car? There's no one there to watch over them, it's completely up to their discression."

dissentfilms said:
The point:

Why does the filmmaking community not have a voice of reason when the mayors office forms these laws that so directly impact our lives.

I don't think clear cut laws are a problem, its the vague ones that open to the discrimination and loose interpretation by police officers that scares me.
Click to expand...

What's vague at all about 2 or more people can only film for 30 minutes handheld?

Seems abundantly clear to me.

If you are some sort of editorial documentary maker then start a webpage and get a press permit if you are trying to protect your right to run around New York and incite dissent by capturing actual things as they happen.

If you are making narrative work, then you should realize that the constitution doesn't protect your right to make art in the middle of a bustling public city.
 
Dissentfilms,

I'd just say that you might consider organizing the rebellion to negotiate terms (e.g., tripod with up to three people for one hour in a given location, no lights, grip or other ground-supported kit) rather than taking on NYCs [mostly reasonable] film office with a sensational and confrontational approach. Get an institution like Tribeca or NYC behind your cause with concise and reasonable talking points and you may have more joy.

I get off on a little confrontation, but I don't believe that you'll have the result you're looking for.

e
 
From your same article: " ... Mr. Dunn said most of the new rules were reasonable. Notably, someone using a hand-held video camera, as Mr. Sharma was doing, would no longer have to get a permit. ..." Mr. Dunn is the New York Civil Liberties Union Rep / Attorney.
The incident to which you are reffering also happened in 2005. Upon researching what was required to get a permit this last January I found the requirements to be very clear, posted on the website, and cut and dry.

If this is such a rampant problem why did the journalist have to go all the way back to May 2005 to find an example of an alleged abuse?

Your comments about how you will never be able to film anything lead me to suspect you've never actually looked into the requirements for shooting in the city, and have been shooting all the while ignorant of the fact that you actually were required to have a permit. Now that you've seen these restrictions it seems like the end of the world when it is only slightly different than before.

I've shot stuff on sticks with no permit and just had cops drive right by me. Technically illegal but we were not in anyone's way so they didn't care.
dissentfilms said:
We can't help the ignorant Erik. Those are some comedic stories though.

If you read the NYTimes article, it states:

"In May 2005, Rakesh Sharma, an Indian documentary filmmaker, was using a hand-held video camera in Midtown Manhattan when he was detained for several hours and questioned by police.


"During his detention, Mr. Sharma was told he was required to have a permit to film on city property. According to a lawsuit, Mr. Sharma sought information about how permits were granted and who was required to have one but found there were no written guidelines. Nonetheless, the film office told him he was required to have a permit, but when he applied, the office refused to grant him one and would not give him a written explanation of its refusal."

Discrimination is there.

Now, on the other hand, I am not saying production companies with 20' jibs and 4 2k's and three silks and 10 PA's shouldn't have to have a permit and insurance. It's the small, independent filmmaker with an HVX and a tri-pod shooting a spontaneous music video cause his friend is in from out of town type situation that really requires a permit and insurance?
Click to expand...

Maybe it should -- where are you filming? What time of day? Ever just suddenly stop walking on a New York sidewalk? How many people bump into you?

And if there are no rules about this then what's to stop you from setting up lights and a crane etc.

Look I've made 2 films running around Manhattan stealing locations and I dealt with it.

I was even shut down by homeland security which kept me from correctly finishing a film I was working on in New Orleans.

But you don't hear me bitching about it for the same reason you don't hear me bitching about stop lights. Yeah I would like to just go, but other people have rights too.

Like the people who are late and trying to get to work while walking down the sidewalk where you are shooting your impromptu music video.

But save up $800 and get a permit and the city will even give you a FREEEEEEEEE COP to divert the traffic around your setup if needed. THat is UNHEARD OF in any other city as far as I know and you can't get much more egalitarian than that in terms of allowing you the same access they would a corporation or major studio.

dissentfilms said:
This also applies to still photography. Good luck with long exposure pictures if you also love large format photography.
Click to expand...

Again - hardly an inalienable right, would it suck to have your creativity stifled? Yes. Are you born with a right to do it without regulation in public areas. No.
 
Last edited:
Not that I am one to blindly believe in the Legal system, there are so many stories of Guerilla filming gone horribly awry, due to dumbass kids with fake guns and a camera. I would say that this was an attempt to keep any misunderstandings from happening, as well as keeping the public safe from unmanaged cords, action sequences, and equipment.
 
Jack Daniel Stanley said:
But save up $800 and get a permit and the city will even give you a FREEEEEEEEE COP to divert the traffic around your setup if needed. THat is UNHEARD OF in any other city as far as I know and you can't get much more egalitarian than that in terms of allowing you the same access they would a corporation or major studio.



Again - hardly an inalienable right, would it suck to have your creativity stifled? Yes. Are you born with a right to do it without regulation in public areas. No.
Click to expand...

I agree. NYC has gone to amazing lengths to make life easier for student and independent filmmakers. And using words like "ban" (of which I'm guilty) can be inflammatory.

I've been working on shoots in this city since 2005 and in that I've never seen a permitless group using a tripod get stopped. I'm assuming that cops usually don't go out of their way to enforce this rule unless they see it as interfering with the other people on the street/park/wherever.

But maybe I've just been lucky. Under the rules two people could be shooting handheld in Tompkins Square at night with no one around and still get stopped by the cops.

Do they have an inalienable right to shoot there without a permit? I'm guessing courts would back up the permit system. Are they getting stopped for no good reason? I'd say so.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top