Marshall Reese (of ligorno/reese) writes in that he and Svetlana
Mintcheva of the National Coalition Against Censorship (NCAC) have been
crafting a letter in response to the regulations under consideration by
the Mayor's Office.
Click here to read the City's proposed rules (PDF)
Click here to read the NYCLU's comments (PDF)
via ligorno/reese email:
[...] there are a number of individuals and organizations, (the New York Civil Liberties Union
for one), who are also suggesting appropriate actions. The initial
regulations proposed by the Mayor's Office seem unrealistic, hard to
enforce, and potentially stifling to filmmakers and
photographers in New York, as well as to have serious, negative, first
amendment consequences.
[...] download the letter at:
http://ncac.org/NYCfilmphotorestrictions.pdf
If you agree and would like to sign it, please contact Svetlana
Mintcheva at NCAC.
[email protected]
Please include your name, professional affiliation and city of
residence to be added to the letter. We will send the letter out by
end of this week, July 27, 2007. The deadline for comments by the
Mayor's Office is August 3rd and we want to send the letter to them
before that.
We feel that the more options that the Mayor's office receives, the
better the likelihood they will make a decent decision.
Thanks for your time. & please feel free to circulate the letter.
Sincerely,
Marshall Reese
the letter:
Ms. Julianne Cho
Assistant Commissioner
Mayor’s Office of Film, Theatre & Broadcasting
1697 Broadway
New York, N.Y. 10019
July 27, 2007
Re: Chapter 9, Title 43 of the City Rules of New York Film Permits
Dear Ms. Cho:
We are writing to you to express our concern about
the adverse impact the new rules on Film Permits (Chapter 9, Title 43
of the City Rules of New York), currently under consideration, will
have on independent filmmakers, photographers and film and photography
students in the City. While we understand and appreciate the need for
written guidelines regarding photographic and film making activities in
New York – especially when large film crews are involved - we are
concerned that Sections 901(b)(1)(ii) and (iii) would impose
unnecessary, yet significant burdens upon small, one-camera
professional filmmaking and photography enterprises. Those sections
require that a permit must be acquired for filming with a hand-held
camera when it lasts more than 30 minutes (including setup) in a single
location and involves two or more people, as well as for filming with a
single tripod when it lasts more than 10 minutes (including setup) and
involves five or more people.
Independent filmmakers and photographers, whether students or professionals,
frequently
work on extremely small budgets and with minimal equipment. Very often,
they work only with hand-held cameras or tripods (and with portable
sound-recording devices if interviewing individuals on the street).
This equipment certainly is not of the kind that would create safety
hazards, tie up traffic or otherwise disrupt the free flow of activity
on City streets, presumably the underlying concerns the City had in
formulating the rules.
Yet, despite this non-intrusive filming process, under the new rules
filmmakers would be required to obtain permits were they to film with a
hand-held camera for more than 30 minutes within a 100 foot radius of
any given location, or for more than 10 minutes with a stationary
camera within the same radius. The conditions placed on the number of
people “interacting” would preclude even the filming of a small
documentary where a cameraman, sound person and producer are
interviewing a couple visiting, say, Ground Zero. These rules virtually
ensure that no filmmaker or professional photographer would henceforth
be able to work without going through the permission and insurance
process.
The 10 and 30 minute time limitations would present an unrealistic
time frame for most documentary filming and professional photography.
In fact, some common film/video techniques, used by amateurs as well as
professionals, such as time-lapse photography, inherently require both
a tripod and longer periods of time. The new restrictions effectively
eliminate time-lapse as an option unless a permit and insurance are
obtained in advance.
Worse, even were the filmmakers do go through the process of
obtaining a permit, the requirement that “[p]ermittees shall confine
their activities to the locations and times specified on their permit”
places an insurmountable burden upon the work of documentary filmmakers
for whom spontaneity and a quick
reaction to urban life is a key.
Seminal work like Helen Levitt, Janice Loeb and James Agee’s In The
Street, a portrait of late 1940’s Harlem street life, would be among
the kind of work unfairly burdened under the new restrictions. In a
more recent example, many of independent filmmaker Jem Cohen’s films
(f. eg. This Is A History Of New York (1987), NYC Weights And Measures
(2006)) could not possibly have been made if the filmmaker had to get
permits in advance or restrict the time he stood in a given place as
they were predicated on spontaneous shooting on the street over a long
period of time, both with and without a tripod, often done with a crew
of 2 to 3 people.
Finally, the requirement of a $1 million liability policy for
low-budget filmmakers and photographers, whose work entails virtually
no disruption or compromise of City life or safety, is disproportionate
and unduly burdensome for the artists.
There is simply no justifiable safety or congestion rationale for
the City to apply its permit requirements to two or more individuals
based solely on their use of hand-held cameras or tripods in a single
area for more than 10 or 30 minutes. To the extent that these rules
encompass an entire class of independent documentary filmmakers and
professional photographers, they create an unintended, but no less
unfortunate, intrusion into First Amendment protection of artistic
expression.
Not only do the new rules have a potentially chilling impact on
artistic freedom, but by discouraging small productions and student
filmmakers from using New York as a site they could also have a
negative economic and cultural impact: small productions help support
the City’s many labs, equipment rental
companies, postproduction
facilities, and festivals, whereas its film and art schools draw
talented students and professors from around the world. Yet students,
to an even greater extent than professional filmmakers and
photographers, cannot afford the insurance and rarely plan ahead in the
way the
regulations require.
For the above reasons, we are calling for the elimination of rule
901(b)(1)(ii) and (iii) restricting the use of hand-held or
tripod-mounted cameras without a permit, as well as the elimination of
the language of rule 901(b)(2)(i) and (ii) beginning with “provided
that such activity. . .” Additionally, we propose that the $1 million
insurance requirement for photographers and documentary filmmakers who
use only hand-held or tripod-mounted cameras be eliminated.
We hope that the MOFTB will give these suggestions its utmost consideration in light of the serious issues raised above.
You may also download the letter via newsgrist:
nycfilmphotorestrictions_1.pdf .pdf
Social Change Initiatives