Send comments to the MOFTB and City Council
We’ve set up an online e-action form to make it as easy as possible. Just click here to submit comments to the Mayor’s Office of Film and to the City Council Committee that oversees that office. There’s a sample letter there, and you can add your own comments, then hit send. Voila!
You can read the comments of other artists and organizations by scrolling down the Public Comments page.
- posted Wed., Jul 25, 2007 at 7:53pm
- filed in Public Comments
- [9] Comments
July 26th, 2007 at 9:56 am
Where are the First Amendment lawyers on this????? This has got to be won in court as well as in the street. Do we have no defenders???? If not, should’t we oughta go get us some attorneys?
July 28th, 2007 at 12:59 pm
Bill Rabinovitch– filmmaker
I’m a multi-award winning indie filmmaker often dealing with the visual arts who’s shown at MoMA with my no budget experimental films on Picasso/ Pollock & others. I signed this protest as it will be a fantastic encroachment not only on my own one camera ongoing personal videoing & archivist activities as a NYC artist & indie filmmaker — but can also see that it will greatly affect all our liberties. It will especially affect my whole style of creative freedom I’ve experienced for decades for my “ArtSeen” cable show & my many no budget ongoing experimental indie film projects.
There’s no way I could possibly suffer through the bureaucracy & tremendous insurance expense of those requirements — which I would likely have to renew almost daily based on my many ongoing projects. This process would shut off my creative spontaneity from the start. I even wonder if the proposed law will be interpreted to affect even one camera person interviewing one person which indeed makes a total of two people — or even shooting the city environment?
Perhaps so as this isn’t been made at all clear!
Once this proposed law is in place it will create a climate of fear — of denial of creative expression for everyone. And indeed what about all the thousands of video cameras already installed in NYC by the NYC government for surveillance?
You need to come to your senses!
This is nasty big brother control business effecting all of society.
Bill Rabinovitch
July 28th, 2007 at 7:54 pm
If I’ve read the regs correctly, this means that a tour bus can’t stop at a place for a photo opp for more than ten minutes without a permit and $1 million in insurance. Are you folks making NYC tour operators aware of this? I suspect they might be an extremely powerful voice against it - much more powerful than photographers or filmmakers.
July 29th, 2007 at 1:29 pm
I’m an artist who uses the medium of photography to make images of abstract architectural landscapes in the reflections of automobiles. Occasionally people object to my working in the public space of the street and I’m hassled by building security, car owners, and police who already believe photography of property in public space is against the law. I’m fortunate enough not to have lost gear but on more than one occasion been chased, threatened with arrest, and had demands to hand over my film. Obviously I don’t have to mention the kinds of things that happen when one attempts to inform the police about the law.
I understand the need for bureaucracy to control professional productions and believe there should be some controls in permitting certain types of commercial use of public space. As an individual “professional” I have earned little from my personal artistic pursuits and don’t feel I should have to pay for a permit to follow my passions as if I were shooting a commercial still or film production. Indeed - I cannot afford insurance for my own health care, forget a million dollar policy for my activities as a street photographer.
I can only see these additional restrictions creating a worse situation where those in positions of power and the public unclear of specific “rules” will automatically assume anyone with a camera suspect and subject to harassment and punishment as is nearly the case already with our society’s climate of constant fear.
This will effect me more than those with advertising contracts or tourists.
July 30th, 2007 at 7:07 pm
I have been a NY based photographer for 40 years and have cannot for the life of me see what the City would potentially kill the vehicle which enamors the public with NYC. Namely the film and still images which excite those who view them.
I have worked for 100’s of companies over the years within NYC. I was the Official Photographer for the Yankees and have worked with 5 Presidents, the Pope and the Dalai Llama.
My passion is in teaching photography and in doing so, I describe in images the beauty of NYC.
I am a member of the Professional Photographers of America and won “Photographer of the Year” this year. I am also a member of the American Society of Photographers, and receive the Educational Associate Award from then as well a the regional Gold Medallion. My images are in several Halls of Fame and been in many magazines.
I believe this is a counterproductive law and will hurt the City and stifle creatively.
John Woodward
631-243-1242 (studio)
516-658-4842 (cell)
www.johnwoodwardphotography.com
August 1st, 2007 at 5:55 am
The city is enacting this because there is an
onslaught of no budget filmmakers invading the city, causing all sorts of
complaints from noise, to blocking traffic, to 911 calls of people with
guns. While I am all for folks being able to express themselves, I welcome this. There are
far too many people shooting without proper insurance using a lot of
equipment and potentially creating situations that put them and the public
in danger. By saying two or more people for more than 30 minutes, the city
basically shuts down these gorilla film makers. And rightfully so. In Brooklyn last month a man fell from a
rooftop. Turns out he was part of one of these ‘crews’ and was trying to a
fix a light to a rooftop and slipped. It’s just a matter of time before
the city is involved with numerous lawsuits due to these inexperienced
“filmmakers” and they are simply nipping this in the bud.
This is simply a matter of liability and not free speech as some would like to make it sound.
August 1st, 2007 at 10:22 am
NYC SHOOT-OUT FOR FREEDOM
AT UNION SQUARE
THURS Aug 2nd 1130 AM till 2 PM
BRING A CAMERA - TAKE PHOTOS - TELL A FRIEND
Photographers, filmmakers, local residents, and tourists face
serious restrictions by the NYC Mayor’s Office proposed law.
The City plans to enact legislation THIS Friday. The NEW LAW will require any group of two
or more people who want to use a CAMERA (still or moving) in any public location
to have a permit and proof of a one million dollar liability insurance policy.
SPREAD THE WORD
THE SOUL OF NYC HAS ALWAYS BEEN ILLUMINATED BY IT’S STREET PHOTOGRAPHY
DON’T STAND IDLY BY AND WATCH “THE DYING OF THE LIGHT”
SEND A MESSAGE TO THE MAYOR.
Come on. Bring a camera and your lunch to UNION SQUARE Thurs Aug 2nd 1130 till 2 PM
Robert Frank William Klein Diane Arbus Garry Winogrand Joel Meyerowitz Thomas Struth Roy Colmer William Gedney David Beckerman Jeff Spirer Weegee Andre Kertesz Alfred Stieglitz . . .
August 1st, 2007 at 6:50 pm
08-01-07
Julianne Cho’s decisions will effect the larger world.
Even if it isn’t Julianne’s Cho’s desire to put restrictions on first amendment rights — as perhaps influenced by terrorism concerns from other departments — many other cities will automatically believe it to be so, & quickly follow in NYC’s perceived footsteps lockstep fashion. That’s the power a great city of the world has on everyone else.
There’s a responsibility NYC has to be aware of this & not to blithely initiate new laws created in a few hidden moments enacted without a full honest public airing — while continuing to pretend that what happens here won’t soon be happening everywhere as a result. As loosely as now described the DNA of that law may be interpreted in many ways & likely made far more restrictive with arrests, not only of filmmakers/ photographers but the public. What’s next cell phone cameras? The proposed restrictions for most indie filmmakers are bad enough but a NYC precedent will be cloned & used perhaps for even harsher definitions elsewhere under the guise of — if NYC does it — it’s basically right for us to copy — & either with or without a law.
Cho seems to have blinders on with her expressions of innocence & naivety in desiring to make things better. She’s obviously from what’s stated no appreciation or awareness at all of the huge creative reality of the NYC underground art world of hundreds of thousands & students that’s existed practically forever — & how her rules will contribute to destroying decades of creative personal precedent. In reality — no matter how well meaning, She’s a bureaucrat — avidly wanting to expand her own base of power — & the very opposite of a creatively driven artist. In other words — a left brained person. Her concerns rotate mostly about rules, formal film companies & money. Her department is commendable & am sure she’s excellent at all this from what I hear. But likely her rules should apply to film companies of a certain size but not attempt to tame the spontaneous creativity of the most truly creative part of society in NYC.
In reality I don’t imagine many officers standing with a stop watch counting off precisely 10 or 30 minutes. The reality is many police empowered by their own personal sense of the law will likely react instantly to put emotional pressure or worse on anyone to immediately desist. What recourses there may be are all unknown. Just look at some disturbing recent events in NYC as noted on www.pictureny.org.
Once put into effect this will all become an ever enlarging tidal wave of repression spreading out in true draconian fashion in the US — all set in action, even if unwittingly by Julianne Cho.
Bill Rabinovitch
August 2nd, 2007 at 5:55 pm
I thank pictureny.org wholeheartedly for getting this info out to the public. I almost missed it; as did other photographers I know!
This is making me madder than hell; even more so than the proposed ban on photography in the subway a couple of years ago. (Which, thankfully, was fought successfully.)
What are they thinking? Some folks just don’t get “you don’t protect freedom by taking it away”.