New York City - Mayor's Office Adopts Permit Rules at DVinfo.net

Michael Wisniewski · July 28th, 2008, 07:07 PM

Mayor's Office of Film, Theatre and Broadcasting Adopts Permit Rules

Quote:

... A permit is not required for filming that uses hand-held cameras or tripods and does not assert exclusive use of City property. Standing on a street, walkway of a bridge, sidewalk, or other pedestrian passageway while using a hand-held device and not otherwise asserting exclusive use of City property is not an activity that requires a permit ...

Joshua Fulton · July 29th, 2008, 05:43 AM

So, this is good, right?

Chris Hurd · July 29th, 2008, 08:09 AM

Yes, it's definitely a good thing. Basically it says: as long as you're not shutting down a street, then you're good to go. Shame on anyone who impedes pedestrian or motor traffic, though... not needing a permit doesn't let a person off the hook when it comes to some basic rules of the street. You'll still get a tap on the shoulder from the local constabulary if you're creating a problem for other people who just are trying to go about their business...

Brian Standing · July 29th, 2008, 09:57 AM

An extremely reasonable solution, especially compared to what the City had originally proposed, which would have required a license for almost any shooting at all. Seems like common sense to me, but I guess that's the problem with common sense, it's in very short supply.

Robert Martens · July 29th, 2008, 01:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Hurd

Yes, it's definitely a good thing. Basically it says: as long as you're not shutting down a street, then you're good to go.

I emailed their office a few years ago out of curiosity (I never did follow through and actually shoot anything) and this is pretty much the same as what I was told, at least with regard to individuals and small crews; as long as traffic, either vehicular or pedestrian, was not blocked, and the production didn't involve things like stunts, fire, weapons, or police/fire department uniforms, you were good.

This business about tripods and bridges, however, is news to me. Being able to plant oneself solidly on the ground and get steady shots without requisite liability insurance is nice, and some of the city's best views can be found on bridge walkways. Glad to hear it's being made official.

Stefan von Halenbach · August 12th, 2008, 05:45 AM

When the camera is hidden in a van and you shoot the movie on the street with your actors and other people who run through your picture as unpaid extras. Do you need to tell them, that they will appear in a movie and get a licence from them?

Another idea would be to use this as a new pepisode on candid camera, where you really get a permit by the city of New York. Then you place informations around the corners for people, who don't want to appear in the "movie" to go another way, and for all other people: "The camera is in the red van near the walkway. DON'T LOOK IN THE CAMERA!" Then i would like to see how many really try to do as sayd and how many are too courious and will search for the camera. :)

David Beisner · August 12th, 2008, 07:37 AM

Hah, that'd be fun Stefan. I know I wouldn't pass the test!

As far as random people walking through your camera, that would typically be covered by fair use law in that you're shooting in a public place. The line would be drawn if a specific person's presence was an integral part to your movie or if they became a subject of the shot. I would also probably not zoom in on a specific face in a crowd unless they were a consenting "extra."

Peter Wiley · August 12th, 2008, 08:43 AM

I'm not so sure this is good. The "asserting exclusive control of city property" is vague at best. In practice it's going to mean whatever the beat cop wants it to mean.

Is blocking a 3 foot pathway and forcing people to walk around on the grass "asserting exclusive control"? Setting up a tripod in one spot on a sidewalk for more for than a few minutes could be interpreted as asserting exclusive control over the space the tripod is set up in. It will be different standard at 5 am and 5pm.

BTW, "fair use" has nothing to do with whether you can use a person's image shot in a public place. Fair use is a concept in copyright law. People in public has to to do with "right of privacy" and one normally has less of it when one is in public (depends on who you are), although David is right to say that you can't make an individual the focus or subject of a sequence without raising right of privacy issues.

July 29th, 2008, 08:09 AM	#3
Chris Hurd Obstreperous Rex Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: San Marcos, TX Posts: 27,368 Images: 513	Yes, it's definitely a good thing. Basically it says: as long as you're not shutting down a street, then you're good to go. Shame on anyone who impedes pedestrian or motor traffic, though... not needing a permit doesn't let a person off the hook when it comes to some basic rules of the street. You'll still get a tap on the shoulder from the local constabulary if you're creating a problem for other people who just are trying to go about their business... __________________ CH Search DV Info Net \| 20 years of DVi \| ...Tuesday is Soylent Green Day!

July 29th, 2008, 09:57 AM	#4
Brian Standing Major Player Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Madison, Wisconsin Posts: 621	An extremely reasonable solution, especially compared to what the City had originally proposed, which would have required a license for almost any shooting at all. Seems like common sense to me, but I guess that's the problem with common sense, it's in very short supply. __________________ http://www.prolefeedstudios.com/blog/ Documentary for the masses!

August 12th, 2008, 05:45 AM	#6
Stefan von Halenbach New Boot Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Frankfurt Germany Posts: 11	How would it be, if the camera is hidden? When the camera is hidden in a van and you shoot the movie on the street with your actors and other people who run through your picture as unpaid extras. Do you need to tell them, that they will appear in a movie and get a licence from them? Another idea would be to use this as a new pepisode on candid camera, where you really get a permit by the city of New York. Then you place informations around the corners for people, who don't want to appear in the "movie" to go another way, and for all other people: "The camera is in the red van near the walkway. DON'T LOOK IN THE CAMERA!" Then i would like to see how many really try to do as sayd and how many are too courious and will search for the camera. :) Last edited by Stefan von Halenbach; August 12th, 2008 at 05:53 AM. Reason: Forgot something.

August 12th, 2008, 07:37 AM	#7
David Beisner Major Player Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Dayton, TN (USA) Posts: 219	Hah, that'd be fun Stefan. I know I wouldn't pass the test! As far as random people walking through your camera, that would typically be covered by fair use law in that you're shooting in a public place. The line would be drawn if a specific person's presence was an integral part to your movie or if they became a subject of the shot. I would also probably not zoom in on a specific face in a crowd unless they were a consenting "extra." __________________ David Beisner Media Specialist, Bryan College, Dayton, TN -- www.bryan.edu

July 29th, 2008, 05:43 AM	#2
Joshua Fulton Regular Crew Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Union Co., New Jersey Posts: 26	So, this is good, right?

August 12th, 2008, 08:43 AM	#8
Peter Wiley Major Player Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Lewisburg PA Posts: 752	I'm not so sure this is good. The "asserting exclusive control of city property" is vague at best. In practice it's going to mean whatever the beat cop wants it to mean. Is blocking a 3 foot pathway and forcing people to walk around on the grass "asserting exclusive control"? Setting up a tripod in one spot on a sidewalk for more for than a few minutes could be interpreted as asserting exclusive control over the space the tripod is set up in. It will be different standard at 5 am and 5pm. BTW, "fair use" has nothing to do with whether you can use a person's image shot in a public place. Fair use is a concept in copyright law. People in public has to to do with "right of privacy" and one normally has less of it when one is in public (depends on who you are), although David is right to say that you can't make an individual the focus or subject of a sequence without raising right of privacy issues.