WHAT EVER HAPPENED TO OUR FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS!?
The Mayor’s Office of Film deals primarily with big film shoots (ie.commercials, features, t.v.) is where permits and insurance are, obviously, given.
However, many photographers and filmmakers carry on an equally important tradition in which spontaneous documentation of the urban environment is at the very heart of their work.
to photograph on the street you probably need to wait for the right activity, the right light, the break in the traffic; the countless other unpredictable factors that need to fall into place to make a shot worthwhile
… other than that it's just another dumb picture an teenage girl could take with her new Nikon D40 her daddy bought her
but now permits would have to be obtained for specific dates and times and exact locations, and the insurance would be out of reach for many.
The fact is that no one can simply PREDICT where, when, and how long they are going to film or photograph;
they probably can't afford expensive insurance policies, etc.
(The regulations would, for example, effectively rule out a great deal of time-lapse photography which depends on tripods and cannot possibly be done with time limitations of 10 to 30 minutes, as well as the use of large format still cameras and long lenses)
If these regulations go through, it would invite if not require police to harass or shut down both professional artists and amateurs.
New York is a city that welcomes and inspires art-making (and historical documentation)
This is a part of a ever growing number of attacks against civil liberties and free expression that seem to be ignored by the rest of the public
If you are a photographer, film maker, or just someone who loves
good underground art, no major mainstream labels attached
Please contact the following person immediately and express your concerns to:
Julianne Cho
Associate Commissioner
Mayor’s Office of Film, Theater & Broadcasting
1697 Broadway
New York, NY 10019
jcho@film.nyc.gov
ph: 212.489.6710
fax: 212.307.6237
Posts
1 comment:
I'm honestly appalled by this disregard of civil liberties. Although the First Amendment specifically grants the freedom of religion, speech, and press, one would rationally assume that the freedom to record video and still photography is implied. It's important to remember that when the document was written, video was not yet known to man. I don't remember exactly when Alfred Stieglitz (I'm almost sure it was him) invented the camera, but such technology would only be utilized by/for the wealthy and powerful. Thus it's safe to say that such legislation cannot be supported by The Constitution, nor by its framers. The First Amendment implies the freedom to express oneself and one's individualism, and censuring such expression not only contradicts the law of the land, but raises a dilemma of morality.
Post a Comment