Tomorrow, August 3rd, is the ending date for the public comment period concerning the proposed new rules regarding street photography in New York City. If you haven't signed on yet, you can
here, and if you want to know more about the proposed changes, visit the
Picture New York website where the various arguments against the changes are laid out.
After a relatively short period of time during which opposition to these filming changes was mobilized, the issue has really jumped into the general public and broader media consciouness. This morning I saw posts on a site completely unrelated to film and the arts urging its readers to protest and sign the petition, and the other night, Keith Olbermann on his "Countdown" show named Julianne Cho, a staffer at the New York Mayor's Office for Film and Television, as "the worst person in the world" for her role in devising what he sees as plainly unconstitutional regulations. (
(You can watch it here.)
So, if any of this protest proves effective -- and I hope it does -- there will undoubtedly be some kind of forthcoming process by which new, Constitution-friendly regulations get drafted. What should those regulations be? That's what I was asked recently by someone who wanted some constructive advice rather than more "fight the power" blog postings. I said that I thought that the ad hoc method that has been place for years has been working fine. When a filmmaker needs permits because he/she has to rent equipment and fulfill insurance requirements, receive New York's most excellent free film shoot police, block off parking spaces, and control a public space, etc., he/she gets one. Artists, amateurs, tourists, street photographers, etc., who operate more unobtrusively and just tend to "capture life" with the public barely noticing them more or less do their own thing.
For me, then, the reasons the city would want to have rules are purely public safety ones. At what point does a filmmaker create a potential problem in a public space by virtue of his or her shooting? I think that in the world we live in, filming has become an activity that is natural to many people. Someone documenting something on the street with their cell phone or handheld DV camera is the equivalent of a reporter jotting notes on a notepad years ago. I don't think there's anything inherent in the filmmaking act that demands regulation. What does need to be regulated is the introduction of elements that might disrupt a public space or require the shut down of a public space. For me, it's all about the filmmaker's impact on the
surrounding environment and not how long he/she is standing there filming or who might be with him/her.
What about those who say that in this post-9/11 era, some kind of regulatory framework needs to be placed around the act of filmmaking due to concerns of terrorists mapping our infrastructure? (Yes, some perfectly reasonable people have made this argument to me recently.) Aside from the fact that cameras are near-ubiquitous these days and any attempt to truly enforce these regulations would be inherently selective, one has to ultimately acknowledge, like I said above, that we are in a world in which everything is being documented and, when its done by citizens, this is mostly a good thing. (Note my qualification; I am not wild about surveillance cameras on every corner.) In fact, the accessibility of citizen-controlled video equipment has played an important role in the documentation of human rights abuses across the globe. (This activity is documented and promoted by the non-profit organization
Witness.)
I hope in the next go-round the essentially positive and democratic value of enabling our citizens to photograph the world around them is acknowledged and that the debate settles back into issues of public safety which I'm sure we'll all be able to agree on.
#
posted by Scott Macaulay @ 8/02/2007 07:58:00 PM
Comments (0)
