It should come as no surprise to regular readers that Gossips is a great fan of The Dogist. In 2021, Elias Weiss Friedman, the street photographer known as "The Dogist," made a visit to Hudson and photographed some dogs at the Hudson Dog Park.
Since then, I have fantasized that The Dogist would return to Hudson to photograph more dogs, not just at the Hudson Dog Park but on Warren Street, where lots of dogs get walked every day.
Sadly, a provision in a new law relating to film shoots in the City of Hudson, which the Legal Committee tonight agreed to forward to the full Council for consideration next Tuesday, might discourage The Dogist from returning to Hudson.
The modus operandi of The Dogist is this: He spots a dog of interest on the street; he asks permission from the person accompanying the dog to photograph the dog; he asks why the human enjoys the company of dogs; he asks about dog's notable behaviors and/or quirks. All the while, someone not visible is recording the interactions with the dog and its human. An example of these encounters can be found here.
Still Photography permit require. No person shall, for commercial purposes, use any kind of public property, facility or residence herein or portion thereof owned and/or controlled by the City of Hudson to cause, direct or conduct still photography activities where a crew of two or more is engaged as defined without first applying for and obtaining a film permit from the City of Hudson.
As I read it, this provision in the proposed new law would require The Dogist, whose income is derived from photographing dogs, to get a permit from the City before conducting his standard "dog on the street" encounters on the streets of Hudson. That seems a bridge too far . . . especially to my dog, Freddy, whose dream it is to be photographed on one of his jaunts around town by The Dogist.
COPYRIGHT 2024 CAROLE OSTERINK
Update: At the Common Council meeting on July 15, the proposed film law was tabled and sent back to the Legal Committee for more tweaking.
I was actually skimming through this law just yesterday since that's an area that's been identified by some as a potential niche that Hudson could carve out for itself.
ReplyDeleteMy read of it was that they tried to restrict the permitting requirements to the type of productions that might pose a nuisance to residents. I thought at the time that they did a reasonable job all things considered but I guess I missed the "a crew of two or more" bit.
I think it would behoove the city to scratch that and keep it intentionally vague. Laws like these tend to always contain some wiggle room.
It may in practice however not matter given how lackadaisical Hudson's enforcement of most laws is.
I don’t need anyone’s permission to photograph anything on the street. And neither do you.
ReplyDeleteAnything or ANYONE!
DeleteIs it possible they are using a dated format? Does anyone use videotape anymore? Not covered is digital capture or audio capture. They should also define "camera."
ReplyDeleteA quick look at The Dogist's social media channel shows that he shoots solo, so wouldn't be subject to the permitting requirement.
ReplyDeleteWhen this law was originally under consideration way back in December/January, it did have language that would have been incredibly restrictive to the kinds of photo and video shooting (for social media and the like) that you're referencing here, Carole. That language has been pared back in subsequent drafts of the law to make it more permissive.
As Tassilo correctly identifies, the whole purpose of the law is to provide some advance notification to the City, residents, and businesses about shoots that may be disruptive, and provides recourse if those shoots violate the clear requirements regarding safety, noise, traffic, etc.
It's also designed to provide a framework and mechanism to encourage MORE photo and video shoots in Hudson, not discourage them.
Finally, I'd like to add that I suggested to the Council that any fees collected from issuing permits be allocated to the City's events fund each year, to be used to produce and promote events for residents and visitors.
If you were more familiar with his posts on Facebook and Instagram, Alex, you would realize that there has to be someone with him doing the video recording of his interactions with the dogs and their humans. To me, that constitutes "a crew of two or more," unless the "crew" mentioned in the language means people in addition to the actual photographer.
DeleteI'm no lawyer, but the proposed law says crew as defined, but has no definition of crew. If you look it up the crew is defined as separate from the cast and the producer who hired the crew, so it appears in this case it is a crew of one and exempt from the rule. I would think as a promoter of Hudson as a dog friendly city, it would also be covered under exemptions.
DeleteIt's even dumber than that. Filming has no minimum level of people, so one person recording a video meets this standard. It also requires the applicant to 'list any animals' they'll be filming.
DeleteOK! OK! 'Ya got me...April Fools!
ReplyDelete