New York City Mayor's Office Adopts Permit Rules
 

So, this is good, right?

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...

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.

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.

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. :)

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."

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.