URGENT ALERT !

COSATU March:  15 September 2012

The City of Cape Town Film Permitting Office would like to alert the film industry to the abovementioned march that may impact on filming activity in the Cape Town CBD.

Please expect intermittent/rolling road closures and mass crowd activity along the route.

The City’s Safety and Security Services as well as the South African Police Force will be deployed.

The instructions of all Law Enforcement, Disaster Management, Fire and Safety, and Medical personnel are to be obeyed at all times.

It is advised that all production companies/film-makers undertaking filming and related activities in the CBD consider suspending their shoots for the duration of the abovementioned march.

Route:                  Assemble at Keizergracht.  Proceed down Darling Street to Wale Street to hand over memorandum at the Provincial Legislature, After hand over the procession will move from Wale Street right into Spin Street to Plein Street to Parliament.  After hand over at Parliament they will proceed via Roeland Street to Buitenkant Street, Darling Street back to Keizergracht.

Start:                     Assembly from 10h00: leaving Keizergracht at 11h00.

Duration:             4 hours.

Terence Isaacs

Head - Film & Events Office

Directorate Tourism, Events & Marketing

City of Cape Town

This blog post is in direct response response to Mr. Groenewald’s reply to an article in the Capetowner newspaper.

To begin with, I have had a meeting some time ago, with Mr. Groenewald which was setup by Denis Lillie from the Cape Town Film Commission. Mr. Terence Isaacs was present at this meeting and when we challenged them around the permit issue. This is where Mr. Isaacs and Mr. Groenewald first raised the issue of PL insurance.

We were surprised by this as it didn’t make any sense and it was pointed out that this was a route that they really didn’t want go down as we felt it was an attempt to detract from the real issue.

Following this meeting, the Cape Film Commission went through the process of sourcing commercially attractive PL insurance for photographers to enable a blanket permit process that was proposed be put into place. The aim of this was to address the issue of PL insurance as raised by Mr. Groenewald and Mr. Isaacs and pave the way to allowing photographers to shoot freely seeing this was the only issue that was raised.

Even with this in place the city refused to allow freelance photographer access to permits unless each photographer was registered with the City as a Production Company.

Forgive me for being confused here but both I and the CFC were led to believe it was only the issue of PL cover that was a stumbling block?

Furthermore the City’s insistence that any or all individual photographer should register as a production company with the city before they are allowed to take a single photograph is farcical and undemocratic and in breach of the Filming By-law.

Subsequently it has been Mr. Groenewald who has continually raised the issue PL insurance a number of times in defence for the permit policy and the location booking system.

Most recently he responded to an article in the Cape Towner and cited once again that it was based on the need for PL cover.  We responded with the following which cites his justification for permits being linked to PL cover.

In his response to questions posed by the Capetowner, Anton Groenewald from the City said “All entities engaging in activities for commercial purposes are bound by a duty of care for their clients, suppliers, neighbours and the environment to have some form of public liability insurance”. 

Should the City not be able to provide this proof then we will be forced to conclude that the PL issue is merely being used as a smoke screen to cover up the City’s blunder with the permit policy.

His reply from the Capetowner on the 14^th June 2012.

Anton Groenewald, executive director of tourism, events and marketing, responds:

“The City of Cape Town has engaged with Mr Miller on numerous occasions to try and explain the need for public liability insurance in granting film permits.

His latest obtuse letter displays his refusal to enter into meaningful discussions with the City or to try to understand the matter. With most of the examples listed, the employer would hold the insurance. The rest aren’t registered commercial entities. This is common sense. Mr Miller’s wild theories do not detract from the need for public liability insurance for film shoots. The City has public liability insurance requirements in place to protect all parties involved or affected by film-related activity – including the general public. The City, in granting a film permit, exposes itself to the possibility of considerable public liability issues and therefore needs to ensure that film-makers and photographers who undertake film-related activity in accordance with a permit issued by the City have some form of public liability insurance against any potential injury or damage to the public and/or property.

This, also, seems like common sense.”

I fully understand the City wanting to be indemnified from prosecution by requiring individuals to have PL cover however needing a permit to shoot is not so that the City can enforce one to have PL cover. If this was just about PL cover as Mr. Groenewald keeps incorrectly claiming it is, then there would be no need for a location booking system or to register with the City as a production company. There would also be no logical requirement to obtain a permit on a per shoot basis. All one would need to do is register once with the City and then every year provided proof of PL cover.

This brings us to the next point. Not everyone has continual blanket PL cover. Some companies, due to the nature of their shoots, choose to obtain cover on a per shoot basis and the current permit system does not cater for this. Additionally if one applies with blanket cover like I have, how can the City be sure that one doesn’t cancel the cover immediately after applying

Surely anyone can see that there is a huge issue with Mr Groenewald’s insistence that the need for permits is because of PL cover. I have no doubt that once this posts he will change tack and state that PL cover is just one of the issues but to date it’s been the one he keeps pushing.

Our question to him above wasn’t questioning why the City wanted us to have PL cover, that was blatantly obvious to all but him, but rather why do we need a permit to enforce PL cover where other industries, as listed as an example, are not regulated.

Does the City only intend enforcing this in the photographic and film sector?

If PL cover is as big a deal as the City is making it out to be, why are the employers alluded to in his reply, not required to register and apply for permits as we are?

Assuming that the city applied this thinking to every single person doing business in the City, it would drive emerging businesses out of business. Is this the City’s intention, to stifle growth in the economy merely to satisfy the restrictions in their ability to respond due to their lack of resources and their bureaucratic processes?

Additionally is a freelance photographer acting in their own private capacity a registered commercial entity?

Surely not?

Why then is Mr Groenewald contradicting himself?

Of course if PL cover is merely a smoke screen to cover the real issue of access and control, then the logic behind the permit process would make sense but then we would have to deal with its implementation which we maintain is flawed and the City would have to admit it has not thought this trough properly…

The whole debate revolves around what By-Law Relating to Filming, No. 30441, Provincial Gazette 6279, 24 June 2005 actually says and allows the City to do.

It’s interesting that the By-law only has one paragraph “4.1.3 Indemnity” dedicated to indemnity, said paragraph simply states:

In order to protect the City from any claims arising from the use of Council property for film purposes, all film companies must complete an indemnity form. This indemnity must be in place prior to the approval of any film

permit application. An annual indemnity document must be signed by an appropriate representative of the production company. A R2.00 revenue stamp is no longer required.

This paragraph does not in any manner or form mention the requirement for PL cover although I guess one could at a stretch try argue that this would be a component of indemnity but I am not sure how successful one would be.

In contrast the word access is mentioned 6 times and disruption 5 times. It’s very clear from the By-Law what its intention was and why it would be hard to justify the current system that is being imposed on us.

May we also ask if it is reasonable to regard a private freelance individual as a film company?

PL cover can easily be removed for the location booking system and permit dispute as it’s easy to control as an add-on. The real issue is that once the City admits that we have a minimal impact on the City and that the booking system can’t work for us, they have a huge problem on their hands…

Contrary to Mr. Groenewald’s claims in his latest response, we have tried to engage with the City on numerous occasions and we have just been brushed off time and time again…

After sending numerous emails to Mr. Groenewald which went unanswered, he finally referred us back to the Film Permit Office.

We have tried to setup numerous meeting with Mayco member Grant Pascoe who to date simply has ignored us.

On the 17^th April 2012 at 3:59pm the Mayor replied via tweet:

“@CT_PPA @CityofCT Please forward me your email address so that I can send you the city’s response”

To date we are still waiting for the promised response. We did contact her again suggesting a meeting as we are still not convinced that the Mayco actually understand the issue and the hole that council is digging for itself.

In light of the above which we have proof of, I am not sure how Mr. Groenewald can in good conscience state “The City of Cape Town has engaged with Mr Miller on numerous occasions to try and explain the need for public liability insurance in granting film permits.” especially given how many times we have tried to engage the City management and since he himself brushed us off?

If we are talking a case of common sense then it’s Mr. Groenewald who needs realise that it is he who is not making any sense…

If you are a Cape Town freelance photographer who has been shocked or dismayed by the City’s new permit policy you are going to be even more horrified by what we have uncovered.

The following is an excerpt from what we believe is the Cape Town Film Offices press release relating to the new Location Booking system.

The City of Cape Town Online Film Location Booking System will be re-activated on 4 July 2011.

All the previous bugs have been fixed, further enhancements made and, in accordance with requests from industry that the re-activation occurs during the off-season, the system the online system will be operational as from 4 July 2011. The old fax-driven manual system will be phased out shortly. The switch-off date for the old manual system will be communicated to industry in advance.

Production Companies, individuals or any other entities wishing to use the new online system must register as a Production Company and/or user on the CTFPO online Film Location Booking System. This will allow production companies, location professionals and other industry users access to the online Film Location Booking System.

All registrations by production companies, locations professionals, etc. successfully processed during the previous (August 2010) launch are still valid and remain on the system.
You are however encouraged to check that your registration information/details are correct and current.

To access the Online Film Location Booking System use the following urls:

Go to Filming and Permits page: (and then click on Online Film Location Booking System)

Go directly to Online Film Location Booking Login page:

To access the “How to use the Online Film Permit System” downloadable manual please click to:http://www.capetown.gov.za/en/ehd/Pages/Filmingpermits.aspx

Please Note:
The City of Cape Town Film Permit Office currently has 2 registration processes, viz.

a) Registration as a Production Company or entity wishing to engage in film-related activity. This allows production companies, individuals or any other entities undertake film-related activity and be registered as a business partner with the City. This registration must be renewed annually. Click here to access the production company registration documentation.

b) Registration as a Production Company and/or user on the CTFPO online Film Location Booking System. This allows production companies, location professionals and other industry users access to the online Film Location Booking System. This once-off registration is done online, Click here to register.

FPO COMPANY REGISTRATION NUMBERS
All production companies registering to use the online Film Location Booking System (viz. b) above) will be assigned a FPO Company Registration number.

If your company is registering as a production company for the first time, this number will be assigned automatically by the system.

If your company has been registered previously (viz. to use the old manual system), a Company Registration Number has been assigned to your company when the new system went live and would have been sent to you via email.

If You have registered and not received a Company Registration number via email, please contact the CTFPO who will provide you with the number/s. We kindly request that you do so via email (film.permit@capetown.gov.za) as this will ensure we have an updated email address.

Please note that currently there may be more than one number associated with a company due to outdated/historical data, different names/spellings, etc. We will in the interim please verify that the company numbers actually refer to the same company and provide all the numbers associated with a company. We will in due course look at and consider the implications of one company having multiple company numbers. This will be done in consultation with the CFC Locations Sub-Committee.

IMPORTANT:
We will only supply a company registration number to a representative of a company requesting the company registration number for their own company;

We will not supply company registration numbers to freelancers, location scouts, etc. – they must obtain the company registration number from the company on whose behalf they wish to transact – this will ensure that film companies know who is engaging with the CTFPO on their behalf.

For any further information please contact the CTFPO on film.permit@capetown.gov.za.

What this essentially means is that whether by omission or intent, the system has been designed to give production companies total control over the allocation of locations and film permits. This is further re-enforced by the fact that when an individual registered to be allowed to use the system, they get a response stating that “They will be assigned to a production company”

Ok so there is some confusion as to what this means. Basically in order to register to be able to use the on-line system you need to be linked to a production company. So you need to register yourself as a production company but what if you are a freelancer, why must you register as a production company, if you in fact can, or what right does the city have to assign you to one, why is being a freelancer or independent not an option?

Another concern is why wasn’t an attempt made to include feedback from the whole industry when designing the system instead of , as we have been lead to understand by the CTFPO, just the CPA, SAASP and CFC?

Regardless of whether this is being enforced, the CTPPA finds the system to be highly immoral and offensive if not illegal that the whole system has been built around “production” companies being in control and we urge the City and the mayor to decommission the system with immediate effect and launch an independent enquiry into how this was allowed to occur. We believe that the mayor and premier cannot simply sweep this under the rug and need to take responsibility for this, ensure that satisfactory answers are provided and appropriate action is taken…

In the meantime its is crucial that every single Cape Town Photographer supports the CTPPA’s Protest so that we can make sure our voice will not be ignored and something like this will not happen again…

We would also like to thank the Cape Film Commission and especially its new CEO, Denis Lilley, who are as concerned by this as we are and the impact it could have on the local film industry. They have really stuck their neck out to help us fight this and in doing so have taken a lot of flack for it.

Today we launch our first protest against the City of Cape Town’s film permit system. Over the last few weeks we have been engaging with many parties who are directly and indirectly involved and the more we look into the saga, the more disturbing it all becomes. We will publish a full expose on the system once we have researched a few more facts but as it stands now, the current system is highly prejudicial and may in fact not be a fully lawful application of By-Law Relating to Filming, No. 30441.

After turning up the heat on the City, we are now pretty much being ignored and its time to let the City official and the mayor know that we will not stand for this. So we have come up with a novel and easy idea for everyone with a camera to participate in the protest. All you have to do is download this PDF file, print it out, photograph yourself holding it up (only the notice and your hands need to be shown) and then Email it to us (please, images not bigger than 600px wide) and we will post it in the protest gallery on our Facebook page

Now here is the important part. For the protest to be successful and for this issue to get resolved, we need your support which means we need as many Cape Town Photographers as we can reach to take part in this. As well as sending in your anonymous pic, we also need you to get the word out to as many people as you can. So get downloading, shooting and emailing your pics and lets see if we can get more than 500 in our gallery.

A serious question has been raised about the By-Law that is being applied to us and raises the question as to whether the City’s actions may be illegal.

As I have unfortunately been involved with lawyers on more occasions than I would have liked, I have learned that laws and contracts have two aspects, the letter of the law and the intent.

In this case Section 1.2 of By-Law No30441 Relating to filming states under section 1.2 Dealing with when a permit is required states.

Principally concerned with location filming as opposed to filming within a studio, Council permit processes are designed to manage all location filming, either on Council-owned land or which may impact on Council land, even where the actual activity of filming takes place on land other than Council land.

This includes (but is not limited to) activities that:

• interrupt traffic on municipal roads;

• interrupt pedestrians on sidewalks;

• require wires or cables running across or over sidewalks or municipal roads;

• require the use of generators, tripods or dollys on sidewalks or municipal roads;

• impact on public use of, or access to public parking areas, community facilities, beaches, public open space and nature reserves under City of Cape Town’s management; and

• generate noise and air pollution.

If one reads the above in context it is very clear that this:

• Is aimed more at the movie industry and larger stills productions
• In all likelihood does not apply to small stills shoots and it’s important to differentiate between shoots and productions… The Film office keeps referring to production companies needing permits and PL cover but we, for the most part, are not associated with production companies of any sort or involved in “Productions”. It could therefore be reasonably argued that for a shoot to be a production, it would need to be of a certain size and would need the involvement of a production company which is the case with large commercial shoots and movies

If one considers the above it could be easily and reasonably argued that the City is trying apply a By-Law to Stills Shoots that is not as per the definition and intent of the law, therefore could be interpreted as illegal action on the part of the City of Cape Town and Law Enforcement.

It would be interesting to hear what the lawyers amongst us feel about this. Full permit document here http://www.capetown.gov.za/en/ehd/Documents/LocationFilmingInCapeTown-v2011-06.pdf

We have officially joined the Cape Film Commission as members. We will retain our independence and own identity and this was a decision we came to because of the fact that we feel our goals are aligned when it come to resolving the permit saga.

Additionally we have been attempting to get the City to allow the CFC to manage the blanket permit process as we do not believe that the Film office would be able to cope with this.

We have been informed by the City that the permit system is governed by by-law and policy and that this will need to be changed which the City seems reluctant to do. I the meantime this is having an impact on our business and industry.

Another point of concern for us is that the Permit office claims that the current legislation and the proposed amendments were created in consultation with organisations that claimed to represent us which they clearly do not otherwise we would not find ourselves in the situation that we do.

We are currently engaged in talks with various concerned parties including some media organisations and we intend stepping up our campaign.

With the Consumer protection act having come into effect last year, many companies are still not compliant or still do not understand the implication of the ACT.

There are quite a few areas of the ACT that affect us as photographers and while we should all have new contracts drawn up to deal with this, not all of us can afford this. I am proposing that the CTPPA looks at approaching a legal firm and gets them to draw up a standard photographic contract that is CPA compliant and this would be made available to members at a nominal fee to cover the costs.

I would be interested in seeing who would be interested by means of the poll in the side bar.

HI All

I have received the following correspondence from Deni Lillie, the CEO of the Cape Film Commission who was at the meeting yesterday. Denis feels, and we agree, that the City probably can’t handle the extra load that our open permits will introduce and has proposed a possible quick way forward whereby we would go through the CFC for our permits. Our comments are in italics

Hi Robert

As promised yesterday, a quick way forward.

1)      CFC will motivate to CoCT for the ability for the CFC to issue blanket annual permits for professional stills shoots for crews of 4 people or less with limited equipment (we would like this to need no permit if no lighting equipment is involved other than a scrim or reflector)

2)      CFC will motivate as above for crews of 6 people or less with basic lighting

3)      CFC will motivate for no permit required for amateur photographers

4)      We have already spoken with our underwriters who are in a position to quote for blanket annual PL insurance for the above 1) and 2). We should have prices on Monday (we are still against the need for PL insurance but this could be a good option if we have to accept this)

5)      We will motivate same as 1)2)3) with Provincial owned property, Cape Nature, SanParks and other parastatals (i.e. throughout Western Cape) (this could potentially open up a lot more restricted locations for us)

6)      Your members will be required to register as Members of the CFC to enjoy the above benefits as we need a membership number as part of the tracking process. (see below re free membership and we are looking at how we can integrate the membership of the CTPPA and the CFC)

7)      We are also about to launch an out of hours call centre service to enable more flexibility on locations. This service should be able to include an overview of available locations to enable your members to phone and check on what is available (ie not pre-booked by a movie or major commercial shoot)

I would also like to state that we would welcome CTPPA as a member of the CFC which will enable you to represent your members needs at our monthly industry forums and allow us to engage more proactively with Government agencies on your behalf. (we would want to be able to represent ourselves via the CTPPA at these meetings)

As explained yesterday, membership of the CFC is currently free of charge and there is no “restrictions” on membership i.e. you are free to be members of other organisations.

I can expand on the above points if you wish but my view is that it would be in industry and City best interests to allow the CFC this space as we would not be restricted by City internal process and line functions relating to transport diversions and road closures.

Please let me know what you and your members think and I will put this to City on Monday as a formal request. If you feel that mail support from your mmembers would assist, then please provide same on Monday.

Right so please lets see how you feel via the poll at the top of the sidebar on the right. We need to get as much feed back as quickly as possible… If your answer is no, please drop us an Email and let us know why so we can look to address your concerns

Thursday the 16th February 2012

I have just come back from a meeting with representatives from the City of Cape Town and the CFC. In the meeting I raised our concerns and what we felt was a workable solution and the City in turn raised some of their own concerns.

The outcome of the meeting was an acknowledgment that here are issues that need to be addressed however the time frame for addressing these could be up to 90 days which we indicated was a problem.

We have asked the City to look into an interim solution but the biggest stumbling block seems to be around the City’s insistence on photographers having Public Liability insurance.

In the case of the hobby photographers this is not something we can accept but it may be that this will be a requirement in the case of the professional photographers. We are not happy about this because while we do realise that all pro photographers actually should have the cover as a matter of good business practises, we don’t feel that the city has the right to discriminate against us although the City is arguing that in the case of a commercial shoot (shoot for money) we are deriving income from public property.

Our Proposal

The proposal we put forward was for a three tier system:

Tier One – Hobby and non-commercial shoots. This would apply to:

1. Shoots with less than 4 people and no lighting stands but a tripod would be permitted (Reflector or scrim is allowed).  This would require no permit or PL cover.

Tier Two – Small-commercial shoots. This would apply to:

1. Shoots with less than 6 people and basic self-powered lighting with not more than 4 lights.

We have proposed a 1 year open permit be issued for this tier and the permit would have the following restrictions:

• Valid for all areas for 1 year
• Limited to basic lighting equipment – self powered and not more than 4 lights.
• City to be indemnified but PL cover at photographers discretion (we will still fight this issue).
• City to publish a daily list of all full permitted shoots:
  • Micro permits to give preference to permitted shoots unless by arrangement with the permit holder.
• No obstruction of traffic or public access and walkways permitted.

Tier Three – This would apply to all shoots that exceed the provisions catered for under Tiers one and two and would require a full micro permit application as per the current proposed process.

The Cape Film Commission have come up with a suggestion that the City empowers them to handle the permit process as it is dubious whether the City will be able to cope with it in house. The proposal is that the CTPPA joins the CFC as a member which would give us a seat on the advisory committee and also potentially make affordable PL cover available to The CTPPA members.

First and foremost we feel the CTPPA needs to retain its autonomy and individuality and be able to keep itself clear of the muddy waters surrounding the permit saga. I have communicated this to the CEO of the CFC and asked him to provide an outline of the benefits of membership to the CFC and also any restrictions it would impose on us.

If we are happy that it is a good alliance for us, we will open up a poll to gauge the members of the CTPPA’s feelings on the matter and then proceed accordingly.

In the interim, the City has requested that in the case where you are engaged in a non-commercial shoot and you are chased away that you:

• Note the time and date.
• Confirm that you explained to the officer that this was not a commercial shoot (you were not deriving income from it)
• The location
• The officer’s name and badge number

And you email these to info@ctppa.co.za so we can forward this to the City. Please do not get confrontational with the officers. If they refuse to give you the information simply add this to the email.

I will update the blog regularly with any changes or progress.

Robert