quote:

---

I know some theatres might require it.

---

Some states and cities require a motion picture operators
license to work. It's a outdated law, but it's used mostly
as a fee making license. In NYC you have to have a license.
The cost in NYC is $200 for the test and $60 for the license
which is good for 2 years. On renewal if you don't renew
during the grace time (30 days after license expires), you
have to take the test over and pay the $200 fee all over again.
 

---

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 04-01-2003, 10:51 AM:
 
Contact information is as Bill provided.

Massachusetts requires licensing. The cost is $50 per two years, although the license expires on one's birthday, so the first one will need to be renewed before two full years. There is a fifty-question true/false test required to get the initial license. New licenses must be "sponsored" by existing licenses (which just means that you need someone else's license number in order to take the test).

The test is pretty difficult to fail. Most of it is either common sense or knowledge of state laws (which are mostly pretty obvious, though it might be good to get a copy of the current laws from the State House bookstore ahead of time). Know about fire extinguishers, 35mm film runs at 90 feet per minute, nitrate film is not allowed in any booth in Massachusetts, know what rheostats, transformers, and rectifiers are, etc.
 

---

Posted by Bruce McGee (Member # 131) on 04-01-2003, 11:53 AM:
 
Wow. I'd-a never thought the test would be so high...

$200! Sounds like it might be a part of the Department Of Transportation!

I dont think that NC has a license test anymore. They couldn't. I can imagine a licensed operator doing the crap work that I see in my local theatres.
 

---

Posted by Aaron Mehocic (Member # 15) on 04-01-2003, 12:00 PM:
 
Pennsylvania also requires licensure, but for a lot less $$$. My initial testing was something like fifteen dollars and my yearly renewal is only ten dollars. Questions are about equal to Scott's Massachusett example.
 

---

Posted by Bill Gabel (Member # 1105) on 04-01-2003, 12:25 PM:
 
The NYC licensing is handled by the Dept. of Consumer Affairs.

The test is very similar to what Scott said. In Los Angeles
you do not need a license except when you are projecting Nitrate.
You get that from the LA Fire Dept.
 

---

Posted by Jonathan M. Crist (Member # 413) on 04-01-2003, 12:32 PM:
 
Pennsylvania repealed its law requiring projectionists to be licensed about 3 years ago. Pennsylvania will still take your money and issue a projectionist license if you want one, but it is no longer required. As part of the repeal the Pennsylvania Department of Labor and Industry lost its authority to issue citations to theatres for not having a licensed projectionist on the premises.
 

---

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 04-01-2003, 02:23 PM:
 
The old General Cinema Theatre "gcbooth" website had a primer for the Massachusetts test:

http://zulugruv.home.texas.net/gcc/primer.html
 

---

Posted by Patrick McDonough (Member # 1363) on 04-01-2003, 02:53 PM:
 
great thank you for the replys
 

---

Posted by Aaron Mehocic (Member # 15) on 04-02-2003, 01:54 PM:
 
Jonathan,

Labor & Industry's Gestapo agents are still making periodical checks of our theatre and wanting to see our "papers". I believe you, since the permits & licensure section of L & I's website no longer mentions a projection license per se, but still they come.

Anyway, I really don't mind one way or the other. "State Licensed Film Projectionist" looks impressive on a resume.
 

---

Posted by Jon Bartow (Member # 241) on 04-04-2003, 07:58 AM:
 
Sorry, duplicate post
 

---

Posted by Jon Bartow (Member # 241) on 04-04-2003, 08:02 AM:
 
The state of Massachusetts is an interesting case. A number of years back (1988?) the department of Public Safety and the State Police were one and the same. When they split they didn't do a good job splitting up the resonsibility.
In Massachusetts you are supposed to have lisenced projectionists and a "certified" booth. However, if you call the office of Public Safety to report an offender, they will tell you that the job of enforcing the law falls to the state police. Call the state police and they will laugh at you. At one point in time I was involved in building a theater in Mass. I tried for 6 months to get the guy from the office of Public Safety to come out to "certify" our booth. He never even returned my phone calls (one or two of them a week). Long story short, outdated law that is not enforced.
Jonathan
 

---

Posted by Patrick McDonough (Member # 1363) on 04-04-2003, 08:08 AM:
 
That explains alot, thank you
 

---

Posted by Rachel Gilardi (Member # 1016) on 04-04-2003, 04:53 PM:
 
When I went to get my license I had a study manual for the state of Massachuesetts (it was very old and outdated). Now, one of my employees is going to get it but the study booklet is no where to be found. Does anyone have study sheets for the Massachesetts test? Anything would help.
 

---

Posted by Bill Gabel (Member # 1105) on 04-04-2003, 05:10 PM:
 
Rachel

John posted a link to a primer for the Massachusetts test above.
 

---

Posted by Rachel Gilardi (Member # 1016) on 04-04-2003, 06:51 PM:
 
Sorry I'm blind...thanks.
 

---

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 04-04-2003, 07:35 PM:
 
Chipper they warned you if you didn't stop it you would go blind
 

---

Posted by Rachel Gilardi (Member # 1016) on 04-04-2003, 08:04 PM:
 
Gordon behave!!!

Anyway, going through John's link (THANKS!) I noticed that is it missing alot. If anyone has any additional information it would be much appreciated!

Mostly specifics and measurements as I remember them being on my test.
 

---

Posted by Sean McKinnon (Member # 612) on 04-05-2003, 07:57 PM:
 
Rachel,

I developed training materials and a practice test for Loews. I will send you a copy of it.
 

---

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 04-05-2003, 08:13 PM:
 
Knowing the questions and placing the correct awnsers based on cheat sheets defeats the purepose of the exam
The purepose of a writen exam is to test for the knowledge the candiate has to actually deal with problems in the field

When ontario had still exams part of the aplications to applie for the test was an afidavit that the contents of the test could not be revealed under the official secrets act (standard gov. requirements) and held up penalties for such
 

---

Posted by Rachel Gilardi (Member # 1016) on 04-05-2003, 10:45 PM:
 
Gordon - You have never seen this test! Most of its information is so outdated and not typical of the 'normal' booth is just ridiculous, most normal day to day operators would never have to deal with it. I honestly don't remember any of the questions being able to help someone fix a problem that they will actually have to deal with in the field.

A lot of the information in the laws is actual measurements that the booth requires- ie: inches needed for door swing. Things that need to be known if said person is building the booth.

Sean - Thanks but I have everything I need. I put together my own packet for my theater with laws, a practice test, definitions, and shortcut laws. Thanks though!
 

---

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 04-05-2003, 11:04 PM:
 
Gordon makes a good point, and I would say that anyone with a reasonable amount of experience, common sense, and minimal knowledge of the state laws should be able to pass the Massachusetts test without needing any other sort of preparation (well, I did, anyway). Anyone who doesn't know what rectifiers, transformers, and rheostats are shouldn't be in a booth, period.

Having said that, many of the questions on the test are indeed more oriented toward booth construction and legal specifics (number of ounces of flammable liquid permitted in a booth, etc.).

The problem here is that (unlike the Canadian license examinations, as I understand things) the Massachusetts test simply doesn't mean anything substantive, and its existance is unlikely to improve either public safety or presentation quality, so the existance of "cheat sheets" and such isn't really going to help or hurt anyone.

Interesting semi-related tidbit: the city of Providence, RI still has laws on the books that require projectionist licensing, yet they will no longer issue licenses.
 

---

Posted by Aaron Mehocic (Member # 15) on 04-07-2003, 01:59 PM:
 
Gordon said:

quote:

---

When Ontario had exams still part of the application to apply for the test, [there] was an affadavit that the contests of the exam could not be revealed under the official secrets act (standard gov. requirements) and held up penalties as such.

---

No disrespect to our Russian Film-tech participants, but what would the Canadian government do, send you to a trappers'camp in the tundra?
 

---

Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 04-07-2003, 02:22 PM:
 
Official Secrets Act ( R.S. 1985, c. O-5 )

Punishment

27. Unless this Act provides otherwise, a person who commits an offence under this Act is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 14 years;

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 12 months or to a fine of not more than $2,000, or to both; or

(c) an offence punishable on summary conviction and liable to being forced to listen to American NHL hockey commentators on FOX for the duration of one full game.

AND you'd lose your license.
 

---

Posted by Aaron Mehocic (Member # 15) on 04-08-2003, 01:31 PM:
 
A little harsh I'd say. I mean hell, when was the last time changing AC current into DC current affected national security.

(I'm just bustin' your balls. Like I said on page one I can care less one way or the other about testing.)
 

---