Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

LA desert locations without permits?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #16
    Originally posted by OldCorpse View Post
    Tell that to the LA municipal authorities, that you should have the right to decide whether or not you want to be in your own apartment or house, blah, blah, blah. They don't give a rip, they still want a permit. Even if you are the only member of the crew, and the only actor, and nobody else, and using your own DSLR and no lights of any kind. You could be taking a picture, a still and you are fine, but push that video button right next to it, even if you are just filming a wall - your own wall - and calling it a film you want to distribute (hey, Warhol did something similar!), you BY LAW must have a permit. It's a crock. You still have to obey the law - because it is a law. Plainly, this has absolutely nothing to do with "safety" or anything else - it has to do with a money grab - why... "because they can", end of story. It's situations like this that lead to proverbs like "The law is an a$$": "The law, as created by legislators or as administered by the justice system, cannot be relied upon to be sensible or fair." But regardless of what you, I or anyone else thinks, it is still the law, and it still must be obeyed. So instead of making silly arguments about how good a law is and what a great thing it is, and how safe and all that malarkey, all one says from a legal point of view is: "you are obligated to follow the law; failure to do so, will carry the following penalties: X". Period. And citizens, make their own evaluations of the worth of any given law and the consequences of following it or not following it, and they incorporate that calculus into their decision making and risk assessments. The peanut gallery will chime in with "you must follow the law!", while everyone else will carefully reach their own conclusions, whatever they may be, good or bad. Welcome to the real world. In the real world, the law is always behind the curve of development; so for example, you can go to the desert with a huge stills camera and your buddies and photograph each other against the backdrops, and you don't need a permit. Meanwhile, in the exact same situation, if you instead have a much smaller DSLR and press the video button, and your buddies call themselves "actors" for the moment, and now you need a permit. You can dress it up any way you like, but nobody is fooled. The law is the law, obey it, no matter how wise a law or how stupid, period - just don't tell me all about how fantastic that law is and how moral and how righteous. It's the law and that's all the justification it needs and indeed requires.
    But the point is you have the right to stop OTHERS from coming and shooting in your house. That's the point.
    David W. Richardson
    Writer/Producer/Director/Editor
    Chapel Grove Films
    Celtic Cross Films
    Bliss Video Productions
    http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1400903/?ref_=tt_ov_dr

    Comment


      #17
      Originally posted by David W. Richardson View Post
      The other point is respect for the rights of others. Don't you think land owners, whether private, corporate or municipal, have the right to decide whether or not they want you on their land? As in the example I gave before -- would you want a film crew (or anyone else) coming onto your property whenever they felt like it, especially if you weren't there, and doing whatever they wanted? If you feel that you have the right to control your own property, how can you think it's okay to deny that same right to someone else?
      In regard to public lands... no, I as John Q. Public do have a right to use, and if my 'use' is commensurate with say a 'family having a picnic', I should not have to have a permit to have a camera in my hand, if I am 'making a film' rather than taking happy shots of said family picnic.

      As I said, if I cordon off a section of park, block a street, or other big production activities... sure... permits are in order... publicizing that 'filming is taking place'... etc.

      But for a small crew no more than what one would expect for a 'family gathering'... heck, a 100 people could 'occupy' park as a family and not have permit police break up the gathering... provided no one is otherwise breaking the law, getting rowdy, etc.

      In regard to me making a deal with a private property owner, that is between me and the owner, not the city/county/state because I happen to be 'filming' a movie... and there it is even more obvious that 'permits' do nothing, since it is on private property...

      Again this has nothing to do with safety or the like... this as to do with idiotic regulations for the sake of getting a pound of flesh by the local government.

      Comment


        #18
        Originally posted by David W. Richardson View Post
        But the point is you have the right to stop OTHERS from coming and shooting in your house. That's the point.
        Perhaps you missed it... In Los Angeles it is illegal to 'shoot a film' in your own house without a permit. And furthermore, if you make an agreement with a home owner, you still have to have a permit in LA to shoot there.

        This is why in many cases the permits are ignored by small crews with no budget.

        Perhaps in other places in the country permits are only required for public lands, or 'big' productions... if at all... but LA is notorious for requiring permits, and having police actually stop people who appear to be 'professional'.

        Comment


          #19
          Originally posted by j1clark@ucsd.edu View Post
          Perhaps you missed it... In Los Angeles it is illegal to 'shoot a film' in your own house without a permit. And furthermore, if you make an agreement with a home owner, you still have to have a permit in LA to shoot there.

          This is why in many cases the permits are ignored by small crews with no budget.

          Perhaps in other places in the country permits are only required for public lands, or 'big' productions... if at all... but LA is notorious for requiring permits, and having police actually stop people who appear to be 'professional'.
          No, I didn't miss it. We're making two different points.

          You're saying you can't shoot a film in your own home if you want to. I get that.

          What I'm saying is that you CAN prevent someone else from coming into your home or onto your property and shooting a film without your permission. Whether they need more than just your permission is irrelevant -- unless YOU say it's okay, they cannot come onto your property and shoot a film. Which is as it should be.

          Whether or not L.A. requires a permit to shoot somewhere isn't the issue. If you need a permit, then you need a permit. That does NOT mean that you DON'T need the permission of the owner of the property.

          Yet some filmmakers believe they can shoot anywhere they please, as long as they don't get caught -- with absolute disregard for the rights of the property owners and the safety of their cast and crew. Those same people would hypocritically object to people trespassing on THEIR property. How can anyone not see this is wrong?
          David W. Richardson
          Writer/Producer/Director/Editor
          Chapel Grove Films
          Celtic Cross Films
          Bliss Video Productions
          http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1400903/?ref_=tt_ov_dr

          Comment


            #20
            Originally posted by David W. Richardson View Post
            No, I didn't miss it. We're making two different points.

            You're saying you can't shoot a film in your own home if you want to. I get that.

            What I'm saying is that you CAN prevent someone else from coming into your home or onto your property and shooting a film without your permission. Whether they need more than just your permission is irrelevant -- unless YOU say it's okay, they cannot come onto your property and shoot a film. Which is as it should be.
            Erm, what does that have to do with permits? If permits didn't exist, nobody can shoot on your property without your approval anyway: it's called trespassing, breaking and entering, loitering and a bunch of other laws that already exist, and not having a permit is 100% irrelevant. The permit issue is a red herring - you're trying to hitch a ride on the issue of property rights and nobody around here is stupid enough to not notice. You can give your approval to someone shooting on your property, without anyone having to pay some government fee on top of that - your rights are not enhanced by one iota because someone else has to pay a fee to the government - you and you alone decide whom you let on your property.

            Originally posted by David W. Richardson View Post
            Whether or not L.A. requires a permit to shoot somewhere isn't the issue. If you need a permit, then you need a permit.
            So in other words, "the permit" is the issue. Thanks for clarifying. It's exactly what's at issue - why do you need a permit to shoot on your own property? Permits are nothing but a way of extorting money out of you. But it's the law, so bend over.

            Originally posted by David W. Richardson View Post
            That does NOT mean that you DON'T need the permission of the owner of the property.
            ...and getting the permission of the owner of the property has nothing to do with getting a permit from the government and paying the government a fee. You get approval from the owner, you should be good to go, without any involvement of the government through permits, hermits or kermits.

            Originally posted by David W. Richardson View Post
            Yet some filmmakers believe they can shoot anywhere they please, as long as they don't get caught -- with absolute disregard for the rights of the property owners and the safety of their cast and crew. Those same people would hypocritically object to people trespassing on THEIR property. How can anyone not see this is wrong?
            If filmmakers trespass on private property, then it's on them. If they get caught, then the consequences are spelled out in the appropriate law. Permits have nothing to do with it. If a filmmaker disregards the safety of their cast and crew, then a permit is not going to rescue them. I already outlined the scenario of when you need permits on most public lands - if you do still photography, you don't, and if you press a video button on the very same camera, you do - with the exact same number of "friends" ("actors"), equipment, footprint. Exactly the same - and therefore both crews are exposed to the exact same dangers, and yet, one needs a permit and the other doesn't, which shows you conclusively that "safety" has NOTHING to do with the permit process. It's a bunch of BS. In that scenario, if the still photographer disregards the safety of their "friends", doesn't take enough water to Death Valley and shoots in unsafe conditions all without needing a permit they are 100% responsible even if they didn't need a permit; and if they pressed a video button instead, and did get a permit, but behaved as unsafely as before, then they are jeopardizing the safety of their crew and actors even with a permit. Permits - or the lack of - do not absolve you of the necessity of being a responsible filmmaker. I'd rather work on a shoot with a filmmaker who has no permit in the desert, but is behaving carefully and responsibly, than with a filmmaker who has all the paperwork in order but who exhibits no common sense. I am an avid outdoorsman. I have camped in the California desert every year - and I've documented the wildflower season in Anza-Borrego for 18 years now. I've camped in all major National Parks in the U.S., and every state and national park in California. No permit can add one whit to my knowledge of the desert, nor the lack of a permit detract from my experience. You can have all the permits and insurance you want, and you still have people behaving with criminal negligence. Just because you have insurance doesn't mean it will pay out if you behave with negligence.

            Behaving responsibly at all times is a basic requirement. Permits don't figure into it, except as a calculus of risk same as any other. Obey the law, because it's the law and for no other reason, and if you don't, well, you'll pay the price. What you do is your individual decision and nobody can make that calculus for you, and you are fully responsible for the consequences regardless of any permitting process.

            Comment


              #21
              We don't need no stinking permit !!!!!!!!!!

              Comment

              Working...
              X