Ask For Forgiveness... Not For Permission?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Well, no offense intended to anyone else posting in the thread...but it *is*.

I still chuckle (it's been 20 years, so I -can- chuckle) about that time in school when I took a crew to shoot at this beautifully, gorgeously, marvelously rotting and dilapidated old brick factory complex in central New York, which had been used in innumerable student films without incident, which I had scouted extensively and repeatedly, and so far as I knew was abandoned. Well, I learned that it was not, in fact, abandoned - when a commercial real-estate agent and her client came rolling up to the loading dock to discover my guys off-loading a generator.

Whoops.
 
Use your own brain. Asking people here will give you the exact result you'd have in your original question: denied! The answer will be: don't do it! That tells you everything you need to know about "is it better to ask for forgiveness or permission?" in life or art. Big theoretical questions don't often yield useful answers. It's for the birds. The real answer is unfortunately like the real world: it depends. Sadly, there is no shortcut, no neat formula. You are obligated to use your brain and risk assessment skills. Everything represents a risk. You could step out and be killed by a small meteorite. So should you stay in bed? No, because you could be killed by a big meteorite in your bed. Life is risk. It's your job to assess where it makes sense to take a risk, and where not. People can advise you, but it's your butt on the line, so use your judgment. Go ask an insurance salesman if you need insurance - guess what the answer will be. People in general are risk avoiders. Ask an executive for permission to do something, and s/he'll likely say "no". Whereas if you never ask, they won't have to make a decision.

Take this test - I've done this to great laughter. I went with my friend to photograph the Pacific Design Center building in WeHo. We split up and I photographed the building no problem. Then, to prove a point, my friend agreed to ask the security guard if it would be OK to photograph the building from the public street. The security guy said "NO, you'll have to ask permission inside". This, despite the fact that it's perfectly legal to do so from the a public space. See the problem? When you put people on the spot, they start thinking of risks they'd never thought before, start getting paranoid (or as in this case, assume they have some kind of power since you act as if they do).

Now bring it to this thread. You ask a very general question to the board. What do you imagine the answer is going to be? "Fireworks? Why, go right ahead!". Of course not. People are risk avoiders - they'll tell you "no", even if they'd do "yes" themselves, because that's what they assume is the "official" position, and indeed it is. I mean, who is going to deny that it's safer to have insurance and permits and so on? Do you wear a helmet on a motorcycle? Sure! On your bicycle? Well, less emphatically, but still yes, because it's definitely safer. So how about when you just walk down the street, do you wear a helmet? Why not? It's undeniably safer! See why you can't ask a general question like "does it make sense to wear a helmet"?

So too with all scenarios shooting with or without permits. Sometimes the risk calculus favors not asking for permits that will be denied. Sometimes it makes sense to get permits. Fireworks definitely escalate risks dramatically, so take that into account in your calculus.

But here's reality. Tons of movies were and are made where there is no budget for various eminently sensible things, so they go without, taking a risk. There are countless filmmakers who would never even have a career, had they not taken these kinds of risks. Many got lucky that nothing went wrong, or more probably they were sensible enough to know how far to push their luck - yes to a quick shoot in a park without permit, yes to shooting in their parent's house with no insurance, NO to using fireworks in a warehouse full of flammable materials. In each case they were facing risks, and with bad luck it could have gone terribly wrong, but they correctly assessed the risks, and got lucky.

If you don't have the budget for all the sensible things like permits and insurance and so forth, you have a choice to raise the money for these things, or don't shoot - advice you'll get here. That's safe and sensible advice. But it's also like telling a homeless person that the best way out of homelessness is to raise a lot of money and to buy a mansion - very sensible and eminently true, but not exactly practical for most. If you have the means to get a big budget - congratulations... but what are you doing here asking such questions? If on the other hand, you don't have the means, and wasting years trying to raise unrealistic sums does not appeal to you, and giving up on making a film doesn't strike you as a great way to launch a film career, then you'll do what countless ESTABLISHED filmmakers did before they became, well, established. They schemed, and plotted, and assessed risks, and took a chance, and got lucky (or not!). Let that be your guide - your own brain and your own judgment, not the opinions of others... because if you don't pursue your dream, and give up because it's "safer", will those giving you the "safe" advice come and bail you out? I kinda doubt it.

So my advice to you is not "go take a chance", or "don't take a chance". It's use your own judgment, because nobody else can do it for you - they don't have all the info you have. Good luck!
 
You're right about security guards and such. I was out testing my GH2 at a light rail station last week, and when the train pulled up, the driver opened her window and asked me if I had a permit. She got real insulted when I laughed and said I didn't need one in a public place.
 
You honestly think asking a security guard is a good measure?

If the OP keeps his cast and crew FULLY INFORMED that he has NO permission to shoot on the location, and that any injuries they suffer will NOT be covered by his insurance -- and they agree -- then it's his risk to take. Personally, I think anyone who would agree to those circumstances is an idiot. But that's just me.
 
Curtis Mack said:
You're right about security guards and such. I was out testing my GH2 at a light rail station last week, and when the train pulled up, the driver opened her window and asked me if I had a permit. She got real insulted when I laughed and said I didn't need one in a public place.
Click to expand...

Just because you're in a public place, don't get cocky and think you don't need a permit. You can't shoot much of anywhere in New York City or L.A. without a permit, no matter how 'public' the place.
 
Again, it's this type of arrogant, self-centered, "I can do whatever I want" attitude that makes it hard for indie filmmakers to work these days. Too many citizens are getting fed up with indie filmmakers trampling all over their property without permission. Remember these words:

PEOPLE HAVE RIGHTS!

Private property owners have a RIGHT to control who has access to their property and for what purpose. And YOU, Mr. Indie Filmmaker -- whoever you may be -- are NOT GOD. You do NOT have the right to trespass! Period!

To people who believe in breaking the law and skirting the rules -- Stop being lazy and doing a half-assed job at your supposed "career". Be a PROFESSIONAL. Do the RIGHT thing! GET PERMISSION -- or go somewhere else.
 
David W. Richardson said:
Just because you're in a public place, don't get cocky and think you don't need a permit. You can't shoot much of anywhere in New York City or L.A. without a permit, no matter how 'public' the place.
Click to expand...

IIRC (unless things have changed) you may shoot un-permitted in any public place in Los Angeles so long as (a) in the judgment of law enforcement you are not creating a public nuisance or hazard and (b) you don't set down a tripod or dolly.

There may be more to it than that, but that's what I recall.
 
For guerrilla stuff, forget a DP with an Eastern European-sounding name...and instead hire a Japanese cameraman with a monopod. No one will be the wiser & you'll be just fine.
 
You do NOT have the right to trespass! Period! To people who believe in breaking the law and skirting the rules -- Stop being lazy and doing a half-assed job at your supposed "career". Be a PROFESSIONAL. Do the RIGHT thing! GET PERMISSION -- or go somewhere else.
Click to expand...
+10.
 
Sad Max said:
IIRC (unless things have changed) you may shoot un-permitted in any public place in Los Angeles so long as (a) in the judgment of law enforcement you are not creating a public nuisance or hazard and (b) you don't set down a tripod or dolly.

There may be more to it than that, but that's what I recall.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure that's entirely true, but even if it is, the same definitely doesn't apply in NYC. I wouldn't be surprised if they start requiring tourists to buy permits before they can take snapshots. :)
 
CallaghanFilms said:
For guerrilla stuff, forget a DP with an Eastern European-sounding name...and instead hire a Japanese cameraman with a monopod. No one will be the wiser & you'll be just fine.
Click to expand...

When people use the term "guerrilla filmmaker" as an excuse for breaking the law and trampling other peoples' rights, then it's a pretty shameful thing. There is no glory in being a guerrilla filmmaker if it means you just don't give a crap about anyone else but yourself.
 
Of course, I don't advocate breaking laws - most of the time, laws make a lot of sense, and if nobody felt obliged to obey laws, we couldn't have a society. Civilization can only progress if we have rules that are obeyed and enforced. It can't be that everyone feels free to obey only the laws they feel like obeying - that way lies chaos, anarchy and breakdown. I don't advocate it.

But having said that, we must recognize that the world is a complicated place and very few things are black and white, there are very few absolutes we can make grand pronouncements about. Even "breaking the law" or "trampling other peoples' rights" - there are bad and impractical and flawed laws, and guess what, people break them, sometimes in such numbers that the laws get revised; and same with "other people's rights"... once upon a time, some people had the right to own other human beings - it was a LAW and it was those people's RIGHTS, but guess what, those rights were "trampled upon"... and I'm not talking just about the obvious reference here, but the entire history of the labor movement which often broke the unjust laws and eventually the laws were recognized as such; look at prohibition - it fell, because people broke stupid laws en masse... and it wasn't a mere law but a constitutional amendment! The amendment wasn't abolished because of some grand legal process out of the goodness of the heart of legislators - it was abolished because it was broken in such numbers that it showed society has no support for it. Civil rights - same thing: laws broken. Do you think, for one second, that we don't have laws today, rightthis second, which are bad laws and deserve to be broken? Look at the news, there's stuff happening right now.

So since there can be bad laws, what should guide you? Ethics. Don't do unethical things. Don't steal, don't cheat, don't hurt other people... even if the law allows you to, or encourages you to. Even more - sometimes you break the law, exactly to do the ethical thing, as in Civil Rights. Ethics. Be fair, be just, be generous.

Again, look at this context. I would never make a blanket statement: break laws, or only obey if you feel like it when it comes to filmmaking. But neither would I make a blanket statement to the opposite effect. You must use your judgment. People will call you names if you use your own judgment to do what they don't feel is right. But will those people give you a career? Nope. You are responsible for that yourself. Don't do anything unethical.

Example: there is a lot of property out there, that's abandoned. Sometimes, it's even hard to trace down who owns it on paper, or the trail of ownership is so tangled in multiple corporate shells that the ownership can genuinely be in question. It's a grand old tradition for indie filmmakers to shoot on abandoned or disused properties, where it may not be at all practical to even find where to obtain permission. Prominent filmmakers have started careers through such guerilla tactics. It's now up to your judgment - are you going to go through a permission process that is completely impractical, or will you "break the law" and use the property? It's a complicated question - are you harming the property? Are you impairing it? Are you lessening its value? If not, the ethics of it are clear - you are hurting no one. Here is an example of when the law and ethics are divorced, because it may be illegal, but it's not unethical.

So use your judgment, and be ethical at all times, obey the law, but understand that those who make absolutist statements and call you names will not be there when it's your butt on the line. Only you can be responsible for your career - look at the history of filmmaking, including prominent filmmakers and decide what to do.
 
It seems the question by the OP has become a discourse on guerrila filming in general. I would like to break his actual question down, so we can get the conversation a little more on track. His question is not just about trespassing/film permits. It is coupled with using pyrotechnics AND filming guerilla style. That is a big distinction in my book.
lalugela said:
I'm a big fan of the phrase "ask for forgiveness, not for permission" on shoots— because 99.9% of the time, in my experience, we do no harm to anyone or anything.
Click to expand...
That .1% should make you take notice. You are forgetting Murphy's Law.

So I'm shooting a music video that calls for some fireworks— nothing HUGE: a couple of big fountains, a bunch of roman candles, etc.
Click to expand...
You might want to see the mishaps just on Youtube with Roman Candles and Fountains. Your .1% chance just increased exponentially because of the pyrotechnics. Your "we do no harm to anyone or anything" statement may have to change. Pyrotechnics are considered explosives and are unstable, especially in the hands of untrained individuals. This is not your "4th of July" backyard party. You will have a film crew and talent around them.
We're shooting in a really secluded, industrial area with nobody around... there isn't enough time to get a permit... should I be worried?
Click to expand...
Yes. Very worried.
Does anyone have any experience with shooting pyrotechnics/ dealing with police/fire?
Click to expand...
I do. And if you are going to do this despite the warnings, you can only have yourself to blame if anything goes wrong. And when pyro is invloved it can go disasterously wrong, very fast.
Fortunately it's a one take music video, and the whole shoot is over in 4.5 minutes.
Click to expand...
It only takes a millisecond for things to go bad, and you will have 270000+ chances for it to in that timespan.
If they do come, will they slap me on the wrist or will it be more serious?
Click to expand...
Depends on if you cause property damage, injure someone, or if Law Enforcement in your area is intolerant of trespassing.......it may be more serious than a slap on the wrist, including: confiscation of all film-making equipment, fines, court appearances, and even possible jailtime.
Any tips/advice would be greatly appreciated. Full disclosure: I normally play by the rules, and I don't pride myself on breaking them. I'm not a pyromaniac. This is a passion project, and safety of the band and crew is our top priority.
Click to expand...
Then why start violating the rules now? My tip/advice is this: abandon the pyro aspect, if you are doing this guerrila style. Or if it is key to the theme, get a permit to do it and a competent pyrotechnician.

We need to understand exactly what the OP is asking about here. Because it sounds like many people are advocating what he is planning, though they are forgetting the other part of his question: Pyrotechnics. Without permits, proper safety equipment/personnel and training.

If something does go wrong at your "secluded abandoned industrial park", how long is it going to take to get help there? 10-15 minutes? Someone with 3rd degree burns could die in that time without qualified medical personnel on set. The requirements to get a permit assist in protecting you from yourself. They want the Fire Department on set because you are using pyro, I wonder why that is? Could it be so there is competent assistance readily available should something happen?

And if it goes wrong, what will be the excuse given for someone disfigured for life? "We didn't have the time to do it right"? Is your shoot really worth that risk? And is everyone else really willing to take on that same risk for themselves and everyone else involved?
 
Last edited:
Why do so many people think that "making films" is some noble higher calling which absolves you of the basic requirement to respect others? If you can't get permission, move on and find somewhere else. It's not a difficult concept. And there's always somewhere else.

You can choose to do whatever you will choose to do, but don't kid yourself -- it's not "ethical" just because you're making a movie or "building a career."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top