Ask For Forgiveness... Not For Permission?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Which activity at all is some higher calling that which absolves you of the basic requirement to respect others? I can't think of any. So why ask that of only "making films"? It's a straw man to then link "respecting others" to "get permission". Again, the world is not black and white. If you use somebody's front yard without permission - even if you do no damage - I certainly see how that would be disrespectful of the owners, whether they are there at the time or not. But an abandoned property that's not even been visited in years, the ownership of which may even be in dispute, ownership which may not even be tied to human beings but to state or corporate entities, and you shoot there while not in any way impairing or altering it - well, it's still technically trespassing and therefore clearly illegal, but it has nothing to do with "disrespecting others" - it would definitely be "violating trespassing laws" (and so you must clearly be cognizant of the legal burden and risk). When people don't make distinctions for individual cases, but prefer to make some kind of absolutist black and white judgments, it becomes a case of enforcing petty rules in the letter of the law while completely disregarding the spirit of the law. That's where ethics become divorced from petty rule enforcement. Ethics do not encompass the enforcement of picayune rules, but of the spirit behind the rules. In the spirit of trespassing laws, there is a core concept of respect for the property of others - and we can see such applications in the example of the front yard I gave; but there is also the letter and sometimes, as in the example of the abandoned property, the letter is still there, but the spirit no longer.

I don't think making movies - or making bread - justifies unethical behavior. But then again, what would justify unethical behavior? I can't think of anything, so it's not limited to movie making. On the other hand, it's common sense that ethics and laws overlap but are not perfectly matched. Breaking laws and regulations will always be illegal, but not always unethical and in fact, sometimes it may be ethical to break laws. Use your own judgment, in fairness and ethical conduct at all times.

Movie making should not fill us with a sense of entitlement. And neither should we feel constrained by bowing to meaningless and arbitrary rules in particular circumstances, because blind obeisance to all rules for the sole reason of their being rules, denies us ethical agency - which is neither moral, practical or sensible.
 
Scenario: you're in this abandoned place which you couldn't find the owner of to ask (though you always can if you really try). You do your thing; someone gets hurt. Ah, you say, they knew there was no permission, so I'm off the hook. But that's not the problem. They decide to sue the owner, who didn't even know you were there. This perfectly possible. And it's far more likely to happen than whatever film you're making is going to launch you on a Robert Rodriguez-style career arc.

So the owner's getting sued, and maybe he'll win. Maybe he won't. But either way, he's incurring costs which he wouldn't be if you didn't take it upon yourself in the name of "filmmaking" and "building a career" to be on his property. Or maybe it'll be an entirely different scenario. In any case, if someone's hurt or even killed, it still affects the property value and insurance rates on the place, even with no lawsuit.

These are the kinds of things you're not thinking about when you decide "hey, I'm not hurting anyone."
 
OldCorpse, if this was a mechanics site, we would be discussing whether or not using non-OEM parts was ethical. But this is a film-maker site, therefore we discuss what is related to film.

I, for one, can see your point, but in light of the OP's question......bread-making and making this an overall conversation about ethical philosophies may not serve the OP's question.
 
Yes, indeed, it is entirely possible that untoward things can happen in any scenario - including shooting in an abandoned property. Absolutely true. Which is why I stressed in my very first post in this thread - any activity is bound with risk, as is any lack of activity. I can always construct a scenario of risk - including when you've obtained all the proper permits and are doing it by the book down to the last letter of the law! And this is not theoretical at all. As a lawyer, you must know, that there is no scenario where you are immune from being sued - being "right" is no protection from getting sued. So "either way" the property owner(s) might get sued and sustain costs of defending whether they win or lose, even if permits were obtained. Further, they may get sued whether I undertake to shoot on their property or not - someone may pass in front of their building, on a public sidewalk and get hurt and sue them, even if they don't have a legal leg to stand on - it still costs money to defend. You are not immune to risk - ever.

What about my agency increasing that risk? Well, I could do so without shooting a film. If I give someone directions to somewhere, where it happens to take them past the property in question, they slip and fall on the public sidewalk in front of the property, they can sue the property owner (in many jurisdictions, the private property owner is responsible for the condition of the public sidewalk in front of his property!). I just, inadvertently, had agency in incurring costs to the property owner - and it had nothing to do with film.

What's the upshot? It's that the very fact that you live in society incurs risk. Your job is to assess risks, not avoid all risk, because that is impossible. Should you decide to shoot without a permit in an abandoned building you are undertaking a risk - and you must be cognizant of that. Shooting a film, or merely breathing, is a risk. To function at all, you must take risks. Some locations with permits may be far more risky than other locations without permits. There is no sense in being dogmatic. Ethical conduct, good judgment and fairness are incumbent upon all of us.

Ultimately it's about judgment, not about abstract rules and regulations. Personally, if I heard "fireworks without permits", it would freak me out. But I'm paranoid about fire, and have a healthy respect for the risks. I do a lot of camping. Even where it is entirely legal to build fires in specially designated metal-contained pits, I am much more cautious - I see a fire in front of every tent, and the park rangers are fine with that, all on the up and up with the rules... but I detect a bit of a wind, and feel the forest is too dry, and I will NOT build a fire, even though it's perfectly within the rules, because I'm paranoid about fires and I have seen what a spark carried by wind can do. Use your judgment, whether the rules permit something, or don't. Unfortunately, nobody can outsource their brain to a rule-making committee. You cannot abdicate responsibility by reference to rules - you may get away legally, but you won't ethically. Use your judgment - there is no shortcut.
 
As a lawyer, you must know, that there is no scenario where you are immune from being sued
Click to expand...
from personal experience I know this to be untrue. For example, I once wanted to civilly pursue the individual who killed my father, and was told that under the law of the state in which the killing happened, I had no standing to bring a suit. That whole 'anyone can sue anyone for anything anytime' thing sounds good (or bad, depending upon your point of view) but it just isn't so.
 
When you are on property without permission, you are forcing the property owner to assume the risk with you whether he wants to or not. That should be within anyone's definition of "unethical." Seriously, try to see beyond yourself here. You are deliberately impacting someone else.
 
I like to maintain a civil discourse, so I try not to personalize things or project - I am quite able to "see beyond myself"... note that I have not recommended that anyone do anything illegal or taken any position in fact, either for or against - which is more neutral than those who strongly advocate one side. I strongly believe in using your own judgment, that is all.

You are forcing the property owner to assume risk with you whether he wants to or not, by the simple virtue of living in society - if I pick a route to somewhere and with a friend walk past his property, on a public sidewalk, my friend falls, he can sue the property owner in many jurisdictions. See what just happened? You say "but you don't have to shoot a movie inside, it's your choice" - and I can say the same thing about walking past the property, you don't have to, it's your choice, you can always pick a different route. So where does that leave you ethically? We all assume risk by living in society and the ethics is in using your best judgment in undertaking that risk. If you are doing something that you know is not optimal, and you have not minimized the risk, but you just don't care - that's unethical. If on the other hand, you have used best care, that's ethical. It's not an issue of choice - you can "choose" to walk past a property or take a different route - both are can be ethical; you can choose to shoot without a permit, or not, and both can be ethical.

I had no standing to bring a suit

The issue of standing is complex (indeed there have been many district court rulings that have evolved the doctrine over time), but it doesn't mean you cannot sue that individual - you must just find the grounds on which you have standing. If for example, I sue on behalf of a random person in a random state, unless I can show how that case directly impacts me, it may be judged that I have no standing - but if I can find how that specific action had direct consequences for me, I can find grounds. My advice would be to consult a qualified attorney, both because these can be very complex cases, and also because the law is somewhat unsettled there (so things can change over time).
 
That's nothing more than rationalization. You are making a concious decision to put an owner at risk -- YOUR risk -- without consulting him on the matter. This isn't anything inadvertant. It's no force of nature. It's no mere happenstance. You are quite deliberately invading his property. Whatever random other thing which could possibly happen if you weren't there is beside the point. You ARE there, by choice. You are taking the risk and you're forcing him to share it without bothering to ask. This is not ethical, and nothing will make it ethical.
 
But you are not bringing in any new argument, nor have you addressed my counter-argument, but merely reasserted your position more forcefully.

You are making a conscious decision to put an owner at risk - YOUR risk - without consulting him on the matter. This isn't anything inadvertant. It's no force of nature. It's no mere happenstance.

And that's equally true when you make a conscious decision to walk past his property on a public sidewalk. There is no difference in this scenario from a risk point of view - and yet it is entirely legal. This is indisputable.

You are quite deliberately invading his property.

You do not have to invade or even be on his property for the risk to be present. As I pointed out, in many jurisdictions, you can sue the owner of a private property for what happens on the publicly accessible sidewalk (city property) in front of a private property. The owner is still absolutely vulnerable to lawsuits (indeed, every year, many owners across the nation pay a lot of compensation in such cases). If the question is: is invasion a condition of getting sued, the question is NO. It doesn't matter at all - you can get invaded and NOT get sued, and you can not be invaded and DO get sued. The risk is present either way.

Whatever random other thing which could possibly happen if you weren't there is beside the point.

Presence or absence is not controlling here. I can be present when my friend falls on the sidewalk in front of the building, or be absent, and the owner may get sued. You are not making any cogent point here.

You ARE there, by choice.

As you are on the sidewalk. By choice. You are not making any legal argument here.

You are taking the risk and you're forcing him to share it without bothering to ask.

Exactly the same as when you walk past his property. In either case, he is exposed to risk through my deliberate actions, even though I had a choice to walk an alternate route, or shoot in an alternate building. From a risk point of view, there is no difference - he can be sued either way.

This is not ethical, and nothing will make it ethical.

The ethical implications cannot be derived from principle here. There is no principle "all trespassing is unethical". What if I trespass in order to save a drowning child? Aha, you say, "exception!". Well, there you have it. You can't make a blanket statement - and sure, film making is not saving a drowning child, but it is to point out that merely saying "all trespassing is unethical" is completely wrong. Once we've established that trespassing - and breaking the law, and imposing risk on others (all of which happens in the child scenario I outlined) - is not automatically unethical, indeed can be the ethical thing to do, we are merely arguing which specific case has ethical implications. And I maintain that in the scenario I outlined, it is possible to ethically trespass and shoot without a permit - you'd have to argue the case on the particulars without resort to a controlling principle. And I can always construct a scenario where it is eminently ethical (what if I'm shooting a documentary expose that ends up saving lives?) to break trespassing laws.

Which is why I reassert: there are no blanket rules here, and you must and indeed have no choice but to, use your own judgment, depending on a very specific situation. I said this to the OP - it's a tricky question, because nobody here can give him an answer (note: I'm not saying "go right ahead!"!), since it depends on very particular information that only you are in possession of. Use your own judgment, because you have more information about the specific situation than anybody on this board. This is in opposition to the other position "don't do it". I say - YOU can only decide. Just be ethical about it.
 
Whatever, OldCorpse. If you can't or won't see the difference between "walking by on the sidewalk" and DELIBERATELY INVADING THE PROPERTY TO FILM, then there's no point in going on.
 
Whatever, OldCorpse. If you can't or won't see the difference between "walking by on the sidewalk" and DELIBERATELY INVADING THE PROPERTY TO FILM, then there's no point in going on.

C'mon, how can you say that? I always argue in good faith and try my best to contribute something of value. To then be given this treatment is very hurtful.

I am quite sure that you can see the legitimacy of my position, even if we disagree. After all, I just gave an example - but by no means is it all-encompassing! It can easily be adapted to very real and practical situations we all face as filmmakers.

Here: instead of "walking past", why not make it real? We're not talking about just walking past. What if a crew is shooting a film in front of the property, using a monopod - 100% legally, or not even a commercial production, or even more extreme, just tourists. If someone then slips and falls on that sidewalk, they could sue the owner. Absolutely realistic. So - and please tell me, in all honestly that I am wrong here - isn't the owner facing a risk of a lawsuit from filmmakers in either scenario, whether they picked to film in front of his property without permits, or picked to film inside his property with or without permits? I see lawsuits either way. I believe I am 100% correct in that assessment - if you wish to dispute this, I have a whole raft of stare decisis cases to cite where owners of buildings have been sued by plaintiffs injured on publicly accessible city property sidewalks in front of the property, and the courts have affirmed the right to hold the property owners liable. And if you want to make this even more outrageous - I could invade the property, get hurt and sue based "attractive nuisance", with the owner having nothing to do with it. And if needed, I have yet more legal precedents that could be used here. Point being, it makes little sense to reference risk as the only controlling factor. Filmmaking involves risk. I strongly urge people to assess the risks whether they are doing it by the book or not. Please tell me I'm right? What's wrong with my position?
 
I don't see your position either, OldCorpse.

Try this.... A film crew enters your home while you are away. The spend a day in it, shooting their film. Then they leave. They didn't break anything, didn't steal anything, didn't misuse anything. But they were in your home without your permission. You can tell they've been there by the fact that things aren't quite the way you left them.

Now, are you okay with that? If you are, then that's fine. But I would NOT be! I think a LOT of people would NOT be okay with someone coming into their homes that way. You certainly have the right to allow that on your property if you want to. But we also have the right to NOT allow it on OUR property. That being said, would you support the film crew entering our homes anyway, even knowing that we object strongly? If you do, then that is not only an unethical position, it's an immoral one as well.

Maybe you have a soft place in your heart for artists, so let's change the hypothetical. Would it be okay for ANY group of people to come into your house uninvited, without your knowledge, and spend the day there doing ANY thing?

The bottom line is -- I have the absolute RIGHT to privacy and security in and on my own property, and NOBODY has the right to violate MY property rights without due process of LAW. Period. End of story.
 
OldCorpse said:
Filmmaking involves risk.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry. No offense, but that is just an asinine statement. Filmmaking involves RISK??? Financial risk, maybe. Other risks may be incurred if there are stunts or pyrotechnics involved. But filmmaking itself certainly does NOT involve legal risks -- unless it's not being done honestly and professionally.

I strongly urge people to assess the risks whether they are doing it by the book or not. Please tell me I'm right? What's wrong with my position?
Click to expand...

We're not talking about 'by the book' -- we're talking about WITHIN THE LAW. In this case, the laws are there to protect the property and privacy rights of citizens.

Here's what's wrong with your position -- you are saying "If you're willing to take the risk, then nobody should fault you for breaking the law." Apply that exact same logic to murderers, rapists and violent criminals. "Hey, if you're willing to risk a long prison term or the death penalty, then I have no problem with you going out and murdering innocent people. It's your choice!" I realize it's an extreme comparison, but the foundation is the same -- you are CONDONING THE COMMISSION OF A CRIME. And for what? To get some footage on a video camera? PLEASE!

You seem to think the laws are stupid. The law that protects private property from trespass is stupid??? That's ridiculous!

To filmmakers at large -- if you don't like the laws, then work within the system for change. But don't expect to be applauded and made heroes by serious and professional filmmakers for spitting in the face of private citizens who are only trying to protect themselves and their property. I don't know about the rest of the filmmakers here, but I for one am not impressed. Stop acting like children. We don't need more children in this profession. We need GROWNUPS who know the difference between right and wrong and who respect the other people they share this world with.
 
OldCorpse said:
I had no standing to bring a suit

The issue of standing is complex (indeed there have been many district court rulings that have evolved the doctrine over time), but it doesn't mean you cannot sue that individual - you must just find the grounds on which you have standing. If for example, I sue on behalf of a random person in a random state, unless I can show how that case directly impacts me, it may be judged that I have no standing - but if I can find how that specific action had direct consequences for me, I can find grounds. My advice would be to consult a qualified attorney, both because these can be very complex cases, and also because the law is somewhat unsettled there (so things can change over time).
Click to expand...

In other words, if you have standing you have standing, and if you don't, you don't. If you can find grounds to argue that you do have it, you do have it. And if you can't find grounds to argue that you have it, you don't have it. I kind of figured that out for myself, at the time.

OldCorpse said:
To then be given this treatment is very hurtful.
Click to expand...

This is a padded cushiony room filled with lollipops and stuffed toys, compared to much of the internet. By now a lot of people on many other fora would have been gratuitously insulting your parentage, sexuality, intellect and country of origin. Please remember that text cannot convey inflection or emotion, so unless someone has lobbed an unambiguous insult at you, you're best off assuming the best of your interlocutors, rather than the worst. Plus, really, encountering disagreement in a web forum shouldn't rise to the level of hurtful. I'm quite confident that no one here is interested in hurting you, at all.
 
Try this.... A film crew enters your home while you are away. [blah, blah, a harrowing scenario involving a home invasion]

David, you little rascal, either you didn't read my posts, or you're building a very overgrown straw man. I already said in a previous post, that the ethics depend entirely on a specific situation and gave an example where I thought it would be wrong and unethical to use even someone's front yard when they are not there, without permission, never mind invading their house. So that's that. I spoke of very specific situations, each unique, which you have to explore. For example, there are many abandoned properties, which have a zombie legal status - in the bylaws of the property, it is declared that it can only be developed for a specific use (like, say, a department store, etc.), the company goes bankrupt, but by law the use bylaws stay on the books for a period of time (f.ex. 25 years)... this is especially common in Texas. Now the property is sitting there, and cannot be developed (except for the narrow use allowed), and it'll be a zombie for the next 25 years. Let's not be theoretical here. Let's say you had a location fall through on the day you arrived (happens frequently) and your only immediate option is the zombie property. You are not getting any permits, because there is nobody to ask - the original company is bankrupt and we're just waiting until the title reverts to the county. You can go ahead and shoot there without a permit (taking a risk), or you abandon shooting for a day or more until you locate another property with a permit. What are you going to do? I mean in real life? You decide to shoot without a permit, in order not to lose the day (you're on a super-tight budget!), and here your friend "David" is stuck wrapped around your leg, sobbing "but it's not legal!" - you can answer with full honesty "yes, David, but it's quite ethical, we're not hurting the non-existent owners and we can't get a permit from ghosts either - we're fully ethical." You know that the cops have not visited the location in year, so your risk assessment is: odds of legal trouble extremely low, David, here's a tissue, stop crying! But that's not the end - which is why I said "you must asses specific situations", because if that property is used by crackheads as a shooting/smoking gallery, I may not want to expose my crew to potentially dangerous interactions, so I PASS on the location, even if there's no danger from cops.

Filmmaking involves RISK???

Brace yourself, the answer is yes. Worse, every enterprise involves risk, including legal risk. You may have each and every permit and everything done by the book - people can still sue you, even if unfairly, and it'll cost you to defend. That's life. If you don't believe this, or can't accept it, I'm sorry, but go ask any legal department of any studio - they often get nuisance suits... there are no guarantees.

The rest of your post is complete strawmanning based on either not having read my posts, or not grasping them - I won't respond to these, because the responses are already contained in my previous posts:

You seem to think the laws are stupid. The law that protects private property from trespass is stupid??? That's ridiculous!

Here's what's wrong with your position -- you are saying "If you're willing to take the risk, then nobody should fault you for breaking the law." Apply that exact same logic to murderers, rapists and violent criminals. "Hey, if you're willing to risk a long prison term or the death penalty, then I have no problem with you going out and murdering innocent people. It's your choice!" I realize it's an extreme comparison, but the foundation is the same -- you are CONDONING THE COMMISSION OF A CRIME. And for what? To get some footage on a video camera? PLEASE!
 
In other words, if you have standing you have standing, and if you don't, you don't. If you can find grounds to argue that you do have it, you do have it. And if you can't find grounds to argue that you have it, you don't have it. I kind of figured that out for myself, at the time.

Having read your re-statement of my paragraph, I have reached the sad conclusion, that you are not a lawyer, Sad Max. No, I was not engaged in spouting tautologies. IANYL (I Am Not Your Lawyer), and this does not represent legal advice, but you are confused on the issues - you seem to believe that if your proposed suit was rejected because you lack standing, you therefore cannot sue that individual(s). You are wrong. All you do, if you have a competent lawyer, is find another ground to sue the very same individual and it's game on. Say - purely theoretical - that you are suing for wrongful death of your father, and you don't have standing, you may still sue for example, for contractual impairment - let us say that your father had a contract with you to invest in your company (support you financially, or whatever - this can be an oral agreement); now by killing your father, the perpetrator has impaired your contract. Look, let me put it to you this way: get a good lawyer - no offense meant to your previous lawyer - because a good lawyer can always find some grounds that will allow standing - they may not be the exact ones you wish, but you'll get to sue the individual, no doubt about that. Anyhow, I'm not your lawyer, but if you don't believe me, please consult with a qualified attorney and he'll explain your options to you. P.S. We probably should not spend much more time on this, as it represents a bit of a derail.

Plus, really, encountering disagreement in a web forum shouldn't rise to the level of hurtful. I'm quite confident that no one here is interested in hurting you, at all.

I think that upon examining my posts here, you would have to agree that I have been scrupulously polite. That is because I highly value the DVXuser community, and wish to conduct myself with the highest standards in mind. I am sincere in my posts. I strive to bring something to the table, in terms of providing another perspective. To me, I would not say the following to another poster: "Seriously, try to see beyond yourself here." I am not a self-centered selfish individual who is incapable of seeing outside of myself. Nor did I advocate unethical behavior - including "murdering innocent people" as another poster claimed, and it's pretty hurtful to see people cast such aspersions on me. But fine, I'll deal.
 
Have you considered the very real possibility that a property owner could stumble on you trespassing on their "abandoned" property and simply shoot you and your crew dead? Signed waivers might make you feel better, but they won't make you bulletproof.
 
Have you considered the very real possibility that a property owner could stumble on you trespassing on their "abandoned" property and simply shoot you and your crew dead? Signed waivers might make you feel better, but they won't make you bulletproof.


Have you considered that as you walk along a street, a crazed man might stab you in the neck, killing you? Life is risk. Filmmaking is risk. Everything is risk. You may have all the permits in the world, and crazy things can happen, regardless. You can get shot in that very building, by a crackhead who breaks in, even if you have a permit - bad encounters between film crews and random criminals do happen after all - and what good did the permit do you? The question is not how to avoid all risk - that's impossible. The question is which risks are sensible to take. The scenario you outlined is possible, but less likely than the scenario I outlined. There are tens of thousands of mentally ill people walking the streets - the number of people killed in such attacks dwarfs the number of people killed by property owners. People are really bad at assessing risk. We worry more about certain kinds of risks, which are less likely than the odds of being struck by lightening, yet we worry less about driving a car, which is vastly more dangerous than many of the paranoid scenarios outlined here. To focus and obsess over smaller odds, while ignoring bigger odds, is distorted thinking. I look at the odds of being shot dead by an owner of an abandoned building, and I look at the cost of postponing a shoot if I can't shoot inside of that building, and I make my choice - I face a bigger risk driving in my car to that location, than shooting inside it. The hassle and cost of getting a permit for that building far outweighs the tiny odds of getting shot by an owner of the abandoned building. I make my choice.

People are funny. Many consider permits, insurance and the like, to be like magical tokens - there is no rational risk assessment, it's all about psychology. The reality is that everything you do, including shooting a film, is along a risk continuum. If an insurance company offered to insure you against being attacked by a mentally ill person on the street, for 1 million dollars a month premium, I would guess you'd decline. You'd calculate the cost of the insurance against the risk - the risk, btw. is not zero, it happens regularly; but you reach the conclusion, that you are willing to take that risk, because the cost of insurance is too high. It is exactly the same thing with everything, including shooting a film. Should you get insurance? What is the cost? What is the opportunity cost to your film budget, if you have to fork over that sum of money for insurance versus it ending up on the screen. If the risk is unacceptably high, get the insurance, if not, don't - that's exactly what insurance companies do after all, they assess odds and risks and set the premiums accordingly. So it may, or may not pay to get insurance. It may or may not pay to get permits. Each situation is unique, and each should be analyzed rationally. Emphasis on rationally. And just because you get a permit doesn't mean you should shoot there - if I got a permit to shoot in an abandoned mine, but I reached the conclusion that it's too risky, I'm not going to shoot there, despite having a permit. A permit to me, is just another variable, and not in the least deciding. There is nothing magical about paperwork.
 
From a practical point of view, you need workers' compensation insurance to cover your crew. Mitch was perfectly right that a waiver has no legal effect. Then you need liability insurance to cover the property and any outsider that happens to get hurt. (Imagine a traffic accident because they saw the light of the fireworks and slammed on their brakes.)

Insurance has no effect if you are deliberately doing an illegal act. Trespass is an illegal act.

Get permission, get permits, get insurance of do it with CGI (which these days isn't that difficult.)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top