Ask For Forgiveness... Not For Permission?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Mitch Gross said:
I guess it's time for this thread to step back from the moral ponderings and legal statements and just note that the idea behind what the original poster wish to do is really, really stupid and foolhardy and should not be encouraged.
Click to expand...

Um... aren't you just continuing things with that insult to the poster? I'd imagine if one followed Mitch Gross around for 24 hours one would find he had done many 'Illegal' things... speeding, j-walking, etc. Laws are not solid, they bend. They're about structure, not concrete.

Maybe stop treating the thoughtful, original poster like such a dick.
 
Excuse me, but I don't think I'm being a dick at all and not particularly insulting. I did not call the original poster stupid, I said his idea was stupid. There is a huge difference.

I have had plenty of stupid ideas in my past (and yes, illegal ones as well), and thankfully on several of them someone has pointed it out before I acted upon them. We are all fallible creatures who have our moments of weakness, and the better men and women in us all should do the right thing and intercede to help those exhibiting poor judgement. The fact that the OP started this thread at all showed that he had serious concerns on whether he should commit the act, even though he appeared to feel confident he could "get away with it." And as responsible community members, the vast majority of those that responded immediately worked to play the angel on his shoulder rather than the devil. I hope he took it to heart.

But I guess if you wish to start your post by stating that I'm being insulting and then end it by calling me a dick, that's your right. I'll sleep pretty well tonight.
 
Cosimo Bullo said:
Um... aren't you just continuing things with that insult to the poster? I'd imagine if one followed Mitch Gross around for 24 hours one would find he had done many 'Illegal' things... speeding, j-walking, etc. Laws are not solid, they bend. They're about structure, not concrete.

Maybe stop treating the thoughtful, original poster like such a dick.
Click to expand...
Sorry, Cosimo. He is risking everyone with what he is planning on doing. There is no excuse or hand-holding here. And trying to soft-soap it or tapdance around the issue won't serve the OP well. Honest and straight talking will. He is risking people's lives. Plain and simple, and treating it like some little dialogue scene secretly recorded at a coffee shop, is not what is going on here. He is trespassing, using explosives without adequate training, no permit, no safety personnel. Are you saying that behavior should be encouraged? Frankly, IMO, anyone that supports this idea in the spirit of "indie film-making", shouldn't be responsible for anything other than a bounce-board.........and even then, I would have reservations.

That last question is posed to a few others in this thread too. Debates that we have heard so far don't address this issue and it disappoints me that people are not seeing the real issues here, but chose to take the discussion to such a lofty philosophical plane while ignoring the immediate issues. They were pretty plain to me, seeing how he openly talked about them.

Hey, someone wants an actor to do a 20 story fall with just a bedpillow at the bottom for their film. No stunt crew, no safety/medical personnel, no permits. "Thumbs up", "Do what you feel is right, because it's okay if you think it's okay". Wrong. Get real, people. Same with playing "Michael Bay" with pyro when you have no training or business doing so.

This is NOT the time to debate the philosophy of the world, the character's motivation, the size of the pillow, the color of the fireworks, what lens to use, whether or not it's a union shoot, or the color of the actor's hair. There is an immediate threat to safety and life. All other discussions are moot and pointless, and should be debated in another thread.

There is a reason fireworks are shipped with this symbol: dod_placard_expl_200_200.jpg Because ........THEY ARE EXPLOSIVES!!!!!!!!!!!


He needs to be told emphatically that what he is planning on doing is wrong and unsafe without pulling the punches. Y'all can go ahead an debate the trespassing liability issue regarding public easements/private property and whose responsibility it is.....some of us will take on the more critical, serious and pressing risk to safety posed by the OP.
 
Last edited:
Well, if you read my posts, I've been very clear that every situation needs to be evaluated on its merits, but for me personally the use of fireworks takes it out of my comfort zone. Not because of permits as such so much, but because I imagine that if anyone asks about permits, it means very low budget; and if you are talking about very low budget, then I am automatically very worried about explosives. In super low budget productions, you are frequently using less than experienced folks who are pressed into multiple duties. I just don't feel comfortable with the formula "explosives + inexperienced people". Nothing to do with permits. Even if I had permits, but I didn't have access to people who have specific experience with explosives, I would cancel that part of the shoot. I gave the example before, of camping fires - even when it is fully legal, and I see others have open fires in the forest with the full blessing of park rangers (in designated pits), I frequently pass on that because I'm uncomfortable with the wind level or dryness of the forest. In other words, I don't fetishize permits and paperwork - sure, it has its place, no doubt about it - but it is not the decisive factor for me in planning a super-low budget shoot; I try to evaluate risks holistically, where permits and the like are only one factor among many.

Again, I don't know the OP's specific situation - but given the facts as presented so far - I would pass on the fireworks part of it. Of course, more info always leads to more precise decisions, but that's where I must stand given this level of info. YMMV. That said, nobody's opinion - including mine - absolves the OP from using his own judgment.
 
But, once again, you hedge your comments. Could be a by-product of your profession? (BTW, no insult intended. Certain professions are trained to not be direct on questioning. Nature of their business.)

There is nothing emphatic about your statement. You give a lot of "if-than" statements, but nothing of substance as to where you really stand, in a way lay-people can understand. You have couched your statement in "legal-ese" quite well, so that someone is not 100% sure as to where you stand.

Remember, you are one of only a handful of law trained individuals here. And I would ask you again my earlier question about the hypothetical case. What would your advice/opinion be?

For ease, I will re-present the scenario:
What criminal or civil liability does your defendant incur, if he/she clearly and knowingly trespasses on property they do not have the right or ethical reasoning to, injures a person with explosives or causes serious property damage while engaging in an act that in every aspect of their explanation is illegal, and not permitted, by nature, spirit and definition of the law? And that person has acknowledged the plan to commit the criminal act prior to doing it, on a public forum (pre-meditated, and fruit of the vine, because any other liable action, as a result of and following the initial illegal act makes the defendant culpable for all resulting and following damages related to the initial act). The prosecution has the transcripts of this thread. What is your argument in defense? Are there mitigating circumstances?
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
You're asking about things which are incredibly complex, and impossible to answer without a great deal more detail. It depends upon the details of the case, upon jurisdiction, even upon specific jury and judge attributes as you craft a defense strategy. That's why, rather disappointingly, lawyers are leery about giving legal advice or opinions based upon fragmentary information on some website - instead, the advice is always "consult a qualified attorney"... this is not a cop-out or a way of drumming up business for each other, but rather because everything can change with just one detail, and if you tried to cover all the hypotheticals of even a seemingly clear-cut case, you'd be writing not a post, or an essay, or a small book, but a rather big volume. Which is why I always stress how everything depends on specifics in the OP's question. Based upon the scant info provided by the OP, I personally would not get involved with pyrotechnics, nor would I recommend that anyone in that situation do so. But are there mitigating factors a good defense attorney could bring in? Why, always. And remember what the ultimate issue is behind this discussion - risk mitigation. When you operate outside of the law, or in contravention to established rules, you are escalating risks. But people forget the other side of the coin - playing by the book doesn't eliminate risk, including legal risk, it does mitigate it, but a great deal less than people suppose; should legal action be brought against you, operating by the book is itself open to legal question, because the law is intentionally and also out of necessity dependent upon interpretative conditionals; for example, you are covered by insurance if you "exercise ordinary care" - but who defines what "ordinary care" is? Should you get sued, what is "ordinary care", my friend, will be determined in court, and when things go to trial, you are rolling the dice - what may be ordinary care in one venue may not be so in another, which is why lawyers frequently shop where they want to file. What happens most frequently, is that these things get settled long before it has a chance to go to trial - it is in everybody's interest, because a trial involves not only cost, but risk. You may elect to settle a case by paying money to someone even if you are quite certain that you are in the clear, legally speaking, because the cost of an ongoing case is prohibitive, because you are still taking a chance of something outlandish happening, because even if you win, and better yet, even if you get a judgment for attorney costs (wow, you really won the lottery!), you may not be able to collect from the losing party (they may, and frequently are, broke) and you're still stuck with huge costs and a judgment you can never collect on... sucks. So, you'd rather pay to settle for less than it would cost to defend - so how do you feel now? You were 100% right all along, and did everything by the book 100%, but you're still out a good chunk of change. See?

Plus, let me disabuse you of some misconceptions. People rant and rave about staying within the law - which is fine advice and good practice. But then you get the self-righteous buffoons who get all moralistic - and I just laugh, because while they claim to be always 100% within the law, when such a thing is really quite impossible. There are tens of thousands of laws and regulations. With the simplest actions, you are breaking several every day, and not knowing it (ignorance of the law is not going to get you off the hook) - a sufficiently motivated prosecutor can always nail you for something. So bend over and grab your ankles. Let me give you just this one piece of advice: don't arrogantly pronounce from on high about how other people ought to, or ought not to conduct themselves and how you are a paragon of virtue. Because you can be brought down with remarkable ease and you won't even know what hit you. Those who make absolutist statements mistake being lucky for being good. When you've been brought low, despite doing "all the right things", you start appreciating that you have not survived so far because you're such a holy gem, and that you were lucky, because there are plenty of people who did all the right things and got hit real bad - real bad. Makes you less arrogant and judgmental toward other people. So, I end, just as I started - use your own judgment, there is no substitute.
 
Doc Bernard said:
Ahhhh, someone else sees the additional wrinkle in the OP's question. This is not just about jumping a fence to shoot some video. This is about trespassing AND using explosives at the same time. I wonder if it's just me, Mike and David that are seeing the real question and concern here?
Click to expand...

And I want to add, now that I've re-read my comments, that it isn't intended to be some super macho chest thumping. I'm in Seattle, where it seems every serial killer in the past 50 years has lived at some point. There are some serious crazies out there, so if I see someone on my property with explosives and cameras, I have to be prepared for a worst case scenario... that these people want to burn my property down and record it for their weird kicks. I'm not going to shoot first and ask questions later... but the next guy might.

Everything in life is a risk... but some things are riskier than others, and the payoff isn't that great.

Forget the morality argument, there is just so much that can go wrong that taking the time to just ask permission seems like a wiser option.

Meanwhile, in another thread, Charli tells us how he got the rights to use the War of the Worlds broadcast in a film for free by just asking politely...
 
I'm mostly interested in hearing how the OP plans to incorporate fireworks into a music video in a new innovative way (Personally, I would rather squat naked over a lit roman candle than see another photo/video of hipsters cavorting around consumer grade smoke bombs and fireworks at night).
 
arroway said:
I'm mostly interested in hearing how the OP plans to incorporate fireworks into a music video in a new innovative way (Personally, I would rather squat naked over a lit roman candle than see another photo/video of hipsters cavorting around consumer grade smoke bombs and fireworks at night).
Click to expand...

Actual laugh out loud!
 
Doc Bernard said:
Sorry, Cosimo. He is risking everyone with what he is planning on doing. There is no excuse or hand-holding here. And trying to soft-soap it or tapdance around the issue won't serve the OP well. Honest and straight talking will. He is risking people's lives. Plain and simple, and treating it like some little dialogue scene secretly recorded at a coffee shop, is not what is going on here. He is trespassing, using explosives without adequate training, no permit, no safety personnel. Are you saying that behavior should be encouraged? Frankly, IMO, anyone that supports this idea in the spirit of "indie film-making", shouldn't be responsible for anything other than a bounce-board.........and even then, I would have reservations.

That last question is posed to a few others in this thread too. Debates that we have heard so far don't address this issue and it disappoints me that people are not seeing the real issues here, but chose to take the discussion to such a lofty philosophical plane while ignoring the immediate issues. They were pretty plain to me, seeing how he openly talked about them.

Hey, someone wants an actor to do a 20 story fall with just a bedpillow at the bottom for their film. No stunt crew, no safety/medical personnel, no permits. "Thumbs up", "Do what you feel is right, because it's okay if you think it's okay". Wrong. Get real, people. Same with playing "Michael Bay" with pyro when you have no training or business doing so.

This is NOT the time to debate the philosophy of the world, the character's motivation, the size of the pillow, the color of the fireworks, what lens to use, whether or not it's a union shoot, or the color of the actor's hair. There is an immediate threat to safety and life. All other discussions are moot and pointless, and should be debated in another thread.

There is a reason fireworks are shipped with this symbol: View attachment 43197 Because ........THEY ARE EXPLOSIVES!!!!!!!!!!!


He needs to be told emphatically that what he is planning on doing is wrong and unsafe without pulling the punches. Y'all can go ahead an debate the trespassing liability issue regarding public easements/private property and whose responsibility it is.....some of us will take on the more critical, serious and pressing risk to safety posed by the OP.
Click to expand...
+1 for all your posts in this thread Doc.
 
Let me tell you a little story about today and why it ALWAYS pays to seek proper permission and clearance when shooting...

...We had to shoot an industrial film in Nogales, Mexico today. Before traveling across the border we reached out to film liason in Sonora. They advanced all the required paper work for moving camera and crew in and out of Mexico. With all documents in hand we proceeded to the border where all our cars were detained because of all the gear.

Long story short because we had a contact in Mexico and the required paper work we breezed through what could have been an sticky situation. Ten minutes on the phone, in advance, saved us countless hours in Mexican customs.
 
Coming back to this thread a week later... this was a great response. Thanks OldCorpse. My update on the project will come momentarily.
 
OldCorpse said:
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!
Click to expand...
Meant to quote this. Awesome post OldCorpse.
 
OKAY. Wow. So I did not anticipate the conversation taking the many turns that it did (nor the many responses that it has). Was simply asking for help in my evaluation of risks.

First issue: I do have production insurance: equipment, general liability, and worker's comp. Some folks entertained this aspect, and I still don't see a clear answer. If you're breaking the law (shooting without a permit or lighting off fireworks without a permit), can you make claims if something goes wrong? I don't know the answer, and plan to call my insurance provider to discuss the matter.

Second issue: Guerilla filmmaking. There is a fine line between breaking rules for the sake of getting the shots you want, and being a reckless fool. I like to think I'm the former. In fact, by posting this thread in the first place, I'd hope that serves as some testament to my careful evaluation of taking risks. Not to mention, I own production insurance, which is a pretty expensive precaution to take.

A ton of people in this thread made assumptions about me and about this particular project. Aside from production insurance, we also had a pyro technician. We also ran extensive tests with the very fireworks we planned to use for the video. So what happened? Without having read this thread, we actually scouted a new location, in a more secluded rural area with a closed off road. Shooting in our original location, we determined the payoff for the risks we would take would not be worth it. So we found a better location. (lesson here: don't get fixated on one location, the world is a big place) We tested our fireworks at the new location. We measured the exact diameter (not just the suggested "safe distance") from which we needed to place the fireworks. We also built mortars for the fireworks that allowed even more control and safety (all projectiles pointed in set direction, all fountains had extra stability, etc.) We had a remote control ignition system, and fire extinguishers on set. And we were ready to shoot on Wednesday. Unfortunately, there was torrential downpour (or in the skeptical eyes of many of my responders, perhaps "a sign")... SO, the shoot has been postponed. We could have moved ahead and shot in the rain, but with the scaffolding we planned to put up, we determined it was unsafe and that the risks of danger were too great.

I will keep you updated, but at the moment, we are still planning on going ahead with the exact same creative concept, which calls for fireworks, etc. However, with the extra time that we will have (probably another month due to scheduling conflicts)... we are DEFINITELY going to pursue this the proper way— getting a permit for location and the use of fireworks, and working with the fire department to ensure everything is done safely and legally. I do want to say though, even though we are pursuing the "proper" way... it's not necessarily the "right" way. In the same spirit of what OldCorpse said earlier in this thread— if you don't have the means to do it with permits, etc., should you just give up? Absolutely not. Also it's not abnormal to see the kind of authoritative voices here on DVXuser that we see in this thread— but even after the fact, it was frustrating for me to see so many blind "no's" and personal attacks. Don't make so many assumptions when someone posts a question. Sure there is a good chance that if someone asks a question like I did, they do have no idea what they're doing— but you can't assume that. The conversation evolved into one that did little to help respond to the few questions I had. I mainly wanted to hear stories/experiences where people were in similar situations. While I don't think those questions can be answered definitively, I do think the conversation on guerilla filmmaking was valuable. As someone who has worked on both sides of these worlds— on big budget commercial projects and on no-budget music videos— I can see the costs and benefits of taking such risks in both environments. Coming from a no-budget background, I think it's not just about taking risks— it's about being creative. Not just being creative in the artistic sense, but also being creative in how you solve problems. If you don't think outside the box and, or, always play by the rules, you're never going to do something that hasn't been done before. Whether or not those risks are worth taking, at the potential risk of safety, money, or jail— isn't just up to the producers or director. It's the decision of the collective group of individuals who will agree to partake or not to. In this particular project, the band, the crew, and myself have a mutual agreement that what we're doing is safe, and the risks of lighting off some fireworks do not outweigh the value of the creative vision we are hoping to achieve. That's one assumption that I made and that I neglected to include in my original post— and it seems nobody, even those who encouraged me to forge ahead, recognized was that the 25 people involved in the project will need to reach a unanimous decision for the project to go ahead as planned. I'm not making the decisions for them.

Another point I'd like to make is about "worst case scenario"... it is wrong to assume that worst case scenario never happens. But worst case scenario on EVERY film set is substantial. Just putting up a light on a stand could have serious consequences. Lighting off fireworks is certainly increasing the chances of danger, but let's not forget that what we do is almost aways dangerous. There's such thing as taking educated risks, and if you are careful and smart in your planning, those are the risks that can set you apart.

Thanks for your responses.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top