Filming Permit

GenJerDan said:
I'm really really really trying to not go off on a tangent and rant about this kind of stuff.

I mean...who do they think they are?

If you walk down the street with an InstaMatic, anybody going to stop you? How about if you set up an easel and break out the watercolors? No?

But...OMG, look! A Movie camera! Let's arrest him!

Puh-lease. Unless you're going to be blocking traffic, what the business is it of theirs?

Dan
Click to expand...

Just got through shooting a scene in a state park. They were *very* stringent about permits and approval. Not hard to get, just had to jump through all the proper hoops.

They used to be a lot more free-wheeling, but not anymore. Seems that someone came there and did a still photo shoot with a model and a cat. No permit, no permission, no insurance, just showed up and shot. The cat scratched the model on her face. The model sued THE STATE, because it was a state park where it happened. She won.

Moral of the story is: film is a commercial enterprise, with inherent risks and hazards, and exposes the property owner (such as the local government) to risks. And if the state or property owner doesn't thoroughly show due diligence in exercising proper care to make sure that shooters are insured and perhaps policed, and that they're not placing the public (or themselves) in danger, etc., then if something goes wrong, the courts will find them liable. Believe it or not, agree with it or not, that's the way it is and that's what you have to work around.

Having proper insurance goes a LONG WAY towards alleviating everyone's concerns.
 
Barry_Green said:
The model sued THE STATE, because it was a state park where it happened. She won.
Click to expand...

How can some model afford better lawyers than the State? That's ridiculous.

What State? Everyone should go there and screw in the parks, and get the State to come up with the money to raise our kids.

If we let brainless people run our lives, we might as well be brainless ourselves.

Dan
 
Barry's right, it's basically ALL about LIABILITY.

The reason no one lets you shoot anywhere is because if ANYTHING happens--they are liable for any potential property and personal injury damages. I've been stealing locations without a permit or insurance for 20 years. I also make friends with lots of businesses whenever I get the opportunity (with the later intention of hitting them up for location access). I also keep an eye out for "lonely" streets and locations that look like "nobody cares." If an area looks like no body cares, often no one does, even the LAPD. I've shot on the streets of downtown Los Angeles with no permits, no insurance, and the cops just drove right by (of course, I only had a single KinoFlo and a small camera). Here are some other things I've learned . . .

1. You are often totally allowed to shoot in many public areas WITHOUT A TRIPOD. This means handheld and Steadicam shots are permissible.

2. Again, if the area looks like no one cares, often, no one does.

3. Be prepared, shoot efficiently, and shoot your "must have" stuff first.

4. Always have a, "Gee, I'm just making this little demo for my reel, sorry . . ." kinda attitude, rather than, "I have a RIGHT to shoot!" kinda attitude. Many times, if you're cool, the cops will let you even finish the shot before they chase you away. Or if your set-up doesn't look that complicated, and you're not disrupting either pedestrian or vehicular traffic, they might even just give you a pass.

Of course, this all applies to shooting on/from public property only. When shooting on private property, you must get the permission of either the owner or the local management. Don't try to get clearance from the corporate office--you probably won't get it (and if you don't have a million-dollar insurance certificate, you definitely WON'T get permission from corporate). Just don't shoot any identifying features or logos.
 
<If you walk down the street with an InstaMatic, anybody going to stop you? How about if you <set up an easel and break out the watercolors? No?


And that is the difference. Odds are good that if you set up that easel or take that picture with the instamatic, you are not going to be standing in the middle of the road like an idiot. Yea but it's 4am you say, who cares? That's the time when more drunk drivers are on the road than any other time of day. The problem here isn't beaurocracy, but insurance. Blame it on the tort system we have in the US that allows you to sue for buying a hot cup of cofffee only to sue when you spill it on yourself. No town is going to let you say you want to do anything in the middle of traffic cause it's their insurance policy that covers you, and our legal system that scares everyone. And in fact, if something did happen to you or you were involved with something, you could turn around and sue them too. I'm with the town on this one. As a taxpayer in the town, I would not want liability to become an issue that could drive our town into bankrupcy. I know, odds are slim to none that something will happen, but as long as there is a possibility, then you either show us a policy that covers you and us or forget it. If you are not going to get permission, then go back and lie and say it's on the curb or just do it.
 
Walter_Graff Odds are good that if you set up that easel or take that picture with the instamatic said:
My Ma taught me not to play in traffic, anyway.

If you're going to be blocking traffic/closing streets, sure you'd need a permit. That's just common sense.

But if someone tries to stop me from filming in my own front yard, they'd better remember that little thing called the 2nd Amendment to Constitution.

Dan
Click to expand...
 
We used to have a forth amendment in NYC, then the police decided it was okay to search peoples bag at random and the idiots that live here let them. Only this week did five people finally take the city to court.
 
Steal the shot!!! I'm about to do it for my zombie movie. If I have to tap into the DVXUser bail funds, I'll let you know...
 
thats a hard thing to do when I want the sequence to be at its best, good coverage, good audio, best possible acting, best possible shot setup, all come with their time constraints and setup space. This is a sequence that is not one for the guerilla filmaking technique, unless the scene were completely changed around -which I guess in order to use the location, you gotta make the adjustments, i guess i like to think that the next film, or the film after will be absent of sacrafices, but then I realize that sacraficing is inevitable.
 
gorrila tactics for certain, and maybe instead of starting at 4am maybe try a little earlier if you shoot is going to take long, maybe you could manipulate the lighting to make it look like the desired time you want it to be.
 
Assumption: this involves a vehicle or vehicles, and not just people in the road. If it doesn't, ignore the rest of this.

Cheat.

Do the long shots guerilla. You're in and out in no time, and no one notices. The audience sees the location.

Then, for all the close and two-shots and whathaveyou, do it somewhere else where the background is similar enough to not jar.

Dan
 
thats what I had figured, since the whole film got postponed anyway, I figure I have a little more time to make minor adjustments in storyboarding, and shot layout. I have been reorganizing the shot list, and figuring what shots I need the location for and which shots I cn cheat, I have also tossed alot of specific shots, it brought a tear to my eye, but it had to be done, no remorse for the weak i guess
 
I'm planning on shooting a scene where a woman is walking on a sidewalk passing many popular boutiques like Gucci, Louis Vuitton, Calvin Klein, Banana Republic. ..and so on. Now, i've read in some filmmaking books that as long as the main focus is not these stores, you're okay not to get permission from them. Is this true if I'm going to distribute the film theatrically? If it's only a demo reel then i would just steal it...but this case has a commercial aspect to it.
I only have a DVX100a and a flowpod to use and an assistant to hold diffusers or reflectors and also about 15 extras. It's a busy area so i'm planning to shoot it on a Sunday morning so we don't get in the way of a lot of people. Do I also need a city permit? what about passersby who got in the shot? do I need release form from them?
 
Good question, bLueButterfLy. I think you're okay, but I hope someone else has a more definitive answer.

Cheers,

Josh
 
I've yet to see anyone able to quote the actual law on the matter.

Everything I've found on copyright and trademark law seems to say don't worry about it.

All those blurred or turned-around products you see on TV and such? It's because the manufacturers wouldn't pay the producers. Also, especially in TV, it's not a good idea to show a product name if you don't know who your sponsors will be. Why would Coke want to sponsor a program that shows a six-pack of Pepsi in the fridge. :)

Dan
 
"I've yet to see anyone able to quote the actual law on the matter."

Probably because there is no law. If you display your store in public and I shoot that store in the background, I owe you nothing. If I show someone masturbating on your store window, that might not make them happy. It's about what you are doing. Is the store just the store? No one cares. Are you making a derogatory statement about the store? They might.


"All those blurred or turned-around products you see on TV and such? It's because the manufacturers wouldn't pay the producers."

Actually it's because the producers don't even want to make it an issue. It's more we are not giving them free advertising rather than we asked them for money and they said no.
 
That isn't all there is to it. If you show an art gallery, and there are copyrighted paintings on display, and you show them in your film without the authorization to reproduce those paintings, then you're potentially asking for trouble. Now consider that the Coke can design is copyrighted with the same level of copyright as the painting is, and you can see how trouble can arise if you have a shot with a coke can in it, if Coke decides it doesn't want its product in your shot.

This is perhaps more of an issue when shooting on private property, as the law gives certain allowance to being able to film anything that's visible from a public street, especially for news shooters. Which may or may not give you some exemption on shooting things that are displayed in a store window. I'm not a lawyer. But anyone concerned about this should definitely be seeking competent legal advice.
 
>That isn't all there is to it. If you show an art gallery, and there are copyrighted paintings on display, and you show them in your film without the authorization to reproduce those paintings, then you're potentially asking for trouble. Now consider that the Coke can design is copyrighted with the same level of copyright as the painting is, and you can see how trouble can arise if you have a shot with a coke can in it, if Coke decides it doesn't want its product in your shot.>

Ok I'll make it easy. A store has a public display on a street and you shoot that store as someone walks up the street. No problem. You have someone looking in that store window (window shopping), no problem. Someone bashing that stores prices as they look in the window, might have a problem. You are in a gallery (private location and you shoot someone admiring art, no problem. In a gallery and someone spiting on a painting cause they think it looks like ****, problem. It's about how you treat what you shoot. Like it and you have no problem, make them look bad and they might not like you. And just a correction, a Coke can is a trademark and not a copyright. Only authorship is copyrighted. Books and literature are copyrighted but products are not, they are trademarked. Many folks are confused about this.

This may help those that get the terms confused:

http://www.nolo.com/article.cfm/Obj...32879-DC34-43DF-BF65FC92D55FEE5D/310/274/FAQ/

And with that Coke can show someone drinking a coke and you have no problem. Show someone pissing in a coke can and you might.
 
But that's not defensible as to the law. The law says that if you want to use a protected work, you have to have permission.

What you're laying out is reasonable common sense, but not the law. And it may avoid problems, but it may not.

If you decided to show a carton of Ben & Jerry's ice cream, and people just LOOOOVING Ben & Jerry's ice cream, and fawning over how good it is -- but the people who are doing so happen to be Republicans -- well, Ben & Jerry might say "hey, no way, pull that outta there." Or, you may be showing it perfectly innocently -- but you happen to be Michael Moore. They'd almost unquestionably pull their product from your film, as I'm certain Ben & Jerry's would be about as anti-Michael-Moore as anybody gets. Whether you're showing the product in a good light or not, they may decide to act out against it simply because they don't like the film or the message or whatever -- and if you don't have permission, you don't have a leg or a foot or a toe to stand on.

You can't decide for someone else as to whether they'll have a problem with you using their material. You don't know what their priorities are. And you can't predict when someone may object to your usage, although you can apply common sense to the subject and at least avoid obviously derogatory uses.

So here's what the law IS: you can't use someone else's protected work (copyrighted, trademarked, patented, etc) without their permission. And yes, that does extend to having a painting on a wall in the background. Now, where that absolute law transcends into gray area is where all the confusion comes in -- how briefly was the item seen, how clearly was it displayed, would a reasonable person think you were trying to benefit somehow by showing the work (i.e., you're gaining benefit by taking advantage of their copyrighted material without permission and without compensation)...

The only true way you can "make it easy" is to be a news shooter. For news, pretty much all bets are off. News gets to do what they need to do to get the story, and if there happens to be a coke can in the shot, well, too bad. But for a for-profit dramatic production, it isn't that easy, and never will be.

Only a lawyer can answer the question, and that lawyer would have to see the usage in context to determine whether it constitutes infringement or not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top