Filming Permit

NBCshooter said:
When shooting on private property, you must get the permission of either the owner or the local management.
Click to expand...
Well, I've just learned a few things about permits . . . For the city of Burbank, and the city of Los Angeles, permits ARE required EVEN when shooting entirely on private property. This is the reason my whole zombie short is now shut down. I HAD permission from the location's owner. But the city wanted a $300 permit fee plus $80/hour for a fire marshall, and I would've had to present a $1 million certificate of insurance which would've cost about $800 for two days.

Sure, I could still go ahead and shoot and hope I don't get caught. But I have six actors in full make-up and wardobe and a lot of blood spilling everywhere. If caught, I would be cited and the owner would be cited--probably close to $1,000 total in fines.
 
NBCShooter, is production insurance really that expensive near you? Is it just because you're in LA? I've heard much lower quotes than $800 for much longer than 2 days out here on the east coast.
 
Kevin McCallister said:
NBCShooter, is production insurance really that expensive near you? Is it just because you're in LA? I've heard much lower quotes than $800 for much longer than 2 days out here on the east coast.
Click to expand...
I was initially told "about $1,000" for two weeks' coverage. I just got a quote by e-mail for about $750 (about $600 for the actual coverage and a $150 broker fee). Which is silly, since a full year's worth of production insurance ($1 million, liability only) is as low as about $2,500.
 
One other thing you may need to keep in mind (and check on) is that many stores have their names/logos trademarked like Gucci, Louis Vuitton, Calvin Klein, Sacs 5th, so there could be a sticky whicket even showing the names without permission. If at all possible, I always get location permission in order to CMA.
 
Short term liability insurance is always seriously higher than yearly, most small shooters don't want a full year, so the insutance brokers can gouge. $600 -$800 sounds like the going rate.

Welcome to LA.
 
Barry_Green said:
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.
Click to expand...

Doubtful. Very.

That would mean you can't make any film. Except maybe pornos set in the desert or ocean.

Those patterns on the upholstery, the rugs, and the wallpaper? Copyrighted. Those shirts, pants, sneakers that have logos on them? Trademarked. The t-shirt that says "I'm with stupid ->"? Copyrighted. All those cars in the street? Brand and model names and designs trademared and.or copyrighted. Etc etc etc.

Dan
 
Well let me tell you how it's done in the real feature world. Public relations firms who represent all sorts of companies get the hollywood scripts that are approved for production. They read them and find places where their clients products can be added to the movie. So for instance last year a movie script had a setting that was on a vacation resort. A PR firm that represents another destination saw the script and offered the change in venue. In another case one firm offered an idea that would change the script so that the character liked that companies clients donuts. But that's the real world and how it all works. For anyone on this board, I am just saving you the trouble. You don't have the lawyers or budget to go calling every company you want show in you film and negotiate barter. Odds are good that no one here will have anything that will ever get distribution of any kind so I am giving you the route we use in broadcasting, if you show a product, don't show it in a bad way and you are safe. If you are not sure, turn the Coke can so we don't see the name. Simple.
 
I should add for those that ask that even on the big level of product placement, products don't always have to be put in a great light to be paid for to be placed in a popular TV show or movie. Seinfeld had a famous episode where Kramer drops a Junior mint into a patient during an operation. It wasn't as simple as writting a script using a piece of candy. While it wasn't the greatest use of a junior mint, it was a great paid for use of product placement. So the junior mint people paid a large sum to have that episode written around a Junior mint, even if it wasn't shown in the best of light. Today there is not a Tv show or major feature film you see where a product isn't paid to be placed in the film. When the movie "The Firm" had Red Stripe placed in the films plot, sales of Red Stripe increased 50%. So expect to see lots more of tis and less commercials as now they can simply place all the products they sell in your favorite TV shows.

Now Barry about your statement about law and all, it doesn't work that way in creative works like films and TV. Most times companies ask permission, but not always. And sometimes when they don't, the companies they don't ask would not have given permission, but because of the nature of making a creative work like a film or TV show, they really have no recourse or care to make the effort. It's sort of like how celebrities don't have as many rights when it comes to publicity. I remember an article in one of the newspapers a while back about how the Sopranos used a can of Raid in a scene of a rather violent beating. But they never asked the makers of Raid permission to do so. And while the makers of Raid were not happy with the use of the product, there was nothing worth doing to stop the show after it was shown. Or said another way, who's to say that a character like Tony Soprano doesn't use products like Raid? While the company didn't like the content for the use of Raid, it also new that many millions of people watch the program so it was advertising for their product and any advertising is good advertising. I wouldn't doubt sales of Raid went up after that episode.
 
Yeah. I don't recommend reading the copyright law. It's a 290+ pages of incredibly boring text. And nowhere does it mention what we're all talking about.

The closest it comes is in the section on "designs"...in which is says it's not an infringement to show stuff in a film as long as you are not taking any business away from the copyright owner. (But this section deals with things like the design of a boat hull, not a a painting on a wall or a store name.)

:)

Dan
 
Anyone know how much filming permits are? for instance maybe out side of LA, since LA I imagine must be expensive.
 
Yeah, they can be cheaper to shoot in other states (just wrapped a feature film in Oklahoma) but the resources in terms of talent, crew and equipment are much more sparse. Some of the cites surrounding Los Angeles are not too bad to work with, others can be a real pain in the ass.
 
khmuse said:
Yeah, they can be cheaper to shoot in other states (just wrapped a feature film in Oklahoma) but the resources in terms of talent, crew and equipment are much more sparse. Some of the cites surrounding Los Angeles are not too bad to work with, others can be a real pain in the ass.
Click to expand...


How much was a permit in oklahoma?
 
I don't know the exact costs for permits in Oklahoma (I wasn't the producer) but I believe that they were under a few hundred dollars for a month long shoot. Even the police costs were low (many volunteered just for a chance to work on a movie). The down side was the necessity to bring in the main talent from LA (good for my daughter who had the title role) though they did cast all the supporting and background roles there. All the department leads (DP, Key Grip, Gaffer, Sound, Design, etc) were from LA, other crew members were locals.

It really depends upon your project if you are better off shooting within "the zone" or not, just weight all your options well in advance.
 
khmuse said:
I don't know the exact costs for permits in Oklahoma (I wasn't the producer) but I believe that they were under a few hundred dollars for a month long shoot. Even the police costs were low (many volunteered just for a chance to work on a movie). The down side was the necessity to bring in the main talent from LA (good for my daughter who had the title role) though they did cast all the supporting and background roles there. All the department leads (DP, Key Grip, Gaffer, Sound, Design, etc) were from LA, other crew members were locals.

It really depends upon your project if you are better off shooting within "the zone" or not, just weight all your options well in advance.
Click to expand...


Thanks for the response.
 
Today, I went down to the actual location i wanted to shoot and took this photo. This is how i actually wanted to frame the shot with the actress in front of everyone else (medium shot...she's invisible at this time). As you can see, Gucci is clearly visible in the frame, then a little bit of 'Bang & Olufsen', then Starbucks, then Nike (subtle orange logo in the background). Actress will be walking towards the camera as camera pulls back revealing other stores beside Gucci. My question is...do I only need a city permit to shoot in the sidewalk? or do I also need permission from these stores? again...i'm only shooting with the not so intimidating DVX100a camera (as suppose to a 35mm) with maybe 3 crew. I'm thinking 'guerilla style'. What do you think would be my maximum penalty if i just steal the shot?:lipsrseal
location%20street.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top