how do you approach shooting in neighborhoods?

wgzn

wgzn

Veteran
situation:

i'm shooting a video for a large houston-based real estate agency. the video is about a specific, fairly affluent neighborhood.
several of these areas in houston are their own independent "city within a city" this one, to my knowledge is not.

either way. i was just curious how you guys go about shooting in neighborhoods. specifically if you are focusing on one or a group of adjacent homes?

sometimes i'll have homeowners come out and question me. some are just curious. some are interested in video in general. but some are the busybody "do you have permission" types (and coincidentally, these guys are often in the house behind you and weren't even being shot)

so when you run into one of these guys, what's your general response?
 
Hey man, glad to see more folks in Houston out shooting!

I think the one angle that is good to use in a situation like this is just tell them you are making a promo video for the development to promote new home sales and boost property values. I think that is something any homeowner would like to hear. You might also want to print out a one page press release style statement that is mentioning the video, it's purpose, and that a crew will be shooting during X dates and put them in the mailboxes of the homes you will be shooting around.

It seems in Houston that most people are genuinely interested (rather than annoyed) when they see a crew out shooting.
 
while this is explicitly a promotional video for this particular realty company. i always tell people (as you'd suggested) that "it's an informational video about the quality and amenities of the neighborhood"

this particular guy this morning was unimpressed and said that "our neighborhood already has enough publicity. and i'd appreciate it if you guys wouldn't attract more attention"
 
wgzn said:
while this is explicitly a promotional video for this particular realty company. i always tell people (as you'd suggested) that "it's an informational video about the quality and amenities of the neighborhood"

this particular guy this morning was unimpressed and said that "our neighborhood already has enough publicity. and i'd appreciate it if you guys wouldn't attract more attention"
Click to expand...

If the realty company explicitly hired you to do this, then that's what you tell the annoyed neighbor. They can talk to the reality company, you're just doing your job.
 
Yeah exactly. The guy should know better not to shoot the messenger in the first place. Maybe have some realty companies cards with you in the future?
 
Whenever I'm shooting in public I always make sure I know the legalities.

When dealing with the public I try to be pleasant and courteous and engage people in a friendly manor but only to a certain point and if I am in my legal rights I will let them know that and continue working. If the person wants to make it their mission to ruin your shots there is not much you can do if they are doing it legally. Although I've only had it happen once (the person had a axe to grind with the network that hired me) but when I reminded him that his silly jumping into my shots would make an amazingly funny youtube video the guy realized I was recording him being an a hole and scuttled off.

Of course this is all in Toronto where I don't have to worry about the George Zimermans of the neighborhood and the fact we really don't have gated communities in Toronto which I find can bring out the entitlement of individuals.
 
I wonder if signage would help?

Maybe a sign at the street, both directions -- "Video Crew Working Ahead". Then a 2-sided sign where you're at, facing the houses on both sides of the road -- "Video Crew At Work". If those signs also had the realty company's name and logo, that might stop a lot of people from coming out and asking questions.
 
in a perfect world there would have been pre-production to handle this kind of thing. but im doing this semi-guerilla style on just a day-rate contract.

i generally have two rules for shooting in public:
1. be super friendly until that's no longer possible.
2. it's generally easier to get forgiveness than permission. so shoot first before they know you're there.

this guy today was just particularly snivelly. so after the obligatory politeness, i told him if he had a problem to take it up with my client. but i had a job to do. i finished my shot. got in my truck and drove a few blocks down for another shot. i saw him on his phone as a left. im sure he was tattling to somebody.
 
one thing to be aware of. is the term "expectation of privacy"

it's not so much a law but an owners "right". it's totally subjective. and what it means to one person it may not mean to another. but if a homeowner feels that you are invading their "private area" it's probably best to apologize and move to the next house.
 
That 'easier to get forgiveness than permission' attitude got 27-year-old camera assistant Sarah Jones killed and six other people injured. It got the movie's director, Randall Miller, 2 years in jail, 8 years probation and a $20,000 fine. The film's executive producer, Jay Sedrish, got 10 years of probation. Charges are still pending against another defendant, assistant director Hillary Schwartz.

They had been denied permission to film on the railroad tracks owned by CSX Transportation, but chose to see if they could get away with it. These are seasoned Hollywood professionals who should have known better.
 
David W. Richardson said:
That 'easier to get forgiveness than permission' attitude got 27-year-old camera assistant Sarah Jones killed and six other people injured. It got the movie's director, Randall Miller, 2 years in jail, 8 years probation and a $20,000 fine. The film's executive producer, Jay Sedrish, got 10 years of probation. Charges are still pending against another defendant, assistant director Hillary Schwartz.

They had been denied permission to film on the railroad tracks owned by CSX Transportation, but chose to see if they could get away with it. These are seasoned Hollywood professionals who should have known better.
Click to expand...

While this is all true, its a bit far stretched to compare the filming of some houses in a calm middle-class neighborhood with filming a movie scene with a crew without permission and proper safety arrangements on a live train track...
 
Spartacus said:
While this is all true, its a bit far stretched to compare the filming of some houses in a calm middle-class neighborhood with filming a movie scene with a crew without permission and proper safety arrangements on a live train track...
Click to expand...

Perhaps, although people can get hurt in calm middle-class neighborhoods too. Especially on 'guerrilla' shoots. My point is that there's a lot more involved than just 'permission vs. forgiveness'.
 
David W. Richardson said:
Perhaps, although people can get hurt in calm middle-class neighborhoods too. Especially on 'guerrilla' shoots. My point is that there's a lot more involved than just 'permission vs. forgiveness'.
Click to expand...

Hey, people can get hurt walking on the sidewalk, standing in a park or sleeping in their beds:

Lancaster Woman Killed in Her Bed When Suspected Drunk Driver Crashes Into Home

Life means risk. Asking permits is not going to remove it - had that woman gotten a special gold seal permit from the president to sleep in her bed, she'd still get killed. The only question is: how to minimize risk, and at what price. Maybe getting a permit makes the risk smaller, though not zero, as there are plenty of accidents with all the permits in order. So assess the risk - if the risk is small, go ahead, permit or no permit. If the risk is large, don't do it, permit or no permit. It also depends on the reward. Hence the risk/reward ratio. No blanket pronouncements, please. There are many film careers that would've never happened had people insisted on getting unrealistic permits - that's where "better to ask forgiveness" comes from. If the situation is inherently low risk (as the OP described shooting in the neighborhood), then asking for permission makes no sense along the risk/reward or price/return axis. If the risk is 2:1000,000 without a permit, and only half that risk 1:1000,000 with a permit, it still doesn't make sense to get the permit, because the original risk is so small. It may be very different when the inherent risk is already large - such as railroad tracks. It certainly is very different when people work with fire or explosives without a permit - there it is straight up insane, criminally insane.

For the OP's situation, when shooting with the law on your side (publicly visible structures etc. and nothing copyrighted in view), it often pays to send a quick email to the city in question, outlining the dates/times you are going to be shooting. It costs you nothing but a bit of time. When approached by a busybody and you have the law on your side, as in the scenario the OP describes, then still it makes sense to be polite - explain that you are doing commercial work and the city is aware of what you are doing. If s/he has complaints, they're welcome to bring them up with the city. Remain polite and don't escalate, then go back to work.
 
Luckilly in Houston you do not need permits to shoot with a tripod on the street anywhere, provided you are not blocking traffic.
 
whoaahhhhhh, folks. take a breath. this place is getting as bad as facebook ; )

let's keep things in context.

the reason i asked the question here. was that i assumed we all understood the situation. and it was a legwork vs pushback vs paycheck situation. there was never ANY more "risk" involved than you encounter simply leaving your home on any given day.

thanks for all the participation. but some of you people need a valium
 
Last edited:
wgzn said:
situation:

i'm shooting a video for a large houston-based real estate agency. the video is about a specific, fairly affluent neighborhood.
several of these areas in houston are their own independent "city within a city" this one, to my knowledge is not.

either way. i was just curious how you guys go about shooting in neighborhoods. specifically if you are focusing on one or a group of adjacent homes?

sometimes i'll have homeowners come out and question me. some are just curious. some are interested in video in general. but some are the busybody "do you have permission" types (and coincidentally, these guys are often in the house behind you and weren't even being shot)

so when you run into one of these guys, what's your general response?
Click to expand...

Much simpler in Australia I think. As long as I am not on private property, I can point my camera wherever I want. (keeping context here and not go into insurance and public liability). This means any footpath (sidewalk).

I was shooting in Sydney a few years back now. It was an off day, so I thought Id take my stills camera around and shoot some snaps. Walking past one of the older cinemas I noticed it had a "Japanese Film Festival" banner, which I thought my friends in Japan would enjoy seeing. Stood on the footpath took a shot. Moved to another spot to get a better angle and was met by an already annoyed security guard working for the cinema. He told me I was not allowed to take photos there. I calmly explained, Im just taking a photo of the banner to show friends back in Japan (friendly - not getting into legalities). He then repeated I wasn't allowed and added that I better F OFF or similar language. I then explained our law to him. At this point he became extremely angry and again threatened me. I smiled and took my photo, very hurried as I thought he may start to boil. He then asked me for my camera - I laughed and left.

The point is, even if allowed, some people don't get it and can become a little nuts and sometimes its just better to move to another spot to get on with the job and avoid the fuss.

The quick still I took.

J F F .jpg
 
OldCorpse said:
Hey, people can get hurt walking on the sidewalk, standing in a park or sleeping in their beds:

Lancaster Woman Killed in Her Bed When Suspected Drunk Driver Crashes Into Home

Life means risk. Asking permits is not going to remove it - had that woman gotten a special gold seal permit from the president to sleep in her bed, she'd still get killed. The only question is: how to minimize risk, and at what price. Maybe getting a permit makes the risk smaller, though not zero, as there are plenty of accidents with all the permits in order. So assess the risk - if the risk is small, go ahead, permit or no permit. If the risk is large, don't do it, permit or no permit. It also depends on the reward. Hence the risk/reward ratio. No blanket pronouncements, please. There are many film careers that would've never happened had people insisted on getting unrealistic permits - that's where "better to ask forgiveness" comes from. If the situation is inherently low risk (as the OP described shooting in the neighborhood), then asking for permission makes no sense along the risk/reward or price/return axis. If the risk is 2:1000,000 without a permit, and only half that risk 1:1000,000 with a permit, it still doesn't make sense to get the permit, because the original risk is so small. It may be very different when the inherent risk is already large - such as railroad tracks. It certainly is very different when people work with fire or explosives without a permit - there it is straight up insane, criminally insane.

For the OP's situation, when shooting with the law on your side (publicly visible structures etc. and nothing copyrighted in view), it often pays to send a quick email to the city in question, outlining the dates/times you are going to be shooting. It costs you nothing but a bit of time. When approached by a busybody and you have the law on your side, as in the scenario the OP describes, then still it makes sense to be polite - explain that you are doing commercial work and the city is aware of what you are doing. If s/he has complaints, they're welcome to bring them up with the city. Remain polite and don't escalate, then go back to work.
Click to expand...

It wasn't about permits -- it was about permission. The statement was that "it's easier to get forgiveness than permission." That's just an excuse for laziness and being unprofessional. Cite all the cases you want about people who supposedly 'made it big' by shooting without permits or permission. Those people have careers because they have talent, not because they break rules.

Yes, life is risk. But this is business. And having a flippant attitude about getting permission to be where you are and doing what you're doing can have tragic consequences. If you can't do it right, you shouldn't be doing it at all.
 
Last edited:
That's just an excuse for laziness and being unprofessional.
Click to expand...

no. it's not. it's not the least bit unprofessional. it's how many news shooters get the shots they need.
if we all waited for permission and clearance, NOTHING would ever get done.

there are situations where going through various channels is the way to go. but not always. it's just not realistic.

now get off your cry-baby, formality high horse.
and i won't even go into the fact that it was supposed to be kind of a joke in the first place.

you really, REALLY need to relax
 
wgzn said:
if we all waited for permission and clearance, NOTHING would ever get done.
Click to expand...

no no. you're gonna have to wait for a permission and clearance, including insurance. and that's for the community or City. Then it comes the legal part, like you said correctly : "expectation of privacy" (it's actually reasonable expectation of privacy by the way) and the rights of publicity . Both will apply.
Now you please think about this too : you (I mean you you) .sO YOU are in your house, right? and you are relaxed and everything, right? do I have to continue?

professionalism is key . Always.

and there is a reason why Google blurs all the faces and signs , don't you agree?

that said as long as you stay on public property you can shoot whatever you want and always remember that even if you get inside the house with a telephoto the matter will stay under your rights UNLESS YOU PUBLISH (because it's the diffusion of the material that constitute the infringement). And at that point will be the publisher's fault, not yours.

of course any COP can come up with his own interpretation and book you for disorderly conduct. but that's a completely different matter anyway.

What would i do? hmmm. Get to City Hall and get a permission, and then I'd ask each one of the owners with the permit on hands for an appointment and something in return (ANYTHING).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top