LA desert locations without permits?

[Neutral]

No idea if this is in the right section or not but I couldn't find any where it seemed right.

Anyway,
I'm trying to prep a music video that has been a nightmare so far mainly due to timing and budget constraints (when is there not ><).
I need to shoot a performance with 4 musicians in a big wide open epic desert setting. I don't have it in the budget to get permits. So I was wondering if anyone knows of any good locations you can get away shooting within LA area.

I'm not from there but I've shot a few times at the El Mirage dry lake bed with no issues. I do have some friends that have warned me about getting shut down and fined though.
I've heard good things about Death Valley too.

Considering it'll be a very minimal small set up, I'm hoping we'll get away with being unseen. 8-10 hour shoot, 4 musicians, drum kit, 2 amps, 1 director, 1 DP, generator, PA for playback and 1-2 vehicles. Nothing crazy obviously. Super small project.

I'm sure there are people on here from LA that know all about these desert locations so I thought why not ask here and get some advice.

Thanks ahead to anyone that can offer any help!

 

[Ken Hull]

Getting a permit would be the safe way to go:
https://www.nps.gov/deva/learn/management/filming-and-photography.htm

:engel017:

 

[Greg_E]

Are they really that expensive out there? Last time I checked on permits for a doc I was thinking about in the Adirondacks here, the prices weren't too bad if you were able to convince the parks service that you wouldn't get in the way of tourists, and wouldn't need one of their staff to go with you. Even if I did need staff and wanted to interview that staff person, the rates were in the couple hundred per day range which I thought was pretty cheap.

 

[j1clark@ucsd.edu]

Are they really that expensive out there? Last time I checked on permits for a doc I was thinking about in the Adirondacks here, the prices weren't too bad if you were able to convince the parks service that you wouldn't get in the way of tourists, and wouldn't need one of their staff to go with you. Even if I did need staff and wanted to interview that staff person, the rates were in the couple hundred per day range which I thought was pretty cheap.

If one wants to be legal, then one pays the fees. The URL listed was for Death Valley, which is a National Park, and administered by the National Park Service, a Federal agency.

The deserts in California are managed by a combination of agencies, Federal would be Bureau of Land Management(BLM), National Park Service, or various military entities which cover such places as Edwards Airforce base, Fort Irwin, California various services, etc. and private ownership. The NPS has a $210 'fee' for permits, and there may be additional fees required... The BLM apparently has rental and fees required... rental seems to be $250 per day for a crew of 1-30, for example.

All agencies require that insurance be purchased which names the governmental entity as covered by the policy. This usually is an additional 'fee' that is paid to the insurer.

In the desert there may be ranch ownership or mining ownership. And with a bit of research perhaps someone can find out who owns what and find a owner that is inclined to permit filming on their property. Film permits may still apply(in LA county any filming for commercial use requires a permit, whether on public or private land), but other fees would be up to the owner.

Oh, yeah, then there's Indian lands, which may have their own permitting process...

 

[OldCorpse]

Interesting all around. A guy asks a question as to the practicalities of shooting without permits, and the answer is "get a permit". Not exactly addressing the question. There are many possible answers - for example, it may simply be impossible or highly impractical to shoot without a permit at those locations for reasons x, y, and z... and that would be a valid answer. But no - instead the "answer" is 'get a permit', lol!

Whenever questions like this pop up on dvxuser, there are two camps. Those who insist that everything be done by the book and those who think that the ends justify the means by any means possible (within reason - and everyone's reason is different!). Just a different outlook. For some, money is the answer to everything - just pay for the permits, pay for insurance, pay for a through z and back again. It's only money! Don't have money? Then don't shoot - the very fact that you can't raise money means you are incompetent and unworthy of being a filmmaker, by definition as one of the most fundamental requirements of being a filmmaker is the ability to raise money. Can't do it - sorry, you won't make a film, end of story. Others take a different view, pointing to history and all those scrappy guys who launched careers by any means necessary (a variation of the old "behind every great fortune there is a great crime"). Who is right? The reality is that everyone must make a decision for themselves, with no input from one of the camps - after all, you can't advise anyone to do anything illegal or potentially breaking any law or regulation. And that ends the discussion - the only answer to the OP's question that sticks to the rules is to give reasons for why shooting without permits is not a good idea. Whether the OP finds those reasons convincing or not is really up to him/her.

 

[robmneilson]

We shot guerilla style for a scene in a microbudget feature on the salt flats in Utah, and we were not hassled. Since you're shooting in a national park, security may be a bit tighter if there's a ranger patrol in the area you're shooting. Since you do have a bit of gear to setup in terms of the bands stuff, you might want to do the math and see what's more expensive....getting shut down halfway through your shoot and necessitating another day of work, or paying for the permit.

You can always use the old "we're film students and didn't know we needed a permit excuse", which may keep you out of trouble, but likely won't allow you to continue shooting if hassled.

 

[j1clark@ucsd.edu]

Interesting all around. A guy asks a question as to the practicalities of shooting without permits, and the answer is "get a permit". Not exactly addressing the question. There are many possible answers - for example, it may simply be impossible or highly impractical to shoot without a permit at those locations for reasons x, y, and z... and that would be a valid answer. But no - instead the "answer" is 'get a permit', lol!

Well... yeah... I've shot in a number of places in the desert, stills, Heck I've hiked half way up mount Whitney with a 4x5... no ranger asked about a permit... of course that was in the olden days...

The Wife has done shoots in the desert... stills... so for the Wife's projects, our 'crew' was us and the models...

So, yeah, I think for a crew size of 5 or so people with little or no 'big film' equipment, it's possible...

By the same token I have been accosted by a ranger when I was using a 4x5 in a more frequented park... because clearly no 'amateur snap shooter' is going to be packing such equipment.

California deserts have several dangers, aside from shooting 'commercial' whatever with out a permit...

1) hot... even in early spring to late fall( March to November for Death Valley)... and even then... one has 90-100+ temperatures, and one can easily succumb to heat related conditions. Water and some form of 'ion' drink are strongly suggested in my opinion. And at least one car that has a near full tank of gas...
2) some areas are former bombing ranges... some are currently active... So even if one does not encounter some unexploded ordinance, one may be arrested or cited by the local sheriff or other law enforcement entity.
3) proof of citizenship, at least a driver's license or official government ID. Because of the current situation with illegal immigration, there are more Border Patrol check points and more CBP presence than in the olden days. So I'd suggest everyone have their documents in order. While I've not seen CBP people out north of say I-40... to the south... especially south of California Highway 78 (Sand dunes area) and around El Centro and I-80 corridor to Yuma are more patrolled.

 

[David W. Richardson]

Interesting all around. A guy asks a question as to the practicalities of shooting without permits, and the answer is "get a permit". Not exactly addressing the question. There are many possible answers - for example, it may simply be impossible or highly impractical to shoot without a permit at those locations for reasons x, y, and z... and that would be a valid answer. But no - instead the "answer" is 'get a permit', lol!

Whenever questions like this pop up on dvxuser, there are two camps. Those who insist that everything be done by the book and those who think that the ends justify the means by any means possible (within reason - and everyone's reason is different!). Just a different outlook. For some, money is the answer to everything - just pay for the permits, pay for insurance, pay for a through z and back again. It's only money! Don't have money? Then don't shoot - the very fact that you can't raise money means you are incompetent and unworthy of being a filmmaker, by definition as one of the most fundamental requirements of being a filmmaker is the ability to raise money. Can't do it - sorry, you won't make a film, end of story. Others take a different view, pointing to history and all those scrappy guys who launched careers by any means necessary (a variation of the old "behind every great fortune there is a great crime"). Who is right? The reality is that everyone must make a decision for themselves, with no input from one of the camps - after all, you can't advise anyone to do anything illegal or potentially breaking any law or regulation. And that ends the discussion - the only answer to the OP's question that sticks to the rules is to give reasons for why shooting without permits is not a good idea. Whether the OP finds those reasons convincing or not is really up to him/her.

It's not "by the book" -- it's by the LAW.

What happens if one of your cast or crew gets injured or, God forbid, dies? Even if you have insurance, it's not likely to pay if you were shooting in a place you had no right to be. Then what?

That whole "by any means necessary" thing is what got Sarah Jones KILLED. A director who believed "it's easier to get forgiveness than permission" and just couldn't be BOTHERED to do it right, and one of his crew paid the ultimate price for it. Of course, the director paid too -- with 2 years in prison, 8 years probation and a $20,000 fine, but do you think that really makes it worth it? None of that brings Sarah Jones back.

If you shoot in places where you don't have permission, you take huge risks and you force your cast and crew to take huge risks as well. It is NOT professional.

 

[David W. Richardson]

We shot guerilla style for a scene in a microbudget feature on the salt flats in Utah, and we were not hassled. Since you're shooting in a national park, security may be a bit tighter if there's a ranger patrol in the area you're shooting. Since you do have a bit of gear to setup in terms of the bands stuff, you might want to do the math and see what's more expensive....getting shut down halfway through your shoot and necessitating another day of work, or paying for the permit.

You can always use the old "we're film students and didn't know we needed a permit excuse", which may keep you out of trouble, but likely won't allow you to continue shooting if hassled.

"Guerilla style" is a term cooked up to make breaking the law, breaking the rules, and taking terrible risks with your cast and crew somehow sound "cool".

If I was on a shoot and they got shut down because they didn't have permission to be at the location, I would walk off that project then and there. It shows they are unprofessional, don't care about the rights of others (like property or land owners), and are not appropriately concerned about the safety and well-being of their cast and crew.

Do you want a film crew coming into your home or onto your property uninvited, when you're not there? If one of them gets hurt or killed while there, are you going to feel that your insurance should pay for it? If they make a mess, maybe even cause damage, while they're there, are you going to be okay with that? If not, then what gives you the right to do it to others?

 

[OldCorpse]

It's not "by the book" -- it's by the LAW.

Hello? "The book" includes the law. Where does doing things "by the book" include breaking the law? Of course doing things by the book means doing it fully legally. Meanwhile, if one says "obey the law" - who could argue against that? There is no discussion, as no contrary point of view can be offered - after all, (as I stated) nobody can advise anyone to break the law. End of story. No discussion is even possible on that point. So if someone is asking the question the OP asks, saying "obey all laws down to the letter" doesn't bring much. I don't think the OP is silly enough not to understand that. But saying "everything by the rule book" ends the discussion on both sides. Not only is there no possible response of "go ahead and break the law", but there is no further elaboration that can be made after you say "obey the law" - and the ludicrous example you give below proves it.

What happens if one of your cast or crew gets injured or, God forbid, dies? Even if you have insurance, it's not likely to pay if you were shooting in a place you had no right to be. Then what?

That whole "by any means necessary" thing is what got Sarah Jones KILLED. A director who believed "it's easier to get forgiveness than permission" and just couldn't be BOTHERED to do it right, and one of his crew paid the ultimate price for it. Of course, the director paid too -- with 2 years in prison, 8 years probation and a $20,000 fine, but do you think that really makes it worth it? None of that brings Sarah Jones back.

If you shoot in places where you don't have permission, you take huge risks and you force your cast and crew to take huge risks as well. It is NOT professional.

You must obey the law not because of any reason - including the ones you gave. You must obey the law: because it is the law. If you ask any lawyer or legal scholar, you will get the same answer. Now, there may be reasons why the law exists, or was created, and they may include safety or whatever any other reason on this earth, but that's a totally separate issue from your being obligated to obey it. The proper answer to the question "why should I obey the law" is "because it is the law", period. No further elaboration is legally correct. "What are the consequences of disobeying the law"? is what you were trying to answer, and giving a legally incorrect answer. Not the examples you gave of "safety" etc., - the answer to "What are the consequences of disobeying this law" are an enumeration (specified in the law itself) of the penalties associated with breaking of this law - ask any legal scholar. So let's get that straight. "Officer, what happens if I go over 50mph in a 30mph zone?" - the answer you get is not "oh the terrible accidents, oh the noise, oh the pollution, oh aunt Mary will be angry" you get "you will be fined x dollars and x points on your licence". That's what's wrong with your answer. And illustrated as such:

What happens if crew get injured - Sarah Jones - huge risks - not professional... "because not legal!". Obeying the law will not prevent all accidents from happening. You can obey each and every law and accidents will still happen, people will die, and yes, your cast and crew are still taking risks with every law obeyed. Getting out of bed is associated with risk (staying in bed is also associated with risk - you might be hit by a meteorite). Being alive means you are exposed to risk, even when fully legal at all times. The only thing you got right is that not obeying the law is "not professional" - which, news flash, the OP is not doing a professional production, so that goes with the territory of zero budget; professional productions have a budget and can afford to play it by the book. Sometimes going by the book does diminish BUT NEVER ELIMINATES the risk of a production, and sometimes it does absolutely nothing and is just a bald-faced money grab; in Los Angeles, you need a permit to shoot in your own apartment, having a piece of paper "the permit" doesn't make the risk any different in your apartment.

And that's what doing a production "not by the book is" - a risk, among many, many, many other risks. It might be big, or it might be small. But it's about risk management. Shooting in your apartment without a permit - small risk. Shooting like the Sarah Jones production - huge unacceptable risk regardless of the law, even if it were legal, which it was not, it would still be profoundly stupid and unacceptable as a risk. Obeying the law is not a pass to stop thinking and assessing risk. You must make that judgment at all times. If you are a fully funded professional production, doing anything without permits and fully legally would be a stupid risk to take all by itself - you should not do it, period. That is not a risk worth taking. If you are a microbudget you still must assess risk, including the risk of a production that has no permit.

One hopes that nobody on dvxuser is unaware of their obligation to obey the law. Just because you are a filmmaker doesn't exempt your from an obligation to obey the law. If you shoot without a permit, get caught, shut down and fined, you don't get to complain - you knew the risk, and you pay the price, no injustice was done, 'you knew what you were getting into'. Even if you didn't - ignorance of the law is no defence. So again - we can be quite sure that the OP is fully aware of his/her obligation to follow the law - therefore jumping in and shouting "obey the law!" brings no new information for the OP, and is of no help whatsoever. Obviously what the OP is asking is "how risky is it to shoot without a permit" - so that s/he may do risk management calculations. S/he is asking about people's experiences of the level of risk. You can answer that question (f.ex. "I never saw anyone and we experienced no problems" or "the ranger came by twice" or whatever). What you cannot do, of course, is to advocate anything illegal - you cannot say "go ahead and shoot without a permit". Right way: "this was my experience shooting in that location: x, y, z". Wrong way: "the risk was so small - go ahead and do it!". But is it even legal to convey your experience? Of course it is. Just as in the case of the law, the consequences of disobeying it and the penalty is spelled out right there - it is not a secret. Your experiences are not a secret, and enumerating the risks (including fines and shutting down the production) is not a secret. It can - and should be - freely shared. What cannot be done is to advocate breaking the law, shooting without a permit etc.. Coming in and shouting "don't break the law" is not helpful or informative as everyone already knows that. Any decision the OP makes is solely their responsibility, since nobody here advocates - nor should they - breaking the law.

 

[charliemcdanger]

"Guerilla style" is a term cooked up to make breaking the law, breaking the rules, and taking terrible risks with your cast and crew somehow sound "cool".

Anyone so small-minded as to let morality and practicality be subsumed entirely by legality: I probably don't want to hear whatever story you're trying to film in the first place.

Yes, surely no one should film to expose truths in Afghanistan or Pakistan because THE LAW.

I try to stay courteous in these forums, but with all due respect, this type of blind adherence to law and bureaucracy is just complete crap. "Escape From Tomorrow" was a huge success shot on the sly at Disney World. Of course they'd never in a million years get the permit to shoot there, and you'd never in a million years want to be part of such a project. Better for everybody, I guess.

 

[David W. Richardson]

I'm sorry you feel that obeying the law when shooting a narrative film is not a good thing. What about the fact that you put your cast and crew in danger? Who's going to pay if any of them are injured or, heaven forbid, killed? Are your pockets that deep?

 

[j1clark@ucsd.edu]

I'm sorry you feel that obeying the law when shooting a narrative film is not a good thing. What about the fact that you put your cast and crew in danger? Who's going to pay if any of them are injured or, heaven forbid, killed? Are your pockets that deep?

I'm pretty ambivalent about The Law (effect Judge Dred voice... Stallone or Urban...) in regard to permits required for 'small' as in under 5 crews+cast filmmakers.

My experience in this sort of thing is in the area of Weddings and use of public lands for wedding shots... There was a movement on the local city council to require permits for 'professional wedding' photographers on public lands. A number of people showed up a the council and the measure was dropped. Had it been passed, I'm pretty sure it would have been one of the the most, if not the most, 'broken' permit regulation (outside of 'home improvements' by non contractors...).

The problem in regard to changes in such regulations is that the class of filmmaker for the under 10/5 crew+talent is so small and disorganized that there will be no change. Heck I'd go for a 'no cost' online permit process... One of the reasons the above mentioned 'demonstration' worked, was that no only professional wedding photographers were represented, a good number of commercial media people showed up as well, since the regulations would have revamped some of their permit processes and fees... to their detriment.

I don't think this would change in LA, since the various production houses, big and small, just figure the fees and hassle factor into 'doing business', passing the costs on to the project.

As for The Desert... to me there is no reason why there should be permits/fees again for the small crew+talent production, other than perhaps a 'use permit' similar to camping on public lands. Some locations do charge 'hiker' fees, say $8 per person... and some popular trails have reservation allocations for permits.

I don't have a problem with such 'modest' and 'streamlined' permits.

I do have a problem with the current 'filmmaking' permit situation.

As for 'safety'... getting a liability package... does not 'insure safety' any more than any other insurance... it just protects against accident, either by negligence or happenstance.

In any case, if a film crew is doing anything more than what would ordinarily be done for 'camping'... like bringing in generators, big lights, various FX involving 'fire' or 'danger'... sure, more permit oversight, and more fees for safety officers being present.

 

[David W. Richardson]

As for 'safety'... getting a liability package... does not 'insure safety' any more than any other insurance... it just protects against accident, either by negligence or happenstance.

But it won't protect you or your people if you were violating the law (say, by being somewhere you didn't have a legal right to be) when an accident occurs. That's the point, as regards insurance and protecting your cast and crew. Accidents can happen anywhere. That's why you have insurance. But if you're somewhere you have no right to be, then your insurance won't cover you. Same as if you were doing something illegal, which you are.

The other point is respect for the rights of others. Don't you think land owners, whether private, corporate or municipal, have the right to decide whether or not they want you on their land? As in the example I gave before -- would you want a film crew (or anyone else) coming onto your property whenever they felt like it, especially if you weren't there, and doing whatever they wanted? If you feel that you have the right to control your own property, how can you think it's okay to deny that same right to someone else?

 

[OldCorpse]

Don't you think land owners, whether private, corporate or municipal, have the right to decide whether or not they want you on their land?

Tell that to the LA municipal authorities, that you should have the right to decide whether or not you want to be in your own apartment or house, blah, blah, blah. They don't give a rip, they still want a permit. Even if you are the only member of the crew, and the only actor, and nobody else, and using your own DSLR and no lights of any kind. You could be taking a picture, a still and you are fine, but push that video button right next to it, even if you are just filming a wall - your own wall - and calling it a film you want to distribute (hey, Warhol did something similar!), you BY LAW must have a permit. It's a crock. You still have to obey the law - because it is a law. Plainly, this has absolutely nothing to do with "safety" or anything else - it has to do with a money grab - why... "because they can", end of story. It's situations like this that lead to proverbs like "The law is an a$$": "The law, as created by legislators or as administered by the justice system, cannot be relied upon to be sensible or fair." But regardless of what you, I or anyone else thinks, it is still the law, and it still must be obeyed. So instead of making silly arguments about how good a law is and what a great thing it is, and how safe and all that malarkey, all one says from a legal point of view is: "you are obligated to follow the law; failure to do so, will carry the following penalties: X". Period. And citizens, make their own evaluations of the worth of any given law and the consequences of following it or not following it, and they incorporate that calculus into their decision making and risk assessments. The peanut gallery will chime in with "you must follow the law!", while everyone else will carefully reach their own conclusions, whatever they may be, good or bad. Welcome to the real world. In the real world, the law is always behind the curve of development; so for example, you can go to the desert with a huge stills camera and your buddies and photograph each other against the backdrops, and you don't need a permit. Meanwhile, in the exact same situation, if you instead have a much smaller DSLR and press the video button, and your buddies call themselves "actors" for the moment, and now you need a permit. You can dress it up any way you like, but nobody is fooled. The law is the law, obey it, no matter how wise a law or how stupid, period - just don't tell me all about how fantastic that law is and how moral and how righteous. It's the law and that's all the justification it needs and indeed requires.

 

[David W. Richardson]

Tell that to the LA municipal authorities, that you should have the right to decide whether or not you want to be in your own apartment or house, blah, blah, blah. They don't give a rip, they still want a permit. Even if you are the only member of the crew, and the only actor, and nobody else, and using your own DSLR and no lights of any kind. You could be taking a picture, a still and you are fine, but push that video button right next to it, even if you are just filming a wall - your own wall - and calling it a film you want to distribute (hey, Warhol did something similar!), you BY LAW must have a permit. It's a crock. You still have to obey the law - because it is a law. Plainly, this has absolutely nothing to do with "safety" or anything else - it has to do with a money grab - why... "because they can", end of story. It's situations like this that lead to proverbs like "The law is an a$$": "The law, as created by legislators or as administered by the justice system, cannot be relied upon to be sensible or fair." But regardless of what you, I or anyone else thinks, it is still the law, and it still must be obeyed. So instead of making silly arguments about how good a law is and what a great thing it is, and how safe and all that malarkey, all one says from a legal point of view is: "you are obligated to follow the law; failure to do so, will carry the following penalties: X". Period. And citizens, make their own evaluations of the worth of any given law and the consequences of following it or not following it, and they incorporate that calculus into their decision making and risk assessments. The peanut gallery will chime in with "you must follow the law!", while everyone else will carefully reach their own conclusions, whatever they may be, good or bad. Welcome to the real world. In the real world, the law is always behind the curve of development; so for example, you can go to the desert with a huge stills camera and your buddies and photograph each other against the backdrops, and you don't need a permit. Meanwhile, in the exact same situation, if you instead have a much smaller DSLR and press the video button, and your buddies call themselves "actors" for the moment, and now you need a permit. You can dress it up any way you like, but nobody is fooled. The law is the law, obey it, no matter how wise a law or how stupid, period - just don't tell me all about how fantastic that law is and how moral and how righteous. It's the law and that's all the justification it needs and indeed requires.

But the point is you have the right to stop OTHERS from coming and shooting in your house. That's the point.

 

[j1clark@ucsd.edu]

The other point is respect for the rights of others. Don't you think land owners, whether private, corporate or municipal, have the right to decide whether or not they want you on their land? As in the example I gave before -- would you want a film crew (or anyone else) coming onto your property whenever they felt like it, especially if you weren't there, and doing whatever they wanted? If you feel that you have the right to control your own property, how can you think it's okay to deny that same right to someone else?

In regard to public lands... no, I as John Q. Public do have a right to use, and if my 'use' is commensurate with say a 'family having a picnic', I should not have to have a permit to have a camera in my hand, if I am 'making a film' rather than taking happy shots of said family picnic.

As I said, if I cordon off a section of park, block a street, or other big production activities... sure... permits are in order... publicizing that 'filming is taking place'... etc.

But for a small crew no more than what one would expect for a 'family gathering'... heck, a 100 people could 'occupy' park as a family and not have permit police break up the gathering... provided no one is otherwise breaking the law, getting rowdy, etc.

In regard to me making a deal with a private property owner, that is between me and the owner, not the city/county/state because I happen to be 'filming' a movie... and there it is even more obvious that 'permits' do nothing, since it is on private property...

Again this has nothing to do with safety or the like... this as to do with idiotic regulations for the sake of getting a pound of flesh by the local government.

 

[j1clark@ucsd.edu]

But the point is you have the right to stop OTHERS from coming and shooting in your house. That's the point.

Perhaps you missed it... In Los Angeles it is illegal to 'shoot a film' in your own house without a permit. And furthermore, if you make an agreement with a home owner, you still have to have a permit in LA to shoot there.

This is why in many cases the permits are ignored by small crews with no budget.

Perhaps in other places in the country permits are only required for public lands, or 'big' productions... if at all... but LA is notorious for requiring permits, and having police actually stop people who appear to be 'professional'.

 

[David W. Richardson]

Perhaps you missed it... In Los Angeles it is illegal to 'shoot a film' in your own house without a permit. And furthermore, if you make an agreement with a home owner, you still have to have a permit in LA to shoot there.

This is why in many cases the permits are ignored by small crews with no budget.

Perhaps in other places in the country permits are only required for public lands, or 'big' productions... if at all... but LA is notorious for requiring permits, and having police actually stop people who appear to be 'professional'.

No, I didn't miss it. We're making two different points.

You're saying you can't shoot a film in your own home if you want to. I get that.

What I'm saying is that you CAN prevent someone else from coming into your home or onto your property and shooting a film without your permission. Whether they need more than just your permission is irrelevant -- unless YOU say it's okay, they cannot come onto your property and shoot a film. Which is as it should be.

Whether or not L.A. requires a permit to shoot somewhere isn't the issue. If you need a permit, then you need a permit. That does NOT mean that you DON'T need the permission of the owner of the property.

Yet some filmmakers believe they can shoot anywhere they please, as long as they don't get caught -- with absolute disregard for the rights of the property owners and the safety of their cast and crew. Those same people would hypocritically object to people trespassing on THEIR property. How can anyone not see this is wrong?

 

[OldCorpse]

No, I didn't miss it. We're making two different points.

You're saying you can't shoot a film in your own home if you want to. I get that.

What I'm saying is that you CAN prevent someone else from coming into your home or onto your property and shooting a film without your permission. Whether they need more than just your permission is irrelevant -- unless YOU say it's okay, they cannot come onto your property and shoot a film. Which is as it should be.

Erm, what does that have to do with permits? If permits didn't exist, nobody can shoot on your property without your approval anyway: it's called trespassing, breaking and entering, loitering and a bunch of other laws that already exist, and not having a permit is 100% irrelevant. The permit issue is a red herring - you're trying to hitch a ride on the issue of property rights and nobody around here is stupid enough to not notice. You can give your approval to someone shooting on your property, without anyone having to pay some government fee on top of that - your rights are not enhanced by one iota because someone else has to pay a fee to the government - you and you alone decide whom you let on your property.

Whether or not L.A. requires a permit to shoot somewhere isn't the issue. If you need a permit, then you need a permit.

So in other words, "the permit" is the issue. Thanks for clarifying. It's exactly what's at issue - why do you need a permit to shoot on your own property? Permits are nothing but a way of extorting money out of you. But it's the law, so bend over.

That does NOT mean that you DON'T need the permission of the owner of the property.

...and getting the permission of the owner of the property has nothing to do with getting a permit from the government and paying the government a fee. You get approval from the owner, you should be good to go, without any involvement of the government through permits, hermits or kermits.

Yet some filmmakers believe they can shoot anywhere they please, as long as they don't get caught -- with absolute disregard for the rights of the property owners and the safety of their cast and crew. Those same people would hypocritically object to people trespassing on THEIR property. How can anyone not see this is wrong?

If filmmakers trespass on private property, then it's on them. If they get caught, then the consequences are spelled out in the appropriate law. Permits have nothing to do with it. If a filmmaker disregards the safety of their cast and crew, then a permit is not going to rescue them. I already outlined the scenario of when you need permits on most public lands - if you do still photography, you don't, and if you press a video button on the very same camera, you do - with the exact same number of "friends" ("actors"), equipment, footprint. Exactly the same - and therefore both crews are exposed to the exact same dangers, and yet, one needs a permit and the other doesn't, which shows you conclusively that "safety" has NOTHING to do with the permit process. It's a bunch of BS. In that scenario, if the still photographer disregards the safety of their "friends", doesn't take enough water to Death Valley and shoots in unsafe conditions all without needing a permit they are 100% responsible even if they didn't need a permit; and if they pressed a video button instead, and did get a permit, but behaved as unsafely as before, then they are jeopardizing the safety of their crew and actors even with a permit. Permits - or the lack of - do not absolve you of the necessity of being a responsible filmmaker. I'd rather work on a shoot with a filmmaker who has no permit in the desert, but is behaving carefully and responsibly, than with a filmmaker who has all the paperwork in order but who exhibits no common sense. I am an avid outdoorsman. I have camped in the California desert every year - and I've documented the wildflower season in Anza-Borrego for 18 years now. I've camped in all major National Parks in the U.S., and every state and national park in California. No permit can add one whit to my knowledge of the desert, nor the lack of a permit detract from my experience. You can have all the permits and insurance you want, and you still have people behaving with criminal negligence. Just because you have insurance doesn't mean it will pay out if you behave with negligence.

Behaving responsibly at all times is a basic requirement. Permits don't figure into it, except as a calculus of risk same as any other. Obey the law, because it's the law and for no other reason, and if you don't, well, you'll pay the price. What you do is your individual decision and nobody can make that calculus for you, and you are fully responsible for the consequences regardless of any permitting process.