Re: Anyone asking you guys for a shooting permit?

I recently had a shoot in Georgetown DC and pulled a permit since I was shooting on Friday night and could not afford to reshoot or move locations. I figured the $180 was well worth it. It was a simple and painless process.

The shoot was one guy walking with a body cam rig, ring light and battery pack down the packed streets at 10pm. Besides being harassed by drunks we never once got asked for our permit. We even parked right in front of a bunch of secret service waiting outside of a restaurant.

We needed to shoot a short scene the following night that we did in Frederick MD in a parking garage (BTW permitting in Frederick is a pain) it was like 15min of shooting but we got stopped by the cops and asked what we were doing. They let us keep shooting but I guess the point is when you have a permit you may not need it and if you don't you will.

In my opinion it is well worth the effort and money to do it properly and then all of your bases are covered.
 

Attachments

  • 218686_205720449462256_111361108898191_604774_821679_o.jpg
    218686_205720449462256_111361108898191_604774_821679_o.jpg
    81.2 KB · Views: 0
  • 221110_205720396128928_111361108898191_604771_2200894_o.jpg
    221110_205720396128928_111361108898191_604771_2200894_o.jpg
    123.4 KB · Views: 0
Another side to the athorities. They are not all bad.

Living in Portland Oregon area, I have expereinced a very different contact with the authorities. I am out by myself many times capturing sights and sounds of the area.

We have many bridges crossing the Willamette River the splits Portland into east side and west side. I have been out videoing these bridges in the evening hours capturing them as they light up. I make sure I am out of the way of public traffic and access. I have had the city police monitor me from a distance with direct contact only one time. We chatted about the weather what bridges I had captured already and which ones I was headed to next. He suggested a vantage point that might provide a good shot, wished me a good evening and went on his way. No mention of a permit.

We have a small mounted division and I came accross two them one evening shooting some river scenes. We got to chatting and started drawing a crowd. People asking all sorts of questions about the horses. After wishing me a good evening they were kind enough to take the horses a few yards down the walk with the crowd so that I could go back to recording without the mob around.

I am out 5-8 times a month in early morning or evening recording sunrises or sunsets, morning mists across fields of bailed hay, horses and cows in silhouette on the pastures, great rural settings. I always make sure my truck is off the road so as not to cause any traffic issues.
Three times in the last two months I have had state or county sheriff's stop to check on me. All three times they were told there was an abandoned or stalled vehicle off the side of the road by someone passing by. After asking me if I was okay and chatting about what I was doing there, all in a very friendly manner, they wished me a good day and drove on. One even offered to bring me back some coffee as he was going to stop at a small coffee shop just up the road.
 
Kevin Marshall said:
Yeah. Maryland - especially Baltimore City - has been passing stricter photo/video laws lately, and courts have sided with law enforcement in many of these cases. The precedent being set in the state is that it is illegal to record a police officer without their expressed consent, even in public places where there is normally no expectation of privacy.

Luckily, out in the more rural areas, no one really cares.
Click to expand...

I interviewed the Baltimore City Police Chief for a documentary I'm producing a few weeks back. Had I known anything about this issue I would have complained to him directly.

After reading your report I can only smile -- because the Baltimore City Police treated me like royalty -- at the door parking, escort, tour, smiles, friendliness, cooperation -- I walked away thinking that was the nicest police department in America.
 
ectobuilder said:
As soon as I find out what laws I am up against here in Canada, I will develop a way to avoid any resistance. Such as perhaps wearing uniforms with the words "NEWS" on it so as to portray that we are a news organization (i.e. not for commercial fictional use).

Anyways will update this week when I talk to my City Hall...
Click to expand...

As a former photojournalist, I cannot express how much that comment disgusts me. It's hard enough these days to maintain any degree of trust with the general public, and now you want to come along and pretend to be an accredited journalist. Please tell me you were kidding.
dave
 
I think I have a solution to all of this! Just find a good looking couple and have them dress up as a bride and groom. Then go shoot anywhere you would like and I would bet you will never get harassed. I shoot weddings all over Harrisburg in and around the state capital building and have never had a single issue. It is amazing what you can do when you are shooting a happy couple after their wedding. Cops may watch but 9.9 times out of 10 they are checking out the hot bridesmaids.
 
One of the perks of living in Texas...specifically Dallas...is that you can shoot anything anywhere in public areas as long as you aren't blocking traffic.
 
Crafters of Light said:
to some respects I vote that the U.S. grow up to be like Texas someday soon.
Click to expand...

I didn't say it was the best state in the US...far from it in my opinion. However, in terms of shooting without permits, it's great. But there's a whole lot of stupid around here too.

Also Ive studied entertainment law and the laws are very much determined by the states while permits are managed by the cities. Each state is different. Just look at your city and state's film commission websites to determine when you need a permit or not.

As far as being sued, the problem is with ANY state, is anyone can sue anyone for any reason...regardless of validity. Permits tend to thwart such lawsuits because they give you a degree of validity. But they cannot protect you from the repercussions of shooting someone's likeness without their permission or stepping onto private property to get a particular shot.
 
keylight said:
When filming on public lands (like in National Parks) then you and I are the owners. I have NEVER been stopped when it's me, my DSLR, and my tripod. And I've never seen anyone else stopped.

BUT.... When you bring out larger gear and a crew, then you're into territory where your activities can impact other people's enjoyment of the park. There are several purposes for requiring a permit for this kind of shooting, but the primary purpose to make sure YOUR needs can be accommodated while also making sure the needs of the rest of the public are also being met. And when you're shooting for profit, paying a small fee helps to maintain the very place you found so compelling as to cause you to go through the trouble and expense of shooting it in the first place. So really, what's the problem?
Click to expand...

I live in Alaska where over 90 percent of the land is 'non private' (think federal and state parks).
I get stopped plenty when shooting just with my FS100, no matte box, slider or anything special.
Here is the problem. Still photographers can shoot for profit in national parks without paying a
a fee. Video guys cannot. Now in the past, that was because video crews had lights, boom mics
with a sound op, and basically just a big footprint. Actually it was because the video folks didnt
have an effective lobby like the still folks did, but I digress. It makes no sense that I cannot film
with my FS100 in the same place someone else is snapping pics to make into a calendar to sell.
For that matter, it's ok to snap pics with a 5d, but make one little move (flip it into video
mode) and you are now breaking the law if you don't have a permit. I have talked with
the forest service about it and they agree it is a silly, outdated law now that DSLRs can shoot video.
The issue is that many of us go into parks to shoot things 'for personal enjoyment' with no
particular commercial purpose. Small scale, just camera and maybe a lightweight tripod.
In fact if you tell the rangers or forest service people you are filming for fun, even with
the FS100 they will tell you to have fun. But if you decide later to make a DVD out of stuff
you shot and try to sell it to the tourists, you are breaking the law. However you can
legally take photos for profit. Not sure what happens if you make a timelapse with
a still camera as it is technically a bunch of still photographs. I wonder if I can legally
shoot time lapses at 1fps (it's technically a photo a second) with my FS100?? Anyways,
our Alaska congressman has been trying to pass a law to allow a small video camera
operator the same freedoms as a small still photog but it has been killed every year for a few
years now. I'd like to see it passed so we could have equal rights as the still guys have.
 
I've filmed girls at a local state park here in Los Angeles with my VG900+tripod+mic right next to the park Ranger while he sat in his car and he didn't seem to care. I didn't even realize a permit was required because the paparazzi film in public just about anywhere all the time, hence I thought it was ok as long as you aren't on private property.
 
alaskacameradude said:
I live in Alaska where over 90 percent of the land is 'non private' (think federal and state parks).
I get stopped plenty when shooting just with my FS100, no matte box, slider or anything special.
Here is the problem. Still photographers can shoot for profit in national parks without paying a
a fee. Video guys cannot. Now in the past, that was because video crews had lights, boom mics
with a sound op, and basically just a big footprint. Actually it was because the video folks didnt
have an effective lobby like the still folks did, but I digress. It makes no sense that I cannot film
with my FS100 in the same place someone else is snapping pics to make into a calendar to sell.
For that matter, it's ok to snap pics with a 5d, but make one little move (flip it into video
mode) and you are now breaking the law if you don't have a permit. I have talked with
the forest service about it and they agree it is a silly, outdated law now that DSLRs can shoot video.
The issue is that many of us go into parks to shoot things 'for personal enjoyment' with no
particular commercial purpose. Small scale, just camera and maybe a lightweight tripod.
In fact if you tell the rangers or forest service people you are filming for fun, even with
the FS100 they will tell you to have fun. But if you decide later to make a DVD out of stuff
you shot and try to sell it to the tourists, you are breaking the law. However you can
legally take photos for profit. Not sure what happens if you make a timelapse with
a still camera as it is technically a bunch of still photographs. I wonder if I can legally
shoot time lapses at 1fps (it's technically a photo a second) with my FS100?? Anyways,
our Alaska congressman has been trying to pass a law to allow a small video camera
operator the same freedoms as a small still photog but it has been killed every year for a few
years now. I'd like to see it passed so we could have equal rights as the still guys have.
Click to expand...

i'm surprised people can even tell that your fs100 is a video camera. i assume it's because you have a mic mounted on it?

i sometimes shoot the fs100 with binaural mics (worn like headphones), and pretty much everyone thinks it's a "serious" still camera and even poses for photos for me.

the inconspicuousness is something i love about the fs100 (vs the fs700, which is just a bit too big and heavy that it's no longer in the same category).
 
aly324 said:
i'm surprised people can even tell that your fs100 is a video camera. i assume it's because you have a mic mounted on it?

i sometimes shoot the fs100 with binaural mics (worn like headphones), and pretty much everyone thinks it's a "serious" still camera and even poses for photos for me.

the inconspicuousness is something i love about the fs100 (vs the fs700, which is just a bit too big and heavy that it's no longer in the same category).
Click to expand...

They don't ALWAYS stop me. If I strip down the FS100 and shoot with a little prime
people do tend to think its a serious stills camera. When I use the 28-105 F2.8 lens on
it, it looks like a serious video cam.....and that is a great lens for shooting outdoors so
I use it a lot. And, yes I usually have some kind of shotgun mic for nat sound on it.
I was just saying, the current law is F'd up when still guys don't need a permit for
commercial activity but video guys do. In many cases the cameras are the same or very
similar. But one mode is allowed and the other prohibited. Could I sneak in and 'grab'
shots with my FS100. Sure, I've done it before. But I shouldn't have too, and if the
footage I shot were ever to show up on a DVD I was selling, they could legally come
after me. Would they? Not sure, but former Dolphin Larry Csonka who now has a fishing
show got busted for doing exactly that here in Alaska....see the following link

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2414238

Now in his case, he probably had a large enough crew that he should have got a permit.
So they were looking to make an example of him. But technically, the law applies equally
to a single person, even filming handheld with no tripod, if they are doing it for any type of
commercial purpose. But if you are a stills shooter, you can do it legally as long as you
keep your footprint small. Time to start a march on D.C. for equal rights for video
shooters.
 
I’m sure I’ll be the odd man out here but I don’t totally disagree with the permits for park land. I do totally agree that it is unfair and needs to be changed as to what photographers can do in difference to videographers and that the requirements on video are too strict but I do see some value in the system.

I’ve spent most of my life in Alaska, in the interior and I worked in the hunting industry for many years and that is how I came to video. The problem I see with video/photography is the same as with hunting in AK. Once something becomes seen as an easy opportunity, it gets exploited and by many. There is a reason you can’t go to the bathroom anywhere you want while climbing Mt. McKinley, everyone winds up climbing a trail of crap. Same thing with the Haul Road; I used to spend six weeks a year at least on the north slope in the brooks range and every pull off is twenty yards deep of human feces surrounding them. I worked a lot with AK F&G on hunter management and it’s a mess dealing with these issues.

Five years ago I moved to North Carolina and the issues are no different here. In fact they may be worse in some places. The size of the human footprint can be huge at times. Nowadays as soon as something gets popular and hits the internet you will have many exploiting whatever it is and that is what causes the problem. Parks can’t wait till they can see damage to start charging for traffic or no one shows up after that.

Hunters and fishermen/women are charged license fees for wildlife management and consumptive use even in places where non-consumptive use has as large of an impact. That’s the same as Video guys putting up the bill for photographers in the parks and there is a lot that needs to be changed as to whom is paying the way for all here but we do need some sort of system in the works.

Csonka was warned/asked to get a permit, he failed to comply.
 
I'm sorry guys, but I have to ask - Isn't America the land of the free? We think it's bad in the UK, but pretty well here public is fine, and only private a problem. Permit wise, it usually is down to the possibility of causing obstructions that means some cities demand a permit, while others don't.

There are of course dogsbodies who object to shooting in public spaces, as if it is like America where you can't, but it's pretty civilised here really..
 
paulears said:
I'm sorry guys, but I have to ask - Isn't America the land of the free?
Click to expand...

This thread makes it sound much worse than it really is. Mostly it's just common sense and only impacts shoots with a crew. I shot for months on the street with a TV host and never got hassled by the cops or asked for a permit whether we were on the sidewalk, a park, or private property. We were a small group, one camera, sometimes a sound guy, producer, and host. In fact, I've never been asked for a permit when shooting anything without lights and full crew (where we already had permits taken care of). I have been asked what I'm shooting, a lot, but that's usually more curiosity than enforcement.
 
Andrius Simutis said:
This thread makes it sound much worse than it really is. Mostly it's just common sense and only impacts shoots with a crew. I shot for months on the street with a TV host and never got hassled by the cops or asked for a permit whether we were on the sidewalk, a park, or private property. We were a small group, one camera, sometimes a sound guy, producer, and host. In fact, I've never been asked for a permit when shooting anything without lights and full crew (where we already had permits taken care of). I have been asked what I'm shooting, a lot, but that's usually more curiosity than enforcement.
Click to expand...

Sorry I will have to disagree. It is a serious problem for folks who do a lot of shooting on federal managed public lands . If you have the time here is a link to 233 comments since 2008 that describe both concerns, personal experiences and attempts at corrective legislation. http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/under-water-over-land/116938-national-park-filming-legislation.html
 
Mark Williams said:
Sorry I will have to disagree. It is a serious problem for folks who do a lot of shooting on federal managed public lands .
Click to expand...
True, I guess I don't shoot enough on managed public lands. Most of the time that I am we're either on or near a ski area so we don't run into too many rangers. Deeper in the backcountry I'm not running into them either, so maybe I'm just lucky.
As far as the rest of the conversation where we're talking about shooting outside the parks, some people make it sound like its impossible to just go out and use a camera at all which is just nonsense. If you're shooting a commercial job with a full crew then just pull a permit!
 
I shoot until someone stop me. As long as I'm on public ground it's not much anyone can do to prohibit me. A bit of common sense is always good. I were shooting for the Swedish railway in Stockholm Central station and it all went fine until I went to the lounge entry. Right away a guard came out and said I blocked the exit despite the fact I didn't. Some people are just told to stop people without thinking.

Sweden is easy to shoot in. Once I had a nervous producer asking for permission shooting in the middle of nowhere and certainly it's better to have permission than not but hardly ever needed except for bigger shoots with a larger crew. Sometimes it's even fun to test how far one can go. I were shooting the Swedish Rally and had to grab some pit stop video. I went in and got what I needed and heard after that no one else but the crew could go within ten meters of the car. I even rigged a crane right on the sidewalk and got away with it.

If you work on like you have all the rights in the world hardly anyone stops you. You look to serious.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top