L.A. Shoot. Do I need a Permit

[Chris Nuzzaco]

Is that your experience in LA?

Because the authorities are sort of fanatical about permits in LA, NYC and Washington DC.

In LA and NYC its about money- there are entities that want to be paid. You can scrape by with a small crew that can move quickly- but it isn't legal.

Your best bet is to run completely unlit and without any boom mics- use wireless. You really need a completely minimal crew- ideally just the camera operator. You also need luck.

People are used to seeing lots of filming in those cities, and will mostly just ignore you, but if you attract attention you'll get shut down.

Furthermore not getting a permit can make getting rights and clearances down the line harder. I've been on one show where we had to reshoot a segment because of permit questions.

I've heard stories- always a friend of a friend sort of hearsay- that people sometimes get their gear seized. The story usually ends with them getting their gear back, but completely blowing the schedule.

In D.C. its about security. There are so many sensitive military and government sites near here that you can readily be shooting something that you are REALLY not supposed to photograph. Then there are the usual security types who for various reasons think they can stop normal legal photography. Even with a permit those sorts can be a huge PITA.

Also, you do not want to have any shooting involving "guns" or violence in the D.C. metro area without pre-arranged police involvement. Seriously- not even a phaser from Star Trek or other easily recognized prop or toy. Technically its 100% legal in MD and VA, but I've been filming and found myself with a helicopter overwatch while SWAT rolled in. I'm not exaggerating.

I would say DC is probably one of the LEAST film friendly cities in the world. You know its bad when they regularly drive away multi million dollar Hollywood film productions on a regular basis.

 

[Richard G]

i do truly believe that NON-permit style shooting can only be done with something like a 5D. forget about using a RED. but this being said has nothing to do with favoring a DSLR, it's purely for practical reasons. as would the decision to use a DLSR in the first place would be. there are very, very, very few places in Los Angeles you could shoot with a RED camera just because it "looks" like a film camera.

for example, i'm shooting a trailer for a film and the opening shot is on a subway car. this shot could only be captured using a 5D since 1. it's against the law to film on the subway without a permit and 2. you can't even go as far as bring a tripod, let alone any decent amount of filming equipment. so what's the solution? bring a camera that looks like a hand-held instead of a over-the-shoulder. as long as you set your picture profiles, get a clean negative, the two can be graded to look about the same. in terms of color.

and if you're like me. i get somewhat of a profound joy, getting away with incredible shots without the use of permits. and sometimes, right under the nose of the LAPD. if you think about it, it's pretty unfair that there is a law saying where you can and can't film. i mean, what happened to freedom of speech? isn't film a form of speech? anyways silly laws won't stop me and shouldn't any other.

 

[Vladimir Cassel]

Security will almost always harass you if you're on private property.

Even on public property if you have a tripod. I was in Union Station last week holding a DSLR--it wasn't even on--on a monopod waiting for some other photographers and security was on me. Hand held only without a permit.

 

[Stephen Lovett]

Is that your experience in LA?

I've heard stories- always a friend of a friend sort of hearsay- that people sometimes get their gear seized. The story usually ends with them getting their gear back, but completely blowing the schedule.

I can tell you that this indeed does happen from first hand experience.

Frankly, we knew we were taking a significant risk, and we chose to do so, and it blew up in our faces.

We needed a shot of a landing airplane, and we set up not far from the airport, and a 35mm rig with a long lens looks more than a little like a missile launcher.

Four police cars, weapons drawn, both of us dragged to the tarmac with a muzzle at our heads, and equipment seized.

It took about three hours to get everything cleared up, and we had to give up "the film" but I was able to swap an unexposed reel for the actual shot.

It was a total disaster, but it did have its moments. My partner in crime was a huge guy from a country where the police aren't as concerned about civil rights as here in the US, and so he was sure we were going to be killed. He pretty much lost his ability to speak English or to control his bodily functions for a bit, leading to some moments that in retrospect provide some hilarity.

Not a life experience I'd recommend.

If I hadn't had permits in the car for a bunch of locations where we did everything by the book, it would very likely have been much worse, and I'm sure my name is on a list somewhere.

I now always play by the rules in LA.

Steve

 

[Tom Lowe]

I've never asked for a permit in my life. I just shoot. But then again, I shoot in remote places like forests and deserts, mainly.

Can I ask: What is the purpose of a "permit"? Why should I pay money to the government to go shoot a little short film in a park, or on a sidewalk? What's the point? What is the justification?

 

[Paul Harding]

Wow! Lots of opions here.

I am going to see how much it costs, we not shooting a film but if the job goes ahead we'll be there for 10 days, at this moment I am still waiting for more info on the shoot.
But I will go ahead and find out the full story from the authorities.

At least I will have the info for the future if I ever need it.

Thanks a lots guys, didn't expect to so many different points of view.


Paul

 

[Liam Hall]

Can I ask: What is the purpose of a "permit"? Why should I pay money to the government to go shoot a little short film in a park, or on a sidewalk? What's the point? What is the justification?

There's no justification for small scale ENG style shoots to have permits. None.

Governments around the world use anti-terrorism as a justification. That's bullshit.

In most places I've shot it's quite simply a tax. In some other places it serves more as a backhander and in a few places I've shot its purpose is to let the government know where you are filming, who you are filming and why.

I've been arrested at gunpoint even when I've had a permit, so I'm really not convinced they serve any meaningful purpose at all.

 

[Rob Ruffo]

There's no justification for small scale ENG style shoots to have permits. None.

Governments around the world use anti-terrorism as a justification. That's bullshit.

In most places I've shot it's quite simply a tax. In some other places it serves more as a backhander and in a few places I've shot its purpose is to let the government know where you are filming, who you are filming and why.

I've been arrested at gunpoint even when I've had a permit, so I'm really not convinced they serve any meaningful purpose at all.

Well, as usual, we disagree. (I get the feeling you and I come from very, very different social and cultural backgrounds) Here in the historic district of Montreal, we have sometimes had 3 major Hollywood features shooting together, along with music videos, ads, etc., all the same week. If not for permits, there would be many abuses against us residents, not to mention the shoots would interfere with each other in terms of noise and lighting. I would imagine certain parts of NYC have similar film-crowding issues. Technically, you are supposed to have a permit just about anywhere, but I've often gotten away with not having one and shooting small set-ups that were not noisy by being cool and friendly with the cops, even in such places as D.C. Never had a real issue except being politely asked to leave.

 

[Liam Hall]

Well, as usual, we disagree. (I get the feeling you and I come from very, very different social and cultural backgrounds) Here in the historic district of Montreal, we have sometimes had 3 major Hollywood features shooting together, along with music videos, ads, etc., all the same week. If not for permits, there would be many abuses against us residents, not to mention the shoots would interfere with each other in terms of noise and lighting. I would imagine certain parts of NYC have similar film-crowding issues. Technically, you are supposed to have a permit just about anywhere, but I've often gotten away with not having one and shooting small set-ups that were not noisy by being cool and friendly with the cops, even in such places as D.C. Never had a real issue except being politely asked to leave.

Rob,

There really is no need to make this personal and I think you should rethink how you've written your post here, particularly the way you insinuate that I am nether polite nor educated. If you re-read my post you'll see that I mention "small ENG" style shoots, ie two or three crew, not cine shoots as you mention.

FYI I shoot all over the world, both documentary style and cine style. In an average year I will shoot in around fifteen to twenty different countries. I have a lot of experience shooting out in the field. I have hostile environment training. I know how to handle local security, police, army, public. I know how to smile and wave. I nearly always have a local production manager and where appropriate I always have permits.

Having seen money I have paid for permits go directly into the "back pocket" of government officials I speak from experience when I say that permits are BS. That's not to say you shouldn't get a permit - you should, but they are still BS.

Of course, large crews require permits. Of course shooting in sensitive areas require permits, but that's not the point. Permits are used for nefarious reasons in different places all around the world, a few times they are genuinely needed for security reasons, mostly they are a TAX. Pure and simple.

Kind regards,

Liam.

 

[Alexander Ibrahim]

I've never asked for a permit in my life. I just shoot. But then again, I shoot in remote places like forests and deserts, mainly.

Can I ask: What is the purpose of a "permit"? Why should I pay money to the government to go shoot a little short film in a park, or on a sidewalk? What's the point? What is the justification?

Well, it comes down to government inefficiency and beureaucracy.

Think of an old school film shoot .... ISO 50 film, lenses t5.6 were "fast" etc etc.

Film permit rules were universally justified because of the huge size of such a venture. If you are shooting in a national park with a crew of dozens or hundreds, tons (literally) of gear on trucks, powerful generators etc. you cause a huge disturbance- including damage to the park itself.

Seriously- how many times have you smashed a plant to clear the lens or set a light?

Parks have as their primary mission to preserve the park in its natural state.

In the city, a similar production causes a great deal of disruption to the operation of the city and the lives of citizens.

OK, so the permit started being very secondary. You were really paying for the Park to restore what you trampled, or for the police to control traffic or the like.

The thing is that some jackass producer decided, "well its just a few plants- who cares. We can do without this." and shot in parks, creating a disaster and not contributing to its cleanup. Or blocking off a street with the police, causing traffic jams. Or setting a pyro gag without the fire department.

So, now permits are required. See it always starts with a few bad apples.

The permit is essentially a requirement that you tell the government where and when you are shooting, and then the government can decide what the impact of your shoot is, and what resources must be allocated to make sure things go smoothly from the point of view of government and the general (i.e. NON FILM MAKING) public.

The permit ostensibly pays for that evaluation and decision process. You may have to pay additional fees to have the police or fire department (including possibly paramedics) on standby.

So that's the rationale.

It's abused now. Local governments see it as a handy revenue stream instead of the public service and co-ordination it used to be.

Further these same governments got used to the notion that a "film" was a big Hollywood thing with tons of money flying around.

So, now we have the situation where any guy with a camera gets hassled because the government wants its money. This specific part of the idea of permits has spread. There are now plenty of localities (both within and without the US) that want the money from permits, but never provided the services that go with it.

In some places noted for corruption, the permit is really just a paper that says "these people already bribed the higher ups, so be nice when asking for your bribe."

Now that there is some history, it should be obvious that permits as we know them today make little to no sense in the case of small independent film crews that act with even a modicum of courtesy to others and the environment.

In fact some localities specifically recognize this. For example US National Parks specifically exempt productions with 5 or fewer members and no special equipment/transportation/logistics needs.

If you need a film crew (operator, 1AC, 2AC, sound, key grip, director, and actors) you will still fall afoul of these rules. Also, if you plan on clearing 100 feet or so to lay track, even with a two person shoot you'll need a permit.

Note I am not addressing any legitimate security aspects. In truth there are very rarely any legitimate security aspects to photography provided you are shooting from a legal vantage point... more on that later.

 

[Mark Allen]

I've been arrested at gunpoint

Bringing new significance to your avatar.

 

[Mark Allen]

The purpose of film permits are to avoid public nuissance. In a city like LA, they don't want to have crews on every corner of the street fighting for locations, distracting traffic, bothering venders - it all makes sense.

The problem is that the permitting process has no scale. While there are things you might not need to pay for (like police supervision or a fire marshall) - there really needs to be cheaper options for smaller shoots.

 

[Liam Hall]

Bringing new significance to your avatar.

It makes for an entertaining dinner party story

 

[Paul Harding]

Well I got an answer from Film L.A. !!!

About $710 ouch!


Paul

 

[Tom Lowe]

Sounds like an extortion racket to me.

 

[Alexander Ibrahim]

Security and photography

Security and photography

There are very rarely any legitimate reasons for security involvement in photography.

Most sensitive installations are designed so that you can not see, or photograph, sensitive information from any legal vantage point.

You are usually trespassing before you can cause a security issue.

Here are a few stories from my life that shed some light on the issue.

It was summer 2009. I was setting up for an establishing shot on a new headquarters for a real estate company for an internal puff piece. For my long shot I set a tripod up with an Angie 24-290 on a R1 at some distance across the street. I was pretty far away and up on a little hill near a fence... because its a big building and I wanted a certain perspective.

I am just about to roll when a HMMV pulls up about 50 yards behind me on the other side of a fence with its .50 cal manned and some MPs jump out with M-16s. They don't say a word. I say hello, and ask if there is an issue. No response. They are clearly ready for business, but I can see they are not brandishing their weapons. The soldier on the .50 doesn't have his hands on the weapon, its depressed and pointed away from me. They aren't threatening me.

A few seconds later a civilian car pulls up, and a security guard and a man in a suit step out. "What are you doing?" asked the man in the suit walking up to me.

So I explain. I also explained about the lens... you know how big that thing is. I showed them what it can do and explained that if it was a still camera the lens would be much smaller.

He waves off the soldiers, and they mount up and drive off. "You may continue, but do not attempt to turn your camera and film behind you."

"Oh, OK. I didn't know there was anything important behind me, but I will be happy to comply. Can I ask what's up?"

"You are standing on the property of the National Reconnaissance Office. Photography is specifically prohibited by the National Security Act, but you are OK so long as you don't try and photograph the offices behind you. In fact you probably can't shoot anything sensitive even with that telescope you have there, but we have to be safe."

So, I got my shots- as expeditiously as possible. "Thank you for letting me take my footage from here. You really helped me out. Should I include thanks to the NRO in my credits?"

"Best you don't mention it."

"Oh, OK. Thanks again," I replied with a smile. Then I left- again as expeditiously as possible.

Notice... even though I was in fact technically trespassing they did not interfere?

Now compare that to the behavior in this older story, 2005 I think:

I was shooting an establishing shot of the San Jose convention center on an XL-1. I am setting up standing on public property, using a normal lens.

So two Sheriff's Deputies, a male and a female, pull up, hop out of their car. They have their hands on their weapons, and demand, "Stop, what are you doing?"

So, I explain.

"You can't be here."

"Uh... this is public property. I'm at a bus stop. Thousands of people stand here every month. There are dozens of people taking pictures from closer with still cameras right now, and those all make better pictures than my video camera. I just need 20 seconds of footage of the convention center, with the banner for the event I am covering. I have a press badge." I show them my press credentials.

The female officer draws her sidearm, and the male draws a Taser. I've been over this a thousand times in my mind, and I just can't understand what increased the threat level from their side.

Rather remarkably, I don't lose my nerve, my wits or my temper. (Usually I'd do all three at once.) "I have something that may explain-a pamphlet. Can I take it out and show it to you?" I ask. They agree and I pull out printed copies of Krages "Photographer's Right" pamphlet.

The woman holster's her weapon and takes a copy. She reads it, while her partner keeps me under his sights. Finally, she says,"You know I think this guy is right after all. What do you think?" The male officer holsters his weapon and reads the pamphlet.

They agree to let me shoot, so I do. I thank them and cross back to the convention center. I drop my sticks again and shoot a few shots of the sign outside. I'm striking when an obese disheveled security guard trundles up.

I decide avoidance is the best policy, I'm done after all. So I start walking away, back inside. He runs in front of me with some effort- he clearly wants a confrontation.

Before he says a word, "Look, I just talked with the Sherriff's department, and they cleared me. Now your bosses have already issued me press credentials. I am just doing my job. You aren't earning your pay, you are wasting your time and mine. I'm already finished with my work outside, and now I am going back to work inside."

"Stop you are under arrest!" he tries to yell, but merely pants.

"Are you a law enforcement officer?" He said nothing. "I didn't think so. Feel free to call the police if you like, in fact there are the Deputies I spoke with," I said pointing. "Go on. You may want to check with your bosses first. They may be annoyed." I walked away and that was the last I heard of it.

I was admittedly ruder to him than necessary- but it wasn't exactly my best day.

OK, so let me go back a bit more.

I was at the Pentagon on 9/11/2001.

I was on sticks again with my XL-1, which was still fairly new.

A two star walked up to me with a couple MPs. He wanted a copy of the footage in case there was evidence. They didn't try to seize my camera or anything, they just wanted a copy.

Now as it happens, I used to work at the Pentagon in the section that was damaged. In fact my old office was destroyed. As it was I was crying... I still knew people there. I didn't really want to ever see that footage again, so I gave them my tape. "I used to work here, right there. If there is anything I can do- anything at all- you just ask me."

He asked me to try and get closer (it was still burning) and shoot some more footage. I shot until I was out of tape. (6 hours that day.) Its probably the most important event I'll ever point a camera at. I handed over all my footage... but I'll never forget.

I was back on 9/13/2001, and on that day I was approached by no security whatsoever. I only shot about 15 minutes. By then I knew that no one I knew personally was hurt- but I still had had enough.

So... notice that the level of confrontation was greatest in the least sensitive situation?

As many here I've had dozens of such confrontations with mostly self appointed authorities, but also with a few genuine law enforcement. It often follows this pattern.

Anyplace that needs real security will have it, and they'll be very professional- and often understanding. I've shot for the military, and the government. I've accidentally set up shots that included secure installations, like INSCOM, but those types, while they will check you out, aren't really bothered. Mall Cops though will try and run you down- even if you are shooting a commercial for the mall.

 

[Richard G]

Well I got an answer from Film L.A. !!!

About $710 ouch!


Paul

see! no way. that in my mind says one thing. this city is not yours its ours and if you would like permission to use it you have to pay a ridiculous amount of money.

that money could be well spent on another aspect of the production. and you still could find a proper location AND get some decent coverage, depending on what it is you're doing in the first place.

you could get the permit, but it's not only about that. you have to get insurance, pay fees, fulfill requirements etc. it just turns into a major hassle when all you might need are a few simple takes with an LA backdrop.

 

[Gavin Greenwalt]

Seattle charges $25 per day and you get free parking around the city for location scouting.

If you're shooting a small unobtrusive project you can also get a 14 day permit for $25.

And I think that money goes straight back into the film office so you are subsidizing future assistance such as parking or police supervision and road closures.

Applying is very easy and the permitting people have always been very nice. I've also never been hastled when just taking pictures without a tripod. Sounds like LA needs two tiers.

 

[Bryan Colvin]

my question is, lets say you get away with it.. you got all your shots you needed without permits.

then you get accepted to a film festival... do they require to see all that stuff before screening it? If you get distribution (if you're that lucky), do you have to go back and get all that stuff? do they charge you a lot more money then because you "cheated the sytem" and now gotta pay your dues?

 

[Tony Harris]

I've learned that when you ask they say no or get insurance etc. I say go turkey man! shoot it! shoot it! If they stop you remove the SSD card and play dumb. You should step out the day before and time the cops in the area.