Security Guards=Worthless

[Andrew Walker]

So I was out trying to get some shots today down in LA and got totally jammed up by these security guards. I was on private property but it was open to the public and these were a lot of other people around shooting pictures and stuff...just not on a RED. So the first security guard came up to me as I was taking a rest carrying my gear across the courtyard. I gave him the run down how everyone else was filming stuff and they weren't coming down on them. As the guy went to go get his supervisor I setup my shot and started rolling when the supervisor showed up. We got into the big discussion about how they are discriminating against me because I have a bigger camera than the other people. I also asked to see a copy of this supposed rule that they were enforcing and they didn't want to show me. They told me to call the property managers and schedule a time to come back and shoot. The supervisor also told me that it wouldn't cost any money for me to shoot there if I did it that way. Maybe if I was filming in New Mexico or something like that they would let me film there for free but not in LA. But who knows, maybe I'm wrong and I could film there for free...but I highly doubt it. The only reason I left was because they threatened to call the cops and normally I don't care if they show up because it gives me more time to shoot. But I didn't feel like dealing with that today.

 

[Jason Ing]

I believe the rule is that as long as you don't set down sticks (tripod), you don't need a permit and can shoot... or something like that. Think of the news cameramen who go everywhere... they're carrying it with them.

Anyone know the rules?

 

[Priyesh P.]

applies only for public places, I think

 

[Andrew Walker]

applies only for public places, I think

It was a public place as in anyone could just walk on the property and hang out if they wanted. But the property wasn't owned by the city.

 

[Tico Llaurador]

You are not supposed to shoot "on" (or in many cases even "at") private property without express permission. It's the law. It's fuzzy and has gray areas all over, let alone being largely left subject to interpretation, but that's how it goes. It's a matter of privacy, whereas the issue with laying down sticks is one of safety.

Big cameras scream big media and calls attention quickly. Blame irresponsible elements of the media itself for it. That's changing, though, particularly as palm-sized HD cameras have broken that point of differentiation recently with the help of the Internet as the point of dissemination of acquired images (legally or not).

There are organizations out there that are trying to revise the law to favor photographers and cinematographers, amateur or professional alike. Do a search and you'll find them. Perhaps you can participate in the effort to change the status quo, since it has (and chances are it will again) affected you directly.

Good luck!

 

[Tom Lowe]

I feel your pain and need to vent; I have come close to posting several incidents like this myself. I am constantly having problems and troubles with "security guards," often due to "security concerns" or lack of "permission" any time I try to shoot in populated areas. It's beyond all amounts of ridiculousness.

But if you try to go through the "official" channels, prepare to spend weeks filling out paperwork and begging petty bureaucrats and corporate drones for permission to shoot, at the end of which you will often be asked to produce certificates of insurance ranging from $1 million USD to $5 million USD, and in most cases, you will just flat-out be denied, having wasting huge amounts of time and probably taken years off your own life in terms of increasing your stress levels and blood pressure.

It's a sad commentary on the current state of affairs in the "Land of the Free."

 

[Steve Sherrick]

The "rules" as I understand them are you can film from say a public sidewalk a building that is on private property but you cannot step onto that private property and start filming without permission. But there are also restrictions in terms of size of productions, and if something is considered to be a crewed production, then it needs to be permitted by the city. Now, as an individual, you should be able to acquire photographer's permit I believe, although I have yet to get clear answer on this myself.

There are a lot of grey areas, and I'm sure each town/city have their own interpretations of the rules. Best bet is to take the formal route, see where it goes, and if you don't get too far, go the rebel way.

 

[Ramesh Jai]

I never really have issues shooting with a PD150 or a Z1 but anytime we take a RED on location we are faced with 'security' concerns. Do you think maybe RED could put a Sony logo on the side...

 

[Steve Sherrick]

I feel your pain and need to vent; I have come close to posting several incidents like this myself. I am constantly having problems and troubles with "security guards," often due to "security concerns" or lack of "permission" any time I try to shoot in populated areas. It's beyond all amounts of ridiculousness.

But if you try to go through the "official" channels, prepare to spend weeks filling out paperwork and begging petty bureaucrats and corporate drones for permission to shoot, at the end of which you will often be asked to produce certificates of insurance ranging from $1 million USD to $5 million USD, and in most cases, you will just flat-out be denied, having wasting huge amounts of time and probably taken years off your own life in terms of increasing your stress levels and blood pressure.

It's a sad commentary on the current state of affairs in the "Land of the Free."

Although I do believe the permits are bogged down in bureaucracy, we do live in a different time then we did before 2001. Building security is a challenging situation as those with bad intentions have been known to scout out buildings, taking photographs and video. The security guards are told to question anybody suspicious, especially those with cameras. The irony is that the people who will be doing this are probably using consumer cameras and will look more like tourists rather than professional videographers. So, in some ways, it's the tourists they should really focus on, but then that gets into all kinds of civil liberties issues. Suffice it to say, we'll probably continue to be restricted on what we can shoot due to this new security climate. I think that shooters who go out to do stock footage cinematography should be allowed to apply for a photographer's license that would allow them to shoot in public places, which our tax dollars pay for. I do understand the private property angle and that should be treated differently. I wouldn't necessarily want random people showing up at my business, taking video without any explanation.

 

[Tom Lowe]

I never really had issues shooting with a PD150 or a Z1 but anytime we take a RED on location we are faced with 'security' concerns. Do you think maybe RED could put a Sony logo on the side...

This is one reason I am looking forward to shooting on Scarlet, DSMC, 5D Mark II, etc. The smaller and less conspicuous the camera, the less likely you are to be harassed.

One thing I am beginning to learn, though, is that for simple shoots, it's much better to shoot first and ask questions later. Trying to get permission, up front, from any large company that owns private property is extremely difficult and frustrating. More than anything, I think it is the liability laws that concern them. They simply don't want to take any chances being sued for any reason. Another unfortunate aspect of modern life in America.

 

[Leo Ticheli]

I've had a few problems with overzealous officials and violations of my rights.

Shooting the High Museum from a public sidewalk in Atlanta, Georgia, their private security ordered me to leave. I firmly refused, citing my rights, and maintained the shoot even when the guard brought in reinforcements.

Shooting a political commercial on a public sidewalk in front of the Federal Courthouse in Birmingham, Alabama, I was ordered to leave by Federal Marshals. I cited my freedom of speech rights, told them I was filming for a candidate for the US Congress, and continued to direct the spot.

When they became threateningly insistent, I switched to my, "agree but do not comply," mode. I told them I was leaving immediately and continued to direct.

This worked for about two takes, but when they put their hands on their weapons, I decided the sword was, in this case, more powerful than the pen and I wrapped hastily.

The good news is my guy won the election; the bad news is the constitution of the United States lost.


Here is a link to a document that may be helpful: http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm

"Those who are willing to trade freedom for security deserve neither freedom nor security." Benjamin Franklin

Good shooting and best regards to all,

Leo

 

[Andrew Walker]

One thing I am beginning to learn, though, is that for simple shoots, it's much better to shoot first and ask questions later. Trying to get permission, up front, from any large company that owns private property is extremely difficult and frustrating. More than anything, I think it is the liability laws that concern them. They simply don't want to take any chances being sued for any reason. Another unfortunate aspect of modern life in America.

This is why I never have even tried to get permission at any place I go to. I have far better things to do than beg for permission to shoot at a place that is either public or allowing every Tom, Dick and Harry on their property to take pictures of whatever. Its not like I'm out there with a crew and lights. Its just me and my camera.

I've been searched by the police at the airport for "comprising airport security". I was taking pictures on a public street not at the airport just next to it and because they could see my knife in my pocket that gave them reason to search me, which is total BS.

When they became threateningly insistent, I switched to my, "agree but do not comply," mode. I told them I was leaving immediately and continued to direct.

This worked for about two takes, but when they put their hands on their weapons, I decided the sword was, in this case, more powerful than the pen and I wrapped hastily.

The good news is my guy won the election; the bad news is the constitution of the United States lost.


Here is a link to a document that may be helpful: http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm

"Those who are willing to trade freedom for security deserve neither freedom nor security." Benjamin Franklin

Good shooting and best regards to all,

Leo

The reality is that they aren't going to shoot you for filming on the street...at least I don't think so. The problem with this society is that in the blindness caused by fear it has empowered the people that shouldn't have any more power. I do not trust people that are paid to enforce someone else's ideas as to what right and wrong are and they don't even have know the laws to enforce them. They just have to feel that something is wrong. So it varies from cop to cop. Also cops know that they are above the law and act accordingly. They can kill someone by "accident" and not be charged with homicide. Or they can shoot an unarmed person laying on the ground because he got up when ordered to and only get fired from their job. The only way they get caught is if someone catches it on video.

 

[Jeff Kilgroe]

Here's my take on this sort of stuff....

First of all, everyone needs to familiarize themselves with the difference between public and private property. Most people think they know, but they don't. If you think parking lots are usually public property, you are wrong. Unfortunately, many police officers also don't know for sure the boundaries between public and private property in their patrol areas. But if you have some form of written permission from the property owner to show, they will usually leave you alone. Because if they arrest you and it turns out you were on private property, they're in big trouble and they know it.

On private property, even if the general public is allowed to freely enter, it is still private property. You and your activities are subject to the judgement of the property owners and any security or administrative forces they have contracted. In this situation, I have almost always found it better to contact the property owners in advance. Not necessarily any company or event organizer or whatnot, but the actual property owner, especially if different than who is occupying the property. As a property owner myself, I have no issues with film crews coming in and shooting on my property, provided they ask and are prepared to give me an insurance certificate. And as long as they don't disrupt any of my operations or tenants who are on the property.

Private property also has some real advantages. In many urban areas, alleyways and even some sidewalk and pedestrian areas are private property. When you have permission to shoot on private property, no one can touch you unless they have specific evidence that you are in some way endangering others or violating some law. In many places, shooting on private property (with permission) also means you don't need a permit. Whereas some places, like LA, if you're within city limits and not inside a private building, you need a permit.

Public property is a different matter. This constitutes property open to the public, for public use, that is maintained by the public tax basis. Such as city parks, pedestrian right of ways (sidewalks, foot paths, etc..). You are subject to whatever the local laws mandate. I have not had too much trouble in areas like this, except when trying to shoot with a crew or drag a big camera (RED) around in a busy city. Typically, if it's a small camera like a palmcorder, no one takes notice. I was only harassed once with my HVX, never with my DVX and a couple times with RED. Typically it's the cops who show up to either ask if I have a permit or to chase me off because some shop owner didn't want a big camera hanging around out front, even though it's not pointed at them. On public property, it's best to get the permit unless you're just going to steal a few quick shots and think you can get away with it. Around here, I get the permit... Can usually be done online and it's free. In LA and NYC, it's a different story... those permits can sometimes mean real money. But I like having the permit for when John Law walks up to me and asks if I have a permit, I can show it to him and they leave me alone. It saves me time, it saves them time.

I have been harassed in situations with cameras like my HVX and RED... I've only been chased off once since getting my RED and I had no legal rights to stand on, as in no permit for what we were doing.

News media typically gets left alone. Most people know what they're about. They also have media permits / licenses for the areas in which they operate. I have a media license or permit for a few areas I frequent and that saves me time. I'm still trying to get one for Denver, but they're not exactly fair on how they deal them out.

The RED draws way too much attention to not have a permit around my neck of the woods. I'm anxious for Scarlet as that will give me some more covert options and it will hopefully look a lot more prosumer in nature for guerilla shooting.

 

[Alex Carr]

I call it stealing the shots...

 

[Joe G.]

Make a laminated ID to hang around your neck with "Red Action News Team" (R.A.N.T.).