Are shooting permits to be ignored?

L

lefecious

I heard somewhere that Aronofsky shot parts of Black Swan in New York's subway system without permits.

So I'm left wondering, if a big time director like him can get away with it, then why should any of us ever even THINK about paying for a permit?

If Aronofsky did indeed do this, then why did nobody from the city govt go after him once they saw the film? It would seem to me that the footage would be the proof, and they could charge him fines or something.

So are permits just a big joke in the industry and people only pay them if they want to?
 
Sort by date Sort by votes
Most big budget movies have permits for just about every location. Your post about Black Swan is identifying a rare exception to the norm. Aronofsky in a subway. Danny Boyle on the streets of India. Soderbergh in Detroit. It DOES happen in big films, but it's RARE.

One thing to note is that big movies can probably AFFORD a situation where they get busted and have to find a new spot. Or maybe they have bribe money on hand. Or maybe they're shooting B-roll. Or maybe it's an extraneous scene that's expendable.

Whereas you...

...You, as an indie filmmaker, you're absolutely screwed if your biggest day of shooting is scrapped because a park ranger or a cop HAPPENS to be driving by when you're filming. Yes, you can sometimes talk your way out of a mess. Yes, you can sometimes get a pardon with "student" status. But can you afford the strong possibility that you could get bumped by a strict cop? I mean, sheesh, five actors, one truck of equipment, a camera that's getting rented, a food truck on the way... the bigger your project, the less likely you can handle a forced-change-of-location, right?

Do indie filmmakers skip permits? Yes, all the time!

But a smart indie filmmaker has a back up plan for every situation. You'll have a location A and B and C. You'll have a way to seem like a student production to cops. You'll know what exactly bothers cops (like blocking traffic, or laying sticks, or setting up a lights). FYI: the cops in downtown LA are EVERYWHERE. Your guerrilla set will get visited about once an hour, seven days a week. But sometimes they won't stop you. Again, have a back up plan.


If it's just you and one actor, then, yes, go for it. Guerrilla. But if you got a whole crew at stake, lots of equipment involved, a ticking clock, a ticking calendar, then don't take a risk you can't handle.

Shanked
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
if you are shooting with a handheld and a couple friends, and your project is never going to see the light of day, outside a couple screenings.... go ahead and shoot without a permit.... have fun. I wouldn't recommend it.. but, if you're dumb enough..... go ahead and take chances like not having production insurance ( can't get insurance without permits ).... go ahead and try to block traffic or even a sidewalk... see how far that works for you without a permit. oh, and if you don't have a permit, you can forget a distribution deal.... No one will pick up your film since the film could be sued for violation of Privacy laws... Even by local, state, and federal governments. If you don't get a permit and then post it according to the local laws, anyone who might end up in your film by accident ( just a passing glance ) could sue you. And god help you if something bad happens and someone gets hurt. No Permit, no insurance....

so have fun... I'll get the permit every time.

On Line permits for NYC: https://nyceventpermits.nyc.gov/film/

cheers
geo
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Georgia is right about getting clearance for human faces and product logos, but most indie distributors will NOT ask you for copies of your location permits. They want people and products fully cleared but the locations themselves are not part of most contracts.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
NYC laws allow shooting in public without permits, provided there are no prop weapons and minimum equipment is used to accommodate independent filmmakers. Tripods and shotgun mics are allowed these days.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0 Downvote
It's fairly simple: If you can get a permit, get it. If you don't have the time to get the permit then shoot with minimum cast and crew (in the UK it's max 5 for shooting in a public space without a permit) and worry about it later. You CAN still shoot in public without a permit but it's always better to get one so that you don't have any problems during or after production.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I did not get one single permit. My feature got into festivals and won awards.

But you have to use your head. As someone said, showing up on the street with a large crew and plenty of equipment is a no-no.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
lefecious said:
If Aronofsky did indeed do this, then why did nobody from the city govt go after him once they saw the film?
Click to expand...
You seem to misunderstand what a permit is.

A film permit has nothing at all to do with the finished product. A
film permit allows a filmmaker to shoot in some areas without being
stopped by the police. If a filmmaker does not get a permit the film
can still be shown. No one can "go after" a filmmaker once they see
the film. The local authorities can only "go after" a filmmaker while
they are shooting. and even then it's rare there is a fine. What usually
happens is the police tell the filmmaker to stop and move on.
lefecious said:
So are permits just a big joke in the industry and people only pay them if they want to?
Click to expand...
If a filmmaker needs an area for a long period of time or needs a full
crew with all the equipment then getting permission isn't a big joke.
If a filmmaker is grabbing shots with a couple of actors and a camera
with no equipment then they can shoot without getting a permit. As
you can see, if a filmmaker is stopped with one actor and a camera
and told they can't film, it's no big deal. they say, "Okay." and try again
a day or so later. However, if there is a full crew with equipment it's
expensive to have to stop, pack up and try again.

You should take notice that Aronofsky shot parts of Black Swan
in New York's subway system without permits but he shot everything
else WITH permits.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Alfred Hitchcock pulled off the most famous guerrilla-no permit shot of all time: Camera in a van across the street from the U.N. building in NYC. He had the actors walk up to it, do their thing and leave. The audio was dubbed in later.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
It's about risk/reward.
Is it worth the risk of getting busted and losing multiple hours, perhaps an entire day, on a shoot where every hour is costing you money to save a few hundred bucks in permit fees? That's a case by case call people have to make.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
directorik said:
You seem to misunderstand what a permit is.

A film permit has nothing at all to do with the finished product. A
film permit allows a filmmaker to shoot in some areas without being
stopped by the police. If a filmmaker does not get a permit the film
can still be shown. No one can "go after" a filmmaker once they see
the film. The local authorities can only "go after" a filmmaker while
they are shooting. and even then it's rare there is a fine. What usually
happens is the police tell the filmmaker to stop and move on.

If a filmmaker needs an area for a long period of time or needs a full
crew with all the equipment then getting permission isn't a big joke.
If a filmmaker is grabbing shots with a couple of actors and a camera
with no equipment then they can shoot without getting a permit. As
you can see, if a filmmaker is stopped with one actor and a camera
and told they can't film, it's no big deal. they say, "Okay." and try again
a day or so later. However, if there is a full crew with equipment it's
expensive to have to stop, pack up and try again.

You should take notice that Aronofsky shot parts of Black Swan
in New York's subway system without permits but he shot everything
else WITH permits.
Click to expand...

That response cleared everything up for me. Thank you.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
NickClapper said:
It's fairly simple: If you can get a permit, get it. If you don't have the time to get the permit then shoot with minimum cast and crew (in the UK it's max 5 for shooting in a public space without a permit) and worry about it later. You CAN still shoot in public without a permit but it's always better to get one so that you don't have any problems during or after production.
Click to expand...

is this really true? do you have any links to it?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I, too, an curious about that.

If I were to shoot in the UK and had a grip truck and crane
and generator, six lights, standard grip package, two actors,
one audio person, camera operator and me I could shoot on
a London street without a permit for five days?

I’m wonder if this is similar to the myth that you can shoot
in Los Angeles without a permit if you have three (or two or
fine, depending on you you talk to) people or less. Nick, do
you know for certain that as long as there are five or less
people you can shoot anywhere in the UK without a permit?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
directorik said:
You seem to misunderstand what a permit is.

A film permit has nothing at all to do with the finished product. A
film permit allows a filmmaker to shoot in some areas without being
stopped by the police. If a filmmaker does not get a permit the film
can still be shown. No one can "go after" a filmmaker once they see
the film. The local authorities can only "go after" a filmmaker while
they are shooting. and even then it's rare there is a fine. What usually
happens is the police tell the filmmaker to stop and move on.

If a filmmaker needs an area for a long period of time or needs a full
crew with all the equipment then getting permission isn't a big joke.
If a filmmaker is grabbing shots with a couple of actors and a camera
with no equipment then they can shoot without getting a permit. As
you can see, if a filmmaker is stopped with one actor and a camera
and told they can't film, it's no big deal. they say, "Okay." and try again
a day or so later. However, if there is a full crew with equipment it's
expensive to have to stop, pack up and try again.

You should take notice that Aronofsky shot parts of Black Swan
in New York's subway system without permits but he shot everything
else WITH permits.
Click to expand...

Right, this says it all for me too. Basically what I found is you would *want* a permit to ensure that you have the right to be there - in order to have the legal right, time and space to shoot the scene properly. I shot my entire first short without permits and it was a real pain due to noise and trying to keep the public out of the shots.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top