Guerilla Filming --- Consequences??

[Newbie Filmmaker 1]

So... if someone shoots a scene somewhere without any permission, and they put that scene into their movie --- can the person who legally owns the property spot their property on the video, and sue the filmmaker for shooting illegally on their property??

What about State Parks? County parks? What is the usual consequence to shooting guerilla style, with no written or verbal permissions? Do most guerilla filmmakers get away with it?

The guy that shot a movie in Disney World -- did he get away with it?

I am a zero-budget filmmaker. Every time I ask permission to shoot somewhere, the owner starts asking me if i have insurance. The insurance is soooo expensive, I simply can't afford it.

Any thoughts on this subject would be greatly appreciated.............

 

[harmonica44]

Yeah I was ready to drop the gun anytime I heard sirens approaching, cause normally they are not suppose shoot someone if they surrender unarmed right away. So I was definitely ready to do that. During sound recording, their was actually the sound of a helicopter being picked up, I wonder if it was a police helicopter, high up that we could not see, cause it was their for a long time.

 

[Morris]

Some police have inflated egos or try and press their authority. I know someone who was recently arrested for trespassing at a dog park who had all the licenses. He was handcuffed, thrown in jail, and had his car towed. The tresspassing charges were dismissed, but there was another trumped up charge. The DA prosecutor apologized to him for having to bring it up. Best to get clearance from police before problems arise.

 

[AudioPostExpert]

I mean until filmming started.

I was actually joking with my question. The very fact that the filming situation was such that you were able to take my question seriously is a MAJOR concern!

I do not consider myself an utter moron.

I wasn't stating that you are necessarily an utter moron, just that you presumably would want to avoid being labelled as one by association?

I agree to act in the scene spur the moment, cause the director needed an extra 'henchman'. As he put it. I did not have much time to go over the script, when I went down there, and I did not know he did not bother to get permission to shoot in a public location with guns being used as props.

Presumably you had enough time with the script to notice the use of (fake) guns? If not, presumably you noticed the fake guns when you got on-set? Either way, once you realised the scene required the use of fake guns you must ask pertinent safety questions and refuse to continue/participate unless you are satisfied with the answers! Particularly in this case where you were filming in a public area.

If you asked if the production had permission, had informed the police, etc., and had been told they had, then there's not much you can do but the implication from your post is that you never asked!

It was very hard to leave everyone in the lurch.

Yes it is, it's also hard if one is a professional or aspiring professional to risk one's reputation by walking off. On the other hand, some of the crew on "Midnight Rider" allegedly stated they had reservations about the safety. If true and if they had walked off the set, then maybe the tragic death of the camera assistant would have been averted. While these crew members were not the ones responsible for safety and are therefore not legally liable, they would IMHO bare some moral responsibility. If someone really wants to be an utter moron you can't stop them but if by refusing to participate and walking off the set you might help to stop them risking other people's safety, isn't it your moral obligation to do so?

G

 

[harmonica44]

That's true, perhaps it is a moral obligation, you're right. Sorry, I should have been more specific though. In the script they sent me, the location for the shootout, was indoors. So I thought that it we were going to shoot at an indoor location and public concern would not be a problem. However, when I arrived at the address, they then told me they were shooting outdoors of all a sudden, cause they could not get a location like the one that was used in the script. So that's why I didn't catch one till the director literally set up the camera, outside.

But perhaps it was my moral obligation to take off sooner.

 

[HowTheyDoThat]

Just found this thread and had some thoughts.

--
I watched some of the "Disney movie".... Escape from Tomorrow. (We're allowed to name, right?)

I didn't make it through because it didn't hold my interested. But...some questions did arise.

1-The filmmakers probably realized it would be easy (so many tourists with so many cameras).

2. Even if Disney didn't sue them, aren't they still in danger of being sued by others--tourists? It's not a "public" place, or is it? I have been in semi-public areas that had "filming in progress" signs out and it was implied if you wandered in you agreed to be in the background (hotels/resorts). But if Disney doesn't have this sort of disclaimer, could't they be sued by some woman/man who sees themselves in the film and never consented?

For example----you have lunch in a restaurant. the restaurant has agreed with the production of a film to allow cameras but has not alerted customers. Those customers could sue, couldn't they?


2. I can remember people doing productions in NYC on multiple occasions where they were walking down the streets and random pedestrians were getting into the shot. A few times someone from the crew would be waving..telling passersby "dont' look"....as in don't look at camera. This is legal in NYC, I assume, but I can't imagine it's done by high $$$ productions.
I have seen a bunch of films where the passerbys are staring right at the camera.


3. As for weapons.......That's a big big big big red flag. No matter where you are unless you're in the middle of nowhere.

I've seen a few shoots in NY where they had a "live" gunfire scene (blanks) and there were more police and crowd control then after a real robbery.

 

[harmonica44]

What about movies that get released where the filmmakers do not have permission from the owners of the location, yet the film gets released anyway? For example, Michael Moore has gotten into places and shot without permission, and he is still able to release his films without consequence it seems. For example, he did not have permission to shoot at Guantanamo Bay in Sicko, yet he still distributed the movie successfully. Or how on Roger & Me, the owners of the building, threw him and and his film crew out, yet he still used the building and no one banned the movie.

 

[WalterB]

I don't know, but documentairies can be handle differently as they are more on the 'journalism' side of the spectrum than (blockbuster or flop) fiction.

 

[harmonica44]

I'm faced with the same dilemma myself when it comes to location rights. What if I recolor the location in post, so it looks different? That way, if one ever got taken to court over it, you could just argue that it's not the same location cause it's different colors, then the place they are referring to?