studiomprd Posted July 28, 2014 Report Share Posted July 28, 2014 there are 2 pertinent articles in Deadline today relating to runaway production and location permits and fees, particularly in LAX. a developer has turned what is called the downtown LAX "Old Bank District" into a prime filming location " he’d turned it from Skid Row-adjacent to a thriving area of shops, restaurants and residential lofts... More than 150 days of filming are shot there every year. " many of the location managers expect to get the great shots of the location by only getting city permits to be on public property, and are upset when the property's representatives want them not only to follow their rules, but also pay for including their property in the shots. Is this a shakedown, blackmail, or legitimate ? ...it seems to me this particular location (and its developer) may be legitimately concerned that they are being burdened by "overshooting" their neighborhood, and disrupting their business and residences... “The Old Bank District is home to over a thousand people. Imagine having someone come up to the curb of your house for 175 days a year with lights, cameras, extras, food catering trucks, generators and all the rest that goes with filming, never actually standing on your lawn, but there every day, asking you not to touch your house or even come and go without making sure you’re not in their shot.” maybe they are entitled to some recompense for their distractions, interruptions, and how about their services as set decorators..? http://www.deadline.com/2014/07/los-angeles-film-tv-production-corruption-claims-filmla-gilmore-associates/ and even the politicians are involved... http://www.deadline.com/2014/07/l-a-film-czar-creator-mayor-eric-garcetti-wasnt-always-production-friendly/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Wilkinson Posted July 29, 2014 Report Share Posted July 29, 2014 I've been bullied off public sidewalks in NYC by property owners fed up with the constant filming in their neighborhoods. Can't say I blame them Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonG Posted July 29, 2014 Report Share Posted July 29, 2014 I don't blame them and I see their point, but let's remember why Los Angeles is more than a bunch of orange groves. The movie biz moved into town, which is why we are here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnpaul215 Posted July 29, 2014 Report Share Posted July 29, 2014 If productions really are shooting in that neighborhood 150 days a year, that's kind of nuts for residents and businesses with foot traffic. That really is an appeal of some other cities to locations people. Some cities would love the novelty of having Main Street shut down for a few days (weeks?), even just to play as NYC on screen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff Tirrell Posted July 29, 2014 Report Share Posted July 29, 2014 I think it cuts both ways I have seen some cities where film permits were considered a revenue stream and local police would try to shake down news crews for filming permits, and some where it was more about safety, traffic, and disruption to local residents/businesses. The same goes for location fees, I do believe that there is something to them especially where large productions are involved but I also have seen businesses just use them as an excuse to shake down a small production grabbing a couple of shots. Ps... How are they counting those 150 days a year are they full productions with medium to large crews and everything that goes along with that or are they including single cameras shooting B-roll off sticks in that. Also I am always dubious with these when they start quoting tenant disruption etc as to weather the tenants/ shop owners are actually getting the money or if it just goes into the pockets of either the security staff or building owner. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay Rose Posted July 29, 2014 Report Share Posted July 29, 2014 Suggest to anyone in this forum that we should be supplying gear for free, and you'll be pummeled. Neighborhoods invest in their "gear": land and buildings, architecture and decorating, cleaning and upkeep... There's certainly a difference between a soundie buying equipment, and a community setting social norms (and often, written bylaws) to maintain an environment. And the soundie's intent is to make a profit on use or rental of that equipment, while the community's intent might be to quietly enjoy their neighborhood. But why should that make a difference in whether there's economic return? And there's a difference between a personal business run by an individual and a community designating representatives, in their local associations or local governments. But that shouldn't make a difference either. In other words, what's wrong with a producer having to pay for a location, just like they pay (or try not to pay) for everything else? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnpaul215 Posted July 29, 2014 Report Share Posted July 29, 2014 Geoff: Philadelphia doesn't even issue permits for films. You only need to get a permit if you are closing streets to traffic (which this sounds like they are doing). If you need parking secured for cars and trucks, you go through the Philly film office (a non-profit, not a government office) and they help you out. There isn't a government shakedown of any sort, but I am sure other people line up to get a cut. Again, that's the kind of thing that can make it appealing to production to take over a town that doesn't see the same volume of filming. I'm sure things here would change if they had to devote the same kind of resources to films that LA or NYC does. You're also right that there is no corroboration of the day count. That should be something easy enough to check if people actually have permits. If they do issue blanket neighborhood permits, it might be hard to really verify, but street closures must require more paperwork. That 150 days (if it's accurate) may also include a student film that pops in for 45 minutes of b-roll. That averages to 3 days a week, every week of the year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Miramontes Posted July 29, 2014 Report Share Posted July 29, 2014 If it were me I would open up a taco stand to take advantage of all that traffic. When life gives you lemons...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RPSharman Posted July 29, 2014 Report Share Posted July 29, 2014 Cities shouldn't charge for permits or for police. The industry generates revenue. When I shot in Detroit, they shut a major road down for us to help with noise. I asked, almost joking, and was told, "No problem". The locations guy said to me, "The city is so happy to have you all here, you could kill a hooker in your hotel room, and the cops would help you get rid of the body." The exception being the great retired motor officers who escort process trailers, etc. They are crew, and are instrumental in that work. Their experience is necessary, as was proven when they tried to replace the great retired officers we all know so well with only active duty officers. They deserve to be hired as crew, as they are. Anyway. My point being that public property and streets should be made available, within reason. In terms of private property or "neighborhoods", it's not unreasonable for individuals to demand compensation for the inconvenience, or for the use of their driveway and "regular" parking spaces, etc. And if the area is over shot, then they ought to be able to ban it. Given how often I have shot off Palmetto and around there over the last 20 years, you can't whine about the filming. No different than buying next to an airport and complaining about the plane noise. Shooting has gone on in downtown way longer than it has been trendy to live there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
studiomprd Posted July 29, 2014 Author Report Share Posted July 29, 2014 Canan: " I've been bullied off public sidewalks in NYC by property owners " did you have a city permit ? Geoff: " How are they counting those 150 days a year... That 150 days (if it's accurate) " by permits issued, thus those stealing shots are not counted... Permits are handled by a city office, and those fees are reasonable, and probably just about graft free. "news" is permit free, and other sources say it is more like 175 permitted days... and it seems the area developer/manager is targeting the more major productions RPS: " you can't whine about the filming. " generally I'd agree, but this developer has spent a lot of time, effort, and money to create sets, or at least backdrops that are hugely popular, but not public property. As the fees go toward the property, and also operate in balancing the supply/demand equations, they seem (to me) appropriate... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonG Posted July 29, 2014 Report Share Posted July 29, 2014 but this developer has spent a lot of time, effort, and money to create sets, or at least backdrops that are hugely popular, but not public property. Shooting has gone on in downtown way longer than it has been trendy to live there. Knowing that this is, or at least was, the filming capitol of the USA, they should expect that it would be happening in their neighborhoods, and frequently. If they do not like the inconvenience, maybe they should relocate to a part of the country where film crews dare not venture into. Its like making a decision and being aware of the potential risk. In this case, living in an area that has traditionally been over taken by film sets, and understanding that and being ok with it. It would be another thing is filming in this area was new, yes then I could see the inconvenience. But these people moved in and undoubtedly noticed the frequent film crews and blocked off streets. There really is no way around the reality of it. They moved in where this was already happening. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay Rose Posted July 30, 2014 Report Share Posted July 30, 2014 Cities shouldn't charge for permits or for police. The industry generates revenue. Composers and bands shouldn't charge for using their music in a film. It's major publicity for their CDs and generates revenue. But the way things work, it's entirely up to the musicians to decide how they want to charge. If a producer doesn't want to pay, they can use someone else's music. Ditto various governments: 1) Cities can charge whatever they think appropriate, and attract or lose revenue depending on their natural draw and the competition. 2) States can offer tax incentives to shoot -- or to post -- in their state, if they think it'll generate revenue. In the long run, #1 might chase shoots away from certain cities (and towards Toronto)... and #2 might result in the runaway production sometimes bemoaned on this board. But that's what free markets do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soundtrane Posted July 30, 2014 Report Share Posted July 30, 2014 Composers and bands shouldn't charge for using their music in a film. It's major publicity for their CDs and generates revenue.>>>> Yes, but can they ENSURE proper credits and some amount of promotion as part of the film project promotion? It's fine to drop tangible benefits ($$) for intangible benefits so long as they actually happen. then again, how does one gauge the extent of an intangible benefit (promotion for example)? I guess it should be left to goodwill and the ethics of parties involved? And then if a particular piece of music/song goes viral because 'it's good' - the stakes may change drastically and so does the equation... -vin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonG Posted July 30, 2014 Report Share Posted July 30, 2014 I think you'll find that musicians make considerably less than they probably ever have in the history of recorded music thanks to all kinds of greed and politics, but that is entirely unrelated to the subject of this thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay Rose Posted July 31, 2014 Report Share Posted July 31, 2014 Vin, my note about musicians and composers was intended as sarcastic analogy: under US copyright law, they absolutely -can- charge to use their songs in a film... the film becomes a 'derivative work', and the producers have to get licenses both from the composer/lyricists (the "publisher") and from the master recording owner if the filmmakers don't record their own version. Claiming "it's good publicity for the band" or "will make them profits down the road" doesn't cut it under US copyright law. It has to be a negotiating process. There are statutory rates for making a cover of an existing song as an audio-only recording, and well-established licensing procedures for public performance of music by itself, either live or broadcast. But there's no standard for music used in a film. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philip Perkins Posted July 31, 2014 Report Share Posted July 31, 2014 If you live in a cool place or even a picturesque place, I think you should expect that someone someday will want to shoot something there. I think you should also expect that if the place is a public place (street, park etc) that a fee should be charged that supports the local government's responsibility to manage that use, esp re damage and interceding with put-out citizens. Use of private property is something to be negotiated privately, and since so much private property shooting eventually ends up affecting public property as well there has to be some interface with the neighborhood, if only informal. Places that get popular for shoots--not just for one episodic but for all sorts of commercials etc will probably eventually become resistant to the interruptions and inconvenience, and there are things they can do to discourage use of their area if they organize themselves. philp Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
studiomprd Posted July 31, 2014 Author Report Share Posted July 31, 2014 JonG: " It would be another thing is filming in this area was new, " it is that other thing... this area used to be skid row, and the developer made it what it is today, and the overshooting began as the new folks were moving in... so perhaps the developer should not have invested (heavily) in the property and just let it waste away...?? " They moved in where this was already happening. " nope, you have it reversed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
studiomprd Posted August 1, 2014 Author Report Share Posted August 1, 2014 Deadline: " Credit the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors with making filming more difficult and more expensive in the County than in the City — enhancing one of the biggest obstacles to filming in LA " so, the city wants money (they call them permit fees), the county wants money, but if the property owners who hav, in effect, created a major part of the "sets" at their own time, effort and expense, want to charge for repeatedly being used.... " “The City is great and the County sucks,” a veteran location manager told Deadline. “They think we have bottomless pockets.”... The City Council has an Ad Hoc Committee on Film and Production Jobs that holds regular hearings. The county Board of Supervisors? For all its dozens of commissions, councils, bureaus, and committees, exactly none is dedicated to the film and television industry or aimed at keeping entertainment jobs in LA... Producers will have to pay on-duty LA County fire safety officers $143.28 an hour — $2.39 an hour more than yesterday. That’s more than $5,731 a week – almost $300,000 a year before overtime pay. City fire safety officers receive less than half that, at $64 an hour.... To encourage filming in Griffith Park, the City Council set the location fee at $450 a day; to discourage filming in Grand Park, the Board of Supervisors approved a location fee of $2,400-$12,000 a day. (Check out the Grand Park rates here.) In approving the higher rates for Grand Park, which originally had been set at a whopping $20,000 a day, Supervisor Gloria Molina said she wanted to preserve it for “the people” and, at least during its opening period, not have it turned into a studio backlot. “I don’t think that Grand Park is the place to be a backdrop for the film industry,” she said last year during a Board of Supervisors’ hearing. “I would really like to have the park be available only to the public at this point in time.” Ms.Molina is, perhaps, thinking a lot like the developer of the Old Bank District ? " “You could not make Baywatch in Los Angeles today,” veteran location manager Timothy Hillman said at a recent City Council hearing. “It would be impossible because you can’t do anything on the beach. You’re lucky if you can walk on the beach with a camera.” Hillman tells Deadline: “The County’s Beaches and Harbors Department is so restrictive you can’t get anything done.” . " http://www.deadline.com/2014/08/los-angeles-county-film-production-fees-runaway-production/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philip Perkins Posted August 3, 2014 Report Share Posted August 3, 2014 I think that you probably could not make "The Streets of San Francisco", or even "Nash Bridges" all in SF today, especially if you wanted to frequently shoot in downtown and south of Market (all under construction), North Beach or Pac Heights (way more film-unfriendly than they used to be) or the Presidio (full of private businesses and residences now). For local shoots, we like Oakland! We get the few days to show the scenery (usually being blown up or crushed in an earthquake etc) and that's about it. philp Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.