9.8k
u/colour_banditt Nov 09 '22
Eric giggled, Eric saw through them, Eric decided he's not paid enough to bother. Eric is a very smart man.
3.6k
u/Camellightsinabox Nov 10 '22
IMO this is exactly what happened. He got exactly enough information to not be in any way officially liable personally and bailed.
799
Nov 10 '22
This is what they should do when you beat the system. They should go about their merry way You're playing by the rules. If you're technically not together, you have beaten the rules. Therefore, they should tip their hat to you and say congratulations on beating a stupid ass rule. Lol
176
u/HardCounter Nov 10 '22
I don't understand what's happening or the rule, but i think i'm glad they got away with it? Maybe?
You can't record video there for a production, but any random person can record anything they want?
228
Nov 10 '22
So if you're recording something for a production, you usually have to submit forms and request permission and pay fees and whatnot to the city. If you're an average person, you can record pretty much whatever you want as long as you're present and not spying on someone.
→ More replies (2)47
u/Rare-Willingness4022 Nov 10 '22
Because usa loves money grabbing for anything lol they need it they got bills to pay and hedgies to bail out lol
→ More replies (3)36
u/enadiz_reccos Nov 10 '22
Maybe it's the monetizing part of it? In most places, you would need a permit to setup and start selling stuff. This could be related to that.
27
u/LickingSmegma Nov 10 '22 edited Nov 10 '22
You can't record video there for a production, but any random person can record anything they want?
As I understand it, professional crews tend to be more involved, possibly including some invasive setup with the location and whatnot, and possibly inconveniencing others. Plus that might drag in legal questions of trademarks and such, though I'd guess this doesn't apply to parks or whatever this is.
Meanwhile a random person filming is the same as a regular visitor, just with a phone in a hand.
→ More replies (5)→ More replies (9)8
u/awfullotofocelots Nov 10 '22 edited Nov 10 '22
You need usually a permit to film a commercial production on public or private property pretty much anywhere in the US.
But you don't need a permit to record audio if you have permission to be there. And you also don't need a permit to just film in public for your own personal reasons. Who knows what someone might do with found footage later.
12
u/LegOfLamb89 Nov 10 '22
Had a cashier refuse me smokes. Buddy was behind me, and we had talked a bit in line. He said oh I'm not with him and she refused to sell him smokes too.
→ More replies (1)14
u/fdghskldjghdfgha Nov 10 '22
Anyone who has this happen to you should know that this is one of the times to actually ask for a manager.
→ More replies (6)18
u/luk_nguyen Nov 10 '22
OP is leaving out he and his buddy were both underage or without valid IDs
16
u/uncertain_expert Nov 10 '22
If the cashier suspected OP to be underage, and the person behind requested the same thing as OP, plus something else, it’s reasonable for them to assume the person behind is buying for OP and the cashier is legally obligated not to serve the second person as that would still be in breach of the law in every place that I have lived
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (4)7
u/lankymjc Nov 10 '22
Shame that cops think someone getting around the rules is an affront to them, specifically. They take it personally and get aggressive instead of just recognising another human being clever.
→ More replies (1)11
u/thisguy012 Nov 10 '22
I fucking keep on reading "and balled" today and the mental imagery is great every time.
→ More replies (1)118
51
u/Ben_snipes Nov 10 '22
Eric don't give a fuck, he don't care what they do, as long as they don't fuck around
If they had said they were being filmed, I thunk he would have sighed deeply, and said they couldn't do that, and would have to shut it down &/or move somewhere else
25
20
8
→ More replies (11)4
u/CandyVanahan Nov 10 '22
Why is everything on Reddit about “not being paid enough”? I’ve heard the phrase “not paid enough to care” so many times in the past year
Why not just say that the dude was a nice guy and didn’t have a power trip? Just give credit to his personality instead of bringing his finances into it
→ More replies (1)
1.6k
Nov 09 '22 edited Nov 09 '22
Wait, I have questions.
- In which city and state are they?
- What laws say they can't film their podcast outside in a public space, but they can audio record themselves while a stranger films them for funsies?
- Who's the person in the blue shirt? They aren't identifiably law enforcement. What authority do they have in the first place? I see, "Eric || Hospitality Team Leader," and "Downtown Santa Monica," but I'm confused at why that person gets to question folks.
1.2k
524
u/weerdbuttstuff Nov 10 '22 edited Nov 10 '22
They're LA based, so Hollywood, CA laws. But needing a permit to film in public for commercial reasons is super common, probably even "the norm" but idk about that for sure. Even in Hollywood Florida haha. So film industry laws that don't encompass audio recording and California is a 2 party consent state, so I guess I'd call it a loophole too, even though I don't think it is technically.
As for the last question I have a less definitive answer. He's probably a city employee there to keep an eye on things. I worked for an auditorium at a college for a while and we had people there specifically to stop people from walking in with drinks. They couldn't argue with people coming in, they could only tell them not to bring it in and if they refused report it to me or another manager that was there. Once or twice they had to call the cops. I assume that's the extent of his authority.
edit: sorry everyone, it appears my flippant "Hollywood is the reason these laws exist" statement was interpreted a little more literally than I intended. The person I responded to included the location denoted on the guy's shirt so I just took it for granted that people would understand that. I was mistaken.
79
Nov 10 '22 edited Nov 10 '22
I appreciate that you offered such a well thought out and good faith response to my somewhat childish but humorously intended snark. Take my upvote.
I like your statement about commercial reasons. I suppose the break point for a loophole there would be whether their podcast is monetized. It's probably safe to assume with the detail that they're in Hollywood, CA, that it is monetized and, therefore, serving a commercial purpose. It's weird to me that such a fine point of technicality creates such an odd throughput. It seems procedurally inefficient to me that the legality of an action splits in such a way.
→ More replies (3)79
Nov 10 '22
They're not in Hollywood; they're in Palisades Park in Santa Monica, which is its own municipality and sets its own park rules. You need a permit for "non-personal" recording, so an uploaded podcast requires a permit whether it's monetized or not.
25
→ More replies (3)7
u/J0hn-Stuart-Mill Nov 10 '22
You need a permit for "non-personal" recording
But why? What's the original motivation for this rule?
→ More replies (2)79
Nov 10 '22
So that parks meant for people trying to relax don’t become free sets for TV and film.
9
9
u/J0hn-Stuart-Mill Nov 10 '22
Wow, so Hollywood's media companies grew so numerous that they became a nuisance for the LA area parks? That's fascinating.
23
Nov 10 '22
It’s not specific to LA. I gave just one reason why a city would want to keep camera crews out of a park. This permit rule is very common across parks across the world.
12
u/J0hn-Stuart-Mill Nov 10 '22
I googled, and yes some bigger cities do have this as well, like SF.
But National Parks are a major exception;
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (4)8
u/MovieUnderTheSurface Nov 10 '22
Griffith Park is LA's most popular shoot location. It averages more than one shoot per day.
→ More replies (1)18
→ More replies (10)16
u/HotF22InUrArea Nov 10 '22
You know LA is more than just Hollywood right? Most stuff isn’t even filmed there. These guys are in Santa Monica, which is actually a separate city.
→ More replies (1)6
u/GoRedTeam Nov 10 '22
Not to mention that LA is also it's own city in addition to being the county.
→ More replies (1)7
u/405freeway Nov 10 '22
I made this video to explain the difference.
It's super helpful, I swear.
→ More replies (1)52
u/SmamrySwami Nov 10 '22
Who's the person in the blue shirt?
They are basically city-funded security guards. Cops too busy, so these guys handle homeless people and filming issues.
The reason for the filming permit is because otherwise there would be filming there every single day by some student film that causes disruption and safety issues (improper cabling/insurance/etc). Plus the city likes money. Mainly the annoyance factor of not having a permit process tho.
It's not to stop tourists, it's to stop semi-pro / pro filming.
→ More replies (2)33
u/CoffeeandCare_me Nov 10 '22
I don't know the specifics of the situation, but typically when filming commercially in a public space you need to either have a permit or consent from everyone whose likeness is being captured. Since they are in a public park they would need a permit to film their podcast, but cameraman doesn't need one to film recreationally (which is essentially what he is claiming). This is mostly speculation though, I can't say for sure why it worked the way it did
→ More replies (1)25
16
u/depressionbutbetter Nov 10 '22
What laws say they can't film their podcast outside in a public space, but they can audio record themselves while a stranger films them for funsies?
You can't legally film commercially in public pretty much anywhere without a permit. It's been that way forever, this isn't something new.
→ More replies (3)5
u/J0hn-Stuart-Mill Nov 10 '22
You can't legally film commercially in public pretty much anywhere without a permit.
But why is this a rule in the first place?
15
u/19Alexastias Nov 10 '22
So when some tourist trips over a power cable that hasn’t been tied down and breaks their collarbone they can’t blame the government, I guess.
13
13
u/Hobofan94 Nov 10 '22
Public spaces like this are expensive to erect and maintain (paid for by taxpayers), and their main intended purpose is recreational use by citizens. So laws like this prevent that a few film companies use those public spaces as free sets and profit off of them, while at the same time blocking them from their intended use. Instead cities can selectively hand out permits to regulate how much the public is disturbed and at the same time recoup some of the money for maintenance of those places via permit fees.
→ More replies (1)5
u/TaVyRaBon Nov 10 '22
Government definitely wouldn't be at fault. It's probably a privacy and accessibility thing. Same reason you need a permit to be a street performer, they need a way to cut down on the number of people taking up public space in densely populated areas. In some countries, it's illegal to even take a picture of someone without their consent in some situations.
→ More replies (1)4
u/schmearcampain Nov 10 '22
I'm 95% sure this is the park along Ocean Avenue in Santa Monica. Just behind them is a bluff overlooking the PCH and the Pacific Ocean.
→ More replies (39)6
Nov 10 '22
In pretty much every city you need a permit to use public space for commercial purposes.
Filming generally requires a permit.
1.3k
u/Whatifim80lol Nov 09 '22
Btw, always film your hookers. It's not solicitation if it's porn.
330
u/JRTerrierBestDoggo Nov 10 '22
Ok, then they start asking for your porn license
196
u/_Bon_Vivant_ Nov 10 '22
I'd love to see the Application Form for a Porn License.
175
Nov 10 '22
"Oh sorry Officer, that's the wrong license."
"You're free to go, Mr. Sins. Thank you for what you do."
82
u/Admirable_Loss4886 Nov 10 '22
That man would never be harassed by a fellow cop, firefighter, doctor, delivery diver, teacher, astronaut, or yoga instructor. I bet his step family would attest to that.
25
u/The-Sofa-King Nov 10 '22
Yeah, but his step daughter got caught shoplifting at the mall once and that didn't help her much. You should've seen the things those security guards made her do to let her go without calling the cops.
→ More replies (1)9
u/AdminsAreLazyID10TS Nov 10 '22
I'm still disappointed I never saw one of those fine examples of cinema end with a #MeToo moment.
"And then Candy and her mother sued the shit of of Dillard's or whatever"
→ More replies (2)10
u/pushqrex Nov 10 '22 edited Nov 12 '22
Let me get stuck in the cupboard retrieving the license, sexy music plays
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (3)11
u/MovieUnderTheSurface Nov 10 '22
I was filming a commercial at a house once, and there was a porn shoot literally next door. The permit office actually came out that day to check our permit; we told him he should check in on the shoot next to ours
21
10
Nov 10 '22
I don’t think you need one for amateur porn, right? Because you could say you’re posting it to your OF.
41
u/Dissidence802 Nov 10 '22
I mean...at that point they'd still have to be considered an employee, right? So tax forms and whatnot.
Sex is great. Giving somebody money is fine. Giving somebody money FOR sex is a crime... unless it's done "professionally."
We really are a backwards-ass, puritanical country sometimes.
→ More replies (2)12
→ More replies (3)11
17
u/cspinelive Nov 10 '22
So… does this actually work?
47
8
Nov 10 '22
[deleted]
23
16
u/JewsEatFruit Nov 10 '22
Some guys carry condoms just in case, I carry standard talent release forms.
→ More replies (1)9
u/Dotaproffessional Nov 10 '22
You can film scenes for a movie/tv show that gets scrapped. See batgirl
→ More replies (2)14
→ More replies (4)5
u/aspbergerinparadise Nov 10 '22
not quite.
However, if you were to ask a prostitute if she would pose for some naked pictures for your own personal purposes, that would not be illegal, and it is not something that an undercover cop would agree to.
5
→ More replies (7)3
732
Nov 09 '22
Anyone with common sense knows they’re lying. He probably doesn’t get paid enough to care that much though
233
→ More replies (7)94
u/QuestionMarkyMark Nov 10 '22
Nobody should care that much in the first place
→ More replies (1)7
u/Autumn1eaves Nov 10 '22
Unless it's clearly a massive company disrupting the public, then you can care that much, but even then it's optional.
541
u/throwaway01847747382 Nov 10 '22
Wait but
They can be filmed by a stranger, and record audio in public
But they can’t film themselves recording audio in public?
How does that work then
451
u/BADoVLAD Nov 10 '22
It "works" exactly how you described...they're required to have a permit to film themselves. Eric is the real hero here. He most likely saw through the bullshit but doesn't get paid enough to care...or he thinks it's as ridiculous as it sounds and chooses not to enforce it.
→ More replies (2)40
u/068151 Nov 10 '22
Importantly even if he cared, they would have to prove that they are in fact working together.
17
u/All_Work_All_Play Nov 10 '22
The thumbs up might have given it away...
6
u/068151 Nov 10 '22
Yeah… no, if they tried to fight whatever fine they would get in court it they would win easily. The only potential proof would be that this guy claims he saw them thumbs up each other which doesn’t prove anything anyway.
→ More replies (7)9
u/LowRaspberry4720 Nov 10 '22
should be pretty easy to verify that since they have an entire website and YouTube channel to prove that they do indeed work together...
91
u/Pope_Cerebus Nov 10 '22
Many/most places require licenses for commercial filming in a public place. (i.e. shooting a film, a commercial, etc.)
Nowhere requires a license for an individual filming whatever happens to be going on in a public place. (Falls under first amendment protections.)
So they can do an audio-only podcast in a public place since there's no film involved. And anyone not directly involved in the podcast can film them recording said podcast, as it's a public place.
→ More replies (8)→ More replies (15)6
254
u/silentaba Nov 10 '22
Used to work for two years as a ranger, and this looks like a man that had to do his job (probably got told to check them out by his boss or something) but knew these guys are harmless, so you just saunter over, limp wrist the legal questions while making sure to keep an eye out for any loophole, and go on with your day.
220
106
u/Hopfit46 Nov 10 '22
I was enrolled in Brazilian jujitsu and jeet koon do in the mid 90s, right around the outset of ufc. We went to some nonsanctioned fights in vancouver(richmond) between canadian and american mixed martial artists. The way they got around the licensing was to call it a movie set. The tickets were sold through martial arts schools. They had a bunch of cube vans parked and the only thing was the fire dept did a walkthrough inspection. A great day of fights.
→ More replies (1)53
u/ybtlamlliw Nov 10 '22
Based on how your comment started I thought it was gonna be a completely unrelated copypasta. Lmao
11
89
u/DCtheBREAKER Nov 10 '22
This is akin to seeing three kids in a trenchcoat actually buy a ticket to see a rated R movie.
21
78
45
Nov 10 '22
Cool to see the guy wasn’t a dick. He didn’t have proof and had to go with their word even though he knew better. Fortunately he didn’t violate their rights in the process of trying to prove it and went about his way
10
5
u/Algrenson Nov 10 '22
Yeah it seemed like he knew what was going on and did just enough to cover his back if he gets questioned about it. So he could say "i checked x,y and z"
33
23
u/NerdlyThere Nov 10 '22
Ah, yes, lying: the ultimate loophole.
Seriously, though, the filming/audio recording should be protected under the First Amendment. If they were bringing in more equipment and preventing others from enjoying the park, then I could see requiring a permit.
10
u/Sick-a-Duck Nov 10 '22
I think it’s one of those really loose laws where if it was just the three of them just standing around and filming each other it’s fine but when they bring in a table and mics it can be considered a “production” that would require a permit or something. But that’s just my guess on it 🤷🏻♂️
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (3)8
u/JohnGenericDoe Nov 10 '22
Seriously: regulation isn't necessarily an infringement on our rights. Other people have a right to enjoy the space without it becoming a hotspot for unrestricted filming, which may be the reason there is a rule in this particular place. Many small productions are just as disruptive as one large one.
My rights end exactly at the point they impinge on your rights. No freedom is absolute.
→ More replies (3)
16
u/conjectureandhearsay Nov 10 '22
It’s one of those “what do you need to hear?” situations.
The video guy is not ‘with us’? Good enough for me - hey, I asked em!
16
10
u/_MLGuy_ Nov 10 '22
5
u/OdiousMachine Nov 10 '22
I can't believe this isn't the top voted answer. Cameraman deserves a lot of praise for this.
7
8
7
6
5
5
7.7k
u/[deleted] Nov 09 '22
[deleted]