At press time, a controversial measure to ban filming of commercials on public and city-owned property in Los Angeles was scheduled to be considered today (7/7) by the Los Angeles City Council. The proposal would apply to spots being struck against by the Screen Actors Guild (SAG) and the American Federation of Television and Radio Artists (AFTRA). However, those commercials being produced under an interim agreement with the unions would be permitted to access city-owned and public property for lensing.
Introduced last month by Councilwoman Jackie Goldberg, the motion-which contains other location shooting-related provisions-grew out of SAG and AFTRA allegations that some commercial producers were deliberately falsifying information on their film permit applications. The unions have accused producers of filing permits that listed bogus multiple locations and that categorized commercials as music videos or other projects in order to avoid actor picket lines on shoots.
"These [production company] tactics not only create a problem for the union pickets but they mislead the public and pose unnecessary burdens on the city and its residents," said Goldberg in her motion. Besides the proposed ban, the Councilwoman’s measure would also require that production companies request film permits only for the sites they will be using. Permits for multiple sites must specify and be for different times of the day. Goldberg would also make it mandatory for producers to provide accurate information as to the type of project being shot, and would institute a "spot check" system at some film sites to verify the accuracy of such info. She has additionally asked the Los Angeles Police Department and the Entertainment Industry Development Corporation (EIDC)-the public/private-sector partnership that oversees the joint Los Angeles County/City Film Office-to report to the City Council "on the accuracy and completeness of the information reflected in the film permit application and to provide recommendations and sanctions, if necessary."
The Goldberg proposal-particularly the ban on city shoots for commercials that aren’t being made under interim union agreements-has raised the ire of producers, with assorted e-mails voicing their objections being circulated throughout the spot community. These e-mails criticized the Goldberg motion on several levels, including its being made at a time when runaway production is such a serious threat to the economic well being of not only Los Angeles, but also the rest of the U.S. Many of the letters sent to SHOOT contended that film-friendly policies are needed in today’s competitive global marketplace, and that instituting a lensing ban would ultimately hurt Southern California.
The Association of Independent Commercial Producers (AICP) has urged production houses to write their representatives on the Los Angeles City Council, including Goldberg, about the impact such a measure would have if it went into effect.
Meanwhile the AICP sent a letter-signed by its president, Matt Miller-to Goldberg last week, noting that commercial production is "a major employer in Los Angeles, pumping well over two billion dollars annually into the city’s economy. It employs both directly-hiring crews, staff and service companies-and indirectly, engaging the services of ancillary businesses. For every actor hired, there are 50 others employed in the production of a commercial. By supporting the striker’s position, you are putting at risk the livelihoods of many constituents, most of whom have been eager and willing to work during this job action."
The AICP letter went on to contend that those livelihoods are of people-including producers, crew members, and owners as well as employees of support service businesses-who are caught in the middle of the stalemate between the actors’ unions and the Joint Policy Committee (JPC), which represents the American Association of Advertising Agencies (4A’s) and the Association of National Advertisers (ANA). "Throughout the strike, production companies and the people they employ have occupied a difficult position. … These people will only earn a living if they work," wrote Miller. "They are not part of this labor dispute, nor party to the contract between the ANA/ AAAA and SAG/AFTRA."
As earlier reported (SHOOT, 6/9 and 6/23), local crews and businesses that rely on production have already been adversely affected by the actors’ strike as a significant amount of spot filming has been diverted from Los Angeles to other states and foreign countries. At press time, with figures in for almost all of June, there were some 250 film permits issued during the month for spot location shooting in Los Angeles City and County (the proposed ban does not apply to areas of L.A. County outside the City of Los Angeles). That figure of 250 represents a 55 percent decrease from the tally of 529 permits in June ’99. This comes on the heels of a 23 percent decline when comparing this past May to the same month in ’99. The actors’ strike began on May 1.
In addition to the proposed ban, the AICP took issue with Goldberg’s other recommendations. In his letter, Miller defended the inclusion of multiple locations on film permits. "Productions of all types-TV, features and commercials-use many locations throughout a single job, and many times in a single day. This is standard practice." Miller claimed that it’s counterproductive to "limit the flexibility of production schedules, and eliminate the means of having back-up locations properly permitted if, for whatever reason, the intended first location did not meet expectations. This restriction would make Los Angeles less competitive with other markets."
Miller also wrote that "while on the surface, requiring detailed, accurate information seems incontrovertible, in fact, the film industry has, over time, ‘mislabeled’ a limited number of permits for the safety and efficiency of the production. Los Angeles is unique in that permit information is public, and easily accessed by those with both good intentions and bad. Depending on the information and the nature of the production, this could potentially lead to unexpected crowd control issues, the potential for stalkers, and could endanger and disrupt the production."
The AICP also claimed that Goldberg’s "spot check" provision is unnecessary since a municipality already has the right to make sure that legal procedures it has put in place are being adhered to properly. Miller added that, "the film industry has no objection [to spot checks] as long as the City’s actions do not interfere with production, or have onerous penalties."
Copies of the AICP letter were also sent to the rest of the Los Angeles City Council. Miller concluded by writing that the City of Los Angeles "owes it allegiance to all its residents, and not just a vocal few. We hope the City Council will see that this motion [by Goldberg] is not conducive to supporting an important industry and the many who work within it, and will reject its passage."
The JPC described the Goldberg proposal as "blatantly illegal" and a threat to the production industry in Greater Los Angeles. In a letter sent last week to Los Angeles City Council members, the JPC cited a case from ’86 in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Council wasn’t within its right to interfere in a labor dispute that was preempted by federal law from state or local regulation. The Supreme Court also held that monetary damages could be awarded against the City of Los Angeles for its violation. Though that case involved a taxi cab company’s franchise renewal and a Teamsters strike, the JPC claimed that the legal precedent clearly applies to the Goldberg initiative.
Signed by JPC chief negotiator John McGuinn, the letter went on to contend that a filming ban will invariably result in the migration of business out of Los Angeles and, in many cases, out of the country. McGuinn wrote that the Goldberg proposal adversely affects "local production companies, their employees, and vendors and suppliers and their employees. This would eliminate employment of union-represented production company employees such as camerapersons, electricians, carpenters, et cetera-the entire entertainment infrastructure."
