Feature Film; filming skyscrapers, skyscrapers, government buildings, schools, houses

Clint Nitkiewiz Hernandez

Clint Nitkiewiz Hernandez

Well-known member
I am shooting a feature film in the next month, and I somewhat overlooked an important aspect of shooting. There is a certain university's library which I wish to include in the background. I don't want to get permits due to it being no budget, so I will be filming the actors walking along a similar path, and with visual fx with track the famous library in the background as if they were there. Is this legal without consent, or fees paid to the library?

Do I need any permission for this?

I will be doing this in front of two schools, one in Los Angeles, and one in Mexico, but both are famous.

Since were on the topic, can anyone with expertise on the matter give any extra info such as, is one able to shoot any building, house, public, private, government owned, hotel, and include it in a feature film without permits, permissions, if visual fx or shooting off their property is the method of including the historic building in the shot? Also freeways, and government street names, citys, etc.


I.e, Eiffel Tower, Dodger Stadium, White House, Private Corporation owned Skyscraper, etc.

Thanks!
 
You need no permission whatsoever, except for the actual filming (to keep the film crew from bothering people).

Why don't you try asking for permission to shoot at the library? If it's a no-budget feature they likely will let you shoot there for free.
 
Pmark's answer is just not correct. You need a property release for all recognizable property used for commercial purposes. (This covers your feature film even if you never make a cent.)

Will all property owners come after you? No. Disney Concert Hall sure will as well as MANY, MANY others. Also, festivals will not accept your film without all your releases in order - likeness as well as property and included copyrights.
 
What a stupid world is that? Huh?

Everybody is sueing all and sundry for everything.

My property this - my property that.

Damn, if I can help someone by let him shoot my house, car, cat or whatever, whats the problem?
And why would I make him pay for that, as long as I´m not in the rental business?

Public buildings and places are owned (and paid) by the tax payer
anyway.

It seems to me, that nowdays everyone is try to make money out of everything by sueing the hell out of them, instead of doing someone just a favour (or working for money).

Frank
 
Well that's not entirely true anyway. This is yet another issue you're going to have people arguing both ways, and on both sides they will insist they are right, just as I will insist I'm right, and there will be people saying "these are the facts, blah blah, whether you choose to ignore them," etc.

That's just not correct though. In the library case? Perhaps, yeah, that sounds a bit sketchy. But as for filming anything else? Absolutely not. If you are filming in a public place, from a street let's say, and you happen to catch a McDonalds in the background, no, you do not need their permission for having their logo in your film. Some people are paranoid to get the permission anyway, but it's free publicity for the company, for one, and two, you are on PUBLIC property. ANYTHING visible from public property is your right to film, even if it's private property. What you can't do is go onto private property, without permission, and film. That's illegal and that will get you in trouble. It's their fault, though, if you can see their property from a public place. That's not your problem.

And for the idiots who insist that you can't do that, do you really, honestly think even a major studio is going to film on a street with two characters in a cop car, let's say, driving down the road, looking around, and clear releases for every single business you just happen to see? No, they aren't. If you're going to go that far, you also need to get a release and permission, then, for including a Honda in your movie, or a Mercedes, or anything else that's recognizable. You can't do that because it's simply impossible. Nobody would make movies at all if that were the case.

And festivals don't ask for releases most of the time, so you're wrong. I've submitted to a lot of festivals and haven't had a single one ask for any sort of releases, even though I have releases and permits and everything else for the music video I submitted. We even made sure not to show any products close-up just in case. There are some relevant guidelines, like if you show hard alcohol (we had a bar scene) apparently you need at least 8 different types or something, 8 bottles, according to my UPM, and then it's considered a group and it doesn't matter whether you can or can't see logos and whatnot.

It's always a good idea, don't get me wrong, to avoid showing product labels if possible, and keep things as generic as possible. On my music video we kept the band from wearing any recognizable brand name clothing, like no Nike swooshes, etc. It probably makes no difference, and it strikes me as completely ridiculous, but since it took so little effort to cover our butts we decided we'd do that. Honestly, though, some people are way too paranoid. It's seriously a wonder they get out of their houses. Ever. If you're worried about Coke suing you because in one scene of your short you have a character drinking a Coke, you know you're too paranoid. To Coke, that's free marketing, why would they spend the considerable time and resources policing INDIE shorts, music videos, and features to find instances of their product, which they'd usually PAY MONEY TO HAVE, and then proceed to sue you?! Makes no sense, haha. The main reason I try to avoid brands at all is because I'd rather not have it be like I'm promoting one over another, and I'd rather just avoid brands showing up whenever possible because it's not necessary for the story 99.9% of the time.

Another thing is you see all kinds of movies, major features, where they actually make fun of a big company, they'll actually throw in something negative about McDonalds or whatever, I've seen it all of the time, and they don't get sued for that because it would be unwanted publicity anyway. That comment will go mostly unnoticed and be forgotten, but if you sue someone over it, all of the sudden it becomes news and more people will remember the comment, first, and second, people will start to think X company has no sense of humor and is another evil corporation. That's why they let that stuff slide.

I have heard that supposedly you need permission or you need to pay the city to film the Hollywood sign. I'm not sure what gives them the right to say that, actually, nor do I think it's defensible in court at all, but that's what I heard. The point is I wouldn't worry too much about most of that crap.

If you're going to worry, it limits the types of films you can even make. You better not have any scenes in any public places, then, because you need 100% control of the circumstances. It's like when I drive downtown, and I can actually drive by filming scenes where my car is in the background, literally on camera. I can't sue them over that, though, I have no grounds to sue them. I was on public property and that gives me no reasonable expectation of privacy. That's what the law comes down to, and you can search for it, "a reasonable expectation of privacy." If you're in public, you may not agree to be filmed, but you have no reasonable expectation that what you do is private. The same is true with private buildings visible from public places. Otherwise it'd be impossible for journalists to take pictures even. If you think USA Today and all of these other papers clear permissions with a restaurant in the background of a photo, you have to be kidding yourself.
 
GageFX said:
Pmark's answer is just not correct. You need a property release for all recognizable property used for commercial purposes. (This covers your feature film even if you never make a cent.)

Will all property owners come after you? No. Disney Concert Hall sure will as well as MANY, MANY others. Also, festivals will not accept your film without all your releases in order - likeness as well as property and included copyrights.
Click to expand...


Wrong. Anything can be filmed from public property. Period.

You may need a permit to film (from the city), but if you can get away with it nobody will care (the permit is to set-up the camera, not a permit to film a certain location).
 
You need to read a little closer. I never said you needed ANYTHING in order to FILM, I said you would need the RELEASES in order to do USE the resulting footage.
 
you can in fact film anything from public property and then use the footage. The liability occurs in a few instances

- you show a brand in a disparaging light
- you show ANY portion of any type of artwork

the first - you will get sued for hurting the brand if and only if its a big enough deal to warrant it - not likely on a smaller production

the second - art is treated in a very special way - a public sculpture needs clearance from the artist for example
 
Clint Nitkiewiz Hernandez said:
I am shooting a feature film in the next month, and I somewhat overlooked an important aspect of shooting. There is a certain university's library which I wish to include in the background. I don't want to get permits due to it being no budget, so I will be filming the actors walking along a similar path, and with visual fx with track the famous library in the background as if they were there. Is this legal without consent, or fees paid to the library?
Click to expand...

One of the more famous examples of this was in the film 'North by North-West'(1959), where the UN prohibited filming of its facilities in New York. Alfred Hitchcock set up his film crew in a van across the street, and had the shot of Cary Grant and others exiting their taxis and entering the building.

Probably these days such a shot would be a composit of greenscreened actors, and CGI'd buildings... perhaps buildings taken from 'stock' photographs, if they are available...
 
really?

really?

smelni said:
you can in fact film anything from public property and then use the footage. The liability occurs in a few instances

- you show a brand in a disparaging light
- you show ANY portion of any type of artwork

the first - you will get sued for hurting the brand if and only if its a big enough deal to warrant it - not likely on a smaller production

the second - art is treated in a very special way - a public sculpture needs clearance from the artist for example
Click to expand...


- you show ANY portion of any type of artwork?????????

So, I thought walking down the street is okay, what about murals, and well, on the library there is a big painting, isnt the statue of liberty a piece of art?

Lets really nail down what art can or cant be filmed in public, I seen plenty of films where murals are shown in the background, and well, most of those artists are now senior citizens, how am I going to track down the artists, that will suck. But if it must be done it must be done. But must it really?
 
GageFX said:
You need to read a little closer. I never said you needed ANYTHING in order to FILM, I said you would need the RELEASES in order to do USE the resulting footage.
Click to expand...

Nuh uh. No releases required. Buildings cannot be copyrighted or trademarked (but a photograph of a building can be -- and guess who owns the copyright? The photographer!)

If you can get away with shooting something without a permit, you're free and clear to use the footage. The permit is for the actual shoot itself, not permission to shoot the subject.

Of course, a private location (like INSIDE someone's house) is another issue, but anyplace that allows pedestrian traffic is a public area even if it's on private property. They might not allow you to shoot there, but they can't tell you what to do with the footage if you already have it.
 
pmark23 said:
Nuh uh. No releases required. Buildings cannot be copyrighted or trademarked (but a photograph of a building can be -- and guess who owns the copyright? The photographer!)

If you can get away with shooting something without a permit, you're free and clear to use the footage. The permit is for the actual shoot itself, not permission to shoot the subject.

Of course, a private location (like INSIDE someone's house) is another issue, but anyplace that allows pedestrian traffic is a public area even if it's on private property. They might not allow you to shoot there, but they can't tell you what to do with the footage if you already have it.
Click to expand...

Absolutely, that's totally true. You cannot put a building up and then tell people that from public property, or even their own private property, that they cannot photograph your building or use that photograph for commercial purposes. That simply isn't true. They own the building, they don't own all rights to the building happening to appear in footage or photographs, lol, that's absurd.

Permits don't give you any rights as far as that goes, he's right, permits are just allowing you to be there and to film. They keep you from running into problems with the police or other legal issues, and give you the right to film wherever the permit says. But if you film without a permit, and get away with it, the resulting footage is no different legally than if you had a permit. It's irrelevant.

I remember I had a big argument with my production design teacher over this, because I had done the reading many times over in copyright law books and filming law books, etc., and she was saying, "If you have even a tiny sign of Taco Bell or McDonalds in the background, you have to get clearance to use that, even if you're on a public road," blah blah. I just yelled out, "No you don't, you're wrong. That's not true at all." Then this argument went on for a bit, but it wasn't new, my friend Brendan was arguing with the 1st A.C. telling us some BS about cameras just hoping, I guess, that nobody knew what the hell he was talking about. I think he said something like, "No camera has close to the resolution of film right now," and my editor was like, "That's not true at all. The RED and the Dalsa Origin are close to film, RED is 4K and film is scanned at no more than 4K," and he was like, "Well, ok, but the RED isn't even out yet," which was true at the time, though it had been developed, and he was like, "Who knows if that camera will ever come out," and then was giving us this crap about how film will "always" be better than digital, as if it's a fact written somewhere or some sort of religion, which is such a ridiculous statement because first off, even if you thought film is better now, which I don't at all agree with, then you're still saying that NEVER, even in 100 years, can digital be better, which is ridiculous because there has been no slowing in the progression of digital photography or cinematography. It has rapidly come from basically crap quality to amazing quality, no reason to assume it won't get even better.
 
Last edited:
Honestly, what's the chances of your film making it to 2000 theaters? (I'm not saying that to be a jerk, hear me out on this). Even if you got a permit from the city, it doesn't particularly give you rights to shoot the outside of a building. Example, almost every big budget film shooting in Chicago uses a shot of the John Hancock building. But there's hundreds of shoots of this and our skyline on stock footage. They'd have to go after everyone with shots of the Hancock. It's not even probable. And it doesn't make sense as they'd have nothing to gain. Now if you're saying something negative about the building or talking about blowing it up, then you may have an issue. BUT you will get sued for using the "Hollywood" sign. There's a fee for it's use.

Logos can be tricky so you obscure them slightly or take them out in post. And yes, there are laws that state because a certain places (like Mc Donald's) are so well known and are around in such abundance, catching a glimspe of one in a film is not going to get you sued. The Apple logo ends up in our films, so does Columbia College here in Chicago. A lot of companies don't care as long as you don't say anything bad about them, especially pop and alcohol companies. And yes anything shot from the street is free and clear.

Unless you have a deal (a good one = theatrical release) you'll be selling your wares to foreign markets, video stores or self distributing them. Even the small distributors who hound you for E&O Insurance don't buy E&O unless your film is big enough for them to do so. If you're lucky your film makes it to Blockbuster and Netflix (my first film made it to Netflix and even Walgreens actually). The real thing to worry about is the music you use. You know people still think it's okay to use songs on the radio in their films. The music industry may even hound you if you're giving the DVD away.

If you're shooting an interior you you should always get a waiver (a shooting permit signed by someone in charge) that will state you're allowed to shoot. As a matter of fact you can use this one: http://www.actionfilmmaking.tcmech.com/forms/locrelease.doc it should do the trick. You can change this at your leisure as it's a Word doc. I have a bunch of forms you can use at http://www.actionfilmmaking.tcmech.com/ so be my guest.

Most times people will allow you to shoot outside. The police station near me allowed us to shoot outside but not inside. I simply went in and had a guy video me coming out so we got a shot of me leaving the actual police station (I was playing cop). It worked perfectly. If you're really in doubt, the best thing to do is ask. Good luck on your project and don't worry about it too much unless you're infringing on someone copyright.

-Nate
 
Last edited:
you all are in ways correct, GageFX is also Correct, take for instance the Famous PGA tree down in Monterey Bay, you can take all the pics and footage of it you want, but as soon as you sell that image, you're a criminal. there are a few areas from public land, well public water this tree can be seen from, and its been tried in court, the pga won big time.

however in most cases there is such a thing as "fair public use" and expectations of privacy which will allow you to film. In this case, the library is probably a public library, which means you may need permits to shoot in the area but you’re fine on the images you take. With or without permits.

Most cases public or private fall into this fair use category, good luck.

Jason Miller
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top