City Filming / Legality

J

JonathanLB

Carbonite Member
I have never been able to get a clear answer on this, I know people will write the standard "ask a lawyer" question, but at least I figure a lot of people here already have dealt with this issue and may at least offer some advice.

So if I want to use footage of, say, Staples Center, or LA Live, that we shot from across the street on a public sidewalk, what is the legality of that? I know I've heard you have to get permission if you have trademarks in the shot supposedly, noticeable things like a McDonalds sign or whatnot.

But if you're shooting a Web video and someone says their business is located close to LA Live, Staples Center, etc., why would you need to get permission just for showing buildings that are in the news constantly? It's not a feature film, so it's not being sold for profit, it's just showing the surroundings of the area. I really don't fully understand the deal with that...

It's confusing to me because I am not sure how so many places get away with showing all of this, if technically speaking it's such a grey area. Do you think it's much of a risk to show assorted city footage around an area for this purpose? It definitely helps establish geography for the business, but at the same time I don't want to expose the client to legal risks. I could edit two versions, which we've talked about, and I really doubt that they're going to get a cease and desist letter for showing footage of a popular public hangout. If anything, they want more publicity for the area, and they need it, as it's a new attraction (LA Live) and the revitalization of downtown includes area businesses like the one we filmed. So I can't really see it being much of an issue, but it's confusing because you would think just for the sake of creating fewer headaches for everyone that any business should assume that if their logo or building or whatever appears from a public street it's fair game to be filmed as long as you're not on their property.

I know for a fact it works that way with still photos and people, but not for logos and trademarks, which is odd to say the least. If I took nude photos of Jessica Alba from a public sidewalk, I would be perfectly within my rights to sell those photos to anyone I want or distribute them any way that I want, because she would have no reasonable expectation of privacy (as the law states) being nude where it is easily viewable from a public area. It's different if you go onto their property to get those photos, then it is an invasion of privacy and trespassing.
 
Ask a lawyer.

Seriously, even if people here do advise you on the subject, you have no way in the world of knowing if what they're telling you is actually true and accurate. So you're risking a lot on the say-so of people who are virtual strangers.

Don't risk it. Do the professional thing -- consult a qualified legal expert.

Good luck!
 
Seems like a lose-lose situation.

We have to see the visual pollution of advertising signs (sorry to you guys that make a living making this stuff) that is in our face while we are in public areas, yet apparently we cannot film it. WTF??

They want their pie and eat it too?

Would somebody like McDonalds actually sue you?
I thought they'd be keen to see thir arches diplayed wherever, so long as it wasn't done so in a negative way.
 
Say I filmed a McDonalds and they chose to sue, wouldn't a logical argument be that they don't sue entities like google map street view that displays their arches. Surely they can't pick and chose to have it both ways.

...or that they actively pay other producers for product placement in movies. (we'll assuming they actually do for this example)

I know without anywhere near the amount of legal support they have I'd lose in a millisecond but there's the pity. Logic, fair play and common sense seems to be lost to the legal profession nowadays.
 
Owners of intellectual property are free to choose whom to cooperate with and whom to go after. There are many buildings and other objects which are copyright and fiercely protected by their owners. Examples: the "HOLLYWOOD" sign and the nighttime lighting of the Eiffel Tower.
 
Last edited:
Yeah...

Yeah...

The Hollywood Sign thing makes no sense to me at all, haha. I don't get why you couldn't record a recognizable sign that's viewable from basically anywhere ;)

I looked up some more info on this, it was tough to find, and basically all of the stuff I heard about not displaying Coke cans or whatever for legal purposes was nonsense, it's just extra precaution. It's not breaking any laws at all to display Coke cans, Hollister t-shirts, or any other copyrighted / trademarked item in any shot in any medium. It's considered incidental use, items occurring in the real world, and not "showing the trade mark as trade mark," specifically.

The only issue is that companies can frivolously sue you in our country, even when they know they are completely wrong, and they know most of us can't really afford a lawsuit over something potentially "avoidable." Distributors, also, are overly cautious because apparently they don't have good legal teams either or don't want to waste the money.

But in theory, if I were an indie filmmaker and inherited $1 billion, I would probably never be sued for ANY of that stuff, because they would know darn good and well I'd defend the suit and make total fools of them. They are smart like that, they know they can go after the little guys and just use scare tactics to make you comply, but they also know they can't go after a company like Google and win because Google can frankly afford better lawyers and more lawyers than they can ;)

It's a frustrating situation. The problem is clearly not the law, but the lack of tort reform in this country. I think it should be actually far heavier than what some people suggest. I think if you sue someone and lose, not only should you pay their legal expenses but if the defense can prove that it was clearly a frivolous lawsuit without merit, which would be exactly the case here, I think there should be something like a $1 million fine for a public company, $100,000 for a private company, or $10,000 for an individual. Something extremely steep to deter any such efforts of bullying using the legal system, which is not how it was intended to be used whatsoever. It's really absurd.

I didn't take the risk on this project, I just left out the footage we got that was basically B-roll anyway. I don't want to put the client at risk for it, not really worth it. But they make anything like this not worth doing basically because how are you going to clear it? You can't if you're doing small budget work. You'd probably have to spend a huge amount of time and energy getting permission in this case from AEG, which owns Staples and LA Live, then you'd have to get permission from Nokia because apparently the simple text "Nokia" is their trademarked logo (LOL, yeah right, whatever), and then ESPN signage appears everywhere, so you'd need their permission too. Then you'd probably need to get a permit before you shoot, rather than just pick up some simple footage with a camera and ask permission to use it, so by the end you might as well just see if anyone has any stock footage and already went through all of that, or just not bother.

I agree that it's really annoying we have to put up with all this crappy advertising, then that actually distracts from trying to film anything because it's now littered all over the place, stupid billboards, neon signs, banners, you name it, it's everywhere.

I think the law should be simplified further so you can defend yourself in court. It should be very simple -- any building filmed from public property is fair game and acceptable, as is any advertising or logo on that building.
 
Richard Crowley said:
Owners of intellectual property are free to choose whom to cooperate with and whom to go after.
Click to expand...
Not necessarily. If you don't actively defend your trademark, you could lose it. Hence why Disney sues day care centers that have unauthorized paintings of Disney figures on them.

So if a company becomes aware of trademark infringement, they're supposed to actively defend it. If they don't, they run the risk of losing their registered trademark status. And therefore, if it's a case of trademark infringement, they don't really have a choice of who to cooperate with and who to go after, they have to go after you.
 
Barry_Green said:
Not necessarily. If you don't actively defend your trademark, you could lose it. Hence why Disney sues day care centers that have unauthorized paintings of Disney figures on them.

So if a company becomes aware of trademark infringement, they're supposed to actively defend it. If they don't, they run the risk of losing their registered trademark status. And therefore, if it's a case of trademark infringement, they don't really have a choice of who to cooperate with and who to go after, they have to go after you.
Click to expand...

"Cooperate with" doesn't mean passively standing aside while others exploit your property. It typically means licensing, sometimes even gratis if the IP owner endorses the activity of the user.
 
Well, yes -- true, but I guess the point is -- they can't just "look the other way" so I didn't want anyone to get the wrong idea about that. What you said is accurate, you either get a license or you get sued.
 
Yeah, what everyone else said. It's more of a problem in advertising (i.e. commercials) because it gets into "implied endorsement." For features and the like, store fronts are usually considered Public Domain - unless the item is featured. If it is featured, then that's a different story. Speaking of Disney, they tried to control the exterior of their concert hall in downtown L.A. for incidental wide shots of the city. I am pretty sure that they lost, the argument being that if they want that kind of control, don't stick your frickin' building in the middle of downtown!
 
The decision by the courts is that as long as a structure is clearly viewable from the street or a "public " place it was clearly inserted into public view by it's owners. It is therefore acceptable to show said building from a public view point. Now, this is where it gets tricky. This building and it's protected trademarks cannot be featured or appear to endorse the film or product being filmed. Basically as long as the building is a ND background your OK, possibly..... but I would seek legal advise :-)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top