Stealing locations

P

Paper_bag

Active member
I'm having trouble finding a clear answer on this. Would anyone here happen to know? -- If you steal a location, and no one stops you at time of filming, what are the implications down the track? Let's say it's a commercial project.

If the footage is already in the can, can the property owner bar you from using it? Will potential buyers/distributors refuse to touch the project? Or if the movie is already out there, is there the possibility of being sued?

I'm thinking of any and all locations -- from private residences to hotels, car parks, filming from inside a car in a car park, theme parks, shopping malls, trains, national parks, roads.

Frankly, there seem to be many instances even in feature films where where people haven't got full permission. For instance, microbudget indie projects often steal subway, road and forest locations; and there are documentaries where people have filmed dodgy goings-on with hidden cameras. (Or is news/documentary some sort of special case?)
 
If you reach the stage where you engage a distributor there's a chance you'll need to have releases for all of the locations and a Script clearance report. It depends on who and what and dollars involved.
 
If you want to distribute your film, you'll need to show you have clearances and rights to various locations - this you will need to show to a distributor, or they won't distribute your film. Remember, you'll need to have a lawyer certify that you are not in breach of any copyright laws with that film, or it won't get shown anywhere - this certification will cost thousands of dollars (either you or the distributor will have to cover that). For locations, many are actually even copyrighted and you may not show them without having to go through the rightsholders and paying hefty fees, like for example for the Hollywood sign in LA.
 
Paper_bag said:
I'm having trouble finding a clear answer on this. Would anyone here happen to know? -- If you steal a location, and no one stops you at time of filming, what are the implications down the track? Let's say it's a commercial project.

If the footage is already in the can, can the property owner bar you from using it? Will potential buyers/distributors refuse to touch the project? Or if the movie is already out there, is there the possibility of being sued?

I'm thinking of any and all locations -- from private residences to hotels, car parks, filming from inside a car in a car park, theme parks, shopping malls, trains, national parks, roads.

Frankly, there seem to be many instances even in feature films where where people haven't got full permission. For instance, microbudget indie projects often steal subway, road and forest locations; and there are documentaries where people have filmed dodgy goings-on with hidden cameras. (Or is news/documentary some sort of special case?)
Click to expand...

Yes, news is a special case. Documentaries not as much. Feature films, not at all.

Public locations (subway, roads, forests) you can generally get away with stealing shots in terms of not worrying so much about getting releases after-the-fact.

Private property is where you'll want to get permission. Honestly, regardless of whether or not your work is destined for distribution. Comes down to acting like a professional in order to be a professional.

Furthermore, if you're shooting on private property and can actually get the shots you need by "stealing" use of the location, there's really no reason for you NOT to ask for permission. Your footprint is clearly very small and you're very unlikely to disrupt their business with your shooting, and a lot of places will let you shoot. Just be prepared to cover them with your insurance. That along with not shooting anything that might defame or harm their image. These are the things they'll generally want to see addressed.

EDIT:

OldCorpse said:
If you want to distribute your film, you'll need to show you have clearances and rights to various locations - this you will need to show to a distributor, or they won't distribute your film. Remember, you'll need to have a lawyer certify that you are not in breach of any copyright laws with that film, or it won't get shown anywhere - this certification will cost thousands of dollars (either you or the distributor will have to cover that). For locations, many are actually even copyrighted and you may not show them without having to go through the rightsholders and paying hefty fees, like for example for the Hollywood sign in LA.
Click to expand...

Old Corpse is right about clearing everything by the way.

I *think* the Hollywood sign is a trademark issue, not copyright.

Buildings before December 1, 1990 are not copyright. After that date they are, but you can still generally photograph them without permission providing they are located in or can be seen from a public place. However, like with the Hollywood sign, there could be trademark issues for some buildings.

Oh, and statues or works of art in public plazas, or in front of private buildings that are visible from public property? Those may be copyrighted and could need clearance.

Of course, this is all for in the U.S. In Australia I have no idea.
 
Last edited:
I am finding that nobody wants any filming done on their property around here, but I don't live in a place that has frequent filming like New York or LA. I am attempting to solve the problem with green screening and stealing locations here and there. I am not distributing the film though, just online.
 
I can say that today any commercial film project in Sydney (at least) has to have all clearances from the owners of any property that appears on screen
or proprietry names mentioned in the dialogue or subtitles. On big films there are staff who do this.

Most won't be trouble but I've seen an officious council ranger stop a student film down by the harbour here. Apparently he wanted to see approvals from the owners of all the houses in shot and a receipt for the Nth Sydney council fee. $A90 I think it was.

Most applications will go though but be prepared for any objections that might arise, eg: religious, military police or security etc.

Get them all signed and sealed well before the shoot, carry them all with you and alert any security when you arrive to set up.

What you include in your written clearance is another matter, but try and keep it plain and simple. The more you detail the more some ppl will get suspicious, some will want money!

If it's already in the can or out there, you didn't do your homework and it could come back to bite you years later.

Cheers.
 
Last edited:
mtan said:
I am finding that nobody wants any filming done on their property around here, but I don't live in a place that has frequent filming like New York or LA. I am attempting to solve the problem with green screening and stealing locations here and there. I am not distributing the film though, just online.
Click to expand...
Posting online IS public distribution. You might not be dealing with a distributor but you're engaging in distribution and all of the legalities surrounding distribution that someone in the business of film distribution has to deal with now apply equally to you. Your best bet is to visit a lawyer and get definitive answers that will apply in your jurisdiction - what someone tells you is the case in the USA, for example, may be completely irrelevant to you or the OP who is in Oz.

It never ceases to amaze me the number of people who seem to think that because they're not Sony Pictures the laws surrounding copyright, trademarks, photo releases, music rights, property rights, etc, etc, don't really apply to them. Not true. As soon as you make a film with the intention of showing it to an audience beyond your immediate circle of friends and family you've moved into the Big Boys ball-park and all the rules they have to play by apply equally to you.
 
Last edited:
keylight said:


I *think* the Hollywood sign is a trademark issue, not copyright.
Click to expand...


Sounds about right!

Buildings before December 1, 1990 are not copyright. After that date they are, but you can still generally photograph them without permission providing they are located in or can be seen from a public place. However, like with the Hollywood sign, there could be trademark issues for some buildings.
Click to expand...

It's true that in the states they have muddied the water by bringing buildings in the scope of copyright law recently but it's still okay to take photographs as the law only relates to making physical copies of the building itself. Personally I think it's daft and is going to lead to messy stuff down the line, but thats up to the USA I guess.

Freya


 
Now that you have already shot your footage go to those owners and ask them very nicely to use the shot...you might have to show it to them... "I was doing some shooting and your buildng happened to be in the background. I do not use or show your building in a negative manner, would I be able to use my footage with your building in the shot.....etc, etc, etc. I will give you screen credit if you like..."

I've done this in the past and it worked fo rme. Get them to sign a release.

Go for it!
 
We do live in a very litigious world, but this issue still has to be a matter of degree and within reason. If you want to shoot in front of a person's home or place of business, and prominently show the building, then yeah, you had better get permission, in writing. But, let's say that you are shooting car interiors where you can see see the street and buildings outside of the windows. It would hardly be reasonable that you would need written permission from the owner of every building that shows up in the back ground out the windows. Let's say that you are shooting a, for example, music video on the roof top of a building, and see your city's skyline in the background. Now, you had better get permission from the owner of the building you are shooting from and get it before hand to work out liability issues. However, it is absolutely unreasonable to be expected to get the permission of the owner of every building that is seen in the skyline background of your shots from the roof. Now there might be issues with the municipalities that you are shooting in and their permit requirements. I would see if there is a local film office that can help you navigate those kind of questions.

If you are shooting from a roof top and one of the talent points to a building, you cut to a shot of the building and the talent comments on it... then you need permission. It is a matter of degrees and reason. As a practical consideration, when shooting in situations like this, give your self good coverage of alternative angles and such, so that if you do run into problems latter, you have editing options to work around them.
 
If you go the green screen route, take plenty of stills and cut & paste your own locations.

I had a music video shoot with lots of stylized interiors; I had access to one of those "stock photos by the month" accounts for client work, but since the video wasn't one of their projects, I felt it was risky to use their images. But I grabbed all sorts of stock photos, textures, google image grabs, shots some of my own pieces, and "built" my own location with bits and pieces, distorted ratios, etc.

So in a sense I "Swiped" some stuff, but someone would have to have a really really good eye to bust me! (And it was sort of an experimental freebie project, so to me it was more of a robin hood thing than a dastardly crime of copyright...)
 
If you go thru distribution big time, yes.

if its just your thing and going online. Nope.
Basically nobody cares until there is money involved!
 
A lot of it is going to come down to local laws and as much as anything else the subject matter of the film. Some places will object to some genre's others to specific subjects etc.

Also as pointed out putting it on Vimeo or You Tube *IS* distribution. Though I take Johns point that no one is bothered until money is involved it is not always the case. Some people or companies will have a fit of moral/religious outrage or just simple bloody mindedness etc even if it is "only" on you tube.
 
Whilst editing my micro budget movie I've been checking to see if I have releases for every location here in the UK and for everyones faces. There are a couple of instances where I don't think I'm covered. I captured a clip of an actor running along a quiet road in a tiny village. Parts of several cottages are in shot but not complete buildings (no people in sight either) and I suppose someone somewhere might just be able to identify them. Also, another clip was captured looking down from a hilltop - a nice panoramic countryside shot. One house in a valley say half a mile away is partially obscured by trees but identifiable - though I was filming for general scenery/weather not the house (or others miles away in the distance). Do I need to travel back to those locations to try and get a release? I have simple release forms catalogued for everything else I think - though I will go through the entire film again when finished to double check.

Likewise, I was due to film a forest scene - a very public place and the weather held, the 2 actresses got to the location on time and I thought that I'd chosen a great spot (with a very quiet part of the day) to quickly get my handful of shots done. However, when I got there a group of people were playing football in the background but I absolutely had to have two actresses in the foreground getting out of a car. I was working alone and I stupidly forgot to take release forms. So I left the camera on the tripod, pressed record and ran across to ask the group of people if it was OK to film. On screen I explain what it is about I point to the actresses and the camera position - and they were all OK about it but I didn't have sound to back me up so that is a worry.

A few years back a camera crew were filming on a beach here and a surfer came into shot. He then came to shore and asked if it was a commercial movie. That was the intention so he demanded money, the crew refused and he took them to court. The judge threw the case out because he was not the subject matter if I recall so it shows that there are people out there who just want to bleed you for cash.

Every week on TV I see locations in documentaries or in dramas and some of the cityscapes are so huge and full of advertising it must be a logistical nightmare to cover everything - either that or it is not a legal problem unless something negative is happenening. Can't remember if it was on this forum but I remember a post which said that basically if you are filming in a public place, unless you are showing something bad like a drug deal taking place in a famous fast food restaurant - then common sense prevails.

I've been as careful as I could be when filming but sometimes you just don't notice things until you see the results at home on a larger monitor. I've found I've unwittingly captured logos a couple of times so I've written to the companies concerned via email with a snapshot and they emailed back to say not a problem. With some companies involved I sent off an explanation first with the product named and a release form with a photo of the item on it and again, so far I've not had a refusal.
 
PaulWM said:
Whilst editing my micro budget movie I've been checking to see if I have releases for every location here in the UK and for everyones faces.
Click to expand...

Here's a brief 'guide' on the subject of UK and photography in public and private places and the photographer's rights.

http://www.sirimo.co.uk/2009/05/14/uk-photographers-rights-v2/

From a 'brief' read, and your brief description of the situation it does not appear to me that you need a forma release for buildings at a distance photographed from 'public' property, or property you had permission to use for photography.

I don't know that the article above mentions 'people in public places', but generally it seems that UK and US law have similar concepts, that unless some private person is singled out, the photographer may use the image (or film in this case...) without release.

Note: Further down on the page referenced are comments and some of them specifically address issues of photographing persons in public places.

That said, one of the 'requirements' for getting a filming permit in the US, is that the public is notified of the production, and should someone definitely not want to be photographed, even inadvertently, they can 'adjust' their location accordingly... and depending there is 'on the day' signage about 'filming in progress', should people generally not read obscure legal journals that often such legal publishing is performed...

I would hazard a guess that people in the distance, where you took no 'zoomed in' or 'telephoto' shots of the people, such that they are easily recognizable, is not a case were releases were required.

But as always with these matters, consult an attorney capable of giving legal advice in your jurisdiction.
 
Last edited:
The Simro link is a good one BUT it is 5 years old and some laws have changed. Also " it seems that UK and US law have similar concepts". The problem is "similar" is not "the same" and the devil is in the detail. :-(

Common sense says that, unless you are featuring a building or impplying action is happening inside due to actor appearing to enter it then, you don't need a permit. Likewise with crowds and people in the background. You only have to see the number of films with street scenes at real events or football crowds etc. OTOH, common sense does not always (or often?) apply to the law.

It will depend to some extent what your subject matter is. Filming a religious film to the Glory of God in church will be looked on kindly (you get the building, congregation and coffee for free) but doing a film about a priest abusing alter boys and you will have to build your own church set :-) I understand tha tin the film adaptation of Dan Brown's Angles and Demons they had to use CGI to recreate the Vatican and had to film some of it from another country.

Best to ask a locally based legal professional, which will cost money. You could try writing to some of the UK Film makers magazines. They are likely to answer (in the letters page) for free.

Do remember you need CURRENT advice for your specific location as the laws can and do change. Some places in London require a permit to film reguardless.

IANAL
 
I understand and will of course do all that is required, but this is ridiculous.

To think someone goes through the trouble of writing an amazing script, shoots it, busts his/her butt to make something of themselves - and some jackass sues because his business was in the movie and he wasn't PAID or signed a release? For what? What really makes someone ENTITLED to that kind of power? If you were going to use the inside of their property, sure - I can understand that. But shooting a scene on public property and simply pointing the camera in the direction of a building - somehow our system of laws supports this kind of idiotic convoluted reasoning.

Everyone wants to get money for nothing - god forbid they got off their ass and actually MAKE something - they sit there thinking to themselves - YAY my house was in that movie... NOW I WANT ME SOME MILLIONS! Everyone wants a piece of the pie- even if they aren't seated at the same table, even if they don't live in the same city, they want THEIR pie. It's theirs.

How do you take anything away from a human by not paying them a fee for showing their building. If you never made the movie they wouldn't be paid. If YOU make the movie how does it them involve them? You didn't effect them? (I am talking about simply having a building in frame) - you didn't damage their reputation, you didn't record something embarrassing, all you did was shoot a movie and somebody's building was in frame -

Show me the judges that set the legal precedent for all this - I want a time machine and a baseball bat

As a species mankind is truly ridiculous
 
This is ridiculous... I work my butt off 80 hour weeks for a decade creating my company,building its profile and public face then some jerk screws it all up by having my company building in a sordid little film that promotes all the things we are against and I can't do anything about it!

Most of the people in those buildings work very hard doing REAL WORK not poncing about being a theatrical lovie who can't get a real job....

There are two sides to everything.

The laws are there to stop exploitation of peoples hard earned resources and reputation. How would you like it if some one whose building/company was in the background of your film started to use clips of your film *for free* and without any attribution to you in their advertising?

How would you like it if some on did a fictional film about peadophilia where the lead policeman was filmed, from the public road, driving up to and parking outside your house and leaving again.. walking up to some one appearing as a neighbour in front of the house next door to ask if "the owner of your house" took a "special interest" in children... All without you knowing. the first you and the community know is when you house is identified as being in a film about peados. You would probably be outraged and we know many confuse fact and fiction.

So calm down. there are two sides of to all of this and the laws are usually there to protect some one's legitimate interests because in the past some one has abused those legitimate interests.

Check the laws applicable to your local area. There are usually National and local laws that apply. In some cases a "public space" is in fact private property e.g. most shopping malls, religious buildings, and "public" (local/national government) buildings. Approach the problem in the right frame of mind and you will probably get a lot of co-operation.
 
Being semi- pedantic and making up a new legal status, we should consider if it's actually stealing, which I suspect it isn't but it would be taking without the owners consent, which is what teenage car joyriders get charged with in the UK. No intent to permanently deprive, so not theft, just taking without consent, a less serious crime. The problem seems to be that by having the location evidenced in the project, you're just screaming bill me later! They won't bother for a product that goes nowhere, but if they see you generating income, then you are setting yourself up for action after the event, which you might then be fine funding.

Surely though, the moral thing to do is work responsibly, not covertly. It also suggests you work without insurance. If your cast and crew were injured while on private property illegally, would your insurance, assuming you had it, pay out? Probably not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top