If it Moves, it ain't Art...

[Alex]

Over the years I've heard of a "ratcheting down" of what you can legally shoot in public with your camera without being sued by the owners of what it is you are shooting. It appears that without the proper building release from the owners of a building that will be in your shot, less and less of public property is "fair game".

In New Mexico, they have these wonderful Helium Balloon "Parades" where hundreds of Helium Ballon owners fly their ballons in the parade. The sky is filled with all kinds of shapes and colors of ballons as the fly by an adoring public.

Apparently, if someone has designed "artwork" on their own balloon, and you film it, you can never sell that footage unless you get a release from the balloon owner.

I find this ridiculous for the following reason...THE BALLOON IS MOVING THROUGH OPEN AIRSPACE! How can it be granted an unlimited right to obstruct my view of the sky! [img]frown.gif[/img]

If one pans the sky tracking a particular balloon, then perhaps the owner of that balloon has legal cause to sue if one does not obtain a release from them. But If I am filming a "vista", and a helium balloon comes into my frame and then exits my frame, perhaps I could sue them for ruining my shot?

Who out there stands up for the little guy who just wants to make a movie and has no idea whether they will ever sell it anyway? Who out there fights the big bad Lawyers who only know how to protect what exists, even if it is at the expense of the budding filmmaker and their new creation?

<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ September 18, 2002 04:28 PM: Message edited by: Alex ]</font>

[Mike Buckles]

It all boils down to greed...I believe such a frivilous lawsuit should be thrown out of court if the balloon owner sued you...after all, it is free airspace, and they are invading your shot...people who own those hot air balloons are not poor, and they are just trying to squeeze an extra buck...the only time i could see a complaint justified is if you copied the logo or design that was on the balloon, and used that in something....I'm sure that in the balloon owner's home are home videos featuring an event with crowds of people...some of which didn't want to be photographed, and should sue the balloon owner for money as payment for being in the home video...Mike

[Actor]

Get yourself a copy of [ame="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1879505304/qid=1032396365/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-4096859-7399123?v=glance&s=books"]Clearance and Copyright[/ame] by Michael C. Donaldson. This is my understanding of what the author, a practicing attorney, has to say on this subject.

The situation depends on whether your film is a documentary or a work of fiction.

If your film is a documentary then film away to your heart's content. You have a right to film anything that's out in public and to sell it to anyone. CNN does not have to get clearance from every owner of a piece of property in the background when they record the news.

If you are shooting a fictional piece then there are four rules which will trigger a requirement to get a clearance.
<ul type="square">[*]The item in question is a plot point. It somehow makes a difference in the story that it is this paricular item.[*]An actor names, touches or otherwise draws attention to the item.[*]The camera lingers on the item. The word lingers is rather vague and subject to interpretation.[*]The film shows the item in a negative light. Again subject to interpretation.[/list]Big Hollywood production companies have deep pockets and with a century of experience behind them they have grown wary of nuisance lawsuits which can delay release of a film and cost them money. As a result they obtain clearance for everything that is in a film. Since they do it the idea has grown that it is a requirement. This is not the case. A small underfinanced indie is not likely to be a target for a lawsuit which has little merit.

[Actor]

In response to Mikey's post:

If you are shooting something for you own enjoyment and never show it to anyone other than your friends, family and/or guests then a litigant has no case. A key element to proving copyright or trademark infringement is distribution. If you don't distribute it then you have violated no one's rights.

Unfortunately distribution includes giving copies away. But in that case the rules of my previous post apply.

<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ September 18, 2002 10:22 PM: Message edited by: Actor ]</font>

[Alex]

If I shoot in downtown LA, and I have framed certain streets, the sky, and in the background happens to be the LA Staples arena, home of the LA Lakers, Clippers, I need to get a release from the Staples Center if I were to try and sell my film at a late date.

I believe photographic releases should be held to a stricter standard than video, because most of the time the motion picture or video image that shot is about the "motion" of the shot, not just the buildings in the shot, whereas the still photo is more about the objects in the frame.

I wonder if the two styles of acquistion, still photography and motion picture, are being clumped into the same category.

[TA152]

Shooting permission.

Possibly being slightly off track here, the following is more than 22 years back, off my memory.

I bought a US photo magazine that had a big 35mm camera test.

I think I read in that magazine somewhere that if less than 250mm objectives were used, you were free to take still photoes of virtually all you wanted except restricted areas.

If I am wrong, bypass me, but othervise S8 shooting should be plain legal?

I think I still have that magazine somewhere and will try to find the stuff.

R

[Scott Spears]

A friend of mine works for Sony, big studio, deep pockets, but they have their headaches too. On a trailer for "Spiderman" there was a shoot of Spidy swinging through Time Square, so to avoid being sued, they replaced all the signs and electronic sign there with fake advertisements. Guess what, they got sued because they changed the signs and didn't ask permisson. Damned if you, damned is you don't.

Scott

[Alex]

What a nutty story! Thanks for sharing that. Clearly some superhuman lawyer needs to step in and help the courts redefine the rights of filmmakers to acquire images.

It looks more and more as the freedom to shoot because of technological advances increases, what you can legally film decreases.

I think camera lock-offs should allowed. For instance, in the case of Spiderman, any shot that zoomed and panned might be interpreted one way, but locked off, non panning and non zooming shots should be allowed.

It just seems like a compromise worth considering.