Depends. Some places yes, some no. Shooting the LA cityscape or NYC skyline without a release is a lawsuit finished before you shut down the camera. They have copyrighted their images.
A carnival where someone is holding a balloon or bunch of balloons can't be thrown into the mix, unless the video is ABOUT the character on the balloons, or uses the character in a non-ancillary manner. It really all boils down to what is featured.
People standing in line to see the haunted mansion wouldn't fall into copyright, but if you shot someone and gave 'extra' time to their face then it could be an issue because you don't have a release. But a pan or pass-by is pretty harmless.
McDonalds, BK, Wendy's have all copyrighted their buildings, and without corporate permission, they cannot permit you to shoot the exterior or interior of the building. Franchise agreements prevent local owners from permitting this either without written permission. On the other side, if you watch the opening for the Soprano's closely, you can see a Burger King in the distance. I'd wager BK hasn't said "boo" about it.
To my knowledge, a government building can't be copyrighted. When it comes to shooting in NYC for instance, government buildings may be shot, but you need an NYC permit to shoot the city itself because the city is copyrighted.
As far as sculptures, again that is dependent. A guy here in Utah was sued for photographing the Brigham Young monument on Main St, SLC and using it in a calendar. The city lost the suit, based on the statue being a public attraction and a tourist location. So, while I don't know the answer specific, there is a lot of sense in that decision. Does your video in any way damage the value of the sculpture? Probably not.
the next question becomes of damage. See my Caveats article, and read about DeMinimis. This probaby falls under that, but I'm not a lawyer, and some of what you are asking falls in to grey areas. Some is pretty clear cut.
If you went to a public art show, sponsored by the County for instance, and shot the artwork for anything non-news related, you'd probably potentially be violating the copyright of the artist, but the county has no play in that scenario.
One interesting thing my lawyer brought to my attention last year, a painter painted a picture of someone not famous, and the picture was somewhat grotesque. The painter was dumb enough to name it after the woman he painted, so there was no question of what the painting was about. He painted it in a public place, and took extreme liberty with the background and surrounding area. (made it horrifying) A local newscast did a story on his work, and showed the painting on television. The woman sued the television station and the artist. The station was not liable at all (makes sense) but the artist was hit for court costs and a punitive damage of nearly 5K. She was asking for 100k. Kinda interesting....Had she been a public figure, her claim would have been groundless.
While most anything outdoors is pretty much fair game depending on whether it's featured or ancillary, some of it really comes down to "what's the harm?" But that too, is subjective.

Hmmm.. this copyright business seems to be a way to protect greed as well as legitimate rights too. Here are some of my problems with copyright.


I listen to the radio TV ect. And am bombarded with the latest pop songs. Sometimes against my wishes. Maybe a public place ect. Or someone in the household wants it on. The artist has the right to show me the goods so I can buy if I like. So what can I copy on my tape deck/ video recorder without breaking copyright, and why ARE video recorders able to record TV Programs.

OK I can play copyright material but I am not allowed. WHHaat. So if I download songs from the internet Im open to prosecution. But if I record with my digital recorder off my digital radio. Using a source better than CD quality(THE Radio station is probably transmitting using a high end player) Then thats fine ? And if not..Well surely the first people to be taken to court FIRST. should be the manufacturers making /selling recorder devices.

I want to make a film but I cant compose/record professional music. Im doing it for fun for a limited audience free and so what if people hear copyright music to my film (A Very low quality format that no one would want to copy and add to there CD Collection) they could hear the same music on the radio or tv or record it in fact anyone hearing it might think oh Ive always liked that song I know ill go and buy iIT!!! I HAVE . I Know I know its not my work. The artist created it And its his copyright his Bread and butter, his Millions you Number in a factory your taking the Drugs/ Caviar/ Champagne/ Porsche/ from him/her... POOR Ole me Im soo wicked. But where or what is art its defined by us. The PUBLIC. and we say whether its tat or not.

I know.

lines have to be drawn but for goodness sake lets have some common sense and these stupid witch hunts after kids as well as adults for down loading music it makes no sense when same music can be copied of the radio, TV using recording devices made by the same people taking kids to court for copy?downloading music. and some older music well your doing them a favour by reminding people

Personally I would not want recordings and always buy the CDs ect I want to own bought and paid music and film that I like

My advice to the recording studios... make sure anything aired is of inferior quality to what can be bought and keep up with technology by making better formats and promoting 24 bit...and unscratchable vinyl And instead of keeping all the profits put some back into improvements.

My Advice to the courts THROW out the Cases against kids ect and tell the copyright owners to take the makers of recorders to court and the www Imagine if there was Money laying around every where but you were not allowed to pick it up cause you would get fined If caught. The whole thing iS ridiculous

Common sense PLEASE.

OFF Soapbox into the Stocks to await a possible onslaught of custard pies..

But how are you supposed to know that LA or NYC skyline is copyrighted? Suppose I go visit my brother in LA, take my camera, go up a hill and shoot some of the buildings. How would I know whether I shot the "copyrighted" skyline or not? And does it depend on the time of day? What if it's just city lights at night? I shot some footage at Huntington beach, is that copyrighted?

Sheesh. Next you'll tell me LA has copyrighted their smog... ;)

Isn't the "Hollywood" sign also copyrighted?

It does seem to me as if all this is certianly adding up to a VERY strange universe.

Non-utilitarian aspects of an architectural work are protected by copyright; that is, non-functional design elements, and clearances are needed before you can include them in your work (e.g., video) even if they are seen in a public place, unless the use is de minimis (whatever that means).

Governmental entities generally can't own copyrights to their works - at least the US Government can't and I'd be surprised if the rule was different for state or local governments (hence no owning of a copyright on a city skyline.)

Check out http://www.copyright.gov/circs/ for more info (Circular 41 pertains to architectural works)

Individual words or phrases cannot be copyrighted. However, they can be trademarked (a different concept) and the City of Hollywood (if it exists) may own some common law trademark rights to the name.

I think the point is copyright is only good to the owner when there is money involved. At which point the stars. Moon, Air, Sun, Universe, Galaxy Are all someones Bread and Butter.

Its very inconsiderate to take what is not yours.

its only by the sheer goodwill on there part that you are not thrown in a dungeon.

But thats how ridiculous it all becomes. There therefore has to be common sense and give and take. We all know if someone spends time and effort and investment they are entitled to royalties.

But there are rules......

like you can use your video RECORDER. Or record from the Radio or download from the Internet (Unless money is being made in which case quite rightly sue the profiteers)as a cheap way to influence your purchase decision. Then go on to buy the real mccoy if you want it in your collection. Its also a good way for kids that cant afford the real deal to at least have an inferior copy. This is the unwritten way society has decided FOR a while now... Lets leave it there and be sensible about prosecutions. If you make music or film for the public we will pay attention.

BUT...

(On our terms and buy if liked) Thats only reasonable surely

Holy shneet... talk about freedom now.
Some guy runs naked on the street and he can sue you for filming him these days...
McD/BK/etc... you really want to film it? They really need your publicity? There'd be one in my shot and I'd blur/mask it...
Ok, I'm boiling but I'll calm down. This issue is a real problem nowadays and we can't help it. Some filmakers abused people by filming them and presenting them after as dumbazzes and now everybody's paying for that. Paying some ***lawyers*** who are laughing their guts out , that is...

Reminds me of that real story: a guy goes to rub a house. On his way out with the TV set in hands, he crashes down the stairs, breaks his neck then sues the owner of the appartment and... he wins! There was ice on the stairs and it was *technically* the responsibility of the resident to take care of his stairs.
No more comment.

How I think it should be ..

I reckon Public places that are regularly seen by the public are filmable and free under any circumstances. Including Skylines, Buildings, Cars ect. Anything... A persons private house garden ect is not. Also anything done in public accidental or not, is also filmable. Even though it may not be to your liking. But anything in private is not. If I went into a cinema and filmed the film but was made clear from the Camera angle thats what I was doing. And only for the average clip length. FINE. Any Filming of COMMERCIAL public areas then total film freedom. In any public domain including Theatres Museums ect.

How it should be !

gettin a Copyright on my house,, my grass,mailbox ,you know the view from the road--- dont anyone get any ideas ,its MY damn view!!!

I mean the inside of the houseis not unless permission is given The Outside is should be Filmable as long as its not a way to advertise the person living there and used in the context of a row of houses in suburbia .

When it comes to shooting in NYC for instance, government buildings may be shot, but you need an NYC permit to shoot the city itself because the city is copyrighted

Is due to copyright law? Or another law. I knew that permits are required, but I had no idea it was due to copyright.

Imagine taking the Government to court over the spy satellites they may not film your house but the fact they can or anything for that matter is surely highly sueable

What happens when a government spy satellite photographs the NYC skyline? ;)

A city can, and does own a skyline if the collective building owners ask for it. I don't know how all that comes down, but it's a regular issue in various film mags. This is part of the reason that for instance, there is not a single shot of the NYC skyline in the movie "Spiderman." (A Sony pic)
All NYC skyline shots are computer generated so as to avoid copyright, security laws, and maintain consistency throughout.
Same with LA. Try flying a plane over LA and releasing the media on a national release. You'll get sued unless you've gotten all the proper permits including a 10,000.00.00 policy naming California as the beneficiary. this is also why stock media is so popular of this stuff, because people can't access it due to costs.
Regarding the Hollywood sign, it's now a national landmark. You can obtain permits to film it via the gov. You can also watch it 24/7 at http://www.hollywoodsign.org/trustCams/index.html
For more information on the prohibition of filming the city of LA for commercial purposes, http://www.eidc.com/

I had a discussion about this a few hours ago. Sydney has gone the same way. 30 years ago I could get permission to shoot anywhere, cost nothing, they just wanted to check that we had public liability insurance and back then I could get $5 M for $100 or so. Gee we even got a few police cars and barricades to block off city streets for nothing.

Today, it'd cost a years wages if not more and that's before you talk about the public liability insurance. The impact of all this is Hollywood is leaving Sydney, moving north to Queensland or even over the Tasman. Some of it is starting to head to the old eastern block countries as well.

Sure the public needs to be protected from film crews hijacking public venues but now we're just killing the goose that laid the golden egg.

I have used shots(ours) of Vegas ,NY,Miami and various other cities , ,
Aired national ,paid nothing.
Guess ignorance is bliss,,,,wait ,,,, do i hear sirens

Just as a stupid aside, yet a relevant one....
I sure as hell wouldn't WANT to be caught shooting vid of a public building unless I had a permit and even then..... I mean, if you can't carry an almanac around the city any more without fear of being stopped by the local Gestapo, (TSA/FBI/Law Enforcement) then what do you think they'll do if you are caught videotaping a building. Did you know it's now illegal to videotape INSIDE an airplane? Nothing to do with copyright, since we're talking about stupid things. It's for air safety. I'm so sick of the terrorists having won, and our facade of laws that 'protect us' from terrorists. Almanacs and pocketknives. Items most of us were taught from childhood to have handy are now felonies to be in possession of in certain instances. And you call copyright laws stupid?
Off rant.

Hey musicvid, if you can tell me what book to buy, I'll buy it. But that's the problem. I don't believe there's one place I can go to find out these answers. And, I'm not a lawyer, nor do I have the desire to be one. So, I ask on this forum to get a feel for what I should look out for.

Back in the 70's, I use to take my 35 mm camera everywhere and shoot pictures of interesting things. Now, I take my vid camera and do the same. So I'm wondering if I have something I can sell because I have all this stock footage. But I'm also not willing to get sued by someone/something because their "visual representation" is "copyrighted" and I can't tape it without getting permission first...

Hence the ridiculous questions.

Musicvid, you seem pretty sure of your answers, what are you basing them on?

Dave T2

I'm for once going to have to disagree with a few things that have been said here, this may only apply in this country but I would think much the same would apply anywhere. The only reason I'm saying this is because I did get caught up in part of this issue.

My wife belongs to a dance troupe. The choreography is copyright. Her troupe performed in a public place and her teacher told her that I was not permitted to video the performance because of the copyright issues. So I asked a few people who work in broadcast and who deal with these issues daily.

The answer is that as this is a public performance I would not breach the copyright by recording the event. I could not sell that recording except for broadcast as an again non copyright broadcast e.g. news. In this case I am profiting from my work in making the recording not from the copyrighted material. The same would apply to those who made recordings of the events of 9/11.

Of course I couldn't turn my recording into a 'How to do this dance" video.

This doesn't mean you can just turn up anywhere and start shooting. The right to do that is controlled by regulations and by-laws. Plonk your camera down and even if you're going to video a tree you can be in trouble. Where it gets grey is mostly the by-laws permit amateurs (i.e. tourists) to take videos and stills.

So getting back to the original question, no I don't believe anything on public display is copyright in the literal sense of the word if it forms part of the public landscape, that would include the NYC skyline. That doesn't mean what SPOT is saying is wrong. Fly a plane over there and shoot footage of the skyline and put it on a show that night and you may well be in serious trouble, not because you've breached copyright but because you've breached anyone of a possible dozen regulations that any number of government depts may have dreamed up.

But in this case the burden of proof lies with them and in anycase it still wouldn't prevent you from selling copies of that image or footage. In fact you own the copyright to those images. Also what seems to have become confused is the design of the building is owned by someone, you cannot simply take a copy of the plans and build a copy, you've profited from their work, they are paid to design buildings and you're depriving them of that profit.
The physical act of standing in front of the building or on its forecourt to take the images is an entirely different matter.

To look at it a different way. Copyright relates to the work. In the case of a CD the work is the music, the artwork on the cover etc. You copy the music you've stolen the work. When an architect designs a building the work is the design of the building, you copy the design, you've stolen the work. The work is not to produce an image. You take an image of the building you own the copyright to that image and as far as I can see you can sell the image for as much as you can get. If that image happens to prove that you breached some regulation you may be in trouble but not for copyright reasons.

McDonalds will most likely not give you permission to take photos or video inside their premises. You're on their property and they have the right to control what you do. You cannot stand on their property to take an image either but from accross the road they have no control. I've seen plenty of TV commercials showing competitors products or buildings, I'm certain if there was anyway they could stop that they would.

Certainly this isn't a legal opinion, just my experience. If I'm wrong then logically some of the flippant remarks made by others aren't so flippant. Next time a speed camera takes an image of my car, boy will the police be in trouble. Now there's a lark , how about a big sign on the back of your car saying "This photo copyright...." :)