actually, Peter, that's not quite the case in Australia; for example, Sydney Opera House does not allow unauthorised commercial use of it's image ... see
http://www.sydneyoperahouse.com/about_Image_and_FilmingFAQ.aspx

additionally in some countries it is extremely unwise to photograph certain buildings because of security reasons..... even if the building is just accidentally in the background of a personal snap.

In the US some cities have copyright on things that make it known it's that city. IE a skyline, etc.

From what I've heard (never experienced) people with nice video cameras being stopped. It's not many cities that I'm aware of though. Maybe LA, SanFran, NYC?

Well, the whole idea thrown about in this topic is ludicrous.

First differeniate between an image that is taken where individuals, private property,etc can be indentified as not getting permission for the photo that includes their likeness. Then look at what is called an iconic image...example - since I frequent the city of Seattle, WA. skyline, I can quickly grab an iconic image -say the Space Needle long shot with other city buildings in view....no problem

Let's say I walk into the fountain area of the Needle Plaza and take an image which includes the Seattle City Mayor with the Needle in the background. The problem become in legal terms, "do I have the right to distribute the Mayor's photo without his permmission even though I have just also achieved the iconic image?" The PROBLEM will be the context of the Mayor - is he promoting something positive or a negative image -publicity? of the Needle.

I have a very good pro-camera, in fact I have been approached almost constantly by stock photo companies who want me to shoot the Needle footage and they will promote it. But I could be stopped right on the street (never have, or very seldom in any case a problem)
but could run into trouble if I pose a bystander whose likeness can be late identified, if I don't get rights signed-off. Getting an iconic image -no worries - the stock photo company wants it badly and its good pub. for the interests of the landmark.

Thanks Christo - that's interesting. They do allow a fair amount of use, including wedding pics - I can understand them not wanting unauthorised products to imply an association with the building, but any general shots of the building or with the building in the background simply because its there should be fair game, and they seem reasonable about this.

I'd think if i were a judge arbitrating a case of the building owner taking action against the photographer my initial reaction would be, "If you don't want people taking pictures of your building then don't put it where the public can see it from public or their own property. But, since you have built it where it can be viewed in those situations, you cannot claim the right to prevent others from seeing it, either in person or through photographs."

But, i'm not a legal expert. I'm just saying what's sensible.

The following article is related to the issue mentioned and does bring up several points to consider.
A Guide to Permits for Filming in Difficult Locations

Mike

"actually, Peter, that's not quite the case in Australia; for example, Sydney Opera House does not allow unauthorised commercial use of it's image "

Actually if you carefully read the text of what they say you most certainly can use images of the SOH.
What you cannot do and this applies to the image of absolutely anything, is imply that there's any sponsorship or commercial arrangement between your product and the SOH. In other words, fraud. Clearly using anything fraudulently is illegal, period.

We also need to be very specific in our understanding of the words "commercial use". Selling an image or using it in our productions either for profit or not is not commercial use. Commercial use means for the purpose of promoting trade e.g. advertising. At least here ins Australia, as tested twice in the Supreme Court, there is no expectation of privacy under our constitution. You take a shower with the window open and someone takes some video or a still of you from a public place and they can sell it, it can be used on the front cover of a magazine or published on a web site. The only limitation is for commercial use i.e. permision is required to use a person's image for advertising.

Various bodies, local councils, and building owners have tried many things on, bylaws restricting photography on beaches etc, etc. All when tested in the appropriate courts have been thrown out. There are certain restrictions on the use of images of children on commercial television even when taken from a public place but that's about it.

"additionally in some countries it is extremely unwise to photograph certain buildings because of security reasons..... even if the building is just accidentally in the background of a personal snap."

Now that IS very good advice.

Bob..

"additionally in some countries it is extremely unwise to photograph certain buildings because of security reasons..... even if the building is just accidentally in the background of a personal snap."

True dat. Try stopping along the roadside to snap some quick pics of (admittedly very cool) US Air Force C5-A hangers at Shephard AFB in San Antonio, TX, and see how long it takes for 2 Humvees of very impolite Force Protection personnel to show up with Glocks drawn. Better bring a stopwatch.

Try stopping along the roadside to snap some quick pics of (admittedly very cool) US Air Force C5-A hangers at Shephard AFB in San Antonio, TX, and see how long it takes for 2 Humvees of very impolite Force Protection personnel to show up

The same has happened to me taking wildflower pics from the public road looking into an open field of wildflowers at Fort Hunter Liggett. Nothing in the field but flowers, but they don't like you taking photos of it.

On the other hand, we have a park a block away from my work where tourists unload from buses to take photos of the Painted Ladies. My guess is that it's just fine to sell postcards of these houses but NOT okay to use the images to sell paint.

As for public/private property, I've been with many small crews kicked out of privately owned plazas and parking lots. If you look like you're doing more than a snapshot without authorization they'll kick you off the property. This probably wouldn't have happened if we'd asked nicely first.

If you think there's a problem you can try contacting the building management, or just don't worry and claim ignorance later. It depends how much it'll cost you if a lawyer sends you a takedown notice., Or how much it costs to bring a hired crew and not be able to use them.

Rob

Some very useful information regarding copyright here , too.

Jack

Back in the early 80's I attended the Center for Media Arts in NYC. And they would routinely send us out on the streets of Manhattan to produce videos (usually in groups of 4 or 5). One time a group of us (with camera, lights, recording equipment) were about to set up a shot near Madison Square Garden. And before we could even get the camera on the tripod, we had 3 security guys come out of the building and told us in no uncertain terms that we were not allowed to "film" the building in any way. We even got hassled once shooting video in the subway, I guess they didn't want us to show all the bums, graffiti, and crack vials. I heard another group of students got hassled for shooting somewhere in Times Square, but I don't know the circumstances of that one.

A photographer friend of mine was shooting scenes in New Orleans after Katrina hit and spent 2 nights in jail because he was seen shooting one of the federal buildings there, and his foreign passport (Belgian) made it seem suspicious. I have been stopped from shooting at the VA hospital (of a friend with permission) because of "privacy" laws. Many large cities have restrictions regarding shooting unless with permits (pays to keep your profile low).

so as we can see from these other examples (thanks!) there are some restrictions to be aware of. beyond security-related ones, I mean things like "landmark buildings" say video shots that are taken of those, then used in commercial promotional video spots (online or broadcast); it seems location clearances may be needed from some of those property owners...

my question is mostly pertaining to "is it ok to use royalty free video footage I bought online?", that includes what may be famous landmark buildings... it's not clear that the video shooters got building clearances (say of big Vegas casinos, or other landmark buildings). It may be that for example video footage of the Las Vegas strip at a distance, that has a lot of different buildings in it, is ok, but closeup footage of a specific casino is not.

Artbeats recently added stock aerial footage of Washington, D.C. (where I work), one of the most (if not THE most) security-obsessed cities on the planet, and it's just chocked full of public buildings and areas. You might be interested to read Artbeats' story on the gauntlets they ran to get that footage. (It looks terrific, BTW.)

http://blog.artbeats.com/2012/03/artbeats-shoots-red-epic-aerials-over-washington-dc/

my question is mostly pertaining to "is it ok to use royalty free video footage I bought online?", that includes what may be famous landmark buildings.

If you bought the footage from a reputable site such as Shutterstock, check their terms of use agreement and see if there are any restrictions.
If it's something an "amateur" shot and posted on their website, you may run into problems.
It's always better to be safe than sorry, especially where legal issues are concerned.

Mike

"my question is mostly pertaining to "is it ok to use royalty free video footage I bought online?"

The person who does the work, in this case taking the video, owns the copyright, period. Now even if they didn't have permission, broke the law getting the images, they still own the copyright. If you hold a licence to use the images they own the copyright of, then you are in the clear. The only legal consideration is you holding a licence from them. If they broke the law taking them then that's their problem, not yours.

This came up on the local news tonight and the spokewoman from the Australian Copyright Council made exactly that point. The photos in question of a teenage girl were being used in commerce (to advertise the photogs business) and that was wrong however the girl had zero claim on the photos, no contract, no payment, sorry kido, tough luck. Even closeups of Vegas Casinos are fine.

The whole shooting permission issue is a separate issue. Unless there's some national security issue involved or privacy issue you take the photos / video and you own it. Of course do something really dumb and you can get hit with a tresspass charge but even then...you own the copyright to the images.

Bob.