Will I get caught?

Scott Tebeau · January 26th, 2007, 07:33 PM

I thought that I would follow up with our process of obtaining release forms for some of the products that found their way into one of our scenes.

Our main character has a problem with Mountain Dew and incessantly chugs the stuff, so that was a big one for us to cross off the list.

We have just received word Pepsi co. and have to laugh in regards to the criteria that our character had to meet. –

“As long as the character is not overweight or under 15, then we're should be fine”.

Just need to fax the release and they said they’ll sign it…

Peter Rhalter · March 17th, 2007, 11:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter Rhalter

...could someone construct a model of a building, or place, and make a film using that model without getting permission? I guess this comes down to, does the owner of a physical property own the IDEA of the place, as well?

I had a chance to pose this question to an intellectual property attorney last week. The answer is that one cannot model a building exactly after a real structure because the architect may have a copyright on the design. This is especially an issue if the building is easily recognizable, like the TransAmerica in San Francisco.

Best wishes,
Peter
______________________
http://www.parkfilms.com

Paul Tauger · March 18th, 2007, 01:23 AM

First, I am an intellectual property attorney. I don't like to comment on what other attorneys may say. However, the one you spoke to is wrong:

17 U.S.C. § 120
Scope of exclusive rights in architectural works

(a) Pictorial representations permitted. The copyright in an architectural work that has been constructed does not include the right to prevent the making, distributing, or public display of pictures, paintings, photographs, or other pictorial representations of the work, if the building in which the work is embodied is located in or ordinarily visible from a public place.

Peter Rhalter · March 18th, 2007, 01:44 AM

Fascinating. Thanks.

Best wishes,
Peter
______________________
http://www.parkfilms.com

Bill Hamell · March 18th, 2007, 05:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Tauger

First, I am an intellectual property attorney. I don't like to comment on what other attorneys may say. However, the one you spoke to is wrong:

17 U.S.C. § 120
Scope of exclusive rights in architectural works

(a) Pictorial representations permitted. The copyright in an architectural work that has been constructed does not include the right to prevent the making, distributing, or public display of pictures, paintings, photographs, or other pictorial representations of the work, if the building in which the work is embodied is located in or ordinarily visible from a public place.

Paul,

First thank you for all your help, I would like to expand this question to artwork on a building.

What if the building owner has allowed or commissioned an artist to paint a mural on that building and it is in plain view from a public space. Could you film a scene where someone is walking along the sidewalk and include that building and artwork?

We used some of these buildings in a film, I could get releases, as I know the artists but what if I did not or could not get hold of one of them?

Thank you,
Bill

Paul Tauger · March 18th, 2007, 01:02 PM

Bill, as you know, I'm really not in a position to give specific legal advice, except in the context of my firm's retained clients. Don't rely on what I say here, as it is just for general discussion.

With that said, I'm not aware of a specific mural case. However, I wouldn't define a mural as an "architectural work" within the context of the statute (nor would I define sculptures that are placed in public courtyards that way, either). I usually approach questions like this by postulating an extreme case. Take, for example, an advertising mural painted on the side of a building. The mural contains trademarks as well as copyright-protected expression. A tight shot of the mural would, I would think, be infringing, notwithstanding the fact that it's painted on a building. There is certainly nothing to distinguish a work of "pure art" from a work of "commercial art," at least in this context.

I would, therefore, be extremely careful about including such works in shots of buildings. It would certainly be prudent to get a release.

Incidently, I can think of at least some contexts in which an architectural could constitute a protectable trademark. Note that there is no analog to the copyright statutory exemption for architectural works in trademark law.

This is a shoot-from-the-hip answer, but I suspect it is the correct one.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

January 26th, 2007, 07:33 PM	#16
Scott Tebeau Regular Crew Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: portland oregon Posts: 73	I thought that I would follow up with our process of obtaining release forms for some of the products that found their way into one of our scenes. Our main character has a problem with Mountain Dew and incessantly chugs the stuff, so that was a big one for us to cross off the list. We have just received word Pepsi co. and have to laugh in regards to the criteria that our character had to meet. – “As long as the character is not overweight or under 15, then we're should be fine”. Just need to fax the release and they said they’ll sign it…

March 18th, 2007, 01:23 AM	#18
Paul Tauger Wrangler Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Los Angeles (recently from San Francisco) Posts: 946	First, I am an intellectual property attorney. I don't like to comment on what other attorneys may say. However, the one you spoke to is wrong: 17 U.S.C. § 120 Scope of exclusive rights in architectural works (a) Pictorial representations permitted. The copyright in an architectural work that has been constructed does not include the right to prevent the making, distributing, or public display of pictures, paintings, photographs, or other pictorial representations of the work, if the building in which the work is embodied is located in or ordinarily visible from a public place.

March 18th, 2007, 01:44 AM	#19
Peter Rhalter Regular Crew Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 165	Fascinating. Thanks. Best wishes, Peter ______________________ http://www.parkfilms.com

March 18th, 2007, 01:02 PM	#21
Paul Tauger Wrangler Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Los Angeles (recently from San Francisco) Posts: 946	Bill, as you know, I'm really not in a position to give specific legal advice, except in the context of my firm's retained clients. Don't rely on what I say here, as it is just for general discussion. With that said, I'm not aware of a specific mural case. However, I wouldn't define a mural as an "architectural work" within the context of the statute (nor would I define sculptures that are placed in public courtyards that way, either). I usually approach questions like this by postulating an extreme case. Take, for example, an advertising mural painted on the side of a building. The mural contains trademarks as well as copyright-protected expression. A tight shot of the mural would, I would think, be infringing, notwithstanding the fact that it's painted on a building. There is certainly nothing to distinguish a work of "pure art" from a work of "commercial art," at least in this context. I would, therefore, be extremely careful about including such works in shots of buildings. It would certainly be prudent to get a release. Incidently, I can think of at least some contexts in which an architectural could constitute a protectable trademark. Note that there is no analog to the copyright statutory exemption for architectural works in trademark law. This is a shoot-from-the-hip answer, but I suspect it is the correct one.