I shot some stock footage which includes a new office building which is a new landmark and a nice example of modern architecture. I shot it from a footbridge and from the pavement outside and one of the shots includes the name of the building. I was wondering if I am legally allowed to use it.

While we're on the subject, what would be the easiest way to remove unwanted telephone cables like the one in the corner of the screenshot below?

The answer to your question is highly dependent on the legal jurisdiction where you're working ... what's legal use in the USA may be illegal in Thailand or vice versa. Consult with a local lawyer.

That'll cost me! But i'll ask around, thanks. There's an expat forum I can consult that may know.

As for the cable issue, the only think I can think of is to make a double layer, use a different but clean sky shot and garbage matte the top right hand corner of the top layer, but that seems a bit of a shoddy way of doing it.

Weather or not I can use the shot, this would be a useful technique to know in the future if anyone has any tips on this I'd be grateful to hear.

I'm no lawyer but my understanding is in the USA if it's viewable from a public place and your not trespassing by video taping through a window into there building which now would be trespassing you should be ok. Like stated already I would check the state and local laws for the country your filming.

A garbage matte would probably be the quickest way to get rid of that wire, especially in a static shot. Just duplicate the shot, layer it on track 2 and move across a clean piece of sky from the left to mask the cable. The colour difference looks minimal so you should get away with it if you feather the edge.

If the camera shot was locked down - no movement - grab a still frame and take it into Photoshop. Clone out the wire (painting on a new layer), then make the background transparent. You will end up with a little "blue sky band-aid" that you can super over the video clip. Have done this to clean up interior shots and works like a champ.

Jeff Pulera
Safe Harbor Computers

In the UK, if it's shot from public land or somewhere you have permission to be, there's no problem. What can become a problem is that what may appear to be public land may not be - it may be private although public are normally granted access. (Canary Wharf is a good example.)

I have a good friend who works in the building (when he's here) so I'll ask him when he returns.

As for the cable, I have only ever used FCP with Photoshop when I've needed to make a png.

(To Jeff) Cheers, that sounds like it'll work - providing of course that I make all necessary adjustments before taking the screenshot.

In the US you can run into trouble filming some federal buildings.

In 2010: I was filming from across the street at a row of flags in front the federal building in Los Angeles. It wasn't 7 minutes before TWO suits with badges were grilling me and my family about what we were doing, they were very adamant that it is illegal to film a federal building without authorization. I showed them that I was zoomed-in framing only the flags in the shot, it didn't matter to them. They requested I delete any footage I had, which I had none at that point. They got our names and wrote out our story in their little notebooks.

We packed up and moved into the military cemetery behind us and got the shots we came for, ...then we got the shot flags from further out.

In the US you can run into trouble filming some federal buildings.

This is a HUGE misconception among law enforcement personnel. In fact, in a 2010 lawsuit filed against Homeland Security for this very issue, the ruling reaffirmed the public's general right to photograph the exterior of federal buildings from publicly accessible spaces. The ruling also required that federal officers be informed of this ruling.

I don't know anything about Thailand law, but in the US, copyright law explicitly allows photographing or filming the exterior of buildings from public places. (The exact wording: "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.")

I'm glad you mention that Chris. It is more of what I was thinking when I was filming the flags.

The officers were pretty harsh with us and was mad about the way we were treated.

From what I know about the way things work here, if you ask to film a location they will say no and will be unable to give an explanation. Either that, or a fee will be required, which will go straight into the back pocket of whoever you're dealing with, just like 80% of all those international tsunami donations back in 2004.

After a hellish experience on a shoot last year, I decided, legal or not, I'm not shooting anything outdoors without permission. It's just not worth dealing with cops or angry business owners, even if they're in the wrong legally speaking. It's all well and good to talk about how you have the right, but YOU try arguing with police. See how that works out for you.

Carrying a printout of this website can be handy around London:

Metropolitan Police Service - About the Met - Photography advice (http://www.met.police.uk/about/photography.htm)

This is a HUGE misconception among law enforcement personnel. In fact, in a 2010 lawsuit filed against Homeland Security for this very issue, the ruling reaffirmed the public's general right to photograph the exterior of federal buildings from publicly accessible spaces. The ruling also required that federal officers be informed of this ruling.

I don't know anything about Thailand law, but in the US, copyright law explicitly allows photographing or filming the exterior of buildings from public places. (The exact wording: "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.")

Thanks for posting this Chris. DVInfo is such a great resource!

I don't know anything about Thailand law, but in the US, copyright law explicitly allows photographing or filming the exterior of buildings from public places. Chris, I'm sure you're 100% correct in this, but if the authorities are hassling someone, the absolute last thing on their minds is copyright violations. I doubt producing this quote will dissuade them from their security concerns, right or wrong though they may be. They're not hassling anyone because they are concerned about the architect's IP.

But certainly what you've pointed out is valuable in terms of the original question -- can he use the shots he's already taken. But as this thread seems to have veered into having trouble from authorities when shooting Federal buildings, the copyright issues don't really apply in that case.

Question:

Define "public street."

What I mean is. . .where does the public part begin/end?

If you're in their parking lot, is that public or considered their property?

I conclude that people will get money from you wherever they can, and many in a position of power will wield it at any opportunity, especially if they are bored in their jobs and have a bit of power. Perhaps in this case, asking for permission is almost seeking hassle that could well be unnecessary unless you are shooting for a client who could potentially be liable in the unlikely event of any repercussions.

Question:

Define "public street."

What I mean is. . .where does the public part begin/end?

If you're in their parking lot, is that public or considered their property?

A street is obviously public. A parking lot is more often going to be private (unless it's a city-owned lot.) However, in reading up on this, I found a few of the laws and ruling referring to "publicly accessible spaces". That does not mean "publicly owned", but rather a location that is accessible to everyone at all times. In that case an open parking lot, while privately owned, is still considered a publicly accessible space.

Question:

Define "public street."

What I mean is. . .where does the public part begin/end?

If you're in their parking lot, is that public or considered their property?

Not always but in many cites the public R/W ends at the back of sidewalk or some set distance from the edge of road. If you are unsure whether a road is public or private you can find out by going to your county assessors office and looking up the parcel maps. They will define all areas that are privately held.

-Garrett

A street is obviously public. ... Not necessarily. Some jurisdictions are selling off roads to private corporations who operate them as profit-making toll roads. Here in Toronto, our highway 407, stretching about 150 kilometers around the top of the Greater Toronto Area, is actually privately owned! Come to think of it, I wonder what effect that has on laws regarding photography along it or from it.

Not necessarily. Some jurisdictions are selling off roads to private corporations who operate them as profit-making toll roads. Here in Toronto, our highway 407, stretching about 150 kilometers around the top of the Greater Toronto Area, is actually privately owned! Come to think of it, I wonder what effect that has on laws regarding photography along it or from it.

I'm not sure how they are doing this in Canada but generally in the US this done through a cooperative agreement between the company that will be operating and maintaining the toll road and the local jurisdiction. The Company enters into what essentially becomes an agreement where whey build, operate and maintain the road for a set amount of time. The actual land is still held by the state or federal government.

It does complicate things a bit for right of way issues but for the most part the same laws that govern public access have to be maintained as it is still public land and access rights need to be maintained by statute. However, in the US these types of arrangements are generally done for freeways which are controlled access roads (i.e. pedestrians and bicycles are not allowed on the road and stopping or your vehicle is only allowed in cases of emergencies) so it really doesn't matter. You can't stop and film from a freeway unless you get a permit anyway.

-Garrett