Filming in Public

May 15, 2008 9:27 AM

What's the legal stance on filming on location in malls or downtown areas in the United States?

It's a commercial film. Should we be concerned about walking about downtown areas? Things like getting brand name store signs in the frame?

posted by jne1813 to law & government (9 comments total)

Malls - like shopping malls - are almost certainly private property, and you'd need permission from the owner/manager. Filming on a public street is legal, although you may still need city permits, depending on how big your crew is.

But be aware that the line between public and private property can be fuzzy, or invisible. This guy thought he was taking pictures on a public street - it looked public, acted public - but he was wrong.
posted by rtha at 9:41 AM on May 15

General rule of thumb is if you're on public property, you can film anything that is visible from said public property.

You might need to be more concerned with getting a permit for shooting, so you don't get hassled by the cops. This depends on your production size -- are you a few people with an inconspicuous camera? You'll probably be OK. Are you an entire, multi-camera crew? Better safe than sorry.

Don't forget to get Appearance Release for anyone who appears on camera. Here's a good one to model yours after. You'll also need a Location Release if you end up filming on anyone's property, like inside a cafe or mall for instance. Here's a good LR to model yours after.

Finally, it might be wise to invest in The Pocket Lawyer for Filmmakers: A Legal Toolkit for Independent Producers.
posted by nitsuj at 9:44 AM on May 15 [1 favorite]

Most decently-sized cities and almost all US states have film offices or film commissions that can help you navigate whatever local permit requirements might exist in the areas you're filming. Just google "CITYNAME film office" or "STATENAME film commission" or some variation of those and you should be able to find someone who can help you.
posted by dersins at 9:46 AM on May 15

Regarding store brand names -- if you're filming in a public place, and it's a documentary, no problem. It's reality. In general in a fiction film if store names, brand names, etc. appear, you should not need permission for fleeting incidental appearances (although any appearance is an opportunity to get paid for product placement). On the other hand, if you make, let's say, Dunkin Donuts a part of the story, you probably want permission before filming. Dunkin would not look favorably, for example, on a plot in which somebody croaks from a high-donut diet. And you can't tell what corporate people might dislike (and sue you for) regarding the appearance of their brand in your fiction film.
posted by beagle at 10:15 AM on May 15

I think, but I'm not sure, that a lot of the advice in this thread is pretty weak. You may need a location release for any recognizable building in the film. Definitely if you are on private property. Definitely any recognizable face that the camera lands on for any amount of time. Definitely for any logo or trademark.

You definitely want to figure this stuff out before you start filming, and be ready to deal with it before and while you are filming.

This may help:
http://www.law.duke.edu/cspd/comics/

Just for the record, the releases you need to do photography and to do film/video are totally different. Photography is very easy to do almost anywhere, and in most circumstances (well, many) releases are not needed. Not so at all with video. You need releases up the wazoo. I've never understood the difference, but it's there.
posted by sully75 at 11:51 AM on May 15

I think, but I'm not sure, that a lot of the advice in this thread is pretty weak. You may need a location release for any recognizable building in the film. Definitely if you are on private property. Definitely any recognizable face that the camera lands on for any amount of time. Definitely for any logo or trademark.

You definitely want to figure this stuff out before you start filming, and be ready to deal with it before and while you are filming.

This may help:
http://www.law.duke.edu/cspd/comics/

Just for the record, the releases you need to do photography and to do film/video are totally different. Photography is very easy to do almost anywhere, and in most circumstances (well, many) releases are not needed. Not so at all with video. You need releases up the wazoo. I've never understood the difference, but it's there.
posted by sully75 at 11:51 AM on May 15

"It's a commercial film"

Hire a lawyer. If you can't afford a lawyer, you can't afford to produce a "commercial" film.

Assessing your legal liability on the basis of the opinions of strangers from the internet is poor risk-management.
posted by toomuchpete at 11:54 AM on May 15

I know that Seattle's rule was (simplified) that if you plunk down a tripod then you need a permit. If you walked around hand-held without blocking sidewalks, etc., then you could operate without a permit.

Actor's releases are definite requirements, as are location releases. You could very likely find that you need location insurance before anyone will give you a release to use their property.
posted by trinity8-director at 1:04 PM on May 15

I second toomuchpete -- if you're making decisions about a commercial film and you have to ask these questions here, you have a series of issues that need to be addressed before you go anywhere near production. Hiring an industry-saavy lawyer is the first step to addressing them. The cost may seem high, but it'll seem low relative to the cost of, say, having shooting held up for a day while you wrangle permit issues (during which time you may have to pay the entire crew to stand around doing nothing), nevermind potential lawsuits. You will need permission from the owner of any property you shoot on, which may entail insurance, and releases from everyone and everything.
posted by Alterscape at 5:18 PM on May 15