Say I want to make a film about a style of architecture, or about a geographic area, and so I shoot clips of your home from the public street as an example of what I’m discussing. Do you have any say over whether I can include your house in my movie or not? Does it matter if your house is barely recognizable (as in an aerial shot of roofs), or easily recognizable (as in an extended shot of your home’s facade) or even identified by your street address (“This wonderful example of a home of the period, located at 1313 Mockingbird Lane, in the quaint old town of…”) ?
Also, does it matter if shoot your home, or only if I show the movie in public?
I fully recognize that I have not hired you as my attorney, that you are not licensed to practice law in my state, etc…I just like photographing old houses, and I’m thinking of making a film including such photos and videos but not if I’m not able to show my work when I’m finished.
No problem, as they say these days. It’s done all the time, 'though I can’t cite any laws on the matter. I believe you need to be concerned only if you photograph any recognizable people. Do you need any suggested examples of historic architecture? I’ve seen a lot in New England and in the Southeast USA.
I guess there’s a small possibility that the image of the building could be trademarked. But the only example I know of is the lone cypress in Monterey, California. And that’s a pretty dubious example.
(Probably the real reason they don’t want people publishing pictures of the tree is that it no longer looks like it does on the postcard – when I visited it 10 years ago, it had steel cables supporting it and looked as much like the original as a eighty year old actress with a facelift.)
It is my understanding that as long as you yourself are on public property (say, a street or sidewalk) you can photograph anything you want. That even includes people. You might get in trouble if you uses said pictures in a slanderous fashion I recall a case where an otherwise perfectly legal picture of a perfectly innocent black man in a public place became the issue of a law suit because it was published as an illustration of “the crimminal element”. But the taking of the picture per se was legal. And I don’t see that as a factor in the project you’re talking about.
Of course if you set foot on their property that’s another matter entirerly.
It depends on what your usage of the material might be. If you are a news provider then you can shoot just about anything for air.
If not and you plan on screening or airing your production, then releases will be required. Otherwise let’s say you have a distribution deal looming for a film. The distributor will insist on Errors and Omissions insurance to cover any releases you neglected to acquire. Peoples faces and signage on businesses are not public domain.
And of course, if you are in the US on a student visa, but not atending classes and are caught taking pictures of say nuclear reacators, large malls, or stadiums they might just throw your butt in jail. ;j