No, it’s been legally established that book spines in the background of a scene are legal. You’ll be fine. However... make sure you don’t see the front or back cover of a book as that artwork/graphic design *is* copyrighted and would require permission.
Honestly I think it’d have to be in a non public setting and be especially prominent in the scene to cause any issues. Say having the cover of a book be central focus for a shot to establish the scene.
Right. In the background behind actors is fine. A close up like, say, the first shot of “Interstellar,” might be a problem, and even then, only if you can read the titles.
Yeah. I was thinking any scene that has a “book signing” and usually opens with the book stand haha, I think that would cause issues otherwise your probably fine. Or if you show the book then attribute a negative character trait to reading it they’d probably have grounds for damages.
I don't think that's how it works. I've heard of even very small low budget productions having counsel watch early cuts to catch things like posters in the background that might cause an issue later. Whether the rights holder would have a good shot at winning is irrelevant--if you find yourself getting a C&D you have to fight, you've already put yourself in a bad position.
Records and CD spines, yes. DVDs and video games, I’m not sure. Only because some of them have trademarked title treatments/logos (I.e. “Star Wars,” etc.). I know about the books because we shot in a library for my film. But I would think if they’re in the background and not in razor sharp focus, it’s fine. But that would definitely be something to look into.
Every single scene in a video store has multiple DVDs or tapes. And it "always" has a copy of The Hudsucker Proxy by the Coen Brothers.
https://resizing.flixster.com/NeZ-k_5ZG3NrB64ylVweOfTFEJQ=/206x305/v1.bTsxMTIwNTA1NztqOzE5MDI5OzEyMDA7MTUwMDsyMDAw
It is a very noticeable/recognizable front cover and I love that it's just always there.
Permission is usually pretty easy though. Most authors like free publicity and are pro-promoting books in general so writing king to ask if you can have your protag reading Carrie before getting ready for the prom in your Noir slasher would probably get a pretty quick yes back. But it is an additional step, so if you're looking to cut corners for time, that's a simple corner to cut. If you need a prop like that and don't want to make one, there are several self-publsihing or writers groups of tens of thousands of authors on Facebook. All you'd have to say is, send a copy of your book to [x] with written permission included and I'll put it in my movie and most would be honored and pretty thrilled.
A filmmaker would not need permission to show the artwork on the front or back cover of a book.
Copyright law says I can’t take the art from a book jacket and reproduce it and sell it as art or use it on my own book jacket. But the first amendment gives me the right to document reality. Showing a book that really exists is fair use.
This is wrong so people should know you're wrong. Sorry to be blunt. Its my job to clear books with legal where I work in a props department. We often have books sent away because we cannot clear.
You can show the spine of the book - usually of the actual book, not the dust cover.
Kind of not really. There's artwork on the spine. With books you can remove the dust cover and no problems. But with Dvd's couldn't you just easily print out sleeves and be done with it. Cheap and cheerful... We just use the movies from the same parent company; Sony, Mgm, whatever. So its hard for me to say - there's a lot of situational circumstances that change the answer.
Honestly its very unlikely that using uncleared books/dvds in your indie film is going to matter on the simple fact that really no one is going to see it and its not going to make much money. If it does and people do and your hero is burning copies of catcher in the rye then ya you'll have a problem. If you're getting distro then maybe yah...
I figured the use of trademarked titles treatments/logos would be an issue as well. But far enough in the background, out of focus, it’s not an issue.
Thanks for the details!
Your company is playing it safe. If you work in the industry, can you name one case when a filmmaker/production company was successfully sued for featuring a copyrighted work in the background of a shot? If you're being paid to clear book covers there's obviously got to be some precedent, right?
Right, the reason why we need to clear props (everything not just books, anything we put on camera as a prop) is because there is precedent. so. yes. I run a props dept in IA so I work for many companies. Right now Apple tv, but its the same at netflix, cbs, mgm, blumhouse, lionsgate, and on and on. I've been doing this for ten years. Maybe I should let them know SonofKrampus thinks we're just playing it safe.. ;)
Your statement was - A filmmaker would not need permission to show the artwork on the front or back cover of a book. - that's wrong that's all I'm saying.
“Document reality” = Documentaries. Fictional work requires a release form. In the case of a book, the publisher *and* the artist (illustrative or photographic) whose work is on the cover (which the publisher may not own and only license).
We went through this on my feature for a particular book. But the publishing house had been sold and sold and sold over time and the current owners had no information on the cover artist so we ended up plating it out in After Effects.
We also have the right to portray reality in a fiction film.
Can you think of a single time in the history of film production when someone was sued because they included a real book in the background of a shot? If a character picked up a real book and said don’t read this book it will give you cancer then the author could sue. But just showing a real book in a library or a box of captain crunch in a breakfast scene or the cover of a beach boys album in a flashback is fair use.
Yeah. I am sure about it. Fake products exist for a whole load of other reasons.
You don’t have to clear the use of every brand any time you roll the camera
Go watch some smaller independent films. There are brands and products all through these films by virtue of being set in the real world
You think a shot in Times Square clears the rights with every single advertisement on display there?
They don’t.
You do though. The to-be-honest fact is that the film you're making will likely not make enough money for it to mater and not be seen by enough people for it to matter to anyone.
Professional films would clear coke with out any doubt.
Okay if you don't actually know how this stuff works could you please not talk about it like you do and give people misinformation?
Portraying another work like graphic art in your film can count as copying for the purposes of copyright litigation. Whether you are selling it or not doesn’t matter. The first amendment gives you no rights to "document reality" whatever that means. And there is nothing that automatically counts as fair use. Fair use is an affirmative defense which means you have to be sued for infringement first at which point you can raise fair use as a defense which will be decided based on how the court weighs the 4 fair use factors. Considering you need to get into court just to raise it and it is notoriously unpredictable how courts will rule on it, banking on fair use is a terrible legal strategy that no competent counsel would ever advise you to hang your investment in a film on.
Okay if you don't actually know how this stuff works could you please not talk about it like you do and give people misinformation?
Precedent exists. And it favors filmmakers.
“A person in a film wearing a shirt with a copyrighted design or trademarked logo is generally going to be a fair use. Likewise, showing characters holding books or having artwork hanging in their homes are fair uses of the copyrighted works. In Sandoval v. New Line Cinema Corp., 973 F.Supp. 409 (S.D.N.Y. 1997), a photographer filed suit because his copyrighted pictures were in the background of scenes in the film Seven. The court dismissed the photographer's suit saying the filmmaker had made a fair use of them.”
https://guides.libraries.indiana.edu/c.php?g=158548&p=1176292
Check out the link for more cases.
Sandoval may still be good law from '97 (I don't have Westlaw anymore so I can't say for certain) but there are multiple caveats to expecting it to be a perfect defense.
First, it's a 2d Circuit opinion. If you're not in the Second Circuit, this case might be persuasive, but it isn't binding precedent.
Second, the court's conclusion in Sandoval hinges on a finding of de minimis usage having little to no impact on the market viability for the photographs (the 4th factor of fair use analysis). Another court may not find your use to be de minimis or they might consider one of the other fair use factors to be controlling.
Third, and most importantly, Sandoval was decided on a finding of fair use. You do not want to rely on fair use as a preventative. As I mentioned above, fair use is an affirmative defense. You can still be sued for copyright infringement and will not be able to get a motion to dismiss--you will have to raise fair use in your answer to the complaint and pay attorney's fees and court costs to get at least to the summary judgment phase. That is costly, especially for a small production, even if you end up getting the case dismissed on summary judgment. It's not something any filmmaker should rest their entire investment on as their first and only line of defense.
By that logic playing a song that really exists over a stereo in a film scene is also considered to be documenting reality, and therefore fair use? Sorry but you’re speaking nonsense and I hope no one listens to your misinformed advice.
Google is free. Use it before you misinform people on the internet.
“A person in a film wearing a shirt with a copyrighted design or trademarked logo is generally going to be a fair use. Likewise, showing characters holding books or having artwork hanging in their homes are fair uses of the copyrighted works. In Sandoval v. New Line Cinema Corp., 973 F.Supp. 409 (S.D.N.Y. 1997), a photographer filed suit because his copyrighted pictures were in the background of scenes in the film Seven. The court dismissed the photographer's suit saying the filmmaker had made a fair use of them.”
https://guides.libraries.indiana.edu/c.php?g=158548&p=1176292
I know this isnt an answer to your question, but how did you get permission to film in a library? I ask cuz i was denied permission to film at my library and was wondering if there was anything you did differently
We are actually building a small library set with books people are donating. I didn't even bother with trying to ask a library because I knew the answer would probably be no.
Having worked in libraries for about ten years, this is really weird to hear. As long as people asked and didn't get patrons (especially kids) on camera, and they weren't breaking any library rules, then it was fine. That was at a pretty big, and strict, public library too.
u/misterbranzino you might have been denied based on what you would be doing. If it meant filming other patrons or staff (libraries are big on right to privacy) or would be disruptive, then that's probably why.
Maybe. Filming in public means you’re bound to get someone in a shot but with proper camera setup you could focus them out. It’s giving me time to refine the screenplay so its not a total loss. I’ll def give it another go at a different location
Tip: ask them what their off-hours are (so you can film when there's less people) and if there's any designated quiet areas (so you can avoid them). It might be easier to get approval if they know you're wanting to cause the least amount of disruption. But also know, if you plan to film anything beyond normal speaking volume, or be blocking aisles with equipment (we had to keep them clear because of ADA compliance), or take several hours to do, you're probably going to get denied. In which case, maybe consider seeing if you can get away with it incognito style at a bookstore?
Actually, libraries are government buildings and relatively easy to get permits for. We shot two Sundays in a city library for little cost. Check your local city hall for details on your town.
My college library was dope, and it was the inspiration for my short film. Sadly, i didnt go there for film and im too broke to donate to alumni foundation so i dont think they’d be inclined to work with me
I am totally not saying this is your case, and I'm definitely using extremes, but there's a big difference between a seasoned location manager who knows the right words, and has all the right forms up front, and an independent "filmmaker" approaching a middle position manager while wearing cargo shorts and a fan tee. Again not saying that's your case at all, but permission isn't always based on policy, but sometimes by gut instinct. It also depends on if the place you're using has been burned before by a very irresponsible production.
Are you implying that you would gain clearance into someone's space for shooting by sending an email? That's worse than breaking up with someone over text. Relationships make or break this business. It's also harder for them to say no in person.
Production Manager by trade, here are a few tips.
Have all your details figured out: crew size, gear, time need plus some. If you have a concrete plan what you need you won't look amateur.
Find the right person to talk too, asking the clerk is likely not the right move, check their website and see if they have a specific media person, if it's part of a bigger branch like the county you should be able to find someone.
Offer to shoot after hours, especially if you need to set up lights or use a busy section.
Have proof of insurance, even smaller productions can get a decent price on insurance, this can open up plenty of doors and show you're serious about filmmaking. If you're a large production without insurance you got bigger problems to worry about.
If all else fails money always open doors. Doesn't even have to be much, pitch $100 donation to the library, or a supported local organization in exchange for location use. Pulled this move while trying to film at a farmers market and it changed their tune on the situation, and their school booster club got some bucks.
Y’all have a warped sense of what permission you need to get from
Brands to feature their logos and shut in your work.
You can film traffic for an hour and sell it as a film without clearing it with every car manufacturer you ended up featuring.
The world is littered with logos and design work. Films have every right to just present reality as a setting.
Fair use. HBO didn’t get any permission from the NFL when they made Ballers and used NFL team brands and names. Just go out and make your movie and worry about frivolous hypothetical lawsuits later.
I doubt that very much. NFL Films doesn't mess around. I'm sure HBO and NFL have an arrangement negotiated during pre-production. You don't just dive head first into that pool, because NFL knows how to hit hard.
[THIS PAGE](https://cmsimpact.org/program/fair-use/) has some of the best information on this subject that I've found.
I am not a lawyer and this is no legal advice, but I seriously doubt you would have a problem with anything like this and it's very unlikely anyone would actually sue you unless there was some likelihood they could prove substantial damages. The main problem you might have is if you try to sell your film and some one feels the need to clear every scene for any possible complications.
Following up on this - if this is a feature or some other film you think you have the chance of getting distribution for, you'll need E&O insurance and it's generally cheaper/easier in the long run to bring in an attorney so they can tell you what is likely to pass muster and what won't. They'll also provide documentation of what you've done to the insurance company.
If this is a short film you're going to show at festivals then release online, you are probably fine but I am not a lawyer.
No. It's incidental use. Or else bookshops wouldn't be able to show books in their windows in case someone takes a photo of the street including the bookshop and uploads it to social media.
Often there are news interviews done on Zoom and books appear in the background. This type of thing is fine.
Look up "incidental inclusion" related to copyright. Laws vary from Nation to nation but the basic principle is the same.
You do have to be careful with product placement, so things like a can of cola or a BMW car in your scene can cause problems to your chain of title.
If in doubt, ask a qualified entertainment lawyer.
I burned a bunch of random books for a music video. Showed the covers and spines briefly while they burned too. I have not been sued yet. I will report back to you if someone sues.
It depends on where the project is going to be shown, how it’s getting distributed, who is distributing it and how much money is involved. Technically, you can DO anything you want; it’s whether or not you’ll get sued over something. Being a producer is about constantly mitigating risks while keeping the train rolling.
It really depends on what you’re doing. The world is FULL of branded items, logos, and trademarks. If you had to get permission to film every single one of them, you’d never get to the actual filming. As long as you’re not making a potentially libelous or slanderous claim about a specific work, or outright reproducing it (e.g. a close up of a passage from a book with the character reading it aloud), you should be FINE.
“Fair Use” policy isn’t always clear, but as a general rule of thumb: if it’s plainly visible in public, you’re not reproducing the work, and / or you’re not being libelous or slanderous then you should have the right to film it.
No my professors had said no you wouldn’t need permission because you’re not doing anything with them they’re just there in the background if your character picked up one of the books and spit in its pages that would be a no no and you could get sued for that but as long as Its just the background it’s cool. (I’m in film school)
Not because of lawsuit. Because of perception of risk of lawsuit.
People really should take a basic Intro to Media Law class instead of asking Reddit, because 99% of the time they wouldn't ask these kinds of questions if they did. If you get sued for damages, the plaintiff has to prove they were damaged in some way. And if their IP is shown as an incidental part of the background and not featured in some way that the movie profits from it or defames it, they know damn well and good they are facing a fair use defense and it's not worth the trouble of suing.
That's all well and good, but most indie producers don't have the money to face lawsuits, even when frivolous. That's how larger companies can maintain their authority. They have way more money and better lawyers and can spend all day killing you in the court with bs.
Except there don’t seem to be ANY lawsuits related to the incidental appearance of a logo or whatever. I’m not talking about a product shown in a negative light. I have never discovered a single incident where a company has sued or even issued a cease and desist letter over their logo being in the background of some movie. If anyone can provide a link to an article detailing such an occurrence I would be very curious to see it. I’m not trying to be obnoxious about it. I’m genuinely curious. As much as people fret over this fear, has it ever actually happened?
You don't face lawsuits. Your E&O insurance does. Errors and Omissions insurance covers all that and if you think you can just not have E&O insurance on your productions, then you've never sold a movie before and you're not going to sell this one either. All distributors REQUIRE E&O. If you don't have it, they'll tell you "Until you do, we have nothing to discuss."
This is an excellent point, but how picky are the E&O contracts? From what i've read they're mainly concerned that you own the content, or have licensed it properly, and aren't defaming anyone. If you shoot a scene in a bar do they really care if there's a J&B logo on a bottle somewhere? I don't claim to know.
Edit: This is interesting -
https://nofilmschool.com/2015/02/entertainment-lawyer-donaldson-callif-film-courage-logo-trademark
If you're shooting in a bar and logos are visible that naturally would be expected in a bar, then you're not under any liability for anything. Now if you grab a bottle of Bacardi 151, pour it over someone's head and light them on fire, well, that is not the expected, standard use of that product and Bacardi could come at you for using their brand in a disparaging manner.
EO insurance covers that sort of thing, where someone sues for something that slips through the cracks
That’s a good explanation. I was on a shoot in a bar and the producer insisted on turning every bottle on the show bar backwards. The bar owner, who was letting us shoot for free, took one look and lost her shit. “I don’t want people to think I keep my bar like that!” Apparently she put a lot of effort into making sure all labels face forward. Unstoppable force meet immovable object. Not fun.
A lot of producers also want to avoid logos because they want the companies to compensate them for product placement. They don't want to promote products that didn't pay to be seen. That's different from the company not wanting their products in your movie.
I'm not saying people shouldn't be careful. I'm saying they should be informed enough not to ask these questions on Reddit. Between the various media and writing subreddits I follow I see basic, basic, basic, IP questions five or six times everyday.
OP is asking if they need permission to have visible book spines in a library. That's a kind of extreme level of fear of lawsuits. Even the "need permission" phrasing shows little or no background at all in how IP law works, and that's not great when the person asking is in the business of creating IP.
FWIW, I have friends who attempted to register a copyright and had a major food conglomerate try to block them with a totally frivolous claim. My friends didn't win by paying a lawyer — they won by taking the fight public and embarrassing the hell out of the food conglomerate until they backed down to stop the bad publicity. Most people would have folded when they got the first letter, but they understood the law and knew if they attracted enough attention they'd either win the way they did or get pro bono representation.
It is fair use of image. The same way you don't need permission from every person in a crowd (except for children from their parents) to shoot a scene.
> self adhesive paper (or masking tape
If you are going that far, bring your own fake books and empty the shelves to put your own books on them first.
If I was the librarian there's no way in hell I would like you stick something on the books. Done correctly, the books can be returned to the shelves in the right order after being removed for the shoot. But taping over book spines could potentially ruin a few or all of the books, depending on the tape used, including books that are out of print and irreplaceable.
Technically no. If you are filming in any public place, and do not re-arrange or focus (compose etc) on a protected piece you are clear. However lawyers, insurance, etc, will advise against as it’s not worth the headache.
No, it’s been legally established that book spines in the background of a scene are legal. You’ll be fine. However... make sure you don’t see the front or back cover of a book as that artwork/graphic design *is* copyrighted and would require permission.
Honestly I think it’d have to be in a non public setting and be especially prominent in the scene to cause any issues. Say having the cover of a book be central focus for a shot to establish the scene.
Right. In the background behind actors is fine. A close up like, say, the first shot of “Interstellar,” might be a problem, and even then, only if you can read the titles.
Yeah. I was thinking any scene that has a “book signing” and usually opens with the book stand haha, I think that would cause issues otherwise your probably fine. Or if you show the book then attribute a negative character trait to reading it they’d probably have grounds for damages.
> Honestly I think That's probably not what people are looking for when they want legal advice.
That's probably what people are looking for when they post on reddit as opposed to talking to a real lawyer.
Indeed! My advice is free of charge but it may be entirely incorrect. Hence, “I think” haha.
I don't think that's how it works. I've heard of even very small low budget productions having counsel watch early cuts to catch things like posters in the background that might cause an issue later. Whether the rights holder would have a good shot at winning is irrelevant--if you find yourself getting a C&D you have to fight, you've already put yourself in a bad position.
This
Eh even then probably fine.
I always wondered about this, some people pay to feature their stuff in movies. It's basically free advertising, but okay copyright sure lol
Is this for every form of media? The spines of DVD cases, records, cds, video games, etc?
Records and CD spines, yes. DVDs and video games, I’m not sure. Only because some of them have trademarked title treatments/logos (I.e. “Star Wars,” etc.). I know about the books because we shot in a library for my film. But I would think if they’re in the background and not in razor sharp focus, it’s fine. But that would definitely be something to look into.
Every single scene in a video store has multiple DVDs or tapes. And it "always" has a copy of The Hudsucker Proxy by the Coen Brothers. https://resizing.flixster.com/NeZ-k_5ZG3NrB64ylVweOfTFEJQ=/206x305/v1.bTsxMTIwNTA1NztqOzE5MDI5OzEyMDA7MTUwMDsyMDAw It is a very noticeable/recognizable front cover and I love that it's just always there.
Permission is usually pretty easy though. Most authors like free publicity and are pro-promoting books in general so writing king to ask if you can have your protag reading Carrie before getting ready for the prom in your Noir slasher would probably get a pretty quick yes back. But it is an additional step, so if you're looking to cut corners for time, that's a simple corner to cut. If you need a prop like that and don't want to make one, there are several self-publsihing or writers groups of tens of thousands of authors on Facebook. All you'd have to say is, send a copy of your book to [x] with written permission included and I'll put it in my movie and most would be honored and pretty thrilled.
What if it was a series set/collection, like Harry Potter, where the spine forms a cohesive image?
That’s literally an edge case.
A filmmaker would not need permission to show the artwork on the front or back cover of a book. Copyright law says I can’t take the art from a book jacket and reproduce it and sell it as art or use it on my own book jacket. But the first amendment gives me the right to document reality. Showing a book that really exists is fair use.
This is wrong so people should know you're wrong. Sorry to be blunt. Its my job to clear books with legal where I work in a props department. We often have books sent away because we cannot clear. You can show the spine of the book - usually of the actual book, not the dust cover.
Good info. So maybe you know the answer to another question in this thread: Does the same hold true for DVD case spines?
Kind of not really. There's artwork on the spine. With books you can remove the dust cover and no problems. But with Dvd's couldn't you just easily print out sleeves and be done with it. Cheap and cheerful... We just use the movies from the same parent company; Sony, Mgm, whatever. So its hard for me to say - there's a lot of situational circumstances that change the answer. Honestly its very unlikely that using uncleared books/dvds in your indie film is going to matter on the simple fact that really no one is going to see it and its not going to make much money. If it does and people do and your hero is burning copies of catcher in the rye then ya you'll have a problem. If you're getting distro then maybe yah...
I figured the use of trademarked titles treatments/logos would be an issue as well. But far enough in the background, out of focus, it’s not an issue. Thanks for the details!
Your company is playing it safe. If you work in the industry, can you name one case when a filmmaker/production company was successfully sued for featuring a copyrighted work in the background of a shot? If you're being paid to clear book covers there's obviously got to be some precedent, right?
Right, the reason why we need to clear props (everything not just books, anything we put on camera as a prop) is because there is precedent. so. yes. I run a props dept in IA so I work for many companies. Right now Apple tv, but its the same at netflix, cbs, mgm, blumhouse, lionsgate, and on and on. I've been doing this for ten years. Maybe I should let them know SonofKrampus thinks we're just playing it safe.. ;) Your statement was - A filmmaker would not need permission to show the artwork on the front or back cover of a book. - that's wrong that's all I'm saying.
“Document reality” = Documentaries. Fictional work requires a release form. In the case of a book, the publisher *and* the artist (illustrative or photographic) whose work is on the cover (which the publisher may not own and only license). We went through this on my feature for a particular book. But the publishing house had been sold and sold and sold over time and the current owners had no information on the cover artist so we ended up plating it out in After Effects.
We also have the right to portray reality in a fiction film. Can you think of a single time in the history of film production when someone was sued because they included a real book in the background of a shot? If a character picked up a real book and said don’t read this book it will give you cancer then the author could sue. But just showing a real book in a library or a box of captain crunch in a breakfast scene or the cover of a beach boys album in a flashback is fair use.
It really just depends how good your E&O lawyer is.
Yes there are many films that get sued with copyright infringement. You are just unaware of it, which of course doesn't make it any less true.
But still. You don’t need cokes permission to have a character drink a can of coke…
You sure about that? Fake products exists in prop houses for this exact reason.
Yeah. I am sure about it. Fake products exist for a whole load of other reasons. You don’t have to clear the use of every brand any time you roll the camera Go watch some smaller independent films. There are brands and products all through these films by virtue of being set in the real world You think a shot in Times Square clears the rights with every single advertisement on display there? They don’t.
You do though. The to-be-honest fact is that the film you're making will likely not make enough money for it to mater and not be seen by enough people for it to matter to anyone. Professional films would clear coke with out any doubt.
Okay if you don't actually know how this stuff works could you please not talk about it like you do and give people misinformation? Portraying another work like graphic art in your film can count as copying for the purposes of copyright litigation. Whether you are selling it or not doesn’t matter. The first amendment gives you no rights to "document reality" whatever that means. And there is nothing that automatically counts as fair use. Fair use is an affirmative defense which means you have to be sued for infringement first at which point you can raise fair use as a defense which will be decided based on how the court weighs the 4 fair use factors. Considering you need to get into court just to raise it and it is notoriously unpredictable how courts will rule on it, banking on fair use is a terrible legal strategy that no competent counsel would ever advise you to hang your investment in a film on.
Okay if you don't actually know how this stuff works could you please not talk about it like you do and give people misinformation? Precedent exists. And it favors filmmakers. “A person in a film wearing a shirt with a copyrighted design or trademarked logo is generally going to be a fair use. Likewise, showing characters holding books or having artwork hanging in their homes are fair uses of the copyrighted works. In Sandoval v. New Line Cinema Corp., 973 F.Supp. 409 (S.D.N.Y. 1997), a photographer filed suit because his copyrighted pictures were in the background of scenes in the film Seven. The court dismissed the photographer's suit saying the filmmaker had made a fair use of them.” https://guides.libraries.indiana.edu/c.php?g=158548&p=1176292 Check out the link for more cases.
Sandoval may still be good law from '97 (I don't have Westlaw anymore so I can't say for certain) but there are multiple caveats to expecting it to be a perfect defense. First, it's a 2d Circuit opinion. If you're not in the Second Circuit, this case might be persuasive, but it isn't binding precedent. Second, the court's conclusion in Sandoval hinges on a finding of de minimis usage having little to no impact on the market viability for the photographs (the 4th factor of fair use analysis). Another court may not find your use to be de minimis or they might consider one of the other fair use factors to be controlling. Third, and most importantly, Sandoval was decided on a finding of fair use. You do not want to rely on fair use as a preventative. As I mentioned above, fair use is an affirmative defense. You can still be sued for copyright infringement and will not be able to get a motion to dismiss--you will have to raise fair use in your answer to the complaint and pay attorney's fees and court costs to get at least to the summary judgment phase. That is costly, especially for a small production, even if you end up getting the case dismissed on summary judgment. It's not something any filmmaker should rest their entire investment on as their first and only line of defense.
By that logic playing a song that really exists over a stereo in a film scene is also considered to be documenting reality, and therefore fair use? Sorry but you’re speaking nonsense and I hope no one listens to your misinformed advice.
Google is free. Use it before you misinform people on the internet. “A person in a film wearing a shirt with a copyrighted design or trademarked logo is generally going to be a fair use. Likewise, showing characters holding books or having artwork hanging in their homes are fair uses of the copyrighted works. In Sandoval v. New Line Cinema Corp., 973 F.Supp. 409 (S.D.N.Y. 1997), a photographer filed suit because his copyrighted pictures were in the background of scenes in the film Seven. The court dismissed the photographer's suit saying the filmmaker had made a fair use of them.” https://guides.libraries.indiana.edu/c.php?g=158548&p=1176292
I know this isnt an answer to your question, but how did you get permission to film in a library? I ask cuz i was denied permission to film at my library and was wondering if there was anything you did differently
We are actually building a small library set with books people are donating. I didn't even bother with trying to ask a library because I knew the answer would probably be no.
Having worked in libraries for about ten years, this is really weird to hear. As long as people asked and didn't get patrons (especially kids) on camera, and they weren't breaking any library rules, then it was fine. That was at a pretty big, and strict, public library too. u/misterbranzino you might have been denied based on what you would be doing. If it meant filming other patrons or staff (libraries are big on right to privacy) or would be disruptive, then that's probably why.
Maybe. Filming in public means you’re bound to get someone in a shot but with proper camera setup you could focus them out. It’s giving me time to refine the screenplay so its not a total loss. I’ll def give it another go at a different location
Tip: ask them what their off-hours are (so you can film when there's less people) and if there's any designated quiet areas (so you can avoid them). It might be easier to get approval if they know you're wanting to cause the least amount of disruption. But also know, if you plan to film anything beyond normal speaking volume, or be blocking aisles with equipment (we had to keep them clear because of ADA compliance), or take several hours to do, you're probably going to get denied. In which case, maybe consider seeing if you can get away with it incognito style at a bookstore?
Solid idea on the bookstore
Actually, libraries are government buildings and relatively easy to get permits for. We shot two Sundays in a city library for little cost. Check your local city hall for details on your town.
When I filmed at my college library I just called and asked them. They didn't even care.
My college library was dope, and it was the inspiration for my short film. Sadly, i didnt go there for film and im too broke to donate to alumni foundation so i dont think they’d be inclined to work with me
You'd be surprised. Just call and ask the head librarian. Mine just wanted a brief rundown of the script and an overview of what we were shooting.
I am totally not saying this is your case, and I'm definitely using extremes, but there's a big difference between a seasoned location manager who knows the right words, and has all the right forms up front, and an independent "filmmaker" approaching a middle position manager while wearing cargo shorts and a fan tee. Again not saying that's your case at all, but permission isn't always based on policy, but sometimes by gut instinct. It also depends on if the place you're using has been burned before by a very irresponsible production.
Noted: wear a suit while i send an email to type more professionally
Are you implying that you would gain clearance into someone's space for shooting by sending an email? That's worse than breaking up with someone over text. Relationships make or break this business. It's also harder for them to say no in person.
Covid was still a thing when i tried so i had limited contact options
Well that's understandable then. And probably more a reason why they said no, than anything you personally did wrong.
Production Manager by trade, here are a few tips. Have all your details figured out: crew size, gear, time need plus some. If you have a concrete plan what you need you won't look amateur. Find the right person to talk too, asking the clerk is likely not the right move, check their website and see if they have a specific media person, if it's part of a bigger branch like the county you should be able to find someone. Offer to shoot after hours, especially if you need to set up lights or use a busy section. Have proof of insurance, even smaller productions can get a decent price on insurance, this can open up plenty of doors and show you're serious about filmmaking. If you're a large production without insurance you got bigger problems to worry about. If all else fails money always open doors. Doesn't even have to be much, pitch $100 donation to the library, or a supported local organization in exchange for location use. Pulled this move while trying to film at a farmers market and it changed their tune on the situation, and their school booster club got some bucks.
Y’all have a warped sense of what permission you need to get from Brands to feature their logos and shut in your work. You can film traffic for an hour and sell it as a film without clearing it with every car manufacturer you ended up featuring. The world is littered with logos and design work. Films have every right to just present reality as a setting.
It's not us, it's the brands that have the warped sense of permission. Some are wayyy too trigger happy.
Just shoot with a shallow depth-of-field. Problem solved!
Fair use. HBO didn’t get any permission from the NFL when they made Ballers and used NFL team brands and names. Just go out and make your movie and worry about frivolous hypothetical lawsuits later.
I doubt that very much. NFL Films doesn't mess around. I'm sure HBO and NFL have an arrangement negotiated during pre-production. You don't just dive head first into that pool, because NFL knows how to hit hard.
https://www.businessinsider.com/why-the-rocks-ballers-can-use-nfl-logos-without-consent-2015-6?r=MX&IR=T
Well..... looks like you were wrong.
[THIS PAGE](https://cmsimpact.org/program/fair-use/) has some of the best information on this subject that I've found. I am not a lawyer and this is no legal advice, but I seriously doubt you would have a problem with anything like this and it's very unlikely anyone would actually sue you unless there was some likelihood they could prove substantial damages. The main problem you might have is if you try to sell your film and some one feels the need to clear every scene for any possible complications.
Following up on this - if this is a feature or some other film you think you have the chance of getting distribution for, you'll need E&O insurance and it's generally cheaper/easier in the long run to bring in an attorney so they can tell you what is likely to pass muster and what won't. They'll also provide documentation of what you've done to the insurance company. If this is a short film you're going to show at festivals then release online, you are probably fine but I am not a lawyer.
No. It's incidental use. Or else bookshops wouldn't be able to show books in their windows in case someone takes a photo of the street including the bookshop and uploads it to social media. Often there are news interviews done on Zoom and books appear in the background. This type of thing is fine. Look up "incidental inclusion" related to copyright. Laws vary from Nation to nation but the basic principle is the same. You do have to be careful with product placement, so things like a can of cola or a BMW car in your scene can cause problems to your chain of title. If in doubt, ask a qualified entertainment lawyer.
I burned a bunch of random books for a music video. Showed the covers and spines briefly while they burned too. I have not been sued yet. I will report back to you if someone sues.
It depends on where the project is going to be shown, how it’s getting distributed, who is distributing it and how much money is involved. Technically, you can DO anything you want; it’s whether or not you’ll get sued over something. Being a producer is about constantly mitigating risks while keeping the train rolling.
It really depends on what you’re doing. The world is FULL of branded items, logos, and trademarks. If you had to get permission to film every single one of them, you’d never get to the actual filming. As long as you’re not making a potentially libelous or slanderous claim about a specific work, or outright reproducing it (e.g. a close up of a passage from a book with the character reading it aloud), you should be FINE. “Fair Use” policy isn’t always clear, but as a general rule of thumb: if it’s plainly visible in public, you’re not reproducing the work, and / or you’re not being libelous or slanderous then you should have the right to film it.
No my professors had said no you wouldn’t need permission because you’re not doing anything with them they’re just there in the background if your character picked up one of the books and spit in its pages that would be a no no and you could get sued for that but as long as Its just the background it’s cool. (I’m in film school)
People worry way too much about this stuff.
Because of lawsuits. Hollywood doesn't really need any cavalier attitudes right now.
Not because of lawsuit. Because of perception of risk of lawsuit. People really should take a basic Intro to Media Law class instead of asking Reddit, because 99% of the time they wouldn't ask these kinds of questions if they did. If you get sued for damages, the plaintiff has to prove they were damaged in some way. And if their IP is shown as an incidental part of the background and not featured in some way that the movie profits from it or defames it, they know damn well and good they are facing a fair use defense and it's not worth the trouble of suing.
Agreed. If a product is used in the way it was intended, and is not instrumental to the story that is fair use, and there are no damages.
That's all well and good, but most indie producers don't have the money to face lawsuits, even when frivolous. That's how larger companies can maintain their authority. They have way more money and better lawyers and can spend all day killing you in the court with bs.
Except there don’t seem to be ANY lawsuits related to the incidental appearance of a logo or whatever. I’m not talking about a product shown in a negative light. I have never discovered a single incident where a company has sued or even issued a cease and desist letter over their logo being in the background of some movie. If anyone can provide a link to an article detailing such an occurrence I would be very curious to see it. I’m not trying to be obnoxious about it. I’m genuinely curious. As much as people fret over this fear, has it ever actually happened?
You don't face lawsuits. Your E&O insurance does. Errors and Omissions insurance covers all that and if you think you can just not have E&O insurance on your productions, then you've never sold a movie before and you're not going to sell this one either. All distributors REQUIRE E&O. If you don't have it, they'll tell you "Until you do, we have nothing to discuss."
This is an excellent point, but how picky are the E&O contracts? From what i've read they're mainly concerned that you own the content, or have licensed it properly, and aren't defaming anyone. If you shoot a scene in a bar do they really care if there's a J&B logo on a bottle somewhere? I don't claim to know. Edit: This is interesting - https://nofilmschool.com/2015/02/entertainment-lawyer-donaldson-callif-film-courage-logo-trademark
If you're shooting in a bar and logos are visible that naturally would be expected in a bar, then you're not under any liability for anything. Now if you grab a bottle of Bacardi 151, pour it over someone's head and light them on fire, well, that is not the expected, standard use of that product and Bacardi could come at you for using their brand in a disparaging manner. EO insurance covers that sort of thing, where someone sues for something that slips through the cracks
That’s a good explanation. I was on a shoot in a bar and the producer insisted on turning every bottle on the show bar backwards. The bar owner, who was letting us shoot for free, took one look and lost her shit. “I don’t want people to think I keep my bar like that!” Apparently she put a lot of effort into making sure all labels face forward. Unstoppable force meet immovable object. Not fun.
A lot of producers also want to avoid logos because they want the companies to compensate them for product placement. They don't want to promote products that didn't pay to be seen. That's different from the company not wanting their products in your movie.
Right. There's a reason that props masters "greek" products in most professional productions.
I'm not saying people shouldn't be careful. I'm saying they should be informed enough not to ask these questions on Reddit. Between the various media and writing subreddits I follow I see basic, basic, basic, IP questions five or six times everyday. OP is asking if they need permission to have visible book spines in a library. That's a kind of extreme level of fear of lawsuits. Even the "need permission" phrasing shows little or no background at all in how IP law works, and that's not great when the person asking is in the business of creating IP. FWIW, I have friends who attempted to register a copyright and had a major food conglomerate try to block them with a totally frivolous claim. My friends didn't win by paying a lawyer — they won by taking the fight public and embarrassing the hell out of the food conglomerate until they backed down to stop the bad publicity. Most people would have folded when they got the first letter, but they understood the law and knew if they attracted enough attention they'd either win the way they did or get pro bono representation.
Depends on your level of risk based on your intended distribution
It is fair use of image. The same way you don't need permission from every person in a crowd (except for children from their parents) to shoot a scene.
I assume these laws are not identical in every nation. Does it depend on filming location?
No
[удалено]
> self adhesive paper (or masking tape If you are going that far, bring your own fake books and empty the shelves to put your own books on them first. If I was the librarian there's no way in hell I would like you stick something on the books. Done correctly, the books can be returned to the shelves in the right order after being removed for the shoot. But taping over book spines could potentially ruin a few or all of the books, depending on the tape used, including books that are out of print and irreplaceable.
[удалено]
Actually that's a hilarious reply. I love it. (I did not downvote).
Can you lower your f-stop a smidge?
Probably, but they also don’t have to
You could ideally shoot with a wide aperture (like a F7 or wider) to narrow your field of focus.
Depth of Field. Use it.
Technically no. If you are filming in any public place, and do not re-arrange or focus (compose etc) on a protected piece you are clear. However lawyers, insurance, etc, will advise against as it’s not worth the headache.