[flashman]

I wonder how the photogrammetry aspect will intersect with intellectual property laws. The example used - scanning in a Santa Monica bar so that you can do reshoots without revisiting the location - would be an obvious example that might raise someone's hackles ("because it's our bar you're using to make your money" for instance). If you add that bar to your digital library, do you have to pay them royalties each time you use it? Is it any different to constructing a practical replica of a real-life location?

Can someone wearing a few cameras walk through a building and digitise it completely without getting the owner's permission? Here in Australia, "copyright in a building or a model of a building is not infringed by the making of a painting, drawing, engraving or photograph of the building or model or by the inclusion of the building or model in a cinematograph film or in a television broadcast," for instance. (Copyright Act 1968 §66)

[kragen]

If you have to pay royalties, they won't be to the bar; they'll be to the bar's architect. Copyright law generally only covers expressive, rather than functional, aspects of a copyrighted work, so things like doors and walls might be okay, but architectural design is recognized as copyrightable.

In general I strongly recommend avoiding the term "intellectual property" because it conflates several different areas of law with almost totally unrelated traditions, statutes, and (in common-law countries) precedents — copyrights, patents, design patents, mask works, trademarks, trade secrets, and most alarmingly, in the EU, database rights. (Moreover, it's an extremely loaded term, like "pro-life" and "pro-choice".)

[flashman]

That's why I chose the term "intellectual property": it's a useful term for the issues around "creating a thing that's somewhat like another thing," even if it's not a super helpful legal term.

I would not be surprised to see someone argue for a new class of property rights for owners, surrounding the reproduction of a scene or location where the reproduction has commercial value. What happens if Facebook bootlegs the Mall of America for Oculus? Does that lower the value of a similar venture by the mall's owners?

[paulmd]

A potential analogy might be something like using Carrie Fisher's image in the new Star Wars movies. I would assume the estate got paid for that. Or holo-tupac.

Practically speaking I think it will come down to what you negotiate. If you negotiate usage of the bar for your series then you can use it, otherwise not. If you negotiate resale of that model then that's legal, otherwise not. Most large productions will probably want to stay far on the right side of the law and get a written/financial agreement until things are hammered out, then you'll have amateur filmmakers who have to do vigilante shoots.

And again, probably something that will have to be legislated out for the long term.

In France, the appearance of buildings can be copyrighted, famously the Eiffel Tower is very aggressive about suing photographers.

[icebraining]

It's not the Eiffel Tower that is copyrighted, but the light installation that is turned on at night. Taking pictures during the day is free from such restrictions: https://www.toureiffel.paris/en/business/use-image-of-eiffel...

[stormbrew]

Royalties for use of the likeness of an actor was a fought for thing with the actor's guild after they did various tricky things to put Crispin Glover into Back to the Future 2 without his consent. I dunno that that really applies to locations in the same way.

[BubRoss]

When shooting at a location, the owner is payed a location fee. Detailed and specialized photography has been used at locations for decades at this point. This is a refinement of what is already happening, not something completely new.