Do I Need Permission to Film Buildings and Vehicles in Japan for My TV Program?

When producing television programs in Japan—whether news reports, documentaries, dramas, or travel shows—buildings and vehicles are frequently part of the visual narrative. Questions often arise about whether permission is required from property owners to film these structures and objects. The legal landscape in Japan offers a relatively clear framework, primarily distinguishing between copyright considerations, the (non-existent) concept of "property publicity rights," privacy implications for individuals associated with the property, and the critical issue of trespass.

Copyright Law and the Filming of Buildings in Japan

The first consideration is copyright. How does Japanese copyright law apply to the filming of buildings?

1. Ordinary Buildings and Vehicles: Most standard residential homes, office buildings, factories, and common vehicles (cars, trucks, trains) are generally not considered "works" eligible for copyright protection in Japan. This is because they typically lack the requisite level of "creativity" in their design to qualify as an "architectural work" or an "artistic work" under the Japanese Copyright Act. Filming the exteriors of such non-copyrighted structures from public spaces raises no copyright issues per se.
2. "Architectural Works" (建築の著作物 - Kenchiku no Chosakubutsu): Some buildings, due to their unique and creative design, can qualify for copyright protection as "architectural works." Think of iconic skyscrapers with distinctive silhouettes, uniquely designed theme park structures, or architecturally significant public buildings and stadiums. The copyright in an architectural work typically belongs to its architect or designer.
3. Article 46 of the Copyright Act – The Public Access Exception: Even if a building is a copyrighted architectural work, Article 46 of the Japanese Copyright Act provides a significant exception relevant to filming. This article generally permits the public to exploit (which includes photographing, filming, and subsequent broadcasting or public transmission) an architectural work that is permanently situated in an outdoor place open to the public, or on the walls of a building that are easily visible to the public. This means that for most copyrighted architectural works that are visible and accessible from public streets, parks, or other open areas, their exteriors can be freely filmed and broadcast without needing specific permission from the copyright holder (e.g., the architect or building owner) under copyright law. This provision allows for the depiction of cityscapes and public environments that inevitably include such structures.
4. Ancillary Copyrights on Building Facades: A point of caution arises if a building's facade prominently features separate copyrighted works that are not integral to the architectural design itself. For example, if a large, original mural by an artist is painted on an exterior wall, or if a significant copyrighted sculpture is attached to the building, the copyright in these specific artistic works needs to be considered independently. While their incidental inclusion might be covered by rules discussed in a previous article (Article 30-2 for "Works Incidentally Included"), if such an artwork becomes a direct and significant focus of the shot, separate permissions or reliance on other copyright exceptions might be necessary.

In summary, from a purely copyright perspective, filming the exteriors of buildings in Japan, whether they are mundane structures or unique architectural works visible from public areas, is generally permissible without needing to secure copyright licenses.

The Non-Existence of "Property Publicity Rights" in Japan

In some legal discussions internationally, the idea of a "publicity right" for famous or distinctive properties has been mooted – a right for an owner to control commercial depictions of their building or landmark.

However, Japanese law does not recognize a general "publicity right" for inanimate objects such as buildings or vehicles (物のパブリシティ権 - mono no paburishiti-ken). There is no inherent legal right for a property owner to demand licensing fees merely because their building or vehicle appears in a commercial television program, provided the filming itself is lawful.

This principle was significantly reinforced by the Supreme Court of Japan in the Gallop Racer Case (judgment of February 13, 2004, Minshū Vol. 58, No. 2, p. 311). While this specific case dealt with the alleged publicity rights of racehorses (which the Court denied, finding that horses, as property, do not possess such rights), its reasoning has been broadly interpreted as affirming the general principle against recognizing publicity-like rights for property or inanimate objects in the absence of specific legislative provision.

Therefore, property owners in Japan typically cannot prevent third parties from filming or photographing their buildings or vehicles from public vantage points based on a claim that the property itself has an inherent "right of publicity" that requires their permission for depiction.

The Critical Distinction: Filming from Public vs. Private Land

While copyright or property publicity rights rarely restrict filming building exteriors from public view, the physical location from which the filming occurs is paramount.

1. Filming from Public Spaces: As a general rule, filming the exterior of any building or vehicle from a genuinely public space—such as a public road, sidewalk, public park, or even from the air (respecting aviation regulations)—does not require the permission of the building or vehicle owner. This is the default legal position.
2. Entering and Filming on Private Property (敷地内 - Shikichi-nai): The legal situation changes entirely if the act of filming requires or involves entering onto private property without authorization.
   • Trespass: Unauthorized entry onto private land, including areas considered the curtilage of a building (e.g., a private driveway, a fenced-in garden immediately surrounding a house, or even some ostensibly open but privately-owned plazas or forecourts), can constitute criminal trespass under Japanese law (e.g., Article 130 of the Penal Code for residence trespass or building trespass). Obtaining explicit permission from the landowner, tenant, or rightful occupant is essential before entering private property to film.
   • Paid-Entry Facilities (Theme Parks, Museums, Stadiums, etc.): Many commercial or private facilities that are open to the public upon payment of a fee (or even free-entry private facilities like shopping malls) often have specific terms and conditions of entry. These terms may explicitly prohibit or restrict any form of commercial filming or photography without prior written consent from the facility management. Violating these contractual terms, even if initial entry was lawful (e.g., by purchasing a ticket as a regular visitor but then conducting unauthorized commercial filming), can lead to being ejected from the premises and potentially to claims for breach of contract or damages, especially if the unauthorized footage is used for commercial gain.
   • Practical Necessity of Cooperation: For any substantial filming project—particularly dramas, large-crew documentaries, or shoots involving celebrities which might attract public attention—logistical cooperation with property managers or facility owners is almost invariably indispensable, regardless of whether one could theoretically capture some shots from off-property. This cooperation is needed for managing access, ensuring safety and security, arranging for power if necessary, and minimizing disruption to the property's normal operations or to other users.

Privacy and Defamation: When Filming Property Implicates Individuals

While buildings and vehicles, as inanimate objects, do not themselves possess privacy rights or a reputation that can be legally defamed, the way they are filmed and portrayed in a television program can have significant legal implications for the individuals associated with them.

1. Residential Properties and Individual Privacy:
   • Filming the exterior of a private home in a manner that clearly identifies it as the residence of a specific, recognizable individual requires careful consideration of that person's right to privacy. An individual's home address and the visual details of their home are generally considered private information in Japan.
   • If explicit consent from the resident has not been obtained, broadcasters should take measures to protect their privacy. This might involve avoiding shots that make the specific location easily identifiable (e.g., by blurring or avoiding street signs, house numbers, or highly unique and unnecessary identifying features of the property, unless these details are essential for a story of significant public interest and their inclusion is legally defensible). The aim is to prevent unwarranted intrusion into the resident's private life merely by association with their home's image.
2. Vehicles and Owner/User Identification:
   • Similarly, filming a vehicle in a way that directly and clearly links it to a specific, identifiable private individual (not just a generic car on a public street) can raise privacy concerns, especially if the context of the report is sensitive.
   • License Plates (ナンバープレート): While legislative changes in Japan have made it more difficult for the general public to look up vehicle owner details solely from a license plate number, if a license plate, in conjunction with other contextual information presented in a broadcast, could contribute to identifying a private individual in a sensitive report (e.g., a crime victim, a confidential source, or someone involved in a private dispute), it may be prudent to blur or otherwise obscure the license plate. This is a common practice in Japanese media under certain circumstances to protect individual privacy.
3. False Association and Defamation or Business Disparagement:
   • Extreme caution is essential when using footage of buildings or vehicles in connection with negative news stories, such as reports on crime, corporate scandals, safety violations, or financial distress. If footage of an unrelated building or vehicle is used—perhaps as generic illustrative B-roll or file footage—in a way that creates a false and damaging impression to viewers that this specific property, or its identifiable occupants or owners, are connected to the negative event, this can lead to serious legal claims. Such claims could be for defamation (名誉毀損 - meiyo kison) of the individuals involved, or for business disparagement (e.g., damage to credit/goodwill - 信用毀損 - shin'yō kison; or fraudulent obstruction of business - 偽計業務妨害 - keikei gyōmu bōgai) from the actual owners, tenants, or businesses associated with the wrongly implicated property. The key is to ensure that any visual shorthand does not inadvertently create a false and harmful narrative.

Conclusion

In Japan, the act of filming the exteriors of buildings (including copyrighted architectural works visible from public spaces) and vehicles from public vantage points is generally permissible without needing specific permission from the property owners under either copyright law or any purported "property publicity right." The freedom to capture the ambient visual environment is broadly recognized.

However, this freedom is strictly conditional on the filming being conducted from public property. Any unauthorized entry onto private land to obtain footage carries significant legal risks, including potential criminal trespass charges and civil liability.

Furthermore, even when filming lawfully from public spaces, media organizations must remain vigilant about the potential privacy and reputational implications for individuals associated with the filmed property. If a building or vehicle is clearly linked to an identifiable private individual, particularly in a sensitive context, or if there's a risk of creating a false and damaging association between a property and a negative event, careful consideration, and often specific anonymization techniques or explicit consent, will be necessary. Therefore, while the general rule is one of freedom to film property exteriors from public, a nuanced assessment of trespass, individual privacy, and potential for defamatory misattribution is crucial for responsible and legally compliant television production in Japan.