I believe a lot of studios keep their own stock footage libraries and I know you can buy some footage from movies to use.

I also find it hard to believe a stock footage house would dump older footage. They might archive it or fail to display it on their website though. Doesn't hurt to ask.

RJSchwarz

rj is right. Studios keep their stock footage forever and companies that
specialize in stock footage keep their footage forever. It is possible to
find footage shoot well over 20 years ago. It's possible to find stock
footage shot from the very beginning for motion picture production.

In that case, the goof of the example above falls squarely on the shoulders of the creative team.

The one thing that is interesting about it is, in the city such as New York, where skyline is changing every day, you'd think that cityscape stock footage would have fairly short shelf life.

There were several other things that were wrong with the particular shot in question (in addition to flags, the big security tent put up on the visitors plaza after 11 September is not there, also the iron fence is still old, and it was replaced with a taller, sturdier one in the early 2000s...); so I guess, the criteria for TV is much lower than for major motion pictures. As long as the audience can identify the UN building, with some flags in front, they were fine with it. Not to mention that the interior shots were done elsewhere (presumably, in a studio), and they didn't even bother to make it look anything like UN conference rooms, hallways, or offices. Unlike "The Interpreter", which was actually shot inside (and outside) the actual building(s).

TV typically has a much lower budget than a feature film.

You will find dozens of mistakes is just about ever movie and
TV show ever made. Sometimes it's cheaper and faster to use
a stock shot that is already licensed than to search for and pay
for a more up to date shot. You're right, as long as the audience
can identify the UN building, with some flags in front, they are
fine with it. Same with the interior shots. The producers of
"The Unit" (which was shot in the Los Angeles area) rented the
space they could afford. It's very rare that a TV series can afford
distant locations. The producers of "The Interpreter" could afford
to shoot in the actual building.

Stock footage of a constantly changing subject (like the New York skyline) is definitely still valuable. Not only simply for archive purposes, but imagine you're doing a period film or show. Obviously that's not the case here, but if you were making a film set during the cold war then that particular clip could be invaluable, for example.

----------
http://vimeo.com/corax

This UN example may not have been the best. UN never allows shooting on its territory (according to treaties, it is international territory, and no law enforcement of any country, including host country, the US, is allowed unless invited). The Interpreter is a very notable exception, and the arrangement was made because Sidney Pollack has declared himself as a big admirer of the UN. They only shot on the weekends (obviously), and used many UN staff as extras (my French boss even got a speaking part, in French, of course). The cinematography takes advantage of some of the great 50s architecture in the building.

It is possible the editors themselves didn't really notice and just pulled stock footage of the UN.

RJSchwarz

I'm sure whoever was the first person to put the stock footage in didn't notice. I wonder if anyone else in the production chain actually noticed, and decided that the audience wouldn't, or if everyone was oblivious? After all, most of them live in L.A., and likely haven't seen the UN recently (referring to the tent and the fence; flags are obviously a clear sign, although somewhat inconspicuous).

I'm sure it was a financial decision. The shot they used was likely in the
library they have access to. There may have been someone on staff who
noticed it was older footage. But since it wasn't an historical piece where
absolute accuracy is essential the decision was made to use what they
had and not spend money for more up to date footage. I'm sure they made
the assumption that some people would notice and most would not.

Same with the interiors. The cost of building an accurate set was prohibitive
so they rented a location that could pass. Since it's a TV series and not a
historical documentary the absolute accuracy of the interiors were not of
much importance.