There are a lot of private video clips on the web. Some of them are artistic pieces of everyday situations and usually shot in the public. I wonder how
most shooters go about getting permission from the people they shoot in public?
What do you ask for? Do you ask BEFORE you shoot or AFTER? And if you don´t get around to ask for a permission, do you dare to post the footage on the web? I guess there are some universal guidelines to follow? But do they differ from country to country?

Anyone care to share their experiences?

-terje

I may be wrong but I don't believe that you need to get permission to shoot someone in a public place.

Generally, it has always been OK to shoot (film) people in a public place, some of last century's great photographers did exactly this. However, we are now in an age of political correctness and suspicious people, esspecially parents of young children, I think it would be both polite and prudent to ask permission and also let the people know what the intended use is going to be. I know stock libraries will not accept footage without a model release.

so many feature films have scenes shot gorilla style with long a zoom lens on a city street. The main character walking among the people. Clearly 100s of people who did not give permission.

They stage some of those to look like a gorilla shot, but you can always tell when it's real.

You are quite right, there are many other examples that we could mention, including on the beach shots. Here in the UK the TV companies seem to be obsessed with pixelating and blurring members of the public's faces. What a legacy we are leaving for future generations, imagine if all the footage shot since 1930 was also given this treatment, not to mention Cartier Bressons work - it is our loss

I love those shots too, the gorilla shots. There is a great little snapshot of Venice beach in the movie Zanadu (don't ask..LOL) the main character is skating down the sidewalk and they use a long zoom. I always like looking at all the people just enjoying the sunny day way back in 1980 or something.

We should ask Philp Bloom if he gets a release, almost all his shorts are just people in public.

I love those shots too, the gorilla shots. There is a great little snapshot of Venice beach in the movie Zanadu (don't ask..LOL) the main character is skating down the sidewalk and they use a long zoom. I always like looking at all the people just enjoying the sunny day way back in 1980 or something.

We should ask Philp Bloom if he gets a release, almost all his shorts are just people in public.

Funny you should ask, I did put this question to Philip last September based on his Windsor Waltz film -

Just a simple question, but not meant to be taken the wrong way. Did you pay to use the music on your video clip, or do you have a licence for using music on the web?

I ask this because I too would like to use music tracks on my videos and although I have a large collection of Royalty free music, most of it is forgettable.

Regarding the video, especially the Windsor shoot. How do you get away with shooting (filmimg) people today, there seems to be so many do’s and don’ts and short of turning every person into Pixelated monsters I am not sure how we will be able to capture everday life people. Just imagine if way back in the early 1900 if photography was subjected to the same bans that are in force now, what a loss this would have been to historic pictures.

Keep up the good work, I have enjoyed looking at your work - hope to meet you on a press launch some day.

Regards Vincent

Philips reply

with people I just film until they ask me to stop. Sometimes I ask people if I do close ups

Regarding the music;

that piece of music i paid for royalty free. A lot I just use for non commercial use only.

URL to Windsor Waltz.

Philip Bloom Windsor Waltz (http://philipbloom.co.uk/films/35mm-films/windsor-waltz-2/)

I like Phil's work a lot (and this is not a critisism of Phil) but just filming "until they ask me to stop" definitely does not constitute permission!!!!!

Recently I got challenged whilst filming kids in public in my home town's Apple Festival. This highly opinionated woman got very upset at me - even though I pointed out to her (when she eventually shut up) that they were MY KIDS! "But....But...there are other kids in the background".....

What can you do? I just put my camera away and enjoyed the rest of the day with my wife and kids.

Best bit was that my eldest daughter shortly afterwards WON the race this horrible woman was organising and then she had to present my daughter with a medal (gold, not real of course!). I just smirked...and later laughed for ages! This woman was NOT happy! Would have been nice to have had it on the EX3 though!

As others and Vincent have said, the UK is becoming a strange, overly politically correct place. Thank god for Top Gear! (great, great editing too!)

BTW, I think this thread is in the wrong section. I'm sure the mods will move it soon.

Vincent
Music is another issue. It is someone's copyright.
Andy
If it's an organised event then I don't think that's public and she had a point. Otherwise I would have told her to eff off (depending on how big her husband was ;-)
I don't think you need permission to film someone in public precisely because it's public. As far as know privacy is a right in private - not in public eg look at all the CCTV cameras.
Yes, this is in the wrong section.

I never ask a NO question:-)

I usually try to shoot in places where I know there will be less traffic. Also at times I shoot where I know people can see me; and if they choose to stroll in front of the camera, it's their perogative (misspelled, oh well). If they would be a main character in frame, then I ask, usually : )

JS

I never ask a NO question:-)

Would that include "Do you mind if I shoot some footage of you?"

If it's an organised event then I don't think that's public and she had a point. Otherwise I would have told her to eff off (depending on how big her husband was ;-)

Yes it was a public place! (Palace Green, opposite the West Door of Ely Cathedral) and heaving with people. Nice annual event and it was a lovely Autumn Saturday. I'm just too polite for my own good sometimes!

I would stress that I always ask someone if I'm hoping to take a shot specifically with them mostly in frame - as I did with the Woodturner who was the main feature in the eventual short - if anyone's interested the link is here: Apple Festival Woodturner (http://www.shootingimage.co.uk/Apple%20Festival/AppleFestival.html)

BTW, there were lots of others there on Place Green with video and still cameras too - that got "ignored" (just that mine was the biggest camera I guess!) :-)

I bet if I'd had my Sony HC1 she would not even have noticed - the Sony EX3 does stand out a bit in situations like this.

This is something I have struggled with Filming in public. I always worry that someone will get upset or question your reasons I know its silly but its always been the case that if it can happen it will. Another concern is the gear is worth a lot of money and if your on your own you cant watch everything. Funny whenever I do go out and film suddenly I become aware of people looking concerned in my direction as I size up the location. I went out and filmed at about 6:30 on a sunday morning and was approached by someone who told me he had the same setup at home. Every venture out seems like an adventure. Its always a talking point and always attracts attention. I wonder what people think when they see you? I think its much better if you can take an attractive lady with you that way she gets the attention and your accepted more..

I'm no authority on the matter, but if I understand it correctly (from my still photography stuff) that it is okay to shoot people 'in general' in public, but if you single out any particular individual, especially if they're doing something that may embarrass them, then it is not okay without permission. And you definitely need written permission if you single out an individual and associate the image(s) with any product or association, etc. But otherwise 'faceless' people in a crowd in a public place, I've understood it to be okay. Remember, 99% of the time I don't know what I'm talking about and this falls into the 99% category, ha! <-- disclaimer

Also, I might add, I would never shoot children at all without some kind of written consent, no matter where.

Great input! Thank you, gentlemen. I must say I generally avoid shooting strangers, adult or children. I know there are situations where asking isn´t very practical (street crowd), but shots like that usually function as "backgrounds". When no person is "in focus" it´s easier to justify the shot. But the most artistic shots (Bresson!) usually have only a few well-composed persons in it. The characters contribute with their personality. They become the motivation for the shot. I find it very difficult to do a shot like that without asking permission. For me it´s like violating a person´s "copyright". Being a composer, I´m very aware of copyrights. I wouldn´t want anyone to use my work without permission.
Neither would anyone else?

I´ve seen some of Mr. Bloom´s well-planned and artistic shots, and I´ve always wondered how he´s able to pull off his "invasions" into his object´s personal sphere. Doing the actual filming is one thing, releasing in on the web is another. But I guess it´s like everything else in this world, if you want to get ahead it´s better to go for forgiveness than permission... But - as suggested in another post here - we wouldn´t have Mr. Bresson´s beautiful work to look at, if he only did his magic WITH permissions. It´s clearly a dilemma.

That said, it´s of course much more interesting to "shoot" people. Anyone up for a session? ;-)

-terje

Another way to look at it. How many stars get their whole family followed by photographers? Peeking over walls, through windows, helicopters flying along their beach front home, then the pictures are published world wide without permission....

Maybe we are making too big a deal out of this. I think much worse happens every day and they get paid to do it to.

Yeah, I get your point, Erik. But I do think it´s important to divide between people that willingly have walked onto the stage and into the stage light, and those who have not. I´m quite sure that celebrities sometimes regret the prize they pay for their fame, but they also depend on the attention they receive. In a way they get something in return. The attention is the primary foundation which they base their "market value" on.

The consept of paparazzis is another story and surely worth a thread alone. But someone´s lack of respect for other people shouldn´t be an excuse for all of us to behave the same way, should it?

I guess balance is the way to go? :-)

-terje

well I certainly wouldn't want to join them..LOL but I think it gives an insight in the legal issues involved. Unless they have special permission it looks like field is wide open. If they can publish photos of a private wedding taken with a 300mm lens from some mountain top. Surely a person who walks in front of my camera and gets mad doesn't have a leg to stand on.

I was always under the impression that public was public. my background was news, so that was the rule we followed. if you were on public property, you were fair game. that is the rule I follow to this day.

as mentioned before, the "right to privacy" doesnt extend to public places.

This has been addressed a number of times in the "Taking Care of Business" forum. So, here it is, one more time:

Bert P. Krages Attorney at Law Photographer's Rights Page (http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm)

This also applies to videographers.

This is an interesting subject, and one which I often battle with myself.

I was recently approached by a security guard in a Norwich city shopping mall who asked why I had my camera with me. I explained that I had been filming in the city and was returning to my car. The guard asked if I had a license to film in the city centre to which I said no. I asked him who issues the licences but he didn't know.

He also told a friend I was with that he couldn't take photo's either without a license.

When I asked why he approached us he said it's because terrorists often film places in preparation for an attack, to which I suggested that they would probably use a camera a little less conspicuous than mine (EX1, rails & brevis)!

I did some research when I got home that day and it's not made very clear at all whether or not this guy was right. I've been back since then and have walked past the police a few times who didn't seem to have any problems with me being there at all.

Unfortunately the world we live in has become paranoid, and rightly so. That should not stop artists from expressing themselves and capturing images of the world around them though... IMO anyway!

Jay, thanks for the link. It was an educating read, at least about what´s valid in US.

Paul, your perspective brings another dimension to the table. I guess the biggest problem (for us shooters) is that the "rules" sometimes are enforced by ignorant people that enjoy being in power. And as you suggested, the world situation in general isn´t very helpful when it comes to topics like these.

-terje

Thanks for the Photographer's Rights link. It doesn't really answer the question though, because you may have the "right" to take anyone's photo in public, but it doesn't talk about your rights on how you "use" the photo/footage in various applications and intentions.

Thanks for the Photographer's Rights link. It doesn't really answer the question though, because you may have the "right" to take anyone's photo in public, but it doesn't talk about your rights on how you "use" the photo/footage in various applications and intentions.

wouldnt it be a safe assumption though, if you are allowed to shoot whatever you want of whomever you want on public property, you are allowed to do whatever you want with it?

That's my understanding.

wouldnt it be a safe assumption though, if you are allowed to shoot whatever you want of whomever you want on public property, you are allowed to do whatever you want with it?

That's not my take on it. If you see me drinking Coca Cola on the sidewalk and zoom in on my face and it's used for a national Coca Cola commercial ad campaign, I don't think that's legal. Or, if you take a picture of me specifically out of the crowd in public and it's used for, oh, a campaign for a controversial organization and thus makes me associated with it, I don't think that's legal. Or if you take a photo of me in public and single me out of the crowd in an embarrasing moment and humiliate me through publication, I think I would have a case. Or if I see me on the cover of a Gay Advocate magazine (not that there's anything wrong with that) because I was walking in public (and I'm not gay but they just used the image of me from walking down a public sidewalk), I won't take that kindly and the law would be on my side.

How you apply images taken in public matter legally. That's been my understanding. Also, in some situations, 'how' you get the photos in public can be a legal matter too (such as putting a POV camera on your shoe in an attempt to get shots of girls in dresses walking by, etc.) Nothing is always so simple, especially with the number of lawyers in our country, ha ha!

Buck, I agree. But it seems that many try to bend the rules anyways. Here in Norway we had a special case some time ago. Tha largest national paparazzi magazine took some pictures - in a public place, of two famous people getting married, even if they already had been told NOT to take pictures. In the following legal fall out, the magazine lost big time and had to pay money for their misconduct. As you say, nothing is simple. When you THINK
you´re covered, you might not be at all...

-terje

One point that seems to have been overlooked. If a picture of someone drinking Coca or Pepsi Cola is considered for an advertising campaign then the agency will ask for a model release prior to publishing. The same also applies to photographing/filming a private property, you have to get a property release.

Did you know that the Eiffel tower at night is copyright, you can't publish a shot of it (for commercial use) without a property release (something to do with the lights), the same holds true for the tower in Toronto (name escapes me). Just to throw a spanner in the works, firework displays are also subject to copyright laws, they are regarded as a performance.

Maybe we should all just superglue our lens-caps on :-(

Happy Christmas everyone

Curiouser and curiouser.
If it's the lighting on the buildings rather than the buildings themselves I wonder it that is counted as performance too ie you can sort of see the extension of the principle if fireworks are counted as a creative work.
We need some lawyers on DV Info!

Curiouser and curiouser.
If it's the lighting on the buildings rather than the buildings themselves I wonder it that is counted as performance too


The lights on the Eiffel yower are Illuminated in a sequence, so yes it can be regarded as a performance.

Lots of interesting points here.
What Terje says makes me uncomfortable. Is it really true that the famous couple sued the magazine for using photos of them taken _in public_ and won, even though they had 'been told NOT to take pictures'? Who told them not to take pictures and what right did they have to say this? Terje, are you absolutely sure that these photos were taken in public? Can you let us have some references to this case please. I am amazed and disconcerted by this. Why was it 'misconduct'. What had the magazine done wrong? I'd really like to know more about this. Doesn't the press have the right to report what happens in public? Isn't that called freedom of speech?

Richard, without my knowledge this particular case has been tried in Supreme Court (or Høyesterett, as we call it here). I have read the grounds of judgement (13 pages). It seems that the famous couple LOST in Supreme Court after winning twice in earlier legal battles. I´m sorry for laying down the law without actually checking for updates. As we know the law can be a moving matter. The case can be described like this: The couple (an actress and a musician) arrange a "closed" wedding, but on a "public place" (I think it was close to the ocean, but not on a place where people usually go all the time). FYI the couple is known for their integrity, and they never agree to magazine articles that goes beyond their professional lives. The magazine sends a "journalist" who takes pictures without the married couple´s knowledge. An article is then published with a very "creative copy", but from what I can judge the Supreme Court didn´t find the combination of picture and copy "offensive enough". But earlier rulings did. This magazine has lost quite a few cases, so I find it strange that it didn´t loose this one. I´m all for freedom of speech, but there´s a economical motive here that makes ME disturbed. But - the Supreme Court didn´t rule in favour of the magazine when it came to legal fees, so I guess they sort of said "do not test this one, next time...". As always Supreme Court defends the principles of laws and regulations. Here they didn´t find enough evidence to rule in favour of trespassing.

I´m just very happy I can live an anonymous life :-)

-terje

I think a distinction that hasn't been very well established in this thread is that of the difference between creation of a photograph or video that contains someone's likeness, and the public and/or commerical USE of same. Laws vary by jurisdiction, of course, but one would like to believe the difference is more or less honored in most of the free world, anyway.

Still, even in the most relaxed place there are limits. If you are overtly annoying and harassing someone in order to "get the shot," you're probably on the wrong side of both tort and criminal law.

The name of the tower in Toronto is the CN Tower. I did not know about the night time restrictions. I'm sure there are many who like my partner's father who, when her parents came to visit from Japan took the ferry over to Toronto Island to get good shots of the Toronto skyline. He had a VX2000 and a pretty good size tripod so it was pretty obvious he was setting up to capture the landscape that included the CN Tower.
No one stopped him and I'm pretty sure it happens all the time.
Other than not being allowed to tape Jim Morrison's grave in Paris and the Toronto subway
(without shooting people) I've yet to been stopped for taping public art events and monuments.
I think it's always interesting on what the public owns and has a right to as often tax dollars are involved for entities that are paid for publicly but are still considered private.

Now this is an interesting point. You can include the CN tower in a shot which depicts the city skyline, but you can't isolate the tower amd use the picture. Of course you are not going to be stopped from taking a picture of it, that would be hard to police. What you can't do is use the CN tower image for commercial gain. The same holds true for the Eiffel tower at night shot.

The first time I came accross this scenario was when I first saw the Lonesome Pine near Monterey CA. I was surprised to see a notice saying the scene was copyright and pictures could not be published.

btw. I am with the Getty image library and we get sent reams of information on what can and can't be done.

This is an issue I have been dealing with for many a year now and I feel this issue is only going to get more complicated as time goes on. Being that I am based in The US, I will limit my comments to that jurisdiction.

1) A number of years ago a Florida case made to the US Supreme Court involving women who had found topless or naked pictures of themselves on the internet. These pictures were taken of the ladies while they sunbathed on public beaches in Florida by photographers using high powered lenses from boats off shore.

The Court ruled (and I paraphrase here) Individuals on public display have no expectation to a Right of Privacy. And since the municipality's jurisdiction did not extend out into the ocean to require filming permits, the photographers were legally allowed to be where they were when they were filming.

2) I have a lot of footage of the roof of The White House I shot many years ago on a big honking Beta-SP rig with Tripod. Now as a child I had always been taught one was not allowed to film the roof of The White House and so upon returning from DC I contacted the Secret Service to ask about my footage.

I was asked really only one question by The Secret Service; Was I legally allowed to be where I was when I was filming? I assured them that I was and had I been someplace illegal, I am sure their people would have stopped me. My equipment is so large they had to have seen me and what I was doing.

1/2 an hour after calling in I got a very nice call back telling me my footage was OK.

3) Amateurs, professional, permits and public places: One has to remember that the rules for Professionals and Amateurs are different. For example amateurs can take as many pictures of anything they want in a National Park. Commercial photographers (and I include videographers) require a permit. The same holds true for public streets and venues in that most municipalities require permits for commercial filming on public land and places.

Unfortunately, enforcement is left to whomever happens to be on hand at the location (usually a private security guard) and most times these people have no clue.

What this person sees is a video camera that looks like something the local news people would be using. This person sees a tripod and video head that no amateur on vacation would have and you are labeled as a professional.

The problem with this is that just because I am a professional and have professional equipment does not mean that every time I take a video I am working in my professional capacity. Sometimes even I take a vacation and when I do why should I not want the best family vacation films I can produce.

So, I asked a park ranger who was trying to get me to confess to being a pro videographer filming in the National Park with out a permit, if he were to pull over Jeff Gordon for speeding in the park while he was driving a Ferrari, would you automatically charge him with "Racing" because he is a pro driver driving a better then consumer level car?

4) Copyrighted Scenes: Someone earlier mentioned seeing a sign prohibiting filming at some pier in Monterey California. This is a sad but true situation and really it is all about money. Some places tend to be filmed in more then others and these places have figured out this can be a great revenue stream. So if they see a guy with a better then consumer video camera and a tripod, you are a pro and they want their dollars.

I guess really what this comes down to is this...

If I am legally allowed to be where I am filming meaning I have my permits to film on the streets and you are walking down the street, no I do not need your permission to use your likeness in a commercial application even if I single you out. So long as I do not imply or suggest an endorsement or association between the person and the commercial enterprise I am OK. If I use footage of a large group of people and they are all holding cans of Coke, unless I am saying bad things about Coca-Cola or things they do not approve of, they will see it as product placement advertising they did not have to pay for. Though I myself wonder, if I go and buy a can of Coke, do I need anyone's permission to use it in a scene? I really don't think so.

The same can be said for buildings as they too are on public display and as such have no expectation of a right of privacy. So if I am filming a scene driving down the street so long as I have my permits, I do not need to ask for permission from every shop keepers store whose name can be seen through the car windows.

The best advice here is always make sure you are legally allowed to be where you are filming for commercial purposes by getting your permits. In many cases permits are free or of almost no cost and usually pretty easy to get. The other alternative is to print up business cards saying you are an accountant and put Rental House tags all over your equipment.

Sorry if I rambled on and hope this is of some benefit to someone.

David Schmerin

As a still photographer shooting national parks commercially, I have always read, and have been told, it is okay to shoot still photography in national parks/wilderness areas/national forests without a permit, so long as it was just me and my camera and tripod. There is no other adverse impact on the environment because I'm shooting the same as anyone else. You only need a permit for photography if you're shooting someplace that is not open to the general public, or if you use models/props, etc., which can adversely affect the environment and/or someone elses enjoyment of the natural surroundings.

"Filming", on the other hand, for some reason, is completely different and needs a permit, 'technically' speaking. Even if it's just you and a small video camera and a tripod. Some places enforce it more than others.

Here's some info on this matter: NPS Digest- Commercial Filming and Still Photography Permits (http://home.nps.gov/applications/digest/permits.cfm?urlarea=permits)

Hi there,

This weekend I spent a day shooting at a local music & arts/crafts festival (I did this as a freebe because I'm friends with the organiser and the event was happening in the park where I walk my dog). The festival was very child-friendly so there were kids all over the place. I was shooting on my own so there was absolutely no way I could have gotten written clearance from the parents of every single kid (some of the wide shots have about 50 kids dotted amongst adults). I also shot some close-ups of kids playing and dancing to the music.

The local council tell me *now* (after shooting and doing a rough cut!) that they don't want any images of kids under 16 in the video without written consent from the parents. Removing all the shots with kids in would completely kill the film and blurring all the kid's faces would take more time than I've got available for this project.

So, um - what to do? I was under the impression that it was perfectly legal to film people in public as long as you don't use their image to sell anything (my wife is a camera operator for the BBC and she's pretty damn sure they never ask permission when filming the public at festivals, even kids).

I'm really not sure what the council were expecting. I was shooting one-man-band-style at a festival full of kids. How was I supposed to NOT film any kids?!? Maybe we should have put signs up explaining that filming would be taking place. No parents complained at this event and no one complained about a previous video I did about a local event which has been online for a few months.

My preferred option is that I use the wide shots as they are but I edit out the close-ups of kids and then we put the video online and make it very clear that if anyone has an issue then contact me and I'll immediately edit out the offending shot.

Welcome to the new age world Jack. Everything you do from here on in will be treated as suspicious. Forget the Cartier Bresson style pictures, they are no go. Pixelate and apply a Gaussian blur to anything that moves. By the way did you also know that some buildings also need a property release, and forget about filming a firework display, they too are now regarded as a performance and are subjet to copyright laws.

My daughters school has asked me to fill in a CRB Criminal Records Bureau form before I can film my daughters school play. Have you ever seen one of those forms. Items to fill in include, full bank details, mothers maiden name, other personal information etc. Do I trust the government with these details, especially after they lost 25,000,000 Child benefit records.

The laws now make it near impossible for you to film in public places. As for your wifes information, I would take a look at any BBC news item that involves schools or children, most of the time they are blurred or you only see their feet. For classroom scenes they would have to get a parents consent for their child to be on film.

Thanks for the reply. Hmmm. Worrying stuff. Sounds like I really am going to have to cut round the kids in my film.

Does your daughter's school also require you to get written consent from the parents of the kids in the play?

It's starting to sound like the next time a friend asks me to film a fun local event, my response will have to be "do you have the money to pay for an assistant who will spend the entire event getting release forms?". It's such a shame. Video is such a powerful tool for documenting cool local projects and for gathering local support.

Can someone explain the philosophical thinking behind rules like "you can't show kids in a video documenting a lovely local festival"? Don't get me wrong, I'm a very strong believer in protecting children from being manipulated or taken advantage of. And I'm a strong believer that some regulations are absolutely required and a good yard-stick for determining whether legislation is required is to ask "what's the worst that could happen" (e.g. building regulations are clearly a good idea because poorly constructed buildings can and do kill people). But what's the "worst that could happen" due to me filming some kids having fun at a festival?

I just don't get it.

But what's the "worst that could happen" due to me filming some kids having fun at a festival?



Worst thing, is you could have a mouth full of fist, that would of course depend on whether the childs father saw you as a threat.

Whilst I fully agree with your concerns, and no doubt you are filming in good faith. Put yourself on the other side. How would you feel if someone you didn't know, was filming your daughter?

It is rather sad that we are now thinking this way, but that's what we have to accept.

In March 2008 my wife and I were in New York, and we went to Times Square. Having read about video regulations in this city, we placed our tripod and the EX1 on what we thought was a perfect spot.

After some 15 minutes two policemen told us not to use a tripod there. "Yes, you can do it in NY, but not in Times Square".

So we took another shot close by with the camera on the concrete divider between the car lines. Too much concrete in the bottom of the shot, but that was easy to remove in post.

But back in Sweden, our agent now says "hmmm, probably too many trademarks in the picture". I think that these companies should be happy getting these trademarks published for free.

LentoVision: New York City (http://lentovision.com/newyork_e.htm)

But what's the "worst that could happen" due to me filming some kids having fun at a festival?

I just don't get it.

I'm surprised no one has mentioned it in this thread. The worst thing that could happen (and the reason why kids require more protection and are blurred in lots of TV) is that an estranged husband/wife etc could see a child that had been removed from them and put into protection, becuase of violence, court order or whatever, and track said child down because of the film showing them in an identifiable location.

That'ssomething I certainlywouldn't want on my conscience.

I would imagine this would only apply in a very small amount of cases.

Imagine if Cartier Bresson had been stopped from taking pictures, what a loss that would be.

The trouble is that we live in a politically correct society where everyone is suspicious of what you are doing. In the end we lose documentaries depicting real life. Now all we can show future generations is the "optical sewage" of reality TV.

I don't think there is an answer to this as far as we are concerned, although no-one has asked my permission to film me, I believe we are caught on CCTV at least 25 times every time we visit a shopping centre.

OK, sure - that sounds bad. Thanks for bringing it to light.

But, erm, has it ever happened?

In March 2008 my wife and I were in New York, and we went to Times Square. Having read about video regulations in this city, we placed our tripod and the EX1 on what we thought was a perfect spot.

After some 15 minutes two policemen told us not to use a tripod there. "Yes, you can do it in NY, but not in Times Square".

So we took another shot close by with the camera on the concrete divider between the car lines. Too much concrete in the bottom of the shot, but that was easy to remove in post.

But back in Sweden, our agent now says "hmmm, probably too many trademarks in the picture". I think that these companies should be happy getting these trademarks published for free.

LentoVision: New York City (http://lentovision.com/newyork_e.htm)I can't speak to Swedish law. However, in the U.S., the primary barriers to showing 3rd party trademarks in a film are trademark infringement, i.e. consumer confusion as to source, sponsorship or affiliation, and dilution by tarnishment, e.g. using a 3rd party trademark in porno film. Obviously, without seeing your film and knowing the context in which it would be used, I can't give a legal opinion. However, as a general rule, use of a trademark per se in a video is not necessarily a problem.

I make the animated billboards on Times Square for Budweiser and Michelob Ultra. It would be absolutly fine to have them in the background of a shot if no reference were made to them.
...and as easy as a phone call otherwise.
Very few companies will ever have a problem with free advertising. Heck, they have teams that arrange and pay generously for product placement. I'm not saying they'd pay you but often they'd surely not say no.