I have looked, but can't seem to find, information regarding shooting stock footage in public places. I have some video I shot showing the Puget Sound area and it has people in it.

Almost all of them have there back to the camera and you really can't recognize any faces. Most are fishing off a dock.

I didn't get anything signed. Do I have to omit this great footage from stock offering, or is the fact that htey were in a public place makes it ok?

Please let me know...

In a public place you don’t need anybody to sign anything and it wouldn’t be easy for someone who got videotaped to sue you if they had lots of other people on the same shot.

Read this news article by the way:
http://www.delawareonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061023/NEWS/61023019

Thanks. I thought as much.

On the surface this looks pretty clear cut, but looking at the following sentence from the article... Is the phrase "Newsworthy event" important?

"Maryland courts have held that someone whose picture is taken in a public place at a newsworthy event does not have an appropriation claim, the judge noted."

Are random people walking down the street for no particular reason a "newsworthy event", or people playing at a park? I think proper news reporters/camera ops. have a little more latitude than documentary makers. But on the other hand, there's always that post card of the crowded beach. And I really don't think that photographer got a concent form from each person who was recognizable.

I don't claim to know the answer to this question, but if someone does, please clime in.

It is true that there are different rules that apply to news. Can you imagine trying to get a newscast to air with everyone's consent?

By the same token, you will routinely see faces and things blurred out in shows like COPS because no release was given.

If a person is recognizable (ie: they can clearly identify themselves in the clip), then you need a release. If they are far enough away or otherwise obscured, used your own judgement. It would be hard to file a claim if you said "that's me" and no one else could tell just by looking. If that were true, I could claim I've been in thousands of video clips (not true of course) just by pointing out a warm body.

-gb-

Being interested in shooting HD stock footage myself I have been studying dockos and news footage and it seems there are a lot of wide shots in which people are not really individually recognizable, with low-angle cut-ins below waist level, people walking, carrying bags and briefcases etc.

In Seattle of course I'd imagine you also use a super terrific waterproof underwater camera housing:-)


Best.

Michael Knight

Cool. Thanks, everybody. I think I will avoid any close shots of people or make sure their face isn't visible.

Interesting sidelight from my days in TV news.

A major hotel chain had refurbished an old Train station into a luxury hotel with a bar. One of the newsteams had done a story on the bar, and there was nice shot of a guy lifting up a Pilsner glass and taking a sip. It was news so no releases.

about 2 years later the station gets a call. guess who from? yup, the beer drinker. He asked "when are you going to stop using that shot of me drinking, people are beginning to think I have a problem." It seems that in our database of video, that one popped up top on a search whenever somone was looking for stock b-roll dealing with bars, alcohol etc.

Much later one of our photogs posed as a guy suffering from depression, sitting on a park bench. He asked the same thing a while later...

no real point to that except to say if you are going to build a stock footage library, you best get releases from everyone.

that said do you think Digital Juice got releases from all those people in SE Asia in their Videotraxx collections? espeically the naked guy on the street?

I do admit that was a bad article that I provided especially since it sort of contradicted what I wrote.

Its true that release forms should be used as much as possible and I know people that carry them everywhere they go when their shooting documentaries but if your shooting a wide shot of some National Park or public beach with say hundreds of people on your shot, you cant expect to use release forms in environments like that.

I had a similar situation in the summer of last year where I was trying to videotape the hot springs of Sao Miguel, Azores and their would be times where you would see people from a distance walking through my shot but I’ve decided to send those shots to a stock footage company anyway but at first I worried a little, but I knew if it was me being shot from a distance and the shooter weren’t specifically trying to videotape me then I don’t see a reason to get that person in trouble. Now if someone wanted to ask me a question on the street, then the shooter will hope he/she have a release form because in that situation I do have a right to sue if the footage was used without my permission.
A lot of times you have to use good judgment and common sense when dealing with different situations.

that said do you think Digital Juice got releases from all those people in SE Asia in their Videotraxx collections? espeically the naked guy on the street?

A guy tried to sue a TV station in Germany for around 2,000 Euros because he saw himself naked on TV when he was at the beach.

One thing I've been wondering about is buildings. I know you're supposed to have a release to use a building in footage but I've found a spot on a hill that over looks the city I live in. With all of the buildings and houses in that shot would I need releases for all of them?

I believe you don't need them in the U.S. as they, building designs, are not copyrighted here. I also believe that in Europe they are, and you need releases. Probably is not in all countries but I'm don't know.

Mike

Anybody,

Does anyone know what kind of rights we have when confronted with questions by police and other authorities concerning the object and purpose of videotaping?
I was in DC today (obviously a sensitive area) getting shots of the Capitol Building in the rain for a documentary that I'm working on about Low Impact Development (environmentally friendly bldg. construction). I was filming the Capitol bldg. from about five blocks away, when two guards came out from a building I was parked in front of and asked me what I was videotaping. I asked her if I was doing something wrong, she said no, and asked again what I was videotaping. I told her what I was filming and the purpose for it. Then she asked me for some sort of identification. I handed her my drivers license and business card. She returned my license but said "I'll keep this." when I reached for my business card. Ten minutes later I walked by (with my XL2 camera) at least a dozen police officers in patrol cars, right up and onto the Capitol bldg. grounds. Not one of them approached me, asked me what I was filming, or asked for my I.D.. I went up the steps to the broad portico where dozens of tourists had cameras.
My question is; If the guard said that I was doing nothing wrong do I legally have to answer their questions and show them my I.D.? I fear that because my business card has my email and phone number, I'm probably in some data base now and my privacy is a thing of the past.

Michael Hamilton

Alot of police like to try and throw around weight, it means nothing.
I had an officer one time ask me what I was filming and told me to turn the camera off, instead I turned the camera on him and asked him to call the district attorney who had rewritten the law.
He looked at my id, mumbled and walked away. Alot of egotistical police officers now a days.

The reason they block certain faces on COPS is people who aren't directly involved, innocent bystanders, or witnesses to an accident, drug deal or what have you. Watch DOG the Bounty Hunter once. Not one single face ever blurred.

As per video in public in all us 50 states, argue with me and then consult and attorney. As per channel 9 news Ashely (A producer with channel 9 news Charlotte)

You are free to film any person or persons in any public areas or places of gathering where a person could be reasonably expected to be seen by the visual eye.

Reasonably expected.
When you go out downtown to walk your dog with your goofy ass pink pimp hat on, you know people will see you. That is reasonably expected.

You cannot shoot accross private property without permission.
You cannot shoot into windows of houses without permission.
You can film in ANY public building, try it once. Sure a guard might try to act a tough guy on you, but there is no law that says you cannot. In fact in all 50 states, any state owned building may be filmed inside of for free and with no permits.
You cannot film accross a fence onto private property.
You cannot film LIVESTOCK from accross a fence. (at least in texas you cannot)
You can film inside of any school. Ever seen footage from a elemntary, middle or high school on the news? Do you think the federal laws are different for news broadcasters?
You cannot shoot inside of a privately owned building without permission.





Someone sitting on their porch in front of their house, there is no reasonably expected privacy as anyone walking by could see them, they can be filmed - they are in the public.

You decide to go butt naked on a beach, you can be filmed.

This is a federal law, I will dig it up if I can find it, but any age, any person, anyplace in a public area who could reasonably be expected to be seen by the naked eye can be filmed.

Naked eye is where California got it's papparazzi thing from, no telephoto lenses anymore for celebrities, they used the explicit wording naked eye.

This is a long debate always seen on unprofessional boards where people really don't know. Then some person with 50 bazillion posts comes along to belittle the guy who sets it straight.
Case and point:

Watch live broadcasts from weather channel that show beach footage, faces are clearly visible. Watch any msnbc footage shot in the morning like Today Show, people can be clearly seen outside looking into studio.
As well as MTV TRL.
Do you think they have a ton of goons walking around with releases?

No. They film this for profit.

Pick on me and tell everyone here I am wrong because I only have 30 someodd posts to my name, thats fine, posts on a forum don't make a professional.

Or as Indietalk put it:


Confrontations that impair the constitutional right to make images are becoming more common. To fight the abuse of your right to free expression, you need to know your rights to takephotographs and the remedies available if your rights are infringed.

Dave: feel free to summarize what was discussed on another site, but please don't copy and paste entire articles/posts because that creates a copyright issue for us at DVinfo.

Thanks for your understanding

Or as Indietalk put it:


Confrontations that impair the constitutional right to make images are becoming more common. To fight the abuse of your right to free expression, you need to know your rights to takephotographs and the remedies available if your rights are infringed.

Here is a good link....

http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm

As per video in public in all us 50 states, argue with me and then consult and attorney. As per channel 9 news Ashely (A producer with channel 9 news Charlotte)

You are free to film any person or persons in any public areas or places of gathering where a person could be reasonably expected to be seen by the visual eye.

Reasonably expected.
When you go out downtown to walk your dog with your goofy ass pink pimp hat on, you know people will see you. That is reasonably expected.

You cannot shoot accross private property without permission.
You cannot shoot into windows of houses without permission.
You can film in ANY public building, try it once. Sure a guard might try to act a tough guy on you, but there is no law that says you cannot. In fact in all 50 states, any state owned building may be filmed inside of for free and with no permits.
You cannot film accross a fence onto private property.
You cannot film LIVESTOCK from accross a fence. (at least in texas you cannot)
You can film inside of any school. Ever seen footage from a elemntary, middle or high school on the news? Do you think the federal laws are different for news broadcasters?
You cannot shoot inside of a privately owned building without permission.





Someone sitting on their porch in front of their house, there is no reasonably expected privacy as anyone walking by could see them, they can be filmed - they are in the public.

You decide to go butt naked on a beach, you can be filmed.

This is a federal law, I will dig it up if I can find it, but any age, any person, anyplace in a public area who could reasonably be expected to be seen by the naked eye can be filmed.

Naked eye is where California got it's papparazzi thing from, no telephoto lenses anymore for celebrities, they used the explicit wording naked eye.

This is a long debate always seen on unprofessional boards where people really don't know. Then some person with 50 bazillion posts comes along to belittle the guy who sets it straight.
Case and point:

Watch live broadcasts from weather channel that show beach footage, faces are clearly visible. Watch any msnbc footage shot in the morning like Today Show, people can be clearly seen outside looking into studio.
As well as MTV TRL.
Do you think they have a ton of goons walking around with releases?

No. They film this for profit.

Pick on me and tell everyone here I am wrong because I only have 30 someodd posts to my name, thats fine, posts on a forum don't make a professional.

Some of your cited examples are in fact news situations and releases aren't needed. A live shot from TWC would typically fall under news. Some places may have posted signs that say you are in effect giving a release by being there. Our local triple AAA baseball stadium has such a sign (no goons with release forms necessary). I suspect they might use something similar outside The Today Show.

BTW Dave, DVINFO operates a lot differently than other forums. We maintain professional courtesy to one another at all skill levels and there will be no 'picking on' anyone regardless of post count. No need to challenge anyone to argue with you because argumentative posts will be promptly removed.

regards,

-gb-

Anyone,

I notice alot of these statements say in all 50 states. D.C. is not a state. What are my rights there?

Michael Hamilton

Anyone,

I notice alot of these statements say in all 50 states. D.C. is not a state. What are my rights there?

Good question, Michael. Doesn't DC fall under Federal law?

-gb-

Does anyone know where these laws are written? I googled for awhile but didn't come up with anything.

I'm actually kind of curious too. It seems odd that they would make a federal law protecting something, laws seem to usually prohibit something, amendments seem to protect something. I could be wrong.

In my experience currently, you can be detained for filming anything in public without a permit or expressed notification (hooray homeland security act) you may not be charged, but it really puts a damper on your day.

In addition (this is from my lawyer significant other) you can be sued for about anything, again it may not stick, but that doesn't stop people from sueing you (because they hope you'll settle) hell, many problems are solved with simple letter from law firms, and no actions are needed.

As far as getting sued, Joe Escalante (entertainment lawyer, guitarist, radio personality) has a great rule of thumb "the spit in disgust rule, or beer with the buddies". If you films someone and as a result the audience spits n the ground in disgust then you "might" have a law suit. ON the other hand if you ended up in a movie or TV show and you brag about it over beer with your buddies, then you probably don't have a law suit. (this is only for likenesses and images not for intellectual property)

In my experience currently, you can be detained for filming anything in public without a permit or expressed notification (hooray homeland security act) you may not be charged, but it really puts a damper on your day.

Nick, please take a look at the document I linked to a few posts back. It is written by a lawyer and it's even available as a printable PDF in small format so you can carry it with you. It even spells out that there have been no changes to the rights of photographers in the Patriot Act. People have simply gotten more paranoid about certain types of photography in the post 9/11 era.

Since your significant other is a lawyer, it would be good for them to see that document as well.

You are right that there aren't really any laws to protect photography. It's a right of the people under freedom of speech in the constitution. The other part of that is the freedom of the press. Photography can be limited in certain scenarios for national security, but those are limited. In general, anything in public view is fair game as long as you are not trespassing on private property to commit the act of photography.

-gb-

Yea but what's public? Everywhere you go it seems that your stepping on private property unless your on the sidewalk or in the street. And every time I try to go onto National Park Service lands with my camera I get hassled unless I have a permit. They make you to go through a bunch of red tape and get a special temporary permit to film there.

Michael Hamilton

I have shot in DC post 911. I have set up in front of the Capitol, The Washington Monument, and the Mall. All documentary shooting, People and sights and have never been hassled or asked to get releases. So if there are different "rules" I've never witnessed them.

Mark,
What about tripods? Everywhere I go onto National Park Service land in D.C.
They tell me that I can't use a tripod. After looking at your web site I guess you must be affiliated with some major news services. Does this make a difference?

Greg,
Thanks for the link to the legal rights book. I ordered it.

Michael

Michael, Yes I used tripods in all of those locations. In fact, I was shooting with a rather large Beta Camera at the time. It was mid day and no-one came close to bothering me or asked me what I was doing. My situation may not be the norm, I'm just relating my experience to DC. I will tell you this, you have to be careful where you shoot, especially with sticks in NY and LA. (Need permits)

This is a very interesting thread. Thanks to everyone who has so far contributed their knowledge and/or opinions on these matters.

I have a situation I'd like to run past you guys and see what you think: I'm planning in the near future to shoot a feature-length dramatic piece, one scene of which is set in a busy diner at lunchtime. Because the style of the piece in question is somewhat improvisational and naturalistic (kind of like Curb Your Enthusiasm in a way), and for aesthetic reasons, I am thinking of shooting this diner scene with my camera set up across the street, with a long focal length, with the actors visible through the window of the diner. What I'd really like to do for this scene is to mic the actors with hidden lavs connected to MD recorders, and then since the camera is across the street and possibly somewhat obscured by a parked car or something, no one in the diner (neither patrons nor employees) will ever even know what we're doing. I live in a smallish city where film shoots are not a common sight, and so I'm worried that if I get permission and set up my camera and equipment and everything in the diner, everyone in the room will be staring right into the lens and breaking the fourth wall. It also just seems pretty impossible to imagine that I might be able to get releases from each person in the diner, with each of them coming and going at will. So.... I'm understandably a little concerned about how viable the shooting plan I've described is going to be--not so much from a technical standpoint, as I'll figure out how to make that part of it work, but from a legal angle.

I'll add that the building in which the diner is located is state property (it belongs to an adjacent state university) and so the proprietors are leasing the space from the state. The camera will also be on state property, on the campus of the university across the street.

I realize that it'd be best if I talk to a lawyer--and possibly to someone at the university as well--but I just thought I'd run this situation past you guys and see what your initial reactions to it are. Based on everything I've learned from this thread, it sounds like I'm probably OK. I hope so, because I really love this idea. Don't steal it, anybody! :)

By the way, thanks for the link to that PDF, Greg. Very enlightening.

THIS IS JUST AN EXAMPLE, NOT LEGAL ADVICE.

I have walked thru areas where a sign is posted that filming is taking place inside and if you do not wish to be photographed then come back later. I have also seen similar signs posted in airports where filming is going. There is a similar sign posted outside of HART AND HUNTINGTON tattoo shop at the Palms in Las Vegas. I'm not sure but I am guessing they don't have to get releases from everyone. I do recommend getting legal advice if you can on this matter. Good Luck

Mark, that does sound like a workable Plan B, if nothing else. Still, I'd like to keep the shoot a secret if possible, because it'll be easier to manage in addition to the fact that the people in the diner will be acting completely naturally. I'm also afraid that the owner of the diner might hate the idea of posting signs, since it will potentially scare off some of his all-important lunch-rush business.

I do plan on getting some advice from a lawyer, even if only of the "free advice from a lawyer friend" variety. I'm just curious as to what you guys think.

I have walked thru areas where a sign is posted that filming is taking place inside and if you do not wish to be photographed then come back later. I have also seen similar signs posted in airports where filming is going. There is a similar sign posted outside of HART AND HUNTINGTON tattoo shop at the Palms in Las Vegas. I'm not sure but I am guessing they don't have to get releases from everyone. I do recommend getting legal advice if you can on this matter. Good Luck

Yeah Mark, I mentioned that same thing a few posts back. The local Triple AAA farm club stadium has the same notice. I've also gone to nightclubs where they had posted a similar sign about filming activity. I think it's probably a solid idea, but as always, one should check with a lawyer for their particular scenario.

-gb-

Greg,

Thanks for the link to the legal rights book. I ordered it.

Cool, I don't have it, so give some us feedback when you get it. I might get a copy myself.

-gb-

Mark, that does sound like a workable Plan B, if nothing else. Still, I'd like to keep the shoot a secret if possible, because it'll be easier to manage in addition to the fact that the people in the diner will be acting completely naturally. I'm also afraid that the owner of the diner might hate the idea of posting signs, since it will potentially scare off some of his all-important lunch-rush business.

I do plan on getting some advice from a lawyer, even if only of the "free advice from a lawyer friend" variety. I'm just curious as to what you guys think.


Your plan has a much bigger problem than shooting permits. Without a written release from every recognizable person who appears in-frame you are leaving yourself wide open for lawsuit. What you're going to end up with may well be an excellent film that no one will ever see because no exhibitor, festival, distributor, or broadcaster will touch it with a 10-foot pole because of the legal liability. Every background person who you see in a Hollywood feature or network TV drama is a paid actor - about the only exceptions are those vaguely human shapes 2 or 3 blocks away in some street scenes. Your idea of shooting from across the street with the actors inside the restaurant and visible through the window is fine (but glare control might be an issue), though I'm not sure I'd want to use that for more than an establishing shot, but you need to worry about vehicles and foot traffic passing through your set and the other patrons in the restaurant much more than shooting permits and suspicious police.

Steve's got a point. You need to make sure you get everyone to sign a release form. Imagine you try to do this as 'secret' as possible and film without the diner customers knowing it. You end up shooting a clip where in the background you record a couple having an intimate dinner together and the film is shown. It turns out the couple in the background are actually having an affair which causes all kinds of problems. You are now being sued because you caused the breakup of a marriage... Yikes!

Of course this is all drama, but it could happen...

When I film, I always get a release form from everyone who appears on screen (and I mean 'appears'; if I'm shooting shallow DOF and everyone is blurred out then I don't worry about it).

Todd

How would you suggest getting releases from a room full of individuals when each of them is coming and going as he pleases? If I make everyone in the room sign a release before I shoot, and then take another pass around the room with releases afterward, what do I do about the guy who stopped in for coffee during one of the takes and left before I could get to him? Not to mention the fact that I highly doubt that the owner of the diner will allow this level of disruption. You point out that Hollywood uses only paid extras, but isn't the real point of this practice that the director can control the crowd's behavior?

Steve, I actually want cars and pedestrians passing through the shot; that's part of what makes it a visually interesting idea to me. And I do want to shoot the scene as a single take--it's a short scene anyway, and the rest of the project contains a lot of long takes. This is a calculated aesthetic decision that makes sense within the context of the project. I realize it breaks Hollywood's "rules" of continuity editing, but then so does the work of people like Jarmusch, Tarr, Godard, and Truffaut, to name but a few. You may not like the idea, and while the input is useful and appreciated, I'm purely looking for opinions on the legal side of all of this.

Your point about potential glare on the window is something I have considered; I have carefully observed the window in question at the appropriate time of day, and it looks to me like the building's overhang makes the glare pretty manageable with a polarizer. Of course I'll do a test before I commit fully to this idea.

You mention the risk of my getting sued by a private party. I do worry about this, which is why I've been asking for your opinions. It appears, based on everything I've been able to learn about these situations, that I'd be within my rights to shoot this scene in the way I've described. I realize that a private individual could still bring a suit even if I'm not breaking any laws, but at some point in this litigious society, you just have to accept some level of risk if you want to get anything at all accomplished. I could just as easily be (wrongly) sued if one of my neighbors backs into my garbage can at the curb, then freaks out and drives his car into a ditch... or if someone trips over her own feet at an event I'm shooting and claims to have in fact tripped over my taped-down mic cable. If you run from every potential lawsuit you can imagine, you'll find yourself locked inside your own house pretty quickly. That doesn't mean I'm saying that one should ignore the risk; on the contrary, I'm saying that in each case you have to assess whether or not the risk is an acceptable proposition. Discussing the risk in this thread is part of my assessment, and I appreciate the fact that some of you feel the risk is too large to be viewed as acceptable. I'm taking that into consideration.

As for festivals and/or distributors not accepting the work because of this scene--that's a bigger problem, if true. Doesn't pretty much every festival put a clause in the submission form stating that any legal and/or permissions issues with the submitted work are the producer's responsibility?

How would you suggest getting releases from a room full of individuals when each of them is coming and going as he pleases? If I make everyone in the room sign a release before I shoot, and then take another pass around the room with releases afterward, what do I do about the guy who stopped in for coffee during one of the takes and left before I could get to him? Not to mention the fact that I highly doubt that the owner of the diner will allow this level of disruption. You point out that Hollywood uses only paid extras, but isn't the real point of this practice that the director can control the crowd's behavior?

Steve, I actually want cars and pedestrians passing through the shot; that's part of what makes it a visually interesting idea to me. And I do want to shoot the scene as a single take--it's a short scene anyway, and the rest of the project contains a lot of long takes. This is a calculated aesthetic decision that makes sense within the context of the project. I realize it breaks Hollywood's "rules" of continuity editing, but then so does the work of people like Jarmusch, Tarr, Godard, and Truffaut, to name but a few. You may not like the idea, and while the input is useful and appreciated, I'm purely looking for opinions on the legal side of all of this.

...?

I'm not critisizing your esthetic choice of having pedestrians and traffic passing through the scene, far from it. Sounds like it could be an interesting shot. Just saying that if you can recognize anyone's face inside the restaurant or out you have to have a release to be able to legally use the image and all it takes is one disgruntled passer-by to prevent you from ever using that scene.

Yes, the director needs to control the crowds behavior but that's not the reason they use extras instead of just anyone that happens to wander in. The whole release issue that we're talking about is the main reason. Whether you use PAID extras or not is not the point. It is that no one is in the film who doesn't know that they're in it and has agreed to the use of their likeness ahead of time.

You ask how can you possibly get a release from everyone in the restaurant as they come and go. The answer is that the restaurant is closed to normal business for the shoot and everyone in the scene - principals, restaurant staff, passers-by, other patrons, everyone from the star on down - are all there specifically to appear in the film and you have signed releases from them all before an inch of tape is rolled. Whether paid or not, that's the way it's done. Been there, done that. A very sleepless night as we couldn't get in before 9pm and had to be wrapped and out by 8am, and this was a training film for the company that owned the restaurant!!

Thanks for your replies and input, Steve. Let me address a few points:

Just saying that if you can recognize anyone's face inside the restaurant or out you have to have a release to be able to legally use the image and all it takes is one disgruntled passer-by to prevent you from ever using that scene.I have heard and read many times that this is the case, but I'm also beginning to encounter a contradictory opinion--namely, that photographers (and videographers / cinematographers, by extension) have a right to photograph people when they are in public places. This has been discussed in this very thread. What is your reaction to this opinion, especially in light of the lawyer-drafted document to which Greg Boston has linked above?

I'll also point out that at the long focal length I'll be shooting with, any pedestrians walking through the shot will be quite beyond the near end of the shot's depth of field; the sidewalk nearest to the diner is at least 15 feet from the window. So pedestrians will not at all be recognizable, just some of the people inside the diner.

You ask how can you possibly get a release from everyone in the restaurant as they come and go. The answer is that the restaurant is closed to normal business for the shoot and everyone in the scene - principals, restaurant staff, passers-by, other patrons, everyone from the star on down - are all there specifically to appear in the film and you have signed releases from them all before an inch of tape is rolled. Whether paid or not, that's the way it's done. Been there, done that. A very sleepless night as we couldn't get in before 9pm and had to be wrapped and out by 8am, and this was a training film for the company that owned the restaurant!!While I suppose this approach is at least theoretically possible in my case (even though I don't have much in the way of a budget, I might be able to sweet-talk the diner's owner into letting me shoot there during a low-volume late-afternoon kind of situation and people the room with volunteer extras), a big part of the appeal of the idea I've described is that the people in the diner will be acting naturally, since they won't know they're in a movie. The fact that shooting unawares would be much easier in some ways is really only a happy corollary to the desire to capture an extremely naturalistic atmosphere.

I'm not ruling out the controlled shooting environment you describe by any stretch of the imagination--it may be that I will have to take that route if in fact I am not within my rights in shooting the scene secretly. But again, since I'm hearing conflicting opinions on what my rights (and the rights of the anonymous diner patrons, of course) actually are, I'm at this point weighing my options and trying to see if my admittedly "ballsy" idea is feasible.

So again... what's your take on the difference of opinion here, Steve?

Thanks again for your time and willingness to help.

I have heard and read many times that this is the case, but I'm also beginning to encounter a contradictory opinion--namely, that photographers (and videographers / cinematographers, by extension) have a right to photograph people when they are in public places. This has been discussed in this very thread. What is your reaction to this opinion, especially in light of the lawyer-drafted document to which Greg Boston has linked above?

Jarrod, you may have the 'right' to photograph someone, but using it for commercial gain is the problem. To sell your film, releases are needed. There is an exception in the law regarding celebrities and dignitaries. They are considered 'public figures' and as such, are considered fair game in public.

And then there is the journalism scenario whereby releases are not required from bystanders(ie news, weather, sports).

-gb-

What Greg said...

IF you profit from your movie it is different from me taking some "home video". I can take that video, and show it to family and friends, not charge anything, maybe even show it around town for giggles, since I'm not making a dime off it...

BUT as soon as your venture is "for profit" (even if you never make ANYTHING, what counts is you INTENDED to), you're now "profiting" from the use of someone else's likeness, and making a PUBLIC display thereof - thereby potentially exposing that individual against their will to public scrutiny/ridicule/scorn/etc.

Rule is simple - if you intend to profit, get the releases.

The line is undoubtedly blurred by the technology of the day - we are all recorded regularly by security cams, traffic cams, surveilance cams, ATM cams, ad nauseam - all without our consent. There is seemingly little harm in this, and so what is there to stop a private individual from taking a few videos or pictures... nothing per se. Practically every cell phone has a camera either still or video, you can pretty much expect you COULD be caught on video - think of some of the videos lately that have caused MAJOR stinks - Saddam execution, the guy from Seinfeld (Kramer/Michael something). Privacy while in a public place is pretty much nonexistent, and even places that SHOULD be restricted have trouble keeping technology out.

That doesn't mean that you can just shoot without restriction or consequence, and you're far better to cover your tail or be prepared to find yourself on the wrong end of a lawsuit... especially if you make money from your "work".

I've gotta go with both Greg and Dave. Control your set and get the releases. Call me paranoid ...

Thanks everyone. It looks like I'll end up taking the headache-inducing path of doing everything by the book after all, in spite of what I can assume will likely be a negative impact on the level of naturalism captured in the scene.

I suppose I might be able to use framing, blocking, and selective focus to minimize the number of identifiable John Q. Publics in the scene and thereby end up needing maybe only two or three releases. I suppose it's possible and maybe even aesthetically preferable, but it's going to be difficult on a technical level.

I guess that in the current social climate, I might be sued for just about anything. Someone might think my breath smells bad and sue me for the "mental anguish" it has caused them. It's enough to make me want to smash my head against the wall. I guess I'd be well advised to avoid leaving my garbage at the curb or taping down mic cables anytime soon. :)

Thanks.

Jarrod,

Today's 'legal climate' is certainly different, mostly because today's technical possiblities are boundless. Right to privacy, right to publicity, private property,public property, documentary rights, 'newsworthy elements, and 'fair use' are all tricky terms of art.

But really, you touch on the heart of the issue when you mention it's all about risk assumption.

How much risk are YOU really willing to assume? You put all this time and effort and money, (not to mention that of your actors and crew) into a film, which contains a shot or two that might blow the effort?

Basically, you're asking yourself to accept one of two premises.

"This film will NEVER be successfull enough to become high profile, make money and therefore become a potential target for litigation" (the betting against yourself line)

OR

"All the time money and effort that I and the crew expend, are worth this one scene, and if it keeps it out of festivals or distribution,or costs me enormous wads of cash to settle, at least we'll have a movie we can watch ourselves."

Which is it?

You cannot shoot accross private property without permission.

Someone sitting on their porch in front of their house, there is no reasonably expected privacy as anyone walking by could see them, they can be filmed - they are in the public.



I can't picture how this could happen.

If shooting someone on their porch, not only are they "using" private property (their own), but you are also shooting across private property (their's) in order to tape them.sitting on their porch. (Presuming I'm shooting from the street or sidealk).

If anyone can explain this, please do.

Contradictions like this "chicken or the egg" situation are what prevent me from shooting in public, and are giving me a headache. (I guess I'll just have to turn my entire house into my own private studio and lot, and bring in talent when I need it. Wonder what my wife would think)?

Yikes! I'm losing my mind.

Thanks everyone. It looks like I'll end up taking the headache-inducing path of doing everything by the book after all, in spite of what I can assume will likely be a negative impact on the level of naturalism captured in the scene.

....

If it's any consolation, what *is* natural in the scene often doesn't look or feel natural on the screen and conversely, what seems the most natural on the screen is anything but in real life. The classic example is the "whoosh" of the Enterprise fly-bys in StarTrek. Complete violation of the laws of physics, in real space travel it would pass in complete silence, but the scene simply wouldn't be believable on the screen without the whoosh. If you're going to go whole-hog and use 'extras' in the scenes, with direction it shoudn't be too hard to get even amateurs to present a natural appearance. And your dialog recording is going to be MUCH cleaner if the background characters are feigning speaking rather than actually talking - you add the background 'buzz' as a walla track later in post.

If it's any consolation, what *is* natural in the scene often doesn't look or feel natural on the screen and conversely, what seems the most natural on the screen is anything but in real life. The classic example is the "whoosh" of the Enterprise fly-bys in StarTrek. Complete violation of the laws of physics, in real space travel it would pass in complete silence, but the scene simply wouldn't be believable on the screen without the whoosh.I have to admit that this is a good point--another example would be the foley applied to fistfights. These are auditory examples, though, and I would argue that visual naturalism is at least a slightly different kind of animal. I still think, in this particular situation, it would be easier to get a naturalistic *visual* atmosphere if the people in the shot (especially the servers and other employees) were just going about their usual business. I think I'm going to try to just minimize the number of faces in the shot using the techniques I was talking about above--maybe I'll frame and/or block the shot so that only one other table (at which extras are seated) is visible, so that any unsuspecting John Q. Publics in the shot would only be walking across the frame with their faces outside the top of it.

And your dialog recording is going to be MUCH cleaner if the background characters are feigning speaking rather than actually talking - you add the background 'buzz' as a walla track later in post.Another good point, but I am more than willing to allow for ADR and detailed foley as a "plan B" if the "live" dialogue turns out to be unusable. In other words, I'm willing to end up having to recreate and micromanage the audio if I can get the visual end of things to come across naturally. I'm sure I'll end up doing at least a little ADR for some other scenes in this project, so doing so for this scene wouldn't really add all that much in the way of extra headaches in post.

What we need is a feature to Replace Faces in post production. Kind of like how they can have a blur track a face, except instead of a blur, it would substitute a cgi or stock face.