Permission while shooting in public?

[Richard Gooderick]

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!

[Vincent Oliver]

Originally Posted by Richard Gooderick

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.

[Terje Rian]

Originally Posted by Richard Gooderick

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

[Pete Bauer]

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.

[Rick Lutec]

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.

[Vincent Oliver]

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.

[David Schmerin]

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

[Buck Forester]

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

[Jack Kelly]

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.

[Vincent Oliver]

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.

[Jack Kelly]

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.

[Vincent Oliver]

Originally Posted by Jack Kelly

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.

[Sverker Hahn]

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

[Damian Heffernan]

Originally Posted by Jack Kelly

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.

[Vincent Oliver]

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.