Legal rights for public spaces...

[Boyd Ostroff]

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

[Greg Boston]

Originally Posted by Dave Carson

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

[Greg Boston]

Originally Posted by Dave Carson

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-

[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?

Michael Hamilton

[Greg Boston]

Originally Posted by 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-

[Bennis Hahn]

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

[Nick Hiltgen]

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)

[Greg Boston]

Originally Posted by Nick Hiltgen

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-

[Michael Hamilton]

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

[Mark Bournes]

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.

[Michael Hamilton]

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

[Mark Bournes]

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)

[Jarrod Whaley]

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.

[Mark Bournes]

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

[Jarrod Whaley]

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.