Snowfun Posted September 3 Share Posted September 3 Quick question… I’m producing short promotional films for a local heritage railway (steam locomotives etc.) Most of the time my shots don’t contain people or, if they do, they are people I’ve dragged along as props. But occasionally another person creeps in - should I not use this on the basis that the individual didn’t give permission? What are the “guidelines”? Not simply in terms of what one can do but also what one should do. Or perhaps incidental folk are fine because they are just part of the background? Thoughts? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Members BTM_Pix Posted September 3 Super Members Share Posted September 3 It depends on the country. If you are doing it in the UK then this is a good resource. https://filmlondon.org.uk/resource/filming-people Germany is a different story though. https://allaboutberlin.com/guides/photography-laws-germany Snowfun and sanveer 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Members BTM_Pix Posted September 3 Super Members Share Posted September 3 By the by, if it is in the UK then this is handy to keep about your person should the boys in blue try to push their luck/ignorance over what is and isn't legal. https://www.met.police.uk/advice/advice-and-information/ph/photography-advice#:~:text=Freedom to photograph and film,photographing incidents or police personnel. Snowfun 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eatstoomuchjam Posted September 3 Share Posted September 3 If you're in the US and it's a public place, people have no reasonable expectation to privacy - so as long as the video isn't being made for commercial purposes, you most likely don't need permission. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emanuel Posted September 3 Share Posted September 3 1 hour ago, eatstoomuchjam said: If you're in the US and it's a public place, people have no reasonable expectation to privacy - so as long as the video isn't being made for commercial purposes, you most likely don't need permission. It is called silent consent or tacit approval. Generally working out everywhere. Mainly for art purposes, excluding ads (not necessarily but when there's a direct profit taken from some personality/image rights usage). Based on personality rights we have about deliberate public exposure. Granted when people are aware to be in a public location. Hidden cameras, in theory, could bring some discussion on that anyway. However, IMHO doesn't exclude it either from the public space anyway. All about the usage of that. I've already used this argument whenever needed. It's all about the way you'll use the footage. Writes a filmmaker with law school/legal career background as far as these legal issues concern too. - EAG eatstoomuchjam 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emanuel Posted September 3 Share Posted September 3 Blurring people faces as I've already seen also in informative pieces (go figure!) or documentary work, is nonsense to my book. Important is to not denigrate someone's image, this is critical. eatstoomuchjam 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emanuel Posted September 3 Share Posted September 3 16 minutes ago, Emanuel said: Important is to not denigrate someone's image, this is critical. Allowed when freedom of speech/art expression pops up. Person's reputation stands anyway. Decisions of the Courts mostly make the first one(s) prevail, though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emanuel Posted September 3 Share Posted September 3 28 minutes ago, Emanuel said: It is called silent consent or tacit approval. AKA tacit consent or yet tacit agreement. All these terms stand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emanuel Posted September 3 Share Posted September 3 34 minutes ago, Emanuel said: (...) excluding ads (not necessarily but when there's a direct profit taken from some personality/image rights usage). Here's a Court of Appeal's decision in Portugal: https://www.dgsi.pt/jtrg.nsf/c3fb530030ea1c61802568d9005cd5bb/697d98c667b8b7a38025773d0052df7d?OpenDocument (in Portuguese) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Daze Posted September 4 Share Posted September 4 I film a lot of clips for stock here in the UK, and it's quite simple to determine if you need model or property release. Here is a reasonable explanation from Shutterstock: "The simple answer to the difference between commercial and editorial content is how that content is permitted to be used. What classifies an image, clip, or illustration as commercial or editorial is slightly more complex, but understanding the difference is very important as it will inform how you photograph, film, or illustrate your next project and how that content can be licensed. Content that is licensed for commercial use has many more restrictions than content that is licensed for editorial use because commercial content is used for advertising and promotional purposes. For commercial content, permission is required from property owners, artists, and recognizable people in the image, whereas editorial content does not because this content is used for the public good via news outlets." If someone enters your shot and you can't reshoot it then you should have a model release on hand and perhaps explain what you are doing. They may be happy to give their permission and sign the release. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.