Probably dumb legal question: filming public

T

tampawolf

Well-known member
So I've been trying to catch up on as many film laws as possible as far as filming in the public. Tomorrow there is a parade in Tampa, and my question is it legal to capture this parade to use for an artistic project if I am sure to make sure no sound is included. I mention sound because usually floats in a parade are playing some sort of music and I don't want to be caught infringing on music copyright either. Ive been doing as much research as possible but there seems to be confusing information out there. I know a lot of you stand on the side of better to be safe than sorry and that is a great way to be. I want to be safe, but if there is nothing illegal about filming in public I would love to know. Thanks for any response I get.
 
Thats a damn good question. I would like to know the answer to this myself.

I'm curious to know if the parade has to have legal rights to use copyrighted music as in the same way theatrical productions have to buy the rights for permission to perform the play for profit. Now seeing as this is in public, non-profit, I would think you might be able to get away with using footage in much the same way a news channel can show footage on the six oclock news. Of course this is only me guessing. However I want to know the answer to this and will continue to follow this thread.
 
Whether or not the parade has the proper rights to use the music is immaterial. YOU don't have the right to use the music in YOUR film unless you have obtained the proper clearances -- to the lyrics and music and also to the performance of the music by bands or singers.

The fact that your film is non-profit wouldn't make any difference at all -- you still need the proper clearances.

Music copyright isn't going to be your only problem here. You also need signed releases from every person visible and identifiable in your footage. There may also be issues with signage, art work, company logos, etc.

Shooting in a public venue for commercial or artistic purposes is a very tricky business. With all serious legal questions such as this, always consult a qualified attorney. Anything else is a risk.
 
David W. Richardson said:
You also need signed releases from every person visible and identifiable in your footage.
Click to expand...

That's a pretty blanket statement. I did my own research recently and came to the conclusion that out in public you can shoot people without their permission. Now that is what I discovered for the state of Victoria, Australia. Laws are different in different places. Also depends on if you are making a documentary or narrative film etc

Do you think the filmmakers of the following Oscar nominated documentary got signed releases from everyone in it? Hell no!

 
You are exactly right - it depends on what kind of film you are making. For example, if the footage ends up in a commercial, you MUST get everyone's signature (including your example above). It falls under "implied endorsement" (i.e. anyone in your footage can claim that you are imlying that they endorse your product) That said, however, I know that you are speaking of docs vs narrative films. Here in Los Angeles, the entire Rose Parade is copyrighted - just like a sporting event. You can't use any part it without permission.
 
City permits might be included in the legal pot, as well. You are filming in a public place and using the footage for a purpose. Permits inform the city of your presence there as well as inform the area in which will be captured on video on a particular day and time, such as store & restaurant owners, city workers, and the public.

I filmed a Christmas parade in Bakersfield. From experience, I was not questioned, I am sure I was noticed. I could have been part of a news crew, or I could have been shooting guerrilla style B-Roll for a feature film. The footage has so far not been put to use.
 
Fluoro said:
That's a pretty blanket statement. I did my own research recently and came to the conclusion that out in public you can shoot people without their permission. Now that is what I discovered for the state of Victoria, Australia. Laws are different in different places. Also depends on if you are making a documentary or narrative film etc

Do you think the filmmakers of the following Oscar nominated documentary got signed releases from everyone in it? Hell no!
Click to expand...

First off, I was referring to the OP's project when I said "...in your footage." Since he describes it as "an artistic project", I would guess it's not a documentary.

Second, documentaries are treated a bit differently than other films, when it comes to legal issues.

Third, the OP is filming in Tampa, FL -- not in Australia. So the US laws apply here.

And yes, a professional documentary might very well have gotten signed releases from everyone who appears on screen. Unless you know the filmmakers personally, you can't say with any certainty whether they got releases or not.
 
Mark Williams said:
Well here is another perspective from the ACLU http://www.aclu.org/free-speech/know-your-rights-photographers
Click to expand...

This specifically talks about things (buildings, etc.) and public officials (police officers). It doesn't say anything about other people who aren't public employees. And it doesn't talk about the use of the video for artistic or commercial purposes. This appears to be directed at folks videotaping police officers in the performance of their duties, in order to expose things like harassment and abuse. So I don't think this really relates to the conversation at hand.
 
Mark Williams said:
Discusses public property and private property. I think that is relevant whether I agree with their opinion or not. Here is another more detailed discussion http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/photography-the-first-amendment
Click to expand...

Again, this article doesn't seem relevant to the current discussion. It primarily deals with what could collectively be referred to as investigative journalism, even to the level of an independent, single citizen acting as a journalist in an attempt to inform the public at large about unlawful and/or unethical activities by public officials and others. There is nothing investigative or news-relevant in a parade videotaped for "an artistic project", as far as I can see.
 
I know that the States is very litigious so maybe the risks are far greater there for being sued. But I just wonder how many filmmakers get sued for filming people in public without a permit?

And here's a video to give you nightmares. I'm not saying this guy is smart. I would definitely not be comfortable with this level of risk. The guy is pretty much asking to be sued. So yes I have my level of risk for which I will not cross. Pick your own level.


edit: Oh and just to be clear: I understand the filmmaker is doing something very strange in this piece and don't see it as any kind of argument for shooting without permits or signed releases. It just seems so insane I had to post it.
 
Last edited:
That's an interesting experiment. It is not the same thing as capturing someone incidentally. Frankly I think it's a form of assault. Personally I think those people would have been morally just in damaging his camera, if that's what it took to stop him filming. Same logic as reasonable self defence. All those filmed were more than reasonable with him and the strength of their protests escalated in reasonable and justified stages of behaviour.

On the other hand this is exactly the sort of thing that paparazzi and even genuine news cameramen do all the time and they seem to treat it as an assault on them when a person lays a finger on the camera pushed in their face. What's the difference?

Is someone filming up a woman's skirt treated equivalent to groping her? It should be. I imagine the emotional impact of the intrusion to be equivalent or even greater. Such assault is about humilation and intrusion, in a civil society it isn't enough to just be protected from physical harm. Are there laws that cover these kinds of photographic intrusion or just regulations about getting clearance to use footage for commercial gain?
 
Fluoro said:
The guy is pretty much asking to be sued.
Click to expand...

Even more, he's asking to get beat up and dumped in the street, after they take his camera (and probably stomp it to bits). It looks like he came close to that a couple of times already. It may be framed as an artistic "happening" or a psychology experiment, but the risks to the filmmaker appear to be very real and physical.

- Greg
 
OK so bear with me ... I'm a New Zealander trying to adapt the interesting ways of America.

Some of you seem to be saying that if I am walking along the sidewalk in Nashville, and pass by someone filming an artistic, narrative or documentary project (let's leave commercials out of this), that I am entitled to go up to them and complain/gripe/sue/whatever?

Why would I be able to do that? I dont have any right of privacy in a public place.
 
GrahamH said:
OK so bear with me ... I'm a New Zealander trying to adapt the interesting ways of America.

Some of you seem to be saying that if I am walking along the sidewalk in Nashville, and pass by someone filming an artistic, narrative or documentary project (let's leave commercials out of this), that I am entitled to go up to them and complain/gripe/sue/whatever?

Why would I be able to do that? I dont have any right of privacy in a public place.
Click to expand...

Well, you could complain and gripe, but you couldn't verbally or physically assault the filmmaker. But saying, "listen buddy, I don't want to be in your stinking film, make sure you cut me out" is certainly your right. Even though it is a public street. The filmmaker can easily blur or pixelate your image. It's a bit different for a news crew that is preparing a news story. They have much more leeway in what they can show.

So, you would have the right to sue the documentary maker if your image ended up in the film. Of course, you would also have the right to lose the lawsuit, probably early in the process via a summary judgement.

Having said that, if the filmmaker uses you in his film - or if the news crew uses your image in their story - in a possibly defamatory or slanderous way, you might win. There is a classic case from the late 70s that covers both the issue of summary judgement (that was granted by the trial court but then reversed on appeal) and defamation. A local ABC station had produced a news show about street prostitution and showed a clip of a woman walking down the street with commentary that could have been interpreted by the audience in such a way as to imply that the woman was a prostitute. She wasn't. She sued.

I doubt anyone will read it, alhtough this is the kind of thing that people making documentaries and shooting in public places really ought to understand. http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/684/1208/40768/
 
keylight said:
Well, you could complain and gripe ... you would have the right to sue the documentary maker if your image ended up in the film. Of course, you would also have the right to lose the lawsuit, probably early in the process via a summary judgement.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the reply. I guess I 'm still a little puzzled what I would be suing the film-maker for. I certainly don't have any expectation that I won't be occasionally filmed or photographed when I'm in a public place. I don't understand why anyone else would either ...
 
It's the second sentence you quoted from me that is important. I'd be puzzled as to why you would sue too. So would the judge, hence the likelihood of a summary judgement.

If you walked through my door and said you wanted to sue because you walked past a guy shooting a video and he used the footage with you in the background, I'd probably thank you for coming in and then show you the door. Unless he defamed you or something.
 
It could be the context in which you were placed in the film such as to mislead the audience with respect to your character, e.g. filming you leaving a hospital where you were visiting a sick relative and a voiceover says "hospitals treat 5,000 people for AIDS related illness each year". In photography there is distinction between editorial and commercial use. Due to the potential added context it would appear there may be a much higher risk of litigation in a film, so the legal folks responsible for risk mitigation are going to insist on releases. You could add the context similarly in a photograph, such as the famous case of a man sitting next to a pretty lady in Paris, the misappropriation of which led to at least one lawsuit when the lady's character was placed in question. But the photograph in itself did not hold that context.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top