Curious what happens if the person makes money off the video or not. Technically would it be "commercial use" therefore needs a release? Idk. Curious

It CAN be illegal, depending on how you intend to use the video. Commercial use of people's name,image, likeness are actionable in some places. And, if you seem to be targeting kids, you might be subject to an investigation into whether you're a predator, etc. But technically, it's not illegal to film in a public place. (though there may be permit requirements, etc.) As a practical matter, thought, if a parent asks you not to film or photograph their kid... just stop. It's not going to be worth the trouble you'll have if cops are called, etc.

It's not ideal, since usually, I prefer the poster to actually identify WHO the producer of the project is. That way, you have something resembling "privity" of contract between attendees and producers.

You can film on public sidewalk of event .

" Common decency " police are not feeling police, they are law enforcement . Making people uncomfortable is not a crime, disorderly conduct and loitering are. Disorderly conduct is not recording public officials and them being uncomfortable, its exercising your 1st amendment

James Festini no... in truly public spaces, like parks, on streets, etc., filming is fine (though City permits may be needed). There’s no “expectation of privacy” when you’re out in public. This video addresses filming in non-public spaces like art galleries, hotel ballrooms, etc.

@@gfiremark Thanks for clearing this up. Yes when in public you can film anything in your view. There's no expectation of privacy. But like in hotels and other private property you may need permission.

From my non law understanding, expectation of privacy is more for where you may be changing/partially/completly nude. Like a change room or bathroom or a bedroom

@@gfiremark What about instances where filming is in a public location like a DMV. The video is specifically for profit or income on youtube. A patron asks that they not be filmed. Can they still leave that person in the footage without blurring them? The scenario I'm asking about is very typical of First amendment auditor videos.

@@ChrisThompson-em8cq Technically, a person in a truly public place has no expectation of privacy, so as long as shooting on those premises doesn't violate some DMV rule or regulation and doesn't reveal any personal data (like visitor's names, addresses, dl numbers, etc.) it's probably OK. But when a person ASKS that they not be filmed, it's wisest to stop, rather than risk a confrontation or a lawsuit. (after all, winning a lawsuit is nearly as costly as losing one).

KZfaq certainly IS protected by the 1st amemdment, but here we're actually talking about the film/videomaker's freedom of the press... and yes, it applies even though they;'re not traditional news media.

If it's NEWS coverage, and only a small portion of a song is used, etc., then it might be fair use. Requires an analysis in each case... there are no blanket rules-of-thumb for this. It's rare (but not unheard of) for bona-fide news organizations to get into hot water when the use is in a regular newscast, but in a feature, or similar, they typically try to clear the rights.

@@gfiremark Did not know, even in rare cases. That Press got into hot water. Ive seen Auditors filming in public. Some times Cops play music to try to stop them from recording as Press. It seem like if it is forced on you and you can not stop the music. And it hitting your ears against your wishs. You should be able to record it. Since Video is suppose to be an extention of you. Lets see how this all plays out. Thanks Again.

Human Rights Team No. Once asked to leave, you’re trespassing.

Thanks! Small quotes are probably fair use, especially if given with attribution. But that's a complex analysis, so there's no clear amount or guideline.

Thanks for getting back to me! I'll do more digging.

I wasn't clear. The complex analysis has to be done on a case by cad basis, so there's no hard and fast rule about how much you can use without permission. Bottom line, get permission unless you're sure it's a fair use. Check my fair use explainer at Firemark.com/fairuseinbrief

@@dudewhodoesdopeshit create a fictional author, perhaps with a similar name, & reword the quote.

Gordon Firemark we are handing out face masks to see people’s reactions and most will be negative and if I ask for their permission I’m afraid we won’t have any footage to put together.

@@cory8242 Hey, I don't know if you've filmed already, but have those release forms on hand (or in the car) and make sure to inform them of the filming or blur the face etc... Because recorded conversations between two people is a lot different legally then them just walking by and doing they're thing.

Nolan thank you very much filming tomorrow I’ll keep that in mind. Thanks for reaching out!

@Gordon Firemark Looking to do the same thing going to the beach just filming the crowds and shops from the sidewalk, on the beach and boardwalks over the holiday weekend, would I be ok w/o a release for some b-roll for a commercial shoot for a hotel on the beach? Or would I need to blur out all the people?

I do webinars from time to time, to discuss the legalities of filming for documentary filmmakers... and probably soon, one for narrative film, too. Join my mailing list by downloading my Filmmaker's Legal Issues Checklist at filmlawchecklist.com and you'll find out about the next one... coming in September.

Good question. The issue around the absence of a release often deals with the scope of whatever permission may be inferred from the fact that the person gave the interview. For example, if the interview was done by a student for a campus TV station, but the video was later used in a film, that might be considered beyond the scope of the implied consent. Another factor is the ambiguity about whether the person is to be compensated, for how long the video may be used, in what media, territories, etc. A written release, if properly worded, will address all of these, and eliminate the ambiguity. The ultimate "purpose" of the use isn't really that relevant, though if more commercial, then it's more likely to carry liability. Damages for invasion of privacy don't depend on whether the film is sold or generates any revenue. Privacy cases are about the offensiveness of the conduct, and the harm to a person's dignity... embarassment, shame, humiliation, etc. Ultimately, a jury will decide how to compensate for those things.. and need not tie the award to any profit, revenue of the defendant. That said, even a small damage award can come with a pretty big price tag in terms of legal fees (defense sometimes winds up paying plaintiff's legal fees, too). So, better to do what you can to avoid the problem in the first place.

Thanks for the prompt response 👌

"commercial use" usually doesn't limit monetizing a blog,vlog or YT channel. Typically a use is "commercial" when it proposes some kind of a transaction... like an ad for a product or a service. But really, you'd need to contact those places and ask what THEIR definition of "commercial use" is, and make your decisions accordingly.

The same rules apply... but just posting a video on tiktok isn't a commercial use. If the tiktok was sponsored, or includes an endorsement or an ad, then there could be claims by people in the video. The *kind* of camera used has no bearing on the legal situation at all.

Camera Hogs El Paso Commercials / Ads / Marketing yes. Especially for commercial use.

Depends on if your in a one party consent state or not. Michigan and you're okay to record audio and publish it if you're talking to someone. Michigan only requires one person in audio to consent which is you. In California you need all parties to consent to audio of conversations.

Intersting question. Generally, if you're in a public place, filming is OK, but if you're featuring a business, logo or something distinctive, and the business in question isn't happy about it, they *might* have basis to sue, or demand a takedown (if you're showing a copyright protected sign, graphic, or similar). The question is, could the owner of the brand, logo, or store conclude that you're somehow 'tarnishing' their brand, logo or reputation, merely by standing in front of them? And if you're actually talking about them, be careful what you say. Best practice, if it's not relevant to the video you're shooting is to obscure or blur the identifiable stuff.

Thanks for the speedy reply. I honestly didn't think you would respond due to thinking I was trolling. Thanks again.

Check your transport system's rules and regulations, but in most cases, if it's PUBLIC entity (not a privately owned contractor), the same rules apply. No expectation of privacy in public spaces.

@@gfiremark thanks for your response, its the UK london underground

@@Brahmananda Ah. Technically, I believe that's private property, but filming for personal use (noncommercial) is permitted with restrictions (no tripods, no interference with ordinary operations, etc.). Check the rules published by the service. Also, Make sure you're in compliance with ico rules. Filmlondon.org.uk has some good resources on filming people in public places, too. Getting consent or blurring faces is your best bet.

@@gfiremark you're so helpful, thank you

Generally, filming public officials in the performance of their public duties in public places is legal. But, some employees may have confidential roles or work in spaces that are not accessible to the general public. It's not legal to trespass in order to film them.

Made a quick response. kzfaq.info/get/bejne/oLWHl5NpptvDqGw.html

Well, it can't hurt to ask, but they will want to know what you intend to do with the footage. If you plan to use it in a film, video or advertisement, they;'ll likely want to be paid a license fee. If you want to use it in Court, a subpoena will get you what you need.

I can't speak to the specifics of Main state law, but In general, under Federal law, filming a public employee during the performance of his or her public duty is a right protected under the 1st amendment. Certainly while in public areas. There may be some circumstances where a restriction or "policy" against recording in a public office might be permitted, but it would be pretty rare. So, 100%? no, but almost all the time, filming in public spaces of public buildings... is permitted. In the public office environment, I'd encourage the workers who object to being filmed to consult with their supervisors, and agency attorneys before violating your civil rights. Of course, if asked by a law enforcement officer to stop, it might be wise to follow instructions, and take things up through legal counsel.

@@gfiremark thank you for your reply

And release

So if Starbucks calls itself private property they are not allowed to have cameras at all then

And if it's public they should still have a consent form for all they record

Thank you for the good information and easy explainable

@@coffeepeachesplans no. They can film on their property… just can’t use for commercial purposes without consent. But for security, editorial, etc., they can

DMSProduktions I actually checked, and according to my sources, both pronunciations are correct.

Ah ok! Probably my Australian Anglo/Latin slant! Americans tend to be a bit more LITERAL with their pronunciation of 'foreign' words into Anglicism.

Mea culpa

the business is not publishing or displaying your image