* I'd be surprised if more than 1 or 2 people ever viewed some of my "at post office" or "at bank" clips on YouTube
*Also, they ARE filming us aren't they ?
RE VIDEO-BLOGGING & FILMING "LOCAL COLOR"
I noticed something Crowell posted online at
http://www.school-video-news.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=285:when-is-it-legal-to-film-people-without-their-permission&catid=36:legal&Itemid=53
I was wondering if you could comment on the following: I "video-blog" every day of my life, from very casual things such as "at the post office" to worshipping at church to filming celebs arriving at the Oscars (or Peoples Choice, Grammys, etc) (I live in southern Cal, so I am around these award ceremonies all the time; most recently I captured Lady Gaga arriving at NBC, the day after the Grammys; she was nice enough to come & sign & say hello).
Anyways, you get the picture (no pun intended). I take videos & pics & post them online (YouTube, Posterous, Blip.Tv, etc). I very RARELY get any objections, because I don't embarrass people, don't say bad things about them, etc. I just record what one of my English professors calls "local color". And I have people who find my video-blog interesting. They "follow" me online.
Recently, 2/24/11 I was at a FCU (cred union) & taped a 10 second segment of me "depositing a $2500 check" (with the teller, a young lady, included). I posted it to YouTube & didn't think much more about it. However, because I wanted the check cleared sooner, I called the FCU main office & the next day (2/25/11) called again (b/c the gal who promised to call me back w/ an answer didn't call back). After we conversed, she said, "Would you be willing to talk to ....[indiscernible] about your customer experience..?" I thought she meant a feedback survey, & I agreed.
However, the guy who came on the line identified himself as "security" for the FCU & said "We have a system that alerts us whenever a video is posted about the credit union. Why did you post a video ?" I was taken by surprise, & happened to be in a public library at the moment & couldn't speak very loudly & said I would call him back, but before I did he started saying it was "illegal" to post videos of people online without their permission. I asked if he was an attorney & he said no, but didn't need to be to know the law...
Anyways, I talked to him later & agreed to remove the video NOT because I thought it was "illegal' but simply to avoid a dispute. But I was wondering what you think about this? I wasn't casting anybody in a false light. I was simply "blogging" (for my followers sake as well as a "journal" of sorts, since I cover a lot of territory every day & this helps me to remember what I did). What category, if any, would this daily video-blog fall under?
Vander
http://www.thomascrowell.com/sub/components/contactEmail.do
---------------------------------
WHEN IS IT LEGAL TO FILM PEOPLE ?
" Defamation and libel suits arise when a person who is distinguishable on camera claims that he or she was portrayed in a false manner that is harmful to his or her reputation. Usually, statements that are "merely unflattering, annoying, irksome, or embarrassing, or that hurt only the plaintiff's feelings" do not support a defamation claim. Nor will humor or parody. Furthermore, public figures such as celebrities and politicians have a much harder time winning defamation cases: they have to prove that the filmmakers knew that their portrayal of the subject was false or was made with a reckless disregard for its truth (a standard called actual malice). Filmmakers tend to get into hot water when they portray nonpublic figures in contexts that are both scandalous and false."
Thomas A. Crowell concentrates his law practice in the areas of entertainment and inte aw. Portions of this article were taken from his new book, The Pocket Lawyer scheduled to be published by Elsevier in February 2007. Crowell can be reached at
www.thomascrowell.com
------------------------------------------
RE FILMING & PHOTOGRAPHING IN PUBLIC
" I am not a lawyer, but I am a very knowledgeable photographic professional who has dealt with these issues many times for more than three decades -- often in consultation with attorneys who specialize in First Amendment law.) The short answer is no. There is no restriction on photographing people in a public place in the U.S. This applies to both still and video images. However, there are a number of significant details that bear on a professional's public actions. The right to privacy: The U.S. Supreme Court has established the standard of privacy as "reasonable expectation" of privacy. One has such an expectation in a private home or in a bathroom or hospital room. But a person who appears in public has given implied consent to being viewed by the general public and, by extension, to being photographed Photographers may legally photograph anybody who is not only IN a public place, but VISIBLE FROM a public place.
For example, a person who stands in their apartment window, in a place clearly visible to the general public, has no reasonable expectation of privacy. However, a photographer may not use equipment such as night vision or telephoto lenses to gain views of private places that would not be visible to unaided eyesight. Right to publicity and to commercial use of likeness: Images of individuals in public places may not be used, without their express permission, FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES.
The term "commercial purposes" does not mean any use where the photographer makes money. Editorial and artistic use are specifically not included as commercial use. Commercial use includes use in connection with a product or service or to promote a particular viewpoin
The Post-9/11 World: Police, security guards and others are often ignorant of First Amendment protections. It is not (NOT!) llegal to photograph bridges, buildings, subways or other public infrastructure from public places. But that doesn't mean that you won't get some unwelcome attention when you do it. Remember that anybody with a gun is always right -- even when they're wrong [at least temporarily]. Recap: There is no law restricting photography in public places. If people do not want to be photographed, they need to refrain from frequenting public places. Mark Loundy http://www.loundy.org http://www.mediawoorks.com Media Consulting and Video Production Last edited by mark@loundy.org; 11-18-2008 at 10:57 PM.
Here's the funny thing. Most of the place where these people guard are in fact themselves using surveillance equipment and recording citizens as well... secretly. The next time you go downtown look up! Uncle Sam, you should be ashamed
-----------------------
2/25/11 DON FOX, Once again, a pleasure to speak with you & sorry for the initial disagreement. I was caught by surprise with the sudden mention of the video clip & felt like I was being "accused" of something "wrong" when my experience has been, with videos, that normal public interaction with people & places is generally not a problem on most social network sites, but if somebody DOES express concern (which is rare) I do not wish to be contentious & argue over "legal rights" & am glad to take down such clips. It is such a common thing these days, I wonder how many clips of me there may be online unbeknownst to me for any possible INNOCUOUS reason. I video-blog my life because I cover so much territory & it becomes a "journal" of sorts for me, & a reminder of what I've done, where I've been. Even as possible legal proof that I deposited a check, in case of anything, odd, it could come in handy. I came across this Schools First FCU on Crenshaw only a few weeks ago because I periodically attend nearby St. Catherine Laboure church, & this happens to be the closest Schools 1st FCU to central Los Angeles county as far as I know. My videos post to YouTube but YouTube cross-posts them to other sites such as Blip.Tv (that's the simple explanation). Anyways, let me know if you still see it after a few days./ PHILIP A. KOK
2/25/11, TO DON FOX (FAX #2) Don, sorry to bother you again. I hope you received the first fax. When I first spoke with you I was in the library, and the second time I pulled off the road as I am traveling at the moment, but am able to send faxes from my mobile electronic device. I also went back online and removed the Blip.Tv vid. As mentioned, when I post to YouTube, it cross-posts to Blip.Tv (which I forgot about) , and sometimes they cross-post to a blog or two as well, but I think if I delete from YouTube & Blip, it also deletes from the blog. That is, you may still find the search item in the blog, but the video will not play. Again, I video-blog for a variety of reasons, including to "cover my tracks" because of the amount of territory I cover, and also I have a some "followers" who find it interesting to see what I am doing from day-to-day. I hope this suffices in regards to any concerns this young lady (the teller) has/had about the video. I was AS ALARMED by your mention of it as she apparently felt alarmed by it. Most of the people in my videos (baseball games, parades, marching bands, etc) say "thanks" and don't feel alarmed but if anybody does object I normally do not argue about it. My understanding is that, "legally", videos of interaction in public are allowable, but if somebody objects, unless there's a compelling reason to argue otherwise, I don't make a fuss. Anyways, it was a pleasure speaking with you./ Philip A. (John Vander) Kok
FAX #3
[Don, I just wanted to pass this on to you FYI, even though I will gladly remove the video clip in question for the sake of keeping the peace]
RE FILMING & PHOTOGRAPHING IN PUBLIC
" I am not a lawyer, but I am a very knowledgeable photographic professional who has dealt with these issues many times for more than three decades -- often in consultation with attorneys who specialize in First Amendment law.) The short answer is no. There is no restriction on photographing people in a public place in the U.S. This applies to both still and video images. However, there are a number of significant details that bear on a professional's public actions. The right to privacy: The U.S. Supreme Court has established the standard of privacy as "reasonable expectation" of privacy. One has such an expectation in a private home or in a bathroom or hospital room. But a person who appears in public has given implied consent to being viewed by the general public and, by extension, to being photographed. Photographers may legally photograph anybody who is not only IN a public place, but VISIBLE FROM a public place.
For example, a person who stands in their apartment window, in a place clearly visible to the general public, has no reasonable expectation of privacy. However, a photographer may not use equipment such as night vision or telephoto lenses to gain views of private places that would not be visible to unaided eyesight.
Right to publicity and to commercial use of likeness: Images of individuals in public places may not be used, without their express permission, FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES. The term "commercial purposes" does not mean any use where the photographer makes money. Editorial and artistic use are specifically not included as commercial use. Commercial use includes use in connection with a product or service or to promote a particular viewpoint.
The Post-9/11 World: Police, security guards and others are often ignorant of First Amendment protections. It is not (NOT!) llegal to photograph bridges, buildings, subways or other public infrastructure from public places. But that doesn't mean that you won't get some unwelcome attention when you do it. Remember that anybody with a gun is always right -- even when they're wrong [at least temporarily]. Recap: There is no law restricting photography in public places. If people do not want to be photographed, they need to refrain from frequenting public places.
Here's the funny thing. Most of the places where these people guard are in fact themselves using surveillance equipment and recording citizens as well... secretly. The next time you go downtown look up! Uncle Sam, you should be ashamed."
Mark Loundy http://www.loundy.org http://www.mediawoorks.com Media Consulting and Video Production Last edited by mark@loundy.org; 11-18-2008 at 10:57 PM.
