# Public Filming...pixelation, hidden cameras. whose rules? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [October 25, 2000, 8:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/public-filming-pixelation-hidden-cameras-whose-rules/38235 "2000-10-25T08:12:02Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 4\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2000, 8:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/public-filming-pixelation-hidden-cameras-whose-rules/38235/1 "2000-10-25T08:12:02Z")
??w˜ the rules regarding public filming and who makes them? i.e.; on the entertainment program “Jackass” on MTV, where nutcases pull strange stunts in public, many people’s faces are pixelated, especially passers by who are completely uninvolved. I assume that releases were not obtained from these people. Fine. Then, on Dateline, I see hidden camera investigations where people who certianly did NOT sign any model releases are being shown up close and personal doing things they are probably going to be ashmed of, not just walking down the street. So okay… one is entertainment, the other is, ostensibly, “news” - but what exactly is the distinction? Who decides? Where are these rules written, and what is the punishment for violating them? I gots ta know! ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_L.A](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnny_l.a/32/1084_2.png) [@Johnny\_L.A](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_L.A)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2000, 12:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/public-filming-pixelation-hidden-cameras-whose-rules/38235/2 "2000-10-25T12:42:10Z")
If you’re making a film, you need to get releases from everyone who can be identified. If you’re shooting news footage, anyone in a public place is fair game. In his book _Rebel Without a Crew_ Robert Rodriguez talks about filming in Mexico. (Although he’s American, _El Mariachi_ is invariably found in the foreign film rack at video stores, probably because Rodriquez has a Spanish name and because the film is in Spanish.) He said that he posted signs – in English – that said something like “We are shooting a film. If you are in this area, you are giving us consent to film you.” I don’t know if that would hold up in court, but he got away with it. There is no “punishment” _per se_, but if you make a film, release it, and people who have not signed a release see themselves in it, they can sue you. Why? Are you making a film? ---
**Author:** ![handy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/b5a626/32.png) [@handy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/handy)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2000, 2:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/public-filming-pixelation-hidden-cameras-whose-rules/38235/3 "2000-10-25T14:43:08Z")
It depends on the state statute. Of which state do you speak? ---
**Author:** ![stuyguy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ec9cab/32.png) [@stuyguy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/stuyguy)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2000, 4:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/public-filming-pixelation-hidden-cameras-whose-rules/38235/4 "2000-10-25T16:26:13Z")
News organizations, documentary filmmakers, et al rely on a legal concept known as _fair use_ when they show individuals who have not explicitly given their consent to be filmed. I have information about what _fair use_ does and does not allow, but of course, can’t seem to put my hands on it right now. Essentially _fair use_ is a general defense which says such and such is true, and the public has the right to know it. IIRC, it is a fairly elastic principle that is applied on a case by case basis; nonetheless news organizations (who usually have hefty legal teams at the ready anyway) can usually shoot willy-nilly at news events confident that just about anything they photograph will fall within the protection of the _fair use_ principle. Documentary makers are on thinner ice because it’s a lot easier to challenge the value of, say, a social commentary film – especially if someone claims that said film harmed them in some way. Naturally, entertainment tv has little or no protection under the _fair use_ principle. They’ve got to get releases, though some producers will use a variation of what Johnny LA described: 1. post signs in the venue or on the admissions ticket saying that your presence at the event implies your consent to by filmed (used a lot for crowd situations), or 2. get an on-camera “release,” where the producer will ask the subject(s) if it’s okay to shoot while the camera is rolling; if the subject(s) say ok, they keep rolling. I know of one big-time documentary maker who gets no releases at all. His attitude is that people can see the camera; if they have a problem with what he’s doing they can simply turn away or refuse to participate in an interview. If they stay, or answer his questions, that’s consent enough for him.