Why some ok without releases so not?

Just a question, no big deal...
I notice that there are a large number of clips with very closeup views of an individual, maybe only showing a smiling or a sad face and they are approved with a footnote of suitable only for editorial. No doubt who the person is and the description tells exactly where and circumstances of video.
.
On the other hand some clips are rejected unless a release is attached. Some of these may be long telephoto clips of maybe something like a person riding a wave in Hawaii.
.
In both cases the individual is indeed easily identifiable, only difference is one may be from a "more modern" country and the other from a "third world" country.

I understand the concept of if the individual being filmed in in a pubic place or has an expectation of privacy. If the subject is indeed in a public setting and has no expectation of privacy should they also be approved with the same footnote of non-commercial use only?
.
If the subject is with a group of people will they be approved where-as a single person will not?
.
There are many absolutely great "editorial use only" clips here that have a great value in a non-commercial use.
.
Just wondering if we could get a little bit more "official" word from P5. As with many answers, advise is cheap but the only one that counts is from P5 on this matter.
Thanks,
Don

I have noticed that too, some clips of mine are rejected for needing a model release, but then clips that are much more close up and less descriptive get passed, and then some say they need model releases when you can't even see anyones face. I'd like to hear about it too!!

Generally the criteria we apply include the following:

• is the clip likely to be useful for news / editorial purposes
• might it be mistaken for model-released footage
• is it distinctive/unique

Obviously if footage is from a unique or interesting location, it will be more likely to be approved for editorial use. There are lots of model-released lifestyle shots of people on beaches, so we would be less likely to approve that sort of footage without a release.

fair enough, understand that unique or interesting, and also understand a location that is remote or 3rd world status is more newsworthy. No problem here.

I just had to chime in here - this is a very confusing issue and in many cases makes absolutely no sense! Sometimes I wonder just what the true basis is to make a decision of this nature and just how P5 rules on these things. There is no consistency and that needs to be corrected. I have been researching all kinds of things regarding photgraphers rights etc.. http://www.krages.com/ThePhotographersRight.pdf So please P5 - lets stick to this and be consistent - actually, I would guess that based on this document, many clips should be without a doubt approved and then again, many should not. This issue is a thorn in everyone's side, but if you read this guide, I think many will be very surprised on what opps they have missed due to wrong information. - Just my two cents.

hmm I dont think that document is entirely correct. What defines a 'celebrity' ?? technically its not OK to record celebrities. Thats why there is so much controversy over paparazzi, they say they are doing it for "editorial" purposes but shots are often used for entertainment (and technically they need a release),,, and I remember talking to a DP who had to go through a boatload of redtape to film in an airport because of the homeland security rules.
??
I only have 3 years experience in the media, so If im wrong on this, someone please tell me!!!

Ok, I will tell you - you are wrong. :) But seriously, the reasons you mention are exactly why this attorney published this document. Too many times the law enforcement side breaks the law. In regards to celebs... if they are on a public street they are fodder! This is what the 1st amendment is all about! Everyone in this business needs to fight for these rights to stay in tact. Homeland security is full of it most of the time and use the excuse of the "Patriot Act" - without ever having read the damn thing. There is no "technically" when on a public street. It is what it is. This was just proven again when "Girls gone wild" won a case in Florida when they filmed a minor flashing the camera on a public street. It turned out it was a judge's daughter and the judge thought he was above the law. He ended up being disbarred and the footage was released without further issues. This whole thing is becomming insane because everyone thinks to have their own version of law, but the fact remains and is very clear - public street - you have full rights. Of course, it also leaves many things to concience. If you don't feel comfortable filming/photographing something - then don't. Now back to your statement about recording celebs: It is ok, just not on private property - and that is usually what most cases are about. Yes, in Hollywood, the idiots push the limits and many times cross the line - common sense is out, greed is in. But make no mistake, if it's on a public street, they always win. And yes, it is always considered "journalistic". This is the same reason any city can not stop a news crew from filming. Usually a news crew is defined as 3 or less people with gear. However, if you are a production company, private or public, then most likely you need to get a license for certain circumstances. Now comes the kicker - stock footage is considered journalistic because there is no pretense on how, when or where it will be used.

I have been following the 1st amendment stuff for years now. The most up to date industry on this is of course the adult industry. (See /http://www.xxxlaw.com/) This link goes far beyond anything we need, but J.D. Odenberger is THE expert on this stuff and I have met and spoken with him several times over the years.

My point is simply this - don't let anyone put a kibash on your work or your rights - not Pond5 and not the Agencies - Oh and by the way, if any of this was questionable, then no city would be allowed to put up cameras at all.

Thank You!!! That information is awesome. I always thought it was ok so long it was in public, and besides I cant control how the buyer uses it.... Im not exactly a huge fan of the TSA, or homeland security ...it wouldnt suprise me if they were stretching the law to get a power trip.

I do remember hearing recently though that they were trying to make more laws about the paparazzi. i.e. you have to be so many feet from an A-list celebrity if you have a camera..... but I havent really been keeping up on that.

Wow, great info.
Thank,
Jake

I did some videos in Atlanta, Maui, Los Angeles airports in Feb 08. I asked a couple security offices and they really did not know of any issues. I set the tripod up and filmed commuter trains, gates, aircraft, halls etc etc and no one questioned my at all. I was surprised. Although a couple years ago I was taking photos of a oil refinery in New Mexico and the local small town cop stopped me, tried to take the camera (which I did not allow him too) and threatened to arrest me. I was on a public sidewalk a city block away from the refinery that had no privacy fence. He said it was Homeland security and the owners of the refinery did not allow it. I mentioned they need to build a darn big privacy fence then. He took all my info and said it was being turned into Homeland Security ,,, what a joke, I'm now on the terrority watch list :). From what I know if you are on public property and the building or business is not specifically copyrighted (i.e. Eifel Tower at night, stock exchange etc) then it is fair game for editorial or journalism. Same goes for people. Just don't climb a fence to take a picture, that is invasion of privacy. If the person is in a place that they do not have an expectation of privacy then they are fair game for editorial. Same goes for an African village or Hawaiian surfer. Just can't use them commercially to push a product.
Don