A friend was planning to shoot an independent, fictional movie at a public high school that he was in fact a teacher at. (He wants to make movies full time, but you've got to pay the bills.) The principal and many faculty were aware of it, and he had gotten permission from the principal for his little comedy. To make a long story short, there would be times where filming a person without a release might be at least a risk. For example, you're shooting one of your actors outside and a pedestrian walks by in the background. Or, as he in fact talked about doing intentionally, getting crowd shots in the hallway as students walked to class. In this last case, it would be very difficult for him to acquire releases from whoever might cross in front of his camera.
First, disregard two technicalities. (1) Disregard the problem that all of these unreleased persons are under 18, that even if he did get their own permissions he might still be liable if he does not for every one of them also get a signature of a parent. (2) Know that of course that I agree that if it were the case that if he had the budget of a regular theatrical release -- $30 million or so -- that he would have no excuse for not hiring extras, have a release from and control over every person, practically every photon, that bounces into his camera. He might even shoot in a studio instead of a real hallway.
Is it wrong for him to do this? Suppose that he shoots in such a way that anyone without a release is difficult, if not impossible, to identify. For example, the pedestrian who walks in the background is so small and out of focus that if he saw the film he might not know it was himself. And the students in the hallway, we're just getting hands and feet and no faces.
I guess the question boils down to, is there something sacred about the light that bounces off someone's hand, foot, body, so that someone should not be able to film it without my permission (at least for a commercial production), even if no one would know it's my hand? Or is the law about releases more about if I am just recognizable, more about the situation where somehow my face wound up in a film that was pro-death-penalty while I wasn't, or something.
Don't even some theatrically released features "steal" shots? I read that Sophia Coppola used a small 35mm camera to "steal" night shots in Japan, like out in public in a taxi or something.
You know if you steal a pack of gum it's wrong even if you don't get caught. But is the case the same in regard to permissions? Do people own -- unless they sign it away -- images made from the light reflected off their bodies and property?
