A number of other approaches, besides creating your own, original work or employing someone to create or perform material, can be used to solve your problem. For example, any intellectual property created before 1922 is out of copyright. Certain works created after 1922 are also out of copyright, but it can be difficult to know for sure without a search of Copyright Office records. In any event, you are free to video a Rembrandt painting, say, as long as the book that contains it was published before 1922. You can also perform a Beethoven sonata, as long as the recording or sheet music that you use was published before 1922.

The Copyright Act also includes a provision for "fair use."Under this exception to copyright principles, you can use at least some of another person's copyrighted material without permission if your purpose is for criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research. Tests for fair use include how much of the work is copied and whether the copyright holder will be harmed by your use of his material. A certain case involved a circus performer, whose 10-second performance of being shot out of a cannon and into a net was captured by TV news people and broadcast on the evening news. Yes, the purpose for broadcasting the act came under the heading "fair use - news reporting," but once TV viewers saw the entire performance on the TV news, attendance at the circus was drastically reduced. Even a 10-second portion of a work can be considered too much under the fair use provision. Ask yourself, will your use of part of a song such as Dean Martin's That's Amore, in a documentary about penguins, actually dissuade viewers from buying the original song? Unlikely. In fact, you can make an argument that more people will buy the record after seeing your movie.

Now that you understand what you can and cannot do regarding the works of others, it is time to discuss limitations on your own, original work. You have the right to videotape any subject - animal, mineral or vegetable - as long as the subject does not object, and as long as videotaping the subject matter does not subject you to criminal sanctions, such as child pornography or espionage laws. Remember, though, that a private citizen has the right to be left alone. If you sneak into a person's backyard and videotape the occupants of the house through a window, you are likely to be sued by the person or persons you videotaped. You may even be arrested. People who are in their own home, in a motel room, or in a bathroom have a great expectation of privacy.

On the other hand, if a person is well known as a politician, say, or a sports figure, a rock star, a movie actor, or a hero of any other description, he is entitled to a lesser degree of privacy than a non-celebrity, private citizen has. The more famous the person, the less right of privacy he has. Famous celebrities will be the first to admit that they have almost no right of privacy.

Similarly, if a private citizen shows up at a parade or a football game or a protest march, he has put himself in a public place and should not expect the same degree of privacy that he has in his home. Sometimes, a person happens to be at a location in which a newsworthy event, like a fire, a hurricane, a bridge collapse or a police shoot-out occurs. In those cases, even though the person did not intentionally seek publicity, he still may have forfeited his right of privacy, due to circumstances beyond his control.

If a small group of people happens to be at your daughter's dance recital or confirmation at your church, they may not expect to be videotaped. Do not let your camera linger on those bystanders for more than a few seconds. Do not single them out, especially if they are doing something impolite or inappropriate that would subject them to ridicule.

If you do not know whether the person's appearance qualifies as a public one, it is best to obtain a photo or talent release from that person. Always carry a few of them in your camera bag. (See Release sidebar.) Sadly, many wonderful, hilarious performances that would otherwise appear on America's Funniest Home Videos or on Candid Camera cannot be aired on TV because the subjects did not sign a talent release giving permission to the producer to show their image.

Many legal pitfalls await a videographer, but if you keep in mind the balance between the copyright and privacy rights of others and your constitutional right of free speech (or free videotaping), you will sense, if nothing else, when to call a lawyer.

Mark Levy is an attorney specializing in intellectual property law. He has won amateur movie making awards in many countries.

In August 2006, blogger Josh Wolfe was jailed for refusing to give authorities unpublished footage he shot of a clash between police and protesters a year earlier in San Francisco. Wolfe claimed to be a journalist covering the event for his blog. A portion of his blog footage aired on a local newscast, but authorities wanted to see the video that wasn't published. Wolfe refused, citing his First Amendment rights, and was jailed for contempt of court. As of this publication date, Wolfe was on bail while his appeal is considered. Because of the Internet; journalism, and it's rules, isn't what it used to be.