In fact, a person does not necessarily have the absolute right to include even true statements about another in a video without permission. One person's right of free speech can conflict with another's right of privacy. Analogously, you may have heard the observation that my right to swing my arm ends at the tip of your nose.

Simply stated, the right of privacy is the right of a person to be left alone, and it is applicable even if no physical harm is likely. The Constitution says nothing explicit about the right to privacy; nonetheless, it is an inherent human right which many, many court decisions have upheld. Americans have the right to expect that, without some compelling and overriding purpose, their private lives will not be subject to public inspection. Videotaping a person's private conversations, his family, his business or the activities in the home without permission constitutes an invasion of privacy.

But what if the individual were a well-known public figure, such as a politician, a basketball player or a movie star?

What if the event that occurs in that person's house were significant, even newsworthy?

What if the person consents to having the event covered by a news reporter?

On the other hand, what if, by covering the event, the reporter poses a danger to others, or even to the country?

What if the reporter actually harms individuals by disclosing false "facts" with a reckless disregard for the truth?

These are the issues you face as you practice the craft of videomaking. As a videomaker, you are safer taping well-known public figures than taping unknown, private persons; and the more outlandish the person's actions, the safer you are taping him or her without written consent. This is because when people voluntarily become part of a public activity or spectacle, they become newsworthy. A person's right of privacy is therefore also not absolute; there are limits.

The other side of the coin relates to commercial trade. Most states have their own privacy law, so when you make a video, you have to be aware of the law in all states where your audience exists, not just where you made it. The privacy law of many states specifies that "any person whose name, portrait or picture is used within the state for advertising purposes or for the purposes of trade without ... written consent ... may [sue] to prevent and restrain the use thereof; and may also sue and recover damages for any injuries sustained by reason of such use."

If you use your videotape for advertising or trade purposes, you may be liable. If you don't, however, you are generally not liable.

You can see that neither your First Amendment rights nor your right of privacy is absolute. Both rights have limits. Back in the 18th century, when the press relied only on notebooks and pencils, the issues were more simple. Nowadays, with tens of millions of video cameras in the United States, inevitably the question of privacy versus free videotaping must come up frequently in the courts. In fact, the greatest number of lawsuits brought against videomakers today is in the field of invasion of privacy.

The courts try to balance a person's right to privacy against the public's right to know. Courts call this principle a privilege that protects newsworthy subjects. As a matter of fact, courts lean over backwards to give the public unimpeded access to news and free dissemination of truth. Only when a person acts in reckless disregard of the truth, or in bad faith, is he or she liable for invading privacy when videotaping a newsworthy event.

As for locations (museums, theaters, restaurants, retail stores, sports arenas, other places of amusement and even governments), they may, if they wish, establish their own rules to prohibit the use of lights, flash, tripods, video cameras or all photographic equipment. There is, however, no general law or regulation prohibiting videotaping in a public park. You are free to make videos there.

In general, a videomaker's right to shoot or tape on a public street or highway is clear, so long as the videomaker does not interfere with traffic, or injure people or property by a hazardous placing of equipment.

And now, back to our vacation scenario. The police officer who orders you to move away from the burning restaurant and stop taping may have your safety at heart. Approaching the conflagration might place you in physical jeopardy. Or it might endanger the fire fighters, the rescue workers or the victims themselves. In such cases, a judge would find it reasonable for the police officer to restrict your movements and limit your First Amendment rights.

But what if you were taping from a respectable distance, out of harm's way? Could an official force you to cease taping? The answer is probably no. You do have a right to videotape public events, even if you are not a member of the working press. After all, the First Amendment makes no distinction between professional, accredited news people and amateur or hobbyist video reporters.

In certain jurisdictions, a press card allows you to cross police lines. But the police can still use their discretion in restricting movement of professional reporters if they believe that the reporters are in danger or are likely to pose a danger to others. In other words, having a press card does not necessarily bestow special rights on the owner.

Actually entering the premises of the scene of the incident without permission could constitute trespass, and footage shot inside the restaurant could support the allegation of invasion of privacy. If the police suspect a crime, they will cordon off the premises with tape. Do not cross the police line or you will be subject to a charge of tampering with evidence at the scene of a crime--a criminal offense.

One of the problems with rendering legal opinions and advice is that, in an ivory tower, sometimes lawyers can be singularly unpractical. For example, pragmatically, even though you may be within your rights, it may not be advisable to provoke an armed police officer under stress.

You can use a simple agreement to protect yourself from a right-of-privacy lawsuit brought by the talent (or even bystanders) in your video productions. The agreement is called a release [see sidebar]. By signing the release, the person waives the right of privacy and cannot sue you at a later date for videotaping or exhibiting the tape.

Include a place for the performer's signature, the date, and the rights your performer is giving up or waiving. If, for some reason, the performers do not sign the release in your presence, be sure to ask your performer to have his or her signature notarized. Of course, if your performer is under age, have his or her guardian sign instead.

Also include a provision for compensating the performer. Fortunately, courts usually avoid having to determine whether compensation is adequate, because they do not want to have to figure how much a service is worth. A contract can be valid if any consideration is given — even $1.