Can I blur faces to make footage commercial-safe?

Blurring so that nobody can be recognised removes the likeness problem in most cases. It doesn't help when the person is recognisable by other means (a famous setting, a voice, a caption), and it doesn't fix logos you also need to blur.

Is a monetised documentary editorial or commercial?

The licence question (may it be used commercially?) and the editorial question (does it sell or endorse something?) are different. A documentary that earns money needs commercial-use licences, but showing people in a news or documentary context is editorial use.

Do crowds in the background need releases?

Unidentifiable people in a crowd generally don't. A person who is the clear subject of a shot, or recognisable in a close-up, does for advertising.

Why is all archive footage flagged editorial?

Old newsreels and home movies show real people and brands who never signed anything. The film may be public domain, but using a recognisable person to promote something can still infringe their or their estate's rights.

Licensing

Editorial vs commercial: model releases and logos in stock footage

Updated October 28, 2026 · 3 min read

Short answer

A licence covers the copyright in a clip, not the people, brands or property in it. When identifiable people appear without a signed model release, or logos, products and private property without a property release, the footage is editorial-only: fine for news, documentary, education and commentary, but not for advertising, promotion or anything that implies endorsement. Wide shots, nature, data visualisations and footage where nobody can be recognised avoid the problem.

Three kinds of rights in one shot

When you put a clip in a video, you rely on several rights at once:

Copyright in the footage itself, held by whoever filmed it. The licence (CC0, CC BY, NASA media, a stock licence) deals with this.
Personality rights: a person’s control over commercial use of their likeness. Names vary by country (right of publicity, image rights, privacy law), but the effect is similar: you need their permission to use a recognisable person to sell something. A model release is that permission in writing.
Trademarks and property: logos, products, branded packaging, some buildings and artworks. Showing them in an ad can suggest a sponsorship or endorsement that doesn’t exist. A property release covers them.

Creative Commons licences say explicitly that they don’t grant publicity, privacy or trademark rights. Most free stock sites say the same in their own terms.

Editorial use

Editorial use means using footage to report, explain, document or comment: news, documentaries, educational videos, reviews, commentary. Showing real people and brands in that context is normal and generally allowed, because the footage depicts the world rather than promoting something.

Commercial use in this sense means advertising and promotion: ads, sponsored content, product videos, packaging, anything that could suggest a person or brand endorses you. That is where releases matter.

How Video Assets Server flags it

Clips get license.editorial: true (shown as an Editorial badge) when the source is known to lack releases:

NASA footage, because NASA forbids implying endorsement and using its insignia, and asks for permission before identifiable astronauts or staff appear in ads.
Archive footage (newsreels, home movies, educational and industrial films), which shows people and brands without releases.

Other footage can need releases too. The flag is a reminder, not a guarantee: always look at what is actually in the frame.

Choosing footage for an ad

Prefer shots without identifiable people: landscapes, skies, seas, wide city views, timelapses, macro shots, data visualisations, abstract backgrounds.
Watch for logos on clothes, cars, shops and screens, and for recognisable private buildings or artworks.
When a person is the subject of the shot, use footage that comes with a model release (paid stock libraries track them) or film it yourself.
Keep the credit line and the clip’s source URL with the project, so you can show where it came from if anyone asks.

Questions

Can I blur faces to make footage commercial-safe?: Blurring so that nobody can be recognised removes the likeness problem in most cases. It doesn't help when the person is recognisable by other means (a famous setting, a voice, a caption), and it doesn't fix logos you also need to blur.
Is a monetised documentary editorial or commercial?: The licence question (may it be used commercially?) and the editorial question (does it sell or endorse something?) are different. A documentary that earns money needs commercial-use licences, but showing people in a news or documentary context is editorial use.
Do crowds in the background need releases?: Unidentifiable people in a crowd generally don't. A person who is the clear subject of a shot, or recognisable in a close-up, does for advertising.
Why is all archive footage flagged editorial?: Old newsreels and home movies show real people and brands who never signed anything. The film may be public domain, but using a recognisable person to promote something can still infringe their or their estate's rights.