What I'm saying is I don't think it's a simple as "if you are distributing your film product commercially, you must get permission".
What is established as illegal is if you are filming something like an ad, you need permission to use a likeness, because otherwise one could reasonably take the use of that likeness as implying an endorsement of the product being advertised.
But on the other side of the spectrum, if you are filming a documentary or a news broadcast, you don't need permission to use someone's likeness, as they were there in public at that time and you are allowed to film in public.
Other commercial projects, like Hollywood films, fall somewhere in between. "Ad-supported" is most definitely not the same as "is an actual ad", but sometimes it's not quite so clear-cut (product placements etc).
My point is many of these instances could probably be successfully litigated in court, however it is cheaper to just avoid the litigation altogether by getting permission from people beforehand, even if it is not necessarily illegal to proceed without that permission.
What is established as illegal is if you are filming something like an ad, you need permission to use a likeness, because otherwise one could reasonably take the use of that likeness as implying an endorsement of the product being advertised.
But on the other side of the spectrum, if you are filming a documentary or a news broadcast, you don't need permission to use someone's likeness, as they were there in public at that time and you are allowed to film in public.
Other commercial projects, like Hollywood films, fall somewhere in between. "Ad-supported" is most definitely not the same as "is an actual ad", but sometimes it's not quite so clear-cut (product placements etc).
My point is many of these instances could probably be successfully litigated in court, however it is cheaper to just avoid the litigation altogether by getting permission from people beforehand, even if it is not necessarily illegal to proceed without that permission.