How do they get away with this? I thought it was illegal. Why do they do these totally unrealistic tasks? The permit to set up a stall dealing toot ( if ever granted ) in the middle of canary wharf would wipe out any profit whatsoever. Why not make it more realistic by using the marvellous invention known as the Internet which is what all the previous illegal street traders are now doing.

Is Del Boy now a business icon?

I think someone like Lord Alan Sugar will be able to sort out the permits. I think he might have some pull.

I sure he can and did. I would just like to see them step up to the actual challenge of finding and paying for a place to sell things themselves and then make a 'profit'. That's what actual business people have to do, not be glorified Market traders.

Do the apprentices tell their customers or the people where they are filming, that they're on The Apprentice? Obviously the regular viewers would guess what it's about if they see Nick or Karren standing close behind the contestants, but there must be a lot of people who don't watch the show!

They have to get the public to sign a consent to shown. But many people love to be on TV.

No. They just say it's a business programme.

No permission is needed from the public when filming on a public premise because the local council's (or whoever owns the street) permission for the crew to film on a specific location is already given.

Street selling makes little money. I think Lord Sugar wants to find out from the challenge which candidates have the brass like Jim, and common sense.like Jim.

That would have made sense in the previous series but not in this one.

I think he wanted to see them do what he did to start his empire, but in miniature.

Unfortunately he did such a naff job of designing the task that neither team really did that - it wasn't feasible in the time scale.

Giving them tasks that are more applicable to today's trading than 1970's when Alan sold cheap electronic crap as a market style trader won't make interesting TV.... filming the candidates creating a website, selling stuff and sending it via Parcel Force would be boring and the viewer and Alan would not see the candidates interaction with others like it does with the street selling they do.

The thing to remember is that it's a TV show first and foremost.

It's true that in the UK you don't need consent forms in a public place where there's no expectation of privacy. However, in many countries you do. In particular, you do in America for commercial works, and in practice you need them to sell programmes to America. Also, having a consent form can help avoid legal problems, eg if someone claims they were made to look bad. Many professional camera crews routinely get consent forms, and the BBC are no exception.

Ironically, when members of the public take photos of what the candidates are doing, the BBC will try to stop them, claiming they need consent to film the BBC. I think they are almost certainly wrong.

If it was as easy as TA suggested, i'm surprised my local Costco isn't jampacked and the streets filled with people selling crappy toys and odd shaped umbrellas every single day.

Firstly, what makes you think the BBC need to sell TA to America?

Have they even sold it there?

Secondly, just because you may need to do certain things to film on US soil does not mean that you can't show things made under different rules in different jurisdictions. If that were the case there would be very little interchange, worldwide, in entertainment.

Firstly, what makes you think the BBC need to sell TA to America?

Have they even sold it there?

Secondly, just because you may need to do certain things to film on US soil does not mean that you can't show things made under different rules in different jurisdictions. If that were the case there would be very little interchange, worldwide, in entertainment.


Indeed they are. You can tell them to take a running jump. (Or a stationary one if they prefer. No need to be nasty. )

I didn't say I thought that. I said the BBC routinely get consent forms. Even if they don't have immediate plans to sell to America, they might want to some day, so it makes sense to get the forms just in case. It's simpler if everything they make is equally unencumbered.

It's not just America, either. Many countries need forms, although I couldn't give you a complete list off-hand.


I'm not sure what your point is. When making a programme one generally wants to maximise the potential market. Getting consent forms signed helps that. If you're suggesting some US states require forms and some don't, then I don't think that's true, and even if it is, many networks are available nationally. You don't want a programme you can sell in some states and not others, if you can easily get something that can be sold everywhere.

Sorry, I thought you did:


Which I think is complete BS.


I wasn't arguing with that.


My point is that just because you need to get consent forms in the US does not mean that a programme cannot be sold there just because it was made in a country where that is not necessary.

In the same way that whilst the general public are not allowed to own guns in this country plenty of programmes are bought from abroad where members of the public have guns.

If the BBC regularly get consent forms that will be because it's better to do that as a matter of course than risk making a mistake in deciding whether or not one is needed. The rules of other countries are a complete red herring.

But they would have to get signed consent forms from every member of the public who is filmed speaking or interacting with the apprentices. So all those people who commented on the nodding dogs or bracelets etc would have had to have signed a consent form allowing them to be shown on TV. Similarly everytime they do market research in a public place, anyone who gives an opinion would have to sign a consent or they wouldn't be ablet to include them in the final edit.

I hope you now see that I didn't.


Well, see for example BBC Editorial Guidelines:

(remembering that a consent form may be required to demonstrate that the BBC has a full assignment of Copyright in the contribution before a programme can be resold).

They don't mention any specific countries, but clearly they aren't thinking of the UK.


American companies like to conform to American law, even in products they buy in from abroad. If it was found they had paid for films which had been made without the consent of the subjects, it would be considered unethical, and bad PR, even if not actually illegal.


If you ever become involved in film-making, I hope you research this properly first.

I'm confused - the first series of the US Apprentice was 2004, the UK version 2005. I'm pretty sure that when the first Apprentice was being made here LS had to use the phrase "you're fired", as had already been done in the US version, on which Trump was an executive producer along with Mark Burnett, the creator.

What, exactly, is it that you are confused about?

Not necessarily true. Public members grant permission in form of giving responses in full view of a camera and that's good enough for the law in England and Wales. Children -- no child under 16 can be filmed without parent or guardian's presence and permission. (edited - sorry, not under 16. Under 14, I think)

We however are legally obliged to obtain signed consent after a public member made responses without realising they were being filmed. If they refused to provide signed consent, we're legally obliged to blur their face or not to use their responses at all.

Why it is you are both arguing about whether the BBC could/would sell the rights to an American network - it's already happened, the other way around.

So far as I know, legally there are no special restrictions on filming children. (In normal situations and clothing here; we're not talking child pornography.) Copyright isn't an issue, and if they are in a public place, neither is privacy. The law is quite generous to photographers - more so than people (and sometimes police) realise.


Again, not legally required in the UK in public places. It can avoid problems if you get consent, but you aren't acting illegal if you don't have it. (Some companies might refuse to buy your film, but that's their policy. And as I say, other country's laws differ.)

If you disagree, I'd like to see a reference to statue law. I'm an amateur photographer sometimes, so this stuff is more than academic to me. (Sites like Amateur Photographer would also like to know.)

I don't disagree, but unfortunately it isn't that straightforward or clean cut. The most popular citations would be Article 8 of the Convention on Human Rights Act 1998 (depending on whether Article 10 can be applied), Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (such as filming a staff member making a deal with a cowboy or drug dealer), Data Protection Act 1998 (such as using CCTV footage for public broadcasting) and similar Acts. It varies. It's on a case-by-case basis and it relies on "prior notice", which pretty much covers the signed consent issue. In theory you're supposed to inform the subject that he or she's in an article, footage or photo before publication, broadcasting or any means of publicising to give him or her time to respond. Most are too lazy or busy to take contact details and get in touch later, hence the signed consent on location or use an assumption that the subject consented by giving responses in full view of a camera. Whether to require a signed consent or simply use the assumption depends on the nature of a programme.

We're not allowed to film or interview children without parental consent, though. I don't know about photography and perhaps it's more flexible there, but we do have legal restrictions where television and children are concerned. When we film inside a school, we assume the school's permission includes all children's parental permission. Such as the school had informed all parents and guardians and perhaps obtained their signed agreements before giving us permission to film in their school. I think this is because of a case where a child was filmed (without his mother's permission) that unwittingly exposed his identity on TV, which allowed his estranged father to track down and abduct him. Because of cases like this, parental permission is preferably required. I don't know if it's legally enforceable, though. I assume it is.

Like I say, it's not that straightforward as it's on a case-by-case basis. Generally, crews can run around and do as they please, as long as they respect the legal boundaries. It's a matter of common sense, really. Not that we always use it.

We were talking about selling the programmes, not the rights to the format.