[Steve in Pudsey]

I don't think the brands were "vastly different", certainly variations on a theme with individual identities but I think you could tell they were from the same stable.

[Neil Jones]

YouTube has been recommending to me episodes of Police Stop!, the precursor to things like Road Wars and Police Camera Action and their modern incarnations, and I'd forgotten how interesting Police Stop! used to be (even if it was poorly edited sometimes). They made 14 of these apparently and a good chunk were shown on Sky and later ITV4, presented/voiced by Graham Cole, best known at the time for appearing in The Bill.

Anyway how does clearance work in this regard when its all come from some police dashcam in the first place? Normally from what I understand you often have to pay to clear something, but while I appreciate the police own the copyright, do they (or the police forces) make anything from these sort of programmes, of recording somebody basically doing something stupid on the road?

[Mike]

Anyway how does clearance work in this regard when its all come from some police dashcam in the first place? Normally from what I understand you often have to pay to clear something, but while I appreciate the police own the copyright, do they (or the police forces) make anything from these sort of programmes, of recording somebody basically doing something stupid on the road?

Absolutely nothing from a UK point of view.

The police can't sell the footage in the first place, as it's 'crown copyright' - as in material produced by the crown or servant thereof in the execution of their duties. It would be released usually post charge or pre-charge if no distinguishing features can be made out (hence why repeats often have faces blurred, as at the time of rebroadcast the conviction would've been spent).

The payment the police got was more in kind from these things; for instance the effects drink drivers can have on other road users and showing things like that, along with a hoped increase in public confidence that they are targeting offenders.

[RhysJR]

Would the criminals/those featured have any say in their footage being broadcast?

I'm no expert, but there might be GDPR related issues with that stuff as well (like Google searches being removed).

[Technologist]

It’s broader than that …the whole area of privacy
OFCOM
www.ofcom.org.uk 

Section eight: Privacy - Ofcom
This section of the Broadcasting Code is to ensure that broadcasters avoid any u…
  Source: www.ofcom.org.uk

BBC
www.bbc.co.uk 

Section 7: Privacy - Introduction - Editorial Guidelines
Section 7.1
  Source: www.bbc.co.uk

But it’s not as restrictive as you may think !

[Transmission]

It's very common for those repeated daytime shows following police or bailiffs to be have a great number of reversions as more faces are blurred out over the years.

[Mike]

It’s broader than that …the whole area of privacy
OFCOM
www.ofcom.org.uk 
BBC
www.bbc.co.uk 

But it’s not as restrictive as you may think !

and the College of Policing have an 'Authorised Professional Practice' on such matters as well:
www.college.police.uk 

Media relations | College of Policing
This page is from APP, the official source of professional practice for policing…
  Source: www.college.police.uk

APPs are national policies that all police forces follow, and base their own local policy on - the 'Code of Ethics' that is mentioned within the APP, which must be considered is a statutory code of practice made under the Police Act that forces legally have to follow.

---

It's very common for those repeated daytime shows following police or bailiffs to be have a great number of reversions as more faces are blurred out over the years.

Don't quote me on this, but I'm pretty certain Mentorn and Potato used to produce two programmes, one for the time of first broadcast and one for repeat sales - the repeated version would have a strap at the start saying 'Programme first broadcast YYYY' and every member of the public would have their face blurred in the second version.