I, in turn, like where this is heading: information surfaces only when the person who recorded it finds it useful to do so.
In a way, information is a resource, and in the same way you don't give away money for free, you should not give out information for free as well if the situation is not clearly beneficial.
That's the big question - whether we consider data from surveillance as "common good" - so it should be free, or as forced transaction.
First option lead to asking for rights to any recording for any purpose provided it's not defamatory or abusive - just turn this recording into some kind of raw resources under Creative Commons. (That's my own point of view)
Second option mean that we have right to our image (that was recorded) - Something similar to copyright law. So in fact we should be payed for being filmed! In fact this could be used as anti surveillance advocacy: When You are movie star You're paid, when You're porn star - You got Your salary too. Now it's time for CCTV stars to get money :>
Yes i turned the situation and introduced interests of filmed person instead of filmmaker. In fact "filmmaker" could be compensated let's say by lower insurance cost, kind of additional legal protection and so on.
Dominik