PDA

View Full Version : I'm planning a documentary



throoper
09-17-2005, 02:57 PM
On tattooing and how it's seen now and changed over the years. Which I'll start shoting in October and hopefully have done by November.

So my question is on release forms. Will I need to get the tattoo shops to sign a release form? And I'll need to get all the people that will be speaking to sign a release form?

Sorry, I'm just really starting my film career.

Thanks for your answers.

penisenvi
09-18-2005, 07:10 PM
hey man, i saw a really good release form over at indiefilmer.com on ther forums. check it out, the guy who posted it just finished a feature length documentary so he might also be able to help you with anything else.

( i dont know the rules here if this is spamming or not)

anywho, hope that helps


have a good one

throoper
09-19-2005, 10:21 AM
Thanks for the site.

galt
09-19-2005, 05:02 PM
Hye, here is a copyright question.

Who owns the rights to the tattoo art on someone's bod? The artist or the wearer?

throoper
09-19-2005, 10:34 PM
That's true, but I'm just wondering because I'm going to get people to talk about their tattoos. I'm also going to get tattoo artists to talk about how tattooing has changed and such throughout the years. Then people who just have an opinion on tattoos and how it's changed.

Zig_Zigman
09-29-2005, 05:30 PM
For conflict, find an older guy who has gotten tattoos back in the past and also recently. Also, find people who have gotten tattoos and regret it, or have them removed. You'll need all points of view...

Monglane
09-30-2005, 08:18 AM
Legal issues concerning people appearing ina documentary are not simple. I'm shooting a feature-length doco in France and I've been advised to have every person sign a release form who appears "recognizably" on the footage. This does not apply to people who happen to walk in and out of the frame during street shots, for example, but every inteviewee has to sign a form, otherwise no serious TV network will even touch my material.

I'm sure rules are different in other countries. In the US, it might even be State (not federal) jurisdiction, so it may change from State to State.

throoper
09-30-2005, 11:54 AM
Thanks, Monoglane. I was planning on getting everyone that's in it to sign a release.

uhrgl
09-30-2005, 12:32 PM
In addition to talent releases, you'll want a location release for each private place you shoot too.

throoper
09-30-2005, 02:01 PM
Alright, thanks for that.

MsManhattan
10-11-2005, 09:49 AM
This is an interesting question, but it must be the tattoo-ee... If a fashion reporter stops me in the street and asks what labels I am wearing and can they photograph me (not that that would ever happen...), I am the one who gives permission to quote me about my clothes and photograph me wearing the clothes; neither I nor the reporter would need the permission of Armani (as if I own anything by Armani)... Or, using an art-oriented analogy, if you are filming me talking about my art collection, and I show you my Jackson Pollack (as if), do you need the permission of the estate of Jackson Pollack to show that painting or merely the permission of the owner of the piece?... While the first analogy seems clear-cut (permission lies with the wearer), the second is a little more nebulous.

Following the logic of the first analogy, the person who is tattooed would give you permission to show their tattoos, not the tattoo artist who did the work. Following the logic of the second... hmmm... you should probably consult a lawyer or at least do some research on the Web. But, my hunch is that in the case of body art, the first analogy is the applicable one.

As a journalist, I would at least make a point of asking each interviewee whose work you are showing who did their work, and maybe try to include that in your voiceover or in titles or the actual sound bites. In the interest of being thorough, if it is feasible to contact the tattoo artist, you might give them a courtesy call to let them know you will be including one of their pieces in your film, and would they like to be listed in the credits? If so, get the correct spelling of their name as they would like it to appear, their shop, etc. (You dont need to mention release forms for this.) This not only fosters good will, it may well lead you to other potential sources for your piece.

My caveat: I am a journalist, and I know the rules that apply to print journalism, and I know the basic concepts that apply to documentary video/film, but you might want to consult with a more experienced documentarian or an attorney. If you find out, let us all know.

galt
10-11-2005, 10:14 AM
This is an interesting question, but it must be the tattoo-ee... If a fashion reporter stops me in the street and asks what labels I am wearing and can they photograph me (not that that would ever happen...), I am the one who gives permission to quote me about my clothes and photograph me wearing the clothes; neither I nor the reporter would need the permission of Armani (as if I own anything by Armani)...

I am not sure about that. I have seen many instances where clothing logos or T-shirt imprints have been hidden, especially if they are corporate designs like "Coka Kola"



Or, using an art-oriented analogy, if you are filming me talking about my art collection, and I show you my Jackson Pollack (as if), do you need the permission of the estate of Jackson Pollack to show that painting or merely the permission of the owner of the piece?... While the first analogy seems clear-cut (permission lies with the wearer), the second is a little more nebulous.


The artists still owns reproduction rights, including TV/Video. You do indeed need the permission of the creator to show artwork in a video. This is why the new extended times for copyrights are so absurd.



Following the logic of the first analogy, the person who is tattooed would give you permission to show their tattoos, not the tattoo artist who did the work. Following the logic of the second... hmmm... you should probably consult a lawyer or at least do some research on the Web. But, my hunch is that in the case of body art, the first analogy is the applicable one.

It would be interesting to see a court decide that tattoos are the property of the artist. I guess if I ever get one, I need to get the artist to sign a work-for-hire agreement. Or just have the agreement tattooed on my body so I can't lose it.

Too bad this thread isn't in the business forum, where our resident IP attorney would see it and comment.

MsManhattan
10-11-2005, 11:37 AM
I am not sure about that. I have seen many instances where clothing logos or T-shirt imprints have been hidden, especially if they are corporate designs like "Coka Kola"

Good point -- I didn't think of that angle. You're right about blurring trademarked brand names -- but I think that's a trademark issue vs. a copyright issue. In a print photo, say in the New York Times, I am pretty sure there would be no restrictions if, say, you had a shot of a crowd in Times Square, and people were wearing clothes with "Gap" or "Old Navy" or "Nike" emblems -- the Times would not need the permission of those companies to run that photo. But, when it's MTV, showing the crowd gathered in Times Square during that TRL show... well, I havent watched that in a really LONG time, but would they obscure all those trademarked emblems?

In any event, tattoos definitely are not trademarked...


It would be interesting to see a court decide that tattoos are the property of the artist. I guess if I ever get one, I need to get the artist to sign a work-for-hire agreement. Or just have the agreement tattooed on my body so I can't lose it.

you made me laugh thinking about the "work for hire" agreement when getting a tattoo (I'm a freelancer) -- but I think you also offered a valid way of looking at it because even if you don't have a written work for hire contract in place, isn't the spirit of the relationship -- "I pay you to put a piece of art on my skin, which belongs to no one but me" -- essentially a work for hire arrangement?

(Oy, vey, speaking of work for hire -- that's what I am supposed to be doing right now. :lipsrseal )

throoper
10-12-2005, 01:36 PM
Thanks, MsManhattan and Galt. That's going to help me out a lot.

Chev
10-24-2005, 10:20 AM
I am not sure about that. I have seen many instances where clothing logos or T-shirt imprints have been hidden, especially if they are corporate designs like "Coka Kola"
thats not a copyright or trademark issue, AFAIK. when MTV, for example, do that its simply a matter of denying free advertising to these companies and to discourage OTT product placement in their programmes. if they want to get on MTV so bad, they can buy ad space.

again, and dont bring me to court over this, AFAIK tardemarked clothing would come under 'fair use', and be acceptable in your film. slandering their company, (for example: "hey man, nice shirt", "naw it sucks, the stitching is shit and its made by slave labour") is another matter.

Madhu
10-27-2005, 10:32 PM
Hye Galt
Tattoo art is licensed to show off (and filmed!!) by the Artist to the wearer, I guess.