Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 14 of 14
  1. Collapse Details
    #11
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Posts
    247
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Feeley View Post
    Perhaps the odds are you won't get sued. But if I learned that someone had filmed my dad while he was visiting a senior center, I'd probably have a lawyer send the filmmaker a nastygram. Also: did you get a location release? And when it comes time to get E&O insurance, not having releases in order to the satisfaction of the E&O insurer could make it hard to get your film shown.

    Does your lawyer deal with documentary filmmakers & rights clearances? It's a pretty narrow and arcane field. But such a lawyer will be familiar with, say, any precedent set by Titicut Follies (I don't know offhand if anything from that case still applies) affects what sorts of releases you need. You might be able to track down such a person, and get a low-cost or even free consultation form your local Lawyers for the Arts group or a University-affiliated legal clinic. For example:

    California Lawyers for the Arts (one of several in this state, btw):
    https://www.calawyersforthearts.org

    A list of a bunch of such groups around the US that may have useful links:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volunt...s_for_the_Arts

    University of California, Irvine Intellectual Property, Arts, and Technology Clinic
    http://ipat.law.uci.edu


    Following someone with a mental disorder as they work to make their way in the world could make for a great film. But it seems, as Mitch suggests, to present even more legal issues than other documentaries. Hope it all works out!
    I'm actually being hired by another business to film for this documentary so I don't think I would need the E&O Insurance but my business would.

    Why would someone else have a lawyer send a nasty letter when that other person signed off on it? If sad person was competent to sign for themselves a letter from someone else in the family would not do any justice because other person was capable of signing a release. Also, Other people took photos and plastered them all over facebook and none of them got releases. I'm the only one that did.


    0 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Reply With Quote
     

  2. Collapse Details
    #12
    Senior Member El Gato Negro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    319
    Default
    Rule of thumb. Have everyone sign regardless.
    Indie Film Producer
    Film Funding Blog


    Reply With Quote
     

  3. Collapse Details
    #13
    Senior Member BrianMurphy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Montreal, Toronto, Ottawa
    Posts
    1,729
    Default
    Everyone has a right to privacy and especially if they are ill and unable to act on their own behalf. If I were to see someone close to me in a doc that I or they were not aware or had not agreed to appear in....there would be hell to pay. And the first hell would be a call to the film maker and the second to a lawyer. Compassion, sensitivity and respect are all very much a part of a good doc. IMHO.
    Brian Murphy
    Montreal-Ottawa-Toronto
    Sony PXW-Z150 -Sony A7iii
    Sony-28/135 Cine-Tokina 11/16-Sigma 70/200 Sigma 24/70, Nikon 55(1.2)
    Collection of CY lenses and vintage Nikons, Canons.
    2x DJI Osmo Plus -GoPro H5
    Teradek Vidiu kit-BM WebPresenter/Open Broadcaster & WireCast.


    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Reply With Quote
     

  4. Collapse Details
    #14
    Senior Member paulears's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Lowestoft - UK
    Posts
    1,646
    Default
    What if your product shows them, the centre or the staff in a possible bad light? The old folk, or their legal guardian/representative could sue you I'd have thought. It's common here in the UK to blur out faces of anyone who has not signed the release, or anyone who they suspect is not capable of giving permission. I cannot see how you can release a commercial product that will generate income without morally paying a fee to the participants. You are using them as a commodity, and when you described them as not being 'talent', that shows a lack of understanding . Would the test be to see if you exploited them? Probably not - but who's call is that?


    Reply With Quote
     

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •