Documentary Frustration (permits)

Release forms are not a legal requirement, and are just networks covering their a$$. Someone appearing as a subject of a doc -- yeah, better get a release. Someone who happens to walk through the background -- nobody cares. I've shot material for Discovery and couldn't get releases yet they still aired those shots.
 
pmark is right... if you're shooting a documentary, you don't need releases from anyone who appears in the film in a public place. if you're filming the front of a jazz club, and there are people just wandering through the shot, you don't have to track them down and get releases, period. but if you stop one of those people on the street, and ask them what they think about jazz, then you'd want to get a release.

a documentary film is like a news broadcast. if a building is burning, and there are people standing around looking at it, do you think television news producers get releases from every person they happen to film incidentally while filming the building? of course not. or if i'm doing a documentary about protests in new york city, do you think i'm going to get releases from the police officers harassing the protesters, or from the protesters themselves? nope.

television networks like the BBC, PBS, Sundance Channel, etc., do not require you to have releases for every single human being that happens to appear for a few seconds walking through your documentary.
 
Plexi gives some valuable info. The bigger point was that if you are looking to sell anything for broadcast and you don't have release forms for the majority of the people and places (not background passerby-ers) you will be hard pressed to get anyone to consider it. News and "entertainment" follow very different rules and I can not speak for news, but "doc style" programming on cable channels such as discovery, tlc, mtv, vh1 and others are sticklers for release forms. Yes it's their way of covering their asses. A good rule of thumb is to get releases from anyone who speaks on camera and featured locations. Good luck.
 
plexi said:
a documentary film is like a news broadcast.
Click to expand...
Docs have much more restrictions than news does. Will you have to get releases from random passers by that are only in frame for a second and unrecognizable? No. But if anyone is "prominently feature" then you should get a release. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, as they say. COPS covers live, news worthy events and they blur out people.

tumbleweed said:
Plexi gives some valuable info. The bigger point was that if you are looking to sell anything for broadcast and you don't have release forms for the majority of the people and places (not background passerby-ers) you will be hard pressed to get anyone to consider it.
Click to expand...
Not just b'cast but selling anything for distribution period. No company wants to buy a project that comes with numerous opportunities for them to end up on the wrong side of a lawsuit.


-A
 
adkimery said:
COPS covers live, news worthy events and they blur out people.
-A
Click to expand...

COPS blurs people because those people are involved (allegedly) in a crime. If you include footage of someone shot in a public place in your documentary, and that footage does not damage or defame that person in any way, it's fine.

Besides, broadcasters and distributors do not have anyone on staff who goes through your doc with a remote control, pausing on anyone whose face is seen, asking, "Where's the release for this one? And this one? And this one?" It just doesn't happen.

Regarding Giganova's frustrations:

1) You don't need permission from the owner of a jazz club to film the front of their club. You can film any public storefront.

2) You don't need permission from drivers who are driving past the front of the club and inadvertently wind up in your shot.

3) You obviously need permission from the club owners to film inside their clubs. Try to convince them that they'll get publicity and free advertising from appearing in your film. Tell them you'll thank the club by name in the credits, etc.

4) You definitely need permission from the musicians. You've got to be able to find some unsigned jazz musicians and convince them it's in their best interest to appear the film. Or you might offer to give them an edited version of one song that they could use as a web video on their site. You love their music, and you're just trying to help get it to a bigger audience, etc. And of course film them playing one of their original songs, not a Coltrane cover or something that will be impossibly expensive to clear the sync rights to. The bottom line is that you're going to have to gain these groups' trust before they let you shoot them. Go see several of their gigs, introduce yourself to them, see a few more gigs, and *then* approach them about filming. Few musicians are going to let a stranger walk up out of the blue and film them performing.

Good luck...
 
plexi said:
COPS blurs people because those people are involved (allegedly) in a crime.
Click to expand...
If that was true then every alleged offender would be blurred. Which is not true.
Release forms used by COPS
Release forms used by Armed & Dangerous
Release forms used by Court TV


If you include footage of someone shot in a public place in your documentary, and that footage does not damage or defame that person in any way, it's fine.
Click to expand...
AFAIK, that's not necessarily true.

Besides, broadcasters and distributors do not have anyone on staff who goes through your doc with a remote control, pausing on anyone whose face is seen, asking, "Where's the release for this one? And this one? And this one?" It just doesn't happen.
Click to expand...
I used to work for a company that did EPKs and behind-the-scenes pieces for feature films and the studios we worked with were very strict about having releases for anyone prominently featured in a piece. If we were shooting a big event where getting releases from everyone would be unrealistic we put up huge signs basically saying is filming taking place and by being here you are consenting to letting us use your image. A guy I work with was one of the people behind the "Ringers: Lord of the Fans" documentary and he said they had a lot of rights related issues to address from Sony's legal department.

Like I said before, it's better to be safe than sorry especially since rights issues can stop a project dead in its tracks. The OP would be better off paying an IP or entertainment lawyer for more concrete answers than listening to us laymen on the internet.


-A
 
Lot's of helpful replies here, thanks!

I've made a lot of progress over the past week or so by repeatedly talking to club owners and musicians and building up trust & relationships. The musicians were very understanding and don't mind at all being part of a movie or interviews (but for some I need to get clearance from their record labels). The club owners were tougher on that issue, but after I said that they get free promo by being featured in the docu, and after offering that I will create some promo material for free for them (like a clip they can put on their web site), they agreed that I can shoot within the next couple of weeks. They also gave me great tips which musicians I should film and interview, and even hooked me up with the ones that are difficult to get in touch with (the more famous musicians that don't have listed phone numbers and tough agents to get through).
 
Great to hear you are making progress Giganova. The first steps are always the hardest, but as others have said once you gain people's trust more doors will open as word of mouth gets around that you're on the up and up.

-A
 
plexi said:
...
a documentary film is like a news broadcast. if a building is burning, and there are people standing around looking at it, do you think television news producers get releases from every person they happen to film incidentally while filming the building? of course not. or if i'm doing a documentary about protests in new york city, do you think i'm going to get releases from the police officers harassing the protesters, or from the protesters themselves? nope.

...
Click to expand...

Maybe, sometimes. It really depends on the nature of the documentary and its purposes. A documentary on, say human rights abuses in West Nowhereland would obviously be considered news coverage, but "March of the Penguins" would be entertainment - its certainly not news nor is it scientific research. "Supersize Me" would also likely fall into the entertainment category as well - it's the filmmaker's personal story and it's certainly not breaking news that Big Macs and fries aren't health-food.
 
Steve House said:
"Supersize Me" would also likely fall into the entertainment category as well - it's the filmmaker's personal story and it's certainly not breaking news that Big Macs and fries aren't health-food.
Click to expand...

Actually I'd consider "Supersize Me" an educational critique of the fast food industry and American eating habits. Yes, it's done in an entertaining way, but as critique/commentary it's covered under fair use, which is why McDonalds couldn't stop the film from using its trademarks, etc.

Giganova, glad you're getting some traction on the project.
 
Every network will ask for location and talent releases from every single identifiable place, person, etc. Even if you legally CAN shoot something, good luck getting a distributor or network as a partner. To actually implement "fair use" you will need someone powerful enough behind you to fight. If you are leaning on it for clearances, etc. then you most likely be out of luck.



ash =o)
 
AshG said:
Every network will ask for location and talent releases from every single identifiable place, person, etc. Even if you legally CAN shoot something, good luck getting a distributor or network as a partner.
Click to expand...

That's not true. I've sold dozens of docs to major broadcast networks, theatrical distributors, etc. You only need releases for people who are speaking on camera, not every identifiable person. As long as the shooting is in public, and those people are not the actual subjects of your film, you're fine.
 
As mentioned earlier, I've done pick-ups for Discovery et al, and they ALWAYS insist on getting releases for EVERYTHING, which is of course impossible. When the work is turned in to the prod. co., there's never a problem with having just a few releases as long as the main subjects are covered.

I think the "releases" issue with distributors is the same as the "broadcast quality" restriction -- it's simply a way to say "no not interested" without hurting anyone's feelings.
 
dont think they care about feelings. Very little is personal. None of it is until your in person, anyway.
There are two bottom lines here. One as the producer: it's far easier to ask for forgiveness than permission.
then that of the network: when in doubt, leave it out.

Get the shot and then dink with the red tape. If there is no shot, there is no red tape to be handled.
 
grinner said:
...One as the producer: it's far easier to ask for forgiveness than permission.
then that of the network: when in doubt, leave it out.

Get the shot and then dink with the red tape. If there is no shot, there is no red tape to be handled.
Click to expand...

Hmmm, this advice makes me nervous. On the one hand, yes - you don't want to stifle every opportunity to shoot - and thereby miss opportunities - by dinking with red tape each time you want to pick up the camera.

But on the other hand - that's where the pre-production work comes in - get your permissions, make your contacts, get everyone on board before you start shooting (as much as possible) so that then you have the freedom to just shoot and be creative.

If there is no shot, there is no red tape to be handled - this is true - but without the documentation, the shot is nothing but a lot of useless ones and zeros.
If you make "worry about the red tape later" your mantra, you're going to end up with a lot of footage that only you and your friends will ever see, because the festivals and the networks absolutely will not touch it without the proper documentation.

It is harder to have shot and lost than to have never shot at all...
 
Anytime pre-production can be done, of course it should be done.
In this reality world, many of us, I know I do, shoot on the fly. If shooting life as it happens, ya really need to be shooting when it does. Details can indeed be worked out later.
If going on a "shoot". There is little need to get in the van without the Is dotted and Ts crossed.
 
grinner said:
Anytime pre-production can be done, of course it should be done.
In this reality world, many of us, I know I do, shoot on the fly. If shooting life as it happens, ya really need to be shooting when it does. Details can indeed be worked out later.
If going on a "shoot". There is little need to get in the van without the Is dotted and Ts crossed.
Click to expand...

It seems like you're equating "shooting life as it happens" with shooting at random without any reason or plan, hoping you can make something worthwhile out of it later. Not a very effective way to use scarce resources, the scarcest of which is your time. I've always felt the most effective documentaries where those that started with a carefully reasoned point of view and then the filmaker went forth and gathered images that supported the story he was trying to tell or the point he was trying to make.
 
Steve House said:
shooting at random without any reason or plan, hoping you can make something worthwhile out of it later. Not a very effective way to use scarce resources.
Click to expand...

Steve, that's vérité, which in my opinion is the truest form of documentary. If you're following life as it happens, you can't plan who or what is going to happen in front of your lens. And if as filmmakers we're trying to truthfully reflect what's happening in our time, the priority should be to capture reality, not plan it ourselves. I'm a firm believer in fair use in terms of documentary filming and editing. If people randomly get into your frame while you're shooting something else, or if a piece of music happens to be playing in the background while you're capturing an event as it happens, then it's fair game. We should be free to document reality without arbitrary limitations on what we can and cannot shoot in public.
 
Weather a network is willing to "look the other way" on having all releases or not is obviously dependent how bad they want the piece. I'm sure some lawyers will balk but lawyers don't give permission, just advice. People have "No right to privacy" in public so no worries there. About the club thing. Yeah, if your filming a club without speaking to the owners then your approaching this the wrong way. Permission first from any building that you are "focusing" on. Buildings that are part of the background are OK. Any persons that are in "focus" could be considered a subject and might need permission. This all depends on who wants the piece and who's willing to look past the potential legal mess. My lawyer always phrases the beginning of his sentences with "In the unlikely event you get sued" Much of this depends on context.
 
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top