Documentary Frustration (permits)

Jonathan,

Thanks for the links. I've read the 'fair use' document from the first link, and it contains excellent information and examples of fair use. Everyone else, check it out if you shoot docs.

Cheers,
John
 
Last edited:
Check out this screen shot from a short called 'Fair(y) Use Tale'. Very clever.
2549442933_c43c58e16a_o.jpg


Check out the film at: http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/documentary-film-program/film/a-fair-y-use-tale

Cheers,

John
 
Good topic! I was on a couple MTV shows and for both of them there was always release for people on tape and releases for location. When they were following me to a party there was a release on the door, stating they are filming in inside and if you dont want to filmed do not enter because if they did they are agreeing to the release. Also when we went out there was always a location release of private places (resturants, clubs, etc). I actually made a copy of them for my personal use...if I get a chance I'll upload it.
 
ESTEBEVERDE said:
Not on public streets.
Click to expand...

For the act of filming, by itself, one does not need permission if the end result is for private viewing with no commercial intent.

News stories are the exception to the rule.

If the video is for any other purpose, written permission is required of those whose images are captured and then used in the final product.

Without that written, legal permission, the person producing the final product faces possible, costly, legal action.

As I mentioned earlier, the only exception is if the final product is a news story. If one is shooting a news event, with the video being used in a report of that news event, no permission is needed while filming from public venues.
 
Lensmith said:
As I mentioned earlier, the only exception is if the final product is a news story.
Click to expand...

Or a documentary. If I happen to film you as you walk through a scene of something else I'm filming, in a public place, I don't need your permission. Period. You don't have any recourse, because there are no damages. Your image appearing tangentially in my documentary for a few seconds does not harm you in any way. I do not need your permission. You're nobody (for the sake of this example), you're just some average person walking through my documentary frame. I'm not profiting from your specific appearance in my film. And the odds that you'll ever even see those few seconds of yourself in my film are astronomical. And even if you did see yourself in my film, you'd be pointing at the screen saying, "Look, that's me!" You'd be excited and you'd tell all your friends. You wouldn't sue me, even if you could.
 
Last edited:
Giganova said:
Thanks for the comments, which are very helpful!

I guess I should revise my attitude, have friendly talks with people before shooting and get releases. Talking to people before shooting might give me new leads and friendly contacts which should be helpful for the doc. I'd rather spend my time shooting instead of being on the phone for half of the day, but if the doc benefits from it in the end, so be it.
Click to expand...

I know that sometimes as filmmakers they tell us it's easier to get forgiveness than permission, but my experience has been that permission is easier to get than you'd think. You didn't mention where you were working, but in smaller communities, people will bend over backwards to find you places to shoot, particularly if you get a hold of the decision maker and ask nicely. It does require some salesmanship and people skills, but if you believe in your project, it's very easy to pitch to people.

As always, it's not what you know, but who you know. Network and schmooze a bit, and you'll be amazed at what people will let you do.

Good luck!
 
plexi said:
Or a documentary. If I happen to film you as you walk through a scene of something else I'm filming, in a public place, I don't need your permission. Period. You don't have any recourse, because there are no damages. Your image appearing tangentially in my documentary for a few seconds does not harm you in any way. I do not need your permission. You're nobody (for the sake of this example), you're just some average person walking through my documentary frame. I'm not profiting from your specific appearance in my film. And the odds that you'll ever even see those few seconds of yourself in my film are astronomical. And even if you did see yourself in my film, you'd be pointing at the screen saying, "Look, that's me!" You'd be excited and you'd tell all your friends. You wouldn't sue me, even if you could.
Click to expand...

What counts is how you market the final product.

Claiming a blanket "documentary" excuse will not cut it in a court of law.

Many have found that out the hard way.

It's why release forms are so important.

Especially if you have plans to market and display your work in first world countries.

A person's image, especially if they are a person who is not a public figure, has more rights than you may think.

I suggest you contact an lawyer to help you avoid future problems if you wish to make a living or sell your documentary work.
 
Last edited:
I give up. You just aren't getting it. Documentary filmmakers should not be afraid to film where things are actually happening (i.e., in the real world). That's our job. And if you're filming a protest, for example, you can't track down hundreds of people and get release forms! But you are perfectly, legally, able to use that footage in your film. Even if it's a commercial broadcast, theatrical release, or DVD. If you can show me a current legal precedent that says I can't, I'll eat my shoe.
 
plexi said:
I give up. You just aren't getting it. Documentary filmmakers should not be afraid to film where things are actually happening (i.e., in the real world). That's our job. And if you're filming a protest, for example, you can't track down hundreds of people and get release forms! But you are perfectly, legally, able to use that footage in your film. Even if it's a commercial broadcast, theatrical release, or DVD. If you can show me a current legal precedent that says I can't, I'll eat my shoe.
Click to expand...

You can use that footage, if it was used in a news report or considered "fair use" because of the events taking place at that time.

If it is GENERIC video then it falls into a different category for those wanting it in their documentary which is to be shown outside of a regular news program.

With all due respect, I've been doing this job, shooting news and documentaries full time, for just over thirty years. Your earlier posts were blanket statement which could be very misleading to those who may not understand the complete legal issues involved.

I was only trying to clarify the information...which seems to upset you.

Of course you can come up with isolated examples that might or might not avoid the issue. My goal was simple. To help people go somewhere for real advice which would keep them out of court instead of relying on anonymous Internet message board views which might or might not be correct.

End point? Don't think just because you are on public property that you have carte blanche to shoot anything and everything for your documentary if you have plans to sell it or show it for commercial recompense.

Cross your "t"s and dot the "i"s for your own good. :)
 
plexi said:
I give up. You just aren't getting it. Documentary filmmakers should not be afraid to film where things are actually happening (i.e., in the real world).
Click to expand...
Saying look both ways before you cross the street so you don't get hit by a car isn't the same thing as saying don't cross the street.

I don't think anyone here is saying don't shoot in public. Some people are just saying when you shoot in public be aware of X, Y, and Z so that you don't paint yourself into a corner down the road. Personally, I'd rather people try to educate me so I can make an informed decision regarding how I want to proceed rather than let me stumble around in ignorance oblivious to the harm I may, or may not, be doing to my production.


-A
 
plexi said:
Or a documentary. If I happen to film you as you walk through a scene of something else I'm filming, in a public place, I don't need your permission. Period. You don't have any recourse, because there are no damages. Your image appearing tangentially in my documentary for a few seconds does not harm you in any way. I do not need your permission. You're nobody (for the sake of this example), you're just some average person walking through my documentary frame. I'm not profiting from your specific appearance in my film. And the odds that you'll ever even see those few seconds of yourself in my film are astronomical. And even if you did see yourself in my film, you'd be pointing at the screen saying, "Look, that's me!" You'd be excited and you'd tell all your friends. You wouldn't sue me, even if you could.
Click to expand...

That's not necessarily true - you don't get to decide on the behalf of the person being photographed whether your taking their picture harms them or not. It won't be judged by your standards, it will be judged by their standards (and the court's) which might be quite different from your's. Case in point - many years ago I shot a multimedia program of stills to be used in a presentation for a company where I worked. The shoot consisted of slides of people at work in a large airline reservations call centre to be used in a "meet the folks on the other end of the telephone" presentation shown at the company's Christmas party for the area travel agents that year. All was well except that unknown to me one of the employees photographed just happened to also be a working actress and advertising model who was a member of both SAG and AFTRA. A couple of days after the shoot we got a call from her union (I forget which one) demanding that we pull all photographs where she was visible, even in the background, until she had the opportunity to approve them and discuss payment for the use of her likeness. Their contention was that as a working professional, her image was her stock-in-trade and that any use of it by anyone for any purpose whatsoever, including the Christmas party slide-show, required both her permission and payment. It was resolved amiably but it could have gotten ugly. You just never know when something like that can come out of left field and it's better to be prepared for it.
 
Thanks for all your responses, but I still maintain that you're hamstringing your own work by imposing rules that may not be applicable, prior to you even pressing "record". Fair use laws in this country apply when the value to the public of what you are saying with your documentary outweighs the cost to the private owner of the copyright. This applies to footage that you've shot, music, trademarks, archive footage that you incorporate into your work, people's images, locations, etc.

For those of you shooting corporate docs, or television shows, or x-mas party slide shows, this probably doesn't apply. For those of you shooting a documentary where the inclusion of this type of footage, regardless of the permission of individual people who happen to be incidentally caught on film in a public place, is critical to proving the point you're making in the film, then you are protected by fair use.
 
Last edited:
plexi said:
Thanks for all your responses, but I still maintain that you're hamstringing your own work by imposing rules that may not be applicable, prior to you even pressing "record". Fair use laws in this country apply when the value to the public of what you are saying with your documentary outweighs the cost to the private owner of the copyright. This applies to footage that you've shot, music, trademarks, archive footage that you incorporate into your work, people's images, locations, etc.

For those of you shooting corporate docs, or television shows, or x-mas party slide shows, this probably doesn't apply. For those of you shooting a documentary where the inclusion of this type of footage, regardless of the permission of individual people who happen to be incidentally caught on film in a public place, is critical to proving the point you're making in the film, then you are protected by fair use.
Click to expand...

Fair Use is a defense against allegations of copyright infringment - it has nothing to do with the need or lack of need for permission to use images of persons or property. Releases are issues of personal privacy law, not copyright law.
 
I think the underlying principles apply. And I also think the various instances these principles might or might not apply to are way too varied to dismiss in blanket statements. My point is, nothing is set in stone (even personal privacy laws), and it aggravates me when some filmmakers automatically fold before there's even an issue raised, and advise younger filmmakers to do the same. If I feel my story is more important to the public than your individual claim to privacy, then I'll proceed with my filming. And we're talking about filming in a public place here. It's not private, it's public. You (the individual) are in a public place, and anything you do in public is not private by definition. I'm not peering through your window or going inside your place of business.

Anyway, unless we want to talk about specific instances, this isn't really worth arguing about. By the way, I think the xmas slide show case is correct: that person was at their place of business, in a private environment, and had someone photograph them without their permission. The business owner should've gotten the employees permission, or at least notified them that there were going to be photos taken and let them leave if they didn't want to be included.
 
plexi said:
Thanks for all your responses, but I still maintain that you're hamstringing your own work by imposing rules that may not be applicable, prior to you even pressing "record". Fair use laws in this country apply when the value to the public of what you are saying with your documentary outweighs the cost to the private owner of the copyright. This applies to footage that you've shot, music, trademarks, archive footage that you incorporate into your work, people's images, locations, etc.

For those of you shooting corporate docs, or television shows, or x-mas party slide shows, this probably doesn't apply. For those of you shooting a documentary where the inclusion of this type of footage, regardless of the permission of individual people who happen to be incidentally caught on film in a public place, is critical to proving the point you're making in the film, then you are protected by fair use.
Click to expand...

Some people always have to learn the hard way.

And you will.

Or maybe you are like many who try their hand at producing a documentary.

One at best, then no more.

Rereading your earlier thoughts, it leaves me to believe you have yet to actually come up with a final product to date. Maybe I am wrong on that point. But you make such wide, uninformed generalizations that I'm left with the belief you are very early on the learning curve. Lots of theory and little or no real work to back it up.

Be sure to have some money saved for legal council. One way or another you will need it.
 
I worked full-time in two newsrooms in NYC doing various jobs for more than 12 years. I had hundreds of guests in-studio. We interviewed hundreds of people- famous and not famous- on the street. We shot all kinds of video of every kind of location you can imagine. We also shot people walking on the street.

NOT ONCE in all those years did we ask for a release for the interviews/footage that aired on television. Nor do I know of any daily TV news program that gets releases for any of the footage you see every day on the TV news.

Why are the rules different for documentaries? They should not be different. If somebody stands in front of your camera and answers your questions, they, in effect, have given you permission to use the interview. There NO WAY the person can claim they did not know they were being interviewed.
 
The rules for documentary are different for news because they are. The fact that you think they should be the same will not make them the same. Statutory law and case law are different for news vs. most any other use.

I've read this thread with interest. Most points have been covered adequately. Just to add a couple of things:

1. In our legal system, essentially anyone can sue. You can be totally in the right legally, you may prevail, but you can still be sued and it will still cost you money to defend that suit or make it go away. That's one big reason for releases, both personal and location releases.

2. Copyright law, trademark law, privacy law, libel law, and the right to use one's likeness commercially" don't have what lawyers call "bright line distinctions". The laws are vague enough that they are litigated and litigated and litigated again, with precedents being set that cause a complex and evolving set of standards. Add to that the special licensing requirements of musical recordings and live performances. Fair use is constantly misunderstood (and largely because it is vaguely defined in the law), and constantly misused. The fact that someone got away with it doesn't mean they were legal. It just means no one cared enough to squawk. This is why it is so hard to make useful generalizations, and this is why releases are so important to some producers and distributers.

2. The points about distributer requirements are well taken and very real. Different distributers have different levels of tolerance for risk. Big corporations are very risk averse, and they have every legal right to require program suppliers to have level of releases that they choose, even beyond what the law might require. Now we're in contract law: they have a right to decline to enter into a contract to distribute your project if you don't meet their requirements. They may even have specific required language for releases.

3. Blurring of logos is usually not because the trademark holder wouldn't like to have the free advertising, but because the producer or distributer of the show doesn't want to GIVE AWAY free advertising. With mega-corporations like Sony or Time-Warner, they tend to be very conservative about this.

4. There are actually some buildings and public artwork that have been copyrighted and/or trademarked, and the owners of those entities have successfully defended those rights against being used in films without permission or payment...even if shot from a public vantage point. I believe that the Picasso in Daley Plaza in Chicago may be one of those. So shooting on a public street is not necessarily clear of copyright or trademark infringment problems.

5. If you see people blurred in a reality show it is generally because they didn't (or wouldn't) sign a release and either the producer or the legal department decided they were recognizable in the frame and therefore a legal risk.

6. The exceptions don't prove the rule. You can get away with jaywalking but this doesn't make it legal, safe, or right.

7. Film permit requirements are yet another can of worms and yet another area of law, and vary greatly from city to city, perhaps no more greatly than LA vs. New York. In LA, if you are filming for any commercial purpose whatsoever, you need a permit, period. THe police in LA county WILL chase you off if they catch you. In New York, until recently you could film just about anywhere in public if you had a small enough crew without a permit, as long as you were not impeding traffic. There was a big uproar last year when the city imposed some (very modest) restrictions on the size and duration of shoots that could go on without a permit. New York had very permissive film permitting laws, LA's are very strict. I don't have the details at my fingertips so don't flame me if I'm a little off. Should be easy enough to Google.



eyeluvdocs said:
I worked full-time in two newsrooms in NYC doing various jobs for more than 12 years. I had hundreds of guests in-studio. We interviewed hundreds of people- famous and not famous- on the street. We shot all kinds of video of every kind of location you can imagine. We also shot people walking on the street.

NOT ONCE in all those years did we ask for a release for the interviews/footage that aired on television. Nor do I know of any daily TV news program that gets releases for any of the footage you see every day on the TV news.

Why are the rules different for documentaries? They should not be different. If somebody stands in front of your camera and answers your questions, they, in effect, have given you permission to use the interview. There NO WAY the person can claim they did not know they were being interviewed.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Thank you for the detailed response, sunporchmedia.

Do you think that a release is required for a sit-down interview used in a documentary?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top