filming in front yard, with other houses visible in the background.
- Thread starter ugafan
- Start date
ugafan
Looking for a woman
okay, good. that is what i was thinking, but i wanted to double check.
cyclone
Well-known member
I understand that even Disney tried to stop a project from being distributed because it was shot in Downtown L.A. (where their Music Hall is located) and the Music Hall incidentally appeared in the background. The Court said that if the hall wasn't featured and just in the background, Disney couldn't disallow it. That's what comes with putting their building in a public area. (Of course, INSIDE Disneyland or FEATURING the Music Hall is different - but there is that famous independent feature from last year that shot inside Disneyland without prior Disney permission and it was distributed.)
Andrius Simutis
Veteran
I haven't signed any model releases for all those flyover city shots and I'm sure I was there on the ground somewhere.
David W. Richardson
Chapelgrove Films
If any of your neighbors are out in their yards and recognizable on your footage, you would probably need releases from them. Same with anyone driving, walking, or biking by on the street.
You do have to be careful with some buildings or architectural features - I believe you are not allowed to show f.ex. the Hollywood Sign, even in passing, because it's trademarked or copyrighted or some other legal encumberance by the Hollywood Chamber of Commerce... you have to pay for that. So don't assume that all publicly visible structures are fair game.
If any of your neighbors are out in their yards and recognizable on your footage, you would probably need releases from them. Same with anyone driving, walking, or biking by on the street.
Or blur their faces enough to make them unrecognizable, if it won't affect the film.
If any of your neighbors are out in their yards and recognizable on your footage, you would probably need releases from them. Same with anyone driving, walking, or biking by on the street.
Or blur their faces enough to make them unrecognizable, if it won't affect the film.
David W. Richardson
Chapelgrove Films
True. You also have to blur, or shoot around, license plates on cars, numbers on airplanes, and logos on most anything.
Andrius Simutis
Veteran
If you're that worried about it, consult an entertainment lawyer. The absolute best place to get bad advice is comments on the internet. That said...
I've gone through this a few times, and again not a lawyer, not legal advice, but there's more to it than a simple blanket of "everything must be released or blurred" or "no problem with anything!". The real answer is always going to be "It depends".
First it depends on what country you're in. Let's assume it's the USA. In general, things that don't require a release are in public view from a public place without the need of special equipment (that last bit covers the 800mm zoom lens paparazzi) and are not being used to imply endorsement of a commercial product or considered intentionally defamatory. That commercial product can be interpreted to be your movie if it's a commercial release and not considered news or documentary. Following that basic guideline is a base point to start from. If you want to avoid trouble down the road get a release. Some people can and do find any excuse to be a pain in the ass or even sue for the stupidest things. Some companies will do it anyway even knowing they don't have a case just to harass you or keep others from doing the same thing. The other condition is that something/someone needs to be recognizable. An ad that shows a wide shot of a highway at night full of cars speeding by doesn't need to get releases if you can't recognize any of the cars. A close up of my face behind the wheel would for an ad, but not a news story on traffic jams.
TV news doesn't have to blur out backgrounds, faces, or anything. Neither do you if you're shooting a picture for yourself in a park. But it depends on what else you're going to use it for and where you are shooting. Advertisements do need more releases and permission as cyclone points out with "implied consent" meaning that if I show up in your ad for MegaExtremeToxicEnergyDrink it implies that I am endorsing the product so it's a good idea to get a release if I'm recognizable in the ad. If you're shooting a documentary on the impacts of energy drinks and film a park full of people and I'm one of them, then it doesn't imply any endorsement and I'm in a public place without a reasonable expectation of privacy, so not something that I'd need to sign a release for (although a lot of producers do anyway just to be safe and avoid issues). Oh yeah, that logo on my shirt? Don't need to blur it either. Some productions do just so they don't give free advertising to a company that could potentially be paying for it.
And again, the rules are different in other countries.
I've gone through this a few times, and again not a lawyer, not legal advice, but there's more to it than a simple blanket of "everything must be released or blurred" or "no problem with anything!". The real answer is always going to be "It depends".
First it depends on what country you're in. Let's assume it's the USA. In general, things that don't require a release are in public view from a public place without the need of special equipment (that last bit covers the 800mm zoom lens paparazzi) and are not being used to imply endorsement of a commercial product or considered intentionally defamatory. That commercial product can be interpreted to be your movie if it's a commercial release and not considered news or documentary. Following that basic guideline is a base point to start from. If you want to avoid trouble down the road get a release. Some people can and do find any excuse to be a pain in the ass or even sue for the stupidest things. Some companies will do it anyway even knowing they don't have a case just to harass you or keep others from doing the same thing. The other condition is that something/someone needs to be recognizable. An ad that shows a wide shot of a highway at night full of cars speeding by doesn't need to get releases if you can't recognize any of the cars. A close up of my face behind the wheel would for an ad, but not a news story on traffic jams.
TV news doesn't have to blur out backgrounds, faces, or anything. Neither do you if you're shooting a picture for yourself in a park. But it depends on what else you're going to use it for and where you are shooting. Advertisements do need more releases and permission as cyclone points out with "implied consent" meaning that if I show up in your ad for MegaExtremeToxicEnergyDrink it implies that I am endorsing the product so it's a good idea to get a release if I'm recognizable in the ad. If you're shooting a documentary on the impacts of energy drinks and film a park full of people and I'm one of them, then it doesn't imply any endorsement and I'm in a public place without a reasonable expectation of privacy, so not something that I'd need to sign a release for (although a lot of producers do anyway just to be safe and avoid issues). Oh yeah, that logo on my shirt? Don't need to blur it either. Some productions do just so they don't give free advertising to a company that could potentially be paying for it.
And again, the rules are different in other countries.
One thing to keep in mind is something that Andrius alluded to: anyone can sue for anything. Just because you can legally do something, and if sued can legally prevail, does not mean you won't get sued and won't have to spend resources, time and effort (which you may not be able to easily afford) to defend yourself. So, for example, you are allowed to show, quote or otherwise display something if your purpose is to parody or critique etc. - but do you want to take the risk, knowing you may get sued regardless of the law and the right on your side? That's where the "abundance of caution" enters when people get releases, add blur etc. even in situations where they may not strictly speaking need to. On the other hand, many folks really don't consider things they should. For example, furniture can be a problem - there was a case where there was a chair displayed in a film, and that chair was made by a known artist and the artist won damages, because the filmmakers didn't get a release from him. You may be aware of artwork on the wall, but are you sure you have the right to display those curtains that are a copyrighted pattern? What about vases, glasses and the like? It may look generic to you, but unless you are a specialist you may not realize that something is distinctive... and then there are always cases where even though you shouldn't have been sued, you were, and you lost a lot of time and money on lawyers... so even though you didn't need to, it might have been wiser to get a release, or otherwise obscure what you are showing.
This can be a minefield. But we don't hear about such cases often. Why? Because many folks generate content that will never see the light of day, never will be broadcast or distributed or otherwise in the public eye and no money is being made - so rights holders are unaware of the infringement, or don't bother to sue. That's the case 99% of the time. But the moment your property starts getting monetized, watch out, lawyers can come out of the woodwork.
This can be a minefield. But we don't hear about such cases often. Why? Because many folks generate content that will never see the light of day, never will be broadcast or distributed or otherwise in the public eye and no money is being made - so rights holders are unaware of the infringement, or don't bother to sue. That's the case 99% of the time. But the moment your property starts getting monetized, watch out, lawyers can come out of the woodwork.