Filming legal issue

CB_Radio said:
The point about TV news footage couldn't be further off the mark and proves nothing.

First off, News and narrative filmmaking are two completely different scenarios. You can't assume that because a news program can do it that a narrative film can do it. Apples and oranges.
Click to expand...

Then why are people like me never asked to sign releases after we walk by in the background, cameras rolling, while TV series and feature film crews do their thing (as I described above)?

Secondly, watch any news program about obesity and you'll see a lot of overweight people getting off a train, plane or attending some football match and you won't see a SINGLE one of their faces. Why? Because they haven't signed releases and the news stations don't want to be sued.
Click to expand...

But they're also the *subject* of the story - not incidental nobodies walking around in the background. And in the case of obesity, underage smoking, pistol-packin' mamas or the like, they're being more or less overtly criticized, or at least singled out as a person one probably shouldn't emulate. If a news program featured an image of me as a "Mr. Don't Be" without my consent or foreknowledge, I might be a tad PO'd as well, and an attorney might well be called for.

But it has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt (at least for me anyway), that truly incidental inclusion of random people in the background doing nothing out of the ordinary in a feature film or TV series is not actionable by the individual in question. It probably wouldn't extend to 'random' people who are clearly seen engaging in a violent shouting match or fist fight for example, but otherwise, fair game.

If you still see it differently, then perhaps you could explain the legalities behind those release-free network TV and film shoots I walk right through the camera's eye of in some other terms.
 
Ted Spencer said:
Then why are people like me never asked to sign releases after we walk by in the background, cameras rolling, while TV series and feature film crews do their thing (as I described above)?

...
But it has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt (at least for me anyway), that truly incidental inclusion of random people in the background doing nothing out of the ordinary in a feature film or TV series is not actionable by the individual in question. It probably wouldn't extend to 'random' people who are clearly seen engaging in a violent shouting match or fist fight for example, but otherwise, fair game.

If you still see it differently, then perhaps you could explain the legalities behind those release-free network TV and film shoots I walk right through the camera's eye of in some other terms.
Click to expand...

Every single one of those situations I've seen - street scenes such as those of the audition lines waiting to get into Canadian Idol, for example - there is clear signage prominently displayed that filming is taking place and passing beyond the sign constitutes implicit permission to use one's image. Either that, or police officers are controlling vehicle and pedestrian traffic around the location and people are not permitted to walk through the background when cameras are actually rolling. In most features and network episodics, virtually everyone you see in the background who is close enough to be recognizable is a paid extra.
 
Last edited:
This is rich (and borderline delusional):

"Photographing people in public per se is not the issue. Filming strangers as part of a commercial endeavor, using their images in your hopefully for-profit product (... blah, blah... to the punchline...)

"PaulWM, news gathering is a totally different kettle of fish from entertainment."

Oh is it!!!!?

FOX "News" is pro-bono now, for the betterment of mankind. No money changing hands there. I forgot television was blessed by The Lord (TM), and is so far above and beyond what mere videographers and filmmakers engage in.

At least your faux moral bullshit got toned down a notch. What it is is a legal spiderweb, a mishmash of precedents not particularly well thought out or guided by any moral qualms. Pretending otherwise is ridiculous.

If I'm interviewing someone and someone else gets involved, that's their decision to become involved. They have no right to trample on my free speech rights to record whatever I had going on prior. The photographer has rights too. Such is the nature of public space. Perhaps you have a problem with the concept of public space? It sure as hell sounds like you do.

Public space is the issue here (not profit, obviously, as any fool can see TV makes a lot of profit off their content). Do we allow the concept of a public space to be eroded, taken away, corporatized, lawyered out of existence?

Not in my country, buddy. I do not abide your spin.
 
polfilmblog said:
This is rich (and borderline delusional):

"Photographing people in public per se is not the issue. Filming strangers as part of a commercial endeavor, using their images in your hopefully for-profit product (... blah, blah... to the punchline...)

"PaulWM, news gathering is a totally different kettle of fish from entertainment."

Oh is it!!!!?

FOX "News" is pro-bono now, for the betterment of mankind. No money changing hands there. I forgot television was blessed by The Lord (TM), and is so far above and beyond what mere videographers and filmmakers engage in.

At least your faux moral bullshi* got toned down a notch. What it is is a legal spiderweb, a mishmash of precedents not particularly well thought out or guided by any moral qualms. Pretending otherwise is ridiculous.

If I'm interviewing someone and someone else gets involved, that's their decision to become involved. They have no right to trample on my free speech rights to record whatever I had going on prior. The photographer has rights too. Such is the nature of public space. Perhaps you have a problem with the concept of public space? It sure as hell sounds like you do.

Public space is the issue here (not profit, obviously, as any fool can see TV makes a lot of profit off their content). Do we allow the concept of a public space to be eroded, taken away, corporatized, lawyered out of existence?

Not in my country, buddy. I do not abide your spin.
Click to expand...

The rules regarding rights to privacy, need for releases, etc, are different for news-gathering than for other types of filming/photography.

No one is trampling your free speech rights to record what you wish, EXCEPT you do not have a free speech right to use someone's image without their permission. Your right to free speech does not convey to you the right to trample on other's rights of privacy.
 
Steve House said:
Every single one of those situations I've seen - street scenes such as those of the audition lines waiting to get into Canadian Idol, for example - there is clear signage prominently displayed that filming is taking place and passing beyond the sign constitutes implicit permission to use one's image. Either that, or police officers are controlling vehicle and pedestrian traffic around the location and people are not permitted to walk through the background when cameras are actually rolling. In most features and network episodics, virtually everyone you see in the background who is close enough to be recognizable is a paid extra.
Click to expand...

I'll make a point of observing exactly how this is handled the next time a film or TV show shoots in my area. They're pretty frequent...
 
I've always heard that if you're filming in public you place signs up to say if people walk into that space they're giving their permission to be filmed. This is what I go by. Considering my crews aren't big and don't take up an entire street there's no reason a person can't walk around my scene. In fact I think the law should be changed to "if you see someone shooting and walk in front of the camera it's automatic consent."

-Nate
 
I can tell you for certain that in the many shoots I've walked through here in NYC over the years there has *never* been any kind of a sign to that effect. Not once, in hundreds of instances.
 
Started a thread about something similar but thought I would briefly mention it here. Definitely get a contract when you can. I am two years into filming a military oriented documentary. Had one of the principals sign a tight contract, agreeing to all rights and in perpetuity etc. Two weeks later I get a call from his attorney who said his client wants 5% of the net profits of my film for his 5 minute appearance and telling his story. You can imagine my response but the fact is that even with a contract, you will run into things like this.

Another situation I have is that I attended a very large (350,000 veterans in attendance) gathering in Washinton, D.C. where I filmed the footage of an activist group riding their motorcycles thru the City. Many many crowd scenes. I pulled a permit from the National Park Service to cover my butt. No one however ever asked to see that permit. I have some nice footage of a person speaking to the crowds as he salutes the motorcycles going by. Now can I use that footage without a release??????? at a public event and he is addressing the public??? I am not so sure since my production is a money making endeavor. Any opinions on that.?
 
Ted Spencer said:
Then why are people like me never asked to sign releases after we walk by in the background, cameras rolling, while TV series and feature film crews do their thing (as I described above)?
Click to expand...

One anectdotal story doesn't make anything a law, or a fact.

"Hey, I drove 80MPH down the street today and I didn't get arrested, therefore it must be legal to drive 80MPH down the street!" Give me a break.

Tell me one narrative feature film that you are identifiable in, and we can talk. If your face is identifiable in a theatrically released feature film or nationally televised show and you never signed a release form, I know more than one attorney who would like to speak to you. On the other hand, if you want to pretend that there are a million imaginary films that you think you've been filmed for, but you can't name a single one of them, then your whole argument is out the window.

Please, give us all details about all the films and television shows which contain your image without your permission. We're all waiting for the details. Seriously, tell us more.
 
I was playing pool at a place where they were shooting an independent film. I was so far in the background that I was basically hidden behind all the other people, and they still wanted a waiver.

Lesson: better to be safe than sorry.

But I believe that the first amendment covers the press because they hold press passes from the police department (at least in NY anyway), and really, who would have a problem with being in the background on the 11:00 news? :Drogar-BigGrin(DBG)
 
Thanks for all the hostility, man. Ptooey on you-ey...

As I said previously, it's not "one story", it's dozens, probably a hundred or so over many years in my NYC neighborhood. It is "anecdotal", sure - it's just me talking, and I'm not a lawyer. And as I said later, I'll make a point of studying the exact circumstances, speaking to the crew (they're usually quite willing to communicate), etc., the next time I run across an outdoor film shoot, which will certainly be not long from now.

Until then, you're just going to have to unbunch you shorts all by yourself.

CB_Radio said:
One anectdotal story doesn't make anything a law, or a fact.

"Hey, I drove 80MPH down the street today and I didn't get arrested, therefore it must be legal to drive 80MPH down the street!" Give me a break.

Tell me one narrative feature film that you are identifiable in, and we can talk. If your face is identifiable in a theatrically released feature film or nationally televised show and you never signed a release form, I know more than one attorney who would like to speak to you. On the other hand, if you want to pretend that there are a million imaginary films that you think you've been filmed for, but you can't name a single one of them, then your whole argument is out the window.

Please, give us all details about all the films and television shows which contain your image without your permission. We're all waiting for the details. Seriously, tell us more.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
There are many lawyers out there looking for their next meal ticket. It's best to keep them at bay by being safe. As one attorney said to me, we keep busy because someone thought it'd never happen to them. Not many evade the clutches of the vulture.

The safe way is to set up signs using proper legalize and let people know they are being filmed for a production. One can also have participants sign a document with other participants, much like a petition, so they know they're giving permission to the producers to use their image, likeness, etc... If a camera has people blurred out due to shallow focus DOF then I would imagine they couldn't make a legal claim of harm and damage in a court of law. The judge and jury would view the evidence and conclude the average person could not determine the identity of the blurred image. But it's best to be safe, because just going to court eats up time & money --- and afterall, who wants to waste their life going to court and reading those boring papers, when you can be making movies!

Just remember we live in a highly litigious society in which many use the fine print of the law to line their pockets. E&O issurance needs accurate accounting of all filmed participants for them to insure. why? because they are in the business of making money, not going to court and spending time & money defending projects. No distributor will touch a questionable project and bring upon them lawsuits and financial loss.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top