How does Dog the Bounty Hunter, COPS, Cheaters and Dateline NBC pull it off?

D

dalethompson

Well-known member
Being Canadian, I'm wondering how Dog the Bounty Hunter, COPS, Cheaters and shows like Dateline NBC (to catch a pedophile) pull off showing someone on camera without getting a release?

Do they pay these people to sign off on a release or what are the laws in these particular U.S. States that allow them to video people in public without getting their release or paying them to appear?

I sometimes watch these shows, some faces are blurred out, others not. I'm I assuming the ones blurred out didn't get a release or are a minor?

Can someone clarify this? Canadian law is different somewhat I think, no release needed if the person is in a public area or domain.
 
Pretty sure you hit the nail on the head. The blurred faces wouldn't sign a release, the unblurred would. Some people will do anything to get on TV I suppose.

In the US, you need a release from people, even in a public area, unless they are notified. When I used to work at an aquarium in the av dept, we would regularly film cultural events on the premises, and since some would make their way to the news, we would post signs at the entrance essentially telling people they are allowing their face to be on TV if they get caught by the camera.
 
I'm confused, I thought here in Canada you also need a release in the public? As far as I know the only thing you don't need a release for is "crowds" where there's no one specifically that stands out.

If they're singled out, you need a release form. That's what I gather when working on docs and the one reality show here in Canada.
 
Bryant:

I've heard California laws are more strict, most likely because of Hollywood and the whole celebrity stalking thing by photographers. You're correct though if you post a sign saying you are filming and someone walks into that scene, they've consented to be in it.

Jon:

I thought that was true too and I guess the misconception is that if you single out anyone you need to get a release. However, in researching something recently on privacy laws here in Ontario, I found out from a lawyer who specializes in privacy that a release is not needed. His determination is that it's not what you shoot, it's what you add to it (ie voiceover, assumption or making the clip part of a sequence or story that shows them in either an unflattering light or causes innuendo/speculation about the person's character. For instance, you couldn't use a clip of someone walking down the street and then put it into a story about drugs or prostitution because it's causes insinuation to viewers the person is involved in this type of activity or behaviour. However, you could use the same clip of someone if you were doing a story about the Summer weather or how walking leads to happiness or something like that.

After consulting with this lawyer, I think it makes total sense. How would the news be able to show someone on camera (ie a criminal, suspect or even someone in a demonstration, event etc.) without getting their consent? This person explained we all have our picture taken or image filmed up to 20 times per day, if you count going to the bank machine, office buildings, public parking garages, malls and even on street corners. Therefore, the assumption is that if you are in public, then you should be aware your image could be filmed at any time. Now, that's not saying someone could take your image and use it for their own personal use to promote a business or advertising but the right of the photographer and videographer in public is to be able to film something without having someone sign a release if they happen to appear in it.

Mind you, this is in Ontario, the laws in Quebec or anywhere else may be different.

Bottom line: Image in public is OK, putting that image to something which leads to speculation or assumption of something unflattering, illegal or simply untrue, not allowed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top