Jeff Anderson
Custom Title!
just curious, but how is this relevant to the issue in this thread? This wasnt public property and he obviously had no permission from the manager.
manager concerned about footage
- Thread starter lordybob
- Start date
MunchyBugs
Active member
topic has shifted a little...
topic has shifted a little...
I think the story of Disney objecting to their image of mickey on a shirt in a documentary is ridiculously silly. As I understand it, the Supreme Court has upheld that, as long as your portrayal of a company, copyright, etc, does not give the impression of being endorsed or created by that said company, you are free to use that footage. It amazes me when I see people moving coke cans and blurring out NASCAR shirts in post for any other reason than not wanting to give coke and NASCAR free advertising. The Discovery Chanel does it on shirts, etc, because they probably want the company to pay them NOT to remove it. As far as fair use goes, well that extends beyond just satire to social commentary and not for profit use. See http://fairuse.stanford.edu/
As far having footage inside of a company and then having them later tell you that they didn't want to let you do that...kind of seems like trying to remove a contract after it is written and signed to me...especially if the guy is showing you around and giving you a tour on camera, but I don't know much other than the fact that these laws are generally designed to avoid confrontation by avoiding the production of such things in the first place. In a free and open society things would be a lot different, but then again in a free and open society there would be little need for documentaries.
I know some people will disagree with this, but given that documentaries are supposed to be "hard hitting" and "controversial" and talk about things and how they work and what goes on, I would try to play ball with him but know that, if you can't come to an agreement, you can still make the decision to use the footage if you want. I'm not sure of all the specifics of your situation, but I know that if you walk into Wal-Mart and start videotaping things they will kick you out pretty quickly, but that by no means indicates that you can't use the footage you captured. The most they can do to you is try to get you for trespassing, and the statute of limitations on trespassing, in most cases, is 2 years I believe, so, for filmmakers, most of the time when the film ends up coming out in broad release and they find out about it you have nothing to worry about...and even then you are assuming that they will still care, the company will still be in business, or those people will still be working there.
topic has shifted a little...
I think the story of Disney objecting to their image of mickey on a shirt in a documentary is ridiculously silly. As I understand it, the Supreme Court has upheld that, as long as your portrayal of a company, copyright, etc, does not give the impression of being endorsed or created by that said company, you are free to use that footage. It amazes me when I see people moving coke cans and blurring out NASCAR shirts in post for any other reason than not wanting to give coke and NASCAR free advertising. The Discovery Chanel does it on shirts, etc, because they probably want the company to pay them NOT to remove it. As far as fair use goes, well that extends beyond just satire to social commentary and not for profit use. See http://fairuse.stanford.edu/
As far having footage inside of a company and then having them later tell you that they didn't want to let you do that...kind of seems like trying to remove a contract after it is written and signed to me...especially if the guy is showing you around and giving you a tour on camera, but I don't know much other than the fact that these laws are generally designed to avoid confrontation by avoiding the production of such things in the first place. In a free and open society things would be a lot different, but then again in a free and open society there would be little need for documentaries.
I know some people will disagree with this, but given that documentaries are supposed to be "hard hitting" and "controversial" and talk about things and how they work and what goes on, I would try to play ball with him but know that, if you can't come to an agreement, you can still make the decision to use the footage if you want. I'm not sure of all the specifics of your situation, but I know that if you walk into Wal-Mart and start videotaping things they will kick you out pretty quickly, but that by no means indicates that you can't use the footage you captured. The most they can do to you is try to get you for trespassing, and the statute of limitations on trespassing, in most cases, is 2 years I believe, so, for filmmakers, most of the time when the film ends up coming out in broad release and they find out about it you have nothing to worry about...and even then you are assuming that they will still care, the company will still be in business, or those people will still be working there.
David W. Richardson
Chapelgrove Films
Disney, Discovery Channel, et al -- they all have one thing in common: they have very expensive, highly skilled lawyers advising them. If it was as simple as implied here, you can bet Discovery Channel and others wouldn't go to the trouble of blurring these things out. The very fact that they do indicates to me that their lawyers advised them to -- and that's enough to make me concerned.
Talk to a lawyer. Protect yourself.
Talk to a lawyer. Protect yourself.
ESTEBEVERDE
Veteran
just curious, what makes you say that?
He was openly filming.
If they didn't tell him before hand he couldn't film and they didn't tell him to stop when he was filming, what gives them the right to tell him what to do with his footage?
They let him film and he has stated that it is not a narrative but a documentary.
Different rules apply.
ESTEBEVERDE
Veteran
Right, cause they are not shooting documentaries but infotainment.
By your same logic, why does the news not block all copyrighted images out?
This Film Is Not Yet Rated is a good example of the struggle between copyright holders and freedom of press.
Yes, talk to a lawyer, but by the same token, don't be so kowtowed not to exercise your unalienable rights.
If we don't use them we loose them.
ESTEBEVERDE
Veteran
Absolutely.
David W. Richardson
Chapelgrove Films
Good point about the difference between documentaries and infotainment.
By the same token, though, there is a difference between news and documentaries. Taking it further, not everything that's labeled a 'documentary' actually is one -- 'Fahrenheit 9/11' is an example. It's a fine line, to be sure.
I would suggest the person keep in mind that the owners of copyrights and trademarks have rights too. If each side respects the rights of the other, that's a huge step in the right direction.
If it's me, I'm going to consult a lawyer. I'm not going to risk my money, my home, everything I own, my future, and my reputation in the business on the basis of what I think my rights should be. I'm going to make sure I'm on solid ground.
ESTEBEVERDE
Veteran
Actually, I think they are considered one and the same. The difference in format is merely one of semantics. They are most different artistically, but not as to their legal standing with respect to fair use and privacy.
Perhaps you can elaborate a bit more as there very well might be something I am not understanding.
Yes, but the "rights" they have are limited and are granted to them by the people of The United States of America.
They aren't the same as real or personal property rights.
Yes, this sounds like for you, that it would be in your best interest to buy a piece of mind.
I would go even a bit further and tell you that a lawyers advice is merely his understanding and opinion of the law.
Some things are very easily discernible others are not.
If your attorney is incorrect in his assessment of the legal risk you have with a given course of action, you are still on the line.
You can't go to court and say "But, Bob the lawyer told me..."
Doesn't matter except for the fact that Bob's butt is now liable for malpractice if you can prove that was the case. (Hard, but not impossible)
As far as your reputation in business, that is a personal choice you will have to make but bottom line is what you are comfortable with.
Once again, me personally, if I were in a situation where I shot footage for a documentary on private property and they didn't stop me I most certainly use it if it was something meaningful I needed.
All they had to do at anytime was say, we don't want you to film, leave.
I believe if he kept filming, they could prevent him using subsequent footage but not the footage he took without objection. If he didn't leave they could have him arrested for trespass but even then he shouldn't willingly surrender the footage taken before he was asked to stop.
But for them to cry about it after the fact, is too bad too sad.
But, each person will have to make his or her decision based on what they see as the appropriate course of action for themselves.
If they are in doubt they should READ the law.
If they are still in doubt, one of their options is to retain the services of a knowledgeable attorney.
Capt Quirk
Veteran
Way to go Isaac.
David W. Richardson
Chapelgrove Films
Good job! Best of luck.
Jeff Anderson
Custom Title!
well way to make the best of a seemingly bad situation.
ESTEBEVERDE
Veteran
GREAT JOB!
I am very impressed!
That is the way to get the best of both worlds.
I hope you can share your film with us when it's ready.
All the best to you Isaac!
Steve House
Veteran
Pardon jumping into an old thread but noticed this loose end still hanging ... one key difference is the elapsed time between the events being filmed and the publication of the coverage. News coverage is relatively immediate and the stories/images are usually published reasonably contemporaneous to the events. Documentaries, OTOH, tend to be published well after the events are no longer news.
ESTEBEVERDE
Veteran
Thanks for your reply.
As to genre classification that is on the whole more true than not but what in the world does that have to do with "fair use"?
Steve House
Veteran
The conversation was whether the exceptions to the need for releases covering people and locations or the 'fair use' exceptions for copyright materials that cover news coverage would also apply to a documentary. I am not a lawyer but AFAIK they do not - documentaries are not news coverage and the exemptions included under 'fair use' allowed for news reporting do not apply to them.
ESTEBEVERDE
Veteran
I completely disagree as docs are nothing more than long form news.
60 Minutes is a perfect example. It's immaterial that it is broadcast.
Further more, blogger and vloggers have been extended the same status as journalist now.
The whole thing is a moving target but documentary is NONFICTION it is a FIRST AMENDMENT issue plain and simple.
60 Minutes is a perfect example. It's immaterial that it is broadcast.
Further more, blogger and vloggers have been extended the same status as journalist now.
The whole thing is a moving target but documentary is NONFICTION it is a FIRST AMENDMENT issue plain and simple.
Steve House
Veteran
You might disagree but you would be wrong. You can use a photo or footage of a car accident to report the event the morning after without worry about releases but you cannot use the same in a documentary about auto safety or dangerous drivers or an expose critical of the auto industry or an advertisment for auto insurance without releases from all concerned. And none of it has anything to do with First Amendment rights to free speech or freedom of the press. Documentaries have generally been held by the courts not to be news reportage because news by its nature is immediate and proximate to the event while documentaries are not.
You think '60 Minutes' doesn't get releases???? Why do you think 'Cops' blurs so many logos, trademarks, and background faces? They're documentary coverage of news-type events in usually public places but since it's not "news" under the law because broadcast is so far removed in time from the event they need releases for any recognizable images anhd I know for a fact they get signed releases (believe it or not) from everyone recognizable who appears on camera, even the perps.
Last edited:
ESTEBEVERDE
Veteran
Whoaaaa slow down man.
Commercials are COMMERCIAL not documentaries.
You are either obfuscating by bringing commercials into the discussion or you are not clear at all on what the issue is.
The issue is indeed freedom of speech and ones RIGHT to Free Speech.
We are specifically talking about non-fiction documentary work and "news" which is actually a documentary form. Nothing else.
Cops does indeed get releases because they made an individual choice to mitigate their exposure.
That is all.
There is no US Law that requires releases or that would prevent them form showing their footage.
They run into problems because they follow the police onto and into private residences which does indeed expose them to civil and criminal liability (Trespass).
If they stayed on the public right of ways and filmed from there they would have a much lower need to mitigate their liability with releases.
And, FYI, a release doesn't prevent you from getting sued. Not in the least. They merely help you defend an action.
60 minutes on the other hands gets releases when they can but not always. And, they have been sued.
Bottom line is there is criminal and civil law.
A documentarian is protected by the First Amendment.
If you are saying they are not then please post the appropriate statutes or case laws and quite bringing irrelevant things like commercials into it.
Steve House
Veteran
You are correct on that - whether one needs releases or not in a certain circumstance or whether inclusion of copyright materials would be covered by the 'Fair Use' doctrine is a matter of case law, not statute. And except for laws regardling tresspass are civil matters, not criminal. But case law and doctrine does treat news coverage and documentaries differently in such matters, with news having fewer restrictions than other types of production. Your assertion that a documentary producer will be covered by the same exceptions and 'Fair Use' provisions as news reportage is incorrect, no matter how stubbornly you wish it to be otherwise.
By the way, 'Fair Use' has nothing to do with whether releases are needed for images of people or locations. 'Fair Use' is a defense against assertions of copyright infringment and deals with the inclusion of copyrighted materials in one's work and the need for license from the copyright owner.