manager concerned about footage

[mrWr0ng]

I'm not a lawyer, but I would imagine one of the big, big differences between news and documentaries is that documentaries are a personal for-profit venture while the news is actually part of the public trust of the airwaves, and is meant to inform citizens (this may be treated different since commercials now make up so much of the news but I don't know if it implies a legal distinction). In other words, it is the tv station's job to report the news in return for being entrusted to the airwaves on which they broadcast, while a documentary filmmaker is making the film in order to push their own career.

 

[ESTEBEVERDE]

I'm not a lawyer, but I would imagine one of the big, big differences between news and documentaries is that documentaries are a personal for-profit venture while the news is actually part of the public trust of the airwaves, and is meant to inform citizens (this may be treated different since commercials now make up so much of the news but I don't know if it implies a legal distinction). In other words, it is the tv station's job to report the news in return for being entrusted to the airwaves on which they broadcast, while a documentary filmmaker is making the film in order to push their own career.

Incorrect... Incorrect... Incorrect...

This has nothing to do with this whatsoever.

Not even close.



I am going to move to a different thread as this thread is not the appropriate forum for our current line of discourse.

 

[ESTEBEVERDE]

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.

You are incorrect and mixing again.

Fair use does indeed include images of buildings (while not on that owners property) and use of "previously recorded" images of people. This is a property rights issue.

Privacy pertains to using the images of people in PRIVATE places and to a much much lesser extent public places. This is purely a privacy right issue.


This thread was helpful but to be meaningful, the topics need to be discussed in detail in their individual dedicated threads.

Here are the threads for:

Privacy Rights

Fair Use

 

[Steve House]

You are incorrect and mixing again.

Fair use does indeed include images of buildings (while not on that owners property) and use of "previously recorded" images of people. This is a property rights issue.

Privacy pertains to using the images of people in PRIVATE places and to a much much lesser extent public places. This is purely a privacy right issue.


This thread was helpful but to be meaningful, the topics need to be discussed in detail in their individual dedicated threads.

Here are the threads for:

Privacy Rights

Fair Use

Fair use considerations might be involved in the re-use of images of people or place because those images would be covered by copyright and 'fair use' is a defense against allegations of copyright infringment. It deals with issues surrounding whether one needs permission from the copyright owner of an image (or a song or a writing) in order to use it in your own production. But my comments all along have been directed to the post that implied a documentary producer could film people and locations, making original images of them, with impunity because the doctrine of 'fair use' grants documentary fillmakers immunity from the normal property rights and privacy issues that give rise to the need for releases. "Fair Use" doctrine does NOT deal with privacy issues in any way, nor does it deal with property rights except for the intellectual property rights of copyright owners and that's what I have been saying, in part, all along.

And in regard to property and privacy issues, I can only reiterate that the exceptions to the rules regarding when releases are required in order to be able to use the images of people and places that one has created (and thus one already owns the copyright to) that are generally accorded to news coverage do not extend to documentary producers because [as I have been told by attorneys who have delt in such matters] documentaries have generally not been considered to be news reporting by the courts.

The OP was shooting in a radio station, private property. It's true that if he wished to use a picture of the outside of the station taken from a public location it's likely he would not need a release. But if he filmed inside, to protect himself in the event he was sued alleging violation of privacy and property rights, he should obtain property releases from the station management and personal releases from anyone appearing on-camera, and if they refuse to grant those releases he probably shouldn't use the images he made. 'Fair use' doctrine doesn't speak to those issues at all so it does not constitute a defense against invasion of privacy should he be sued, while the fact he is making a documentary instead of a fiction piece or a commercial doesn't make it 'news' with its more relaxed rules regarding privacy rights either. Telling the OP that 'fair use' gave him permission to use his footage regardless and not to worry about it if his subjects or the building management balked at granting a release because you don't need 'em for documentaries was bad advice.

 

[ESTEBEVERDE]

Hey Steve

Thanks so much for your reply.

I have moved to the appropriate threads for further discussion.

Privacy Rights

Fair Use

All the Best.

Estebe

 

[J Michael]

The people makng the doc were informed by Disney people (or so the story goes), that the footage with her wearing the shirt had to go, because Disney didn't want their image being associated with a woman who talks about having been a prostitute (hello?...Touchstone..Pretty Woman...). The producers explained that the woman had cleaned up her act, and her story was positive, but they were adamant...no Mickey on an ex-hooker's chest. In the end, the shirt was blurred out.

No Mickey on a hooker's chest? Now that's just goofy. :2vrolijk_08:

 

[ESTEBEVERDE]

Actually, that would most likely have fallen under Fair Use. But I do love the innuendo! :thumbsup: