release forms?

[Martin Landsburg]

Hi I was just wondering at what point one needs a release form from someone?
I always thought that technically, it is when someone's face is clearly recognizable in the footage.

So what about a video like Philip Bloom's People of Dublin? Did he get all the people to sign a release form? (don't mean to be annoying, just wondering as I'd like to shoot something similar)

If so what about video journalism? Certainly if you are shooting let's say, a riot, you can't go and ask the friendly rioters to sign your release form...

Or shooting live events? Or weddings? Situations in which you must get the people's faces clearly visible on screen, yet won't have a real opportunity to get a signature (or it wouldn't be feasible)

Martin

 

[ydgmdlu]

The answer is: If you think that you could be sued, get release forms signed to cover yourself. But many people, particularly journalists and documentarians, have gotten away with shooting into crowds without release forms.

For public venues, I've often seen filmmakers post signs that say, "By being in this space you agree to be filmed" in order to cover themselves. Do whatever you need to do.

 

[Martin Landsburg]

thanks ydgmdlu!

I guess that makes sense.
However I can see how some people might agree to one thing (verbally or written) and claim the opposite later on anyway, so there's never any real way to be 100% safe I reckon.
For instance, in the Dubliner's film, perhaps some people agreed to be filmed and then claimed they were under the influence the day after, causing defamation or for them to lose their job or whatever...Luckily, I don't live in a litigation culture, but I can see how that can be an issue in the US or increasingly in Europe...

 

[morgan_moore]

Im UK based and a press photographer - so my knowledge is limited on commercial use

In the UK one can film in a public place (certain exceptions like militarty perimiters)

One only has problems when one portrays a person in a commercial way

eg pap footage of Jo Lo with a Can of Coke could be used on the news but not in an advert

if footage libels some one they can sue

eg footage of a man walking down the street - fine

same footage with a caption or commentary saying "here is Jim the peodeophile" would cause problems if not a provably true statement

I have photographed a lot of drunk people one specific girl got the hump and tried to sue a national paper that ran the image

But the paper was telling the truth - she was out on the town - thats all they actually said, any one who drew drunk conclusions from the images was purely drawing their own conclusion from the true unaltered image

she had no case

pic

my understanding of commercial endorsement is if the person is 'significant' in the image

say you filmed a large pop festival, and one of the crowd got the hump they would have no case if they were one of thousands, but may have a case if they were 'significant' in the image

I appear on Queen Live at Knebworth Album cover - among another 100,000 people, they did not need my release because I am not a significant portion of the image

Photographing minors - ALWAYS needs permission

S

 

[Michael Olsen]

It is always worthwhile to check the local laws and regulations. Some places will make you pack up and give you a very fun fine if you don't have the right permit(s).

 

[xbourque]

France and Québec have the most stringent laws regarding "Droit à l'image".

Montreal photographer Gilbert Duclos got burnt by publishing the photo of a girl sitting on the stairs of a downtown bank.

http://www.montrealmirror.com/2005/080405/news1.html

The case went all the way to the supreme court. He lost, even though it was proven that the girl was in a public place and that she suffered no significant damages to her reputation (the photo appeared in a poetry magazine).

He made a movie about the whole situation called "La rue zone interdite" (Street off limits):

http://www.gilbertduclos.com/docu_new1.html

--X