Releases from someone other than the person being interviewed

TwistedLincoln

TwistedLincoln

Veteran
If I'm interviewing someone for a documentary, I'll of course need a release from them. But do I also need some kind of release from their employer, if I'm interviewing them about something related to their job?

Made-up example: I interview John Smith, who works at a factory, about the growing innovation and technology using in the manufacturing industry. He in no way discusses any trade secrets or proprietary info about his particular workplace, but in order for his opinions to be relevant, I must introduce him as "John Smith, supervising manager of ABC Factory." I'll be interviewing him at my own location after business hours. Does someone from ABC Factory still have to sign off on the interview? Assume that John is not saying anything negative, and isn't at risk of losing his job for doing this. So he's basically covered -- but am I?

Thoughts?
 
It depends. Is the employee bound be an agreement pertaining to giving interviews and making statements? For example, many companies do not permit employees to give interviews about things pertaining to their jobs unless it has been cleared by the PR and/or legal department. I've had at least two such jobs in my career. You forfeit an element of free speech in exchange for your job.

Real life example: Most police departments do not permit officers to speak with the press about active cases. That info has to be filtered through the PR office. It's right in the Patrol Guide, no public statements. If they are caught they can be disciplined.

Now that won't affect you so much but it could be bad news for the employee who granted you the interview. They could lose their job if they are bound by such an agreement. On top of that, you could (emphasis on Could) get tangled up in the disagreement between the employer and employee if such an agreement were violated.

The safest thing to do is to have an open and honest discussion with the person you plan to interview. Let them do the legwork and find out if the company has such a rule. Include the company representative as an added measure particularly if you know it will paint a flattering picture. Heck they may even let you film on location.

Cheers,
 
TwistedLincoln said:
If I'm interviewing someone for a documentary, I'll of course need a release from them. But do I also need some kind of release from their employer, if I'm interviewing them about something related to their job?

Made-up example: I interview John Smith, who works at a factory, about the growing innovation and technology using in the manufacturing industry. He in no way discusses any trade secrets or proprietary info about his particular workplace, but in order for his opinions to be relevant, I must introduce him as "John Smith, supervising manager of ABC Factory." I'll be interviewing him at my own location after business hours. Does someone from ABC Factory still have to sign off on the interview? Assume that John is not saying anything negative, and isn't at risk of losing his job for doing this. So he's basically covered -- but am I?

Thoughts?
Click to expand...

DISCLAIMER:

Legal Information Is Not Legal Advice

This thread's sole purpose it to discuss information and experiences in regards to who is a Journalist in the eyes of "the law" and is for informal purposes only and is no way, shape, form, or fashion intended to give legal advice. No information contained herein should be considered legal advice under any circumstances.

"Legal information" is not the same as "legal advice" -- the application of law to an individual's specific circumstances. If you have the need for legal advice it is recommend you consult a duly qualified attorney if you want professional assurance that any information contained herein, and your interpretation of it, is appropriate to your particular situation.


Well, why in the world would you possibly be obligated to get a release from his employer.

That makes no sense what soever unless you are conspiring to "steal" trade secrets and you've already said it isn't.

Slavery has been abolished. No one owns another person here in the United States and YOU don't need permission for him to appear from his employer.

There is one caveat here that I am aware of and that is for military personnel. You can still do any interview you want, but under certain circumstances them just saying I am John Doe and I work for Lima Company 1st Marines can indeed be a crime if they involved in a program that requires anonymity to guard State Secrets. Same with CIA et all but they fall under different laws.


I would highly recommend you contacting an attorney. An aggressive, well seasoned, knowledgeable attorney who specializes in clearance and 1st Amendment rights to answer your specific questions.

There are also many resources available from Law Schools and 1st Amendment advocacy groups.

Links to just a few of these can be found in:

Privacy Rights

Fair Use

What is News? Who is a Journalist?



As always, all the best and happy filming!
 
Bobonli said:
....

The safest thing to do is to have an open and honest discussion with the person you plan to interview. Let them do the legwork and find out if the company has such a rule. Include the company representative as an added measure particularly if you know it will paint a flattering picture. Heck they may even let you film on location.

Cheers,
Click to expand...


Great Advice!
 
ESTEBEVERDE said:
DISCLAIMER:

Legal Information Is Not Legal Advice

This thread's sole purpose it to discuss information and experiences in regards to who is a Journalist in the eyes of "the law" and is for informal purposes only and is no way, shape, form, or fashion intended to give legal advice. No information contained herein should be considered legal advice under any circumstances.

"Legal information" is not the same as "legal advice" -- the application of law to an individual's specific circumstances. If you have the need for legal advice it is recommend you consult a duly qualified attorney if you want professional assurance that any information contained herein, and your interpretation of it, is appropriate to your particular situation.


Well, why in the world would you possibly be obligated to get a release from his employer.

That makes no sense what soever unless you are conspiring to "steal" trade secrets and you've already said it isn't.

Slavery has been abolished. No one owns another person here in the United States and YOU don't need permission for him to appear from his employer.

There is one caveat here that I am aware of and that is for military personnel. You can still do any interview you want, but under certain circumstances them just saying I am John Doe and I work for Lima Company 1st Marines can indeed be a crime if they involved in a program that requires anonymity to guard State Secrets. Same with CIA et all but they fall under different laws.


I would highly recommend you contacting an attorney. An aggressive, well seasoned, knowledgeable attorney who specializes in clearance and 1st Amendment rights to answer your specific questions.

There are also many resources available from Law Schools and 1st Amendment advocacy groups.

Links to just a few of these can be found in:

Privacy Rights

Fair Use

What is News? Who is a Journalist?



As always, all the best and happy filming!
Click to expand...


A few thoughts...

It's more complicated than just the "legality" of it all. Seems like this gets lost on some people. There's ethics too, and as a documentary filmmaker that's pretty damn important. So, although something might be perfectly "legal," it could still get the guy fired depending on was his employment contract says, what he actually says on camera, what you use, etc. Remember, most people are employed "at will," so regardless of his emplyment contract, he could potentially get fired.

So, the best advice has already been stated, which is to discuss this openly with the potential interviewee. It's important for them to make their own decision, so if things don't go as planned down the road, it was all up and out in the open from the start. The downside of course, is you could scare him/her away from the interview. But that's a better scenario than getting the guy fired over something he didn't think completely through.

I personally believe that you, as the filmmaker, need to help bring these types of questions up so the interviewee can make an informed decision. But again, this is a balance between getting the interview, getting something you can use, and the possible ramifications to the interviewee. If it's no big deal, then don't make it one. But if it could be, then you owe it to your interviewee to discuss. Also, don't forget, it's easy to do the interview in a way that doesn't divulge who they are either, but that's often not as powerful.
 
Tainted said:
A few thoughts...

It's more complicated than just the "legality" of it all. Seems like this gets lost on some people. There's ethics too, and as a documentary filmmaker that's pretty damn important. So, although something might be perfectly "legal," it could still get the guy fired depending on was his employment contract says, what he actually says on camera, what you use, etc. Remember, most people are employed "at will," so regardless of his emplyment contract, he could potentially get fired.

So, the best advice has already been stated, which is to discuss this openly with the potential interviewee. It's important for them to make their own decision, so if things don't go as planned down the road, it was all up and out in the open from the start. The downside of course, is you could scare him/her away from the interview. But that's a better scenario than getting the guy fired over something he didn't think completely through.

I personally believe that you, as the filmmaker, need to help bring these types of questions up so the interviewee can make an informed decision. But again, this is a balance between getting the interview, getting something you can use, and the possible ramifications to the interviewee. If it's no big deal, then don't make it one. But if it could be, then you owe it to your interviewee to discuss. Also, don't forget, it's easy to do the interview in a way that doesn't divulge who they are either, but that's often not as powerful.
Click to expand...


Yes... some do get their ethics in a bind.

First and foremost the filmmaker needs to advocate for themselves and their story.

They most certainly do not need to handhold grown men and women of sound body and mind. They are more than capable of being responsible for themselves.


If it is a fluff piece then by all means engage in the public affairs game with the company and they will more than likely not only grant you access but do all in their power to help make the story the best it possibly can be.

If, on the other hand, it is a story that has a compelling public interest, say government waste fraud and abuse, or a private company illegally or immorally behaving... you are indeed morally bound to bring light to the matter. Failure to do so is tacit approval.


There is no need to recklessly put someone at risk, but it is even more immoral to shy away from your responsibility as not only an equal member in a democracy but as a human being.
 
The basic principles of the U.S. Society of Professional Journalists:
  • Seek truth and report it.
    Journalists should be honest, fair, and courageous in gathering, reporting, and interpreting information
  • Minimize harm.
    Ethical journalists treat sources, subjects, and colleagues as human beings deserving of respect.
  • Act independently.
    Journalists should be free of obligation to any interest other than the public's right to know.
  • Be accountable.
    Journalists are accountable to their readers, listeners, viewers, and each other.
 
ESTEBEVERDE said:
If, on the other hand, it is a story that has a compelling public interest, say government waste fraud and abuse, or a private company illegally or immorally behaving... you are indeed morally bound to bring light to the matter. Failure to do so is tacit approval.


There is no need to recklessly put someone at risk, but it is even more immoral to shy away from your responsibility as not only an equal member in a democracy but as a human being.
Click to expand...

I believe what Tainted was talking about is as a filmmaker you have a responsibility to fully inform your subject of the possible repercussion before you commit anything on film. If someone isn't aware that what they're saying can get them fired, then you need to inform them of the possibility. He's not saying ignore the story, he's saying that in pursuing the story you need to be mindful of the people involved.
 
I couldn't disagree with you more.

Do you think grown adults of sound body and mind are people that are idiots and are not aware of their own responsibilities?

It is their responsibilities to weigh their own words and what impact it might have on their life.

They do not need to be mollycoddled or to be subjected to your version of "the way the world is" a primer on right wrong and the implications of our interview.

You do owe them the degree of respect and openness that they warrant. But that is it.

You most certainly are not under any obligation to them as to giving them legal, life, or career advice. It is not only condescending but pure folly as it crosses the line between responsible journalism and manipulation.


With that said, there are circumstances where you must make additional accommodations when dealing with those persons who cannot legally contract for themselves. This could be a child or an adult who doesn't have the legal capacity to contract due to lack of "mental capacity"

Here you are under both a legal and moral obligation to seek out this persons guardian and conduct all business through them.

Morally, you must go even further and give special consideration as to the impact the story might have on their life.


But, that is the only exception I can possibly think of.
 
My point (and I believed Tainted's original point) is this:

You: "Hi, I like to interview you about your company's recent stock trading scandal."

Employee: "Oh, ok"

You: "I would like to inform you that your interview will be part of a documentary called The Next Enron and that it will air nationwide. You would also be identified by name."

Employee: "Uh, nevermind then, I don't want to get fire."

You: "Alright then, thanks anyway."
 
jade8472 said:
My point (and I believed Tainted's original point) is this:

You: "Hi, I like to interview you about your company's recent stock trading scandal."

Employee: "Oh, ok"

You: "I would like to inform you that your interview will be part of a documentary called The Next Enron and that it will air nationwide. You would also be identified by name."

Employee: "Uh, nevermind then, I don't want to get fire."

You: "Alright then, thanks anyway."
Click to expand...



That's pretty damn good!




Perhaps another way would be to say:


You: "Hi, I like to interview you about your company's recent stock trading scandal."

Employee: "O.K."

You: "I am making a documentary and hopefully it will do well and make it to the big screen or at the very least, cable.

Here is a release form that covers our interview."

Employee: "Uh, wow... there is a lot of legal mumbo jumbo here. I don't understand it."

You: "It says that I can use our interview for movies, t.v. internet... etc... that way I am not tied to just medium."

Employee: "Are you going to pay me."

You: "No... I can't it would be too expensive. LOL...Smile. (See, you don't even mention that it is also unethical cause he's a grown ass man and should already know this. If he doesn't know this, he doesn't want or need to hear it from you at this particular moment.)

You: "But hey, you can invest in the project if you want." /joking tone (Not really. You both know this. It was just a joke to put him at ease and an opportunity to share a smile.

Employee: "Alright, let's do this."


You covered all of your bases. Especially under these circumstances I would want a release but paradoxically, I would also be less likely to need one as this is a very newsworthy event I was covering.

Also, if I saw Kenneth Lee Lay "A.K.A. Ken devout Republican Christian Lay"on the street I would most definitely start rolling. I wouldn't ask anything other than "WTF! Kenny?!?!?!" kind of questions.
 
If you're suggesting what I think you're suggesting then it's the very definition of unethical journalism. Assuming we're still going off on my scandal example, then you're deliberately being evasive in order to get the story. "He's a grown adult and should already be aware of what he's getting into" is simply a BS excuse. You need to be honest with what you're going to be doing with the interview so that your subject has all the information he needs to make an informed decision. The end doesn't justify the means.
 
I haven't the slightest idea of what you are thinking.

But, I do think you are at least trying to be sincere in your argument so I will most definitely consider anything you suggest.

Please, tell me what information I am leaving out?

How are we not informing our interviewee?
 
jade8472 said:
If you're suggesting what I think you're suggesting then it's the very definition of unethical journalism. Assuming we're still going off on my scandal example, then you're deliberately being evasive in order to get the story. "He's a grown adult and should already be aware of what he's getting into" is simply a BS excuse. You need to be honest with what you're going to be doing with the interview so that your subject has all the information he needs to make an informed decision. The end doesn't justify the means.
Click to expand...


Are you talking about this!?!?!


ESTEBEVERDE said:
...

Employee: "Are you going to pay me."

You: "No... I can't it would be too expensive. LOL...Smile. (See, you don't even mention that it is also unethical cause he's a grown ass man and should already know this. If he doesn't know this, he doesn't want or need to hear it from you at this particular moment.)

...
Click to expand...


Are you seriously saying that if someone asked me to pay them for an interview it is unethical to say no!?!?!

Are you saying that it is unethical to not tell them they are slimy for wanting to be paid for their interview?!?!

I don't understand what you are saying so I will give you the benefit of the doubt and let you clarify.
 
No, that has nothing to do with it. I wasn't talking about payment. What I am talking about is in your version you mentioned nothing about your intended use of the interview footage. I'm not even sure if you were joking in that entire response or not. If it's not a joke then it came across like you're being deliberately evasive about your purpose in order to obtain the interview. That's what we were talking about all along. You have to be honest with regards to what you intend to do with the footage so that whoever you're interviewing will have a good basis for deciding whether they want to be interview or not.
 
jade8472 said:
...

What I am talking about is in your version you mentioned nothing about your intended use of the interview footage.

...
Click to expand...


I did indeed disclose both the purpose and the possible uses AND even provided a release form.


ESTEBEVERDE said:
...

You: "Hi, I like to interview you about your company's recent stock trading scandal."

Employee: "O.K."

You: "I am making a documentary and hopefully it will do well and make it to the big screen or at the very least, cable.

Here is a release form that covers our interview." ...
Click to expand...


That's pretty plain and clear.

I make no promises I cannot keep nor do I give false hope or promise to be his advocate.
 
hmmm....asking for payment to give an interview is slimey ? .....hmmmm

I seriously doubt this if the things that are said in the interview are key to success of the film and add value and otherwise unobtainable vlaue to the film !
I think many" journalists" are slimey too ;-)
 
ESTEBEVERDE said:
You: "Hi, I like to interview you about your company's recent stock trading scandal."
Click to expand...

I didn't catch the word scandal in there and so was not on your side when first reading this. Someone giving an interview, though, should catch that one and be worried if the repercussions of talking about negative things could be bad. That's actually a little more specific than the title and purpose of the documentary.

It is, however, unethical to call someone slimy for wanting an interview. It's perfectly reasonable to assume that someone making a documentary expects to get paid for it; there's no reason that person should think they're the only ones entitled to any profit, especially when all those contributing people are the only reason he/she got anything.
 
Casalen said:
I didn't catch the word scandal in there and so was not on your side when first reading this. Someone giving an interview, though, should catch that one and be worried if the repercussions of talking about negative things could be bad. That's actually a little more specific than the title and purpose of the documentary.

It is, however, unethical to call someone slimy for wanting an interview. It's perfectly reasonable to assume that someone making a documentary expects to get paid for it; there's no reason that person should think they're the only ones entitled to any profit, especially when all those contributing people are the only reason he/she got anything.
Click to expand...

Paying for interviews is exceptionally slimy and absolutely invalidates the persons interview.

They will be criticized and rightfully so for saying what the interviewer wants to hear.


Slimly and wholly unethical beyond recourse.
 
ESTEBEVERDE said:
Paying for interviews is exceptionally slimy and absolutely invalidates the persons interview.

They will be criticized and rightfully so for saying what the interviewer wants to hear.


Slimly and wholly unethical beyond recourse.
Click to expand...

wow !

I AM GETING PAID FOR INTERVIEWS ! I AM AN EXPERT IN CERTAIN SENSITIVE SECURITY ISSUES AND A LOT OF TV STATIONS PAID ME WELL FOR SAYING WHAT I KNOW.

THANKS FOR CALLING THAT SLIMEY !

NOW TRY TO INTERVIEW ME :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top