Under the Skin and copyright

P

Paper_bag

Active member
Hi, was really curious to know if anyone had any insight into the copyright situation of Under the Skin.

So, this is a movie with Scarlett Johnansson, filmed in Glasgow through lots of hidden cameras, as she walks around the streets and interacts with real people.

Instantly I think: but hang on -- copyright releases for all the "actors" in the film? Location releases for shops they walk into?

I'm assuming that the production company, even if they got location releases, couldn't have got releases for the dozens of civilians who appear in the film, sometimes part of the main action (for instance, helping up Scarlett when she falls) with their faces clearly seen.

So is what the production company did legal?

Would it fall under some sort of documentary or "in public place" exception, such that copyright releases aren't required?

But aren't you making money from someone's "acting" and their images, without their express permission?
 
Immediate disclaimer, IANAL. Further, copyright varies in various jurisdictions and I wouldn't have a clue or care about Scotland. For Australia, there's a very good summary of the legal situation at http://4020.net/words/photorights.php, summed up generally by "In Australia most forms of "unauthorised" photography have in fact been authorised since the 1937 High Court decision in Victoria Park Racing v. Taylor (1937) 58 CLR 479 (at p.496). This was reaffirmed recently in ABC v Lenah (2001) HCA 63, where the Court ruled that despite the passage of decades since Victoria Park, any concept of a Tort of invasion of privacy still does not exist in Australia. But of course it's way more complicated than that. (Peripherally relevant: Your query reminded me of Steve Martin's "Bowfinger" where an A list actor unknowingly stars in a hidden camera film. Required viewing for all indie film makers.)
 
If they could get Scarlet Johannson in their movie, they probably could get a small team of folks following after the crew, getting everyone visibly featured in the footage to sign releases.

Not saying they DID, but they could have. I was VFX sup on a Dave Chappelle promo where at some point he roamed and chatted to the public and that's what we did: there were folks who were following behind, getting everyone whose face was visible to give us permission. Some people didn't. So we didn't use that footage.

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com
 
I always think about this when I see the US television show "The Amazing Race." I've read that each 2 person team of contestants has a camera op and a sound person with them at all times. When I see the contestants sprinting through an airport or something I always think about the poor camera guy running too :-)

But, I can't believe they have the staff or time to get releases from everyone encountered as they run through a street in Switzerland, etc. Yet, you do see a small percentage (I'd guess about 2%) of the passers by they encounter with a face blurred out. Maybe they can get by because it's almost always a public place, but if someone specifically objects they have that on camera and do the blurring??? Just curious.
 
In Canada there is no expectation of privacy in a public space so unless your being featured or the main focal point they don't need waivers. ie running through the streets.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top