Releases

[Andrew Banks]

A friend was planning to shoot an independent, fictional movie at a public high school that he was in fact a teacher at. (He wants to make movies full time, but you've got to pay the bills.) The principal and many faculty were aware of it, and he had gotten permission from the principal for his little comedy. To make a long story short, there would be times where filming a person without a release might be at least a risk. For example, you're shooting one of your actors outside and a pedestrian walks by in the background. Or, as he in fact talked about doing intentionally, getting crowd shots in the hallway as students walked to class. In this last case, it would be very difficult for him to acquire releases from whoever might cross in front of his camera.

 

First, disregard two technicalities. (1) Disregard the problem that all of these unreleased persons are under 18, that even if he did get their own permissions he might still be liable if he does not for every one of them also get a signature of a parent. (2) Know that of course that I agree that if it were the case that if he had the budget of a regular theatrical release -- $30 million or so -- that he would have no excuse for not hiring extras, have a release from and control over every person, practically every photon, that bounces into his camera. He might even shoot in a studio instead of a real hallway.

 

Is it wrong for him to do this? Suppose that he shoots in such a way that anyone without a release is difficult, if not impossible, to identify. For example, the pedestrian who walks in the background is so small and out of focus that if he saw the film he might not know it was himself. And the students in the hallway, we're just getting hands and feet and no faces.

 

I guess the question boils down to, is there something sacred about the light that bounces off someone's hand, foot, body, so that someone should not be able to film it without my permission (at least for a commercial production), even if no one would know it's my hand? Or is the law about releases more about if I am just recognizable, more about the situation where somehow my face wound up in a film that was pro-death-penalty while I wasn't, or something.

 

Don't even some theatrically released features "steal" shots? I read that Sophia Coppola used a small 35mm camera to "steal" night shots in Japan, like out in public in a taxi or something.

 

You know if you steal a pack of gum it's wrong even if you don't get caught. But is the case the same in regard to permissions? Do people own -- unless they sign it away -- images made from the light reflected off their bodies and property?

Edited December 18, 2004 by Andrew Banks

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

I've read that in the UK at least you don't hold any rights in your own image. That doesn't affect the release form situation, and even as a documentary cameraman (which is what I most frequently am) I would not shoot children without parental consent. For example, I recently shot the opening of a sign-language interpretation service at a cinema; we avoided shooting children at the request of the management. I don't know if the US is currently as retentive about the treatment of children as the UK is, but it may be a risk worth avoiding.

 

Phil

[Guest Frank Gossimier]

It's really a gray area.

 

The news media for instance can point a camera down a busy street and air the video with no releases signed by the people seen in the footage. But the news media can get away with any thing they want under the first amendment in the USA.

 

On the back of the ticket you get when you go to be in the live audience of Jay Leno or David Letterman, it says that you acknowledge your image may appear on TV. They can then use your image legally even though they don't have a signed release on hand for you.

 

I was at a casino in Vegas once and they where shooting a TV show set in Vegas. They had big signs up that said, "If you walk in this area you may be seen on TV." ie in the background of a shot. This gives people a warning and allows them to stay clear of the area if they choose not to be seen.

 

Back ground kids in a high school could be tricky for a non-news orientated piece. The news media are given much more "room" than commercial filmmakers.

 

Also, what are the realities that this film will be seen by any significant audience? Most low budget films never get seen by any one, so if the tree falls in the forrest and there's no one there to hear it, does it make a sound?

 

What do you mean by this exactly....

 

"Don't even some theatrically released features "steal" shots? I read that Sophia Coppola used a small 35mm camera to "steal" night shots in Japan, like out in public in a taxi or something."

 

Do you mean the shots of Tokyo at night? Do you mean the people or the buildings?

 

In the USA for instance the courts have ruled that building owners can not protect the exterior of their building when filmed from public property. Even if the shot is for commercial use.

 

See, Rock and Roll Hall Of Fame vs Charles Gentile.

 

Frank

[Brad Grimmett]

On the back of the ticket you get when you go to be in the live audience of Jay Leno or David Letterman, it says that you acknowledge your image may appear on TV.  They can then use your image legally even though they don't have a signed release on hand for you.

 

I was at a casino in Vegas once and they where shooting a TV show set in Vegas.  They had big signs up that said, "If you walk in this area you may be seen on TV." ie in the background of a shot.  This gives people a warning and allows them to stay clear of the area if they choose not to be seen.

 

Frank

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't think anything like that works here for two reasons: 1. Most of the kids aren't 18. 2. They aren't at school by choice, and they didn't buy a ticket to be there. They can't just "leave the area". They HAVE to be in certain areas where you might be shooting. So it's not fair to just say, "If you don't want to be in the movie, don't come in this area."

I think the school board would have a HUGE problem with the principal allowing this in his school, whether they shot students without permission or not. At the very least it's a big distraction for the students.

[Guest Frank Gossimier]

Grimmett,

 

I was only pointing out what is done in other areas with similar circumstances. ie where you can't get a signed release for practical reasons.

 

I wasn't suggesting he utilize the Casino or Jay Leno examples for shooting in the high school.

 

Frank

[Andrew Banks]

In the USA for instance the courts have ruled that building owners can not protect the exterior of their building when filmed from public property. Even if the shot is for commercial use. See Rock and Roll Hall Of Fame vs. Charles Gentile.

 

Thanks, that answers a similar question I had not expessed explicitly.

 

What I meant about Lost in Translation is, Sophia Coppola shot in the streets of Tokyo without permission, catching pedestrians and property without releases.

 

I've read that in the UK at least you don't hold any rights in your own image.

 

For many, the only question is, what can I get away with? But maybe I'm wrong if I think of this kind of right as the same as the right to property or life. For example, it's always wrong to murder whether you get away with it or not. But if you "steal" a shot of somebody or something without permission, and they don't find out (and you're not hurting their reputation), then isn't it okay?

 

After all, wasn't copyright "invented" to protect publishers and the like, rather than "understood" from nature ("We hold these truths to be self-evident")

Edited December 19, 2004 by Andrew Banks

[Guest Frank Gossimier]

There are hundreds of times when some ones image is captured in the background of a movie and the filmmakers DON'T have a release.

 

I was shooting in New York City in May of this year and a crew was shooting a scene with Steve Martin for some film I don't know the title of.

 

There are thousands of people in Times Square where they where shooting and none of them where extras. Lots of people must have had their image captured in the background.

 

Think of all the people seen in the BG of "The Apprentice" I doubt the producers get a release for all those people.

 

Could they sue? I'm not a lawyer so I can't say for sure. But two things.

 

1) Getting a lawyer and sueing because some one used your image without permission takes and long time and is very expensive as the case moves through the courts. And you have no guarantee that you will win. The judge will want to know how your life damaged as a result of you being seen in the background of a movie. The whole process could take years to settle.

 

2) All film companies have E&O insurance, errors and omissions, when some one crawls out of the woodwork to sue you because you didn't get a release. That's when the E&O covers you.

 

Frank

[Andrew Banks]

Thanks, Frank, for the examples. You are very helpful!

[J. Lamar King IMPOSTOR]

Although, I'm not a lawyer but having shot stills photography for T & L magazines. I went by the rule of an identifiable person. People in the background of a longshot usually aren't identifiable. Even if the person says, "Look that's me with my red jacket and backpack." If you can't clearly see the face it was publishable. Same with people with their backs to the camera.

 

Kids in a high school is a big No No. Television news in many of the big markets have policies to never show kids faces. Even though as pointed out they will often shoot in public areas and show adults faces.

 

If you did shoot in a public space and the person who sued wasn't the focus of the shot, that person would still have to prove you harmed them somehow.

 

As for building exteriors. There is nothing they can do unless you show their logo. I'm shooting an exterior location next month where we are shooting on the sidewalks and an alleyway in a business district. When we contacted the business to get releases they demanded insurance and letters promising to fix anything we damaged. Of course we told them forget it because we aren't shooting IN their buildings. They were pretty mad when told by the city we don't need any of that to shoot on public streets. (in this area, yours could be different) We were just looking for an extra layer of protection.

 

BTW, it is illegal to photograph government property in the USA. That includes post offices.

Edited December 22, 2004 by J. Lamar King

[Annie Wengenroth]

I would say it's a gray area, but let me give an example of how much the thinking has changed about these sorts of "turning a blind eye" situations. I took a video course about 4 years ago in which I was told that basically, if you think you need permission to shoot somewhere but you don't think it's going to be that disruptive, you should- for lack of a better phrase- shoot first and ask questions later.

 

And now, the thinking is more along the lines of "Cover your ass no matter what". I guess that's how it goes when one can't even get on a plane without being strip-searched.

 

So my personal thinking on this is that you should take as much care as you can to avoid anybody saying later, "Hey, you shot this and that without permission" and so on. I think it's worth it because it gives you more credibility as a filmmaker. At least that's how I see it.

[Guest Frank Gossimier]

Are you sure you need permission to shoot gov't property in the USA?

 

What about the Statue of Liberty and other public monuments? I've shot them a dozen times and aired the imagery with no problems. Also lots of gov't buildings in the DC area, like the Supreme Court. It's a gov't owned and therefore "public" building, never had any problems airing shots of it or the Whitehouse.

 

As for logos on buildings...well if it's a wide shot there is nothing any company can do. In Times Square for example there are dozens of corporate logos present every time you shoot there. There's no way people clear every logo that appears in those shots, it would take months!

 

After the Rock and Roll Hall Of Fame lost their case to photographer Charles Gentile, there is little to nothing building owners can do when you shoot from public property and it's an exterior shot.

 

As for shooting teens, I agree that the inside of a high school is quite a different situation from a buidling exterior. But, if a news crew points a camera down a busy street and they happen to get teens in the shot, they don't need to clear the images of all the teens with their parents. Those teens, and every one else, is in a "fair use" zone in a public area. Plus, are those people in the shot being "damaged" in some way? If the voice over says, "all of these people are terrorists." That is quite different from voice over that says, "Cancer may affect one in 10 people."

 

And like I said the news media can get away with any thing they want in most cases.

 

Frank

[J. Lamar King IMPOSTOR]

Are you sure you need permission to shoot gov't property in the USA?

 

What about the Statue of Liberty and other public monuments?  I've shot them a dozen times and aired the imagery with no problems.  Also lots of gov't buildings in the DC area, like the Supreme Court.  It's a gov't owned and therefore "public" building, never had any problems airing shots of it or the Whitehouse.

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Like I said, I'm no lawyer but I'm pretty sure it actually is against the law. I was told by the editor of "Texas Highways" to never shoot post offices without special clearance for that reason. They aren't going to bust you for photographing the Statue of Liberty or a state park etc. However there were recently several cases where people have been detained for photographing government buildings, there were two instances here in Dallas. They were both being held for illegal photography of government property.

 

As far as building logos, I would avoid it for commercial for-profit motion pictures.

Edited December 23, 2004 by J. Lamar King

[Guest Frank Gossimier]

Well that's kinda odd?

 

When I was shooting in DC there where always lots of police around, they would look at me, but did nothing. When I was filming the Supreme Court there where several police officers just a few feet away from me. They did nothing.

 

I was on the sidewalk mind you, and not the actual property of the Supreme Court.

 

While I was filming the congress there where police officers sitting in their police cars right in front of me, and they did nothing.

 

Now of course in DC there are TONS of news crews running all over the place. You see camera crews and reporters set up on sidewalks all over town filming stand-ups. The police don't and can't stop the media, so maybe they assumed I was just another news shooter?

 

"Illegal photos of gov't property?" Hmmmm, that sounds more like Cuba than the USA.

 

I've been questioned shooting at airports, but since I was on public property that the planes happened to fly over next to the airport. There was nothing the police could do.

 

My policy is always, shoot first ask questions later.

 

Some daft security Nazi in Miami Florida tried to bust me for filming in a state park this year. So I stopped shooting, and then when she was on the other side of the park went back and got my shot. If they want to sue me, they can call my lawyer :-)

 

Frank