Being threatened with lawsuit by over-protective mom….

[Mark Suszko]

I.A.N.A.L., but I think you’re safe in this case. I mean, she can still sue you, and you will spend time and money defending yourself, but I don’t think she can win because of the circumstances. Public place, shot in a group from a distance, not singled out or in any way identified, for a documentary. All those factors carry some weight in the privacy rights debate. How a predator is supposed to make something out of that 20-second clip beats me. Be sure to let her know you will file a counter-claim for court costs and lost business.

If it’s really keeping you up at night, you can talk to a real lawyer about this for a small amount, maybe fifty dollars to straighten it out over the phone or in his office. If that’s too expensive, you can try free legal advice sources like nolo.

[Bill Dewald]

I’m not a lawyer either, but I can see the mom’s point of view. In my opinion, you have no right to exploit her child’s image without her consent. Words in your post like “foreground”, “can see their faces”, and “slightly fuzzy”, are setting off alarm bells in my head.

As for advice – don’t hand out business cards to people you are secretly videotaping.

And talk to a lawyer.

Cheers – Bill

[Mike Smith]

Another thought to consider: the woman may have good reasons for wanting privacy. She could be an escapee from a violent relationship; her child may have been through abuse and a contested adoption, or even kidnap attempts – you don’t know. Just because you don’t know what’s driving her, that doesn’t mean she might not have good reason.

but there are some kids playing in the foreground and you can see there faces – This sounds like you know there’s trouble.

You kind of know that those kids were too close for comfort, and that you probably should have moved them on or gone for consent form signatures, or you wouldn’t be posting I guess.

It’s bad luck that your good will in passing on your contact details has produced you this problem; but I suspect your producers may be on a loser if she takes legal advice.

Apparently the law on privacy varies from state to state, but many states do recognise a right to privacy, and some argue that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griswold_v._Connecticut extends that right across the US. But you’d need legal opinion on that.

[Mike Smith]

This link from a lawyer may be a relevant jumping off point ..
https://www.photosecrets.com/p14.html

[Shvr]

Thanks for the links and feedback. I learned a good lesson with this one: Avoid getting kids in your shot and don’t give out information to kids (especially with your business card) because they are likely to get the story wrong. And sure enough, this 12 year old kid appearently went home and told his mom that I was “stalking” them and taking their pictures, at least that is what the police told me today after they called and inquired about the whole thing (the mom had called the police first, and it took them a couple days to follow up with me.)

I put the cops in touch with the docs producers and they have sorted the whole thing out with the mother this evening. The mom gets a free DVD of the doc and the shot stays in!

For my part, I was accused by the mom for being defensive and not sensitive to her concerns when she talked to me initially. I may have been. But I feel like I was caught in the middle here. I should have just referred her to the producers to begin with.

[Mike Smith]

Glad it all worked out. And good luck with the environmental issue – and the festivals!

[Michael Mills]

I work often for a very large international company with thousands of locations world-wide, 12 million members and undisclosed networth. The company has a lot at stake and a legal department that is the best in the world. When working for them I am not required to get photo releases for individuals in groups larger than fifteen people and the stuff I produce for them is broadcast world-wide.

Leap and the net will appear!

[Frank Otto]

Odd… I do work for a large multinational, hundreds of thousands of employees, the largest company globally of its kind with billions of dollars a year in revenues –

And we still have to get releases on individuals – even if they’re in a group of a hundred. Plus post signage and shooting disclaimers.

The “best in the world” legal department has just been lucky. Even with releases, we still get sued – people are greedy – for some reason, the “unrecoqnizable” face in the back now has a name and legal reperesentaion and a dozen friends who’ll testify they saw the subject on tv.

We just had a case involving a Margaritaville spot, model with release still wanted more three years down the line. And a spot running for six years just got pulled because one person in the deep background got identified and hadn’t signed a release – sued us for all the teasing she recieved.

The M’ville model got shot down – the other one got a payday. The difference was the release.

Cheers,

Frank Otto

[Michael Mills]

I’m not saying that legal team doesn’t have litigation to deal with, but in the end you’re right, it’s all about the release, and if I can get one from them before they run away I want it to protect myself.

Best,

Michael Mills

Leap and the net will appear!

[Michael Munkittrick]

Generally speaking, if your footage was shot on public land, be it owned by the city or a branch of the government and so long as it is not deemed private property, there are no grounds that would be sufficient to support a lawsuit against you. In fact, legal recourse would be a waste of the lady’s time, but if she wants to dance