-
People shot in public w/o consent, internal vs external use
I know that people videoed in public are considered “fair game” (though not necessarily their audio, depending on state), but I’m wondering about the ramifications, if any, of the intended usage. For example, whether the video would only be distributed internally, or on a public venue (the Tube, or broadcast). Or, in a commercial vs an informational video.
I’m interested in definitive answers, if possible.“Constituo, ergo sum”
Bob Woodhead / Atlanta
CMX-Quantel-Avid-FCP-Premiere-3D-AFX-Crayola
“What a long strange trip it’s been….” -
2 Replies
-
Give a specific situation, please.
-
[Bob Woodhead] “I’m interested in definitive answers, if possible.”
The laws seldom allow for “definitive” answers.
The underlying truth is that anyone can sue anyone for anything. That’s simply the way it is. So everything we do to protect ourselves from getting legally hurt is kinda based on building practices that strengthen your affirmative defense against such a suit.
Contracts, agreements, terms and conditions, all of these and more can help give a court of law a reason to side with you if you get sued. But the most iron clad document in the world can’t prevent you from being sued in the first place.
So the whole game is assessing risk. If you aren’t connecting a non-released person with anyhing that they might object to – you’re maybe safer than if you choose to include a passerby in a work about something controversial.
But nothing is a guarantee – ever.
As a professional producer, my job is to limit risk for both myself and my clients. So I work hard to get releases on everyone and everything I can when I shoot. Because it simply adds an additional layer of protection.
That’s the way I see it anyway. YMMV.
“Before speaking out ask yourself whether your words are true, whether they are respectful and whether they are needed in our civil discussions.”-Justice O’Connor
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up