Does the filmmaker need us to sign a release?

July 9, 2013 6:18 AM

For several years in the past I worked closely with someone who was well known, and very well regarded, in his industry. At the time, a relative of his would occasionally show up at the workplace to shoot film and video. Mostly of the well known person, but since it was at work, and we worked closely, I know that I am in a great deal of this footage. As this person's relative is a filmmaker, my assumption has always been that some sort of film would surface. Recently I have heard that the filmmaker is, in fact, pulling footage together for some sort of documentary film. I have not heard from the filmmaker, but would not be surprised if he contacted me. I am very uneasy about that possibility because I have, over the years, become extremely distrustful of the filmmaker. I know that the filmmaker could edit the film anyway he wishes, but if he wanted to include me (and several others) does he need us to sign some sort of a release?
posted by anonymous to Media & Arts (7 answers total)

It depends on the nature and purpose of the film. If it is a promotional film (promoting a particular product or company, essentially an extended commercial) then the answer is yes, because your image is being used for marketing purposes.

On the other hand, if it is a documentary, intending to present news or information (even if it has a point of view or slant — think Michael Moore's films), then permission is not needed. (The right of a documentary filmmaker to do this is protected by the first amendment. Otherwise, every TV newscast would need signoffs from everybody they interview, every newspaper would need signoffs from people involved in news photos, etc.)

That said, documentary filmmakers occasionally are willing to blur out faces of peripheral people in their shots, just to help protect their privacy. Usually this is limited to people who are not speaking but just happen to be in the shot. If that's you, you could consider contacting the filmmaker and asking to be removed from the film, with an implied threat of legal action. Regardless of whether the filmmaker is in the right, they might comply just to avoid legal expense. On the other hand, your demands could backfire and inspire the filmmaker to feature you more prominently.
posted by beagle at 6:28 AM on July 9, 2013

What about your contract with your employer: was there any built-in release, since I'd guess famous people pretty well expect to be filmed and so their staff would sometimes be caught on that film.
posted by easily confused at 6:54 AM on July 9, 2013

Amending my answer, there's a very good detailed rundown on privacy versus publicness in documentary filmmaking here. Some of the laws and case law mentioned there might give you some protection if what you did and said on film was understood by all to be a private setting. But if your employer granted permission that could be a moot point.
posted by beagle at 7:33 AM on July 9, 2013

Even documentaries have to have releases! News is exempt from this, but documentary makers have people sign releases, except for that footage shot in public places or if the public is notified that filming is going on in the place. Don't think that indie doc makers are exempt from getting permission.

But, if your employer knew about the filming, and you were all informed at the time, then your consent could be considered to be understood. Was there any sort of announcement or information posted, handed out, or told to you all at the time or in advance? If so, you've given permission by just showing up for work.

I work in docs--feel free to Memail me if you want more info.
posted by Ideefixe at 8:56 AM on July 9, 2013 [1 favorite]

Do you have a lawyer you use for personal matters? INAL, but I would talk this over with them (especially in regards to verbal consent when you were filmed, etc.) and then when contacted by the filmmaker ask politely to not be included, and then go through your lawyer to get that in writing if the filmmaker agrees. If they refuse, then your lawyer will navigate the legal channels necessary to try and have you blurred and/or excluded.
posted by itsonreserve at 9:13 AM on July 9, 2013

I don't work in film, but have a degree in journalism. I remember a media ethics discussion from college where we discussed this court case: a TV station was doing a story on sexually transmitted diseases and showed a random shot of people walking down the street. One of the people shown sued the station because the piece visually corellated that person with STDs. They won their case and ever since, most TV stations use a blurred image when showing random shots or just film peoples' feet.

I wish I could remember the case name...
posted by tacodave at 4:38 PM on July 9, 2013

Tacodave

In Facchina v. Mutual Benefits Corp., 27 Med. L. Rptr. 2168 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999), the plaintiff entered into a contract with defendants which gave defendants the right to use his photograph for advertisements regarding the purchasing of life insurance policies. Plaintiff alleged that defendant published his picture in such a way that the ad to imply that he was homosexual and afflicted with AIDS. The appeals court held that "a person may have a contractual right to publish the likeness of another without breaching a contract giving him the right to publish, but may still abuse that right and publish in such a manner as to violate the subject s personal, privacy interests." The insurer-publisher essentially exceeded the scope of the plaintiffs consent to appropriate his name and likeness for commercial gain in violation of 540.08 of the Florida Statutes and invaded the plaintiff s privacy by publishing private facts.

Reporters Handbook source
posted by Ideefixe at 9:34 PM on July 9, 2013 [1 favorite]