A Bit of Hypocrisy in the American law (related to filming)

King Goldfish

King Goldfish

I was watching something on TV in which Employers were being sued for video taping 2 co workers for having sex in a locker room and then firing them for it.

But here was the funny part. The 2 got a settlement Not because they were being video taped (As they tried to do) but because the Business owner didnt know that its Illegal to record Audio.

Now I dont know if thats a state law or a federal law and this show was from like 2000 or 2001 and may have been updated.

But Whats weird is, when a Documentary is being filmed in public, Often the person doing it will use blur or mosaic to block out peoples faces and not their voice.

Am I missing something here?
 
Cutting the audio in an interview wouldn't make very much sense... Clearly, when they interview people for a documentary they get that person's permission to do so. Or, possibly, there's some law that allows people to run around with video cameras harassing peope... I can't imagine Michael Moore got permission from some of the people he filmed in his movies.

However, that being said... mostly when they blur out a person's face it is to protect their identity, for personal or legal reasons. Some people don't wish to be identified, and I believe it's illegal to show the faces of underage criminals.
 
It's a wire-tapping law. Video is admissible, but you have to have a warrant for wire-tapping (audio), if you don't, it will be thrown out. Don't confuse this with distribution, you are confusing distribution with a legal proceeding. For distribution, you have to have a signed release for audio and video.
 
Demosthenes X said:
I can't imagine Michael Moore got permission from some of the people he filmed in his movies.
Click to expand...

The laws are burry when it comes to public figures. They, by law, can't expect the same privacy as other citizens. They can still sue, though...they can also be victims of slander...but they don't have to give permission for their image to be distributed sometimes.
 
The thing that makes what Mike Moore does different is that he's filming these public figures in a public domain... therefore he doesnt need their permission... where as when charlton heston invited him into his house and agreed to an interview he can't just reneg on that verbal deal they made.

What made what this employer did illegal is that they are allowed to film you for surveillance purposes (security, etc) but when they start recording audio that becomes invasion of privacy... it's just as bad as if they bug your desk.
 
slacker said:
The thing that makes what Mike Moore does different is that he's filming these public figures in a public domain... therefore he doesnt need their permission... where as when charlton heston invited him into his house and agreed to an interview he can't just reneg on that verbal deal they made.

What made what this employer did illegal is that they are allowed to film you for surveillance purposes (security, etc) but when they start recording audio that becomes invasion of privacy... it's just as bad as if they bug your desk.
Click to expand...
On the contrary, you MUST have a signed release if the person is recognizable. They had Charlton Heston sign the release BEFORE the interview. If he had not signed a release, and he didn't want the interview in the film, Moore wouldn't have been able to use it - or maybe he would have, but he could have been sued.
 
How about, for example, in those candid camera shows were the victim gets angry and wanders off before he can sign a paper. Most of the time they just blur the face and show the footage anyway, how about the audio? Noone seems to complain...
 
i didnt read the other posts, because im lazy. But my dad owns a video surveillance place, where he supplies surveillance equipment. ANd it's Illegal to record audio if the people dont know its recording audio.

I think...I could ask him, but hes in korea on business..
 
>>ANd it's Illegal to record audio if the people dont know its recording audio. <<

Not if you're the CIA these days ;) :D
 
Some people are probably to lazy to sue, or simply don't care. But I imagine there must be laws that allow people to film people and use the complete footage, s'long as it's for a specific purpose...

I mean, if you ever watch Michael Moore's TV show, "The Awful Truth", they literally walk into buildings and film what they see, and they show this on national television... I think there must be an allowance to use people's images and audio for a particular purpose...
 
FYI - The federal law says that if at least one of the parties knows they are being recorded, it's admissible, ex: phone calls recorded by one of the parties involved in converstaion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top