But I think the thread would return to my intended topic if I present my own specific situations.
- Seeing incidental background non-actors in shots,
- Recognizable buildings and famous locations into which I want to composite my actors.
- Character crossing the street, and there happens to be a recognizable business in BG (e.g. Bank of America, or Walmart).
If you really want to know the real world effect having Bank of America in a picture, try this: Call an insurance firm that does E&O Insurance and ask them if you have this, will they still insure you. If so, will this change your premium. You can then make your own call to whether you're good or not.
When I read that Budweiser couldn't get their labels removed from FLIGHT, and how these brands actually have no say on whether their brand appears in a film, or how it's portrayed, it made me re-think my own level of concern on the subject.
While Budweiser couldn't get the film Flight to remove their labels, I believe they still got sued. Even though they were unsuccessful, the E&O insurers still had to pay lawyers to to put up that defense. Without insurance, who is responsible for that cost? You?
- An actor asking for a "Nescafe", or an "iPhone"
This I believe is a little different. I don't know about Nescafe or iPhone as specifics, but once a word goes into the general vernacular, a non-competing entity is allowed to use the words without paying royalties. For instance Xerox is a commonly used term for photocopying. You can use the word Xerox (not their logo) in a script and aren't required to pay royalties.
- Shooting a fake car chase (no stunt driving), and cutting in some shots where they drive on world famous roads where I didn't have clearance to shoot.
My understanding of the situation (at least in my country) is if you shoot in a public place, it's relatively fair game. The main proviso is you cannot single individuals out. I don't see a problem with this one.
- Seeing the license plate of non-picture-cars.
No idea. I suspect it comes under a similar line to using a phone number that exists.
- A wide shot of a downtown area where I see several store names.
This comes under a greed thing. If you're a low budget film and you want to get releases to use business names, you're often going to be able to get them cheaper at the time. If you have to come back to get releases so you can secure a distribution deal, they may ask for more money.
- Grabbing a couple shots, run & gun, where I don't have a permit.
That's up to you and your crew. If you're happy to pay the piper if you're caught, then that's really your choice. From what I understand, you're often just told to piss off, but if you're trying to get a lot of footage and you'll waste a lot of peoples time if you lose a days shooting, it might not be worth the risk.
Have these scenarios ever resulted in a legal problem for a filmmaker at a festival, or even distribution. It is perfectly within my abilities to replace signs, lic. plates and faces from shots, but do I need to?
Would I like to shoot the next break-out indie and land a distribution deal? Sure. But I also know the odds.
Law suits happen all the time.
The truth of the matter, most film makers are judgement proof. There is no real point in suing most film makers. What's the most you can win? A few stained t-shirts and a debt ridden credit card? You're only going to lose money in the long term suing poor film makers.
Where it would get a little stickier is if you hit it big within the statue of limitations. Lets say you make a film and ignore all releases. You don't even bother to get the releases from your stars. You manage to go very successfully on VOD and self distributed DVDs and make a couple million from it. Lets say that profits you about $1.9mil. Now you're no longer judgement proof. If anyone who feels they could have a piece of the movie (from cast, crew, even locations, musicians etc) could see you as an easy ticket to line their pockets with your new gained cash.
Lets say you don't make it big on your current video where you fail to protect yourself. Then you make a movie and somehow become a millionaire. The previous project could come to bite you in the read for some (or all) of that cash. There are plenty of people out there trying to make an easy living. All it takes is one or two of them to ruin your financial windfall. The chances of this happening increase the less judgement proof you become. You don't hear stories about people slipping on a homeless guy's step and suing him for all he's worth, but you do hear stories of people doing idiotic things and suing for millions (like the McDonalds hot coffee spill).
The truth of the matter, the last thing you want to do is do the festival circuit, have a distribution company want to pick you up and pay you millions in advances. How are you going to feel when you have to turn them down because you cannot deliver what's required.
Though you're right. Deep down, most people really don't need these releases or to be careful due to the simple reason. Most people aren't going to succeed. If you want to be considered, you have to pay attention to this stuff as a film maker. It's boring, painful and expensive, it's also drummed into producers because it's also necessary. This world is becoming increasingly litigious, not less.
One last point. You'll only hear of cases that are news worthy. Random Joe Worth Nothing vs Random Joe Worth Nothing isn't going to get press. You don't often hear producers getting sued for this because they know what is necessary and do it. They don't get distribution without E&O and they don't get E&O without doing what's necessary.
Now you decide.
