On-camera release statement?

First off, Happy Pi Day everyone! And I hope you're enjoying DST! Here's my question:

I was out at BM last fall and there was a chick filming a docu and she just had us say our names and that it was ok to use the footage to the camera. She said she did this because it was easier than having release forms for a bunch of people to fill out.

Is this actually a legal way to obtain 'talent' releases? And if so, when submitting to a festival, do you just make a reel of everyone giving permission and send that in with the app or do you just state that you obtained release on film?

Just curious. Thanks :)

( Cosine, secant, tangent, sine: 3.14159! )
 
That's a good idea! Even if it's not legal, it would give me peace of mind. I doubt someone who's done that is going to turn around and demand to have his or her face removed from the video, or worse, sue you.
 
Was there "consideration" (AKA payment) for acting services? Did people know that they were going to be in a movie, documentary or whatever it was? Did these people audition for the parts? Was a film crew there?

There's many different "lines of defense" in court, if it ever got there. Obviously a written contract is the best defense but certainly not the only one. This producer would argue that a binding VERBAL contract is in effect.

I once had an actor shamelessly try to shake me down for money. This complete idiot somehow got misinformation from someone and thought that just because the director never got him to sign a release that he had the "upper hand" to pull a bait and switch and demand points on the movie! LOL! The most important thing working against him was the fact that he was paid on TWO occasions including when he came in for ADR a year after filming. Also a judge knows the obvious and that is when an ACTOR steps foot on a MOVIE SET with cameras, lights and crew, it's obvious... they are going to be in a movie. Another thing that a judge will observe is whether or not an actor goes about the proper channels to mitigate a problem once they realize that there is a problem. If they do nothing or wait too long then they're out of luck in court. In California the statute of limitations is 2 years.
 
I just have em hold up a sign that reads I agree to be in this movie.
It's not required but detours some who may be confused. Your atty will tell ya, anyone who does an on-camera interview acknowledges being recorded and really doesn't have to sign anything. Same with public events. No releases required, even for background folks.
I've not had anyone sign a release of any kind in well over a decade. That's not bad business so much as the lack of desire to run off folks that would have otherwise given me a sound bite. If they want a copy of the finished piece, I do that. It doesn't have to be a legal issue every time ya roll some tape. I do realize the risks involved in buying faith in humanity. I also know the rewards. I'd rather do it my way.
 
A friend of mine sold his Doc to a distributor and when someone ask him that question his answer was 'The distributor wanted paper releases on everyone they never once ask if we had them on tape" They did do a tape release but he also had them sign a release. Good thing he did otherwise it would have held up the sale of the Doc.
 
See, I wondered about this: I want to do some shots downtown near where I live. Getting the permission is a piece of cake, but I want extra bodies to be in the shots, walking by or whathaveyou, not saying any lines. Would a statement(or holding up written piece of paper) on video be considered enough, instead of asking everyone "could you sign this to get your okay to be in the movie?"

Or do I just shoot everyone from the neck down?

See, I see these docs on TV, where there's a group shot of hundreds of people at rush hour, did the director have to get a release for everyone of those hundreds of people?
 
Okay, that makes a little more sense :) I just want background people and whatnot, so there's that option as well. Still, though, it would make it easier, as per by saying "yeah I give permission" on camera, in leiu of paperwork, that would make things easier.
 
See, I see these docs on TV, where there's a group shot of hundreds of people at rush hour, did the director have to get a release for everyone of those hundreds of people?

If you are shooting in a public place and are not specifically directing people, just recording them going about their own business, you have the right to photograph them and use the footage without obtaining a release form. The key here is it has to be a public space, such as a city street or park, etc. If you ask someone to walk through the shot or through a door on camera, get a release from them.
 
If you are shooting in a public place and are not specifically directing people, just recording them going about their own business, you have the right to photograph them and use the footage without obtaining a release form. The key here is it has to be a public space, such as a city street or park, etc. If you ask someone to walk through the shot or through a door on camera, get a release from them.

Thank you for that! Makes things easier and more understandable. The key word being PUBLIC-I know city hall where I am has no problem with shooting outside in the city, just let them know in a written letter, so that if anyone calls and has concerns (IE I film someone's kid walking by and they don't like that), they know what I'm doing and if need be, I can make sure that footage isn't used).


EDIT: I have 407 posts?! How did that happen?! lol
 
This is obviously a very important question for photographers and filmmakers. First of all, I'm still trying to get clear on the rules, especially for filmmaking. But I have been doing some reading on this very thing. So, here's what I can contribute.

I just received, Making Documentary Films and Videos, by Barry Hampe, as a Christmas gift (yay!).

Link:
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/Making-Documentary-Films-and-Videos/Barry-Hampe/e/9780805081817/?itm=1&USRI=making+documentary+films+and+videos+a+practical

I haven't read this book, yet, except for a little bit on releases. See page one-hundred and forty-six for a section with the heading, If You Don't Want to be Filmed, Leave. In it, Hampe explains how some documentarians do the very thing that you describe the one at BM doing.

He writes, "And that, in general, is the answer to the legal question of the rights of subjects." He continues, "But it doesn't come close to resolving any of the ethical questions. Nor does it absolve us as documentarians of our responsiblity toward the subjects who appear in our productions." And, I believe, he has much more to say on the matter. Looks like an excellant book. I look forward to reading it.

Another relevant book I'm in the midst of reading is, Legal Handbook for Photographers, by Bert Krages.

Link:
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/Legal-Handbook-for-Photographers/Bert-P-Krages-II/e/9781584280590/?itm=8&USRI=legal+handbook+for+photographers

Wow, I highly recommend this enlightening book. Here are a few things he writes on consent and releases:

"Written consent provides the best legal protection because it provides a permanent record that permission was given. Although implied and oral consent are theoretically as effective as written consent, it can be difficult to prove them in court which makes them less desirable."

"However, implied consent to be photographed will not necessarily be construed as consent to publication unless the subject has reason to believe that the photographer intends to have the work published."

Hmmm. So, how does a subject's failure to leave before filming commences, recorded on video or film and after they've apparently been warned by the filmmaker, stack up in court when compared to written consent?

As others have written above, you're within your rights to photograph people who are in a public space and who, therefore, have no reasonable expectation of privacy. The legality of photographing and publishing some things will be determined by whether or not they are newsworthy, which is why, I guess, journalists and news networks can get away with not having releases from everyone who crosses their cameras' paths.

So ...I'm still not clear on all of these things, including what a filmmaker has to do and what he or she does not have to do! But it reminds me of something amusing. If you look at the special features of the documentary film, Painting with Fire, you can see a funny behind the scenes bit in which the producer(?) is trying to get Frazetta's horse (or was it a cow?) to sign a release. =P
 
Last edited:
Anyone else had this situation?

Was there "consideration" (AKA payment) for acting services? I once had an actor shamelessly try to shake me down for money. This complete idiot somehow got misinformation from someone and thought that just because the director never got him to sign a release that he had the "upper hand" to pull a bait and switch and demand points on the movie! LOL! The most important thing working against him was the fact that he was paid on TWO occasions including when he came in for ADR a year after filming. Also a judge knows the obvious and that is when an ACTOR steps foot on a MOVIE SET with cameras, lights and crew, it's obvious... they are going to be in a movie. Another thing that a judge will observe is whether or not an actor goes about the proper channels to mitigate a problem once they realize that there is a problem. .

My production is having a similar problem. Our indie is wrapped, but the lead actress is now claiming that she was promised $3000. at the end of the shoot. She insists she was verbally told this when informed that she had the role. The email sent confirming her landing the role says only, basically, 'congratulations'. I was present at every meeting or occasion when she and the director were together in person, and have access to all of the email sent between the production and her email address. Throughout the filming (over 4 1/2 months, 20 filming days), she fobbed off signing either her release, or information on the deferral amount, claiming first to be 'too busy', and then later, saying that she had a new agent and had to run the contract by him. She was given the paperwork at least 3 times. The only sig we have on file for her is attendance on the first day of principal shooting.

All of the cast and crew were offered a deferment of $100 per day of filming, to be paid after recouping of production costs only. The entire film budget was 5 grand, which went up to +8 grand by the end of the shoot, largely due to the actress' booking other jobs around our shoot days, even after telling us she would be free on certain days. (Don't get pissy about the defer - Toronto is rife with film schools, and we had literally hundreds of applicants for cast and crew, begging for time on set, even if completely unpaid.)

Our first attempts post wrap to get the release signed were met with 'creative' objections, and another request for the paperwork. Next we were hit with the "When do I get my $3000." And today, a further email saying that she wants to edit the release form,conditioning her sig in regards to this payment.

The actress in question is highly secretive - I only learned her real age (41) through a Google search, and she would never give her address to anyone, even going so far as to ask to be dropped off after a night shoot on a notoriously dangerous corner in downtown Toronto, to protect her address. She has 4 credits on IMDB, all from 2009/2010, all as secondary characters. In our film, she is the female lead. She recently moved back to Canada after several years of study and amateur dance and film work in England, claiming her return was based on her visa running out. Now I wonder if she pulled the same scam on some other director, and had to leave town after being blacklisted.

I get conflicting advice and information on our legal stance. Some say, "Tough, shoulda got it signed, she's got you by the hair". Others say, her attendance at 15 shooting days, along with our emails talking about wardrobe and hair etc., without a word about money, and her sig on the attendance form of Day1, constitute implied and verbal consent.

I'm monkey in the middle, as the exec producer will not be blackmailed, and he'd shelve the project before paying her, also saying that a payoff would expose him to legal and financial risk (other cast demands, etc.). The director is in love with this project, and has his whole emotional and financial life on the line. He'd pay her the 3 grand himself, but if he does so, the exec producer will cut all further ties with the film, which, again, would effectively shelve the film. We are currently in the process of trying to find her address, so that we can pursue a legal conclusion, if she does not respond reasonably.

Any advice from cooler heads with some similar experience, especially from Canada, would be welcomed.

thanks for listening!
 
Back
Top