Release Question

I know Jake.. It really is one of those nasty gray areas. Some like it, some don't - I have yet to find out what the true definition of editorial is. When does it apply? When is it really viable? That's why editorial is an ambiguous term. I would assume that news agencies never worry about that as they are not really making a profit off of a segment per-se. But if it goes into a movie, I know it can be problematic. - I have read so many variations on this topic that it just gets worse. For example, if you film a firetruck whizzing by on a street, it should be no issue. But if you film that same firetruck at the station, you may get nailed for copyright infringement because of the logos of whatever city is on the side of it's doors. Go figure. I can film a sheriff on the road and he/she is basically free game... but if he is not in uniform and still on the street, things change. Go figure. If I film a closeup of his badge, then it is no longer free game. Go figure. Maybe someday as this industry becomes more and more predominant, those type of rules will be simplified... but then again, maybe never. :)

I had a photo on a stock agency of an old brick wall on an abandoned building. The wall had the remains of a very old faded logo of a national moving company. The shot was vertical and there was a homeless man sleeping on the loading dock. This building had been abandoned for 50 years or more and the logo was much older than that. The agency is a high priced on where photos sell for several hundred dollars. Somehow the moving company found the photo and threatened the agency. They called me and explained what was happening as asked if I wanted to remove the photo or not. They were happy to to leave it online and fight the moving company ... that surprised me. I just decided it wasn't worth the issue on my side so I had they delete the photo. So just because a company does not want to be photographed does not mean it's illegal. It's all on selecting the fight.

Sometimes I blur peoples faces out.

Soooo. If I am shooting a video that has just my or a models hands do I need a release? Do I even state it has people in the properties page.

Even if there's just a finger in the clip, I add a release whenever I can. Just to be sure.

This is an extreme grey area, and it really makes me wonder if you have any protection even if the clip is sold for "editorial use only." In a sense we lose a lot of our frist amendment protections because we are selling the clip. Since as freelance videographers we are not working dirctly with a news organization, or a educatianal institution, or a comedy troupe using clips for parody. I know stringers sell footage to news outlets, so I assume, we would sort of fall under the same category, if the clips are marked for editorial use only. But I am still not sure, I want to talk to an intellectual property attorney face to face.



Scott

I am not a lawyer :)

BUT as i understand it, if there is no likeness or resemblence to any person living or dead its ok. Thats why many shows blur faces... the show cops gets a release from everyone whos face isn't blurred.

If you just record the hands... so what... I think thats ridiculous that Jakes clips were rejected because of people in the distance.

In my experience MOST people want to be on TV. If they see themselves on TV their first thought is "cool im on TV!" not "gee im goinna have to verify my release papers because I think thats not editorial" ... Southpark makes fun of all kinds of celebrities and they have a disclaimer that "all likeness to any celebrity is entirely coincidental"

There is risk in everything, life would be boring without it. :P

South Park also has 1st amendment protection because they are a comedy show, and as such are allowed to parody real life. They really push the limits of parody almost to the point of slander, or would it be libel since it is written in the script?

Scott

Yeah they do have protection but they still put a disclaimer up because its so harsh. Im not sure about the libel or slander.

Tabloids claim to be editorial, but they are really entertainment. I think south park (and tabloids) are hoping that the people they make fun of are probably not going to sue because they are too busy to care.

Do you think Obama is going to bother to sue southpark? or anyone else... A clip of Obama is a good editorial clip that could probably be used in a non editorial production ... MAYBE. of course Im not advising anyone to do that. ;)

anyone can sue for anything, the question is whether or not you will win. A lawyer once told me that

interesting discussion. especially the whole "what does editorial mean"? of the four sites I submit footage to - only P5 and SS accept so-called 'editorial' footage. here's a clip that's been accepted by both sites, for 'editorial use only'. (no model releases were requested - despite faces being visible)



as far as I can tell - pretty much any clip can be marked 'editorial' if it can be used as part of a newsast ie. this snowboarding clip could be used as part of a story on 'winter weather' / or 'snowboarding' or 'getting exercise when its cold' etc.

it still is a grey/gray area fersure...it would be great if one of the footage sites could give a thorough explanation of what constitutes 'editorial' footage.

btw - great link to the photographer's rights article vadervideo. :0)