legal

[zoobie]

I was under the impression that the non-news video I shot even in a public place required signed releases if I were to sell it.

I was offered indemnity insurance in case I was sued...but I've decided just to post my videos for free on the internet.

Now...what happens if I see someone trying to sell my video clips I've displayed on the internet?

And a million other questions...Seems to be a fuzzy area.

Anybody have a great link on these and other questions?

Thanks

[edit]tidy[/edit]

[aanaravs]

You might want to contact an IP attorney and this is certainly not the place to discuss these things. Find a site that discusses the legal aspect of video.

[NoFace]

Why not? Seems like a general discussion topic, posted on the videohelp forum to me...

[zoobie]

Probably because some people's "internet life" consists of typing nasty meaningless messages on a daily basis. It's how they get their kicks.

Thanks for making the internet a darker place.

[aanaravs]

Why not? Seems like a general discussion topic, posted on the videohelp forum to me...

This site focuses on video and not law. There are tons of other sites that discuss IP law and related material. As the OP states, this IS a fuzzy area, which many fail to understand. Coming from a professional TV background, I can guarantee you that it gets far more complicated.

[Noahtuck]

Why not? Seems like a general discussion topic, posted on the videohelp forum to me...

This site focuses on video and not law. There are tons of other sites that discuss IP law and related material. As the OP states, this IS a fuzzy area, which many fail to understand. Coming from a professional TV background, I can guarantee you that it gets far more complicated.

Gheez... you act like it's some big deal and not allowed here



Huh... may want to look at some post's that adam (if you know who that is here ) has participated in.... there has been thread upon thread upon thread upon thread upon thread upon thread upon thread upon thread upon thread upon thread upon thread upon thread upon thread upon thread upon thread upon thread upon thread upon thread upon thread upon thread upon thread upon thread upon thread upon thread upon thread upon thread upon thread upon thread upon thread upon thread upon thread upon thread upon thread, ect. ......
(well, you might get the idea now) discussing such legal matters, and of MANY other types also to do with video, ect. and law's here....

@ zoobie,
Don't worry about it... i'm sure someone will try and help with an answer,
actually, i'm suprised adam has not seen this yet and tried to give some help in answering your question........

[jimmalenko]

I was under the impression that the non-news video I shot even in a public place required signed releases if I were to sell it.

I was offered indemnity insurance in case I was sued...but I've decided just to post my videos for free on the internet.

I'm certainly no expert, but I don't think that is entirely true.

I watched Super Size Me the other day, and noticed that a number of people had faces mosaic-ed out in the background. Same thing on shows like Jackass, etc etc. I'm thinking that they didn't get every single person in the background's permission to include them in the filming. My guess is that you only need releases if the use of the footage would be identifiable. If not then you need to make it so that they are not.

As I said, no idea of the legal implications of this.

[NiteLite]

I was under the impression that the non-news video I shot even in a public place required signed releases if I were to sell it.

If that is the case how could the "Paparazzi" shoot all the video of anyone and everyone they do...and then sell it to any mag that's willing to buy it. Many make a good living doing just that. As long as it's "public places" I don't see why any release is needed.
On the other hand, I think if it is a TV type video (remember the HBO show with the "Taxi" rides being taped. ) I think they required releases by the participants but they contained audio by the participants that could be taken as private or personal information that may cause harm to them.
Either way there are dozens of shows on TV that do it all the time.
I agree that a consultation with an Attorney might be a good idea.
If they go on the net they are as good as gone to anyone who sees them.
NL

[thegeeman]

More of a reply to the last post:-I do know that in the Uk, if there is footage identiying a particular individual, then the person(s) who have the footage, are required to obtain consent. Another quirky law is the Freedom of Information Act. Certain footage MUST be supplied to a member of the public if so requested, with a copy of 'their' particular footage for a standard flat fee of £10(approx $18). This extends to even CCTV footage and is irrelevant of the 'body' that is recording it-i.e. government bodies. As every country, locality and state have differing laws/by-laws i would tread very carefully.

I've gone a little off base with this i suppose.

[zoobie]

I know a release isn't needed if presented as news by an agency...
I just saw some video clips very similar to mine (belly dancer, mariachi bands in public, etc) and the guy's selling his 14 second clips for $49 a pop. Shot in both Europe and the US, I seriously doubt he actually handed these people forms to sign away their rights. I emailed him saying I was interested but I'd have to see the releases...from every businessman he filmed at conventions right down to the street performers.
I don't expect a reply...

So, I put my videos on the net for free and see someone later trying to sell them...yet I need a release from each and every one featured should I decide to sell them, too....

Fuzzy wuzzy wuz a bear...

[Cobra]

zoobie - cool it. Someone offered you a little advice, and didn't a go at you at all. There was no need for your brash reply. As pointed out, this site isn't a legal advice site although I think you'd manage a semi-helpful discussion in Off Topic. That's really where this thread belongs, so I'm moving it for you.

Also, please try to choose a title that described your problem - "legal" isn't descriptive enough for anyone searching the forum for a similar issue.

Regards,

Cobra

[adam]

There are a couple of different laws that may come into play when filming in a public place, but from reading your description I think you are fine.

States have civil rights laws regarding privacy that require a release if your work portrays an "indicia of identity of any recognizable living persons." Basically the person you filmed would have to be a celebrity of some sort or recognizable because of the location and nature of the work. Just be careful that you didn't accidentally film some poster of a celebrity or something that gives out anyone's personal information.

There is also a common law right to publicity but again you're talking about someone who would be readily identifiable to the public. This is basically the right that celebrities have to their name and likeness. Its ok for paparazzi to film them just living their lives, as long as its shot in a public place. They just can't take it and use it substantively in another work. Like you can't take footage of Michael Jordan entering FootLocker and use it for an ad showing that Jordan shops there so you should too.

Now the real issue is in regards to someone claiming ownership in the work. In order for this to happen the person filmed would essentially have to have been made an actor. So if you are just picking up people in a crowd that is fine. As long as they are external to the footage. But if you were filming a documentary on how slow the US Postal system is you'd need a release from a mailman before you filmed him even if he is just doing his job in public.

So generally, just try to edit out any identifiers of people or entities. It would be a good idea to block out any corporate logos. Things like license plates don't need to be edited out unless, again they are made a part of the film (documentary on street racing.)

As for preventing others from distributing or selling your videos.... You obtain your copyright in your works automatically but you can't actually enforce it until you register it with the US Copyright Office. It costs $30 per work and whatever it costs you to get them two copies of your work. If you don't register before someone infringes then you are practically going to be limited to getting an injunction (order telling them to stop) but you probably won't get any money damages and you will have to eat the attorney's fees. If you anticipate infringements you should just file from the get go because it will entitle you to attorney's fees and statutory damages which aren't too shabby.

[zoobie]

First off, thanks for an answer.

I shot street performers and the like for 9 years. Nobody is famous, no license plates, no actors, no posters in the background, no corporate logos, no recognizable living persons.

I'd be interested in registering with the copyright office but I'd have to know more....Not sure I want to run off 90 dvd data discs for example to satisfy their 2 copies. What media do they accept? Maybe I can cram it all on a tape of sorts or a low bitrate format of sorts.

What would you recommend?

Thanks again

[adam]

They will accept any tangible medium so VHS or CD or DVD is fine. You can put multiple works on each medium, but you still need two separate copies. So if you could fit everything on one VHS tape then just make two copies of that. The quality doesn't matter but it must be a complete copy as compared to the one that you publish.

Depositing your work with the Library of Congress actually isn't necessary to obtain your copyright registration, in most cases, but you can be fined if you don't do it within a certain amount of time after publication. Basically, if you don't do the deposit and then you try to file a copyright infringement suit later, you will most likely get fined.

Here is the US Copyright Office's publication on how to register. You can find the necessary forms and instructions there. Its a very simple process.

http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#sdr