concur...after reading your post jeff that reminded me...if you were to shoot a street scene and one homeowner said no then you'd have to find another street.
--- In [email protected], "Jeffery J. Haas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > <<Ladies and Gents, > I work in TV news as a Photog and this is what I understand, if it's is a > news item say a Man on street interview then they know that you area news > reporter and have a camera that most of the time has the station logo, also > a mic flag and news Truck with a logo they know after you tell them it will > air on say 5-o'clock news then it's ok; But if it is used for a TV AD are a > promo that the station will say make money on then you need to get proper > paper work on each person.>> > > ---This jives with what I said earlier. I've never been "employed" by a > station but I did a brief stint as a freelance news "stringer" in LA years > ago and the same rules applied then as now. > I've had twenty years experience as a videographer doing corporate, event > and commercial, and also low budget features and music videos. > > If you are photographing a person for the purpose of using their likeness > for profit, you need a release/contract or both. > > Using their likeness for profit defines that person as an > "artist"...specifically a "television or film artist" and if it is part of a > dramatic photoplay then they are defined as a "screen actor". > Using their likeness as a part of an interview in a "documentary" piece is > different than using their "talent". Documentary producers might decide to > compensate a person for their consent but it boils down to how crucial that > particular person is to the success of the docu piece. > > If the documentary piece is broadcast for profit the person has the right to > demand a contract that covers that area but as you know, not everyone thinks > these things through on the spot. > If you get them to sign a release that indicates that they give permission > to use their likeness as the producer sees fit and the release form > "RELEASES" the producer from all further future liabilities....well > then......you have what constitutes the DEFINITION of a "release". > > What makes a "screen actor" different is that the SCREEN ACTORS GUILD...AND > the AMERICAN FEDERATION OF TELEVISION AND RADIO ARTISTS (SAG and AFTRA) have > specific clauses in their bylaws AND in their contracts that address this > issue with great clarity. SAG and AFTRA artists are instructed specifically > NOT to sign releases but instead to DEMAND that producers sign SAG or AFTRA > CONTRACTS INSTEAD. > Those contracts demand that the producers compensate the subject for a > specified period of time for all future uses of that said artist's likeness > and for their "performance" as an artist. > > If you are photographing them in the course of a news event as an interview > they are fair game and only need give their consent. They cannot demand > payment but they can refuse to speak on camera. > > If you are photographing them in public as a part of the surroundings in the > course of filming a news piece, you are free to use whatever you want, as it > is the focus on the scene as a whole and not a particular person....simple > "passers by" cannot hold up a news photographer simply because they were > rolling tape when they happened to be on the street walking by, or in the > crowd. > > If the person IS the "focus" of a news story and they are in public then > again they are pretty much fair game as well...they are "news worthy"...they > ARE "the news". > > Persons on the street and those persons who are the subject of "news" and > events are NOT "performers" or "artists" and furthermore since they are not > members of unions that protect artists and performers they do not have the > bargaining power to demand further compensation, but only the power to > refuse to be filmed or the right to avoid being photographed. > > Private property owners and persons in charge of property have the power to > request that news media leave their premises and local law enforcement have > the power to enforce the wishes of property owners (homes and businesses) > and property users (businesses). Local governments have the power to issue > permits to film CREWS who will be actively filming scenes which could > reasonably be expected to affect the normal course of business and impede or > alter the natural flow of "traffic" and commerce. > Property owners and "proprietors" also have the right to demand that their > "property" be compensated for its use in profit making film ventures as > well. > Again, this is all a part of the marketplace and not a subject of law. > > You own a majestic house that sits atop a hill that overlooks the city > skyline? You can charge whatever the market will bear if a film crew wants > to use your piece of property. > It's all up to how well you haggle as a property owner. > > If the crew films from the street and does not impede traffic or the natural > flow of persons going about their business, or they have a FILM PERMIT, then > you are out of luck. > The example that I use constantly when explaining this to crew members is > the fact that NO ONE in O.J. Simpson's neighborhood received a DIME no > matter HOW MANY times Court TV showed up to do documentary pieces and > dramatizations about the OJ trial over a period of TWO YEARS. > The same neighbors were having their homes photogaphed on a daily basis for > two years and there was nothing they could do about it because Court TV had > a permit and as long as they did not photograph specific persons INSIDE > their homes, the law decided that Court TV had every right to do as they > wished from the street. > On the other hand there WERE at least a half dozen homeowners who erected > large and ugly signs in front of their homes, protesting the fact that Court > TV was there, and all that happened was that the general viewing public > NEVER saw those homes on television because Court TV "shot around" those > homes and avoided using those homes in any of their coverage. > > What has started to change in recent times is that courts are starting to > expand the definition of "reasonable expectation of privacy" to include > everyday life in public, but so far they have been largely unsuccessful and > have only muddied the waters for now...and the other side of the coin is the > overzealous use of "national security" that I referred to in an earlier > post. > > JeffH > CHS Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Adobe-Premiere/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
