some related law:It is certainly not an issue with a simple answer
Mike S
*First Amendment, Privacy & COPYRIGHT, Truth in Advertising,*
*Freedom of the Press*
*Amendment I: /Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the
freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably
to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances./*
* The First Amendment grants the right to report news, but what
about the right to gather news?
o Freedom of the press is a guarantee (right) not *ALWAYS*
extended to broadcasting
printed and broadcasting media are different
+ Broadcast governed by FCC and the Fairness Doctrine
# What about cable?
+ Will it change if newspapers are delivered on the
internet?
# Answer: UNKNOWN
o FCC: Federal Communication Commission regulates the public
airways and BROADCAST
+ License of public broadcast bands
TV is licensed and licensed must be renewed
Radio is licensed and licensed must be renewed
Monopoly laws and regulations
o Paid signals are different than free broadcast signals
Cable
+ Cable is currently regulated by community
treated like a community public utility
+ In the future: cable & telephone line delivery
regulation direction is unclear
o freedom of press extension is unclear
o Freedom of press vs. freedom of speech
+ Freedom of speech is not freedom to broadcast.
o Fairness doctrine does not apply to print media
+ Equal time for other views: Does not apply to print media
*Privacy*
Amendment IV: /The right of the people to be secure in their
persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable
searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no
warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by
oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place
to be searched and the persons or things to be seized./
* Public figure vs. private individual
o If your are a public figure you give up many of your rights
of privacy
* Points of privacy for image makers
o Are you a public figure?
o Can the information be see by the unaided eye without
extraordinary means?
o Was the image made on public or private property?
o Was the image made against the mandate of law enforcement?
o Does the image hold a private individual up for ridicule in
a public place?
+ EXAMPLES: Woman rushed from hostage event naked
Arrington Vs. NEW YORK TIMES
* Access
o Whether a reporter wants to cover a demonstration on the
courthouse steps, a crime that occurred in someone's home or
the execution of a condemned inmate, the first hurdle to
overcome is access to the scene of the event.
o A reporter's success may depend on the kind of property to
which access is sought.
o News events often occur in public forums
+ -- property that is publicly owned and open to the general
public, such as city parks or sidewalks where
demonstrations might take place.
+ But government property that is not generally open to
the public as a forum
-- such as courthouses, jails, government offices and
city halls -- is called non-public forum public property.
+ Private property generally presents harder access problems
The property owner cannot be forced to allow a
reporter access to an event.
+ However, some courts have drawn distinctions between
private property used for a private purpose, such as a
person's home, and private property used for a public
purpose, such as a shopping center. Some states treat
the latter as a type of public forum.
*Libel*
Libel occurs when a false and defamatory statement about an
identifiable person is published to a third party, causing injury to
the subject's reputation. A defamatory communication exposes a
person to hatred, ridicule, or contempt; it lowers him in the esteem
of his fellows, causes him to be shunned, or injures him in his
business or calling. Defamation can take the form of libel --
published or broadcast communication, or slander -- oral communication.
*There is no uniform law for libel.*
Each state decides what the plaintiff in a libel suit must prove and
what defenses are available for the media. However, constitutional
law requires that plaintiffs prove fault before a news organization
can be held liable for defamatory communications. When the media are
sued, it is the court's duty to balance protection of a person's
reputation against the First Amendment values of freedom of the press.
*Copyright:* overview
* A newspaper reporter's article on an important town council
meeting makes the front page. A local radio announcer, without
attributing the article to the reporter or the newspaper, reads
the lead and several other lines verbatim on his news report.
* The editor of a community weekly newspaper reads a magazine
article on a local personality and decides to publish it in the
newspaper's next edition. She makes sure to affix the copyright
notice on the article and to acknowledge that the article
originally appeared in the magazine, but she never seeks the
magazine's permission to use it.
* A freelancer writes a lengthy article about a famous athlete's
drug problems and submits it for publication to a sports magazine.
The magazine's publisher prints the article in the magazine and
then publishes it again in another publications.
/*In these cases, the radio announcer, the weekly editor and the
magazine publisher infringed the
rights of the owners of the original works and may be held liable
for damages. */
The 1976 Copyright Law gives copyright protection to creative works
-- like the newspaper article, magazine article and freelance
article in the above examples -- at the moment of their creation. If
someone uses a copyrighted work without permission, as the radio
announcer, weekly newspaper editor and magazine publisher have, the
copyright owner can sue for copyright infringement. Journalists need
to know how to protect their works and how to avoid infringing
someone else's copyright.
* Work made for hire vs. copyright
o Working for staff or under "work made for hire" contract
o Someone else owns copyright
* Working for self, you own and can assign
o When was the object created?
o Prior to 1976 creative work copyright lasted...
+ first 28 years renews for 75 years
o After 1976
Your life plus 50 years
+ Assigned rights: 35 years and can be terminated in a
five year period
* Ideas can not be copyrighted: Expression of ideas can.
you may copy small parts of creation, if it is not "essence" of whole
Fair use is an exception to copyright law...but it is a moving target.
* Parody, Satire, editorial comment
* Educational and not profit
* Common image from common space
* The amount and substantially of the portion used
* Effect upon the market value of copyrighted work.
* For personal use
* Fair use--detailed
o The purpose and character of the use, including whether the
use is commercial or for a non-profit, educational nature.
o The nature of the copyrighted work.
+ Uses of expressive, as opposed to factual, works are
less likely to be considered fair uses, as are uses of
unpublished works.
o The portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a
whole.
+ Here the court will consider the qualitative as well
as the quantitativeuse. If the user excerpts 200 words
from a 10,000 word book, but those 200 words
constitute the heart of the book, this may not qualify
as fair use.
o The effect upon the potential market value of the
copyrighted work.
+ If the challenged use adversely affects the potential
market for the copyrighted work, the use is not fair.
Johnny Wu wrote:
>What I undrstand with news reporting, you must ask for permission when
>you do 'interview' type of news reporting, when you are doing 'event' or
>'accident' or crime related, you can 'videotape' the actual event as
>'fair use' but if you have interviews, you must ask for premission or
>acknolwedge it that they will be on tv.
>
>For individuals who does public recording, you should make aware to
>anyone that will be in that area that there's videotaping going on (for
>crowd scenes) and if there's certain individual, then you MUST get their
>permission on the camera (taping them stating it's ok to be taped) or in
>writing.
>
>I've done a lot of event videography and also did club videography and
>we always make sure everyone in my taping area know we are taping them,
>and when we do interviews or have anyone that will be 'directly' shown
>on the clip, we always ask for their permission on camera.
>
>This way, I am protected, anyone who deem that you are 'lowering' their
>person' character (by showing their faces or body without their
>permission) they can sue you if they wishes. So applies to signs, logo,
>trademark, to be shown in your clips.
>
>So, let say you are at a Public Square, an open area that everyone goes
>for lunch, you must post signs around it to let anyone that walk by or
>sit there to eat, that you will be videotaping for a film project etc,
>and that if they wishes NOT to be in it, they can turn their face away
>from the camera or might have to consider another area for them to sit.
>
>Obviously, if you 'block' the area, means you might have to get permits.
>
>In Cleveland, you do not need permit for parks, city walks, or any city
>own property as long as you are't blocking for your own usage. But if
>you are letting public to walk by, you must let them know who you are
>and what you are doing and if they don't mind being IN IT.
>
>I have yet had problem, due to size of my crew, to 'quietly' block an
>area for my movie shoot without getting permit, obviuosly the bystanders
>know that we are shooting a film and if they don't want to be in it,
>they don't mind moving off the camera...
>
>Just my 2cent.
>
>Johnny
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: [email protected]
>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Michael Snell
>Sent: 06/13/2005 3:42 AM
>To: [email protected]
>Subject: Re: [AP] permission to videotape
>
>
>Perhaps some actual Texas statutes would be important here; I think
>there may be some truth to what you say but I think this is still more
>opinion than actual law.
>
>Mike
>
>lancer777 wrote:
>
>
>
>>ahhhh...michael, michael, michael.
>>
>>news media has "free reign"...they can go almost anywhere to shoot
>>anybody and put it on the news. the average joe with no credentials
>>can't just shoot and interview people without their consent. some guy
>>walks up "hey i'm doing this for school." next thing you know you're on
>>
>>
>
>
>
>>the internet and being slammed for having an opinion. the actual texas
>>law is intended to protect minors. so if you want to interview people
>>and you are "freelance" you need to have release forms signed. ever see
>>
>>
>
>
>
>>the show "cheaters"...filmed in texas...ever noticed there were people
>>with their faces blurred?
>>
>>--- In [email protected], Michael Snell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>I hardly see how that can work in practical terms ...how can tv run
>>>the
>>>news? When they shoot a crowd they have the consent of al?, when a
>>>politician appears to make a speech...come on!
>>>
>>>Mike
>>>
>>>lancer777 wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>In texas you'd have to get permission and better have it signed
>>>>because it's law. could be jail time shooting anyone without their
>>>>consent.
>>>>
>>>>--- In [email protected], Michael Snell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>I think the law might vary from place to place but my
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>understanding is
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>that if you are in public you are fair game to have your pic/ video
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>taken.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>It would be considered good manners to get permission but a crowd
>>>>>situation would make that unfeasible.
>>>>>I am less certain that the person taking is allowed to use it
>>>>>commercially without your release ..I know the girls gone wild guys
>>>>>always get releases from the girls even if they appear to be more
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>than
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>willing participants. I think "news" might also be in a different
>>>>>category.Any ideas people?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Mike S
>>>>>
>>>>>rmartin215 wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>If one films somebody walking down the street, or itnerviews them
>>>>>>briefly, is some kind of written permission necessary? Or, better
>>>>>>yet, what are the circumstances when written permission is
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>necessary
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>and when it is not.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>randall martin
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Yahoo! Groups Links
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Yahoo! Groups Links
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Yahoo! Groups Links
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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/
