6 ms·

When I worked in film/tv production we were perpetually getting signed releases from people who were in the shot. Is this just not a thing now? Or is the downsi

When I worked in film/tv production we were perpetually getting signed releases from people who were in the shot. Is this just not a thing now? Or is the downside so low that nobody cares?

toomuchtodo 4y ago
The downside is proportional to pocket size. If you’re a rando Tik Toker or YouTuber, you have nothing to take (or so little, you can round down to zero). A production company has assets or capitalization at risk, hence the legal dance around releases.
- giantg2 4y ago
  It can be a crime in some states depending on the circumstances, especially if audio is captured.
  - toomuchtodo 4y ago
    Different shades from a release for being in the shot versus recording someone’s conversation, but an important call out nonetheless. Interestingly, I haven’t heard of any criminal cases where social media folks have recorded and shared public conversations on platforms (TikTok, r/PublicFreakout, etc). Doesn’t mean they don’t exist, so if you’ve got case law to share, drop it here. I presume (Not a lawyer! Not legal advice!) that depending on jurisdiction, you may record anything in public assuming there is no expectation of privacy in the situation. https://www.aapsonline.org/judicial/telephone.htm https://www.aapsonline.org/judicial/telephone.htm https://www.theverge.com/2018/10/24/18015374/whyd-you-push-that-button-record-stranger-public https://www.theverge.com/2018/10/24/18015374/whyd-you-push-t...
    - giantg2 4y ago
      In general, that's true. However there are exceptions. Things like upskirt shots, recording in courtrooms, recording full or partial nudity (ie filming sunbathers), etc.
      - kencausey 4y ago
        In other words, intent matters.
        hervature 4y ago
        I don't think GP said anything about intent. If you "accidentally" upskirt someone and release it on TikTok, the victim and the court isn't going to be too impressed with "I didn't mean to and didn't notice it before uploading". Of course, there is some expectation of "within reason". Like, if you have to look at the reflection in the window, it is entirely reasonable to think someone may not have noticed before uploading.
    - Wistar 4y ago
      A Maryland case where a motorcyclist, using a helmet cam, video & audio records a cop brandishing a gun. Motorcyclist posts the video online only to be arrested and charged with a felony for having made the recording. The court threw out the charges. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maryland_v._Graber https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maryland_v._Graber
  - dclowd9901 4y ago
    What can be a crime? If you’re in a public space (and not the legal definition of public —- a mall is considered a public space despite being privately owned) you have no legal expectation of privacy. Period. End of story. There are very good reasons for this, despite the fact in creative tiktokers are definitely exercising the bounds of the law. Of course if the content somehow slanders or misrepresents someone, that’s another issue.
    - pronlover723 4y ago
      I tend to agree with your POV but as a counterpoint, in Japan it's against the law to film people in public without their permission. A shot of a crowd is unlikely to get you in trouble, and in fact, a shot taken without permission but that the person you took it of never finds out is unlikely to get you in trouble (although that's the same for shoplifting) But, it is the law there and it is often enforced. As an example you can find public exhibitions with signs up "no photography". You'll even find these signs at trade shows at many booths where you'd expect the entire point is to show off to the public. The point is, different cultures have different feelings about this. IIUC, it was Japan that made Google Maps remove faces from streetview.
    - dahart 4y ago
      Not sure why this is getting downvoted, I believe it’s correct for the U.S. Reminds me of the famous “Photographer’s Rights” pamphlet http://www.krages.com/ThePhotographersRight.pdf http://www.krages.com/ThePhotographersRight.pdf and there definitely are people out there making confrontation videos with security guards and police for YouTube based on knowing they can’t legally be stopped for shooting in public. It might be lame, but it is legal.
      - darekkay 4y ago
        > Not sure why this is getting downvoted, I believe it’s correct for the U.S. That's the problem: A US-centric "end of story, period" generalization. In general, you are not allowed to take pictures of other people in public without their consent in Germany and many other countries.
- maxerickson 4y ago
  The typical remedy is to remove the person that sues from the published media. Social media stuff has relatively ephemeral value compared to movies and TV series, and way simpler distribution. (so like the YouTuber can pull the whole video or just chop out the segment that the person appears in)
  - bigiain 4y ago
    With the current anti TikTok feeling in the US, I wonder how hard it would be to push for laws requiring TikTok to delete accounts of users who do this kind of content? TikTok assholes may not have any assets to make them worth suing (or even any identities you can point your lawyer at), but one thing that they do value is their following, if we can make this sort of shitty behaviour an existential risk to their TikTok clout, perhaps the behaviour will go away. Humiliating people in public for lulz should be a bankable offence on all social media platforms, with the only defence being pre-existing model releases if you're doing it with informed and paid actors.
habitue 4y ago
Signing the releases isn't in the videos you make right? Institutional knowledge isn't transferred to people on tiktok. They replicate what they see, which is the walking up to people part. All the stuff behind the scenes is only known by people working in the industry.
Waterluvian 4y ago
Did the release signing come after the intrusiveness? Or do all the “man on the street” segments feature people who were asked off-camera for permission?
- noduerme 4y ago
  in my experience growing up in LA in the 90s, hanging around where "reality" tv was being shot on the street, you usually get approached with a release by producers after they've already gotten you in a shot.
- defaultcompany 4y ago
  In documentaries I worked on we would tell people what we were doing and ask them if we could talk to them and then get a release afterwards. Not sure about other types of shows.
mdorazio 4y ago
The legal situation is different if the intended use of the footage is commercial (film/tv in your case) or not. Getting releases is still very much a thing in all the shoots I've been on recently.
- AlexandrB 4y ago
  I would argue TikTok (and most social media) is a commercial use. TikTok makes money, so does the TikToker sometimes.
  - superkuh 4y ago
    The US national parks service considers recording and then uploading the recording to youtube to be commercial. It requires permits to do so for many national parks.
staticman2 4y ago
It's my understanding that tv and film people do the signed releases because they don't want to be sued, not because they necessarily wouldn't eventually win an expensive legal battle if they were sued.

When I worked in film/tv production we were perpetually getting signed releases from people who were in the shot. Is this just not a thing now? Or is the downside so low that nobody cares?

toomuchtodo 4y ago

The downside is proportional to pocket size. If you’re a rando Tik Toker or YouTuber, you have nothing to take (or so little, you can round down to zero). A production company has assets or capitalization at risk, hence the legal dance around releases.

giantg2 4y ago
It can be a crime in some states depending on the circumstances, especially if audio is captured.
- toomuchtodo 4y ago
  Different shades from a release for being in the shot versus recording someone’s conversation, but an important call out nonetheless. Interestingly, I haven’t heard of any criminal cases where social media folks have recorded and shared public conversations on platforms (TikTok, r/PublicFreakout, etc). Doesn’t mean they don’t exist, so if you’ve got case law to share, drop it here. I presume (Not a lawyer! Not legal advice!) that depending on jurisdiction, you may record anything in public assuming there is no expectation of privacy in the situation. https://www.aapsonline.org/judicial/telephone.htm https://www.aapsonline.org/judicial/telephone.htm https://www.theverge.com/2018/10/24/18015374/whyd-you-push-that-button-record-stranger-public https://www.theverge.com/2018/10/24/18015374/whyd-you-push-t...
  - giantg2 4y ago
    In general, that's true. However there are exceptions. Things like upskirt shots, recording in courtrooms, recording full or partial nudity (ie filming sunbathers), etc.
    - kencausey 4y ago
      In other words, intent matters.
      - hervature 4y ago
        I don't think GP said anything about intent. If you "accidentally" upskirt someone and release it on TikTok, the victim and the court isn't going to be too impressed with "I didn't mean to and didn't notice it before uploading". Of course, there is some expectation of "within reason". Like, if you have to look at the reflection in the window, it is entirely reasonable to think someone may not have noticed before uploading.
  - Wistar 4y ago
    A Maryland case where a motorcyclist, using a helmet cam, video & audio records a cop brandishing a gun. Motorcyclist posts the video online only to be arrested and charged with a felony for having made the recording. The court threw out the charges. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maryland_v._Graber https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maryland_v._Graber
- dclowd9901 4y ago
  What can be a crime? If you’re in a public space (and not the legal definition of public —- a mall is considered a public space despite being privately owned) you have no legal expectation of privacy. Period. End of story. There are very good reasons for this, despite the fact in creative tiktokers are definitely exercising the bounds of the law. Of course if the content somehow slanders or misrepresents someone, that’s another issue.
  - pronlover723 4y ago
    I tend to agree with your POV but as a counterpoint, in Japan it's against the law to film people in public without their permission. A shot of a crowd is unlikely to get you in trouble, and in fact, a shot taken without permission but that the person you took it of never finds out is unlikely to get you in trouble (although that's the same for shoplifting) But, it is the law there and it is often enforced. As an example you can find public exhibitions with signs up "no photography". You'll even find these signs at trade shows at many booths where you'd expect the entire point is to show off to the public. The point is, different cultures have different feelings about this. IIUC, it was Japan that made Google Maps remove faces from streetview.
  - dahart 4y ago
    Not sure why this is getting downvoted, I believe it’s correct for the U.S. Reminds me of the famous “Photographer’s Rights” pamphlet http://www.krages.com/ThePhotographersRight.pdf http://www.krages.com/ThePhotographersRight.pdf and there definitely are people out there making confrontation videos with security guards and police for YouTube based on knowing they can’t legally be stopped for shooting in public. It might be lame, but it is legal.
    - darekkay 4y ago
      > Not sure why this is getting downvoted, I believe it’s correct for the U.S. That's the problem: A US-centric "end of story, period" generalization. In general, you are not allowed to take pictures of other people in public without their consent in Germany and many other countries.
maxerickson 4y ago
The typical remedy is to remove the person that sues from the published media. Social media stuff has relatively ephemeral value compared to movies and TV series, and way simpler distribution. (so like the YouTuber can pull the whole video or just chop out the segment that the person appears in)
- bigiain 4y ago
  With the current anti TikTok feeling in the US, I wonder how hard it would be to push for laws requiring TikTok to delete accounts of users who do this kind of content? TikTok assholes may not have any assets to make them worth suing (or even any identities you can point your lawyer at), but one thing that they do value is their following, if we can make this sort of shitty behaviour an existential risk to their TikTok clout, perhaps the behaviour will go away. Humiliating people in public for lulz should be a bankable offence on all social media platforms, with the only defence being pre-existing model releases if you're doing it with informed and paid actors.

habitue 4y ago

Signing the releases isn't in the videos you make right? Institutional knowledge isn't transferred to people on tiktok. They replicate what they see, which is the walking up to people part. All the stuff behind the scenes is only known by people working in the industry.

Waterluvian 4y ago

Did the release signing come after the intrusiveness? Or do all the “man on the street” segments feature people who were asked off-camera for permission?

noduerme 4y ago
in my experience growing up in LA in the 90s, hanging around where "reality" tv was being shot on the street, you usually get approached with a release by producers after they've already gotten you in a shot.
defaultcompany 4y ago
In documentaries I worked on we would tell people what we were doing and ask them if we could talk to them and then get a release afterwards. Not sure about other types of shows.

mdorazio 4y ago

The legal situation is different if the intended use of the footage is commercial (film/tv in your case) or not. Getting releases is still very much a thing in all the shoots I've been on recently.

AlexandrB 4y ago
I would argue TikTok (and most social media) is a commercial use. TikTok makes money, so does the TikToker sometimes.
- superkuh 4y ago
  The US national parks service considers recording and then uploading the recording to youtube to be commercial. It requires permits to do so for many national parks.

staticman2 4y ago

It's my understanding that tv and film people do the signed releases because they don't want to be sued, not because they necessarily wouldn't eventually win an expensive legal battle if they were sued.