Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

Is it allowed to show brands in an indy? without permission

"You can be sued for anything, try best to protect yourself from loosing" - That's what I got from my media law class I took in college.

As for people in the background, if they're in public typically there is no presumption of privacy, in this case a release may not be necessary (this is why news coverage can feature people without a release)... Personally, I would do the best I could to have extras with signed releases in any shot where they can be clearly recognized...
 
Mike, generally speaking...

Anyone featured in your film needs to sign a release form. For the release form to be legally binding payment must be made and accepted. It can be as little as $1 as mentioned by Ketch. This is to establish the legal principle of "consideration".

You don't need to get a release form from passers by in the street or from members of the audience/crowd at a filmed event - as long as they know they were filmed and you are not misrepresenting them, ie if you are making a film about pedophiles and the VO says "child molesters are all around us" don't cutaway to an unknown face in the street just in case they know their rights and how to sue you.

As for copyright material like music or films, that's simple - don't steal it or you will be sued.

It gets way more complex with intellectual copyright - let's not go there...

As for my avatar, I stole it. I'm a big boy and I have a good lawyer:)
 
Mike Brent said:
OK screw everything. If they can do that, I can do whatever I want. They can sue me if they want, to me its a matter of freedom of expression and I'm ready to fight for it.
Click to expand...

Respectfully, if you have a project that you insist on doing that raises questions about copyright, usage etc you may want to look for legitimate legal help.
 
The real issue is that if you can't prove that you have proper clearances and releases, most distributors won't touch your movie because once they buy it, it becomes their movie and their liability. So all this talk about defending your freedom of expression is fine... but you're not the one who would end up defending it.
 
You watch too much TV and movies Mike. You don't stand up for what you believe in when you get sued. You go into massive debt paying overpriced lawyers. And that's if you win...

Noah
 
In that case the owner of the film is going to be a Panamian company owned by an offshore trust, registered on some island.
 
I have to say Mike that you are asking for advice and getting it from highly respected professionals you probably would not normally have contact with, and it sounds like you want what you want, and really don't want to respect that advice.

Stop wasting the time of those trying to help you.
 
Ask the founders of YouTube how they got so rich.

Step 1: Create incredible demand and traffic growth by flagrantly violating intellectual property, trademark and copyrights.

Step 2: Sell your site to the one company most brands in the world would never dare sue because of how dependent they are upon PPC and SEO.

It's just upsetting that while all of us work so hard to color inside the lines, companies like YouTube act like there are no rules. If not for their flagrant ripoff and exploitation of SNL's "Chronic-What-Cles of Narnia" Video, there would be no YouTube as we know it.

I'm not suggesting anyone follow in their footsteps but I also don't think that showing a can of Coca Cola or a Lexus automobile in your independent film is going to cause you any trouble in a post YouTube world. Believe me, these brands have much bigger fish to fry. If you are going to picture a brand, at least make sure neither your presentation of the brand nor the content that surrounds it would in any way be disparaging to the brand or in any way act as an endorsement. If the brand can't show damage in court, it's going to be hard for them to get anything and unless you are making an entire movie about a brand product, they are going to have a hard time proving to a judge that your film was successful because of the usage of their brand in a casual manner.

If anyone knows of a recent lawsuit against an independent film maker regarding positive usage of a brand in a non-controversial or non-disparaging film where the brand actually won a settlement, please let me know. I just don't know how a judge could possibly award a settlement in that scenario when facebook is making big money selling advertising on fan pages created by it's users without permission from the brand involved and while YouTube to this day continues to participate actively in the violation of countless trademarks, copyrights and performance rights.

Now, if you try to sell your film to a big company for theatrical distribution or cable broadcast, understand that most of those companies refuse to take any chances with IP infringement and so will either ask you to completely indemnify them, require you to edit out or cover up any brands or simply refuse to buy your otherwise desirable content. In the case of stock, the risk there is in how buyers of the stock footage might present the content in a way disparaging to the brand or in a way that claims endorsement. In which case, you would likely be sued if it's significant enough to warrant the brands' time so definitely avoid brands in footage intended for stock.

-michael zaletel
 
Robert Frank said:
Stop wasting the time of those trying to help you.
Click to expand...

Robert - I'm just taking out my frustration and using humor I'm trying to show how ridiculous this whole matter is. I think this thread will be of great help to many people and I thank everybody for their input.

P.S - I'm shooting a movie about a boy who meets a girl and they fall in love. I'm going to copyright this matrix (boy meets girl) so you all better find something of your own.
 
Liam Hall said:
Mike, generally speaking...

Anyone featured in your film needs to sign a release form. For the release form to be legally binding payment must be made and accepted. It can be as little as $1 as mentioned by Ketch. This is to establish the legal principle of "consideration".
Click to expand...

In release forms for photographic work intended for commercial sale no money needs to change hands before various stock agencies will accept those release forms. I think the same is true for stock video too. Do you mean that without any money changing hands those release forms wouldn't stand up in a court of law because they wouldn't be legally binding? Or does the fact that no money was paid give the release less 'weight'? As in, if someone who granted consent in a release for their image to be used for commercial purposes later changed their mind and wanted not be included in said photo/video project then the fact that they had accepted money already make their case weaker than if no money had changed hands
 
David Mullen ASC said:
The real issue is that if you can't prove that you have proper clearances and releases, most distributors won't touch your movie because once they buy it, it becomes their movie and their liability. So all this talk about defending your freedom of expression is fine... but you're not the one who would end up defending it.
Click to expand...

David's is perhaps the most important point of this entire thread.

-michael zaletel
 
Mark L. Pederson said:
You need to have a release from anyone who is clearly recognizable. Period.
Click to expand...

Mike,

My experience is consistent with Mark's comment. In many cases based on our own experience, it's the distributor that requires the releases.

If the distributor is of significant financial means (ie. deep pockets), their QC and law departments make you get everything buttoned down before it goes out.

When we film in large crowds at semi-/public places, there is usually a sign we post and then film the sign. Not full proof, but helps demonstrate you gave people opportunities not to be filmed.

Jack
 
Mike Brent said:
So in Borat, for example, every single person was signed on a release, including the people he just walked by in the street? For example all the people in the background of this picture?

http://marksilva.files.wordpress.com/2007/04/20061103borat.jpg

I don't think so.......
Click to expand...

One item that I think needs to be added to this specific case is that this was a ticketed event, and the back of the ticket most likely had a license to use their likeness in any way, just like when you go to a baseball game.
 
Also one thing to consider is people will sue you anyway if your movie has even the slightest success so why paint additional cross-hairs on your head? Being a film director seems to bring out the lawyers in people. Enjoy. :)

Noah
 
Emyr R. E. Pugh said:
In release forms for photographic work intended for commercial sale no money needs to change hands before various stock agencies will accept those release forms. I think the same is true for stock video too. Do you mean that without any money changing hands those release forms wouldn't stand up in a court of law because they wouldn't be legally binding? Or does the fact that no money was paid give the release less 'weight'? As in, if someone who granted consent in a release for their image to be used for commercial purposes later changed their mind and wanted not be included in said photo/video project then the fact that they had accepted money already make their case weaker than if no money had changed hands
Click to expand...
I mean it in pure legal terms. I'm no lawyer though!

BBC Radio recommend paying all contributors to a show for this very reason. Though whenever I've worked for BBC TV they have only ever stipulated signed release forms.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/commissioning/radio/network/docs/radio_release_forms.pdf

Here's a very useful resource on the subject, not just for newbies:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/filmnetwork/filmmaking/guide/before-you-start/checklist
 
Mark L. Pederson said:
You need to have a release from anyone who is clearly recognizable. Period.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure simply having a large board with all the legal jargon about how by walking around here you might end up in "Such and Such" production.

I used to have to use those from Paramount all the time for their bonus features that took place outside (tons of random people in NY for Saturday Night Fever). We had to get releases from people who spoke. The OC would use them quite a bit down on the Hermosa Beach strand where people could walk freely in the background of shots.
 
I recently took a class at Calumet Photo about this very subject. The instructor said that a public area like a street is fair game, shoot away. It might be different for video, but I doubt it. How do you think paparazzi can shoot celebs without releases if that wasn't the case?

I think with the example of zeroing in on someone and saying "there are child molesters all around us," the legal issue is not one of unauthorized use of a likeness, but of libel (or slander, never could remember which was which.)

In the case of showing a product like pepsi, do you think, as long as you don't show it in a bad light, a company would pay their lawyers to sue an indie production that has by definition shallow to empty pockets?

Of course, IANAL, so don't yell at me if I'm wrong.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top