rebel without a crew legal query
i was reading rebel without a crew and it says that during the filming scenes in the streets they put up signs in english (in mexico) saying that if you walked past where they were filming the gave them their right to film them. i was wondering if this is true and is a legal contract, and how well this would stand up in english law?
it won't stand up, and is pretty pathetic, to be honest (IMO)
I don't know the law in Mexico. In the U.S., based on your description, it would not result in an enforceable contract.
it's not a contract but it serves several purposes. first it allows those who don't want to be in a movie to walk somewhere else, this also means they can't sue you of course, then a lot of the people who do want to be in a movie think it's a contract and thus don't know they can sue, and finally it makes it harder for golddiggers to sit there in court and say they didn't want their picture taken, your lawyer will of course ask them if they saw the sign and so on. even legally it helps to be able to prove that people have been informed. but no, it's not a real release.
were the signs really in english? the only person who didn't speak spanish in that town would be the producer/villain, and it's unlikely that he would sue anyway. :-)
/matt
Okay, a little legal reality here. This applies to the U.S. only -- I don't the law of Mexico:
If you're filming on a public street, putting up a sign saying, "if you pass by here, you agree to be filmed," is unenforceable for a couple of reasons.
First, to be an enforceable contract, there has to be a quid pro quo, i.e. something given in exchange by both parties to the contract. Passers by have a legal right to be on a street, so you're not giving up anything by telling them that exercising that right means a waiver of any objection to use of their image. The result, however, would be different if you've obtained a permit that would permit closing off the street. If you have the right to prevent their access to where you're filming and you condition access to their consent to be filmed, an enforceable contract would result.
Second, both parties have to know that there is a contract on offer. If I don't see your sign, I haven't agreed to the contract and it's not enforceable.
That said, as a general rule, you can take video of people on public streets (or viewable from a public street). The test is whether there is an expectation of privacy and the general rule is that, when you are in public, there is not. However, even though shooting strangers on public streets may be permissible, there are still other concerns. Most states have limitations on what can be done with such video under commercial appropriation of likeness laws -- the specific restrictions vary from state to state. In any state, you will still have to be concerned about such things as false light defamation and invasion of privacy depending on how you use the images.
For these reasons, it is always a good idea to obtain a release from anyone who is recognizable in a film or video.
In the book he wrote them in English so the Mexicans would not understand it and not complain I guess.Originally Posted by mattias
If you did just do it just as back up along side a release form, should you take a picture of the sign? I guess it’s not a real release form, the BBC for example are very strict on these kind of things and don't accept any work without release forms of anyone present.
If for example you have people in the background but because of shallow DOF and their faces where not 100% visible are you alright to film without a release form. I think in the shot in el mariachi where he put the sign up the people walking where a long way away so they were slightly out of focus.
Another shot I am interested about was where this man on a motorbike rides past the camera. In the UK/US films would they have to get rid of the shot or do it again if they could not catch up with the man?
Thanks again for help!
"Another shot I am interested about was where this man on a motorbike rides past the camera. In the UK/US films would they have to get rid of the shot or do it again if they could not catch up with the man?"
In the UK...
Certainly not.
i've sold films to british television, not the bbc though, but they never asked for release forms. i had to agree that i had them though, which i did, so i did.
i don't have the book in front of me but i don't remember him claiming they were in english, but if you say so...
/matt
Could somebody point me to the exact web link or exact webpage, where one can download a release form (in English and/or German) for actors and artists, for the purpose of appearing in a short or feature digital video, to be submitted to a film festival. Thanks.
It is common practice to have signs at concerts and other large events that give the producers of those events the right to use your image and likeness for their purposes.
The contracts and signs are included in the production handbook I bought from Amazon. Some features that shoot huge crowd scenes use that kind of arrangement -vs- getting a signed release from all of the individuals.
Check out the BJ35 Adapters. Because nothing helps a filmmaker better than a BJ.
Okay, the law is different between countries and I can only speak for the UK but it is absolutely legal to film people in a public place without their permission. Generally, if anyone is able to "view them" then you can film them, because you are not filming anything any other person can't see.
However, there are a few considerations. They have to only be part of the background and not easily noticeable. For example, you can't specifically focus on a particular person walking down the street, but you can just film everybody on the street in general. You would also need release forms were they to speak in your film.
Like I said, this is only UK law, and you can see it if you watch a lot of British programming because they'll often have a news reporter walking down a busy street with people walking past while he talks to the camera.
I wouldn't actually be surprised if Mexican law wasn't similar. US law, however, I really can't say. I've seen a lot of US programming but can't think I've actually seen anything that clearly shows large numbers of members of the public just going about their business. However, saying that, there must be something that allows it in the US or else we wouldn't see so many paparazzi photographs and videos – those clearly haven't gotten release forms but are still legal.
FREE pre-production software ( Screenwriting | Storyboarding | Scheduling | Call Sheets ) http://www.prophotolife.com/video-library/ –– Helpful videos on how to light subjects
who's presumably shooting news, not a movie. i don't know about the uk but yes, that means a different paragraph applies in many parts of the world. commercials are generally another separate case, with even stricter laws. you can't use that ben stiller (his name popped up) shot you got at the restaurant to promote your products but go right ahead and post it on your gossip blog.
/matt
Well, for me a "rebel" bends or breaks the rules and just tries to not get caught. A rebel does it and sees what happens later. Signs can only make it less likely that someone will sue.
If you don't want to take any risk get a filming permit and use only extras to fill the scene, you rebel.
Studio Special Place - Amateurs built the Arc, professionals built the Titanic
Very good point. The book is not about how you're supposed to make movies, it's about how you can make them, possibly faster, cheaper and easier, if you bend the rules a bit.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote