Using News Footage in a Documentary...

What are the steps/legal issues in using something that was broadcast on the news, a local news station?

Would you contact the news station for permission or if you taped it off the Television can you use that?

Thanks

You must contact the station to obtain proper rights to use the footage. Using the footage you record off the screen etc. may result in serious legal complications.

Okay, sticky question, do you need to get subject release forms for non-profit documentary work? I know that news photographers can pretty much shoot what they want as long as they aren't trespassing. Does the same apply to people doing documentary work?

release:
in general YES .. doesn't matter if it is for non profit or profit.
if you are planning to show it other then your living room for your enjoyment - get a release ...

"news photographers can pretty much shoot what they want
Does the same apply to people doing documentary work?"

again in general get a release. unless you are doing this for some news organization... get advice from a lawyer to see if your project just might fall under NEWS ? most news is shot today and shown this evening ....

actually a news video can't shoot whatever they want .. it has to be NEWS ... me walking down the street is not news unless i'm walking out of the lottery office with a 60million $ check.. michael jackson walking down the street is news .. notice that when your news station does a story on over "weight" persons .the persons they video on the street they avoid showing their face.
they might show a crowd shot with 30 persons but when they move into a 1-3 person shot they avoid faces and just get the body.

You can download releases from the Sundance site if you wish...both for profit and not for profit.

Two questions:

If I purchased photos from Ebay, could I use those photos in a documentary or does someone still retain rights?

The photo in question is the famous pic of the Wright Brothers and their first flight taking off. I purchased a large print and would like to incorporate that in the doc.

Secondly - the sculptor used family photos of the Wright Brothers as models for his statues. I would like to use those photos as well (to show the difficulty of creating a three-dimensional piece of work using only a photo). Would I need permission from the family to use those photos as well?

Thanks for the assistance.

Umm, does anyone know these answers? I'm editing the doc and I'm at a point where I need to know if I have to secure releases or not.

Thanks in advance.

If it's the Wright Brothers image I'm thinking of, it certainly is not in the public domain (Bettman archives?) You can not copy a photo and use it for commercial purposes just because you purchased it.

Hold yer horses, its only been 7 hours since your first post. :)

Most likely, none of us will have the answer, since we don't know exactly which picture it is, and who still owns the rights. That may need some lawyering to find out.

To make an educated guess, I would say, yes someone owns the rights to that picture, and yes you may have to get the permission of the family to use those pics. That might be fairly easy.

If your documentary is going to be seen by the general public, I would certainly do this the proper way.

Thanks guys! Yeah, only seven hours - my short attention span whining started early!!

I can easily get permission for the family photos, but the First Flight Photo sounds like it may be difficult.

John Daniels (a Kill Devil Hills lifeguard) took the original photo and I have a contact for one of his descendants, but not sure if he (or the family) owns the rights.

I'll check that. However, you have answered the two questions I needed. Yes, it is going to be seen by the general public and probably sold in the Outer Banks gift shop by the National Park Service, so I do want to do it right!

Thanks again.

I am filming a documentary and I have two questions regarding music and logos :

1) If I am filming in a bar or coffee house and the music is in the background, do I need release forms from the artist for this? I had heard that if the music was not the focus of the interview or the doc and it was indeed background, it was ok. Any people have experience with this?

2) If I am filming in a coffee house such as Tim Horton's or something and they have their logo in the shot, is this a problem (the logo is not the focus of the interview)? I am not sure, but in Super Size ME, McDonald's was all over the place, so I wonder how he got away with it.

Thanks in advance!

Hey Mandy
We've answered many similar questions in the Business forum. I'm moving your thread there. If you don't get any responses, try using the Search button for some good reading.

Mandy, the short answers are, "yes," and "yes."

Do a search on my name and "incidental reproduction" for a discussion about background music (in brief, what you heard was wrong).

The answer to your second question is actually considerably more complicated than a simple, "yes, you'll have a problem." Do a search on my name and "likelihood of consumer confusion" for discussion about trademark infringement issues.

In Supersize Me, the producer's use of the McDonald logo would not have resulted in likelihood of consumer confusion as to source and, in any event, would clearly have been privileged under the First Amendment (there is an equivalent fair use doctrine for trademark as well as copyright).

So I've been searching these forums and reading a lot on people getting (and sometimes not getting) permits for features. They all involve actors/actresses, more than one person crews, larger equipment etc.

So what about documentaries? I once heard that they along with newscasts are exempt for the most part. Urban legend or not?

My crew would consist of myself and my equipment would be minimal; dvx100a, tripod, small softbox, that's about it. I just can't see even beginning to work on a project if I have to shell out hundreds for insurance, permits, and off duty officers.

Anyone out there know if there is a permit loophole for very low budget docs? If not it looks like this idea is dead before it even began.

Thanks in advance.

Toby

No one can tell you what it's going to take without knowing the subject and scope of your shoot. I do know this.

If you interview someone on tape, get them to sign a release.

If you are shooting on 'private' property, get permission. This includes such private forums as shopping malls, amusement parks, arenas, business campuses, schools... you get the point.

Try not to record any'ambient' music that might be playing in the background, or you'll have to get clearance rights to it. This can actually include ring tones of phones.

Shooting a doc doens't HAVE to be expensive, if you take the time to plan it out.

Good luck

Permits are generally required by governments to be sure you are insured.

1. As a one-person operation, you can usually get by without permits, but this varies by city and by what kind of camera you are using. Try shooting with a PD-170 on the Staten Island Ferry without a permit, and you will be thrown in the East RIver or sent to Guantanamo. With a one-chiop consumer cam, you will likely be fine.

2. You can buy insurance from RVNuccio for a couple of hundred dollars a year, and it covers your equipment as well as liability up to a million dollars. This is the magic number that gets you a film permit. And most (not all) permits are free, they just want you to have the insurance in case someone gets hurt. If you have insurance, THEN you can make a case for a "documentary rate" if the city charges for permits.

Thanks guys I appreciate the info.
Toby

Just adding a little thing - as far as I know ambient music which plays somewhere in the background and records to your tape will not go under copyright and therefore you will not need any permissions or agreements for that. I don't know the exact source, but it was some professional.

If you can hear it, you must clear it!

In many countries, believe it or not, tripods make the difference. You can film off the shoulder without a permit but as soon as you have three legs on the ground, you need a permit. That's the case in Switzerland.

One last little note. DO NOT ever go near an embassy without formal permission. I just had a really bad experience filming in Rwanda.

i shoot all the time in SF and around bay area with out a permit. try to look like a tourist !! wear shorts, bright colorful shirt, hat and have a MAP stuffed in your back pocket ..
on the street i use hand size camera. no tripod ( do use a monpod sometimes) no boom , no softbox/reflector .. i use wireless mic's ..do not gather in a group where you are shooting .. if you need to discuss things do it away from the spot you want to shoot .. i've only been stopped once and that was in golden gate park !!! using long lens ...actors were 25 yards away in crowd. camera was on tripod. they asked for permit ..then gave us 5 min to clear out equipment or they would take it ...

Hey everyone,

I'm thinking about making a documentary about public advertising and was wondering what fair use policies are in effect in cases like mine. Can I show footage of TV commercials (direct feed from the TV to the camera or the camera shooting the TV), newspaper or bus ads, t-shirt logos, pop machines (and pop cans), billboards, radio commercials and other public advertising? Are there any limitations to how much footage can be used, in what context it can be used, required creditation, permissions, fees, limitations on what logos can be used during interviews talking about those products, or anything else along those lines?

The plan is to acquire footage of many different mediums of advertising and show exactly how it is portrayed to the consumer. I've seen many documentaries where they show different forms of public advertising and I highly doubt they have to pay huge amounts of money to do so. How can I make sure that not only will I not have to pay these companies now, I won't have to down the road either?

So aside from my other questions, is there anything I should be concerned about relating to the use of company brands and logos in an analytical documentary, or anything else about this kind of work in general?

I realize that without speaking directly to a lawyer, I can only rely on this advice to a certain point. Still, your suggestions are highly appreciated.

Thanks,

-Mark

Mark,

I thought I'd chime in because there is likely a difference between Can and US on this one.
I been researching some issues like this and plan to speak to a lawyer next week (though at $300 per hour I probably won't get into your specific question). I think it depends on a couple of things:

How is the company being portrayed by you? If they are being portrayed negatively, then you're asking for trouble.

Are you profiting from the film? If so, expect trouble again.

Normally companies like to have extra advertising, They pay big bucks for product placements in movies, but they don't want negative advertising.

Not that you can't do it. Hell, I'm working on a doc to save some parkland and want to expose city officials as corrupt.

I think if you balance the advertised products (ie. show both Coke & Pepsi, Ford & GM) you'd be better off.

Oh yeah, and depending on the project, you will most likely skate free until it receives any kind of recognition (ironically media attention), then they'll nail you. If it stays underground, they likely have many bigger fish to fry.

Just my 2 cents worth.

Good Luck, it sounds like an interesting idea.

Ken.

Mark,

If you haven't read it yet, check out the STICKY on top 'Will I get caught..' by Richard Alvarez.

Thanks for the reply, Ken. My questions aren't so much about whether or not I'll get caught, it's if I even need permission in the first place. You're probably right about Canadian and American laws being different. I've got just a few followup questions.

Doesn't the fact that it's a documentary make a difference? If it was a fictional film about a guy who hates Pepsi, that might be one thing, but I'm hoping to provide an analysis of public advertising. It would be a critical analysis (questioning the ethics of these forms of advertising and their results), butI wouldn't be focusing on any specific brand, type of product or even medium. How do TV news segments get away with it?

I watched a documentary this evening (which is actually what got me motivated to get working on this project) and they used companies' logos fairly frequently. It's called Big Sugar (link (http://www.cbc.ca/documentaries/bigsugar/)) and was about the way sugar is used in the world. In one scene, they had about 20 products that each contain sugar on a table and mentioned about 5 or 10 different product names as being items that contain a certain amount of sugar.

Is it the fact that they are being unbiased and clearly fact-based when showing those product shots?

Shortly after, they talked about Pepsi having licenses in schools and showed shots of a school vending machine and people drinking Pepsi. They were very obviously being critical of Pepsi about it.

The documentary was CBC-funded so who knows, maybe they had the budget to pay these companies for permission to use their logos? I doubt it, though. Plus, I've seen several low-budget documentaries aired on national TV that also show logos and definitely didn't pay anyone to be able to.

I just remembered I've got an aunt who's a lawyer (though she doesn't really deal with this kind of thing) so I'll give her a call and see what she thinks.

Thanks again for your help! I'll let you know what I find out.

I am not a lawyer nor do I play one on TV...

There's often a distinction made between appearance of trademarks and copyright material in works of journalism versus the same imagfes in other kinds of work. If the film on sugar and soft drinks in schools was made as a piece of investigative or even editorial reporting one set of rules will apply. If it's an entertainment, promotional, or educational piece on the "Wonderful World of Sugar" a different set of more restriuctive rules kicks in. If it was advertising for a certain brand of artificial sweetener and the sugar company's trademarks were being shown covered by the red circle and slash mark "forbidden" symbol even more restrictive rules would apply.

Mark,

I really doubt that CBC would pay for any use of logos. But I bet they have a team of lawyers who understand every nuance of copyright law.

I would try to get some free legal advice on the topic, only problem is most advice is worth what it costs. I might sneak the question in to the lawyer I see who apparently specializes in such things.

I always thought the the 'Trailer Park Boys' blanking out of brand names was just as a cinematic style, maybe it has some legal merit.

Ken.

Hey all -

So I am planning on shooting my first 15+ minute documentary while I am down at the beach this summer. I have already talked to various places to see if filming would be ok and if I could have people to interview etc. I am planning on shooting this as a travel documentary with some structure as to how I am shooting it (i.e. the places I am visiting) but kind of also shooting it as I go.

My question is: is there any way I can plan this out/script it somewhat. I will be using a sibling as the "host" of the doc and following them around, so I do want it somewhat scripted. But I was just wondering how I could do that so it was somewhat organized, and how I should shoot V.O. stuff.

Any advice is appriciated!

Thanks,
Amanda

You will learn the art of how to put this together by actually jumping in and just doing it. The first one will be a learning process. Just know that ahead of time.

Now, here's a few things to consider. Btw, I have not filmed a docu, but I've done a rather involved and scripted short film and a few "unscripted" weddings. Both things, as well as a docu, are greatly enhanced by a lot of preparation and then the ability to let go and discover and improvise as you go.

--But I would plan out as much as you can. Think of a storyline, or some kind of structure for the ideas. Are you using text screens? Think of appropriate images that you can film. Write and re-write a voiceover, while saying it aloud to yourself and imaging the images that will be playing. By doing this, you'll improve your "sense" of how things will edit together. I find this part to be the most fun. There's no limitations yet. No problems. It's pure exploration. Don't rush into the hard part. Let the ideas percolate.

--Have your sibling practice being the host at home in a controlled environment. What will your sibling say? What's the tone?

--How experienced are you with the camera? Do you know how hard it will be to get clean audio outside? Are you good with exposure, shutter speed...? Are you hand holding the camera or using a tripod? Handholding can be shaky, tripods boring.

--If you intend this to be of any quality, I'd expect to do the first few days of it twice. Once you prepare, go out there and jump in, make mistakes, then figure it out.

--A lot of documentary films are hours and hours and hours of footage, recorded with a good idea of what you want to say beforehand, but it always changes as you go, you always discover things. Then you just sit with what you actually filmed and find some kind of thematic throughline or story or logical structure for the ideas. Good luck.

I will be shooting a documentary in villages in Central Africa. What is the situation regarding releases from the villagers who will be appearing. Any experience/suggestions/reference points,

Thanks

Ned Cordery

Moved to Taking Care of Business from Open DV Discussion.

Hi Ned

I'm not authority... but have shot stills around the world...

If you are in an area where model release is possible naturally you should do it...

but we live in countries where you run straight to an attorney for the slightest thing.....Any one-hit-wonder has the right to sue your ass...
This is not the real world!!!.

Here in France the Monaco Royals, for example, earn thousands of Euros from favourable court cases, by suing photographers, magazines etc... but in most countries this is not an option or a possibility.

If you shoot in Central Africa, what are the chances of the subject ever seeing, taking offence, and getting an attorney on your case????

I think that if you are courteous, and honest, you'll get access and no hassle as in our world..

Regards

Gareth

Hi,
I am Canadian and got a permit and a visa to film in India. The local consulate had applications specifically for doc filmmakers. I also had location releases and personal releases. I had them translated by a service that I found online. It's important that they have legal/business translation experience. I had these printed double sided with English and the local language. I'm no legal expert, but I get the impression that you should get sufficient legal coverage for your home country. India and many African countries might be lax in terms of releases while you are actually shooting people, but you might run into troubles with broadcasters, distributors or other end users. It might be difficult/costly/impossible to get E&O (Errors and Ommissions) insurance without these releases. If you know your end user, maybe they can tell you what sort of legal coverage they're looking for. You could also do an internet search to see if the country you're going to has a film office. Consulate websites are also helpful.

You can also try d-word.com It's a free forum for professional doc filmmakers. Click on the "Community" and join. I'm a beginner but told them that I was working on a doc and they let me register. There's a legal forum. The site is American but there is a broad international member base.

Tim

Gentlemen, thank you for your replies, helpful. The project is on behalf of a University and they will help but I needed some background which you have provided.

thanks,

Ned C

I got a question, I was watching some recent documentaries, such as Fast Food Nation, and some others my Mike moore, and I realized he shows alot of logos, and other things in the film. Is it illegal to show logos? or brands? I wanted to make a documentary regarding junk food, by naming its providers, and possibly showing the logos, can it be done? or it illegal?

It is not illegal in the sense of a policeman will come to your house and arrest you if you do it.

However, if you show trademarks in what their owners consider to be an unflattering light they might sue you for defamation of their trademark. You would then have to defend the claim in court and pay damages if you lose and/or remove your work from public view. If what you have to say is true or at least debatable and not an outright lie then defamation would be hard to prove.

In the case of Fast Food Nation and other such documentaries the trademark owners have to decide what's worse in legal and PR terms: suffer the claims made in the film or being seen as lending credibility to the claims by suing to prevent them from reaching the public.

If McDonalds had sued the Supersize Me producers all they would have done would be to suggest to the general public the films claims were damaging to McDonalds and were perhaps more credible than McDonalds wanted the public to know -- far worse in PR terms than anything they might gain.

McDonalds did the sensible thing and said that if anyone eats too much of any of the same foods they might become sick or fat and that McDonalds food is just fine if enjoyed in moderation and that it's all a matter of individual choice anyway.

I see. Thanks for explaining that, I basically just wanted to go after junk foods and stuff, I can always take out the food itself, no need to show the wrapper.



It is not illegal in the sense of a policeman will come to your house and arrest you if you do it.

However, if you show trademarks in what their owners consider to be an unflattering light they might sue you for defamation of their trademark. You would then have to defend the claim in court and pay damages if you lose and/or remove your work from public view. If what you have to say is true or at least debatable and not an outright lie then defamation would be hard to prove.

In the case of Fast Food Nation and other such documentaries the trademark owners have to decide what's worse in legal and PR terms: suffer the claims made in the film or being seen as lending credibility to the claims by suing to prevent them from reaching the public.

If McDonalds had sued the Supersize Me producers all they would have done would be to suggest to the general public the films claims were damaging to McDonalds and were perhaps more credible than McDonalds wanted the public to know -- far worse in PR terms than anything they might gain.

McDonalds did the sensible thing and said that if anyone eats too much of any of the same foods they might become sick or fat and that McDonalds food is just fine if enjoyed in moderation and that it's all a matter of individual choice anyway.

Fast Food Nation (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0460792/) is not a documentary; I believe you are thinking of Super Size Me (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0390521/). One is a hilariously irreverent indictment of the fast food industry, the other is a uninspiring PoS by Richard Linklater. ;-p

Peter's points not withstanding, questions of legality should always be directed to an attorney. If you want to be a documentary filmmaker, and you want to make films which raise issues, you will want to make damn sure you have all your legal ducks in a row.

I searched around and there is quite a bit on music - but I can't find any reference to visual bits such as a news article

Does anyone know the legal/copyright stance on using a scanned image of a news article from a paper to a make a visual point in a documentary style piece?

And of course, Canada maybe different from the states in this regard as well.

Trish

Most newspapers publish a copyright notice somewhere in each edition, at least that's been my experience. While I'm not a lawyer, my guess and experience is that it will be a no-go. Now if you take the factual content and re-write it in your own words, that would be another matter.

thanks for the info

I wonder how doc makers like 'loose change' got away with all that they did!'

trish

You'd probably be able to get permission to use images "courtesy of" - far easier to contact a newpaper publisher than the nightmare which is music clearances... one contact point, likely fairly simple with an in house legal advisor who would probably regard it as "good publicity", as long as your use is not objectionable.

It's a good idea to give credit where credit is due and ask permission when it's appropriate. Sometimes you need to ask permission, sometimes you can use material under the terms of "fair use." The Center For Social Media worked with several other organizations to create the seminal document, "Documentary Filmmakers' Statement of Best Practices In Fair Use," which is available at:

http://www.centerforsocialmedia.org/resources/publications/statement_of_best_practices_in_fair_use/

their site also has lots of related information you will find of interest, for example, an excellent FAQ at:

http://www.centerforsocialmedia.org/resources/publications/fair_use_frequently_asked_questions

excellent - thanks for the tips and those links

I've been trying to find a 'how to' resource for this area - this a good start

Trish

I'm winding up post on a doc about an old 1970's movie; being able to use newspaper articles is such a bonus and adds tremendous impact to visuals. In my case, I was fortunate in that there was just one newspaper and it was regional. Many/most regional newspapers are owned by much larger companies now, but after explaining the nature of the story, they granted me one off use of articles for the doc. I would advise contacting someone in editorial, explain your situation and even ask if they'd be interested in doing a story on your doc.

<boorish_rant>
I'm somewhat at a loss to explain the number of posts I see from people mentioning "Fair Use" of copyrighted material as a legit excuse for not dealing with a copyright owner, and I'm thinking that most of these posts are from well-meaning folks (but not filmmakers) using educated guesses. Unless you're making a home movie or plan on distributing yourself, no serious distributor will touch a doc unless you provide them a binder containing releases, etc. covering material, interviews etc.. It's almost impossible to get a pickup nowadays anyway without removing all chance. And this isn't even considering the unthinkable that the newspaper owners/lawyers will one day see your doc and take you to court.
</boorish_rant>

[...] <boorish_rant>
I'm somewhat at a loss to explain the number of posts I see from people mentioning "Fair Use" of copyrighted material as a legit excuse for not dealing with a copyright owner [...]
</boorish_rant>

Yes, there's a lot of misunderstanding and false notions out there regarding the concept of "fair use" in copyright law. That's why the American Center for Social Media has published a wide range of resources on this issue, including the FAQ I mentioned above: Fair Use Frequently Asked Questions -- Publications -- Center for Social Media at American University (http://www.centerforsocialmedia.org/resources/publications/fair_use_frequently_asked_questions) and more recently, they've published "Code of Best Practices in Fair Use for Online Video" available at Online Video Resources -- Center for Social Media at American University (http://www.centerforsocialmedia.org/resources/online_video) which is along the lines of their highly respected ""Documentary Filmmakers' Statement of Best Practices In Fair Use."

I hope you did not take my post to imply that fair use is a way to use stuff without permission. But there are provisions in copyright law, a body of case law, and best practices in several industries, that together provide guidelines about when it might be legitimate to "quote" other people's media in you own work. Any discussion of fair use should start with the American Center for Social Media's resource pages. Their documents are widely used and respected by both content users and content owners.

This forum helps a lot with this situation.

There is so much cloked in secrecy about copywrite that one really has to look for an explainantion.

The general lack of information out there about what you can not do implies that one can do a lot of violations, until one is educated.

This forum helps a lot with this situation.

There is so much cloked in secrecy about copywrite that one really has to look for an explainantion.

The general lack of information out there about what you can not do implies that one can do a lot of violations, until one is educated.

Unfortunately, education can in theory be expensive... if it results in litigation. A good rule is if there's going to be money involved in any way... you really should get clearances. Or if it's going to broadcast...

[...] you really should get clearances. Or if it's going to broadcast... When you can get them, yes, it's a good idea, but one reason the Center for Social Media has worked to both educate people and document best practices is that sometimes media makers need to be able to use media without permission, and there are clear and well understood best practices in the field of documentary filmmaking. One should always seek legal advice, but one should not assume you have to get clearance for everything. There are best practices for this. If we were unable to quote media for critical analysis and educational use, media owners could completely choke public discourse and control the free exchange of information, especially critical information. The original intent of copyright law was to provide a limited monopoly. Today, the time limits are so long, that fair use becomes more and more important. At the risk of starting an off-topic debate, I suggest reading Lawrence Lessig's blogs and books (see http://www.lessig.org/blog/) for a philosophical perspective. For industry best practices however, the documents and educational materials from the Center for Social Media are the best place to start.

Unfortunately, education can in theory be expensive...

Ditto that. Unfortunately, this ends up not being a philosophical argument, but a legal one. It's gotten to the stage where I wish that there was a forum filter that blocked posts that include the expression "fair use"! Unless you're making a home movie, assume the use of any copyrighted material will need to be formally dealt with (that often, but not always, will involve a payment), or make sure that you have an intellectual property lawyer/trial attorney in the family, or have unlimited deep pockets to pay for legal representation.

Forum members should be very careful in pointing newby's to subjective interpretations of "fair use" arguments in using copyrighted or protected material. I'd argue a more useful subject view of Fair Use can be found here:
CSPD Zoomed Comic (http://www.law.duke.edu/cspd/comics/zoomcomic.html)

Greg