Insurance -- the big discussion thread

[Don Palomaki]

Does WEVA offer it to their members?

[Keith Loh]

I don't even know what that is.

[Jeff Donald]

Hi,

I have all my equipment covered as part of my home owners policy. It is a "Whole Risk Rider". That means it is not subject to any deductable and the insurer assumes all the risk, meaning theft and any type of user damage. It is not very expensive. I pay about $200 or so anually for $20,000 of coverage. I should also point out that it covers replacement value not the purchase value. If you have business insurance your equipment can be covered under that, but you would have a deductable.

Jeff

[Don Palomaki]

WEVA is the Wedding and Event Videographers Association. They have a web site; http://www.weva.com. They list insurance as a member benefit.

[Doug Thompson]

I have all my equipment (both still and video) covered under the insurance plan of the National Press Photographers Association (NPPA). It's a good plan that provides full coverage and prompt reimbursement for all losses (you have to be an NPPA member to use it).

We aware that most home insurance policy riders usually cover only camera equipment for personal use, not professional or work related.

Doug

[Keith Loh]

Thanks to everyone who replied. It's strange but the photography shops that I queried had no idea about camera insurance and some of these places have been around for a long time. You'd think they would be quick to make referrals.

[Jay Thompson]

Hi everyone!

I am filming a documentary and have the opportunity to ride along with some EMS responders as part of the program. However I am unsure as to what the legalities are as far as showing the faces of any 'civiliains' that are worked with.

It would appear that with the show COPS, they are allowed to show any face but that of a minor (being under the umbrella of the police). Does anyone know from experience what the proper procedure is here? Standard releases here or something more?

Also, when somone signs a waiver allowing themselves to be filmed at all times during an event and then asks the camera person to turn off the camera to make a statement, do they have the legal right to make such a request and have it granted? My guess would be nada. Any takes on that?

Thanks!!
Jason

[Chris Hurd]

Here's the deal, Jason... at all times, to protect yourself legally (we call it CYA, or "cover your assetts"), you'll need a signed waiver.

The way it works on "Cops" is that signed waivers are required for that show as well. When the people on camera find out that it's for such a largely popular network television program as "Cops," they usually sign on the spot, or at any rate, they sign before the air date. With that particular show, I've heard of some instances where a judge will make it a condition of probation to sign such a waiver.

There has been a lot of legal discussion about this sort of thing, and the current direction with regard to cameras in a police environment is that a person occupying their primary dwelling (where they live, whether they're renting, own a house, or whatever), has the right to deny the entrance of video cameras in all cases except felony warrant service. This law varies from state to state, however.

And, more recently, hospital patients are more empowered to refuse cameras in their presence while undergoing treatment. I've heard of new legislation protecting patient's privacy rights even though the subject may be unconcious or physically unable to sign on a waiver while in the hospital.

The whole breed of police and medical reality shows is definitely spawning a new interest in privacy rights, and where cameras are and are not allowed to go without express written permission. To avoid devastating legal consequences, or at least to avoid the high cost of legal defense, you'll want to get it in writing every time. Hope this helps,

[Justin Chin]

sanjuro1 said:

"Also, when somone signs a waiver allowing themselves to be filmed at all times during an event and then asks the camera person to turn off the camera to make a statement, do they have the legal right to make such a request and have it granted? My guess would be nada. Any takes on that?"

In the interest of having your subject cooperate with you and your crew, you should turn the camera off. If they see that you're rolling when they've asked you not to, they are likely not to want you in their vehicle and no longer give you access. That is all in their rights. If it is a documentary give people some room, make them feel comfortable and they'll give you all the material you need. You shouldn't overtly abuse their hospitality.

[Jay Thompson]

Chris,

Thanks for the thoughtful and insightful input. This is certainly something I will be discussing with the Chief on duty and working out with the responders.

Justin,

I agree with you and have done just that. My only concern is that they have been kinda abusing that favor I have shown to them. To the point that sometimes I have missed the 'meat and potatoes' conflict of the peice. I wasn't talking about the ride along in this case, rather the other portions of the shoot with everyday people. Thanks for the advice as well though.


Any more thoughts?


Jason

[Dylan Couper]

Jason, a little explanation goes a long way.
I think explaining to them that the stuff they want you to shut down for is the stuff you really need. Explain to them that you really have to capture it so that whoever sees your docu will understand what their job is really all about and how important it really is.

ie. Butter them up. :)


As for your other problem, get a realease form, make 100 copies of it and carry them with you. Get everyone to sign it.
If you don't get people to sign it, you may have to blur individual faces out of the shot, which is probably better than not using it at all. Of course, laws differ from area to area.

[James Emory]

Jason,
I had the very same question ten years ago. I was just out of school and ready to hit it hard. I chose to do a reality program for cable just like "Cops" because of the doability, is that a word?, meaning you shoot it and then cut it. However, after getting into it, I found that there's much more to it, get ready for some long hours in post, especially with key framing with the blurr! Anyway, I was curious about how they were able to show suspects' faces. I mean who would want they're personal problems broadcast all over the world. Well, you would be surprised who will sign that dotted line. When told they would be on a national program many of them looked at it as their 15 minutes or part of it. I called Barbour/Langley the producers of "Cops" and spoke with the editor and he said that the crew had releases for signing and that many of the incidents did not air until much later after producers followed up to get consent to show the faces. They could air it without consent and conceal identity, but they know faces make it more interesting so they try hard for consent. Not knowing what to do and not able to afford a lawyer to draw up releases, I just composed my own and kept it simple making sure that it was clear that the individual would NOT receive ANY reward or compensation for consent to use their video image or likeness in any capacity and having the officer sign as a witness. Now that's the best proof you can get! I think the biggest fear with consent is being sued for harming reputation or for compensation for using their likeness so be careful. I made it a rule not to shoot at private residences on domestic calls or private family matters. I was threatened one time and that's when I made the rule. You don't want to introduce more stress to the incident by shooting someone who doesn't want to be on camera, and sometimes they WILL come after you because of their state mind. I had the s_ _ t scared out of me more than once. I wouldn't want a crew in my house taping me at a difficult time. Use good judgement. Luckilly, there were plenty of foot chases and incidents on public ground to keep me busy and a few people signed. I could not believe it. From what I understand, news organizations are protected by a law or clause because of the public's right to know and can, without a release, use your likeness for public information without compensating you. They can even shoot footage of you on your private property in your house with a zoom lens and use it without consent as long as they did not physically step foot on your property without consent to get that footage. Isn't the law fun? You can view a unit of an episode of my program at the link below. Hope this helps. Enjoy!


Task Force

http://community.webtv.net/JEFCom/TASKFORCE

[Chris Hurd]

Wow -- straight from someone who has been there and done that. Excellent advice, James! Many thanks,

[Jay Thompson]

Hey James, thanks for the really great first hand account. This will certainly be a different experience and I will post how things go. As it stands now, it will take place next month sometime.

I sincerely thank everyone who posted advice and stories. This board has saved me a fortune in both money (with the great sponsors) and heartache (by listening and learning from others). Very cool combination in my book. I only hope I can make the transition soon to advice distributer rather than constant advice recipient, and be able to give back a little.

Jason

As a shooter/producer (and sometimes editor) of many medical ("Trauma: Life in the ER" and "Maternity Ward," etc.) and police documentaries ("Police Force," "Miami Homicide," etc.), let me share what I know about the release issue.

Broadly speaking, there really is only one issue: right to privacy. About 2 years ago, Supreme Court ruled that a camera crew (I believe it was from NBC) violated right to privacy of suspects whose home was invaded by police executing a warrant. It didn't matter that the camera crew was invited by and given consent to filming by the police. And it didn't matter that camera crew didn't air the footage. The court ruled that the MERE ACT of filming someone's private space constituted an invasion of privacy. And of course this ruling applies to many filming situations. Say, for instance, a homicide detective is canvassing the neighborhood for witnesses and knocks on a door. You can ask the homeowner for his/her permission to film the detective while he/she is inside the house talking to the homeowner. If they say, no, then you absolutely can't film. But if they say yes (and what I do is, while I'm talking to the homeowner, I keep rolling but point the camera down to the ground to make its presence non-threatening--so that you have an audio recording of the conversation), at the end of the filming, you get them to sign a location release (giving you permission to shoot his/her private space and use it in your program), and an appearence release for whomever you filmed inside that space.

This same principle applies to every space that the court has ruled is "private." I agree with other posters here that great portion of the subjects, provided you've clearly explained what you're doing (and smile a lot), will give you permission to shoot and then sign a consent form. In fact, from my experience, people whom you think will be embarrassed to have a footage of themselves being aired (as such as suspects) are often MORE likely to give consent than many law-abiding, middle-class (and often white) subjects who have nothing to lose by appearing in your program. In case of minors, you need an appearence release from their guardians (parents, grandparents, etc.). Also remember that minors do not have the right to give you permission to enter into their homes/private spaces.

Since this Supreme Court ruling, and the patient privacy act that the Clinton administration enacted (that's now being pretty much gutted by the Bush administration!), hospitals and other healthcare institutions have put down strict rules about filming patients. In the early days of producing "Trauma," we would shoot the patients freely as they entered the hospitals, and then use that footage if we received their written consent later. This strategy was needed by the simple fact that, many patients when they entered the trauma unit are in no condition to give legal consent! Now, hospitals put many restrictions on what we can film in the first place (this varies from hospitals to hospitals).

Finally, remember that even written releases, no matter how they're worded, do not give you (the producer) much legal protection. It's not a binding contract because there is no exchange of goods and services. All it is a document that says the subjects understands the circumstances of the shooting and that he/she agrees to them. I've had instances of people changing their minds about appearing in the show months after they've signed the appearence releases--and only few days before the show was to air! Because it's not a legally binding contract, the subjects have the right to change their minds.

I completely agree with the other posters here that your best defense is your power of persuation, sense of journalistic fairness, and your ability to build trust and goodwill with your subjects.

Good luck with the project!