Shooting Someone's House

Rob Lohman · December 10th, 2002, 09:34 AM

Well... what about this: just shoot what you want/need/might need
(since it will be over shortly you will at least HAVE your footage).
In the meanwhile you can try to sort it out how this works legally
(through someone here or your friend). But at least you have your
footage. So if you decide to go ahead lateron you will have what
you need. If you decide that the risk is too late all you have done
is trained your film skills some more and you can remove the
footage without ne1 ever seeing it.

This way you give yourself a little bit of room to breath and you
can pospone the actual decision to a later time when the stress
to shoot it has gone.

Good luck!

Robert Knecht Schmidt · December 10th, 2002, 09:44 AM

I don't think expressing subjective opinions can possibly fall under slander/libel. There has to be some lie involved--and how can a lawyer disprove that your Christmas decorations suck bigtime?

Mark Moore · December 10th, 2002, 12:09 PM

Thanks. Rob, the idea to shoot and sort it out later is the smart idea. I can't believe this generated so much response, but I'm glad it did - it was very enlightening.

Also, I agree with you Robert - on the issue of trying prove libel/slander on a subjective opinion. Of course, I'm no lawyer.

I will post my lawyer friend's opinion when I get it.

Again, thanks to all who posted. I actually feel better about proceeding.

Richard Alvarez · December 10th, 2002, 12:54 PM

Interesting thread, with a lot of valid, interlocking points.

Slander/libel is an issue if you defame someone. But the someone has to be identifiable. The lawyers for/against the case would argue these points.

"In the public view" certainly allows for photography or videography of the site, but PROFITING from someone else's image is a different area of the law. One has a right to privacy, one also has a RIGHT TO PUBLICITY which cannot be infringed upon either. (Here's where those cases of people selling tapes of women showing there breasts at mardis gras run afoul of the law. You can shoot em, but you can't SELL em!)

It really is a tricky situation, and everycase is different. That's what my attorney/wife calls "job security".

Dan Holly · December 10th, 2002, 03:00 PM

<<<-- Originally posted by Robert Knecht Schmidt : and how can a lawyer disprove that your Christmas decorations suck bigtime? -->>>

I busted out laughing after reading this.......thanks, you put some twisted x-mas joy in my brain today......hehe

Robert Knecht Schmidt · December 10th, 2002, 04:00 PM

I'll be signing autographs after the show.

December 10th, 2002, 09:34 AM	#16
Rob Lohman RED Code Chef Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Holland Posts: 12,514	Well... what about this: just shoot what you want/need/might need (since it will be over shortly you will at least HAVE your footage). In the meanwhile you can try to sort it out how this works legally (through someone here or your friend). But at least you have your footage. So if you decide to go ahead lateron you will have what you need. If you decide that the risk is too late all you have done is trained your film skills some more and you can remove the footage without ne1 ever seeing it. This way you give yourself a little bit of room to breath and you can pospone the actual decision to a later time when the stress to shoot it has gone. Good luck! __________________ Rob Lohman, visuar@iname.com DV Info Wrangler & RED Code Chef Join the DV Challenge \| Lady X Search DVinfo.net for quick answers \| Buy from the best: DVinfo.net sponsors

December 10th, 2002, 09:44 AM	#17
Robert Knecht Schmidt Wrangler Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Cleveland, Ohio Posts: 1,933	I don't think expressing subjective opinions can possibly fall under slander/libel. There has to be some lie involved--and how can a lawyer disprove that your Christmas decorations suck bigtime? __________________ All the best, Robert K S Search DVinfo.net for quick answers \| The best in the business: DVinfo.net sponsors

December 10th, 2002, 12:09 PM	#18
Mark Moore Major Player Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: North Carolina Posts: 301	Thanks. Rob, the idea to shoot and sort it out later is the smart idea. I can't believe this generated so much response, but I'm glad it did - it was very enlightening. Also, I agree with you Robert - on the issue of trying prove libel/slander on a subjective opinion. Of course, I'm no lawyer. I will post my lawyer friend's opinion when I get it. Again, thanks to all who posted. I actually feel better about proceeding. __________________ Mark Moore Sugar Free Productions

December 10th, 2002, 03:00 PM	#20
Dan Holly Major Player Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Anchorage, Alaska Posts: 336	<<<-- Originally posted by Robert Knecht Schmidt : and how can a lawyer disprove that your Christmas decorations suck bigtime? -->>> I busted out laughing after reading this.......thanks, you put some twisted x-mas joy in my brain today......hehe __________________ Dan Holly Anchorage, Alaska

December 10th, 2002, 04:00 PM	#21
Robert Knecht Schmidt Wrangler Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Cleveland, Ohio Posts: 1,933	I'll be signing autographs after the show. __________________ All the best, Robert K S Search DVinfo.net for quick answers \| The best in the business: DVinfo.net sponsors

December 10th, 2002, 12:54 PM	#19
Richard Alvarez Inner Circle Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: San Mateo, CA Posts: 3,840	Interesting thread, with a lot of valid, interlocking points. Slander/libel is an issue if you defame someone. But the someone has to be identifiable. The lawyers for/against the case would argue these points. "In the public view" certainly allows for photography or videography of the site, but PROFITING from someone else's image is a different area of the law. One has a right to privacy, one also has a RIGHT TO PUBLICITY which cannot be infringed upon either. (Here's where those cases of people selling tapes of women showing there breasts at mardis gras run afoul of the law. You can shoot em, but you can't SELL em!) It really is a tricky situation, and everycase is different. That's what my attorney/wife calls "job security".