OT - Filming in Public

<<The plaintiff doesn't have to prove that s/he has been hurt by the
portrayal. His/her right to control his/her own image is enough.>>

From the California Statute:

Any person who knowingly uses another's name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness, in any manner on or in products, merchandise, or goods, or for purposes of advertising or selling, or soliciting purchases of products, merchandise, goods or services, without such person's prior consent, or, in the case of a minor, the prior consent of his parent or legal guardian, shall be liable for any damages sustained by the person or persons injured as a result thereof.

In establishing such profits, the injured party or parties are required to prove his or her deductible expenses.


::Regarding the distinction as to whether this person's involvement is as an individual (with right to publicity) or as part of a definable group (without the same right)::


(2) If the photograph includes more than one person so identifiable, then the person or persons complaining of the use shall be represented as individuals, rather than solely as members of a definable group represented in the photograph. A definable group includes, but is not limited to, the following examples: a crowd at any sporting event, a crowd in any street or public building, the audience at any theatrical or stage production, a glee club, or a baseball team.

(3) A person or persons shall be considered to be represented as members of a definable group if they are represented in the photograph solely as a result of being present at the time the photograph was taken and have not been singled out as individuals in any manner.


It seems to me that the woman in this example falls squarely into the (3) category. The photograph (video) was being shot and she walked through it. She was not being singled out as an individual.


Despite my disagreement with Derek on his interpretation of the statute, I think this thread really underscores how murky this subject actually is. And I guess the bottom line is, "better safe than sorry".

Andy

> I think this thread really underscores how murky this subject actually is

I'd second that notion. The laws quoted also don't seem to apply to motion-picture or videography work nearly as well: For example, what if the shot is of a group of marathon runners (defineable group), then you zoom in on one of them in a medium close-up (identifiable and "singled out"?

Actually that's a great example of how the law applies. You'd have to get a release from the guy you zoomed in on, but not from everyone who ran the marathon. Hopefully, he/she'd be your actor and you'd have a reason for singling him/her out.

Also, in the marathon example, there is the added protection that the media enjoys under the 1st amendment. You have the right to tape/film people in public places if the event is newsworthy. A marathon race would certainly fall under this category. I bring this up because this is the defense that the "Girls Gone Wild" lawyers used sucessfully to defend their right to shoot some girl who flashed the crowd at Mardi Gras in New Orleans. GGW producers are certainly not news people, but they were sucessful in their case because the event was defined as "news worthy".

Andy

This touches on much of what's in the fairly good DV magazine article "Best Practices on Fair Use"

You need to create a free account to view it - but well worth the time -

[www.dv.com]

As I read it - if you're not directing her - and not profiting from her image - and your camera was not hidden - then you're in the clear.

Ian