BUSINESS AND MARKETING: Business and Marketing Forum Business and Marketing Articles

Broll Question

COW Forums : Business & Marketing

<< PREVIOUS   •   FAQ   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
Aaron CadieuxBroll Question
by on Jan 21, 2013 at 5:04:17 am

Hello everyone,

For a time, I was working on a project that was never finished. It was a documentary that contained historical reenactments that were shot. I am now working on a documentary that can benefit from some of the reenactment footage from the unfinished documentary project. There are many shots from the reenactment footage that were framed as to avoid the reenactors' faces. Are shots which avoid showing the reenactors' faces fair game to use in the new film? I shot the footage.

Thanks,

Aaron



Return to posts index

Shane RossRe: Broll Question
by on Jan 21, 2013 at 9:42:38 am

It doesn't matter if you shot it...that footage belongs to whoever hired you to shoot it. You can see about licensing it for use with the new project...pay for the footage from the last project with the budget of the new one.

Avoiding faces or no...it isn't "fair use."

Shane
Little Frog Post
Read my blog, Little Frog in High Def


Return to posts index

Aaron CadieuxRe: Broll Question
by on Jan 21, 2013 at 1:20:16 pm

Shane,

Maybe I should clarify. It was my documentary. I shot the footage. I own it.

So would I need permission from a reenactor if the footage I have does not show their face?

Thanks,

Aaron



Return to posts index


Shane RossRe: Broll Question
by on Jan 21, 2013 at 4:32:28 pm

Why would you need to hide their face if they were an actor that you hired to shoot this footage? Just because you change what project it is used in, doesn't mean that their permission changed. They are actors that acted in a scene that you shot. Doesn't matter what project you use it in.

Unless you go from showing them as a kind father to a serial pedophile. You aren't doing that are you?

Shane
Little Frog Post
Read my blog, Little Frog in High Def


Return to posts index

Todd TerryRe: Broll Question
by on Jan 22, 2013 at 2:35:52 am

[Shane Ross] "Just because you change what project it is used in, doesn't mean that their permission changed... Doesn't matter what project you use it in. "

Hate to have to disagree, but that's just not at all true.

It completely depends on the nature/scope/wording of the talent's original contract and/or release.

Hiring actors directly generally/often yields a contract and release that gives you rights to the actor's performance in perpetuity for whatever project you want... IF you're smart enough to word it that way, and IF the talent is willing to agree to that. That's the kind of release we get most of the time... well, unless an actor is smart enough to refuse that.

Hiring actors through a representative or talent agency usually results in stipulations that specify release of an actor's performance usually only for a specific project, and sometimes for a specific time period (if for broadcast, rather than theatrical).

Hiring actors who are members of a performers' union (AFTRA-SAG) for participation in a union-signatory project ALWAYS results in a contract and release that is for THAT specifically-contracted project ONLY. You absolutely CANNOT use that footage for another/different project without a new and separate contract and release.

T2

__________________________________
Todd Terry
Creative Director
Fantastic Plastic Entertainment, Inc.
fantasticplastic.com



Return to posts index

Shane RossRe: Broll Question
by on Jan 22, 2013 at 2:53:39 am

That can be true. But I'm currently working on a show where we scavange reenactments from other shows to make ours work. Bits of Free Masons in a meeting is now a secret meeting of the KKK. Something we shot for an FBI episode is now used as b-roll for corporate espionage. Both shows were for the History channel, so we have the rights to that footage.

In one case, the footage was shot by the company that I am currently working for, so they had the masters. In the other case, we pulled footage from show masters given to use by History for this purpose. And I have worked on many shows with the same workflow. Used footage from shows shot for the same network on other shows...or pulled from show masters.

But I'm not in the legal dept, so I don't know what agreements they have.

Shane
Little Frog Post
Read my blog, Little Frog in High Def


Return to posts index


Todd TerryRe: Broll Question
by on Jan 22, 2013 at 3:13:15 am

Yeah in that case obviously the legal eagles were smart enough and the production company wise enough to secure those broad releases for those particular talent performances. As I said, that's what we always do. I've only rarely had an actor balk... the last one who tried is both a friend of mine, and a lawyer... but he ended up signing the broad release anyway.

An unrestricted release though is certainly not the guaranteed norm though with paid talent. Sometimes it is, but very often it is not. Just depends on the paperwork, and who agreed to what usage.

But in Aaron's case, with him not showing recognizable talent, it's extremely unlikely that it would ever come back to bite him. Not impossible, but very unlikely.

T2

__________________________________
Todd Terry
Creative Director
Fantastic Plastic Entertainment, Inc.
fantasticplastic.com



Return to posts index

Mark SuszkoRe: Broll Question
by on Jan 22, 2013 at 4:36:26 pm

I think Todd's correct here. Even if you don't show faces, and if you have some individual releases, did you ever have clearance from the re-enactor club as an organization? Likely you're in the clear in this instance, for the reasons Todd suggests, but you're an exception that proves the rule. Generally, you can go by the Catholic School dictum:

"Whatever is not mandatory, is forbidden".

:-)


Return to posts index

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
© 2017 CreativeCOW.net All Rights Reserved
[TOP]