Under what circumstances can you use someone’s image without permission and not face civil action later (of any merit)?
Faces are often blurred out on the TV show “Cops” but many times they aren’t. I can tell that some of these people with blurred out faces are not minors. The paparazzi don’t seem to have to worry about using celebrity images but IIRC there is some leeway for “public figures.” In the TV show “Taxicab Confessions” the producers always ask for a release.
Im sure in many cases the people are paid for use of their image but what about when they aren’t?
People in the public eye have a reduced expectation of privacy. Therefore, when in public, they may be videotaped without their permission. On a show like COPS, when you see an unblurred face, you can assume a release has been obtained. You may see them shoved in a police car and whisked downtown, but the producers catch up with them later. I am not sure if payment is invovled, but it’s certainly possible.
If you’re talking about an ordinary person (not a public figure), then you are free to take and use an image of that person if it is in a public place. I can’t remember the exact legal rule, but it’s probably along the lines of the one that applies to warrantless searches – that is, when that person is in a place in which he or she has no reasonable expectation of privacy. However, you may not use the image in a way that misrepresents the person in some way.
So, for example, if you are at the scene of some public event – say a riot or a street fair or whatever – the local TV news crew can record your image and use it without your permission in illustrating its story about the event.
However, they cannot take video of you walking down the street and use it as generic footage in a story about prostitution. Believe it, or not, a TV station (some time in the 1980s, I think) actually did this. They went out on the street, recorded an image of just any woman walking down the street and used it as stock footage accompanied by a voice-over promoting a story about prostitution. That station lost big.
If it’s a situation in which you have voluntarily with knowledge taken part in an activity that is likely to be recorded, then you have less of a claim. I’m sure all the day-time talk shows get signed releases from guests who appear in the studio, but, technicially I don’t think they necessarily have to. If you showed up at the taping of a TV show knowing what was going on, then that might be considered consent.
If it’s a situation in which there isn’t some newsworthy event going on or if it is in a private place, then no one can use your image or likeness for any reason. To do so would constitute the common law privacy tort of “misappropriation.”
I’m not entirely sure about the “Cops”-type situations. I would think they would have to get releases from people who are being accosted by the cops in their doorways in an embarrassing situation (this could be related to another common law privacy tort – making public private facts).
As for being paid – I wouldn’t be surprised if many of these people weren’t actually paid. They just signed releases in exchange for appearing on TV.
As I understand it, faces are always blurred on “Cops” unless the person signs a disclaimer allowing their face to be shown. “Cops” doesn’t pay, but a surprising number of people do sign anyway. Either they want to cooperate with the police, or they want to be on TV.
You can see a similar thing on MTV’s “Jackass”. When they film stuff in public, some of the bystanders (not involved in the skit in any way, they just happen to be looking at what those nutcases are doing) are blurred, some are not. I assume that anyone the producers can’t get to sign a release gets blurred, even though they’re filming in a public place and the bystanders aren’t involved in the show in any way.
I actually thought about this the other nght after a particualrly gruesome episode of one of those ER trauma shows on cable. This family was being told that thier some had been shot and was unlikely to make it thru the night.
It was horibly and then after a while it occured to me that at some point, maybe not that night, but at some point the producers had to approach the family and say
“terribly sorry about your, loss, but would you sign this so we can put you on tv?”
And beyond THAT just the presence of a video crew in a private conference with the ER Neurologist and the head of Trauma telling the whole family about this por kids brain swelling… ack…
I mean… it is educational, and not terribly sensationalist, and gives me a new respect for the job (which i found out later, my dad did for several years), but it still icks me out a little bit.
My father pointed out a story to me a couple of years ago in the Chicago papers. A man (just some guy, not a public figure) was out jogging, and a film crew shot him going by and used the footage in a TV commercial (a sports drink, or some fitness related product, IIRC). They never got a release; in fact he didn’t know anybody had filmed him until he saw himself in the commercial.
The story was about him filing a lawsuit. But I didn’t hear anything further about a resolution.
If you read the small print on a sporting event ticket or concert ticket, it has language to the effect of “by attending this event, you give permission for you likeness to be used in any recording of the event without compensation.”
At the Washington National Zoo, as you enter the panda area there is a notice informing you that once you pass a certain point, there is a chance you will be on the panda webcams and that you are consenting to this.
There was an interesting interview a while back on NPR’s “On the Media” with somebody who obtained legal releases for shows like this. He was mostly commenting on how astonishingly easy they were to obtain, because the lure of appearing on television is so strong. Even if the footage they have is of some guy who’s roaring drunk, standing on his porch with no shirt on, shouting incoherently, waving a shotgun around, and generally looking like a complete idiot, the guy is likely to be quite willing to sign a release.
Psychological factors also played a part, according to him. They tried very hard to make the person think the TV people were his “friends”, and sympathizing with him, as opposed to the nasty police. Manipulative as hell.
At SeaWorld, there is fine print on the park show schedule that indicates that publicity crews for Annhueser-Busch theme parks may be recording crowd shots and that your presence in the park indicates consent that your image by used in publicity materials. However, at the Shamu show, there is a large video screen that is used for crowd shots (among other things). Before the show begins, and announcement is made that anyone’s face may appear on the giant screen and that if you object to that, please find and use the exits.
I’d think that, in the case of Cops, a consideration might be that the scenes being shown heavily imply some wrongdoing on the part of the subjects. I’m sure a few, if not many, beat whatever case comes out of their videotaped interaction with the cops. So obtaining a release seems prudent, whether filmed in a public place or not.
And some of what I’ve seen the few times I’ve watched Cops is filmed in private domiciles during raids.
I’ve wondered before if I had an actionable cause with a station here. They did an investigative report on drug use in the corporate workplace and their lead in film focussed on me and a friend walking down Main Street. The show had nothing to do with me; they apparently just wanted to start with a shot of a couple of young (ah - it was twenty years ago) white collar types. I never knew they were filming, nor did I see the show.
My boss did, though, and he told me about it. He thought it was funny.
You probably did have a cause of action for misappropriation or some other privacy claim, not because they filmed you on the street without permission, but because they associated your image with drug use.
sorry to reactivate a dead old discussion
but can’t help myself and here is the related place/topic to ask
on NBC’s THE VOICE season 4 episode 25
faces of many teenager bystanders are blurred while they looking at contestant’s parade.
i’m wondered why, nothing illegal or insulting or criminal going on
so many people are attended and many teenagers and children were there to welcome their hero.
so why faces of all teenagers were blurred?
i can’t imagine any wrongful use of their faces even in my wildest dreams.
there was a open public local simple welcome ceremony, and people from all walks of life were there.
So can some one enlighten me please!
thanx
