I’m a fan of the (low-class proletariat) shows like “America’s Dumbest Criminals” and the other shows that have police video.
Except for “Cops”, most blur the faces of the guys robbing the stores or running from the police or similar.
The law, I though, is that anybody is public can be photographed or filmed, there’s no need to get signed releases or anything. This all should be public domain behavior.
Provided they’re not minors, of course, why do they blur the faces?
Secondarily - do you think the stores intentionally fuzz up the tapes from store & bank cameras? Quality always sucks - I can’t think that a bank could begin to use tape of that quality for security. It’s usually fuzzy enough to create plenty of “reasonable doubt” in my head as to the identity of a robber.
I have heard something similar to DrFidelius’ explanation. Then as someone noted there may be legal considerations i.e. the producers lawyers may say blur it out of caution.
I met someone in Phoenix who was one of the ones with the blurred image. Her friends recognized her and called and said the ‘Guess what, you are on TV.’ sort of thing so it apparently does not hide identity.
I love that they blurred out one of the characters in the “X-Cops” episode of X-Files. It remains one of the funniest X-Files moments of all time to me.
I believe that Cops gets people to sign releases (I expect, but don’t know, that the producers offer cash in exchange for the release).
I think the reason that shows generally blur out the faces is that it is just easier to avoid the hassle of getting sued. Yes they would probably win if they argued that they were filming something happening in a public place, but who needs the hassle? The producers of these shows are not crusading for justice, they are just trying to make a buck (not that there is anything wrong with that). so it is easier to get the folks to offer the folks a small (by the producers’ standards anyway) payment and to just blur the face if the person won’t sign.
I hate to speculate, but I’d guess that the producers of such shows are concerned about potential slander liability. I mean, they’re showing them on America’s Dumbest Criminals or whatever, basically calling the offenders dumbasses in the most public way possible. I know that a lawsuit against the show would almost certainly fail, but they’d probably like to avoid the hassle in the first place.
Do the people who get arrested or appear on COPS get paid to be on the show?
The policy for the show COPS is to not compensate those who appear on camera.
In the early years, we used to see lots of people with blurry dots on their faces. Now we rarely see that. Why were their faces blurred but others were not? And why do we not see blurred faces anymore?
Those who appear on the show must sign a photo release, allowing Langley Productions to use their face on their shows. In the first years of production, many people weren’t familiar with the show and some refused to sign the release. The show just blurred out their face and included them in the story. But the process of blurring is expensive and time consuming. Also, over the years, more and more people saw being on COPS as their chance at their “15 minutes of fame” so were more inclined to sign. Today, the show tries to not blur faces if at all possible which seems to be the preference of the viewers.
Perhaps it’s similar to the incredible over-use of “suspect”. I like watching cars crash and people get tazered as much as the next guy, but if it isn’t the over-dubbing of screeching tires on a 10mph chase, it’s “suspect”:
Call him a perpetrator or something dumbass, we don’t suspect he’s doing something, he’s right there on video doing it!
The REAL reason (read: conspiracy theory) is that they blur the faces as the criminals are fakes and really cheaply paid actors. Blur the faces and there’s no proof.
Can’t be just this - sometimes these shows go on to say, “and he got 12 years in jail for thus & so”. So some are convicted by showtime & they still blur them.
Tangential question but - really? Expensive and time-consuming? I’m just a fledgling when it comes to image and video editing but I know it is a trivial matter to blur a face in a still image that only takes a few seconds.
Now if they had to do that for every individual frame, I can see time-consuming. And obviously the blur does have to move as the image moves, but in this day and age does not pro video editing software facilitate this process? It’s a common enough requirement that I imagine software must be set up for it. And are the editors who do this simple and repetitive process really making big bank?
I think the issue is a combination of cheap cameras and reused tapes. My understanding is that many businesses consider the main purpose of the camera is either to serve as a deterrant in and of itself or to confirm employee theft.
Yeah, I know, you’d think they’d do a better job of pretending to care about employee safety.