A friend of the blog tried to find a little zen tonight at a yoga class, ran into a few castmates, and shared her story with us. Another in our continuing series of how the RWDC is invading the Dupont WSC.
Tonight after work our friend decided to go to a yoga class at the Dupont WSC. Our friend walked into class and sat down next to one of the RWers (big mistake, her words). There were no cameras at that point. The cameras arrived as the class was about to start. They stayed for awhile at the beginning then left and came back. No one in the class was asked to sign a release and our friend was told that the teacher would and that would be enough [Editor's note: what?!] She said that none of them could say where they were from or why they had cameras following them and one was wearing stripped pajama bottoms that looked ridiculous. My friend described them as annoying and whiny (shocker).
8 comments ↓
None of the RW dc cast look attractive.. I’m very dissapointed. Also,, we should all show up with Video cameras and do one of those improv walk on the sidewalk things. Just like someone did at the A&F having people dress up like they work there. I think over 50 people participated.
4 of the the cast members were in the boxing class also and a camera almost the entire hour long class. It actually wasn’t that bad. One of the cast members looked like a goofball trying to box, which was good for a laugh here and there. The other guy in the class was pretty good (Ty from Baltimore) and seems like a nice guy.
I believe the law is that only the landlord of an establishment has to sign a release and anyone who enters the private establishment is subject to the terms of that release. Could be wrong but that is what i have heard/experienced. You can ask to have your privacy kept, but you have to opt out of the release.
As someone who works in tv/film production here are the basic legal rules while filming…
Under general production guidelines, if they’re on a public street (at a monument, outside the White House, etc.) it’s considered a “public space” and they can film all they want without releases. This is how local news can go out and capture footage of people during news stories and not get sued.
The rules change when it comes to private property though. Generally speaking, if you’re in an area where one could assume is private or privately owned, you have a right to not being filmed. That’s why when the “Hills” shoots in bars/restaurants in LA, they go up to people that they think will still be eating/partying once they start filming and get release forms. Now if the club has signed a release form for the “Real World”, all that does it protect TRW from being sued from a club member. That does NOT protect the WSC from being sued by said club member, because while WSC may be fine with TRW filming inside, if club members didn’t sign release forms (and there’s no section in the membership contract regarding implied release/waiver during filming) WSC could loose it’s gym shorts in the lawsuit. That said, if there were signs up in the yoga room (or on the door to the club etc.) that indicated that filming was going on and permission was implied, you’re screwed and don’t have a case.
//Production law is sooooo much fun
////Also if they blur your face to the point where it’s not recognizable (ala COPS) you don’t have a case either… sorry!
Eric – Thanks for the info. Assume this law also applies to still photos?
Matty,
I’m not too familiar with rules/laws when it comes to still photography. All of my work has been broadcast/film related. I would go by the same standards as for film, but I think the courts tend to give a little more leeway with still photography; especially in news events.
It also depends upon how the image is used. Someone can’t take a photo of you (without your permission) and use it in an advertisement (For instance, you’re eating a burger at a burger joint, they can’t just take a photo and say “Matty loves our grilled burger.”) But, they can take a restaurant photograph, and if you just happen to be inside, the could possibly use that (That said, in all my years of advertising, we still got waivers/releases for anyone on screen.)
Public spaces/monuments I would bet still fall underneath the “you don’t have privacy” clause. So the Parks Dept. in DC could take a photo of the Washington Monument for an advertisement, and if you happen to be in it, tough.
Like I said though, still photography isn’t really my scene though…. Those are just the laws I would play by.
Always a good resource for general photography info:
http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm
As it says, in general, you may take pictures in public spaces (parks, streets, sidewalks or really any place where you wouldn’t have a reasonable expectation of privacy ) without asking for permission from anyone in the field of view. Property owners may bar photography on their premises, but cannot stop you from taking a picture of their property from say across the street.
And yes, I would probably need to your permission to use your image for commercial purposes (though this link only addresses photography in public spaces in general)
Of course there are always exceptions and local ordinances may vary.
I have run into them a couple times now and Im getting scared that i didnt read the release before I signed it! Ive been searching the web to try and find a copy so I can read it but cant find it…does anyone know where I can find it?
You must log in to post a comment.