Promo Filming

[Graham Hazel]

My employer at Head Office wishes to have a crew film myself and/or other of my colleagues doing what we do at work at our satellite site many miles from HO, to be shown at some later stage to the rest of our large countrywide company. Its an in-house promotional video.
Questions :-
A) Do the staff appearing in it need a modelling licence or something similar from HO before filming?
B) If I and staff colleagues (3 at most on any given shift) happen to be on duty the day of the crew arrival are we obliged to be compliant and appear in it ?
C) What is the Law regarding this.... Law / Act / other, what is the title of the Law or Act so I may quote it if required to.
Clearly this is not sinister in any way, but it would be nice to have clarity on what my employer is entitled to expect of the staff ?
Many thanks.

 

[Deleted member 59730]

what my employer is entitled to expect of the staff ?

That they comply or else. Why on earth would you refuse to help?

 

[The Byre]

You will need signed release forms for each and every person appearing.

 

[Graham Hazel]

That they comply or else. Why on earth would you refuse to help?

Ah.... a helpful response I see.
Well some people may not wish to be filmed for many reasons, the personal view of themselves that they don't like, or some may simply be camera-shy...... many reasons I'm guessing that I cant even think of. Perhaps these would be some of the "why on earth would you refuse " objections.
Maybe another contributor can offer something a bit more useful ?

 

[Graham Hazel]

You will need signed release forms for each and every person appearing.

Thank you "The Byre".

 

[Mr D]

Ah.... a helpful response I see.
Well some people may not wish to be filmed for many reasons, the personal view of themselves that they don't like, or some may simply be camera-shy...... many reasons I'm guessing that I cant even think of. Perhaps these would be some of the "why on earth would you refuse " objections.
Maybe another contributor can offer something a bit more useful ?

Indeed - people can be great at their job but self conscious when knowing they are being filmed.
Nothing wrong with that.

Perhaps if anyone does not want to be filmed they can mention this to management and be out of scene for any filming. Maybe the filming would be arranged for when they aren't on shift.

Others may be willing to take part.

 

[Deleted member 59730]

the personal view of themselves that they don't like, or some may simply be camera-shy......

That is the problem that the person making the film needs to overcome. If he cannot and the filming is abandoned because of non-cooperation the boss might not be best pleased.

 

[Lucan Unlordly]

That is the problem that the person making the film needs to overcome. If he cannot and the filming is abandoned because of non-cooperation the boss might not be best pleased.

Some years ago now, our boss wanted to shoot a video of the telesales team at work, sent the ugly one's on an early lunch and drafted in a receptionist and girl from accounts as stand ins

 

[Martin Kennington]

You don't need any release forms or licenses and there's no law, as such, to quote to anyone who questions about being featured in the video. I've shot dozens of videos at various companies and the only time we've needed release forms was for commercial release.

Best advice is to just crack on and film it. If anyone is adamant they don't want to appear, perhaps explain that it's not for external or commercial use. If they really kick up a stink, then exclude them from the video.

 

[paulears]

Martin - this is fine if the intention is to shoot, take the money and then absolve yourself from anything in the future. Release forms are sadly, a necessary evil nowadays and shooting without them fraught with potential issues. Employers have no right to exploit their employees appearance. Release is not the issue. There can be extremely strong legal reasons why some people cannot have their appearance captured. You don't know. The employer may not even know. Many organisations who have a PR presence include permission to capture likenesses in their contracts. Many colleges and universities reserve the right to take pictures in their learning agreements. The contracts we have with performers always includes a right to exploit their likeness in marketing. However, members of my stage crew may well refuse to be in any of the pictures. A few refuse to have cameras pointed at them for any reason. I suspect I know the reason, but the solution is to get them out of the pictures, not to try to force them.

As a contractor, engaged to capture an event and provide it to the client in return for a consideration, how would you react if you discovered there is a court order preventing images of a certain person being recorded, let alone used? How tight is your contract in extra charges for re-editing, or pixellation. If the client says sorry - the lady with red hair in the background needs to be removed, who pays? If you had used a release, you would NOT have shot them. If you didn't get releases signed, then you might have a problem in court convincing the judge you acted sensibly, especially as you are aware of them.

I remember a very young well known celebrity who had her picture taken frequently at college before she was famous. She also had her singing recorded. By me. I still have the recordings, but because I don't have a release, I cannot do anything with them, including social media. I do not have the money her record company and personal management company have - too risky by far. Releases sort all this out. There's no requirement to use them, but it's foolish not to, because they protect everyone. The advice to crack on and film it cannot ever be the 'best' advice. 99% of the time all is well - but if you want to get paid, you are an easy target if you don't tie up loose ends.

People who use release forms hate them, but few would stop using them in the real world.

I've got so much archive footage I can do little with that I wish I had started using them 20 years ago!

 

[Martin Kennington]

To clarify - the shoots I've directed and produced have always been for the corporate companies I was employed by (ie, not working for an external production company), so I'm not in the "shoot and run, it's someone else's problem" category. I agree that best practice is to get release forms whenever possible - but as anyone who's ever shot on location (whether in a company's building or outside at an event), the reality of life just doesn't work that way!

There is also quite a difference in shooting an internal, non-commercial video - as in the case of the Graham. Release forms are really only intended for marketing and commercial use - which isn't the case in this example - as noted in my previous reply.

 

[paulears]

Release forms are intended to cover you, that's rather the point. All I can say is that you have been lucky and the risk was worth it. Obviously you cannot sign everyone, but for each one who features and you have no idea who they are, the risk increases. At one point the risk exceeds your personal limit - and clearly that's never happened yet. Inter-office relationships can often bite back, and your video suddenly becomes a real problem.

The reality of life is that things bite back, just when you don't expect!

 

[Import Expert]

From my understanding you will need them to sign a consent/release form as filming staff would come under GDPR. Just because the people are employed by the company it does not mean that you can film them without prior consent.

 

[paulears]

Oddly, as I understand it, visual images only become covered by GDPR when data is saved on a manner that is identifiable. So if the images have Fred Smith in bigger letters on them then there is personal data the name to the face. The problem with releases afterwards is that you can never make this link so no need to put more stress on gdpr staff. That’s usually how cctv works. Imagine the workload for the gdpr people if capturing covert images had to be recorded

 

[The Byre]

You don't need any release forms or licenses and there's no law, as such, to quote to anyone who questions about being featured in the video. I've shot dozens of videos at various companies and the only time we've needed release forms was for commercial release.

Ouch!

All release is commercial release! The act of making the video available to others (i.e. release) is a commercial activity, regardless of the where, when and how of the release or if any money was charged.

Right now, a good YouTube channel will get more viewings than a cable channel - and so far, you do not need to have release forms submitted to YT before publishing - but that day will come!

When that day comes (and come it will!) every sound and image that is not cleared, either with a publishing agreement or with a release form will be worthless and totally unusable. The interview with the company CEO from 2019 may be used in 2049 on their company channel - but where's the release form?

Release forms are sadly, a necessary evil nowadays and shooting without them fraught with potential issues.

This!

Every inch of footage submitted to a broadcaster must be covered by dozens of contracts and forms, of which release forms for every person shown must be included.

I've got so much archive footage I can do little with that I wish I had started using them 20 years ago!

And that situation will hit everybody one day.

 

[CharlotteS]

That is the problem that the person making the film needs to overcome. If he cannot and the filming is abandoned because of non-cooperation the boss might not be best pleased.

Ok here’s some scenarios for you... person doesn’t want to be filmed as is fleeing domestic violence. Or person doesn’t want to be filmed as is being harassed elsewhere.

There are plenty of reasons why a person does not want to/should not take part in filming.

 

[ecommerce84]

We went to a property auction once that was being filmed for Homes Under the Hammer.

At the beginning, the auctioneer said ‘anyone that doesn’t wish to appear on film should sit in the chairs on my right. So if you’re bunking off work or having an affair you won’t be seen on TV when you’re thought to be elsewhere!’

It certainly made me laugh. The girl
I was with quickly made us move though for some reason......

 

[paulears]

We do it all the time in theatre - when people pay for tickets, there is the expectation of privacy, so when it's for broadcast or DVD release, the tickets will be either free or include the waiver release wording. removing or pixelating a face is a very time consuming and costly thing to have to do because you didn't get them to sign a release.