| |
Please Release Me
Real Screen - October 1, 2000
Exploring the pros and cons of release forms
by Thom Powers
The relationship between doc-maker and subject is based on trust.
But, when trust isn't enough, there is the release form. Broadcasters
increasingly rely on releases to codify agreements and reduce liability.
What they really accomplish is a matter of debate.
The main hindrance for producers is that release language can be
intimidating to the signer. The Independent Television Service (ITVS)
production manual contains a sample release with a typical statement:
"I agree that the Program may be edited . . . at the sole discretion
of the Producer . . . for any and all broadcasting . . . in any
manner or media, in perpetuity, throughout the world." Most
releases fill a page or more with such warrants, guarantees and
representations. Even if a participant theoretically understands
these terms, seeing them in print raises doubts.
"They are a pain in the arse," complains producer Roy
Ackerman of Diverse Production, a U.K. doc-maker who has worked
with releases for over 20 years. "It's usually the moment when
you give them to an interviewee that the whole trust relationship
is put under huge stress. It's when the participant realizes he's
not dealing just with a friendly guy . . . [He's] dealing with a
corporation and its lawyers."
DOUBLE STANDARDS
'News' and 'entertainment' have traditionally maintained separate
standards for releases, and are generally ignored for the former
and required for the latter. As these two genres blur together,
doc-makers find themselves scrambling for clarity.
Producer Jon Alpert of DCTV has worked in both. "I was filming
POWs in Yugoslavia for ABC's [newsmagazine] 20/20," he recalls.
"I was all by myself fighting against 200 other reporters.
If I had to get releases for everyone, I couldn't have done my reporting
job."
But on other assignments, Alpert frequently does take the time for
releases. He has produced a number of fly-on-the-wall docs for HBO,
including One Year In The Life Of Crime and Lock-Up: Prisoners Of
Riker's Island. He employs the same techniques he uses as a news
reporter. However, because HBO considers itself an entertainment
channel, he gets releases for its programs.
"Releases are a problem for us," he admits. "I've
worked with other crews who have a person whose only job is to secure
the release - usually a friendly young woman. [When] I'm working,
it's just me and another person. We're chasing after gang leaders
and drug addicts. The places we go, we can't have a large crew because
it will spoil our access."
Alpert points out that problems can arise even with a release in
hand. "Even though we have releases with language that's supposed
to be bullet-proof, people can still sue and they do. In many cases
they are the same type of people who try to exploit a traffic accident.
They view this as an opportunity for litigation, if they find a
sleazy enough lawyer. These are the types of things that HBO really
tries to fight."
Recent American court rulings have put video crews on alert when
it comes to filming subjects without permission. The U.S. Supreme
Court ruled last year that it was inappropriate for CNN to enter
a private home with federal officers executing a search warrant
(Berger v. Hanlon). The California Supreme Court ruled in 1998 that
accident victim Ruth Shulman could sue a video crew for filming
her car crash rescue (Shulman v. Group W Productions). Shulman was
unaware of the taping until she saw a nine-minute edited segment
on the show On Scene: Emergency Response. In neither case did the
video crews obtain release forms.
"'Should we get release forms?' We wrestle with that question,"
says the attorney for an American network newsmagazine. "Our
concern is it would be hard to get releases from everybody and it
might hurt us if we were getting some releases and not others."
THAT'S ENTERTAINMENT
When the entertainment factor seems to outweigh the news value in
a documentary, producers need to be thorough about releases.
"We don't want anyone in our documentaries who doesn't want
to be in them," says Harry Gantz. He and his brother Joe are
best known for Taxicab Confessions, an HBO series in which hidden
cameras capture the candid conversations of unsuspecting taxi passengers.
"In certain states (such as New York and Nevada) as long as
one person knows the conversation is being recorded, it's legal
to tape them," explains Harry. "Then at the end of the
ride the cab driver explains what they're doing." For passengers
who decline to sign a release, Gantz assures them the footage will
never be seen. If the passengers sign, then change their mind shortly
thereafter, he gives their release back and cuts the footage. "Believe
you me it's a hard thing to do."
The Gantz brothers' forthcoming doc Sex With Strangers (Showtime)
follows three couples who are swingers. The filmmakers did their
best to sign participants before turning on the cameras. "It's
an underground movement," says Harry, "and a lot of people
don't want the general public, let alone their neighbors, to know
what they're involved with." One scene set in a swingers club
was especially challenging. The Gantzes posted signs announcing
they were shooting, then got signed releases for anyone who entered
the room.
NEW HORIZONS
The spread of small digital cameras, Internet broad-casting, and
the frequent repeating of shows is raising even more concerns about
the use of releases. "In the last five years, it's gone from
being number 22 on my list of concerns to number five," says
Steve Rosenbaum. His New York-based company, BNN Productions, produces
dozens of documentaries every year for cable channels such as MTV,
A&E, MSNBC and others. Recently, the company launched a webcast
channel cameraplanet.com.
Describing the new complexity of releases, Rosenbaum cites a cable
show BNN produced about spring break. "There was a girl who
participated in a fake orgasm contest. She was in public in front
of 200 people. We had an on-camera release, we had a written release
and she was in public. When the show aired she contacted the network
and said 'I want to be taken out of the show'. Her father was a
minister and was very unhappy to see his daughter groaning on television.
The network reaction was, we don't need to split hairs on this.
If someone wants to be off our show, take them off. There's a legal
issue, then there's a common sense issue. If you're doing an investigative
report, maybe you [fight]. But not in this case.
"There's no hard-and-fast set of rules," concludes Rosenbaum.
"The cautionary note to producers is: Are you making good work?
Are you proud of it? Do you feel like you've violated some sense
of privacy? If you feel like you did, you probably did."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright © 1986-2003 Brunico Communications, Inc. All rights
reserved.
The title and logo of RealScreen and RealScreen Plus are trade marks
of Brunico Communications Inc. |
|