Re: The Faceless ones in Matt Roloff's documentaries?

July 13, 2006

Since I teach media law, let me take a crack at this.

I assume that it's related to privacy, but it's not really *invasion* of

privacy. Rather, it's another part of privacy law: if you don't get everyone

to sign a release, then it's possible that they could later sue, claiming

that you're profiting from the commercial use of their image.

There's an exception for journalism, but the Roloff show would probably be

considered more entertainment than news, even though it features actual

people.

The commercial-use thing seems like a stretch, but the producers may not

want to take any chances.

Dan

On 7/13/06 12:00 PM, " Fred Short " <mail@...> wrote:

> Is this some sort of privacy law?

>

> But in several of the episodes we have noticed people not directly concerned

> with the action have their faces 'blurred' so as, we assume, they can't be

> recognised.

>

> Or is it just those who ask not to be recognised?

>

> Just curious

>

> Fred

July 13, 2006

Is this some sort of privacy law?

But in several of the episodes we have noticed people not directly

concerned with the action have their faces 'blurred' so as, we assume,

they can't be recognised.

Or is it just those who ask not to be recognised?

Just curious

Fred

I can only assume that the blurred faces are individuals who have not

signed " waivers " to be filmed. When the film crew was in Milwaukee,

anyone who was " important " to the scene being filmed was asked to sign a

waiver.

marge

July 13, 2006

So surely they had BIG problems at the likes of the conference where masses of

people were involved? Did they REALLY go round everyone getting them to sign

wavers, and those that didn't/wouldn't, the producers then had to go through

every inch of footage and blur them out?

But surely, in a public place, " THE " public is fair game for filming, provided

then that that film is not used in a derogatory manner towards the individuals?

I suppose, what I am REALLY leading up to is the apparent vulnerability OF small

statured people, in the public arena being fair game for the media?

Interesting.

Incidently, we (England) are up to Zack finally getting his driving permit, and

Mommy and Daddy Roloff coming home from their cruise.

Fred

Re: The Faceless ones in Matt Roloff's documentaries?

Since I teach media law, let me take a crack at this.

I assume that it's related to privacy, but it's not really *invasion* of

privacy. Rather, it's another part of privacy law: if you don't get everyone

to sign a release, then it's possible that they could later sue, claiming

that you're profiting from the commercial use of their image.

There's an exception for journalism, but the Roloff show would probably be

considered more entertainment than news, even though it features actual

people.

The commercial-use thing seems like a stretch, but the producers may not

want to take any chances.

Dan

On 7/13/06 12:00 PM, " Fred Short " <mail@...> wrote:

> Is this some sort of privacy law?

>

> But in several of the episodes we have noticed people not directly concerned

> with the action have their faces 'blurred' so as, we assume, they can't be

> recognised.

>

> Or is it just those who ask not to be recognised?

>

> Just curious

>

> Fred

July 13, 2006

The bigger the crowd, the fewer the producer's legal obligations. If there's

a whole mass of people, then you probably don't have to run around getting

releases signed. But if there are, say, two, three, or four clearly visible

people, that might be a problem.

Dan

On 7/13/06 12:35 PM, " Fred Short " <Fred@...> wrote:

> So surely they had BIG problems at the likes of the conference where masses of

> people were involved? Did they REALLY go round everyone getting them to sign

> wavers, and those that didn't/wouldn't, the producers then had to go through

> every inch of footage and blur them out?

>

> But surely, in a public place, " THE " public is fair game for filming, provided

> then that that film is not used in a derogatory manner towards the

> individuals?

>

> I suppose, what I am REALLY leading up to is the apparent vulnerability OF

> small statured people, in the public arena being fair game for the media?

>

> Interesting.

>

> Incidently, we (England) are up to Zack finally getting his driving permit,

> and Mommy and Daddy Roloff coming home from their cruise.

>

> Fred

>

> Re: The Faceless ones in Matt Roloff's documentaries?

>

> Since I teach media law, let me take a crack at this.

>

> I assume that it's related to privacy, but it's not really *invasion* of

> privacy. Rather, it's another part of privacy law: if you don't get everyone

> to sign a release, then it's possible that they could later sue, claiming

> that you're profiting from the commercial use of their image.

>

> There's an exception for journalism, but the Roloff show would probably be

> considered more entertainment than news, even though it features actual

> people.

>

> The commercial-use thing seems like a stretch, but the producers may not

> want to take any chances.

>

> Dan

>

> On 7/13/06 12:00 PM, " Fred Short " <mail@...> wrote:

>

>> Is this some sort of privacy law?

>>

>> But in several of the episodes we have noticed people not directly concerned

>> with the action have their faces 'blurred' so as, we assume, they can't be

>> recognised.

>>

>> Or is it just those who ask not to be recognised?

>>

>> Just curious

>>

>> Fred

July 13, 2006

I did recall seeing signs posted on all of the doors at the Orlando conference

saying that a film crew was there, etc. I don't remember specifically what it

said - but I believe it was stating something along the lines of people possibly

being filmed and whatnot..

Amy

Re: The Faceless ones in Matt Roloff's documentaries?

Since I teach media law, let me take a crack at this.

I assume that it's related to privacy, but it's not really *invasion* of

privacy. Rather, it's another part of privacy law: if you don't get everyone

to sign a release, then it's possible that they could later sue, claiming

that you're profiting from the commercial use of their image.

There's an exception for journalism, but the Roloff show would probably be

considered more entertainment than news, even though it features actual

people.

The commercial-use thing seems like a stretch, but the producers may not

want to take any chances.

Dan

On 7/13/06 12:00 PM, " Fred Short " <mail@...> wrote:

> Is this some sort of privacy law?

>

> But in several of the episodes we have noticed people not directly concerned

> with the action have their faces 'blurred' so as, we assume, they can't be

> recognised.

>

> Or is it just those who ask not to be recognised?

>

> Just curious

>

> Fred

July 13, 2006

Exactly

if you are on Camera, I might add, the network must compensate if you don't sign

a waiver.

SAG and the Unions hate reality TV because the folks on Reality series are REAL

So the union doesn't get new members.

Reality Shows are big cash cows for Networks

Re: The Faceless ones in Matt Roloff's documentaries?

> Since I teach media law, let me take a crack at this.

>

> I assume that it's related to privacy, but it's not really

> *invasion* of

> privacy. Rather, it's another part of privacy law: if you don't get

> everyoneto sign a release, then it's possible that they could later

> sue, claiming

> that you're profiting from the commercial use of their image.

>

> There's an exception for journalism, but the Roloff show would

> probably be

> considered more entertainment than news, even though it features

> actualpeople.

>

> The commercial-use thing seems like a stretch, but the producers

> may not

> want to take any chances.

>

> Dan

>

> On 7/13/06 12:00 PM, " Fred Short "

> <mail@...> wrote:

>

> > Is this some sort of privacy law?

> >

> > But in several of the episodes we have noticed people not

> directly concerned

> > with the action have their faces 'blurred' so as, we assume, they

> can't be

> > recognised.

> >

> > Or is it just those who ask not to be recognised?

> >

> > Just curious

> >

> > Fred

>

July 13, 2006

I've had to change faces digitally on commercials I've done in Stadiums scenes.

If someone IS recognized and they sue, then you are open to suits

Re: The Faceless ones in Matt Roloff's

> documentaries?>

> >

> > Since I teach media law, let me take a crack at this.

> >

> > I assume that it's related to privacy, but it's not really

> *invasion* of

> > privacy. Rather, it's another part of privacy law: if you don't

> get everyone

> > to sign a release, then it's possible that they could later sue,

> claiming> that you're profiting from the commercial use of their

> image.>

> > There's an exception for journalism, but the Roloff show would

> probably be

> > considered more entertainment than news, even though it features

> actual> people.

> >

> > The commercial-use thing seems like a stretch, but the producers

> may not

> > want to take any chances.

> >

> > Dan

> >

> > On 7/13/06 12:00 PM, " Fred Short " <mail@...>

> wrote:>

> >> Is this some sort of privacy law?

> >>

> >> But in several of the episodes we have noticed people not

> directly concerned

> >> with the action have their faces 'blurred' so as, we assume,

> they can't be

> >> recognised.

> >>

> >> Or is it just those who ask not to be recognised?

> >>

> >> Just curious

> >>

> >> Fred

>

July 13, 2006

They were there. Posted at 49 inches high!

Re: The Faceless ones in Matt Roloff's

> documentaries?

> Since I teach media law, let me take a crack at this.

>

> I assume that it's related to privacy, but it's not really

> *invasion* of

> privacy. Rather, it's another part of privacy law: if you don't

> get everyone

> to sign a release, then it's possible that they could later sue,

> claiming that you're profiting from the commercial use of their

> image.

> There's an exception for journalism, but the Roloff show would

> probably be

> considered more entertainment than news, even though it features

> actual people.

>

> The commercial-use thing seems like a stretch, but the producers

> may not

> want to take any chances.

>

> Dan

>

> On 7/13/06 12:00 PM, " Fred Short " <mail@...>

> wrote:

> > Is this some sort of privacy law?

> >

> > But in several of the episodes we have noticed people not

> directly concerned

> > with the action have their faces 'blurred' so as, we assume,

> they can't be

> > recognised.

> >

> > Or is it just those who ask not to be recognised?

> >

> > Just curious

> >

> > Fred

>

July 13, 2006

Actually everyone is wrong, those lps with the blurry faces have what

is known as B.F.D.S. or otherwise known as Blurry Face Dwarfism

Syndrome, which is very rare, even amongst the general population.

Occuring, I believe, one out of every 12 and one half and three

quarters of a million poeple of the ap group alone, and even less in

our group, as only 2 to 3 are known to exist amongst us. Equally

strange, those 2 to 3 with it live in or near Matt Roloff, so it's led

to believe the syndrome is regionally isolated and perhaps caused by

eating vegetables with long roots.

Dr. Blur of the UK, to which his namesake was attached to this new

syndrome amongst us, originally discovered it in England while sitting

in a loo around the early 1930's-or pre-television or pre-tellie as

the Brits say it. And we all know that anything discovered across the

pond is absolute boring dreadful nonsense, and so is this post! haha;)

luv, grady:P

July 13, 2006