Video taping

imported post

why can I not broadcast thief's face on TV?

Click to expand...

Sounds to me like "disclose" in the RCW below makes it OK.

TV shows videotaped criminals in the news all the time.
"Here is a video of a Hurry-Up-Mart being robbed. If you recognize the robber, please call the police."

Bruce
-----------------------------------------
RCW 9.73.110
It shall not be unlawful for the owner or person entitled to use and possession of a building, as defined in RCW 9A.04.110(5), or the agent of such person, to intercept, record, or disclose communications or conversations which occur within such building if the persons engaged in such communication or conversation are engaged in a criminal act at the time of such communication or conversation by virtue of unlawful entry or remaining unlawfully in such building.

imported post

Mike wrote:

expvideo wrote:

joeroket wrote:

Mike wrote:

expvideo wrote:

He is absolutely incorrect. You can record all you want. It's your home, not Nordstrom. A theif has no legal expectation of privacy whilst robbing your home. You can't broadcast it on TV without consent from the person on film, or you will have to blur his face.

Click to expand...

Cite to authority? Why such an inconsistent rule set? We are talking about Washington state where folks taping police officers on official duty are being charged with crimes - the post above is not helpful.

Click to expand...

State vs Flora is the precedence for audio taping police. As long as the recorded party have been advised or it is recorded in a public place it is legal. I am with expvideo on this one, I am not sure it is legal to record audio on the basis that it is your house because it is a private setting.

Click to expand...

Precisely. There is no law in WA state that prevents you from recording video, but there is a law that prevents you from recording audio of private conversations without notification.

And Mike, I don't need to cite laws. It's clearly written in WA state law that you have to notify all parties for audio, and I can't refference the lack of a video recording law. If you want to prove me wrong, you cite something. Seriously, what am I supposed to cite to prove that a law doesn't exist?

Click to expand...

But you stated 3 rules of law, and did not cite to any authority for these rules, in the context of background knowledge that it is illegal in Wash at times to record audio. e.g., why can I not broadcast thief's face on TV? What law makes this true?

Click to expand...

This is why faces are blurred in "Cops". You have to get a written disclosure from the person, just as you would in filming anything else, or they can sue you. I don't know what law that is, it's just common knowledge.



If it's any help, I went to film school at Montana State University, so when I say "somebody told me", I mean a professor at MSU, not some guy on YouTube.

imported post

expvideo wrote:

OK, so you were right, Mike. For the one time in history, there is a law saying that it's not illegal to do something.

Click to expand...

It's actually not that unusual, as this section is merely permitting, in a very specific circumstance, what is otherwise banned by RCW 9.73.030.

imported post

"I don't know what law that is, it's just common knowledge."

It's common knowledge that you can't openly carry a pistol on your belt in a holster too. I don't see any justification for being defensive when someone asks for a citation. If you can't prove it, why claim it as a solid fact and then defend yourself, rather than just saying, "I have no basis on which to claim this. I may be wrong"?

imported post

thebastidge wrote:

"I don't know what law that is, it's just common knowledge."

It's common knowledge that you can't openly carry a pistol on your belt in a holster too. I don't see any justification for being defensive when someone asks for a citation. If you can't prove it, why claim it as a solid fact and then defend yourself, rather than just saying, "I have no basis on which to claim this. I may be wrong"?

Click to expand...

Because I don't want to take the time and energy to back up what should be an obvious statement. Here's a quote from Google Answers, and that's as much research as I want to do, since again, this is to me at least a very obvious, common knowledge statement.

Code:

Hi, thank you for submitting your question to Answers.Google, I hope I
can provide the information you are seeking.

I need to preface this by stating that I am a former PBS employee and
some of the information I am providing is from personal experience.

But, to the point, there is definitely a law, actually several laws,
but the most important one in this case is actually the one involved
with model releases:

First, unless the people involved sign a “model release” you can’t
show their images in a way which actually identifies them clearly
unless you meet some rather vague conditions, none of which the
producers probably want to have adjudicated every few days.
You can show images of crowds but not individuals in most circumstances.

Second, some of these individuals are later discovered to be juveniles
and it is illegal in most jurisdictions to give out any information
whatever about juveniles involved in any crimes, even if convicted,
unless they are adjudicated as adults.

Thirdly, there is the law of libel/slander which would open the
producers and possibly the stations showing the program to civil suit
because the presentation suggests strongly that the person shown has
done something criminal. The video you see is only a tiny amount of
that actually shot and the editing is designed to make the person
appear to be guilty and also to make things as exciting as possible.

The situation with surveillance videos shown from stores and such is
different because the store usually has a posted surveillance policy.

COPS and other similar programs not only need to cover their butts,
they must also abide by any special rules imposed by the local
jurisdictions and protect the stations which broadcast the images.

These contracts are extremely complex and vary from situation to situation.

For more information see:



[url=http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=002kze][u][color=#0000ff]http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=002kze[/color][/u][/url]

[url=http://www.tvtome.com/tvtome/servlet/ShowMainServlet/showid-2941/COPS/][u][color=#0000ff]http://www.tvtome.com/tvtome/servlet/ShowMainServlet/showid-2941/COPS/[/color][/u][/url]



Google search terms: COPS model release

Google search terms: COPS TV show

Thank you again for turning to Answers.Google for help I hope this
answers your specific question. As an aside, there is no such thing as
"obvious" when you are talking about either the law or the courts.

Click to expand...

Anyway, if you want to know more about model releases and slander, go ahead and look it up yourself. If I'm wrong you can rub my face in it, but since I'm not wrong you can just save yourself the time. I know I will.

imported post

expvideo,

You may be right, and so may the answers.google person, but please note that they didn't cite any actual laws either.

imported post

Really do need to cite a law.

Its one of the unwritten rules of the forum. It prevents certain arguments, and lets everybody see for himself what the real deal is.

imported post

Lots to read here, but this part is interesting
-----------------------------------------------------
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=63.60.070

RCW 63.60.070Exemptions from use restrictions — When chapter does not apply.

(1) For purposes of RCW 63.60.050, the use of a name, voice, signature, photograph, or
likeness in connection with matters of cultural, historical, political, religious, educational,
newsworthy, or public interest, including, without limitation, comment, criticism, satire,
and parody relating thereto, shall not constitute a use for which consent is required under
this chapter.
...
more, but I didn't copy/paste it.

------------------------------------------
The whole chapter is here:
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=63.60
Chapter 63.60 RCWPersonality rights
Complete Chapter


RCW Sections
63.60.010Use of name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness is a property right.
63.60.020Definitions.
63.60.030Right is transferable, assignable, and licensable -- Does not expire upon death -- Exists without exploitation during lifetime.
63.60.040Right is exclusive for individuals and personalties.
63.60.050Infringement of right -- Use without consent -- Profit or not for profit.
63.60.060Infringement of right -- Superior courts -- Injunctions -- Liability for damages and profits -- Impoundment -- Destruction -- Attorneys' fees.
63.60.070Exemptions from use restrictions -- When chapter does not apply.
63.60.080Community property rights.


Bruce

imported post

In all the digging at the federal level I did, granted it could have been more, all I could find was references to civil torts and such for the majority of blurring images. The main reason, it seems, that faces are blurred on tv shows like COPSis that, due to the editing process, it makes the people look guilty and it opens up the network to a civil tort based on libel and slander.



Stick a sign in your front yard that states activity on the premises are being recorded and you will be fine. It is not for a monetary gain by any means so RCW 63.60 does not apply and there is nothing else in the RCW's that I could find that relate to video recordings that would be applicable to you.

imported post

bcp wrote:

Lots to read here, but this part is interesting
-----------------------------------------------------
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=63.60.070

RCW 63.60.070Exemptions from use restrictions — When chapter does not apply.

(1) For purposes of RCW 63.60.050, the use of a name, voice, signature, photograph, or
likeness in connection with matters of cultural, historical, political, religious, educational,
newsworthy, or public interest, including, without limitation, comment, criticism, satire,
and parody relating thereto, shall not constitute a use for which consent is required under
this chapter.

Click to expand...

It is possible to broadcast it, since you can see mugshots of wanted people on the news, but this statute doesn't give permission to broadcast for "entertainment" purposes. It is put in place for the news, so that they don't have to get model releases. COPs makes money. Documentaries make money. Pretty much anything you would be doing would make money, and thus be for profit. The news is a public resource, and that is different.

imported post

My references have been intended for the original poster's problem, not videotaping done for commercial entertainment or profit.

Bruce


Misguided Child wrote:

I had a video security system put in that should give me vid of anyone breaking into house or garage. Today a co-worker told me the video couldn't be used in court unless I posted the house with a warning that I had video security running.
Alan

Click to expand...