Ethical Question, kinda political kinda not

B

braindead0

New member
As some of you may know, I'm working on video of the MMM ninnies.. and boy did they provide some good stuff...

I've got most of it done, I'm working on the beginning and I found this rather horrid look:
scowlboy.bmp


Basically I put it in the beginning, after introducing the stars ("Cindy Hazolton as the Angry Haus Frau"..etc) and titled it "Introducing "Scowl Boy")....

The ethical quandry, should I leave this kid outta it? The MMM'ers were using their children of course..had whole gaggles of them.. Part of me says if you don't want your kids in the video you wouldn't bring them to a public speaking engagement.

Any thoughts?
 
B

braindead0

New member
That's another aspect, the parents that were speaking would be no problem because they were conducting a 'press conference'.. and I'm not profiting from this in any way (except fun I suppose).

I think that simply being at a public press conference makes it fair game, I know the 'legit' press wasn't getting names or any form of permission to tape and broadcast..
 
S

sully

New member
I'd be inclined to agree. How would using that footage be any different than showing footage of the crowd listening to the speakers?

However, it never hurts to be too careful and make sure your back is covered in this litigious society.
 
B

BogBabe

New member
I wouldn't use it, even if it is legal.

The kid probably didn't ask to go. He didn't want to be there. He wasn't seeking the limelight. Let him be.

Turn it around, and ask yourself, if you brought your kid to a pro-gun rally, would you want the Brady morons to use such a pic of him in their video?
 
A

anonymouse1940

New member
Could be the kid was just cleaning some popcorn or candybar out of his teeth with his tongue, or not, don't know, but it doesn't look to me like his expression is a commentary of the event.

With that said, if he ends up in passing in a sequence of frames then you may be okay legally, but if you single him out or focus or freeze-frame on him then you are potentially in doo-doo ville. Gotta watch what you do with jueveniles in pics these days. News-type footage is one things, but singleing him out is a whole different issue.

Sorry. I do a little photography and caught some "stupid human tricks" two summers ago in Yellowstone involving a pre-teen and his family and a family/herd of moose. Let's just say it was a bit too close for comfort. The pic never saw print.
 
P

Poodleshooter

New member
He's probably thinking "I wish I didn't get dragged to this stupid march! I could be home playing "Medal of Honor" on my playstation, and killing Nazi's!"
The only young man that I've encountered who doesn't enjoy guns heartily is that little country music kid who put out that anti-gun song a year or so ago. I hope THAT kid gets beat up on the school bus.
 
C

Chandler

New member
Be careful when using images of single people. Especially underage ones. The law may require a model release form for any images of recognizable people. However, images of many people milling about in public is usually ok. Check out the copyright laws carefully first.

As usual, I am not a lawyer, bla bla bla....:rolleyes:
 
B

braindead0

New member
Kinda what I thought, I'll drop singling out the kid and perhaps use a non-closeup in some other context...

As far as legality, I'm pretty sure as soon as they started speaking in public at this press conference....I'm okay as long as I'm just singling out the speakers..public figure at that point.

Actually he had that look on his face for a lot of the show, mostly when looking at us.. It's a shame his mother has turned him into a fearful sheeple.. I wish I could take him and the rest of the kids out shooting, but that's not gonna happen :mad:
 
S

Scott Conklin

New member
Legally images of people in public settings are fair game UNLESS you are profitting from their use. If the latter then you are supposed to compensate them for the useage. Was just reading an article on this yesterday discussing "Voyeur" websites which use pics of women at topless beaches. While they can't do anything about being photographed they can sue if a site makes money from the photos. Thing is, even with that fact nobody has actually sued, yet.

As for the moral question, it's way past time for being nice. They drug the kid along, use him. They'd do it to us without a moments hesitation and it's that in your face kind of attitude which keeps them going while we, in our nice-nice way, keep getting rolled over.
 
B

braindead0

New member
As I'm not profiting in any way, and don't plan to... (even though I'll assert copyright just to keep it that way)....

Perhaps I'll throw in a short section showing the kid looking pretty peeved.....

There's a section where she is asked a question by the press, and instead of answering it replies "what I would like the press to see is that these (snide look) are the kind of people Jim Trackas is courting" - cut to kid looking peeved.. overlay title "What kind of people? The kind that wouldn't use their children to further their political agenda?"

Of course, once I've done that....I'd be using their children...of course the statement is still technically correct, didn't use *our* children ;-)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top