Can I use audio/video recording of an interviewee without consent if...

[brathandel]

Rhode Island, USA

Can I use audio/video recording of an interviewee without consent if: The party knew about and gave verbal consent of the audio and video recordings taking place at the time of the interview. Then when asked to sign a release form, the party refused. The recording is to be used for a YouTube video, not really commercial purposes. Is it legal to use the video recording if I blur-out the person's face? What if I just black-out most of the person's face and let their mouth be seen? Is it legal to use the audio if I alter the person's voice (like to be low-pitch like you see in news interviews where the person wants their identity concealed)?

 

[quincy]

Rhode Island, USA

Can I use audio/video recording of an interviewee without consent if: The party knew about and gave verbal consent of the audio and video recordings taking place at the time of the interview. Then when asked to sign a release form, the party refused. The recording is to be used for a YouTube video, not really commercial purposes. Is it legal to use the video recording if I blur-out the person's face? What if I just black-out most of the person's face and let their mouth be seen? Is it legal to use the audio if I alter the person's voice (like to be low-pitch like you see in news interviews where the person wants their identity concealed)?

Is it legal to use the audio/visual recording? Possibly.

Even if legal, however, this does not prevent the individual from suing you over the use. Should a suit arise over the use and, without a written and signed consent form, you may find it difficult to defend against, say, an invasion of privacy/publicity rights action. And the YouTube video could be removed from its place online by YouTube, upon receipt of a legitimate complaint.

But all of this really depends on the specific facts.

Blurring a person's face or altering a person's voice does not necessarily disguise a person's identity. The audio contents of an interview can often disclose a person's identity even when the video portion of the tape does not.

Why is it this person, who agreed to be video/audio taped originally, changing his/her mind now? What was the purpose of the interview? Is this person a private individual or a public figure? Is there something objectionable about the content of the video?

I'm afraid I have more questions for you than answers.

 

[brathandel]

Thank you! But isn't there a clear-cut statute?

Thank you for responding! I know the legalities of using the recordings in general are in a gray area, but isn't there a clear-cut statute regarding blurring-out faces and obscuring identity in the audio? Isn't this what high-profile, commercially released productions do when people explicitly don't want to be in their production? Like Jackass or Borat? There must be a clearly defined law that states whether or not it is legal to use video if the person's identity, his/her "likeness", is obscured?

 

[mmmagique]

Just find someone else who doesn't mind if you put it out there for all the world to see. This person doesn't want that.

 

[quincy]

Thank you for responding! I know the legalities of using the recordings in general are in a gray area, but isn't there a clear-cut statute regarding blurring-out faces and obscuring identity in the audio? Isn't this what high-profile, commercially released productions do when people explicitly don't want to be in their production? Like Jackass or Borat? There must be a clearly defined law that states whether or not it is legal to use video if the person's identity, his/her "likeness", is obscured?

I agree with mmmagique. You eliminate the risk of a lawsuit when you publish only those videos where the person or people videotaped have explicitly (in writing) agreed to be videotaped and have the video published.

And, let's ignore for now the fact that Borat resulted in lawsuits filed against the makers by some of the individuals appearing in the film. . . . .

Again, it will be the purpose of use that can help you avoid a lawsuit loss. News videos and news documentaries are given some latitude under the law to publish videos of people, if there is a legitimate news or social commentary reason behind the publication. Even so, this does not prevent the subject(s) from suing.

It was the social commentary/mockumentary aspect of Borat that allowed the makers to defeat the claims made against it by some of those appearing in the film, but it took a lot of time and a lot (a LOT) of money to get to that court decision.

With "newsworthy" interviews, if a person agrees to be interviewed and then has second thoughts, but the interviewer has all the necessary signed consent forms, it then becomes an ethical issue for the videographer/publisher and not a legal issue. With written and signed consent forms, the video can be published legally. A lawsuit could still result but, if a suit has no merit, it can be dismissed and disposed of rather quickly with little expense.

Blurring or other disguising of individuals can work under some circumstances, but this will generally be done at the request of the individual interviewed. If the person interviewed does not want the interview aired at all, then blurring is not going to help all that much.

You can refer back to mmmagique's post now. It is not wise or advised to publish a audio/video tape without a legitimate purpose and newsworthy reason, when the person or person's appearing in the video or on audio object to its publication. Next time I suggest you get consent and written release forms signed.

Good luck.