I just finished shooting a moment in someones house. They signed the release form for appearance but I forgot the location release form. It would be hard to get that signed now. The portion of the film we shot is them on a couch with no special background.
Location release
- Thread starter Iijohnkeatingii
- Start date
You are probably ok, I wouldn't let it stop me from using the footage, just a nice lesson learned for next time because a situation could arise where it DID screw you.
Last edited:
I would never suggest or condone anybody doing anything not 100% above board, but a less than 100% honest person could almost certainly fake a release for one location where there was no chance of the owner ever saying anything about it. Not that I would ever do it, or suggest anybody else do it.
Did you pay the owner (or current renter) of the location a location fee? Do you have a receipt or image of the check that they cashed? If so, then that's legal "consideration" and there is a valid verbal contract. Do you have emails with them in which you discuss the terms of the property rental?
The worst they could ever sue you for is for the fair amount that it would cost to rent the location, and even that has a statute of limitations that runs out in 2 years in California (varies from state to state).
If the renter refuses to sign a location release, you could even sue THEM if that were to hold up distribution, which I don't think it would. We're not talking about anything that would carry "punitive" damages like copyright infringement -- only location rental.
The worst they could ever sue you for is for the fair amount that it would cost to rent the location, and even that has a statute of limitations that runs out in 2 years in California (varies from state to state).
If the renter refuses to sign a location release, you could even sue THEM if that were to hold up distribution, which I don't think it would. We're not talking about anything that would carry "punitive" damages like copyright infringement -- only location rental.
Thanks for the help guys. I got the release signed. Phew. Lesson learned.
The consent is implied because they let them into their house to film, and they also had to have known because they also acted in the film.
WARNING!
The problem is that implies consent at that time with no terms agreed to and it is not irrevocable.... unlike a signed contract with terms and IS irrevocable.
To simplify, a signed release form shows consent and a set of terms agreed upon - monetary or other compensation, plus shows that the home owner was aware of any intent and they explicitly agree to allow this film to be used in certain ways. Without all that in writing, they can say they were mislead or reconsidered, etc. and you have no paperwork to back up what was agreed to.
The problem is that implies consent at that time with no terms agreed to and it is not irrevocable.... unlike a signed contract with terms and IS irrevocable.
To simplify, a signed release form shows consent and a set of terms agreed upon - monetary or other compensation, plus shows that the home owner was aware of any intent and they explicitly agree to allow this film to be used in certain ways. Without all that in writing, they can say they were mislead or reconsidered, etc. and you have no paperwork to back up what was agreed to.
Based on our research, having a location release signed, in addition to the appearance release, is just good policy. It wont hurt you. If they will sign an appearance release, they will sign the location release. Just dont forget like we did......
My point is that if someone tries to jack you, it's not the end of the world at all. No need to reshoot. No need to panic. My understanding from what a lawyer told me is that the only thing at stake here is a fair location fee. There's no copyright infringement or any of that really nasty punitive stuff. How do you "revoke" a shoot that's done anyway? If they signed a talent release and they acted in front of cameras with a crew on hand then it's no secret what they are doing.
But there is a secret as to what terms where agreed to for the location, there is a written agreement for the performance.
Don't risk it. Get into the good habits. When filmmaking becomes more than a hobby, you'll see that this paperwork is the difference between being able to sell your movie or not. It doesn't sound like your lawyer has ANY experience in film or television... you cannot sell or broadcast anything without signed release forms for locations and no one will buy it or distribute this without that as a part of the deliverables.
Signed contracts are revocable
If you take someone out to a bar to get some drinks while you talk things over and sign some papers...they can come back and claim they were under influence of alcohol and ultimately not responsible for the signature at the time.
Just because you have a piece of paper doesn't give you complete safety.... though it does give them a nice hurdle to try and get over if they want to fight you.
If the performance agreement spells it out that the production is for use in all mediums, etc then you would argue that they knew what their location was being used for. They agreed via their actions -- allowing the shoot to proceed while they acted in it.
They can't pull a bait and switch and "revoke" use of their location after the shoot is already done. "Sorry. I changed my mind. I don't want my location used in the movie". Fine then reimburse me for all expenses.
True though that may be, there is no distributor on the planet who will accept that as a signed release form for the location. You are right in principal.
If it's a video for the YouTubes, then have at it. If it's a movie that you intend to distribute, then the actor's release form is not good enough to cover the location.
Signed contracts are revocable
If you take someone out to a bar to get some drinks while you talk things over and sign some papers...they can come back and claim they were under influence of alcohol and ultimately not responsible for the signature at the time.
Just because you have a piece of paper doesn't give you complete safety.... though it does give them a nice hurdle to try and get over if they want to fight you.
You are correct, a signed contract does not give you complete safety, but it does put the burden of proof and expense on THEM to change their mind, as opposed to YOU. Also, my point being less about semantics and more about how the signed contract is the difference between getting distribution and NOT getting distribution. Getting contracts signed is always the safer bet and better habit to get into.
Last edited:
Theatrical distributors I'm sure will be anal as hell about releases. If I was missing a release like the one that the thread starter speaks of, I'd just try to let that slip by. If the location renter ever pulled a bait and switch and tried to block the release of the film, I'd turn the tables and sue THEM.
However, from what I've seen, Internet distributors (like Amazon, Film Baby) will only want (in their contract) for you to represent that you own or have rights to everything. They don't need to see releases.
I'm not sure if pure DVD distributors like Infinity require releases. As far as I know they don't.
Anyway, always get releases for everything under the sun, but don't get bullied if someone refuses to sign. The conventional wisdom with filmmakers is to panic if there aren't releases, but after speaking to lawyers about this type of stuff I can tell you that it's not the end of the world. As far as the courts care, there can be a valid verbal contract (to act, rent a location) in making a movie just as any other verbal contract (dental work, eat at a restaurant).