hey folks, for a documentary I would like to interview several people, one of these (historical person / politician's widow) in detail, and documented, I would like to sell. Am I right in assuming that in such cases, a kind of (written) consent of the person concerned is given? And while advance? I mean, yes otherwise there is a possibility that the person is, for example, after cutting about different things and then do the work for which Katz is .... Are there standard -Vereinbarungen/Verträge that you can get somewhere cheap? muchas gracias for any tip!
Antwort von Andreas_Kiel:
Hi, yes this is normal. I would advise your comparison, the contract shall be drawn that synonymous after cutting a right still existed: it's so important to know in what context the statements of the interviewees are. The agreement would thus have to be detained, for what purpose serves the interview. Then I would agree that cutting the raw material only reduce, but not their meaning. And a screening of the rough, let the synonymous discredited. Then both partners are satisfied and on the secure page. The right of the interviewees may not be "schikanös" be exercised, not without good reason (this does not count, "no longer stand," but: "torn out of context sentences"). You can complete the risk of a retreat but do not prevent. Also not on contract, and there are always circumstances that can change (so-called "elimination of the fiscal base"). If you have any other Einverständniserklärung get the reservation has been made, you get more trouble may sound paradoxical but it is so. BG, Andreas
Antwort von j.t.jefferson:
"Andreas_Kiel" wrote:
And a screening of the rough, let the synonymous discredited. Then both partners are satisfied and on the secure page.
Discredited in writing, is not it? Thank you for all the rest for your helpful statement.
Antwort von Pianist:
I personally believe that such (written) contracts for fairly useless and superfluous. The interview is the interview, and an implied consent, the interview to use and distribute. It goes confidently assume that you have not used their meaning and rüberbringt him no worse than he is. This is an oral contract. And the range is sufficient. In my previous business years, 14 companies in this industry I had with this method, never problems. Even if it makes written contracts, then someone can run to court and for some reason try to prohibit the dissemination of it. Either both sides behave correctly or they do not. In the first case, one needs no written contract and in the second case, all written contracts benefit nothing. The more since drinsteht, perhaps even formulated of non-lawyers, the more loopholes there are. One might almost formulate an eleventh commandment: "Thou shalt not superfluous written contract."
Matthias
Antwort von smooth-appeal:
As the pianist law. If you have the whole run through with a team you have so much vocal power that you a good lawyer before the court will be better off as a four-member family complains against you.
If you do alone and with someone complaining witness against you would be an oral contract in turn, less well in court to defend.
When "ethical" is it working correctly under normal circumstances, but probably not synonymous sued. Unless people unasked du film the ambush and published this material ... Since there are a few court rulings to ;-)
Antwort von mann:
"Pianist" wrote:
I personally believe that such (written) contracts for fairly useless and superfluous. (...) The more that drinsteht, perhaps even formulated of non-lawyers, the more loopholes there are. "Matthias
Sounds synonymous conclusive, this point of view. It can be quite briefly formulate, for example: "I give my consent that the interview of any TV channel is being sent." Then remains the interviewed person with a sense of binding obligation, and will have to be careful about whether they back tomorrow mb hott says. I could, at this stage of the planning-perhaps not quite exclusively, to the pressure that is being interviewed for more public in the fall to avoid. That would be possible under certain conditions. I would therefore well off if there is adequate change of opinion in the person should be interviewed. It is in fact a (past) political scandal in europ. Abroad, although already in print but has not yet been shown on TV. During the initial investigation and attorneys failure to investigate a witness was eliminated shortly before he wanted to testify, therefore, now possible with any kind of pressure can be expected is not completely insane. So synonymous my intention to me at least in terms of the interview somewhat secure.
Antwort von PowerMac:
That is correct. Such contracts are unusual. The implied consent is sufficient and I personally know of no case where it was so anger. In general, I recommend the standard literature on press law.
