What happens to film footage from auditions

yeah. thats strange! i didn't think they could do that without your permission though?

ps. can we see? teehee

• 15 years ago
• 1

I have been told that footage from auditions is circulated to thye CD's client producer (obviously) and may be kept by the CD for later sample / library use. How it got on to youtube sounds a bit of a mystery. Who put it there. Aree you identified? Is the posting connected to the CD? I won't ask, does it do you credit, I'm sure it does, but does it do you justice? If the answer to any one question is not sure', then I might consider dropping the CD a friendly note, saying,'Not to hassle or anything, but did you know.....?' It's cheaper than a Christmas card, and if it is an unlicensed posting, they might be very grateful for the chance to sort it out.

• 15 years ago
• 2

Have a chat with Equity- I'm sure they'll be able to set things straight.

I don't think they can broadcast your audition without your permission.

• 15 years ago
• 3

you never know, it may just be a quick way for them to show the footage to their clients?

easier than burning a dvd and posting it? maybe they weren't aware the whole world could see it? im sure its only online temporarily.

• 15 years ago
• 4

I think you've raised a really interesting point there. If an interview for, say, and office job was broadcast on YouTube without the interviewee's permission then, I believe, this would be considered to be on very shaky legal ground. An audition is essentially a job interview for actors and I don't see why this would be any different from a "lawful" stand-point. I think you've made a good point about getting exposure from such a video, but I would only agree for one of my auditions to be uploaded to YouTube if I could vet the tape first and considered that I had done a first class performance. If something had appeared without my written permission then I would be absolutely livid.

I suppose, on another legal issue, if you were performing an extract from a play still under copyright then whoever uploaded it to YouTube is therefore breaching copyright laws by essentially "broadcasting" the piece. Of course, given the extreme number of copyright breaches already pervasive throughout the YouTube site, whether or not anyone took notice of this is another matter entirely - but that could be another weapon to threaten the company with should you demand that the video is removed.

If you want to let us know the name of that company, please do as I would like to avoid them! :-)

• 15 years ago
• 5

I have been filmed in various auditions (mostly student/lo-budget stuff), and had to agree to it, sometimes signing a contract. I was never really given the chance to read it in detail, but often it included lines such as 'all footage from the auditon is available for the CDs use...' (Not really going into detail!)but it could be interpreted as uploading on to a website, givening them a bit of free publicity.

• 15 years ago
• 6

I take Mary's comment to be correct, which is that, if you were asked at any point to sign a consent form, then legally all usage of the footage will default to the production company. But, then again, Aidan, your post gave me the impression that this was done very much *without* any consent...

As to the actual streaming on Youtube, that seems very mysterious...Nathan's guess is possibly the most sensible, but it begs several questions. Have you yet been cast in this piece? Do you know if you weren't cast, and *then* the footage appeared? Were you cast a while ago, and the footage has only appeared now? Or is it just it's likely to have been there for a while, but you recently stumbled upon it?

Naturally, for Nathan's suggestion that what is being done is that the auditions are being streamed via Youtube in order that the clients can see them to be true, the casting would still need to be ongoing (or done at an earlier period before you realised the existence of the material!). At any rate, I don't think working through such a cheap, poor quality medium for casting purposes reflects well on the production setup: if they are really are saving on the DVD costs, then that tells you a lot about the quality of the production company and the casting director they're working with!

If none of this is the case, of course, then I'm not at all certain what the use of this broadcasting of auditions actually holds. It could be some kind of 'vanity' broadcast, I suppose, if they wanted to promote the quality of the auditions, but given that I've had a quick look, seen there are no tags, no descriptions of what's being broadcast etc., it certainly doesn't work as advertising in my book!

By the by, Aidan, how did you even discover this material's existence if they never suggested it would appear on Youtube? Were you just doing what I sometimes do, and googling your own name (or the project) randomly to see what came up?

• 15 years ago
• 7

Very informative messages from you all.Just to clear a few points up, no I didnt get the part and permission for use was not asked.
Like the other auditionees I would never have known of its existance if I hadnt been notified by a mate.

• 15 years ago
• 8

Was it a fairly indie production, Aidan?

It's very common among indie filmmakers to upload footage to free sites like like YouTube or Vimeo to show other crew. The director may want the producer's opinion or need to ask the make up person a question about styling or whatever.. they utilise the free hosting which makes sharing the video files quicker and easier. Links can be emailed to those who need them and the files are left public for ease of viewing.

I shouldn't worry about it but if you're concerned about leaving it up where it might be stumbled across then ask them to take it down when they're finished with it.

I'm sure they'll understand that you'd rather audition for each role individually and not have it stumbled across by other potential employers who might pre-judge.

• 15 years ago
• 9

It seems that maybe this is a lot more common practice than i originally thought ie networking via utube.

• 15 years ago
• 10

They should have asked permission and have gotten you to sign something to that effect. Pretty sure you can ask (demand?) it be removed.

• 15 years ago
• 11

That is of course if you object.

• 15 years ago
• 12

This doesn't sound right to me at all, espcially as you weren't cast, but of course it's up ro you how you feel about it being on there.
I once filmed an audition piece for a director I knew up in Scotland to save travelling back up there. I put it on youtube so she could see it but made sure it was kept private and only to be viewed by her. I don't see why that couldn't have happened with your footage.
Seems like an odd thing for them to have done and you're perfectly within your rights to let them know how you feel.
Hx

• 15 years ago
• 13

I'd have thought that surely you would have to sign a release form to consent to the footage being released into the public domain (which is essentially the case if it's on YouTube).

It's common practise for auditions for film & TV to be filmed - they want to see how you come across on screen & often the decision maker regarding who's going to be cast may not be at the audition and will look at the tapes at a later date. But the footage is only ever used privately.

To be broadcast or distributed publicly, they need to have your consent.

If you haven't consented, a polite but firm request for them to remove it from YouTube (if that's what you want) would be a good next step.

• 15 years ago
• 14

I agree with Sally - contact Equity - they will know all the legal aspects, and will give you the best advice.

• 15 years ago
• 15

As I mentioned before, I think this is also a timing question - the idea of broadcasting the material to be viewed by production associates via Youtube seems feasible (especially as there is no obvious indication of what the material actually *is* to an outsider because of lack of tags etc.) However, this must presume that the material was streaming for several days or weeks before it was brought to your attention (i.e. during the time the casting decisions were actually being made), before, that is, you learned you had not got the part. If it has only appeared in the time *since*, then clearly, this justification doesn't hold water.

Regardless, given that the audition process is over, there should be no further justification for continuing to stream the material if you would prefer it to be removed, in my opinion - it has served its purpose (if, indeed, its purpose *was* for it to be used as an aid in casting). I also agree that you should have been asked for basic consent for this usage, or at the very least, warned that the audition material would be streamed via Youtube at some juncture, and given that you can specify privacy settings, it does appear questionable that this material is now available through the public channels.

• 15 years ago
• 16

thanks all for replys both posted and sent direct to me.
Some very interesting points [both legal and personal] have been raised.
It seems to me that as actors we are all striving to get our work out in the public domain be it on film or stage and in these days of file sharing sites such as utube our ability to have personal control on what airs is limited.
The price we pay for the communication revolution!!
As i stated on original thread i was personally more surprised than annoyed by the posting however the implications of companys not seeking permission before use have potentially far reaching effect.

• 15 years ago
• 17

Definitely get on youtube and contact the poster directly telling them that they had no right to post it up without your permission and if the footage is good and you feel it's beneficial for you at least get him to tag you on it so you will come up in Search engines and you can use it as a showreel!
If you don't like the footage tell him to remove it immediately as he had no right to publish it to the world without any permission.
I would be going mad personally!
:)
Vivien XXX

• 15 years ago
• 18

apologies if this repeats what spmeone else has said, but small point: I am absolutely sure that quite a lot of epople who post on You Tube etc never have the foggiest idea that there might be legalities or confidentiality/ security issues involved, and are just up for a laugh. The first aproach might well be more effective for not being too angry. The other thing, which should really have occurred to me before, is that I am not at all sure that the question of who does own the footage is absolutely clear. There are so many different ways that the footage can come into existence. However, the balance of the above responses that I have seen (especially Lee's as ever incisive and imaginative contribution)is admirably pragmatic, it seems to me; first question, So What? If it's embarrassing in some way take it further, if it's not, just get creditted.

• 15 years ago
• 19