Mass Media Law

In some ways, the field of law is like video production. Once reduced to writing or committed to videotape, both a law and a completed video may appear to be rigid, immutable and absolute. But as we know, a so-called "final" video is not necessarily frozen forever. It's a composite of a myriad of psychological and technical decisions, many of which are subject to re-edit at the whim of the videomaker.

Similarly, the body of law is a dynamic entity, reflecting social conditions and public policy. Laws must change as social circumstances, business situations or even technologies change. What may appear to be a black-or-white issue the day before the trial can become a complicated legal debate, depending on the evidence and testimony presented in court. For better or worse, the outcome of a lawsuit (the judicial opinion) can be subjective, the judge or jury attempting to accommodate the point of view, as it were, of the litigants.

All of this is to say that no article discussing mass media law and its ramifications for videomakers can be absolute. You should not exclusively rely on a lawyer's published advice relating to a hypothetical situation, since the specific facts of your case are not necessarily identical to those discussed in the article.

Even if the facts were identical, the example case still might not withstand the test of time. Since law is a living thing, not static, it is impossible to predict the outcome of any legal dispute until you fight the battle.

This all might seem theoretical, but as a videomaker, you may be only an instant away from a situation having legal implications. Consider this scenario: you're on vacation. Your batteries have a full charge and your camcorder is ready to go. A newsworthy event--a fire in a restaurant, for example--occurs before your eyes. Smoke belches from doorways, flames spurt from windows, heroic fire fighters enter the building, carrying patrons and restaurant staff out to safety.

You remove your lens cap and start taping the event from a distance. As all good videomakers know, varying camera angles and using close-ups add excitement and involve your viewers. So you take a few steps closer to the action. A police officer notices you and approaches.

"Sorry," he says politely (but firmly), "you can't come any closer. It's for your own safety."

Before you respond to the police officer, think about your rights under the United States Constitution. The First Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech or of the press."

Over two centuries ago, there was precious little discussion about television, radio, movie film, audio tape, CDs, video cameras or even electricity, for that matter. When the writers of the First Amendment specifically referred to "speech" and "the press," they didn't mean to limit forms of conveying information; it's just that speech and printed matter were the only sorts of communication available at that time. Twentieth century court decisions have had to expand the definition of "press" to include all mass communication media. Good news for videomakers! For purposes of this article, we will use your act of videotaping as a form of "speech."

As you may recall, the framers of the Constitution included the First Amendment in order to guarantee and encourage free expression, discussion and even dissent. No person was to receive a penalty for expressing his or her opinion, however individual it might be. The First Amendment has never been repealed or modified, although over the years courts have limited free speech in certain situations. For example, national security dictates that secret negotiations, military strategies, plans for producing weapons, etc. not be made publicly available. Nor does a person have an absolute right to initiate a riot or cause a panic by yelling "Fire!" in a theater. Nor can one person injure another's reputation by publishing false statements, especially if done maliciously.

• Digg This!
• del.icio.us
• Technorati
• StumbleUpon
• Reddit