Documentary Filmmaker Has To Turn Over Some Footage To Chevron
from the not-so-shielded-after-all dept
Back in May, we wrote about a judge ordering a documentary filmmaker to turn over the footage that didn't make the film to Chevron. The documentary was about Chevron's alleged involvement in Ecuadorian rainforest pollution, and Chevron believes that some of the cut footage will help get a case that has been filed against it in Ecuador dismissed. The filmmaker tried to raise press protections, but the district court judge shot that down, saying that the material was not confidential (and, in fact, was filmed knowing it might be made public). The case was appealed, and the appeals court wasted little time in again telling the filmmaker to hand over footage, but the court also appears to have limited the scope somewhat:- Berlinger has to turn over all footage showing (1) plaintiffs' counsel in Chevron's civil lawsuit in Ecuador, (2) private or court-appointed experts, and (3) current or former Ecuadorian officials;
- Chevron can only use the material produced for litigation, arbitration or submission to official government bodies;
- Chevron must pay for all reasonable costs incurred by Berlinger in turning over the footage; and
- The district court below shall maintain jurisdiction to address any disputes relating to the release of the footage.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: confidentiality, documentary, footage, privacy
Companies: chevron
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
But if it was documentary . . .
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But if it was documentary . . .
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: But if it was documentary . . .
I agree that the footage should be released - but only if it is relevant. As a filmmaker, would you appreciate it if outtakes or you and the rest of the crew goofing around with the equipment were entered into the record of a public trial with national coverage?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: But if it was documentary . . .
(1) plaintiffs' counsel in Chevron's civil lawsuit in Ecuador,
(2) private or court-appointed experts, and
(3) current or former Ecuadorian officials;"
Doesn't sound like you and the rest of the crew goofing around with the equipment...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What if I film you for 24 hours, and only show the 2 minutes you were pissed off about something or someone and said see, he is a mean, vile person, you shouldn't like this person
you would want the 23 hours and 58 minutes of film too, to rebut what I said
carefully filming whatever chevron did and crafting it into a certain picture doesn't sound like a real documentary, sounds like a personal agenda
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So when a government agent tells a reporter about something illegal going on within the government (say, wiretapping the opposition party, maybe), the reporter being forced to reveal who that source is isn't a big deal to you?
I'll grant you that those laws are used overly much by reporters, but there's very good reason for them to be there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Maybe I would want it, but there's no reason I should have any right to have it.
carefully filming whatever chevron did and crafting it into a certain picture doesn't sound like a real documentary, sounds like a personal agenda
Sure, but that's no reason for a court to interfere. This case appears to have nothing to do with Chevron trying to rebut the documentary, and is all about using the film as evidence in a separate lawsuit.
I also see no reason why the filmmaker shouldn't be compelled to turn over legitimate evidence in a court case. It doesn't sound like there's any whistleblowing, confidential sources, or matters of personal safety involved.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
As long as the request is limited to footage that directly involves the issues presented, such as all of the footage from a specific interview, it seems like a reasonable request (unless the person being interviewed requested anonymity).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
they just want all the film he took, to help show stuff that may help paint a bigger picture, he didn't include in the film
hence the example, I show you ranting and cussing and screaming, and say, see, hes an asshole, but I don't show the guy who almost ran over your child in his car, that paints it in a different light, doesn't it????
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So Many
Advocacy media has the right to be published, but not the right to lie. The only way to know is to see all the material related to the video.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Message to filmmakers...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/07/20/ex-ag-official-says-video-showing-white-farm er-story-excludes-key-context/
the edited clip shows her being racist, but the whole clip shows her relating a story the helped her to overcome race, 24 years ago
So you say we shouldn't have any "right" to all the video???
please, are you that stupid
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]