'We LOVE YOU" Documentary: Love it or...?

[Bruce Blank / Peacepirate]

Namnaste, Family -

I had the honor of handing the DVD made by New Jersey Films LLC entitled "WE LOVE YOU" to participants at the 2009 National Gathering - N.Y.Purple Gang's brunch.

Just curious about reactions from you-all to this documentary.

I told the producer, Johnathen, that I felt it was too short (He says a feature-leingh version may be in the works in the future)!
That aside, I wish there was more time to interview not just our Rainbow Elder friends - Garreck, Plunker, Grandpa Woodstock - et all - but some of the more marginalized members: Gutterpunks, anarchos, fairies, 'A' campers to kinda fill it out.
I also wanted to see an atempt to interview the ICT commander or the Feddies - get their take on it, but they seem very reluctant to make public comments. Gee, I wonder why?

The hipstory by Gareck and Plunker is facinating, as I wasn't aware of the deep connection to vets and peace activists that launched the Gatherings. Phew! As a vet it gives me goose-bumps. Also wanted to see what family thinks is going to happen next.

I am currently working on a simular project on the 2009 Gathering. I wanted to address the growing concerns about the problems with some of our younger participants bringing in hard drugs, alchohol and increasing theft but more importantly what can those of us who ARE concerned can do about it.If you attended the Womyn's Circle or the July 7th circle these issues were quite vocally debated.

So,if you didn't have a chance, go to:

www.weloveyou.com to see more.

Bright Blessings from PeacePirate

[Coyote]

recording at gatherings is shwagg.. its always been understood that the spirit shouldnt be captured at gatherings on film.. many new comers to the scence have forgotten that the sacred moments are what brings us back together year after year. to see a video only numbs the mind of where we wanna be at.. photos is one things afew video clips on youtube another...then our movie becomes a MOVIE and were now an event... whos capitalizing on our family? i am a jersey film fan for years. but have been a rainbow for many more than theyve been around. brainleech at burningman or somewhere else. were not as a whole consensing on your agenda to film.. ive had this issue with GFE as well... manager said..if so so didnt want the name of the kitchen to be used... he should have copywrited it.. what a kind sister she was not. but my point is recording gatherings for a benefit of some film kid campers is absolutely SHWAGG in my opinion... loving yawl family!

[Bruce Blank / Peacepirate]

I agree that recording an event changes an event - least of all for the person doing the recording. As a documentation filmmaker, I am in that trap of being in the moment vs. having to be an objective observer ( which, really, is impossible as by my SELECTING what to film I am making a judgement call as to what is worth capturing and what is not).
I would hope to have a differentiation between folk doing archive preservation as opposed to just home movies. As a photographer I have made the choice to document, while trying to be as unobtrusive as possible.

Yes, it IS the sacred moments that keep Family returning - it's my hope that SOME of that spirit can be preserved for not only historians researching on the Family as a social movement but also for Family themselves - to remember moments that fade over time.

[Bruce Blank / Peacepirate]

This is some GOOD stuff,people! Great comments and imput.

Thanks, Jelly for your research, and you raise some interesting questions. Since I was there I DO know they did ask permission and notifed info and many others, but obviously somewhere along the way some folk DIDN'T know. I 'm still of the view it may have been an unintentional oversite.
Tell ya what, I'll write Johnathan and ask him about it, and post his responce...that cool? It may be a short while - he's pretty busy on the fest thing.

Don't know about any 'King of the Hill' Rainbow parady. Hippies get paradied all the time in animation - I have seen a few episodes of 'South Park' when the fat kid Cartman expresses his disdain for hippies (and it's always hilarious), but a Rainbow specific cartoon? I'll have to check this out.
Oh, and thank you Teneli for the corrections.

[Jelly]

I'd prefer it if he'd answer himself. I would feel a LOT better if he'd post personally to ANY of the lists we use, to answer any questions we, the subjects of the film, might have. His creation is of our blood, sweat and tears, after all.

J

--maybe a forum on the weloveyoufilm.com website, perhaps?

[tenali]

A final point I would want to make is remind people that it is only a Documentary, made and distributed in the spirit of rainbow. That is it is Made free and distributed free. I bet he ends up spending several hundred out of his pocket just in free handouts. I know I do with recording music at rainbow.
Relax, don't take it too seriously and don't be afraid of the press, especially something that shines some rather positive light on the history and struggles of rainbow.

tenali

[Jelly]

that's easy for you to say it wasn't YOUR kid taped w/out permission.

J

[Bruce Blank / Peacepirate]

Jelly:

The easiest way to contact the filmmakers is: go to
www.weloveyoufilm.com and send Johnathan your concerns under his 'contact us' banner.
I hope he will help you to resolve your concerns. Good Luck, Bro!

[guitar Mikal]

I worked in the journalism field from the mid '80s to the mid "90s as an editor, reporter, photographer, and imaging technician.

The law is simple. If you are in public, you and your children may be filmed and photographed freely. You may even be photographed on private property if you are visible from a public spot. An example is you may be photographed and published legally through your living room window from the sidewalk.

A model release is used for commercial reasons such as advertising or if a model were to pose for a feature photo.

The grey area lies in the ethics. It is the ethics that give the journalist credibility and is often governed by the market the journalist is serving. The greatest legal danger to a journalist is libel.

I did see the documentary. From what I saw in the film and read in these posts, this photographer was careful to be unobtrusive and respectful -- and well within the rule of law -- not even near the warning track.

That aside, I would like to say I was very impressed with the documentary. It made me weep warmly. I have a copy, so tell me what to do. I can knock off a few copies.

[Jelly]

Right! > You might see i posted in reply to se's post as well. < JUst wanted to say here you worked as JOURNALIST for the NEWS. Not as a documentary film maker. While you are 100% correct about your assertion, in Johnathan's case, it does not apply.

j

[guitar Mikal]

The following is an excerpt from The Independent Filmmaker’s Law and Business Guide.

Laws Concerning Privacy and Documentary Filmaking

Perhaps nowhere does the law protecting the rights of the filmmaker differ more greatly from the industry practice than in the area of invasion of privacy. Under the law, if the information is newsworthy or of public interest, then there can be no invasion of privacy for accurately depicting the story. Minors may be afforded slightly greater protection, but as long as information is public and of public concern, the news reporter and documentary filmmaker are free to use that information. Despite the law, by practice, some distributors demand a signed release proving permission from every person depicted on the screen. Documentary filmmakers must balance the need for documentation and caution with the need to capture the footage necessary to tell their story.

In most states, the laws include (1) false light, (2) publicity rights, (3) intrusion into seclusion, and (4) publicity given to matters of private concern. Statements which put persons into a false light are legally very similar to defamatory statements. The false statements need not be as contemptuous as those required for defamation, but the statements must still highly offend an ordinary person. In some states, the rights of publicity are also included as a form of privacy, but publicity rights have increasingly been treated separately as a commercial interest and are discussed elsewhere throughout the book.

Protections again intrusion into seclusion primarily protect against physical intrusion, such as trespassing and planting hidden cameras or microphones in the home of a subject. The use of a high-powered lens used to view through windows might qualify in some jurisdictions, and voyeurs’ use of electronic equipment to see under women’s skirts or peek into bathroom stalls has extended notions of physical intrusion into public venues. These are obvious invasions of personal space, and such offensive techniques simply should never be used.

The most important and challenging privacy consideration for documentary filmmakers is the protection against publicizing matters of only private concern. A filmmaker should not publicize a private fact if that information is not of legitimate public concern and the publication of that fact would be deemed highly offensive to the ordinary person.

There is little clarity regarding the legal point at which a matter becomes a matter of public concern. Criminal activity is generally considered public, and almost any activity by elected officials and entertainers is fair game. Stories that disclose misconduct or highlight important matters of public policy are all likely to qualify as being of legitimate public concern. On the other hand, a newspaper’s casual reference to a student-body officer’s previous sex change operation was deemed not a matter of public concern since it was unrelated to the news story.
Similarly, if a 12-year-old is competing in a spelling bee not open to the public, such a private endeavor, despite the inherent drama, does not become a matter of public concern. On the other hand, if the spelling bee is a public event that anyone can attend, then there can be little claim that taping the competition itself violates the privacy of the participants. This would not, however, extend to the private areas of the competition, such as the green room or the rooms in which the students were waiting along with their parents. A filmmaker does not get to publicize a personal story merely because it makes for good drama.

Fortunately, public concern is not the only test. For the private facts disclosed to be actionable, they also must be highly offensive to a reasonable person, not merely to the particular person who was the subject of the documentary footage. Graphic film footage of accident victims may fall into this category, if the accident was not a matter of public concern and the victims’ bloody bodies, personal agony, and vulnerable state were such that a reasonable person would find the broadcast highly offensive. If the rescue is newsworthy, however, then the filmmaker has much greater leeway.

Simply put, filmmakers should pay attention to the privacy rights of the people in their documentaries, being careful to ensure that if individuals depicted have not consented to be in the documentary, they are involved in matters of public concern or their depictions are not highly offensive.

Source: The Independent Filmmaker’s Law and Business Guide

http://www.amazon.com/Independent-Filmmakers-Law-Business-Guide/dp/...

[guitar Mikal]

I Loved it!

The whole World is watching, and this is a beautiful thing for them to see!

Blessings to all of you for all you do!