In January, the TV Industry Human Rights Forum published a report called “Let’s fix it in post: why broadcasters and production companies can and should address human rights risks in post production”. This is the sixth related article that covers a key theme from the research via shorter posts which are linked at the bottom of this article.
This is article is written by the TV Industry Human Rights Forum.
While most of the research focused on human rights risks to those working in post production, it also identified some risks to the privacy and security of subjects, contributors and participants featured in TV programmes as a result of production and post production practices.
For some high-end dramas, there is considerable security in place around post production as companies do not want storylines to leak. For particularly sensitive documentaries, there may be access limits and work will take place in rooms with blacked out windows and doors. Where this is driven by wanting to protect intellectual property rather than safety of those depicted on screen, it is unclear whether mitigations fully address risks to participant’s rights.
Such security measures tend not to apply to other TV genres, such as documentaries, reality and entertainment, where there are often far fewer safeguards in terms of restricting access to footage. One interviewee said that:
“There are zero controls on intimate images – zero contracts or expectations and no limiting who can see or view content. You might have 20 assistants seeing images and there are no safeguards in terms of an appropriate way to deal with that material."
Another said
"There is an assumption that I have backups and I’ve had requests when a version gets lost. They should be horrified that I’ve kept anything but there are no contracts or terms.”
Sometimes there are blanket non-disclosure agreements in place and post production facilities may protect footage through encryption, password protection (sometimes with time expiry) or logins via a portal. It does seem that very little leaks out, perhaps because people know it would end their careers to do so, but there are no industry-wide standards for safeguarding footage.
Subjects, contributors or participants usually have their faces blurred or voices disguised either for protection or because they are sharing a personal or sensitive story.
However, blurring and disguising happens late in the post production process. So, unless measures have been taken during filming, there are likely to be a number of people working in post production who will have seen the footage and be aware of a person’s identity. This does increase the risk that a participant’s identity becomes public at some point, risking their privacy and potentially their safety.
The late stage at which identity-masking happens may also risk the safety of post production workers. For example, if the programme in question is investigating organised crime or is critical of a state or other powerful figures, this raises the possibility that those working in post production might themselves become targets. It may also increase the likelihood that hackers target the facility involved.
Broadcasters and production companies have a duty of care towards subjects, contributors and participants. This should also factor in care during post production.
For example, better industry standards for safeguarding sensitive or intimate footage would help to mitigate the privacy risks to those who have been filmed and the safety risks to those on, or working on, footage likely to upset powerful stakeholders.
Post production facilities should limit and log who has and hasn’t been given access to footage. Broadcasters and production companies should make good practice by post production facilities non-negotiable and this includes practices around safeguarding footage.
For more detail on the findings and recommendations, read the report at www.tvhumanrights.org/postproduction.