Do news agencies need release forms?

There has been lots of discussion on this forum on when a release is needed and when it’s not. Late week, our high school had a news worthy event and reporters scrambled for their story. My son as witness to the event was interviewed. A few things really surprised me. First, my son as a minor (< 16) was interviewed without parental consent. Secondly, he was put on television (NBC) on both the evening and nightly news, and lastly, his story is plastered all over MSNBC. All this occurred without him ever signing a release form nor was parental consent ever given. I though that one had to get a release form if you were going to use ones image if published. Does the “news” wrapper remove the need for a release form. Reviewing my “Photographers legal rights” it is very unclear.
Secondly, this was a most educational experience for my son. When he saw the story, he was pi$$ed. He talked to the reporter for about 5 minutes and she asked a bunch of questions. The one phrase that was used was taken out of context and he was disappointed that it sounded much different than what was meant. It was a great time to remind him that everyone being interviewed on all news shows rarely get to express their real views and more often what you here is a story expressing the reporter’s viewpoint, not yours. He learned much with that event.

Yes. There are libel & slander issues though?

Now you understand why I hated working with writers. Their story usually isn't your story, & even if you tell them twice, they still "get it wrong" from your standpoint. Newsies were worse, trying to tell A whole story in 20 seconds. Not to be confused with THE whole story

For editorial stuff you don't need release. If you would need it, you would never see any photos or video footage from any event. It's just not possible to get release from all 50.000 fans watching Super Bowl for example. Sorry I'm not in USA, so this number might be way too small, but I guess you get the point.
I have no idea how it's in USA about minors (here limit is 18 years and not 16), but at least here, parents consent is not needed. It's preferred, but not needed. So all editorial stuff is ok. It still has some limits (you are not allowed to show person in bad way etc. etc.), but basically I'm on safe side
As far as "out of context" goes... live and learn and most important... don't talk (about) even remotely bad things. It always comes out different then you thought If nothing else, your son learned lesson. And it's not always bad thing

primoz wrote in post #3050179
...If nothing else, your son learned lesson. And it's not always bad thing

It was a great lesson. No matter how many times you can say something, to actually see it in action really drives the point home. When he watched the story, the indignation was clear on his face. He was mad saying, “that’s not what I meant”. I reminded him that he did say those things. But we did talk long about how the press is only one side of a story, and they have their own agenda and truth is secondary to getting an interesting story and whenever dealing with them, you have to be very careful what you say because it can be taken out of context quite easily.

Their primary objective is selling newspapers, magazines or whatever their vehicle is.

It sounds like this was a truly newsworthy event and as such a release would not have been required. There have been some cases where the victim of a photograph that ended up on the net sued. The photographer said that it was editorial and thus claimed they didn't need the release. When it all came to a legal head all he was doing was street photography of people walking down the street and posting the image. He supplied no commentary or story lines with the images. I wish I could remember the link to this one story but it was a little better than a year ago. There is a risk in trying to hide behind this.

I'm not debating if your son was legal or not. The interesting thing is that what is deemed to be of legal age seems to vary by jurisdiction and by what you are talking about. In Canada there was a huge debate a year or so ago about the different legal age categories. What started it was that the legal age to have sex was 14 but something like driving could be anywhere from 16 to 18 in some cases. The lawmakers seem to make everyones lives more difficult by having standards that are well nothing resembling standard.

gjl711 wrote in post #3049996
Secondly, this was a most educational experience for my son. When he saw the story, he was pi$$ed. He talked to the reporter for about 5 minutes and she asked a bunch of questions. The one phrase that was used was taken out of context and he was disappointed that it sounded much different than what was meant. It was a great time to remind him that everyone being interviewed on all news shows rarely get to express their real views and more often what you here is a story expressing the reporter’s viewpoint, not yours. He learned much with that event.

The out-of-context angle may not necessarily have been the reporter's choice, depending on how it was presented. An editor may have changed how the story was approached. That happened to me at my college newspaper a very long time ago. I was assigned to cover a boring speech. Some protester stood up in the middle of the speech to scream some anti-establishment words. [he was instantly dragged out of the auditorium by two plainclothes campus police who clearly knew what was going to happen because they were sitting right next to him]

The next day in the newsroom, the editor-in-chief made me write a separate, longer story about the protester. Upon further review, it seems that the protester was a friend of the editor-in-chief. This was not revealed in the news stories because at the time they were written, I didn't know. The editor obviously consciously disposed of his journalism ethics to sensationalize the event. They also took a special photo of the protester, hiding his pony tail so he didn't look like a hippie -- this event happened in the mid-1970's. Two long stories of this event appeared on the front page of the paper.

Not too long afterwards, I decided that the newspaper business was not for me.