Have I been violated?

[Macky-Mac]

If you didn't sign anything, then there's an issue, a verbal agreement isn't good enough, they need to have signed forms of all their social actors/contributors, especially for a DVD being sold.

perhaps that's true in the UK, but it's not a legal requirement in the USA (although it's certainly wise for the DVD producer to get these things, just to protect themselves in situations like this one).......but we don't know where the OP lives, so maybe this would apply to him....or maybe not

Was the pic/video taken in a public place? I'm no lawyer, but I believe that makes a difference. Can you give us some more details about the circumstances......

you could be right. The circumstances could make quite a difference. It's hard to say without more info than the OP has given us

 

[Schtumple]

perhaps that's true in the UK, but it's not a legal requirement in the USA (although it's certainly wise for the DVD producer to get these things, just to protect themselves in situations like this one).......but we don't know where the OP lives, so maybe this would apply to him....or maybe not

America is worse IIRC, you have to blur out anyones face if you don't get permission, although that may only be if you are creating a performance that will affect the general public.

It's not something I know a lot about as it's not an area I've had to deal with, but I think I'm correct.

Regardless, the firm behind the DVD has obviously used the OP in a personal environment, not as a passer by of the general public, which makes things different, the firm are at a disadvantage if things went to court.

 

[Macky-Mac]

America is worse IIRC, you have to blur out anyones face if you don't get permission, although that may only be if you are creating a performance that will affect the general public.

It's not something I know a lot about as it's not an area I've had to deal with, but I think I'm correct.....

no, there isn't a law that requires faces to be blurred out if you don't have permission.

When you see faces blurred out, it's because somebody has decided as a preemtive action to blur out those faces in order to completely avoid any issues, not because there's a law that says they have to. People over here love to sue for just about any reason that can be thought up and avoiding a law suit can be a lot cheaper than fighting and winning one.

......Regardless, the firm behind the DVD has obviously used the OP in a personal environment, not as a passer by of the general public, which makes things different, the firm are at a disadvantage if things went to court.

from what the OP has said so far, they asked him to participate and it seems he agreed to be in the DVD.....it seems like the issue is that he's discovered there might be money to be made and is thinking he should have been offered some in the first place. And maybe he's right....or not. I don't think we've been told enough to really know.

 

[Schtumple]

When you see faces blurred out, it's because somebody has decided as a preemtive action to blur out those faces in order to completely avoid any issues, not because there's a law that says they have to. People over here love to sue for just about any reason that can be thought up and avoiding a law suit can be a lot cheaper than fighting and winning one.

Ahhh fair enough, question of ethics really.

from what the OP has said so far, they asked him to participate and it seems he agreed to be in the DVD.....it seems like the issue is that he's discovered there might be money to be made and is thinking he should have been offered some in the first place. And maybe he's right....or not. I don't think we've been told enough to really know.

The thing is, regardless of if they asked him to be in the DVD, if there's no written confirmation of his acceptance to be on the DVD the argument is mute, a verbal agreement is not a valid form of agreement for a commercially sold film.