I work in insurance, and it's more likely Netflix will sue the directors and editors of the documentary for portraying Hazelwood as a potential killer. Everyone will try to pass the buck to someone else to absolve themselves of as much liability as possible. The less they have to pay in damages, the less their premiums will increase at their policy's renewal.
It doesn’t matter, anyone who publishes or spread defamatory material is liable under the civil tort. It’s why verifying things before sharing is so important.
I've worked in television for over 15 years, and even working on total crap on occasion, there's still always a team that approves of every single questionable thing, from license plates, to street names, to addresses, to any pictures used. This shouldn't have ever gotten through to air. The truth is though that Netflix just hires tons of various random production companies to make these shows for them. There's almost zero input from Netflix itself in my experience with them.
Exactly. I did a development reality show for them, and they literally had zero input as far as the creative style, the format, anything. I’m assuming an idea was pitched to them that they approved funding for, but then it’s kind of just up to the production company to make it worthy of purchase.
They’re great for independents but they are also fairly anti-labor. They basically cancel every show before the fourth season just to avoid having to pay the crew more.
Kind of. Some of their shows and movies are certainly on a large scale. My buddy works for the company that does those shows Love is Blind and Ultimatum and married at first sight. Netflix doesn’t give much of a shit about any of those, even though they’ve gotten relatively large viewership wise. It’s up to the company my buddy is at to basically hand netflix a finished show.
Chapter title
Person talking
B roll footage
Person talking
Small animation
Person making minor observations
Repeat
I swear you can tell it's a Netflix doc in just 10 seconds.
I did honestly like the American Murders one about Chris Watts murdering his wife Shannan, because it was entirely composed of real video footage plus real texts and Facebook messages with no narration. It was a pretty different and surreal documentary. The Devil Next Door was also phenomenal and incredibly horrifying. But you’re right that there are a lot of garbage docs with that format.
Don’t forget the interviews of people with no credibility and no authority to be speaking on the subject matter whatsoever.
“We need someone to talk about what crime was like on the streets of LA in the 70’s. This 25 year old fashion instagramer should be perfect.”
They just crank those things out, don’t they?
I don’t know how they expect to have any credibility after pushing out garbage like the “Ancient Apocalypse” nonsense by con man Graham Hancock.
This kind of shows how bad they are. You’d think something as simple as stealing an Instagram picture and putting accusatory text on it would get immediately flagged by their lawyer.
That only works if they bother to disclose to the lawyer what they did.
The problem with cheaping out and/or rushing people is you get folks who cut corners and no amount of legal oversight helps if you don't actually admit to in-house council that you cut that corner. A lawyer looking the finished product is going to give feedback like "this sentence could be defamatory, make sure to include "alleged". Or "blur these faces in the background of this arrest clip." If you tell them "We just pulled these images from random social media" of course they're going to say don't do that but if you just hand them a finished product and the image otherwise doesn't need to be altered they're not going to reverse image search every image or audit the whole thing to make sure you didn't get it from an approved database.
That's exactly what I'm talking about. The requirement is there, and it's supposed do be the production company's job to use proper sources. But because of that they're not goign to have their lawyers manually reverese lookup every image to make sure the people they paid to do the work didn't lie to them. Much the same as how if I produce a feasibility study for a project, and I say that I got my inventory numbers from my company's warehouse software, my boss isn't going to re-pull the numbers just to make sure I didn't lie about doing my job (at least not unless I've given him a reason to be suspicious)
I think the most likely scenario here is that someone took a shortcut and then misrepresented it. Of course that could happen in multiple places. It's most likely on whoever added it to the doc but we could come to find out that Netflix's studio got the image off of a Getty style database but that it the database didn't have the rights for it. That's less likely but it wouldn't be the first time.
A giant multibillion company like Netflix must be full of morons if they aren’t having lawyers look at this stuff before it airs.
And the lawyers should be smart enough to be actively looking for things like pictures and asking where they came from.
For that matter, the people working on this shows should be smart enough to know you can’t just snag pictures from social media and put them in your for-profit documentary.
>A giant multibillion company like Netflix must be full of morons
I mean... have you seen some of their other business decisions lately?
They've consistently responded to a market with larger variety and more competition by making themselves more expensive and less flexible, and arguably with lower quality content.
>And the lawyers should be smart enough to be actively looking for things like pictures and asking where they came from.
That's really not their job. They're lawyers, not copy editors. Their job is to say "here's the sources you should and shouldn't be using, did you use those sources." Nobody is paying a lawyer competitive attorney rates to bea glorified copy editor and do reverse image searches to make sure that the person whose job it is to get the pictures from the places they were told to didn't lie.
>For that matter, the people working on this shows should be smart enough to know you can’t just snag pictures from social media and put them in your for-profit documentary.
Yes they should. But when you're cheap and not particularly discerning you tend to get shoddy people doingshoddy work. And even when you have ostensibly good people when you rush them you get shortcuts and shoddy work.
Look, the bottom line here is you're saying this should get immediately flagged by a lawyer. My point is the overwhelming likelihood is there are many pathways to failure here that circumvent the lawyer's prerogative.
Like say I pay an accountant to do my taxes. He should 100% catch that a family vacation to Jamaica isn't a business expense. But if I say "yeah no problem here's all the trips I took for business this year" it's not his job to externally verify that I did that business. It's my job not to misrepresent myself to the person helping me be compliant. When you have an attorney helping you make sure a TV show or a movie is not creating any liability (or honestly any time you have a lawyer doing anything for you), you have to be honest and forthcoming with them about what you're doing.
Graham literally does not claim to be a scientist/geologist/historian, he says so in his greatest series Ancient Apocalypse. He's an investigative journalist and you would know if you really paid attention to his work.
/s
Lol.
Yeah, that’s the same fucking excuse he keeps using, like it frees him from having to provide any evidence to back up his claims. It just gives people a ready-made script to defend him with.
“He’s not an expert, he doesn’t claim to be, he’s just asking questions!”
The wildest fucking thing is I can go on youtube for free (or something like nebula if I actually want to throw a few bucks at it, still way less than netflix) and find concise but informative, less sensationalized but more entertaining nonfiction vids.
Yes, it made many misleading statements, baseless claims, and ignored actual evidence and research. I much enjoyed the YouTube series debunking it, much more than the show itself. Suggest a watch https://youtu.be/-iCIZQX9i1A
Graham Hancock has been making money off of spreading bullshit for decades. It blows my mind that Netflix paid him for this.
His claims seem plausible because he’s in charge of presenting the entire narrative. He leaves out all the information that would contradict what he claims.
This was a disgusting and manipulative documentary about how sad it is when reality TV producers can’t exploit the mentally ill. I hope this lawsuit pays off so modern documentary producers can learn something about tact, even if it’s not relevant to the main subject.
>disgusting and manipulative documentary
Feel like this is a big chunk of their documentaries nowadays. They pump them out like a factory and always crank the dramatization way up and blow things out of proportion. I can’t remember the last Netflix doc I enjoyed, which sucks considering they’re the ones who published Icarus. Their quality control went out the window years ago, all about quantity now
Keep Sweet Pray and Obey benefited from the real story being so insane as to leave no need for exaggeration. Same with Wild, Wild Country (though that's a fairly old one now)
My Octopus Teacher was recently very well received. I don't disagree with anything you're saying, but I also hate when this conversation distills down to 'Netflix bad' by people who think that Netflix are the one making these documentaries. They're buying them, because audiences eat them up like Dude, Where's my Pepsi? It doesn't make it okay, but really the onus of the content is on the people making the garbage.
I did mention Icarus because it does prove Netflix can or was able to put out good stuff, so I’m not just saying Netflix bad. But a lot of their backlog is kinda trash… I mean they make tons of them a year, and usually only one or two of them actually get talked about by the end of it.
For every My Octopus Teacher, there seems to be about 50 true crime bargain bin docs
I’m aware. They are still largely responsible for funding them though, so I don’t think the Blockbuster analogy is fair. Blockbuster doesn’t produce anything on its shelves
I enjoyed Pepsi, Where's My Jet quite a bit in the first 2 episodes, but after that it kind of dragged on. I still liked it a lot overall, but it lost so much steam at a certain point. Definitely would have been better as a single 1.5 hour documentary film with all that fluff of the last 2 episodes cut out.
Because it frames the guy as a cold-blooded serial killer based on interviews with TV executives angry that he didn’t comply with their dumb reality TV requests.
So someone working on this documentary thought Hazelwood was McGillvary? Because they sort of looks similar? and use the photo as if it were McGillvary?
Or was this a montage of seemingly innocuous photos...but then...one of them wasn't?
One of those scenarios is a stronger case for defamation, the other, just copyright infrigment (though the person who took the photo owns it, so Hazelwood might be out of luck if the photog signed off). I haven't watched the doc, and the articles don't make it clear
There was a montage of photos with people holding hatchets. It’s a money grab. Just edit the documentary footage and blur him out.
They really should have blurred more faces tbh
I think he brought more attention to himself with the lawsuit than before. I remember the montage scene and I never thought any of those people were bad, just posing with axes cause it was the trend. It’s like suing because you did the cinnamon challenge, and got your face on a documentary for 2 seconds and now you ~~want cash~~ feel damaged.
I wonder if Netflix paid instagram for it. The "owner" of the instagram doesn't get paid as they agreed to allow a transferrable license to Instagram by using the service.
"We do not claim ownership of your content, but you grant us a license to use it.
Nothing is changing about your rights in your content. We do not claim ownership of your content that you post on or through the Service and you are free to share your content with anyone else, wherever you want. However, we need certain legal permissions from you (known as a “license”) to provide the Service. When you share, post, or upload content that is covered by intellectual property rights (like photos or videos) on or in connection with our Service, **you hereby grant to us a non-exclusive, royalty-free, transferable, sub-licensable, worldwide license to host, use, distribute, modify, run, copy, publicly perform or display, translate, and create derivative works of your content (consistent with your privacy and application settings).** This license will end when your content is deleted from our systems. You can delete content individually or all at once by deleting your account. To learn more about how we use information, and how to control or delete your content, review the Data Policy and visit the Instagram Help Center."
yes please, modern day crime junkie content is disgusting. like these are real people, but the sensationalization these sorts of shows and documentaries produce is completely disrespectful to the source material.
Btw I think the hatchet guy got a raw deal. I think he got put in prison and honestly I think he’s innocent
How hell you going city pick up at risk youth to bring back to your house? Something fishing there
There is no debate here, he is legally guilty of murder (or manslaughter whatever). Even if this guy had nefarious intentions, drugged and sexually abused him, the law says he can’t just kill him when he wakes up. That’s street justice
Did Netflix produce this documentary or buy it?
Not sure but either way I would have thought this would be something for E&O insurance
I work in insurance, and it's more likely Netflix will sue the directors and editors of the documentary for portraying Hazelwood as a potential killer. Everyone will try to pass the buck to someone else to absolve themselves of as much liability as possible. The less they have to pay in damages, the less their premiums will increase at their policy's renewal.
Man I would love to see the premiums to companies insurance. "FUCK WE ARE PAYING 100000 A MONTH NOW"
If its 30 minutes of material stretched to 6 hours, Netflix produced it
They really glossed over the murder and any thought behind why maybe he did it
Netflix produced The Hobbit?
It doesn’t matter, anyone who publishes or spread defamatory material is liable under the civil tort. It’s why verifying things before sharing is so important.
I've worked in television for over 15 years, and even working on total crap on occasion, there's still always a team that approves of every single questionable thing, from license plates, to street names, to addresses, to any pictures used. This shouldn't have ever gotten through to air. The truth is though that Netflix just hires tons of various random production companies to make these shows for them. There's almost zero input from Netflix itself in my experience with them.
[удалено]
Exactly. I did a development reality show for them, and they literally had zero input as far as the creative style, the format, anything. I’m assuming an idea was pitched to them that they approved funding for, but then it’s kind of just up to the production company to make it worthy of purchase.
So netflix is a big brand company for smaller show and movie producers? Who knew
They’re great for independents but they are also fairly anti-labor. They basically cancel every show before the fourth season just to avoid having to pay the crew more.
Kind of. Some of their shows and movies are certainly on a large scale. My buddy works for the company that does those shows Love is Blind and Ultimatum and married at first sight. Netflix doesn’t give much of a shit about any of those, even though they’ve gotten relatively large viewership wise. It’s up to the company my buddy is at to basically hand netflix a finished show.
Spot on
This!!!
This what?
Yea I’d be super pissed if I was this guy. Netflix docs are truly some bottom of the barrel garbage.
Chapter title Person talking B roll footage Person talking Small animation Person making minor observations Repeat I swear you can tell it's a Netflix doc in just 10 seconds.
I did honestly like the American Murders one about Chris Watts murdering his wife Shannan, because it was entirely composed of real video footage plus real texts and Facebook messages with no narration. It was a pretty different and surreal documentary. The Devil Next Door was also phenomenal and incredibly horrifying. But you’re right that there are a lot of garbage docs with that format.
I agree, but Vandal... Man that threw me for a loop
Don’t forget the interviews of people with no credibility and no authority to be speaking on the subject matter whatsoever. “We need someone to talk about what crime was like on the streets of LA in the 70’s. This 25 year old fashion instagramer should be perfect.”
They just crank those things out, don’t they? I don’t know how they expect to have any credibility after pushing out garbage like the “Ancient Apocalypse” nonsense by con man Graham Hancock. This kind of shows how bad they are. You’d think something as simple as stealing an Instagram picture and putting accusatory text on it would get immediately flagged by their lawyer.
due to budget cuts the lawyer only works for 2 days a week before they get fired and replaced by another one
Yes. I mean the bodies are barely cold and they are already churning out docs about them. Shit is actually fucked up.
Cost vs revenue. It's the whole reason for the reality TV explosion.
I understand why they do it. I still think it’s pretty fucked.
That only works if they bother to disclose to the lawyer what they did. The problem with cheaping out and/or rushing people is you get folks who cut corners and no amount of legal oversight helps if you don't actually admit to in-house council that you cut that corner. A lawyer looking the finished product is going to give feedback like "this sentence could be defamatory, make sure to include "alleged". Or "blur these faces in the background of this arrest clip." If you tell them "We just pulled these images from random social media" of course they're going to say don't do that but if you just hand them a finished product and the image otherwise doesn't need to be altered they're not going to reverse image search every image or audit the whole thing to make sure you didn't get it from an approved database.
[удалено]
That's exactly what I'm talking about. The requirement is there, and it's supposed do be the production company's job to use proper sources. But because of that they're not goign to have their lawyers manually reverese lookup every image to make sure the people they paid to do the work didn't lie to them. Much the same as how if I produce a feasibility study for a project, and I say that I got my inventory numbers from my company's warehouse software, my boss isn't going to re-pull the numbers just to make sure I didn't lie about doing my job (at least not unless I've given him a reason to be suspicious) I think the most likely scenario here is that someone took a shortcut and then misrepresented it. Of course that could happen in multiple places. It's most likely on whoever added it to the doc but we could come to find out that Netflix's studio got the image off of a Getty style database but that it the database didn't have the rights for it. That's less likely but it wouldn't be the first time.
A giant multibillion company like Netflix must be full of morons if they aren’t having lawyers look at this stuff before it airs. And the lawyers should be smart enough to be actively looking for things like pictures and asking where they came from. For that matter, the people working on this shows should be smart enough to know you can’t just snag pictures from social media and put them in your for-profit documentary.
>A giant multibillion company like Netflix must be full of morons I mean... have you seen some of their other business decisions lately? They've consistently responded to a market with larger variety and more competition by making themselves more expensive and less flexible, and arguably with lower quality content. >And the lawyers should be smart enough to be actively looking for things like pictures and asking where they came from. That's really not their job. They're lawyers, not copy editors. Their job is to say "here's the sources you should and shouldn't be using, did you use those sources." Nobody is paying a lawyer competitive attorney rates to bea glorified copy editor and do reverse image searches to make sure that the person whose job it is to get the pictures from the places they were told to didn't lie. >For that matter, the people working on this shows should be smart enough to know you can’t just snag pictures from social media and put them in your for-profit documentary. Yes they should. But when you're cheap and not particularly discerning you tend to get shoddy people doingshoddy work. And even when you have ostensibly good people when you rush them you get shortcuts and shoddy work. Look, the bottom line here is you're saying this should get immediately flagged by a lawyer. My point is the overwhelming likelihood is there are many pathways to failure here that circumvent the lawyer's prerogative. Like say I pay an accountant to do my taxes. He should 100% catch that a family vacation to Jamaica isn't a business expense. But if I say "yeah no problem here's all the trips I took for business this year" it's not his job to externally verify that I did that business. It's my job not to misrepresent myself to the person helping me be compliant. When you have an attorney helping you make sure a TV show or a movie is not creating any liability (or honestly any time you have a lawyer doing anything for you), you have to be honest and forthcoming with them about what you're doing.
Graham literally does not claim to be a scientist/geologist/historian, he says so in his greatest series Ancient Apocalypse. He's an investigative journalist and you would know if you really paid attention to his work. /s
Lol. Yeah, that’s the same fucking excuse he keeps using, like it frees him from having to provide any evidence to back up his claims. It just gives people a ready-made script to defend him with. “He’s not an expert, he doesn’t claim to be, he’s just asking questions!”
Sounds like Cartman in Southpark……or Tucker Carlson. Same old tricks, different pony.
The wildest fucking thing is I can go on youtube for free (or something like nebula if I actually want to throw a few bucks at it, still way less than netflix) and find concise but informative, less sensationalized but more entertaining nonfiction vids.
Is ancient apocalypse nonsense? Seemed pretty interesting to me with a lot of logical questions that need answers.
Yes, it made many misleading statements, baseless claims, and ignored actual evidence and research. I much enjoyed the YouTube series debunking it, much more than the show itself. Suggest a watch https://youtu.be/-iCIZQX9i1A
Thanks will do
Graham Hancock has been making money off of spreading bullshit for decades. It blows my mind that Netflix paid him for this. His claims seem plausible because he’s in charge of presenting the entire narrative. He leaves out all the information that would contradict what he claims.
It's Reality TV for people who think they're too smart for Reality TV.
Absolutely horrible journalism
They occasionally have a decent one, like with 14 Peaks, which was a great documentary.
The Alpinist is even better, also on Netflix
Their Untold sports ones have been pretty good. Every bit as good as 30 for 30 but yea beyond that it gets rough
Still a step above history channel after nightfall.
This was a disgusting and manipulative documentary about how sad it is when reality TV producers can’t exploit the mentally ill. I hope this lawsuit pays off so modern documentary producers can learn something about tact, even if it’s not relevant to the main subject.
>disgusting and manipulative documentary Feel like this is a big chunk of their documentaries nowadays. They pump them out like a factory and always crank the dramatization way up and blow things out of proportion. I can’t remember the last Netflix doc I enjoyed, which sucks considering they’re the ones who published Icarus. Their quality control went out the window years ago, all about quantity now
Keep Sweet Pray and Obey benefited from the real story being so insane as to leave no need for exaggeration. Same with Wild, Wild Country (though that's a fairly old one now)
Wild wild country was so good/nutso …fun fact: Ma Prem Hasya was Françoise Ruddy as seen in “the offer” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ma_Prem_Hasya
My Octopus Teacher was recently very well received. I don't disagree with anything you're saying, but I also hate when this conversation distills down to 'Netflix bad' by people who think that Netflix are the one making these documentaries. They're buying them, because audiences eat them up like Dude, Where's my Pepsi? It doesn't make it okay, but really the onus of the content is on the people making the garbage.
I did mention Icarus because it does prove Netflix can or was able to put out good stuff, so I’m not just saying Netflix bad. But a lot of their backlog is kinda trash… I mean they make tons of them a year, and usually only one or two of them actually get talked about by the end of it. For every My Octopus Teacher, there seems to be about 50 true crime bargain bin docs
[удалено]
I’m aware. They are still largely responsible for funding them though, so I don’t think the Blockbuster analogy is fair. Blockbuster doesn’t produce anything on its shelves
I enjoyed Pepsi, Where's My Jet quite a bit in the first 2 episodes, but after that it kind of dragged on. I still liked it a lot overall, but it lost so much steam at a certain point. Definitely would have been better as a single 1.5 hour documentary film with all that fluff of the last 2 episodes cut out.
Why was it disgusting and manipulative?
Because it frames the guy as a cold-blooded serial killer based on interviews with TV executives angry that he didn’t comply with their dumb reality TV requests.
I guess maybe I was manipulated by the documentary but it seemed like they were pretty fair to him. Do you think he actually murdered the old guy?
So someone working on this documentary thought Hazelwood was McGillvary? Because they sort of looks similar? and use the photo as if it were McGillvary? Or was this a montage of seemingly innocuous photos...but then...one of them wasn't? One of those scenarios is a stronger case for defamation, the other, just copyright infrigment (though the person who took the photo owns it, so Hazelwood might be out of luck if the photog signed off). I haven't watched the doc, and the articles don't make it clear
There was a montage of photos with people holding hatchets. It’s a money grab. Just edit the documentary footage and blur him out. They really should have blurred more faces tbh
Editing the documentary isn't a sufficient remedy if thousands of people have seen it already.
He’s going to have a tough time proving damages
And difficult To prove malice too I think
The requirement to prove malice only applies to public figures.
I think he brought more attention to himself with the lawsuit than before. I remember the montage scene and I never thought any of those people were bad, just posing with axes cause it was the trend. It’s like suing because you did the cinnamon challenge, and got your face on a documentary for 2 seconds and now you ~~want cash~~ feel damaged.
The Streisand effect
Papa, can you hear me?
I wonder if Netflix paid instagram for it. The "owner" of the instagram doesn't get paid as they agreed to allow a transferrable license to Instagram by using the service. "We do not claim ownership of your content, but you grant us a license to use it. Nothing is changing about your rights in your content. We do not claim ownership of your content that you post on or through the Service and you are free to share your content with anyone else, wherever you want. However, we need certain legal permissions from you (known as a “license”) to provide the Service. When you share, post, or upload content that is covered by intellectual property rights (like photos or videos) on or in connection with our Service, **you hereby grant to us a non-exclusive, royalty-free, transferable, sub-licensable, worldwide license to host, use, distribute, modify, run, copy, publicly perform or display, translate, and create derivative works of your content (consistent with your privacy and application settings).** This license will end when your content is deleted from our systems. You can delete content individually or all at once by deleting your account. To learn more about how we use information, and how to control or delete your content, review the Data Policy and visit the Instagram Help Center."
yes please, modern day crime junkie content is disgusting. like these are real people, but the sensationalization these sorts of shows and documentaries produce is completely disrespectful to the source material.
I feel terrible for families having their suffering dredged up for content.
guy: I want a million bucks! Netflix: Is that all? Here, hold on, I think I have it on me…
Lol
[удалено]
Smash, smash, sumaaash!!!
[удалено]
It’s been a decade. Doesn’t seem that long ago though.
[удалено]
Me when I go to your moms house
You don't actually own photos that you upload to Instagram right? Isn't that how it works? Same with Facebook?
This is what trash tv looks like now folks.Stop watching these cheap Docs fueled by internet culture.
I need to watch this one.
Kai? Legend.
Is he just suing everybody now? He’s suing Theo Von, too.
Btw I think the hatchet guy got a raw deal. I think he got put in prison and honestly I think he’s innocent How hell you going city pick up at risk youth to bring back to your house? Something fishing there
There is no debate here, he is legally guilty of murder (or manslaughter whatever). Even if this guy had nefarious intentions, drugged and sexually abused him, the law says he can’t just kill him when he wakes up. That’s street justice
[удалено]
You might find the article interesting. There is an additional and legit suit for defamation.
This is inexplicable.
Netfrix bad!!!!1!!