Sunteți pe pagina 1din 5




I made sure that I kept to the health and safety guidelines and laws by producing
risk assessment sheets for each interview that I conducted. I listed four risks/ hazards
that could have been possible when filming the interviews. For example when I
filmed the interview with the charity founder Ann Oak, the risks that I listed were,
wires needed to be kept out of the way so that no one could fall over them, the
weather could turn and rain while filming, equipment can go missing and
equipment could get damaged. The risk assessment sheet allowed me to recognise
the risks and hazards and try and prevent them by making the environment safe by
making sure the wires are out of the way, having a backup location with shelter if
the weather is bad, make sure equipment is kept close to me at all times and so that
the equipment doesn·t get damaged make sure that it·s in appropriate places or
kept inthe specific holders. Therefore I thought about what risks c ould occur before i
went out and filmed.


Even though I produced a risk assessment sheet for one interview I didn·t do this for
all of my interviews which I should have done to keep to the health and safety
guidelines. I now understand that I sh ould have done risk assessment sheets for every
time I did interview·s and for every time I filmed. As my documentary was only for a
school project the risk assessments weren·t taken any further, however they were still
very important for myself as I neede d to know what risks were possible of happening
when filming. To make sure I stick to this guideline effectively next time I will produce
risk assessment sheets for all interviews and for each time I filmed so that I know what
could occur when filming.



Throughout my whole documentary, with music that I used, archive footage, sound
effects and all other footage, images or sound that I used in my documentary must
only be used if I have permission. As I didn·t get any permission for any of the
elements listed above I have broken the copyright rules and regulations. However as
my documentary was a school project this wasn·t vital where people could sue me.
Although if this was a real documentary that eventually would be shown on TV all
the original sources wh ere I got my music or images from could sue me as I didn·t
get the permission that I needed to use them. 

Positively, I know the copyright rules and regulations and understand that if this was
a real documentary that would be broadcasted to the public I would have to seek
permission from all the original sources so that I could use their music, images, sound
effects and archive footage.


Ghen taking to account the libel rules and regulations I feel that my documentar y
doesn·t criticise any organisation or company throughout. For example at the end
of my documentary I have used Eliza Roberio·s slogan on knife crime, however I did
put that the slogan was hers by putting her name after the slogan. I didn·t criticise
her in any way or form. Although I did address her name in one clip. From this we
can tell that I was fair and thought about the libel rules clearly throughout my


However, if I did criticise any organisation or company or an individual person not
only would it bring down their reputation consequences could start appealing as I
should have stuck to the rules and regulations of being libel.




àooking at data protection the rule for this is that all personal details of people that I
would have used in my documentary should have been held in confidence, to do
this I would of asked the contributor to sign a form so that they know all th eir details
such as; phone numbers address, name, date of birth are private from anyone else
and that it would only be me that uses the information. Also when I am finished with
the information I would need to distribute it so that no one else can get hold of it.
Furthermore, in my documentary I have broken this rule as in pre -production I
needed to contact people to see whether they would be willing to appear in my
documentary, I needed a contact list of who may be in my documentary and
another one with definite people. The contact list required the name of the person,
their job role and either a number or their email address. The contact lists that I filled
out were then broadcasted onto my blog . This has already broken the rule as I have
broadcasted their personal information over the internet where everyone can
possibly get to it and read it. After filming my documentary I would have had to
dispose of the information, however again not keeping to this rule I left the
information on my blog. If my document ary was real and I wanted to broadcast it to
the public breaking the data protection rule could restrict my documentary
becoming public and I may be fined a sum of 5000 pound.

On the other hand as my documentary was for a school project I didn·t get fined
and didn·t broadcast my documentary. However, I understand that if it was real I
could be fined and that I should only keep personal information when needed and
dispose of it when I·m finished.



If I had made my documentary orientated on a certain ethnicity I could be sued for
discrimination or for racism. However I didn·t do this as I thought about my target
audience and noticed that the topic applies to all ethnicities. I then targeted my
documentary to all ethnicities by using a variety of people within my documentary,
the variety of contributors also included people from various backgrounds. By doing
this I have prevented my documentary from being withdrawn from the public
broadcast and also I have prevented myself from getting sued.

On the other hand, because I thought about and planned my documentary in due
course before actually putting the documentary together or filming the
documentaries content I had to produce a fair doc umentary that wasn·t biased in
any way, therefore I chose my topic on knife crime as I knew that the target
audience is quite wide for this crime and would related to the specified brief target
audience age of 16 -24 years and I also knew that knife crime h appens throughout
every area within àondon and can occur with any ethnicity or race. Although even if
I didn·t comply with the rules and regulations of race and ethnicity it wouldn·t have
been extremely important as my documentary was for a school project. Although, if
my documentary was to be broadcasted to the public or shown on TV there·s a
possibility that I could get convicted of being racist.



Githin my documentary I should have applied the regulation of privacy where if
someone wants to keep something confidential I should respect this and keep the
situation private and out of my documentary. However, I did breach this rule as I
didn·t get permission to show the montage of images at the beginning of my
documentary. If a parent of one of the people that were shown in the images were
to see my documentary and noticed the image of their child they could be
offended that I used the image without asking for permission, it can also be
upsetting and sensitive due to what my topic is about. Although, as my
documentary was produced for a school project this is not a serious issue, however if
it was real there would be consequences for me and my documentary as it would
be a serious issue.

An example of how I took into account the privacy regulation in my documentary is
with the knife crime perpetrator that I interviewed as he asked beforehand if he
could not be seen in the clip so that people didn·t recognise him for being on the
documentary or for what he has pre viously done. Baring this in mind I filmed the
interview normally and during editing I put a blurred effect onto the clip so that you
could see the environment or the perpetrator himself. Another example was during
pre-production when I had to contact peop le to appear in my documentary one of
the first people that I contact was Brooke Kinsella as her younger brother passed
away through knife crime a few years ago, however I received an email back
saying that Brooke is trying to get on with her life and does n·t want to participate in
talking about her brother·s death. I then emailed back to say thank you for letting
me know and I didn·t continue to get hold of Brooke as this wasn·t needed and I
had to respect her privacy. This suggests that even though I did break the privacy
rule I do understand it as I have applied the rule elsewhere.



The budget that I had affected me as during production I had to re -film some of my
footage as there was a technical error with my tape. Therefore I had to spend my
contingency money hiring out the equipment again for the time that I needed it. In
reality if I had, had to re-film some of my footage and hire out all the equipment that
was required to do this me probably wouldn·t have been able to afford taking all
the equipment, the contingency money wouldn·t have been enough as I would
have had to spend that on royalties for the locations and for using other peoples
music. Again because of all the locations and music, sound effects and archive
footage that I used my contingency money most probably wouldn·t have covered
all of these elements and I would have o nly been allowed to use minimal, this would
have led to my documentary not being as interesting, appealing and effective.

Having a budget helped me with my documentary as I could only spend a certain
amount of money from the budget on what I ne eded to, this meant that I was
restricted and had to keep an eye on what I was spending my budget on, although
this was good as it meant that I didn·t go over board and buy things that were not
needed. For example I didn·t need props or costumes in my docu mentary, therefore
I didn·t put an amount down for this as I knew in advance that I was not going to
need them. However, after spending some of my budget on what I needed I was
able to have some contingency money left over which was in case I did change my
mind and felt that I needed more things. For example, if I did want to use any props
or costumes I would have been able to get these out of my contingency money. I
felt that I kept to my budget and chose the things I needed wisely.


If I had a wider budget I could have spent much more on getting higher quality
equipment for example a HD camera, a professional tripod and a boom mic so that
my footage would have been a better visual and sound quality. I didn·t feel that
technology had a major effect on my documentary as you can see that the
equipment that I used did the same job as what higher quality equipment would do.

By having the equipment and technology I was able to produce and create a good
documentary. I was able to edit my work, film, have good camera shots and angles
and have steady shots. Githout any of the equipment it would have been
impossible to have filmed my documentary. Even though the equipment and
technology I used wasn·t extremely high quality I was still able to use it effectively
within my documentary.

àooking at all the rules and regulations within the media law I can see that I have
broke n two laws these are, co pyright and privacy as explained above in each of
there categories. If my documentary was a real project breaking the rules and
regulations of the two media laws would have probably affected my documentary
by the media not being able to broadcast it.

In reality if I was creating a real life documentary p aying my contributors to be in my
documentary would be effective because if I didn·t have them featured in my
documentary it wouldn·t be as appealing or interesting to watch.

Below is a link to my OFCOM, BBC & Media àaw Guideline and Regulations: -editorial-guidelines.html -law-govering-factual-
programming.html -factual-programme-