Harry, Meghan and Netflix are go

[CathyorClaire]

The long awaited documentray is hitting the screen on December 8th:

www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/breaking-prince-harry-meghan-markles-28607547

What with the award in a few days and the book in January they're ramping up the game.

I disagree.

An example you linked to:

"I have used many google images (photos of mass shooters and serial killers) in my documentary. How do I get permission to use them? Is this FAIR USE?"

This is a good example of using stock images to provide context.

Is is not however a credible "defence" of the usage in this case.

The issue in this instance is the combination of the images and narration which is fundamentally deceptive in the context of a documentary show reeling "their" lived experience as I outlined in a previous post.

This documentary is titled "Harry & Meghan" and not "People being papped".

I am not arguing that it isn't weird. But it happens. So if you all want to vilify M&H for it, you need to vilify EVERYONE that does it.

But their security was never 'removed'!

I agree, @IcedPurple - I was pondering on Harry's tactics in (a) the Judicial Review, and (b) what he says in the trailer.

@onlylarkin

Usually Netflix contracts are on a cost plus % model

so the Sussex’s get cost plus a percentage and they have pay the marketing and distribution out of that percentage and usually Netflix owns the rights too

If Netflix make it on the cheap, the sussex make less money overall and they still have to pay the upfront costs.

Netflix likes documentaries as they’re cheap as chips to make, compared to something like the crown.

I can’t imagine the Sussex’s will be making much hence the cheap trailers. The link below might explain it better

www.cnbc.com/amp/2018/08/15/netflix-cost-plus-model-tv-shows-revenue-upside.html

Because they did not do it. Netflix did.

Again this documentary was jointly produced by Archewell and Netflix.

Jointly. Together. In partnership.....

They don't get to pin this solely on Netflix whatever the reception to the trailers or the series itself.

No.

I only have to criticise people who do it in such a way as to be misleading.

I provided the fair use law to show that not only is it done by documentary film makers, which pp have boldly stated never happens, but that it is common.

The companies making trailers have capitalized on the documentary film makers previous use of the Fair Use law while making trailers.

So yes, it is relevant in showing the procedures.

I haven’t seen the other stuff, though. I’m looking at a trailer of a couple who say they will fight disinformation in the media, who then have a trailer insinuating they were stalked by unwelcome paps, using stock footage of very much invited photographers, these at events even before they knew each other, - these images to shore up their narrative. What do paps at a Harry Potter premier have to do with the Sussexes PR or privacy breaches?

“oh look! Photo journalists go to a film premiere they were specifically invited to!”

I mean - why use that image? I believe when you say this is standard, that’s correct - I don’t know any better but for This Couple on their publicised quest to educate everyone on misinformation in the press…. This was an own goal.

Other people’s situations I’m not commenting on in this moment.

I never said they did anything wrong. I appreciate that it is Netflix’s decision. If you read my original post on this, I thought it was Netflix that had put out the disclaimer that the pictures were stock ones, but it turns out it was the Sussexes representative. But regardless of the fact that it is standard practice, in this case it seems to be shooting yourself in the foot to have these particular voice overs with these particular pictures. Also, one of the voice overs was from Piers Morgan of all people (he says she is becoming a Royal rock star). It is starting to seem slightly comedic.

“Maybe you MN "experts" in US film making can lobby the US film industry to change their practice just for them. I cant wait to see it all go down”.

I’d watch a documentary on THAT - stock footage and all.

Producing and advertising are 2 different things.

After reading the bbc take down I have to say I suspect Netflix of trolling the Sussexes. It’s just too much. It’s like they said “yes we’ll give you $100m, you naive egotistical fools” and then we’ll make a lot more; mocking you, stoking the hate against you online and making sure the Crown tears the story of your mum apart. How’s the $100m and the tax you pay on it you utter fools? Feel good?”

“Also, one of the voice overs was from Piers Morgan of all people (he says she is becoming a Royal rock star)”

I think they are going to point out the ridiculousness of Piers Morgan. No wonder he wanted to vomit. I think much of the British media may well be in for a right royal bollocking.

I agree with you. It was obviously a bad decision. One that will likely promote change to the way the industry creates trailers.

But so many people automatically vilify H&M for any little thing. Sometimes, it just is not their doing.

I just found this tidbit about Netflix and trailers. Wonder how automated these 2 trailers were?

www.itsnicethat.com/news/netflix-automates-trailer-creation-editing-film-200819

Piers Morgan is not in his right mind, in my opinion. I think he started off OK, but he has allowed his hatred to turn into some type of obsessive compulsion.

@Morestrangethings I want to watch that too. Grassroots efforts against the monolith money makers are always on the right side of history.

I wonder, hypothetically, do they care? Let's compare to another US family, the Kardashians. The Kardashians laugh all the way to the bank. Maybe that is what H&M are doing?

Though I doubt it, it would be an interesting fan fic theory rabbit hole.

Oh yes, it was written in a way such that I misread it as Netflix themselves! Yet more subterfuge! Lol. It would probably have been better if neither Netflix or the Sussex camp had said anything and just styled it out. As it is they seem to have dug themselves in deeper.

That's what happens when you're in charge of your own publicity. I've said it before, they're far too thin-skinned to deal with criticism.

Producing and advertising are 2 different things

Yes, but you're assuming the responsibility for the latter was the responsibility of Netflix when Ohnonevermind has kindly provided you with the Netflix model that demonstrates the reverse.

Even if you then want to argue that H&M might have negotiated a different contract, which is of course possible, then decision to let go of control of the advertising narrative still lies with you (and would I think it is fair to say, be a decision that would be very out of character for the Sussex's given past behaviour).

I'm beginning to wonder about this too. The photographs used were of:

1. A Harry Potter premier from years pre-H&M, with properly invited photographers, in their fenced off zone, taking photographs from an agreed distance of celebrities on the red carpet who stopped to smile and pose.
2. A photograph of a criminal in the US.
3. A photograph of a woman with criminal convictions in the UK, who stars in her own reality shows - known for having repeated cosmetic surgeries, being allegedly negligent concerning her animals, and being married a few times.
4. A photograph that was agreed upon by all parties and not intrusive at all.

I think these were very, very unwise choices out of all the stock photos in the world. Or they were mischievous ones.

The point is as a pp mentioned, it's the juxtaposition between the stock photos used and the subject matter.

We are led to believe in the documentary there will be a strong focus on the media hounding of PH/ the couple, yet Netflix couldn't find a single image on the internet to use in the trailer, for a couple who are under such media scrutiny it shouldn't be difficult at all, but, they instead went for a picture of Trump's advisor leaving his apartment and a Disney film premier!! Did Netflix just put 'Harry' + 'media' into a Google search, it returned a stock photo of the Harry Potter premier and they just went with it?

If this is standard practice then these stock photos (or similar) will be for trailer purposes only and will not be making an appearance in the series?

It's weird all round. I'm actually wondering if Netflix have had enough of the couple and are showing them who actually has the control.

This is it in a nutshell .

I’m sorry, but you can’t be using stick photos for the subject matter.
If they were talking about, I don’t know, going somewhere in a taxi, and they use a stock photo of a taxi, that’s fine, just a way of visually connecting the story.
But when you’re talking about you being hounded by press, and then use photos of other people being hounded, or pictures of paps at a premiere, it’s misleading.

There’s a big difference.

I wonder if M and H have cobbled this together in a hurry . Didn’t have a clue what they were doing . Would rather be feeding the chickens or jetting off to a Polo match instead? Maybe this is why they wanted to delay it, because they knew it would be crap?

@BreadInCaptivity I am going to, not quite disagree, but hold my opinion until I have time to research more.

The article talked about production. Which yes, that was Netflix AND Archewell. No one knows what the percentages are. Production and adverising are 2 different things. Netflix may allow leeway in production, but advertising will make or break a show.

And even bad press makes money.

Learning that trailer companies have been using stock photos in trailers at least back to 2010, then learning that Netflix, in 2019, starting automating and using Ai for trailers, would suggest to me that H7M had very little hand in the advertising of this show.

I am not sure that H&M have the clout or knowledge to take control of advertising, or that Netflix would allow it.

Until I see proof, not from the DM, that Netflix allowed them that type of control, I will refuse to "blame" them or insist they are lying.

Piers Morgan is not in his right mind, in my opinion. I think he started off OK, but he has allowed his hatred to turn into some type of obsessive compulsion.

This I agree with.

He's utterly unhinged on this subject.

I understand I'm being somewhat pedantic here @onlylarkin re: the trailer and I'm not trying provoke, but I admit to being fed up by the constant failure of H&M to either admit or learn from their mistakes whilst being hugely vocal when they see others err - especially in the context of them allegedly wanting to spread compassion.

Quite honestly I've felt for some time that they are their own worst enemies, lost in a purity spiral of their own making, failing to recognise their own privilege and fundamentally too dizzy to read the room any more.