The 12-Day Soundtrack Problem
Year 12 Media Studies students have 12 days to submit a six-minute short film to a regional youth film festival. The picture edit is locked; only sound remains. The team cut the film to a well-known pop song, and the teacher has just discovered that a synchronisation licence would cost about NZ$450 and take up to six weeks - longer than the deadline. The festival entry rules require filmmakers to confirm they own or have cleared all content. Two of the five on-camera performers are 16; signed consent forms exist for only three. One shot includes a local marae in the background, filmed from a public road. The student producer argues that "everyone uses popular songs online and nothing happens", while the editor insists the track is essential to the rhythm of the edit. The principal wants to view the final cut before it leaves the school.
1. Recommend a decision about the soundtrack and justify it using production, legal and ethical reasoning. Weigh at least two alternatives.
Read the worked answer
The licence is not a viable option: $450 exceeds a typical school production budget, and six weeks cannot fit inside 12 days. The festival declaration is a representation the team must sign, so submitting the track would mean either lying on the form or being disqualified - and it would expose the school to a copyright claim. "Everyone does it" describes a norm, not a legal defence.
Alternative 1: replace the track with a Creative Commons or royalty-free cue. Cost is near zero and clearance is immediate; the cost is artistic - the editor must re-time cuts to a new beat. With 12 days, two evening sessions are enough to re-mark key cuts, and the editor's own argument about rhythm actually supports choosing a track whose tempo and structure can be matched deliberately rather than inherited from a hit song.
Alternative 2: commission a local band or the school music department. Turnaround of three to five days is realistic if approached today, and a written permission email supplies clear evidence. Risk: quality and reliability.
Recommended: pursue Alternative 2 in parallel with Alternative 1 as a fallback, and lock the choice within 48 hours so the mix can be finished. This protects the deadline, satisfies the festival declaration, and models the clearance practice the project is supposed to teach.
2. Explain how the team should handle the two outstanding consent forms and the marae footage before submission.
Read the worked answer
Consent is not a formality here because the performers are 16 and identifiable on camera. For the two students without forms, the team should first ask for guardian consent with a clear explanation of where the film will be shown and for how long. If consent is not returned before the deadline, the ethical option is to cut or reframe those students' identifiable shots, or blur faces - not to submit and hope. Submitting identifiable minors without consent breaches the school's own permission expectations and would undermine any claim that the production was ethical.
For the marae, filming from a public road is not automatically a free pass. A marae is a culturally significant space, and background footage can still misrepresent or commercialise it. The team should contact the marae representatives, explain the film and its festival screening, and ask whether they are comfortable. If there is no reply, the safer choice is to reframe or crop the shot so the marae is not recognisable.
Both decisions should be recorded in writing: who was contacted, on what date, and what was agreed. That record protects the students if the festival queries the entry, and it becomes evidence for the production-standard assessment.
3. Describe how the team should document their decisions for the festival and the principal, and explain why this documentation matters.
Read the worked answer
The team should build a simple clearance log with one row per asset: the music cue, each performer, the marae footage, and any locations. Columns should record the source, the permission or licence obtained, the date, and who is responsible. Alongside it, a one-page decision memo should state what was changed and why - for example, "original track replaced because licence cost and lead time exceeded deadline; local musician permission attached".
This matters for three reasons. First, accountability: the principal is being asked to approve a public screening, and needs evidence rather than assurances. Second, verification: festivals increasingly audit entries, and a log answers questions quickly. Third, learning: the production process standard rewards documented planning and reflection, not just a polished final cut. The documentation also protects the students themselves - if a complaint arises later, the log shows that permissions were actively sought and that identifiable footage was removed where consent was missing.