An expert may want to combine lessons from several engagements into one example. That can be useful for teaching, but the film must not present the composite as a real client case or assume that changing names removes every privacy concern. Decide what the example needs to demonstrate before adding realistic detail.
This is a production-planning discussion, not a determination that a particular case is legally safe to publish. The organisation's appropriate privacy, confidentiality and professional reviewers should assess the actual material and intended audience.
Begin with the learning point
Write the specific relationship or decision the example is meant to explain. Then build a fictional scenario around the minimum details needed for that purpose. Avoid importing a recognisable sequence of events from one real engagement merely because it makes the story vivid.
If the example draws on multiple experiences, do not imply that the combined outcome occurred for one client. A composite can explain a pattern without becoming a fabricated testimonial or case-study result.
Review combinations of details
The OAIC's guidance explains that identifiability depends on context and is not resolved simply by removing names. For a film, that means reviewers should consider the combination of industry, location, timing, role and unusual events, not just visible direct identifiers.
The producer should not be asked to certify de-identification. Provide the approved scenario and record which details may be used. If the example remains sensitive or recognisable, simplify it further or choose an entirely invented situation that demonstrates the same point.
Label the example before the story develops
Use a clear introduction identifying the scenario as fictional or composite, according to its actual status. Keep that information with short extracts. A label at the end may arrive after viewers have already interpreted the story as evidence of a real result.
The visual treatment should support the status. Avoid realistic client logos, invented testimonials or documentary-style captions that imply a real organisation. Actors, illustrations and recreated documents should not be used to manufacture proof.
Hypothetical example
A fictional consultancy wants to explain a recurring handoff issue. Its first scenario retains the distinctive location, timing and unusual sequence of a recent engagement while changing the company name. The review finds that colleagues or industry contacts could still recognise it.
The team rebuilds the example around the general process relationship and removes unnecessary identifying detail. The film labels it as an invented illustration and does not attach a claimed client outcome. The lesson remains useful without relying on a disguised case.
Keep a review record
Record the learning purpose, scenario status, source of any real detail, review owner, approved wording and reuse conditions. The working production files should not contain extra confidential material that was never needed for the film.
At final review, ask two separate questions: does the example explain the intended point, and does the package imply a real case or reveal more than authorised? A compelling narrative is not a reason to relax either check. The finished film should make the expert's reasoning visible while being transparent about the nature of the story used to explain it.
Discuss the brief
For a proposed project film, contact Live Images with the audience, available evidence and intended use. The production approach and any specialist requirements need an agreed scope.
Source and editorial note
OAIC de-identification guidance provides background context, checked 30 October 2026. The film-planning guidance and hypothetical examples are original editorial analysis, not technical operating instructions or a claim about a completed Live Images project. Prepared with AI assistance.