All of that should be in the contract for the work. IT is hard to deal with as an afterthought. But to keep good relations, you should give the client what they want. Why piss them off and lose future business?

Dave T2

Interesting...I consider the raw footage as a tool to accomplish a finished product, like a writer would have different manuscripts of a book, or a photographer different tests of a print until they decide what is the definitive outcome.
Also, do you think that by given him a copy of the raw footage it implies giving him rights over it? I would like to use bits of it for a future demo reel and it would be a drag to have to ask permission to use footage I shot it myself. Anyway, I guess I'll have to be prepared for this.

If he's paying you by the hour + expenses then he certainly has the rights to everything, think the term is 'work for hire'. However if you quoted him a price to make something and you've given him what he asked for you retain the rights to the source BUT those parts used in what you gave him you cannot use again. Of course this gets mighty complicated. You could for example stipulate that what you made for him is only for broadcast in the USA in which case you cannot use the material for something in the USA but you could for something in the UK.

My personal spin on this. If possible give as much as possible to the client, unless it's likely to have some value to you and he hasn't paid for it. At least that way it all becomes the client's responsibility. I don't mean that in any legal sense, it's just that otherwise you soon find yourself buried in tapes and spending more time as a librarian than an editor.

This situation has one several occassions recently caused me much grief. I like to help my clients out as much as possible, many of them are not commercial enterprises and far from rolling in dough BUT I'm finding keeping archives of what I've done for them is becoming a nightmare. Even hiving it off onto removable HDs costs money, many of the jobs are worth less than a hard disk and then I've got to find somewhere to store them.

The contract is for the infomercial, not the means of getting to the infomercial. That's it. The client has no more right to the original non-proprietary footage than they do to a Windows temp swap file. Any raw footage that contains confidential information about the client should probably be protected, however.

I have a client who went down to Las Vegas a few weeks ago and shot loads of footage for a production he's doing. One of the things he did was to shoot the hotels on the strip which he intends on using for future productions. That footage, his project files, his logging, and any intermediate files are my client's to keep, not his end customer's unless they specified otherwise. Any of the footage with the client's facilities or employees are proprietary and won't be used in any other productions. The bottom line is that the client hired him to make a documentary, and that's what he's doing - no more, no less.

Like was said, that should have been worked out in the contract before frame one was shot. That being said, technically, if you charged him for the video tape (raw stock), then that tape, and whatever's on it, belongs to him. As do the rights to the commercial/footage. After all it's his commercial, not yours. He is the producer, you were just a hired gun like on any project, even a Hollywood movie, the DP and camera operator have no vested interested in the movie. They own nothing, unless it's part of their contract.

Unless you're a partner (co-investor), you have no rights to the material whatsoever. You were simply hired to shoot the video and put it into some usable format. What interest in a house he built does the contractor have? None, zip, zilch, nada, zero!

There is only one exception, which I have experienced. I was hired to shoot footage for a documentary. The producer never paid me for my work, the tape, the time, etc. Since I was never paid, I have retained the footage and the rights to it, and will until she pays me. She said, recently, that she doesn't intend to pay me, So now I've got some very unique footage of alligators courting and mating!

J--

There's no right or wrong way to do this. For whatever it's worth, here's how we handle our business contracts most of the time:

We shoot the footage and get paid for the shoot. We give the footage to the client, who can do with it as he likes. In some instances we may specify in the contract that credit must be give to our company for the videography, but the client is free to do whatever he wants to with the tape.

Usually, the client asks us to continue working with the footage, to edit it into an infomercial, training tape, etc. We get paid by the hour for this work.

When we're finished, we hand the completed project, plus the raw footage (if he wants it), to the client. Often he asks us for VHS copies of the completed work, or DVDs and CDs. But he could very well have the work duplicated somewhere else. We've been paid for shooting and editing; it's his after that.

Our business philosophy with regard to corporate and event video is that we've been hired to do a job(or jobs), we get paid for the job and give the finished product to the client. It's his to do with as he sees fit.

If we originate the work, of course -- e.g., a special interest video, an artistic piece, etc., -- then we retain full copyright ownership.

Obviously, any of this can be changed contractually, and as others on the Forum have pointed out, it's what you and the client work out in the contract that ultimately matters.

Jack

Jack, there is a "right and wrong way" if you don't specify in a contract who owns what and who's getting what. You are, fortunately, specifying in a contract those very issues.

J--

A very good question!

What was your role in this is the question that will help you with the answer.

If someone comes to you and hired you to edit you do not own what you edit. If you are a DP you do not own the footage you shot. If you are a director you don't own what you directed.

If you are any of the above *and* the producer you may own the raw footage. In the film world sometimes Editors have the upper hand, or the lab does. If they are not paid they hold the camera orginal. I used to work for one company who was part of a film lab and what we did was pick up films that had run out of money. We provided the post - and in exchange they gave us the negative. We "owned" it until they either paid for the post or the film made the money we put into it back. Some editors I know were hired to cut a feature - the producer screwed over half of Hollywood but the editors got paid because they had the negative and they told the producer they were keeping it until they were paid in full.

What I have done varies - when I was hired by a band to shoot promo photos I was hired and paid for the work, not the negatives. When I was hired by a label it was a work for hire and they paid for the film plus my labor...the label owned the negatives.

As far a film and/or video - overall I do not have much master footage/camera orginals from projects I have been hired to work on. I *do* have it for projects that I have produced/paid for
my self.

They copyright issue is another matter. if you are part of the production company that produced the show you may have copyright protection. If you are a production company hired by another company to do the show than chances are you don't. Also there is a content issue - just because you might be able to claim copyright on something doesn't mean anything if you don't have the proper release forms to go along with it. Say you shoot an infomercial for a company. You create the whole thing, they pay you a lump sum to create, plam, shoot and finish it and you hand the edited version over to them. They say they want to camera originals and you say "no". They go ahead and put it out and you decide, for whatever reason, to sue because they have reproduced your copyrighted material. Problem is they produce all the talent release forms and they are all in that companies name, not yours.

Jay:

Good point. As you and I and others have pointed out, the "right" way is to specify all the conditions in the contract.

What I intended regarding "right or wrong" was that exactly what is specified is situational and depends on the nature of the shoot, the role you're playing in it and what your expectations are vs. the expectations of the client.

Jack

Filmy, based on your last scenerio, "Say you shoot an infomercial for a company. You create the whole thing, they pay you a lump sum to create, plam, shoot and finish it and you hand the edited version over to them," he would not own any rights to anything. If it's not specified in the contract otherwise, then it's "implied" that he/his company is no more than a "service for hire." He and/or his company, as you say, are hired to produce the piece. He's paid a lump sum for his services (and the materials as I stated above). Unless he is an participant, i.e., co-producer and /or investor, putting up part or all of the production costs, unless this is clearly stated in the contract to the contrary, he's nothing more than a "hired gun." Hired guns own nothing, except their equipment.

J--

Jack, you hit the nail right on the head! "... your expectations... vs. the expectations of the client..." That is the bottom line!

J--

Filmy's right in certain scenarios, so are you. The magic words you're looking for are "work for hire." In a WFH arrangement, the client always owns the raw footage. But you can prevent them from using it in a different project if you want to.
Generally though, the client will own what you shoot if they paid for it. But not always. In our deals, we specify that even if the client owns the footage, we own copyright. We also spell out that we may elect to use the footage in training media, but agree to not use the footage in someone else' broadcast without first contacting the footage owner. Stock footage does not apply for obvious reasons.

Spot:

Maybe a dumb question, but what does it mean to "own the footage" but not the copyright? What rights does that give to the client? Does he has only the right to take the tape, erase it, and use it for a different project?



VideoCurmudgeon:

Too bad about the alligator thing, but the concept has potential. I can envision a DVD with a partially-blurred photo on the front with the title "ALLIGATORS GONE WILD!!"

Probably a big seller in Florida.

>>> Filmy, based on your last scenerio,...<<<

yeah but you only took the first part of what I said and that used that to sestate much of what I already said. The last part of the first part of what I had said implied a few things - in case they were not clear let me expand on the same scenrio - in a specicifc example a production company (Lets call them "A") comes to another production company (Lets call them "B") and says "We want to invest x amount of money and we want these things..." The other production company says "We can do that. Ok" So now "B" hires a screenwriter - they are a work for hire. The write a script - that script is than copyrighted in "B"'s name as a WFH. Now that script is set to film, with "B" doing all the Production work from start to finish. At the end of it "B" turns over a finished product to "A". Normally "A" does not demand the negative however "A" might own the negative, chances are the negative stays in the lab. This may not mean "A" owns the copyright however. And it also may not mean that "A" even wants to deal with the negative. We simply do not know - thusly -

Suddenly "A" demands the negative from "B". Lets look at several issues - has "B" been fully paid? If so has the LAB been fully paid? keep in mind that negatives are stored in film labs and you can't just waltz in and 'demand' it. So think of camera video orginals as the same thing and maybe aspenv is the "lab" here. Was aspenv the "A" or the "B" in the scenrio? or was aspenv just the editor and had nothing to do with anything else?

I brought up the thing about release forms. If "A" hires "B" to just shoot a script that "A" has and perhaps even reps from "A" are on set than the release forms may all say "A" on it, not "B". But that also implies that "B" really is nothing but a work for hire. If you go over to, say, Fantasy II and hire Gene to do effects work he will hire his crew to do work on the project - however it is just one part of the whole project so chances are he will not own the footage, you will. However perhaps some of the techniques he uses will be owned by him, not you. Follow me?

it is all a big deep hole if you really want to get into it. Overall, on the whole, the production company usually "owns" the completed project. (unless the project was a "work for hire" to start off with) Underneath it all, however, you may have things such as clips from other projects which would be owned by their respective owners. You may have music which would be owned by their respective owners. You have also have used certian products and/or art in the project and those originals would be owned by their respecitive owners. Than we go into the whole release forms and licensing and clearances and so on - and for the most part none of these turn over ownership, but just allow "B" or "A" to reproduce that material and their likeness.

>>>Maybe a dumb question, but what does it mean to "own the footage" but not the copyright? What rights does that give to the client? Does he has only the right to take the tape, erase it, and use it for a different project?<<<

I know you aked Spot but maybe I can answer as well? :)

See my response to VideoCurmudgeon above as that might answer you as well. But a short (?) answer would be: someone shoots footage of something, anything. What you end up with belongs to who? If you put a tape in your camera and shoot it out the window you own it. If I come to you and hire you to shoot something I could allow you to retain the masters but I would be using that footage in a project and thusly it would be copyrighted in my name, at least in reguards to that project. (Interesting food for thought here - most unused footage is never really coyprighted as it is just..well..unused. The completed project is what is copyrighted. So one could argue that if you found hours and hours of unused footage from a project someone could use it and copyright a project that used this footage. However it might not mean they would own it or have the right to use it.) Now if I came to you and purchased footage you had already shot - we get into another set of items. Some examples would be that you could allow me exclusive use of the footage - which would me you still own it but have allowed me, and only me, the right to use it for a set period of time, or really that I now "owned" that footage for that period of time. You could also just be offering it to anyone as stock footage, which means that you own it but really anyone could use it for whatever they wanted as long at they paid the fee...overall you don't really have any say in who owns it at that point. So in any of these cases someone "owns' the footage but not all of them own the copyright.

As an aside I know a some camera men who were shooting on Spetember 11, 2001 and who understand they were shooting for someone but they also are disgruntled that they almost died when the towers came down yet the companies they shoot for can (and have) sell the footage over and over again. In their cases they do not own the footage, they have copies of it yes - but they can't do anything with it. They were just hired hands that day.

No, I left out nothing, because under your scenerio the "company" would not hold any copyright on the material, i.e., the finished piece, they were "hired" to produce. You said they were paid in one lump sum--paid in full.

I'm curious. What, in your mind, could the company copyright that they could sue over in your example?

J--

Aspenv, you also mentioned, "I would like to use bits of it for a future demo reel and it would be a drag to have to ask permission to use footage I shot it myself."

In most cases, this is exactly what you have to do. Why? Because unless your contract states otherwise, the client owns everything. All of us, have gone through this, at one time or another. Usually, all it takes is a simple "can I use a clip for my demo reel?" They'll usually say yes.

J--

Alligators courting and mating? Sounds like a good intro to a trial lawyers' conference.

Hi Aspenv,

As you can see, there's disagreement amoung forum members as to specifically who does own what -- and these are people who have considerable expertise in the field.

A judge, a jury, and lawers involved are likely to have even less experience than these people.

Through the decades I've worked in the entertainment/production industry, these issues have, fortunately, rarely come up for me or my customers. Most of the time, once the client has received the final production, nobody cares - they have their production, they're happy, the footage and recordings have no real use to anybody else, and if someone asks for permission to use something again, the answer is a simple "yes".

Even more fortunately, the one time I had an issue, it was very early in my career, and I was lucky enough to have an excellent lawyer, who taught me the importance of having a good contract. According to that lawyer, a good contract spells out exactly who is getting what, and what kind of payment or "consideration" is exchanged for specific materials and services, and when that consideration is to be exchanged. A good contract also spells out what happens if someone believes the contract ihasn't been followed, or someone wishes to "escape" from the contract.

My laywer said that people are often afraid to enter into a contract because they're afraid that having a contract with a "bunch of legal mumbo-jumbo" will put them into a position to be taken advantage of. Actually the opposite is true, because a good contract makes sure that everybody agrees with the specifics of an agreement BEFORE any work or payment takes place.

Also people are afraid of the negotiation process -- they worry that somehow, somebody will take advantage of them during the negotiation. Again, the opposite is true -- it makes sure that everyone's on the same page, and and most negotiations are very friendly.

Some clients of mine HAVE had problems over the years with contracts, but that was because the contracts were very vague - there WAS incomprehensible "mumbo-jumbo" which was somehow placed in the contract. Lawyers LOVE situations where there is no contract, or there is a poor contract - that's where they make their money. Also, remember a verbal contract isn't worth the paper it's written on.

"A good contract keeps everyone OUT of court", my lawyer said.

Since you/ve already done the work and received payment, it's still not to late to clarify these issues with your client. Most of the time, cleints will bend over backward to help you out, so long as it isn't costing them.
To assume anything is yours without an agreement, is the kind of thing that CAN get you into court.

Travis
Travis Voiceover & Narration Services

www.Announcing.biz

Thanks to all for such interesting perspectives. I have saved the thread to a text file for further consultation. One thing that is clear is that next time I´ll go with a contract to avoid future misuderstandings. Many thanks!!

"...next time I´ll go with a contract to avoid future misuderstandings."

And therein lies the lesson, grasshopper...

>>>I'm curious. What, in your mind, could the company copyright that they could sue over in your example?<<<

Many things. "A" could decide they want to sue the lab for the negative. The lab could choose to sue "A" or "B" because they took/stole the negtive from their vault. "B" could decide to sue "A" because the final payment was never made. "A" could sue "B" if "A" found out that they were mislead somehow. There could be tons of other reasons as well - talent, music, crew and on and on. Talking copyright specific - same thing. My "example" was not something I made up - it is based on many films.

Also in my scenrio "B" would hold copyrights on material so I don't think you really read what I said. Your reality may not be the same, and I can accept that, but don't state matter of factly that what I say is untrue because you have not experianced it. I feel that I further explained the scenrio of "A" and "B". Maybe let me add on a few more things - "A" faxes over things that need to be in the film - not a story, not a script. "B" has to put those 'must have' items in a film thusly has to create a script. It is *not* "A" that is going out to hire a screenwriter, it is "B". Matter of fact "A" really does nothing other than provide 3 payments - upon project start, upon principle finish and upon final cut. Being the money person does *not* always mean you also get copyright, it may mean you get "ownership" however. And this all goes back to the question first asked - who gets what? And why?

aspenv has not really come back into this thread to explain more what his/their involment in this infomercial was so all we can do is give examples in hopes one or more of them sort of fits the question. For all we know aspenv did the project on spec or provided a 'completion' deal. have not really talked about those yet. Like I said this is a deep hole once you get into it. It is like The Producers and selling way more than 100% shares in the musical...you can't. Some people work for copies, some people work for points, some people work for free, some people work for credit, some are allowed to retain onwership and some are actually paid.

I worked on one film where the DP wanted to shoot some timelapse shots and stated he would go out and do it for free but he 1> was able to use the footage for his reel and 2> He actually retained ownership of the footage. He was work for hire on the film and did *not* get to keep the negative he shot except he *was* allowed to keep the time lapse stuff he shot because that was agreed upon. For the film it fits in because he is the DP and it also means in the context of the full film he does not own copyright on the project - the production company does. Furthermore this film I speak of was part of a film completion deal so the lab actually owns the films negative, not the copyright of the film or the story/screenplay.