OT: Give away my IP?

TeetimeNC wrote on 6/22/2010, 4:33 AM
I am struggling with how to respond to a client regarding a request for some footage I shot. I would appreciate your thoughts on this.

Each year for the past few years I have volunteered my time to shoot and edit footage of a local non-profit charity. It is an organization I want to support and am happy to do this for them at no charge. I end up spending about 30-35 hours on the project each year and typically have about two hours of footage that gets edited down to about 6 minutes. The organization uses this to help promote their efforts.

I received an email requesting that I turn over all my footage from last year's event to a local but nationally known hospital who is helping them put together a different kind of promotional that will involve hospital and staff footage.

I'm torn whether to do this or not. On the one hand I want to support their effort in any way I can. But on the other I am hesitant to turn my raw footage over for use by this hospital. I'm asking myself why I am hesitant and I suppose there are two possible reasons. One, I don't want my footage used in a way that might present it less than professionally, and two, I feel like some kind of line is being crossed relative to how much I am willing to contribute to this organization.

At any rate, here are what I see as possible responses:

1. Tell them I am not comfortable with turning my raw footage over to this other organization.

2. Tell them I can provide the footage but will require approval rights over its use.

3. Tell them I am willing to license the footage for a fee and they can use it in any way they like.

Have any of you run into a situation like this, and do you have any suggestions or insights for me?

/jerry

Comments

Rob Franks wrote on 6/22/2010, 5:14 AM
Why not? Good advertising.

Do not provide raw footage. It is YOURS. Provide a copy at worst case.

It is a non profit outfit so I'm not too sure it would be proper to ask for a license fee for your work, but at minimum you will need to explain that this is your work (and your name) involved so you have the right to the final editing approval.... and not only will you exercise that right, but your name will also be used in the credits.
TheHappyFriar wrote on 6/22/2010, 5:42 AM
I agree with him.

The only time I've given the original footage away is when it was agreed upon ahead of time. At the time of the contract writeup. I also eliminated my responsibility to hold on to any of it so if they accidentally dropped their tapes in the trash compactor before the job was done I wasn't responsible to provide another copy.

Here's how I judge if I hold on to the original or not: if there's a good chance they'll want me to use it again, I hold on to it. If there's not a good chance then I'd let them get it. I have no use for footage on tapes I'll never use again. Once I was paid for my hired work then I don't care. Me keeping the footage assumes I'll be hired to use it again. Most of the time, the stuff I shoot I can't use anywhere else anyway (because I own the footage but they own the rights to what I recorded, IE play, musical, etc).
farss wrote on 6/22/2010, 5:56 AM
Have been in a similar situation.
I see issues here, the most important one being is it your footage?

Even though you were not paid that doesn't matter, the question I see is were you doing (unpaid) work for hire. If so then they own the material you shot for them.
On the other hand if your arrangement with them was solely to provide the finished product then everything else is yours.

In my case I was quite happy to provide the footage, that's what I offered to do. Where it got messy was after I'd shot it the extra demands started to roll in like contact this network and give them a copy in 24 hours. Oh great, they need it on Digibeta, then they need DVCAM dubs for their editor etc, etc.

I will no longer volunteer for high profile charities. Community based groups are a different matter.

Bob.
Jay Gladwell wrote on 6/22/2010, 6:05 AM

I think there is another issue here that has not been considered--something that seems very prevalent in this day and age. That is "entitlement."

The original volunteer work Jerry did for the non-profit was done for those particular projects/years. That was his contribution for that year (this is referred to as an "in kind donation." It's the same as cash and needs to be considered as such!) At the end of each year, that's the end of each project. They are done--finished. It's no different had Jerry given them $5000 in cash. Once it's gone, that's it.

Now, a third party--the "nationally known hospital"--another organization all together, has entered into the picture. If I were Jerry, I would ask for very specific details into the third party's involvement and what they are contributing and getting in return (and charging if anything). This is only fair as Jerry is being asked to "partner" with the other organization.

Not knowing everything involved, along with the content of the e-mail requesting the footage, it strikes me as if they are applying undo pressure, perhaps taking advantage of Jerry's generosity, as though they are "entitled to it."

No matter how much you do for some people or organizations, it's never enough. It's the proverbial "Give them an inch and they'll take a mile."


kkolbo wrote on 6/22/2010, 6:09 AM

I never supply RAW camera tapes of stuff I own. You can supply a b-roll tape of select shots if you have the time to prepare it. I hate sending anything but the best.

It comes down to a question of "do you really support the efforts of this charity?" If what they are asking is of now hard dollar cost to you, are you really a supporter, or just when it sounds fun?

I do draw the line when they start asking for dubs in formats that cost money or fast turn around because I have to have the money for that.
TeetimeNC wrote on 6/22/2010, 6:20 AM
I should clarify, this was shot on an HMC-150 and is high-profile AVCHD. I would be providing a copy of the files, not original "tapes" as some have assumed.

Also, it occurs to me that the "raw" MTS files are obviously not color corrected, and it is possible this hospital video staff could not work with the AVCHD footage. So I might would need to transcode and CC - not a trivial task.

This thread is doing what I had hoped - making me think of some issues I wasn't originally considering. Thanks for the insights!

/jerry
ushere wrote on 6/22/2010, 6:31 AM
i have very rarely been in this situation - i do NO video work for charity - but happily give my expertise in other areas, such as planning, advise, etc., if they NEED video, they can either hire me at a discount, or i will pass them on to a selection of other pro's / students etc.,

i NEVER supply raw footage, and if a client asks for additional footage i will happily supply it with burnt in tc on dvd. if they want to use any of it i will negotiate a price based on its end use. i do not charge full rate for it though, but enough to make them realise it isn't free!

nowadays everyone seems to think everything is every-bodies and no one needs remuneration.....

farss wrote on 6/22/2010, 6:51 AM
"nowadays everyone seems to think everything is every-bodies and no one needs remuneration....."

If you do work for a registered charity down here I believe the following is OK. You cost and invoice the job as per usual. You donate the same dollars to the charity. That way they get the work done at no cost and you get the tax break.

Bob.
Jay Gladwell wrote on 6/22/2010, 7:26 AM

"If you do work for a registered charity down here I believe the following is OK. You cost and invoice the job as per usual. You donate the same dollars to the charity. That way they get the work done at no cost and you get the tax break."

Bob, that's what I was referring to. Here, it's called an "in-kind donation," and it's as good as cash.


TheHappyFriar wrote on 6/22/2010, 8:49 AM
I think there is another issue here that has not been considered--something that seems very prevalent in this day and age. That is "entitlement."

I agree. That's why it should be cleared up before hand (generally).

The intent of why they're asking is the big question here. If you said "If you guys just need the footage, just ask" then you put this on yourself & shouldn't be asking what to do. :)
musicvid10 wrote on 6/22/2010, 9:31 AM
#3.

The problem with volunteering anything is that you are then expected to work for free.
ushere wrote on 6/23/2010, 3:31 AM
hi bob,

ah, i have done a little 'in-kind' here with environmental groups (we just stopped a coal mine in the valley - a first in nsw).

but that line was maybe too generalised....
Xander wrote on 6/23/2010, 4:56 AM
I did a wedding for a friend once and all he wanted me to do was the filming. He planned to edit everything himself. At the end of the evening, I handed over all the memory sticks and tapes. It was previously agreed and that was that.

Anyways, I don't think you should have an issue handing over the raw footage. You have already done what you promised with it and it is not really going to be of any further use to you.

My only concern with what they are asking is why that want to re-use previously used footage? Typically, productions tend to be original.

If they are doing a remake of what you previously provided, perhaps because they didn't like and want somebody else to do it, then that is unacceptable - they should have said something to you. If they are re-purposing some of the footage to create something entirely new, then that is a different story. I don't see any harm in asking what their intentions are with the footage and what percentage they are expecting to use. If honorable, hand it over and perhaps ask for a credit for camerawork. If not honorable, still hand it over and then think twice about the charity you support.
PeterWright wrote on 6/23/2010, 6:08 AM
Jerry, I have often been in your situation - many of my clients are non-profit organisations - and I haven't always responded the same way - I guess it depends on what's going on for me at the time ...

Looked at the hard way, by asking for your footage, they are going to further exploit your good nature in doing something themselves, on the cheap, rather than paying you to do it.
I don't much like this, especially when I did the original job "on the cheap" for them. I get torn between the worthwhileness of their organisation and the fact that many of those working for that organistaion are earning far more than me.

I have often gone along with them, only to find that this leads to expectations that they can exploit me again in the future, and then they are often shocked to hear me say - look you stretched me to the limit before, but not this time ...

So, and I'm not sure this amounts to guidance, but I would say take a deep breath and ask yourself whether your interests are being considered as much as the so-called "worthy" cause they are pursuing.

Peter



TeetimeNC wrote on 6/23/2010, 6:18 AM
As I have thought more about this and the input posted here, my main concerns are these:

1. If the hospital uses my footage I would want to be listed in the credits (but only if they do a good job on the video).

2. The footage is AVCHD and will probably require transcoding and will require some post work (CC, etc.). I don'[t have time for that right now, even if they were paying for it I couldn't start for several more weeks.

I'm going ot communicate this to them, hopefully in a nice and sensitive way, and see what they want to do. If they said they would wait for me to prepare the footage I would like for them to pay me and I would donate the full payment to the charity (i.e., the "work in kind" mentioned in this thread).

/jerry
RalphM wrote on 6/23/2010, 6:41 AM
I'm assuming that the "nationally known" hospital is a not for profit organization. Not all are.

You could be supplying your footage which will then be turned over to a paid group for further work. If you are being asked to turn over the footage, you are entitled to know what will happen to it. The hospital may very well hire another editor to do the work that you could do.

One problem with doing stuff for free is that your work is often valued accordingly. I've seen people provide services for free, but when the charity has $$ to hire the work, the pro bono worker never gets considered.

Hate to be cynical, but those who work at the hospital are well conpensated for their work. You should be also. (BTW, I do a lot of uncompensated work for worthy causes...)
Jay Gladwell wrote on 6/23/2010, 7:17 AM

Peter and Ralph both bring up valid points that need to be taken into consideration!

TeetimeNC wrote on 6/23/2010, 8:25 AM
The hospital is "for profit" but is not charging for their work for the charity.

/jerry
apit34356 wrote on 6/23/2010, 8:58 AM
First, you do not turn over any raw material, ever, unless the contract states so, You can be liability, in many US states if someone sues. You offered a finished product to them and that you did,

Second, the non-profit have no direct claim to the raw material unless it claimed on it tax / accounting books and you agreed or you claimed associated costs as a deduction, like storage and maintenance cost of the raw material and project.

third, furnish the hospital with edited footage that you feel comfortable with and include a document that restricts use of material to supporting the nonprofit and can not be use for anything else without your written permission for each case.