OT: Intellectual Rights For Footage

Jessariah67 wrote on 2/14/2005, 11:08 AM
I've got a situation that raises an interesting question. Wanted to see what other people think.

Over the summer I went out on two different shoots, getting medical-related footage that was intended to be used in a training video. So, in essence, the shooting was "part" of the overall project. I was paid for each trip out, timecoded the raw footage, then recently received an outline of the footage they want extracted, which timed out to be just under 2 hours. The low end of the range I gave them for this project is well above what they have to spend. So, now they are talking about "getting the tapes" from me and having an in-house person do the project.

So, my question is...

Where is the line drawn as to "who owns the footage?" I've done "shoot-for-hire" jobs before. At the end of the day, I hand them the tapes, they cut me a check. Done. But in this case, it was offered as the start of a complete project. It was also 4 hours out of town and involved post-mortem organ and tissue procurement - neitehr of which were factored into the "price" of the shoot. (Had it been a "camera-for-hire" situation, I would have charged much more for 8 hours round trip traveling and this particular subject matter.)

I know that photographers (at least in our area) hold on to negatives on the shoots they do, and require that you go through them for additional prints. Though it's "your image," they claim to have intellectual rights to that particular "shot." I've read both points of view in other places - the "everything is the client's" line and the viewpoint of "the client is hiring me to deliver a finished product. The raw materials I drew from are mine."

Some people shoot for multiple projects on a single tape because the areas overlap. I might use a clip out of my personal b-roll in a project. Then you get into JumpBacks, RF music, etc. -- where is the line drawn?

In my immediate case, if they ask for the tapes, it goes against the original agreement for the shoot - whcih was taht I would be the one to put the project together.

Thanks for your input on this.

K

Comments

TheHappyFriar wrote on 2/14/2005, 11:22 AM
if they didn't pay you specificly for the footage, I'd say it's yours. Then you can tell them no or charge them whatever you want for it.

If it was part of a job (did you/they sign anything?) then tell them how much they owe you. Charge them how much you would of just for camera work.

If they get in to the "it's our damn footage give it to us or we'll sue" then tell them the verbal deal was that YOU shoot/edit/deliver. they broke the deal so (if they paid you $0 so far) get nothing.
Jessariah67 wrote on 2/14/2005, 11:28 AM
This was a handshake deal with two people, one of whom is a mortician in my Rotary club. Obviously, you don't have a lot of time to hash out details and get something in writing when you're dealing with subject matter like this. It was a, "here's what we want to do" and I was part of the entire picture, from start to finish, and told there would be grant money to cover the costs.
Orcatek wrote on 2/14/2005, 11:35 AM
That's a tough situation. I've seen way too many things go sideways after a handshake or verbal deal. Unless I am willing to get nothing, I always get something in writing.

That being said, they may have lost their funds. If you have a good relationship, explain what you told us. Hopefully they will pay you something you can agree upon.

Good luck!

Jsnkc wrote on 2/14/2005, 1:56 PM
.
Jessariah67 wrote on 2/14/2005, 4:58 PM
Sorry to bump this, but I really respect/would like to know the opinions of more people in here, and this got buried in a hurry with the earlier craziness.
boomhower wrote on 2/14/2005, 5:29 PM
That's tough.....will most likely be a he said/he said or a he thought/he thought situation. I may have missed it but has ANY money changed hands yet? If not and there was no written agreement, I'd say you are in the driver's seat. Sounds like he broke his side of the agreement which in my opinion would make null and void any other parts of the verbal agreement you may or may not have had with him.

I recently did a "no paper" job for a friend (filled in for him while he was out of pocket). I filmed what they needed and handed them the tape. I only did that because I know he will do the right thing as we've known each other for years (at least he better!) They kept the tape to pass along to him and he did the final edit (FCP user). I should get a final edit copy along with my check so I'm happy. Anything else has paper and details who owns what and what can be done with footage etc.....

Sounds like you know this guy fairly well so maybe it can be worked out without too much pain and suffering (read lawyers). Let us know what happens.

[edit]; re-read your post. Did they lay out what you would shoot (ie storyboard it out) and then you went to X, Y and Z and shot A, B and C based on what they put together (this gets into the intelectual portion) Your involvement from their perspecitive was you were a tool to get their idea on video. For example: If I envision a particular shoot, lay out the shots, tell you and you agree to shoot it, I would have an argument that I came up with the storyboards etc so the product is my intellectual property. Follow? If they said, "we want you to come up with something for us" and then you built it from the ground up, that's a litlle different. The proverbial CAN-O-WORMS.
Spot|DSE wrote on 2/14/2005, 5:39 PM
Kevin, the legal side of this is more or less clear, if you wanna do an offline dialog. Not in the mood of seeing this thread crash with the crazies out there.
boomhower wrote on 2/14/2005, 5:46 PM
Spot:

Did you see M.Night's "The Village"? You just spoke about the one's we don't speak about!

:-0
farss wrote on 2/14/2005, 5:46 PM
My view, try to work it out with the guy as nicely as possible. The only ones who can profit from this are the lawyers so my attitude is unless I'm very seriously out of pocket is to just write things off to experience.
Of course you do own your work, even for something that's been delivered until such time as you are paid for it. This is pretty much standard fare in any legal system, some companies do include this in their terms and conditions but I think it forms part of common law.
I do see a big problem in this business now thta just about everyone owns or knows someone who owns a camera, it's harder to justify what we have to charge when they can do it themselves for the cost of the tape or at least that's how they see it.
Bob.
Jessariah67 wrote on 2/14/2005, 7:53 PM
Got the info I needed (thanks, Spot).

Thanks for the input, everybody. Again, sorry to bump it.

K
MUTTLEY wrote on 2/14/2005, 9:57 PM
Don't mean to sound snippy but one of the many benefits of a forum is that you get to see the answer to the problem so you share the knowledge. Ahem, a little resolve here ? =)

To the best of my understanding the footage is yours. " Work for hire " cannot be done on a handshake and must be in writing. With creative works copyright stays in the hands of the creator unless expressed rights are granted to another in writing.

So with that said, would like to know whatcha learned.

- Ray

www.undergroundplanet.com
Spot|DSE wrote on 2/15/2005, 12:28 AM
Ray, Kevin and I talked about this offline, more or less on the same lines as you brought up. With BB's proclivity to attack my posts lately, coupled with the recent haywire antics of other forum folks, left me fairly lacking in desire to get into yet another dogfight.
Jessariah67 wrote on 2/15/2005, 7:19 AM
Wasn't trying to be secretive. Anyone who is interested can and I will pass the information along to you.
BillyBoy wrote on 2/15/2005, 7:30 AM
Spot, please try to grow up. Try anyway. If you wouldn't keep acting like the spoiled overbearing know-it-all, then I wouldn't treat you like one. This is the Sony Vegas Video forum. Not some soapbox for some blowhard to cackle his opinion about copyright or intellectual property right issues, or your narrow opinions on any of the other crap you keep starting threads about. Nor is it the place to tell us your whereabouts or plans.

Get it? Obviously not.
Jessariah67 wrote on 2/15/2005, 11:48 AM
BillyBoy, what the hell? You used to really contribute in here, but lately it's like you lurk in the shadows, just waiting for Spot or John to post so you can leap out and attack them. What good does that serve?

A LOT of people in this forum WANT to hear what Spot has to say. We actually learn a lot - both about Vegas and the business - from him. Don't mistake ass-kissing for esteem. I, for one would like to learn more about both, and if someone with Spot's accomplishments is willing to take the time to help out, I'm certainly going to listen.

It's just getting really tiresome hearing the same old angry ranting. Why don't you save it for April 15th and cut it loose on an entity that truly DESERVES such scorn?
MUTTLEY wrote on 2/15/2005, 3:19 PM
Spot, as if to prove your point eh ?

BillyBoy, let it go man. Its really stale to have you post your personal attacks in half the threads on this board. To reiterate what Jessariah said, you used to have a lot of good advice and seemed to contribute, but with this your only making yourself look bad. Trust me when I say that your doing no damage to Spot at all with your incessant gripping, only to yourself.

- Ray

www.undergroundplanet.com