OT - Is This Ethical?

Jim H wrote on 4/28/2006, 6:00 PM
OK, at the risk of sounding like I'm pimping my ethics video again, I want to tell you guys a story about what happened to me this week and ask for your pro-pinion (I just made that word up):

At the awards dinner a couple of weeks ago the corporate sponsor played a highlight reel that contained the top three finalists as well as a few honorable mentions and snippets from the rest of the entries. Then they announce me as the winner. I should have been happy, but I was too busy being pissed off.

The guy who runs the festival is a guy who says he's a screen writer and uses phrases like "my treatment" but in real life is a corporate ethics officer and you would think he'd be a little sensitive on how to handle other people's work. As I watched my video start the first thing I noticed is he stripped off that old fashion countdown leader at the beginning...

Ok, I could have expected that even though I thought it added a bit of flavour. Then as the video starts and just as the little MTV style song title comes up he spashes on a crude blue box with the word "Finalist" inside (as if we all didn't know that's why we were there). He could have at least put that little notice before the video started (he did the same thing that last two times I won and I mentioned it to him then). This was very distracting but again, not a surprise.

Then to my shock the song ends and BAM he goes right into the next finalist's video - totally cutting the entire credits and little dog barfing ethics. Now I'm really steamed especially because there were two significant contributors to the video (the lead vocalist and Mark Croft's Acid Loops which I used by permission).

A week passed and I couldn't get over that fact that he cut the credits, so before he got a chance to distribute the DVD and post the videos on the internet, I sent him an email requesting that he replace the credits. He agreed and casually added "by the way, we edited your video because last month the company changed it's Ethics mantra and the words "Honesty, Integrity, blah, blah" are no longer the company's official ethics principles. It's now "Do What's Right, Respect Others, and Perform with Excellence."

"You edited those words out? How did you do that - it's part of the song?"

"Oh, no problem, the cut is almost seamless."

This coming from a guy who would dare put a blue box on top of a sepia video. He held the phone up to the speaker of his PC and played the video. I nearly puked... almost seamless... and Madonna is almost a virgin. Long story short (well I guess it's too late for that), I told him I was not happy and that if the words have to come out, I would do the edit myself...after all they're still good words are they not? Just because they aren't the official principles doesn't make them dirty words does it? The answer was yes, they are very dirty words and they must come out.

So last night I hacked together an "edited under duress" version including the blue box and posted it for him to download. Now had this been a work for hire, I'd say the customer is always right...and right is never wrong. But this was my work. Though technically the waiver stated they can use it in whole or in part, is it ethical to make poor edits to the content and perhaps mislead a viewer to thinking that was my editing choice? I can understand using a clip where it's obviously just a clip...but had I not contacted him about the credits, that F'd up video would have been distributed with my name on it looking like crap.

I feel better already. So in case you have not seen the subject of this rant here's the links to both versions:

Original Version

Edited Version

Comments

Spot|DSE wrote on 4/28/2006, 6:09 PM
not just unethical, technically it's illegal. Losing the credits is one thing, but he's edited your creative vision. That's unethical and illegal
craftech wrote on 4/28/2006, 6:21 PM
Several things are possible here.

1. The video was too long so they had to cut it and did a poor job of it.

2. "Ethics" is just a sales pitch to them and really has no actual substance and the guy they hired is someone's brother-in-law.

3. You didn't actually believe they would take such liberties with the waiver you signed because of the mantra of "ethics" (which probably had no substance).

So how was your newly edited version received? The part about taking liberties with the credits is "unethical" to say the least.

John

The video was good by the way, but a bit long IMO.
Jim H wrote on 4/28/2006, 6:32 PM
A bit long John? Mmmm, standard 3 min. song. Were you bored?

Anyway, I have not heard back from them as I just sent them the link today. I suspect they'll like the inserted scene, but wouldn't be surprised if they cut the leader and dog barfing the word ETHICS... which is taking on a whole new meaning now.

Doug, I'd be interested in reading any reference material you have about the legality of them doing that edit. They really got themselves in a pickle this year. Of the top three winners, they edited two of them for these words, and the third contained scans of newspaper front pages of Enron and Martha Steward and others including photos and other stuff that they now believe infringes someone's copyright. Ooops... guess I just found a topic for my protest entry next year!
DavidMcKnight wrote on 4/28/2006, 6:35 PM
Listening to that story, I don't know if unethical is the term I would use.

But man, would I be pissed off were I you. No doubt.

It sounds to me like this ass clown is a wanna be editor, and has no problem spending hours during his "day job" hacking your video to fit his vision. He just HAD to put his stamp on it. My opinion, but good lord the guy sounds like a turd.
TheHappyFriar wrote on 4/28/2006, 6:54 PM
there's a difference between using whole/part for your own use & re-editing it.

Besides that, honestly, if it were me, I would of cut the leader board too. Not because it's not part of it but because it's cut from commericals, movies, TV shows, etc. it's habit. :)

Unless there were specific instructions NOT to cut it.
epirb wrote on 4/28/2006, 7:28 PM
Bottom line is you should be pissed off, I am pissed off they did that.
Changing your artistic expression is just plain wrong! you won the award based on its original content.
"a litttle too long" removing the leader is others opinion,not your vision.
I could only imagine if other forms of art were altered to fit what they needed it for now.
"Yeah the Mona Lisa's beautiful, but we gave her a boob job to look a little more contemporary, and to appeal more to the younger crowd these days!"
Of course Im being fecetious, but I believe you said this was not work for hire, but your own creation,vision of how you wanted it to be.

And that is how it should be presented, people can love it,like it or hate it, the point is its you and your creation.

By the way,
I LIKED it, the original version of course!
dibbkd wrote on 4/28/2006, 7:48 PM
It sounds unethical, not sure if it's illegal, but I know it's rude and inconsiderate at the very least.

The guy probably has no clue as to what he's done, most people don't realize the time, effort, and thought put into making a video, especially one as great as the one you did.

And yeah, it is pretty ironic that this has happened to your "Ethics" video. Maybe 10 years from now you'll be laughing about this?

:)
dhill wrote on 4/28/2006, 7:49 PM
Hey Jim! I had to chime in since I LOVED your video so much. I think what they have done is definitely unethical. I don't know about illegal, but maybe. My brother (attorney) could answer that better than I can and it would depend on the waiver that you signed.

Any way, I'm sure you are very close to this work since you and yours obviously put a LARGE amount of time into it. So, any changes probably really rub you the wrong way since you are/were so attached to it, as am I for that matter. I loved it as I said. Any way, I wouldn't be upset about your name still being on it, 'cause IMO even 60 seconds of it would still be great work. It just wouldn't tell the complete story that you and others worked so hard on song/vid-wise. Just trying to ease your pain. :o)

Any way, I'm really sorry this happened to you, but don't let all of this ruin your gratification/happiness from creating such a cool vid. Derek

Spot|DSE wrote on 4/28/2006, 8:10 PM
Jim,
My position that it's probably illegal falls into the same category as the DGA's assertion (and thus far legally supported) position from which they're suing CleenFlix, Family Films, and other businesses that edit "undesirable" scenes from movies, and remove foul language from movies. It's violating the original form, vision, or statement of the copyright holder. Additionally, the "edit" is now a derivative work.
The Family Entertainment Copyright Act allows for companies like ClearPlay to make filtering devices that don't alter the original media in any way, shape or form, but the court has cleared the way for the DGA to continue to go after companies that physically edit movies and then "give" them back to the family that "hired" them to edit the movie and re-burn to DVD.
Another analogy is...what if you decide that Tom Sawyer is just "too long?" Do you rip out pages? Who decides which pages to rip? Ripping out an appendix or index is one thing, but editing the story is quite another.
apit34356 wrote on 4/28/2006, 8:24 PM
Jim_H, its nice that you won! But if this was a contest and not a contracted work, you probably surrendered most of your "rights" about how they presented the winners product. I would carefully review your documents, guidelines and rules of the contest. This "individual" appears to have been alittle too carefree with changing content if the rules outline a set of items and content to be express in these shorts to win. Changing the theme after the contest is over, is really bad. And modify copyright without permission, they assume that you have granted them this right, check the submission rules.

Still, enjoy the fact you that won and carefully read the rules next time!
Jim H wrote on 4/28/2006, 8:40 PM
I just knew you guys would feel my pain, thanks. As I mentioned above, my guess is they'll cut the leader, put the blue box over the beginning of the video, accept the edit I did, leave the credits, and cut the dog. Other than the blue box, and the fact that the edit I was forced to do is a bit goofy (having to repeat a previous verse over a clearly unrelated image), I'm guessing I won't loose too much [more] sleep over it. It's certainly a far better alternative than letting them run with what they did... and that's only going by the little bit of audio I heard over the phone!

1. Vegas Software - $449
2. Video Camera - $1699
3. Computer Workstation - $3000
4. Hours Spent Creating a video - Priceless
5. Having the sponsor edit your video - "Seamless"

Jim H wrote on 4/28/2006, 8:51 PM
apit - The contest waiver wasn't all that sophisticated as you might imagine if you've read some of the ones written by IP lawyers. But lets consider an extreme example of this given a waiver says they can chop it up any way they want.

Let's say you submitted a video with you giving a speach where you say you love women and make sweaters from the wool from sheep. Then imagine they rearranged the content in such a way as to give the impression you said you make love to sheep. Surely this crosses some legal line does it not? (and please, don't call me Shirley)
apit34356 wrote on 4/28/2006, 9:42 PM
Jim_H, well, I do feel your pain. Creative editing is done a lot in the news industry, "60 mins" has been known to be very creative.

"you make love to sheep", looks like a new market for attys, suing for support for sheep who no longer wants to sell its wool.

Surely, Shirley, the conduct of the editor was in bad taste considing the subject matter, but you caught the change before any thing was release and he did not refuse you the chance to modify the content. So, did modifying the content change the meaning of the content? Was the message the same, was it improved? If meaning is lost, you have a serious agrument, but if message was improved, then you have a weaker position in a battle over waivers,( simple or complex).