OT: Videographers, protect your work!

Jay Gladwell wrote on 1/16/2006, 11:12 AM

There is has been much discussion and debate here as to what rights and/or video a videographer can and cannot retain. On the web site for Keyt Law there is a clear explanation of this issue in an article entitled Works Made For Hire Under the Copyright Act.

I highly recommend that any of you who shoot video in exchange for money, on any level, for any reason, read this article.


Comments

gdstaples wrote on 1/16/2006, 12:24 PM
As a professional photographer the laws are generally the same when applied to video with a few exceptions.

You must either be an employee (working on company time) or sign a specific work for hire agreement to forfit the copyright on a piece you create. Note that work for hire agreements are not enforceable in many states without very strict criteria.

Duncan
farss wrote on 1/16/2006, 12:45 PM
I don't think the article cleared up anything to be honest.
Certainly there may be some contention as to just when work is done as work for hire and when it's not work for hire but I do see many issues beyond that.
What causes me some concern is this:
I create a number of works for a client, most of the content is supplied by another party also working for the same client. We all pretty much either charge an hourly rate for our work or supply a quote and do the work. I'd believe the work is the clients, they own the copyright, no question about that.
Now as part of the finished work I supply additional stills for the DVD menus, I may use say stock library footage for that purpose and/or music that I have licences to use for that purpose.
Now, I can only grant a licence to the client for the use of that material, but how do they know that, they could very easily assume that they now own the copyright which clearly they don't.
I can see the need for some legal work rearing it's ugly head, at the very least I guess we need to specify the exact elements used in our work and what the licences are and their terms.
Bob.
Jay Gladwell wrote on 1/16/2006, 12:48 PM

Bob and Duncan, the bottom line was to avoid problems, have a contract--spell it out so there's no confusion. That's simple enough.


gdstaples wrote on 1/16/2006, 1:31 PM
Agreed - good read.
Billae wrote on 1/16/2006, 5:18 PM
I do all my video these days in a ski mask and unmarked car!
Coursedesign wrote on 1/16/2006, 5:36 PM
I have done some nice shooting around town with a hidden camera, including nice dolly shots across major intersections.

I didn't even need to wear a ski mask (although I liked the idea, as long as there are no banks nearby...) :O)
Bob Greaves wrote on 1/16/2006, 7:14 PM
The contract can be a hassle and it is not perfect. Without it things are way up in the air. With a contract you improve the odds considerably..
Jay Gladwell wrote on 1/17/2006, 4:30 AM

Bob, you're absolutely right! A contract is not a guaranteee against a lawsuit. A contract is nothing more than putting into writing what both parties understand about the working relationship--"a meeting of the minds."

According to the attorneys I've spoken to and everything I've read over the years, most lawsuits come about because one of the parties failed to live up to the written agreement. Yes, some other suits grow out of the "I didn't understand that clause to mean that" scenerio. And unless the clause in question is a violation of contract law or negates another clause (trying to slip in a fast one), more times than not the sueing party looses.

A contract is nothing more than an instrument to help minimize any misunderstands that may arise. Nothing more, nothing less. Something is far better than nothing!

He who relies on assumptions alone stands to loose a great deal.