Selling another version to another client

TorS wrote on 10/7/2005, 9:09 AM

I've just finished a short video for a client. Another company wants to have an English version made and use it internally. My client wants to allow that, but don't want to deal with it, basically. They will run the whole thing by their law department (yes, they are not entirely without resources) but only (I suppose) to check the formalities on their part - not mine.

The other company will be willing and able to pay for the versioning, no doubt, but I wonder what happens to the rights and ownership in the product(s).

I have an agreement with the first client that says I am to make such and such video, deliver on such and such date and get paid so and so money. Very simple. No one anticipated the possibility of versioning and subdistributing the product. Caught me a bit off guard, it did. The law on these things may not be similar from one country to another, but in making language versions we are already crossing borders here.

Question: How should I - the sole maker of this video - play this ball?
I know it's Friday, and some of you may have pulled down the curtains for the weekend (whatever that means) but no worry! I'm going away myself for the weekend. This is autumn holiday time in Norway. Still, any input will be appreciated.
I will put up a link to the English version once it's made.
Tor

Comments

Jay Gladwell wrote on 10/7/2005, 10:10 AM

Certainly it will be up to the attorney's of the original copyright holder to make the determination, since they bought and paid for it.

I would think the original company would hold/maintain the copyright and the second company would license the "Anglo" version from them, even if no monies were exchanged.

That's my guess.

How should I - the sole maker of this video - play this ball?

I'm not sure what you're asking here.

Coursedesign wrote on 10/7/2005, 11:07 AM

You have to get an answer from somebody who knows Norwegian law, since that is the applicable one in this case, also for the English version.

In the U.S., the whole discussion hinges on whether it was "work for hire" in which case the copyright is owned by the customer, or your artistic expression effectively licensed by the customer.

This is a vast issue, and note that the copyright is not a separate issue for the English version (because of international coventions on copyright).

The U.S. also handles law differently from Europe. In the U.K. at least, the wording in the law books take precedence over any previously decided cases, while in the U.S. it's usually the other way around, so that "case law" trumps "book law."

Bob Greaves wrote on 10/7/2005, 11:09 AM

This is a situation that has been unfortunately already quite grayed up. There are provisions of international copyright law that would allow this to go either way. However I can assure you that their legal department will seek to secure as many of those lose ends in their favor as they can.

Technically, according to the way you described it, you performed what is internationally recognized as a work for hire. That means you merely did the grunt work but it is their creation and their property. They not only own it but they are technically the ones who made it - not you. I am not familair with Norwegian Law but my advise to you is two-fold.

1) You need to make certain that whatever they decide that they are clear that there may be portions of the video that cannot ever belong to them because they either never belonged to you because they were merely yours to use royalty free or they are derived from previous works that already belong to you and cannot be lost simply because you used them with your own permission.

2) In the future you need to have a contract that explicitely assigns copyright ownership. if the ownership is split then describe the split in writing as to if it is an indivisible split or an itemizable split. In America where there is no contract to specifically point out who owns what, the person paying for the effort is the owner of everything assignable to them.

DrLumen wrote on 10/7/2005, 6:37 PM

Not meaning to adversarial here but there is another side to look at....

If the company effectively produced the video, as in buying/renting equipment, securing locations and talent, hiring the videographers assistants, electricians, lighting, et al, or were responsible for all the original cost outlays, then yes, I can see where they would have the right to the copyright.

If, on the other hand, they just said we would be willing to pay you for the video, bring it to us when it's done and we'll pay you for it, then the copyright should be owned by the OP. He had to take the risk of loss and the company that bought it probably had the choice as to if they wanted to pay for it - ie. on spec. In this instance, it would be much like the still photographers that copyright their work, even though they only have one customer in mind. I'm not saying it is right for someone to own a copyright of my picture and limit what I do with it, but it is done all the time.

Granted this would have been easier if the rights were spelled out and agreed upon up front. Now, probably only a judge will be able to sort it out.

mattockenfels wrote on 10/7/2005, 9:52 PM

TorS,

Consider the following:

You have created a specific product for a specific client, and orginally assumed there would be no further work or other use for the video. You were paid for it, I assume, fairly.

You COULD get into some protracted legal wrangling about this process, or

You COULD simply tell your client what it would cost to do the work, then do it. Some folks call this follow-on work.

In this case, who OWNS the original program is immaterial. Why?

(1) If YOU own it, they are contracting you for the new version, and you agree, your rights whave not been abridged as owner.

(2) If YOUR CLIENT owns it, and they are contracting you for the new version, their rights have not been abridged as owner.

(3) If a THIRD PARTY wants the new version, and both you and your original client agree, whoever owns the rights has given permission.

In short, do the work and make some money! HOWEVER, do pay attention to some of the comments made earlier about ownership so you'll have less consternation with you next project....

And, of course, get everything in writing.

Just my 2 cents.

Cheers,
-Matt

filmy wrote on 10/12/2005, 5:17 AM

Not 100% sure what you are asking.

it is pretty common to output the M&E's as well as a composite when you turn over a film. if another country wants to pick it up they will get the M&E's as well as the dialog list and they normally do the dub and/or subtitles.

I am not clear as to what you are asking - at face value it sounds like all they need is the materials - this included the M&E's. On the other hand what you are asking is vauge enough it could mean they are asking for a re-edited version and if so than that should not fall under the orginal agreement that you had. In other words they will come to you and say "Please re-edit this" and expect you to do it for 'free'. This is not the norm.

So to go back to what you asked - " How should I - the sole maker of this video - play this ball?"

I would simple say "You have all th elements per our agreement so if you would like me to remix an English version you will need to pay me to do the work." At that point it is pretty simple. You did your work, you were padi for that work. Anything dealing with foreign sales and mixes is somehting extra and should be thought of as such.