I hired a DP for my film but didn't have the written contract yet. During the pre-production period, we shoot some stuff for test which now I want to actually include in my film. I had to fire him (before actual production began) and he will not give me the footage back. Does he have the right to those footage?
Does DP has right to the film footage he shot?
- Thread starter butter88
- Start date
Nathyn
Low Budget Ninja
No, but why does he have the footage. I never understand why people let DPs have footage. Always take your tapes and at least put them in the system before letting a DP walk with footage unless there's a really good reason and even letting you DP edit isn't a good reason.
Also who bought the tapes? Always buy your own tapes, therefore he/she can't even make claim to the tapes. I wasn't a huge fan of tapeless originally (mainly because of P2 prices) but now I wouldn't even do tape unless I had to. We're doing tape on the XH-A1 after that I'm going digital. Put the files on the drive and move on. Now go get your footage.
-Nate
Also who bought the tapes? Always buy your own tapes, therefore he/she can't even make claim to the tapes. I wasn't a huge fan of tapeless originally (mainly because of P2 prices) but now I wouldn't even do tape unless I had to. We're doing tape on the XH-A1 after that I'm going digital. Put the files on the drive and move on. Now go get your footage.
-Nate
RichardVClark
Well-known member
The court is the only one who can decided if he is entitled to the footage or not. The fact that their is no contract is never a good idea. But ownership would not be something that is hard to prove in this case. Make sure the ink is dry before offering anyone anything.
S
steadicamsteel
Guest
Grinner is correct regardless if any contract has been signed and in place. If you paid the guy to shoot the test then the footage is yours. If the DP did it for free then I'm afraid the footage is his.
If you paid for the tape that the footage has been recorded to and the DP wasn't paid, he/she is liable for the cost of replacing the tape that you bought, thats all.
Of course, you could always approach the DP and explain why he didn't work on the film, try and establish some sort of positive communication between each other. Maybe even give him special credit for the footage.
Regards
Rich
If you paid for the tape that the footage has been recorded to and the DP wasn't paid, he/she is liable for the cost of replacing the tape that you bought, thats all.
Of course, you could always approach the DP and explain why he didn't work on the film, try and establish some sort of positive communication between each other. Maybe even give him special credit for the footage.
Regards
Rich
Nathyn
Low Budget Ninja
Any time money exchanges hands that puts a spin on everything. Your DP can't really say it was a gift (they can but that would be a pretty lame defense) but the biggie is do you have evidence it was given to him/her. When I pay people I normally have them sign off on it or give them a money order that has a receipt to it.
-Nate
-Nate
Chris Santucci
Veteran
Not necessarily. Technically, the footage belongs to whoever it was that hired the DP regardless of payment. If it was understood that the DP would be working for someone, then how can the DP claim to own the footage? Especially if it's not the DPs film?
If there was even an understanding between both parties that the DP would be working FOR the OP, then I'd guess in a court of law, the DP certainly has NO claim to the footage beyond the normal access for use on a reel.
.
Last edited:
S
steadicamsteel
Guest
Thats just not true, in fact it's total bull. I've had experience with this type of thing in the past (copyright issues and non payment).
If someone is hired to film something and hasn't received payment by the production then the Person who shot that footage owns the rights to that footage. No if's and's or but's. My lawyer, who's field is media litigation and copyright law won a case for me a few years back for non payment. I was hired by a production who subsequently went bust but still received payment for the work they carried out.
My lawyer approached the end client requesting they destroy all copies made of the DVD (about 80 thousand copies) unless some sort of payment was made to me for copyright clearance. Needless to say the end client had to stump up an additional payment to me over and above what they had paid to the original contractor/production.
My point is this. Whoever shoots the footage and if they haven't been paid for the shooting of that footage then the footage (copyright) belongs to the person who shot it.
So your comment about "the footage belongs to whoever it was that hired the DP regardless of payment" is WRONG and is GROSSLY MISINFORMED
Chris Santucci
Veteran
Was there a form of payment defined up front?
Was there ANY kind of contract defining the employee/employer relationship?
If terms were used like "YOU will be the DP" "For MY film that I am directing", and nothing else, then HOW does non-payment allow the DP to keep the footage for the filmmaker's film? Certainly the DP might be within his rights to withhold the footage for payment, BUT, if NO payment was ever discussed, I'd guess a judge (in America, not Scotland) would tell the DP to fork over the footage, possibly in exchange for whatever payment is fair. Period.
.
Last edited:
seejay1031
Well-known member
I'm pretty sure "work" isn't legally done, unless "good and valuable consideration" is made. Meaning you get paid (at least $1) or you didn't "work" for anybody.
Chris Santucci
Veteran
Certainly that makes things like contracts and written agreements legally binding, but really the intention was (as far as I know) with respect to the OPs situation, that the DP would be shooting the film FOR the OP (both of which may be minors). I have a hard time accepting that a judge in a court of law wouldn't decide that the OP should have the footage (most likely AFTER compensating the DP), especially since there WAS an assumption that the DP would be working on the film beyond the tests shot and possibly may have gotten paid for THAT work only.
Really, without a contract or a written agreement I'd expect that a judge would make an attempt to determine what each party collectively hoped to gain by their relationship. The OP at the very least should have access to the footage since the DP was "employed" by the OP to shoot the footage.
.
adamr316
Well-known member
This is a semi-old post but I figured I'd reply since there is some misinformation and things to know to protect yourself.
Number 1: Before a single frame of footage is shot have something in writing.
Number 2: Make sure that there is a work for hire clause in your contract. If those specific words "work for hire" or "work made for hire" are not in the contract then guess who owns the copyright? Whoever shot it. Check out http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ9.html for more info.
I'm afraid in this case the OP may be in the wrong. In the Supreme Court case CCNV vs. Reid a similar situation happened. There was no agreement and an organization told an artist how they wanted someone to make something. The person who made it (Reid) was the copyright owner. Why? Essentially because ideas cannot be copyrighted but the way those ideas were put into motion were.
It's the foundation of and reason why you can't copyright a concept for a movie but you can copyright a screenplay. Or concepts for TV shows vs. treatments...etc.
Disclosure: I am not a lawyer. Take my advice with a grain of salt.
Number 1: Before a single frame of footage is shot have something in writing.
Number 2: Make sure that there is a work for hire clause in your contract. If those specific words "work for hire" or "work made for hire" are not in the contract then guess who owns the copyright? Whoever shot it. Check out http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ9.html for more info.
I'm afraid in this case the OP may be in the wrong. In the Supreme Court case CCNV vs. Reid a similar situation happened. There was no agreement and an organization told an artist how they wanted someone to make something. The person who made it (Reid) was the copyright owner. Why? Essentially because ideas cannot be copyrighted but the way those ideas were put into motion were.
It's the foundation of and reason why you can't copyright a concept for a movie but you can copyright a screenplay. Or concepts for TV shows vs. treatments...etc.
Disclosure: I am not a lawyer. Take my advice with a grain of salt.
orangesaybananas
Active member
If the freelancer bills you as an independent contractor, (ie 1099), then they own the footage. Unless you make them sign a form that says that they are transferring the copyright to you, you do not own the footage. At best, you have a limited license to use it, but not an exclusive one. The ONLY ways to obtain an exclusive license to someone else's creative work is to (A) Hire someone as your employee, pay them through a payroll service, taking out taxes, workman's comp etc. or (B) having them fill out that document that transfers all ownership in the footage. Then, and only then, under these two circumstances, does your company legally own the footage. Surprising for most video folks when they realize this! Yes!
Do those contractors who built the deck in my back yard own that as well?
orangesaybananas
Active member
Depends. Did they also design it? Or simply purchase a design and construct it? Is design, in general, copyrightable? Yes! In which case you could not make a copy, modify it, or package it into another product, and sell it again. :thumbup:
