Client won't sign contract

P

pulp

Active member
This is a pretty stupid question, but I'm still trying to figure out how to handle things like this, so I wanted some opinions.

A client I've never worked with contacted me about two shoots about 6 months from now. They're some sort of race, where the contestants drink and then try to handle a wet, muddy, difficult obstacle course. It looks like a lot of fun, it doesn't pay great, but decent enough I guess, and it just looks like a fun project.

They sent me their contract and it specifically states that damage to my equipment is my responsibility. I told them that would conflict with my contract, as it states that damage is the client's responsibility. On a shoot this dirty, muddy, dangerous, and difficult, especially where the contestants have all been drinking, it couldn't be more important. They told me just to remove the stipulations from both contracts then... which would just means I am still responsible for my own gear, it just isn't written. I found that a little deceptive.

So, I changed their contract to reflect mine and returned it to them.

They said

"The provision regarding your equipment can be deleted in its entirety or the vendor is responsible. We will not sign that we are responsible. Please delete it and email us a new signed copy. If you do not wish to do the videos, have no worries. Please let us know."

So, essentially, I'm going to have to turn them down. This gig doesn't pay enough to really repair any part of my equipment, much less something important, and it's far too hazardous of a shoot to take the risk. How do I tell them no and make them understand why? Anyone else ever run into this?
 
Contractual Issues

Contractual Issues

Issues relating to the structuring of contracts should always be referred to legal experts. In my work, its customary that when you go on site, you have to sign a waiver that any incidents with your equipment should be covered by insurance you have. So, in my non-expert opinion, I would say the customer is right in this case.
 
I agree. The client is right in this case, because you could damage your equipment due to your own negligence and get them to pay for it. You take insurance out on your equipmentment and charge them appropriately for how much of an issue you think it's going to be to shoot their gig.

If you're not comfortable doing it because of that, then don't take it.
 
I considered insurance, but in no way would this shoot even cover it. Seems a little counter-productive. If they're not paying enough to afford insurance for equipment, then they should either take responsibility or not hire someone for such a dangerous job.
 
They shouldn't take responsibility. You should turn them down if you expect that the risk is too high and let them hire someone else who'll take that risk for the pay they are willing to give. That's how it works.

They have the freedom to ask you to shoot for cheap. You have the freedom to tell them "no".
 
Cool, thanks.

I still don't agree with you on responsibility, but that's a moot point. Too cheap is too cheap.
 
I've found it extremely rare for the clients to take responsibility for equipment not belonging to them, and not under their direct control. Where my clients have equipment from me to use themselves, then it's their responsibility, but if I am doing the job, it's mine. You should price the job to include the risk. From their perspective, what you're offering isn't very attractive at all.
 
Gary Huff said:
You don't have to agree with me. Just watch and see who signs the contract knowing that that provision is in there.
Click to expand...

Everyone I've ever worked with... except for these people, being that this is the most dangerous setting I've ever been offered to work in. Considering that the provision of lack of responsibility on their part is one of the three things in their contract, I'd say they're well aware that a drunken Most Extreme Challenge-style course isn't exactly the safest place for a camera or camera person.
 
paulears said:
I've found it extremely rare for the clients to take responsibility for equipment not belonging to them, and not under their direct control. Where my clients have equipment from me to use themselves, then it's their responsibility, but if I am doing the job, it's mine. You should price the job to include the risk. From their perspective, what you're offering isn't very attractive at all.
Click to expand...

Other than being a lot of fun, spending all day on a drunk's version of Dagobah for $250 isn't very attractive at all, either. I'm not taking my equipment out there when they themselves seem to know full well that an accident is very likely.

Every client I've ever worked with has signed the same contract, and I actually got it from another shooter and revised it; he has the same stipulation. The only person who's ever even mentioned it was the coordinator for an MMA fight, and that's because he got the bright idea to put the shooters on a crow's nest 10 feet off the ground with no restraints or walls. The contract convinced him to give us safety nets, once something more than my life (IE his money) was in his hands.
 
i don't think it's unreasonable for a production to be responsible for equipment, or any other damages. i also don't think it's unreasonable to expect them to pay more if they expect you to provide insurance. you can't have it both ways. if you're assuming liability for their production, you're acting as a production company, with appropriate overhead.

if they find neither acceptable, walk.
 
Makes one wonder what protections the contestants have signed away???

Oh wait, they get free drinks... nevermind.
 
This is absolutely insane. Get as far away from tis job as fast as you can. ALL of my rental contracts state that the clients are responsible for ALL loss and damage from the start to the completion of a job. This is not unusual. Read any standard rental agreement it is always there. It is also not a good idea to enter into an agreement where negligence is all but pre ordained, like drinking, driving and working. This may likely void your right to claim damage on your insurance.
 
They should have production insurance. It would cover their drunk participants (whic is INSANE because any of the participants can sue) and your gear.

Screw em. That's asking for trouble.
 
I have to agree with Timur and Paul, I honestly doubt there's any insurance company thats going to cover this type of production without high risk policy, which is very expensive. Also, unless they write that the contestants will be drinking in to the policy, that could actually make the policy void as Paul stated. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out alchohol+driving = death and destruction. I honestly think this is a really stupid idea. Unfortunatley people are to dumb to make good decisions, and have to be told no. it's not a good idea to drive drunk around an obstacle course. You could kill someone or yourself. But hey, You always have the ahole that tries to outdo everyone else, who is usually the guy that winds up dead or kills someone else.

I would take the good advice from the professionals here and stay away. If this does infact get made, we will soon be watching clips of how some idiot ran himself over after he was thrown from his car.
 
maranfilms said:
I have to agree with Timur and Paul, I honestly doubt there's any insurance company thats going to cover this type of production without high risk policy, which is very expensive. Also, unless they write that the contestants will be drinking in to the policy, that could actually make the policy void as Paul stated. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out alchohol+driving = death and destruction. I honestly think this is a really stupid idea. Unfortunatley people are to dumb to make good decisions, and have to be told no. it's not a good idea to drive drunk around an obstacle course. You could kill someone or yourself. But hey, You always have the ahole that tries to outdo everyone else, who is usually the guy that winds up dead or kills someone else.

I would take the good advice from the professionals here and stay away. If this does infact get made, we will soon be watching clips of how some idiot ran himself over after he was thrown from his car.
Click to expand...

While I agree with many of the things you said, I think you misunderstood the kind of race, and obstacle course, this is. As I had said, it is a sort of Most Extreme Challenge-style course. No driving involved, but still incredibly dangerous when involve alcohol.
 
If they have insurance on the production, tell them you need a rider on the policy that specifically covers your equipment. That is a normal thing for productions, I have arranged riders for many people. Try getting a fleet of military vehicles on a set without a rider on the production insurance. Ain't gonna happen.

If they say no (or if they don't have prod. insurance)..........say thank you for their interest in your services and walk away. The money is not that good, and the risk is too great. What if your gear was damaged mid shoot? What is your fallback for continuing the shoot? Do you have a back-up camera, or the immediate funds to rent/buy another in the interim?

And if it is damaged and you don't have a contingency plan, will you even get paid what they "owe", seeing how you could not complete the project? You might want to read their proposed contract about the deliverables and what they must contain (and the duration of the footage). I would think there is a stipulation about having/covering everything assigned to you and turning it over prior to payment.
 
Last edited:
They have to cover damage to your equipment even if YOU are operating the equipment.
You're in service to them during the time that you're operating the camera - it's for their project. You may be rushed, it may be dirty there, hot, etc. You're working in conditions and pacing they will establish.

If your equipment is expensive - you MUST get them to provide production insurance or a rider to their insurance that stipulates that. This is a professional way to operate and done by all reputable productions.

If your equipment is just a few DSLRs - it doesn't matter as much and it's not worth turning a good paying job over cameras/equipment that are expendable.

Just have to weight the potential for damage vs. what the rate is.

This is why I don't like buying cameras vs. renting them for a production. Rental houses demand equipment insurance by the production. It seems if you come with your own camera, more often then not the production assumes you will be be responsible for any damage to your own equipment (whether or not caused by yourself operating). They seem to understand the rental house requirements better.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top