Ethics, professionalism and more....

J

Jim_Behl

Active member
Recently, we have been faced with something new. At least this has not happened before. We produced a video for use at a live event. A local production company, located in the event town took the production, re-editing some of the footage into another presentation, without permission. Now both versions are popping up on numerous web locations. We contacted the production company and they plead innocence. "Oh someone on the board said we could do whatever...". We also contacted Vimeo and they removed the video immediately. Now another version popped up on exposureroom.com. We contacted them today. Kudos to Vimeo! That is truly a great service.

Anyway, is this getting werse? Anyone else having these problems?
 
Don't know if they taped the event or not. The production we made was to promote an upcoming event this summer, it was only to be played at an preliminary public gathering to promote the summer event. The organizers were well aware that the video was restricted use. It was so stated on the DVD and on the invoice. They had to rip the DVD to use it. Then claimed they made it.
 
Exactly. The issue is they were warned not to use the video for any other use than the presentation.
 
Jim_Behl said:
We produced a video for use at a live event.
Click to expand...


Does that mean - you were paid to shoot and edit footage for your client?

What does "restricted use," mean?

Didn't an entity hire and pay you to shoot footage and edit a video? Doesn't that mean they OWN the footage and the edited piece?
 
Restricted use means exactly what it says. The video was restricted to the presentation only. The footage was not shot for this presentation. It clearly said the video could not be used for any other purpose. It came from our archives. We edited a version for the event. That was clearly spelled out in the contract. In addition, the production company is claiming they "produced all elements of their production". It seems that some of you are missing the point here. At no time was this production company granted any rights to use this video. They are not the nonprofit organization who actually asked permission to use the video we produced. They obtained a copy of the video from "someone".

My point is no one asked to re-use, re-edit or take possession of our video.

If I rent your camera for a week, then I guess I can keep it.
 
Last edited:
You should talk to your clients and show them what this other production company did with your footage and ask if your client knows anything about it, and how the other prod company got hold of the footage.

BTW can you give us some links?
 
Update: The local production company has withdrawn the video in question from circulation as of today after exposureroom.com removed it from their site. We were required to send them proof of ownership. I am perfectly ok with that. It is a professional way to behave.

As for hearing from the local production company, eg. an apology. No such luck.
 
I would completely agree. But it also seems that the whole world suffers from the "Limewire Effect". That is a term I have coined to describe the idea that because it's there it's free. As producers we must guard vigilantly against people unfairly using our work. If we all follow strict codes of ethics and professionalism, cases like this will become fewer and we will be able to serve our clients honestly and make a fair profit.

There are many clients, users and other producers who do not think we really work for a living. They think that what we do is some sort of hobby and not our "day job". Therefore, why should we be paid. As long as this persists, this will remain a difficult way to make a living.
 
Last edited:
Chris Santucci said:
Does that mean - you were paid to shoot and edit footage for your client?

What does "restricted use," mean?

Didn't an entity hire and pay you to shoot footage and edit a video? Doesn't that mean they OWN the footage and the edited piece?
Click to expand...


No it does not. Paying a professional to produce a piece of IP does NOT automatically make the copyright on the IP the property of the client. By default, copyright belongs to the author of the completed work, the person producing the video. Payment of a professional fee does NOT make an independent contractor into a bona-fide employee, so work-for-hire does NOT apply unless the engagement contract, signed in advance of the start of work, states explicitly that the resulting production is to be a work-for-hire. When you are hired to shoot and produce a completed video, what the client gets in exchange for your fee is a license to use the resulting IP for the purposes stated in your engagement contract and nothing else. Unless he assigns the copyright to the client in writing, the prodicer retains the copyright on the work.
 
Last edited:
Steve House said:
No it does not. Paying a professional to produce a piece of IP does NOT automatically make the copyright on the IP the property of the client. By default, copyright belongs to the author of the completed work, the person producing the video. Payment of a professional fee does NOT make an independent contractor into a bona-fide employee, so work-for-hire does NOT apply unless the engagement contract, signed in advance of the start of work, states explicitly that the resulting production is to be a work-for-hire. When you are hired to shoot and produce a completed video, what the client gets in exchange for your fee is a license to use the resulting IP for the purposes stated in your engagement contract and nothing else. Unless he assigns the copyright to the client in writing, the prodicer retains the copyright on the work.
Click to expand...


Steve is absolutely correct and stated it well. I was in a strange situation where I was paid to produce a project for someone, and they tried to screw me over and didn't pay me what they owed me. Without getting into all the gory details... There was no work for hire contract in place. I then claimed ownership. A Lawyer and arbitrator said it was my IP, and I owned the copyrights. I held all the cards, and told them I would sell the project if I wasn't paid everything due. They paid up, got there project and I walked away happy...
 
Steve House said:
No it does not. Paying a professional to produce a piece of IP does NOT automatically make the copyright on the IP the property of the client. By default, copyright belongs to the author of the completed work, the person producing the video. Payment of a professional fee does NOT make an independent contractor into a bona-fide employee, so work-for-hire does NOT apply unless the engagement contract, signed in advance of the start of work, states explicitly that the resulting production is to be a work-for-hire. When you are hired to shoot and produce a completed video, what the client gets in exchange for your fee is a license to use the resulting IP for the purposes stated in your engagement contract and nothing else. Unless he assigns the copyright to the client in writing, the prodicer retains the copyright on the work.
Click to expand...


And yet, I can't think of too many instances as far as anything I have shot goes, whereby I could resell footage that wouldn't alienate or piss off the entity that hired me to shoot said footage in the first place. And in the absence of a WFH agreement, I doubt I could ever survive suing a client for using *my* footage.

I suppose some people could get away with some of that, but I'm not in a hurry to.
 
Tommy K said:
Steve is absolutely correct and stated it well. I was in a strange situation where I was paid to produce a project for someone, and they tried to screw me over and didn't pay me what they owed me. Without getting into all the gory details... There was no work for hire contract in place. I then claimed ownership. A Lawyer and arbitrator said it was my IP, and I owned the copyrights. I held all the cards, and told them I would sell the project if I wasn't paid everything due. They paid up, got there project and I walked away happy...
Click to expand...

Both of you are absolutely correct. We have ALWAYS maintained ownership of any footage we have shot. This is clearly spelled out in our TOS agreement. It avoids so many problems. BTW, this WAS held up in court the one and only time it was challenged.
 
The most important advice I've ever been given by my lawyer was "Never put anything in your contract that benefits your client. Let him worry about that". It was great advice. I've collected more than once from guys who thought they could get away without paying.
 
Chris Santucci said:
And yet, I can't think of too many instances as far as anything I have shot goes, whereby I could resell footage that wouldn't alienate or piss off the entity that hired me to shoot said footage in the first place. And in the absence of a WFH agreement, I doubt I could ever survive suing a client for using *my* footage.

I suppose some people could get away with some of that, but I'm not in a hurry to.
Click to expand...
Whether or not you could conceivably resell the footage depends on other factors beyond just ownership of the copyright. For example, does it contain proprietary information owned by the client? Probably it does. Do you have releases from all persons on-camera and do those releases allow for that new anticipated use? How about property releases if filming was on private property? Most commonly, even though you own the copyright, you still can't re-purpose and re-sell the footage on your own, while the client is also constrained to using the footage only for the purposes stated in your contract/license. IF you shoot a commercial intended for local TV at your local market rates, for example, your retaining copyright means the client can't take it to national network use without paying your (higher) national TV rate.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top