Giving Clients Footage - Acceptable or Big No No?

T

tommygdawg

Well-known member
Hey all,

Couldn't really think of a better place to put this, so I hope this is okay. I was wondering what you all do when you have client work and the client says they want all of the source footage that you shot for them? This is after you've made the video you were paid for. It has typically been my policy to give it to them, but lately I'm questioning that. I've done photography where the client wants the RAW files off of my camera, and later I'll go to their public facebook or website and see my photos re-color corrected and cropped and have all sorts of things done to them that really make the photos look like crap. In another story, I shot a pseudo-short documentary for a place and handed it off to them, they also requested all of my footage. Well, lo-and-behold, I go to their site, and they're using a different video that they edited together using all of my footage. The downside, like with the photography, is the video is terrible because they don't have any actual film/video people on staff. So, rather than pay me to make a new one or make changes after the fact, they just made their own.

So, my question is, do you all give clients your source footage? I used to not think it was a big deal, but lately I'm wondering if it's really the right thing to do. When clients change the product I'm giving them for the worse, then it makes me look worse. Even if my footage were to look like Wally Pfister shot it, if they edit a terrible video then *I* still look bad. Is this something to be worried about or am I worrying too much?

- Tommy
 
tommygdawg said:
That's true, I'm just wondering what people usually do. Is it common place to give clients your footage?
Click to expand...

I do not recommend it in general, especially with 'moving picture footage'. While many clients may think they want the original footage, most have no clue how to deal with it, especially if you have to shoot with some sort of 'compromize' about lighting, and camera configuration, with the expectation that post will be required.

It should be in your contract that you maintain control of the footage. If they 'want' the footage, then add on an additional charge, and require a Waiver and Non-Disclosure Agreement to be signed, such that 1) they receive the footage 'as is', 2) that it is their responsibility for processing the footage, and 3) can not inform any 3rd part of your involvement in the project without your written permission.
 
Granted I have a pretty relaxed attitude towards this stuff, but I always give my clients the footage, even if they don't ask for it.

A few reasons:

1. I have never had a client go back in and screw up work that I did, or stuff that I shot. Even if they do, you can always edit your own version for your reel.

2. You have to realize that you were hired, and paid, and ultimately the client needs to do what they need to do to make the product they need to make.
A year later, the client might need to make a 15 second promo, and they call you for the footage and you are in Ethopia shooting a doc. That's bad for them and you.
You want your clients to be happy so they come back for more.

3. Recently, a shooter wouldn't hand over the footage to a client for a job I was editing. The job was big, with several producers and a whole crew and staff. That shooter caused such a problem for everyone that it was a no brainer that he would never be hired again, by anyone on set.

4. Backups. You have to backup your footy for the client on multiple servers. If the client calls you a year later for revisions and they need the footage, you can't say "oh sorry, my iMac died, i lost that footage". That's a main reason i always dump my footage to the client. It saves so much hassle in the future.

Anyways, that's my take. But every job is different so i'm sure others will disagree.
 
Because what the client can do with your raw photos or video images in the end are without YOUR control, I'd be real concerned over how or what it will be used for. I always deliver "finished" treated images to my photo and video clients and never give the source footage as part of my standard practice and policy. If they do want it so they can edit it their own way after you've delivered your own edit, then something might not have been clear in the communication between what they wanted and what you delivered. Ask them and find out, and also explain that your name is on the finished work and therefore needs to stay under control. It also depends on the project and where you think the images are going to show up. I sometimes give raw footage at lower resolution to talent who want it for their reels because I know they are not going to try and edit a finished production out of it.

Bottom line is all these things should be discussed up front if possible (I know it doesn't always happen so just be prepared for the conversation AFTERWARDS), but by normal practice the person shooting the footage is the person or company who owns it, and actually releases it either by licensing it or fully for some form of compensation. Just discuss it with your client up front if you want, tell them it cost thousands more if they want to buy out the original RAW files and give them the reasons why: ie. your livelihood, creative control, etc.. etc..
 
I always deliver "finished" treated images to my photo and video clients

Very good call. I am lucky enough to work with amazing pro editors and color correctors so my footage is always in great hands, and that may account for my relaxed attitude.
However, if your client has his nephew edit it on sony vegas and he screws up the CC and makes your footy look bad... yeah that could suck. lol.
 
I'm primarily a stills photographer. 99.9% of the time I deliver narrowed down to the best, complete, high res jpegs to my clients, and no RAW files. 99.9% of the time that is all they're ever going to need from me. So I negotiate to make sure that's what they get. If they ask "Can we process the files ourselves - we have photoshop?" (I'm talking about consumers here, not professional agency's or producers with retouchers), I explain "You've hired me for the look you saw on my website, and I get that look not only in how I shoot, but also through the way I process my images. It's important for me to keep that quality control."

99% of the time they realize they don't need/want the RAW files.

I do have a big client, who I have done a lot of recurring work for. I informed them that I did not want to be responsible for storing files beyond the point of delivery. I will still keep the files - but I don't want the responsibility if something goes wrong. This spurred them on to ask for the RAW files. Because they are my biggest client, and provide me with a lot of work, and also respect my process as a photographer, I don't mind handing over the files for peace of mind should something happen. The chances of them ever doing anything with the files are very slim.

For video I think I'd be even more hesitant to pass on additional clips. Yosef Karsh, one of the most well known portrait photographers raised in Canada wouldn't even make prints from portrait sessions he wasn't happy with. He'd refuse to print it, and that of course helped establish his reputation for outsanding portraits. I try to show as little weakness in my work as possible - let the client see the best work, and don't get them upset or doubtful seeing the poor work.

But that's all small town photographer talk - I haven't dealt with Agency protocols etc - I deal directly with my clients.
 
Matt Harris said:
I always deliver "finished" treated images to my photo and video clients

Very good call. I am lucky enough to work with amazing pro editors and color correctors so my footage is always in great hands, and that may account for my relaxed attitude.
However, if your client has his nephew edit it on sony vegas and he screws up the CC and makes your footy look bad... yeah that could suck. lol.
Click to expand...

Since the original poster didn't indicate whether they were 'one man shop' sort of video/photography service provider, or a contractor/employee of a 'bigger production', I took the question to be in terms of a service provider who would provide the End Product, such as a 'corporate video', 'event (wedding) video', or similar.

If one is part of a film production crew, and one has been employed as a camera person, DoP, or similar, then one does not typically have 'rights' to the footage in the first place, since that is a clear 'work for hire' situation.

The grey zone would be the 'personal/corporate' where the is a contract to provide, say a 'finished product', but then the client wants the raw footage. In the Wife's wedding business, our contract clearly stated we own the negatives, and should the client want to purchase them, there would be an additional price list provided for such.

Even with Photoshop and 'vegas video' editing becoming more wide spread, popular and people getting better at such, there is still the very real danger that someone could see Uncle Joey's edit... with 'your name here' attached...
 
j1clark@ucsd.edu said:
Since the original poster didn't indicate whether they were 'one man shop' sort of video/photography service provider, or a contractor/employee of a 'bigger production', I took the question to be in terms of a service provider who would provide the End Product, such as a 'corporate video', 'event (wedding) video', or similar.

If one is part of a film production crew, and one has been employed as a camera person, DoP, or similar, then one does not typically have 'rights' to the footage in the first place, since that is a clear 'work for hire' situation.

The grey zone would be the 'personal/corporate' where the is a contract to provide, say a 'finished product', but then the client wants the raw footage. In the Wife's wedding business, our contract clearly stated we own the negatives, and should the client want to purchase them, there would be an additional price list provided for such.

Even with Photoshop and 'vegas video' editing becoming more wide spread, popular and people getting better at such, there is still the very real danger that someone could see Uncle Joey's edit... with 'your name here' attached...
Click to expand...

Exactly. I agree if you're working for professionals as part of a video/filmmaking machine, then handing over the footage isn't that big of a deal. If you know your footage is hitting ILM next, then I wouldn't be too worried about it :P

I recently shot a short film for a local actor, it was his first time writing or directing and I know he's not tech-savvy at all. He said "do you want to edit the footage? If not, I can do it." Now, I know if this guy edits the footage, he's just going to throw it into iMovie and piece the clips together. So, I decided to edit it in addition to shooting, because I don't want a first time director and a first time editor who doesn't understand a thing about editing messing with my footage. And that's just editing, I know for a fact it wouldn't color graded, which can be a huge part of your look.

I'm a one-man-band. Someone hires me, I shoot, edit, deliver the final product. I will be honest, I haven't been doing this for 20 years or anything like that, I don't have a TON of jobs under my belt. I have way more of my own narrative films under my belt than client-work. Over the past few years I've gotten quite a few jobs now, but not enough that this is my only living. That's why I was curious what you guys thought. I'll have to start writing that into contracts, that I won't hand over footage. The reason people hire me is because they have no photo or video experience, then they want the raw files so they can re-edit it themselves. What is that??
 
The production company holds the mechanical copyright to the footage.

The production contract is to provide a finished "product" unless stated otherwise.

If the client wants source footage...dub it and charge for the time and costs incurred doing so.

You cannot stop them doing anything else with it (unless stated in original contract) .

If your reputation was damaged by something they do...you may have other avenues of recourse. (Who would go there!)
 
I've done it before, but only after serious discussion with the client. Most people (assuming you're working for small businesses, brides and the like) don't know what to do with the footage even if they think they do, and handing it all over would be overwhelming. I also worry about clients who don't understand how video production works and who would fault me for the extensive unusable footage I shoot during events, or at least footage that I didn't use. If they're informed and convince me that it would be fine I don't mind, as long as they pay for the inconvenience and their own external hard drive.
 
If I work as a photographer for a production company I hand over all material to them buy if I'm providing myself as a production company I deliver the final video or stills.
 
Shooter said:
The production company holds the mechanical copyright to the footage.

The production contract is to provide a finished "product" unless stated otherwise.

If the client wants source footage...dub it and charge for the time and costs incurred doing so.

You cannot stop them doing anything else with it (unless stated in original contract) .

If your reputation was damaged by something they do...you may have other avenues of recourse. (Who would go there!)
Click to expand...

I don't plan on being able to stop them after I give it over, I may write this into contracts.

Cassius said:
I've done it before, but only after serious discussion with the client. Most people (assuming you're working for small businesses, brides and the like) don't know what to do with the footage even if they think they do, and handing it all over would be overwhelming. I also worry about clients who don't understand how video production works and who would fault me for the extensive unusable footage I shoot during events, or at least footage that I didn't use. If they're informed and convince me that it would be fine I don't mind, as long as they pay for the inconvenience and their own external hard drive.
Click to expand...

That's one major thing here. When I'm one-man-banding something, I shoot with my workflow in mind. I often have footage that is unusable and/or may make me look bad if I left them see everything that's raw.
 
Make sure your client needs the raw footage and knows what to do with it. I had a client who wanted the raw footage, and I was happy to hand it over. When I delivered her two MiniDV tapes she looked at me, confused. I told her that was the raw footage, just like she had asked for. She asked me what to do with it. Since I didn't want to get into teaching her tape based NLE workflows, I just told her "whatever you want with it."
 
I don't plan on being able to stop them after I give it over, I may write this into contracts.
Click to expand...

BTW tommydawg: I forgot to mention in my list that ....

Just because the production company holds mechanical copyright , that does not allow the production company to do anything else with the footage either (without permission).
 
I used to a whole lot of corporate one-mand-band type stuff and I never gave the client footage, though I never had them ask for it. I did, however, keep all the footage from everything I'd shot of each client, so that two years later when they need a new promo and want to use that one clip from two years ago, I could do it.

Now I'm DPing in a much more traditional sense, and therefore the footage is obviously going to be handed off to editors, colourists etc. I keep very little of what I shoot unless we're using my laptop and drives to dump footage. I always negotiate a copy of the finished product, however, if only for my reel.
 
Isn't the problem really not the actual footage, but what they are going to use it for? The actual data could be on tape/disc/card and not be the original - just a clone of it. What we're really think about is them using more of the material to produce a different product, that we have not been involved with. This is what we need to be happy (or not) with. Personally, when I get asked for the originals as part of the deal - something I often do, I do not give them the originals, but the original, less what I have cut out as being either unimportant, poor, confusing, legally tricky, or just bad! They get what I consider is the material they pay for.

I often shoot little incidental pieces - something interesting that happens while doing the job. This I keep for myself, as it's not part of the job. So if I'm shooting a theatre show (one of my frequent jobs), I'll often go around the dressing rooms and people misbehave or get the mickey taken out of them. I keep this stuff, the rest goes to the production company who commissioned the show. Often, I'll give these bits and pieces to the actors for Facebook or youtube, or even their own showreel, as it puts me in a good position, for when I need something in return.

I don't have a great need to keep these projects - they're long winded and often too complex to get releases for even if I did want to use them.
 
They're hiring you to shoot their footage, they're not buying select footage off you. It's up to you so long as it's decided on before hand, but I say give them their footage and let them do what they want with it. It may not be as good as you want, but they're not paying you to make a reel or promote yourself.
 
Tommy,

i think everyone here has pretty much hit the nail on the head. I own my own production house, and a big bulk of what we do is commercial production. On average, Ill do anywhere between 12 to 20 commercials per month, which is quite a bit of footage. Granted, i often shoot a bulk of it, but i have other dp's and camera ops that shoot as well.

In our contracts, it clearly states that the client is purchasing from us a "Finished Product". The client is not purchasing footage, nor contracting us to shoot footage on their behalf. The client is purchasing a :30s finished commercial that is edited, colored, voiced, with original music, and delivered to the broadcast networks in their required formats.

There are many reasons for working this way, but to be honest, the main reason is purely capitalist. Its mostly about putting us in the position to upsell their packages, or generate additional rwvenue from the project in the future. Say the client only purchases one thirty second spot, but you have enough footage to cut 3 unique commercials, you are in the perfect position to contact your client and offer them a great deal on upgrading their current package. Also, six months down the line, when the client wants the commercial revised, or wamts a new spot entirely, without having to pay for a whole new shoot....you have the footage to create thT product for your client. Also. We charge a small revision fee, and offer monthly maintenance packages that allow products to be altered, updated, and revised for a fee. Again, generating more money for us.

This is a very cut throat business, so you always have to be aware of ways to continue generating revenue. Even long after the shoot took place.

We had a client once ask for our raw footage after a shoot. He was very blunt and said that he loved our work, but wanted to save money, and have his secretary's kid cut updated spots every month in iMove for like $40 a pop. If you give away your rW footage, i can almost guarantee that your clients will always search for a cheaper option for revising or creating new products from your materials.

Also, as others have mentioned...
you dont want to put a client on your roster after producing their commercials, and have them go out and have cut s everal crappy imove spots, from footage you've shot. Our reputations and quality are what makes us all who we are...if someone uses your footage to create less than perfect work, people could assume those edits are yours, and that could cost you a lot of future work and clients.

Lastly, if you want to offer your clients the option to purchase all if your raw footage, I would make sure its priced enough to cover the future work you cpuld have gained doing new cuts or revisions for that client. Also, much like we do, i would add a clause to your contract that says "if said footage is purchased by the client, the client cannot hire any third party to create a product from the footage, without first allowing the producer the rignt to bid on the work" or something to that effect ( im no lawyer... But my lawyer drafted my agreements).

Of course, working this way comes with responsibilities. You have to be sure that every frame of every project you have ever shot for a client is backed up and available at all times unless otherwise stated. Some people have put in their agreements that they will save the footage for 2 years free of charge for the client, the client either has to purchase all the footage ( at a slightly discounted rate) or they have to pay a yearly storage fee.

In the end, its all up to you and how you want to work. This method has worked for us for several years, and well over half of my clients have come back on multiple occassions, to have new work come to their footage, and generating more revenue for the business. Of course, its all about keeping the. Lients happy, and giving them what they wNt, so we offer serious discount for additional commercials, updates, and revisions. But for all intents and purposes....you can work this however you feel best fits your business model.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top