Legal Question - 2 Releases, which one takes Precedent?

T

Timmay!

New member
I recently did a shoot in which the participant organization signed our project standard release while on location. In the release, it states specifically where this video will be shown (websites). Afterwards, they said they made a mistake since they forgot that one of their sponsors was a competitor to my client, whose website is listed on the original release. While they had this release in their hands weeks before the shoot, no one apparently thought about this.

I made the dumb mistake of sending a revised release to them, without the knowledge of my client, removing one of the websites that they objected to. Now my client is furious and demanding that these people stick to the original signed agreements. So I now have 2 sets of signed releases, and my question is, which one takes precedence? Stupid mistake on my part in that I should have waited to run the release change by my client. I've emailed the participant organization that they need to stick to the original release, and am now waiting to hear back from them. I believe they're seeking advice from their legal counsel. I've yet to talk to an attorney until I've heard from them, but was curious as to your take on this? Am I toast!?

thanks.
 
Last edited:
While the answer is, of course, to talk to a lawyer, we can use some logical reasoning here. If you sign two contracts, both have to be valid- otherwise the whole concept of a contract is pointless. I would assume that if the original says they can use it on a certain website, and the second does not specifically say they can't (just omits it) that it can be used on said website. But unless you get this from a lawyer it doesn't matter. The best thing to do is reconcile this with the people involved, admitting that you screwed up in a very big way by using unauthorized contracts. Try to make it work for the client. If you can't get anyone to agree and a lawyer doesn't help, reshoot the entire thing for free with a different participant that will cooperate, footing the bill yourself.

If this ever comes up again, talk the client first and make sure the second contract says at the top that it supersedes the first.
 
Last edited:
I like Cassius' suggestion. Because if you stick to the original and put those people in the video, you're really being a jerk to them. They made the original mistake, yes... but you've already acknowledged their problem, you've taken steps to insulate them from being put in a bad position, and then you're going to go put them in there anyway? That's just... bad. All around. It's bad to take advantage of them, it's bad on their part that they went through with it (which caused your client to expend the dollars to make the video in the first place, now that they want to pull the plug) and it's gonna end up with lots of people hating each other.

The guy who shouldn't lose anything, in this whole situation, is your client -- he's the one who didn't do anything wrong. He commissioned you to do the video, paid for it, made it clear who it was going to, and got the footage shot, and ... basically, he should get what he set out to get. He's the one who didn't make any mistakes. So any solution should be aimed at making sure the client is happy, and hopefully everyone else is happy too, but if anyone has to lose in this scenario, it should be (IMO) the people who want out, because they made the worst mistake (not reading what they were signing). The client is the one who did everything right, so they shouldn't be the one to lose.

The people in the video made a mistake by not checking what they were signing. You made a mistake by acknowledging their concern and releasing them from their situation (or attempting to). Seems like the best situation would be to go to them, explain what's going on, and see if either you can reshoot with a different participating organization? And they should foot the bill, because it was their fault for not reading the release in the first place. Frankly you've got a mess on your hands, because you clearly acknowledged their concern and attempted to release them from it, but your client obviously doesn't want to, so -- either all three of you work together to find a satisfactory solution, or the lawyers will have to sort it out.
 
Thanks for your great respnses! Barry, you summed up the situation exactly, and both your and Cassius' solutions are right on, if it gets to that point. Fingers crossed!
 
Cassius said:
If you sign two contracts, both have to be valid- otherwise the whole concept of a contract is pointless.
Click to expand...

I agree with the suggestions above that the best approach would be to try to work this out among the parties without getting lawyers involve, but I do want to point out that the above quoted statement may not be correct. The second release may well modify and supersede the first one--this is a question for a lawyer. And while Barry is right that your client did not do anything wrong, they still might be bound by the second release if you had apparent authority to act on their behalf--again a question for a lawyer. It looks like the situtation could get complicated, which is all the more reason to try to work this out among the people involved (and to consult with a lawyer if that isn't possible).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top