question rights/ownership to footage you shoot

D

deadby23

Active member
I shot a music vid over the weekend. Long story short i got screwed over. The artists manager dicked me over real bad. Now me and the artist are on the same page with what to do with the video but his manager (soon to be fired manager) also has the footage. Is it technically/legally my footage since it was shot with my camera and stuff? No papers or contracts of any sort were signed. I know it was very unprofessional but the artist is a friend and nobody was being paid so we didnt think it was a big deal. But i gave half the footage to the manager to back it up and he turned out to be an insane person.
 
Last edited:
deadby23 said:
No papers or contracts of any sort were signed. .
Click to expand...
The manager can't use it without a release from the artist (which as a manager he may or may not have). Move on. As a learning experience, it's worth more than the footage.
 
Basically, if you shot it you own it. The footage can't be legally used without your permission. The copyright to the footage is yours. The artist owns his performance, but the video belongs to the shooter unless it was contractually a work for hire and you have been paid. Permission or clearance for both is required.
 
Yes, the footage is technically yours, but don't hold your breath waiting to get it back - that manager has a lot of motivation to 'accidentally' lose it.

Another reason to always make backup copies before handing footage to anyone...
 
There seems to be some confusion. I know the manager has footage. Do you have a copy of ALL the footage? If so you and the artist can do what you like with it.
 
clang said:
Yes, the footage is technically yours, but don't hold your breath waiting to get it back - that manager has a lot of motivation to 'accidentally' lose it.

Another reason to always make backup copies before handing footage to anyone...
Click to expand...



Okay here is the deal. He only has about half of what we shot. I have everything backed up on my computer and hard drive. He was my ride back from the shoot. He refused to start the car and drive me and the camera operator 3 hours back home until he had the footage on his computer. So after a brief argument i realized i would just give him...some footage. He thought he had it all but i did not feel comfortable with him having everything because of how sketchy and insane he was acting. My main concern is that he puts the footage out for something. He is no longer managing the artist after that shoot and all of the problems we had. I want to know that i can get his vids taken down if he posts anything i shot.

Thanks for the replies.
 
deadby23 said:
yes i have it all
Click to expand...

Then make your deal in writing with the artist(s), and make it 'exclusive', in that only you have such rights to the footage. Then work with it as you will. If the manager attempts to promote/use the footage, get enough legal advice to format a cease and desist notice, and if that proves insufficient, hire a lawyer to pursue your rights.

Lessons to be learned:

1) get everyone's rights in writing.
2) hire/have your own transportation.
3) never assume that everyone is going to be above board.

etc.
 
this guy is now threatening to get google to take the video down and take me and the artist to court if the video is put online for the public
 
OK, a few things to keep in mind --

Just because you shot it, it doesn't mean you own it. If you're hired to do work, generally whoever hired you owns it, whether or not it's your camera.

Not having anything signed or written certainly complicates the issue, but if the understanding was that you were doing work for someone else, and that it wasn't your own work, claiming the work is yours is a tough sell.

In any case, a message board is no place to find legal advice. This is going to have to be referred to counsel if you want to pursue it.
 
David Jimerson said:
OK, a few things to keep in mind --

Just because you shot it, it doesn't mean you own it. If you're hired to do work, generally whoever hired you owns it, whether or not it's your camera.

Not having anything signed or written certainly complicates the issue, but if the understanding was that you were doing work for someone else, and that it wasn't your own work, claiming the work is yours is a tough sell.

In any case, a message board is no place to find legal advice. This is going to have to be referred to counsel if you want to pursue it.
Click to expand...


Define 'hired'. I wasnt being paid. And if anyone was hiring me for the job it was the artist. And i did any 'work' for the video which includes using my equiptment/directing/dp/and editing. All of the ideas for the video were mine and the song is owned by the artist.

I am already seeking actual legal advice i just came here because i figured i could at least get some help or see if anyone has dealt with similar situations. Thanks for the reply though.
 
I'm not attacking you; I'm simply telling you what's what. For purposes of ownership, it doesn't matter if you get paid; if it's someone else's project, then you were working for hire -- unless you agreed otherwise. Like I said, just because it was shot on your camera, it doesn't mean it's yours. And it could be that the artist and the manager had some kind of agreement or arrangement besides.

Without knowing what the relationship was between the artist and the manager, how the project actually came about, and what was agreed upon between all parties, it's a very nebulous situation and it'll needed to be sorted out by someone who has the legal expertise and who has all the available information surrounding it. It's good that you're seeking that kind of advice. Even if someone here had a similar situation, it doesn't mean it'll play out the same, because the unknown variables could well have been different.
 
I didnt mean to sound sarcastic or anything like that in my last reply. I legitimately appreciated your reply haha. Ive been wanting someone to play devil's advocate with the scenario because it seemed like everyone was just saying i was in the clear and i feel like there is such a grey area with everything. Thats exactly why the artist and i are contacting lawyers to see what they say and see if this guy has a case at all.
 
deadby23 said:
The upside being that if he does have a case...i will end up being paid? Very strange situation...
Click to expand...

As a general note, I'm assuming you 'live in the US, or territories where US law applies'...

Since you indicate you have sought legal advice, ask about these points. The questions about who 'hired' you, if you were hired at all, what pre-existing contract the artist may have had relative to public presentations, etc., and how to renegotiate the use of any material that you shot.

Also from the point above get a clarification as to 'work for hire', and further whether as an 'independent contractor', whether a 'written contract, stipulating 'work for hire'' is required in your state. In California it is a requirement that there be a written contract with such a stipulation.

That would cover the issue of you and your copyrights to the material, and would limit, if the law is in your favor, what the manager could do with his copy of any material you shot.

The other issue is your use of the material. Again if the artist signed a legal contract in your state, stipulating that the manager had full control over how the artist was presented to the public, he may have some contractual control over what you present 'online'.

This has relevance to any relationship between a photographer (still or moving pictures...), and the subject of the photo or film. The photographer has copyrights on the material, including not allow the subject to present the material 'to the public', but by the same token, the subject has rights about how their likeness in the photo or film is presented to the public.

Without a written contract specifying all this sort of thing, you can easily end up with footage you can't use because you don't have the rights to use the material.

Even if you do a contract, it is advised to have a clause that reads to some effect of 'the photographer has the right to use the material for the purpose of their own promotion, such as demonstration reels, marketing stills or clips... etc'...

That said, some customers may not agree to that... and you will chose between getting the job, or not, depending on how strongly you require such a clause.

Update:

Here's a couple of cases about 'work for hire' and the requirement for signing a written agreement before hand... and good reason why you should consult a lawyer in 'your' region to get the particular requirements...

Brief synopsis. Two court decisions in two different Circuit courts lead to two different interpretations in those two regions. On the one hand, the 2nd Circuit court seemed to indicate that if a written contract was 'signed' after the work begun, which represented the intent of a 'verbal' agreement before for the work started, that the 'late' written agreement would be valid.

In the second case, the 7th Circuit court found that the written contract was required before work begun for the 'work for hire' stipulation to be valid...

-----
On the one hand, there is the case of Playboy vs. Dumas, 53 F.3rd 549 (2d. Cir. 1995) in which the litigants were fighting over the rights to the work of the artist Nagel. In that matter, the artist had done many drawings and paintings that were published in the magazine. This was all done without a formal agreement, the only indication as to the rights transferred being the legends on various checks, all of which were endorsed after the works had been delivered.

In that case the Court held that:

"We therefore find that the 1976 Act requires that the parties agree before the creation of the work that it will be a work made for hire. We are not convinced, however, that the actual writing memorializing the agreement must be executed before the creation of the work."

This would seem to indicate that the creator and the commissioning party both had to understand, before the work was commenced, that the work was going to be done as a work made for hire for the commissioning party. However, that Court indicated that the actual execution of the written agreement embodying that understanding did not have to take place until a point after the work was commenced as long as that writing embodied the original understanding.

But in Schiller & Schmidt, Inc. v. Nordisco Corp., 969 F.2d 410 (7th Cir.1992), that Court held that in order to be a valid work made for hire agreement the parties not only must have agreed before the work was commenced that the transfer of rights would be as a work made for hire but, more importantly, the actual agreement must have been signed by the parties prior to work having been even commenced.

Thus, in my examples above, were the situation to be determined under the law as set forth in the Schiller case, the results might be entirely different than had the Playboy rule been applied. Which law applies depends primarily on the question of under which law the contract is to be interpreted.
Therefore, the issue is presented as to exactly when the agreement defining the work made for hire must be entered into. If the work has already been commenced before the agreement is signed, in certain parts of the United States the parties run the risk of having the agreement be deemed not a work made for hire.
---------
 
Last edited:
David Jimerson said:
In any case, a message board is no place to find legal advice. This is going to have to be referred to counsel if you want to pursue it.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree with the advice to seek legal advice... but unless lawyers are different elsewhere, they often are expensive to get even the most meager 'advice'. There are some resources that provide say 1/2 hour of 'free' consultations on a matter, but very frequently that 1/2 may be taken up with just 'explaining' the situation... and having a lawyer say, yep, you may have a case, now what is your billing address...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top