Releasing source material

[arniepix]

The guy on the stage who makes a living by spending years perfecting his skill performing has now lost all his rights because you know which end of a camera to point in his direction? And the law and courts will support you in this?

Presumably, the guy on stage has an agent that made sure that he is getting a decent fee for appearing on stage. That's how a performer earns his living, by performing. And yes, the law does support this.

The performer retains rights to his own image- if you want to use a picture (still or moving) of Madonna for a commercial use, you need a release from her. That's a separate right that she (or anyone) retains.

Seems complex? That's why there are lawyers who specialize in nothing but intellectual property. And that's also why distributors and TV networks insist on errors & omission insurance.

 

[thekeygun]

scarum-

In order to use the video and likeness without the audio, you have to get a release from each of the artists in each band. Each separate entity has to sign something.

If the bands have their own manager/label. You have to get licensing from them in order to use the audio in the video. Sometimes this costs nothing, but often if they have a label it will cost you something.


If they want the originals why don't you just ask for them to pay you for your work?

 

[KevinP]

It's only complex because the scenarios used in this thread have been twisted and turned to suit the desired outcome.

Bottom line is if you don't have a release you can't do anything with the footage not even use it in a showreel - that was my original point (what seems a life time ago).

The discussion has got bogged down because it was jumped on by someone with this frantic attempt to cling on to "copyright" - for something that they admit they don't own and can't use.

Personally I "believe" that I own your car....

My belief is as strong and carries as much legal weight as your "belief" that you own footage of Madonna shot illegally at a concert.

I can't drive your car and you can't use that footage.

Stalemate!

 

[thekeygun]

Bottom line is if you don't have a release you can't do anything with the footage not even use it in a showreel.

I'm not completely sure this is true. If you work with a production company and they say its ok to use for your reel then you should be fine.

 

[KevinP]

Well they'll have the release that says they can use it as they wish - and if they wish you to have a copy then fine.

But if someone asks you to film Madonna and you do - unless they have permissions they can assign, they can't just says it's Ok for you to use.

And before anyone picks up on it - if you don't give a xxxx about being sued or you think that the other person can't or won't sue you - then obviously you CAN do as you wish with the footage. But I don't think that is what is being discussed.

 

[Butcher]

Bottom line is if you don't have a release you can't do anything with the footage not even use it in a showreel...

True.

The discussion has got bogged down because it was jumped on by someone with this frantic attempt to cling on to "copyright" - for something that they admit they don't own and can't use.

If you shot it and you aren't under a work for hire agreement (or other contract stating otherwise), you own the copyright to that video. It may be worthless, but you own it. You pointed the camera and hit record - BAM, copyright of that recording is yours. That's what's being argued, that's what you're wrong about. The rest - about not being able to use it, thereby making it pretty much worthless without releases - you're right about, but that was never in question.

 

[KevinP]

Yes - I agree.

And I thought that was what was being discussed - the guy wanted to retain footage - I believed for his own use and it was that I posted about, clearly stating that he needed releases.

The spurious "you own copyright" was thrown in from the sides and clouded a clear issue.

But as I believe we agree - under these scenarios that "copyright" at best is worthless - so I'd say it's that part of the debate that is pointless and misleading.

 

[Blaine]

If the music being performed is not owned by the performers, have they licensed the music they are performing?

 

[Steve House]

If the music being performed is not owned by the performers, have they licensed the music they are performing?

One would expect so though not necessarily directly by the performers - most likely they are falling under the venue's blanket ASCAP / BMI performance licenses. But whether they are legally performaing the music or not has no effect on the legal issues surrounding the rights to making a video of their performance. A performance license does not allow for the inclusion of the music in the soundtrack of a video of said performance. The rights to include music in a soundtrack, called 'synchronization rights', are completely separate from performance rights and are granted to the videographer directly by the composer and lyricist, as represented by the music publisher. The perfomers cannot give that permission, even if they have legally licensed the performing rights - the necessary synchronization rights have to come directly from the owners of the copyright on the words and melody - that's where the videographer gets a license to record the song into the soundtrack and to distribute copies of the video.

 

[scarum]

whoa!!
I'm off to work for two days, come back here and see this thread has exploded!

First off, thanks everyone for coming up with suggestions and elaborating on your opinions!

Let me clarify a few things here.

There is a festival, the organization of which has secured all the release forms for all the artists that will be doing daytime acoustic sessions. These sessions are in addition to their regular performances at night on the big stage. There are releaseforms for these performances too, for the purposes of photography. The releaseforms for the acoustic sessions are specifically for the filming of the performances.

The national Public Broadcasting Company has a local subsidiary consisting of volunteers providing content free of charge to the PBC for use on their website. The idea to film acoustic sessions came from the local subsidiary and the festival organizers. The PBC approved and agreed to broadcast it on their central website.

Now the local subsidiary asked me to film the sessions and to do that free of charge. So I agreed to this, because my name will accompany the video's and these will be visible on the national central website, which means quite a bit of exposure for me, name-wise. I did ask for a refund for the tapes I use, and asked the local subsidiary, that I would be allowed to keep the tapes for my archive and to use in my showreel. This was agreed upon. Since the local subsidiary has an agreement with the festival, who secured the release forms, this was all fine and good.

However, the PBC now wants the source material as well. I already would provide them with the edited video's as part of the deal and I offered them the complete raw footage (not used in the video's) as well, digitally, but they insisted on my tapes. This to me, was going over the line.

So I called the representative of the subsidiary and explained my position. He symphatized, agreeing with my point of view and told me he'd talk to the PBC. They told him they would still need the tapes, but would agree to let me keep them if I would provide them with copies. On tape. He agreed and told me that if it would be too much of a hassle that he would make the copies himself. I assume that they will pay the cost for both batches of tapes.

To me this issue is closed with this solution. I still find it strange that they'd insist on having the raw footage on tape, but there you go. They came across a bit arrogant, and quite demanding while receiving FREE content from a local subsidiary consisting of volunteers. Sure, the volunteers (including myself) get their name on the website of a big broadcaster, but still, the way they responded was -to me- quite unreasonable and the whole deal seemed a bit exploitative.

I'm sorry about the fierce discussions on copyright, I think that could have been avoided had I elaborated a bit more on the circumstances of the deal.

All there is left to do is prepare for a week of shooting and late night editing -every day two or three sessions and the video has to be online the next day- and get some practice in with my newly arrived DVRig Pro HD. I definitely see the advantages of a follow focus now.

 

[Cassius]

The only comprimise I can see is the definition of "own" - if by that you mean you can sneak it home and keep it in a draw then yes you "own" it.

That's the whole point here, then. And it may seem like semantics, but in legal talk it is extremely important what terms like this mean. In a legal sense, you do own the footage. Not being able to use it has nothing to do with that. Maybe Wikipedia's definition implies otherwise, but I tend to trust business lawyers more than them. I'm glad we managed to find where the communication broke down. Misusing these terms can result in a lot of problems in the world of contracts and business communications. The most important thing for someone reading this to understand is that there are layers of ownership, and that you get one of them.

No, this has no relevance to the original discussion; but that's what makes forums so interesting.

 

[Steve House]

...
Let me clarify a few things here.

There is a festival, the organization of which has secured all the release forms for all the artists that will be doing daytime acoustic sessions. These sessions are in addition to their regular performances at night on the big stage. There are releaseforms for these performances too, for the purposes of photography. The releaseforms for the acoustic sessions are specifically for the filming of the performances.

....

Just be cautious and it would be advisable to check with an IP attorney there in the Netherlands to verify Dutch law ... Here in North America the release forms from the performers for the filming of their performances DO NOT grant you the rights to record the words and melody of the music they're performing on your video, the performers do not have that power. You can film their performance but in order for anyone to hear the music they're playing you must also clear the rights through the music's copyright owners. Yes, you need the performer's releases but you ALSO need the copyright clearances if you're going to distribute or show the resulting program publically. Since you're the producer of the video, even though you're doing it at someone else's request, it's up to you to obtain those clearances before the video goes up on public view.