Retaining copyright to your work?

W

watson

Well-known member
This is a topic that has been bothering me lately and i wanted to see maybe if we could get a discussion going about this.

So here is my question. How many of you (when working freelance) retain copyright to the footage you shoot / produce? I feel most of the time when working as a freelancer (since it is a work for hire) the company or individual you are working for wants the copyright of everything produced.

Now sometimes it may seem silly to want copyright, like if you are covering a boring corporate event. But lets say you are producing short documentary pieces for an online magazine. Depending on the rate they want to pay you, it would make more sense to produce the piece and give them a exclusive (or maybe even a non-exclusive) license to use the edited piece for lets say 3 years, that way you have more flexibility to use the footage for other projects or re-licenses the piece.

This is what i find a lot of freelance photographers do. They will shoot the project and give the publication / or company some type of exclusive/non-exclusive rights for the images. That way they retain the copyright for life. i feel this is fairly standard in the world of photography, but i find it is not in the film/video world.

i guess this discussion is geared more towards freelancers producing non-fiction type content supplying all necessary equipment and knowledge. For example, there have been a lot of broadband content websites popping up that need video. I find most of these website want ALL copyrights to your work, and on top of that are not even willing to pay standard freelance rates.

So back to my main question. So to you freelancers out there, do you do everything as a work for hire and give up your copyright, or do you negotiate terms for your work? Does anyone else see the difference between the photography world and the video world?

Thanks!
Andrew
 
on my site in the sound FAQ I have an article I found on just this topic called "who owns the work".
The short story is that if you create something you own the copyright unless you specifically signed those rights away. Even if you were hired to create the work.
 
yes, that is exactly my point. I think it is well known that anything you create you own copyright to, but i am talking about contracts that will ask you to specifically sign away the rights, offered summed up as "work for hire."

So let me ask again, those working freelance, do you agrea to "work to hire" terms? or do you demand other terms?

for those note fimiliar with work for hire (which you should be if you produce video) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work_for_hire
 
I have my clients sign an agreement that lets me re purpose anything I work on for promotional use for my company.
 
watson said:
<clip>

So back to my main question. So to you freelancers out there, do you do everything as a work for hire and give up your copyright, or do you negotiate terms for your work? Does anyone else see the difference between the photography world and the video world?

Thanks!
Andrew
Click to expand...

Hi Andrew,

Aside from the topic of Creative Commons licensing sometimes being more appropriate than a traditional copyright, yes we should negotiate subsequent terms of use/reuse based on our financial reimbursement.

Factors that should go along with copyright ownership include taxation (1099s), assumption of liability, etc. Topics like these often cause our casual partners to rethink the employer versus client relationship. When we have a hardball client, be prepared before the negotiation session so both parties have a fair and balanced business arrangement.

Happy hunting, Michael
 
watson said:
but i am talking about contracts that will ask you to specifically sign away the rights, offered summed up as "work for hire."
Click to expand...

To start, in a "Work For Hire" scenario you NEVER owned the rights, thus there was no transfer or license. In WFH you are simply nothing more than the camera or the lens, you never owned the rights. To even use the content / imagery in your reel requires YOU to obtain that license from the client who is the author. This is totally different than signing away unlimited rights or any other form of licensing.

The larger companies I work for whether it be Disney, MTV, Discovery, HBO, NBC or a group like Cirque du Soleil all require a complete sign-off via either WFH or some other form of "Creative Services Agreement" that will supercede anything you present.

I always add "non-exlusive" to my agreements except in the case of WFH. Usually it goes right through or evokes the client to question it which offers you a chance to discuss it. Don't be afraid to stand up for what is yours.

You'll always get the worst end of the deal on any negotiation you are not willing to walk away from. It's never quite that simple but all we can do is try.

Robert Starling
Steadicam Owner Operator
Las Vegas
 
robstar1 said:
To start, in a "Work For Hire" scenario you NEVER owned the rights, thus there was no transfer or license. In WFH you are simply nothing more than the camera or the lens, you never owned the rights. To even use the content / imagery in your reel requires YOU to obtain that license from the client who is the author. This is totally different than signing away unlimited rights or any other form of licensing.
Click to expand...

Yes, i understand that and thanks for the info. For some things it is just a work for hire, like right now i am covering the elections and am just a camera opt, its a work for hire gig, and i am totally fine with that, because like you siad, i am just the "camera" or "lens"

robstar1 said:
The larger companies I work for whether it be Disney, MTV, Discovery, HBO, NBC or a group like Cirque du Soleil all require a complete sign-off via either WFH or some other form of "Creative Services Agreement" that will supercede anything you present.
Click to expand...

Yes, i find it hard to deal with larger companies and networks sometimes because they have preset contracts and its hard to get them to budge.

So here is a question, for anyone (or production company) that has PRODUCED a show for lets say the discovery channel or PBS, does that usually fall under a WFH, or are you retaining the rights to the progarm you produced?
 
<sarcasm>Cameraman do own the movies they shoot.</sarcasm>

If you want the owner to grant you permission to use it for promotional purposes, that's fine, but it does not belong to you if you're being paid for it. The idea that videographers (i.e. cameramen) should own the videos they are paid to shoot is extremely ridiculous. I'm puking as I type this.
 
Over the last 12 years of freelance work I can say the only way to use something for your reel is to record it when it airs, or if you have worked with the client and know a producer real well sometimes you can get them to burn you a DVD of the show. They (most of the time) will not bother you if you want to use something for your 'demo reel', but in the freelance world you don't 'Own' anything you shoot unless you are producing something yourself.

Seunosewa better get a bucket.
Good luck
 
Allen Green said:
...but in the freelance world you don't 'Own' anything you shoot unless you are producing something yourself.
Click to expand...

I feel like my point is slightly getting missed here. I'm not talking about just working as a shooter or as a crew member ( read my original post NOT as "shoot or produce" but as "shoot and produced"). I think we have already established that crew positions are work for hire.

so my question is, if you are producing (and maybe also shooting/editing/soundmix/graphics, etc) should you still accept WFH, or demand ownership. Or if your production company is producing a show for a major network, does the network get the copyright, or does the production company hold their rights? Does the production company get hired as a WFH?
 
I am not a lawyer but as I understand it, unless your work is produced during the course of your regular employment it is not automatically a 'work for hire' and there's more to being considered an employee than merely getting paid for the job. The video shot by a cameraman on the staff of a TV station would certainly be a 'work for hire' and copyright would go to the employer. But the status of a freelancer hired for a specific shoot is not so cut and dried. Normally copyright goes to the person who creates a copyrightable work unless 'work for hire' applies. But unless the person is a bona fide employee - subject to withholding taxes, operating under the control and supervision of the employer, etc - work for hire does NOT apply unless it is agreed to in writing. That's why employment contracts for studio musicians, photographers, freelance camera people, etc often includes a paragraph that specifies that the work they produce is agreed by both parties to have been produced as a 'work for hire.'
 
seunosewa said:
<sarcasm>Cameraman do own the movies they shoot.</sarcasm>

If you want the owner to grant you permission to use it for promotional purposes, that's fine, but it does not belong to you if you're being paid for it. The idea that videographers (i.e. cameramen) should own the videos they are paid to shoot is extremely ridiculous. I'm puking as I type this.
Click to expand...

Well it may make you sick, but actually just getting paid for creating the work does not transfer ownership. So if you haven't signed away those rights you actually do own the work. Now what gets very complicated with some of this is if your filming people and their releases are with the producer you may own it but you still can't use it. It's sort of like software. You don't "buy" software, you buy a license to use it. If some one pays you to go out and shoot a tree then (with out other clauses) they have bought the right to use that footage in the project they bought it for. You retain the rights to use the footage and to sell it to someone else if you like. Just because you were hired does not mean that it was a "work for hire" job. That term has a specific legal definition, even though it sounds more generic.
 
watson said:
I feel like my point is slightly getting missed here. I'm not talking about just working as a shooter or as a crew member ( read my original post NOT as "shoot or produce" but as "shoot and produced"). I think we have already established that crew positions are work for hire.

so my question is, if you are producing (and maybe also shooting/editing/soundmix/graphics, etc) should you still accept WFH, or demand ownership. Or if your production company is producing a show for a major network, does the network get the copyright, or does the production company hold their rights? Does the production company get hired as a WFH?
Click to expand...

As a general rule yes the production team/ company signs away all rights. All the big boys in my experience require this and it makes sense. You show up at Skywalker Ranch and pretty much anything you think while under contract they own. On small projects it might be negotiable, maybe. If I were hiring you to do X for me I might be willing to do a non exclusive deal but I would sure as hell make sure that I retained at least equal rights.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top