When does footage ownership transfer?

cjwolff

cjwolff

Well-known member
I volunteered on a short a couple of weeks ago that was intended to be shown at a release party last Thursday. There were "Names" involved which verbally offered me DP, Producer, and Technical Director IMDB credit for shooting, lighting, and ultimately directing when the director gave up at the last moments of the shoot. Long story short, over the past week the relationships have dissolved into petty bickering. The short was never shown nor released due to technical difficulties at the venue and personality conflicts.

Since my "compensation" involved publication of my credit on IMDB and release of the film, with any proceeds going to charity, if I have not received said compensation, do you think I still own copyright to the footage? Had it not been for my equipment the film would have never been shot. It's not worth going to court over since some of the acting was really lousy and the sound production tech gave me -40db audio. Frankly, it's so poor it's going nowhere.

Disclaimer: I am not soliciting legal advice and will hold no one responsible for their opinions. I read a thread on shootingpeople.org that suggested I haven't released the rights to my footage because I haven't been "compensated." Thanks in advance amigos.

CJ
 
cjwolff said:
Since my "compensation" involved publication of my credit on IMDB and release of the film, with any proceeds going to charity, if I have not received said compensation, do you think I still own copyright to the footage? Had it not been for my equipment the film would have never been shot. It's not worth going to court over since some of the acting was really lousy and the sound production tech gave me -40db audio. Frankly, it's so poor it's going nowhere.

CJ
Click to expand...

Being an armchair lawyer... which is to say not a lawyer, I'd say the contract has not been fully fulfilled on the part of the receiver of the work, hence you own the copyright to the shots you took...

But... here's the rub... the actors and location, bad as those may be, still own the rights to their image or the image of their property, hence you can't show your footage, without violating their rights. Whoever produced this short should have had actor and location releases to them, the producers. But that doesn't transfer to you, the photographer.

Hence, I'd say walk away from the project.
 
If your 'compensation' was IMDB credit, and you were the producer -- who, then, was responsible for getting the credits put on IMDB, if not you?

And if it was just shot a couple of weeks ago, it might be a bit early to expect to see a credit on IMDB. It can take time for those things to show up.

If you decide unilaterally that you own the footage, you're leaving yourself open to all kinds of problems if someone else from the project disagrees. Even if you're 100% totally in the right, legally and otherwise, it could still cause you a huge stink in the industry in your area. So my question is -- was it so great that it's worth the risk to your reputation in the business just to have the footage on your demo reel?

If it was, then congratulations on a job well done! :-)
 
Last edited:
j1clark@ucsd.edu said:
Being an armchair lawyer... which is to say not a lawyer, I'd say the contract has not been fully fulfilled on the part of the receiver of the work, hence you own the copyright to the shots you took...

But... here's the rub... the actors and location, bad as those may be, still own the rights to their image or the image of their property, hence you can't show your footage, without violating their rights. Whoever produced this short should have had actor and location releases to them, the producers. But that doesn't transfer to you, the photographer.

Hence, I'd say walk away from the project.
Click to expand...

Excellent points! Although he might be able to get newly-signed releases from those people, I suppose. But again, is it really worth it? A question only he can answer.
 
If it was essentially a work-done-for-hire (even if only implied and even if the compensation isn't money), it's not your footage, even if you haven't gotten paid (yet). You'll probably have to take the issue to small claims court.
 
There is no "9/10ths rule."

THIS is most likely the case, based on the matter as described:

cyclone said:
If it was essentially a work-done-for-hire (even if only implied and even if the compensation isn't money), it's not your footage, even if you haven't gotten paid (yet). You'll probably have to take the issue to small claims court.
Click to expand...
 
Honestly, the quality of the outcome of the project isn't worth the legal hassle or causing a stink in the industry. The audio tech left me with sound levels at -40-50 db which when boosted turned into an eq nightmare and a mess. It did show up on IMDB though today.
 
cjwolff said:
Honestly, the quality of the outcome of the project isn't worth the legal hassle or causing a stink in the industry. The audio tech left me with sound levels at -40-50 db which when boosted turned into an eq nightmare and a mess. It did show up on IMDB though today.
Click to expand...

Given the quality you say the project is... don't you want cinematography credit to go to Alan Smithee?
 
j1clark@ucsd.edu said:
Given the quality you say the project is... don't you want cinematography credit to go to Alan Smithee?
Click to expand...

Well the overall quality of the project may not be good -- poorly written script, bad sound, bad editing, etc. -- yet the quality of the camera work might be good enough for a reel. But it all comes back to whether or not it's worth it in the long run.
 
jagraphics said:
Of course there is. Along with the "Ways and Means" Act. Not in any law book....
Click to expand...

"Not in any law book" means it won't stand up in any court as an effective defense.

Again, it appears the OP has now received the 'compensation' he was promised, in the form of IMDB credit. So that changes everything.
 
J Michael said:
It does not sound like there was a written contract stating it was a work for hire, nor was the promised compensation delivered.
Click to expand...

The OP states that his 'compensation' involved IMDB credit. He now states that the film now appears on IMDB. So it would appear he has now been compensated.
 
jagraphics said:
Of course there is. Along with the "Ways and Means" Act. Not in any law book but in the real world....
Click to expand...

Since this is about intellectual property, the "9/10ths rule" has no relevance. Owning a physical copy of a work, and the underlying rights to the content, are two entirely separate things.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top