C100: Who Owns My Intro

S

Swink

Active member
This is slightly off-topic. I couldn't find a perfect section for it, so I started it here since I'm shooting on a C100 these days and I figure other people with c100s are doing similar gigs as me.

I shot a video for an international organization that has a few offices around North America. It was a welcome speech from the incoming spokesperson. The main "editing" consisted of putting on subtitles in various languages. Originally, they didn't say much about their wishes for an intro and outro, but eventually they requested something that required a little bit of work. In the end they were happy. I sent them a version for each language and they put them up on Youtube, etc.

Now, a few months later, they want me to send them the intro and outro that I created (presumably to use in future videos that other videographers will be shooting and editing, perhaps in other cities). I'm honoured that they consider it good enough to be their standard intro, but I don't feel as if they have paid for unlimited, perpetual use of my original material. Their email does not allude to any payment. If I were them, I would have asked, "How much would you charge us for perpetual, unlimited use of the intro and outro you designed for us?" But they didn't ask such a question. On the one hand I feel a little like I'm holding the files hostage if I raise the issue of payment, but on the other hand I feel like they are asking me to give away my product (even if it's already made). What do you guys think?

Also, if I do charge them, how much should it be? In terms of supply and demand, they could probably get such an intro made for a couple hundred dollars by an online motion graphics artist. I did it all in Premiere, using wipes. It's not like it's a great work of art, but it clearly has some value to them.

Thanks for any thoughts. I just wanted to test the waters before I reply to them. Don't want to be unreasonable with my clients, but I don't want to be taken advantage of either.

-Tom
 
Would you be upset if you never worked with them again ?

I mention this because you might jeopardize any chance of future work with them if they see your request as unreasonable. On the flip side they might respect you more if you are 100 percent upfront with why you are charging them for this type of usage.

i.e. The first project was a "one off", but now you are going to incorporate my intro as part of your brand, so I would like to be compensated for the work I spent in designing this graphics intro.
 
Personnaly, if a customer would ask me for a intro from a previous projet I made for them so that they would use it on upcoming projects, I would definately charge them for it. Who knows, maybe one of your competitor will be using this same intro on their projects (for the same customer of course) in the future.
 
I would only charge a "Reasonable" charge. Based on hours spent on the project (% of overall job). When sending the invoice, make sure you show some type of discount too!
 
You essentially created two separate projects for them, a graphical intro (that could be used universally) and a video. It would have been better if you discussed the intro with them earlier, but understandably you didn't foresee them wanting to use it for future videos. I think you should definitely discuss a cost for it. It's one thing if all their future videos are done by you, but since other shooters/editors are going to be using this intro, it's a separate product that you should charge for.
 
Not sure how it works in CA but this is the rule in the US:

When you hire an IC to create a work of authorship such as a computer program, written work, artwork, musical work, photographs, or multimedia work, you need to be concerned about copyright ownership.

The copyright laws contain a major trap for unwary hiring companies. The hiring company will not own the copyright to the IC's work unless it obtains a written assignment of copyright ownership. An assignment is simply a transfer of copyright ownership. You should obtain an assignment before the IC starts work. This assignment should be included in the IC agreement.

There are exceptions to this rule. Certain specially commissioned works by ICs are considered to be works for hire, to which the hiring company owns the copyright. However, this rule is not automatic -- you still have to enter into a written agreement explicitly stating that the work is for hire.
 
Thanks, everyone, for the quick replies. This is helpful. I'll post back about how it all works out. I think I will ask for a modest payment.
 
It may even be a good idea to let them know that the reason (or at least part of the reason) that you're charging them is for the task of sending it to them. You have to encode a file/ files that is just the intro (without the rest of the show). So that means you have to do the edit, encode it to the format that they need, upload it so that they can download it, and also host it on your webspace/ dropbox/ etc, which costs you, as well. Set your per hour task rate wherever you think is fair. And it's pretty standard (across many industries) to set a 2.5 hour minimum for performing a task.

I feel like this is a very honest way of doing business where you are getting what you deserve for your work, and they are also getting their product to use. The way I had understood copyright law when it comes to video production is that the client has copyright ownership to the end product that you create for them, as well as the raw video (but doesn't have rights to your project files), unless the contract states otherwise. I'm by no means claiming to be correct on that. But since I'd rather just not deal with copyright laws, I would charge for the task itself in instances like this. Cheers!
 
BrandonT said:
The way I had understood copyright law when it comes to video production is that the client has copyright ownership to the end product that you create for them, as well as the raw video
Click to expand...

Really? This would include the raw footage too ?

I always thought that video was like photography where you are purchasing the finished product, but not the negatives/raw digital files that the photographer used to create the photos. Much like if you were commissioning a painter to paint a portrait, you would own the finished painted canvas and frame, but you do not own the artist's paints, brushes, or easel.

I'm not a lawyer so I have no idea what the law says on this issue, but I'm curious to find out what applies in Canada and the rest of the world.
 
TheDingo said:
I always thought that video was like photography where you are purchasing the finished product, but not the negatives/raw digital files that the photographer used to create the photos.
Click to expand...
This.
Unless stated otherwise in a contract as most companies with sensitive information will probably oblige you to sign.
Which doesn't mean you can just sell "extra shots" of non-sensitive material from shoots without contract to e.g. a stock footage site...
 
Hate to say it but it sounds as if you were a bit lax in defining the terms of the work. It was either work made for hire and the client owns everything they paid you for or you own the copyright and are licensing it to them for use. If you neglect to define the terms of your contract with them, that is on you. Now you have to feel your way through the whole thing, worrying about pissing them off if you ask for more money but being frustrated because you feel they owe you more. Any basic video contract should have and would have defined all of these terms. Amateurs produce work without a contract, business people don't do any work without a contract.
 
Last edited:
puredrifting said:
Hate to say it but it sounds as if you were a bit lax in defining the terms of the work. It was either work made for hire and the client owns everything they paid you for or you own the copyright and are licensing it to them for use. If you neglect to define the terms of your contract with them, that is on you. Now you have to feel your way through the whole thing, worrying about pissing them off if you ask for more money but being frustrated because you feel they owe you more. Any basic video contract should have and would have defined all of these terms. Amateurs produce work without a contract, business people don't do any work without a contract.
Click to expand...
Exactly!
 
Without a doubt, you should charge for that.

You don't have to be needy, begging or aggressive. Just say that you would be happy to send them a titles package for use in future videos. That might include an opener, closer and some lower 3rds templates. And then simply state your price for the service and unlimited perpetual use.

And remember to stay ahead of the curve in future projects when you send estimates and bills, or draft up what your deliverables are.
 
BrandonT said:
It may even be a good idea to let them know that the reason (or at least part of the reason) that you're charging them is for the task of sending it to them. You have to encode a file/ files that is just the intro (without the rest of the show). So that means you have to do the edit, encode it to the format that they need, upload it so that they can download it, and also host it on your webspace/ dropbox/ etc, which costs you, as well. Set your per hour task rate wherever you think is fair. And it's pretty standard (across many industries) to set a 2.5 hour minimum for performing a task.

I feel like this is a very honest way of doing business where you are getting what you deserve for your work, and they are also getting their product to use. The way I had understood copyright law when it comes to video production is that the client has copyright ownership to the end product that you create for them, as well as the raw video (but doesn't have rights to your project files), unless the contract states otherwise. I'm by no means claiming to be correct on that. But since I'd rather just not deal with copyright laws, I would charge for the task itself in instances like this. Cheers!
Click to expand...

op: I absolutely agree with this train of thought. Make the client realize that there is work and editing time involved. More $$, not just a handoff.
 
Thanks again. I really like hearing other people's thinking about this.

Regarding contracts, for me they have their time and place, but I tend not to use them for jobs that are under $1000 unless I sense that a client might be difficult to deal with. And, of course, contracts don't solve all problems, though I admit they can help avoid some contentious issues.

On the other hand, I do always provide a clear estimate, which I had sent for this job. There was no mention of delivering master copies of graphics.

In the end, I wrote to the client in a friendly tone, saying that I could export master copies of intros and outros for unlimited use for a price that I thought was very competitive. They replied, thanking me for the info and said they would get their in-house designer to do it instead, which I don't think will save them much or any money in the short term, but I guess they will also have the project files and be able to tweak them at little or no cost if their logo or tastes change. I didn't get the sense that I had burned any bridges. They said they would keep me posted in case they changed their mind.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top