Moral/ethics question

[Bureau Chief]

One of my friends called me tonight. He is a free lance photographer/stringer for several stations in different markets. Well it seems he was shooting a fluff vo about a DUI check point when a state level elected type got taken out of his car and through the good graces of the local PD, given a ride home as opposed to a ride to jail like any other dui driver. This all happened on the other side of the highway from where my friend was standing, and it seemed that the police either were unaware of his presence, or were hoping that he hadnt seen what went down. The shot was from a hundred yards away. It is possible that the cops on that side of the highway didnt know he was there until it was to late.

This morning, he had a call from an "aide" to this person, who got his number from the local station. The aide was wanting to know about the who/what/where about this footage. My buddies reply was that he was a free lancer, and could sell his video to anyone he wanted to. His normal fee was $150 but that since this person was not a regular customer, he would have to pay premium pricing and that a couple more zeros on the check would do the trick. The aide promised to call him back tomorrow and let him know.

NOW heres the question he put to me. Is he simply doing his job of shooting and selling his video or has he stumbled into extortion?

And what would YOU do in this circumstance? Remember, hes only a stringer, he doesnt care about ratings or brownie points.

[adam & doctor drew]

seems obvious.
it's his video, he can sell it to whoever he wants for as much as he wants.

[wx or not]

He's under no obligation to do anything with the clip. However, as a freelancer, he is able to take advantage of the free market. If he were contracted, then he might have had an ethics problem.

[Bureau Chief]

His worry is that because he asked for more than the usual fee and that the payment was meant to keep the tape out of the publics view, he could be charged with extortion. Hell I take the money and run too.

[newz2me]

He probably shouldn't have told them what his normal price is. He should have simply came up with a number right from the get go. Now he's stumbled into dirty politics. I personally would contact the local stations and bid out the video. I rather take a little less money than to see this clown use his politicial influence to dodge the law and eventually kill somebody. Nip it in the bud.
Keep in mind though that never being charged with DUI there is no record of him being intoxicated (that night) or even how high his BAC could be. But it's definately unethicial and shady. After all why would you give the guy a ride home? It would be interesting to look into this guy's past and see if he has a history of DWI.

[east coast producer]

I don't see a problem with it. Hot video is worth more than wallpaper of a shooting scene. As he's not an employee or working as an agent of a broadcaster (or publisher), he's free to sell it to whoever writes a check that doesn't bounce. As someone above me said, the market dictates the value of the tape. At this point, with a buyer apparently ready, I wouldn't float it to broadcasters because there's no way you're going to get $15,000 (or $1,500... unless *maybe* you're in top 5 or top 10). You certainly won't get $15k, which you alluded to, unless the person is the President.

And, again as someone above me said, take the loot and run. I think the $15k rate is way overvalued. Okay, you have video of a state-level elected official being given a ride home by a cop. Sure, you can infer he was drunk, but the video offers no proof. I assume he wasn't put through a field sobriety test in which the video captured obvious impairment. There won't be a police report. You don't know which cops were involved, so you'd be stuck talking to a PIO or a lieutenant to ask about the incident. If they decided to sweep it under the rug that night, they're surely not going to issue you a press release revealing a drunk state-level elected official driving and them not arresting him. His car broke down. MAYBE he was near the limit, didn't realize he was that close and he ASKED to be taken home. Lots of made-up reasons can be told.

Blackmail as much as you can and be done with it.

[Run's House]

As a point of clarification, in general terms, this is more a discussion about possible blackmail than extortion. The latter requires an underlying criminal act, whereas the "threatened" act for blackmail is perfectly legal. I think your friend is fine. For one thing, they called him, not the other way around. That being said, he needs to choose his words carefully from here on out just to be safe. He needs to emphasize that he is merely a freelance photographer, all things being equal, he sells to the highest bidder (especially for exclusive rights). If the aide ever asks about his intention to sell the tape to a local station (if they themselves do not pay his asking price) he needs to be vague. Emphazising the nature of the freelance buisness is about as far as I would go. However, if he is looking at a 15K payday, then it might be worth a couple of hours of a criminal lawyer for better advice.

[Edited for clairty]

[Desert Rat]

I can't see how this could be extortion...

Was the photog in question threatened in any way? From what I read, it seemed like he wasn't.

All the other party asked was the specifics of what was on the tape and how much it would cost to buy the tape. I would think he is free to sell the tape for whatever he can get for it, regardless of how much his usual rate is.

Now if he is smart, he wouldn't sign over exclusive rights to the tape..just sell it to them.

That's what I would do if it were possible.

[Hard_reign2004]

I can't see how this could be extortion...

Was the photog in question threatened in any way? From what I read, it seemed like he wasn't.

All the other party asked was the specifics of what was on the tape and how much it would cost to buy the tape. I would think he is free to sell the tape for whatever he can get for it, regardless of how much his usual rate is.

Now if he is smart, he wouldn't sign over exclusive rights to the tape..just sell it to them.

That's what I would do if it were possible.

Yeah your friend just stumbled into a movie plot line. Right now I think what your friend is doing is illegal. What he should do is put it out there on the open market and allow anyone who wants to bid on the video. That way it is completely fair. Also he was shooting the video for someone else who was paying him for the footage right? Legally I would think that whatever juice he got while fulfilling his assignment for said station would be property of the station.

[east coast producer]

I don't see how there's anything illegal about selling videotape shot, presumably, on public property to whoever wants it. I don't know of any legal requirement to put it on eBay to let others put a bid in on it.

I didn't get that he was there as an agent of a station. If he was contracted by a station to shoot "fluff" video, as the original poster described, of a DUI checkpoint, wallpaper of the checkpoint certainly didn't include a state-level elected official being put in a police car. He can fulfill his contractual obligation -- if one existed -- to the station by providing the wallpaper video and sell the official video to a second party. If the station finds out, I imagine there wouldn't be much freelance work in his future, but I doubt it was within the scope of the contract (if one existed). I don't get the impression he was there on the behalf on a station anyway.

[Clever Login Name]

BC, could you clarify a few points? Was your friend contracted by a certain station to shoot this checkpoint or was he there of his own accord, hoping that somebody would want this video ... either that day or somewhere down the road for file video use? If a station was paying him to be there, I'd think they own whatever tape he shot ... high-profile arrest and all. If he's there on his own, he can do what he wants with it. Let's say the guy's aide buys the tape ... does your friend then leak THAT story to a friendly media-type? Either way, this pol is going to get screwed ... because either a mainstream station gets the video and airs it, or another news outlet reports that the guy's staff bought the video so the public couldn't see it.

[Hard_reign2004]

So what clever login name is really asking is what exactly is your "friend" looking to sale. Is he selling the video tape, or is he selling his word that he will never speak about or show valid proof that said important person was ever drunk and given special treatment. How much you want to bet he is paid in straight cash?

[New York'rr]

The guy needs to show his video to Lucy Spiller, the Editor of Dirt/Now magazine.

She will place it in her vault behind steel bars in her office, and save it until this elected official rises higher, like governor or senator, and THEN when it is worth a lot more $$$, split the profits raised by selling it to the politician's campaign.

[east coast producer]

Assuming he was there on the behalf of a broadcaster for the purpose of shooting wallpaper of a DUI checkpoint, I disagree that the station would own the video of the official being put into a patrol car. It's beyond what he was contracted to provide, and it's my (albeit worthless) opinion the station has no rights to it. They are owed what the station entered into a contract with the shooter to provide -- generics of the checkpoint. Video of this alleged incident is worth far more and isn't what the shooter agreed to provide. If he was actually put through a field sobriety test and arrested, I'd say the station was owed that, but that he was simply placed in a patrol car doesn't mean he was arrested. As I said, there's a thousand ways to spin it -- broken car, whatever.

From how I read the post, the shooter was there independently and hoping to sell the video to the highest bidder(s).

And should he sell it to an agent of the official, I believe it would be unethical and unprofessional to leak it. I imagine the shooter would be required to sign a non-disclosure and exclusivity agreement anyway. While he may have (or may not have) witnessed a crime by the official and a cover-up by officers on the scene, an independent media is not an agent of the government and should not perform a law enforcement role. Journalists are there as observers, not active participants.

Sell the video, enjoy the money and shut up. Should you later be subpoenaed for the video, I would probably comply with it.

[Clever Login Name]

Assuming he was there on the behalf of a broadcaster for the purpose of shooting wallpaper of a DUI checkpoint, I disagree that the station would own the video of the official being put into a patrol car. It's beyond what he was contracted to provide, and it's my (albeit worthless) opinion the station has no rights to it. They are owed what the station entered into a contract with the shooter to provide -- generics of the checkpoint. Video of this alleged incident is worth far more and isn't what the shooter agreed to provide. If he was actually put through a field sobriety test and arrested, I'd say the station was owed that, but that he was simply placed in a patrol car doesn't mean he was arrested. As I said, there's a thousand ways to spin it -- broken car, whatever.

From how I read the post, the shooter was there independently and hoping to sell the video to the highest bidder(s).

And should he sell it to an agent of the official, I believe it would be unethical and unprofessional to leak it. I imagine the shooter would be required to sign a non-disclosure and exclusivity agreement anyway. While he may have (or may not have) witnessed a crime by the official and a cover-up by officers on the scene, an independent media is not an agent of the government and should not perform a law enforcement role. Journalists are there as observers, not active participants.

Sell the video, enjoy the money and shut up. Should you later be subpoenaed for the video, I would probably comply with it.

I'll disagree. If he's being paid by a station to shoot the checkpoint, whatever he shoots at that checkpoint is theirs ... and certainly the detention of someone on suspicion of DUI, even if it's a high-profile person, falls under the definition of what he was there to record and then provide the station. They hire you expecting generic stuff ... if you get something better, good for the station.

If he's on his own, I agree it's an interesting dilemma. I've never freelanced, so it's new territory for me. Not sure what I'd do ...

[Spike]

And should he sell it to an agent of the official, I believe it would be unethical and unprofessional to leak it. I imagine the shooter would be required to sign a non-disclosure and exclusivity agreement anyway. While he may have (or may not have) witnessed a crime by the official and a cover-up by officers on the scene, an independent media is not an agent of the government and should not perform a law enforcement role. Journalists are there as observers, not active participants.

The role of the journalist is to relay important and newsworthy stories to the public. If he sells the video to the politician, he is not a journalist. A journalist would not sell the video to the politician, but would seek a way to get this newsworthy story to the public. That could involve getting paid by the highest bidder who intends to run the story, but could not include taking hush money from a public figure. Thus, some scruple about a journalist becoming an agent of the government doesn't even factor here.

If the guy wants to be a journalist, there is a newsworthy story in both the politician's apparent misstep and the police's apparent coverup. Reporting that story as a journalist would not constitute behaving as an arm of the government, especially since it is the apparent government corruption that is being exposed. So either direction you take, your rationalization doesn't work.

If the guy considers himself a journalist, then it is unethical for him to even consider taking money to keep quiet about it. I don't get the impression this person considers himself a journalist, but more as a mercenary videographer. That's fine, as long as he doesn't pretend to be a journalist at other times when it is convenient to do so.

[Spike]

And while I'm at it...

It also occurs to me that if a station hired this person to go shoot DUI checkpoints, and people from that station read Medialine, there's a good possibility that people at the station now know that he has something good they might want. It wouldn't be too difficult for the person who hired him to match up the circumstances and know exactly who we're talking about.

[Marty McFly]

Awesome advice from someone who doesn't even work in tv... :moon:

Seriously, it's HIS tape and HIS work. If he wants to sell it for $150 to a tv station... SO BE IT.

And if he wants to give it away for $5 bucks, SO BE IT.

And if someone offers him 10 times the going rate, he'd be a fool to NOT sell it.

Freelancers have to eat, too.

[newz2me]

That's where the moral question comes into play. Do you do the right thing and TRY to get him and the cops busted in a possible coverup you may or may not prove or let the obvious temptation of making a good chunk of change fast and grab the money?

[wx or not]

Make the money. Our biz doesn't offer many second chances.

[NewsMom]

There are a number of issues here.

First, the photog's right to sell his footage.

Unless he has a WRITTEN AGREEMENT that states that he is producing a work for hire, then he's an independent guy, out shooting, expecting the station to pay him, and nothing more. Once he and the station have a written agreement making him a contractor performing "WORK FOR HIRE", then everything he produces during that time belongs to the station.

As a practical matter, one might believe that when he goes out on behalf of a station, they INFER exclusive rights to his footage, but it's a clearcut legal issue that the written agreement is required for then to make a claim to that effect.

Will he still get assignments from the station, if they find out that while he was out representing himself as their agent, he kept the juicy stuff for himself? That's not a legal issue, that a question of his relationship with a client station, and what risk he's taking with it.

Let's assume he has the ordinary (worthless) "gentlemen's agreement" to do freelance work for the station. ALL FOOTAGE IS HIS, until he parts with it, under whatever terms he chooses. He can grant an exclusive license to the station, or a limited license, or whatever. Again, what does the station expect? Will their management be ticked off to see some of the same footage elsewhere? Unless it's spelled out in a written agreement, the station has no legal rights to exclusivity.

Now, what about this blackmail? Here, I venture into some educated guesswork. I agree with the poster who advised freelancer to be very, very MUTE about any specific terms of a sale to the inebriated official. Under no circumstances should the freelancer try to leverage the footage price, by threatening to do ANYTHING with the tape. Indeed, this is just ORDINARY BUSINESS----the freelancer shot tape, that's what he does for a living. Then he sells it based on market price. Exclusivity commands a higher price than a limited license. The fact that he did not contact the official (or the aide) ought to shield him from criminal charges of extortion and/or blackmail, assuming he doesn't say anything incredibly stupid. I'd hope he wouldn't sign away his right to say what he saw....... or at the very, very least he ought to reserve the right to answer any questions honestly..... even if he agrees not to offer unsolicited accounts of the events.

I'd be surprised if that footage were worth $15,000. But then, I don't know how high-ranking the official is.....

[Old Shooter]

I will assume for a moment that he holds the rights to the video that he shot.

In my opinion what he is doing is blurring the line legally.
Depending on state statutes he could have some legal problems as well.

There is no doubt that he could bid the tape out to stations and take whatever the going rate is. It is video that may well be worth $15,000 to a station. He could also sell it to the opponant of said politician.

The problem comes when he exclusively sells the video to the state rep for above market price a reasonable juror could assume there was a quid pro quo for the information contained on the tape. And by price gouging for the video he could very well be accused of extorting money from the rep. The other problem he may have here is that unlike some crimes the state could likely prosecute this without a complaintant. Using the people of the state as the complaintant. I assume the state official wouldn't file a complaint and bring the whole thing to light.

If he wants to go down this path I have two suggestions. First sell the tape for the maximum amount he has ever sold video before. That way he can show that his is not inflating the price. And check with a lawyer.

[Bureau Chief]

Ok #1 he was there on his own time and imagination. No assignment. He has developed his shooting skills in exactly this fashion, by shooting stuff thats not assigned but he likes the look of.

#2, he has sold stuff before near the level of $$ we are talking about.

#3, the local station that he nornally sells to (mine) is small market and wants nothing to do with anything controversial...that would require actual money to be spent to report on a story, so thats not gonna happen.

Gosh we cant take a chance on offending someone!

[rootboyslim]

Maybe I missed it, but the ethifcal question to me, is not about the money, but the fact that this shooter is willing to become part of a cover up. He is suppressing the news for cash. That is unethical in my opinion.

[Spike]

He is suppressing the news for cash. That is unethical in my opinion.

Only if he considers himself a journalist. It would be unethical for a journalist to do that. It would not necessarily be unethical for a freelance videographer to do that.

We have people here referring to him as a journalist. We have other people here referring to him as a freelance photographer. Whether it is unethical depends in large part on which one he is. I guess that would be a question for Bureau Chief: Does this guy consider himself to be a journalist?

[Bureau Chief]

Not a chance. Im not sure he could even spell it.

[Desert Rat]

"he was there on his own time and imagination. No assignment."


Then he is free to sell the footage for whatever the market will bear, in my opinion.

[Another side]

... what the "story" is. If I've followed all this correctly, all there is is video shot from 100 yards away -- no audio -- of a high-ranking official getting into a police cruiser. Obviously, it appears something sinister occurred (if, for no other reason, the interest of the campaign in buying it), but unless the local PD is more talkative and open than most, I'm not sure what a reporter could do with it.

And I'd want to know that before I bought it.

[Bureau Chief]

I agree, with out a statement from law enforcement or some charges, all he has is the APPEARANCE of official ass kissing. At this late date, the cops could claim that this guys car broke down at the checkpoint and they were just being nice and giving him a ride home. No proof otherwise. I told him to take the money and run....and I reminded him he owes me a steak dinner for not telling the ND that he had this.