Question for Spike or Ewink...

[cinehead]

What are my rights in this situation...

I did a shoot a few years ago as a freelancer. I did the shoot and got paid by the company. Then... a few months later, the people in the video became somewhat notorious. The cable nets, local TV stations and tabloid news shows became quite interested in the video and are offering some big money for it. My question is; do I retain any rights to the video or do all the rights belong to the company that I shot it for?

My initial guess is that I don't and all the rights to the video belong to the company.

One other factor. I was paid under the table, cash. Does that affect the situation at all?

[The Mockingbird]

Did you shoot the video on your equipment, or station equipment?

Were you paid for a copy of the tape, or were you paid to cover the event?

[cinehead]

Did you shoot the video on your equipment, or station equipment?

Were you paid for a copy of the tape, or were you paid to cover the event?


I used my own gear, the next day I gave the tapes the the company I did the shoot for (not a TV station). They have the tapes.

[HushHush]

Technically as the "artist" you have rights to the work. However - you turned over the original tapes to the company. You may have relinquished your rights. Lesson is ... never turn over your original work. Always give them a copy!! And make sure any release forms or agreements you make with future companies read that you maintain rights to the video for use on future projects.

[cinehead]

Technically as the "artist" you have rights to the work. However - you turned over the original tapes to the company. You may have relinquished your rights. Lesson is ... never turn over your original work. Always give them a copy!! And make sure any release forms or agreements you make with future companies read that you maintain rights to the video for use on future projects.

That's not how it's done. When you shoot for hire companies don't want dubs, they want original footage.

[Clever Login Name]

So, what exactly were John Edwards and his (I don't) love (her) interest doing on these tapes you shot?

[Roy Hobbs]

...and did you shoot any of these tapes in the shed??
http://www.intriguing.com/mp/_pictures/compdiff/siredwar.jpg
Did you shoot any tape at all in this shed of yours?

[Lazlo Toth]

Ask a lawyer.

[SamG]

Not a legal analysis by any means, but my opinion...
What are my rights in this situation...

I did a shoot a few years ago as a freelancer. I did the shoot and got paid by the company. Then... a few months later, the people in the video became somewhat notorious. The cable nets, local TV stations and tabloid news shows became quite interested in the video and are offering some big money for it. My question is; do I retain any rights to the video or do all the rights belong to the company that I shot it for?

My initial guess is that I don't and all the rights to the video belong to the company.I would agree with you, even if not from a legal view, but from an ethical view. The company hired you to do a job. They paid you to do a job. The rights belong to them. Let's say you're a station guy. However you use your own microphone because you like the sound better than the 25 year old one the station issued you. Does that mean you own all rights to the sound you've collected because you've "used your own gear"? Don't think so.


One other factor. I was paid under the table, cash. Does that affect the situation at all?
This means there's no record of what they paid you or what the agreement (if any) was. So you could claim (again IMO) that you understood YOU would retain the rights to the footage. Whether that would fly in court is a different story. But I would think this would piss off the client and depending on word of mouth could jeopardize future jobs.

If you think it's worth pursuing, as Laz said, contact a lawyer.

[s'news]

Since they have the tapes, I suspect the issue is moot.

[wx or not]

...and did you shoot any of these tapes in the shed??
http://www.intriguing.com/mp/_pictures/compdiff/siredwar.jpg
Did you shoot any tape at all in this shed of yours?
More importantly, Arthur, did you shoot this in both of your sheds?

[Spike]

Ask a lawyer.

Lazlo's advice is the best yet. You DO need to ask a lawyer. It probably won't cost you very much, because this is probably not a very difficult question. However, you do need to make sure the lawyer is experienced with COPYRIGHT law, because copyright has a few inconsistencies with other types of agreements.

Going from memory from my copyright law classes, here's what I suspect the lawyer would tell you:

By default, copyright resides in the person who makes a recording (the author, for copyright purposes) unless it's a work for hire. "Work for hire" is a legal term pertaining to copyright that signifies that the person who made the recording did it on another person's behalf, and that other person owns the right to the work.

If you were a regular staff employee for the company, your work is automatically a work for hire, and the company is the legal author of the work. That is provided for in the copyright portion of the United States Code.

If you were NOT a regular staff employee (which seems to be the case here) your work is NOT automatically a work for hire. By default you would be considered the author UNLESS you have a written contract stating that the work you produce for the client is a work for hire. The contract typically needs to contain the phrase "work for hire." Title 17 of the US Code requires both a written contract specifying the transfer of the ownership of the work and consideration (payment) for the work.

So, if you were hired by this company to shoot something for them as a freelancer, and they did not have you sign a contract or deal memo specifically relinquishing your right to the material, I would guess that you have a claim to authorship of what you shot. If so, that would be true even if you don't have the original tapes. Copyright is an intangible property right and does not attach directly to a physical object but rests in the person who holds the right. You can own the copyright to a work and NOT own the actual medium on which it's recorded; for example, a painter can sell his painting to a collector and still own the copyright and all the associated duplication and distribution rights even though he doesn't have physical custody of the work itself. The same would be true for master video tapes.

That doesn't mean the company won't think they own the copyright and won't sue you if you try to sell the footage to someone else. That's why you need to speak with a lawyer to find out what you need to do to be able to prove that you own the copyright (or disprove they own it) if it comes to that. Please protect yourself in advance.

There is one other issue, although I doubt it applies to you. If you shoot material that includes someone else's copyrighted works, you may have either a derivative work or a collaborative work. If, for example, you were hired to shoot a program written and edited by the company, the company would own the copyright in the script and the finished program itself. In that case you might have a collaborative work, where you are part author for copyright purposes. Or suppose you shoot something that contains fictional characters from someone else's work, used without license. Then you may have a derivative work, in which you actually own the copyright in your work but can't use it because to do so would infringe on someone else's copyright.

Again, please don't base a legal decision on what I wrote here. I'm just providing information for background, so you'll have a little better understanding of the issues when you talk to a lawyer.

[Spike]

Oh, one other thing. If you signed a contract and it doesn't say "work for hire," that doesn't mean you're completely off the hook. If you signed a contract that stipulates that you grant the company the exclusive right to distribute, duplicate and exhibit the work, you have effectively broken up your copyright and given away all the best parts. This wouldn't be a copyright issue, but a contract issue. If you signed such an agreement, to then license the material to someone else would be a violation of your contract. You would still own it. You just wouldn't be able to do anything with it.

[the original buttongod]

Years ago....you know, back when the network PAID you for footage you shot locally, and ran on network; I shot the aftermath of a private plane crash. It ran on evening news and on the CC feed. This was before everybody had uplinks and you had to get it on a plane. I got paid rather well for the day. I saw the same vid on 60 Minutes a few months later, and inquired if I would get paid again. Nope, they owned it now.

[Roy Hobbs]

Ah, loved them days.

Made about 16 a year in salary and another 10 splitting network video fees with my photogs.

[Lazlo Toth]

Those were the days. when I was in my first job as a lowly production assistant in SF, the station had me on the clock. And if I took a tape to the bus station or the airport for the network, I could charge the net an extra courier fee. At what I was making then, the money sure came in handy.

[cinehead]

Thanks to everyone for all their responses. And, Spike, thanks for taking the time to give me such detailed advice.

I'll clear up a few questions. No, there was no contract between the company and me. And, I am not looking to sell the tapes.

The problem is, the company I shot for sold the tapes for big money a couple of years ago. I didn't agree with the decision to sell. His clients are usually very wealthy people. He gets most of work by word of mouth recommendations. I didn't think it would be in the best interests of his business to have word get out that if something news worthy happened to a client that he would turn around and sell the tapes to the highest bidder.

That said, once he did sell the tapes, I was a little pissed that he didn't offer me some of it. I wouldn't have even wanted half, just a little something for my work.

Anyway, I let it go, because he gave me a lot of work. Now, there is renewed interest in the story and some production companies want to do a documentary on this story. They found out I was the videographer and called me about the video. I just want to find out if the company decides to sell the video, am I entitled to a cut? Oh yeah, I no longer do any work for this company.

I think I will call a lawyer.

[Spike]

I just want to find out if the company decides to sell the video, am I entitled to a cut?

My thought is that if your client sells video to which he doesn't own the rights, you are legally entitled to whatever he gets for the footage or to statutory damages, not just "a cut." However, being legally entitled to it and collecting it are two different things. My guess is that what a lawyer will want to do is approach them with the threat of a federal lawsuit hanging over them as leverage to get them to enter a licensing deal with you to give you a cut.

Again, please find an attorney with experience in copyright. It's a fairly specialized area of law that most lawyers don't understand. If an attorney who lacks this specialized knowledge attempts to apply normal property and contract law to copyright (as most would), you'll get screwed.

[ewink]

What they said. :)

I very rarely freelance, so I wouldn't be able to answer you, but I appreciate you thinking of me!

And finally, after years of being here, there was a thread with my name in the title. I think I can retire now. :cheers:

[east coast producer]

This is an easy question.

As a former freelance print reporter, one of my contracts transferred the rights and copyright to the company buying my work. It no longer belonged to me.

Another leased the work from me for their exclusive use for 30 days and I retained my copyright, after which time I could resell it. Since the contract granted them exclusive use, they couldn't, for example, let AP move the copy.

OP said there is no contract. So he never transferred the copyright. He never granted the company he shot for rights to redistribute. Any profits from the company selling it are his.

[Tippster]

How would you prove that you were the author of said video?

[east coast producer]

Ah, loved them days.

Made about 16 a year in salary and another 10 splitting network video fees with my photogs.

You must be SO OLD. Wow.

[Mighty Dyckerson]

You must be SO OLD. Wow.

The sad part is, that was last year.

[east coast producer]

The sad part is, that was last year.

I thought that was your boy Produce's salary.

[Mighty Dyckerson]

I thought that was your boy Produce's salary.

I thought he was an unpaid intern.