-
Is it appropriate to license video similar to how music is licencsed?
Hi there,
I was recently asked to produce a 4 minute marketing video for an acquaintance of mine at a national company. Essentially this video will be deployed to x number of retail location within his region. He does not represent the national company as a whole (so this video is not a corporate initiative) and will only be used in the stores he oversees. However if this video does what his aim of it is (selling more products), I suppose it could be asked to be given to other locations outside of the beta demographic (or nationally).
Here’s my question. I gave an estimate for what it would cost for me to produce it, and if that’s all I got I would be happy. But, what if the company at the national level was to like the video and decide to use it nationally? Is it greedy or is it wise to discuss some sort of “licensing” which would benefit me if the video were to go national? Is this “standard business practice” to ask for this kind of “license”? I know music (and stock photos and video) often has different licenses.
I don’t want to be greedy, but I also don’t want to be foolish.
Any thoughts would be greatly appreciated.
Thank you,
Stephen
-
15 Replies
-
Greedy? No! Exploit what you have.
When you find out that your horse is a runner, you run it. There will be plenty of other instances when you get only what you count on, or less.
The issue of ownership and your right to further license this production should be set forth clearly in whatever contract you have with your original client.
-
Thank you Wayne. I just wanted to be sure that it’s appropriate. The potential “client” could easily go to another company but they contacted me after seeing an original piece I did, asking me for my spin on their project.
Is this something complex enough to require a lawyer to write up?
Thank you again,
Stephen
-
I have to respectfully disagree with Wayne here. You are being hired to make a video for a company. What that company chooses to do with that video is up to them. Put a licensing clause in your contract and you risk losing the client. It is a work for hire, not an original piece that you own. Just my two cents though and I could be way off base on this.
Mick Haensler
Higher Ground Media
Tech Now -
Mick Haensler’s post is 100% true, based on the information you have provided.
However, you can always ask … if the client says “no” then at least you asked (who knows? They might say “yes”). That assumes that you’re not making your licensing idea a condition of the initial agreement, in which case you’d be in much more danger of blowing the deal altogether.
The need-a-lawyer question … forgive me for being a bit snarky, but if you have to ask, then you probably do. The best time to work out an idea for such an arrangement is early, before finalizing the agreement. That way, you can make your proposal (regarding licensing) more attractive to the client by offering a discount or other incentive.
-
Mick, thank you for your thoughts on this as well. I’ll just mention it to the client, but as far as I’m concerned it’s not a deal breaker. If I can just word it like that…
Thanks again, I appreciate your thoughts.
-Stephen
-
It’s hard to tell from the original post what the actual situation is with this project.
If Stephen is simply being hired to shoot and edit a product or process with minimal creative input then Mick’s contention that this is work for hire should be correct.
However if the project involves more, ie.- becoming the defacto producer and author, also known as “adding value,” then Wayne’s approach is valid. It really comes down to how much Stephen is bringing to the party and how unique and complete he can make the product he’s offering.
When I last had a situation like this I just added a sentence on geographical use to justify obtaining additional compensation based on later, wider usage. In our case the language read: “The fees outlined here are for our work for the exclusive use of (client) in North America and therefore for distribution within North America. Should at some point (client) wish to use materials created by us in other regions of the world we will be entitled to additional compensation.”
I deliberately kept this vague so the negotiation for additional usage didn’t stand in the way of securing the original deal. And, a few years later, when this company wanted to use our stuff in Europe we were able to get paid nearly 50% more on top of the original cost. May or may not work for anyone else, but did for me. Your mileage may vary.
-
IMO, this is risking a long term relationship, for a quick gain.
You’re in the same position as the recording studio, and not the recording artist.
The reason music licensing works is these are for the most part, unique performances, which is unlike providing production. The reality is, there is nothing proprietary about production work. Anything you (or anyone else) can do, can be replicated by someone else. It won’t take long for clients to figure this out. So when your license is up, others can very easily come in and do something similar, or perhaps better, while under-bidding you. This is because you are selling an idea, with the production element being secondary. If your in the video production biz, you sell service. So I say stick with that, and concentrate on providing service that is so good they keep coming back not matter what the idea is, or who comes up with it.Scott Sheriff
Director
https://www.sstdigitalmedia.com“If you think it’s expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur.” —Red Adair
-
interesting 🙂
-
Hmmm…disagree with Scott. He is the recording studio AND the artist. I think it is plausible to ask for the contract.
Lawyer in tow.
Rich Rubasch
Tilt Media Inc.
Video Production, Post, Studio Sound Stage
Founder/President/Editor/Designer/Animator
https://www.tiltmedia.com -
In researching this(I get a bit obsessive sometimes) I must acknowledge that I spoke out of ignorance and what Stephen is describing does not meet all 3 criteria of the legal definition of a “work for hire” and he has every right under the law to specify and limit the use of this production and receive additional compensation if the work is used outside of that provision. So bring out the lawyers!!
Going further down the rabbit hole I came across the story of a commissioned work that didn’t turn out so good for anyone. That being the sculpture Portlandia in Portland Oregon. The sculpture was created to be an icon for the city but because it was not contracted as a work for hire, the artist Raymond Kaskey slapped a multitude of restrictions on the use of the image of his creation. What was to be a destination piece of art and a source of income for the city, turned into an embarrassment and is now relegated to obscurity, literally, the city has planted 30′ high trees around the sculpture obscuring it’s view. And the artist, instead of being hailed as the great sculptor, is best known for being a jerk.
Mick Haensler
Higher Ground Media
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up