-
How to deal with a problematic client
-
Tim Kolb:
I do understand that even though most of us do everything we do because we’re hired to do it, treating an end product as a ‘work for hire’ remains some special contractual circumstance. Does no one else see that as odd once they can set aside their own self-interest for a moment and look at it objectively?Ok…I’ll bite on this one too. Here’s an example of it NOT being as a special circumstance as you think. We occasionally work for crewing companies. Just recently one called with a job for Wal-Mart. Their contract specifically states that we’d be doing “work for hire” and specifically states that Wal-Mart owns the tapes, the footage on them and all rights to their use. It states further that we’re not to make a duplicate of the footage unless requested to do so by Wal-Mart.
Issue resolved with about two sentences of copy. Wal-Mart owns the tapes, footage and all rights. Done.
In fact, every job we’ve done for crewing companies is structured that way. Assignment Desk, Crew Connection, Crews Control and a few others all have this in their contracts with you. Why? Because they want you to hand the tapes over once you’re done shooting for them.
We also used to work with an Ad Agency that had virtually the exact same wording in their production contracts. When the shoot was done, we handed over tapes to them. If you wanted to do work for them, you had to agree to that provision. Again…issue resolved before production begins. And to answer a few other digs people have taken out there…the ad agency still used us to edit. But occasionally if we were booked and they needed an edit quickly, they’d go across town and edit.
We certainly don’t turn work down where people request ownership, and as I’ve stated we still occasionally give clients digital copies of footage (typically when they have a history of paying on-time), or if they have a bunch of projects they need done quickly or if we’re booked and can’t accomodate them. But we certainly wouldn’t hand those tapes over if they owed us $25,000 and were 4 months past due. If we did, what incentive would they have to pay their bill?
Chris Blair
Magnetic Image, Inc.
Evansville, IN
http://www.videomi.com -
[grinner hester] “It’s not a legal issue. It’s somly a matter if you wanna keep working with that client or not.
Totally up to you.
“Ultimately that is what it’s all about.
However, clients are always much more understanding if they’ve signed off on something than if they’ve have it sprung on them after the fact.
So, if you wish to own the copyright and control the tapes, rather than arguing about copyright law afterwards as so many here seem to want to do, simply specify it in writing in advance.
David Roth Weiss
Director/Editor
David Weiss Productions, Inc.
Los AngelesPOST-PRODUCTION WITHOUT THE USUAL INSANITY ™
A forum host of Creative COW’s Apple Final Cut Pro, Business & Marketing, and Indie Film & Documentary forums.
-
David Roth Weiss:
So, if you wish to own the copyright and control the tapes, rather than arguing about copyright law afterwards as so many here seem to want to do, simply specify it in writing in advance.Thank you David. That’s all any of us are saying that subscribe to the “we own the tapes” side of the issue. 99% of the time it’s a non-issue if ownership is specified up front. But believe me…you’ll be glad you have that right if you ever have a client try to skip out on a large bill. I just get frustrated on this and other forums when people post opinions as fact.
The information on this issue is readily available in books, online, and if you have a corporate attorney, through referrals to attorneys that specialize in copyright law. Copyright ownership is certainly not cut and dried on many projects, but you can be assured of at least joint-owership on just about any work you create for a client that uses original footage you shot and edited. Unless of course owership is requested by the client up front.
I’ve heard of companies that specify they own all materials created for a project until the project is paid for. That’s another option for people out there wanting financial protection, but subscribing to the “clients own the tapes” side of the issue. It gives you the leverage you might need to get paid, while still keeping you on the side of giving clients what they want.
Chris Blair
Magnetic Image, Inc.
Evansville, IN
http://www.videomi.com -
[Chris Blair] “That’s all any of us are saying that subscribe to the “we own the tapes” side of the issue.”
No, not everyone. Unfortunately, there are some who continue to believe that copyright law specifically supports a production company’s “automatic” right of ownership. Just watch, someone will surface to make that argument…
David Roth Weiss
Director/Editor
David Weiss Productions, Inc.
Los AngelesPOST-PRODUCTION WITHOUT THE USUAL INSANITY ™
A forum host of Creative COW’s Apple Final Cut Pro, Business & Marketing, and Indie Film & Documentary forums.
-
This of ” Hold the footage hostage” sounds horrible.
It makes me feel guilty for exercise what I think is my right.
Also seams like the only reason for somebody to keep the rushes is to force the client to go back to you the next job. The only thing that keep clients coming back are the jobs well made.
Is up to you to do whatever you want with the rushes but the clients must to know that “by default” the rights belong to the producer. When the client understood that, then you can customize the setting of your commercial relations:-)
Rafael -
Traditionally, still photographers have owned their negatives. In consulting with an entertainment law attorney, I was told that the production company owns the rights to the raw footage unless the contract states that it is a “work for hire.”
Bob
-
[Chris Blair] “I just get frustrated on this and other forums when people post opinions as fact.”
Well Chris, for the record, I’m in favor of any measure that ensures a client pays…so I have never advocated handing the stuff (for that matter, not the finished product either) to the client and giving up leverage.
Earlier in the thread, the slant was “shooter retains rights to the footage to keep client from travelling to a different vendor to edit”.
…that’s what Walter and I were reacting to. And keep in mind that we all know what the law says. No one has said it’s illegal for you to keep the rights…we differ on whether or not it ends up being overly-protective business policy. And in that vein, everything we’re all saying is strictly ‘opinion’.
TimK,
Director, Consultant
Kolb Productions, -
In my contracts I specifiy ownership. Client owns the footage and final project, they paid for it. I am allowed to use any of it that I want for demo or promotional purposes. I own any avid projects, ae or photoshop files, etc. If there is music licenses or items with time limits I let the client know about them and leave it at that.
I rarely had over master tapes, I’ve rarely been asked, but if I do I clone them first. Ther was one time where I cancelled a clients contract and sent them their shoot tapes with making copies since I intended to never work for them again.
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up