-
Kansas firm sells candid Wal-Mart videos
-
[Ron Lindeboom] “it be be a while before it all becomes crystal clear. “
And when the smoke clears and everyone goes home the corporate people won’t be remembering the outcome of who had legal ownership over who’s intellectual ideas or videotaped property. What they WILL remember is that a video production house tried, unsuccessfully or not, to screw over one of their clients. The corporations will now make sure that from this time forward all future dealings with “those types” better come with an iron clad agreement because after all, video people can’t be trusted.
One rotten apple……..
– Don
-
[Don Greening] “What they WILL remember is that a video production house tried, unsuccessfully or not, to screw over one of their clients. The corporations will now make sure that from this time forward all future dealings with “those types” better come with an iron clad agreement because after all, video people can’t be trusted. One rotten apple…”
A more probable outcome will be that most all video production for major or even mid- to large-sized corporations will go in-house, with all rights automatically retained by the company.
Another probable outcome will be that many companies will quit using smaller shops and will use agencies that have long track records of knowing where the lines are drawn and why things must be kept confidential, etc.
The “grown-ups” play like grown-ups and know that even implied covenants are there, exist, and need to be honored.
Some people want to treat business like a walk along a cliff with them seeing how close to the edge they can get without falling over and getting hurt. Me, I’d rather understand that when I work with a client, I am there as a part of their team and my duty is to to do the absolute best I can under the circumstances. I am not there to think in terms of: “Ah, did they cross every legal ‘t’ and dot every legal ‘i’ — if not, then ‘ah, ha!’ I have them by the groin!”
That is an insane way to do business.
Like you, Don, I think that this episode is going to have far farther reaching affect than some want to believe. As you postulate, humans forget the facts but the feelings have a way of embedding themselves in the sub-conscious. In the end, the erosion of trust and the lack of respect for people’s rights are far more serious issues than what the letter of the law may say — especially in a world where contracts seem to be made to be broken.
But hey, call me old fashioned. I once had a girlfriend who called me “…a 19th century moralist living in the 20th century.” In response I said, “thanks.” Today I have moved on to being a 19th century moralist living in the 21st century. Now that’s progress, baby!
Ron Lindeboom
-
[Ron Lindeboom] “I think that this episode is going to have far farther reaching affect than some want to believe. As you postulate, humans forget the facts but the feelings have a way of embedding themselves in the sub-conscious. In the end, the erosion of trust and the lack of respect for people’s rights are far more serious issues than what the letter of the law may say”
Don’t shut down the Cow just yet. I’ll bet ya the next news cycle will simply bury this and we”l be onto discussing NAB and what was and wasn’t there this year.
David Roth Weiss
Director/Editor
David Weiss Productions, Inc.
Los AngelesPOST-PRODUCTION WITHOUT THE USUAL INSANITY ™
A forum host of Creative COW’s Business & Marketing, and Indie Film & Documentary forums.
-
YouTube video and article:
https://asupremenewyorkthing.com/2008/04/09/flagler-productions-has-wal-mart-videos/
Made the Wall Street Journal:
https://blogs.wsj.com/independentstreet/2008/04/09/did-wal-mart-forget-the-little-guys/?mod=WSJBlog
Lots of comments after the article…
“Did Wal-Mart Forget the Little Guys?
Posted by Wendy Bounds
Never forget the little guys who help along you the way. That old adage is likely ringing in the ears of Wal-Mart execs this morning following Gary McWilliams’ story about how a tiny video-production company is giving the world’s biggest retailer a massive headache.
It’s the story of Flagler Productions Inc., a small firm who for 30 years was employed as to capture footage of its top execs, sometimes in unguarded moments. Its relationship was sealed with a handshake, not a long-winded contract. Two years ago, Wal-Mart dumped Flagler and nearly caused the shop to fold because it accounted for such a large portion of its business.
Now Flagler is resurrecting itself – by opening its trove of some 15,000 Wal-Mart tapes to the outside world, with an eye toward selling clips. And the material is proving irresistible to everyone from plaintiffs lawyers (and there is no shortage of those where Wal-Mart is concerned), to documentary filmmakers and union organizers. Wal-Mart is upset and says it never intended for Flagler to “tape internal meetings with this aftermarket in mind.” The company says it’s reviewing its legal options.
This isn’t the first time Wal-Mart has heard loud squeaks from a small cog in its wheel. Last year, it became embroiled in a messy fight with a security engineer it fired. And this story tells the tale of how a 20-year apparel supplier to Wal-Mart was singed over 4,000 pairs of cargo pants, fought back, and won.
The biggest players in the world can’t function without smaller ones to keep them supplied, technologically-sound, and otherwise ticking. To stay afloat, Flagler offered to sell Wal-Mart the whole video archive for several million dollars. Wal-Mart, whose revenue is now over $375 billion, countered with an offer of $500,000.
And the little guy hasn’t forgotten.
Readers, do you think Flagler is unfairly exploiting Wal-Mart’s material? Or do you think that Wal-Mart made a mistake in how it handled its relationship with Flagler?”
Randy
-
I loved the NAB battle here. I learned more than I ever knew about NAB. Enough that I won’t be going this year. Going to save my money and buy something I’ve really needed instead.
Robert
-
This company reminds me of someone wanting to rob a bank. Even if they did not have a written contract, they knew that Wal-Mart had not hired them to tape this for the world.
The fact that Sam Walton hired them on a handshake long ago speaks better of Sam Walton than it does of this company.
I don’t agree with Ron that all corporate video will go in-house or to agencies, but I do agree that it will make many corporations more cautious about video in the future.
Robert
-
I’ve found the comments posted by readers of the Wall Street article to be much more interesting than the article itself. One of the comments (there are many and varied) is from a “previous” Flagler employee.
– Don
-
Walmart’s likeliest tactic will be to say that while Flagler owns the tapes, he has no signed releases for anybody IN them. That means he can’t clear the footage for use in documentaries or etc. which reduces the potential for use of the footage anywhere but in academic studies and of course discovery phase of civil suits. With that rulingf they can get the YouTube showings removed as a DMCA violation and prevent junior Michael Moore’s from doing too much damage. Nobody still working or wanting to work for Walmart will sign a release to Flagler. And you can’t get a release from a dead man or his kin if they don’t want you to have it. I suppose a film maker could watch the tapes and re-create footage based on transcripts, but I’m still not sure he could use the actual words of the walmartians without a clearance. That’s a question for a real lawyer.
I doubt a judge would allow a presumption that since the people taped all worked for Walmart and gave consent to Walmart, that that consent automatically transfers to Flagler and his assigns and et. al. because I dont think the case law has too many examples of that as a precedent, rather more the opposite, I imagine. (and here is where I should stop pretending to be a lawyer, regardless of my hotel choice)
So maybe not quite the bonanza they thought at first. Still, do you think fifty grand is a fair offer on thirty year’s worth of stock footage that chronicles from the inside, the evolution and true workings of the biggest company ever?
I still think Walmart should be sacking a brace of their lawyers for getting them into this mess in the first place, plus the manager who wouldn’t approve whatever number Flagler counter-offered with. Only fools argue inside a burning building.
-
[Mark Suszko] “Still, do you think fifty grand is a fair offer on thirty year’s worth of stock footage that chronicles from the inside, the evolution and true workings of the biggest company ever?”
They offered him a half-million dollars but he wanted millions.
Ron Lindeboom
-
I’d have to say this would qualify as a breach of normal “best practices” for business relationships even though I am not a fan of Wal Mart in any way…
If they issued an invoice and got paid, it does imply some sort of work product is purchased, but of course if they can make the old “photographer owns the negatives and base rights” deal stick if there is no agreement about what exactly constitutes the deliverable that was paid for…they might survive legally. However, I suspect that the opinion stated here that they may survive the battle only to lose the war is correct.
Frankly, I suspect that Flagler would have done better financially if…
(after some serious time with some serious legal experts who could confirm ownership of the footage, or at least confirm it was completely in question…)
…they’d edited a little “greatest hits” video out of the archive and gone in and done a little sales presentation…if money was what they wanted, keeping the video from seeing the light of day would have been far more valuable to Wal Mart than mopping up after the dirty laundry is opened to the public.
It’s a tough deal for a production company that has clearly had all it’s eggs in one basket for a loooong time, which is a self-created peril anyway, made worse by a colossally petty and foolishly unprofessional stunt when the ride ended…
TimK,
Director, Consultant
Kolb Productions,CPO, Digieffects
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up