-
Owning the raw footage
-
This issue has been argued over and over in this forum. I’ve said many times that people can and should choose how to handle this how they see fit and either method is fine. But what angers people is when folks suggest that it’s unethical or bad business to take advantage of what the law allows.
I don’t care what still photographers do either. But if I spend hours doing concepting, hours doing location scouts, hours doing pre-visualization and storyboards, then hours setting up, lighting and blocking shots for a production, it certainly has potential value to me.
It is NOT bad business to retain ownership of the raw footage and files. It’s simply a choice. If it’s spelled out, UP FRONT in a contract, it’s a complete non-issue. We’ve never once had a client object. Only one agency has ever asked for ownership prior to a project. They then took our footage, graphics, After Effects comps etc. for a campaign, and asked the local cable company to “recreate” it all so they wouldn’t have to pay our rates. The campaign ran for months with new spots coming out every couple weeks from footage we shot and using graphics and design we created.
They even submitted it in the Addy awards giving credit to the cable company for the photography, design and effects! So you’re telling me that in that case it was “good business” to turn over all the footage and project files to the client?
We’ll certainly turn over footage if the client requests it and they’re paid up. We also have no problem signing over ownership if the client requests it prior to a shoot, but almost none do.
But we and thousands of other production companies are within our rights to keep ownership of the footage and media and charge a license fee for it’s use in productions outside the scope of the original production. That’s not bad business, it’s just a choice. It doesn’t anger clients and in fact as I’ve said over and over, it’s virtually a non-issue until you get a client that’s trying to screw you over.
Chris Blair
Magnetic Image, Inc.
Evansville, IN
http://www.videomi.com -
We, too, retain ownership rights to footage, which is spelled out in clients’ contracts, and has never once been a problem.
The issue is simple finance… shoots have tons of overhead, edits don’t have too much. Ergo we don’t make much money on shooting (sometimes it’s even a loss), but we do it to get the edit jobs where we do make money and are much more highly lucrative than shooting.
Sometimes we are booked for “shoot only” gigs… most often by out of town producers who are coming in for something and just need a local crew… rather than a complete project produced like we usually do. For those, yep we hand them the footage as the leave and they are free to do with it as they like. But for those guys, the hourly shoot rate is quite a bit higher than it is for the usual projects where we know we are getting the post gig, too.
Right now upstairs my senior editor is cutting a non-broadcast video for a municipal client… sort of a “State of the City” video. They don’t have much of a budget, so it is using tons of recycled footage from numerous shoots over the past few years. If we hadn’t retained ownership of the footage and blanket releases for everyone appearing in it, we wouldn’t be able to use any of it.
T2
__________________________________
Todd Terry
Creative Director
Fantastic Plastic Entertainment, Inc.
fantasticplastic.com
-
[Chris Blair] “Only one agency has ever asked for ownership prior to a project. They then took our footage, graphics, After Effects comps etc.”
I said raw footage. I did NOT say your project files. We do not turn over our project files without a significant payment. The Project Files are your artistic work for which you are being paid.
The raw footage exists on a physical tape that was paid for by the client.
Big difference.
Walter Biscardi, Jr.
Editor, Colorist, Director, Writer, Consultant, Author.
HD Post and Production
Biscardi Creative Media“Foul Water, Fiery Serpent” now in Post.
Creative Cow Forum Host:
Apple Final Cut Pro, Apple Motion, Apple Color, AJA Kona, Business & Marketing, Maxx Digital. -
Walter Biscardi: The raw footage exists on a physical tape that was paid for by the client.
I usually agree with just about everything you post Walter…but the media it’s placed on and whether you charged for that media is irrelevant according to all the media law books and primers out there.
I’m just not sure where this got started. It’s like saying a client owns a photographer’s images because he charged them for the film or digital media he used…or a big music company owns rights to a song because they paid for the digital media it’s recorded on.
It cost you money to buy the tape or digital media or hard drive and it’s ok to charge the client for that cost. There’s no magical ownership that’s transferred if you do that. I’ve read and re-read the intellectual property rights law (you can find it online), and read and re-read books written about this law by intellectual property lawyers who try to break it down in simple terms, and this issue of “who paid for the media” is just never discussed.
Bottom line on this issue is it’s a personal business choice, and going down either route is ethical, and either route can work for your business model.
Chris Blair
Magnetic Image, Inc.
Evansville, IN
http://www.videomi.com -
[Chris Blair] “It cost you money to buy the tape or digital media or hard drive and it’s ok to charge the client for that cost.”
One twist on that (irrespective to rights ownership) is dubs. On our invoices, we don’t charge for dubs. We do, however, charge for dubbing service. And all the dubs we send out have a tiny disclaimer on the label that says “This videotape remains property of Fantastic Plastic and must be returned upon request.”
Why do we do that? That way, we are not selling anyone dubs… ergo, then we do not have to charge sales tax on them. A colleague at another production company in town (one that does charge sales tax on tapes) said that we were doing it wrong, and would eventually “get bit” by the practice.
However, during a routine audit a couple of years ago… state, county, and city tax auditors all agreed that what we were doing was correct and legal. (They did, however, stick us for a bunch of sales tax on out-of-state internet equipment purchases… grrr).
Of course, we don’t really want the tapes back. Yet about twice a year UPS delivers a big box from some television station (I think it’s one in North Carolina) full of old Betas. I finally told them they can walk them straight to the dumpster and cut out the middle man.
If it makes any different to how you feel about rights ownership… don’t charge ’em for the tape. Just eat the cost. That’s nickles and dimes compared to the whole production cost.
T2
__________________________________
Todd Terry
Creative Director
Fantastic Plastic Entertainment, Inc.
fantasticplastic.com
-
-
Tim Wilson, I finally found a thread I’m halfway qualified to answer, and you’ve already answered it better than I would. That’s what I get for sleeping at night. 😉
I wish more people would take advantage of video that they – as taxpayers – have already funded. I went over your posts and pretty much second it. There are just a couple of thoughts to add…
Some video, while not classified as “secret” or export controlled, may still be considered proprietary. For instance, when NASA partners with a contractor to develop certain technology, there are times when the outside company retains rights to a segment of the intellectual property. It depends on the partnership agreement.
Second, even if you acquire rights to “public domain” footage, there may be strings attached. For instance, you may very well be able to use an image of a space shuttle launch, or an astronaut walking in space for a corporate video – maybe even in a commercial venture. But be careful. When using NASA footage, you aren’t allowed to use NASA imagery in ways that implies that NASA (or for that matter, the U.S. Government) endorses your product or cause. The NASA logo also has very specific guidelines in how it can be used – even within the agency – and especially by outside organizations.
Also people depicted in the imagery still generally own the right to assign rights to their own likeness. So, you can’t simply pop some video of a recognizable astronaut smiling in your video without any thought of consequences. I’m just sayin’…
-
Since we are on the topic you can get access to DOD footage from DVIC.
https://www.defenseimagery.mil/index.html
If you want you can walk into their riverside CA facilities and dub the tapes yourself.
Emre Tufekci
http://www.productionpit.com -
[Timothy J. Allen] “, there are times when the outside company retains rights to a segment of the intellectual property. It depends on the partnership agreement.”
I mostly focused on things that we do in our end of the business, but yeah, stuff like software remains almost entirely in the hands of the contractor.
[Timothy J. Allen] “When using NASA footage, you aren’t allowed to use NASA imagery in ways that implies that NASA (or for that matter, the U.S. Government) endorses your product or cause. The NASA logo also has very specific guidelines”
I started to go there, but I figured you’d be better to deal with the NASA part. 🙂
Funny story about logos – when I asked for them, most of the agencies I dealt with gave me scans of their business cards!
tw
-
[walter biscardi] “The Project Files are your artistic work for which you are being paid.”
I might suggest that for many producers the raw footage is also their artistic work, which is perhaps where the issue arises. Clearly there can be circumstances where all footage must and should belong to the client (best reflected in contract) and circumstances where it will be more the work and under the ownership and control of the producer (again, best reflected in contract.)
Even though the producer in law probably normally owns the raw footage, clearly the client has an implied right to the use of that footage in their project, and common sense and courtesy would indicate care in any planned alternate or additional use of the footage – it could clearly cause a great deal of upset to a client in some circumstances.
But circumstances will vary. If a client pays for a sequence to be designed, constructed and filmed, reuse of that footage would seem problematic. But suppose the client pays for a few shots in a location that you see a use for in multiple projects; you undertake a lengthier filming trip (quite possibly not loading all costs into one project) and film far more material than you could ever use in the one project. Why, then, would you want to see all of that footage, – physical material and rights to use – transfer to one client …?
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up