Raw Footage, No Contract, No Deal

[Craig Seeman]

I am not a lawyer and no one here can even evaluate whether the details you posted are accurate but if there’s no contract and you received no payment then I can’t imagine anything resembling even a legal verbal business agreement took place. You may not be able to use the footage but it doesn’t sound like he owns it.

Of course people can sue for pointless reasons. You may want to speak to a lawyer but if no papers have been served there’s no law suit either at this point.

As a side note I wonder at what point do his calls become harassment as well as some other legal thresholds he may be crossing.

So he claims to be a religious man?

You indicate you know the rule now. No contract no work. Nothing gets handed over without payment.

[Dominique Lee]

I was paid. And I never agreed to giving him master raw footage. But I’m thinking along the terms of “Okay you gave me money to make a video for you, what? Do you want the camera too because I used them to film you?” I wouldn’t use the footage for anything else but he definitely could if he is given ALL B-roll, every take, everything. And not even put my name on it. I want to protect my art. My attorney is involved now..and I have three witnesses that can verify that I never agreed nor did he ask for the raw footage.

[Craig Seeman]

OK then the fight will likely be over whether it’s a “work for hire.” I believe generally the footage would be yours unless expressed explicitly otherwise but without a written contract it may come down to who is believed because they will likely argue that you verbally agreed to it.

[Mike Smith]

It’s good that you have legal cover.

As described, your contract / agreement does not include original footage, and you are under no obligation to deliver more than contracted unless you so wish. An extra fee might persuade you.

I think, too, that the point about harassment was a good one : phone calls at 1.00 a.m. about a business dispute fall out of the normal realm.

[Gary Hazen]

[Dominique Lee] “My attorney is involved now”
Why?

Once the lawyers get involved everybody loses except for the lawyers. I cannot imagine something on the source footage being so valuable as to warrant throwing huge piles of money at men in suits.

How much are you willing to spend in an effort to protect your art?
How much are they willing to spend in an effort to get a hold of some footage that may hold little value?

[Craig Seeman]

[Gary Hazen] “Once the lawyers get involved everybody loses except for the lawyers.”

They threatened to sue. Once THEY involve lawyers it is NOT wise to defend oneself without one.
Based on the above they did NOT offer to negotiated. They did NOT simply request the footage. They started with a thread early on. I suspect as part of his defense he’s including lawyer fees to be paid by the aggressor as well.

[Dominique Lee]

Between the 2nd & 3rd voicemail his “representation” contacted me. This person didn’t give me a name, a law firm…nothing. And he asked if I was an atheist. I felt that things were becoming personal and I didn’t have to talk to him anymore. I didn’t get my lawyer involved until I heard the next when I heard the 1am voicemail stating that this was his final warning to me ablnd I can’t withhold anything with his face on it. To me it’s like a photographer getting sued for their negatives. And this person has sued a director before. It sounds like a scam for free videos to me.

[Chris Tompkins]

I’ve always believed if a company (or someone) pays me to shoot something for them, they own the footage. They ahve paid for it.

I have handed over the raw footage on more then one occasion, most of the time no. However, I always charged a fee for the master tapes.
He paid you to shoot. You did. He wants the camera tapes.

Charge $15. a tape and give em to him.

Chris Tompkins
Video Atlanta LLC

[Craig Seeman]

[Chris Tompkins] “I’ve always believed if a company (or someone) pays me to shoot something for them, they own the footage. They ahve paid for it. “

But that’s no reason for others to use your business model. In the above case it seems the client severed a verbal agreement due to “religious” differences that may not have been a pre-requisit in the original agreement. There may have been no agreement to transfer the raw footage. He may have wanted to retain it for expected repeat business and therefore may have had no interest to offer the original footage. The severing of the relationship may well have changed the client’s expectations and demands from the original agreement. Dominique may have a reasonable expectation that the original verbal agreement would be maintained.

In short, there’s no reason to assume every job is simply a “one off” in which the client wants the original footage. Some people expect clients to be repeat and therefore don’t offer or give the original footage to the client.

[Andy Lewis]

If you do hand over the raw footage, is it possible to make sure they don’t use it with your name attached? You say you want to protect your brand. Would a written agreement along the lines of “I will give you the footage as long as my name is not associated with any use you make of it” be useful in court? I’m not a lawyer so this is a question rather than advice.

The tapes issue aside, I would suggest you start recording phone messages in case harrasment continues. from your account, it seems like you are dealing with people who are either cynically manipulative or mentally ill.