Chris Blair
Forum Replies Created
-
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 -
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 -
Steve Wargo: However, if you record the images and sound on your media, do they have the rights to that media?
If you’re referring to the notion that if they paid for the tape, they own what’s on it…that too is a myth. Using the photography analogy…they also shoot on media, be it film or a digital card or a hard drive. Most photogs I know build the cost of those devices into their shoots. That doesn’t magically give ownership of the content on that media to the client.
Again…any issues can be resolved by putting one sentence in your contracts stating that you own the footage. Other points to consider:
1. The issue will come up so rarely in most businesses that it’s almost a non-issue anyway.
2. The potential financial gain is so small that again, it has little worth from a financial standpoint.
3. About the only reason to keep ownership is for leverage. Same as you shouldn’t release a finished video until you’re paid for it, keeping the raw footage gives you SOME leverage should you have payment problems with a client.
Chris Blair
Magnetic Image, Inc.
Evansville, IN
http://www.videomi.com -
Tim Wilson: The People paid for the footage, and they can do with it whatever they wish. It’s the law of the land.
This has been dissected and discussed a bunch of times and in the absence of a contract stating specifically that the paying party owns the footage, this just isn’t true.
There are numerous books on media law written by intellectual property lawyers that spell this fact out.
Just because somebody pays for a video to be produced, it doesn’t automatically give them the rights to the raw footage. Still photographers use this law to their advantage all the time. They shoot photos for a client, they license specific images for a print piece or an ad, but they retain ownership of all the images and if the client wants to use a previously licensed photo for a different print piece, they pay another license fee.
The law if no different for moving pictures.
Now even with that said, as Tim points out, depending on the project and client there’s sometimes little advantage in enforcing this policy.
But I’ll give you an example of one where it was worth it. I have a colleague who shot video of Kenneth Lay (he of Enron fame) marching all through their Houston offices talking openly about how their company worked. The video was for a sales video. Lay boasted about their operations, their weather forecasters (who predicted weather patterns so Enron could move surplus energy to places that needed it in cold or hot weather) and went on and on about all kinds of operatoinal stuff. Enron didn’t have a contract stating they owned the footage and it was never an issue as the guy delivered the edited sales video and life went on.
Fast forward to the Enron collapse. Frontline or Nova or one of those news magazineS on PBS does an hour on the Enron scandal. They get their hands on the sales video and want the raw footage of Lay so they can show he knew ALL ABOUT the operational stuff at Enron when he was claiming that he didn’t.
They contact this guy, make him a fairly generous offer and he sells them the footage. Lay’s attorney’s object and threaten him, but guess what? They have no recourse. They didn’t have a contract showing they stipulated ownership of the raw footage, only one that showed the contracted to have a sales video produced, which the guy produced and delivered.
Intellectual property rights can get pretty complex but bottom line, it’s rarely an issue anyway. If you don’t want it to be one, put a line in your contracts stating you own the raw footage. You’re well within your rights to do so. If a client objects…so be it. Give them ownership in the contract and move on with the project. The changes of you making money from the footage are slim. The best reason to keep ownership is that it might give you leverage in getting paid someday.
Chris Blair
Magnetic Image, Inc.
Evansville, IN
http://www.videomi.com -
We’ve found that many of the local stations and cable systems use Telestream products, from Telestream Episode Engine to Telestream Pipeline and all manner of versions in between.
Telestream makes GREAT products but what most of the people we’ve dealt with do is use a preset and watch folders. What happens is the file is either uploaded via FTP to a folder. Once it’s there, Telestream’s software looks at the file, determines it’s parameters, then encodes it to the station or cable system’s predetermined preset. People are not involved. The spot is then automatically routed to the appropriate server ready for air.
Let me repeat…people are not involved. NOBODY looks at the spot before it airs! So even if you give them a spot that’s in the EXACT same format and uses the EXACT same settings that their playout server requires, your file most likely gets recompressed.
What we’ve found happens quite often is that this generic system often examines files and makes mistakes. So it will look at a file that’s shot at 24P with pulldown, determine that it’s 60i, then for some reason reverse the fields in the encoded file. So you end up with video with epilepsy inducing motion judder. They’re hard to watch. Our local cable company gets promos from their national arm (which appear to either be shot of film or shot with 24P video) and consistently the fields are reversed when they air. They’ll run that way for months, heck years! I’ve complained about the problem with our spots and worked with their engineering staff repeatedly but the problem never goes away.
One of the local affiliates has the same system and has the exact same problem. Weirder still, the problem doesn’t occur on 60i or 30p projects.
I finally contacted Telestream, who was VERY helpful and responsive. They had me send them our file and determined that the station and cable system were reversing the fields and suggested I reverse the fields when I encoded it to fix the issue. The problem with there is that we’d have to output one file for these two stations, and another for the other 4 or 5 in our market, which is a recipe for disaster.
Telestream then gave me a fix to suggest to the stations, which was placing a filter in the “source” bin, which would make more calculations about the fields before determining how to encode the video to the target file. I suggested this to the stations, but only one person at both places was even allowed into the system to make changes, and you guessed it, they were unwilling to make changes to their system.
So moral to the story? We give these folks betaSP dubs when we have a spot that originated in 24P. They still get compressed a ton, but at least they get the field order right.
What I think is unacceptable is that NOBODY looks at the spots at any point in their preparation to go on the air. So you can provide a pristine product either on tape or in a compressed file, but there’s simply little chance it will look the way it’s supposed to when it airs.
Chris Blair
Magnetic Image, Inc.
Evansville, IN
http://www.videomi.com -
Todd,
I responded in the compression forum.
Chris Blair
Magnetic Image, Inc.
Evansville, IN
http://www.videomi.com -
Todd,
If they’re like every other local station and cable company that we deal with, they’re probably recompressing the file on their end. Like you, we’ve done test after test with local stations and cable outfits. We agree on a file type and settings. Said file looks beautiful here on our monitors, even after it’s reimported and recompressed back into our edit system (VelocityQ or Blackmagic/Premiere CS3).
We see the spot air and it looks like dog poop. We call the offending station/cable company. Noboby knows nothing. We dig and dig and dig and FINALLY find someone who knows something, and sure enough the spot has been recompressed for their playback server (even though it was already compatible).
Call them and find out what they’re doing to the spot. But good luck in getting them to take what you actually give them and air it “as is.”
Chris Blair
Magnetic Image, Inc.
Evansville, IN
http://www.videomi.com -
In addition to what everyone else posted…one way I got jobs when I was freelancing back in the early 90s was to offer to learn a facility’s editing system for free. Most of the time I would offer to edit a real, short-form project for them because I felt like I learn best when I have to figure something out for a real project.
Not one company turned me down. Every company eventually hired me to do work. A couple even paid me for the work I offered to do for free because I did the job well. As an experienced person you might think this is a crazy way to get work, but the key is to get your face and skills and attitude in front of people. I’d argue it’s easier to spend 8 hours editing for no pay to prove yourself than it is to spend countless hours making calls, sending emails, trying to get past receptionists etc…ALSO for no pay.
Of course you have to have some experience and a solid reel for this to work. Nobody is going to bring someone in that doesn’t have some skills and let them “learn on the job.”
Chris Blair
Magnetic Image, Inc.
Evansville, IN
http://www.videomi.com -
I spent several years freelancing back in the early 90s and now own a facility (14 years). I for one don’t mind a phone call from someone with a follow up of a solid reel and resume.
But what got me a lot of gigs when I was freelancing was offering to come in and work for a half-day or day on their editing system to learn how their facility works. Even if you go into an Avid based facility and most of your experience is on Avid, their workflow, storage, naming conventions etc. will be different than other places you’ve worked.
What I would usually do is offer to edit a real short-form, non-deadline type project for a client for free. If they liked my work, liked my attitude, and if I could quickly learn their system, they hired me at my regular rate from there on out.
I know as an experienced editor you might be saying, “no way.” But every single company I made that offer to ended up using me as a paid freelancer. I doubt seriously they do that if I don’t come in and show them I know what I’m doing.
I hire people more than just for talent. I hire them for their attitude, their ability to get along with everyone else in the office, their ability to understand and adhere to our way of doing things, and probably most important, their ability to take constructive criticism and make changes.
You’d be surprised how many freelancers I’ve worked with who will argue about how to do something on their first gig. I’ve been doing this for 25 years, and while I realize there are dozens of ways of doing things both on shoots and edits, the owners are ultimately the ones responsible to their clients, so if they want something a certain way, that’s the way it needs to be.
Last thing I’ll say is be persistent but not annoying. Call the places you’d like to work every 4-6 weeks just to touch base. I actually appreciate that and when a job comes up, your name will be top of mind if I see you calling regularly.
Chris Blair
Magnetic Image, Inc.
Evansville, IN
http://www.videomi.com -
Nick Griffin: I would have sued or found some other way to let your entire ad community know that this agency is sleaze and that the Addy was won falsely. Also going forward I assume that you no longer give out scenes that weren’t used in the finished production. To state the obvious, it’s just an invitation to get screwed.
Nick,
It wasn’t worth suing over…especially in a fairly tight-knit advertising community…and don’t worry, everyone in the advertising community knows this agency is sleazy without us telling them.
As for not giving out scenes used in a finished production… sometimes agencies ask for the footage up-front as part of a contract to do the work. It’s pretty difficult to refuse if you want the work. I’m a big proponent of retaining copyright ownership of raw footage, but there are times when taking a potentially lucrative gig supercedes that. In this case, we took a gamble and got screwed. We don’t do any work with that agency anymore and people in the advertising and production community are well aware of what kind of company they run.
Sad thing is, many clients are not…and they continue to get screwed by this agency’s slick pitches. Once the client is corralled, they get virtually nothing from the agency that was promised, and leave as soon as the contract is up.
We believe they’ll get what’s coming to them….only problem is, they’ve been doing business this way for almost 20 years! I guess justice is sometimes slow in coming!
Chris Blair
Magnetic Image, Inc.
Evansville, IN
http://www.videomi.com