I’m not sure he can make any profit supplying it to the Court, Bob, except for incidental costs for, say, the drives to copy it off on, and his labor for that.
If it was a work for hire situation, the construction company still has “dibs” on the material, and thus their lawyers do as well. They’ll have to provide copies to the prosecution during the discovery phase of the trial, unless the government directly subpoenas the materials themselves. NTSB, DOT, FBI and Florida and federal Attorneys General might do that.
If it’s not a work for hire, he owns that raw material, but it’s a catch-22 that he can’t re-purpose it without the former client’s okay. He can own it, but he can’t distribute, as I understand it. But even if he was able, I’m guessing morally he’d be opposed to making a profit selling the footage to people sensationalizing the tragedy.
If it’s not a work for hire situation, he may be in the same kind of position as Flagler in Walmart v. Flagler.
Flagler was the “in-house” video production arm for Walmart Corporate, on a retainer, and had a lot of candid, embarrassing material gleaned over years of working with Walmart on various projects. Walmart decided to screw Flagler and change to a cheaper vendor – which is standard Walmart business policy.
Walmart’s lawyers were sloppy and a court ruled Flagler wasn’t contractually bound to turn over all that material when Walmart ended the relationship. They’d bullied Flagler and offered Flagler a pittance to own and destroy the library. Had they paid real money, they’d have got all of the compromising material back. As it was, Flagler was able to prove he had rights to his materials, and he monetized them by allowing lawyers for various organizations to access the footage library for “legal research”. A number of follow-on cases for damages against Walmart ensued.
The moral of the story, I guess, Is: Don’t be a %6$& to your subcontractors.