|
|
Posted by Steve Guidry on 07/16/06 22:46
That "give the client a license" and I own the masters would be a recipe
for disaster for me. My competitors would crucify me with it.
I've always been amazed that clients go along with this horseshit from still
photographers. But I guess it's a good gig if you can get it . . .
Steve
"Steve House" <filmmaker.remove@this.cogeco.ca> wrote in message
news:mjakb2tdhpct5fju0dc88o7m5bjab2cis0@4ax.com...
> Still photographers in advertising and editorial work deal with this
> sort of issue all the time and the ASMP has some excellent guidelines
> for common practices that I think video folks would be well advisewd
> to imitate. Unless you are the client's regular employee shooting as
> part of your regular job (a studio cameraman, for example) or have a
> written agreement stating that your shoot is a "work for hire" you own
> the copyright to the images/footage. What the client gets for the fee
> he's paid you is a license to use the images but he doesn't own
> copyright unless you transfer copywrite to him in writing. What you
> might think about for the future is to follow the still photog's model
> and use a written contract that specifys the exact terms of the
> license you're granting - ie, the footage can be used for a period of
> 6 months in TV commercials in North America only - use in Europe or
> for movie theatres would require an additional license fee. Or triple
> your rates, make it a work for hire contract and give the rights over
> to your client.
>
> That being said, I'm not so sure that your client is being so
> unreasonable in asking you for the footage for someone else to edit
> into the finished product. I wouldn't turn over the camera original
> but a digital copy is an exact duplicate and providing him with a
> duplicate of the originals wouldn't be out of line. It all hinges on
> whether your hiring agreement with him was to shoot video of his
> product or to produce a completed presentation or commercial ready for
> release. You may have thought he was asking you to do the latter
> while he thought he was asking you to do the former.
>
> On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 14:30:39 GMT, pduck <pduck.nojunk@sbcglobal.net>
> wrote:
>
> ...snip...
>>
>>I did a little more research and found that the original content is
>>owned by whoever creates it, not who pays for it (unless the creator is
>>an employee or it is spelled out in a contract). Read this article for
>>more detailed info:
>>
>>http://www.digitaljuice.com/magazine/articles/2006_034_vtx.asp
>>
>>That doesn't make things easier for me. It's like having the right of
>>way when a bus is coming at you - you may be right, but you're going to
>>lose in the end.
>>
>>I just don't see any way I can win in this. I'm thinking about giving
>>them permission to use the footage on a one time basis, with the
>>understanding that they will need to pay in the future.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|