Music Video Advice

[Kristopher Colavecchio]

I was recently given the opportunity to shoot a music video for a rising artist in my area, the artist is currently unsigned but in the process of signing with a label, and I was just wondering who usually owns the rights to a music video for a situation such as this?

thank you for your help


- Kris Colavecchio

 

[NateWeaver]

Record labels, who are usually the ones paying for a video generally own the video when it's done. They also generally require delivery of all elements used to make the video.

In the case of an unsigned artist, I would think the party that invests the money would be most entitled to ownership. If that's the artist, then I'd request in a formal written agreement that you can use as you see fit for personal promotion, etc.

Usually these things are just done by handshakes, though. 8 years ago when all I was doing was videos like this it was just understood by the artist that I'd promote it as much as I could for myself, and they'd do likewise for themselves.

 

[Kristopher Colavecchio]

k that makes sense, thanks alot for the advice

- kris colavecchio

 

[Brandon Fraley]

Whoever is paying you for a music video gets the rights. You make it, they own it. When I buy a loaf of bread, the people who made it don't try to take the loaf back. I paid for it

 

[Jason Ing]

Whoever is paying you for a music video gets the rights. You make it, they own it. When I buy a loaf of bread, the people who made it don't try to take the loaf back. I paid for it

but it gets a little more complicated when it's someone else's meat and cheese and veggies...

j/k.

 

[Jeff Kilgroe]

Whoever is paying you for a music video gets the rights. You make it, they own it. When I buy a loaf of bread, the people who made it don't try to take the loaf back. I paid for it

No, not so. Under US Federal Copyright Law, you as a photographer or cinematographer own all rights to any images you create. Even if someone hires you to take pictures or movies, you still own them! This only changes if there is a legal contract in place that specifies ownership.

But it's rarely as cut and dry as that. Even if you don't have a written contract in place, a verbal agreement is enforceable by a court if there is enough to substantiate a claim and a logical deduction can be made. In other words, if you show up to shoot someone's wedding and they pay you with a check, which you deposit into your bank account, they have just substantiated their end of the agreement. They could take you to court and request that you hand over everything you shot because they paid you for it and have a canceled check and bank records confirming you put it in your account to show that they paid you for this. However, you can still claim your Copyright protection and only deliver edited, color corrected or retouched versions of what you shot.

First thing you do when anyone hires you to take a picture or shoot video, etc.. Is you have them sign a contract that spells out who owns what and what is given exchange for your services, money, how much, whatever. This is Business 101 and I'm continuously surprised at how many "pros" don't know or practice this.

In the case of the music video here, it's hard to say... The OP may own the rights to the footage shot, possibly the edited video as well, definitely if he also did that portion of the work. But if he was paid for it, then whoever paid him will also have a claim of some sort. Then there's the music. Was specific license ever granted to use the music for this video? If the artist signs with a label and no prior contracts are in place to grant rights to this music for a video, then the record label could deem that video to be infringing on their property.

In other words, Kris is out of luck... The best thing to do at this point is to talk with the artist and anyone else that may have been involved and try to iron out ownership before it's too late. Otherwise that record label could have their attorney deliver a cease and desist order that demands you remove the video from any web sites, youtube, etc.. where it may be on display. Otherwise, if you still have rights to the video portion and not the music, you can show it as a silent movie...

 

[Brandon Fraley]

Jeff, I didn't mean to imply that it was the law, but there's no doubt that what people expect, and it's reasonable. I suppose you could take on a job to shoot a music video, they guy pays you and doesn't think to bring up contracts, and then when he tries to show it on TV or sell it of a DVD, you could sue him. But that would obviously be a dick move. I was just explaining what it expected of someone when they're hired to do a music video. The expected agreement, regardless of the law, is I pay you and in return I get a music video do use how I want.

otherwise, yes, as usual, you are absolutely right

 

[Jeff Kilgroe]

Jeff, I didn't mean to imply that it was the law, but there's no doubt that what people expect, and it's reasonable.

I know. :biggrin: That's why I used the hypothetical wedding video example. If someone pays you for the work and there's no physical contract, they still by definition of the law (and common decency), are obligated to get something reasonable for what they paid.

I think in the case of this music video, it really comes down to the license on the music itself. If he doesn't have any rights granted for the music in his video, then he can't put the music over the top of his images.

 

[jimhare]

Sony always makes us sign contracts upfront saying they own EVERYTHING. At least we go in with our eyes open.

Doing a six RED shoot for them next week and will capture 18 hours of 4k.

I think I'll email them the R3Ds and see how they like it! :shiftyph34r: :shiftyph34r: :shiftyph34r:

Jim