Rights.

[Matt Bai]

If a client pays you to film footage but specifies they are not buying rights, what right do you have to say how they use the footage?

What say/rights do you have at all if no contract?

 

[Glen David Miller]

Well, answers for issues like these are why contracts exist. And not having them is why problems exist.

If you don't have a contract, you don't have anything to stand on afterward.

If you have something to say to your client, have a meeting of the minds, and get a contract written.

 

[Craig Parkes]

Depends on your jurisdiction - in some jurisdictions courts presume works made on a 'work for hire' basis provide copyright to the hirer if not otherwise contracted, in others the presumption is that 'work for hire' is not sufficient to grant copyright and a separate contract is needed.

 

[Greg McDonald]

Depends on your jurisdiction - in some jurisdictions courts presume works made on a 'work for hire' basis provide copyright to the hirer if not otherwise contracted, in others the presumption is that 'work for hire' is not sufficient to grant copyright and a separate contract is needed.

Completely false in the U.S. In the U.S. the author of the image, the photographer or videographer (no legal distinction between still and motion), owns the copyright. The transfer of copyright must be made in writing, if there is nothing in writing then copyright hasn't been transferred. The term "work for hire" is a legal term that applies to copyright and means it's transferred to the hirer. Who pays for what has no legal bearing on who owns the copyright. Unless, of course, you put in your contract that the copyright transfers only after full payment is made but that would be your own personal terms and not U.S. copyright terms.

If there's nothing in writing that says either you worked as a "work for hire" or that you explicitly transfer the rights, then you own the copyright.

 

[Craig Parkes]

That's why I said depends on jurisdiction. In New Zealand (where I live) the reverse is assumed by the courts (for film / video production in particular).

The US has different and very specific/peculiar rules around photographic copyright as well (especially historical photos.)

 

[Wayne Morellini]

Same in engineering. A craftsman owns his IP, you own the product. Unfortunately this has transfered over to the situation where the product is actually the image you paid to make rather than just a copy of the image. Which is really wrong. In engineering, the situation is that the engineer uses a tool set of designs and design techniques they carry with them jib to job, so it is a little different, but if a person pays for a design for the purpose of mass production the Pierson paying should get the license automatically limited to production if that product, under whatever terms. You can see how complex these things get, instead they have unfair blanket rules based on outmoded practices involving no IP, from before there was patents even, and master servant relationships laws from master slaves. This is where the professional contractor law comes (where they are trying to bend it). The master craftsman was an equal, not servant, you hired under contract. As a equal, he had rights too, where a slave servant you own whatever they came up with in or out of work, including what work they could do (like if they could have a second job). You own the rights to their 24/7.
So, if working as a regular employee rather than under contract things change. I don't know what the current standard is ,as the laws have been changing in the last 25 years.