The Copyright thread...

[Bryce O]

So I need some advice here...

My business partner and I just shot a "pro-bono" music video out here in LA, just because we're new out here and are trying to build up a reel or whatever. The artist just applied for a copyright for "his cut" of the music video with ASCAP. Now my question is... Does he own the rights to that cut only? Or everything? And do we still retain the creators copyright to the all the footage shot in general? For example, could we tell them to take down the video (because it contains footage WE shot) if he tries to not credit our business or something? He's a cool guy and I don't think it would come to this... but it was just a question that came up in my head for the future...

I know there are allot of you guys here that deal with this stuff everyday... and I'm just starting to get into the business side of production. So any advice would be awesome... :thumbup1:

 

[Anthony Survant]

I am NOT qualified to respond to this question at all... So here's a question that came to my mind reading it:

Wouldn't the fine details come down to a contract signed by all parties involved? Did you all write up a contract concerning the group effort and who owns what?

 

[Bryce O]

I am NOT qualified to respond to this question at all... So here's a question that came to my mind reading it:

Wouldn't the fine details come down to a contract signed by all parties involved? Did you all write up a contract concerning the group effort and who owns what?

No. Actually I was just about to re-edit my original post to include that.

No contract was signed for anything. We didn't use permits for any locations and it was mostly gorilla style.

I just can't find any information about this "gray area" that on the web or forums. The only reason we would ever need to tell him to take it down, is because the director we used has his own "production company" and might try to claim that they produced it. Which is false. It was shot on our equipment, edited with our facilities, on our dime. So all I have gathered is that since is no contract, the ownership of the "footage" would still be ours... and only that "specific cut" he submitted to ASCAP would be his copyright.

 

[Sam Eilertsen]

As I understand it, unless you had signed an agreement designating the video a "work for hire", then if you directed or shot the film you own the images. If he contributed to the film in a manner that was "inextricable" then he shares copyright with you, and both of you have the right to use it without the other's permission. However, I think that if his contribution was creating the song, and then editing, then you have an onion peel situation where he owns the song, you own the images, and he owns the edit, so he can't publish his edit without your permission to use the footage but you can't publish the footage if it contains his song without his permission, so neither of you can do anything without the other.

These kind of things should always be put in writing before hand, even if they are "pro bono".

 

[Sam Eilertsen]

I just can't find any information about this "gray area" that on the web or forums. The only reason we would ever need to tell him to take it down, is because the director we used has his own "production company" and might try to claim that they produced it. Which is false. It was shot on our equipment, edited with our facilities, on our dime. So all I have gathered is that since is no contract, the ownership of the "footage" would still be ours... and only that "specific cut" he submitted to ASCAP would be his copyright.

I think the director is typically considered the author of a film, although as DP you may share ownership of the footage. The law doesn't say anything about who owned equipment or facilities used, its only artistic authorship that matters. You could steal someone's camera and use it to shoot a video and you would still have rights to the video.

 

[Gavin Greenwalt]

Yeah it's my understanding that unless you owned a location shot on and you don't appear in the video and you weren't an integral creative force behind the film--copyright goes to the artist. You effectively rented "for free" your equipment. Panavision doesn't own the rights to any films shot on their equipment.

It could be considered an implicit case of "work for hire" though but considering how stringent 'Work for Hire' laws are unless there was at least a verbal agreement that you were hiring him to shoot something for you the default would be to the 'artist'.

 

[Bryce O]

Yeah it's my understanding that unless you owned a location shot on and you don't appear in the video and you weren't an integral creative force behind the film--copyright goes to the artist.

Well, we defiantly were. The style of the shots are undeniably ours. We blocked/chose most of the shots, lenses, frame-rates, ect... the director was mostly just dealing with the artist, since his English is limited and the song is in Spanish, which neither of us speak... otherwise I would have directed it. Oh yea, he also called "action"... can't forget about that. :rolleyes5:

Never again will I let someone else direct something I'm doing pro-bono... what a stupid decision. I guess I'll just chalk this one up with "learning experience" and never let it happen again...

Thanks for all the responses so far though. Any input is greatly appreciated. :smiley:

 

[Robert Frank]

So your saying that you co-produced it?

 

[Bryce O]

So your saying that you co-produced it?

Yes, defiantly... We even made sure we got the Executive Producer credits since, technically, our time and business we donated would have been the most costly part of the production if they had to pay for it... (making us the primary financiers) and we worked with them to decide what was technically feasible in the time frame.

 

[Meryem Ersoz]

Never again will I let someone else direct something I'm doing pro-bono... what a stupid decision. I guess I'll just chalk this one up with "learning experience" and never let it happen again...

Did you get the footage for your reel? If that was the deal, then you got what you traded for. That was the agreement, wasn't it?

If you wanted more, you should have been clear at the beginning.

Rule #1 - it is never really about what the other guy is doing...it is always about how you are handling yourself.

 

[Robert Frank]

For the record, I'm not a lawyer, and therefore not qualified to give legal advice.

But in my experience if you co-produced it that renders the "work for hire" aspect null. In my opinion it sounds like you own or possibly co-own the raw footage and are entitled to protect your ownership, and use of the footage.

 

[Bryce O]

Did you get the footage for your reel? If that was the deal, then you got what you traded for. That was the agreement, wasn't it?

If you wanted more, you should have been clear at the beginning.

Rule #1 - it is never really about what the other guy is doing...it is always about how you are handling yourself.

Of course. We told them that we needed it for our reel and to promote our production company... our logo is at the end and they were cool with that.

They're all cool guys and there was never any animosity or anything on set... I'm just trying to figure out where we stand legally with ownership and such, for this project and others in the future.

 

[D Fuller]

Yeah it's my understanding that unless you owned a location shot on and you don't appear in the video and you weren't an integral creative force behind the film--copyright goes to the artist. You effectively rented "for free" your equipment. Panavision doesn't own the rights to any films shot on their equipment.

It could be considered an implicit case of "work for hire" though but considering how stringent 'Work for Hire' laws are unless there was at least a verbal agreement that you were hiring him to shoot something for you the default would be to the 'artist'.

There is no such thing as "implicit" work for hire. Work for hire is, by law, a concept that must be explicitly agreed to in a written agreement to be in force. A little light reading on the subject.

 

[D Fuller]

I think the director is typically considered the author of a film, although as DP you may share ownership of the footage. The law doesn't say anything about who owned equipment or facilities used, its only artistic authorship that matters. You could steal someone's camera and use it to shoot a video and you would still have rights to the video.

Without an work made for hire agreement in place, ownership is fragmented. If you shot the footage, you own the footage. But you don't necessarily own the rights to use the performances or the music.

Similarly, without your consent, the edit of the film can't be shown, because while the director owns the edit, he does not own rights to show the images he has edited. (This is exactly why the work for hire concept was created.)

This is a case where all the interested parties need to get together and hammer out an agreement, or no one will have useful rights to anything. If there were any money involved, there would be a field day for lawyers, but it doesn't sound like that's the case. So my advice is to get everybody together and work out an agreement that lets everybody get what they need out of the project.

(And for what it's worth, the production company is usually considered the author of a film, because they usually hire the director.)

 

[Bryce O]

There is no such thing as "implicit" work for hire. Work for hire is, by law, a concept that must be explicitly agreed to in a written agreement to be in force. A little light reading on the subject.

This was a great read... Just what I was looking for. Thanks!

 

[Gavin Greenwalt]

There is no such thing as "implicit" work for hire. Work for hire is, by law, a concept that must be explicitly agreed to in a written agreement to be in force. A little light reading on the subject.

d (2) there is a written agreement between the parties specifying that the work is a work made for hire.

Good to know. I guess verbal contracts aren't valid when it comes to work-for-hire.

 

[Marc Wielage]

The artist just applied for a copyright for "his cut" of the music video with ASCAP. Now my question is... Does he own the rights to that cut only? Or everything?

ASCAP only deals with music publishing, not videos per se. My advice would be to get a lawyer, specifically one who speaks Spanish, and see if they can hammer out a very simple contract giving you the rights to the picture, or the ability to sell them for a negotiable fee to the artist.

 

[Tim Hole]

One thing you should realise about law is nothing is black and white and everything can be argued, especially if there is no written agreement in anyway. You were paid to do a job (even working for free an agreement is usually drawn up that is payment by 'peppercorn' - legal term for nominal fee which is recommended even if its $5). This is considered as work for hire. The usual understanding that they own the rights to the footage and finished product once payment has been made. You retain the rights for your business use but not for commercial use.

Even just the simplist of agreements should be signed even between friends. Its just part of the process. I would recommend you get used to it, especially if you want to start working on bigger projects.

Cheers.