Who owns the work? Copyright in 2016

[Nick Morrison]

Exactly. The way I look at it, it's the clients money and it's theirs to mis-manage any way they see fit. As long as I got paid and get what I invoiced for, I am happy camper. If I got hired to do something, and I get paid, and they got their files, and they then decide to go with some new grad intern who will work for next to nothing and produce new grad type stuff -- as long as my company isn't listed on the final product. My view is, they sure did waste a lot of money on an exercise in futility and I am glad it wasn't my money.



It's usually rooted in the idea(s) behind "non-compete". It's common in creative industries. Should you do work on the side (or for yourself on your own) and it churns out money and/or any success - you can probably bet that the current employer is going to try to go after it based on the thinking (even if false!) that you stole ideas that you had access to while "on the job". This can be found all over the place -- even in media sales and research.

Exactly, in my industry this languge is becoming pretty common. In fact my old employeer used a payroll company that included this kind of language, so its affected me personally.

 

[Daniel Reed]

eh, I suspect many think of grading as magic and don't know what to ask for.

LGG is a good forum resource, but I wouldn't quote it, or base a debate over it.



I would never work with someone who outright refused to share project files.

This is a collaborative art form period


Frankly, this whole who-owns-what thread reads like a family feud between folks that aren't signing releases.

I assure you Bjorn, that you're in a minority as far as requiring color grading product files. There was a long discussion about it on more specialized site, dedicated to color grading- LGG and almost to a one, all colorists were in an agreement, that Resolve project files are not be made available.

 

[Wayne Morellini]

Truth

Truth

Hmm, very true, selfishness reigns when you listen to some groups. A selfish group telling you one thing is like listening to.a pack of wolves all saying they should eat your children, time to shoot the magicians. Self entitlement telling everybody else there self entitled around here again.

Professional groups were set up under Christian standards centuries ago, to protect the client and give clients confidence in its members. But of course many people without interest in Christian standards crept in like thieves in the night through the windows fireplaces cracks in the floor to use the organisations to their own ends instead. It is like in my own country professional organisations and industry groups are always demanding self regulation when out of control and the government wants to crack fismnon them and regulate their behaviour. When you hear this you laugh in dismay, as the real intent is to protect members from justice and to protect unjust practices. So listening to a bunch of selfish vested individuals without a big pinch of salt and a big filter, is not the way to go.

 

[Hugh Scully]

Who owns what depends on the agreement. That's it. If I am contracted to produce a finished video, that's the product. If they want all the footage, fine with me but that's a different deal and is not implied. It needs to be explicit. If I'm shooting for hire, it's in the deal in writing. They own it, they get it all, usually on the day.

No one has ever asked for project files. OMFs, yeah. I recently did a editing job that included an After Effects composition that I did based on an hourly rate. They paid for it. They didn't ask for the project files but I charged them for every hour. If they wanted it, I think I'd be obliged to hand over the project files as work for hire - common sense and fair. As it was I gave them a render without titles so that they could re-use it. They'll probably just give me the follow on work. At least I hope so.

On a side note, I shot a doc last year where it took the production way to long to pay me. To expedite it, I reminded them that since I hadn't been paid that I still hold the copyright. I got paid that week.

 

[Wayne Morellini]

We are talking legal terms under common and civil law here, the basic rights. The agreement has to modify them to change it, if it is allowed too (not overridden by the law) . Personally I think exploitive boiler plate clauses making out they can legally grant rights that are illegal too should be prosecuted as malpractice, and under the civil and criminal codes. It is alright if they are there niavly, or stated to apply where the jurisdiction allows, that is honest, but they ste usually there to immorally, unreasonably and/or illegally exploit the niave who think they must be valid.

Hugh, your common sense makes sense a lot, but it is the courts that defines what is common sense legally. So they define the acceptable common sense for us

 

[Wayne Morellini]

Law can he expliotative when weilded by big companies unfortunately. So your millennium copyright laws over rode a lot of common sense and previous satuatory provisions to suit big corporations over the end owners of copyrighted media. This leveraging keeps on going to get the desired result. One day they might find they want to reverse that decision as most profit can go off shore and the people exploiting the millennium law for increased profit are foreign. Even now, how many big explioters are foreign, or American companies that have their profits based in low tax jurisdictions, where the law merely increases the tax hemorrhaging out of the country.

Believe me, I sit down and think about all the things and draft up proper laws in my spare time. Unfortunately I have not been looking at copyright much in the last 15-25 years.

 

[Steve Sherrick]

One thing I haven't seen mentioned here or maybe I missed it if it was, but aside from talent, knowledge, and the right tools there is also the people skills part and that can go a long way to building relationships with clients. Who wants to spend any time in an edit suite for several hours a day with someone who is miserable and complains all day? Sure, people may put up with it if they know the end result will be amazing but it certainly helps to have the people side of the equation.

 

[Nick Morrison]

One thing I haven't seen mentioned here or maybe I missed it if it was, but aside from talent, knowledge, and the right tools there is also the people skills part and that can go a long way to building relationships with clients. Who wants to spend any time in an edit suite for several hours a day with someone who is miserable and complains all day? Sure, people may put up with it if they know the end result will be amazing but it certainly helps to have the people side of the equation.

Great, great point Steve. And certainly the most succesful technicians in my biz (ie the ones with their own shops) have been "PEOPLE" people, and client friendly!

 

[Stacey Spears]

I wish all software was free or below $100.

Software developers like to eat, have families and own homes too. I think it is great that companies offer educational versions of their software to learn on. Even have trial software so you can try before you buy. But if you are going to do commercial work, and expect to get paid for it, you should pay for the tools you used to create your work. I think what BlackMagic has done with the free copy of Resolve actually crosses the line. It hurts other software companies in the same field.

 

[Stacey Spears]

I've never seen a company claiming to own work you do in your spare time. The company doesn't own "you", it owns the work that you provide for them.

It is very common when working at companies like Google, Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, etc... Their employee agreement, that you must sign when hired, actually mentions that you need moonlighting agreements otherwise they own what you create in your free time. I had a moonlighting agreement when I worked for Microsoft that allowed me to create my calibration discs.

Pixar is really strict on moonlighting.

 

[Marc Wielage]

Hey guys, There is an interesting discussion brewing between Jake Blackstone and Bjorn Benckert and others sort of over who owns the work? Who owns the files, if you are a colorist, Motion graphics artist, editor, musician, cinematographer, etc, anyway you get the point.

This is a major bone of contention in the music mixing business and also in the sound business. If you pay for a mixer/editor/engineer to handle your sound work, do you get to keep the Pro Tools session files when you're done? Worse, if there's some kind of conflict or creative dispute, can the client legally ask for the session files and source files so they can move the entire job to another facility?

Generally, the traditional industry practice would be no. The client pays for the end result, not the technique and the means to get there. I would compare it to going to a restaurant: you pay for the meal, not for the recipes and a glimpse at how all the different dishes are prepared, seasoned, and cooked.

I think this is true for VFX, sound, and color. Editing might be a different situation, and I have been part of post situations where one editor was supplanted with multiple editors, or a schedule/dispute situation erupted that caused the client to have a legitimate reason for pulling the session over to another facility. In that case, I would argue that the show wasn't yet done, it was in a state of flux, so it's kind of hard to justify not cooperating with the producers unless there were money issues.

One other issue with colorists is that some tend to use very carefully-crafted premade looks and LUTs, and those might be considered proprietary. I wouldn't necessarily want to hand all those over to a stranger. In truth, I'm not sure what they can do with the session file, because after 3 or 4 years, I'm not convinced it could be converted to work with newer software.

BTW, I don't have a problem with a facility owning my files if I'm using their equipment and software. That's a lot different from a freelance project I do at my own office. Again, to use the restaurant analogy, that's no different than the kitchen knowing exactly what ingredients and equipment the chef is using to prepare the meals. The thinking behind the job is something only the artist owns.

 

[Marc Wielage]

It is very common when working at companies like Google, Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, etc... Their employee agreement, that you must sign when hired, actually mentions that you need moonlighting agreements otherwise they own what you create in your free time. I had a moonlighting agreement when I worked for Microsoft that allowed me to create my calibration discs.

I know when I worked at ILM, I had to sign a 14-page contract that basically said "we own every bit of the work you do for us, forever and ever, as well as anything you do relating to this project in your own time." Kodak had a similar iron-clad legal agreement. I know of employees at other large corporations who have crossed out sections regarding freelance projects, but stipulated that they wouldn't take anything proprietary, nor would they try to compete with their employer.

If a guy manufactures widgets on the side, but he works for a company that makes handkerchiefs, I don't see where one necessarily interferes with the other. There is a lot of cross-pollination in post-production, though, and I can see where a computer IT specialist who consults might potentially be in competing businesses with a post employer. I think this would have to be done on a case-by-case basis.

I can also say that at Technicolor, we had a fairly extensive contract we had to sign. Because some of the legacy employees (like myself) were not hired under that contract, we were put under pressure to sign the new one. I managed to never sign it, but it was a bone of contention for some people.

 

[Marc Wielage]

Pixar is really strict on moonlighting.

I would bet that the recent anti-trust decision against Pixar, Dreamworks, Apple, Disney, Blue Sky, and Imageworks will make them think twice on the extent of how far they can control what employees do in regards to outside work and future work:

http://www.cartoonbrew.com/law/judg...os-cant-evade-wage-fixing-lawsuit-118129.html

 

[David Battistella]

I like the restaurant analogy Marc. It makes a lot of sense.

If a chef is a creative you pay for the result, great restaurants don't hand you a recipe card and a "how I did it" (equivalent to a project file) after you pay the bill.  Many of the best restaurants I have been too won't even let you walk out with a menu!

 

[David Battistella]

Moonlighting is an interesting subject. People do it for money or out of creative expression, or booth. It probably means they aren't being challenged enough creatively or maybe not being well compensated. While Companies pay for the work they need done, it's a good indicator of workplace satisfaction too. If people aren't moonlighting then the work is satisfying both their creative and financial compensation needs.

But dont get me wrong I think once anyone has satisfied their obligation to who they are working for, they should be allowed to do whatever they want to do in order to get ahead or get to where they want to be. I'm not certain they need to be transparent about it because it could also be for career transition reasons as well.

 

[Wayne Morellini]

One thing I haven't seen mentioned here or maybe I missed it if it was, but aside from talent, knowledge, and the right tools there is also the people skills part and that can go a long way to building relationships with clients. Who wants to spend any time in an edit suite for several hours a day with someone who is miserable and complains all day? Sure, people may put up with it if they know the end result will be amazing but it certainly helps to have the people side of the equation.

So Steve, are you saying that all the people with there own shops produce crap? One if the big problems with docuenty, is people need to get over themselves and there emotions, that doesn't produce good work usually. I'm more worried that the guy actually doing the work is hspoy, rather than the thick head emotional person beside them. I'd gladly sit for 7 hours with somebody that could do it, as long as they didn't want to fight me or some other major issue (like being crappy). Great work of a certain type generally cones from people that drfintelt are not good people persons, charm in work tends to come from people with great perspective in people. It pays to have somebody that can do both, and that can produce the really great result. So if you are one or the other it pays to learn to be the other too, to tap in. People are welcome to message me if they would like to try to do that, but it provably is going to be slow over messaging.

Software developers like to eat, have families and own homes too. I think it is great that companies offer educational versions of their software to learn on. Even have trial software so you can try before you buy. But if you are going to do commercial work, and expect to get paid for it, you should pay for the tools you used to create your work. I think what BlackMagic has done with the free copy of Resolve actually crosses the line. It hurts other software companies in the same field.

I agree Stacey, but software developers also like to have Ferrari's, big multimillion doller mansions, easy street, on the back if your efforts. $100 dollers sounds good, even $200. Resolve can be retargeted as a delux editing workflows suite for all levels of cameras and phones (tens of millions a year) with a premium support line ($1 a minute with remote desktop) and training packages. And all those consumer editing packages can be sold for the $10 on line they are actually worth. So yes, they definitely can make a packet even at $100.

People that push free stuff get into the fantasy of freeware open source sometimes. But a lot of that good stuff is contributed too by companies commercially. It can be done a oacjage that is as good as Resolve and Avid etc products, but it requires a massive effort. The industry can fund such an effort and put an end to the mega products if they esbt, by industry, I mean the production industry, not the software industry obviously. So it is possible if somebody wants free software.

This is a major bone of contention in the music mixing business and also in the sound business. If you pay for a mixer/editor/engineer to handle your sound work, do you get to keep the Pro Tools session files when you're done? Worse, if there's some kind of conflict or creative dispute, can the client legally ask for the session files and source files so they can move the entire job to another facility?

Generally, the traditional industry practice would be no. The client pays for the end result, not the technique and the means to get there. I would compare it to going to a restaurant: you pay for the meal, not for the recipes and a glimpse at how all the different dishes are prepared, seasoned, and cooked.

I think this is true for VFX, sound, and color. Editing might be a different situation, and I have been part of post situations where one editor was supplanted with multiple editors, or a schedule/dispute situation erupted that caused the client to have a legitimate reason for pulling the session over to another facility. In that case, I would argue that the show wasn't yet done, it was in a state of flux, so it's kind of hard to justify not cooperating with the producers unless there were money issues.

One other issue with colorists is that some tend to use very carefully-crafted premade looks and LUTs, and those might be considered proprietary. I wouldn't necessarily want to hand all those over to a stranger. In truth, I'm not sure what they can do with the session file, because after 3 or 4 years, I'm not convinced it could be converted to work with newer software.

BTW, I don't have a problem with a facility owning my files if I'm using their equipment and software. That's a lot different from a freelance project I do at my own office. Again, to use the restaurant analogy, that's no different than the kitchen knowing exactly what ingredients and equipment the chef is using to prepare the meals. The thinking behind the job is something only the artist owns.

It is more that the colorist or editor gets the meal and does some arranging and the restaurant sells it, exactly actually. It is a bit more complicated as the restaurant needs to keep track of the arrangement in case they need to change it. The end product is a meal for sale that the restaurant sells, so the restaurant definitely needs recipies (the making of the film and script) and arrangements, the arrangement is defintely not the product, but part of the process. It is like saying that because the waiter is paid and brings out the food he owns part if it somehow. However, if you are not paid they own nothing of your work, but still own you. So yes, telling them they are not getting it till they honor the contract, and basicslky requiring them to sue and price it if they do not pay, seems like a good strategy, but I sm not a lawyer to tell you how it lines up with the law or not. A lot of things people think doesn't line up with the law. Fortunately enough for them most other people don't know either and it just costs to much to engage a lawyer and take legal action, so this folk law floats around in the background.

If somebody wants to reuse the session files then obviously they are going to need to invest in.the software to use them.

I know when I worked at ILM, I had to sign a 14-page contract that basically said "we own every bit of the work you do for us, forever and ever, as well as anything you do relating to this project in your own time." Kodak had a similar iron-clad legal agreement. I know of employees at other large corporations who have crossed out sections regarding freelance projects, but stipulated that they wouldn't take anything proprietary, nor would they try to compete with their employer.

If a guy manufactures widgets on the side, but he works for a company that makes handkerchiefs, I don't see where one necessarily interferes with the other. There is a lot of cross-pollination in post-production, though, and I can see where a computer IT specialist who consults might potentially be in competing businesses with a post employer. I think this would have to be done on a case-by-case basis.

I can also say that at Technicolor, we had a fairly extensive contract we had to sign. Because some of the legacy employees (like myself) were not hired under that contract, we were put under pressure to sign the new one. I managed to never sign it, but it was a bone of contention for some people.

As I posted before it was derived from servant/slave law. What ever is right, companies tend to want to treat it like a slave relationship. Which is ironic, as companies themselves became recognised as legal individuals (which is strictly immoral) from a missuse of slave emancipation law ruling just before hand.

I would bet that the recent anti-trust decision against Pixar, Dreamworks, Apple, Disney, Blue Sky, and Imageworks will make them think twice on the extent of how far they can control what employees do in regards to outside work and future work:

http://www.cartoonbrew.com/law/judg...os-cant-evade-wage-fixing-lawsuit-118129.html

Good one Marc, you are right, a lot of this violates anti-trust intent.

 

[jake blackstone]

LGG is a good forum resource, but I wouldn't quote it, or base a debate over it.

Yep, you're right. What does a bunch of colorists discussing color grading topics on a site dedicated to color grading know about sharing color grading project files?

I would never work with someone who outright refused to share project files.
This is a collaborative art form period

Must be nice to live in the imaginary world, where everyone creates "a collaborative art form", while getting generously renumirated for it and everyone gets along famously.

 

[paulherrin]

i think piracy promotes promulgation and preservation, probably
besides driving efficiency...?

 

[Darko Gavrilovic]

This is a major bone of contention in the music mixing business and also in the sound business. If you pay for a mixer/editor/engineer to handle your sound work, do you get to keep the Pro Tools session files when you're done? Worse, if there's some kind of conflict or creative dispute, can the client legally ask for the session files and source files so they can move the entire job to another facility?

I do sound. Client get all the files they want. It's all part of the project and they paid for it. They obviously don't get copies of software or plugins or whatnot. Without the actual facility where they did all the mixing -- your protools stuff is kind of useless. It just for archival purposes. But it's their project. They are well within their rights to re-do the project multiple times if they want to and they are not forced to use the same facility.

 

[Hugh Scully]

i think piracy promotes promulgation and preservation, probably
besides driving efficiency...?

Software piracy is simply theft and those who engage in it are thieves. People get confused on this because the open source movement has generated a type of entitlement. Propagation or promulgation as you say is the promise of services like Spotify and YouTube paying a pittance for the use of creative material. See how well that works? It pretty much killed the music business. The heck with "free." I'm for the reassertion of IP rights.