Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: LKaven on February 02, 2011, 05:48:28 pm
-
I recently spent a day shooting stills on location(s) for a documentary. I was willing to do this on a very friendly basis ($200 / day, since they were in a development budget), but was surprised when the producer said that everything that I did would have to be treated as a "work for hire" because, as she explained in email:
"I will be required by all possible financiers and sales agents / distributors to have fully acquired rights in all materials used to produce and promote the film."
Well, I would give her a perpetual usage right, and even a limited term exclusivity on the poster image, and perhaps even a perpetual exclusive on the poster image, and I'd hold all the implied rights the laws affords me. That was pretty generous I thought. But I don't see where asking me to sign over all rights to them has any basis in custom, and I don't see it as implied by their financiers in what she wrote.
In her view, I am just naive for not knowing that this means assigning all rights to them as a work for hire, and that this is just the way things are always done in small art film projects. Oddly enough, I'm much more experienced as a producer than she is. I don't think she's right. But then I'm less experienced as a photographer than as a producer. I want to ask the professionals here what their experience tells them on this.
Luke
-
A signed contract determines the fine details. Paperwork is king. Verbal agreement is too much up for interpretation.
Did you sign a work for hire or another form of agreement prior to the shoot? Did it stipulate the usage, ownership/copyright, length of term?
No contract was signed, none presented in advance. No actual verbal discussion of rights until the end of the day.
I got called up the night before for this one. I knew I was risking a day, but I also knew I'd have uses for these photographs independently, so I was willing to do it. [I can get the necessary subject/location releases on my own if necessary.] Nevertheless, I'd rather refute the very idea that doing these things as a "work for hire" is an assumed thing in these circumstances, using testimony from people who have experience in these things.
-
Nevertheless, I'd rather refute the very idea that doing these things as a "work for hire" is an assumed thing in these circumstances
It's not my field, but isn't it standard in the film business for the stills photographer on a production to surrender all their rights? (Likewise the cinematographer, sound recordist etc)
-
The girl is right, that's the way things are always done for this kind of proj. John's also right, the word PRIOR is as important as the word PAPER. It's normal that the girl ask for that and it's also normal that you negociate. It's a game and normaly the girl should reconsider some points, but remember, she has to do it, she has to try and she will try verysingle time even if you had agree previously on another assignment.
Fred, could you elaborate a bit on how you know such projects are normally done this way?
-
Hey there LKaven,
I work in the film biz and can confirm that production stills are always on a work for hire basis. If the producers don't have all rights there are problems getting completion bonds, insurance, etc, and indemnifications with distributors are a bitch if they think any aspect of a production may have rights problems. These issues outweigh any deference to a the rights of a production stills shooter. This was hammered out in Hollywood by the union (IATSE Local 600) a thousand years ago. The posters, well that is a different deal. Posters and promo shoots are like any commercial stills shoot.
-
Not every show and not every movie is a work for hire. I just worked on a TV show and negotiated usage. however most films do work on a work for hire bases. I have worked on a few low budget projects and held the © based on the low fee. If they wanted to pay a real rate, then they would own the ©. If they want something for nothing, they should get the same. I guarantee they will make money if the production is picked up.
-
In Spain this is the way it works all the single time, regardless of the reputation the photographer has. The scenario is always the same. Prod have orders to ask always all rights for work for hire. Then you have to negociate before and always the negociation ends well for both parts and writen on contract before shooting. But imagine you've worked 10 times with the same pacted conditions, they still always ask for the same at first and you'll have to repeat the negociation over and over again. It's a game.
On Hollywood productions all production stills are work for hire. There is no negotiation, but you can be well compensated.
-
Hey there LKaven,
I work in the film biz and can confirm that production stills are always on a work for hire basis. If the producers don't have all rights there are problems getting completion bonds, insurance, etc, and indemnifications with distributors are a bitch if they think any aspect of a production may have rights problems. These issues outweigh any deference to a the rights of a production stills shooter. This was hammered out in Hollywood by the union (IATSE Local 600) a thousand years ago. The posters, well that is a different deal. Posters and promo shoots are like any commercial stills shoot.
I'm glad for the specific reference. Let me check one thing with you though, regarding the kind of work we are talking about respectively and whether they are the same.
What I'm doing is stills on location for a documentary. The project and (ad hoc) film company is based in the UK, but the shooting was in New York. My activities involved shooting subjects of the film, but none of the stills will be used in the film itself, and none of the stills were taken during filming. I only know of two intended uses for these stills -- fund raising, and promotion. A subsequent shoot would involve a poster image, and the question of rights here is open to that as well.
Do you feel this falls under the conventions and guidelines that you cited?
-
In Spain this is the way it works all the single time, regardless of the reputation the photographer has. The scenario is always the same. Prod have orders to ask always all rights for work for hire. Then you have to negociate before and always the negociation ends well for both parts and writen on contract before shooting. But imagine you've worked 10 times with the same pacted conditions, they still always ask for the same at first and you'll have to repeat the negociation over and over again. It's a game. I posted after TMARK so won't repeat what's been said but the most important is exactly what he pointed: they don't want right issues.
So then the girl isn't exactly right. You say it's her job to ask for all the rights, just as it's my job to retain them. You say this starts a negotiation which ends up mutually satisfactory, even though it always starts the same way. So in a sense, you are saying that rights are /not/wholly relinquished automatically, which means that the girl is wrong when she says that they are. You are saying that there is a negotiated position in there. Or did I miss something?
-
On Hollywood productions all production stills are work for hire. There is no negotiation, but you can be well compensated.
In this case, it's not a Hollywood production, and the compensation is nothing more than a token. I just know of no convention governing indie documentaries, and I'm skeptical about any such claim in that area. You want to do production stills for HBO, you sign the standard contract. But in the indie world, I know of no counterpart.
-
While I am not qualified to give you advice on New York law (I assume this was in NY), in the absence of a contract the default copyright terms kick in, which in most common law jurisdictions vest copyright in the creator. They may argue that full-rights-to-them is an implied term of the industry, and therefore was what they were buying for their $200, since this is simply understood. Given that $200/day is so grossly below the usual value of the work, this position would have little traction to my mind. If you're not part of a union, then none of the standard terms mentioned above would apply. If you are, they probably do.
The real issue, however, is not one of strict legal rights, but of the relationship. Want to burn bridges, give them nothing. Want to make friends, give them everything. What do you want out of this? Are these images of any value to you? if you are in a negotiating frame of mind, get a production jacket, or tickets to stuff other clients would be interested in some other decent swag out of it. Or some sort of concrete right of first refusal on their next project (though it sounds like they are, financially speaking, little-league). Think like a businessman, not a lawyer. There's nothing in this worth a legal argument.
My 2c.
- N.
-
I'm glad for the specific reference. Let me check one thing with you though, regarding the kind of work we are talking about respectively and whether they are the same.
What I'm doing is stills on location for a documentary. The project and (ad hoc) film company is based in the UK, but the shooting was in New York. My activities involved shooting subjects of the film, but none of the stills will be used in the film itself, and none of the stills were taken during filming. I only know of two intended uses for these stills -- fund raising, and promotion. A subsequent shoot would involve a poster image, and the question of rights here is open to that as well.
Do you feel this falls under the conventions and guidelines that you cited?
Different situation. What you describe is part of marketing and promoting the film, which is, as you, something different that requires more than $200 a day.
-
The real issue, however, is not one of strict legal rights, but of the relationship. Want to burn bridges, give them nothing. Want to make friends, give them everything. What do you want out of this? Are these images of any value to you? if you are in a negotiating frame of mind, get a production jacket, or tickets to stuff other clients would be interested in some other decent swag out of it. Or some sort of concrete right of first refusal on their next project (though it sounds like they are, financially speaking, little-league). Think like a businessman, not a lawyer. There's nothing in this worth a legal argument.
My 2c.
Worth more than 2c by far. I have no legal fight in mind, and they have no entitlements. If we go our separate ways, it won't be painful. I would like to remain on good terms and go ahead and do their poster image for them as was supposed, but not if they are taking advantage of me. I have independent uses for the images if nothing else. If I thought they would be a source of anything but this kind of behavior, I might be more conciliatory.
Here is what it might come down to: They say "we have to have all rights, it's required." I say if it is required in any binding sense, then where is it written and how? Is there a specific clause in their grant terms that stipulates exactly and precisely that they must have work-for-hire rights as opposed to a license entitling them to perpetual usage and limited exclusivity, or else they are not entitled to disburse the funds? This would be a concrete reason, but I have yet to see it. I think it's ridiculous for the producer to tell me that this is just the way it's done. According to what? I need a concrete reason to concede anything on this, wouldn't you think?
-
If you were my client, my advice to you would be this: you've had a miscommunication between well-meaning people. A novice producer on an low-budget project found a nice, keen, talented photographer who was willing to help them out for a very reduced rate. No one ever turned their mind ugliness of a money-thick, over-lawyered business. Assumptions were probably made on both sides. Unfortunately, they were at cross-purposes.
I can't imagine that these images are worth a damn thing to you long-term. As a photographer, I share your slight sense of violation at giving up all-rights. It's like selling your child. Usually, as indeed is also the case with the sale of children, you get very well paid for your troubles. :P But in this case, there's no gold.
If you rear-up and get all rightsy about your photos, they may effectively be of no use to the producers. They will be worse off than if they never hired you. You will go into the "Problem/Nightmare/Asshole" column in their mental files. Fairly or not. And, the strong words that will pass will likely cause you to file them similarly in your rolodex. You probably won't even get your $200. And if you do, you'll resent it.
Life is long. Have a beer with them and explain that you've had a misunderstanding. Then do them a solid and give them the images. Life is long. Karma matters.
There may be a lot of facts I don't know that would change my view, but that is my basic take. If I were your lawyer, I would send you a bill for this advice, in the amount of, ironically, about $200 for the half-hour phone call. On the bottom of the bill, I would stroke through the $200 and write "paid in full by a lesson learned :) ". Because life is long. Fight when it matters. Be nice the other 98% of the time.
Good luck whatever you decide to do!
- N.
-
In her view, I am just naive...
It's naive to be raising these questions on a public forum using your real name.
-
While I am not qualified to give you advice on New York law (I assume this was in NY), in the absence of a contract the default copyright terms kick in, which in most common law jurisdictions vest copyright in the creator. They may argue that full-rights-to-them is an implied term of the industry, and therefore was what they were buying for their $200, since this is simply understood. Given that $200/day is so grossly below the usual value of the work, this position would have little traction to my mind. If you're not part of a union, then none of the standard terms mentioned above would apply. If you are, they probably do.
I can tell you that unless there is a written contract that you signed, the courts will rule in your favor on the copyright issue. As of right now you own the images and depict how they can and can not be used. Unfortunately, in this situation, you did not talk about the terms of use before the assignment, which should always be done. For future purposes, I recommend creating a list of every question you need to ask in order to determine a estimate; my list has about 30 questions ranging from licensing to travel to production cost to etc.
My advice is that you should agree to give them the right thats they need in order to use the images for this shoot, but tell them in the future you will need to discuss this before hand. Also, since the pay is only $200 (and grossly below the value of your work), the idea of transfer of copyright should not even be on the table. Explain to them that in order for you to provide high quality images you need to charge based on a licensing model. Doing so encourages you to produce the best image possible since doing so will increase the chance of you selling more licensing. Charging by the day encourages conner cutting. So if they want the highest quality images for their film, you need the right to continue to sell your images.
In terms of it is just an Indie film, which some have pointed out, you should never make assumptions to the extent of how popular the film will be. Chances are low that the film will go far, but if it is well done, that may not be the case. I believe "Clerks" was a super low budget film and look how popular that is.
-
I can't imagine that these images are worth a damn thing to you long-term. As a photographer, I share your slight sense of violation at giving up all-rights. It's like selling your child. Usually, as indeed is also the case with the sale of children, you get very well paid for your troubles. :P But in this case, there's no gold.
Not for nothing, but there is a big different between work for hire and a transfer of all rights...I did work for hire once in my career–one spec assignment for Playboy and the "work for hire" came after the fact on the back of the check. I deposited the check and vowed to never do work for hire again. I never have...
The problem with work for hire is that from the standpoint of copyright in the US, you weren't the author of the photographs, the production company was. You would have no future rights and would even been the permission of the production company to show the work in your portfolio...
Since the work for hire was NOT agreed upon before the creation of the works, it ain't really work for hire.
What you can counter offer is a transfer of all rights while retaining some rights for yourself...namely the right to use the images for self promotion and the eventual reversion of the rights to you if the use of the images become dormant (no use for say 10 years or longer if need be).
This will, in effect give "her" everything she needs, legally...and allows you to be the legal creator and eventually have the rights revert to you...
You just never know what the long term value of images really are...and granting them a broad license and transfer of rights will eventually get the copyrights back in your name.
And I will tell you that film production companies may DEMAND work for hire, but will settle for a transfer of all the rights they need. Yes, it's easier for them if you bend over and accept work for hire...but springing a work for hire after the fact is poor form.
-
@Nick: Thanks for the good humor and generous advice. Should I ask, though, if the spirit of compromise extends equally to the producer as to me, were that we would have both approached you. I see compromise as a good thing, but only judicious compromise, and here there are a few facts of the matter to weigh: Either they have legal constraints on how they can spend their funds, or they don't. If they have genuine legal constraints, but did not inform me in advance, then they are depending upon my generosity for their needs and nothing else, in which case, having been generous to begin with, I might judge to be more generous or not. If the legal constraints are not genuine, then they are untruthful and undeserving of my generosity.
@Ashley: Glad for your input. I should be more careful.
@Joe: Thanks. I agree with you on every point.
-
Not for nothing, but there is a big different between work for hire and a transfer of all rights...I did work for hire once in my career–one spec assignment for Playboy and the "work for hire" came after the fact on the back of the check. I deposited the check and vowed to never do work for hire again. I never have...
The problem with work for hire is that from the standpoint of copyright in the US, you weren't the author of the photographs, the production company was. You would have no future rights and would even been the permission of the production company to show the work in your portfolio...
Since the work for hire was NOT agreed upon before the creation of the works, it ain't really work for hire.
What you can counter offer is a transfer of all rights while retaining some rights for yourself...namely the right to use the images for self promotion and the eventual reversion of the rights to you if the use of the images become dormant (no use for say 10 years or longer if need be).
This will, in effect give "her" everything she needs, legally...and allows you to be the legal creator and eventually have the rights revert to you...
You just never know what the long term value of images really are...and granting them a broad license and transfer of rights will eventually get the copyrights back in your name.
And I will tell you that film production companies may DEMAND work for hire, but will settle for a transfer of all the rights they need. Yes, it's easier for them if you bend over and accept work for hire...but springing a work for hire after the fact is poor form.
I agree it is worth retaining the rights. The portrait subject was once very famous, and is a part of the story of the modern female condition, something with inherent artistic interest. The film company offered to grant limited rights back to me to exhibit or publish as a part of a collection of my work, or to sell as art prints. But this obviously forbids anything not yet considered.
A work for hire clause riding on the pay check? What a sneaky trick.
Thanks. Discussing this with you and others here is definitely helping me to get clearer.
-
If I am not mistaken, putting work for hire on the back of a check is not a legal binding contract.
A work for hire clause riding on the pay check? What a sneaky trick.
I have worked on a few still projects and never signed any work for hire agreement. It is also not binding to make someone sign that type of agreement after the shoot. I believe a few magazine tried to do that, telling photographers they would not get paid unless they signed it. I think any 2nd year law student could tell you it is not binding.
-
Luke, I completely agree that mutuality of goodwill is what should be expected. You probably hold the cards, so if they are complete douche bags, tell'em to pound sand.
Jeff is also right to note the distinction between work for hire and a sale of all rights.
As an aside, I'd be curious to know whether an attempt to create a work-for-hire contract after the fact even has legal effect even if 'agreed' to, since copyright attaches at the moment of creation? The very fact that you are in a position to 'sell' the work as a 'work-for-hire' presupposes that you own rights in it, which is inconsistent with the notion of the hirer being the author. Anyone who practices in this area happen to know?
- N.
ps. the "need" for work-for-hire is bullshit, as is the notion that anyone walking through the background of a shot needs to sign a release, etc. It's the culture of fear, greed and overlawyering which has led to this nonsense. It's 'real' in so far as that's how the industry operates, and if you want to eat lunch in that town, you have to play the game. But no one should think for a moment that ithere's any intrinsic reason or principle underlying this.
-
Life is long. Have a beer with them and explain that you've had a misunderstanding. Then do them a solid and give them the images. Life is long. Karma matters.
What a refreshing point of view! (i'm the "creative one" in a family of attorneys)
-
As an aside, I'd be curious to know whether an attempt to create a work-for-hire contract after the fact even has legal effect even if 'agreed' to, since copyright attaches at the moment of creation? The very fact that you are in a position to 'sell' the work as a 'work-for-hire' presupposes that you own rights in it, which is inconsistent with the notion of the hirer being the author. Anyone who practices in this area happen to know?
I've seen a few law sites that make specific mention of the idea that work for hire contracts may not be applicable after work has begun. I get the feeling that the courts are not yet settled on this issue.
http://www.copylaw.com/new_articles/wfh.html
-
Don't worry about it, if you sign away all the rights to this your not going to lose much (if any) money, if you really play hard ball your barely going to make any extra cash. Don't sweat the small stuff and this is without a doubt small stuff. Especially when your new to the game.
-
This might sound a little odd, but on small indie arts jobs like this, I often do not push for a negotiation of rights before the job. If someone is paying me two hours wage and hoping for two days work, I'm not inclined to make any promises in advance on how much generosity I'm going to extend them. If I'm working with someone very deserving, I'll be more generous at my discretion. The downside isn't too bad as the previous poster pointed out.
This was the first time that anyone ever pulled anything. I really tried to assess the range of standards and ethics that were being conventionally applied. The ASMP web site was particularly helpful, and pretty clear on the fact that there is no universal consensus over location stills as works for hire. Now I'm going to see if I can come to an amicable agreement with the film-makers.
-
From the American Soc of Media Photographers web site:
http://asmp.org/tutorials/rights-licensing.html
"Video Tutorial
Rights & Licensing
Who owns the rights?
These answers were inconsistent, ranging from owning all rights for projects that were wholly produced to relinquishing rights to the client. Generally speaking, the rights to broadcast spots produced by ad agencies are owned by the client. Motion pictures rights are owned by the production companies that created them.
* In still photography, it’s more standard to own the rights to the photos, except in the rare instances when a client buys them out. As for the video, it is a completely different system and giving all rights to the client is the standard. Many times, rights are retained for use of the final piece for self-promotion.
* Work for hire is typically a surrender of all rights when you hand over the tapes or hard drives you just shot. If you are the producer holding the budget for the job, then there’s an opportunity to structure a secondary revenue stream.
“As of today, I still license my usage for motion work.”
Jim Scherzi www.scherzistudios.com
“The rights to stills are with the creator, the motion is typically not licensed.”
Richard Freeda www.mergegroup.com
“For most ‘classic’ cases, rights are given to the client. New, hybrid media relationships should take another road.”
Jorge Parra www.jorgeparra.com
“For jobs that I bring in and produce, I own the copyright. I may own nothing if I work with another team or company where I am only the DP or cameraman.”
John Trotto www.johntrotto.com
“The client. Ultimately they own the rights and call the shots. It’s their money.”
Walt Jones www.waltjones.com"
-
Oh, man that sucks. I hate this sort of stuff. I recently had a project where my client's client stipulated that all rights to the images would be turned over to them. I declined the assignment.
My client was very understanding and said they probably wouldn't bother shooting it at all. I was initially really pisssed off and had to have my wife edit my reply for diplomacy's sake.
CB
-
Some very good advice here. It seems in several groups:
- they were a bit underhanded in how they asked/demanded for this, after the fact
- its a small production, and you might have given it to them if they'd asked up front (if not, then the rest of this is clearer)
- once someone pulls something like this on you (assuming that's what they are doing and its not just incompetence on their end), you start to think... and then it all gets worse.
I'd go with the "have a beer with them" school of thought. If not, then do whatever you are comfortable with, as there is no good answer when you are backed up against a wall.
-
.
-
Gwhitf, your post is very direct but I must admit that you are 100% right.
I'm kind of surprised in some posts in this thread that previous negociation seems to be "ignored" and as I've stressed, the fact that I said "the girl is right" (in that case the girl=the prod) seems to give a bad taste of unfairness. But indeed, people feel offended anf fooled before they get the knowledge of the subject. In this case the work for hire condition is NOT a mistake, what's a problem is the team work-for-hire+200 bucks...As you point, now it's: first we shoot, then we'll see...it's backwards. First we see (we speak), then we shoot, or we shoot not.
The negociation task has always existed, I remember very well in photojournalism even big big names had to negociate every single time and every single time the parts reached agreement wich becomes definitive before the shooting.
So now a negociation is needed after, and it's very embarrassing.
Times are wired.
-
Gwhitf, your post is very direct but I must admit that you are 100% right.
I'm kind of surprised in some posts in this thread that previous negociation seems to be "ignored" and as I've stressed, the fact that I said "the girl is right" (in that case the girl=the prod) seems to give a bad taste of unfairness. But indeed, people feel offended anf fooled before they get the knowledge of the subject. In this case the work for hire condition is NOT a mistake, what's a problem is the team work-for-hire+200 bucks...As you point, now it's: first we shoot, then we'll see...it's backwards. First we see (we speak), then we shoot, or we shoot not.
The negociation task has always existed, I remember very well in photojournalism even big big names had to negociate every single time and every single time the parts reached agreement wich becomes definitive before the shooting.
So now a negociation is needed after, and it's very embarrassing.
Times are wired.
Hi Fred
Not only has it always been difficult for young people to negotiate, I seem to remember that they were sometimes used because they were young and starting out and wouldn’t know any better.
Even having a contract can be less than enough. I did a shoot for a tour operator once, and it all went well and we shot for two weeks. Then, the following year, I was asked to do another one, and set off to Spain and the job. During both the first and this later assignment, I was put in the hands of the company’s Foreign Manager, who was based in Barcelona.
The work ran into time and weather problems, and I told the Manager that I would stay on and continue if he got it cleared by the client. He contacted them and I got permission to stay longer. I delivered the work, sent in the bill and waited. And waited. I eventually went to see the ad agency to find out what was up, and I was told they wouldn’t pay my bill because it was higher than the quotation. I told them I’d been asked to stay longer and was only charging at the same rate… they replied that they had not authorised the extension, and they were right: the Foreign Manager had asked his boss, the man who owned the tour operator. That way, I learned about the tricks of the Principal Contractor etc., but not before I’d hired a lawyer and lost even the money I’d already covered during the pre-extended time I’d worked.
So, you should study some business law before you hang out your shingle. In short, everybody is out for that free lunch, including the lawyers who must have known before they started that I hadn’t a prayer. Bastards, that bunch I used.
Rob C
-
Got some insight from the other side of the table...
One of my close friends is a General Counsel at CBS and one of the shows he handles is America's Next Top Model. I asked him about the rights situation with all of the fashion photographers that appear on the show and he said they all had to sign a work-for-hire agreement, including the "big names". He said the photographers are given license to use the images as self promotion, but cannot ask for model releases and cannot sell the images without separate negotiation with CBS. He said most photographers jump at the chance to be on an internationally syndicated show and see the opportunity as more of a self promotion vehicle and has only been turned down by a photographer's agent a couple of times. He also said that most photographers understand that the segments in which they appear are really more about Jay Manuel and that the shoots are directed for the show, not the images.
-
[This response was originally in reply to a posting by gwhitf, who subsequently deleted his posting after receiving new information. I've edited out the content directed at him as it has served its purpose.]
[...]
In the case in question, I took a calculated risk. There are a lot of people, good subjects, given the number of talented artists who work in Greenwich Village, who like it when I will do things for $200 or so. In my view, this is appealing to my generosity and I measure out my commitments according to how deserving the subject is and whether they have the wherewithal to put what I give them to good use. I always give them what they actually need, and sometimes a lot more. But it is elective, and they have to deserve it, and I retain the right to exercise my discretion where possible. And when I say this, I don't mean that I will slack on the images, but will reduce effort on the production (shoot natural light versus scout location, set up, and light with strobes) or post.
In this case, I did not press for a discussion. But this is partly because I'm not interested in giving up any of the rights conferred under the law, and I'm not interested in gaining new obligations. If they, or any of these people looking for arts support don't pay me for some reason, I can walk away. In my experience, they all choose to pay. And I don't regret helping these people.
On anything bigger than this, I have a rep who is very experienced with contracts on all sides.
The reason I posted here was not out of distress, but out of a need to make a moral decision--not a business/professional decision, but a moral one about how much generosity on my part was merited here. In order to make that decision, I wanted to know (i) the law on post-facto WFH agreements and their legality, (ii) the truth about the conditions attached to the film company's funding, and whether they were telling me honestly if not truthfully, and (iii) the expectations of others working on similar projects, mainly in the indie sector, which appear to be divided.
By the way, all my communications with the film company have been short and polite. I'm more open here because I want good information. There is no possibility of any legal action by either party whatsoever. But the legality of post-facto WFH agreements figures into the process.
[...]
-
I apologize. Good luck working it out.
-
Gwhitf,
I don't feel you owe anyone an apology for your post.
Given the information that was revealed by the OP up to the point of your
post it would have been difficult to assume anything too differently that you had.
In light of newer info supplied by LKaven one can see a different scenario
but hardly your fault.
Too bad you deleted your post because,although it was no longer an accurate appraisal
of LKavens case, it was a great response to a generic situation that occurs daily
-
Gwhitf,
I don't feel you owe anyone an apology for your post.
...............
Too bad you deleted your post because,although it was no longer an accurate appraisal
of LKavens case, it was a great response to a generic situation that occurs daily
+1, same opinion here
-
The best information is the information you don't want to here, or know or think about.
It's gonna come from people like Gwitiffffffff and Schewe.
Guys that spent there lives looking through that tiny hole of some worn out camera trying to make somebody's product, service, face, feet, eyes, ideas, or toothbrush look good.
These are two guys that give it out straight and have absolutely no malice in what they say.
It's just good honest information from people that have dedicated 75% of their waking moments making little pictures they're proud of, and the rest of their time finding smart ways to get paid for it.
The cool thing . . . actually the damn amazing thing is thet're willing to share, because no offense to anyone, but if your good at making litle pictures . . . real good . . . you usually aren't the sharing type of person.
I don't agree with everything they say, hell I don't even agree with everything I say, but I can promise you it comes from the heart, it doesn't cost you a single penny to read it, or if you don't like it just ignore it.
The information may be free, but it's worth it's weight it gold.
IMO
BC
-
I apologize. Good luck working it out.
I thank you for this, and I subsequently went back and edited the message to reflect a better understanding between us.
I do think that you have a lot of good wisdom to share, and hope to be the beneficiary of it in the future.
-
The best information is the information you don't want to here, or know or think about.
It's gonna come from people like Gwitiffffffff and Schewe.
Add yourself to that list, even if you don't agree with yourself. :-)
Schewe did clue me to the important Playboy case. Those checks with a WFH rider on them were the grounds for a landmark case (Dumas v. Playboy). It cast strong doubt on the practice of signing WFH agreements presented after the fact.
-
Gwhitf,
...
Too bad you deleted your post because,although it was no longer an accurate appraisal
of LKavens case, it was a great response to a generic situation that occurs daily
+100
-
...it was a great response to a generic situation that occurs daily
The information content was worth chiseling in stone.
-
Any update on your final agreement?
-
Any update on your final agreement?
I did contact the UK Film Council who awarded the development grant to the film project I was working with. They confirmed that while they require "all rights" to be acquired for film property, the details of how those rights are acquired are not a concern. My giving the company a perpetual use license royalty free is sufficient for what they actually need, and it has nothing to do with "ownership" or "work for hire". I don't think the filmmakers were actually lying to me about this, but they weren't telling the truth.
So what I will propose to the filmmakers is that (i) I won't sign a post-facto work for hire, which is of questionable legality at best, but (ii) I will give a perpetual use license royalty free for the initial images, and (iii) agree to finish their project on a WFH basis, so long as the terms are established before work is begun, and where certain rights are granted back to me in the process. There was never a problem with them granting back certain rights to me.
I think this is fair...morally, and legally. We'll see if this works, and I'll update after the matter gets settled.