Can I charge for this? (who owsn the video)

Hello,

I recently made an event coverage video showcasing some artists. Today the client that I was hired to make the video for emailed me and explains that the representative agency for one of the artists would like to have the raw video that took of that artist from that event.

My question is, am I able to charge for the raw video since a 3rd party is technically requesting the video. It would take a lot of my time to organize, burn compress and prepare the footage to be sent and (depending on what option I go with) could cost me in bandwidth or materials + time.

Our agreement with the client originally was that we are hired to create an original video nothing about the ownership of the raw content was discussed. (perhaps my fault)

What are your thoughts on this.

Are you okay with giving up your raw video of that artist?

If so, I would recommend asking for them to send you an email directly or vise versa. Then explain that you could give it to them, but to organize and get it to all them would cost X amount. As well as being credited if they use any of the footage because "you own it."

People have to stop thinking of video work the way they do photograpy. Generally if you are a DP, the client owns the footage that you were paid to shoot. Since you were contracted to "make a video" they paid you to go shoot something, they own it. You can use it for demo purposes but are you ever going to make money off it again? Let them have it and don't burn bridges. It's not like photography where you can sell it for stock and sell prints, etc.

Charge them for your time to transfer the materials, any drive or disks you buy or use, the shipping, etc. (don't forget markup!) Great thing about all this is you can double dip. This is all stuff that can just be done while you are working on something else or while away from your computer essentially getting paid to do nothing. It's easy money and is done in the industry all the time. If you are freelance I would charge $50 at least for every hour your computer is working on this.

Gameface wrote in post #13863590
People have to stop thinking of video work the way they do photograpy. Generally if you are a DP, the client owns the footage that you were paid to shoot. Since you were contracted to "make a video" they paid you to go shoot something, they own it. You can use it for demo purposes but are you ever going to make money off it again? Let them have it and don't burn bridges. It's not like photography where you can sell it for stock and sell prints, etc.

Charge them for your time to transfer the materials, any drive or disks you buy or use, the shipping, etc. Great thing about all this is you can double dip. This is all stuff that can just be done while you are working on something else or while away from your computer essentially getting paid to do nothing. It's easy money and is done in the industry all the time. If you are freelance I would charge $50 at least for every hour your computer is working on this.

Thats what I was looking for, I was thinking it would be like this - just wanted to get a 2nd opinion.

Thank you.

kjonnnn wrote in post #13864029
http://www.howtosellyo​urvideos.com …ssue-for-video-producers/

Q: My question is who holds the copyright on a Special Interest Video I do for a client: me or the client? Do we split/share/assume the copyright from our clients? If they are paying for a video, they should keep the copyright, correct? But at the same time, what stops them from re-burning your master; I’d like to hold the distribution rights (be the only one that can replicate) so that if the video is a huge success, I can enjoy some of the rewards; is that even possible and how would I phrase that in a contract?


http://library.findlaw​.com/1999/Jan/1/241478​.html

They pay you to create a video. It is theirs. Production companies don't continue to profit from commercials and stuff like that. You are paid to make a video and what they decide to do with it is up to them.

And those type of sites talk about how it could possibly work. In practice NO ONE does this.

Gameface wrote in post #13864275
..........In practice NO ONE does this.

Just because everyone else on the highway is doing 70 miles per hour in a 55 mile per hour zone does not make it right, or legal. No judge is going to accept the excuse "Everyone else was doing 70."

Just because NO ONE does this, doesn't make it right. The law is the law and the proper owner of the copyright has the right to sue to protect that copyright.

Gameface is right...

Video doesn't work like still photography.

I was a Slo-Mo replay operator for nearly 20 years.
Do I own the video from every camera I ever isolated? No.
Do the camera operators own the angles they shot? No.
Does the mobile unit vendor own the video because they own the equipment? No.
Ultimately, it's the property of whoever owns the rights.

Case in point: Fox Sports covers NASCAR but once a shot goes out live to the world and is headed toward Pluto, the footage belongs to NASCAR.
And, despite the fact that Fox is a rights holder (and pays ginormous dollars to be such), there still has to be a written agreement to license the footage back from NASCAR Images despite the fact Fox Sports generated that footage in the first place.

Contracts Boys and Girls. You gotta have 'em... Don't EVER do business on a handshake or a nod.

Contract law is a funny thing and generally only comes into focus at times of dispute - been there.

Having been paid to shoot a video, unless you specifically agreed to retain copyright of the footage, law of precedence would indicate the footage belongs to the Client.

This being the case you certainly couldn't issue the footage to a third party without the Clients permission. If The Client has authorised use of the footage by an artist it isn't unreasonable for you to charge for your time and materials in facilitating the artists use. If the footage requires re editing you can charge for that as well.

Video is unlike photography in that, in most cases, the finished product is the result of many peoples work. Thus it is almost impossible to conclude who has intellectual rights over the finished product. It is no different to building a house. A brick layer doesn't get royalties on the sale of every house he has been involved in even though it was his graft which made it so. Neither does the Architect, even though it was his vision which brought the house into being. Video is the same. The owner is the person who paid for it.......unless, as noted eloquently above, the original artist/sport/venue confirm they are allowing the recording of their work under licence. In this case they are contributing to the video by discounting the cost in the provision of the spectacle.

If, however, you made it known that you were "investing" unpaid time in the project you were, in effect, contributing to paying for the project with your time that gives you a stake in the ownership.

One point is you cant contract something that is against the law. The bigger boy always knows this and might not object to something you put in the contract in innocent ignorance.
Precendence and case law take effect if something has been left out of the contract and there is later a dispute. It is best to try to leave nothing out of the contract that you may not want to be a variable.

There will be sample contracts for videography for your examination and use and amendment on the interweb.

If you are being asked to do something outside of the contract as the OP is, you can charge what you like for the extra work, but of course you want the extra money, so how much to charge? How much can you get away with?Usually just be reasonable.

john5189 wrote in post #13867205
......If you are being asked to do something outside of the contract as the OP is, you can charge what you like for the extra work, but of course you want the extra money, so how much to charge? How much can you get away with?Usually just be reasonable.

He can't do anything with the footage because, unless agreed otherwise, it belongs to the Client. He can only release it if The Client says its OK.

John Sims wrote in post #13867262
He can't do anything with the footage because, unless agreed otherwise, it belongs to the Client. He can only release it if The Client says its OK.

I know, but the client is asking him to do some extra work, that's how I see it.
I believe the client asked him to send the video to the artist.
He does not have to do this or do it for free.
He should contact both client and artist to discuss payment for extra work and costs. The client should be aware that he is charging for the extra work.

Also, in the UK emails now have the same legitimacy as letters do. I am sure this is correct. Dont know about the USA but I expect it does also.

Yes-without a contract, copyright ownership for video should default to the client. Yes-you should charge for extra work outside of the scope of the original project. $50-75 an hour is a standard rate for misc video work.

-Scott

If The Client is saying "Please send footage to a third party." you are entitled to charge for the work and costs relative to delivering that footage. You are providing a service.

So that the Client is aware there will be a cost involved I would be inclined to confirm the Clients instruction giving and estimated cost for undertaking the work. They will come back pretty sharpish if they don't want to pay.