View Full Version : 70 million dollar lawsuit and my footage
Rich Rosen May 25th, 2004, 09:48 AM I shot 30 hours of footage this past summer with the spoken not written permission of a young rock and roll concert promoter about a concert he was putting on that didn't happen. All during the shooting he gave me exclusive and intimate access and kept saying "we're partners on this right" so I stupidly assumed there would be no release problem. Now he's had a change of heart which means the documentary is dead. But he does want the footage for his 70 million dollar lawsuit against the people who cancelled the concert.
Question is....I put about 90 hours into the shooting. Now he wants the footage for his legal and monetary benefit and the hell with my film. What should I charge?
Thanks.....
Jeff Donald May 25th, 2004, 10:12 AM Do yourself a favor and talk to an attorney, before you have any more conversations with your "partner."
Rob Belics May 25th, 2004, 01:49 PM All he needs is a subpoena and he's got your footage. Don't even think of getting paid for it. Won't happen.
Peter Moore May 25th, 2004, 01:51 PM I agree completely. This sounds like something I wouldn't rely on an Internet message board for advice on. :)
Keith Loh May 25th, 2004, 01:56 PM In fact, it would look bad for his case if he did pay you for the footage before acquiring the 'evidence'.
Christopher C. Murphy May 25th, 2004, 02:07 PM Hey Rich,
Isn't that the footage you accidently erased? Or was it the footage that you captured, edited and accidently left open on your network....and now it's flying around the globe being looked at for free by everyone?
I personally make it a rule to erase all clients footage when non-payment reaches 30 days (ok, not 30 days...but, eventually if i see no payment after a long while). Hey, it's my tape...and tape ain't cheap.
What do all you guys do?
Murph
Law Tyler May 26th, 2004, 11:28 AM Oh yeah, it is just like the computer algorithm I came up with, that a large company wanted me to testify to in court against a 3rd-party who was suing them for patent infringement. Since my public communication of the algorithm occured prior to the patent date, they think I can kill the other party's case.
Guess what, I did not hear the phrase "expert witness", gee, hard to remember something I came up with and tossed away more than a decade ago.
Why do these people think that we will put ourselves in the hot seat, being insulted by the other party's lawyers, subjected to perjury charges, just so they can save a few million dollars and we getting nothing for our trouble?
Rich Rosen May 26th, 2004, 08:29 PM When I sent him an email asking for what I would have gotten if I was hired to shoot the footage his one word reply was "weak"
and my one word reply back was "trust".
He has now threatened me with a supeona. One lawyer has told me he can spend $75,000 in legal fees if I resist resist resist. He will also have one angry shooter (me) testifying at the trial.
Jeff Donald May 26th, 2004, 09:00 PM Nuts.
The Battle of the Bulge
On December 21, 1944 the German forces had completely surrounded Bastogne, defended by the 101st Airborne Division. When General Anthony McAuliffe was awakened by a German invitation to surrender, he gave a one-syllable reply that has been variously reported and was probably unprintable. However, there is no disagreement as to what he wrote on the paper delivered to the Germans: "NUTS!" That reply had to be explained both to the Germans and to non-American Allies.
Dylan Couper May 27th, 2004, 12:15 AM I'm staying out of this one, because my advice, although morally fine, may be somewhat illegal.
It's based on: if the guy is an a-hole, then treat him like one.
Peter Jefferson May 27th, 2004, 12:22 AM rich u should not have contacted him AT ALL.
go see a lawyer.
if ths person wants to claim damages, you should ask for your cut in it as wel as YOUR loss of earnings from HIM .
like i said, u shouldnt have made any contact at all.
from here, i would only speak to a lawyer, and arrange ur own damages claim against him.
if u have nothign documented, it shoudl serve as a lesson in business.. especially with somethign this big
good luck but i dont like ur chances
fact remains the tapes are urs
u were there with verbal permission and no production plan was discussed between urself and the guy suing the band
no releass are signed so u cant publish this stuff, but the stuff is still urse, regardless of the footage.
if he wants the footage, he DOES NOT OWN IT
you do
Rich Rosen May 27th, 2004, 06:07 AM He gave me exclusive and intimate access to him during the time period I was filming which someone said might be considered "implied consent" which would give me the right to use it without a release from him.
Rob Belics May 27th, 2004, 06:33 AM You guys are losing your focus on the issue:
1) This guy wants to use Rich's tapes as evidence in a trial.
2) Rich wants to get paid for the work he did.
There is no direct connection between the two.
Rich does not need a lawyer for point 1. Getting his tapes subpoened will not cost him anything or involve more trouble than collecting the tapes. Even his shipping costs, if any, should be paid for.
There could be exceptions such as if turning over the tapes causes Rich harm in some way, directly or indirectly. In this case he might want to consider hiring a lawyer but this doesn't seem to be the case.
Point 2 is a totally different, unrelated, issue. Whether Rich feels he wasted his time and money on making the tapes means nothing to point 1.
I might warn Rich that if, at this point, he were to destroy the tapes he might be charged with destruction of evidence in a lawsuit.
I am not a lawyer but I do run businesses and have had some experience with these issues.
Christopher C. Murphy May 27th, 2004, 06:37 AM Rob is right.
Peter Moore May 27th, 2004, 06:45 AM Rich,
1) Stop posting about this right now.
2) Find a live in person lawyer to talk to about your potential obligations to supply the tapes, and your potential ability to recover money for your work.
Rich Rosen May 27th, 2004, 07:40 AM I am working with a lawyer and have been for a week. Just feel my problem will be of help to others.
Peter Moore May 27th, 2004, 11:08 AM Then he should have told you to stop making public comments about this that he doesn't screen, since everything you say can potentially be used against you in court.
Paul Tauger May 28th, 2004, 02:16 PM Yeah, what Peter said.
Ignacio Rodriguez May 28th, 2004, 03:28 PM Too bad Rich you and this person are on such ill terms. You could both help each other out. He could consent you making the documentary and you could authorise he use some of your material in court.
Josh Brusin May 28th, 2004, 04:35 PM having just been screwed out of some dough by an agency that went out of biz. I can reiterate what I've learned.
1. get 1/2 up front
2. get it / send it in writing
I just cut a Sprite trends video that was just a horror show from start to finish and since I had not updated my rates ended up taking the job at last years rates... foster an 8 year client relationship... yadda yadda. But at 6am with problems on top of problems I felt pretty angry.
The next biz day I recontacted their buyers and got my updated rates/info out first thing. and while I could have tried to bill them time and a half for 8 of the 20 hours straight I didn't as I didn't communicate that upfront.
think transparency or ask and you shall (more often than not) receive. Just not after the fact...
Since you're not seeing diddly from this and this dude is suing to try and get something out of it isn't it in your interest to oblige and hope he get some dough? Then you could sue him for services rendered if he won't pay you for work you are owed.
Harry Settle May 28th, 2004, 09:40 PM POINT 1) Could he put a watermark on the film?
POINT 2) Without anything in writing, Rich's version of the verbal contract is as good as his "partners" verbal contract. All has to be hashed out in a legal forum. The court, possibly jury, should lean a little toward Rich's side because 1) he obviously did a lot of work. 2) he obviously hasn't been paid for the work. Judges and juries, for the most part, don't like people being run over by a shyster regardless.
I sat on the jury of a case involving 1/2 million dollar lawsuit. Similar circumstance. No written contract. Some warning though. . . be careful how you stress the word "Partner". If you were "Partners" you could get deeper into this.
If you don't do anything else, take everyones advice and at least talk to a lawyer.
Jeff Donald May 28th, 2004, 09:55 PM No offense intended, but Paul and Peter are attorneys and their advice should be heeded.
Matt Gettemeier May 31st, 2004, 06:51 AM "Young" concert promoter + spoken contract + change of heart that kills the project = Guy who wants to snooker your footage away from you for his own purpose.
Yes I would retain an attorney to protect the value of your footage. Tell the attorney ALL the details of the case. Wait for further progress on the matter and start editing your footage into whatever you want to do with it.
Call it a gut feeling based on past experiences... but "70 million" is a dazzling number... What is the REAL value of the issue? Was it the Rolling Stones that you were making a documentary about? I think this is another case of somebody wanting to cut and run with your footage... If you hand it over this guy will probably dissappear... hoping to produce his own work from YOUR work... and cutting you out of the equation.
Locally here in St. Louis I've seen it happen time and time again. People get asked onto a project and devote WEEKS to something for a given compensation... THEN the guy who swindled everybody dissappears right at the end. Of course with everybody's footage and hard work. There was a vampire movie shot at Laclede's Landing... months and suddenly POOF! Gone. There was a feature shot in Defiance, MO... not too far away... MONTHS of "when this is done you'll get...." POOF! Gone.
Fortunately in my own experience this has been rare... but it has happened to me once...
To me this sounds like one of those deals. Of course I could be wrong and maybe I'm trivializing the issue... but again, 70 MILLION?... Hmm.
Rich Rosen June 18th, 2004, 09:11 PM It was a big time two day festival starring Radiohead. I know he doesn't want it for anything elese than the lawsuit, but he's palying hardball and soon so will my lawyers.
|
|