Got a promoter friend who's putting together a music event at a small venue. He asked how much I'd charge to shoot it and after a little thinking I came up with $150/hr shoot time and $100/hr post process time.

He came back with the $150/hr is fine but asked if he could just do the processing. I said sure - we'll just unload 16GB cards as filled onto his laptop during the show. Usually I like to do all my post but in this case it seems attractive to shoot it and "forget it".

Then I had this thought - I need to make up a contract and in it a provision that basically says my client must get all needed releases before using the output in any way. That the shooter (me) is not responsible for getting these releases. I don't know the artists that'll be performing and he does so I figure this is the best way to handle.

Sound right?

It's a good concept; I'm not sure how practical or enforceable it would be though.

I would think it would leave you in a pretty vulnerable position if he failed to secure releases. Your only real recourse would be to sue him for breach of contract, and realize that the only thing the Courts can really do in something like that is to make you whole... the award would likely not exceed the total dollar value of your initial contract and I would doubt you'd be able to expect to see punitive damages awarded; meanwhile all of the artists affected could be pounding on your door seeking compensation.

I don't know that it's a risk I would take, but then it's your friend...how much trust do you have?

Draw up your contract so that it is a work-for-hire job and make sure the words "work-for-hire" appear verbatim in it. Your role then becomes that of a camera operator acting under his direction and you wash your hands of the production after the shooting is over. He owns the copyright on the footage and is responsible for any consequences from its use, including obtaining talent releases and music licensing. Do him a favour and remind him that releases from the performers DO NOT license the music they have played and the performance license for the venue does not extend to recording the music being performed nor the subsequent use of those recordings for any purpose whatsoever

video is such a pain compared to photography as far as contracts....just saying.

video is such a pain compared to photography as far as contracts....just saying.

Why do you say that? Copyright issues are pretty much the same when working in any creative media. If you're shooting for a client, you have the same matters of copyright ownership to deal with ... the ultimate ownership of the images resulting from a shoot and the rights the client obtains in exhange for his payment of your fee needs to be dealt with in your contracts. Model and location release issues are the same for still and video or film. True, you don't have to worry about licensing music if you're shooting stills but if you put those stills into a slide show or presentation and add an accompaning sound track, then you do have to deal with those licenses.