Who owns the Footage? The person that pushes record?

Marty Welk · January 27th, 2010, 09:01 PM

Most of what i am reading about the "work for hire" type of stuff seems to be suggestive of a No full contract thing.

the 9 things apply, from what i am seeing, "when there is not a written contract", all them ifs and when and dependancies.

seems that the "work for hire" is attempted to be applied when there is No contract, some asumption that because they worked for you you own what they did based on "work for hire". Then everybody goes to court and plays word games because they didnt have a solid contract.

Years ago , i think before the Ammendment went to legislation about that stuff, 2 times i was contracted AS a "work for hire" they used (abused) the term to define our respective positions on the contract. none of the 9 things applied to the situation. On the other hand it was not a No Contract ASSUMPTION of the job being "work for hire". it was established and agreed apon.

in that sitatuon reguarless of any defined terms for what establishes a work for hire ,we had both agreed that it was all thier project, and if we both went to court telling the truth <-- about the agreement we had :-) regardless of the words used, we both understood who owned the project. and what the purpose behind the words placed on the contract.

i did not yet read the whole act, but a summarising of the summary and then resumarising it again :-) but like a lot of this stuff they want to FIX a position on a set of documentation that is 900 pages long :-) then apply some Other court case as a president that has nothing to do with the one this week, and its a lot of Lawyer Art going on.
Hey , i wonder if the layers would hold intelectual property rights on thier BS arguments :-)

These factors are not exhaustive. The court left unclear
which of these factors must be present to establish the
employment relationship under the work for hire definition
^ this kinda stuff
then add in the whole text can be selfishly interpreted differetly depending on the outcome you desire.

the employee could have been allowed thier work, because the owner was just being a Beech about it for no logical reason, they just find some point of the law that applies and apply it. (the human factor)

My Quote: within the law exist every loophole , and every counterlaw , and every reinterpretation , and new laws and so many laws, and so many interpretations, and so many cases judged solely on thier own merit applied as law, that you can Justify anything you want 80% of the time with the law. Leaving whatever human will decide in charge of the application of that law. Thereby rendering the laws themselves useless :-)

They cant keep Laws simple, because some person Twists them around, so they extrapolate them to the ends of the universe, and then they can be "taken out of context" and Twisted around more. They could have been written in english, with the humans all keeping to the Purpose and intent of the law, and they would be 500times smaller and just as usefull.

Marty Welk · January 27th, 2010, 10:01 PM

this might be an example of an interpretation , it might not :-)

U.S. Copyright Office - Copyright Law: Chapter 1
(a) Copyright protection subsists, in accordance with this title, in original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, now known or later developed, from which they can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device. Works of authorship include the following categories:

(1) literary works;
(2) musical works, including any accompanying words;
(3) dramatic works, including any accompanying music;
(4) pantomimes and choreographic works;
(5) pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works;
(6) motion pictures and other audiovisual works;
(7) sound recordings; and
(8) architectural works.

HA HA, as you can see Plasma crystal Holographs are not copyrightable
Noooo, any tangible medium of expression, now known or later developed
But Plasma crystal Holographs arent listed , and they arent tangible
Yes but PCHs are a form of communications
But not directally, and they dont use a Device or machine
PCHs dont require a device or machine, being later developed , this would have been unknown
We have collected 15 Scientist to testify that they cannot touch or treat as real PCHs, so therby they are not tangible
We would like to call forth 1500 witnesses who will testify that PCHs are a form of expression.
We would like to place into evidence documentation that shows that PCHs are classified as an abomination by 27 religious organisations, and 5 Enviromental organisations.
Bla Bla Bla and on and on . . .

but you and i know, that our Plasma Crystal Holographs will be copywritable :-) because it was within the purposfull basis of the laws. And then some nutjob in congress will make 1700 more freaking laws covering PCHs, because they are lawers and the need more work :-)

Bill Davis · January 28th, 2010, 12:34 AM

In order to be safe NEVER assume that you own anything until you have enough media business experience in production that you are confident that you not only have the legal rights to the work you've produced, but that you've taken proper measures in order to protect your so called "work" from being infected by the influence of any OTHER copyright works.

That song in the store's PA system, that Coke machine logo, the design of the powerpoint slides in the stage presentation, the clothing brand on the shirt of the actor - any or all of these MIGHT present a complication in the clearance of copyright issues pertaining to ownership of rights to a video you produce.

Your only hope of being completely legally safe is to consult competent legal council as you learn about this stuff - get their professional advice in drawing up your agreements - and to get in writing permissions to use any intellectual property that might appear your videos - from the architecture of featured buildings, to the tattoo's on your featured characters arms.

Pain in the butt - but that's the way it is.

Marty Welk · January 28th, 2010, 01:41 AM

yes and you shoot the soda machine, and because of a certian trademark, you alter it in post so it says CROAK, or blur it out, and
106A (A) to prevent any intentional distortion, mutilation, or other modification of that work which would be prejudicial to his or her honor or reputation, and any intentional distortion, mutilation, or modification of that work is a violation of that right, and

Your right back where you started again :-)

its important to have a lawyer to interpret stuff like this

the making imperceptible, by or at the direction of a member of a private household, of limited portions of audio or video content of a motion picture, during a performance in or transmitted to that household for private home viewing, from an authorized copy of the motion picture, or the creation or provision of a computer program or other technology that enables such making imperceptible and that is designed and marketed to be used, at the direction of a member of a private household, for such making imperceptible, if no fixed copy of the altered version of the motion picture is created by such computer program or other technology.

assuming the lawyer can interpret it :-)

I bet someone could say that in english in less than 20 words :-)

Jim Andrada · January 28th, 2010, 08:28 PM

Well, I think it pretty clearly says "member of private household" so probably irrelevant to what you would be doing in a commercial video by blurring a trademark etc.

Hard to know for sure but it seems aimed at people modifying what they're getting via cable, satellite, etc.

Just my take on it.

Shaun Roemich · January 28th, 2010, 08:43 PM

Ok, 1 part seriously, 1 part in jest:

Why is it DVINFO becomes DVOPINION EVERY TIME intellectual property rights come up as a topic of discussion???

It does NO ONE any good to SPECULATE when we are talking about hard and fast legal issues here. If in doubt, consult a lawyer. Period.

Nigel Barker · February 6th, 2010, 07:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shaun Roemich

Ok, 1 part seriously, 1 part in jest:

Why is it DVINFO becomes DVOPINION EVERY TIME intellectual property rights come up as a topic of discussion???

It does NO ONE any good to SPECULATE when we are talking about hard and fast legal issues here. If in doubt, consult a lawyer. Period.

I absolutely agree with your last statement. However I do think that it is both interesting & informative especially for new readers that the complicated issues involved in intellectual property rights do get aired in a discussion.

David Barnett · February 6th, 2010, 11:48 AM

While the answers do vary the question itself was quite vague. What was the event that was shot?

If you taped a rock concert chances are you wouldn't be able to distribute without getting clearances to the songs. If you shot a movie for someone chances are they have some if not all of the ownership due to the fact it's their script. If you shot a wedding you might not be able to put the trailer up to your website as a demo reel since you do not have their permission to reproduce their images publicly etc etc etc

It may help if the OP clarified a bit, but otherwise yes it's a tricky area. Especially since nothing was stated upfront & it now seems there is a dispute over the ownership. To play it safe (aside from getting a lawyer) no one has sole ownership & shouldn't own/control/diistribute/sell footage without everyones consent. Until then, it's a battle & everyone might have a case.

Jim Andrada · February 6th, 2010, 01:59 PM

By the way, what's wrong with opinions? I think almost everything on the site is opinion - for example, which camera is better for X or what mic is best for Y or which NLE is good for Z, or why XYZ system crashes everytine I do ABC

There are indeed few certainties in this world.

However, one certainty is that legal advice (ie legal opinions) can be expensive. Not as expensive as getting sued for everything you own and losing, of course, but more expensive than for example, a reasonable microphone.

I think there's value in batting opinions back and forth because it can help formulate in one's mind what to ask an attorney about. It's also important to understand that what you're getting is opinion.

I also think that in the end consulting an attorney is a smart move. And being somewhat prepared beforehand is also a smart (economic) move IMHO.

(PS - I think that attorneys will in fact give their clients a legal OPINION because until a judgement is rendered there are no facts in the case. Only the opinions of the opposing sides.)

Tim Polster · February 7th, 2010, 09:11 AM

Here is a shooting situation:

What about filming a high school sporting event?

Does anybody own any part of this "performance" if you can even call it that?

What if somebody wanted to sell game footage? Would they need any permission from any copyright holders?

The shooter would own the footage but could they use it?

Bill Davis · February 8th, 2010, 01:04 AM

Assuming that A) it's a public high school. B) everyone is on public property. C) you simply recorded said public event as is - AND you were sensitive to contained commercial messaging such as local business logos on the fence, team sponsorship logos on the uniforms and other copyrighted marks that may (or may not) need clearance...
Including any and all imbedded performances including the stadium announcer, any music played over the PA, etc. You MIGHT have clear copyright to the resulting tape.

Notice the word MIGHT?

Just understand that the final reality of the whole issue we're talking about is inescapable. Anyone can sue anyone over anything. Period. What you're trying to achieve in following copyright law is to PROTECT yourself from legal liability in the event someone charges you with using material that you don't actually have the right to use.

And ONLY an attorney specifically familiar with both the actual copyright laws and the case law backing all of that up can give you anything CLOSE to an actual informed opinion as to whether what you're doing is safe, or exposes you to potential legal liability.

PERIOD. That's it.

So "guess" all you want. And learn about and use the opinions of guys here (even me) all you want. NONE of us will be standing beside with you if you ever do get sued. PLUS if you were foolish enough to use the "I read that what I was doing was legal on an internet video newsgroup" defense don't be surprised if someone starts laughing.

To get legal advice that you can base any sound business decision upon you MUST consult a legal professional knowledgeable IN THAT AREA OF LAW. period. end of story. final answer.

January 27th, 2010, 09:01 PM	#16
Marty Welk Major Player Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: East Bay Cali Posts: 563	Most of what i am reading about the "work for hire" type of stuff seems to be suggestive of a No full contract thing. the 9 things apply, from what i am seeing, "when there is not a written contract", all them ifs and when and dependancies. seems that the "work for hire" is attempted to be applied when there is No contract, some asumption that because they worked for you you own what they did based on "work for hire". Then everybody goes to court and plays word games because they didnt have a solid contract. Years ago , i think before the Ammendment went to legislation about that stuff, 2 times i was contracted AS a "work for hire" they used (abused) the term to define our respective positions on the contract. none of the 9 things applied to the situation. On the other hand it was not a No Contract ASSUMPTION of the job being "work for hire". it was established and agreed apon. in that sitatuon reguarless of any defined terms for what establishes a work for hire ,we had both agreed that it was all thier project, and if we both went to court telling the truth <-- about the agreement we had :-) regardless of the words used, we both understood who owned the project. and what the purpose behind the words placed on the contract. i did not yet read the whole act, but a summarising of the summary and then resumarising it again :-) but like a lot of this stuff they want to FIX a position on a set of documentation that is 900 pages long :-) then apply some Other court case as a president that has nothing to do with the one this week, and its a lot of Lawyer Art going on. Hey , i wonder if the layers would hold intelectual property rights on thier BS arguments :-) These factors are not exhaustive. The court left unclear which of these factors must be present to establish the employment relationship under the work for hire definition ^ this kinda stuff then add in the whole text can be selfishly interpreted differetly depending on the outcome you desire. the employee could have been allowed thier work, because the owner was just being a Beech about it for no logical reason, they just find some point of the law that applies and apply it. (the human factor) My Quote: within the law exist every loophole , and every counterlaw , and every reinterpretation , and new laws and so many laws, and so many interpretations, and so many cases judged solely on thier own merit applied as law, that you can Justify anything you want 80% of the time with the law. Leaving whatever human will decide in charge of the application of that law. Thereby rendering the laws themselves useless :-) They cant keep Laws simple, because some person Twists them around, so they extrapolate them to the ends of the universe, and then they can be "taken out of context" and Twisted around more. They could have been written in english, with the humans all keeping to the Purpose and intent of the law, and they would be 500times smaller and just as usefull. __________________ ----------------sig----------------- Re-learning everything all over again, one more time. Last edited by Marty Welk; January 27th, 2010 at 09:38 PM.

January 27th, 2010, 10:01 PM	#17
Marty Welk Major Player Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: East Bay Cali Posts: 563	this might be an example of an interpretation , it might not :-) U.S. Copyright Office - Copyright Law: Chapter 1 (a) Copyright protection subsists, in accordance with this title, in original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, now known or later developed, from which they can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device. Works of authorship include the following categories: (1) literary works; (2) musical works, including any accompanying words; (3) dramatic works, including any accompanying music; (4) pantomimes and choreographic works; (5) pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works; (6) motion pictures and other audiovisual works; (7) sound recordings; and (8) architectural works. HA HA, as you can see Plasma crystal Holographs are not copyrightable Noooo, any tangible medium of expression, now known or later developed But Plasma crystal Holographs arent listed , and they arent tangible Yes but PCHs are a form of communications But not directally, and they dont use a Device or machine PCHs dont require a device or machine, being later developed , this would have been unknown We have collected 15 Scientist to testify that they cannot touch or treat as real PCHs, so therby they are not tangible We would like to call forth 1500 witnesses who will testify that PCHs are a form of expression. We would like to place into evidence documentation that shows that PCHs are classified as an abomination by 27 religious organisations, and 5 Enviromental organisations. Bla Bla Bla and on and on . . . but you and i know, that our Plasma Crystal Holographs will be copywritable :-) because it was within the purposfull basis of the laws. And then some nutjob in congress will make 1700 more freaking laws covering PCHs, because they are lawers and the need more work :-) __________________ ----------------sig----------------- Re-learning everything all over again, one more time. Last edited by Marty Welk; January 27th, 2010 at 11:04 PM.

January 28th, 2010, 01:41 AM	#19
Marty Welk Major Player Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: East Bay Cali Posts: 563	yes and you shoot the soda machine, and because of a certian trademark, you alter it in post so it says CROAK, or blur it out, and 106A (A) to prevent any intentional distortion, mutilation, or other modification of that work which would be prejudicial to his or her honor or reputation, and any intentional distortion, mutilation, or modification of that work is a violation of that right, and Your right back where you started again :-) its important to have a lawyer to interpret stuff like this the making imperceptible, by or at the direction of a member of a private household, of limited portions of audio or video content of a motion picture, during a performance in or transmitted to that household for private home viewing, from an authorized copy of the motion picture, or the creation or provision of a computer program or other technology that enables such making imperceptible and that is designed and marketed to be used, at the direction of a member of a private household, for such making imperceptible, if no fixed copy of the altered version of the motion picture is created by such computer program or other technology. assuming the lawyer can interpret it :-) I bet someone could say that in english in less than 20 words :-) __________________ ----------------sig----------------- Re-learning everything all over again, one more time.

January 28th, 2010, 08:43 PM	#21
Shaun Roemich Inner Circle Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Vancouver, British Columbia (formerly Winnipeg, Manitoba) Canada Posts: 4,088	Ok, 1 part seriously, 1 part in jest: Why is it DVINFO becomes DVOPINION EVERY TIME intellectual property rights come up as a topic of discussion??? It does NO ONE any good to SPECULATE when we are talking about hard and fast legal issues here. If in doubt, consult a lawyer. Period. __________________ Shaun C. Roemich Road Dog Media - Vancouver, BC - Videographer - Webcaster www.roaddogmedia.ca Blog: http://roaddogmedia.wordpress.com/

January 28th, 2010, 12:34 AM	#18
Bill Davis Trustee Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Scottsdale, AZ 85260 Posts: 1,538	In order to be safe NEVER assume that you own anything until you have enough media business experience in production that you are confident that you not only have the legal rights to the work you've produced, but that you've taken proper measures in order to protect your so called "work" from being infected by the influence of any OTHER copyright works. That song in the store's PA system, that Coke machine logo, the design of the powerpoint slides in the stage presentation, the clothing brand on the shirt of the actor - any or all of these MIGHT present a complication in the clearance of copyright issues pertaining to ownership of rights to a video you produce. Your only hope of being completely legally safe is to consult competent legal council as you learn about this stuff - get their professional advice in drawing up your agreements - and to get in writing permissions to use any intellectual property that might appear your videos - from the architecture of featured buildings, to the tattoo's on your featured characters arms. Pain in the butt - but that's the way it is.

January 28th, 2010, 08:28 PM	#20
Jim Andrada Inner Circle Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Tucson AZ Posts: 2,211	Well, I think it pretty clearly says "member of private household" so probably irrelevant to what you would be doing in a commercial video by blurring a trademark etc. Hard to know for sure but it seems aimed at people modifying what they're getting via cable, satellite, etc. Just my take on it.

February 6th, 2010, 11:48 AM	#23
David Barnett Major Player Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Philly, PA Posts: 951	While the answers do vary the question itself was quite vague. What was the event that was shot? If you taped a rock concert chances are you wouldn't be able to distribute without getting clearances to the songs. If you shot a movie for someone chances are they have some if not all of the ownership due to the fact it's their script. If you shot a wedding you might not be able to put the trailer up to your website as a demo reel since you do not have their permission to reproduce their images publicly etc etc etc It may help if the OP clarified a bit, but otherwise yes it's a tricky area. Especially since nothing was stated upfront & it now seems there is a dispute over the ownership. To play it safe (aside from getting a lawyer) no one has sole ownership & shouldn't own/control/diistribute/sell footage without everyones consent. Until then, it's a battle & everyone might have a case.

February 6th, 2010, 01:59 PM	#24
Jim Andrada Inner Circle Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Tucson AZ Posts: 2,211	By the way, what's wrong with opinions? I think almost everything on the site is opinion - for example, which camera is better for X or what mic is best for Y or which NLE is good for Z, or why XYZ system crashes everytine I do ABC There are indeed few certainties in this world. However, one certainty is that legal advice (ie legal opinions) can be expensive. Not as expensive as getting sued for everything you own and losing, of course, but more expensive than for example, a reasonable microphone. I think there's value in batting opinions back and forth because it can help formulate in one's mind what to ask an attorney about. It's also important to understand that what you're getting is opinion. I also think that in the end consulting an attorney is a smart move. And being somewhat prepared beforehand is also a smart (economic) move IMHO. (PS - I think that attorneys will in fact give their clients a legal OPINION because until a judgement is rendered there are no facts in the case. Only the opinions of the opposing sides.)

February 7th, 2010, 09:11 AM	#25
Tim Polster Inner Circle Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Arlington, TX Posts: 2,231	Here is a shooting situation: What about filming a high school sporting event? Does anybody own any part of this "performance" if you can even call it that? What if somebody wanted to sell game footage? Would they need any permission from any copyright holders? The shooter would own the footage but could they use it?

February 8th, 2010, 01:04 AM	#26
Bill Davis Trustee Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Scottsdale, AZ 85260 Posts: 1,538	Assuming that A) it's a public high school. B) everyone is on public property. C) you simply recorded said public event as is - AND you were sensitive to contained commercial messaging such as local business logos on the fence, team sponsorship logos on the uniforms and other copyrighted marks that may (or may not) need clearance... Including any and all imbedded performances including the stadium announcer, any music played over the PA, etc. You MIGHT have clear copyright to the resulting tape. Notice the word MIGHT? Just understand that the final reality of the whole issue we're talking about is inescapable. Anyone can sue anyone over anything. Period. What you're trying to achieve in following copyright law is to PROTECT yourself from legal liability in the event someone charges you with using material that you don't actually have the right to use. And ONLY an attorney specifically familiar with both the actual copyright laws and the case law backing all of that up can give you anything CLOSE to an actual informed opinion as to whether what you're doing is safe, or exposes you to potential legal liability. PERIOD. That's it. So "guess" all you want. And learn about and use the opinions of guys here (even me) all you want. NONE of us will be standing beside with you if you ever do get sued. PLUS if you were foolish enough to use the "I read that what I was doing was legal on an internet video newsgroup" defense don't be surprised if someone starts laughing. To get legal advice that you can base any sound business decision upon you MUST consult a legal professional knowledgeable IN THAT AREA OF LAW. period. end of story. final answer.