Re: Client wants my source material, but IMO, he didn't pay for it

Kyle,

In the absence of a license copyright law favors the creator or author. Additionally, it is common practice in many creative industries for the creator to only license imagery used in the final production. Copyright heavily favors the creators and authors, that's our system in the U.S. It used to be different.

Kyle wrote:
The buyer contacted him and he produced a video, as Tim pointed out earlier that is going to fall into the work for hire. The fact there is not a written contract makes things more difficult, but a verbal contract is just as binding in court, just more difficult to prove.

Sure, an agreement is an agreement, verbal or written. But Todd has a different sense than the client of what that agreement included. If there is information that would suggest that a verbal agreement included source materials, then sure, it could be binding in court.

Here we have a handshake agreement with two parties with different expectations as to what was included. From my understanding, guidance from copyright law is clear: It is only a work-for-hire if there is an agreement saying so, there is no assumption that it is a work-for-hire.

Whether it is good or strategic for Todd to take that guidance is a separate issue.

Typically, my written agreements specify that materials created for the project belong to the client. That would not include intermediate materials (client gets footage, not an EDL). But that's not the only way business is done.

I'm not an attorney, and anyone who is writing contracts and licenses ought to consult a lawyer with experience in these areas, not advice found on the internet.

SB