Re: Kansas firm sells candid Wal-Mart videos

Admittedly in the UK and in a very much smaller way I once asked a media lawyer a question that relates to this – mainly because I was owed a bit of money.

The “who owns” question when there is no contract in place.

The answer was pretty much immediate and definitive:- “Can you honestly stand up in court and say that you were employed by the client company for 4 years on the basis that you would hold all the rights?”

Basically, with no contract in place to say otherwise is falls to an implied “reasonable use” in the handshake agreement over 30 years. As has been pointed out several times already WM would never have employed this company had they ever thought that the footage belonged to anyone but themselves – no company would.

Maybe the US has different rules, but the lawyer and the situation we were discussing covered a lot of countries.

In my opinion Flagler is in a no win financial situation on this one. If they just want to get a few shots in at Wallmart they might score with some leaked footage to lawyers and people that are bringing cases, but this is likely to cost Flagler a lot more than it could ever gain them in money terms.

Flagler are unlikely to be able to position themselves as the White Knight whistle blower, for all the reasons already pointed out. They will look vindictive at best – even if their footage helps a few media friendly cases.

For Flagler it ends the company’s reputation, ruins them further financially in legal evil costs – and they probably don’t even get the satisfaction of slaking their thirst for revenge by scoring any really effective points against the Wallmart.

As usual, only the lawyers will win all round.


The Brit in Brisbane
The Pomme in Production - Brisbane Australia.