BUSINESS AND MARKETING: Business and Marketing Forum Business and Marketing Articles

Owning the raw footage

COW Forums : Business & Marketing

<< PREVIOUS   •   FAQ   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
Emre Tufekci S.O.A.Owning the raw footage
by on Jan 20, 2010 at 5:12:21 pm

I know this topic has been discussed in detail but here is unique question:

-If you are hired as a freelance company to produce a project for a DOD agency (not classified, just informational) is there a clause that says the government owns the footage by default even if it was not stated in the contract?

A friend of mine is in this position and the agency is asking for the raw footage without presenting any other legal justification.

Just curious if anybody else was in a similar situation?

Thanks


Emre Tufekci
http://www.productionpit.com



Return to posts index

Nick GriffinRe: Owning the raw footage
by on Jan 20, 2010 at 5:21:48 pm

Emre-
Your friend should ask to be shown the clause then when shown give them what they're asking for. Considering the way Federal procurement works it's extremely likely that this wording exists in something he signed to get the gig. Sad but true.


Return to posts index

Richard CooperRe: Owning the raw footage
by on Jan 20, 2010 at 6:23:59 pm

When my company did a shoot for the US State Department it was stated in the contract that all the RAW footage was to be turned over to them. This was plainly in our contract and was no surprise. When I discussed it with the State Department Producer I was working with, he explained that ALL the footage, once the project was complete, was to become "public domain". Which made it fine for me to use later if I wanted. So I kept a set (XDCAM Hard drive files) here in the studio. I think this is probably the norm.

But this is just one project so take it for what it is. The Government is all about dotting the i's and crossing the t's. I am sure that there is some stipulation in the contract somewhere. If not, bring it up and see what happens.

Richard Cooper
FrostLine Productions, LLC
Anchorage, Alaska

Everyone has a story to tell.
http://www.FrostLineProductions.com


Return to posts index


Tim WilsonRe: Owning the raw footage
by on Jan 20, 2010 at 7:16:52 pm

[Richard Cooper] ". I am sure that there is some stipulation in the contract somewhere."

There may not be. Whether or not it's in the contract, it's a stone cold fact that is beyond any negotiation. The People paid for the footage, and they can do with it whatever they wish. It's the law of the land.

In fact, the folks at the agency might be jolly old souls and write up a contract waiving The People's rights to ownership, but it doesn't matter. They're not the agency's rights. That clause of the contract would have no legal force.

Three bits of good news with government. One, every job has a built-in referral. Once you work with one agency, all kinds of doors open. Two, even though it won't be fast, you will ALWAYS get paid.

Three: you can get paid more than once for your work.

Because yes, among the people who gets to do with that footage whatever they want is YOU. The footage is in the public domain, but you still have the rights to any derivative work using it. You could make a commercial with it for one client, use a screen capture for another client, etc.

I wouldn't worry about using footage that theoretically might be used by a lot of other people. I worked for quite a few agencies over the years, and never saw any of my stuff wind up anywhere else.

That said, you do indeed have access to footage shot by EVERYONE who was working on the public dime. You have to pay for the duplication, and the process here is really REALLY slow, but it's egalitarian. For example, look into all the public domain footage available through the Library of Congress. Remarkable.

I found the experience of working with these agencies so rewarding, and the occasional opportunity to repurpose some of the footage so convenient, and the access to so much that I never considered for a second that it was a downside to lose the exclusive rights to raw footage.

tw





Return to posts index

Emre Tufekci S.O.A.Re: Owning the raw footage
by on Jan 20, 2010 at 7:33:42 pm

Thank you everyone for your responses, I will forward my freind to read this thread for more updates.

Emre Tufekci
http://www.productionpit.com



Return to posts index

Chris BlairRe: Owning the raw footage
by on Jan 21, 2010 at 2:36:30 am

Tim Wilson: The People paid for the footage, and they can do with it whatever they wish. It's the law of the land.

This has been dissected and discussed a bunch of times and in the absence of a contract stating specifically that the paying party owns the footage, this just isn't true.

There are numerous books on media law written by intellectual property lawyers that spell this fact out.

Just because somebody pays for a video to be produced, it doesn't automatically give them the rights to the raw footage. Still photographers use this law to their advantage all the time. They shoot photos for a client, they license specific images for a print piece or an ad, but they retain ownership of all the images and if the client wants to use a previously licensed photo for a different print piece, they pay another license fee.

The law if no different for moving pictures.

Now even with that said, as Tim points out, depending on the project and client there's sometimes little advantage in enforcing this policy.

But I'll give you an example of one where it was worth it. I have a colleague who shot video of Kenneth Lay (he of Enron fame) marching all through their Houston offices talking openly about how their company worked. The video was for a sales video. Lay boasted about their operations, their weather forecasters (who predicted weather patterns so Enron could move surplus energy to places that needed it in cold or hot weather) and went on and on about all kinds of operatoinal stuff. Enron didn't have a contract stating they owned the footage and it was never an issue as the guy delivered the edited sales video and life went on.

Fast forward to the Enron collapse. Frontline or Nova or one of those news magazineS on PBS does an hour on the Enron scandal. They get their hands on the sales video and want the raw footage of Lay so they can show he knew ALL ABOUT the operational stuff at Enron when he was claiming that he didn't.

They contact this guy, make him a fairly generous offer and he sells them the footage. Lay's attorney's object and threaten him, but guess what? They have no recourse. They didn't have a contract showing they stipulated ownership of the raw footage, only one that showed the contracted to have a sales video produced, which the guy produced and delivered.

Intellectual property rights can get pretty complex but bottom line, it's rarely an issue anyway. If you don't want it to be one, put a line in your contracts stating you own the raw footage. You're well within your rights to do so. If a client objects...so be it. Give them ownership in the contract and move on with the project. The changes of you making money from the footage are slim. The best reason to keep ownership is that it might give you leverage in getting paid someday.

Chris Blair
Magnetic Image, Inc.
Evansville, IN
http://www.videomi.com


Return to posts index


Emre Tufekci S.O.A.Re: Owning the raw footage
by on Jan 21, 2010 at 2:55:30 am

Thank you for the insight Chris, sounds a lot like the wall-mart incident.

Emre Tufekci
http://www.productionpit.com



Return to posts index

Steve WargoRe: Owning the raw footage
by on Jan 21, 2010 at 4:44:41 am

If your friend is tired of the client calling him to do paying work, he should immediately tell them "No thanks".

That will stop the phone from doing all that silly ringing.

Ever heard the phrase "shoot yourself in the foot"?

We hand it all over immediately, and always have. I don't care what the law says. They paid for it. It's theirs.

However, if you record the images and sound on your media, do they have the rights to that media?



Steve Wargo
Tempe, Arizona
It's a dry heat!

Sony HDCAM F-900 & HDW-2000/1 deck
5 Final Cut (not quite PRO) systems
Sony HVR-M25 HDV deck
2-Sony EX-1 HD .

Ask me how to Market Yourself using Send Out Cards


Return to posts index

Chris BlairRe: Owning the raw footage
by on Jan 21, 2010 at 2:14:13 pm

Steve Wargo: However, if you record the images and sound on your media, do they have the rights to that media?

If you're referring to the notion that if they paid for the tape, they own what's on it...that too is a myth. Using the photography analogy...they also shoot on media, be it film or a digital card or a hard drive. Most photogs I know build the cost of those devices into their shoots. That doesn't magically give ownership of the content on that media to the client.

Again...any issues can be resolved by putting one sentence in your contracts stating that you own the footage. Other points to consider:

1. The issue will come up so rarely in most businesses that it's almost a non-issue anyway.

2. The potential financial gain is so small that again, it has little worth from a financial standpoint.

3. About the only reason to keep ownership is for leverage. Same as you shouldn't release a finished video until you're paid for it, keeping the raw footage gives you SOME leverage should you have payment problems with a client.

Chris Blair
Magnetic Image, Inc.
Evansville, IN
http://www.videomi.com


Return to posts index


walter biscardiRe: Owning the raw footage
by on Jan 21, 2010 at 3:02:56 pm

[Chris Blair] "If you're referring to the notion that if they paid for the tape, they own what's on it...that too is a myth."

I find that very VERY bad business sense. If the client is paying for the tape stock, they absolutely own it. I really don't give a crap what still photographers have been doing for years. If you want to own the raw footage, well then you sure as heck better NOT be charging the client for the raw tape stock. I find that completely unethical.


[Chris Blair] "3. About the only reason to keep ownership is for leverage. Same as you shouldn't release a finished video until you're paid for it, keeping the raw footage gives you SOME leverage should you have payment problems with a client."

So if you held the final master until payment (which we do with all new clients) then why are you holding the raw footage? What leverage do you gain once you've been paid for a job. Makes zero sense to me.


You all do what you want. I find it completely unethical to retain raw footage from a client if they have paid for the production and have paid for the raw tape stock.

As for the digital media question, the client should receive a copy of all raw digital media on a hard drive that they provide.

Walter Biscardi, Jr.
Editor, Colorist, Director, Writer, Consultant, Author.
HD Post and Production
Biscardi Creative Media

"Foul Water, Fiery Serpent" now in Post.

Creative Cow Forum Host:
Apple Final Cut Pro, Apple Motion, Apple Color, AJA Kona, Business & Marketing, Maxx Digital.

Blog!

Twitter!


Return to posts index

Chris BlairRe: Owning the raw footage
by on Jan 21, 2010 at 4:54:50 pm

This issue has been argued over and over in this forum. I've said many times that people can and should choose how to handle this how they see fit and either method is fine. But what angers people is when folks suggest that it's unethical or bad business to take advantage of what the law allows.

I don't care what still photographers do either. But if I spend hours doing concepting, hours doing location scouts, hours doing pre-visualization and storyboards, then hours setting up, lighting and blocking shots for a production, it certainly has potential value to me.

It is NOT bad business to retain ownership of the raw footage and files. It's simply a choice. If it's spelled out, UP FRONT in a contract, it's a complete non-issue. We've never once had a client object. Only one agency has ever asked for ownership prior to a project. They then took our footage, graphics, After Effects comps etc. for a campaign, and asked the local cable company to "recreate" it all so they wouldn't have to pay our rates. The campaign ran for months with new spots coming out every couple weeks from footage we shot and using graphics and design we created.

They even submitted it in the Addy awards giving credit to the cable company for the photography, design and effects! So you're telling me that in that case it was "good business" to turn over all the footage and project files to the client?

We'll certainly turn over footage if the client requests it and they're paid up. We also have no problem signing over ownership if the client requests it prior to a shoot, but almost none do.

But we and thousands of other production companies are within our rights to keep ownership of the footage and media and charge a license fee for it's use in productions outside the scope of the original production. That's not bad business, it's just a choice. It doesn't anger clients and in fact as I've said over and over, it's virtually a non-issue until you get a client that's trying to screw you over.

Chris Blair
Magnetic Image, Inc.
Evansville, IN
http://www.videomi.com


Return to posts index

Todd TerryRe: Owning the raw footage
by on Jan 21, 2010 at 5:30:52 pm

We, too, retain ownership rights to footage, which is spelled out in clients' contracts, and has never once been a problem.

The issue is simple finance... shoots have tons of overhead, edits don't have too much. Ergo we don't make much money on shooting (sometimes it's even a loss), but we do it to get the edit jobs where we do make money and are much more highly lucrative than shooting.

Sometimes we are booked for "shoot only" gigs... most often by out of town producers who are coming in for something and just need a local crew... rather than a complete project produced like we usually do. For those, yep we hand them the footage as the leave and they are free to do with it as they like. But for those guys, the hourly shoot rate is quite a bit higher than it is for the usual projects where we know we are getting the post gig, too.

Right now upstairs my senior editor is cutting a non-broadcast video for a municipal client... sort of a "State of the City" video. They don't have much of a budget, so it is using tons of recycled footage from numerous shoots over the past few years. If we hadn't retained ownership of the footage and blanket releases for everyone appearing in it, we wouldn't be able to use any of it.


T2

__________________________________
Todd Terry
Creative Director
Fantastic Plastic Entertainment, Inc.
fantasticplastic.com






Return to posts index


walter biscardiRe: Owning the raw footage
by on Jan 21, 2010 at 5:31:31 pm

[Chris Blair] "Only one agency has ever asked for ownership prior to a project. They then took our footage, graphics, After Effects comps etc."

I said raw footage. I did NOT say your project files. We do not turn over our project files without a significant payment. The Project Files are your artistic work for which you are being paid.

The raw footage exists on a physical tape that was paid for by the client.

Big difference.

Walter Biscardi, Jr.
Editor, Colorist, Director, Writer, Consultant, Author.
HD Post and Production
Biscardi Creative Media

"Foul Water, Fiery Serpent" now in Post.

Creative Cow Forum Host:
Apple Final Cut Pro, Apple Motion, Apple Color, AJA Kona, Business & Marketing, Maxx Digital.

Blog!

Twitter!


Return to posts index

Chris BlairRe: Owning the raw footage
by on Jan 21, 2010 at 5:48:46 pm

Walter Biscardi: The raw footage exists on a physical tape that was paid for by the client.

I usually agree with just about everything you post Walter...but the media it's placed on and whether you charged for that media is irrelevant according to all the media law books and primers out there.

I'm just not sure where this got started. It's like saying a client owns a photographer's images because he charged them for the film or digital media he used...or a big music company owns rights to a song because they paid for the digital media it's recorded on.

It cost you money to buy the tape or digital media or hard drive and it's ok to charge the client for that cost. There's no magical ownership that's transferred if you do that. I've read and re-read the intellectual property rights law (you can find it online), and read and re-read books written about this law by intellectual property lawyers who try to break it down in simple terms, and this issue of "who paid for the media" is just never discussed.

Bottom line on this issue is it's a personal business choice, and going down either route is ethical, and either route can work for your business model.

Chris Blair
Magnetic Image, Inc.
Evansville, IN
http://www.videomi.com


Return to posts index

Todd TerryRe: Owning the raw footage
by on Jan 21, 2010 at 6:10:09 pm

[Chris Blair] "It cost you money to buy the tape or digital media or hard drive and it's ok to charge the client for that cost."

One twist on that (irrespective to rights ownership) is dubs. On our invoices, we don't charge for dubs. We do, however, charge for dubbing service. And all the dubs we send out have a tiny disclaimer on the label that says "This videotape remains property of Fantastic Plastic and must be returned upon request."

Why do we do that? That way, we are not selling anyone dubs... ergo, then we do not have to charge sales tax on them. A colleague at another production company in town (one that does charge sales tax on tapes) said that we were doing it wrong, and would eventually "get bit" by the practice.

However, during a routine audit a couple of years ago... state, county, and city tax auditors all agreed that what we were doing was correct and legal. (They did, however, stick us for a bunch of sales tax on out-of-state internet equipment purchases... grrr).

Of course, we don't really want the tapes back. Yet about twice a year UPS delivers a big box from some television station (I think it's one in North Carolina) full of old Betas. I finally told them they can walk them straight to the dumpster and cut out the middle man.

If it makes any different to how you feel about rights ownership... don't charge 'em for the tape. Just eat the cost. That's nickles and dimes compared to the whole production cost.



T2

__________________________________
Todd Terry
Creative Director
Fantastic Plastic Entertainment, Inc.
fantasticplastic.com






Return to posts index


Mike SmithRe: Owning the raw footage
by on Jan 22, 2010 at 1:13:45 pm

[walter biscardi] "The Project Files are your artistic work for which you are being paid."

I might suggest that for many producers the raw footage is also their artistic work, which is perhaps where the issue arises. Clearly there can be circumstances where all footage must and should belong to the client (best reflected in contract) and circumstances where it will be more the work and under the ownership and control of the producer (again, best reflected in contract.)

Even though the producer in law probably normally owns the raw footage, clearly the client has an implied right to the use of that footage in their project, and common sense and courtesy would indicate care in any planned alternate or additional use of the footage - it could clearly cause a great deal of upset to a client in some circumstances.

But circumstances will vary. If a client pays for a sequence to be designed, constructed and filmed, reuse of that footage would seem problematic. But suppose the client pays for a few shots in a location that you see a use for in multiple projects; you undertake a lengthier filming trip (quite possibly not loading all costs into one project) and film far more material than you could ever use in the one project. Why, then, would you want to see all of that footage, - physical material and rights to use - transfer to one client ...?


Return to posts index

Tim KolbRe: Owning the raw footage
by on Jan 22, 2010 at 7:42:17 pm

[Chris Blair] "But if I spend hours doing concepting, hours doing location scouts, hours doing pre-visualization and storyboards, then hours setting up, lighting and blocking shots for a production, it certainly has potential value to me."

Most of us try to bill for that. The value is transferred when the check is deposited.

On some of the more "entrepreneurial" endeavors that have been discussed lately where work is being done 'on spec' I think the creating entity absolutely maintains rights.

...but the construction company doesn't set up a toll booth after the work is done if the state paid them for the road construction...

I don't think any of us would claim that our work has 'no value'...it's more a question of what the client is paying for. That tends to be a much more subjective question.




TimK,
Director, Consultant
Kolb Productions,


Return to posts index

Todd TerryRe: Owning the raw footage
by on Jan 22, 2010 at 8:29:10 pm

[Tim Kolb] "it's more a question of what the client is paying for."

Very true... but a lot of the time a client is paying for use of footage for a specific timeframe.

Out of all the raw footage sitting on the shelves in our archives, probably half or more of it contains "sub elements" that have their own rights-usage agreements... usually on-screen talent. If you hire us to shoot a television commercial or corporate film for your company, one of the things we ask is "How long with this run (or air)?" This is because many (if not most) of the people appearing in our footage are paid actors... principals, extras, and those in between.

If we know a commercial, for example, will only be used for a couple of months, then typically in that situation we would hire that actor with a 13-week agreement (which is usually the minimum). If that company wants to use the footage a couple of years from now... they may own the footage but they no longer own the rights to the performance on that footage... which requires at least another phone call for agreement/negotiations and definitely payment with their agent or management, and possibly their union.

This is one reason we don't usually do a blanket release of all footage rights to a client.

Just owning the physical tape isn't always enough.



T2

__________________________________
Todd Terry
Creative Director
Fantastic Plastic Entertainment, Inc.
fantasticplastic.com






Return to posts index

Nick GriffinRe: Owning the raw footage
by on Jan 22, 2010 at 8:43:22 pm

[Todd Terry] "they no longer own the rights to the performance on that footage"

One exception to this that's worth noting, on PSAs (Public Service Announcements) I believe that the standard is that talent fees are a one time "buy-out" so that the talent does NOT get paid over and over in recurring cycles. At least that's how it was with AFTRA/SAG talent in my previous life of putting things on the air.


"Some people say that I'm superficial. But that's just on the surface."


Return to posts index

Todd TerryRe: Owning the raw footage
by on Jan 22, 2010 at 8:50:40 pm

It depends on the gig. With some performances, such as certain corporate films, or say a performance that plays as part of an attraction at an amusement park, for example... there are certain AFTRA/SAG designations that allow for a performance buy-out... you pay for it, you own it.

By and large, for anything broadcast as part of a signatory project with union talent, then there are specific time usage limitations.

I've personally never heard of the PSA exemption... but it's certainly possible... the union regs are so convoluted that it's definitely a possibility. And I'm betting you could call five different locals and get five different answers to that. None of the union offices seem to have a clue as to how things work, outside of the NY and LA locals... and often times not there, either.


T2

__________________________________
Todd Terry
Creative Director
Fantastic Plastic Entertainment, Inc.
fantasticplastic.com






Return to posts index

Nick GriffinRe: Owning the raw footage
by on Jan 22, 2010 at 9:17:52 pm

Perhaps it's my proximity to the Washington DC local AFTRA (third in size behind NY & LA). Over the years there have been so many jobs for the government which required a buyout. And doesn't THAT just bring this whole thread full circle to where it started out?


"Some people say that I'm superficial. But that's just on the surface."


Return to posts index

Tim KolbRe: Owning the raw footage
by on Jan 25, 2010 at 3:07:42 am

[Todd Terry] "By and large, for anything broadcast as part of a signatory project with union talent, then there are specific time usage limitations."

Yes, of course there are other circumstances that would limit the latitude of the production vendor and the client. The client can't use SAG talent longer than the agreement allows...and obviously the production vendor can't re-use anything that shows any client confidential intellectual property...all protected by agreement in advance in any production project that is set up by pros.

I think most of us understand what we're speaking of here. we aren't talking about violating SAG rules or breaching intellectual property agreements.

We're talking about who footage of the client's retail product, or a generic forklift shot in the warehouse, (or any other image that has no other obvious contractual limitations outside of the client paying for every hour the production crew spent acquiring the image and any supplies expended) belongs to once the invoice is paid.

Lots of reasons for opinions on both sides...





TimK,
Director, Consultant
Kolb Productions,


Return to posts index

Scott CarnegieRe: Owning the raw footage
by on Jan 22, 2010 at 4:35:28 pm

I have always been of the opinion that if I am hired for a shoot, the client is paying for the work, they own that raw footage, that's the product they are buying from me. If I am editing that footage into something, then they are also buying that from me.

Now, rarely do I get asked for a copy of the raw footage, but I would never use their raw footage for another project without permission, because they hired me, they own it. I always keep a copy of the raw, and I let them know that I ahve a copy should anything ever happen to theirs, they like the redundancy.

I have that clearly said in my contracts.


http://www.MediaCircus.TV
Media Production Services
Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada


Return to posts index

Steve WargoRe: Owning the raw footage
by on Jan 24, 2010 at 6:26:34 am

I'm with you Scott - UNLESS there are some circumstances which require a different approach.

Like I said earlier, "If they pay me to shoot it, they own it."

This statement does NOT cover talent issues, creative files, music or any other "accessories". It the raw footage only.

Steve Wargo
Tempe, Arizona
It's a dry heat!

Sony HDCAM F-900 & HDW-2000/1 deck
5 Final Cut (not quite PRO) systems
Sony HVR-M25 HDV deck
2-Sony EX-1 HD .

Ask me how to Market Yourself using Send Out Cards


Return to posts index

Tim WilsonRe: Owning the raw footage
by on Jan 21, 2010 at 4:51:07 pm

[Chris Blair] "Tim Wilson: The People paid for the footage, and they can do with it whatever they wish. It's the law of the land.

This has been dissected and discussed a bunch of times and in the absence of a contract stating specifically that the paying party owns the footage, this just isn't true."


Agreed re: everyday clients.

Agreed re: state and local governments, which are exempted from Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 105 of the US Code...although Florida and Minnesota have enacted similar statutes of their own under state law. California may have, but this is - not shockingly - ambiguous.

Re: federal agencies, read the aforementioned Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 105 of the US Code, which covers contractors.

To be honest, I did. I have a couple of things to say about that. One, be glad I'm an insomniac. Two, aside from being a little dense after you find it, the language is pretty easy to read.

Three, I have some corrections and clarifications to what I said before.

It turns out that contractors DO have negotiation rights for *civilian* agencies and NASA, but in the absence of an agreement, the default is that they retain all rights for the public domain. To assert your rights, you have to do so in advance, attach a form to the footage, etc. etc. And you might be denied.

And if it's not specified in advance, forget it. You missed the bus.

Even if you get to retain copyright, here's the rub. Under the Federal Acquisition Regulations,

The Government is granted for itself and others acting on its behalf a paid-up, nonexclusive, irrevocable worldwide license in this work to reproduce, prepare derivative works, distribute copies to the public, and perform publicly and display publicly, by or on behalf of the Government. All other rights are reserved by the copyright owner.

So you own it IF you assert your rights in advance, and IF they are granted...but the government can still use it in most of the ways important to your copyright, including creating derivative works and distribution to the public. Your copyright only applies to non-government folks using the footage...unless they ask for it from the government! In which case, of course, as US citizens, they have full access to it.

And indeed, the FAR gives the government the right to come back later and require the rights be transferred to them.

Note that under the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement, clause 252.227-70209, you are required to assign all rights to the government. Period. It's not clear to me what rights you retain once you've assigned "all" rights to government, but there you go: you have to assign them the rights. Nothing to negotiate.

Which was in fact part of Emre's original question.

So, to answer directly:

[Emre Tufekci S.O.A.] "If you are hired as a freelance company to produce a project for a DOD agency (not classified, just informational) is there a clause that says the government owns the footage by default even if it was not stated in the contract?

Yes, there is a *default* that the government owns the footage, for every agency, both military and civilian. You have some, but not unlimited, room for negotiation, only with civilian agencies and NASA, and only in advance.

[Emre Tufekci S.O.A.] ....the [DoD] agency is asking for the raw footage without presenting any other legal justification."

For the Department of Defense, they don't need to justify anything beyond what is in the code: you shoot it for them, you have to assign them the rights.

Reading the manual - fun for the entire family!


Return to posts index

Emre Tufekci S.O.A.Re: Owning the raw footage
by on Jan 21, 2010 at 7:07:57 pm

Thank you Tim, thats great information.

Emre Tufekci
http://www.productionpit.com



Return to posts index

Timothy J. AllenRe: Owning the raw footage
by on Jan 21, 2010 at 11:53:21 pm

Tim Wilson, I finally found a thread I'm halfway qualified to answer, and you've already answered it better than I would. That's what I get for sleeping at night. ;-)

I wish more people would take advantage of video that they - as taxpayers - have already funded. I went over your posts and pretty much second it. There are just a couple of thoughts to add...

Some video, while not classified as "secret" or export controlled, may still be considered proprietary. For instance, when NASA partners with a contractor to develop certain technology, there are times when the outside company retains rights to a segment of the intellectual property. It depends on the partnership agreement.

Second, even if you acquire rights to "public domain" footage, there may be strings attached. For instance, you may very well be able to use an image of a space shuttle launch, or an astronaut walking in space for a corporate video - maybe even in a commercial venture. But be careful. When using NASA footage, you aren't allowed to use NASA imagery in ways that implies that NASA (or for that matter, the U.S. Government) endorses your product or cause. The NASA logo also has very specific guidelines in how it can be used - even within the agency - and especially by outside organizations.

Also people depicted in the imagery still generally own the right to assign rights to their own likeness. So, you can't simply pop some video of a recognizable astronaut smiling in your video without any thought of consequences. I'm just sayin'...



Return to posts index

Emre Tufekci S.O.A.Re: Owning the raw footage
by on Jan 22, 2010 at 12:06:00 am

Since we are on the topic you can get access to DOD footage from DVIC.

http://www.defenseimagery.mil/index.html

If you want you can walk into their riverside CA facilities and dub the tapes yourself.



Emre Tufekci
http://www.productionpit.com



Return to posts index

Tim WilsonRe: Owning the raw footage
by on Jan 22, 2010 at 12:28:07 am

[Timothy J. Allen] ", there are times when the outside company retains rights to a segment of the intellectual property. It depends on the partnership agreement."

I mostly focused on things that we do in our end of the business, but yeah, stuff like software remains almost entirely in the hands of the contractor.

[Timothy J. Allen] "When using NASA footage, you aren't allowed to use NASA imagery in ways that implies that NASA (or for that matter, the U.S. Government) endorses your product or cause. The NASA logo also has very specific guidelines"

I started to go there, but I figured you'd be better to deal with the NASA part. :-)

Funny story about logos - when I asked for them, most of the agencies I dealt with gave me scans of their business cards!


tw


Return to posts index

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
© 2017 CreativeCOW.net All Rights Reserved
[TOP]