This topic section is so far down in the forum, I wonder if anyone will read it.

Golly, need some honest positive suggestions...if possible.

Here's the situation. My wife, Linda, and I had a friendly verbal agreement to video a local high school musical. We are Christians and the school is a Christian school.... Still reading :-) ?

Ok. We first went to a practice on Tues. evening to get a feel for the job. even took pictures for the DVd entrapment. Then we attended the dress rehersal on Thurs. evening.

We had everything covered. Camera placements, multiple audio backups.... digital sound recorder, XLR cable from the sound board to one input on my camera, we both have great quality shotgun mics on our cams too. So, we had a total of 5 audio sources for the Friday night production. We have 2 Canon GL2 cams. I even recorded the dress rehersal on Thursday night (audio) as a "safety backup". Everything looked and sounded great.

We shot the production on Friday night. Of course the sound board , wireless mics and lighting were all done by students.
Long story short, Friday's production was a video disaster. Not on our part but the kids doing the sound and lighting. There were multiple instances of LOUD feedback squeals continuously.... about 15 times during the first 3 minutes alone. Several of the main actors did not have their wireless mics turned on until they had spoken several sentences. At that point the music was so loud that our shotgun mics could not pick up the dialogue

It was so bad that the teacher (first year drama teacher) called us and suggested that the video would not work, due to the sound issues, and we should forget it. What ? I'm thinking,, but, but whose fault was it?? Man after three nights of work ???? Bummer !!!

As a courtesy to the school, I did not charge a production charge up front. We agreed on $10 a DVD with a minimum of 30 DVDs sold. Don't fuss at me for being so cheap, please.

Now he wants to back out due to the poor audio quality.

I have taken this problem on as an editing challange and now, many , many, amny hours later, using the Thursday night recording of most of the music and singing, I have been able to come up with a fairly good soundtrack. He previewed Act 1 and he feels it is acceptable. All 5 recordings made Friday night were bad with feedback and a very loud continuous buzzing from wireless mic. That continued throughout the whole performance. I tried all type of filters and processing but they just messed up the dialogue.

We have done videos of many events over the last three years and this has never happened in the past. What should I do in the future to avoid a potential loss of this type? Suggestions appreciated.
thanks, Tom B.

Take 50% payment, up front, and/or make your cancellation policy clear. This is your business and your livelihood, correct? There's nothing about being a Christian that requires you to be the brunt of other peoples' problems. As a business with integrity, you can extend charitable considerations on a case by case level, but, that's your choice.

Thanks Bill.... Great suggestion. That's the type of thing I need to know. Now I've got to compose a contract with a cancellation clause.....

I feel your pain. But get things in writing (note, I've filmed for my church before and video productions are my full time job... and I've filmed for them with out a contract).

the above suggestion about payment up front is a must (if you want to stay in business). Otherwise you will experience exactly what you did. House audio problems could totally wreck the production and the customer will try to back out of the deal (religion or no).

The problem is that you have already invested lots of hours in getting the production to a semi-watchable state. If the director has seen what you produced and is OK with it, then I would just burn it and ship it. Call it good.

As far as "next time" I would make sure you get time with the audio crew to 1) chew them a new one for massive screwups and then 2) build them up a bit and be a part of the solution by teaching them how to run a live event (if you know that is).

What Bill said, and I would also recommend you never do a small-time video job where your fee is paid by DVD's sold. You WILL get the short end of that stick. Arrange a deal where you are paid for the shoot/edit and you sell the DVD's to the school at a bit above cost and allow THEM to resell the DVD's.

Stuff happens, that's a part of any live event shoot, doesn't matter what your religious persuasion...

I'm not sure why you should be in the uncomfortable position of eating your time and labors because the live performance went south, though I understand the desire of the director to blot out the memory of the unfortunate procedings... it wouldn't surprise me if the risk to his pride is a bigger factor here than your video - it's painful to have a "memory" of something that didn't go well...

Any live event shooter eventually will be faced with the thrill of trying to "fix it in the mix" to alter the reality of a drunk guest at a wedding, a absentminded officiant, a horribly out of tune live music performance... etc. Use your imagination, "live" is live, you take what you get, although a video artist may be able to "help" smooth reality over a bit... I just mixed a wedding that my backup audio was the ONLY usable audio as the officiant forgot to turn on his mic... video was better than being there!

Since you looked ahead and got a good audio track of the DR, if you can patch it over you should be able to deliver an acceptable product at the originally agreed upon price - "a worker is worthy of his wages". Frankly though it's more work, if it yields an acceptable final product, you should be thanked and bonused for saving the day and delivering a good "performance". If your video uses pre-recorded audio, who cares? You're the artist here, and I think you can make a lot of people very happy (and they will forget how "reality" went... thankfully!)

I'm surprised that there were such huge issues between DR and performance - rehearsals are for working these bugs out, but sounds like stage fright on steriods took over...

My feeling is if you can overtrack the DR and sync it fairly well, plus a bit of ambient audience noise salvaged from the performance track, you'd be the "genius" here. Hopefully that skill and talent will be appreciated and compensated.

Thanks Jason, Travis and Dave for taking the time to give me some insight....

OK.. here's the latest. I talked to the drama teacher today and now he tells me that he has contacted the company that issued the license of the play and the school is not allowed by the copyright laws to video and/or sell DVDs of the production............ WHAT ?????

I think we will contact parents and do the sales ourselves... Never heard that one before.

Hi Tom,

Be careful with this one. If the school did not arrange for the right to video the production nor did it arrange for the right to sell DVD's made from a video, then it is likely you do not have those rights either. Just to make matters worse, I am willing to bet the actors and musicians (or their guardians if they are underage) didn't sign releases either.

In developing your contract for future events like this, you will need to cover the model releases, licensing and copyright agreements and be sure they extend beyond the school to cover you as the videographer and producer of DVDs.

I do hope this all ends well, but it looks pretty dicey right now.

Best regads,
Alan

Hi Tom -
My gut instinct is the "drama" teacher (I put that in quotes for a reason) is looking for an out to kabosh the project. Cut your losses, put their caller ID on your blocked list and don't look back.

If you were shooting this for a family member, finish it off, enjoy it, let them enjoy it, whatever. BUT you're on very dangerous ground here - the "drama" dude (re-reading I see you mentioned they are "new"... that expalins a LOT) should have cleared the rights for videotaping and limited DVD's up front, before even thinking about this project. I find it odd that they called AFTER the Titanic went down... red flags flying everywhere here, and though I know it's frustrating to have invested what you did, take the thread title "Learning a Lesson" to heart, and dump the project.


We've beaten the question of copyright to death, resurrected it, beaten it to death again, reanimated it, tortured it, frozen it, microwaved it and left it on the counter overnight... killed it again, etc... over and over in the wedding event section - it's like a recurring horror movie... "The Undead Copyrights". I won't claim it as an interesting read, but might prove helpful if you wanted to take the time to see the various viewpoints expressed in a realtively professional public "debate".

The bottom line is that the "owner" of the IP (Intellectual Property) which is "the play" has various "rights", which include the right to license performance, videotaping, and distribution of a taping of a specific performance. Logic would suggest that these are so interconnected that they are inseparable, but the way copyright "theory" is currently practiced in the USA... the general feeling is they are separate...

My personal position is that if anyone can come in and make a video tape, it's tough to argue that a "professional" videotape with better production quality is a "separate right" - see the thread by Chris Hurd on the Carterphone, and my commentary on it in the Wedding/event threads.

Technology has made it possible to make very high quality video for realtively cheap up front costs, even for Uncle Bob... I feel that making a good quality video of my kid's play is my right, if I want to lug the gear in, but I'm not looking to make any money doing it. It's that magic moment when you are considering doing it "for profit" that the sharks start circling around. And honestly, you don't want to be the one in the meat flavored wetsuit. IP laws are farily arcane, generally well designed for a Vinyl (as in vinyl RECORDS) world, not a digital one. You don't want to be the test case unless you have very large, very deep pockets.

The situation WILL change, but until then, you need to learn as much as possible to protect yourself against this sort of situation and make sure clearances/releases are worked out before investing your time. I notice you described the situation as "a friendly verbal agreement" - this time out, it looks to me to be turning otherwise. This happens to "casual" arrangements when something doesn't go "as expected", so don't take it overly personally, better to just move on.

Hope this is helpful to you, but methinks "the writing is on the wall" here...

Tom, I think you got everything you need to consider in doing live productions in this thread.

The most important is to think ahead and try to avoid getting hurt.

Know your business and avoid non-yielding situations.

For example: Plays are off limits. Period. unless the institution hires you to make the one archival copy they are allowed to make.

Also, this is sad to say but never take people's word for future sales, demand, interest etc... This will run you down a long path.

Have a busniess model and stick to it. You will find that a lot of these situations are to be avoided because everybody wants it, but it is not always organized and not everybody wants it enough to pay for it.

Now about what you charged, I have to go there. $300 for a two camera, two person shoot with multiple days involvement? This rate is worthy of the mess that ensued. When there is that little on the table, you will always be treated as expendable. Seriously, this is like uncle Bob money with a trip to Dairy Queen after the show.

My overall point is not to bash you, but people respond to decent rates as quality and respect. When you give your time away, people do not take you seriously for what you are doing.

You mentioned that you and the drama teacher came to $10 per DVD. Well, the drama teacher is not your customer, the parents who will buy the DVDs are your customers. You are taking the risk, so you should set the price.

Written contracts sound good, but so often the schools do not want to be on the hook for hiring a video guy, so they will avoid any upfront payment. Your best shot is to make sales at the event while the parents are there and are focused on the event. This is your risk to bear and demand should be gauged by you before taking the job.

I have tried the "group buy" approach where I tell the teacher the amount I require to shoot the event and then a DVD price is lowered if enough people participate. This is a pre-sale approach that never works because the commitment has not been there, even if the DVDs are cheap due to the numbers.

Kind of a fork in the road. Charge more and eventually avoid the work because it pays so little or give it away and deal with the mess to help the institution out.

Good Luck

...
The bottom line is that the "owner" of the IP (Intellectual Property) which is "the play" has various "rights", which include the right to license performance, videotaping, and distribution of a taping of a specific performance. Logic would suggest that these are so interconnected that they are inseparable, but the way copyright "theory" is currently practiced in the USA... the general feeling is they are separate...

My personal position is that if anyone can come in and make a video tape, it's tough to argue that a "professional" videotape with better production quality is a "separate right" - see the thread by Chris Hurd on the Carterphone, and my commentary on it in the Wedding/event threads.

Technology has made it possible to make very high quality video for realtively cheap up front costs, even for Uncle Bob... I feel that making a good quality video of my kid's play is my right, if I want to lug the gear in, but I'm not looking to make any money doing it. It's that magic moment when you are considering doing it "for profit" that the sharks start circling around. And honestly, you don't want to be the one in the meat flavored wetsuit. IP laws are farily arcane, generally well designed for a Vinyl (as in vinyl RECORDS) world, not a digital one. You don't want to be the test case unless you have very large, very deep pockets.

The situation WILL change, but until then, you need to learn as much as possible to protect yourself against this sort of situation and make sure clearances/releases are worked out before investing your time. I notice you described the situation as "a friendly verbal agreement" - this time out, it looks to me to be turning otherwise. This happens to "casual" arrangements when something doesn't go "as expected", so don't take it overly personally, better to just move on.

Hope this is helpful to you, but methinks "the writing is on the wall" here...

Let's see if I understand this ... it seems like you're saying that because it's easy and inexpensive to make high quality recordings and copies of intellectual property, when a work that someone such as a songwriter or playwrite has created becomes publically available, it is fair game for an individual to appropriate and profit from it without compensating the creator? Isn't that kind of like saying that it should be acceptable to use your neighbor's car without permission if you happen to have a skelton key that makes it easy to start? Or perhaps is it about the evil coporations, with corporate entities bound to respect IP rights but creative work becomes public domain as far as individual users are concerned? If Sony Pictures wants to film the performance of a script written by Dave Blackhurst and use for its theme song some music he's composed, they should have to pay for it but if Dave wants to film a script owned by Sony Pictures and use music they own the copyright to, it should be fair game because they're so big and rich and he's so small and poor?

The people who create intellectual property are usually not doing it as a hobby, it's a business and their livelyhood. When an individual appropriates it and profits from its use without proper payment of the royalities and licensing fees required for the usage you wish is coming very close to the ethical equivalent of shoplifting from a craftsman's shop. Just because technology has made it easy doesn't mean it's made it right - it's just as wrong to steal from an open display shelf as it is to steal from a locked case.

Let's see if I understand this ... it seems like you're saying that because it's easy and inexpensive to make high quality recordings and copies of intellectual property, when a work that someone such as a songwriter or playwrite has created becomes publically available, it is fair game for an individual to appropriate and profit from it without compensating the creator?

I don't think Dave is saying that at all. What I see in his comments are that this area is a potential quagmire and it's important to have all the necessary rights up front and in writing. Which is completely reasonable from my perspective.

A few comments, but all really too late. For nearly a year, I was in business with a vicar! I'm not particularly religeous, but respect those who are - and have done some interesting stuff with religion as the key. We made a series of training videos for people studying for their Doctorate for a university in the states, with a Director flown in from Australia. My main complaint was that virtually every job had no legal contract, just verbal agreements. I'm not sure how it is in America, but here, verbal agreements are perfectly legal, but just have the disadvantage of proving they were made. If the verbal contract can be proven, then the piece of paper doesn't matter too much (but paper is far more 'provable and valid' - I believe the phrase is "reliable and robust evidence". Christians here seem to hate written contracts - but do get ripped off as a consequence.

If you believe it is fair that you should at least get something for your time and out of pocket expenses - why not simply issue an invoice to the accounts office - not the teacher for a reasonable amount, that would be seen to be fair? They may well pay up, if they see what you actually did. If they got an electrician in, or a plumber - and then they cancelled the job, they would expect to receive an invoice for a callout - they may well simply accept your aborted work in the same light. It can't hurt to try?

I don't think Dave is saying that at all. What I see in his comments are that this area is a potential quagmire and it's important to have all the necessary rights up front and in writing. Which is completely reasonable from my perspective.

Aye, he does say that, and I'd certainly agree with that part of his statements. But he also says that the sharks are circling because the present laws are unreasonable in requiring you to do that. That I disagree with. While I think some adjustments in licensing procedures could be made to make it easier for small operators to comply with the law, I feel that the idea of protecting the IP creator's right to retain control of his work and to exploit it financially is sound. I feel it's just as important for the sole operator, small-time business person to be as scrupulous in their dealings with IP as it is for large-scale businesses such as the networks and the studios. The only difference between Joe Event-shooter and George Lucas is the size of their budget and if George has to pay for rights to use some material, so should Joe. And as far as the cost, look at your own business - do you use a sliding scale for your fees, charging more if your client earns $100,000 a year than you would if they only earned $25k? Or is your time and talent worth the same regardless of the client's financial status? As far as Bob Songwriter is concerned, a use of his product is worth, say, $5000 regardless of whether his customer is Travis Woelfel or CBS and it's his right to put any price on his work that he wants - he has no obligation to make it affordable for you because you can't use it otherwise. Does the Rolls-Royce dealer have an obligation to drop his price on a new Ghost down to the $25,000 you want to spend because you can't afford the $250,000 sticker price? Lucas has to clear everything he uses and pay its creator to use the fruits of his labours, and so should Joe in the small-town wedding/event studio down the block or Mary working out of her home office. Technology hasn't changed the smaller operator's obligations, if anything it's made them more vital. When Joe's output was a grainy, streaky VHS tape with warbly low-fi sound, nobody cared much and it probably didn't make much difference, but now the fact he can make something for a couple of kilobucks in gear expense that looks and sounds almost as good as Lucas's million-dollar opus means that he is in the same ballpark as the Hollywood studios and should be playing by the same set of legal requirements when he takes his service to market. In the matter of the OP's problems with shooting the school play, if NBC can't come in and shoot it for, say, a reality TV series on high school drama, without clearing the play for taping and broadcast with its publisher, neither should an individual event videographer expect to do so when he wants to seel DVDs of the show to the audience. For a parent to shoot his own kids it's one thing. But for an individual to offer himself as a professional for hire doing it and/or selling the results of his shoot is another. It's at the copyright owner's sole discretion whether he's going to allow either NBC or Joe's Big Events to shoot it and I think it's perfectly proper for him to retain that control and to require the party wishing to use his materials to respect his decision. When a shooter markets himself as a professional, even a part-time one, he has to play by the grown-up's rules and the grown-up rules say that all copyrighted material must be licensed for it's specific use regardless of whether that usage is in a program sold as a network TV series intended for national broadcast, a sales training program for a chain of real estate offices, an ad for a retailer run on regional cable TV, Central High School's production of "Little Shop of Horrors" sold on DVD to the parents, or Bill and Mary's wedding sold to them for sharing with their friends and family.

...I'm not sure how it is in America, but here, verbal agreements are perfectly legal, but just have the disadvantage of proving they were made. If the verbal contract can be proven, then the piece of paper doesn't matter too much (but paper is far more 'provable and valid' - I believe the phrase is "reliable and robust evidence". ...?

Same in North America, with some statutory exceptions - a purchase contract for real estate or a transfer of copyright must be in writing, for examples. But in general verbal contracts are binding.

Any contract or provision that is illegal is automatically VOID, regardless of whether verbal or on paper. I believe a green drama teacher made a HUGE error, and unfortunately cost the OP a lot of time and effort - what bothers me is how "the call" happened after he was trying to back out of the arrangement. THUS why I said dump the project, block the guys' number and avoid - this is a headache no one needs...

For the OP, the problem here is the person who SHOULD have checked the clearances either "forgot" to do it up front, or (IMO) is using it after the ship went down as an cheap "out" - my advice stands. Walk away, it's not worth dealing with this sort of situation. Maybe next time ask about the clearances.



Steve - you continue to amuse me with your copyright arguments and attempts to take things out of context, your statement illustrates my point -

"When Joe's output was a grainy, streaky VHS tape with warbly low-fi sound, nobody cared much and it probably didn't make much difference, but now the fact he can make something for a couple of kilobucks in gear expense that looks and sounds almost as good as Lucas's million-dollar opus means that he is in the same ballpark as the Hollywood studios and should be playing by the same set of legal requirements when he takes his service to market."

So it wasn't copyright infringement (or it WAS and no one cared) when the equipment couldn't take the voice and transmit it over the airwaves, but it became an infringement and actionable when someone logically used the technology at hand (Carterphone case) to achieve that end... I can hear the Judge laughing now.

Your own "argument" tells all - as long as the quality of the taping is crappy enough, no one cares if it's an infringement (that certainly makes the IP holder look good...), but if it's actually done semi-professionally with state of the art equipment, he's a criminal... and the sharks circle... sigh... Oh by the way, I don't think too many videographers are arrogant enough to consider their "wedding /event video" work in the same league as Lucas... or their equipment, however good, to be anywhere close to even ONE "professional camera" on a Hollywood set... I know you'd be laughed to the curb for even saying such an absurd thing in some forums. But as "consumer" gear improves (and some of these video guys produce "cinematic" work that blows you away), obviously it's harder to make the distinction.


The bottom line is there needs to be some logic, and certainly "reasonable compensation" to the IP holder (which is likely to be "micropayments", given the typical size of an "event market") for reasonable use in a digital world. The idea of squeezing the licensee for every little aspect (and every possible use of the 1's and 0's) is not a wise way to boost your revenue, but I understand the twisted logic of those who think that way. It shouldn't be a matter of big or small, rich or poor, but it IS because "them with the gold made the rules", and ultimately we all suffer in that sort of "economy".

The continued attempt to argue that because big studios must run on one set of rules there must be no mercy and no quarter (and a lot of name calling) for the small event shooter whose "market" is at the most a few dozen people who'd like to have a decent memory (and don't feel like shooting it themselves) of an event they or a family member were involved with... the economics are so completely inequitable and incomparable that the argument just elicits a chuckle...

I know that organizations like the RIAA liked to get out the brass knuckles (or their attorneys, same diff) and beat up grandma to "set an example", but the public "badwill" that results can destroy the very underlying value of the "product". I used to shake my head every time I heard a whinge about the "declining record industry/sales"... DUH, screw your potential customers and grind them for all they are worth, and you won't have "customers", your IP becomes WORTHLESS, or at least worth less...

CONVERSELY, make the product available at a reasonable price without a lot of hassle, and make more $$. But don't make granny (or Joe) a criminal because you have no business sense. The economics are simple - when I can buy a DVD for $15 or less, why the heck would I even BOTHER making a copy (or worse yet buying a bootleg!), even though I can? But if you want me to pay $6M for a dvd so you can recoup your production cost on one sale... hmmm, if that DVD is really worth that, I hear DVD burners spinning up... and obviously this is an attractive target for the REAL criminal who should be prosecuted, and vigorously!

In a digital world, if your IP is worth something, put it in digital form, run it up the flagpole and see who salutes - if Sony wants distribution rights, charge accordingly, if "granny's video memories" wants to burn a stack of DVD's for the bridge club's wild trip to Vegas, charge accordingly if she'd like to use "girlz just want to have fun" for the soundtrack... it's not rocket science.

'nuf said.

Dave, I agree that it would be a good thing if small users could license materials for small fees and simplified licensing requirements. I also agree that it would probably be a good busness model for the IP owners as well. What I disagree is your statements that digital technology has made it necessary for the laws to change. While it would certainly be nice if the copyright ownersof "Little Shop of Horrors" made the necessary licenses for you to film a high school performance of the play with subsequent sale to the parents cheap and easily obtainable, there is no reason that they are ethically compelled to do so and digital technology hasn't changed that. In a culture that values private property rights above just about all else, the owners of the IP are the sole arbiters of who can use it for what and how much it's going to cost. People who want to use it have only two ethical options - secure the perrmissions and pay the asking price or not use it at all. If that means you can't sell DVDs to the parents or you lose a contract to shoot a wedding because you can't use the bride's favourite song in the video, so be it. The fact you need those rights in order to engage in your chosen business is irrelevant and does not mean the law needs to change so as to compel the owners to give them to you at the price you're willing to pay.

Steve -
Simply put, as technology has changed, so has law - it either adapts or becomes an anachronism or a joke. Change happens, it's reality, unless you're a Luddite. But surely you realize the changes will happen, with or without one's willing participation. While the fundamental principles of law remain relatively constant, the application can vary widely... and technology can change the game faster than bureaucracies and institutions can adapt!

Those who see the change and go with it survive, those who don't go extinct. Ask the next typesetter you meet... I'm seeing more "big" studios thoughtfully seeking to find ways to make money in the new digital world in which micropayments scale rather well, instead of desperately litigating to protect a dying business model. The wise IP holder will realize that a fair price = more buyers = more exposure = more popularity = more income...

But to gracefully return to the thread... if an IP holder doesn't have or wish to adapt an accomodative licensing strategy, go on to the next one, there are lots of options out there.

The OP in this case didn't have that choice and probably didn't realize the issues the director ignored. BUT... I'm guessing the noobie teacher was planning on a stupendous first outing, and looked forward to documenting his grand debut... the innocent OP got drawn in... when the Titanic went down, the guy needed an out (damage control), so a call to the IP owner was all too "convenient" to kill the "deal". It would do the trick though...

For the OP, lesson learned, but walking away and not looking back lest your tripod turn into a pillar of salt seems the best "solution", however disappointing it must be. Sometimes grand plans go down in flames because someone didn't watch the P's and Q's, this looks like one of those times things didn't work out...

Of course the law changes as culture evolves and technology certainly is one of the driving forces behind it. But you're overlooking the fact that there is nothing in the law today that prevents owners of IP from making it available with minimal complications and at low cost to people who wish to use it if they choose to do so. If you wish to use a piece of IP you contact the copyright owner directly and negotiate a deal, just like when you purchase anything else. If someone wishes to license you the rights to use a popular song for $5 per DVD or to grant a license to a school allowing them to videotape the performance of a play and sell copies to the parents, there's nothing preventing them from doing it. In fact, nothing prevents an IP owner from allowing anyone who asks the right to use their work completely free of charge if they wish and IP owners such as Bono have been known to give permission to use their work free of charge in documentaries for causes they support. The only thing that requires a change in the law would be if one were to remove it from being at the IP owner's option, as it is now, and instead to make it compulsary. But that is a fundamental violation of their property rights, effectively confiscating their personal property, the fruits of their labours. Certainly there are circumstances where the public good is considered to outweigh private rights and that's where "fair use" kicks in. But one would be hard-pressed to argue that there is a prevailing public interest in making popular music cheaply available to wedding shooters who wish to use it in a product they're offering for sale or making the rights to videotape the performance of a play by a school and then sell copies available either at no charge to event shooters or bundled within the performance rights their client has purchased.

$10/DVD 30 DVD minimum... They owe you at least $300. I use 2 hour minimums doing tech support all the time. If they choose to use me for 2 hours, I'll work for 2 hours doing whatever, but most of the fixes I'm called for are 15 minute jobs and people try to pay me for 15 minutes of housecalls.

You agreed to a minimum, ask for them to honor it. The production problems are part of using students to run a production, part and parcel. The production problems are not your problem. You're being paid for time spent providing a service, not for producing a student musical theater project. You did your job and went above and beyond... why shouldn't you get paid for that... and why shouldn't you insist you do.

Cole makes a good point - "a worker is worthy of his wages". While I suspect that recovering from the teacher may be difficult under the circumstances, a call to the principal might be in order? Remember there's a hierarchy, and damage caused by the errors of the underling might be corrected by the superior if approached tactfully.

If the question of lack of deliverables comes up, I think it would be appropriate to point out the work done, and that the project only became undeliverable due to the failure by the teacher to properly "clear" everything before contracting to have a video made, not the fault of the OP.

Perhaps in the future the OP will ask a couple extra questions and avoid this sort of "misunderstanding"...

Steve -
We are on the same page to an extent. Nothing PREVENTS a reasonable licensing system... but the EXISTING convoluted system subjects the smaller business entity to potential abuse at the hands of "the law" (and an ornery or arbitrary IP holder), simply because there are all these various "rights" with esoteric definitions and applications defined in a time of vinyl records, lo-fi VHS recorders, and 28.8 baud modems.

We live in a time of 1's and 0's, media shifting and digital storage/delivery/display. Time's changed, the law needs to catch up. Meanwhile, to maintain the flow of commerce and a logical trek towards a "digital IP law", sometimes one must choose to "bend" or thoughtfully reinterpret the rules to fit the new paradigm. The lawyers will eventually get around to doing so once a sufficient amount of money is spent (wasted?)...

I'm not advocating violating IP rights, but I'm pulling for "reasonable use" of IP once purchased in digital form. That's different from "fair use" in the sense that the end "user" or a service entity wishing to incorporate a piece of IP into a project for that "user" needs to have a sensible method by which a license can be "purchased" at a fair rate without having to have a team of lawyers to "clear" rights...

Oddly, the OP's position here is illustratative, he expected that the "performance rights" reasonably allowed for audience members to tape (memorialize that performance on video), and that as such, he could be hired to do that job for them so they could enjoy the show and still have a memory to enjoy later. He was "hired" by the teacher who had presumably purchased the right to perform the play... and by reasonable extension allow for it to be videotaped by (or FOR) audience members. When the performance didn't go as expected, and the "director" wants the project deep sixed, suddenly "videotaping/distribution rights" come up... HMMMMM. I'm willing to bet there were a few dozen "private" cameras running, did the director confiscate/destroy all of the tapes? May have wanted to, but...

Sometimes the ephemeral nature of an "event" is an advantage (here, I'm thinking the "director" would prefer to forget his "debut"), other times it's something you want to remember (I suspect this situation would be quite different had the performance been "brilliant").

This is the plus and the minus of the relatively recent ability to permanently record/re-record/media shift/time shift ANY moment, both audio and visual in "high quality" 1's and 0's. Sometimes you get "Gone With the Wind", other times you get "Ishtar"... I only toss that in to illustrate the potentially wide variation in market and market VALUE of "IP"...

The ultimate question for any business of any size is how to provide a service or a product at a price such that enough people will want to trade their hard earned moolah for that product or service, so you can pay the bills and put some away for a rainy day or reinvest. IP law should protect all parties and provide a reasonable structure to achive that end.

...

Oddly, the OP's position here is illustratative, he expected that the "performance rights" reasonably allowed for audience members to tape (memorialize that performance on video), and that as such, he could be hired to do that job for them so they could enjoy the show and still have a memory to enjoy later. He was "hired" by the teacher who had presumably purchased the right to perform the play... and by reasonable extension allow for it to be videotaped by (or FOR) audience members. When the performance didn't go as expected, and the "director" wants the project deep sixed, suddenly "videotaping/distribution rights" come up... HMMMMM. I'm willing to bet there were a few dozen "private" cameras running, did the director confiscate/destroy all of the tapes? May have wanted to, but...

Sometimes the ephemeral nature of an "event" is an advantage (here, I'm thinking the "director" would prefer to forget his "debut"), other times it's something you want to remember (I suspect this situation would be quite different had the performance been "brilliant").

....

From the perspecitive of the owner of the IP your argument just doesn't hold water. Let's assume you wish to own a performance of "Little Shop of Horrors." Why should the copyright owner make X dollars from allowing taping of a performance by a high school troop when he can make 100,000 times X dollars licensing Sony to make a movie that you'll go buy on DVD? He makes more money AND he has the assurance that the audience is seeing the work in its best light. Allowing taping of less than 100% professional perfomances dilutes the market for his work and he loses money. Of course he's assuming here that the reason you want the tape of your kids performance is that you want a tape of "Little Shop..." not because you want a tape of your kid. And from his perspective that's not a totally unreasonable assumption.

I still don't understand why you hold that digitial reproduction methods mean that the private property rights of owners of IP need to be diluted. Just because it's easier and cheaper for you to make excellent copies of a work doesn't mean that it should be easier and cheaper for you to get the rights to incorporate other people's work into your own products. It actually could be argued that if anything, the advent of digital technonology should mean the law must be strengthened, inflicting more severe penalties for the unlawful appropriation of other people's intellectual property. Since it's so much easier to commit the crime, the disincentive for doing the deed should be even more severe in order to prevent it from happening. I'm not saying I argree with that idea, just that your argument holding that the digital revolution means the law should become more lax is equally flawed. Basically I think the technology of the creation and distribution of intellectual property is irrelevant to the issues regading the right of the actual creator of a work to be the sole determiner as to its commercial exploitation. You have the final say as to who can use the video you shoot for what purpose and at what price. Why aren't you willing to grant others the same absolute right to control their own creative output? Just because you WANT to use it doesn't mean you have the RIGHT to use it. To advocate that the law needs to change, you need to establish that the present law unfairly prevents you from doing something you have a moral right to do and ought to have the legal right to do - so how about it? By what reasoning does your desire to use someone else's intellectual property trump their right to retain absolute control over it? Just that fact that digital technology makes it very easy to do isn't enough.

Steve -
Your argument doesn't hold water. Let's say a "big studio" wants to do a full screen treatment of a play, because it's popular... or they think it will be. They'll bring in a multimillion $ budget and name talent... all that ADDED to the "story" makes a salable product of broad interest.

Small Town Jr. High's production of the same story starring li'l Johnny and Sweet Jane shot by the local videographer "live" with a couple grand in equipment is not going to have the same attraction to the mass market (or the "same" production value)... but it still has a value to the IP holder in that it spreads the reputation of the work in a healthy way. If the play is fun and enjoyable, no one's going to blame the IP holder because Susie was a quarter step flat on a few notes...

It was your own argument that no one cared about a lo-fi production... but it isn't about the quality of the production, it's about the extremely limited MARKET and market VALUE for such a production. The only change here is that it's possible with newer technology to produce a higher quality recording thereof, but the limited market value remains when you're talking about a production with an audience of dozens, not millions.

Treating ALL productions as though somehow they are the same and should pay the same fees (and that's the foundation for your odd approach) is silly - the performance license doesn't work that way does it?

Remember too that the IP holder chooses to license "Small Town Jr High" to perform the work, so they already realize the benefits of doing so - how they wouldn't further benefit by allowing people to take home a memory and share the enjoyment of that particular production is beyond me, and if they allow private parties to tape, they reasonably should be better served by a "professional" taping... it only makes sense.

Treating ALL productions as though somehow they are the same and should pay the same fees (and that's the foundation for your odd approach) is silly - the performance license doesn't work that way does it?

Being "silly" and being "the way things are" are two different things. The copyright holder is perfectly within their right to ask whatever price they want.

And yes I agree that it is silly how IP laws are currently structured, but until a circuit court judge starts asking me to help him re-wright copyright law, then that is the way things are for now. Like it or hate it. And arguing with Steve on this issue is a moot point, no matter how much the rest of us wish he was wrong. He isn't.

Being "silly" and being "the way things are" are two different things. The copyright holder is perfectly within their right to ask whatever price they want.

And yes I agree that it is silly how IP laws are currently structured, but until a circuit court judge starts asking me to help him re-wright copyright law, then that is the way things are for now. Like it or hate it. And arguing with Steve on this issue is a moot point, no matter how much the rest of us wish he was wrong. He isn't.

In some cases I wish I was wrong! But at the same time, I don't want to see people compelled by law to grant licenses to others that they don't want to grant or be forced to do so at fees that are below what they believe to be the fair market value of their work and are/or less than they feel they deserve. The fruits of your labours should remain your personal property and under your control, or under the control of those to whom you sell the rights in the course of earning your living. We have to be careful that in the process of making it cheap and easy for event and wedding shooters to incorporate other's IP into their work we don't harm everyone else in the music, broadcast, film, video, publishing, etc industries who rely on the sale of rights to IP they created or have contributed to the creation of in order to earn their livelyhood. Money not spent for the rights to use a pop song in your wedding shoot is money out of the pocket of the studio musicians, engineers, technicians etc who are employed by the owners of the intellectual property and paid as part of its creation.

If you are an IP holder, you have the right to ask for as much as you want for use of your IP... including letting it go for free.

Shouldn't it be the person who wants to use the IP be the one negotiating with the IP owner on how much it's worth with the owner having final say? It must be worth something if they want to use it.

Nothing is stopping you from contacting the IP owners to get a good price. You just have to convince them that it's worth it for them to allow you to use their IP.

Creating things that people want to use should give you power over the things you create. If it's not worth the time and effort to clear it, make something yourself. If you can't, then you know why you have to pay someone that can.

Even when the government eventually will get involved and order a compulsory license, nothing stops you from getting the IP owner to give you a better rate... if they want to.

Sorry about the rant...
//IP owner

Oh man, that's rough. I had a similar thing happen to me a few years back. Although I hate having learned something 'the hard way,' I did take several lessons away from the experience:

- Like any good construction contractor will do, I now only work gigs where my time and materials are covered up-front. That way if things go south, at least I'm not out for my upfront expenses. This has meant that I've had to turn down (or been passed over) for a few gigs, but not as many as I had feared when I implemented the policy, and I've found that it helps weed out some of the unprofessional clients anyway.

- Written contracts = always. Regardless of the size of the project, or the amount of money changing hands. I even use written contracts for the pro bono work I do because even if there's no money involved, it sets a professional 'tone' for the gig. I'm always surprised by how many potential clients think that all they're doing is renting my 'sweet equipment,' and that I don't bring anything to the table. Contracts help change that perception.

- I know how much I charge and why, and I make sure the client knows it as well. That is to say, I may choose to lower my rates, or do something for free, but the client always knows how much my services WOULD have cost, had I been charging them full price, and specifically what that cost gets them. I find that this helps dispel the common notion that 'any dude with a camcorder and a tripod could do what you do.'

-Don't throw good time after bad. I think we can all relate to the notion of wanting to produce the best product possible, and if the problems were my fault, I'll bend over backwards and spend as much time as necessary to try and correct the problem. But when it comes to things that are 'acts of God' or clearly someone else's fault causing a gig to go bad, that signals a work stoppage for me until I've talked with the client, revised the contract, etc. This doesn't always mean that I charge full price for remedial work, but at least the client understands what happened, what it's going to take to fix it, and how much that will cost to do. Especially with pro bono, or reduced fee work I also put a hard limit on how much time I am willing to put towards fixing something that wasn't my fault and make sure the client understands my limits.

- It's been beaten in this thread, but respecting copyrights is of paramount importance. I have a clause in my contract that the client must initial acknowledging that they have secured all the proper releases, and indemnifying my company in the event that proper licensing has not been secured.

Anyway, those are some of the lessons I have learned the hard way. Hope they help!

Regards,

Jeff

One month later and here's the conclusion. First I've got to thank all of you for your comments. So I think it's only fair that I let you know how things turned out.

About a week after the last call from the Drama Director, he called again. This time, to my surprise, he told me that even though they could not take the DVDs and/or even give them away, they were willing to make good on the verbal agreement. So he told me that the school would write me a check for $250. What a surprise. I am serious. End of story.

Thanks again for your comments.

Glad to hear it worked out Tom, it's good when folks do the right thing even when things don't work out as expected! And now you know a whole lot more for "future reference"!