Who owns the footage anyway ???
 

Over the past few years have been taping an incredible Musician who has basically started from scratch after 40 years with a certain Acapella group singing from street corners to concert halls.

Although there is no written contract stating who has rights to the footage it has been verbally agreed the footage would be for the archive and could be used to help tell his story in a documentary. Kind of like the movie "Standing in the Shadows of Motown : The Funk Brothers".

Except for once or twice when they helped pay for tapes or a hotel room at a location shoot I have volunteered my time, money and travel expense.

*** Just received an email that am not sure how to respond to, here's an excerpt:

"Hope you are well & busy doing what you love.

I am wondering who really owns the film footage you shot of --- & the guys? Is it yours? Is it ours? I’m hoping it belongs to me & --- & of course our plan is to pay you for your time, talents & supplies eventually.

I think it should all be copied for safe keeping. I would like to place a copy in a safe deposit box. Who knows what opportunities will present themselves? ... But --- & I may have the opportunity to hand it all over to a film maker & I need to have access to it at any time of day to show it to some industry folks...

Please share your thoughts "

Apologize for the lengthy post.

Basically want to know who owns the footage anyway and how can I make the footage available to the filmmaker without handing over the original tapes ???

Thanks guys for your thoughts.

Ken B.

First question would be is there any music on these tapes? If so, the copyright for the music would be held by the composers and performers of the music, so that will need to be cleared.

You would normally hold the copyright to the images, although depending on the arrangement you might need a release form for appearing in the film signed by the musician. Broadcasters usually like to have a paper trail, so it would be safer to get the musician to sign one.

A good portion is taping the making of a CD at the recording studio. Most if not all the songs recorded are cover songs.

There are some interiews, reaction shots and some B-roll. Am not sure who the "film maker" is who may need the footage for the documentary.

There were no release forms signed. One of the Musicians since has passed away.

Would it make sense to import the footage on external hard drive(s) that they provide and keep the original tapes in my possession and leave it up to the documentary Producer(s) to acquire the releases etc. ?

What if the Producer(s) have a budget ? ... a lot of personal time, effort and expense went into getting the footage.

Just want to do what's right and fair as I know the Artist does to.

thoughts ?

NOTE: For those working in Canada, please see the actual laws in Canada on page 3 of this thread.

Super simplifying this, and a big generalization (amended):

If you are working independently in any roll, you control the footage.

If you are working for someone, but creatively (say as a cinematographer), you might own the footage, or might not, independently or collectively, depending on your agreement with the client/producer. If you haven't signed the rights away, you could have a claim to them.

If you are working as a camera operator for someone, you don't likely own the footage.



You do not own or have any license to do anything much (some exceptions) with their image/music without their consent, as you have no written agreement with them.

There are lots of exceptions of course, and lawyers could swing this one way or the other, but it looks to me like in this case, you own the footage. What you want to do with it is up to you. You could charge them, donate it to them for credit, offer to cut it into something for money/credit... whatever.

Anyway, how to hand this over to another filmmaker? Simply log it to your computer and ask them to bring you a portable hard drive. Upload it to that and hand it off.

I should caution you about a few things from the email you received.

They will NEVER pay you. This is the standard line that indie videographers get. It's BS. You'll never see a penny. If they want your footage... THEY PAY UP FRONT. Bottom line. $100 in your hand now is better than a promise of $10,000 when they sell the project... If you do give it to them with a promise of getting paid later... Get it in writing, with explicit details as to when and how much they will pay you. Not that it will matter, you still won't get paid. :)

I know what opportunities will present themselves... none. None for you anyway once they have your footage. Getting the footge to have at a moments notice requires that you get paid... paid up front.

Here is a personal example that you might find helpful...
I've had numerous instances similar to yours where people who weren't clients wanted "their" footage. (For example: I was shooting my client on stage during an event and also picked up another speaker as well.) I simply state that if they want footage transfered from MY tapes, I will be happy to provide it on either DVD or hard drive for $300 per hour of raw footage with open license. Some of them are happy to pay $300 for this...

But most of the time, it goes like this:
"Can I just get the tapes from you? I'll transfer it on my own," they always ask, being cheap b**tards...

"No, " I say, "they are part of my archive."

"But it's MY footage." They always reply.

"That's nice, but it's on MY tape."

"What if I give pay you the cost of the tape?"

"Yes, that's fine, but I'll have to find it in my archive, which will take about an hour. I charge $150/hr, so send me $150 + $10 for the tape and I'll have it for you for tomorrow."

I've never had anyone take me up on the offer. :)

This is indeed a thorny issue, and one fraught with imponderables!

I disagree with Dylan in regards to if they hired you they own the tapes/footage. Unless that is spelled out in the hiring agreement, it is still open to interpretation. When you hire them, professional photographers own the negatives and reproduction rights to their work, unless other arrangements have been made (and paid for!). In my opinion, you own the footage since you are the one who invested your skills in capturing the moments on tape.

If they want the footage, particularly to hand over to another "filmmaker", I personally would not do so without immediate compensation. If they want to "pay you for your time, talents & supplies eventually", the word eventually is far too vague and unreliable. It is effectively meaningless.

Paying for a few tapes and a couple of hotel rooms is only paying (partial) expenses. It is in no way compensation for your skills as a videographer.

I would not release anything to them until an agreement is spelled out in detail (and it would probably be a good idea to have an attorney look it over as well) and compensation agreed upon.

This does not have to become a contentious issue with them, but it does bear some careful scrutiny, for everyone's protection.

Certainly the music will need to be cleared, if not by you, by the film maker who wants the footage. Clearing music for use in a film can be expensive.

It's usual if you're hired as the DP on a film the production company will own the copyright.

However, this sounds a more ad hoc arrangement with you acting as the film maker for a possible future documentary or other future use, so you should hold copyright (or part copyright) in the images but the musicians still hold rights so far as their musical performances are concerned. Certainly you should sort out the release forms with the surviving musicians and any performing rights with them and the estate of the dead musician.

You should really have words with an entertainment lawyer about this, it's pretty complex as per usual with music. You can't really rely on the legal advice in a forum and it sounds like you're going to need contracts drawn up.

Appreciate the input. I do know a lawyer who specializes in entertainment.
Sounds like a good time to place a call.

I did make a pretty sweeping generalization, there are always many interpretations. :)

As Bryan points out though, if you are hired as DP on a shoot, you aren't entitled to ownership of the footage. The same applies to most creative content anywhere in the world. If you write code for Microsoft, Microsoft owns it. If you design a cold fusion generator while you work at Enron, Enron owns it. If you are hired as a videographer to shoot an event video, ownership of the work defers to the producer/employer.

However, we do both agree that this isn't the case in Ken's situation, as it seems he went and shot freelance, Ken likely owns the footage. Of course, we're only hearing his side of the story.

Ken... go call that lawyer! :)

I have yet to see a carpenter charge for the construction of a house based on the cost of materials alone.

If they're willing to just pay for the tape, then give them blank tapes. Fair is fair.

But if a lot of hard work went into covering these guys doing their recording, then that work has a value. What you charge should be based on that value.

As for who owns the material, that's to be determined by agreement. If it's work-for-hire then they might own it. If it's something you did on your own, as Dylan said, then you might own it. Either way, you're entitled to fair compensation.

Regarding usage, if they signed a release then you can use it as per the release. If there's a dispute and there's no signed release, you might be able to put up a defense based upon implied consent to appear: They knew they were being filmed for a given purpose, and by openly cooperating with you in your endeavor they agreed to allow the use of their image in your project. Best to check with an attorney in all these matters.

If it becomes contentious you might never be able to use that material. And if they refuse to compensate you, then there's always the option of just sitting on the material and never releasing it. Whatever you do, don't turn over anything unless you're willing to give it away for free. Once they get their hands on it, you have no leverage whatsoever. You can sue, but that costs money, and after legal expenses, you might gain nothing. You could even be worse off than you started.

And as mentioned earlier, promises of payment are hardly worth the paper they're written on. I haven't seen any of these promises ever pan out. If you agree to delayed payment based on the success of a project, you may as well resign yourself to not getting a dime.

There's often the promise of getting good public exposure. I get that once in a while in an attempt to entice me into spending a lot of time on something for zero gain. Well that only works if the material gets exceptionally good public exposure, and it probably won't. Even then, who will know that you shot it? Is anyone going to care? If it's a music video your name is not going to be in the credits because there are no credits. And as far as the general public is concerned, you're invisible.

When people ask me to do these things for free, and it's not for a charitable cause, I'm inclined to ask them when are they available to help me paint my house. After all, painting my house will get them good exposure (to the sun) and could lead to additional work (painting my neighbor's house).

I do mainly theatre/music live recordings that get sold as merchandise. The nature of the jobs are very often on the spot decisions. The kit is in the venue, the visiting artistes see it and we agree a verbal arrangement where the deal is a joint ownership of the material. They don't pay for the tapes, so the captured material is mine. However, we jointly, 50/50 control what happens to it. If I make a profit from it, then I pay 50% of this to the artiste. If as happened recently, they had 1000 duplicated elsewhere, then I get 50% of the profits from selling them. Obviously, this is full of legal loopholes and is no doubt quite laughable from the legal perspective. It does, however seem to work. The artiste has the edited DVDs, but not the source material. Copyright is a problem, but they promise to deal with that (I realise that this too is legally difficult, but it seems to work.)

Many times I never see them again, after delivering the first batch of DVDs, but I do keep an eye on their web sites to see if they are still selling them.

From time to time, they ask for specific material from the tapes, we agree a price based on how long it takes to produce what they need, and then if it's something designed to make a profit, then the 50/50 deal still applies, but if it's just promotion, I don't bother. We chat about all this each time we do a show, and it seems to work. No doubt I have been ripped off a few times, but I can live with that.

That's not entirely true. If they hired you as an employee such as, for instance, a camera operator at a TV station and are paid a wage or salary, had taxes withheld, etc, it is a work for hire and they own the rights. If you are a contractor and both you and they signed a written contract explicitly stating that the resulting video is created as a "work for hire" they own they rights. BUT, if you are a contractor and they hire you to make a video for them, you having creative control of the product, YOU, not they, own the rights. The creator of a copyrightable automatically owns the copyright and if you made the video, you are the creator. What your client gets for the money he gives you is a license to use your property unless you transfer the ownership in writing.

It doesn't really matter if you keep the originals and give them a copy or vice versa, nor does it matter if it's on a hard drive or whatever - those are only containers to hold the actual property. The property is the intellectual property carried in the container.

If the songs are cover songs or not is also irrelevant. You as the producer of the video are responsible for obtaining the necessary sync licenses from the copyright owners. Unless they also wrote and published the music so they own the copyright, your performers cannot grant any licenses to use the music. Also note that performance licenses and/or the mandatory recording licenses for cover songs DO NOT include rights to use the music in film or video. That's a completely separate license which must come from the copyright owners of the words and music.

You really REALLY need to talk to an entertainment law specialist ASAP on this - anything you get on internet forums can only be general guidlines and you MUST have an expert evaluate your exact situation.

Unless you sign it away you own the copyright.
If you have signed it away you own it until they pay you.

Because you own it doesn't mean that you can broadcast the contents.

If production provide the tapes they own the tapes you own the images.

They can't use the tapes without paying you.



I once had a PM "take" tapes from a shoot and held the company over a barrel (inflated expenses bill she wanted paid) while our deadline approached.
I paid for the tapes the crew the helishoot in Hong Kong(!).
I learnt a lot that week, namely hang onto the tapes!

In respect to who has legal rights to hold the tapes this is interesting.
In the above case, the question the police asked was did she have a right as part of her job to be in possession of the tapes.
Her mistake was that she redirected a courier who picked up the tapes from me, to go to her private address instead of the edit. This was the "questionable" bit. Had she walked into the edit and offered to walk the tapes back to her office it wouldn't have been under consideration as a criminal offence.





Mike Brennan

You are in error here. Microsoft owns the code because you are an employee working within the scope of your regular employment by Microsoft. Same for designing the cold-fusion device for Enron, you are acting within the scope of your regular employment duties. But videographers, photographers, and other creative professionals who are contracted to a client on a non-exclusive basis and paid to produce certain materials for him are NOT employees of the client - the simple fact of being paid to perform a professional service does not make one an employee. Now if the relationship is on-going and exclusive, with the "client" paying a wage in contrast to a professional fee, withholding taxes, directing the performance of the work, etc, it is another story. But an independent contractor engaged to produce a certain work is not an employee. He is a vendor selling a service and the client is his customer. It is like the relationship between you and your doctor or lawyer or the plumber who comes to your house to fix your pipes. The fact that you pay them for their services does not make them your employee, even for during the moments in which they are actively providing the service. Absent a regular employer/employee relationship where the creative person would be acting under the supervision of the employer within the scope of their normal, on-going duties as an employee, a work-for-hire relationship only exists if the contract between the producer and the client spells out in writing that it is so. If it's not specifcally defined in writing to be a work-for-hire, the 'author of the work,' not the client, owns the rights and what the client is paying for is a license to use the work.

Two people on the internet with different opinions...? Wow!

You are entitled to your interpretation of the rules, and in some cases I agree with you. On the other hand, I believe that for many people, your interpretation does not apply, as the video/film world is a very diverse industry and there are many different roles we are trying to shoehorn into one giant generalization... and we can't.

So... we've both got better things to do than argue about this over the internet, so let's just agree that:
a) always draft a contract if you intend to keep copyright on the footage
and...
b) if in doubt... get a lawyer.

I'm a pro photographer, and my understanding is that unless a (still) photographer signs a work for hire agreement, by default he/she owns the copyright. It's highly recommended that photographers register their images with the copyright office for further protection. I know less about the film/video industry, but my understanding was that it's not the case that a DP would own the rights to footage they shot unless an explicit agreement was made.

From the U.S. Copyright Office Web site: It's always a good idea to work this out before cameras roll whenever possible.

eta: from the ASMP site (and again, I don't think this necessarily applies to DPs):

It is a different world from job to job. From personal examples, if I produce an event video, and hire two video camera operators for the day to run my cameras, using my tapes... do they really hold the copyright on the footage? I've worked as a DP on numerous projects, including feature films, I must own the entire film then, right?

The rules are different across the board. I do believe in "hold the tapes until you get paid" though. :)

As in my previous post, if you intend to keep the copyright on the footage, play it safe and get it in a contract. Even if it is rightfully yours, it'll keep you out of court (maybe).

This is a good example of why it is good to get things down in writing at an early stage.

Because this wasn't done the situation is a mess.

Ken should have confirmed the verbal understanding in writing early on. Preferably as a contract.

My opinion is that Ken can do very little with the footage without an agreement with the musicians and vice versa.

I certainly wouldn't release the footage.

Negotiate an agreement without delay. Take legal advice.

By the tone of what they are saying and how they say it I wouldn't be surprised if they have taken legal advice already.

Yeah, reading the letter, sounds to me like some other producer has sweet talked his way
into their confidence saying get the tapes and I'll make them into a program for you. He's probably charging too.

Don't give up the tapes, and even go to the trouble of locking them away off site somewhere till you get paid for them. What the amount is will have to be negotiated, start high and come down to a figure you want. Unfortunately it won't be the real costs you put into the project.

Your association with him is at an end I'm afraid, cut your losses and get out now. Good luck.
Cheers.

One possible option is to make low-rez or watermarked copies of the footage.

The musician can make demos to shop around and, when a deal is struck and you start getting paid, you can then release the footage after an agreement is signed which spells out precisely who gets what.

What you seem to have is material with potential value. If you shot it on your own dime and your own time then you definitely have at least co-authorship rights. In which case nothing can be done with the material without your permission.

I ran into a similar situation where someone shared co-authorship but used material without getting my permission first. I could sue but that would be expensive and the jerk probably doesn't have enough assets to cover what we could get in damages. Besides, he's doing enough stupid things to wreck his own reputation all by himself.

Good luck!

It is my understanding that most 'above the line' creative people such as producer, director, director of photography, composer, etc, hired by a production company will generally find an explicit "work for hire" clause in the contracts offered them so that the production company ends up owning the copyright. Without such a provision, the above the line creators of the film would in fact collectively own the copyright, not the production company. The reason they would is that they have the creative control and the film is the result of their artistic efforts and talents - collectively they are its authors. Below the line technicians such as sound recordists, camera operators, gaffers, etc., do not exercise creative control and would typically be considered employees. As such a 'work for hire' clause is not strictly necessary for them, though one may be included just to cover the bases. For instance, I understand such a provision is standard fare in a studio musician's employment agreement. So if you are the videogapher hired by an ad agency to shoot and direct a commerical or by a corporate client to produce a video for the annual stockholder's meeting, is your role one of above the line creative or below the line tehcnician? Are you merely running a camera or are you actually creating the final video?

Since the practical upshod of this discussion seems to be have everything in a contract, would anyone point me to some sample contracts I can use as a starting point to spell out footage ownership rights, etc?

It sounds from the email and the scenario that everyone is still 'friendly' at this point. It seems the video work was done more as a passion for the subject not for thinking it will be a viable commodity later on. I could be wrong in that assumption. Usually things stay cool until the crazy chance profit does become a factor.

I think the suggestions already stated about finding legal advice is the best answer. However, this can also be the death of it all as it seems like a stalemate. You can't do anything with the videos since there is no music/sync license and they can't do anything with the video because most likely you control the rights to it.

If this was something you devoted a lot of time to because of your interest in the subject matter not for the chance to make money, I think offering a watermarked copy of the footage is fine. Make sure it is watermarked to show your ownership and that it can't just be cropped or edited out if someone decides to just "steal" it. If they shop it around and there's a buyer, then they will need you and your tapes. That is of course if it is deemed by professional legal counsel that you are the owner.

The ASMP has sample contracts and terms and conditions and other useful resources; however, these are aimed at still photographers, and I do think the industries work differently in some ways. But this might help as a starting point. Check out the "licensing guide" at this page:
http://www.asmp.org/

While the industries are different, the law of copyright is the same. My opinion, as a non-lawyer, agree's with you that the ASMP guides should be equally applicable to independent video producers as they are for still photographers, less so for people working on staff of networks and broadcast stations, working in feature production companies, or studios. The videographer who contracts to shoot a wedding, corporate event, or advertising spot seems to me to be a very close parallel to the freelance, commercial, advertising, or editorial photographer taking on similar assignments from similar clients. I think the primary difference is that the videographer has to worry much more about clearing the rights to use material whose copyright is owned by others, such as music that he incorporates into his productions, than the still photographer would.

This definitely applies to the still world. If a magazine hires me to photograph a recording artist, I own the copyright to the photographs; however, I am limited in what I can do with the photographs--I can't sell them for advertising, obviously, without the subject's permission. I guess one big difference is that you don't have to worry about music rights with stills.

I agree with Edward Phillips, you could give them the footage, but put a big watermark all the way through it.
If the band is concerned about having a backup, Just ask them to pay your for an external drive and ship it off to someone else in your family.
I would think this would make everyone happy...or at least everyone should think it is fair.

Two worlds
 

I have two examples of companies handling the creation of intellectual products.
RCA and their subsidiary NBC would have an employee sign an agreement giving the company ownership of any intellectual property produced by them on their own time or by their family. This was a condition of employment.

Bell Labs wanted “right of first refusal” on the purchase of such work and would offer to help with marketing the works they didn’t want for a 10% interest in said work.

Guess which company had more patens? It is very hard to turn off the creative brain once it start to work. Any time someone at NBC came up with an idea that was worth a lot of money, they would quit before announcing the development of any idea.

Grayson

Excellent point and I think that's the situation Ken faces in his original post. He owns the footage and the band can't use it until he licenses the rights or transfers them to them but he too is very limited in what he can do with the footage unless the band signs off on it with releases. He also needs to consider the copyright on the music the band performed when he considers any potential use of the footage. If it's the band's original creation, he would need to get a license from them to use the music whose copyright they own as well as the releases to use their likenesses.

Right... Thank you for finally coming around to my original point and supporting my generalization that for the most part, if you are working for the man, you don't own the footage.

So... One more time, my huge generalization (amended):

* If you are working independently in any roll, you control the footage.

* If you are working for someone, but creatively (say as a cinematographer), you might own the footage, or might not, independently or collectively, depending on your agreement with the client/producer. If you haven't signed the rights away, you could have a claim to them.

* If you are working as a camera operator for someone, you don't likely own the footage.

And if in doubt, ask a lawyer. Or Steve.

Right - the point of difference between us, unless I've misunderstood what you have been saying, is that I maintain that a freelance videographer contracted by a bride and groom to shoot their wedding or by a company to come in and shoot a training video or the president's speech to their annual stockholder's meeting is not merely a camera operator or video technician and is not an employee even if he is being paid. At one point I think you stated that if you were paid to make the video, the simple fact of being paid made you an employee and gave the rights to the footage you shot to whoever it was that footed the bill.

There are well established "rules" as to who is an "independent contractor", generally an employee "works" for the employer, and the work product belongs to the employer, unless otherwise stated in writing (the earlier referenced contracts being good examples). An independent contractor would "own" the work product unless they specifically sign the copyright over to the client (which IMO is appropriate once a project is completed, other than "demo reel" usage).

Where there's no contract, things can be interpreted virtually any way that gets argued...

This is why having a contract at least provides you SOME protection, although it's not a lock. Even clear contracts can come into dispute once lawyers parse "is"...

When in doubt, define the parties, identify the project/product, state who has what "rights" and ownership, and try to at least generally specify any expected eventuality and how it will be handled... IOW, take the time to at least scribble out a contract memorializing the understandings between parties. If you don't, good luck later...

My two cents:
If you have not had me fill out tax forms for tax credits, taken my Social Insurance Number (Social Security to you 'mericans), withheld taxes and paid my Employment Insurance premiums and Pension contributions, I am not your employee and you are not my employer. I am either a freelancer or a representative of my employer (who happens to be ME and the business I am the sole proprietor of) performing a service that you have contracted me and/or my company to perform. PERIOD.

There has been discussion in this thread as to whether one is an "employee" or "freelancer". Clients often "assume" that we are "employed" by them and this has been my rationale that everyone seems to get.

<This was in response to a Moderator/Wrangler post that seems to have disappeared>

Can't remember exactly where, but somewhere in the Taking Care of Business forum (I think) was a link to an IRS page that defined who is and who is not an employee in the film/video business - it's a set of definitions that are rather unique to film and video and not always what you may think.

Jim's right.

It's more complicated than you think.

Search on the terms "copyright law" and "work made for hire" and you'll get an idea of how technical it is.

There are a set of criteria, and you must meet ALL of them (IIRC) in order to truly be an "independent contractor" including stuff like not working at the employers place of business, not using his gear, setting your own schedule, working without direct supervision, and more. You might easily conform to some of the definitions, but miss on one or more - and if so your rights to the footage might be arguable and you'd BETTER have a written agreement in place if you think otherwise.

The determination is more the province of CPAs and Lawyers and the IRS, not laymen.

(In other words, the rules are NOT discernible by just thinking them through using logic and common sense - you must KNOW the actual rules involved or you can get in trouble.!

When in doubt, seek professional advice. Period.

Ken,

You wanted thoughts, so here you go.

There are many different kinds of "valuable" things here.

The recorded videotapes of the band's works are one.
Your relationships with the people in the band are another.
Your reputation is yet another.

So lets look at some of these...

As to the videotapes - who are they valuable to?

You're considering protecting their value as it relates to YOU and seeking advice on your right to control and manage those rights on your own behalf.

And you've gotten advice on that issue from many here.

But I want you to think about this from another perspective.

The work you did undeniably has value - but while you were the "creator" of the footage itself - that video is a recording of what is essentially the talent and work of others (the musicians) and unfortunately, the ONLY way you can really keep tight control YOUR rights, is to obstruct the musicians access to the benefits of THEIR own creative efforts.

Essentially you have to say that your rights are SUPERIOR to the rights of the musicians.

Hummmm...

Let's put that aside for a moment and consider the OTHER things of value.

First, your relationship with the band. If you dig your heels in on this, expect to lose that. Because you're locking them out from getting the benefit from THEIR OWN efforts.

That frustrates people. It makes them see you, not as a colleague, but as a guy who looks out after #1 first. Musicians are, as a class of people, typically not fond of this approach.

Next, the issue of the value of your REPUTATION. This is a classic "put your self in the other parties shoes" deal. If it was YOUR creative work that someone else had recorded, and they were putting up "conditions" on your access to it. How would that make you feel?

So how do you decide what to do?

If it was me, I'd consider that the whole "rights picture" of this to be is pretty complex. It's not just about YOUR rights, but a nest of rights including, potentially, the songwriters, musicians, etc. - and I think it's gonna be VERY hard to profit from these tapes unless someone really spends a LOT clearing up this kind of stuff.

If so what is really in this for you to lose?

For me, I think the relationships and reputation might be a LOT more valuable to me in the long run than the value of the recordings.

Personally, I'd probably keep a copy of the tapes for my own amusement (and because bands are kinda flakey and might LOSE theirs!), but I'd then send the originals right to the band with a really nice letter wishing them well.

They might NEVER mention it to anyone else. If so you've lost little of value.

But then again maybe someday they WILL remember that you're the guy who DIDN'T hassle them about this stuff. Who took the high road and did everything possible to HELP the band. And perhaps they'll remember that when they talk with their friends - and perhaps even pass that along to someone who can help you up the next stage.

See, there are "rights" and then there are "rights" - and sometimes letting go of one form of "right" might be more "right" than grasping onto other "rights" such that people stop thinking of you as the right kind of video guy - at least as it relates to rights. Right?

(Sorry for the last sentence, couldn't resist!)

Good luck.

This is all so technical. Ken did this for free from what it sounds like. Compromising would be so much easier than getting a lawyer involved.
Examples.
If you think there music is good, give them the footage and draw up a contract saying you may have sync licenses to 2 or 3 of their songs.
Watermark the footage like others and I have suggested.
Draw up a contract that says they hire you for video if they go on tour(assuming that what you shot was good).
I'm sure you could think of more.

Yes. Get everyone to sit down over a cup of tea, sort it all out eg who gets what share of what and whether Ken gets to film the tour etc, put it down in writing and then get a lawyer to check that over before signing anything.

But how does this relate to owning footage? If you are a freelancer or independent contractor, that does not necessarily mean that you own the footage, AFAIK.