Client requests "all rights"
 

I got a strange request from a client. They are very well informed and I have the feeling that they must work in the video/television industry. So, they email us with a long list of requests - all very doable, so no problem. Then the last item, they request copies of all the raw footage - and all rights. I don't really have any problem giving the copies of the raw.

But, signing over "all rights" makes wonder. Could this lead to any problems down the road. Normally, we really don't hear much from the clients much after delivery, unless they're sending us a referral. I proposed a compromise, that I would give them the rights to do anything they want with the video, but I'd like to keep rights to the footage for promotional purposes. Anyone see potential land mines here liability-wise, or am I just over thinking the whole thing?

I suspect you are right in that they are more savvy to the production process. As to why they would want with 'all the rights' to their own wedding video - One could speculate. Perhaps the intend to sell it to a reality show. Perhaps they intend to use the footage as examples of their own production capabilities. Perhaps they intend to use the footage inside another production of some sort, either fictional narrative or documentary style - who knows.

If you are okay with releasing to them the right to use your work in this way, then sure - give it to them. If you want to retain the right to use the footage in promotional materials, then make sure you define promotional in a broad context.

Ask for it, and then see how they respond.

if they want the rights, sell them the rights.

If you sell them all the rights, that means that you will have none of the rights and you will not be able to use any of the footage for anything else. I personally don't like this so if someone wanted this from me, it would cost them a lot of money. But that's just me.

I suspect that the reason they want you to transfer all rights is not so much that they want to re-purpose the footage themselves but rather they want to prevent you from doing exactly what you said you'd like to retain the right to do - use the video in your own advertising and promotional material (or posting it on YouTube or selling it to the National Enquirer). If one or both of them were in the industry, as you say you suspect they might be, and especially if they're talent who makes their income from use of their likenesses in advertising, that might make perfect sense.

I suspect Steve has nailed it on this one.

With the corporate work I do I always state that I assign "Company X" the rights but I put a clause in the contract which specifies that my company "retains the right to use all or part of the material for publicity (e.g. on our own website) to showcase the high standard of work".... etc.

Sure, corporate and wedding (I assume its a wedding because of the section it's in - but the principle is the same whatever it is anyway) are very different markets but, as the guy above says (Giroud), if they want to exclude you from any further "use" then the've got to pay for that right in some way!

Hi,

I would certainly sell it to them for a reasonable fee. They probably want to make copies and not fee bad about it. Good on them.

Unless it's an all-nude affair, has some extraordinary celebrity attached, or there is big goof or news-making event that happens, nothing will be marketable of it to sell. The hullabaloo that folks make on their work gaining them profit is a lot of hot wind for the most part. For many functions, it is a profit center, but a wedding video the profit can easily be recouped in adding a small amount to the cost to the whole amount.

You won't be able to use the content without permission, anyway, so that's off the table.

So, why not sell the rights?

Mike

Maybe your client is someone very famous, and they don't want you putting up their wedding online.

I don't do weddings, but in the entertainment area where I work, I get roughly a 50/50 on those that want all rights and those that don't - and I set my fees to take this into account.

Most people who don't know, never give copyright any thought. These people obviously do understand it, and want to buy from you a package of edited material, and the original tapes - leaving you with nothing, but the fee. If you can agree a price, it's not really a big issue unless you really wanted the footage for some other purpose, when the people who are paying you are just getting a dvd and no rights at all for their money?

I think you've already got the "answer", but you should always have a clause in the contract allowing you to use the footage shot for personal/professional "promotion", broadly defined.

If someone understands copyright and wants the right to make their own DVD copies, they probably want to avoid the hassle of coming back to you or having to pay a "silly" fee for DVD copies... I'd have no problem supplying the origninal DVD artwork and a master, but I'd be concerned with the "QC", and would rather give them a great deal on however many copies they thought they might ever need in an up front package - I don't really care whether I burn 5, 10, or 100 - if I'm "in the groove" doing a project, it's just getting fair compensation for disk swapping and materials...

IMO wedding video doesn't have a big "back end" or residual potential (one of the crappy aspects of the "biz"), so why would you really care about anything other than promo rights?? Heck with the divorce rate nowdays, you're probably trying to get the product out before it's obsoleted by a Court filing anyway <wink>!

This does raise the aspect or whether we get paid anywhere near enough for a "one shot" custom product though - what good is ownership or rights to footage that you won't ever have a market for anyway - you have to make it on the "front end" in this biz, or not at all, not like your gonna be getting points on the blockbuster release of "Ben and Jens Wedding" (Ben Smith and Jen Jones of course!).

If you wanted to license the footage to a national show, then chances are, the national show will have its own waiver of likeness that they want signed by the people appearing on screen, so having your own waiver is just for your ability to use the footage in promos, trailers, web site clips, etc.

I actually just licensed one of my wedding bloopers to NBC for one of their outrageous home video clip shows. I was pretty happy with the whole process. I will get a few hundred, and the couple will get a few hundred. I did have to track the couple down and pass on to them a bunch of waivers & W9s from NBC, but it will be worth the hassle to get a few hundred USD, and to see my clip on national TV! The couple were excited to have a chance to be on TV as well, heck they suggested I get their clip on AFV, or a similar show back 3 years ago when I gave them the finished product.

Actually, I really don't mind giving the client the rights to do whatever they want with the video. My guess is he either works in the industry or is a high-end amateur and may to have the opportunity down the road to re-cut the footage. Who knows may it will someday become part of some larger family video or whatever. I'm cool with that. My concern is that this particular client is interested in one of our largest packages with all the bells and whistles. I just to be able to use whatever I like on our website, in our demo and to send to potential new clients.

So, I'm thinking of adding a rider to our contract giving them the rights to our video, but retaining rights so we can use our footage for "promotional" purposes.

I would have no problem giving them all rights. Provided they are willing to pay for that level. Hollywood purchases still photos from photographers to use as "props" in a movie. They always want "all rights" and are willing to pay for that level of ownership. Agreeing to anything less than that, sets a precedent for all the indies out there trying to make a living. Don't give in.

I might include in your release a paragraph that expressly prohibits use of the footage as if it were the client's own footage. Essentially so they know they cannot turn around and say "look at the great footage _I_ shot" when in fact it was your own footage.

You are talking about a model release.

Most people don't include the model release as part of the sales contract as that is a separate legal issue related to FA rights.

The client has a privacy right which is related to "right of publicity" aspects, the right to license the use of images/video or refuse to let someone use them for commercial purposes is all part of the model release and has nothing to do with copyright.

Essentially, a videographers copyright protection of the works has nothing to do with your "promotional" (actually commercial use to derive revenue) use of the works. You can't use the models images in a commercial works without the models express consent in the release.

The rights you are talking about, a model release, must be given to you by the model, you can't retain something you don't have. The copyright owner can't just do anything they please with models images without the models (newlyweds) express agreement.

So, are you saying you get a model release from the bride and groom for the wedding you shoot and post on your website? Does not having such a release prevent you from posting sending a demo of your work to potential clients. That seems to be what you're saying.

Yes

Yes

Since you only want commercial use of maybe a few of your best works, you only have to convince those few people to sign the model release. The releases can be very detailed describing how and when/how long you will use the work.

We've always had it in our contracts that the footage can be used in our advertising, and we've never had anyone question this clause. I'm sure if it ever came up that we could work out a reasonable buy out of all rights if they so wanted.

What would be a fair price for such a buy out? Say I'm charging $2500 for a package and they want to buy out their rights, what would be a fair price? For those of you who have done this, what do you charge for the rights?

Ethan, that's exactly what we have in our contract too. So I think we're covered for use of our videos in our marketing. Most of our clients like being in our demos, but if they complained, I wouldn't make a bid deal out if it.

As far as selling the rights, in the situation from the original post, I don't think I would charge the B&G for the rights, as long as we were allowed to retain our rights too.

The way I look at it, how many times do you ever go back to an old wedding. For us, it's pretty rare. I just want them to be happy with our service and maybe send a few referrals our way. But, something about the request made an alarm go off in my head and figured I'd bounce it off the collective expertise of the members of this board.

I would give them the rights. The whole concept of selling the bride and groom the rights to their video images is ludicrous.

Photographers around here often charge the couple $300 or so for a CD with the rights. I don't get it. Charge what you need to charge up front for your services and forget it, I say.

I am not Hollywood, I am not even NY. I am in Cincnnati. Brides and grooms are charged to death for everything else. Why charge for something that costs me nothing? I notice that I sleep especially well after doing nice things for people, and in my book this is a no brainer.

Just my opinion.

I usualy have no issue if they don't want to use it for promo reasons etc..

If I have some really good shots and I want to use it in the demo I would simply get a release form stating the specifics, as long as you agreed at the time that if there was something I'd like to use I would request a written release and if they would be ok with that.

I'd like to maybe focus this discussion a little more. I'm not so much asking whether or not I should sell the rights to the B&G. Asking for money was never something I considered, we don't nickel and dime our clients to death. We make DVD copies very affordable, and I don't really care if the B&G make their own copies for their family and friends.

But I'd like to find out if there are any possible problems down the road if I give up the rights. Anyone ever run into any problems after giving up rights to the video?

You're right, did lose focus on your original topic. My customers have full rights to all of their images and I haven't had problems, I can imagine some possible issues, but those seem remote to me. Their are lots of pros around here that might have had some experience otherwise.

The reason a still photog wants to retain the rights is mainly to secure any on-going revenue from additional print orders. If the couple owns the rights, they can take the images anyplace and have more prints made. If the photog retains the rights, they have to come back to him for any further print orders - it's illegal for someone else to make copies, even for the couple themselves to do it if you go by the letter of the law. Reprints of the portraits and album can be a signifigant revenue generator but whether a similar potential revenue stream exists for copies of the video, capable of generating signifigant future revenue for the videographer, is up for grabs. Bride might order framed copies of her formal portrait to give her mother and inlaws as a gift on Mother's Day, netting the studio potentially hundreds or thousands of dollars in additional revenue, but how often would she do that with the video?

I only learned a couple of months ago that there is an interesting exception in the copyright law here in Canada that deals specifically with still photohgraphy by wedding photographers and portrait studios. Generally the copyright to an image automatically belongs to the person who made it but Canadian law specifically states that the copyright to images made of weddings and to formal portrait sittings belong to the person who hired the photographer, not the photographer himself. As I read the provision it only applies to stills, not videos, but I'm not a lawyer and I could be worng.

I don't think you'd be risking anything by giving (or selling) them the rights. I suspect two possible reasons - one of them hopes to be the next J-Lo or Brad Pitt and doesn't want you selling their wedding to some tabloid show five years from now. The other (more likely) reason - they read it in a bride magazine.

Now, if you did give them the rights and one of them did become the next J-Lo or Brad Pitt, well, you'd be kicking yourself!

No - there will be no problems down the road.... you are over-thinking things.... give them all the rights.... get on with your business - making money. :)

"Give them all the rights" means you do NOT retain any rights - therefore you CANNOT use the material f
or promotional purposes.

If you wish to retain some of the rights, you must stipulate this.

In the U.S. under copyright law, YOU are the 'author' of the work, and retain ALL RIGHTS unless transfered by WRITTEN AGREEMENT.

This is not 'overthinking'... this is understanding the business.

If there is no specific written agreement, then there is no transfer.

As well, to assure quality. Pro labs using custom printing vs. the local megastore instant printer will result in vastly varying quality, which is then attributed to the original photographer.

The original post indicated it was a strange, possibly one-off request. So what I'm saying is just give them all rights if it means closing the deal. Who cares if you cannot use the material for promotional purposes. Take the money, hand over the tapes, give them the rights, pat them on the head, move onto the next client.

It's just a wedding video - not bloody MATRIX PART VII

I'd be careful here. We have a clause in our contract that says "It is understood that all original mini DV tapes remain the property of Cloud Nine Creative Inc. The contracting party grants Cloud Nine Creative Inc. the unrestricted right to copyright, use and publish videos/and or photographs of the contracting party for commercial, promotion, competition or other purposes without compensation or liability to the contracting party."

I would be mainly worried about them a) re-purposing the footage to sell for a reality show (or something else), at which point you will have no control over the editing or b) re-edit the footage, claim it as their own and launch their own wedding videography business.

I'd put a contract together stating that they can't do those kinds of things with the footage. If you're not concerned, I'd state what the rights will "cost" them.

Just my 2 cents. Hope that helps!

If I was the videographer I think I would ask the client why they want the rights and agree something based on that. Give them the rights and get a licence from them for promotional use if need be.

If I was a client hiring a videographer who wanted to be able to sell footage of my wedding to other parties eg a tv station, now or in the future, I would find another videographer.

John, the original post indicated he wanted to keep the right to use this for promotional purposes. "Giving them the rights, and patting them on the head" does not allow for that. In the US, when you 'give' something to someone, it then belongs to them. This includes real property and intellectual property.

I was addressing the original posters intent to maintain some of the rights. This must be stipulated, IN WRITING. If it's not written down, it doesn't count. A LIMITED right is what he is asking about.

It's not rocket science, it's not 'The Matrix' - its understanding the business. Copyright, as well as the right to privacy, an the right to publicity are all important elements in the video production business - whether you are shooting "The Matrix" or "Bob and Sandra's Wedding". Good composition and lighting counts. Good business practice pays off.