Freelancers

[Paul R Johnson]

Tariq - that's the kind of figures the freelance people I get in to do things for me get - sometimes it's a little more. Not weddings, but maybe that's the difference. If I discovered somebody who had been doing sound for me had recorded the event and was using it publicly in any way - they'd never work for me again. They were there for one purpose, and using the material is not it!

On top of that - it's a break in trust. Promoting themselves while working for me is not on. I'd find it difficult if they started handing out business cards.

[Chad Andreo]

Originally Posted by Christian Brown

If you have "lost" shooters, then you aren't paying them enough. Freelancers will show up for anything worth their time. They've decided your rate isn't worth their time OR you've made a big enough deal about the footage thing that it has soured the relationship.

Pay well, make the terms clear upfront, and get on with it! Asking them not to use the footage isn't unreasonable. Them asking to use the footage is also not unreasonable. You expect to be able to use the footage that your clients hire you to make, right? Why are you surprised when you are the client that your shooter wants to use the footage? Neither way is right or wrong.

Sounds like you are hiring beginners. Hire folks who are more established and not desperate for the footage. It will make you job easier in more ways than one. Good luck.

I agree 100% with Christian.

[Denis Danatzko]

My 2 cents:
I'm a freelancer who most often works alone, but has done work for others. I rarely do weddings (only for family/close friends and only single cam), but, when hired as a 2nd/3rd cam, I have no expectation of using that footage without permission from the principal; most times I don't even ask, presuming I don't own it. However, when hired as a sub-contracted 1st or single cam, then I would expect to be able to use it as an example of my work. and even then, only if I choose to use it. While I don't have the luxury of turning away work when customers approach me, I'm not about to "poach" work from someone else.
It's a small world, and I never know when, in the future, I might bump into someone who I've worked with/for.
I'd rather have a smooth working relationship than stress-out over past "sins".

[Louis Maddalena]

Ok so I'm coming to this party pretty late but I'll add my two cents.

(IAMAL)

Legally speaking, the person who shoots the footage is the person who owns the footage. It doesn't matter that they are working for a company or working for another individual. There are some exceptions where a person can work for another person and not retain the copyright for the footage that is being shot. In these cases, the freelancer must sign a work for hire contract that is written up for the specific event (there are also templates for this), and a previous one does not cover all future events.

Why do wedding videographers not do this very often? Because they can't. Most weddings do not meet the requirements for freelancers to work under a work for hire contract and not retain copyright of their art (their shots). You can however, ask a freelancer nicely to not retain copyright, and a lot of times they will. However, most will require extra money to be paid for giving up this right.

Now I do weddings on occasion, as well as I sometimes freelance for other companies doing weddings as well but what I do most is corporate work, commercials and short films. There the rules are the same. Freelancers get to keep copyright on work that they do so that they have a reel so they can get jobs elsewhere, prove the have experience, and show the quality of work that they can achieve. There are some instances where this is not the case. These are the instances where work for hire contracts are signed, and there is usually some kind of issue regarding corporate security of ideas. If its a commercial, once the commercial goes to air, then people are allowed to use it in their reel.

So, technically you are not allowed to retain copyright off the footage they shoot, its owned by them.

[Pete Cofrancesco]

Without reading through the thread, my policy is, I offer a copy of the final disc that has my name on it, to any 2nd shooters who wants it. That way they can use it as samples of their work. I'm not going to let the possibility of an unscrupulous person misrepresenting it as their work stop me from doing the right thing. I'm confident in my own work and don't feel like I need to with hold from others who are starting their career.

[Gabe Strong]

I am suspecting that some of the issues are different countries have different laws?
Here in the US if I am not a full time employee of a company and am contracted to
shoot something with my own gear, the copyright is MINE unless I sign it away and I
charge a pretty penny to do that. The company I am shooting for does NOT automatically
have all rights to the material as I am not their employee, I get no benefits (health or retirement),
no social security paid (I have to pay that myself out of the money they pay me) and so on.
The one who pays me is getting permission from ME to use the footage for a specific purpose
(news broadcast, wedding DVD, documentary film or whatever the case may be). But it is
NOT their footage. It is shot by me, using my gear, I own the copyright to the footage.
They pay me based on the 'use' they want. If they want 'exclusive' use they pay more.
So I have to actually 'sign away' my rights for that to happen. However in your country it may be
different.

[Justin Molush]

Agreed with the fact that its not unreasonable to ask a hired hand to not use footage for their own terms, but I see no reason to deny them the usage on their year end demo reel? Seems like a minor thing... unless you are shooting things that are super exclusive and there's a caveat in there.