Here's the scenario: a director's commissioned to shoot a video. it's a beautiful track, a good band and label; no contract is signed, but the video is shot, delivered, and paid for. the director's very happy with the results (as usual, quite a few favours were pulled), and so are the artists & label. in fact the video gets screened at a rather prestigious festival - but then, things get weird. (more inside)

         

after the first screening (to plenty of acclaim), the label decides, for unclear reasons, not to release the video. not only: the director and all others involved are prohibited from speaking about it or putting it on reels; the label also decides a press embargo, intervening to stop interviews and features about the video, as well as any form of publication, internet or otherwise. months pass. the track's gotten old, and certainly won't be released as a single; perhaps the video might be published as an appendix to a video edition of live performances of the band, but not before year's end. at this point (with calls to an ever less cooperative label not being returned) the director wonders: with no contract having been signed that states the contrary - don't i own the image rights to my work? what foot does the label have to stand on to keep anyone from ever mentioning video, to nix even a single still from appearing? given the results were enthusiastically approved, isn't the timely publication of the video part of the original - albeit tacit - agreement with those involved in making it? something the director (and all the others involved who contributed their creative work for peanuts, in the name of the audience/press/buzz a timely release would have generated) is somehow entitled to?

         

well, the label owns the video. They can do whatever they want with it. Sometimes singles get buried, sometimes new label people come in and try to re-brand the band. My guess is the video was funny and the label wants them to be taken more seriously?

The director can put it on a DVD to send to other labels to get jobs. He doesn't need to ask (or tell) the label he's doing this. He probably can't put it on his website, but he can make a single web page (not linked to his mainpage) and send that special link to people.

         

actually, the video was narrative, and quite exceptionally at that. also, the band's image hasn't been repositioned in any noticeable way.

         

Can you give me that special link, thank you.

         

each job is a commission. the director is hired for the job. that's it. he owns nothing visually but i guess still owns the idea?

very unusual for a job to be buried THAT far in the ground (can only think of Sophie Muller's Blur video or Glazer's Richard Ashcroft that are urban legends)...

If the director was savvy he should have had a copy of it before it was screened at a festival....my advice would be to stick it on YouTube under a different guise...post it on antville....start some controversy...and see what happens from there...

Prog: any clues to who you're referring to here???

This could be a nice paradox...a post with loads of discussion about a video NO_ONE has seen. Genius!!

         

If NO contracts have been signed the recorded images are actually the copyright of the Director of Photography/Camera Operator - certainly in an un-edited form. They could choose to exercise this if they wished though if a record label chose to bring legal proceedings against them and cited an officially requested embargo on discussion of the video with the press they might well be in trouble.

In almost a decade of involvement with music videos I have never once seen a contract. It seems a terrible laxity on the part of labels and production companies.

         

Hm... I always thought that unless you explicitly sign over your rights on the video (or indeed anything you create, whether money has changed hands for it or not) to the label, you still own it.

The sticky part comes in that the label owns the song (but clearly the director in question will have a paper trail of the label giving them the song.)

It's a real mess. The lack of an explicit contract suggests you can bluff the label and just whack the video up on Youtube. The label is assuming, of course, you won't dare to do this as ooh it'll ruin your career etc.

I had a similar situation like this a long time ago with an early video of mine and the artist/a new label (signed post the completion of my video). They tried to bully me into taking the video off Youtube... I bullied 'em back and won. But this was Shitty McShit London Label, not Universal or anything with lawyers.

Anyway. Seek real IP/entertainment specialist legal advice in the country in which the video was made/the director resides, because the label will most certainly throw lawyers' letters at you. These letters will likely be 100% bs/intimidation techniques, but you need to be very sure of your ground before it gets to that.

I can suggest good/human New York entertainment lawyers, but am at a loss for anywhere else. (NB: This sort of IP law varies massively between places like France and places like the US)

         

The idea that commissions and buy-out contracts are bedrocks of the filmmaking business is something that artists in other fields find strange. If the director ran a small shop where he did most of the camera and effects work himself, and also had a history or retaining the rights of his previous work, he could argue his case I think. -j

         

I'm with scooper. Put it out there. We saw this happen recently with the Kanye Dethurah video (wink). Not only did Kanye respond via his blog, but it became a little bit of a buzz story on radio stations in nyc.

But I wonder, what's worse? A label just shelving the vid or hiring someone to remake the one you are in the final stages of finishing. I just worked on a gig where this happened to the director.

Same thing, label tried to more or less cancel it's release. They felt it didn't "fit".

         

Prairie Oysters, that would only be the case if the DP/Camera Operator was never paid nor brought into any contract or agreement, in this instance a verbal contract is just as valid.

         

The DP/Camera Operator is employed by the production company, not the record label. Their only verbal contract is with the production company with regards to performing certain tasks for financial recompense. No agreement with the label is entered into - formally, informally, verbally or otherwise - unless a contract is offered up.

Anyway the original question posed in this thread is a little obscure to me. Are we asked to discuss the ethics or the legality of this sort of situation (covertly disseminating material unreleased by record labels)? They're not 'one and the same'.

         

That is exactly what I was saying dude.

         

A few thoughts on legality.

1. Copyright ownership law is going to be different from country to country.

2. In the US, a handshake agreement is just as legal and binding as a written contract. Meaning, a hand shake work for hire makes the work absolutely the property of the label.

3. The grey area is the lack of physical proof of terms. Under what conditions (timeliness, budget etc) is the work for hire being made? With no agreement written, couldn't a director claim part of the agreement was they were granted the right to display the video any time, any place? Everything is generally heresay in this scenario anyhow. On the other hand, in a court of law a simple payment of check by the label to the production company would be enough proof most likely to demonstrate a work for hire by the label. What it doesn't illustrate is the terms.

4. Additionally, the use of music that video has been set to is technically known as a mechanical reproduction. And that mechanical reproduction has licensing rights owned by the label. Hence, just playing the video is technically a broadcast or a performance. So for example, when a band covers another band's song live, technically they could be sued. Would this hold up in a court? Who knows. But these laws have been established by odd cases that have set precedent (which can always be changed). Unfortunately, the director and production company are at a bit of a loss.

More likely than not, the director would get a cease and desist letter from the label if they chose to post the work anywhere. Not very threatening really. I think the more interesting idea here is the idea of whether or not it should ooooops leak on the web knowing that the work won't see the light of day in its full res form intended for broadcast. Certainly the web police can only do so much, however the director could lose cred in the marketplace.

         

I'm not sure how it works in music videos, but in film it usually depends on how the contract was worded -- if it says the contract begins upon execution in conditions precedent, then, in this case, the buyer would not hold rights.

Anyway, I wonder if the vid you're referring to is this. But, that's pure speculation.

         

Also why would you want to put yourself in a position as to appear hard to work with/disrespectful to your clients?

         

that's not the one, lisano; the only other thing i can add (sorry scoop) is that it's a uk thang.

the question on the director's mind was that of the attribution of rights in such a scenario. isn't there some sort of agreement being broken, and some sort of entitlement reserved?

(oh, and: if you're diligent enough, you'll actually find the video out there somewhere already - indeed, if you happen to be in the right place, you could catch it tomorrow night.

         

I guess I don't understand the question. Was there a question?

Who owns the video? I dunno. I'm not a lawyer - but who cares who owns it? It doesn't seem like a very valuable property anyway. A video by a band that went away and has never been heard from again. Why is ownership important? Is someone going to try and sell bootlegs?

A question of some import might be - Can the director use this orphaned video on his reel?

I would say "it depends." Will the label really be upset if they found out? That seems vastly more important that the legal specifics. Will the label find out? Will they be mad if they do find out? Will that keep the director from getting future work from that label? Is the possible benefit of showing people this orphaned work worth the possibility of alienating a label?

That last question seems key. And I am going to suggest that the benefit of ANY orphaned video is much, much less to a director than the same video that got airplay.

A label thinking of hiring a director doesn't want to see abandoned videos on their reel (at least IMO). The work might be good, the narrative could be excellent - but that orphaned clip is tainted. The label cannot help but wonder WHY it got tossed out.

Did the director not deliver what was asked of him? Was the edit taken away from him? Eevn if the reason the clip never was released has absolutely ZERO to do with the video and the director (say the label dropped that artist or chose a new single or the artist went into rehab) - the abandoned video still has the stink of failure on it.

Labels want to commission good videos, but they more importantly, they want to commission SUCCESSFUL videos. The orphaned/abandoned video is the opposite of successful. It cost money and did nothing in the marketplace. That may have nothing to do with the director and his work, but no 'explanation' will make that video NOT a failure.

If I was a director I would think twice (or thrice) about putting orphaned videos on my reel, no matter how proud I am of the work.

         

you guys have too much time, for thinking about ethics.

me thinks: you cannot compare one project to another, so in every single production with these kind of problems, there should be a smooth decision, because its pretty obvious, when its comes to the millions of music-blogs out there, first artist and label will lose reputation.

         

you nailed a lot of stuff there, 30, except that part about the band - they're as around as before, and unlikely to fade any time soon.

         

It seems to me that the industry has wholly embraced the idea that people direct videos for exposure, given all the contests and nothing budgets. The chance to make something and get exposure very often is the only payment for directing. If this is not already implicit in the handshake agreement, it should be stated beforehand.

At the very least put it on your resume. This isn't defense research, you can say you did the job.

I'd try to contact the band to see if they had a problem with it being posted. Ethically speaking, it's the band's money and the music is their property. Legally speaking, I have no clue.

         

I'm not a lawyer but my understanding (at least of US copyright law) is that it is not so cut and dry regarding who owns the video portion of a music video if there is no written contract that explicitly states that the video is a work for hire that will be owned by the record label or band. I doubt there any many directors who would care to contest ownership of videos since it would greatly harm their careers but in a situation like this, I would think the fimmaker would have a good argument that they own the film portion of the video. Copyright law (again, in the US) is heavily tilted toward the rights of the creator. Google "work for hire copyright" and you'll find more about this.

         

While the label might be able to stop performance/broadcast of the video (touchy subject without true IP/Copyright legal advice), unless it was expressly agreed to, there's nothing that should prevent anyone from even mentioning the video, who was involved, or what the video was about. This seems totally bizarre why they'd try to completely quash even the mere existence of the video; not releasing it I can understand...

         

Follow the money.

         

was it for css

         

no, shut. also, a little addenda from the director:

"Actually, the video came out better than they thought it would – and they haven't rejected it, they've shelved it in order to make a bigger shout about it at a later date. Problem is, that shout they're planning has no date, and has already been put back a year… and they're saying everybody's contractually obliged to not show or talk about it… a contract nobody ever signed… Thanks anyhow, all - interesting reponses!"