« back to Deborah Bonello in Mexico home
You know you're breaking new ground...
…when situations arise for which there are no rules.
Whilst editing my latest video the Los Angeles Times last week, we contacted CNN Espanol for some footage of Carmen Aristegui, the focus of our video report. They agreed to send over some shots, but in return the producer wanted some of our material on the rally we shot.
I was caught short. The Los Angeles Times is starting to develop its video activities, but its early days - what were the rules? One of their correspondents made a call to the office up in the United States and there appeared to be none for video journalists and footage because it’s still so new.
Do I own the rights because I shot the movie and am not an employee? Or do the LATimes own them because they commissioned the report? And if they don’t know, maybe I should. Do I insist I make money if they make money by syndicating work by me for them? Whereas if they’re not making any money, and merely interchanging it for other footage, why should I?
It’s all terribly confusing, and in the end we didn’t even use the CNN footage that gave rise to the deal in the first place.
All advice and experience welcome here on this one, and I am certainly enjoying breaking new territory.
2 Comments
| January 31, 2008 4:59 PM
| Reply
Deborah:
Hi. Fortunately there is a precedent and a model for your situation with the LA Times-- the fight of independent freelance still photographers over the last ten years for retention of copyright. There are plenty of resources out there detailing your rights as a videographer, but a good place to start would be the source, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c105:H.R.2281.ENR:
You are the creator of the movie or video. You retain the rights to it and are only granting a one-time license to the LA Times to use it on their web site. If they syndicate it, if they pass it on to You Tube, if they use it in any other way, you are entitled to compensation. And more importantly, they can only do any or all of those things with your permission.
I know things are in flux as far as copyright interpretation now, but please don't surrender your rights to your work.
It also strikes me as strange that the LA Times pleads ignorance when it comes to video usage and rights. This is the first time a freelancer has come to them with available footage? I don't think so.
My experience is as a still photographer and it has not been easy or pretty the last ten years with regards to convincing big media that I retain the copyright to my work. The fact that I register everything I shoot with the LIbrary of Congress does help, but there are violations.
If you would like to discuss this further, my email address is included.
Thanks,
Keith Dannemiller
Deborah:
Fortunately your situation with the LA Times as a freelance videographer is not without precedent. If you look at what independent still photographers have been doing for the past ten years vis-a-vis copyright and retention of all rights, you would have a place to start in your negotiations with the Times and any other organization. You are the creator of the movie/video. You are not an employee of the LA Times and as such, you retain the copyright to the material. You are granting them a license for one-time rights on their site and nothing more. Unless specified, it is not exclusive and you can resell the same footage wherever you want.
I don't see that there would be a difference between what still photographers do and a videographer as far as rights, and excuse me, but the LA Times knows that. This is not the first time they have received or published footage from a freelancer. You have an opportunity here to establish a precedent where none, supposedly exists.
If the LA Times is syndicating your work, believe me they are making money on it.
If you want it from the horse's mouth go here:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c105:H.R.2281.ENR:
I would be happy to discuss this further if you want.
Thanks,
Keith Dannemiller