So here's my problem....

[bird]

The animation I'm working on is an old school, hand-drawn cel. I've been scanning at a reduced scale, compiling in an editing program, and then sending the avis to my sound editor. I never kept the footage because I knew, in the future, I would be scanning at a high res and would simply re-use the sound tracks for the full resolution. Anywho, without getting into detail, I now must request all materials back. I am going to send an external hd (because though it's a w-i-p, the footage total is massive even with reduced res files) and request the editor transfer all material to it. This is probably a stupid question, but is there any way I can assure myself that the editor doesn't keep my footage? Should I get a lawyer involved, or am I jumping the gun? There was no remuneration involved, this was an in-kind donation of time and some materials.

Thanks again, guys!

 

[directorik]

but is there any way I can assure myself that the editor doesn't keep my footage?

No way at all.

If your editor wants to keep copies of the footage
no lawyer can compel him not to. Since you didn't
have a written contract with him before you sent
any footage there is nothing that can be done after
the fact. And even if you did have a written contract
there is no way to ensure that no copy was made
and kept.

I assume you have a suspicion that this editor will
want to keep copies of all your footage or you would
be concerned. What do you think this editor might do
with your footage? Are you concerned that he might
finish the project as is, put his name to it and put it
on the market before you can finish the better version?

 

[bird]

No way at all.

If your editor wants to keep copies of the footage
no lawyer can compel him not to. Since you didn't
have a written contract with him before you sent
any footage there is nothing that can be done after
the fact. And even if you did have a written contract
there is no way to ensure that no copy was made
and kept.

I assume you have a suspicion that this editor will
want to keep copies of all your footage or you would
be concerned. What do you think this editor might do
with your footage? Are you concerned that he might
finish the project as is, put his name to it and put it
on the market before you can finish the better version?

Thanks Rik.

No, at this point I wouldn't assume this person would try to market it. While it's a substantial amount (35 minutes) there is no way they could market it as a completed work. I guess my concern lies in the fact that I use the w-i-p to apply for arts grants etc. I'm probably being overly cautious.

 

[spinner]

Good luck, bird!

I wish I could be of some help


-- spinner

 

[directorik]

What concerns you? That the editor will apply for
grants using your footage, thus reducing your
chances? I'm unclear on what you feel this editor
might do if he has a copy of all your footage.

 

[Murdock]

Paranoia is a mother....Cross your fingers bud.

 

[bird]

Good luck, bird!

I wish I could be of some help


-- spinner

Hey Spinner! Thanks

What concerns you? That the editor will apply for
grants using your footage, thus reducing your
chances? I'm unclear on what you feel this editor
might do if he has a copy of all your footage.

Yeah, like I said, I'm probably over-reacting. There are many obscure little granting agencies out there, and this particular piece has been awarded funds, so it's not inconceivable that it might find additional funding. I think like anyone in a similar situation, I just want my stuff all in a row in front of me. Oh, and this is the first footage this person has ever edited, so there's not a professional reputation at stake...it's an animation so it follows most of the editing is sound (of which I have provided effects and all keying). I think the most important lesson I've learned when dealing with in-kind contributions is that one must either expect that things might not pan out, or budget for what you can even if it's a gratuitous amount...just so you can get it in writing. lol

Paranoia is a mother....Cross your fingers bud.

Yep, a baaaad mother foc, shut yer mouth.


I appreciate the advice, guys. Thank you.

 

[Blade_Jones]

In the absence of a written contract you would have to demonstrate in court that a "work for hire" arrangement (as defined by law) was in place, as opposed to an independent contractor agreement. This depends on various facts.

 

[Zensteve]

this was an in-kind donation of time and some materials

What is your understanding of "in-kind"?

 

[bird]

In the absence of a written contract you would have to demonstrate in court that a "work for hire" arrangement (as defined by law) was in place, as opposed to an independent contractor agreement. This depends on various facts.

Not so sure I'd prefer a 'work for hire' definition. "if a work is "made for hire", the employer—not the employee—is considered the legal author". There are a few musical sections which would, then, be problematic.

What is your understanding of "in-kind"?

The offer to help was presented in exchange for seeing the project come to fruition.

 

[Blade_Jones]

"if a work is "made for hire", the employer—not the employee—is considered the legal author".

I think you're got it backwards. Read about copyright law on the library of Congresses site. They explain it a bit. In the absence of a "work for hire" agreement, some of the things that determine it is whether or not there is consideration (payment for work performed), the level of supervision (employer over employee), and who provided the equipment (in this case editing equipment). So as an example, if you paid them (and can prove it with a receipt), you set a deadline, you sat and supervised them often, and you provided the editing equipment then it's safe to say that you own their editing work if push came to shove in court.

 

[bird]

I think you're got it backwards. Read about copyright law on the library of Congresses site. They explain it a bit. In the absence of a "work for hire" agreement, some of the things that determine it is whether or not there is consideration (payment for work performed), the level of supervision (employer over employee), and who provided the equipment (in this case editing equipment). So as an example, if you paid them (and can prove it with a receipt), you set a deadline, you sat and supervised them often, and you provided the editing equipment then it's safe to say that you own their editing work if push came to shove in court.

Thanks Blade! I did copy that, verbatim, from wiki, but consider the source, lol. Nope, didn't pay, this was a donation of labor AND their own editing software, but I did collate/provide all the sound effects and timed out exactly where they were to be cut in (log sheets and sound files). I will definitely do some research on copyright law at the Library of Congess site. I much appreciate the advice.

Thanks again, all!