Update the metadata for your videos. Look up IPTC, for example. There is a rights usage section.
Copyrighting Drone Footage
- Thread starter Chaosrider
- Start date
spsphotos
Well-Known Member
No worries.
I'm actually not the least bit concerned about this particular project. As long as I get credit for the vid, that's fine, even if I don't even get the beer and pretzels!
This is the first time this has come up, and it came up a bit by surprise, and I'm looking to get a better understanding of video copyrighting than I had before...which is a pretty low bar!
If the whole video business doesn't go anywhere, then it's not worth putting in a lot of time or money to deal with this. If it does start to bring in non-trivial money, I'll revisit the issue then.
But this is an early first dip of the toe, and I don't want to muck up a somewhat causal personal interaction with written contracts and lawyers at first. Later, perhaps, but not at this stage.
Thx.
I hate to be the one to break this to you, but some places are actually better places to live, than others.
brett8883
Well-Known Member
If you give them the footage for free or close to free then it’s definitely customary for you to ask them to mention you in the video. You scratch my back I’ll scratch yours kinda thing
Of course it is, but it's better than nothing. And better than watermarking they they'll just clone out.
If someone is bent on stealing/using someone else's work, or belongings, then you're not going to stop them.
This looks like it might be important.
Can you give me a smart pill about what this means?
Thx!
Unlike EXIF data which is technical and presents info about the camera, location, etc. International Press Telecommunications Council (IPTC) is more related to ownership, usage, categorizing, etc. It's primarily used by the press/media agencies (e.g. Getty, AP, etc.). A photographer shooting an assignment for AP might use something like PhotoMechanic to ingest all of the photos and automatically tag them with the IPTC data needed for publication.
Here is an example out of my Lightroom catalog.
Here is an example out of my Lightroom catalog.
Though I’m not qualified to give legal advice, I strongly agree that a clear agreement is the best first step, followed up by a confirming email.
Clear agreements and communications make for happy client/vendor relationships between good people. They don’t help with lying weasel scam artists, but the best way to deal is to not do business with those people. Life is too short, and it’s not worth going to a lawyer or court for small potatoes.
I speak from experience… I was part of a team that decided (with legal advice) to write off a $12,000 payment due to us for video production and instead stay focused on cultivating good relationships with good clients.
Hello Chaosrider. I photographed as a commercial business for 22 years. In all those hundreds of thousands of pictures, I only copyrighted three of them with the patents office. I know you’re talking about video but it’s the same thing. For a one-off deal like you describe, a copyright isn’t worth the trouble. It’s only worth it if you are going to sell the image/video to multiple customers, like galleries and such. Just get a standard photography contract off the web, fill in the blanks and make it for video, stating one time use for their business only. Best advice is to get your money up front. If someone else wants to use it, a new contract. Never agree to share or hand over image/video ownership. It’s yours. Keep it that way.
I’m not sure how drone metadata works, but with digital still cameras you can instruct the software to list you as the copyright holder. Granted, meta can be easily stripped, but a judge can discover that you are the originator. Three times in my career I had a patent lawyer write a letter to an infringer, and that was enough. Letters cost about $175 each. If a customer is going to abuse the privilege, a contract isn’t going to matter much. If you’re going to post something on the web, make it low-rez.
For the deal above, get your money for the ad, now knowing you’re good enough to get get paid, and keep flying. You’ll figure out the rest as you go.
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2020
- Messages
- 1,213
- Reactions
- 896
- Age
- 43
- Location
- Grand Rapids, MI
- Site
- karlblessing.com
In the us you already own the copyright at moment of creation. Registering a work (or collection of work as a single submission) mainly grants you the ability to collect more damages in an infringement case, but you always had the copyright.
What you need to give the client us a usage license. Depending on how they need to use it , reproduce it, and if exclusivity is expected.
If you didn't want to bother with retaining any of that , could just do a work for hire kind of arrangement where you just bill for the time and what value it would cost to just give the client copyright (or exclusive usage, such as if you only intend to use the footage for self promotion but not sublicensing to other clients like stock footage).
What you need to give the client us a usage license. Depending on how they need to use it , reproduce it, and if exclusivity is expected.
If you didn't want to bother with retaining any of that , could just do a work for hire kind of arrangement where you just bill for the time and what value it would cost to just give the client copyright (or exclusive usage, such as if you only intend to use the footage for self promotion but not sublicensing to other clients like stock footage).
This is interesting. It makes sense that a system like this would exists, although I never thought about it.
This is more involved than I need to get anytime soon, but it's interesting from a nerd standpoint.
I gave the first footage to the editor yesterday. This is the perfect division of labor for me. I do the flying, and she does all the post! That's a business model that I could seriously get into, if I can make it work.
Thx.
EpicFlight
Well-Known Member
Hey, chill. That's not what I saw.
There's not a single, definitive answer. As we discussed further, we learned more about the specific context. Part of that is informality in a friendly, trusting small-town environment, so the "legal team" approach is overkill, and is not the correct answer.
My advice: Ask if a small text "©2002 Bad Arse Productions" be visible in the lower left corner, and be preserved on all footage.
Shake hands, done.
Last edited:
When/if I get to the point of having projects that large, I'll definitely take a more focused perspective about agreements!
But even in this early stage, I like the notion of a confirming email. It puts the understanding in writing, without the formality of an advanced written agreement.
I talked to the editor yesterday, and we agreed that I'd retain copyright on the original footage, and that we'd share the copyright on the final production footage.
My challenge now is to find a launch site to get the footage of the front of the building. I don't think I can get while maintaining VLOS from my current launch site. Plus I'd rather avoid having to avoid flying over moving cars while crossing a busy road.
I'll get something to work!
Thx.
EpicFlight
Well-Known Member
I feel some sorrow for you that this is what you believe.
I assure you such places exist. I've lived, and still vacation in such places. Finest people on the planet. No crime. Very tolerant, kind people. Usually mountain environments. Many places like this in America. If you're in California, try a weekend in Arnold.
Culturally diverse, from hippies to yuppies. One thing also: Such communities ain't "woke", and that's about the only type of individual that's NOT welcome.
This is very informative, thanks. A lot of this is consistent with my desire to make the effort consistent with the value of the product in question!
In this particular case I'm just going to ruin with the verbal discussions we've been having. I don't expect to get paid in cash. I do expect to get credit for the final vid, and I have no reason to believe that won't happen. The reason they approach me for this is that I'm well known there as the local Drone Guy. I've loaned drones to a number of the staff. Cheaper little guys, not DJIs.
I hope I end up doing enough of this that the volume eventually warrants paying more attention to legal and copyright details, but I'm not there, and for the first few start-up shoots, I think worrying about that would just gum up the works.
Thx.
I agree.
In my earlier life when I had the misfortune to live in a large city, generally because I was chasing money, I always had a place in the country to go to. And since I was a pilot for a lot of that time, I could go there easily on weekends, without having to fight the traffic from all the other people trying to escape on Friday afternoon!
I've actually paid a lot of attention to this class of "community differences" issue for a long time. It seems that the driving factor for variation along these lines is population density. In a high population density environment, you won't know most of the people, and the number of interactions/transactions is higher. So the odds of some transaction turning brown and smelly greatly increase.
There seems to be a "Magic Number" of around 25,000 population. Below, that you can know most of the people you live around, and you can conduct business...reliably...in a much less formal way. Above that, not so much. And just dividing a huge urban region up into 25,000 person chunks on a census map doesn't help; 25,000 is the max number of people that can exist in the area around you.
From my personal perspective, high population density is Evil, and produces many bad conditions. Hence, my current location. I escaped high population density in 1996, when I moved to Incline Village from San Jose.
YMMV. Some people like to live in anthills!
;-)
One less formal way of doing this is to list on an invoice what the customer is paying for, e.g., "one-time use of raw footage for further editing into final form for promotional event: $XXX.00." This is obviously not as binding or specific as a legal contract.
I know many lawyers would disagree with me but sometimes, trust has advantages. When one party takes a legal stance, this is likely to trigger a concern in the other party. If things go south, this is all for the good in both cases. But a reasonably clear understanding made in good faith and built on a foundation of trust can enhance both parties' experience. This assumes that such arrangements are commonplace in the place where this is happening and that both parties have some basis for trusting the other. Some due diligence into knowing who you're dealing with can help in determining if trust is warranted. Drawing lines and formally spelling out limits via a contract may add clarity but it can also redefine an interaction as adversarial. Sometimes, that's a price worth paying for the protection it affords. But sometimes, it isn't.
An exception might be if someone is in the business of providing such footage on a regular basis. Then, having a standard contract or agreement that is part of every transaction doesn't feel like a lack of trust but more like just a standard business practice for that service. But it seems to me that if someone who'd like some footage informally approaches someone he or she knows in the community who has the skills but isn't formally set up as a business, a lot of formality might feel a lot more adversarial than just talking through the details and agreeing on a mutually satisfactory arrangement sealed with a hand-shake. Is the risk zero? No. Is the risk accceptable? May well be.
I know many lawyers would disagree with me but sometimes, trust has advantages. When one party takes a legal stance, this is likely to trigger a concern in the other party. If things go south, this is all for the good in both cases. But a reasonably clear understanding made in good faith and built on a foundation of trust can enhance both parties' experience. This assumes that such arrangements are commonplace in the place where this is happening and that both parties have some basis for trusting the other. Some due diligence into knowing who you're dealing with can help in determining if trust is warranted. Drawing lines and formally spelling out limits via a contract may add clarity but it can also redefine an interaction as adversarial. Sometimes, that's a price worth paying for the protection it affords. But sometimes, it isn't.
An exception might be if someone is in the business of providing such footage on a regular basis. Then, having a standard contract or agreement that is part of every transaction doesn't feel like a lack of trust but more like just a standard business practice for that service. But it seems to me that if someone who'd like some footage informally approaches someone he or she knows in the community who has the skills but isn't formally set up as a business, a lot of formality might feel a lot more adversarial than just talking through the details and agreeing on a mutually satisfactory arrangement sealed with a hand-shake. Is the risk zero? No. Is the risk accceptable? May well be.
Exactly so!
"Going legal" can trigger an immune response from the other party which can unnecessarily stiffen a relationship. This response can be greater in a community that tends to do things based on trust, compared to a community that doesn't.
Of course, all other things being equal, the larger the dollar amounts involved, the more appropriate it will be to "go legal" to some degree. In this particular case, no money is likely to be involved.
I like the "notation on the invoice" idea. It might even make sense for me to issue a zero dollar invoice once this transaction completes, just for that purpose. I'll have to ponder that.
Thx!!
Similar threads
DJI Drone Deals
New Threads
-
-
Help with first entry with CP2112 and EV2400 adapter
- Started by jftman
- Replies: 1
-
Mini 4 PRO Fly more combo $859? Is this a mistake?- Started by Bad Santa
- Replies: 8
-
Forum statistics
