Clients & Raw Footage
Jeff writes:
Ultimately, this should come down to your contract with the client. Specifically, who owns (a) the copyright and (b) the property title in the raw footage. (The property title is the ownership of the physical tapes.)
Honestly, I generally just let the clients have access to the raw footage if they ask. Yes, I could charge them a tax to use it but I think the client relationship is more important in the longer term. It costs me nothing to provide them the footage and if it encourages them to continue using us over our competitor, then its worth it in the longer term. Yes, I understand they're cutting it in house... BUT by providing the footage as 'value added', you are (at the very least) encouraging them to continue using you for acquisition. OTH, If you charge them then that could generate a negative feeling to you as a provider - because most corporate clients believe (often correctly) that they *own* the raw footage.
Thats why I say contracts are important because you can clarify all this. If you want to charge them less but retain the ownership in the raw footage, then it can be specified. If you want to charge them more but transfer all ownership to them, then it can be specified. You can also attach 'scheduled charges' for additional services, like access to raw footage, and make sure the client knows from the outside what it'll cost. A lot of people find contracts rather onerous, but I've had enough difficult production experiences to really appreciate the clarity. It means clients *know* you're not going to give them a bait-and-switch and you know the client can't screw you.
If you still want to charge them, then I think you need to work out a rate for them 'using' the footage (non-exclusive) and another rate for them 'owning' the footage (exclusive). Give them both options and explains what the difference is.
Just my 5c (and I'd love to hear how others approach this situation).
Stu.
(cross posted from CML-Production)
But now, the client wants my raw footage for another project to be posted in-house (i.e. not by me).
[snip]
Is there a more or less standard procedure for this?
Ultimately, this should come down to your contract with the client. Specifically, who owns (a) the copyright and (b) the property title in the raw footage. (The property title is the ownership of the physical tapes.)
Honestly, I generally just let the clients have access to the raw footage if they ask. Yes, I could charge them a tax to use it but I think the client relationship is more important in the longer term. It costs me nothing to provide them the footage and if it encourages them to continue using us over our competitor, then its worth it in the longer term. Yes, I understand they're cutting it in house... BUT by providing the footage as 'value added', you are (at the very least) encouraging them to continue using you for acquisition. OTH, If you charge them then that could generate a negative feeling to you as a provider - because most corporate clients believe (often correctly) that they *own* the raw footage.
Thats why I say contracts are important because you can clarify all this. If you want to charge them less but retain the ownership in the raw footage, then it can be specified. If you want to charge them more but transfer all ownership to them, then it can be specified. You can also attach 'scheduled charges' for additional services, like access to raw footage, and make sure the client knows from the outside what it'll cost. A lot of people find contracts rather onerous, but I've had enough difficult production experiences to really appreciate the clarity. It means clients *know* you're not going to give them a bait-and-switch and you know the client can't screw you.
If you still want to charge them, then I think you need to work out a rate for them 'using' the footage (non-exclusive) and another rate for them 'owning' the footage (exclusive). Give them both options and explains what the difference is.
Just my 5c (and I'd love to hear how others approach this situation).
Stu.
(cross posted from CML-Production)
posted by stu willis at
12:33 pm
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home