rights to rushes
Posted 20 May 2005 - 09:32 AM
Posted 20 May 2005 - 10:14 AM
I can make a movie and put in 70% of the budget, and to be fair, usually you will get the rights to it. HOWEVER, this is no rule.
Generally the owner is the person who owns the copyright to it.
If your friend owned the script, and he SOLD it to the film school for them to produce, then they own it and all rights unless some contract term said otherwise?
Generally, the script belongs the the majority producer, or in some cases, the studio to which the majority producer is working with the make the film.
Posted 20 May 2005 - 10:46 AM
Simply having the original idea does not give you legal ownership of a movie.
Posted 20 May 2005 - 10:50 AM
Depends on the schoolTell your friend to ask them what you can do about it...
Posted 20 May 2005 - 11:11 AM
Posted 20 May 2005 - 11:32 AM
Posted 20 May 2005 - 01:43 PM
I don't quite understand the question; what practical issue are you trying to resolve?
In general it is often acceptable for crew to use clips from a production on their showreels, and this goes as much for makeup and costume people as it does for camera crew and actors. If it's about this, then you should most certainly have the right to exploit the material. If you want to use stuff that's in the rushes but not in the final - which is a right I always insist on for low budget stuff in case the edit is bad - your director would have to be particularly possesive to disallow it. In any case I don't think it's really his decision. The production is owned by the production company that commissioned it - in your case the school - and if your director was trying to tell you you couldn't do something, and you felt strongly enough about it to risk alienating him, you'd go to them with your situation. The director doesn't own it any more than you do in that respect. Spielberg and his friends started SKG to address the issue of not owning what they felt were "their" films - Spielberg doesn't own Jurassic Park, Universal does.
But really, what's the problem here? It's a film school shoot; everyone involved should be free to exploit it to the fullest possible extent.
Posted 20 May 2005 - 01:45 PM
There is no universal rule of law here, it all depends on the agreement you signed with the school, (which likely says that they own it in every way, but you'll have to ask them.)
It's futile to ask anyone here.
Posted 20 May 2005 - 02:15 PM
In the absence of an agreement, either express or implicit in your discussions, actions and contributions (financial and otherwise), I suspect that you would own the footage, the sound recordist would own the sound and the director/editor would own the copyright in the specific form that the footage and sound took after editing. This means that the film could not be shown unless the three of you started talking sense to one-another.
When I first read your post, I thought you might be talking about another, and more interesting, issue. That issue is this: which of the three of you should be credited as the director of this film? In A Man and His Camera, Nestor Almendros made the argument that in some cases the cinematographer for a documentary film, as distinct from a fiction film, should be recognized as co-director. I think that the argument has some merit to it.
Edited by R. Edge, 20 May 2005 - 02:17 PM.
Posted 20 May 2005 - 04:38 PM
I do not wish to demean the contribution of directors, but it strikes me as odd that when you get a first-time director (who might have some promo or ad experience) and put him on a feature, you tend to get something just as polished-looking, if slightly vacuous and empty, as you would if it'd been a Kubrick movie, which wouldn't necessarily have been so vacuous and empty. Clearly on a big-budget, typical Hollywood feature, a very large contribution is being made by the rest of the crew, enough even to slightly obscure that of the director - after all, some of these films are such huge organisational beasts that they can't possibly oversee everything. I suspect it's this thinking behind the general bad feeling about people who take a "A film by...." credit.
Posted 22 May 2005 - 08:17 AM
I clearly stated in my previous posts that the stock was not at stake here and i am just trying to get a clear definition of the rights to my own stock footage for future reference. As a crew of three we all understand that it is 'our' film, in that we all had input into it's conception and realisation, this is not in question, what is? The general rights of cinematographers in regard to their own footage, i am trying to keep this in reference to documentary footage only, thanks, Joe.
Posted 22 May 2005 - 09:20 PM
Usually the rights belong to whoever is paying you to do the job.
Sometimes you can wrangle some stock footage rights in the contact
That's if you're a good negotiator...but usually doesn't happen.
When you work for free you have more leverage
You can probably secure some rights that grant you access to the footage.
Since you're not getting payment for the job...
You can find other ways to get recompensed for working on the project.
But make no mistake whoever finances the project has the rights officially
No matter how much input someone else put.
However you can still go to court and dispute your case...
If you didn't sign a contract...but you'll need to prove why the rights belong to you.