Personal work used without permission, and tides turned.

[sjackal]

You need a second opinion from a different lawyer. Did you pay this lawyer? Maybe this one not interested or not related to the field.

 

[sjackal]

And going by their logic, they can violate the copyright of any non working photographer or freelancers? Doesn't make sense right?

Sue them for 10 times more.

 

[richiemccaw1]

I suggest the better way to do it would be to put it all out in the open, i.e. original video with a link to the production house's video. Let them deal with the social media fall out.

Show the facts and the email chains. No need to express your opinion. The public can read and interpret for themselves.

 

[mardellion]

I appreciate all the feedback, guys. Just an update, they have yet to reply my email. Not sure if they will but I have sent them 2 emails already. I will drop them another one again after this and see how it goes.

i'm guessing what they need is some form of sworn statement that you own the rights to the video and that there won't be any other persons or companies going to them to ask for payment for licensing as well

but for this scenario where they were the ones who committed the "error" first (as in using without your permission), i think they should really reconsider what they are asking before this thing gets too far

Exactly. I asked why they demanded so much when they were in the wrong. My gut feeling tells me this will not be easy if I want to get my compensation.

is there any figure being mention on the compensation?

if no, than go for an oat, and send them an invoice with a figure they will be regretted to ask you go through this, of course, you need to set a payment due date...... as short as possible.

so if you don't see the cheque in your letter box after the due date, you can go to small claims tribunal to file for a claim, remember, you can only fill for a claim not more than S$10,000.00, so don't be too greedy.


but before you try this, ask your lawyer to patch out any lobang on this first.

Yes there was. I only charged them 2X the amount. I am not thinking of profiting from this commotion, but just want my rightful amount back. Also, they did say they would want to go down for the oath with them, which then they will hand me the cheque.

I should contact my lawyer again. Sigh. Really don't find a need to blow up this matter.

"I have contacted a lawyer and was advised not to sue as I cannot quantify the loss/damage done as I am a freelancer. To the production house, the way to prove the video was created and owned by me is to make a declaration before the Commissioner of Oaths. They also didn't obtain a license before broadcasting it, so I shall see what the Commissioner of Oaths advice regarding this if we were to go down."

Of course you can quantify the loss/damages, even as a freelancer. A freelancer means you do paid assignments as and when requested by your client. In this case, if the production house had come to you in the first place to commission you to make the video, how much would you have charged them? If the production house had come to you and asked for your permission to air your video on national TV, how much would you have charged them? That will quantify the loss/damage suffered by you in this instance that they used your work without permission, thereby depriving you of your rightful earnings, even as a freelancer.

Still not sure how to quantify the amount of damages to be claimed? How about starting with the number of hours you required to make the video, including planning, writing, hiring actors, filming, and post-production etc. Add in the cost of hiring a lawyer to issue a letter of demand to the production house etc. I'm not sure which lawyer you are talking to, but you may wish to seek a second opinion to be sure of your legal rights and remedies.

It costs roughly $140 to issue a lawyer's letter of demand to the production house. You will have to decide if it is worthwhile for you to do it. A sworn statement before the Commissioner of Oaths unfortunately does not carry much weight in resolving such disputes. Why? every one swears in court to tell the truth, but the court does not make a judgement based purely on sworn statements (affidavits), because both sides will obviously swear to tell the truth. How do you know who is lying is who is not? Good solid evidence, on the contrary, is much more persuasive in deciding the issue.

I see. But I have no idea how to put all the time and effort into monetary values. I have licensed clips (different scenes) to other production houses before, so definitely that could be used as a gauge. Thinking off the book, I believe it will all be worthwhile to go through the hassle to get my amount back.

My lawyer sought a second opinion from one who deals with copyright issue, and was reverted with this. I should probably heed your advice and find a second lawyer, but this is going to incur costs that I am not sure whether I can claim.

To the production house, the Oath carries a huge weight, and I believe that's why they want it to cover their own ass. I seem to be at a loss now.

this company won't pay money if there is no invoice right? so when a invoice being sent, a contract is established, so if no payment being received, than SCT is the way to go.

Good solid evidence....

The production house sent you an email, stating "You have claimed ownership of this video and we repeat that we do not doubt that."

(Then add your own evidence that you own the video e.g. the original high-res video and high-res stills used to make the video timelapse etc)

You can work out your losses/damages, you have a written admission by the production house that you own the video.
Looks like good enough reasons for your lawyer to issue a letter of demand to the production house, no?

It is from what you've said. I just am not sure whether I'll be getting back my money in the end. This company is really hard to deal with. If the production house fails to comply to the letter of demand, does that mean it will have to be taken to court?

 

[mardellion]

You need a second opinion from a different lawyer. Did you pay this lawyer? Maybe this one not interested or not related to the field.

This lawyer is not related to this field, but she sought opinion from her colleague who deals with such issues. I didn't pay this lawyer for the advice.

And going by their logic, they can violate the copyright of any non working photographer or freelancers? Doesn't make sense right?

Sue them for 10 times more.

10 times a bit too overwhelming... I only quoted them 2X... Haha... Dumb me.

I suggest the better way to do it would be to put it all out in the open, i.e. original video with a link to the production house's video. Let them deal with the social media fall out.

Show the facts and the email chains. No need to express your opinion. The public can read and interpret for themselves.

Whoa... That would tarnish the reputation of the company for sure, and I'd probably not get my money. I guess it could be one of my options though.

 

[pettypoh]

hi mardellion,

i hope, for the sake of the production house, that they will close the case with you asap

also, i think it has been wise (and nice) of you not to reveal the company and videos first, and to try to reach a private settlement. if they ever chance upon this forum, i'd just like to link them to this thread http://www.clubsnap.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1533333 and help them to understand that "even if" they eventually win (not sure why) in court, the potential consequences is not something that they are going to enjoy

those guys at (thread linked above) were probably just young people starting out, over-eager to succeed, and as per their explanation -- "naive"

for a production house supplying footage for local tv broadcast (be it editorial or commercial), my guess -- they know exactly what they are doing

 

[qystan]

Don't sue for loss. You didn't lose anything. Noting that they agreed to your claim.

Get the declaration done quickly. If someone does it before you and you have another task on your hands.

With the declaration as proof of ownership, write to the production house to pay you for use of the video clip.

State a value you want to be paid. You might want them to include your name in the credits too.

 

[zhxbsg]

The production house owe you an apology.

 

[mardellion]

hi mardellion,

i hope, for the sake of the production house, that they will close the case with you asap

also, i think it has been wise (and nice) of you not to reveal the company and videos first, and to try to reach a private settlement. if they ever chance upon this forum, i'd just like to link them to this thread http://www.clubsnap.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1533333 and help them to understand that "even if" they eventually win (not sure why) in court, the potential consequences is not something that they are going to enjoy

those guys at (thread linked above) were probably just young people starting out, over-eager to succeed, and as per their explanation -- "naive"

for a production house supplying footage for local tv broadcast (be it editorial or commercial), my guess -- they know exactly what they are doing

Thank you for the link and staying with me!

 

[mardellion]

Don't sue for loss. You didn't lose anything. Noting that they agreed to your claim.

Get the declaration done quickly. If someone does it before you and you have another task on your hands.

With the declaration as proof of ownership, write to the production house to pay you for use of the video clip.

State a value you want to be paid. You might want them to include your name in the credits too.

That was what I was told. But people here have broken down to me, quantifying and justifying the loss I've gotten.

I'll get it done asap. Do you have any idea what needs to be done or what I need to bring?

 

[mardellion]

The production house owe you an apology.

I'd like to think more than that though... But it's ok. I can't ask for more given their replies

 

[mardellion]

Guys, they are not willing to paying for the declaration to the Commissioner of Oaths..

Quoting:
-We will however not bear the cost of this certification as we requested for proof of ownership and you have been unable to provide it thus far and will only get it now.

We would like you to proceed to the Commissioner of Oaths and have your video clips certified original by them. This will then be proof of originality for the video clips which we will then pay for accordingly. Our management keeps asking what proof do we have that this video is originally yours. Basically any form of tangible proof or written documentation to say that you own the visuals. -

How should I reply? I really don't want to incur costs for something I didn't request for.. Do you think I should just f*** it and pay for it, and settle it once and for all? I'm actually pretty worn out dealing with them. Also, do you guys suspect I can use anything I have as proof that I own the visuals? Things like photographs, high res files, etc.

 

[JacePhoto]

They are in this business. They know the ins and out. Asking to go to the commission of oath is just a delaying tactic. If I were you, I will just ignore the money and compensation. I will just go to their end client directly and write a letter to promising to sue them (the end client) for unauthorised use. This usually black list the production company. I did this once and had the graphic design house called me to clarify promptly. I think it was settled in 2 hours.

 

[zaren]

Just reply in writing that they have already admitted in writing that they agreed to compensate you and do not dispute your claim as owner of the video, and that you will be writing to the end user mediacorp to notify them of the copyright infringement as the end user of your work, without your permission. The production house will be forced to show proof to the end user that they properly commissioned the work and/or own the copyright to it. No need to pay for lawyer or commissioner for oaths.

 

[richiemccaw1]

They are in this business. They know the ins and out. Asking to go to the commission of oath is just a delaying tactic. If I were you, I will just ignore the money and compensation. I will just go to their end client directly and write a letter to promising to sue them (the end client) for unauthorised use. This usually black list the production company. I did this once and had the graphic design house called me to clarify promptly. I think it was settled in 2 hours.

Great job.

 

[kandinsky]

We would like you to proceed to the Commissioner of Oaths and have your video clips certified original by them.

Huh... Do they even know what they are talking about? A commissioner of oaths will not do any sort of certification. E.g., If it's an affidavit/statutory declaration, all that is done is that they witness you swearing/affirming that what you are declaring is true.

How should I reply? I really don't want to incur costs for something I didn't request for.. Do you think I should just f*** it and pay for it, and settle it once and for all? I'm actually pretty worn out dealing with them. Also, do you guys suspect I can use anything I have as proof that I own the visuals? Things like photographs, high res files, etc.

Honestly, unless you have the time and money to play this out, personally I'd just settle it the shortest way and get on with life/business. Accept it as part of doing business. You meet some clients who're nice, some who make you jump through hoops to get payment, etc. Even then, a concern here is that they seem to have a misguided idea of what the commissioner of oaths does. What if they go back on their word when they realize that the Commission of Oaths doesn't really do any sort of 'certification', then you would have done that for nothing... :dunno:

------------------

Found this bit on the PPAS website that mentions that affidavits are one way for copyright owners to prove ownership when contested, even if copyright requires no registration in itself. E.g., If you wanted to sue this production house, you'd probably have to get the same affidavit/stat declaration done anyway, to "prove" your ownership.

Copyright requires no registration

Copyright cannot be registered with the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore (IPOS) or anyone else. Copyright, unlike other forms of intellectual property, requires no formalities in order to exist. It is automatically created every time a photograph is taken or when the subject matter is created. The problem is how the copyright owner proves that he is indeed the copyright owner.

Since patents and trade marks requires formal registration with IPOS, the certificate of registration issued by IPOS is good evidence that the subject matter belongs to that person whose name appears on that certificate in the case of patents and trade marks. However, copyright laws requires the owner to prove his ownership and entitlement to that copyright when he decides to take legal action in a court of law. This is actually not too difficult and ownership of copyright can be proved by a written affidavit by the copyright owner attesting to his ownership. The court will have to accept such testimony unless the defendant can prove otherwise.

http://ppas.sg/site/index.php?Itemid=9&id=7&option=com_content&task=view

 

[pettypoh]

Proof of visuals? The raw files?

 

[mardellion]

They are in this business. They know the ins and out. Asking to go to the commission of oath is just a delaying tactic. If I were you, I will just ignore the money and compensation. I will just go to their end client directly and write a letter to promising to sue them (the end client) for unauthorised use. This usually black list the production company. I did this once and had the graphic design house called me to clarify promptly. I think it was settled in 2 hours.

I emailed Mediacorp the very first I received word of the unlicensed usage. They contacted the production house to contact me and it led to this. Do you think it will help if I email them again telling them they have used unlicensed footage? I don't want a sour relationship with Mediacorp (should it come to that).

Just reply in writing that they have already admitted in writing that they agreed to compensate you and do not dispute your claim as owner of the video, and that you will be writing to the end user mediacorp to notify them of the copyright infringement as the end user of your work, without your permission. The production house will be forced to show proof to the end user that they properly commissioned the work and/or own the copyright to it. No need to pay for lawyer or commissioner for oaths.

Thank you so much, I think I'll do just this!

Proof of visuals? The raw files?

Not sure if that is sustainable. Dunno what kind of pattern they will give should I show them the RAW files.

 

[sjackal]

This lawyer is not related to this field, but she sought opinion from her colleague who deals with such issues. I didn't pay this lawyer for the advice.



10 times a bit too overwhelming... I only quoted them 2X... Haha... Dumb me.



Whoa... That would tarnish the reputation of the company for sure, and I'd probably not get my money. I guess it could be one of my options though.

That could be the reason why, 1) not from related field, 2) not paid.

Free advice are often the most expensive advice, because it doesnt work and cause you even more loss.

Are you doing this for a living? Do you need that few thousand dollars? How bad are you willing to feel and go thru for that little amount of money you are asking them for? They could be testing your tolerances and thinking that they can makan you straight on and you are going along with it.

Get your dignity back man. Do the social media thing, then STILL sue them to get back what is owed to you. Punish these thieves for preying upon small individual photographers.

 

[Deunamist]

They are in this business. They know the ins and out. Asking to go to the commission of oath is just a delaying tactic. If I were you, I will just ignore the money and compensation. I will just go to their end client directly and write a letter to promising to sue them (the end client) for unauthorised use. This usually black list the production company. I did this once and had the graphic design house called me to clarify promptly. I think it was settled in 2 hours.

Haha that's awesome. Yes I would take that route too.

mardellion: how about the raw METAs?