Tech Content Buying Protocols ... Is This Normal??

[ulsxxx]

I was just about to make a sale for my content until I read this one company's contract which required me not only send the final cuts, but also my raw footage? Is that normal? Why would they want my raw footage? I always thought its common that content creators never sell or give up there raw footage. The footage was cut for a reason. Maybe there were private convos in the footage. Maybe I pick my nose fart really loud in timecode 00:02:00 when i thought the camera was off. Any number of reasons, also why would i trust anyone else not to recut my content or make it different enough where i technically licensed my raws so they can create a whole new work and just claim different copyright. I can think of a million ways i can get f***ked for giving my masters but can't think of one good reason they would need my raw footage for anything.

Anyone have any insight? When you purchase content, do you also ask for the raw footage ontop of the final cuts?

[videobunch]

Not sure why they would want the uncut versions as we ask for master that are cut as long as not compressed. If compressed then I could see it.

I would ask them why they wanted them.

[ulsxxx]

Yes. That's what I offered. I even recut them removing titles and music and other stuff of the edit. Then after going back and forth they send me a contract that stated I needed to give them the raw footage. Just seems super suspect. I asked them why but I won't expect a response til after the holiday if they even respond. That's a deal breaker for me. No raw footage given the ever. I'll be glad to give you a master cut in high resolution, Photoset and 2257 data. That's all that should be needed. Im walking away from money I need but not gonna make bad deductions out of desperation.

[celandina]

Actually it shows how little you know the licensing business.

This is standard in the film and TV industry but ONLY if you sell the content. The purchaser may want to re edit, re stage, adjust, replace etc....but mainly prevent cheating and stealing.

Below quotes are from a major studio deal purchasing from the producer. I have of course replaced names with XXX. There is an option that if you do not deliver all materials after the sale you must destroy them all. That basically you are prevented from making another movie but claim its a different movie.

a. If designated by XXX, the Licensees shall deliver to XXX (within thirty 30 days following receipt of notice from XXX as set forth above) all Tangible Film Materials that are then within the possession or under the control of the Licensees, XXX, a Licensee Affiliate, a Subdistributor or any Person pursuant to a XXX-approved Distribution Servicing Agreement. The Licensees’ direct third party costs of complying with this Section 15.1.a. shall be included in Distribution Expenses, provided such delivery shall be at the Licensees’ sole cost and expense in the event of termination for a YYY default.


b. Unless designated otherwise byXXX all or any portion of the Tangible Film Materials set forth in the Licensees’ written inventory that XXX has not instructed the Licensees to deliver to XXXshall be destroyed. The Licensees shall furnish XXX (within thirty [30] days following receipt of notice from XXX as set forth above) with an affidavit of such destruction, and shall furnish such additional verification of such destruction as XXX shall designate. The Licensees’ direct costs of complying with this Section 15.1.b. shall be included in Distribution Expenses, provided such destruction shall be at the Licensees’ cost and expense in the event of termination for a Licensee’s default.

Basically this deal prevent crooks who made the content re selling it over and over.

[AlexxxSBG]

Originally Posted by celandina

Actually it shows how little you know the licensing business.

This is standard in the film and TV industry but ONLY if you sell the content. The purchaser may want to re edit, re stage, adjust, replace etc....but mainly prevent cheating and stealing.

Below quotes are from a major studio deal purchasing from the producer. I have of course replaced names with XXX. There is an option that if you do not deliver all materials after the sale you must destroy them all. That basically you are prevented from making another movie but claim its a different movie.



Basically this deal prevent crooks who made the content re selling it over and over.

I agree with @celandina, it's common sense, I always ask for this, if you sell it, it's up to the user to do with material whatever he needs to.

[Contentsupply]

If they are buying exclusive rights, then they should get the raw footage to protect themselves.

If they are buying non-exclusive rights, then they have no need or business with the raw footage. The edited version is the final product that they are buying.

By the way, a lot of buyers are under the impression that there is value in the raw footage, and that it could be re-cut as a different version. It is true that the re-cut version can constitute a new copyright, but it is not that easy to make a markedly different re-edit because, believe me, the editor is going to cut everything usable.

[videobunch]

I agree with you. If exclusive then yes for sure they should get master cut and un cut. If non exclusive just cut masters but I think this also depends on rights they need ie TV vs internet

Me personally when I buy material, last thing I want to have to do is reedit the material. I own over 15000 DVD titles and that would be a pain to recut each one. If i wanted to go through all of that, I would just have it shot myself.

I get both sides but if i was buying and studio said no I wont give you uncut, it would not affect deal to me but that is Non exclusive only.

Originally Posted by Contentsupply

If they are buying exclusive rights, then they should get the raw footage to protect themselves.

If they are buying non-exclusive rights, then they have no need or business with the raw footage. The edited version is the final product that they are buying.

By the way, a lot of buyers are under the impression that there is value in the raw footage, and that it could be re-cut as a different version. It is true that the re-cut version can constitute a new copyright, but it is not that easy to make a markedly different re-edit because, believe me, the editor is going to cut everything usable.

Is it exclusive on non exclusive right you sold them?

You alway have the right to choose. If it is worth it and you need the money, give them what they want. If concerned, pass on the deal.

Originally Posted by ulsxxx

Yes. That's what I offered. I even recut them removing titles and music and other stuff of the edit. Then after going back and forth they send me a contract that stated I needed to give them the raw footage. Just seems super suspect. I asked them why but I won't expect a response til after the holiday if they even respond. That's a deal breaker for me. No raw footage given the ever. I'll be glad to give you a master cut in high resolution, Photoset and 2257 data. That's all that should be needed. Im walking away from money I need but not gonna make bad deductions out of desperation.