[videoblogging] Re: Defending Videographer's Rights in Court
Hello everyone! Later today I am heading out to court for the hearing in Brooklyn, NY. The lawsuit is for use of intellectual property without the creator's consent. BTW, the Judge Joe Brown show in LA never came through due to defendant's denial to do it on TV. A mutual friend of ours, who happens to be a lawyer, tried to mediate this issue, saying that the defendant wants to settle this out of court. I told him to tell the defendant that I specified my asking rates in the emails we exchanged right before I filed the lawsuit. Wish me luck. :) Renat --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Renat Zarbailov innom...@... wrote: Hello everyone! Over the past three months I completed three 2-minute videos for a startup DJ company, who never paid a penny for my work, promising me that when they will start getting paid for their gigs in night clubs then they will pay me for each completed video. Within these three months I shot 8 events for them, each one requiring at least 4 hours of shooting. They started pressuring me lately to deliver four more completed videos within a week or so. Since they never paid for any of my work I told them if they wanted speed they would have to pay $600 per completed video with a week turnaround from the shoot day. This escalated into a dispute and now I no longer want to deal with them. I asked them kindly to remove these three videos I created from their web site, myspace, youtube, and vimeo. They are refusing to do so claiming that these videos belong to them. I offered to let them keep them online if they would pay $300 per each video so we part our ways peacefully. And now we are having a dispute over who owns these videos. All of the agreements we made among us were verbal and never in writing. On Monday I want to file a lawsuit in small claims court to have these videos pulled of the web or for them to pay up. Has anyone in our vlogging community ever dealt with a similar situation? If I were to contact Youtube/Vimeo for video removal request, what do they ask for to proof video ownership? Should I also file for reimbursement for the time I spent shooting these 8 events? Basically it comes to 32 hours of very hard work running around in the clubs shooting small clips. I offered them these source video files at $100 per each event, so they could use them by hiring another editor, they refused. So I will gladly have to purge them all. After the court, of course. Also, there's no copyright mention in the end credits of all three videos, the last two list my name as camera/editing. They're claiming that their glamorous company provided exposure for my video skills. I never wanted exposure by shooting and editing their videos. I even did not put my name in the end credits of the first video, which proofs that. They approached me for help, not the other way around. Here are these three videos: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8x5B-h08Hs http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oGRiB35h7Pw http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vcIbVFu6_PE This DJ company never invested into any of the video production (props, special video preparation or anything). They just had a stable (yes, stable, :) that's what it says in their recent press release) of girls DJ for them, without paying them either by the way. I have seen many of their graphic designers and photographers come and go, which slowly started making sense to me that they just want to parasite off other people's energy and skills. I would truly appreciate any input you may have regarding this situation or content ownership before I head out to court to fight for my rights. Thanks everyone! Renat Zarbailov of Innomind.org
[videoblogging] Re: Defending Videographer's Rights in Court
What you, Liza, numerously failed to understand here is that I am suing for the video, NOT for the music that comes along with it. It's a cease and desist of the video. And this video will NOT be used by me in any way after the lawsuit. Deleted, gone forever. --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, liza jean [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: here's some practice for court: young man please prove the defendents own said music. --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Renat Zarbailov innomind@ wrote: Rupert, You have pointed out interesting thoughts. I have accepted the fact that this court TV show will be cut, this is America after all. I don't take this very seriously though, if it happens it happens, if not I will not spend the rest of my life blogging about it. Speaking of blogging, I did blog about it, just one entry... http://innomind.blogspot.com/2008/11/i-am-going-through-ugly- dispute-with.html I am in no way trying to bring traffic to my site(s) should I win the case. These three videos I will purge either way. My intent is to have these videos lawfully deleted from the defendants hard drives, or pay up for my work. To answer Liza Jean about the music in the video. The music belongs to the defendant, and is welcome to play their music both on their site or to their prospective corporate clients. As long as my video work is not attached to it. Like I said; If I win I will delete all 3 videos and the raw files of every of eight events I shot for them. I do not want to associate my name with these sharks. Renat --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Rupert rupert@ wrote: Renat, How many of these shows have you watched? Are you watching them now, all the time, while you prepare this? Because you should be. Look how silly the people in the show look. That's going to be *you* in the box. However justified you feel now - however ridiculous you think the opposition's correspondence is, you *will* come off looking bad, too. Perhaps shrill, irrational, emotional - you're obviously very upset about all this, to the point where you want to humiliate them publicly, and the show will play that up, and they will try to get you worked up in your testimony. Certainly, you won't get a chance to slowly and carefully lay out the correspondence to make your case on TV. All that stuff will be cut - it's boring. This is not paranoia - it's the way Reality TV really works. I have first hand experience from the production side. Irina just backed me up. Really - imagine how you'd feel about it if you get there and you're suddenly not winning as easily as you imagined (which is usually what happens in court cases, as in politics). Your ex-clients will have better lawyers advising them what to say. Most of the plaintiffs on these shows are made to look like fools. And it's not like you're a widow who's been wrongly evicted. As a videographer of models, your case is hardly going to tug on the nation's heartstrings. Finally - this I just don't understand - it seems you want to humiliate these people on TV, and yet you rejected Jay's suggestion to blog about your experience as public whining? You'd rather get 2 and a half minutes of supposed national broadcasting and totally forfeit control over how you look in public? And you're asking for advice on how to do this on the *videoblogging* list? The whole point of which is to reverse that power structure? And where is this going to go when it's been broadcast - once, during daytime, to bored housewives and students? Nowhere. It'll be broadcast and disappear. Do you even know how many people watch this show, and what the demographic is? Should your client really be shaking in their boots about being 'exposed' on this show? How many of their potential business partners are ever going to see it or even know about it? My point is, I just can't believe that you'd be willing to trade control of your image and reputation for such weak rewards. YOU have the power to make your own video about your case that will show up in all their search results if you do it right. YouTube and other video sharing sites are often heavily weighted so that they often feature in the top 2 pages for any search result. Make an entertaining video of the correspondence from *your* side. Humiliate them in a way that's viewable by all their clients, 24 hours a day 7 days a week via Google. Not once on a cable channel on a Tuesday afternoon in January in a place that's set up as a freakshow and then disappears for ever. That's all these things are - freakshows. And you're volunteering to be a freak? If
[videoblogging] Re: Defending Videographer's Rights in Court
most assuredly, some failure of understanding. -- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Renat Zarbailov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What you, Liza, numerously failed to understand here is that I am suing for the video, NOT for the music that comes along with it. It's a cease and desist of the video. And this video will NOT be used by me in any way after the lawsuit. Deleted, gone forever. --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, liza jean daredoll@ wrote: here's some practice for court: young man please prove the defendents own said music. --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Renat Zarbailov innomind@ wrote: Rupert, You have pointed out interesting thoughts. I have accepted the fact that this court TV show will be cut, this is America after all. I don't take this very seriously though, if it happens it happens, if not I will not spend the rest of my life blogging about it. Speaking of blogging, I did blog about it, just one entry... http://innomind.blogspot.com/2008/11/i-am-going-through-ugly- dispute-with.html I am in no way trying to bring traffic to my site(s) should I win the case. These three videos I will purge either way. My intent is to have these videos lawfully deleted from the defendants hard drives, or pay up for my work. To answer Liza Jean about the music in the video. The music belongs to the defendant, and is welcome to play their music both on their site or to their prospective corporate clients. As long as my video work is not attached to it. Like I said; If I win I will delete all 3 videos and the raw files of every of eight events I shot for them. I do not want to associate my name with these sharks. Renat --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Rupert rupert@ wrote: Renat, How many of these shows have you watched? Are you watching them now, all the time, while you prepare this? Because you should be. Look how silly the people in the show look. That's going to be *you* in the box. However justified you feel now - however ridiculous you think the opposition's correspondence is, you *will* come off looking bad, too. Perhaps shrill, irrational, emotional - you're obviously very upset about all this, to the point where you want to humiliate them publicly, and the show will play that up, and they will try to get you worked up in your testimony. Certainly, you won't get a chance to slowly and carefully lay out the correspondence to make your case on TV. All that stuff will be cut - it's boring. This is not paranoia - it's the way Reality TV really works. I have first hand experience from the production side. Irina just backed me up. Really - imagine how you'd feel about it if you get there and you're suddenly not winning as easily as you imagined (which is usually what happens in court cases, as in politics). Your ex-clients will have better lawyers advising them what to say. Most of the plaintiffs on these shows are made to look like fools. And it's not like you're a widow who's been wrongly evicted. As a videographer of models, your case is hardly going to tug on the nation's heartstrings. Finally - this I just don't understand - it seems you want to humiliate these people on TV, and yet you rejected Jay's suggestion to blog about your experience as public whining? You'd rather get 2 and a half minutes of supposed national broadcasting and totally forfeit control over how you look in public? And you're asking for advice on how to do this on the *videoblogging* list? The whole point of which is to reverse that power structure? And where is this going to go when it's been broadcast - once, during daytime, to bored housewives and students? Nowhere. It'll be broadcast and disappear. Do you even know how many people watch this show, and what the demographic is? Should your client really be shaking in their boots about being 'exposed' on this show? How many of their potential business partners are ever going to see it or even know about it? My point is, I just can't believe that you'd be willing to trade control of your image and reputation for such weak rewards. YOU have the power to make your own video about your case that will show up in all their search results if you do it right. YouTube and other video sharing sites are often heavily weighted so that they often feature in the top 2 pages for any search result. Make an entertaining video of the correspondence from *your* side. Humiliate them in a way that's viewable by all their clients, 24
[videoblogging] Re: Defending Videographer's Rights in Court
Good looking out Irina, Thanks so much! It's written in the producers letter that they guarantee the payment should I win the case. As far as ridiculness of the correspondence I exchanged throughout the last couple of weeks with the defendant; this must be televised... I will though ask the producer to provide the lodging and food money upfront before he sends the airline tickets. The only thing that may come in the way of doing it on TV is the delay of serving the lawsuit to the defendant or her not wanting to do it at all regrdless of the incentive she receives with the TV approach. Renat --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Irina [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: renat, i know a good friend who was a producer for one of the judges' shows his job was to make sure the show was as ridiculous and insane as possible, even if it meant humiliation and horror for the participants, even if it meant kind of lying to them just do not think the producers are on your side in any way and like someone else on this list said, get the money in advance tell them to send you a check tell them you dont have any credit cards or any extra money do NOT agree to re-imbursement make them buy the airline tix for you and pay for the hotel for you etc. the re-imbursement can take up to six months to one year On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 5:34 PM, liza jean [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: who owns the music on these videos? --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com, Renat Zarbailov innomind@ wrote: Well, If supposedly the defendant agrees to do it on TV then there's no need to blog the hearing in court since the cameras will already tape it. There's a bit of complication in regards to serving the papers to appear in court. The letter returned back to court on Nov. 18. When I was filing the complaint I wrote down the home address of the defendant, though she emailed me her business one prior to that. The reason I wrote the home one is because we never conducted any business at the business address in Manhattan. So I figured, what are the chances that this address even exists if she so willingly gave it to me. Good thing as of Nov. 21st. it's still within 23 days since the initial filing, so I went back to court and updated the address to the business one. Now if she gets it by Dec. 1st, there's still time enough for the Judge Joe Brown producer to convince her to do it TV- style. Until Dec. 1st... Renat --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com, johnleeke johnleeke@ wrote: If you do it, it would be fascinating for us if you video blog the experience. I wonder if they have you sign away all your rights to shoot and distribute your own video about the experience. John www.HistoricHomeWorks.com -- http://geekentertainment.tv [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Defending Videographer's Rights in Court
Renat, How many of these shows have you watched? Are you watching them now, all the time, while you prepare this? Because you should be. Look how silly the people in the show look. That's going to be *you* in the box. However justified you feel now - however ridiculous you think the opposition's correspondence is, you *will* come off looking bad, too. Perhaps shrill, irrational, emotional - you're obviously very upset about all this, to the point where you want to humiliate them publicly, and the show will play that up, and they will try to get you worked up in your testimony. Certainly, you won't get a chance to slowly and carefully lay out the correspondence to make your case on TV. All that stuff will be cut - it's boring. This is not paranoia - it's the way Reality TV really works. I have first hand experience from the production side. Irina just backed me up. Really - imagine how you'd feel about it if you get there and you're suddenly not winning as easily as you imagined (which is usually what happens in court cases, as in politics). Your ex-clients will have better lawyers advising them what to say. Most of the plaintiffs on these shows are made to look like fools. And it's not like you're a widow who's been wrongly evicted. As a videographer of models, your case is hardly going to tug on the nation's heartstrings. Finally - this I just don't understand - it seems you want to humiliate these people on TV, and yet you rejected Jay's suggestion to blog about your experience as public whining? You'd rather get 2 and a half minutes of supposed national broadcasting and totally forfeit control over how you look in public? And you're asking for advice on how to do this on the *videoblogging* list? The whole point of which is to reverse that power structure? And where is this going to go when it's been broadcast - once, during daytime, to bored housewives and students? Nowhere. It'll be broadcast and disappear. Do you even know how many people watch this show, and what the demographic is? Should your client really be shaking in their boots about being 'exposed' on this show? How many of their potential business partners are ever going to see it or even know about it? My point is, I just can't believe that you'd be willing to trade control of your image and reputation for such weak rewards. YOU have the power to make your own video about your case that will show up in all their search results if you do it right. YouTube and other video sharing sites are often heavily weighted so that they often feature in the top 2 pages for any search result. Make an entertaining video of the correspondence from *your* side. Humiliate them in a way that's viewable by all their clients, 24 hours a day 7 days a week via Google. Not once on a cable channel on a Tuesday afternoon in January in a place that's set up as a freakshow and then disappears for ever. That's all these things are - freakshows. And you're volunteering to be a freak? If none of this makes any sense to you, just ask yourself what the benefits of this are - if you take away the idea that it will drive traffic to your site (it won't) and your certainty that they will come off looking worse (they won't). It's all downside and risk. Except for a free trip to LA. If you count a trip to LA as upside. Rupert http://twittervlog.tv On 24-Nov-08, at 12:15 AM, Renat Zarbailov wrote: Good looking out Irina, Thanks so much! It's written in the producers letter that they guarantee the payment should I win the case. As far as ridiculness of the correspondence I exchanged throughout the last couple of weeks with the defendant; this must be televised... I will though ask the producer to provide the lodging and food money upfront before he sends the airline tickets. The only thing that may come in the way of doing it on TV is the delay of serving the lawsuit to the defendant or her not wanting to do it at all regrdless of the incentive she receives with the TV approach. Renat --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Irina [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: renat, i know a good friend who was a producer for one of the judges' shows his job was to make sure the show was as ridiculous and insane as possible, even if it meant humiliation and horror for the participants, even if it meant kind of lying to them just do not think the producers are on your side in any way and like someone else on this list said, get the money in advance tell them to send you a check tell them you dont have any credit cards or any extra money do NOT agree to re-imbursement make them buy the airline tix for you and pay for the hotel for you etc. the re-imbursement can take up to six months to one year On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 5:34 PM, liza jean [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: who owns the music on these videos? --- In
[videoblogging] Re: Defending Videographer's Rights in Court
he seems determined to try. i wonder how he's gonna pay for the music rights once whoever owns copyright gets wind of renat's winnings? --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Rupert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Renat, How many of these shows have you watched? Are you watching them now, all the time, while you prepare this? Because you should be. Look how silly the people in the show look. That's going to be *you* in the box. However justified you feel now - however ridiculous you think the opposition's correspondence is, you *will* come off looking bad, too. Perhaps shrill, irrational, emotional - you're obviously very upset about all this, to the point where you want to humiliate them publicly, and the show will play that up, and they will try to get you worked up in your testimony. Certainly, you won't get a chance to slowly and carefully lay out the correspondence to make your case on TV. All that stuff will be cut - it's boring. This is not paranoia - it's the way Reality TV really works. I have first hand experience from the production side. Irina just backed me up. Really - imagine how you'd feel about it if you get there and you're suddenly not winning as easily as you imagined (which is usually what happens in court cases, as in politics). Your ex-clients will have better lawyers advising them what to say. Most of the plaintiffs on these shows are made to look like fools. And it's not like you're a widow who's been wrongly evicted. As a videographer of models, your case is hardly going to tug on the nation's heartstrings. Finally - this I just don't understand - it seems you want to humiliate these people on TV, and yet you rejected Jay's suggestion to blog about your experience as public whining? You'd rather get 2 and a half minutes of supposed national broadcasting and totally forfeit control over how you look in public? And you're asking for advice on how to do this on the *videoblogging* list? The whole point of which is to reverse that power structure? And where is this going to go when it's been broadcast - once, during daytime, to bored housewives and students? Nowhere. It'll be broadcast and disappear. Do you even know how many people watch this show, and what the demographic is? Should your client really be shaking in their boots about being 'exposed' on this show? How many of their potential business partners are ever going to see it or even know about it? My point is, I just can't believe that you'd be willing to trade control of your image and reputation for such weak rewards. YOU have the power to make your own video about your case that will show up in all their search results if you do it right. YouTube and other video sharing sites are often heavily weighted so that they often feature in the top 2 pages for any search result. Make an entertaining video of the correspondence from *your* side. Humiliate them in a way that's viewable by all their clients, 24 hours a day 7 days a week via Google. Not once on a cable channel on a Tuesday afternoon in January in a place that's set up as a freakshow and then disappears for ever. That's all these things are - freakshows. And you're volunteering to be a freak? If none of this makes any sense to you, just ask yourself what the benefits of this are - if you take away the idea that it will drive traffic to your site (it won't) and your certainty that they will come off looking worse (they won't). It's all downside and risk. Except for a free trip to LA. If you count a trip to LA as upside. Rupert http://twittervlog.tv On 24-Nov-08, at 12:15 AM, Renat Zarbailov wrote: Good looking out Irina, Thanks so much! It's written in the producers letter that they guarantee the payment should I win the case. As far as ridiculness of the correspondence I exchanged throughout the last couple of weeks with the defendant; this must be televised... I will though ask the producer to provide the lodging and food money upfront before he sends the airline tickets. The only thing that may come in the way of doing it on TV is the delay of serving the lawsuit to the defendant or her not wanting to do it at all regrdless of the incentive she receives with the TV approach. Renat --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Irina irinaski@ wrote: renat, i know a good friend who was a producer for one of the judges' shows his job was to make sure the show was as ridiculous and insane as possible, even if it meant humiliation and horror for the participants, even if it meant kind of lying to them just do not think the producers are on your side in any way and like someone else on this list said, get the money in advance tell them to send you a check tell them you dont have any credit
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Defending Videographer's Rights in Court
i have to agree with rupert i would never go on this show (or any reality show for that matter) but especially not in a case were the outcome meant something to me On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 5:57 AM, liza jean [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: he seems determined to try. i wonder how he's gonna pay for the music rights once whoever owns copyright gets wind of renat's winnings? --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com, Rupert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Renat, How many of these shows have you watched? Are you watching them now, all the time, while you prepare this? Because you should be. Look how silly the people in the show look. That's going to be *you* in the box. However justified you feel now - however ridiculous you think the opposition's correspondence is, you *will* come off looking bad, too. Perhaps shrill, irrational, emotional - you're obviously very upset about all this, to the point where you want to humiliate them publicly, and the show will play that up, and they will try to get you worked up in your testimony. Certainly, you won't get a chance to slowly and carefully lay out the correspondence to make your case on TV. All that stuff will be cut - it's boring. This is not paranoia - it's the way Reality TV really works. I have first hand experience from the production side. Irina just backed me up. Really - imagine how you'd feel about it if you get there and you're suddenly not winning as easily as you imagined (which is usually what happens in court cases, as in politics). Your ex-clients will have better lawyers advising them what to say. Most of the plaintiffs on these shows are made to look like fools. And it's not like you're a widow who's been wrongly evicted. As a videographer of models, your case is hardly going to tug on the nation's heartstrings. Finally - this I just don't understand - it seems you want to humiliate these people on TV, and yet you rejected Jay's suggestion to blog about your experience as public whining? You'd rather get 2 and a half minutes of supposed national broadcasting and totally forfeit control over how you look in public? And you're asking for advice on how to do this on the *videoblogging* list? The whole point of which is to reverse that power structure? And where is this going to go when it's been broadcast - once, during daytime, to bored housewives and students? Nowhere. It'll be broadcast and disappear. Do you even know how many people watch this show, and what the demographic is? Should your client really be shaking in their boots about being 'exposed' on this show? How many of their potential business partners are ever going to see it or even know about it? My point is, I just can't believe that you'd be willing to trade control of your image and reputation for such weak rewards. YOU have the power to make your own video about your case that will show up in all their search results if you do it right. YouTube and other video sharing sites are often heavily weighted so that they often feature in the top 2 pages for any search result. Make an entertaining video of the correspondence from *your* side. Humiliate them in a way that's viewable by all their clients, 24 hours a day 7 days a week via Google. Not once on a cable channel on a Tuesday afternoon in January in a place that's set up as a freakshow and then disappears for ever. That's all these things are - freakshows. And you're volunteering to be a freak? If none of this makes any sense to you, just ask yourself what the benefits of this are - if you take away the idea that it will drive traffic to your site (it won't) and your certainty that they will come off looking worse (they won't). It's all downside and risk. Except for a free trip to LA. If you count a trip to LA as upside. Rupert http://twittervlog.tv On 24-Nov-08, at 12:15 AM, Renat Zarbailov wrote: Good looking out Irina, Thanks so much! It's written in the producers letter that they guarantee the payment should I win the case. As far as ridiculness of the correspondence I exchanged throughout the last couple of weeks with the defendant; this must be televised... I will though ask the producer to provide the lodging and food money upfront before he sends the airline tickets. The only thing that may come in the way of doing it on TV is the delay of serving the lawsuit to the defendant or her not wanting to do it at all regrdless of the incentive she receives with the TV approach. Renat --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com, Irina irinaski@ wrote: renat, i know a good friend who was a producer for one of the judges' shows his job was to make sure the show was as ridiculous and insane as possible, even if it meant humiliation and horror for the participants,
[videoblogging] Re: Defending Videographer's Rights in Court
Rupert, You have pointed out interesting thoughts. I have accepted the fact that this court TV show will be cut, this is America after all. I don't take this very seriously though, if it happens it happens, if not I will not spend the rest of my life blogging about it. Speaking of blogging, I did blog about it, just one entry... http://innomind.blogspot.com/2008/11/i-am-going-through-ugly-dispute-with.html I am in no way trying to bring traffic to my site(s) should I win the case. These three videos I will purge either way. My intent is to have these videos lawfully deleted from the defendants hard drives, or pay up for my work. To answer Liza Jean about the music in the video. The music belongs to the defendant, and is welcome to play their music both on their site or to their prospective corporate clients. As long as my video work is not attached to it. Like I said; If I win I will delete all 3 videos and the raw files of every of eight events I shot for them. I do not want to associate my name with these sharks. Renat --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Rupert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Renat, How many of these shows have you watched? Are you watching them now, all the time, while you prepare this? Because you should be. Look how silly the people in the show look. That's going to be *you* in the box. However justified you feel now - however ridiculous you think the opposition's correspondence is, you *will* come off looking bad, too. Perhaps shrill, irrational, emotional - you're obviously very upset about all this, to the point where you want to humiliate them publicly, and the show will play that up, and they will try to get you worked up in your testimony. Certainly, you won't get a chance to slowly and carefully lay out the correspondence to make your case on TV. All that stuff will be cut - it's boring. This is not paranoia - it's the way Reality TV really works. I have first hand experience from the production side. Irina just backed me up. Really - imagine how you'd feel about it if you get there and you're suddenly not winning as easily as you imagined (which is usually what happens in court cases, as in politics). Your ex-clients will have better lawyers advising them what to say. Most of the plaintiffs on these shows are made to look like fools. And it's not like you're a widow who's been wrongly evicted. As a videographer of models, your case is hardly going to tug on the nation's heartstrings. Finally - this I just don't understand - it seems you want to humiliate these people on TV, and yet you rejected Jay's suggestion to blog about your experience as public whining? You'd rather get 2 and a half minutes of supposed national broadcasting and totally forfeit control over how you look in public? And you're asking for advice on how to do this on the *videoblogging* list? The whole point of which is to reverse that power structure? And where is this going to go when it's been broadcast - once, during daytime, to bored housewives and students? Nowhere. It'll be broadcast and disappear. Do you even know how many people watch this show, and what the demographic is? Should your client really be shaking in their boots about being 'exposed' on this show? How many of their potential business partners are ever going to see it or even know about it? My point is, I just can't believe that you'd be willing to trade control of your image and reputation for such weak rewards. YOU have the power to make your own video about your case that will show up in all their search results if you do it right. YouTube and other video sharing sites are often heavily weighted so that they often feature in the top 2 pages for any search result. Make an entertaining video of the correspondence from *your* side. Humiliate them in a way that's viewable by all their clients, 24 hours a day 7 days a week via Google. Not once on a cable channel on a Tuesday afternoon in January in a place that's set up as a freakshow and then disappears for ever. That's all these things are - freakshows. And you're volunteering to be a freak? If none of this makes any sense to you, just ask yourself what the benefits of this are - if you take away the idea that it will drive traffic to your site (it won't) and your certainty that they will come off looking worse (they won't). It's all downside and risk. Except for a free trip to LA. If you count a trip to LA as upside. Rupert http://twittervlog.tv On 24-Nov-08, at 12:15 AM, Renat Zarbailov wrote: Good looking out Irina, Thanks so much! It's written in the producers letter that they guarantee the payment should I win the case. As far as ridiculness of the correspondence I exchanged throughout the last couple of weeks with the defendant; this must be televised... I will though ask
[videoblogging] Re: Defending Videographer's Rights in Court
here's some practice for court: young man please prove the defendents own said music. --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Renat Zarbailov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Rupert, You have pointed out interesting thoughts. I have accepted the fact that this court TV show will be cut, this is America after all. I don't take this very seriously though, if it happens it happens, if not I will not spend the rest of my life blogging about it. Speaking of blogging, I did blog about it, just one entry... http://innomind.blogspot.com/2008/11/i-am-going-through-ugly- dispute-with.html I am in no way trying to bring traffic to my site(s) should I win the case. These three videos I will purge either way. My intent is to have these videos lawfully deleted from the defendants hard drives, or pay up for my work. To answer Liza Jean about the music in the video. The music belongs to the defendant, and is welcome to play their music both on their site or to their prospective corporate clients. As long as my video work is not attached to it. Like I said; If I win I will delete all 3 videos and the raw files of every of eight events I shot for them. I do not want to associate my name with these sharks. Renat --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Rupert rupert@ wrote: Renat, How many of these shows have you watched? Are you watching them now, all the time, while you prepare this? Because you should be. Look how silly the people in the show look. That's going to be *you* in the box. However justified you feel now - however ridiculous you think the opposition's correspondence is, you *will* come off looking bad, too. Perhaps shrill, irrational, emotional - you're obviously very upset about all this, to the point where you want to humiliate them publicly, and the show will play that up, and they will try to get you worked up in your testimony. Certainly, you won't get a chance to slowly and carefully lay out the correspondence to make your case on TV. All that stuff will be cut - it's boring. This is not paranoia - it's the way Reality TV really works. I have first hand experience from the production side. Irina just backed me up. Really - imagine how you'd feel about it if you get there and you're suddenly not winning as easily as you imagined (which is usually what happens in court cases, as in politics). Your ex-clients will have better lawyers advising them what to say. Most of the plaintiffs on these shows are made to look like fools. And it's not like you're a widow who's been wrongly evicted. As a videographer of models, your case is hardly going to tug on the nation's heartstrings. Finally - this I just don't understand - it seems you want to humiliate these people on TV, and yet you rejected Jay's suggestion to blog about your experience as public whining? You'd rather get 2 and a half minutes of supposed national broadcasting and totally forfeit control over how you look in public? And you're asking for advice on how to do this on the *videoblogging* list? The whole point of which is to reverse that power structure? And where is this going to go when it's been broadcast - once, during daytime, to bored housewives and students? Nowhere. It'll be broadcast and disappear. Do you even know how many people watch this show, and what the demographic is? Should your client really be shaking in their boots about being 'exposed' on this show? How many of their potential business partners are ever going to see it or even know about it? My point is, I just can't believe that you'd be willing to trade control of your image and reputation for such weak rewards. YOU have the power to make your own video about your case that will show up in all their search results if you do it right. YouTube and other video sharing sites are often heavily weighted so that they often feature in the top 2 pages for any search result. Make an entertaining video of the correspondence from *your* side. Humiliate them in a way that's viewable by all their clients, 24 hours a day 7 days a week via Google. Not once on a cable channel on a Tuesday afternoon in January in a place that's set up as a freakshow and then disappears for ever. That's all these things are - freakshows. And you're volunteering to be a freak? If none of this makes any sense to you, just ask yourself what the benefits of this are - if you take away the idea that it will drive traffic to your site (it won't) and your certainty that they will come off looking worse (they won't). It's all downside and risk. Except for a free trip to LA. If you count a trip to LA as upside. Rupert http://twittervlog.tv On 24-Nov-08, at 12:15 AM, Renat Zarbailov wrote:
[videoblogging] Re: Defending Videographer's Rights in Court
If you do it, it would be fascinating for us if you video blog the experience. I wonder if they have you sign away all your rights to shoot and distribute your own video about the experience. John www.HistoricHomeWorks.com
[videoblogging] Re: Defending Videographer's Rights in Court
Well, If supposedly the defendant agrees to do it on TV then there's no need to blog the hearing in court since the cameras will already tape it. There's a bit of complication in regards to serving the papers to appear in court. The letter returned back to court on Nov. 18. When I was filing the complaint I wrote down the home address of the defendant, though she emailed me her business one prior to that. The reason I wrote the home one is because we never conducted any business at the business address in Manhattan. So I figured, what are the chances that this address even exists if she so willingly gave it to me. Good thing as of Nov. 21st. it's still within 23 days since the initial filing, so I went back to court and updated the address to the business one. Now if she gets it by Dec. 1st, there's still time enough for the Judge Joe Brown producer to convince her to do it TV-style. Until Dec. 1st... Renat --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, johnleeke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If you do it, it would be fascinating for us if you video blog the experience. I wonder if they have you sign away all your rights to shoot and distribute your own video about the experience. John www.HistoricHomeWorks.com
[videoblogging] Re: Defending Videographer's Rights in Court
who owns the music on these videos? --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Renat Zarbailov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well, If supposedly the defendant agrees to do it on TV then there's no need to blog the hearing in court since the cameras will already tape it. There's a bit of complication in regards to serving the papers to appear in court. The letter returned back to court on Nov. 18. When I was filing the complaint I wrote down the home address of the defendant, though she emailed me her business one prior to that. The reason I wrote the home one is because we never conducted any business at the business address in Manhattan. So I figured, what are the chances that this address even exists if she so willingly gave it to me. Good thing as of Nov. 21st. it's still within 23 days since the initial filing, so I went back to court and updated the address to the business one. Now if she gets it by Dec. 1st, there's still time enough for the Judge Joe Brown producer to convince her to do it TV- style. Until Dec. 1st... Renat --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, johnleeke johnleeke@ wrote: If you do it, it would be fascinating for us if you video blog the experience. I wonder if they have you sign away all your rights to shoot and distribute your own video about the experience. John www.HistoricHomeWorks.com
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Defending Videographer's Rights in Court
renat, i know a good friend who was a producer for one of the judges' shows his job was to make sure the show was as ridiculous and insane as possible, even if it meant humiliation and horror for the participants, even if it meant kind of lying to them just do not think the producers are on your side in any way and like someone else on this list said, get the money in advance tell them to send you a check tell them you dont have any credit cards or any extra money do NOT agree to re-imbursement make them buy the airline tix for you and pay for the hotel for you etc. the re-imbursement can take up to six months to one year On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 5:34 PM, liza jean [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: who owns the music on these videos? --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com, Renat Zarbailov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well, If supposedly the defendant agrees to do it on TV then there's no need to blog the hearing in court since the cameras will already tape it. There's a bit of complication in regards to serving the papers to appear in court. The letter returned back to court on Nov. 18. When I was filing the complaint I wrote down the home address of the defendant, though she emailed me her business one prior to that. The reason I wrote the home one is because we never conducted any business at the business address in Manhattan. So I figured, what are the chances that this address even exists if she so willingly gave it to me. Good thing as of Nov. 21st. it's still within 23 days since the initial filing, so I went back to court and updated the address to the business one. Now if she gets it by Dec. 1st, there's still time enough for the Judge Joe Brown producer to convince her to do it TV- style. Until Dec. 1st... Renat --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com, johnleeke johnleeke@ wrote: If you do it, it would be fascinating for us if you video blog the experience. I wonder if they have you sign away all your rights to shoot and distribute your own video about the experience. John www.HistoricHomeWorks.com -- http://geekentertainment.tv [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Defending Videographer's Rights in Court
Judge Joe Brown? Dear God stay away from the TV in this situation. Matthew From: Rupert Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2008 10:05 PM To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [videoblogging] Re: Defending Videographer's Rights in Court Seems like a very bad deal to me. I don't see what you get to gain - how they guarantee the payment any more than a regular court does. And sounds like 'court costs' get covered by the loser. Are there extra TV court costs that you wouldn't be liable for otherwise? Also seems to me that the company would stand to get more publicity out of it than you - they're trying to raise their profile, no? Every time I see someone on one of those shows, nobody comes out of it looking good. Which is how it is in court, more or less - but usually the humiliation takes place in relative privacy. Court is almost always a stressful, horrible experience to go through. Why add the extra stress of TV bullshit and national exposure onto that? Rupert http://twittervlog.tv On 19-Nov-08, at 3:24 PM, Renat Zarbailov wrote: Today I received a DHL letter from Judge Joe Brown. Asking if I want to fly to LA to tape the hearing. The producer of this show promises in this letter that they will pay for travel and all expenses associated doing it this way, and guarantee the appearance fee for appearing on this program. Also, if I win the case they guarantee that I receive the money awarded by the arbitrator within 30 days, plus the court costs (I need to find out what that means). Whereas if I win the case traditional court way, the payment from the defendant is not guaranteed by the court in a timely fashion, if ever. Has anybody in the vlogging community ever done lawsuits televised? Should I go for it? Renat --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Renat Zarbailov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello everyone! Over the past three months I completed three 2-minute videos for a startup DJ company, who never paid a penny for my work, promising me that when they will start getting paid for their gigs in night clubs then they will pay me for each completed video. Within these three months I shot 8 events for them, each one requiring at least 4 hours of shooting. They started pressuring me lately to deliver four more completed videos within a week or so. Since they never paid for any of my work I told them if they wanted speed they would have to pay $600 per completed video with a week turnaround from the shoot day. This escalated into a dispute and now I no longer want to deal with them. I asked them kindly to remove these three videos I created from their web site, myspace, youtube, and vimeo. They are refusing to do so claiming that these videos belong to them. I offered to let them keep them online if they would pay $300 per each video so we part our ways peacefully. And now we are having a dispute over who owns these videos. All of the agreements we made among us were verbal and never in writing. On Monday I want to file a lawsuit in small claims court to have these videos pulled of the web or for them to pay up. Has anyone in our vlogging community ever dealt with a similar situation? If I were to contact Youtube/Vimeo for video removal request, what do they ask for to proof video ownership? Should I also file for reimbursement for the time I spent shooting these 8 events? Basically it comes to 32 hours of very hard work running around in the clubs shooting small clips. I offered them these source video files at $100 per each event, so they could use them by hiring another editor, they refused. So I will gladly have to purge them all. After the court, of course. Also, there's no copyright mention in the end credits of all three videos, the last two list my name as camera/editing. They're claiming that their glamorous company provided exposure for my video skills. I never wanted exposure by shooting and editing their videos. I even did not put my name in the end credits of the first video, which proofs that. They approached me for help, not the other way around. Here are these three videos: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8x5B-h08Hs http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oGRiB35h7Pw http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vcIbVFu6_PE This DJ company never invested into any of the video production (props, special video preparation or anything). They just had a stable (yes, stable, :) that's what it says in their recent press release) of girls DJ for them, without paying them either by the way. I have seen many of their graphic designers and photographers come and go, which slowly started making sense to me that they just want to parasite off other people's energy and skills. I would truly appreciate any input you may have regarding this situation or content ownership before I head out to court to fight for my rights. Thanks everyone! Renat Zarbailov of Innomind.org [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non
[videoblogging] Re: Defending Videographer's Rights in Court
I called the producer today and asked about what court costs meant in the letter he sent me. He said that if I win they cover the cost of filing the lawsuit ($20) as well. So, he confirmed that they will cover travel to and from LA, lodging (2 days in LA), even $35/day cash for food. It all sounded interesting not only for the fact that all is covered but also that since it will be shown on national TV the videographers tuning in can benefit from this experience as if they were in the court room. So I went ahead and gave the producer a green light. He also said that there's no guarantee that my case will be selected, it all depends on how interesting the case is. He asked me to tell him how it all started that prompted me to start the lawsuit, whether I take medication (?), if I am married,etc. Now I need to find out from the court if the defendant has been served the papers to appear in court, if so, then the producer will contact the defendant with proposal to do it on TV. The thing is, in case I win, the defendant doesn't have to pay out of pocket to pay me, this TV show does... It all sounds very corrupt but I doubt that going traditional court way will bring results for both parties. We are living in the times of when TV ratings and PR is more important than justice. Thanks everyone who shared any wisdom, I will keep you updated of the proceedings of this... Renat --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Renat Zarbailov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Today I received a DHL letter from Judge Joe Brown. Asking if I want to fly to LA to tape the hearing. The producer of this show promises in this letter that they will pay for travel and all expenses associated doing it this way, and guarantee the appearance fee for appearing on this program. Also, if I win the case they guarantee that I receive the money awarded by the arbitrator within 30 days, plus the court costs (I need to find out what that means). Whereas if I win the case traditional court way, the payment from the defendant is not guaranteed by the court in a timely fashion, if ever. Has anybody in the vlogging community ever done lawsuits televised? Should I go for it? Renat --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Renat Zarbailov innomind@ wrote: Hello everyone! Over the past three months I completed three 2-minute videos for a startup DJ company, who never paid a penny for my work, promising me that when they will start getting paid for their gigs in night clubs then they will pay me for each completed video. Within these three months I shot 8 events for them, each one requiring at least 4 hours of shooting. They started pressuring me lately to deliver four more completed videos within a week or so. Since they never paid for any of my work I told them if they wanted speed they would have to pay $600 per completed video with a week turnaround from the shoot day. This escalated into a dispute and now I no longer want to deal with them. I asked them kindly to remove these three videos I created from their web site, myspace, youtube, and vimeo. They are refusing to do so claiming that these videos belong to them. I offered to let them keep them online if they would pay $300 per each video so we part our ways peacefully. And now we are having a dispute over who owns these videos. All of the agreements we made among us were verbal and never in writing. On Monday I want to file a lawsuit in small claims court to have these videos pulled of the web or for them to pay up. Has anyone in our vlogging community ever dealt with a similar situation? If I were to contact Youtube/Vimeo for video removal request, what do they ask for to proof video ownership? Should I also file for reimbursement for the time I spent shooting these 8 events? Basically it comes to 32 hours of very hard work running around in the clubs shooting small clips. I offered them these source video files at $100 per each event, so they could use them by hiring another editor, they refused. So I will gladly have to purge them all. After the court, of course. Also, there's no copyright mention in the end credits of all three videos, the last two list my name as camera/editing. They're claiming that their glamorous company provided exposure for my video skills. I never wanted exposure by shooting and editing their videos. I even did not put my name in the end credits of the first video, which proofs that. They approached me for help, not the other way around. Here are these three videos: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8x5B-h08Hs http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oGRiB35h7Pw http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vcIbVFu6_PE This DJ company never invested into any of the video production (props, special video preparation or anything). They just had a stable (yes, stable, :) that's what it says in their recent press release) of girls DJ for them, without paying
[videoblogging] Re: Defending Videographer's Rights in Court
Today I received a DHL letter from Judge Joe Brown. Asking if I want to fly to LA to tape the hearing. The producer of this show promises in this letter that they will pay for travel and all expenses associated doing it this way, and guarantee the appearance fee for appearing on this program. Also, if I win the case they guarantee that I receive the money awarded by the arbitrator within 30 days, plus the court costs (I need to find out what that means). Whereas if I win the case traditional court way, the payment from the defendant is not guaranteed by the court in a timely fashion, if ever. Has anybody in the vlogging community ever done lawsuits televised? Should I go for it? Renat --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Renat Zarbailov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello everyone! Over the past three months I completed three 2-minute videos for a startup DJ company, who never paid a penny for my work, promising me that when they will start getting paid for their gigs in night clubs then they will pay me for each completed video. Within these three months I shot 8 events for them, each one requiring at least 4 hours of shooting. They started pressuring me lately to deliver four more completed videos within a week or so. Since they never paid for any of my work I told them if they wanted speed they would have to pay $600 per completed video with a week turnaround from the shoot day. This escalated into a dispute and now I no longer want to deal with them. I asked them kindly to remove these three videos I created from their web site, myspace, youtube, and vimeo. They are refusing to do so claiming that these videos belong to them. I offered to let them keep them online if they would pay $300 per each video so we part our ways peacefully. And now we are having a dispute over who owns these videos. All of the agreements we made among us were verbal and never in writing. On Monday I want to file a lawsuit in small claims court to have these videos pulled of the web or for them to pay up. Has anyone in our vlogging community ever dealt with a similar situation? If I were to contact Youtube/Vimeo for video removal request, what do they ask for to proof video ownership? Should I also file for reimbursement for the time I spent shooting these 8 events? Basically it comes to 32 hours of very hard work running around in the clubs shooting small clips. I offered them these source video files at $100 per each event, so they could use them by hiring another editor, they refused. So I will gladly have to purge them all. After the court, of course. Also, there's no copyright mention in the end credits of all three videos, the last two list my name as camera/editing. They're claiming that their glamorous company provided exposure for my video skills. I never wanted exposure by shooting and editing their videos. I even did not put my name in the end credits of the first video, which proofs that. They approached me for help, not the other way around. Here are these three videos: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8x5B-h08Hs http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oGRiB35h7Pw http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vcIbVFu6_PE This DJ company never invested into any of the video production (props, special video preparation or anything). They just had a stable (yes, stable, :) that's what it says in their recent press release) of girls DJ for them, without paying them either by the way. I have seen many of their graphic designers and photographers come and go, which slowly started making sense to me that they just want to parasite off other people's energy and skills. I would truly appreciate any input you may have regarding this situation or content ownership before I head out to court to fight for my rights. Thanks everyone! Renat Zarbailov of Innomind.org
[videoblogging] Re: Defending Videographer's Rights in Court
i almost spilled my small claims court guts last time you posted, now seems more timely. 1- once upon a time my landlady (dorothy frooks), in return for recruiting some 30,000 folks to serve in WWI, got to create small claims court. that's American justice for you. need to learn more? read on. ask wikipedia for sure. just type in dorothy frooks. best is the NYT obit, which i will testify is in the voice of the disinherited Rockefeller she married at 80+. did i mention she has a cameo in Reds? 2- small claims court judges get to do whatever they want that costs less than $3000 - check the exact amount in your local jurisdiction. why? because it is fair to require a depo$it of the judgement if the judgement is conte$ted. that means if you lose you have to pay the amount of the judgement to secure review by a court of appeals. the money is held in escrow pending judicial review, then awarded as per the judgement. -dare i admit i like to have the tv on when i work? i like Joe Brown as a judge, but i have seen nothing that proves he knows anything about copyright. now if any of those shapely ladies you videographed had hit you you would have a home run in his court. all they have to do to win is somehow suggest you hit them. - they (Judge Joe Brown) need you more than you need them. if Joe Brown had heretofore demonstrated any understanding of copyright, i might hold a diffent opinion here. but i calls them as i sees them, so just say the day i get an envelope containing X (all possible court costs) + Y (all travel and lodging costs) is the day you can book me.anything else and you will lose one way or the other. - so, in conclusion, i recommend you attempt to milk this cow without letting it buy you. let them gaurantee all the costs to you you can imagine - travel, the unknown court fees, costs of appeal, a good place to stay while you sort it out, feel free to be creative here. everyone else will be feeling so free. buy the way, a gaurantee in these circumstances = cash ahead of time. -- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Renat Zarbailov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Today I received a DHL letter from Judge Joe Brown. Asking if I want to fly to LA to tape the hearing. The producer of this show promises in this letter that they will pay for travel and all expenses associated doing it this way, and guarantee the appearance fee for appearing on this program. Also, if I win the case they guarantee that I receive the money awarded by the arbitrator within 30 days, plus the court costs (I need to find out what that means). Whereas if I win the case traditional court way, the payment from the defendant is not guaranteed by the court in a timely fashion, if ever. Has anybody in the vlogging community ever done lawsuits televised? Should I go for it? Renat --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Renat Zarbailov innomind@ wrote: Hello everyone! Over the past three months I completed three 2-minute videos for a startup DJ company, who never paid a penny for my work, promising me that when they will start getting paid for their gigs in night clubs then they will pay me for each completed video. Within these three months I shot 8 events for them, each one requiring at least 4 hours of shooting. They started pressuring me lately to deliver four more completed videos within a week or so. Since they never paid for any of my work I told them if they wanted speed they would have to pay $600 per completed video with a week turnaround from the shoot day. This escalated into a dispute and now I no longer want to deal with them. I asked them kindly to remove these three videos I created from their web site, myspace, youtube, and vimeo. They are refusing to do so claiming that these videos belong to them. I offered to let them keep them online if they would pay $300 per each video so we part our ways peacefully. And now we are having a dispute over who owns these videos. All of the agreements we made among us were verbal and never in writing. On Monday I want to file a lawsuit in small claims court to have these videos pulled of the web or for them to pay up. Has anyone in our vlogging community ever dealt with a similar situation? If I were to contact Youtube/Vimeo for video removal request, what do they ask for to proof video ownership? Should I also file for reimbursement for the time I spent shooting these 8 events? Basically it comes to 32 hours of very hard work running around in the clubs shooting small clips. I offered them these source video files at $100 per each event, so they could use them by hiring another editor, they refused. So I will gladly have to purge them all. After the court, of course. Also, there's no copyright mention in the end credits of all three videos, the last two list my name as camera/editing. They're claiming
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Defending Videographer's Rights in Court
On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 6:24 PM, Renat Zarbailov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Today I received a DHL letter from Judge Joe Brown. Asking if I want to fly to LA to tape the hearing. The producer of this show promises in this letter that they will pay for travel and all expenses associated doing it this way, and guarantee the appearance fee for appearing on this program. Also, if I win the case they guarantee that I receive the money awarded by the arbitrator within 30 days, plus the court costs (I need to find out what that means). Whereas if I win the case traditional court way, the payment from the defendant is not guaranteed by the court in a timely fashion, if ever. Has anybody in the vlogging community ever done lawsuits televised? Should I go for it? I bet you would be the first. I would do a google search for others who have been on Judge Joe Brown. make sure the producers have some kind of respect for the process while they are exploiting you on TV. Jay -- http://jaydedman.com 917 371 6790
[videoblogging] Re: Defending Videographer's Rights in Court
as i have not actually watched your vids i have to ask- 1- is there music? 2- do you own it? if yes then no try to stay off network television. --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Jay dedman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 6:24 PM, Renat Zarbailov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Today I received a DHL letter from Judge Joe Brown. Asking if I want to fly to LA to tape the hearing. The producer of this show promises in this letter that they will pay for travel and all expenses associated doing it this way, and guarantee the appearance fee for appearing on this program. Also, if I win the case they guarantee that I receive the money awarded by the arbitrator within 30 days, plus the court costs (I need to find out what that means). Whereas if I win the case traditional court way, the payment from the defendant is not guaranteed by the court in a timely fashion, if ever. Has anybody in the vlogging community ever done lawsuits televised? Should I go for it? I bet you would be the first. I would do a google search for others who have been on Judge Joe Brown. make sure the producers have some kind of respect for the process while they are exploiting you on TV. Jay -- http://jaydedman.com 917 371 6790
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Defending Videographer's Rights in Court
Seems like a very bad deal to me. I don't see what you get to gain - how they guarantee the payment any more than a regular court does. And sounds like 'court costs' get covered by the loser. Are there extra TV court costs that you wouldn't be liable for otherwise? Also seems to me that the company would stand to get more publicity out of it than you - they're trying to raise their profile, no? Every time I see someone on one of those shows, nobody comes out of it looking good. Which is how it is in court, more or less - but usually the humiliation takes place in relative privacy. Court is almost always a stressful, horrible experience to go through. Why add the extra stress of TV bullshit and national exposure onto that? Rupert http://twittervlog.tv On 19-Nov-08, at 3:24 PM, Renat Zarbailov wrote: Today I received a DHL letter from Judge Joe Brown. Asking if I want to fly to LA to tape the hearing. The producer of this show promises in this letter that they will pay for travel and all expenses associated doing it this way, and guarantee the appearance fee for appearing on this program. Also, if I win the case they guarantee that I receive the money awarded by the arbitrator within 30 days, plus the court costs (I need to find out what that means). Whereas if I win the case traditional court way, the payment from the defendant is not guaranteed by the court in a timely fashion, if ever. Has anybody in the vlogging community ever done lawsuits televised? Should I go for it? Renat --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Renat Zarbailov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello everyone! Over the past three months I completed three 2-minute videos for a startup DJ company, who never paid a penny for my work, promising me that when they will start getting paid for their gigs in night clubs then they will pay me for each completed video. Within these three months I shot 8 events for them, each one requiring at least 4 hours of shooting. They started pressuring me lately to deliver four more completed videos within a week or so. Since they never paid for any of my work I told them if they wanted speed they would have to pay $600 per completed video with a week turnaround from the shoot day. This escalated into a dispute and now I no longer want to deal with them. I asked them kindly to remove these three videos I created from their web site, myspace, youtube, and vimeo. They are refusing to do so claiming that these videos belong to them. I offered to let them keep them online if they would pay $300 per each video so we part our ways peacefully. And now we are having a dispute over who owns these videos. All of the agreements we made among us were verbal and never in writing. On Monday I want to file a lawsuit in small claims court to have these videos pulled of the web or for them to pay up. Has anyone in our vlogging community ever dealt with a similar situation? If I were to contact Youtube/Vimeo for video removal request, what do they ask for to proof video ownership? Should I also file for reimbursement for the time I spent shooting these 8 events? Basically it comes to 32 hours of very hard work running around in the clubs shooting small clips. I offered them these source video files at $100 per each event, so they could use them by hiring another editor, they refused. So I will gladly have to purge them all. After the court, of course. Also, there's no copyright mention in the end credits of all three videos, the last two list my name as camera/editing. They're claiming that their glamorous company provided exposure for my video skills. I never wanted exposure by shooting and editing their videos. I even did not put my name in the end credits of the first video, which proofs that. They approached me for help, not the other way around. Here are these three videos: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8x5B-h08Hs http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oGRiB35h7Pw http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vcIbVFu6_PE This DJ company never invested into any of the video production (props, special video preparation or anything). They just had a stable (yes, stable, :) that's what it says in their recent press release) of girls DJ for them, without paying them either by the way. I have seen many of their graphic designers and photographers come and go, which slowly started making sense to me that they just want to parasite off other people's energy and skills. I would truly appreciate any input you may have regarding this situation or content ownership before I head out to court to fight for my rights. Thanks everyone! Renat Zarbailov of Innomind.org [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Re: Defending Videographer's Rights in Court
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Renat Zarbailov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What is that synchmaster, you speak of? i wish i knew. youtube won't tell. there is no evidence they review our work, because if they did they would know there are no TOS violations in what we post. we are PG-13 all the way. but take it as a fact. we got up to a million channel views twice, and disappeared with no correspondence from youtube twice. now we get deleted so fast we don't even bother to see how how the count got this time . . . and all from one individual stalking us. http://thedaredolldilemmas.blip.tv --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, liza jean daredoll@ wrote: all they have to do to get them back up is shave a few frames off the front and make a new account. works for us every time, and then every time (a million channel views and thousands of happy subscribers) synchmaster finds them and flags them and it all disappears. . . . --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Richard Amirault ramirault@ wrote: Great .. but .. it does not mean they are gone forever. Richard Amirault Boston, MA, USA http://n1jdu.org http://bostonfandom.org http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7hf9u2ZdlQ
[videoblogging] Re: Defending Videographer's Rights in Court
all they have to do to get them back up is shave a few frames off the front and make a new account. works for us every time, and then every time (a million channel views and thousands of happy subscribers) synchmaster finds them and flags them and it all disappears. . . . --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Richard Amirault [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Great .. but .. it does not mean they are gone forever. Richard Amirault Boston, MA, USA http://n1jdu.org http://bostonfandom.org http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7hf9u2ZdlQ
[videoblogging] Re: Defending Videographer's Rights in Court
What is that synchmaster, you speak of? --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, liza jean [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: all they have to do to get them back up is shave a few frames off the front and make a new account. works for us every time, and then every time (a million channel views and thousands of happy subscribers) synchmaster finds them and flags them and it all disappears. . . . --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Richard Amirault ramirault@ wrote: Great .. but .. it does not mean they are gone forever. Richard Amirault Boston, MA, USA http://n1jdu.org http://bostonfandom.org http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7hf9u2ZdlQ
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Defending Videographer's Rights in Court
On Sun, Nov 9, 2008 at 9:13 PM, Renat Zarbailov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I agree with you. I guess I was in the heat of the moment with this situation, calling blogging - whining... :) My apologies... I will make a post on my personal blog. I guess google will crawl for this company's name and will bring up this page anytime someone makes a search on them. Think of it as an act of penace. Of finding peace with yourself in the electronic confession booth. god bless. Jay -- http://jaydedman.com 917 371 6790
[videoblogging] Re: Defending Videographer's Rights in Court
good luck with your complaint to youtube. please let us know if they take the videos down for you. have you tried flagging them as inappropriate? works every time synchmaster wants to get rid of our videos. our videos disappear as if by magic, our accounts cancelled. seems to be automatic once it is flagged. --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Jay dedman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, Nov 9, 2008 at 9:13 PM, Renat Zarbailov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I agree with you. I guess I was in the heat of the moment with this situation, calling blogging - whining... :) My apologies... I will make a post on my personal blog. I guess google will crawl for this company's name and will bring up this page anytime someone makes a search on them. Think of it as an act of penace. Of finding peace with yourself in the electronic confession booth. god bless. Jay -- http://jaydedman.com 917 371 6790
[videoblogging] Re: Defending Videographer's Rights in Court
Amazingly Youtube removed all 3 videos I requested without even notifying me. The reason why I think the removal was from Youtube's side and not from flakes I was dealing with is because they also had one of these videos on Vimeo. And when I checked the Vimeo video was still there. They would have removed them all from both Youtube and Vimeo. Unlike Youtube, Vimeo has no DMCA fillout form, to remove that one video, so I had to send them what I wrote to Youtube. On Dec. 17 I will face the flakes in Brooklyn small claims court. If anyone interested in how events unfold, let me know... :) To read how it all started, visit the following page; http://innomind.blogspot.com/2008/11/i-am-going-through-ugly-dispute-with.html Cheers Renat --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, liza jean [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: good luck with your complaint to youtube. please let us know if they take the videos down for you. have you tried flagging them as inappropriate? works every time synchmaster wants to get rid of our videos. our videos disappear as if by magic, our accounts cancelled. seems to be automatic once it is flagged. --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Jay dedman jay.dedman@ wrote: On Sun, Nov 9, 2008 at 9:13 PM, Renat Zarbailov innomind@ wrote: I agree with you. I guess I was in the heat of the moment with this situation, calling blogging - whining... :) My apologies... I will make a post on my personal blog. I guess google will crawl for this company's name and will bring up this page anytime someone makes a search on them. Think of it as an act of penace. Of finding peace with yourself in the electronic confession booth. god bless. Jay -- http://jaydedman.com 917 371 6790
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Defending Videographer's Rights in Court
On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 9:12 PM, Renat Zarbailov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Amazingly Youtube removed all 3 videos I requested without even notifying me. The reason why I think the removal was from Youtube's side and not from flakes I was dealing with is because they also had one of these videos on Vimeo. And when I checked the Vimeo video was still there. They would have removed them all from both Youtube and Vimeo. Unlike Youtube, Vimeo has no DMCA fillout form, to remove that one video, so I had to send them what I wrote to Youtube. The last time this group dealt with this kind of issue, it was the opposite. John from Total Vom had his videos taken down because a woman complained about his content. We added resources here: http://videoblogginggroup.pbwiki.com/Know-your-rights I really encourage you to add specific links or info so future problems can be more easily solved. On Dec. 17 I will face the flakes in Brooklyn small claims court. If anyone interested in how events unfold, let me know... :) To read how it all started, visit the following page; http://innomind.blogspot.com/2008/11/i-am-going-through-ugly-dispute-with.html hey, we all love drama. Jay -- http://jaydedman.com 917 371 6790
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Defending Videographer's Rights in Court
- Original Message - From: Renat Zarbailov Amazingly Youtube removed all 3 videos I requested without even notifying me. The reason why I think the removal was from Youtube's side and not from flakes I was dealing with is because they also had one of these videos on Vimeo. And when I checked the Vimeo video was still there. They would have removed them all from both Youtube and Vimeo. Unlike Youtube, Vimeo has no DMCA fillout form, to remove that one video, so I had to send them what I wrote to Youtube. On Dec. 17 I will face the flakes in Brooklyn small claims court. If anyone interested in how events unfold, let me know... :) Great .. but .. it does not mean they are gone forever. Richard Amirault Boston, MA, USA http://n1jdu.org http://bostonfandom.org http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7hf9u2ZdlQ
[videoblogging] Re: Defending Videographer's Rights in Court
to add a bit to the good advice Kris gave, when you structure your progress payments,include an initial deposit which will cover all your out of pocket costs. if the client refuses, it's a nice early warning that you won't be getting paid. i hope you take Jay's advice - it will transform that nasty feeling ing the pit of your stomach into proof that you are a force to be dealt with. --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Jay dedman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Monday I want to file a lawsuit in small claims court to have these videos pulled of the web or for them to pay up. Has anyone in our vlogging community ever dealt with a similar situation? If I were to contact Youtube/Vimeo for video removal request, what do they ask for to proof video ownership? Kris gave a great rundown of your options IMHO. You got to take some responsibility here for doing work for free without a contract. This kind of situation asks for trouble. I think going to small claims court would be more trouble than its worth. might feel good for the revenge factor if you want to put in all the time and expense. Here's the blogging way of justice: 1. --Blog about your experience with this company. Write a post that tells the story and provide links to their site. If they wrote you emails saying they would pay you, include them verbatim. Unless they are a fly by night company, they will hate that you're post will show up in their google reputation. 2. --Get your friends to link to this post. Deepen their bad reputation online with more links. Also, this will warn others who may come after you. 3. --It wouldnt hurt sending youtube and other sites an email saying that those videos are your work (especially if they have your name). It's why the shitty DMCA was written. They can of course write back to possible have them reinstalled, but your making them work for it. Sorry to hear you got screwed on thisi job. I bet you wont let it ever happen again. Jay -- http://jaydedman.com 917 371 6790 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Re: Defending Videographer's Rights in Court
Thanks everyone so much for the wisdom shared here. I just filed a DMCA Youtube complain hoping that they honor my request. Here is what I wrote; * Dear Youtube, I am the creator of the following 3 videos (shot and edited). It took me at least 3-4 10-hour working days to create each video without pay from the user (StadjDjModels). I no longer permit this user to use my videos due to the loss of relationship between us. She refused my kind request to remove them, that is why I have no choice but to contact you. Should you need further proof of ownership of these videos I would gladly provide them. Thanks so much. Sincerely, Renat Zarbailov * Yes it is a sad situation and at this point all I want is to remove these videos off the web, I don't care much for them paying for my work done for them. I wonder if small claims court allows initiation of a claim that doesn't seek monetary reimbursement. As far as whining about this experience on blogs to create bad rep for them; It is an option, but I think it only creates more PR for them in the end. And what are the chances that the future videographers they're about to hire will see those blogs? They might, if they ever gotten screwed before, but I think this company looks for emerging talent to be able to have a free ride by offering them either exposure or money in the near future. I must mention that they did offer $300 for the Halloween gig, and later in addition to that wanted 3 more videos delivered in a week timing. That's what promted me to start this dialog that turned ugly. Lesson learned. Next time, no free rides, and heavy research about who I am about to deal with. At the end of the day it all comes down to trust. Thanks again everyone!!! --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Renat Zarbailov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello everyone! Over the past three months I completed three 2-minute videos for a startup DJ company, who never paid a penny for my work, promising me that when they will start getting paid for their gigs in night clubs then they will pay me for each completed video. Within these three months I shot 8 events for them, each one requiring at least 4 hours of shooting. They started pressuring me lately to deliver four more completed videos within a week or so. Since they never paid for any of my work I told them if they wanted speed they would have to pay $600 per completed video with a week turnaround from the shoot day. This escalated into a dispute and now I no longer want to deal with them. I asked them kindly to remove these three videos I created from their web site, myspace, youtube, and vimeo. They are refusing to do so claiming that these videos belong to them. I offered to let them keep them online if they would pay $300 per each video so we part our ways peacefully. And now we are having a dispute over who owns these videos. All of the agreements we made among us were verbal and never in writing. On Monday I want to file a lawsuit in small claims court to have these videos pulled of the web or for them to pay up. Has anyone in our vlogging community ever dealt with a similar situation? If I were to contact Youtube/Vimeo for video removal request, what do they ask for to proof video ownership? Should I also file for reimbursement for the time I spent shooting these 8 events? Basically it comes to 32 hours of very hard work running around in the clubs shooting small clips. I offered them these source video files at $100 per each event, so they could use them by hiring another editor, they refused. So I will gladly have to purge them all. After the court, of course. Also, there's no copyright mention in the end credits of all three videos, the last two list my name as camera/editing. They're claiming that their glamorous company provided exposure for my video skills. I never wanted exposure by shooting and editing their videos. I even did not put my name in the end credits of the first video, which proofs that. They approached me for help, not the other way around. Here are these three videos: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8x5B-h08Hs http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oGRiB35h7Pw http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vcIbVFu6_PE This DJ company never invested into any of the video production (props, special video preparation or anything). They just had a stable (yes, stable, :) that's what it says in their recent press release) of girls DJ for them, without paying them either by the way. I have seen many of their graphic designers and photographers come and go, which slowly started making sense to me that they just want to parasite off other people's energy and skills. I would truly appreciate any input you may have regarding this situation or content ownership before I head out to court to fight for my rights. Thanks everyone! Renat Zarbailov of Innomind.org
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Defending Videographer's Rights in Court
Great post Jay... I thought the same thing. It's a small world for us independent content creators. I'm constantly running into folks from this list all over the place. Take it to them, Renat. peace, Ron Watson http://k9disc.blip.tv http://k9disc.com http://discdogradio.com http://pawsitivevybe.com On Nov 9, 2008, at 5:24 PM, Jay dedman wrote: As far as whining about this experience on blogs to create bad rep for them; It is an option, but I think it only creates more PR for them in the end. And what are the chances that the future videographers they're about to hire will see those blogs? They might, if they ever gotten screwed before, but I think this company looks for emerging talent to be able to have a free ride by offering them either exposure or money in the near future. I must mention that they did offer $300 for the Halloween gig, and later in addition to that wanted 3 more videos delivered in a week timing. That's what promted me to start this dialog that turned ugly. come on Renat. I hope I dont have to point out the absurdity of calling blogging about your situation as whining. if anything, you're leaving a bread trail so other videographers wont be taken advantage of. I know I always google any person/company im going to do work with. opinions matter. And the web makes them matter for a long time. Jay -- http://jaydedman.com 917 371 6790 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Re: Defending Videographer's Rights in Court
I agree with you. I guess I was in the heat of the moment with this situation, calling blogging - whining... :) My apologies... I will make a post on my personal blog. I guess google will crawl for this company's name and will bring up this page anytime someone makes a search on them. Thanks again. --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Ron Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Great post Jay... I thought the same thing. It's a small world for us independent content creators. I'm constantly running into folks from this list all over the place. Take it to them, Renat. peace, Ron Watson http://k9disc.blip.tv http://k9disc.com http://discdogradio.com http://pawsitivevybe.com On Nov 9, 2008, at 5:24 PM, Jay dedman wrote: As far as whining about this experience on blogs to create bad rep for them; It is an option, but I think it only creates more PR for them in the end. And what are the chances that the future videographers they're about to hire will see those blogs? They might, if they ever gotten screwed before, but I think this company looks for emerging talent to be able to have a free ride by offering them either exposure or money in the near future. I must mention that they did offer $300 for the Halloween gig, and later in addition to that wanted 3 more videos delivered in a week timing. That's what promted me to start this dialog that turned ugly. come on Renat. I hope I dont have to point out the absurdity of calling blogging about your situation as whining. if anything, you're leaving a bread trail so other videographers wont be taken advantage of. I know I always google any person/company im going to do work with. opinions matter. And the web makes them matter for a long time. Jay -- http://jaydedman.com 917 371 6790 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Defending Videographer's Rights in Court
As far as whining about this experience on blogs to create bad rep for them; It is an option, but I think it only creates more PR for them in the end. And what are the chances that the future videographers they're about to hire will see those blogs? They might, if they ever gotten screwed before, but I think this company looks for emerging talent to be able to have a free ride by offering them either exposure or money in the near future. I must mention that they did offer $300 for the Halloween gig, and later in addition to that wanted 3 more videos delivered in a week timing. That's what promted me to start this dialog that turned ugly. come on Renat. I hope I dont have to point out the absurdity of calling blogging about your situation as whining. if anything, you're leaving a bread trail so other videographers wont be taken advantage of. I know I always google any person/company im going to do work with. opinions matter. And the web makes them matter for a long time. Jay -- http://jaydedman.com 917 371 6790
