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
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,
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
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
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]
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
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
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]
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
