Well, yes, that paperwork is great to have. It means we can hold it up and say "see, it's ours! You said you'd make copies and send them back!" ... and even if the guy holding the property says "Yup! It says that!" well, he still has it, doesn't he? All the people with the paperwork have is right on their side, and some kindling for the nightly bonfire. Without the paperwork, what we're missing is the stuff to start the bonfire.
Ok, this is where it's hard to take you guys seriously. You're both basically saying that "Even if we did have a contract, he could still keep the footage so why bother?" That's got to be the dumbest thing I've ever heard. On the one hand, it sucks that you guys are having to deal with this. But surely there's a way to draw up a contract that dictates to the people you farm out these jobs to that will say, in plain english that "Hey, you shoot this footage. You direct our actors. You cut the footage in to the episode, but its all our property and violating this contract invites legal action." Surely once they sign off on it, that should be all the leverage you need - they've violated the contract. At the very least you can get your lawyers involved to get the footage, timeline and other required material back so as to complete the work you mean to do (and per the guidelines of whatever contract you all signed.) I'm just saying it makes sense logically to do this beforehand, particularly if you've got to deal with people's egos. Look at what happened with the Ajax crew a few months ago. That should have been all the precedent you guys needed to motivate you to protect yourselves from this kind of thing. At the end of the day, who cares if Vic still has all the footage? Once you get everything back, you'll be able to put your episode out. But throwing your hands up in the air and saying "Oh even if we wanted to, it wouldn't do any good!" without even trying is passive-aggressive pity-mongering. Don't be those guys. "Paperwork is great to have..." --- Yeah, it is. And it sure as hell is better than having nothing, which is what it sounds like you guys have right now.
That sounds good, doubleohfive, except...what would this "contract" say? "You agree to turn over all files, work materials...etc., etc...stipulating that these are the property of Cawley Films...etc. etc...in exchange for which --" Uh, "in exchange for which..." what? "We allow you to come work for free for a month?" I mean, seriously, the problem here is what exchange is the contract governing? I'd bet it's really hard to enforce property claims where no payment for services can (by terms of the understanding with CBS) take place. How are the lawyers going to place a value on the property that's being withheld? It certainly has no market value, because it cannot be offered for sale or used directly to promote the sale of other merchandise or services. And...given that no money gets made by these production companies, how many billable hours of a lawyer's time can they afford? As a practical matter, having paperwork is not really better than having nothing...it's the same.
Surely all parties can agree in the beginning to honor such an agreement if they sign it. It doesn't necessarily have to say anything beyond "You will shoot this video for us and turn over the materials when its completed." And besides all that, I think it's fairly evident that money isn't going to be involved in any of this - so you're right - lawyering up would probably be a waste of time and money. I'm not saying its perfect, but it is at least a start toward avoiding something like this again in the future.
Oh, I think there's some value in writing down what people agree to so that it can be referred to later. But the value is very limited - it might help clarify situations where there's an honest misunderstanding, but in a case where there's a break of faith, as apparently there is here, I doubt that it accomplishes a single thing.
I don't know that written agreements in volunteer, non-payment situations have much value in a court of law for reasons Dennis has already addressed. That said, I think an MOU (Memo Of Understanding) that spells out what the parties agree to is always a good idea, because even if you can't use the force of law to enforce it, you don't get into arguments about what was agreed to, since it's on paper and signed therefore no one can really say, "That's not what we agreed to." I think the larger lesson here, no matter who is right or wrong, is that if you are the producers of something, you make sure you have a copy of all the data before you allow anyone to take any of it. This means there should be a data ingest station set up on set where the video/audio data can be immediately backed up, and copies can be made from that. It's what I do on all my shoots, in part because I want a safety copy of the data made immediately so that hours of work can't be erased by a technical glitch.
If nothing else, a contract would enable the wronged party to publicly castigate the offending party to hopefully keep them from screwing over someone else. So far, this Vic douchebag appears to have slimed his way into various fan productions by virtue of his reputation. Well, I think that sterling reputation might take a serious hit if it's documented how he's screwed over other productions, as opposed to just a lot of he-said-she-said hearsay (not questioning anyone's honesty here, just pointing out that talk is cheap).
Or even lost in the mail. I have three backups plus the tape of everything we shoot. I'd be an idiot not to. That being said, those copies just sit on one of the spare hard drives even while our editor transfers the data from the same tape I did and then begins his edit. I even have files posted from various VFX artists on our production backed up even though I'm not the one using them to create the master. Why anyone would be able to walk away with the footage is beyond my comprehension...
Was the Director also a Producer on the film? Did he financially contribute to it? Or was he just brought on as a Director and actor? If he was a producer, he can claim some ownership of the film, but he certainly should not be holding the film from the other producers who financed the project. When he joined the Phase II production, it was as part of a team. No one person on a film is ever bigger than the team as a whole. It is always good to have backups, and I'm sure the Director made backups for himself for editing purposes. The Producers should have had a copy, but I assume that they never imagined a situation like this happening, as this sort of thing just never happens. They obviously trusted him enough to allow him to have all the materials. I think the right thing to do would be to give them those materials back.
I don't want to get into the character of "the Director" here, as so far we've really only heard one side of this mess, so I'm loathe to tar and feather anyone without hearing their side of the story.
I agree that there are two sides to every story, and I'm sure that the Director will make his side of the story known in time. That said, the Director has publicly bashed the Phase II crew recently in an online interview promoting his own series, and this "Director's cut" was posted online without the approval of the Phase II producers. Regardless of who actually posted the film on Vimeo, the Director is still responsible for it being posted since he was the one in sole possession of it. Vic Mignogna has his Director's cut now, and I can't fathom any good reason for him to continue holding on to those materials that were given to him in trust. He should give those materials back to the Phase II producers. It would be the right thing to do. If the Klingons and the Federation could make peace, certainly Star Trek Contines and Phase II can do the same. Time for all parties to put ego aside and do what is best for the fans.
I completely agree with that, and am pretty unimpressed by people choosing up sides based on what's been posted in this topic. I say that as someone who's inclined to side with Phase II here. Paul Sieber, BTW, does the most awesome Zapp Brannigan. I think we have him on video doing it, somewhere.
I do feel that this stuff should have been handled behind closed doors, but to date, that does not seem to have gotten the Phase II producers anywhere. I'm trying very hard not to pick sides here. There are always two sides two every story, but recent interviews like this where Vic Mignogna publicly bashes the Phase II production, while promoting his own series, don't really help things: http://www.mcmbuzz.com/2012/03/22/interview-with-vic-mignogna/
I think that describing Mignogna's one stated opinion in that interview ("disappointed in some of the behavior and attitudes") as "bashing" is an exaggeration at best. As for his approach to "playing Captain Kirk..." we'll have to wait and see how that turns out.
Perhaps, but I don't see what purpose it served mentioning it in the interview. It seemed a bit unnecessary to me.
I don't see what purpose any of the personal venting serves online. I don't think you can compare that one statement unfavorably to the behavior of several folks who associate themselves with Phase II here and elsewhere. Greg handles himself and the various controversies with dignity, reserve and some balance. So does James. They're rapidly becoming the exceptions.
I have read the rants in these forums. I stood up for the Star Trek: Continues team when I read the accusations against them over the Facebook issues, which were trivial and unnessessary to even bring up in a forum. I do wish for their production to succeed, despite these little dust ups that have been going on. Greg and James do handle themselves well, and I would expect the same from Vic as he is one of the producers on Star Trek: Continues. I was dissappointed when I read what he said about "some" of the Phase II crew, as even stating he had issues with "some" still reflects badly on everyone working on Phase II. I would have been equally dissappointed if I had read an interview where the Phase II producers said something negative about the ST: Continues team. I simply expect better from all parties producing fan films.
As did I. I want them to succeed as well, but not at the expense of another fan production...regardless of personal issues behind the scenes.