Simply Snap, Speak & Send

Tags - Popular | FAQ  

PrevPrev Go to previous topic
NextNext Go to next topic
Last Post 08/06/2013 1:35 AM by  hongkongcourtreportings
Video Depositions - Who owns the rights
 12 Replies
Sort:
You are not authorized to post a reply.
Author Messages
ChuckDeaton
Life Member
Senior Member
Senior Member
Posts:1110


--
10/08/2010 10:43 AM
    My question seems simple, "Who owns the rights to the content of a video taped deposition?" The situation is this, an adjuster, either as a fact witness or an expert witness, is called to give a deposition. As in the past the there is a court reporter present and the court reporter "records" the words in verbal and written form and produces a written transcript.

    At the same time there is a videographer present with unexplained video equipment. The adjuster is asked to sit in front of a background provided by the videographer and as the attorney asks questions and the adjuster provides answers, the videographer "films" the deposition.

    Circumstance dictates that the videographer has "physical" control of the "media". It follows that as the videographer has "physical" control the videographer also has "physical" control of the content of the "media". 

    My question is who owns the "rights" to the content of the "media."  Who controls the distribution rights. Can the plaintiffs attorney freely distribute the "media", post it on You Tube, use it to teach a class, copy it and provide it to colleagues?

    Is there a process by which control of the "media" and its contents, can be gained?
    "Prattling on and on about being an ass with experience doesn't make someone experienced. It just makes you an ass." Rod Buvens, Pilot grunt
    0
    okclarryd
    Veteran Member
    Veteran Member
    Posts:954


    --
    10/08/2010 11:35 AM
    The only process that comes to mind is to ask lots of questions about the video. Who is the videographer, who does he work for, whose equipment, whose tape or CD, what is the expected usage of the video, etc, etc.
    If only one of the answers does not sound right, simply refuse to be videoed. (Is that a word?) Or, recorded on a video. The court reporter can still report for the court and, with your permission, can do a sound recording.
    If we have to give permission for a sound recording by the court reporter, which is used to verify her/his transcript, why do we not have to give permission for a video?
    Like they say on TV.....................Just say No
    Larry D Hardin
    0
    CatAdjusterX
    Veteran Member
    Veteran Member
    Posts:964


    --
    10/09/2010 1:34 AM
    Basically , the video deposition and all contents are in the care custody and control of the party seeking the deposition.
    Unless under seal on a per case basis, the video and it's contents are public domain.

    "A good leader leads..... ..... but a great leader is followed !!" CatAdjusterX@gmail.com
    0
    ALANJ
    Member
    Member
    Posts:142


    --
    10/10/2010 1:01 PM
    How does the video and it's contents become public domain? This should be a interesting answer.
    0
    ChuckDeaton
    Life Member
    Senior Member
    Senior Member
    Posts:1110


    --
    10/10/2010 5:54 PM
    Actually the video and its contents are initially in the care, custody and control of the company that "made" the video. Copies are made and distributed to the plaintiff's attorney and to the defense attorney. A copy is made for the court. The original is kept and filed by the company that "made" the video.

    My question is not about physical possession of the actual media, but who owns the rights to the contents.
    "Prattling on and on about being an ass with experience doesn't make someone experienced. It just makes you an ass." Rod Buvens, Pilot grunt
    0
    Leland
    Advanced Member
    Advanced Member
    Posts:741


    --
    10/11/2010 10:44 AM
    I found this information in an article: "Is That My Video Deposition on YouTube? Best Practices for Law Firms by Charles Perez"

    Mr. Perez was videotaping a celebrity:

    "This particular actor smiled, shook my extended hand and in a joking voice asked "This isn't going to appear on TMZ or YouTube is it?" to which I replied "Of course not!"

    Mr. Perez is "Certified Legal Video Specialist" which means he is certified in the proper use of taping legal depositions and adheres to a strict code of ethics dictating professional practices and the handling of sensitive issues.

    His article states there are 76 NCRA "Standards" from the National Court Reporters Association and that NCRA Standard # 73 states "The videographer shall preserve the confidentiality of the deposition and take whatever steps necessary to ensure this confidentiality".


    He also mentions a report from the Merrill Corporation entitled : "Is That Me On YouTube? Ground Rules for Access, Use and Sharing of Digital Depositions"

    So Chuck, to give you a partial answer to your question, it appears that re-use of the video may be against certain ethical standards of a professional court certified videographer. Whether it is unethical for the plaintiff's attorney to re-use it and who owns the video is a whole other question.

    One ethical consideration concerns the relationship between the plaintiff's attorney and the plaintiff. For example if the plaintiff has a case that needs to go all the way to the Louisiana Supreme Court (for the benefit of the plaintiff), then so be it. But if the plaintiff's name gets all over the news and the internet because of the attorney's self promotion and not as a normal part of pursuing the case, then the plaintiff may have an ethics complaint against their own attorney. For example:

    "Mr. Attorney- why did you post Mr. Deaton's depostion all over the internet and show it in law class? Now everybody in the world can hear Mr. Deaton say that my house was messy and he even says I might have started the fire."

    Imagine if your spouse was a victim of sexual harrassment and then her attorney used her case in a TV commercial.

    So it looks like the videographer may have an ethical duty to not redistribute the video based on ethics of his profession AND

    The plaintiff's attorney might also have an ethical duty to his client to not redistribute it.

    But several questions remain:

    What ethical duty, if any, does the plaintiffs attorney have to not redistribute the video if the plaintiff is OK with it?

    Who owns the video images?

    Here is a lawyer's website that answers these questions and more:

    http://www.lw.com/Resources.aspx?pa...ation=3547

    Apparently you could have stipulated the conditions of use of the video tape prior to allowing yourself to be taped.

    For example you could have asked that the plaintiff side agree not to use the video for any advertising or other commercial purposes, and that you be given 2 copies in DVD format. This stipulation would be entered into the record.
    0
    ALANJ
    Member
    Member
    Posts:142


    --
    10/11/2010 11:00 AM
    Great job of doing your legal research Leland. You could also get one of the lawyers to ask for a "protective order" from the court to keep any of the parties putting you on u tube.

    0
    Leland
    Advanced Member
    Advanced Member
    Posts:741


    --
    10/11/2010 1:01 PM
    Another point there is a difference between a video that is entered into the official court record and a video that is just being used by the attorneys. Once something is entered into the record it becomes public record, and it's pretty much fair game for anybody to use.
    0
    CatAdjusterX
    Veteran Member
    Veteran Member
    Posts:964


    --
    10/11/2010 2:58 PM
    Posted By ALANJ on 10 Oct 2010 01:01 PM
    How does the video and it's contents become public domain? This should be a interesting answer.
    Because Xactimate said so ?  (jk)

    "A good leader leads..... ..... but a great leader is followed !!" CatAdjusterX@gmail.com
    0
    ALANJ
    Member
    Member
    Posts:142


    --
    10/11/2010 5:22 PM
    Robby your right. They put in a new tab for that. My bad!
    0
    RJortberg
    Member
    Member
    Posts:147


    --
    10/15/2010 12:44 PM
    In the valuation business, we use the terms "Intended Use" and "Intended Users" as ways to control the distibution and scope of our work product. Our work can not be distributed to anyone who is not an "Intended User" and it can not be taken out of context for a non-intended use. Prior to a video deposition as an adjuster, I would work out an agreement that limits the scope of the use, the users and the distribution. I would hate to rely on someone's ethical responsibilities as a limiting factor about the distribution of a deposition. That way you would have recorse against the party that releases the video outside of the limits (intended use/intended user/distribution) of the agreement.
    0
    ChuckDeaton
    Life Member
    Senior Member
    Senior Member
    Posts:1110


    --
    10/20/2010 1:55 PM
    Is there a recommended/representative agreement available?
    "Prattling on and on about being an ass with experience doesn't make someone experienced. It just makes you an ass." Rod Buvens, Pilot grunt
    0
    hongkongcourtreportings
    Guest
    Guest
    Posts:1


    --
    08/06/2013 1:35 AM
    Video Depositions are very importants for court reporting.
    0
    You are not authorized to post a reply.


    These Forums are dedicated to discussion of Claims Adjusting.

    For the benefit of the community and to protect the integrity of the ecosystem, please observe the following posting guidelines: 
    • No Advertising. 
    • No vendor trolling / poaching. If someone posts about a vendor issue, allow the vendor or others to respond. Any post that looks like trolling / poaching will be removed.
    • No Flaming or Trolling.
    • No Profanity, Racism, or Prejudice.
    • Terms of Use Apply

      Site Moderators have the final word on approving / removing a thread or post or comment.