copyright issue with TV show

[Stripeysuitcase]

Hi everyone,

I need help regarding a copyright issue and what rights I can insist on. I've changed a couple of points to try and avoid anything too identifying. Sorry it's a bit long but quite a bit of relevant information to include.

I created a sculpture as a self-employed artist for an organisation. I automatically hold the copyright as the creator (as I was not employed, it does not lie with the organisation). I don't have my contract anymore as it was 10 years ago, but I have seem my friend's who undertook the same role that year, which clearly states copyright lies with the artist and credit is needed for any publication of the work.

A well known TV programme contacted the organisation to restore (and in the process, recreate) my artwork for their show. Replicating the work in its entirety, with high accuracy, is their key concept. I was not involved in this process, misled by the organisation when I was asked for photos of me originally creating the sculpture, and deliberately excluded from this process, At the time I was being paid by the organisation to repair other sculptures. There is the arguement that I may have been paid to repair this so represents a financial loss. I have been told by the producers that they signed a contract with the organisation giving them the rights, but I expect this is invalid as they don't have those rights. Whilst I am annoyed at the organisation, they are volunteer run. Whilst they have been incompetent here and they have form for not crediting artists, I don't want to bring this up with them.

I found out about this at the public reveal of the sculpture. It was a complete surprise. I was present and it was also filmed for the show. Despite knowing I was there, I was not included. I believe the photos of me creating the piece were passed on to the producers in advance, and they were told at least a week before the reveal. I was told by the organisation that they were sworn to secrecy so couldn't tell me about it. On approaching the TV producers about credit they said they would tag me in social media after airing. I insisted on a quick interview. When I followed up they then tried to say that their legal team believed I didn't have copyright as I was employed (incorrect).

They have since told me that they are including 'a short piece attributing me as the creator' but can't guarantee what will be actually shown. We discussed a couple of options including the interview at the reveal but they were very rude to me when I expressed my discomfort at them stating that they couldn't guarantee anything would be included. As such I haven't seen what they have planned to include so can't agree to it. I feel pressurised to accept something I'm not happy with, and I am concerned that they will leave it out or make it unnoticable.

To defend this would cost me far more money than I have. I am concerned that they are going to do what they like and just say 'sue us'. Also, as it's artwork, not a product, the money I would have 'lost' from them infringing on my copyright wouldn't be worth pursuing legally (I would have been paid around £1000 to fix the piece myself, and I was originally commissioned around £2000). However, the show will commercially gain from my work at a much higher sum. In addition, this could gain me significant commercial interest and following through socials and for future commissions. I am aware of moral rights and that they could be worried about me going to the press with it.

I want the TV company to credit the work in a way that I agree with and I have told them they don't have my permission to use the work otherwise. They are still proceeding with filming and have told me that the edit is nearly finished. They are not forthcoming with communication and I feel incredibly dismissed and unfairly treated. Without this piece of work, and my permission to use it, they wouldn't have this section of their show. I expect they have invested a lot into getting to this point.

I want to know where I stand with insisting on having a say in how the credit is presented, being involved in this process, and also around royalties. What is the likelihood that they will just make the show anyway? Do I have to be happy with them just mentioning my name as I wouldn't have given permission for just that?

Thanks very much!

It's a nationally loved show and I would say yes.

I really don't want to out it. And I don't want the people working on the show to be implemented. Not the original commissioners. It's such a mess.

I really feel that the onus lies with the profit making TV company who are at this point choosing not to edit a decent credit into the show because it upsets their narrative.

Be clear about what you want from
this. Really clear, then make sure the BBC can do it. Make your aim positive.

Don’t make your endgame a sadface squeal about copyright cos that won’t get you the next job.

This isn’t an issue about an artist to the prod co - or us - it’s an issue of them not fixing a howler mistake on a big TV show after they’ve spent loads of money shooting it.

Yikes. They want you to go away. You don’t have to.

Do send the prod co an evil letter stating what you want. Send it to the production people, their boss and the broadcaster. Work only on solutions, not complaints.

Thanks @Supersimkin7 , that's how I feel. They are trying to make me go away and doing a terrible job of it.

Do you think my requirements are feasible? I'm not asking for them to publicise my business which is what they're moaning about the BBC not being happy with.

I think for me I know I won't take this to court. I cannot afford it, financially or mentally. But I would go to the media with the intention of it being about artists and creator rights.

What would happen if they turned around and said no?

I could post heavily cropped and censored pictures of the contract here if it's helpful.

Here are some relevant sections of the contract.

It is very, very clear you retain copyright. Please call an initial 15 minute free advice from a lawyer at https://www.canvasartlaw.co.uk/ .

They helped me with an enormously stressful case and I won.

If you talk to a lawyer and decide not to proceed in this avenue, then call them out on social media. I would try other avenues first, like joinging a union and getting advice and support through an organisation.

It will not effect your public image or 'brand' doing this. People and organisations are highly sensitive to artists having their copyright infringed on now. The commissioning museum/organisation is at fault here, you absolutely need to send at the least a cease and desist letter. If you do this via Canvass Art Law or a similar law firm they will know you mean business and will hopefully do the right thing. Please PM me, happy to ring you. (I also have anxiety so understand your trepidation but you need to protect your work)

Tell the media company that you will go public at their shoddy treatment and you will write to every newspaper going exposing their shoddy treatment of you and perhaps there may be others (if it's a series) so tell them you'll contact every other artist and ask them the same. Tell them you'll make it your life's mission to make sure they get bad publicity and are exposed. And see if they then want to credit you?

The trouble is, that isn't actually the OP's contract. It's an identical one issued to another artist in the same year. I'm quite sure that is what OP's contract says, but she can't definitively produce it. The commissioning organisation presumably still has it, but it's hardly in their interests to co-operate by producing it!

I still think you should speak to Canvas Law as @ThomasPatrickKeatingsDegas suggests, @Stripeysuitcase but I think your wish to keep the commissioning organisation out of this isn't helping things. You can surely take the line with them that this was an honest mistake rather than an attempt to rip you off, but they are certainly to blame for having told the production company they owned the copyright.

If they won't cooperate with giving you proper credit, then sending a cease and desist letter is your only option.
They will either ignore that, thinking that you won't sue, or they will come to the table and agree proper credit. They won't want to lose their investment in the show.
If they ignore the cease and desist letter, you have to either sue, or let it go.

They may agree to proper credit, then just leave it all out when it comes to the broadcast. In which case your options are limited. You could sue retrospectively about the missing credit, but what would your damages be based on?

How much time energy and money do you have to fight this? Sometimes life is horribly unfair, but you just have to put up with it and move on.
If you want to fight, a cease and desist letter is the first step.

Do you have your contract?

Also, if it's the BBC not a private production company working on their behalf, if may be a struggle to show their financial gain.

And, as others have said, the most negative impact is likely to be on the organisation which commissioned you, and that may stir up some negativity for you, professionally.

I'd try to work this to your advantage and contact magazines and newspapers about your artwork, rather than focus on how the show's credits will look.

From the OP: I don't have my contract anymore as it was 10 years ago, but I have seem my friend's who undertook the same role that year, which clearly states copyright lies with the artist and credit is needed for any publication of the work.

@caffelattetogo it really won't stir up negative issues for the artist. I've watched in 20 years as a professional artist many, many artist peers and friends (including myself) go through copyright issues, not once has is impacted the artist's reputation.

Someone at that organisation has made a whooping mistake, not done their due diligence and is doubling down in the hope OP will go away and their mistake won't be taken up the organisation to trustees/board members/funding and sponsorship bodies.

Please do DM me @Stripeysuitcase I'm very happy to phone you to give you some practical advice. I am an established artist that has been commissioned to make public artworks by many big museums and institutions. Also done/doing a fair bit for fashion brands too, so have a quite a lot of experience with copyright.

Thanks again everyone. I think this post is a good reflection on where I'm at - half of me is like, don't let the bastards win!!! And the other half is like... Just be grateful that your artwork is on the telly and they're saying your name.

Apparently the big boss is going to call me when they're back from their holibobs so until then I'll just rock backwards and forwards and try to figure out what to do. And I will call some more lawyers!

If the BBC is the broadcaster, submit a complaint via their formal procedure so that you have jumped through that hoop, but also send a (physical) letter to the BBC Litigation Department. They are used to receiving unsolicited correspondence from solicitors and have to log and keep track of them in case they escalate to legal proceedings.

There is a higher chance of your letter being dealt with by the Litigation department than if you just fire off emails to random people.

The production company may already have consulted the BBC's Programme Legal Advice department - mention that in your letter and they can identify which PLA lawyer deals with that programme.

Hi Op, I work in TV so can give you their perspective. They won't drop the episode - the cost of that could crush a production company having spent tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands at this point and the BBC won't pay them if they don't deliver.

You can expect proper credit which is easy to do in the edit, and to some extent, you can expect to agree on the wording however, it will have to fit any conventions dictated by the BBC so there won't be much room for negotiation. I don't think they will be allowed to include social media tags in the programme as there are strict rules about promotion but can do so on their channels.

What you can't expect is to dictate the content of the episode. No production company will ever relinquish editorial control as they have to deliver the show they are commissioned to make as long as it abides by the law and OFCOM guidelines. That's why they can't give you a guarantee - no one gets that. Even on particularly sensitive topics participants' wishes/feedback will be taken very seriously or accuracy, fairness and safety, but they still won't get a guarantee. At the end of the day, the commissioner might watch it and tell them to cut your piece and that will be that.

As for royalties, no chance. Had they sought your permission in the first place, there wouldn't have been a big offer of money or royalties for doing so. Perhaps an offer to cover your expenses for attending filming or a token gesture but they will be working on extremely tight margins and had you made a demand then, they would have walked away.

I think it's worth sending a formal letter so you have a paper trail but I don't think the production company are at fault as they went through the correct channels as far as they are concerned but now they are aware of your claim they are taking steps to put things right.

Lastly, credits and on-screen captions are the last things added in the edit and if they are still filming, they won't be at that stage so you are not their priority right now. If the commissioner makes changes in early viewings then all the onscreen text would need to be adjusted so that gets added when the final cut is agreed.

There are good and bad production companies but I wouldn't assume that they won't honour the credit and intention to include the piece about you. Once the commissioner has approved the final edit they'll be able to confirm what has and hasn't been included. And I am guessing they feel like they've already agreed to credit you and include a piece about you and are frustrated going around in circles because they can't give you the cast iron guarantees you're asking for.

If the show airs without crediting you for the artwork then I think you've got grounds to bring a claim (not a lawyer) but at the moment it sounds to me like they've taken steps to remedy the situation which will hopefully achieve your goals of recognition and publicity for your work.

Hi @SerialGoogler , thanks for your insight.

I do not understand how the can't give a guarantee when they have a legal obliation to credit and seek permission to use copyrighted work, and they are commissioned by the BBC.

I have asked at this point to see the credit and the wording and they have refused to send this to me. I don't think they can be excused for 'doing their bit' either as they are now aware that they are infringing copyright and have explicitly not had my permission to continue given that they are not cooperating.

They are at the closing stages of the edit now - we discussed 3 or 4 options that would work with their storyline and they have chosen not to do this. They have seemingly gone with the easiest option which is just my name and a picture they've taken from my Instagram, although they won't show me any of this. I want to agree with the wording, and I want to choose the picture, and they are now saying don't send any pictures.

Can you explain to me why they are being so unhelpful and rude about all of this? Why do they think it's OK to be so dismissive of my rights? Is it because they will just assume I can't touch them and noone will care?

Can I ask why I couldn't expect some payment for use of my copyrighted work when they would pay, for example, a professional photographer to use one of their images? Why should they profit from my work as an artist and I should not? I also don't understand how that wouldn't make sense that they wouldn't even discuss this rather than receive a C&D letter.

@SerialGoogler has neatly summed things up, in particular about what you can and can't expect as reasonable.

In most cases 'exposure' has no value. But is this is the program I think it is, then it may genuinely have value that can be exploited. This is why I was asking if there were Big Names involved. But you'll need a plan/strategy for that - in much the same way that auctions are often scheduled around the publicity associated with an item being featured on a popular program to take advantage of the raised awareness.

Can you elaborate by what you mean by 'exploited'?

The problem is that you don’t have any proof that you own the copyright. You don’t have a copy of what was agreed at the time. So immediately you have an issue

That is not a problem. As the sculptor, she owns the copyright unless she has assigned ownership to someone else. If the production company or the organisation that commissioned the work want to argue that OP does not own the copyright, it will be for them to prove it, not for OP to prove that she does.

How do you market yourself?

Won't you be able to make a lot of good publicity once the show is aired? On Facebook etc -linking to any article describing the show (radio times) and saying "thrilled my work is being shown/featured on xyz" (maybe after the show so you know it's included)

Obviously the show is hopefully making it crystal clear they are replicating someone else's work (if its a repairing stuff type show)

@Stripeysuitcase Bear in mind I haven't looked up the show so only have what you've written and my experience to go by.

Let's say everything had gone as it should have and the Organisation had said 'Sorry, not our permission to give, you'll have to speak to Stripey'. I wonder if they would have decided to go with another piece of art altogether because the narrative would be altogether different.

"On today's show we've got this lovely sculpture made by Stripey and we're going to recreate it for her or watch her restore it herself for an hour" doesn't have the same narrative as: "Today we're going to take this beautiful sculpture, lovingly cared for by the Voluntary Organisation and donate our resources to bring it back to it's former glory so future generations can enjoy it." All the warm feelz.

I assume the company are scouring Voluntary Orgs to find interesting artwork (with an interesting backstory) and the organisations are thrilled to get a free restoration service in exchange. That's the deal: The company give their restoration resources for free and the organisations get publicity and a piece of their collection back in its original state without spending a penny.

Of course, it all went south because after the production company had committed time and money to this story and the art, you point out that the piece belongs to you and not the Organisation. They are in too deep to change course.

If Big Boss is the exec producer then they have the final say on EVERYTHING. You probably feel you are being given the run around because no one else is authorised to give the assurances or agreement you want. It might be when you've had the call Big Boss will be in a position to agree the wording of your credit and all will be well. They might even offer money to put it all to bed because it would be cheaper than potentially losing the show/getting bad publicity.

Again, not a lawyer, but in response to a claim the production company can say they addressed the situation as soon as they were aware, so what loss can you prove given there won't be a sum of money that went to the Organisation instead of you? If there was, then the Organisation should pass that on. But your own legal advice has said it's not worth pursuing a financial claim and it is likely the company's advice will be the same so they will have this in mind.

I suspect you'll get somewhere with Big Boss who will have the authority in this situation instead of a harried producer. But there will have to be a compromise between what you want and what they can give you because the episode can't be a random advert for you. It will have to work within the narrative of the show.

The Organisation cocked up and now the production company is committed to an episode they probably wouldn't have made in the first place. Yes, in ordinary circumstances if a production company wanted to use a photo, piece of art, music etc in a programme they would contact the rights holder to arrange permission and a licence. But this series sounds like it is about bringing forgotten works of art back to life, not showcasing artists so time and expertise are offered instead of money. I'd have a sum of money in mind when you talk to Big Boss - they'll be motivated to pay it because they're in a difficult situation having thought they'd done the right thing and paying an amount to make it right will be appealing.

But be aware they won't be swimming in money. Unless it's drama/film, the industry is on its knees and working to very slim margins, so be realistic.

I completely get your frustration - had they approached at the early stages you could have stated your terms and they could have agreed or walked away. As could you. Hopefully you can get a resolution you can live with when you've spoken to the decision-maker.

The contract with another artist is just that, someone’s else’s agreement. You cannot really rely on that at this stage in proceedings because it’s not relevant to the agreement you had with the commissioning organisation.why did they get one and you didn’t?

if you took this to court it may be admitted as evidence in support of the commissioning organisations intention but ultimately you’d struggle even with that because each. Contract is likely considered unique and individual to you.

The ownership of legal copyright (separate from moral copyright/ right of attribution) depends on what was contractually agreed at the time of commissioning. If there’s no contract and no paper trail (emails texts etc) on what was agreed you will struggle to prove your case (equally so could the commissioning org) but if industry convention is for example that the commissioners retain copyright once the item is made and handed over then you’d have no case other than one of attribution.

Your argument doesn’t lie directly with the Tv company who will be working in good faith with the commissioning organisation. You appear to have asked for attribution of some sort from them and it wouldn’t be a huge
disruption to edit in a name check of the original artist, in fact that would probably form part of a standard tv convention and the researcher is remiss if they haven’t sourced the original artist as part of the process.

A case like this probably wouldn’t get far because there appears to be not a lot of specific individual evidence to support your copyright ownership. It is unfortunate OP but a lesson learned to always have written and very clear contracts where things like copyright and attribution are concerned.

Best you can hope for is a name check and the social media coverage and maybe more work out of it.

To play devil's advocate, what would your response be if the TV company states the artist who restored/copied your work is the one who has arguably breached your copyright and you should seek redress from them? Is a TV company that makes a documentary about a true crime obbery responsible for redress to the victims?

@StinkyWizzleteets copyright automatically lies with the creator unless a signed agreement p Ives otherwise. The contract is additional support for me but the absence of one does not prove that they have copyright as standard copyright law still applies.

@burnoutbabe yes I would, and that's what I intend to do, but I would have wanted agreed credit that is worded in a way that works for me. At the moment, plans to use a still image of me historically making the piece as a younger artist, together with my name, infers that this was a past event and not my current position. It's hard to explain but this is very important for me. Also, I would have negotiated support with publicity as is written into the contract to assist with that, as a condition of them financially benefitting from my artwork. I haven't been given the opportunity to do that and now, when there is the opportunity within the edit, I'm still not able to negotiate or be offered what I would have wanted. I don't have many followers, so if they wouldn't have given me royalties, as @DogInATent alludes, that benefit could have been achieved in this way.

Copyright law is there to protect the creator and ensure that they financially or otherwise benefit from their hard work if others do so. It is not there as a simple checkbox. I did not create this work for a television company to profit from. I did and do not agree for their artists to be celebrated and financially benefit from reproducing my work without It being explicitly clear that they are following my design and creation that I have spent years developing. The work was created using public funding and as part of my livelihood. t

@DogInATent it's tricky, I use existing commissioners, social media, and word of mouth. I also apply to advertised callouts. Existing commissioners include this organisation and there is also the issue now that the behaviour of the TV company may threaten my future contracts with them if it negatively impacts them. I don't have many followers and without a proper campaign it would most likely be lost in the ether and the 'exposure' would be useless. Again this is why the support of the show and proper credit is important.