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!

I'm not sure. I would expect that they have a contract with the company that gives the rights to the company. They would be acting under direct instruction within the premises of the company so maybe this wouldn't be an effective approach.

@Stripeysuitcase
Asking for marketing support to make the most of this exposure is a very reasonable request - and because it's also going to be referring back to the program itself it benefits everyone involved.

You need the groundwork laid in all the social media channels used by those that commission you and those that you'd like to be commissioned by. And that latter group should be the major focus.

@SerialGoogler I appreciate many of those points. I have tried to be really understanding either the show. What has really upset me is that they presented a series of options as my role in this would also feed very well into their narrative. However, when they said they couldn't guarantee anything and I said I would need something confirmed to give permission, instead of being reassuring and working with me, they were rude and offensive. They have then not proceeded with any of these options and just done the bare minimum, which they talk about cryptically as an 'archive piece' without showing me the content, and have used a crappy picture from Instagram which doesn't portray me

The wording of the credit is very important to me and how I could benefit from it. 'this was made by Suitcase 10 years ago' with a still image paints a very different picture of my current activity as an established professional than 'this piece was made by professional sculptor Suitcase who, with skills passed down from her parents, has followed her dream to work all over the country, and was thrilled to see this long-forgotten piece brought back to life' coupled with a short video of me working and a 10 second shot of the interview at the reveal where I talk about how emotional it was to see the piece.

If the company really wanted to, they absolutely could have done the above and it would have cost them an extra 10 seconds of the show. And as it fits their narrative and approach, I don't think this is an unreasonable ask. Instead of this, they've tried to fob me off and make me feel very unimportant and unreasonable and have also tried to scare me with their big legal team.

I'm sure if you were in the same situation you would also not feel happy with how you were treated and valued, not only as a professional but as a person, and would not be feeling inclined to help them make further money from your work.

The organisation themselves don't have a big following and the benefit I see is in the programmes social media and that of the artists who will be shown working on it.

Again I am so willing to work with them on this but they are being deliberately evasive and it has really got my back up.

It's your following you need to build off the back of this. The production company's following is not relevant. The BBC program no doubt has a lot of followers, and uses hashtags on social media.

Sorry yes that's what I mean, I would love for this to grow my following and engagement. But simply being tagged by the organisation won't do this (although they are contractually obliged they never do this anyway).

I am so used to commissioners breaking contract by not crediting, and I can let a small gallery get away with it, but a TV show seen by millions of people produced via company who's profit is in the hundreds of thousands? Nope.

No.. they're not going to tag you. You're going to use the tags and hashtags associated with the BBC programme. You're going to have an active social media campaign in three phases:

• Before the show airs
• As the show airs
• After the show airs

No TV production company will guarantee editorial inclusion in the way you want. They simply can’t. They don’t have final control over the edit - that lies with the commissioner.

I completely understand your frustrations, but I think you're letting the organisation off far too lightly. The TV company work with thousands of people and will be requesting permission all over the place. The organisation categorically lied to the TV company by saying they owned the copyright. The TV company only proceeded based on this fact. They probably would have walked away or chosen a different project had they have known. At the very least the organisation should have told the TV company they would keep it secret, but obviously the original artist needs to be informed/consulted. They didn't. The TV company eventually discover you own the copyright and are now at a point where it isn't easy to add your section in. Every second of the programme will have been planned, shot and agreed. It's not as easy as 'just add a 10 second interview' etc. Budgets will have been planned down to the last second and nothing is available for extra time to edit, cut and present as you are suggesting. As PP have said, you will be credited, but the TV company can't give an absolute guarantee as to how, as that is not their final decision. They are working on multiple programmes and as important as this is to you, they just won't have the time to spend sorting special photos etc. You are where you are and need to leverage what you can. Promote the programme coming up, tagging BBC and all relevant tags, send press releases to any relevant media, using the programme as a hook, but then telling your story and bringing it up to current day etc. Local radio may be interested etc. There is a lot you can do with it. The TV company would make a lot of money whether they'd featured your piece or not, so I would move away from that mindset.

Is the commissioner the BBC? Why would the BBC cut out legally required credit?

Also I think the point I'm trying to get at is the way they have handled it is very poor. We discussed these options, in fact they were their suggestions, and they didn't try or explore them. Instead it reached a point where an archive person emailed me at the wrong email address asking my permission to use a crap photo lifted from my Instagram.

A lot of this is down to the treatment and dismissal of the programme and how that is making me feel. I am absolutely sick to the back teeth of artists not being appropriately credited for their work and this is just a continuation of it.

There is no genuine effort or positive approach by them to make this right, they are using complicated TV jargon and just assuming I know all of this stuff about edits and cuts and who makes decisions.

Why should I cooperate with them so that they can make their show if they won't cooperate with me? Why is it all about their needs? They are the ones making all the money!

I'm really confused, can I ask the show to promote/credit on socials or not?

Just including a hashtag #programme on my socials will not get me the exposure and following that them posting a photo and tagging me would get. Yet this would be easy for them to do. I'm not asking the BBC to do it, the show has their own socials and they often post the stories on there.

I'm an artist, and have been in a similar position. It's annoying, especially when it's a piece that you're particularly proud of... But a credit is all you can expect I'm afraid. If they agree to name you in their programme, you really can't expect editorial control. It's annoying but it's par for the course.

They're not going to do that. Their job is to promote the show, not you.

You need to build your own follower base - including a hashtag #show on a post you make on your own socials about your piece of work and its inclusion in the show means anybody searching #show can see your post (assuming it's not a locked profile, which would make no sense at all for you to have a private profile for your work). It's a key way to build your own followers. Use of hashtags is how people discover you on Insta.

Agree with @SerialGoogler and @HalfaCider - this does sound like the original error was with the organisation rather than the TV production company.

I suspect if the original organisation had been clear about the rights the TV company would have moved on to a different project - as explained above, 'let's watch an artist recreate her own work' is less compelling television than 'let's see if our team can complete this difficult task in x time'.

If that were the case, there would be no chance of any additional exposure, let alone being upset about the exposure being insufficient/incorrect, so while the situation is annoying it's worth considering what you could usefully get out of it.

Legal arguments are likely to be stressful and costly - and realistically without a clear contract are unlikely to result in an overwhelming response in your favour. It might be better to consider how both you and the TV company can benefit.

Could they use a current still photo from your studio? Could you have use of the interview they have filmed? You could do a lot with that and a local interest newspaper linked with a social media campaign as suggested above.

@TheBossOfMe honestly I don't think that my own post and hashtags will gain the recognition that I want as recompense for them using the work.

In all of this, I have to benefit somehow. Exposure doesn't pay the bills but it could help here. If there are no royalties, the credit makes me look like I'm not a practicing artist, and there is no promotion or benefit from the credit, why should I allow them to not only profit from my work but subject me to all of this horrible stress and anxiety in the process?

This. They are not offering this because they can't. It would put them in breach of contract with the channel to do so.
I work in factual TV, specialising in sensitive stories such as crime, and we couldn't even offer anything like that to families who we have filmed telling the stories of their loved ones being murdered. We can take on board wishes or requests but can't promise anything.
The wording you suggest re a credit doesn't sound like something anyone is likely to agree to. It's very long and includes a lot of info that is relevant to you but to no-one else. I'd try to push for factual accuracy, so that you still work as a sculptor, but not the waffle about your parents etc. You could also request a different photo of you at work is used - aside from anything else that too should have a release form signed to clear it.
Royalties are also not really something that applies in factual. What would be more common for something like this would be a buyout fee to license the materials for use in the programme and the £500 someone mentioned up thread would probably be the type of figure the budget would support. No-one is making hundreds of thousands of profit from a TV show. Even a huge hit like Mr Bates made a million pound loss for ITV. There really is no money these days and the industry is on its knees.
Try to work with them as much as you can. It sounds like they didn't set out to do anything wrong but the organisation has really fucked up with the information they gave them regarding the copyright of the piece. No excuses for how they've handled things since but it's a stupidly stressful and overworked job - they will already be working to impossible deadlines and a curveball like this (not your fault obviously) will have added to that. There should be a solution here that works for everyone but you're more likely to get that if you work with them on what can be done rather than pushing for what can't.

The benefit comes from your work being featured in the show with a credit - which then allows you to promote the inclusion.

It's not their job to promote you - you need to do that for yourself. Neither is it their problem that you don't have a large base of followers. Working for yourself in any creative industry means you need to work hard at marketing yourself and building a follower base.

And the stress and anxiety is something you're creating by not understanding how factual TV works, and not taking onboard what everyone on this thread is telling you.

TV commissioner: Are we cool with the copyright?
Programme maker: I'll check. Hey, artwork owner, are we cool with the copyright?
Artwork owner: You're cool, we own the copyright.
Artist: Ummm... about that copyright thing...

The problem here is that the copyright mistake was made by the owner of the artwork. At the end of the day, anyone bearing the brunt of any action you take will be your original client or whichever artist/artisan has been commissioned to produce the replica.

In terms of exploiting this to get the best outcome. You're saying it's a well loved TV show with lots of viewers. That translates into lots of people following their social media handle and hashtags. I know you're an artist and not a social media marketing specialist, but this is where you might want to be asking for some assistance alongside the basic credit.

Are you in touch with someone senior at the production company - ie a Production Exec / Head of Production? It can be that the person you're speaking to doesn't have a complete understanding of copyright law - this includes Production Managers, as it's quite a specialist subject. But the higher ups should be in a position of understanding, and should be able to explain / reassure.

One reason they may not be able to confirm what will be included in the final programme is that the channel have ultimate sign off editorially, so including an interview with yourself may not fit the narrative. They still need to comply, legally, with clearing your work, but it may be that a credit and fee is sufficient.

Were the organisation you made the works for paid an access fee / fee to clear your works? If so, I'd say that should be passed on to you. If it's a documentary the fee is likely to be pretty small and there wouldn't be royalties, unfortunately - budgets are not huge!

Also - I don't think this would apply to the context your work is being used in, but one way that programmes can use works without clearance is by editing them in a way that complies with 'Fair Dealing' / 'Criticism & Review' www.channel4.com/4compliance/legal-considerations/fair-dealing-and-copyright-guidelines

@TheBossOfMe, please try not to be so patronising and dismissive. It is shocking that people assume that just giving a credit is enough for artists. Please see my earlier post with the exposures meme - this is something we have to deal with daily and we deserve to be paid fairly and appropriately. No, I don't have a giant social media following, because it is not necessary for my work and my professional success. As such, simply 'allowing' me the honour of using their show's hashtag on my platform is not appropriate recompense for them copying my work in its entirety and using that process to pay themselves lots of money. Please don't just assume that every artist depends on social media promotion and should just be grateful for having their name mentioned!!

Simply put, I, and the people I want to reach with my artwork, need to benefit from this. They are entirely capable of doing this but are choosing not to to benefit themselves, and they want me to take the financial hit.

I have actually tried really hard to understand their position. They are the ones who offered the credit options, and they did not follow through with this. It is also not my fault that they did not ask to see any evidence of confirmation that the organisation owned the copyright. They have an entire legal team who should understand that artwork copyright automatically lies with the creator unless there is an agreement otherwise. This is such a basic concept. Someone has made a mistake and it not me. It is also not my fault that, now knowing who the copyright owner is, they are continuing to break copyright law.

It is also not my job to inherently know how TV works and it would make sense to anyone to want something confirmed in writing. The nuances of the programme and the story they want to tell to their viewers does not mean that they can willingly break the law to suit them.

I did not create this situation. They have chosen to be rude and dismissive to me. I have a legal right for my copyright to be respected and I am not obliged to agree to a huge profitable company being the only ones who benefit from using my artwork.

If you could leave it there I'd appreciate it. I am seeking for help with this thread, it's not AIBU, I am a person and a professional and looking for support.

I think I am misunderstanding you. In some posts you say that they won't help me with promotion on their platform, but you also recognise that their following is the critical factor. Can you please expand? A hashtag will not be enough, very few people click on them now, it's about what comes up in your subscribed feed.

@PinkArt I have tried to work with them and they have been very difficult. They suggest options but then didn't pursue them. They haven't kept me updated. They are refusing to share the credit content.

It's difficult without outing the show but the people and the story behind them is an important element of the show. The absolutely could include my suggestions which originally came from them. They got angry with me when I agreed that yes, these were good options but I would want some confirmation of what would be shown. Someone could offer you a million pounds but it means nothing unless they can guarantee it. It's just words.

I think I will step away from this now, some people have been really helpful and I appreciate that. But I am now having to defend myself and my legal rights to random people on the internet and that's not really helpful. I'm looking for real help, which is why I posted in legal, not really for more opinions if that makes sense. It just muddies things even more!

The exec producer will call me in a fortnight so I may come back to update.

Us 'random people on the internet' are trying to help you. You are just not hearing what you want to and so dismissing us. Multiple posters have said the TV company would win legally. They will credit you I'm sure and that will cover them. There is no requirement to do a full profile on you. As important as this is to you, it isn't to them. Multiple posters have said you need to work on your marketing strategy and how you can use this to your advantage (it's far from just about a hashtag), but for you it is all about the big bad TV company. I agree, not mentioning you at the public reveal was awful. No doubt it has all been handled very badly, but you do seem to be massively over-reacting to the TV company when many posters agree the fault predominantly lies with the volunteer organisation. Overall this should be a positive thing. The organisation got the work restored for free. Unfortunately this meant they ignored what was fair to you. The TV company will do whatever is easiest, cheapest and quickest. That is just TV. If you really can't live with it, then send the C & D letter. I hope you can come to some agreement.

They can't guarantee though, that's the issue. It would be giving you editorial control and they would then be in breach of contract with the broadcaster. If you try to keep pushing on that front then you'll keep going in circles with them - that's why I suggest trying to focus on what is possible.
Credits are never guaranteed as the channel has final sign off on them. It's very rare that they'd say no to any but that's the reason we have to say we can't promise anything to you, to a contributor, to anyone who worked on the show.
Assuming it's the show I think it is, they are very well regarded by audiences and won't want to damage that reputation. It's got them incredibly high profile talent in the past and you don't get that if there's any suggestion that they're exploiting or ripping people off. So they will want to find a resolution and the Exec will definitely be the person who is best placed to help get there with you.