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!

@Stripeysuitcase - I was trying to be helpful given this is an area that I have expertise and experience in. If you choose to ignore that it’s up to you. If you don’t want help from “randoms” I don’t know why you’re posting here 🤷‍♀️

@HalfaCiderand @TheBossOfMe I appreciate the help and I am listening to everyone, but I can correct things and I can respectfully disagree. I can also not fully understand and ask for clarity. @PinkArt I do get what you are saying but I also do not understand it. I do not understand how I cannot put conditions to their use of my work and for that to be adhered to.

The approach of expecting me to just be grateful for the 'exposure' isn't good enough for me as a professional artist and that should be respected. I don't want this just turned into social media hashtags that I do not have the capacity or following to use. This means that I have to consider other options for what is enough reward for them profiting off my work. Again, exposure means nothing unless it comes with a benefit. This is why copyright law exists, to ensure that the artist gets to benefit from their work being used.

Several people have said that I can't prove copyright, they will win legally, etc. I can respectfully disagree as the copyright does lie with me as a fact in simple law. They cannot prove otherwise. Several people have also said that I'm trying to dictate the content, again I have corrected this several times that these were THEIR suggestions to me which have now been dropped without and communication. Obviously I am upset confused and worried about this.

I have listened that it's the organisation's fault too, I am not disputing that but this is not an easy thing to address. I'm not going to sue something that is the equivalent to a charity run by volunteers which puts on a beloved community event.

Yes, I am having to defend myself to people who are not qualified and are incorrect. I am repeating myself a lot and I don't have any more energy for that. I am grateful for the input but it's confusing when lots of people are giving different opinions and incorrect statements that I'm having to correct.

I posted in legal to try and avoid that but it is getting very confusing and I am also feeling somewhat attacked. I do appreciate that most people do not understand the importance of fair credit and pay for artists but it is exceptionally important to me. If I was a big organisation the approach would be completely different and that is not right.

Ex tv producer here, who has occasionally worked with community artists. So I do understand your concerns. And also that 'exposure' doesn't pay the gas bill, and this is a horrible trope that needs to stop now.

But - however much the production company (I am guessing this is Ricochet from your description of the programme) can't guarantee you anything, they don't want a media fuss either. So you need to start with them. Find out who the Head of Production is at the company, and the MD, and email them saying there is a copyright issue with their filming and you are being fobbed off by the producers and you need to talk to them. And if you don't talk you will make this public. (Whether you want to or not is another story, but they don't know that).

If it is the much-loved feel good show I think it is, they don't want a media fuss. So they can ensure a credit if they want (and tbh, if I had said to the commissioning editor, we need to have a 10 second interview with the artist so as to avoid a copyright fuss, they would absolutely understand and let it through).

Happy to talk to you via DM if that helps.

HNRTT and the ambiguity makes it harder but I've had a mull. At first glance, can you set out how the TV producers have breached your IP, rather than the artist who has recreated your work who would seem to be the party who has copied your IP. It may be the TV channel have contracted with the artist but have you seen their contract?

An artist has the right of attribution but as a minimum, that would tend towards the 'work by suitcase' rather than the essay you set out above.

It's not always helpful to take feedback and support as attacks.

Your feelings seem front and centre which might not be productive when the TV programme will be dispassionate and commercial. If the TV channel state in the programme credits, 'the original sculpture was by suitcase' then are you certain you'll have a case against them in law?

For the benefit of those who think OP's only redress is against the organisation and not the TV company, that is not the case. If an artwork is exhibited in a public place, it is not a breach of copyright to photograph or film it. However, if a work is not in a public place, filming or photographing it is a breach of copyright. Also, if they have created a copy of OP's artwork rather than simply restoring it, that is a breach of copyright.

I have also seen people repeating the idea that OP can't prove she owns the copyright. Since she is the artist, there would be a presumption that she does own the copyright if this went to court. If the TV company or anyone else wanted to dispute that, it would be up to them to prove their case. In the absence of any evidence showing that OP assigned the copyright to the organisation, the courts would conclude that she still owns the copyright.

The TV company is now aware that OP owns the copyright, so they need to have her consent. Of course, if OP's conditions are too onerous, they may simply cut the segment featuring her artwork out of the programme.

@Zilla1 I appreciate your thoughts on how the credit should be presented but the 'essay' I outlined was their suggestion. And as I've mentioned earlier, I wouldn't have agreed to them using my copyrighted work without a clear benefit to myself and/or public arts which goes above just a name check. My understanding of copyright is to ensure that the creator ALSO benefits from its use by others. Whilst a lot of people still seem to think that artists should be happy to not get paid for their work and grateful for a name check only, this is completely wrong. It is hard enough being a self employed artist without being taken advantage of. Again, copyright is something that is granted and not a nice to have. They don't currently have my permission to use the piece unless they meet certain terms which they will not even discuss.

It's an interesting point about the infringement being from the artists working on it but I expect they are protected by employment law as they are acting under instruction of the company.

I am not taking the feedback as attacks but it is frustrating to repeat myself and, again, I can respectfully disagree in how I should be treated and valued as both a person and a professional.

I also cannot answer your question on whether they would have broken the law. But they certainly would have acted against my consent/terms under which permission to use the piece requires, and I would factually take that to the media.

@Stripeysuitcase as there seems to be ambiguity in copyright ownership (the commissioning organisation or you, the tv company at this stage is somewhat irrelevant) this will be what lies at the centre of any case you bring, nothing I said previously is factually incorrect.

It’s true that in most instances legal copyright automatically lies with the creator but not in every instance and often with commissions you find a confusing grey area, particularly in situations when there may be a (mis)-understanding over who owns the legal rights. It sounds like the organisation may believe they hold the legal rights (not the moral rights which cannot be given away) and the content of my response is based on this and an understanding of contracts (or lack of written contract) - if you have no written contract then it becomes harder for either party to make a definitive statement on this matter -a lack of written contract does not mean there was no understanding or agreement on the matter - this also does not mean a court will automatically presume you have legal copyright or that the commissioning organisation do. I’m not saying this for the sake of it, I’m saying this from a position of experience in such matters. You can choose to listen or you can continue to flap and insist you’re right at all costs. The joy of IP
law is that it’s very situation specific and not at all straightforward as I’m sure you’re finding out.

Because it’s not that straightforward is why the lawyer you spoke to explained that it would be costly and not worth it - it’s not just you walking into court saying copyright is mine and they all say ok and off you go 50k richer . It’s unfortunate and I’m sorry you’re in this position but the amount of evidence required to prove your case would be quite a lot and you don’t appear to have the necessary documentation. What was agreed with a different artist in a different commission is irrelevant. They may have negotiated copyright, they certainly had the sense to get it in writing.

lesson for the future i guess.

@StinkyWizzleteets I do appreciate it is not always clear cut but the organisation has absolutely zero evidence showing that there was any agreement giving over my rights, and as you can see from the standard artist contract there are additional statements confirming this. We were all treated the same as had the same roles.

Surely the requirement is on them to prove the standard copyright law does not apply? Why would the default be that I would have to prove that standard copyright law applies?

Also, please can everyone stop saying that I'm not listening. I am trying to understand as much as possible, I have had prior legal advice, and just because I disagree with regards to how I value credit doesn't mean I'm not listening or being difficult.

Many people on this thread have given completely different and contrasting opinions and presented these as facts so by default I cannot agree with everyone!

As always in legal, excellent advice from @prh47bridge

@Stripeysuitcase These are the two most pertinent sentences IMO “The TV company is now aware that OP owns the copyright, so they need to have her consent. Of course, if OP's conditions are too onerous, they may simply cut the segment featuring her artwork out of the programme.”

The TV production should absolutely acknowledge you own the copyright, credit you as the creator and seek your consent to feature your work.

Where it becomes more challenging is related to the conditions you attach to them featuring your work. If you make them onerous as @prh47bridge suggests it will be easier for them to drop the segment completely rather than interfere with the format of the show (which is a very formulaic format that doesn’t include interviews with the creator of the piece being repaired, but features the owner of the piece and the restorer). So I guess you have to decide whether you’re prepared to completely lose the exposure (and I appreciate it doesn’t pay bills but having your work featured in a way that suggests that it has value is valuable in itself) if they don’t agree to your conditions.

Are you able to come clean and put your website/Instagram here on Mumsnet?

Mumsnet has a huge following and maybe you'll get some commissions? You never know.

Yes, I realise that's not the point of your thread.

Hi @Stripeysuitcase , @prh47bridge is a respected legal opinion on MN, so I would trust what they write. Do you have written proof (eg emails) from the organisation that you did make the sculpture in question a decade ago? Does everyone accept this is the case?
I‘m appalled that the organization and production company have treated you so shabbily. I work in an art-adjacent field in another country and institutions and publishers are pretty hot on correct attribution and royalties. But then artists in this country will generally have legal insurance to ensure their rights are upheld, don’t spose that‘s an option for any future copyright conflicts in the UK? So you’d get free legal advice, a free cease and desist, and if needed court costs covered. Too late for the current case of course.
Of course they should be falling over themselves to correct this error with correct attribution and an appropriate fee for making the copy. But you might indeed need to settle for a lesser settlement as a realistic compromise, in return for not taking the story to the Guardian for instance. If this is indeed the Ricochet programne, it’s got enough of a name to be story-worthy. Sadly, this will end up being about what you can negotiate rather than you getting your full moral due, and you’re right to be very upset about that.
But don’t underestimate the value of being named/credited as the artist on a big show - which will be shown not only once on the Beeb but also on BBC Worldwide (I imagine) and on repeats for years to come. So anyone who likes the work - including potential new clients - would just see your name on the screen, find it interesting, and Google you for your current online presence. Even if you’ve since changed direction they might love your recent works even more. I‘ve been binging Hotel Inspector recently <guilty pleasure> and usually Google the hotel afterwards - often they‘ve been sold on to someone competent and now look utterly gorgeous, so I put them on my mental list of ‘might stay there’. Free publicity from a programme that might date back to 2008.

Thanks again everyone.

@prh47bridge I completely understand the point about onerous asks. Again, what I have referred to was THEIR suggestion and they do have material that they could use.

The way the discussion initially went was that they went away and looked at what they could put on the edit and suggested A,B and C. I said yes, that would be great, can we put that in writing please. And they said no. So I said that wasn't good enough because their intention/word over a phone call doesn't actually mean anything. They were rude and aggressive and I ended up coming off the phone on tears. I sent a summary email outlining the conversation and the options offered to me, and that they didn't have my permission to proceed without an agreed credit. I asked that they contact me again when they could confirm something more solid that I agree too.

Since then, there has been radio silence and they have continued their edit to completion leaving out options A, B and C. They haven't confirmed anything with me, they haven't asked me if I'm happy with the credit, they have just ploughed on regardless and I have heard about the credit third hand.

Now I do understand their position in line with what @PinkArt and others say. But their (again, THEIR) suggestions are not against the content of their show. Specifically they have chosen not to make any effort beyond the bare minimum of a crap photo and my name. And again I wouldn't have agreed to this. Any sob story pertaining as to why they couldn't make that effort to meet any of their suggestions and not even replying as regards royalties/payment does not absolve them of their legal rights. This is a money making show of which they have complete control over the content and this is a specific choice they have made.

@Mosaic123 thank you for the suggestion. I would love to show you all what I make. And you would probably then see how personal it is. But I'm concerned about providing too much detail. If this doesn't pan out and I do end up going to the media I will do this. Thanks for your support.

@LadyGreySpillsTheTea one slight concern is I have an operating business name and my personal name isn't really something that would be particularly googled and end in commissions. Whilst I've referred to sculptures, what I usually make (and indeed this piece) is commissioned by grant funding and organisations. I am absolutely sure that a fair credit on the show will be very helpful in promoting my work but this needs to go beyond a photo and format I'm not even allowed to see and my own 200 followers.

Thank again everyone for the support. I do appreciate that I am coming across as argumentative at times but this is just out of sheer frustration and if I'm being honest, complete despair over this. This COULD have been so wonderful. But instead I feel abused as an artist and stuck between a rock and a hard place where if I do what's actually right I risk damaging other people and organisations and I cannot be that selfish.

Why not do your own big splash about it. 'My art work restored by xyz program acknowledging how unique, etc, etc. Put up your own YouTube showing the original. If it gets in the papers contact them for interviews. Tell your local papers and get an article in them. If they give you a plug as the original artist, I think that is all you are likely to get.

It is a compliment that they want to restore your work, how did it get in such a bad state? Was it intended to be ephemeral?

You own the copyright, but they own the art work are they not allowed to repair or restore their art work without your agreement? Copying it or selling pictures of it I assume you would be due royalties, what they do with the original I would have thought was up to them, unless there were caveats in the original contract. Or do you consider there was so little left that they have copied it rather than restored it? Copyright law is really complicated and expensive to enforce, so I would just make the most of the publicity you can stoke up yourself it's an unexpected bonus.

Agree @twomanyfrogsinabox - even if the outcome is not as favourable as OP could wish, the credit is a useful jumping off point for a lot of linked publicity.
This could be fairly straightforwardly achieved with some work in contacting local organisations and carefully timed media follow up. Local artists I follow do this regularly.

Again @bluegreygreen and @twomanyfrogsinabox please, please stop assuming that artists should be happy with a name check and exposure. If I choose to be happy with this then great and that is my choice. But copyright is there to protect the creator in terms of financial gain from the copying of their artwork.

To clarify, I have joint ownership of the artwork with the commissioner.

Also to be clear, the TV programme took a very small part of the artwork, say 10%, and used photographs to completely recreate an identical copy of my artwork for their financial gain.

They are not in television for the sheer joy of it and I am also not running my creative business for the sheer joy of it.

I have the legal rights to financially or otherwise benefit from others using my artwork for their own financial gain and it is up to ME to grant the permission.

I can't keep repeating this!!!

I don't at all disagree with you that exposure does to pay the bills.

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.

This, though, is a massive ask. It's far more likely that they'd cut their losses on the recreation and air without that segment, in my experience. Was this whole thing offered to you as one of the initial suggestions? I suspect it's been dropped because someone more experienced than whomever suggested it pointed out that it would not fit the narrative, and would likely be culled by the Commissioner. There is strict guidance around promotion, and also around audience engagement. They will know what the audience sticks around to watch. I can't think of many repair shows that make a big deal of the original - people don't have much of an interest in it. They are showing the renewal, the process, the rebirth. You'd likely benefit a lot less from a 30-second segment about you than you think.

It may be a show that makes money, but they don't have complete control, and they need to be fair and balanced to you and the other artists involved, and also be mindful of the show's goals, commissioner and target audience.

I think, fairly, your experience as an artist is influencing what creative control you think the show has, when really they are quite different.

Ideally here obviously you'd get the credit that you want, that you feel is fair, and the promotion opportunities that go along with that.

If that's not possible, is your ideal here that you are credited to a lesser extent, or that they don't use your artwork at all?

I do think there's a negotiation to be made about social media credit, or perhaps putting a longer section on you on the website, if it's BBC - they tend to have well updated websites. I'm not sure a direct tag will help you much more than using a hashtag, and it doesn't sound like their target audience on social media is likely to be yours anyway, if the general public doesn't tend to commission you. I'd imagine an evergreen website piece about your work would be far more valuable to you, from an SEO perspective and a portfolio one - although again bear in mind that the SEO gains would be from people Googling, as any link back would likely be a No-Follow.

For clarity, @Stripeysuitcase , I am not 'assuming that artists should be happy with a name check and exposure'.

I am very clear that you are not happy with how the TV production company have dealt with the copyright issue. I am also clear that there are several suggested ways that you would like them to proceed, which they have not yet agreed. Others with experience have given reasons why some of those options might not be possible.

My worry is that if you continue to push for those options, the company may decide simply not to proceed with that portion of the programme. This would mean losing out on any benefit to come from the programme (which as several have noted could be substantial in terms of publicity/visibility)

@YouveGotAFastCar thanks for your input but as previously stated this was the suggestion from the producer. Please see my summary above about how they've handled this.

On this show I have seen that artwork creators have been given substantial airtime. I'm not asking for this. I'm asking for fair credit that enables me to be shown as a current artist.

It is an important differentiation to me because given the often historical/inherited quality of the pieces and given that my artwork was created 12 years ago, an old photograph of me creating it together with my name could incorrectly give the impression that I am no longer a practicing artist.

@bluegreygreen I do appreciate that. My current beef is that they haven't even explored their suggestions, haven't communicated any of this process with me despite me asking, have promised things like to show me the current form of credit but then not sent it, and have proceeded with their acceptable form of credit even though I said that permission would require a discussion over how that credit is given. I haven't enforced anything and I haven't been told no or yes. I haven't given an ultimatum or demands. I've just been completely left out of the process and only found out that they are close to completion of the edit because an archivist asked a friend of mine for one of their pictures.

I don't think realistically they or anyone can expect someone to be happy with this sort of treatment. I have been very clear to them that I want to work with them on this, I have told them that I understand their position and am willing to go forward in a way that works for them, but completely excluding me, being rude and not making any attempt to meet in the middle is not acceptable.

A producer likely shouldn't have made any suggestions to you; but unfortunately from your perspective, they won't be bound by them.

Have you got a more modern photo you could use? Is there anything in the half-way arena that you'd be happy with?

My experience with TV means I think this is likely to be cut otherwise, unfortunately, but I hope that I'm wrong, and maybe a well-rested exec producer fresh back off their holidays will give more leeway than usual and sort you out with a decent credit at least!

@YouveGotAFastCar it's genuinely amazing how, having likely spent tens or hundreds of thousands on this, they would be unwilling to do anything above the bare minimum and risk losing that. I also think it's genuinely amazing how the right person hasn't spoken to me, if this is the case, and they can't get their act together to even act recently towards me.

Honestly the more people with a TV background/experience comment the more I release that the industry is just so self important and dismissive of other people. Its disgusting and the creative culture that I operate in is completely different. I would NEVER treat another creative professional like this.

Because it’s delves into an issue of contract law. You cannot rely on someone else’s contract to prove your own. The issue of who owns copyright in a case of dispute relies on the agreement made between parties. Where that is not in writing courts will look to multiple other sources of evidence to determine what the contract was or should have been. Just because you don’t have written evidence to say they have copyright, doesn’t meant they won’t claim to have been assigned legal rights upon handing over the work. They don’t evidence to suggest you have copyright either. What you end up with is a dispute over ownership. You don’t automatically get copyright in this situation. Lack of evidence doesn’t mean lack of assignation - for both parties.

It’s not as straightforward as you’d like it to be and no amount of claiming ownership based on a straightforward copyright issue will change what is a slightly more complex situation here. To determine breech of copyright and/or contract you’ll need to determine what the original agreement was, which is who owns copyright. You claim it’s you but they’re behaving as if it’s them.

You claim to have spoken to an IP lawyer and yet you’re not taking their advice. You’re getting lots of conflicting advice from internet armchair specialists and you are getting angrier that people aren’t automatically agreeing with you. You’re on a hiding to nothing with this. Good luck. I’m out

@Stripeysuitcase Thinking about the chain of events, do you think there’s a possibility that the organisation had asserted to the production company that they own the copyright? It might explain the dial back from the production companies original agreement to credit you more widely.

@StinkyWizzleteets I'm not angry. I am sorry if what I am saying isn't coming across in the way I intend. Again, I have multiple people on this thread telling me different things with the same level of confidence and I am sorry if I am not able to completely tease out what is correct and what isn't. I am not familiar with everyone's levels of expertise. I am trying to listen to everyone but not everyone can be right, so I am asking for further clarity and asking questions based on what I am struggling to understand.

I do appreciate that whilst I have something that could be very convincing as in a copy of the default contract given to all artists, I don't have mine. I have not argued this. What I have asked is why the position would be that I have to argue that standard law doesn't apply, vs. the impetus being on the organisation to prove that standard law DOESN'T apply. In other words, why would I need a contract to prove something that is the default, as opposed to them being required to produce a document that shows me handing over copyright?

Again I am simply asking why you are saying this isn't the case, not because I am trying to have an arguement or don't believe you or I'm angry, but because I don't understand it and I would like to be in a strong position when I talk to the exec producer in two weeks.

I have had 30 mins of legal advice but I cannot afford the £345 + vat to help get me further than what I can read and research myself. I really am trying my best here!