ASK & DISCUSS INDEX

3 years, 5 months ago - John Lubran

Depends on what, if any, contractual agreements might be in place, either by formal act or by lawfully applicable natural construction. Natural law is indeed a thing, as is legitimate expectation. Lots of Administrative Case Law available for reference.

Also might depend on the nature of said ownership.

At this point the question is too simplistic to answered definitively.

Whilst possession is often nine parts of the law, what one can do with that possession may not be free from all impediments.

As ever, the devil is in the detail.

3 years, 5 months ago - Marlom Tander

You shouldn't release a version called The Directors Cut, unless it IS the version cut by the Director. Because it carries reputational risk to the Director. The world will think it's all their work.

You can release any other version you like and call it what you want. It's your property. It is polite to show it to the Director to give them the opportunity to take their name off it if they really don't like it. It's possible that an unhappy Director could injunct until their name was removed.

3 years, 5 months ago - Alwyne Kennedy

Malcom, as said in the title, she considers the existing cut to be the "Director's Cut". She yearns to do her own cut.

3 years, 5 months ago - Kristin Samuelson

He has said I can do whatever I want with it. And he has said he is happy to have his name on it because it was his concept/story. He was also the writer. But it's all verbal. There is nothing in writing other than I and my partner own the footage.

3 years, 5 months ago - Kristin Samuelson

He has sent his version to a couple of festivals, but I don't believe it will get in anywhere as it is.

3 years, 5 months ago - John Lubran

If anything has been agreed and clarified verbally then the context and force of such requires emphatic mutuality or some sort of evidence. A credible witness or witnesses might be sufficient, even more so when together with evidence of a constructive process that might establish the force of NATURAL LAW and or LEGITIMATE EXPECTATION. Wanting something badly isn't necessarily enough. Feeling entitlement is not enough. However it seems that the director is already submitting his cut. Is his entitlement to do that unchallenged?

The little bit of the story revealed so far provides nothing yet that anyone can base informed opinion on.

Without absolute clarity of rights, even where no conflict has been formally raised, no credible distributor will be able to take it on.

In Civil and Administrative Law, Procedural Proprietary and Impropriety has been well defined in Case Law, shockingly more so than many lawyers seem to imagine.

Look up Procedural Impropriety in Halsbury's Laws of England. The Supreme and Appeal Court judgements referenced are clear and unambiguous. Including the underlying vulnerabilities of improper contractural agreements that are Ultra Vires (null and void) that have lost the force of law consequential to the force of Legitimate Expectation and or Natural Law where such is evident.

Any act or process flowing from or relying upon an impropriety is Null and Void (Ultra Vires). Proven in Tort Law and in Common Law. Think house of cards; pull the bottom card out and every other card depending on, no matter how proper, must collapse. Not to be confused with any notion of subjective entitlement.

That many such cases aren't pursued in the higher courts is irrelevant and unhelpful.

As the Case Law referenced in Halsbury's reveals, relationships between parties to any agreement are not necessarily limited or bound by the writings on bits of paper.

3 years, 5 months ago - Kristin Samuelson

Thanks for your comments, John. Do you happen to know if these laws are the same in the United States? I'm not in England:)

3 years, 5 months ago - James McCann

Have you got anything in writing?
Emails or text messages etc, or recorded audio of the conversation?
Also, whatever was in the contract that has been signed is what will be legally up-held, even if there was a written message later on.
So, if the signed contract says the director has final cut, but the director then later sends you a message stating you can edit it however you want to, you'll need a new contract written up and signed by both parties before doing anything.
This will stand in both UK and USA, as you can't negotiate the terms of a contract after it's been agreed upon (agreed upon being that both parties have signed it), so you'd need to have a new contract written up.
In short, whatever the most-recent contract signed by all involved says is what will be legally supported.

3 years, 5 months ago - John Lubran

The interpretation of law differs in in the USA from English Law on many issues. However, the fundamentals of Constitutional Law in the USA is almost wholly English Common Law, though in America they just call it Common Law. USA is the only country with a fully functioning English
Common Law Constitution that's not also a Crown realm of the Queen or her descendants. Apart from the odd high profile differences US Law is, in terms of Common Law evolutionary processes remarkably the same. The main difference is the political selection of judges in the USA, especially in the development of Case Law in the Supreme Court, which is anathema to the UK process.

I'm not much read on US case Law but I imagine that Tort and Civil law must be very similar. It's an interesting question Kristin because issues of unlawful Statutory Legislation are an unravelling conundrum on both sides of the Atlantic.

3 years, 5 months ago - John Lubran

James is largely correct, however the caveat to the general principle that he describes is that there's numerous things that can nullify all or part of a contractual agreement. An unlawful agreement can never be valid. The sort of things that can undo a contract nearly always come as a surprise to presumptions of entitlement. Even learned QC's (senior attorneys) get it wrong.

3 years, 5 months ago - John Lubran

Just one further point; even a written agreement signed by all parties can be amended by mutual consent and can effectively nullify or amend a contract without the absolute legal requirement of a new written agreement by evident construction. It is in fact a Common Law principle not entirely dissimilar to the long list of Legislative Act that though never repealed fell into disuse and lost the force of law.

3 years, 5 months ago - Kristin Samuelson

Thank you so much for your comments John & James. I have emailed the director today. We have only an email agreement about the film belonging to my partner and myself. And I have all the original footage, music, etc. on a hard drive. Terribly informal, I know. His only comment in replying was that if I started using takes that are not in his version, then I should have the sound redone. Ha ha! I take that to mean that he truly feels OK with my re-editing the film. I really don't want something to come up later that could interfere though...