Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Markham
He won't stipulate what a timely factor is and letting him or his company decide what a "form satisfactory to both quality and creativity" is. Leaves me open to him saying it's not acceptable go and shoot it again. And again and again.
|
That is a very standard contract clause. There is nothing wrong with this contract.
Everything in a general contact like this is held to a "Reasonable Person Standard" The reasonable person standard holds: each person owes a duty to behave as a reasonable person would under the same or similar circumstances. While the specific circumstances of each case will require varying kinds of conduct and degrees of care, the reasonable person standard undergoes no variation itself.
"Timely Maner": Would be looked at by any court under the "Reasonable Person Standard".
Example: you get money wired onto your account for a scene on xxx Date and the average person takes 3 weeks to shoot it and turn it in, the 3 weeks+ 1 week will be deemed reasonable.
6 Months to shoot the scene or never shooting the scene will be deemed unreasonable.
"Form satisfactory to both quality and creativity": This would be judged on a "Reasonable Person Standard" As well.
This pretty much means don't turn in the footage in SD if its agreed that it was so-pose to be HD. Or don't turn in footage way over or under exposed. Don't turn in footage with a shot of your thumb in every shot. too.
These are way bull shit excuses because every time we as content shooters pick up a camera and shoot, these exact contracts that are written into this contract are "implied" on every contract that they are not written in.
"Implied" terms:
A term may either be express or implied. An express term is stated by the parties during negotiation or written in a contractual document. Implied terms are not stated but nevertheless form a provision of the contract.
Man, i can go on and on about this, but this is me keeping it simple and to the point. Sorry about boring you guys with legal mumbo jumbo, but its funny to me when people use what they think is correct law as an excuse to do or not do something.
There is nothing wrong with this contract what so ever. NOTHING! NOTHING! NOTHING!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim_Gunn
I don't understand the problem now either. Didn't Fabian already offer to pay Paul in advance, give him very loose guidelines and accept whatever content was shot, even if it was awful, lol? This really is a joke at this point. I could have shot six of these kind of shoots in the time that was spent so far pontificating and parsing the language of the contract.
|
YUP, YUP AND YUP! I totally agree with Jim Gunn.
I like Paul and respect Paul, but he has shot enough to know this is standard contract shit.
Natan isn't coming after Paul legally for 3K if the scene is piss poor(don't believe it will be piss poor). And I know 3K is like a bar for Nathan. Furthermore it will also be a tax write off for Nathan's business.
Seeing people point out problems when there is no problems is pretty lame. But then again, i have to respect Paul for not taking Nathan's money and not turning in the agreed upon scene.
Then again, I would never expect that from Paul
Lets see what happens...