“No obligation to production” clause advice

[u/Comma003]

I was contracted to film an 8hr conference. Scope of work consisted of shooting the 8hr time slot, photos and a highlight video. Contract was made by the company with agreement of $X/hr compensation. Agreement also included release of raw photo and video. Within the contract was a “no obligation of production” clause that states company will not be obligated to produce or release the Film,
or to use the results of Contractor’s services. Upon delivery of finals, company was not satisfied with the work after numerous revisions and poor communication management of deadlines between their CD & Proj. Mgr on their side and demanded a reduction in compensation. I went with the reduced compensation to avoid a long negotiation & I need the money ASAP. Just for my future reference, does the “no obligation to production” clause not imply that since they acknowledge they dont have to use my finals, they cannot request a change in compensation due to unsatisfaction of the finals?

[u/Rambalac]

Such clause is irrelevant to payment. Payment is a compensation for a work in specified requirements. If contract has no "no need pay if not happy" then "unsatisfaction" is not the reason to not pay or pay less. Besides of shooting time and list of scenes common requirements are focus, exposure, resolution. Anything not technical not explained in the contract is void.

[u/Comma003 → u/Rambalac]

yea thats how i read that too. It felt like they switched up on the clause basically. Like “hey we dont have to use your video but we’re still paying you for your services” then contradicted their own clause. Unfortunately for me, I dont have the means or time to bother taking it to small claims court but I did want to know to protect myself in the future bc this is my first experience w/ a clause like that

[u/Rambalac → u/Comma003]

You are not paid for "service" like a haircut, you are paid for the "work" to produce specific videos. If they get what they requested they must pay. If they are unhappy about something they didn't request, that's thair problem. If they cannot explain the reason why they are not satisfacted, or the reason has nothing to do with the contract writing and common practice in the industry (general technical requirements like proper focus etc) then small claims is easy to go. 

[u/Comma003 → u/Rambalac]

good to know thanks for the insight!

[u/ScreamingPenguin]

Was anything like "change in compensation due to unsatisfaction" in the contract? I can't see how that is in any way related to them not being obligated to release the production. It's a little unclear from your post, but I'm inferring that the no obligation clause means that they have the sole decision if the final product is released, how, and when. Them not releasing the production doesn't relate to satisfaction in any way. They could be super happy with the production but something happens and they don't want to release. It sounds like a client you won't want to work with again for a bunch of reasons.

[u/Comma003 → u/ScreamingPenguin]

there was no satisfaction clause. I was trying to ask to cover myself contractually, if the clause verbatim says “we are not obligated to use the results of the contractor’s services” then why say “we cant use this, its unsatisfactory for us” and proceed to ask for a price reduction. it looks contradictory to the clause if that makes sense

[u/ScreamingPenguin → u/Comma003]

You would have to present the full contract to a lawyer to get a real answer. From what you have presented here I feel their decision to release or not has nothing to do with your pay. I don't think you are wrong here.

Are they claiming that this clause justified your pay adjustment?

[u/Comma003 → u/ScreamingPenguin]

gotcha. No no, i was wanting advice on if that would have been a viable pushback on my end. Bc furthermore, the CD was the one who requested a reduction, however his signature is nowhere on the contract, only the project manager

[u/ScreamingPenguin → u/Comma003]

I think it's a viable pushback. If you satisfied the terms of the contract to the best of your abilities, nothing in the contract indicated that your pay could be adjusted. Your client can always ask for something outside the scope of the contract, even the CD, it's up to you to negotiate with them or push back if you want. If I want to keep a client I'll be very flexible, most of the time it's a "this was the amount we agreed upon."

If I contracted someone and was unsatisfied with their work, but they met the terms of the contract, that's a me problem. Either I didn't communicate properly what I wanted, had unreasonable expectations, or didn't vet the contractor properly.

[u/MajorRelief98]

The clause has nothing to do with payment. It appears for whatever reason not showing or using the conference footage reduces their income they ca,e up with the excuse your footage was below par, and therefore a reduction in payment was warranted. This part was not covered in the contract?

[u/Comma003 → u/MajorRelief98]

there was nothing in the contract about dissatisfaction of deliverable warranting reduction in payments

[u/MajorRelief98 → u/Comma003]

Unfortunately, what they think of the footage is totally subjective, even if you believe it's your best work. Sometimes we come across these difficult clients (which is why vetting is so key), they may or may not have the upper hand, I don't know, I wasn't there and have not seen the footage, nor was I there when the deal was struck as to expectations. I say this on purpose because it's what a judge in a civil action would have to contemplate. If you were to take him to small claims it'll come down to the wording or lack of it in the contract, and who the judge believes more, you or him. Not sure if you want to go down this road, but take it as a learning experience on what to do or not to do next time. When I was in business I had a lawyer go over my contract and add or delete sections that helped me, not the client, after all contracts are written to protect the business, not the client, simple as that. In my opinion looking at this from the outside I'd let it go. One thing you don't want out there is a judgement against you, that could have far reaching consequences, we cannot predict the future. My thoughts for what they're worth.

[u/Comma003 → u/MajorRelief98]

yeah def a learning experience for the future

[u/llambdaddy]

Completely irrelevant to your compensation. You are paid for capture and hand-off of data. Which is a service you rendered and therefore must be paid. If they are unsatisfied with the quality of capture, lowering compensation does not remedy that and they are free to not hire you again.

You seem to have folded like a wet towel on this one, which you’re certainly free to do. But unless the footage was really dogshit and they were hiring you blind with no prior knowledge of your standard, they had no obvious right to less fee.

[u/Comma003 → u/llambdaddy]

unfortunately dont have the liberty to pursue escalating it, I had financial obligations that were more important than the small reduction they requested. They were fully aware of my body of work as that was the very thing that they hired me on the spot of the interview for

[u/llambdaddy → u/Comma003]

Well in that case perhaps they’re conflating their crappy editor for unsatisfactory capture. Fair play to take the hit to get paid, but I would not be working for them again.

[u/Comma003 → u/llambdaddy]

definitely dont intent on working w them again

[u/hezzinator]

Holy red flag Batman