Forums

The only process that comes to mind is to ask lots of questions about the video. Who is the videographer, who does he work for, whose equipment, whose tape or CD, what is the expected usage of the video, etc, etc.
If only one of the answers does not sound right, simply refuse to be videoed. (Is that a word?) Or, recorded on a video. The court reporter can still report for the court and, with your permission, can do a sound recording.
If we have to give permission for a sound recording by the court reporter, which is used to verify her/his transcript, why do we not have to give permission for a video?
Like they say on TV.....................Just say No

Basically , the video deposition and all contents are in the care custody and control of the party seeking the deposition.
Unless under seal on a per case basis, the video and it's contents are public domain.

How does the video and it's contents become public domain? This should be a interesting answer.

Actually the video and its contents are initially in the care, custody and control of the company that "made" the video. Copies are made and distributed to the plaintiff's attorney and to the defense attorney. A copy is made for the court. The original is kept and filed by the company that "made" the video.

My question is not about physical possession of the actual media, but who owns the rights to the contents.

I found this information in an article: "Is That My Video Deposition on YouTube? Best Practices for Law Firms by Charles Perez"

Mr. Perez was videotaping a celebrity:

"This particular actor smiled, shook my extended hand and in a joking voice asked "This isn't going to appear on TMZ or YouTube is it?" to which I replied "Of course not!"

Mr. Perez is "Certified Legal Video Specialist" which means he is certified in the proper use of taping legal depositions and adheres to a strict code of ethics dictating professional practices and the handling of sensitive issues.

His article states there are 76 NCRA "Standards" from the National Court Reporters Association and that NCRA Standard # 73 states "The videographer shall preserve the confidentiality of the deposition and take whatever steps necessary to ensure this confidentiality".


He also mentions a report from the Merrill Corporation entitled : "Is That Me On YouTube? Ground Rules for Access, Use and Sharing of Digital Depositions"

So Chuck, to give you a partial answer to your question, it appears that re-use of the video may be against certain ethical standards of a professional court certified videographer. Whether it is unethical for the plaintiff's attorney to re-use it and who owns the video is a whole other question.

One ethical consideration concerns the relationship between the plaintiff's attorney and the plaintiff. For example if the plaintiff has a case that needs to go all the way to the Louisiana Supreme Court (for the benefit of the plaintiff), then so be it. But if the plaintiff's name gets all over the news and the internet because of the attorney's self promotion and not as a normal part of pursuing the case, then the plaintiff may have an ethics complaint against their own attorney. For example:

"Mr. Attorney- why did you post Mr. Deaton's depostion all over the internet and show it in law class? Now everybody in the world can hear Mr. Deaton say that my house was messy and he even says I might have started the fire."

Imagine if your spouse was a victim of sexual harrassment and then her attorney used her case in a TV commercial.

So it looks like the videographer may have an ethical duty to not redistribute the video based on ethics of his profession AND

The plaintiff's attorney might also have an ethical duty to his client to not redistribute it.

But several questions remain:

What ethical duty, if any, does the plaintiffs attorney have to not redistribute the video if the plaintiff is OK with it?

Who owns the video images?

Here is a lawyer's website that answers these questions and more:

http://www.lw.com/Resources.aspx?pa...ation=3547

Apparently you could have stipulated the conditions of use of the video tape prior to allowing yourself to be taped.

For example you could have asked that the plaintiff side agree not to use the video for any advertising or other commercial purposes, and that you be given 2 copies in DVD format. This stipulation would be entered into the record.

Great job of doing your legal research Leland. You could also get one of the lawyers to ask for a "protective order" from the court to keep any of the parties putting you on u tube.

Another point there is a difference between a video that is entered into the official court record and a video that is just being used by the attorneys. Once something is entered into the record it becomes public record, and it's pretty much fair game for anybody to use.

Posted By ALANJ on 10 Oct 2010 01:01 PM
How does the video and it's contents become public domain? This should be a interesting answer.

Because Xactimate said so ?  (jk)

Robby your right. They put in a new tab for that. My bad!

In the valuation business, we use the terms "Intended Use" and "Intended Users" as ways to control the distibution and scope of our work product. Our work can not be distributed to anyone who is not an "Intended User" and it can not be taken out of context for a non-intended use. Prior to a video deposition as an adjuster, I would work out an agreement that limits the scope of the use, the users and the distribution. I would hate to rely on someone's ethical responsibilities as a limiting factor about the distribution of a deposition. That way you would have recorse against the party that releases the video outside of the limits (intended use/intended user/distribution) of the agreement.

Is there a recommended/representative agreement available?

Video Depositions are very importants for court reporting.