Has anyone ever been sued?

[Leopold]

I was watching Judge Judy with my mom a while back (every time I visit it's her, or Dr. Phil on TV) and some one was being sued over a poor quality video. It was a video of some type of pageant or talent show, anyway it was pretty bad and none the less the defendant lost the case. But one of the things I was thinking about was she asked him about what schooling and previous jobs he'd had as a film maker. This was a big deal to Nurse Ratched and she cut the guy down. He had some idea of what he was doing but right off the bat the video sucked.

So there seems to be a lot of us that are self taught and may have years of experience but no "formal" education in recording. What if a band comes to your studio, they suck (it's happened a few times) you try your best and their record sounds like..well, like them and they think it's your job to fix that? So they sue.

Anyone have this happen to them? What defense would we have? Bring in other recordings of previous projects? Clients to vouch for you?


Just thought I'd put it out there,
Eddie

[getreel]

I don't think it would be much of a case as long as you had recorded them and the recording was there and playable. I'm not sure quality factors in legally. I would definitely think you would use other better recordings you've done in defense and also try to get other recordings done elsewhere by the same band or artist that also sucked.

[Brian Brock]

to what extent has the concept of fixing/faking usurped the word "recording" - could you be sued for "producing" but not recording?

[Fletcher]

They weren't arguing the "performance value" of the video tape... they were arguing shit like lighting and camera angles [and possibly shit of value being missing and or the camera shaking... I don't watch Judge Judy but I can imagine what happened].

If you're a noob and you're running a $15-/hr. shit hole then everyone is on the same page... if you're working in a $1,500 a day room and the project is coming out like ass then you'll be fired and replaced. If you're a noob and you're trying to record a location event then just don't clip anything and let them sort it out in the mix... at that point you can say the sounds you were given to record were indeed recorded in the best possible manner the band could afford [if you don't have any digital clipping!!! If you do, then all bets are off].

Best of luck with all you do.

[Ryan Silva]

I saw somthing like this on "Judge Joe Brown". The band had brought in a video crew to the studio, to capture the recording process. The studio had warned them that the film crew might get in the way of recording, but to no avail they stayed anyway. Same kinnda thing, the quaility came out poor and the artist tryed to sue the studio owner. "Judge Joe" mentioned that he had spent alot of time in his youth recording music in studios, and couldn't imagine how anything could of came out good with a camera crew in the same room distacting from focus. So Mr Brown struck it down, as well as he should have.

[Professor]

Fortunately I've not ever been sued (that I know of) and I didn't see that or any other episode of Judge Judy. But I can understand one particular application where it would not be surprising to see an audio or video engineer being sued, and that would be when live, one-time-only events are involved.
Consider the delicate job of a wedding photographer. With normal photography, folks show up at the studio, or the guy rolls into the local high school, they take a bunch of pictures, and if there is any difficulty with camera, lighting, equipment failures, etc. the guy can always provide either a refund or warranty service, or both. But at a wedding, you have only one chance to get it right. That's it, one shot, and if you screw it up, there will be absolute hell to pay. It doesn't matter if the reason the photos were lost was that the lighting was bad, the camera died, the memory card went bad, all the gear was stolen, or the photographer died in a fiery car crash because the best man was drunk and drove the guy off a cliff after the reception. If the photos aren't there, you'll have a heartbroken bride and a pair of irate mothers, and they won't just want a refund, they won't want a day in the studio to "make up for it", they will want the entire wedding paid for, plus emotional damages, plus the photographer's head on a platter if they could manage it.
So yeah, I expect under those conditions they might feel compelled to sue.
In the case of that particular episode of Judge Judy, I agree that asking for the guy's credentials was out of line because there should be some legitimacy left to the concept of being "self-taught" no matter what the field... there are plenty of judges with decades of formal education in their field who make some of the world's stupidest decisions. But if the guy was arguing that he delivered a quality product, then he could certainly be ordered to pay a refund. The sticky part is that it's fully possible that the guy already gave them a refund, maybe even still delivered the product, but is somehow being sued for "damages". And if that's the case, then yeah it kind of illustrates that we are all in danger of such things - especially in live environments and hopefully less-so in the studio.

Maybe it brings up an interesting consideration and set of side questions... let's try this:

How many of the folks here are:
1. legally incorporated?
2. insured in any way where clients are concerned?
3. doing work where the client enters your space?
4. doing live location work?
5. signing contracts with clients for your services?
6. including clauses in those contracts indemnifying you from poor performances or 'acts of God' which might damage or destroy the recorded materials?

I'll start:
1. I used to be when I worked on my own.
2. Nope, nothing but the 'hope & prayer' method.
3. No, fortunately.
4. That's all I did, and I was nervous about every gig.
5. Nope, just a handshake or maybe just a phone call.
6. Well, I didn't attach clauses to the handshakes.

Who is next?

-Jeremy

[joelpatterson]

My primitive understanding of the Judge Judy Show is that all participants have been paid for their participation. The "judgements" she renders are pure theatricality. Nobody has to "pay" what she says.

[Mark Alan Miller]

A friend of mine was hired to be on the Springer show, in a ficticious love-triangle. So there ya go.

[Leopold]

My primitive understanding of the Judge Judy Show is that all participants have been paid for their participation. The "judgements" she renders are pure theatricality. Nobody has to "pay" what she says.

A friend of mine was sued many years ago for a photo that showed up in Ben is Dead. So he wound up on the People's Court when Judge Whopner was at the helm. He took a shot of a kid on the street and it ran in the "masturbation" issue or something like that and the kids mom sued him even though he did have a model release. He won the case but he explained that loser splits the cost and I guess the show pays the rest and he actually agreed to go on because the judgement doesn't show up on your credit report.

Eddie

[Professor]

I'd say that whether the Judge Judy show is real or not doesn't really matter much - it brings up a good point. The simple truth is that a lot of us could potentially be liable in the eyes of the court if someone decided to sue, especially for those once-in-a-lifetime events we might be hired to do.

-Jeremy

[ashcat_lt]

Maybe it brings up an interesting consideration and set of side questions... let's try this:

How many of the folks here are:
1. legally incorporated?
2. insured in any way where clients are concerned?
3. doing work where the client enters your space?
4. doing live location work?
5. signing contracts with clients for your services?
6. including clauses in those contracts indemnifying you from poor performances or 'acts of God' which might damage or destroy the recorded materials?

Who is next?

-Jeremy

Me I guess.

1) was. would be if I was getting paid.
2) no.
3) yes.
4) yes.
5) not in years. again, would be if getting paid.
6) never occured to me, but it's going in there next time I write a contract.

[Leopold]

I'd say that whether the Judge Judy show is real or not doesn't really matter much - it brings up a good point. The simple truth is that a lot of us could potentially be liable in the eyes of the court if someone decided to sue, especially for those once-in-a-lifetime events we might be hired to do.

-Jeremy

Well, I think this can be a real problem if the judge is ignorant of the recording process and thinks that if a band goes into the studio then it's our job for the recording to sound good. They may not be able to draw the line between they're bad performance and our good/bad documentation of that performance. I mean really, if we do an excellent job of capturing their lousy playing how will the judge be able to tell that, especially if the band can "sort of" play you know? A lot of bands can get away with it live but once the mics get set up and you start to roll you hear what is really going on.

[orbb]

I'm a lawyer. I haven't handled anything like this, but here are my two cents:

In order to prevail on the theory that the completed work sucked, I think Plaintiff would have to prove that the Defendant either severely deviated from the industry standard of care in the finalized product, or breached an express warranty. Under the Uniform Commercial Code (applicable to sales, not services, but analogous anyway), you can prove a breach by demonstrating that the product

* (a) does not pass without objection in the trade under the contract description; and
* (b) in the case of fungible goods, is not of fair average quality within the description; and
* (c) is not fit for the ordinary purposes for which such goods are used.

You would need an expert to establish this (Fletcher seems appropriate), and if your expert would testify that the finished product was poor as a result of the production (Edit: Given the platform on which it was recorded, and given the signal chain), as opposed to the content, then you could prevail.

The other basis of liability would be if there was an express warranty, and you deviated from it, i.e., I'll make your record sound just like Hotel California, or your wedding video will have Kubrick qualities, and you fail to deliver.

Finally, you generally cannot insure yourself against such claims. Most liability insurance excludes claims for poor workmanship, where the only loss to the plaintiff is the economic loss associated with the poor product.

[chovie d]

fungible

I was in the audience of Geraldo once, the topic was "Gansta Bitches!".
sorry just had to share that...

[MoreSpaceEcho]

is anyone here actually working with any bands who could possibly afford a lawyer?