Our agency's legal headaches from client video content, time to rethink indemnity clauses?

Lately, I've seen more disputes over who owns video content when an agency produces it for clients. One view is we need stronger indemnity clauses to shield ourselves from claims. The other side says that makes contracts scary and drives clients to competitors. For example, a recent project had a client demanding full rights after we delivered, and our vague agreement caused weeks of back-and-forth. My team is split on this. Some say legal safety first, others value smooth client talks more. What do you all think? Should we update our standard contracts to be more protective, or is that overkill?

3 comments

3 Comments

john_cooper1mo ago

Zarakim's story shows how a vague contract can backfire. Clear terms up front might feel formal, but they save everyone from bigger headaches later. It's not about being scary, it's about being clear.

zarakim1mo ago

Ever hear about the photographer friend who got sued over a model's release? Their vague contract turned a simple job into a two year court fight.

david_park1mo ago

Seriously, what did the contract leave out that caused such a big mess? Two years in court over a photo shoot sounds like a nightmare. Those model releases have to spell out exactly where the pictures can be used, like for ads or just a portfolio. If it's not clear, someone can always come back and claim you broke the deal.