My Break.com saga continues.

Tonight I received another email from Break now indicating that they were still waiting on the proof that they needed that I shot the video I posted.

I sent a longer clip of the same video to them on February 8th which I intended as proof that I shot the video. I sent follow-up emails on February 16 and 18 as I got no reply from them. On February 19th I got an email from Break indicating that they still hadn’t received any proof that I shot the video and that the clip I sent on the 8th was the same clip that I had originally sent.

I had an exchange of several emails with Break on the evening of February 19th within a short period of time. I wrote that I had thought that a longer clip of the video I originally posted was proof that I had shot it, as it contained footage not in the original shot. I further clarified that it wasn’t the same video as they asserted, but a longer, continuous shot of the video containing the clip that was originally posted.

How would anyone else have the longer clip that was never posted if they didn’t shoot the video?

Apparently Break didn’t think that was adequate proof however, and it took them 11 days and several emails from me before they got back to me telling me so.

What is annoying is that in my original email sent on January 30th I asked what would suffice as proof and was ignored.

Here is a section of the email I sent on January 30th in reply to their original purchase agreement email:

Also, I don’t know what kind of proof I can submit that I shot the video. It’s captured from a Video8 tape shot some years ago (maybe 10 years ago), so there is additional video outside of what I submitted, but nothing with me in it or anything like that. I don’t believe I could get any releases but also don’t believe anyone is identifiable in the video either. Will a longer clip of the same video suffice?

Only tonight (in the sixth email from Break and over a month later) did I finally get an answer to what Break would consider proof that I shot the video:

In order for Break to feel confident we are not infringing on any copyright laws we require better proof. For example a picture of the field, a picture of someone on the team in the uniform. Separate footage from the same day (not just longer footage). We require this for every video we purchase to ensure we are posting unique original content.

But what I found especially galling was the following insinuation in the same email that I was trying to scam Break:

I hate to be a stickler but other users on the site have uploaded this same video and I’m finding it all over the web:

The email also contained two links to the videos on other websites (which apparently qualifies as “all over the web.”) It’s my video and I only uploaded it to Break, so if it’s elsewhere, it came from them: plain and simple.

It’s doubly frustrating because if Break truly thinks I’m scamming them that they can make it virtually impossible to prove that I shot the video. Nothing I can offer as proof will ever suffice.

I’ve been polite and patient in my correspondence but my patience is at an end. After all, who’s scamming who here? Break now has a copy of my original video and a signed purchase agreement but I still have nothing from them. And the longer it takes for them to close this deal the more likely that the video will be duped again and reposted elsewhere in the meantime. It’s a self-fulfilling prophecy for them given their lengthy delays between emails.

If they were to sell this video to another company I assume that I would have to sue them and try to prove that they never paid me. Someone is in the catbird seat right now and it’s not me…

When I first posted the video on Break I don’t remember it containing the Break watermark. That was put on some time after I posted the video. In fact if you visit the “Just Submitted” section of Break you’ll note no watermarks whatsoever.

So it’s no surprise that in that time period others captured the video from Break sans watermark and reposted it. And how is that my fault? Besides that, having a copy of the video doesn’t give rights to resell it.

Now Break appears to be refusing to pay for the video even though it was only posted on their website and was thereby obviously leaked by them (whether intentionally or not).

Tonight I sent “separate footage from the same day” as proof as stated in the email that explained what constituted proof.

What’s absurd is that by their standards it’s exceedingly difficult to prove that one shot any given video without being in it. I’m not sure if they are this strict about proof with others, or just me. Given the amount of time that’s transpired from when I first posted the original video, I have to wonder if they’re now just trying to back out on the deal. After all, they got what they wanted and now have a high-quality original copy of the video.

It’s notable that Break was the first to fire the shot over the bow insinuating a scam, when in fact it’s Break that seems to be scamming me.

Since they respond to email in slow-motion, I’m wondering how long (if at all) it will take before they reply to the latest email and video clip I sent (and how many other video sites it will end up on as well)…

While I wait, I’d suggest that anyone submitting a video to Break and expecting to get paid should add a watermark in their video with some kind of unique information to help serve as proof of ownership.  This webpage offers additional tips on the subject.

Filed under: Internet on February 20th, 2008