PDA

View Full Version : Ooops (ethical Question)



NVentive
04-11-2008, 03:24 PM
Maybe this came off as blackmail...it was certainly a gutsy thing to ask.
If it were your stock, what would you have done?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7342328.stm

brian.coates
04-12-2008, 12:49 AM
Well, I agree with the argument that if there's no legal contract then the video is still the property of the producer, not Wal-Mart.

Wal-Mart is just calling foul because the footage makes them look bad.

Simple as that really.

mattclary
04-14-2008, 09:08 AM
You would think Wal-Mart would be smarter than an 18 year old kid on spring break to allow themselves to be FILMED in compromising situations.

Steamthrower
04-14-2008, 09:48 AM
Legally, I couldn't care less. Legal doesn't mean anything anyway. But ethically:

If I was hired to film Wal-mart, to archive footage, and was payed to do it, I would never release that footage. Even if I wasn't bound by a contract, I think it would be against my ethics.

If it was just me running around with my TV camera, which I've done upon occasion, and I was able to grab some embarrassing/dangerous/compromising situations: heck yeah I would make it available. In the words of Top Gear: YouTube would have a field day.

But not if I were paid to film them. I've had clients do embarrassing things and have me fix them. It's not my place to tell everybody about it, though...even if I haven't signed an NDA or contract or anything.

Red_Oddity
04-15-2008, 07:34 AM
Well, the sad part is, while showing the footage to get to Wal-Mart, the people you really make look bad are the personel that where filmed.
What if a family or relation ship breaks up because some footage of a person wearing drag shows up in court and somehow leaks onto the web, not very ethic is it?
I smell so much counter sues coming from this.

Steamthrower
04-15-2008, 10:52 AM
You're very right. I'm sure the footage isn't making so much a point against Wal-Mart as against the type of people Wal-Mart hires. They're minimum wage folks on the edge of poverty, and I'm sure any embarrassing situations they are found in would be considered discriminating.

CMT
04-15-2008, 11:28 AM
$145 million for a film archive? That's pretty steep.

Interesting though. It's a complete turnaround from Walmart squeezing every last possible ounce of profit from people trying to do business with Walmart. Now it's happening to them....

Red_Oddity
04-15-2008, 02:17 PM
$145 million for a film archive? That's pretty steep.

Interesting though. It's a complete turnaround from Walmart squeezing every last possible ounce of profit from people trying to do business with Walmart. Now it's happening to them....

call it corporate karma

Dexter2999
04-15-2008, 02:33 PM
The Archive company is pretty much holding the archive as blackmail. They know that the footage contained in it could be damaging in class action suits and cost the company hundreds of millions.

Personaly, when I tape someone, they own the tape. Period. If they were paying me to archive it, that means hold it for them in my storage. When that ends, they have to come get it or it is trashed. It doesn't ever belong to me. I was paid to be there and record it FOR the company by the company. My time and expenses are paid for, INCLUDING THE TAPE.

But legally? If they didn't spell it out in their contract, well, they left themselves open to this kind of crap. Which is inexcusable when you have as many high priced attorneys on staff as a corporation of this size does.

Matt
04-15-2008, 03:10 PM
I bet Proton isn't too upset that these tapes have been made public!

:D

Although, contract or no contract, it is unethical, it's clear that Flagler have sour grapes for being dropped.