Legal Woes -

[murphomatic 0]

Long story short...

 

We have a client whom we installed an 8 port Geovision system for, using 8 of the newer Sony Exwave color cams (540 tvl). We got everything installed, after some minor cam adjustments, etc - we submitted our invoice and were paid for the job.

 

Set the time machine for one month later.

 

Someone breaks into a car in this client's parking lot. There are two cameras covering this lot in a wide-angle view. One of which was supposed to be focused w/telephoto lens on the parking lot entry - but at the client's request, was moved back to a wide-angle view. One of the cameras captures the event, but obviously does not provide the clarity to read the offender's license plate (camera is at a wide-angle focal length, about 300 ft back from the event).

 

Client threatens to sue because we "didn't provide the high-resolution cameras that we promised" .. and futher states that unless we replace the cameras we installed with cameras capable of such high resolution that license plates can be ascertained from a wide-angle view, that they will do so themselves, and then stick us with the bill for it.

 

What I'm wanting to know is if any cameras of this nature actually do exist (I've bent over backwards trying to find something of such high resolution, but can't), and just curious what everybody's perspective is on this.

 

Thanks everyone - I appreciate everyone's input.

[Thomas 0]

Nope. Did you promise the ability to read a licence plate at that distance with that lens? Did you tell them that the change of lens would not allow you acomplish that goal?

[murphomatic 0]

Nope. Did you promise the ability to read a licence plate at that distance with that lens? Did you tell them that the change of lens would not allow you acomplish that goal?

We told them that we could absolutely equip the camers with lenses capable of zooming to a distance capable of reading license plates.

 

We told them that our strategy was to mount 2 cameras for the coverage area -- 1 of them focused wide-angle on the parking lot, and 1 of them focused telephoto on the lot entry to capture plates as the cars came in.

 

All cameras are equipped with 6-100mm or 6-50mm vari-focal lenses, so they can definitely pick up plates when focused on an entry. We DID tell them that re-positioning and re-focusing the camera positioned on the entry would prevent them from seeing plates coming through the entrance. After re-positioning the cam, they looked at the views and thanked us, telling us the new view was exactly what they wanted.

 

It was only after they called us a month later with lawsuit threats that they told us the camera needed to be both wide-angle and telephoto at the same time .. so that they could take an already-recorded, high-resolution, wide-angle image, and magnify it to read plates. The spec they signed says nothing about this. They're now saying they're about to install new cameras that indeed meet their requirements and assign us the bill. I'm just curious if they've found some camera i haven't heard of that's capable of capturing video on the scale of 7 to 10 megapixels per frame. I'm pretty sure it's ridiculous to think something like that exists...but I've been wrong before!

Edited April 26, 2006 by Guest

[securitymonster 0]

Ouch, sucks to be in that position. You need to have a heart to heart with your customer and re-evaluate his video surveillance needs. If he is wanting LPR, then he needs to buckle down, spend the $3500 on the Extreme REG-L1 and have the camera professionally mounted between 30-80ft from the entrance.

 

There is no secret here. You can't expect to have a 50mm lens pickup a license plate at 300ft.

 

My advice would also look into a waiver that your customer signs at each and every job stating your not liable. I'm sure some other board members can help you out with this.

 

Another thing to do is to call the Police Office or DA's office and discuss this with them. This might help with your peace of mind. The judicial system is tricky and can eat you up if your not careful. You'll need to keep your reputation clean too, so whatever you can do to keep your customer happy is important as well. Good news doesn't travel far, but bad news travels very fast.

[rory 0]

the only thing i can think of is a PTZ that zooms in on the entry when a car goes through, and zooms back out after its passed. I doubt even a 7-10 Megepixel camera will let you zoom in 300' to read a licence plate, but even if it did, there arent any like that in the CCTV world yet, made to work with DVRs, and if there were, it would have to be mostly still images due to the image size. Plus then there is the night time capture problems asociated with those existing type of cameras.

 

So no it doesnt exist.

[jisaac 0]

man definitly get a waiver. You need to get one signed that states that you only provide the equipment. You dont guarantee the functionality of it. Because if you dont then you will get sued. If not by these people then someone down the line. Also did they sign your proposal? Did you promise in writing what the cameras will do? And also what else did you promise in writing that they system will do?

What I do (not saying this is right) but what I do is agree to provide a list of equipment and for a certain price. In no way we do I ever agree to be providing any event caputure with the system. Thats were you get yourself into trouble.

Good luck.

Edited April 18, 2006 by Guest

[normicgander 0]

Wow, maybe this is a wake call. Perhaps our customer expectations are too high sometimes. I think spelling out that the cameras (system) are adjusted to customers field of view requirements and that forensic video results can be effected by such factors as field of view, FPS recording, recording quality, target movement with the scene (image blur) and scene illumination to name a few.

 

People who watch CSI also contributes to the expectation problem...

[jisaac 0]

People who watch CSI also contributes to the expectation problem...

 

I agree with that.

Edited April 18, 2006 by Guest

[cctv_down_under 0]

I came accross this problem, once and only once!!

What i chose to do after this was to prepare a sign off document, the aim of this is to take a snapshot of every image from the DVR at the point of sign off, you then get them to initial each image saying that they are satisfied with the view that they have from that camera, at the end of the document you put all your disclaimers in and make them sign properly for the handover, this also stops cameras beeing moved by the customer, therefore if they want you to come to site because a camera is moved, you can prove it was not the way you had installed it and if they want you to move one, then you charge them because they had signed off on the release documentation.

 

I have a few examples that I use in my proposals that show the same image view from different sized lenses, it shows a house viewed from a 2.5mm lens and then shows the images of narrower lenses as well, this shows them that when you zoom in you loose the width and make it perfectly clear to the customer how the angles will change.

 

There is also an advantage to having a 1/3" digital SLR camera that has a wide range of lens, you can then stand on a ladder and take two shots, you can say that the lens goes between 5mm and 50mm and here are the views, you can have either at the same cost but you will need to decide.

 

licence plate stuff is hard to promise and i only do it with cameras that are able to handle it and ONLY if a proper throttle point can be offered, you need fast shutter speeds to read plates, but fast speeds result in low light pictures and you also need to turn down the gain in the camera so that the headlights do not wash out the plates, this again makes the camera image darker, if you are zooming from a long way away then you are closing down the iris??? so again it will get darker and carparks are usually asphalt and therefore reflect very little light, so the best bet is to make a throttel point and mount your camera very close to where the car must travel through, using speed bumps or speed signs can also greatly assist in reducing the speed of the vehicle so that you can have a faster shutter speeds.

 

I have seen some handy cameras that can do inversion which makes the bright white lights look black and makes the contrast of the licence plate stand out.

 

OCR can be very difficult without cameras that are purpose built for the application.

[rapid 0]

Looks like you started off with a good design. If the client wanted a wider picture, might of been in your best interest to install another camera.

 

I hear you....and when the !@%^ hits the fan, they want CSI so you can zoom in and read the guys DNA after the fact!

 

I know we hate paperwork...but what clients need is a statement of procedures (SOP). Included in this would be a description of the system, how it operates, what are the limitations, how tapes (oops!) hard-drives are stored, who has access to them, ensuring time/date is acurate, what happens in the event of an incident.....and as cctvgeeknz mentions, actual camera views with time/date. And finally, have the client sign off.

 

FYI....You could have a look at Covi who have done parking lot applications similiar to what you may need. One camera, three different views.

 

http://www.covitechnologies.com/products/analog/evq-1000

 

Cheers.....Rapid

[murphomatic 0]

Thanks for the input everyone. I have looked at Extreme CCTV's LPR system an there's no way this client would've shelled out the dough for that. They were interested in getting the most bang-for-the-buck, so we figured a Geo system w/8 of the exwave cams would exceed their expectations. Like someone else said ... WAAAAAAY too much CSI, I guess.

 

To answer some of the questions on this thread, the contract situation went like this. They dropped 3 "work-order contracts" on us after a demonstration of our system. We read through their naive gibberish stating what they wanted us to install, laughed, and wrote SEE ADDENDUM across it -- on which we provided an exact material list, and a statement of what were going to install (their CEO signed this addendum and list, btw). In no way did we ever guarantee event capture or functionality of the system. We simply stated that we agreed to install cameras that had a minimum of 480 line resolution, and were capable of detecting a minimum of 0.5 lux. ... which w/the Exwave cams, we exceeded that spec. The very sad part of this is that we did this job for just about cost, as this customer was large property management company, and we wanted them to be extra-happy so that they'd use us for their other properties.

 

Anyway .. the 3 work order contracts. We performed the 1st one and they are now wanting sue us, saying that they're going to have the cameras replaced with ones that meet their spec (riiiiiiight), and that they're also going to have those same cameras installed at the other 2 properties, and since we couldn't perform to their spec - hold us in breach of contract and sue us for the cost of the other 2 properties as well.

 

This whole situation is patently absurd, and I'm really just waiting to have a good laugh when they've finally filtered through a dozen different CCTV companies and can't get the magic cameras they're looking for.

 

It should also be noted that we chased this client for over a year, providing 54 seperate proposals w/drawings depicting coverage, some of which were pricey and included nice PTZ setups. Of course - they always balked at the price of these, and wanted something cheaper.

 

so whatever you can do to keep your customer happy is important as well. Good news doesn't travel far, but bad news travels very fast.

Unforunately, I think we're beyond keeping them happy. It went from them being perfectly satisfied w/the system, to them screaming at my biz partner over the phone, threatening to sue ... there was no "in-between" or mediation period. Even through all the screaming and threats of lawsuits, we offered to reposition/adjust/re-lens as necessary (FREE of charge) to get them a satisfactory view. They finally stated that the only thing we could offer that would make them happy would be cameras that capture the whole parking lot in a wide angle view, at such high resolution they could later magnify the recorded image and read license plates. I told them that the product they want doesn't exist, and that their expectations are not based in reality.

 

I'm just really chapped by this because we literally bent over backwards for these people... giving them a system very cheap, very cheap labor to install, and also ate the cost on a couple of 480 line cams that we upgraded to the Sony exwave 540 line cams just as an extra "bonus" for them that - of course - went completely unnoticed, and also provided free training and materials to their staff. This was the reward we got for "going above and beyond". It really only just gives us incentive to do the absolute BARE-MINIMUM on jobs from here on out, with a whole bunch of liability-release legalese that to normal, good natured customers, make it look like we're desperate to cover our asses....which at this point, and thanx to these jokers - we are.

[rory 0]

I hear you .. that does suck big time, there's people like that everywhere .. just make sure to document everything, if you didnt put on the quote that they were guarenteed this or that, then it shouldnt mean anything in court. There's plenty more fish in the sea, or clients ..

 

basically, though I dont know US Law (or Bahamian law either) I would think that unless you sign your name to something then they dont have a foot to stand on .. I would cut them off and have no further interaction with their company at all. If they ask about warranties or product support, then hand it over to the distributor so you can cut loose from them alltogether.

[jisaac 0]

man in some of my experience we have gotten burned (not as bad as this though) on the customers you go above and beyond on. Makes you want to like you said do the bare minimum.

[normicgander 0]

After this I think I will have a statement clause about wide-angle cameras for outside areas or larger inside interiors. It seems most of my customers want the wide angle views to observe and capture general area traffic. Often the images are ok to provide "face recogntion" of known people, such as coworkers etc.

 

I also think it's a trade-off of capturing activity of an overall event and the ability to ID someone or license plate.

 

Example: We all just saw the gang of hoodlums who attacked the man in the MGM parking lot in LV. Had a teleophoto lens been used, perhaps less incriminating evidence would have been captured. In this case the wide-angle was perhaps better (??)

 

Food for thought: Are the DVRs we use really produce "D1" or "4CIF" resolution? How do we know? What industry standard test was the spec guaranteed too? A 720 x 480 uncompression image frame is about 1.1mb. We record the "D1" image frame at a 40Kb to 80kb file size on our DVRs. I realize compression is a must, but with high compression ratios there's no free lunch. D1?

[rory 0]

Their recording itself was pretty shabby probably low res, and the images werent low lux, though it was kind of dim .. maybe not True Day Night cameras being used in that location ...

[blowrabbit 0]

somebody should turn these jokers onto this web site so they can get a realalistic perspective on the situation, as they may be under the delusion that they have been wronged. [did i spell realalistic right?]

[G-MEN 0]

CSI and Las Vegas have given the public unrealistic views on CCTV. When clients want something outrageous they saw on TV, I tell them "Unfortunately our equipment does not have a Hollywood button"

[normicgander 0]

Rory- I take it your talking about the LV footage on TV. It was a pretty bad recording. It almost looked like a recording on a VHS time-lapse security VCR in alarm mode....

 

They think they will catch them however.

[rory 0]

I hope they do ... they could have killed the poor guy ..

they need some bahamian style justice when thery catch them ..

http://www.jonesbahamas.com/?c=45&a=8476

[frosted 0]

yeah they do exist, not a cheap option, sentryscope by envisage do such cameras

[baywatch 1]

Yes, its usually the customers that you bend over backwards to help (or keep happy) are the ones who bite you.

[murphomatic 0]

yeah they do exist, not a cheap option, sentryscope by envisage do such cameras

Wow - I didn't know such a product existed. 21 megapixels is incredible.

 

What's the ballpark cost of one of these cameras? Anyone know?

[murphomatic 0]

Well, a new twist in the story.

 

This client has finally written us a letter stating that they found cameras capable of 1500 tvl using a Sony Super HAD CCD. They're having them installed for a cost of $22,000.

 

They want us to come back and get our gear and refund the money we charged them.

 

So - question to all you CCTV guru's out there... Does Sony really make a CCD capable of 1500 tvl resolution? Or are they totally blowing smoke?

[Thomas 0]

I'd be more intrested in the DVR to support it.

[rory 0]

Maybe some sony webcams ... and like Thomas said .. a system to suppoort it worth anything ... like to see that one .. and forget real time speed if its multiplexed ..

 

Sony does have the Progressive Scan which is 800TVL, other people use them in their cameras. They are typically for Machine Vision though, or other specialty apps. Id have to do some research to see what they have out thats new, but maybe Thomas can shed some light on that .. Last I knew Covi was the latest in the high res analogue arena .. if they go MegaPixel its no longer CCTV with the current cameras .. DVRs still only are at 720x480 ..