facts:
1. the production house admitted they DO NOT own the video, or have any written consent from the real owner of the video to publish/broadcast it.
2. no other person besides yourself has claimed ownership of the video.
3. you own the RAW files used to make the video.
4. you are willing to (or have already) made a sworn statement before a Commissioner of Oaths stating your ownership of the video, albeit on a date after the date of production of the video.
5. the production house has in principle agreed to pay you provided you show "proof" of ownership, which they claim you have failed to do.
looks like a pretty clear cut case to me. if you need help sending a letter of demand to them without using a lawyer, publish the email exchanges here and i'm sure the friendly bros here can lend you a helping hand.
1. the production house admitted they DO NOT own the video, or have any written consent from the real owner of the video to publish/broadcast it.
2. no other person besides yourself has claimed ownership of the video.
3. you own the RAW files used to make the video.
4. you are willing to (or have already) made a sworn statement before a Commissioner of Oaths stating your ownership of the video, albeit on a date after the date of production of the video.
5. the production house has in principle agreed to pay you provided you show "proof" of ownership, which they claim you have failed to do.
looks like a pretty clear cut case to me. if you need help sending a letter of demand to them without using a lawyer, publish the email exchanges here and i'm sure the friendly bros here can lend you a helping hand.