Who Owns the Diddy Footage? Content Rights and Licensing in “Sean Combs: The Reckoning"

“Sean Combs: The Reckoning” has stirred significant discussion about abuse, power, and accountability in hip-hop. The behind-the-scenes footage filmmakers included of Diddy captured days before his indictment only fueled the fire of that debate. The footage has intensified both sympathy for accusers and anger at Diddy, while also raising concerns about privacy, content rights, and whether the series is a fair exposé or an act of revenge. 50 Cent has not publicly revealed exactly how his team acquired the footage.

What is in the Diddy footage?

The footage used in the new Netflix docuseries is the result of Diddy being filmed over several days in New York shortly before his September 2024 indictment, including intimate scenes in a hotel room speaking with his lawyer and entourage. This was part of a broader effort where Diddy had a videographer or media team documenting him for his own planned project or personal use, Juda Engelmayer told NBC.​

How 50 Cent says he got it

50 Cent and Alexandria Stapleton, Director of Sean Combs: The Reckoning, have both said the material was obtained legally with the necessary rights, but sternly refuses to identify the specific source.

Filmmakers noted in an onscreen statement that they obtained the footage after Combs' arrest on Sept. 16, 2024. Stapleton has also said they’ve had to work hard to keep the videographer’s identity confidential, with Diddy’s team calling the content “stolen footage that was never authorized for release,” further confirming that it was captured by someone working for Diddy himself.

Did 50 Cent acquire the Diddy footage legally?

Content licensing law could make it legal for 50 Cent and/or Netflix to buy and use the footage if the videographer, not Diddy, owned the copyright. This would allow the videographer to license or sell the footage to them under a valid agreement.

Whether that is true in this situation depends on the original contract between Diddy and the videographer, which has not been made public and would ultimately be a legal question for a court to decide.

Who owns the footage?

Under U.S. copyright law, the default rule is that the person or company that actually records the video (the videographer or production company) owns the copyright, unless there is a written “work for hire” or assignment agreement transferring ownership to the client.

Even when a client pays for a shoot, without such a written transfer they usually only get a license to use the finished video, while the creator keeps ownership of the raw footage.

Ownership of the raw footage may go to the videographers or production company that filmed Diddy, even if Diddy did pay in full - unless he had signed written agreements giving him full ownership of everything they shot.

How 50 Cent could get rights

Because the default owner is the creator, those videographers could, in theory, license that footage to 50 Cent’s production or Netflix, granting permission to use it in “Sean Combs: The Reckoning.” In that case, Diddy might still feel wronged, but legally the key question would be what the original contracts said about ownership, resale, and confidentiality—not just the fact that he was the subject of the material.

What does a copyright license grant?

A license is permission from the owner to exercise some of the owner’s exclusive rights under agreed terms (such as scope, territory, duration, and media).

The licensor keeps ownership and can control or limit what the licensee does; unless the license is made very broad, the licensee cannot do anything beyond what the contract allows.​

Exclusive vs Non-Exclusive Licenses

With an exclusive license, the licensee is the only party allowed to exercise a particular right (for example, the only one who can broadcast the footage in a region) and may be treated by law as the owner of that specific right with the ability to sue others.

A nonexclusive license lets the licensee use the footage, but the owner can keep using it and license the same rights to others at the same time.​

Ownership vs. Licensing

In practice, buying full ownership of footage is more expensive but gives long-term, unrestricted control, including the power to recut, resell, and relicense the material forever (until copyright expires).

If Diddy had work-for-hire agreements saying that he owned everything the videographers shot, then any license the videographers granted to 50 Cent would be void and unauthorized; if Diddy did not have signed work-for-hire agreements, this fact strengthens 50 Cent’s position that he lawfully licensed material from the people who legally owned it.

The controversy surrounding Sean Combs: The Reckoning is more than a celebrity feud—it spotlights how consequential intellectual property ownership can be in the age of streaming and viral content. The question of whether 50 Cent’s team acquired the footage legally doesn’t hinge on headlines or moral outrage, but on the fine print of copyright law and contract terms that define who truly controls creative assets.

If you have a music and entertainment or copyright legal concern, contact our team today.