I would agree with DaveT2 on this for the start - have they made an offer? AP, and other agiences, will offer a low price most of the time unless it is something "exclusive" and is of some major event - ie: Bin Laden being captured. They could offer you $500 for a dub of the entire tape. On the other hand AP, and others, will charge 4 times more than that per second in some cases to re-rell the footage. So don't get ripped off.

Here is a perfect example, the NYPD released, for free, video shot by TARU on September 11, 2001 to media outlets. AP of course got this footage for free as well. Now AP will glady sell you this footage - at a per second rate, excluding dubbing fee. AP and others say these rates cover "research fees to locate the footage" and includes other fees (ie: licensing fees). I know TARU is not getting any licensing fee.

*note* - I am NOT by any means bad mouthing AP, however I wanted to point out that selling footage to any agency runs a risk of your footage being re-sold at a later date without your knowledge.

Bubblevision,

I am the owner of a Broadcast News Gathering and Disemination Service in Southern California. My Clients are Worldwide - Including all that you mention.

Stock Footage is also a Major Part of the business.

You may email me privately, if you wish - and I will help guide you.

Jay Mitchell
Newsshooter@hotmail.com

Thanks for the replies. They haven't made an offer yet. They're viewing the tape today. But the signs are positive since their junior man made an initial viewing yesterday.

In the distant past I gave footage to the BBC News etc for free (they "didn't have a budget for aquiring footage blah blah blah") and I just need some guidance so I don't get ripped off this time.

Jay, I'll email you.

A very well known commercial service that I sometimes do work for charges businesses $240 per *still* picture for non-exckusive commercial use. Buying original video would have to be in the multi-thousand dollar range easily. The question is what rights you give them: exlcusive rights; limited time broadcast etc

I hope you can post again with the result - even a rough guide. It'd be most interesting....

The conclusion is quite eye-opening. I didn't hear anything back from them (Associated Press Television News) so yesterday I called them to try and find out why and to get my mini-DV tape back (in post-tsunami Phuket every little bit helps, believe me!).

They told me that they'd already edited the story and posted it on their satellite a few days ago for their subscribers (BBC, CNN etc..) to download and broadcast if they wished. I told them I understood I was to be contacted back about payment and contractual matters before broadcasting and their reply was that they thought I was an activist trying to get something done about the environment and that they assumed I wouldn't mind donating footage for free!!!!!

So I told them that's all well and good and actually I have to eat, and so they gave me 10,000 baht (260 US$). Doesn't sound like a lot but actually in my position I'm happy enough with for a short quick job like that. It's not going to fund a Z1 though, is it!

I also queried why they hadn't contacted me to sign a rights agreement and their reply was that they don't usually bother with that! ... and I though ATPN would be about as professional a customer as one could find. Ah well.

You're being way too nice! What if the tables had been turned? What do you think they would have done if you had taken their footage?

Jay

Wow man, you should have raised hell! I bet they use that line all the time as a "first denial", like an insurance company. If you had a lawyer call them and put their feet on the grill they probably would have coughed up a lot more!

Now that's pretty staggering. Not to make a big deal out of it BUT these guys would have whole departments devoted to clearance of copyright, I mean come on!
Look I know of one case down here where someone made an innocent mistake and used someone elses surfing footage in their product, we're talking stuff decades old and only a few minutes of it at that. It cost him $10K and he got out of it cheap.

I'm not saying what they're offering isn't fair or not but there is kind of a principal involved, if the big boys can't play by the rules it's pretty hard convincing the little guys to.

Bob.

I know I've been mistreated, and I know I should have kicked up a stink, but...

1. There was a guy involved with this project more than me who actually gave me the referral because he'd heard about my footage. He IS something of an activist and did an interview for free to go with the piece. He might have given them the wrong impression about the footage being cheap/free.

2. This may well lead to more work, either selling stuff I shoot in Phuket, or even being comissioned by them for jobs down here for which DV will do. There are very few outlets for my stuff here, particularly through companies like APTN where I can deal with westerners. So I didn't want to burn what might be an important bridge. I'm still a newbie in this industry.

3. Trying to launch my first proper DVD, the last thing I need is a lot of legal hassle!

Can$ here:
I asked a year ago to some guy who works in archives at the CBC. He told me a "usual" price for "usual stuff" would be $30 /second for footage used in the country, and you double that for international rights.
Now, I don't know if you release the rights for life in that case so they can use your shots forever. And about the procedure: you send a "burn-in" copy and you actually charge for used footage that you provide in full def. after they're set with the editing? I don't have all this kind of details since I asked just out of curiosity at that time...
I heard a couple years ago that for sports like hockey, prices can rocket to $125 a second if you want the "very good part" of the game, probably the winning goal in finals (?). Sources not confirmed though for that last one (since it's not a producer who told me that)(but I wouldn't be surprised that it's true since broadcasters usually have rights on this content and sell to competitors).
Seems it all depends of the footage: quality, originality, the "magic moment" on screen, etc... and your willing to share these seconds of recording.

The bottom line is, in my opinion: are you happy with the deal? Are you living out of this? Only you know the answer.

Thanks for letting us know the outcome. It's easy sitting 3000km to say "you should have done X"....

Hopefully you'll be able to sell some more footage at a commercial rate.

This may well lead to more work, either selling stuff I shoot in Phuket, or even being comissioned by them for jobs down here for which DV will do. There are very few outlets for my stuff here, particularly through companies like APTN where I can deal with westerners. So I didn't want to burn what might be an important bridge. I'm still a newbie in this industry.

Please, don't take this the wrong way, but such thinking and allowing people to take unfair/unlawful advantage shows how much of a "newbie" you are. Your actions/attitude have proven, to AP anyway, that you're new and naive, neither of which the people you're wanting to get work from find endearing. This all translates into "he's not a professional, find someone who is."

The fact is, and there are tons of books and articles written on this, if you want to be treated as a professional, then you must behave as a professional.

Although what Futz says is true, if you're happy... but, under the circumstances, it isn't being very realistic. Still, in the end, the choice is yours.

Jay

Being a newbie should never ever equal the right for any company to take advantage of you. I don't know how much footage you gave them but they will charge a hell of a lot more than the amount they paid you per minute. I know a viewing copy of footage (with window burn) was going for $200. After you slecet your footage they would quote you rates per minute, 30 second minimum, depending on what rights you needed. They for sure get the better end of the deal.

Look at your new resume and see that your footage has been sold to AP and used around the world.

You are a professional news videographer.

Wow. Sounds good to me.

Speechless, or almost. Incredible , amazing , uh uh ,,,ok speechless.

Hey Bubblevision,

Just wanted to say good job on your footage being aired (however the situation transpired). Hope the same for you, more work to come.Ü

Jay Gladwell, I'm sure APTN would not have found me any more endearing if I'd had a shouting match with them and then got a lawyer involved.

As far as I'm concerned I acted as professionally as I could and I was amazed to find out that my stuff had been used without proper negotiation. I then made a decision to take their after-the-event offer and go and get on with my day job. Let's face it, once they'd sold it they've got all the power is in their hands UNLESS I want to kick up a stink and get a lawyer involved. In this case I didn't think it was worth it. Perhaps this makes me seem naive but never mind, if they want to commission me in the future, or buy footage, they'll pay the proper rate.

By the way this isn't the first time this has happened. In 1998 (when I was even greener) I took footage of Titanic's sister ship "Britannic". The footage was shown on BBC news in the UK. I got nothing for it, AND did an interview for them. When I asked about payment their line was "We're a news show so we don't have a budget for actually buying stories".

I did however sell footage from that expedition to documentary/drama companies and one of them paid $500 for 5 seconds. So the news shows seem to take the p*ss more than most.

Futz, your CBS figures are very useful for next time! Thank you.

I'd love to hear from people WHO HAVE ACTUALLY SOLD FOOTAGE to news broadcasters or whoever, who'd be willing to divulge how much they were paid for it.

$20

Any advance on $20 folks?

Bubblevision,

Obviously, You are an Expert Diver and Underwater Videograhpher. But, Unfortunately - - You are Very Green at Disseminating Your Highly Valuable Footage to the Right Entities, at the Right Price and in the Right Contractual Manner.

Hopefully, We can fix that!

I Know Many Artists, Actors, Musicians, Photographers, Videographers and Freelance Video Editors - - who suffer from the following syndrome. It is a Very Difficult Process to be The Talent or Artistic Creator of a Project and at the same time - - Be A Good Salesman, Negotiator and Pricing Agent of your own, Talents and Works. That's why Actors and Musicians, have Agents. And, so do some Smart Photographers and Videographers.

So, Your Fear of Offending APTN - Amuses Me, Highly! It seems to go with the territory - that some Very Creative People end up Grossly Underestimating the Value of Their Own Talents, Works and Time. While those they aim to please - - Will Clearly Take Advantage of them. It has been said that "One Man's Ceiling is Another Man's Floor". But, this is all part of the learning curve.

Consider This: The APTN, BBC, CNN and All of the Other Broadcast News Networks, Outlets and Content Providers - - Exist to make Money. They make their money by Producing, Broadcasting, Publishing and Disseminating News Content to "Associates", "Affiliates", "Networks" and Various News Channels. And, To Each Other! Then, that Content is Further Disseminated out to Thousands of More Subscribers, Worldwide. Those Subscribers Pay Money for the Rights to Use that News Content. Those Subscribers - don't get Ownership Rights of the Content. They only get Rights to Use it in a Prescribed Manner - - According to their Licensing Contract with AP- - or the Others. Believe me - - There are those, who are going to profit highly - from your footage.

However, In Your Case - - You have Given Up All of Your Rights and Future Control of Your Artistic Copyrighted Material - - For Peanuts! You did this - - by Selling It, Outright - - instead of - - Licensing it! Now that AP owns the rights to your Footage - - they can License it out for Future Broadcast Productions and Motion Pictures as Stock Footage. Or, even sell their rights to it - - as they please. And, even though you are happy with the outcome - -You were taken advantage of by those with more business savvy, then yourself. And, Let's say that you manage to get your tape back - - You will find that they are now your Chief Competitor - - to Market, Your Footage.

Your head would spin - - If I told you of the Potential Usefulness and Worldwide Demand For - Tsunami Underwater Video, like yours.

Had you contacted me, first - - I could have Represented Your Footage Interests. And, Utilized All of My Resources, Tools, Knowledge and Expertise to License that Footage to News Outlets - - Around the World . And, Independently of Each Other - - And, Brought in Thousands of Dollars in the Process. And, Thousands of More Dollars - - Down the Road, as Stock Footage. And, Still Maintain Your Copyright Ownership of it! So, If myself or another Licensing Agent could have brought in $10,000 in Licensing Rights - - Would You be better off - - With half of that - - Or, $260 ?

That's What a Footage Agent - Like Me - Does! My Company has Shot, Produced and Licensed More then Twenty Two Thousand Full Featured News Video Stories, around the World. I Provide and Place News Video and Stock Footage to the Rights Managed Market.

If You or Anyone Else is Not in The News Gathering, Dissemination and Stock Footage Business - - You would be wise in the future to check with a Footage Agent - - before settling for Peanuts.

There are others like me, out there - - that do what I do. But, I have been told by those that matter most in the Industry - - that I am One of the Best of the Best.

So, at least at the Minimum - Do Not Sell Your Footage - License it - Instead!

Jay Mitchell

$25 per second--non-exclusive, one-time use.

Jay

Jay,

Do you think bubblevision has any other options to rectify the situation with APTN? Would it do anything to go to APTN legal department or somewhere higher up the food AP's food chaing and say, they used my footage without permission and presold it and then after the fact forced this bad contract on me? Considering the first actions taken by APTN put them at legal risk, it might be something that higher-level executives might want to clean up and put right.

It's cool that we have a resource like you on this board.