My Footage Used In NBC Commercial Without Permission

[Wayne Morellini]

Read that wiki link, seems like a big con job to circumnavigate the treaty while still trying to maintain their previous registration system to their advantage. This is not civilised.

 

[Nick Morrison]

Networks almost always license footage used on Youtube. They try and avoid legal imbroglio's as much as possible.

 

[Scot Yount]

Networks almost always license footage used on Youtube. They try and avoid legal imbroglio's as much as possible.

Not for news...

 

[Wayne Morellini]

The networks have no agreements with Youtube. They just don't.

Would be pretty cheap to do. YouTube has had enough similar legal issues they try to get around and have done similar deals for their use. It is all rubbish anyway, it should go to author ownership model and the publisher gets a cut to use it, only really fair thing.

 

[Wayne Morellini]

So do they or font they? Maybe the network has the limited use agreement rather then news, so news don't have to worry about it every time they use YouTube, but pay automatically or x hours of footage per year (those would he the simple licensing models). If that was the case, nobody woupd really know about it except administration.

 

[Jeffery Anderson]

I think the idea of profiteering off another person's work is always going to be a lawsuit, copyright or not.

Fair use law, yes, but that doesn't cover businesses using your creative endeavours as their property, which is what is going in this case.

I think the argument could be made; that they are devaluing your property, by using it in a public form, or reusing it without compensation; even more so, because you're a professional, the video is for sale, if they choose to purchase it.

 

[Blair S. Paulsen]

With the avalanche of user created material on platforms like YouTube the network may simply be harvesting whatever they like with the assumption that few will even be aware of the re-use. Since you are, I would submit evidence that you are the creator of the material and request payment. You will want to determine the going rate and with any luck they will simply pay the licensing fee and move on, they have no real interest in wasting time or legal resources on such matters. While I agree that getting advice from someone familiar with such arrangements is wise, I'm less sure the cost of a lawyer will be worth the bite they would take out of whatever you can get from the network.

I do agree that the use of your material in a promotional capacity is far different than news or satire, so you have a right to get paid. My advice is simply to pursue that payment in the simplest way possible, cash the check and move on.

Cheers - #19

 

[Nick Morrison]

Not for news...

I'm sure that's different.

But for a network promo that's SELLING a show?

None of my promo clients would DREAM of stealing from Youtube. They clear EVERYTHING.

In my experience, the networks will ALWAYS pay.

What happened with Tim was probably an oversight, an innocent mistake. His shot's may have been in the rough cut, they got rushed to make air, and someone forgot to clear them.

 

[Thomas Akira Nakasone]

In the past, I had a similar issue...I thought the people who used my footage were dirt bags...only thing was someone else (the real dbag) had stolen the work - and sold as if it was their own. So NBC may not be be to blame.

 

[Nick Morrison]

In the past, I had a similar issue...I thought the people who used my footage were dirt bags...only thing was someone else (the real dbag) had stolen the work - and sold as if it was their own. So NBC may not be be to blame.

Good point. Hadn't considered this.

 

[Sabovic Adis]

Just for the record, publishing something does not put it in the public domain. (...)

Of course it does! Publishing is puting it in public domain. :biggrin:
Think: "Everything You say can and will be used...".
You don't even have to look for "official" Publisher. :rofl:

 

[Tom Dowler]

Of course it does! Publishing is puting it in public domain. :biggrin:
Think: "Everything You say can and will be used...".
You don't even have to look for "official" Publisher. :rofl:

nope. not even slightly.

Public domain is a very specific term that applies to things that are outside copyright, usually because a certain length of time has passed since the death of the original copyright holder.

 

[Sabovic Adis]

nope. not even slightly.

Public domain is a very specific term that applies to things that are outside copyright, usually because a certain length of time has passed since the death of the original copyright holder.

Think this post is privat property?

:biggrin:

 

[Brad Allen]

Another possibility:

Someone else stole the work from your youtube channel, posted it on a stock website and NBC licensed the stock from that website. This actually seems the most likely in my mind as it would be very strange for an organisation as large as NBC to just be taking works without permission for promos of their own programs.

At least if you contact NBC they may be able to find where they sourced the clip, and you may be able to track down some dirty content creator that's actually just stealing the work of others and posting it as their own without permission - and making money from it!

Makes an even stronger case for not starting off hostile with NBC. If they love your work enough they may want throw you more in the future!

 

[Terry VerHaar]

Think this post is privat property?

:biggrin:

So you work under the idea that "possession is 9/10 the law" right? So if I break into your house when you aren't around and steal your beloved RED camera, you would be cool with my keeping it as my own?

I get the point that you seem to be trying to make (I think), but it isn't really helpful.

 

[Jacob Ryan]

You've nailed it right on the head. Public domain is a very specific legal term.

nope. not even slightly.

Public domain is a very specific term that applies to things that are outside copyright, usually because a certain length of time has passed since the death of the original copyright holder.

 

[Scot Yount]

I'm sure that's different.
What happened with Tim was probably an oversight, an innocent mistake. His shot's may have been in the rough cut, they got rushed to make air, and someone forgot to clear them.

This is probably right. I have on many occasions in commercial work been asked to lift video and audio from the nether reaches of the web that is supposed to show the client what we are aiming for, but it always gets replaced. Or it is supposed to. Nick, did you see the promo he is talking about? If you did you might understand why somebody missed it, if that is what happened. I would wonder whether one of the dancers in the video might be part of NBC's upcoming show and identified video of them that Tim shot, simply because a producer asked whether they had any pictures of them dancing. Could be way off here.

 

[Blair S. Paulsen]

Been on many projects that used "temp" assets as placeholders. Whatever happened; you made it, they aired it. Prove that and ask for payment. Badda boom, badda bing

Cheers - #19

 

[Wayne Morellini]

With the avalanche of user created material on platforms like YouTube the network may simply be harvesting whatever they like with the assumption that few will even be aware of the re-use. Since you are, I would submit evidence that you are the creator of the material and request payment. You will want to determine the going rate and with any luck they will simply pay the licensing fee and move on, they have no real interest in wasting time or legal resources on such matters. While I agree that getting advice from someone familiar with such arrangements is wise, I'm less sure the cost of a lawyer will be worth the bite they would take out of whatever you can get from the network.

I do agree that the use of your material in a promotional capacity is far different than news or satire, so you have a right to get paid. My advice is simply to pursue that payment in the simplest way possible, cash the check and move on.

Cheers - #19

Maybe a website put up with the legals of this situation maybe.

What I meant was some legal advice, wherever published for free or in person, maybe stating what court law allow (from case history) and the going rate, and start from there. Once you start getting a lawyer to research your case, draw up and send letters and agreements, it will cost a lot. If you find a not so good legal professional outside copyright, they are not going to sit with you and tell you your options in one session (options including what the network can get away with). So costly.

In the past, I had a similar issue...I thought the people who used my footage were dirt bags...only thing was someone else (the real dbag) had stolen the work - and sold as if it was their own. So NBC may not be be to blame.

Tim,

Have you read your contract with Google? It will contain services clauses as to how they can use your footage, and being a publisher I imagine they might claim sales rights. It goes downhill from there. That is what I was getting at before. So worth to read their service agreement pages (which maybe dynamically upgradable, as is the case these days. The age of appearances of restriction in what companies can do rather than actual restrictions. Which the courts should rule as unfair parts of contracts).

 

[Hrvoje Simic]

1) Contact
2) Prove ownership and ask reimbursement
3) Get written confirmation what the payment is exactly covering, licence type/ time span of airing of your material
4) If someone is acting dumb and desires to wiggle out contact lawyer


Also, putting something online shares the material with others but there are rules, laws and rights which cover the usage of other's published works.