Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

My Footage Used In NBC Commercial Without Permission

If it is a commercial, find out who the production agency was, and contact them. They are the ones who got your material. Next option is the ad agency.
Make sure you write a short and simple email asking for compensation for the usage of your material. Take it from there. It is up to them to prove that they did not get it from your youtube channel.

It happened to me few times (with photos is common). Most of the time it is easier for them to pay, then to have you create problems with their client (agency or NBC).
 
Terry VerHaar said:
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.
Click to expand...

And how do You imagine doing that, Terry? Are You shure the place isn't booby-trapped and that You'd leave the place alive? :rofl:

All I'm talking about here is - prevention. Sanction is just...dumb, waste of time. :biggrin:
 
End of the day here's what can happen - you find out who at the network or outside the network produced the promo - you explain you saw your footage in it and it wasn't cleared - they go in their heads 'oh shit, somebody stuffed up'. You say no worries, I'll send you proof of ownership of the footage (releases, whatever you have) and an invoice and give them a reasonable non extortionate rate to clear the usage, and they pay you and add that to the budget (or budget of their next job as this one is likely locked) to ensure that no one above them finds out about the stuff up and blames them - then they figure out how the stuff up happened below them and yell at that person.

Because you are small time you want to make it as easy for them as possible because lawyering up is going to be more expensive than just getting paid a little something and presumably you have sustained no material financial loss through the use of this clip (otherwise I'd imagine you'd be way more mad and calling lawyers rather than asking on a forum).
Because they are doing network promos they don't want any problems going up the chain to either the network exec or agency the network uses to book the promo production work or whoever is the ultimate end 'client' for the production personnel - but if you are too demanding/difficult you might end up being portrayed as the problem rather than the people at their end who stuffed up.

Ultimately, the difficulty you face is tracking down the right person to talk to FIRST before explaining the issue - because you really want to try and find the person who is responsible for the clearances - not someone above them who will try and lay blame or someone below them who will try and scape goat/make excuses or simply has no authorisation over budget.
 
I recently worked on a production where the producer was ordering stock shots from one of the biggest stock providers... And things got a bit peculiar to say the least. Simply the stock shot provider sent us a bunch of shots to pick from as we requested "king Kong" like footage, black and white stuff with gorilla.... Now they sent us quite a lot of stuff and we finished the post and got the film together. Then when the producer contacts the stock provider and explain what shot was used and how much of it, where it would be shown and for how long and so on, simply to get the price for it. Then they write back and say that they simply don't have the rights for that clip as they don't know who has the copy write... Which is simply nuts... Then even more nuts. They offer an full coverage insurance, so if somebody claim the right for that gorilla clip they will cover all costs..... Or in other terms they will haul that thing trough courts etc with their lawyers until the owner of the clip simply gets tired, or atleast thats what I think is their strategy. And this was no small stockshot provider, simply its one of the absolute biggest.

I find that very odd they are simply stealing material and selling it. So possibly thats what happened here.
 
I notice the original poster has yet to weigh in for a bit...has anyone else see the promo? If I am right, there are 2 shots of his which together total about 4 frames (not that it matters) and the "ad" is online, I don't know if it has "aired" (whatever that means these days) on TV.
 
Last edited:
I have no idea of what happened here but it seems as if someone, maybe the dancer in the video in question (?), submitted their video in order to enter the dance contest being promoted in the commercial. In which case, the network might have had her sign a release that she was the legal owner of the video in question.

Like I said, I have no knowledge whatsoever of the relationship between our OP and the dancer in the video but that does seem plausible.
 
If we're taking bets mine is on "poorly marked temp track reaching the final". Agency probably sent the editor an FPO clip that was supposed to be replaced for the final spot but wasn't caught. That's why everybody has "Errors and Omissions" insurance. It's tough to keep track of what's what. We had to make a quick call just the other day when someone thanked us for the great work on a project... that wasn't finished yet... and still had FPO material in the review material :D.
 
Scot Yount said:
I notice the original poster has yet to weigh in for a bit...has anyone else see the promo? If I am right, there are 2 shots of his which together total about 4 frames (not that it matters) and the "ad" is online, I don't know if it has "aired" (whatever that means these days) on TV.
Click to expand...

OP here! I've been in contact with them and they're offering close to nothing for it. They pulled the spot from their site but it's already been seen millions of times and I have the screenshots to prove it. Can't really go into the details of my next few actions, but I'm sure you can imagine where it's headed.
 
Tim Milgram said:
OP here! I've been in contact with them and they're offering close to nothing for it. They pulled the spot from their site but it's already been seen millions of times and I have the screenshots to prove it. Can't really go into the details of my next few actions, but I'm sure you can imagine where it's headed.
Click to expand...
.

The spot is still there, they just edited out your frames...it appears.
 
Björn Benckert said:
I recently worked on a production where the producer was ordering stock shots from one of the biggest stock providers... And things got a bit peculiar to say the least. Simply the stock shot provider sent us a bunch of shots to pick from as we requested "king Kong" like footage, black and white stuff with gorilla.... Now they sent us quite a lot of stuff and we finished the post and got the film together. Then when the producer contacts the stock provider and explain what shot was used and how much of it, where it would be shown and for how long and so on, simply to get the price for it. Then they write back and say that they simply don't have the rights for that clip as they don't know who has the copy write... Which is simply nuts... Then even more nuts. They offer an full coverage insurance, so if somebody claim the right for that gorilla clip they will cover all costs..... Or in other terms they will haul that thing trough courts etc with their lawyers until the owner of the clip simply gets tired, or atleast thats what I think is their strategy. And this was no small stockshot provider, simply its one of the absolute biggest.

I find that very odd they are simply stealing material and selling it. So possibly thats what happened here.
Click to expand...

Yeo, that is the sort of thing that happens in exploitive lawyered up businesses, you guys would be nuts if you thougt that doesn't happen. They were even trying to pass a law so that footage they couldn't find the owner of, after something like 5 years, they can use. They try to block political talj, but political cinh up and joining other groups on their issues to present a common ticket of support is the way to go. When major parties at some level see support being is split and competing representatives getting into power, people in the party start complaining to the party, so the party gets lot vated to stop bleeding. If you take all the 1% interests and support just the acceptable teams from them, you might have a 20% block that can swing a seat, but when you get the public onside with the reasonable requests you can get people outside of the two party system. As it all depends on actually being in power, the party has to choose from its dodgey benefactors and the voters, to avoid loosing power in upset defeats. Maybe I'll apply this in the party I'm in.

Now, if you had money (there is probably industry insurance against this sort of situation) If they have some sort of coverage, approach suing somebody in some way who/that is not covered, and injunction/sue against the policy as supporting enforcing an illegal activity month grounds of being an illegal contract (if you can, I'm speaking from foreign law) get your insurance, industry body to support it, in such a way that immediately the insurance company can not represent, support, or fund such a court case bent on illegally enabling copyright infringement, so as to put all funding of court action back onto the perputatir, forcing them and the insurance company into setteling outside the court to svpid the embarresing case. The other thing is an injunction on the usevof the commercial and show it is based upon. At kesst that is what I would look into if I were a lawyer nbsuch a csee, to see how much if that stuffhas flown before,will fly, or might fly, but you would have to see a proper legal professional to get real if, could, would answers, because it is like how long is a peuce of strung in a balls of oeuces of string with legal interpretation.
 
Scot Yount said:
I notice the original poster has yet to weigh in for a bit...has anyone else see the promo? If I am right, there are 2 shots of his which together total about 4 frames (not that it matters) and the "ad" is online, I don't know if it has "aired" (whatever that means these days) on TV.
Click to expand...

If it is 4 frames out of 30 a second, it probably matters and not to be worth too much worrying about past some amount and recognition. See that nofilmschool article on fair use. It might violate fair use according to something there, or not. In the early 80's there was a copy right care where James Bruwn and others sued people behind a famous songs that used short sounds from him and others as parts of the song, altogether collectively the sounds of everybody were pivotal and major part of the song, and used a fair bit. But getting a lawyer to 'have a go' on a if maybe, is paradise for lawyers, they are legends if they win it on their 1% or less hunch, and the other times have your money. Something that is pretty close to fair use I wouldn't get too xiyed about. It is not like they are putting a real show on TV where your seen is pivotal in four scenes on air for a total of one to four minutes. In that case you go, hold on, you want to pay me how little, (politely). :)
 
A pal of mine who used to run a stock footage business had a terrible story that happened to him in the 1990s: he negotiated with a big production company to let them use some of their material for a network TV music special. The edit kept changing and changing all the way up to air time, and he kept calling and trying to get paid for the shots. Their response was, "we're not sure your material is going to be in the final show, so hang on for a few days." He wasn't too worried, since he had the foresight to burn in timecode and the name of his company at the bottom of the frame as a spoiler.

Eventually the show aired... and his shots were used in the finished show! The producer opted to just blow up the shots in order to avoid revealing the timecode and company name. My friend was livid and called the company the next day, and the producer kind of shrugged and said, "well, we would've given you the $5000 you wanted, but the material looked terrible." My friend retorted, "I have perfect-quality copies of these clips -- these were temporary versions just for viewing purposes only! If you had just asked, we could've shipped over perfect copies in an hour!" The guy was non-plussed and said, "we'll pay you $1000, take it or leave it, or you could go ahead and try to sue us." My friend eventually opted to take the $1000.

What he and his company did from that moment on was to superimpose a very light version of his logo THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE FRAME, so there's no way to blow the image up and eliminate it. Getty Images and some of the major stock footage houses do the same thing nowadays.
 
They should get an industry sponsored organisation to name and shame on the web, and they can try to sue an organisation with no assets, that can be replaced next day by a completely new organisation, until the legal action pans out to show them the frauds they were.

I saw a name like that on the list I'd be wanting to distance ever sending work their way. Note, it would have to be a clear open and shut serious case, otherwise they might have grounds to win in a counter legal action.

Just an idea that a industry organisation would have to mull over with a proper lawyer first.

This stuff really annoys me.
 
Wayne Morellini said:
If it is 4 frames out of 30 a second, it probably matters and not to be worth too much worrying about past some amount and recognition. See that nofilmschool article on fair use. It might violate fair use according to something there, or not. In the early 80's there was a copy right care where James Bruwn and others sued people behind a famous songs that used short sounds from him and others as parts of the song, altogether collectively the sounds of everybody were pivotal and major part of the song, and used a fair bit. But getting a lawyer to 'have a go' on a if maybe, is paradise for lawyers, they are legends if they win it on their 1% or less hunch, and the other times have your money. Something that is pretty close to fair use I wouldn't get too xiyed about. It is not like they are putting a real show on TV where your seen is pivotal in four scenes on air for a total of one to four minutes. In that case you go, hold on, you want to pay me how little, (politely). :)
Click to expand...

Actually it's about 12 frames out of a 15 second commercial. Regardless, it's my clip and lots of friends are contacting me saying they saw my footage in the promo.
 
Tim Milgram said:
Actually it's about 12 frames out of a 15 second commercial. Regardless, it's my clip and lots of friends are contacting me saying they saw my footage in the promo.
Click to expand...

They've just defecated their own karma in the root of their project and gave you publicity and recognition, so if the outcome doesn't turn out as you planned don't get worked up too much. Everything returns for payback eventually and some with yet undeveloped moral compass just have to learn the hard way.
 
Dan Kanes said:
Check YouTube end user license agreement carefully.

Depending on your selection of publication settings it may very well have been set to "Creative Commons"
Click to expand...

+1, as I said before, the YouTube licensing might fe granting some permission. But look up fair use article to also see how people are allowed to use it. This is based on the law and how it has been upheld innreal life. It is tutslly possible they don't have a leg to stand on legally by the way it was presented. But variiuse parts of the law are rubbery, so that people are not fully compensated.

Don't depend on people that advocate they can get as much free use as they can get hold of, or alternatively, as little, that is not the way it works, but that is what people of either side will talk like. The truth is invetwern, but until people find out where it is
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top