Should RED pay using footage in their showreel?

[MichaelHalsell]

The Autodesk submission process allows work to be submitted and presented with a company's logo watermark. Seems simple and a fair exchange.

 

[Jean-Charles Wolfarth]

I simply regret that this forum has turned to be a Pravda Red Community, where's anyone with a different opinion is just "moved on"...

I would also have liked to get Red's official statement of its professional use of these pictures instead of his soldiers so prompt to defend Red.

 

[Nick Shaw]

Surely it is in the nature of a showreel that copyright holders are not paid for the use of material. It is perfectly normal for somebody who was involved in a production to include excerpts from it in a showreel, even though they do not personally own the copyright or pay for the usage. They simply make sure the copyright holder is happy for it to be used in a reel.

 

[Robert Frank]

I simply regret that this forum has turned to be a Pravda Red Community, where's anyone with a different opinion is just "moved on"...

I would also have liked to get Red's official statement of its professional use of these pictures instead of his soldiers so prompt to defend Red.

:jacked:
This is a call for submissions to the RED Reel. Are you saying you don't understand how this works, or that you simply disagree with using footage on a RED Reel?

Jean-Charles, I think it's OK to discuss your thoughts about this but I think this is the wrong place for it, and deserves it's own thread.

Can the MODERATORS split this stuff off into a separate off-topic thread?

 

[Johnny Friday]

I simply regret that this forum has turned to be a Pravda Red Community, where's anyone with a different opinion is just "moved on"...

I would also have liked to get Red's official statement of its professional use of these pictures instead of his soldiers so prompt to defend Red.

....Jean-Chsarles--it's so time to move on! you've made your point and your opinion clear! thanks, NEXT

 

[Peter Matthes]

Jean-Charles,

You are :beatdeadhorse5:

It's really very simple.

If you don't want to submit footage, then don't do so.

If you feel that anyone's copyright have been violated, and they lack the voice to complain, you can always represent them in a legal case vs. RED.

Come on Jean-Charles, don't be a pussy ;-)

If someone feels that their footage has been used without proper clearance or permission, they will speak for themselves. That, I can assure you. I really don't think they need you doing it for them.

 

[David Battistella]

This has been an interesting thread. I have to say that it does bring up some interesting broader issues not directly related to this thread but related to copyright and ownership.

This is a very important issue NOT RELATED TO THIS THREAD but because photography and cinematography are merging and the RED poses an interesting change.

-photographers are used to owning every image they snap.
-cinematographers are not it's usually owned by the production.

Maybe lets to take this to the off topic forum here:

http://reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?p=620681#post620681


As i think there is a valid discussion in here somewhere, just not pertaining to this RED request for images for their reel.

David

 

[Tim Bird]

... you rarely find footage shot by lonely Red owners but mainly footage which testifies of a lot of work behind the camera, mostly feature films.

The quality and application of production shown (feature films, stunts, etc. as you've noted) is a testament to the viability of the camera for VERY high end, professional, commercial work... exactly what a REEL is supposed to show. If the RED REEL was made of "flowers, babies, dogs, landscapes shots" it would NOT strongly support the premise that the camera is ready for professional use.

... if you pretend to be pro... you should pay for the usage of the footage...

1) RED is not "pretending" to be anything... they are PROVING it.

2) Since you have crew and actors working for you for free this may be a non-sequiter, but if you did pay talent for the job (making the movie) would YOU then pay them again to include a sample of that movie on your reel or website? I thought not.

3) If the RED REEL itself is not offered for sale as a standalone product then no revenue can be attributed to the reel itself. Therefore, no payments should be expected from the contributors.

4) When you get your own booth at NATPE or Showcom, be sure to pay each of your crew and talent AGAIN for the use of the promotional material you exhibit. What's that? You can't afford to get your own booth? Then perhaps you are not in the league of the professionals you are asking favors of.

Best of luck to you... with your attitude, I suspect you'll need every bit of it.

 

[Jean-Charles Wolfarth]

The quality and application of production shown (feature films, stunts, etc. as you've noted) is a testament to the viability of the camera for VERY high end, professional, commercial work... exactly what a REEL is supposed to show. If the RED REEL was made of "flowers, babies, dogs, landscapes shots" it would NOT strongly support the premise that the camera is ready for professional use.



1) RED is not "pretending" to be anything... they are PROVING it.

2) Since you have crew and actors working for you for free this may be a non-sequiter, but if you did pay talent for the job (making the movie) would YOU then pay them again to include a sample of that movie on your reel or website? I thought not.

3) If the RED REEL itself is not offered for sale as a standalone product then no revenue can be attributed to the reel itself. Therefore, no payments should be expected from the contributors.

4) When you get your own booth at NATPE or Showcom, be sure to pay each of your crew and talent AGAIN for the use of the promotional material you exhibit. What's that? You can't afford to get your own booth? Then perhaps you are not in the league of the professionals you are asking favors of.

Best of luck to you... with your attitude, I suspect you'll need every bit of it.

Well, all this just proves the misunderstanding of copyrights and contracts in the professional world.

When you're a producer/director and you hire an actor/a technician/etc... you make them sign in return a contract which states the rights and possibilities of using their work and image. So no, if you've done things right, you don't pay them again.

As a producer, you have a final product, let's say a feature film ,which is the most glorious state (I'm finishing one right now, and there aren't a lot of Red owners who could say that - sorry guys, I'm not really interested in Stock shots even if every work deserves respect - if you think i'm considering myself superior, well, just do a feature film, and we'll discuss later). This feature film required a lot of time and money to make. When you've got a third-party person or company, let's say Red, who would like to use some pictures of this feature film, they're using all this work for their promotion to increase their sales. That's called advertising and usually pros are paid for this.

So, in a pro world, using someone else's work requires payment. And knowing Jim's fortune, well, I think giving all the contributors $100 for 30 seconds of work would be fair and a real testimony of all the work involved.

Sorry to be one of the fews who take 2 years to make a movie.

And yes, making movies require luck, a lot of luck. And when I'll start my second feature, some of you will be glad to send me a quote for a 2-months rental of their gear, at $500 per day, even if they think I'm a complete asshole.

 

[Zac C]

Just think of it as, you are making a feature on the MX, and you are shooting this superb shot of a space-shuttle taking off, you watch the shot over and over again, because it was overcranked and looks fantastic.... No matter if it cost you $500 for a plane ticket, wouldn't you want to have other people get the same feeling, of humanity, and so much power?

You are being given a camera for ~$40k that destroys images (In a lot of cases) of camera 2-5times as expensive... wouldn't you want to show the world what you can get for less?

 

[Ketch Rossi]

Sorry, but I just simply don't get neither your post or your attitude towards letting few seconds of your work be showcased.

I have done this plenty, and so have others, it is not all about making money, is also about sharing, and giving, but off ocurse it seems that you just simply don't fit in this category.

 

[Jean-Charles Wolfarth]

This discussion has been moved to the "Complaint department" without my consent by Martin Weiss. It wasn't at all my purpose when I simply asked if the pictures used by Red in their showreel was paid or not. It's not a complaint from me, just an observation that it should be.

No Zac, because even if I'm used to working for free, I don't like my work to be used for free everytime, especially by a company run by a millionnaire.

And people aren't being given a $40K, they're BUYING a camera. They're clients.

And Ketch, that's great for you. Where can I see your feature work ?

I'm done for this, I think it's impossible for people who don't finance themselves their projects (feature films) to understand this.

 

[Ketch Rossi]

You can see it any time by using Google, and I have and will continue to assist and share and give were and when I can, even to you, that is how I roll ;~)

I receive and take with pleasure from those wiling too give, but I do share, give and assist even with greater pleasure.

That is the all purpose of a Community, isn't it? Helping each other out in any way we can?

If you have material that you can share you do, if you don't and can't afford time and r money to create some, you don't, that simple really.

This community has given each of us so much thru the years that I don't see a problem continuing to take and give, especially when is Jim himself asking, since He is the one that has been giving the most, but I would gladly, as I have done, do the same for any other fellow Reduser asking so.

 

[Allan Stallard]

Hey Jean-Charles, I understand what you are saying, however I don't think you have the proper view of the big picture. Having some of your footage in a RED reel is far more valuable than the $100 you mention. We have submitted footage this way for other companies too. Autodesk for finishing and effects, Scratch for color grading, you could submit for just about any products reel. This is common practice and most people feel it's a great deal for all. I hope you get a chance reach this conclusion someday.

Peace

 

[Jay Gannon]

And Ketch, that's great for you. Where can I see your feature work ?

Check out Steve Gibby and Dino's work both of which has been included in the Reels in the past, I think I can say that both of them have made more with their RED than the rest of us put together.

As for your comments on your feature film, well to assume that noone here has shot and produced a feature is well just willfully ignorant. There are many people on this forum who's resumes are both long and whos movies have made billions for their producers.

 

[Peter Majtan]

This discussion has been moved to the "Complaint department" without my consent by Martin Weiss.

Martin does not need Your "consent" to do anything on this board. If You haven't notice he is a Moderator and that is what Moderators do...:

From WIKIPEDIA
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forum_moderator#Moderator

Moderator
The moderators (short singular form: "mod") are users (or employees) of the forum who are granted access to the posts and threads of all members for the purpose of moderating discussion (similar to arbitration) and also keeping the forum clean (neutralizing spam and spambots etc.).[18] . Because they have access to all posts and threads in their area of responsibility, it is common for a friend of the site owner to be promoted to moderator for such a task. Moderators also answer users' concerns about the forum, general questions, as well as respond to specific complaints. They also can do anything to lend a helping hand to a user in need.[19] Moderators themselves may have ranks: some may be given mod privileges over only a particular topic or section, while others (called 'global' or 'super') may be allowed access anywhere. Common privileges of moderators include: deleting, merging, moving, and splitting of posts and threads, locking, renaming, stickying of threads, banning, suspending, unsuspending, unbanning, warning the members, or adding, editing, removing the polls of threads.[20] 'Junior Modding' or 'Backseat Modding' can refer negatively to the behavior of ordinary users who take a moderator-like tone in criticizing other members.

After re-reading all this discussion I came to conclusion that You are just venting Your frustration from Your team's performance on the Worldcup. Otherwise You are borderline troll - no offense...

Peter

 

[Liam Hall]

Well, all this just proves the misunderstanding of copyrights and contracts in the professional world.

Hey Jean-Charles, I visited your website. Nice photography and nice music on one those films of yours, "Gymnopédie No.1" if I'm not mistaken. Did you pay Erik Satie for the use of his track?

 

[Jason Beckwith]

This thread is un-Fing-believable to me.

As a DP that makes a living shooting HVX talking heads for corporate industrials, I had to stretch my finances to get a Red camera. I have a barely workable set up that is 100% self financed. I have had my Red for a year and a half, and have yet to make a dime on it. Maybe it's because I'm more of a creative individual, than business oriented. Maybe I just suck at networking, or my availability is too limited to take last minute calls. But I digress...

I've shot short films, sporting events and donated my time. I shoot on DSLR glass, and am forced to use creative means to get the best lighting possible, without the pro gear that high budget projects have access to. I am ecstatic that I can shoot images that rival those on the screen at my local theatre. I have personally thanked Jim for making my camera. If he hadn't, I would never be able to afford to shoot personal projects on such high quality gear.

As an unknown in 'the industry', I'm trying to do everything that I can possibly do to get my work noticed. Originally, I was angry about not having the chance to participate in this because my camera has yet to be called in for a MX upgrade. I would absolutely love to have my work showcased, and my name associated with this company's products and services.

I've read in this thread that no one who has self-financed a picture could understand giving their work away for free. I've been to the last 10 NAB conferences, and I can't tell you how many DVDs I've bought, or how many movies and shorts I've seen after the show, because I sat and watched a tutorial given by artist showing how they accomplished something using a specific software or hardware package. I'm sure these people aren't being paid for having their work showcased, and my specifically purchasing their film puts money directly in their pocket. For instance, at the last Red day, Adobe was showing off CS5 using footage from Squaw: The Documentary. I'd never heard of the film before, but now I have interest in seeing it.

As one of the Executive Producers on Project Arbiter (see link in signature below), I know all too well what it means to self-finance a film. As a home owner and father of two, I know full well what sacrifices need to be made in order to be an owner/operator of expensive gear. The exposure of having one shot from our film in the Red Reel could potentially open up possibilities that I can barely dream of, if the right person sees it, and takes an interest in our work. The potential benefit to someone in my position, and point in my career far outweigh any token sum given for usage rights in this case. The whole goal of the exercise is to secure funding for the feature version. Hopefully my sacrifices will pay off some day.

My main goal right now, is to move from industrials to narrative film-making. Getting our project showcased around, gaining visibility in professional circles is a priority for myself, and all of the people that volunteered to help our project.

I've followed Red since the beginning, and had to wait two years before I could afford my rig. I've followed these boards and seen people's careers flourish based on exposure that they got as early adopters, and then early Red experts. Red has done, and continues to do a lot for the careers of these early adopters by giving back to those that have supported this company.

IMHO, these are the types of posts that have slowed the amount of forum participation by the principals of this company. I've witnessed Jim skip over 15 post praising something that he (or his company) have done and respond passionately and emotionally to the one negative comment that followed. He truly cares about this stuff, and that's worthy of respect.

As for Jim being a billionaire and owning his own island... WTF does that have to do with anything. As far as I know, he's self made. I remember the Oakley grips being the thing to have, back in the 70s. I have no doubt that to get to that point to quite a bit of sacrifice and hard work on his part. Not to mention his photographing all of the ads. As far as I can tell, he's earned everything he has, and I respect that a lot more than someone who's had everything handed to him. The fact that he doesn't have to do this at all, but still does, is amazing to me. He could probably afford to have the cameras made for his own personal use, and not even bother with selling them to the public. He doesn't owe anything to me or to you.

Wanting to be paid a trifling amount for what could potentially reap many rewards is one of the stupidest things that I've read on this board in a long time.

People that continually 'want, want, want' piss me off. Now if you will excuse me, I'm going to go back to editing my industrials so that I can afford the MX upgrade when my number is called, make the budget for my next Red project and participate in the next Red Reel.

 

[Felix K.]

I think there is a difference between borrowing and using a camera which then gets used and thus loses value (or creates costs for repair and maintenance) and allowing someone to use pictures that you've shot already for a movie or a commercial or something like that and which has been paid for by producers or clients (or an audience) already. It's simply not the same.

 

[Scott Crawley]

I don't see why the Red company, which is hold by a millionaire who owns an island, would get all this work for free.

The simple reason why is: Jim asked, and he knows enough folks who are willing to give him ample ass kicking footage to fill his reel without being paid. It's about good relationships and simple supply and demand.

I truly understand your frustration. People ask me for donations of money and product almost every day, and almost every client I ever worked for tried or hoped to get my product for as little cost to themselves as possible. You just can't take it personally. It's not about you, and it isn't always about the quality of the work. It's just the way things work.

The Red reel is altogether different. Jim isn't asking you specifically to work for free, so why are you concerned about it? Do you think you are losing a sale here or something?

I simply regret that this forum has turned to be a Pravda Red Community, where's anyone with a different opinion is just "moved on"...

If you engage in a little discussion with Martin you are likely to find that he's a decent guy. It sounds like he had more than one lively discussion going on, and to allow both to continue unfettered, he spun this portion off. He could have deleted the entire secondary discussion to keep the thread on topic, but instead he showed enough tolerance and respect for the users involved to give the topic a life of it's own. It seems to me that he was doing you a favor.