And right out of the chute..

[ngjere]

I note that several weather and news organizations are asking chasers if they may use their photos/video on-air "with credit"

And I'm sure this has been talked about ad-nauseum in the past but, where do most stand on this? For one particular network it is almost as though they have an individual monitoring Twitter feeds during a severe weather event scouring for "media" and offering on air "credit" for the usage.

Personally? I find this approach tacky at best. To directly approach a chaser on-line and request their media for nothing more than an on-air credit is insulting. Make no mistake, these entities know very well how much you have invested in your chase systems.

And I'm seeing chase "teams" agree to usage. Whatever their motivation, I'm interested in where folks are at these days. And whether a resounding NO from the community at large will deliver a message that you don't get something for nothing. "Credit" in this day in age is about as tangible a "nothing" as one can get...

They're making a buck... Why shouldn't we?

 

[Jeff Duda]

I think at least some of the chasers agreeing to these kinds of terms are just ignorant of how the business works or should work. I admit to not really being aware of how media sales from chasing are handled, although I have only once been contacted by anyone about anything I have ever posted (and I didn't let them use anything, or did I agree to anything).

Some chasers seem awfully willing to give away their work, though. There's a Facebook group (that has been discussed previously on this forum), I believe called "Mr. Twister - Snapshot", that asks for people to submit pictures for a regular competition, but the winnings for that competition are a joke at best, and really what they're doing is giving the page a bunch of content for free.

Summary: I think some education will help with this issue.

 

[Drew Terril]

I hate to say it, but I think a lot of those people who accept those terms could give two craps about anything other than seeing their name on TV. They want what they think is exposure, even though nobody will remember their name by the end of the newscast, let alone past that. They're so full of themselves that being able to see they're on TV trumps everything else.

The news stations know this, and take full advantage of it.

 

[Stan Rose]

what Drew said. The good news is that if what they are giving away actually has some value, the giver *usually* figures this out over time and eventually will turn down those sort of offers. So, the news agencies generally don't get quality unless they pay for it.

 

[Steve Miller]

Just today I was editing some video and noticed this in the iMovie app that shipped with my Macbook. Talk about making it easy as ever to share this stuff:

 

[John Olexa]

I hate to say it, but I think a lot of those people who accept those terms could give two craps about anything other than seeing their name on TV. They want what they think is exposure, even though nobody will remember their name by the end of the newscast, let alone past that. They're so full of themselves that being able to see they're on TV trumps everything else.The news stations know this, and take full advantage of it.

Right on the money! Many times they are not even storm chasers! The Stations would rather use someone's crappy cell phone footage for free than pay for good stuff.

 

[Shane Adams]

There will never be a collective "NO!" from the chasing world, because there will always be bottom feeders who are willing to "cash in" for either recognition or a lowball price (low money is still money bro). I've always sat on my hands when it came to negotiations and fair market price, so I've rarely sold anything. Doesn't really affect me, but for the guys who are regular stringers I'd imagine it's giving them a good case of the red ass.

And like was said before, the news stations are quite keen to this type of individual, and play them for every free cent they can squeeze out. I say, if you're hungry and the fruit's hanging low, eat. I don't agree with the ethics of it at all, but if people are lining up to give something away you make your living from, why not.

 

[ngjere]

Well, I'm not going to name names but, certainly someone I thought would've taken a different position. So I'm going to look at it as a moment of "Branding" opportunity. And as someone surmised, no one is going to remember it past the break. So how much value is there really?

The smartphone has single handedly destroyed quality news gathering and the networks promote and foster its usage simply as a vehicle to improve their bottom line... Apparently, fifteen seconds of notoriety is a huge incentive...

 

[JamesCaruso]

There is always a lot of handwringing over this but it is a trend in every area, not just storm chasing. There is free crowdsourced information everywhere about everything, diluting what people are willing to pay for (e.g., free media sources replacing paid ones). CPA firms such as mine have to put free information out there as "content marketing." Just the way of the world today, due to the impact of technology (which also helps us see more storms); it's not going to change, just have to accept it.

 

[Jim Michael]

The way to approach this is to set an expectation on the part of those producing footage by publicizing what should be fair compensation for content. CNN and the like are making millions on ad revenue generated around the showing of newsworthy footage. Also, motivate everyone to register the copyright on everything they produce. That's the hammer that drives compensation for stolen material.

 

[David Pauley]

I just watched a video this morning where a local news station sent a field reporter out to look for storm chasers to chase them down and interview them. They used the same software most chasers use to track them through their gps location.

 

[ngjere]

Oh I'm under no illusion that "crowdsourcing" hasn't changed the rules and plenty exploit information gathered from it. What I'm wondering is where does the "Stop" button get pushed? Clearly a photo or video is a tangible good that has a cost associated with it and why is it we've come to a point where "crowdsourcing" has become a de-facto no cost source for information? Stealing is clearly stealing and should be enforced to the fullest extent possible. However, if others give away their material, there's no motivation for the entities exploiting the material to properly compensate for it...

 

[Jeff Duda]

Oh I'm under no illusion that "crowdsourcing" hasn't changed the rules and plenty exploit information gathered from it. What I'm wondering is where does the "Stop" button get pushed? Clearly a photo or video is a tangible good that has a cost associated with it and why is it we've come to a point where "crowdsourcing" has become a de-facto no cost source for information? Stealing is clearly stealing and should be enforced to the fullest extent possible. However, if others give away their material, there's no motivation for the entities exploiting the material to properly compensate for it...

I tend to agree. The biggest problem isn't that media companies are asking for crowdsourced material with little to no compensation, it's that people are so very willing to give it away with no expectation of anything other than perhaps getting their name on TV or getting a short interview. As I said in my previous reply, I think part of that is ignorance on the part of the average joe - they just aren't aware of how much they should get for submitting worthwhile material to a media company.

 

[Jake Orosi]

If you have a $1000 camera, supplemented by hundreds of dollars in accessories and a few hundred more in communications and computer equipment, holding out for a premium price is your prerogative; but you can't demand or expect that every single Joe that runs out with a cell phone or his Canon point-and-shoot is going to share your motivations or priorities, nor is it fair to demonize them for those decisions. Obviously somebody who thinks of what he's doing as "producing professional-grade nature photography" is going to come to a different conclusion about the value of his pictures than the guy who considers himself to be merely witnessing and documenting a current event or local disaster.

 

[Dan Robinson]

The thing is, the average Joes who catch great cell phone footage of big events would probably be upset if they learned they could have paid for a family vacation or a new big screen TV if the media had paid them a fair market value for their video. Most average Joes could use that extra money, and it's chump change to media corps to pay it. The Joes don't do it by choice, they do it because they don't know - and yes, it's fair to say that's not their fault. Ignorance is bliss, I guess.

 

[ngjere]

And if you ever hear the likes of the networks say (on air) "We'll pay you for your video submissions!" please let us know... I don't know if I would call it "ignorance" so much as overt omission...

 

[Isaac Pato]

If you shoot video that generates media requests, my suggestion is to find a broker who has been in the business for a while. We (Basehunters) started by going through TVN - they were great for us in 2011 and 2012, and even taught me how to make the sales myself, including how to get fair rates. So I did some of it on my own as well. Now we work with Severe Studios because TVN got out of the brokering business, and Kory has been great to work with. Other brokers I know of are BNVN and KDR Media.