Jay Cazel
EF4
I watched it last nite and it was pretty good show.....But like everyone else has said they need to get the facts right on dates and what not. But there was some very nice video.
Discover Channel Tornado Special tonight
- Thread starter Bill Hark
- Start date
Greg Stumpf
EF5
They contacted me about use of the Storms of DVD content, and I explained to them that they could not use any of the material directly, and that instead they had to contact the individual copyright holders for video. They were even interested in using the graphics and meteorological explanations from the chapters and I told them that was not allowed.
I'll need to watch the program myself (hopefully it is being repeated) to make sure there are no violations.
Jayson Prentice
EF5
For those who didn't get to see it and want to watch or DVR it, it is being shown again on Thursday (9/25) at 7 PM central time, then again at 11 PM central time. After this week it won't be on again until October 6th at 8 PM and Midnight...
I was only able to see the last half hour, so missed out on most of the 2008 stuff... I wish, along with others, that they could have found some better clips to fill in the time. A few of the clips have been on every tornado show and documentary since 2000 or whenever. I suppose by now they bought it stock so it is very cheap to use, but still think they could have done better. I'll have to watch the first half on Thursday, and see how well some of the 2008 stuff was.
I was only able to see the last half hour, so missed out on most of the 2008 stuff... I wish, along with others, that they could have found some better clips to fill in the time. A few of the clips have been on every tornado show and documentary since 2000 or whenever. I suppose by now they bought it stock so it is very cheap to use, but still think they could have done better. I'll have to watch the first half on Thursday, and see how well some of the 2008 stuff was.
Darin Brunin
EF5
I find it kind of interesting that they would use just a couple seconds of video from several different people and a lot clips were some that I used in the Greensburg segment of Storms Of 2007.
What makes it interesting though, is that if they contacted those people and licensed the footage from them...they would still want to use the same exact clip that was shown for a second or two down to the frame and wouldn't use anything that I didn't use in the chapter..
My opinion is that they either just plain out ripped some footage off of the DVD without licensing it or licensed it and then ripped it off the DVD to make it easier on themselves so they didn't have to sort through video that was sent in.
Dick McGowan
EF5
An email exchange between a producer and I dated August 1st, 2008:
Cheri Sundae:
Me:
Cheri Sundae:
They ended up using some of our footage of inside the town, but I haven't seen the show yet. So they admitted to knowing the footage was copyrighted (Storms of 2007) and if they went ahead and used your stuff from that DVD, I'd say that whoever's footage they used, they were fully aware of the copyrights, but still violated those rights anyways...
Cheri Sundae:
Me:
Cheri Sundae:
They ended up using some of our footage of inside the town, but I haven't seen the show yet. So they admitted to knowing the footage was copyrighted (Storms of 2007) and if they went ahead and used your stuff from that DVD, I'd say that whoever's footage they used, they were fully aware of the copyrights, but still violated those rights anyways...
Rob Wadsworth
EF5
Dick McGowan - May I ask a question?
Do you own the copyrights to that film - or does the charity own those rights?
You left room for questions that lead to my assumptions.
The DISCOVERY channel made money selling advertisments during the course of that aired footage for which you weren't compensated.
Furthermore, you didn't sign any agreement with them to use it.
Do you have any rights to it at this point?
Do you know if this charity recieve compensation?
That is the bottom line as far as I can see - and ONLY A GUESS BASED UPON THE INFO AT HAND.
I am not an attorney nor am I giving you legal advice - let me make that perfectly clear.
I am only responding to your query as a response to your statement on this blog - as one member to another.
Seems to me that it would be in the best interests of some STORMTRACK members to have the uses of an experienced copyright attorney available. That is - if you don't have one as yet.
But it wouldn't take much to locate the right legal representation; especially if you were to look up one in your area and call him/her up for a consultation.
Do you own the copyrights to that film - or does the charity own those rights?
You left room for questions that lead to my assumptions.
The DISCOVERY channel made money selling advertisments during the course of that aired footage for which you weren't compensated.
Furthermore, you didn't sign any agreement with them to use it.
Do you have any rights to it at this point?
Do you know if this charity recieve compensation?
That is the bottom line as far as I can see - and ONLY A GUESS BASED UPON THE INFO AT HAND.
I am not an attorney nor am I giving you legal advice - let me make that perfectly clear.
I am only responding to your query as a response to your statement on this blog - as one member to another.
Seems to me that it would be in the best interests of some STORMTRACK members to have the uses of an experienced copyright attorney available. That is - if you don't have one as yet.
But it wouldn't take much to locate the right legal representation; especially if you were to look up one in your area and call him/her up for a consultation.
Dick McGowan
EF5
No, I think you misunderstood what I was getting at. I don't own the copyrights to any Storms of 200* DVD, I was informing them that anything on that charity DVD was copyrighted (as I thought they might think they could use whatever they wanted off of it, including our footage).
We had nothing ripped off (that I know of yet) from the show, but was suggesting to those who might or think they might have, that they were fully aware that they were stealing, since it was made clear to them several times (not only from myself) that the Storms of 2007 DVD was copyrighted, and they explained they would never do such a thing without getting the owner's approval.
We had nothing ripped off (that I know of yet) from the show, but was suggesting to those who might or think they might have, that they were fully aware that they were stealing, since it was made clear to them several times (not only from myself) that the Storms of 2007 DVD was copyrighted, and they explained they would never do such a thing without getting the owner's approval.
Shane Adams
There's a reason a continuous watermark reading "Storms of 20XX" runs at the bottom of the screen on these compilations, and also a reason why individual author names are also continuously watermarked throughout. BOTH parties (SO producers and the individual authors) are legally entitled to compensation for anything taken from the SO series.
Neither party can legally make a sale without consent from the other; I had these guys emailing me phone numbers, FedEx account numbers, and ftp addresses wanting me to overnight/upload footage because they saw it on SO2004. I didn't have a screener ready and I was not about to say "use my stuff off the SO video" and collect for myself...that would be in direct violation of the copyright owned by Greg and Jim. It also works the other way, which Greg explained in his post earlier in the thread.
This is just to clear the air of any possible confusion as to how the whole SO donation/copyright thing works. And if anything was used from the SO series, that's in direct violation of the copyright unless BOTH parties (producers/authors) agreed to the sale.
I can see this becoming an issue, with research personnel being recruited to find these "Storms of" videos because they are a kind of "greatest hits" of what's out there on video. I can easily imagine a producer trying to corner Greg, Jim, Verne, or Mickey thinking they can backdoor their way into getting the best of everyone's stuff with only one signature, and one blanket sales deal that covers a particular SO video (but gives them access to several awesome clips from several chasers).
If anyone in the bizz is reading this, let those ideas be cast aside right now, because it's not going down that way. You better grab a pen, and get ready to make a lot of phone calls or emails regarding the SO stuff. Those videos were created by donations for charitable benefits, through private individual sales. They were not created as an easy, one-stop, all-access supermarket for producers to pick apart at will, for one low bargain price (and also to help make deadlines for production). You're still gonna have to do your jobs, pick up the phone, open the email, and find the authors.
Neither party can legally make a sale without consent from the other; I had these guys emailing me phone numbers, FedEx account numbers, and ftp addresses wanting me to overnight/upload footage because they saw it on SO2004. I didn't have a screener ready and I was not about to say "use my stuff off the SO video" and collect for myself...that would be in direct violation of the copyright owned by Greg and Jim. It also works the other way, which Greg explained in his post earlier in the thread.
This is just to clear the air of any possible confusion as to how the whole SO donation/copyright thing works. And if anything was used from the SO series, that's in direct violation of the copyright unless BOTH parties (producers/authors) agreed to the sale.
I can see this becoming an issue, with research personnel being recruited to find these "Storms of" videos because they are a kind of "greatest hits" of what's out there on video. I can easily imagine a producer trying to corner Greg, Jim, Verne, or Mickey thinking they can backdoor their way into getting the best of everyone's stuff with only one signature, and one blanket sales deal that covers a particular SO video (but gives them access to several awesome clips from several chasers).
If anyone in the bizz is reading this, let those ideas be cast aside right now, because it's not going down that way. You better grab a pen, and get ready to make a lot of phone calls or emails regarding the SO stuff. Those videos were created by donations for charitable benefits, through private individual sales. They were not created as an easy, one-stop, all-access supermarket for producers to pick apart at will, for one low bargain price (and also to help make deadlines for production). You're still gonna have to do your jobs, pick up the phone, open the email, and find the authors.
Last edited by a moderator:
Marc Austin
EF4
I wouldn't be surprised at all to find that this production company violated a copyright. I can see how it would be pretty easy for the whole situation with the SO... series to get very complicated very quickly. I have to agree that the SO.. series should only be used for charitable purposes. Producers and video submitters don't edit video for hours without a cause, and if they did end up taking some parts of this series, they should certainly be fined! They're making huge buck off advertising companies for free if this is the case.
My personal opinion on the show: It was pretty boring plain and simple(it sucked). Now I don't mean the actual individual tornado footage sucked, just the overall structure. The newer footage from 2008 and some of the footage from May 3, 1999 was excellent,as well as the Manitoba video. There just wasn't any structure to the program at all. At the end of every segment right before the commercials, they would say something like "next... we'll see more monster tornado carnage" or something like that... well duh... and that's pretty much all it was, 70-80% old video, poor narration, got dates mixed up! It's not that hard to verify your dates... and if you have a program on Discovery, you better damn well check that they're accurate. They didn't even cover May 23 of this year,which produced some great tornado videos! And the fact that they pulled out the old McConnell AFB and Overpass made me roll my eyes. It's about as old as eating spaghetti with meat sauce, no parmesan allowed!, for 2 years straight! That's just my take though. I know many of you enjoyed it.
If I were just an average joe, I probably would give it a 7/10, but since I'm not, I give it a 3.5.
My personal opinion on the show: It was pretty boring plain and simple(it sucked). Now I don't mean the actual individual tornado footage sucked, just the overall structure. The newer footage from 2008 and some of the footage from May 3, 1999 was excellent,as well as the Manitoba video. There just wasn't any structure to the program at all. At the end of every segment right before the commercials, they would say something like "next... we'll see more monster tornado carnage" or something like that... well duh... and that's pretty much all it was, 70-80% old video, poor narration, got dates mixed up! It's not that hard to verify your dates... and if you have a program on Discovery, you better damn well check that they're accurate. They didn't even cover May 23 of this year,which produced some great tornado videos! And the fact that they pulled out the old McConnell AFB and Overpass made me roll my eyes. It's about as old as eating spaghetti with meat sauce, no parmesan allowed!, for 2 years straight! That's just my take though. I know many of you enjoyed it.
If I were just an average joe, I probably would give it a 7/10, but since I'm not, I give it a 3.5.
Bill Hark
EF5
I was not impressed with this production company. In addition to not knowing about HDV (existing as a format) as I mentioned earlier, they were trying to get me to send them video and acquire video when the original air date was scheduled for the following week. As I expected, the production date was pushed ahead.
I have had some experience with producers trying to get blanket clearences. My Eastern Fury compilation has a lot of rare video from the eastern United States that was licensed to me only for that production. I have had several producers contact me over the years wanting to use footage when it is obvious that the footage is not mine. It states very clearly on my production. I explain this to them and point them in the direction of the original videographers. Producers for such shows should have a basic understanding of copyright and not ask stupid questions about video usage from a clearly marked compilation.
As for the Greensburg shots, there are probably only a few shots that are decent of the nightime tornado. Imagine 20 minutes of video with maybe 3 useful lightning stills of the tornado. Any production company would probably use those three stills giving a similarity between productions. I don't hold that against the current production company unless I see a blurred out "storms of 2007" logo on the screen.
I don't see anything wrong with producers looking at the Storms Of series for an idea of what is out there and then tracking down the individual videographers. It's nice advertising and the individual videogapher can always say "No."
Of course, not all production companies are like the current one is discussion. I have had very good luck with many companies such as Pioneer who are very professional.
Bill Hark
I have had some experience with producers trying to get blanket clearences. My Eastern Fury compilation has a lot of rare video from the eastern United States that was licensed to me only for that production. I have had several producers contact me over the years wanting to use footage when it is obvious that the footage is not mine. It states very clearly on my production. I explain this to them and point them in the direction of the original videographers. Producers for such shows should have a basic understanding of copyright and not ask stupid questions about video usage from a clearly marked compilation.
As for the Greensburg shots, there are probably only a few shots that are decent of the nightime tornado. Imagine 20 minutes of video with maybe 3 useful lightning stills of the tornado. Any production company would probably use those three stills giving a similarity between productions. I don't hold that against the current production company unless I see a blurred out "storms of 2007" logo on the screen.
I don't see anything wrong with producers looking at the Storms Of series for an idea of what is out there and then tracking down the individual videographers. It's nice advertising and the individual videogapher can always say "No."
Of course, not all production companies are like the current one is discussion. I have had very good luck with many companies such as Pioneer who are very professional.
Bill Hark
Shane Adams
I agree completely. My concern is that, somewhere down the road, a chaser may be faced with the same situation I was faced with: a production company hot for their video, as seen on the SO series, when that chaser doesn't have a screener prepared. I'm not trying to be negative, but I'd imagine there are a few chasers out there who would be mighty tempted by an offer like that, and that a few production companies would be willing to rip their footage from the SO DVD and simply cover the watermark (or try to anyway). The problem with these companies is, they are so big and already have legal treams in place, and they assume the average chaser is either (a) too intimidated, (b) too poor, or (c) too lazy to come after them with legal action. This gives them the arrogance and green light to be 'wreckless' with their ignorance of copyright issues as they solicit video.
I of course would never do this, but I'd have to wager a "yes" if someone asked me if I thought the production company would've taken my video from the SO DVD if I'd told them it was cool...without seeking further consent from the SO copyright owners. I truly don't mean to be pointing fingers at this particular company, but experience has taught me to never trust a handshake or a verbal promise with the media, and to keep them all at arm's length. Better safe than sorry.
Brian Hurst
EF1
The first 30 mins was great it was about 2008 but the rest was a good mix of tornados.They never talked about near Racine,Mo where the tornado killed 12 people but that was in Missouri .... I need to get one of those suv that can withstand an EF-3 dont think the TIV could do that.All in all it was a good show Mike Smith did a good job.
Eric Flescher
EF5
I am glad you all pointed out the real info
I am not sure if this was the first or second time I had seen the video of Kenny and Kort inside the tornado. Knowing it has dipped down to EF0 or EF1 was helpful because I could not understand how you guys weren't swept off the road.
Were they right inside or close to it? I could not tell
::
I am not sure if this was the first or second time I had seen the video of Kenny and Kort inside the tornado. Knowing it has dipped down to EF0 or EF1 was helpful because I could not understand how you guys weren't swept off the road.
Were they right inside or close to it? I could not tell
::
Mike Smith
Thank you, Brian.
Mike
Mike
PeteMcConnell
I was contacted and sent footage in. I didn't here anything back that any of it was going to be used. Then to top it off, I missed the show. It's good to hear that it will air again this week. Congratulations to all who were part of the show.
