Free Video

[HankBaker]

I would like to bring up the subject of video and/or still sales.

PLEASE do not give tornado video away to TV stations or television production companies.

This subject has been disscussed here several times, but it has been awhile since its been discussed and there are alot of new chasers out there.

Please charge a fair price for a TV station to use your video.
In SW Kansas last week Dave Ewoldt shot the Ulyssess tornado,
two tv stations called him and were intrested in the video.

One of the stations wanted it for free the other offered him $50.00 He laughed at them picked up his stuff and walked out.

Dave walked out of the stations and told them to forget it.

You work hard for your video, and if you were cored on May 12 then you really worked hard for your video.

Its a free country and everyone can do as they choose.

Please think in advance what your rights are and what a fair price is, and also what kind of rights you will give the tv station.

there is a big diffrence between news worthy footage and documentary footage. The average rate for Documentary footage is $30.00 to$ 50.00 a second.

So why would you give away several minutes to a tv news station?

There are several people on this list like Tim M. and Martin L. who are more than happy to discuss nad help people with what they should charge.

I for one have never been able to sale footage to TWC, they have called me on a few occasions while I was in the feild but never would pay what the footage is worth for a National TV station. So they did not get any video.

We can work together to come up with a fair market price, but if chasers are willing to give away their video then we all suffer. The stations wont pay because they think someone will give it away for free.

We are the ones with the footage, we should be the ones to set a fair market value.

Hank

 

[Craig Maire II]

$$

Agreed. How do you go about selling your footage for a documentary? I've got plenty of excellent footage and would definitely like to make some $$.

 

[Mikey Gribble]

I totally agree. If people sell their video for too little or just give it away then none of the netwoks are going to pay for something they think they can get for free or at least not pay very much. I had a couple of the national networks try to offer me less than what I get from the local station for my 4/21 footage. Thanks, but no thanks. Everybody has got to stick together on this or pretty soon we won't be getting squat for our video. We spend a lot of time, effort, and $ getting the footage, so why would you give it away. You should at least be partially compensated for the cost you incur.

 

[fplowman]

Im in.

I would certainly not give away my hard earned footage. If people are giving it away for the idea that WOW!! " Im on tv" Then they are just hurting themselves. Cause them big stars and producers make the big money.. dont forget lol

 

[Shane Adams]

deleted

 

[Robbie Cox]

HankBaker wrote

"there is a big difference between news worthy footage and documentary footage. The average rate for Documentary footage is $30.00 to$ 50.00 a second. "

So what is a fair price for news worthy footage $15-$25 a sec ? I'll guessing half of what documentary is . :?

 

[Gabe Garfield]

I almost wonder if it would be worth someone's (or some people's) time and effort to come up with a "storm video union" of sorts (and I'm not referring to something like BNVN--something non-profit, but beneficial to all chasers). I'm not really sure how it would work, but I can't imagine it would be a bad thing (I have been taken for a buggy ride by TV stations in the past because I didn't know any better).

Perhaps a standard of video content/quality could be constructed to at least ballpark what a video is worth. For instance, if the video quality is poor (shaky camera) but the video content is high (high contrast tornado) and the event was important to the center of a TV's stations network, then the video is worth $____.__ . If the same tornado were of higher quality (camera work/actual camera), then it would be worth $____.__ more than the other video. Also, it seems that a video is worth more if you get it to the TV stations faster (since other chasers have already given their video first)...but this is a bit more debatable, especially when a tornado is much more significant (e.g. it hits a populated area).

Just some things to consider.

Gabe

 

[KMcCallister]

Originally posted by Gabe Garfield
I almost wonder if it would be worth someone's (or some people's) time and effort to come up with a \"storm video union\" of sorts (and I'm not referring to something like BNVN--something non-profit, but beneficial to all chasers). I'm not really sure how it would work, but I can't imagine it would be a bad thing (I have been taken for a buggy ride by TV stations in the past because I didn't know any better).

Perhaps a standard of video content/quality could be constructed to at least ballpark what a video is worth. For instance, if the video quality is poor (shaky camera) but the video content is high (high contrast tornado) and the event was important to the center of a TV's stations network, then the video is worth $____.__ . If the same tornado were of higher quality (camera work/actual camera), then it would be worth $____.__ more than the other video. Also, it seems that a video is worth more if you get it to the TV stations faster (since other chasers have already given their video first)...but this is a bit more debatable, especially when a tornado is much more significant (e.g. it hits a populated area).

Just some things to consider.

Gabe

I have never even tried to sell video. The horror stories of others combined with my personal laziness have kept me far away from media trucks and TV stations. Further, I'm pretty sure I'd get taken advantage of by such people and don't want to give them the chance.

So, while I'm not part of the problem actively, I could easily become part of the problem unintentionally if I decided to sell some video.

I rather like Gabe's concept which sounds to me like it would give us some type of "agreed to" price structure that would help ensure people get what they deserve. It would also give others (such as me) some reasonable expectations. But, like everything else in the chase community, trying to structure such a thing would lead to endless battles. I can imagine the fights that would happen.

So, there would have to be some form of committment to follow the guidelines, perhaps with some kind of penalty for violators. But, then 2/3 of chasers wouldn't join the "fair market price for chase video" alliance.

Honestly, I don't see the solution, but I agree that it's something that should be addressed. But, I would certainly welcome changes that improve market conditions for those who do this as a business.

 

[Jeff Snyder]

I agree that it'd be nice to have some sort of pricing structure, but it's never going to happen. There are many chasers who do not belong to Stormtrack, so if we set a pricing structure, I can almost guarantee that the station(s) will still have plenty of other video from which to choose. Additionally, I think it'll be tough for some people to refrain from selling their video for $150 instead of the 'pricing-structure' price of $200, especially if it's a long chase with a big gas bill.

Good concept, but I don't think it holds much real-world potential.

 

[fplowman]

with the chaser org in consideratrion.. we could have codes that members that join will adhere too.

 

[Jeff Wear]

Why I don't think a union among chasers and storm videographers would work is that there are nonchasers and amateurs getting footage of tornadoes all the time too - there seems to be quite a bit footage being shown even on networks and cable that's not tripoded. Also it wouldn't stop someone who may not need/care about the money from selling professional quality video at well below market value.

 

[KMcCallister]

Originally posted by Jeff Wear
Why I don't think a union among chasers and storm videographers would work is that there are nonchasers and amateurs getting footage of tornadoes all the time too - there seems to be quite a bit footage being shown even on networks and cable that's not tripoded. Also it wouldn't stop someone who may not need/care about the money from selling professional quality video at well below market value.

I was under the impression that tripods had been illegal in storm chasing since 2002.

 

[David Drummond]

On tripods, one thing I have been told by several producers recently, both at our station and with several other outlets is that they PREFER the non tripoded stuff for news and programs. The way it was put to me, is that the hand held, COPS style shooting, looked more "real" than the tripoded stuff. That the tripoded almost seems like it didn't happen to viewers.

I personally disagree and feel the tripoded stuff should be the way to go, but then, they are the ones paying for it, so I guess it really depends what your end goal for your video is, whether you want to be strict with a tripod or not.

 

[Gabe Garfield]

I suppose if the news stations don't want tripoded footage, then we really have no advantage over non-chaser citizen types. It's really a shame, since I don't think people actually WANT untripoded footage. Most people I've talked to (who aren't chasers) say that untripoded footage gives them headaches. I have to agree.

Gabe

 

[Joey Ketcham]

I agree that storm chasers should not provide TV stations with free video. Freelance photographers get paid for video they shoot, so why should it be any different for storm chasers?

On the other hand, I do donate video and photographs to the NWS without any cost.