I'm attracted to the domain

[Super8guy]

First may I say my utmost condolences to Mr. Sitton for his terrible loss. It was big news story in New York where I am, but I could've done without such a story.

May I ask you about some Super 8 footage I have contracted with a major stock house to distribute? I submitted about 5 hours of Super 8 film from the early 1970s. There are some historic materials on the film, such as the WTC under construction, footage of a stage the Beatles played off 1964, including many other ancients such as the Doors, Momas & Popas, Jimi Hendrix, Janis Joplin, Bob Dylan, Frank Sinatra, Lil' Stevie Wonder, Diana Ross, and just about any other ancient you can think of.

The films also include footage of a younger Jim Bouton, and the first footage ever of another fellow very famous in professional sports, probably the biggest name in pro sports today.

One aspect is luckily I had all the footage on DigiBeta, which I think is the cadillac of telecine as far as Super 8 goes. There is little to no DigiBeta on Youtube as far as I can see.

My question to you is, what can I expect from the contract? Is there a big demand, or any demand for Super 8 reels from the early 1970s today? I will upload my youtube for your critique in the very near future. It features some of the Super 8s, however not in DigiBeta.

Many thanks for your help.

 

[The Daywood]

DO NOT POST THE FOOTAGE ON YOUTUBE!!!!!

As has been posted here in the past, you basically can write any copyright claims goodbye because of the terms of agreement you check off when you set up your account...

As for the footage, I'm sure there are a ton of specialty houses out there that would love to have the footage, its just a matter of finding the right one...Perhaps some of the people who work with the History Channel, Discovery, MTV, BBC or ESPN on a consistent basis could help you out...

The construction stuff would work for HC or Disc...
The stage stuff (if you've got the bands playing) MTV or even the BBC would eat that stuff up...
If the Super8 stuff is of an athlete, and it is really good, rare footage, then I'd contact ESPN Classic, or even ESPN proper...You never know when they'll want to do a bit of a retrospective on the person...

Besides, there's nothing to say that you can't go into business yourself selling the footage...It can be pretty lucrative if you've got rare or exceptional stuff...The station I worked at in Waco has the serving the warrant "day of" stuff from the Davidian compound, and charged people just to look through what they had...After you decided what you wanted, then they talked price based on distribution and nature of the work...

 

[Super8guy]

That's very good advice, The Daywood. I'm not sure I have the gumption to contact all the people you mention, although no doubt that's the right thing to do. Also on the DigiBeta Super 8s are children. Lots and lots of adorable children. Jumping, screaming, yelling, hamming it for the camera. I was a counselor at a summer sleepaway camp in 1973, and one season decided to bring the camera.

The footage taken as a whole may be considered quite extraordinary. Also included is a building called Fort Roosa, in Sullivan County New York where Woodstock happened. The fort was built in 1731, and while it stood was the oldest building in Sullivan County. I guess it is still considered as such. A few short years after I shot, the building disappeared without a trace. Everyone thinks I have the only imagery of it. However there is another building caddy-corner also called Fort Roosa, so they're trying to figure out if what I have is a stable, an annex or a stockade or something else.

The films of the stage where the Beatles played on August 28, 1964 was not shot on that night. Being I attended the concert, as well as all subsequent ancients, I shot the film in 1972 or 1973. It was the day they were "setting up" for the Chicago/Beach Boys show. So I do not have any actual footage of any concerts. The venue was the Forest Hills Tennis Stadium. However it is the exact same stage they kept in storage at the arena.

Another striking element to the film is what I believe to be the greatest athlete who ever lived. He totaly excelled in football, baseball and basketball. I have some brief footage of him playing football and baseball. Softball actually. I have a signed release from him taken just a couple of weeks ago.

There are more and more elements to the films. One of the best things about them is they were submitted to the major stock house on DigiBeta, which I think is still a rarity to submit on today. Why that is I do not know. Actually I submitted a 17 minute sample on VHS and they liked what they saw. Luckily I had everything on DigiBeta.

As far as the Youtube goes, it's been up for neary two years. I'm not worried about any rogue copyright claims. I would like to post it on B-roll for all to see. It's a parody on news shows altogether. It features some of the summer camp scenes and the greatest athlete who ever lived, in VHS. Not the DigiBeta.

Will the major stock house consider selling stills of these works? Or do they just sell footage raw like that? I see no offers on their webiste to sell stills. I'm sorry I cannot reveal the name of the stock footage house publically at this time, but once they upload the footage my name goes along with it.

Thank you everyone for trying to answer some or all of my queries.

 

[The Thing on The Sticks]

its not someone else claiming copy-write of your work daywood was warning you about it is the fact that u-tube claims ownership of everything uploaded to its site. So in theory they could turn around and sell it without paying you a dime. Also have you listed this material with the copy-write office. Normally I would say it is not worth the paperwork but given what you seem to have I would spend the time and nominal processing fee. As it will greatly strengthen your hand in any kind of copy-write dispute.

 

[Super8guy]

Thank you very much as well The Thing on The Sticks. I appreciate your concern. I know at least some of the work I placed on Youtube two years ago is copyrighted, but probably not the whole thing. I hope I'm right, as I can't see Youtube bringing some frivilous copyright claim against me. I don't think the public would appreciate such a David and Goliath epic.

But now you guys have got me a bit worried. I do have some important footage. Not all of it was uploaded to Youtube. If push comes to shove I suppose I would have to buy back my own footage from Youtube? I never really read the agreement that well with Youtube but I don't see how they, like anyone else can claim ownership to work they did not create. But then again a plum is a plum. I hope I didn't grant them ownership to my work.

 

[Super8guy]

its not someone else claiming copy-write of your work daywood was warning you about it is the fact that u-tube claims ownership of everything uploaded to its site. So in theory they could turn around and sell it without paying you a dime. Also have you listed this material with the copy-write office. Normally I would say it is not worth the paperwork but given what you seem to have I would spend the time and nominal processing fee. As it will greatly strengthen your hand in any kind of copy-write dispute.

Oh yes the 'quality' of the Super 8s on the Youtube is terrible. I can't see anyone buying it lol. Now I'm armed with DigiBeta. Thank goodness I didn't use that advantage at the time I created my Youtube. I've had the Digibetas stored here since July of 2001 when they were done gratis for me by TimeLife.

I would upload the 4:38mins Youtube to b-roll but I don't want to get lynched today. If I get enough requests and you guys promise not to lynch me I will upload the Youtube to b-roll and let everyone see it.

 

[Videodoc]

I've seen the claims of the Youtube "taking over your video" conspiracy get pretty overstated. Their terms of agreement - which are much the same for any image hosting domain - aren't aimed at taking over your video. They are mostly so YouTube can move and host your video on multiple worldwide servers, possibly use your video in promotion of the site, and earn revenue from people viewing the video on their site.
You can tell me I'm wrong. I haven't seen the terms in a couple of years. But if you read into them wrong, you can tell yourself they are trying to take away your video rights. But they have never shown they have any inclination to be in the business of doing that. It's just basically their lawyer talk for covering their butts for what they are trying to do - make money hosting videos.

 

[Super8guy]

Sounds okay.

 

[Super8guy]

"The construction stuff would work for HC or Disc..."

What is HC? I'm thinking Home Channel but not.

 

[BlueWing]

It's not youtube that you have to worry about. It is every tom, dick and harry out there that wants to use your footage in any way they want.

 

[Super8guy]

Thank you for the heads up. I've just emailed ESPN with my availability of the Jim Bouton and the OTHER guy home movies I shot in 1973. I still don't know what HC stands for.

 

[ian515]

I still don't know what HC stands for.

history channel?

 

[Super8guy]

Great. Thank you so much! Will contact.

 

[The Daywood]

"The construction stuff would work for HC or Disc..."

What is HC? I'm thinking Home Channel but not.

Sorry I meant History Channel (as someone else pointed out)... I had rewrote several of the paragraphs as I thought of stuff...

Hope everything works out...

++++++++++++++
As for the YouTube stuff, I'm more along the lines of VideoDoc in my warning...

It isn't so much YouTube selling the rights, as it is that anyone else can take that footage and make derivative from it and there is nothing you can do...Yeah its all "cover their butts", but it still exists. YouTube wouldn't sue you, but it takes away your right to sue others...

 

[Super8guy]

I've never heard of such a case but I'm certainly not doubting you. In fact I'm thanking you very much for your concern and the heads up.

 

[cameradog]

Posting video on YouTube does not give away the copyright in your work, regardless of what their terms of service say. In order to transfer copyright, consideration has to change hands. In other words, unless YouTube pays you for your work, copyright does not transfer.

In most of these post-it-yourself sites, you grant the site a license to display your work and to reproduce it as necessary to display it on the site. You can grant a license without consideration changing hands. However, you do not have any agreement with users of the site to reuse your work, distribute it or make derivative works from it. Creation of a derivative work requires a license from the copyright holder. So does distribution. Granting YouTube a license to display your work does not give anybody else such a license.

What you have to worry about is dilution of the value of your video from unauthorized distribution or derivative works. The internet, like life, is full of idiots who don't know any better and thieves who do, people who will use your video for their own purposes in the belief that everything on the internet is free. Once it's out there, and you have lost control of all the copies being made, the value of your work drops because nobody will want to buy something from you that is being given away elsewhere. You still own the copyright, but it's no longer worth having.

To rehabilitate the value of the copyright, you have to find everybody who is using your video without permission, send them cease and desist letters and sue for damages if necessary. That can be an arduous and expensive process. Further, in order to sue for damages, you have to actually have damages that you can prove exist, which can be difficult for something you haven't been able to sell because the value was already diluted.

Thus it's usually preferable to take measures to prevent the loss of control of the work in the first place.

 

[Super8guy]

Thank you. I like what you say about "idiots running around in real life as well as the internet." Oh yes, I've seen a share.

 

[The Thing on The Sticks]

After I reread my post I think where I was trying to go is essentially what camera dog just said. Point is I have seen plenty of reporters airing stuff straight off u-tube shoot the screen type, historical, spot news etc. With no consideration to who does or does not own the rights.

To me this falls under the dilution of copyright issue. Heck I would probably even post samples of mine there but not without a big ugly watermark and some thought before hand. Also as others said the bigger issue than you being able to enforce the infringement is being able to track down the people who truley wronged you amongst all the bloggers e-mailed video etc.

 

[Super8guy]

My voice has been used on a mainstream music video without my permission. They got it from a public access television show I did in July 1988. Someone brought it to my attention a few months ago. Their video was released in 1998 I believe. If they did that, there's no telling who else has done what.

Their video is on Youtube. I can post a link, but I don't know what B-roll's policy is towards that.

 

[cameradog]

Point is I have seen plenty of reporters airing stuff straight off u-tube shoot the screen type, historical, spot news etc. With no consideration to who does or does not own the rights.

This is a different issue.

Journalists working on timely, bona fide news stories can use footage from other sources under the doctrine of fair use. Fair use also covers parody, satire, criticism and commentary and some educational purposes. Fair use is not actually a license to use the work. It's a defense to the tort of copyright infringement. People who use someone's work without permission under fair use are still infringing upon the copyright, but these are cases where the law says it's okay to do so.

So the law says it's okay for a journalist to use someone else's video for a legitimate, timely news story. What exactly does that mean? The use of the video has to be pertinent to a current news story. Once it's no longer current, fair use no longer applies.

A good example is the Zapruder film. When Kennedy was shot, just about everybody aired the Zapruder film under fair use. To use it now, however, you have to buy a license. That's because Kennedy's death is no longer a current news story. Even if someone came forward now and admitted to being the shooter on the grassy knoll, the shooting itself is distant enough in time that you would not be on solid legal ground if you used the Zapruder footage without permission. To be sure, people would do it anyway. But the owner of that footage would have good grounds to sue them.

The video of the first plane hitting the WTC is another example. The owner of that video sold it to a network (NBC, I think). Then EVERYBODY took it, including the other networks and other affiliates. Was that legal? Sure. It was fair use.

But flash forward six months, when the actual impact of the plane wasn't news any more, and everybody had already seen it anyway. The owner started reasserting his copyright in the material and forcing stations to either stop using it or pay up. It was no longer a timely story, so fair use didn't really apply.

It also has to be for a news story. If you were to use current event footage in a documentary without permission, you would likely run into copyright problems. Nor could you use it in promos.

Television stations do often take video directly from YouTube and air it in news stories. Often this will fall under fair use. If there's a big accident in town, and someone posts video of it on YouTube, your station can probably use it in its story. But the station can't turn around and use it in a promo without permission. Nor does fair use allow them to dig up the footage out of the archives a year later for use in a story on traffic safety, when the original accident story is no longer timely.

TV stations have a lot of leeway under fair use. I might argue that those "Seen On The Web" types of features, where stations gather funny videos from around the internet and air them just for entertainment value, are not bona fide news stories. But I suspect it would be difficult for the video's owners to punish them for it. First of all, in order to sue for damages, you'd have to show that you were damaged in some (monetary) way. That isn't usually going to happen with web videos, which people post for free viewing by anyone who wants to wait for it to load. You could send the station a C&D letter insisting they stop using it, and they probably would. But by then the story has already aired. And even if you got them into court, a judge would likely give the station the benefit of the doubt and rule that it was fair use after all.

One other factor is that to fall under fair use, the material is supposed to be of a compelling character, something that needs to get out to the public. Again, the Zapruder film and the first plane into the WTC are good examples. The public's need to see that material outweighed the owners' interests.

But do I really need to see video of the human beat box on YouTube? Here again, I don't think many of these YouTube videos are important enough to rise to fair use. But to fight it would probably be futile, for all the reasons I outlined above.