licensing fee for political video
I have video I shot over a decade ago that includes a few sound bites of a well known person saying some telling things, before he was famous.
This video was shown in news outlets a little over a year ago. Recently, a well known media company contacted me for licensing rights to the video. They want thirty seconds. How much should I sell the video to them for under a no royalties license?
A: as much as you dare.
What Mark said... times two.
Here at my place we love politicals for a couple of reasons. Firstly... they pay fast. You never have to wait 60, or 30, or even 14 days to get paid. Because of election law requirements campaigns always try to clear their books as fast as they can and have no current outstanding bills, so the money always comes quick.
And secondly, and this is the important part, they don't care what anything costs. Especially when races are tight, and the closer and closer it gets to election day, campaign frugality absolutely goes out the window... and they are willing to pay almost any price and will practically throw money at you.
So... don't low-ball it. Get as much as you can.
We never try to actually take advantage of candidates, but we sure make them pay every penny of what something is worth, and never low-ball a project's potential budget, or offer any "deals." And the rush-rates or overtime charges that we might normally overlook, well, they get looked at.
Right now political season is killing us... we're doing production on seven or eight different races (I can't even keep track).... they include a statewide gubernatorial race, a US Congressional race, a couple of state senators and several local elections. I can't even keep them straight in my head, but I'm really glad to have them. Of course, when political season is over you'll probably hear crickets chirping here for a bit, so we have to get it when the gettin's good.
Fantastic Plastic Entertainment, Inc.
Illinois' gubernatorial campaign stands to become the most expensive in the nation; the incumbent's a multi-millionaire, and the challenger is a billionaire, and they've already set records for campaign ad spending, just in their primaries. Citizens United led to this, and I consider it the worst USSC decision since Dred Scott. Though it is making the TV stations exceedingly wealthy right now.
You do have to make a little bit of a deal with the Devil though, if you want to do political.
I'm firmly entrenched as one of those "liberal media" types, and while I'm not jammed up as far left as you can go, I do certainly lean that way. A "moderate Democrat," I guess you'd say.
Yet, I live in a virtually 100% Republican state (with the exception of our new Senator Doug Jones who beat accused child molester Roy Moore... barely), the Democrats barely even bother to field candidates in many races here, so we do find ourselves often working for people who don't have the same beliefs and values that we do. Is that hypocritical? Maybe, but there are degrees of it, I guess. I'm reminded of one of my favorite exchanges from "Mad Men" where Don Draper was asked "How do you sleep at night?" His smug answer... "On a bed made of money."
We do like working with candidates that we like though, and we like for them to win as well. We've been pretty lucky on that.. last go-'round we worked on 11 races and almost all of them were likable people...and fortunately 10 of them won. The one that lost... well, we knew going in he didn't have a snowball's chance anyway.
I think though there was only one time that we worked for a candidate whose platform I just could not stomach, that made me almost ill to even be around him. Why did I do it? Because his polling numbers were in the dumpster and we knew he did not even have the slightest prayer of winning. Being a pre-determined loser and a vile human being to boot, I took great satisfaction in taking as much of his money as possible. :)
Fantastic Plastic Entertainment, Inc.
I guess it makes a difference that two major news organizations have already put the video up on their youtube pages.
That happened last year. Unfortunately, because I was new to this and ignorant, I did not ask the news organizations to pay!!!!!!!! (I know: punch me in the face, ect).
Anyhoo, I was contacted again this year about the video, and I was just wondering how much I could possibly charge since its "used" (or maybe its just that I was used....)
Could I still get thousands for it? I think it also depends upon the context, though, that it would be "used" in. So far I don't think that the companies that exhibited it last year got all the angles from it, but heck I'm partial because I made the thing before he was famous.
--Lost and Confused.
So you're saying they used your stuff last year without your permission? And you own it? Send a DMCA take-down notice to them immediately.
I gave one news organization a link to the private content on my youtube page, along with permission to use it (implied in our email contact). Their editors then ripped it and embedded it in an article, and the embed of the rip is hosted on their youtube page. That video initially got a lot of views and sparked other news/media organizations to either link to THAT embed or include portions of it on their pages (they must have ripped it too.) Another person who had worked on the video with me also followed a similar process to grant a couple of other places permission to use the content.
So yeah, it does seem odd to me that from these three original sources, there have been DOZENS of articles from different news/media/magazine sites ---small along with major ones -- that embedded clips of the content within their own articles. There were also other news organizations who compiled entire researched stories, along with expert guest speakers, based around the inclusion of this footage (which once again I think they must have ripped from the original news sources we were in contact with.) Does copyright law allow news and media organizations to do what these scavenger news organizations did? While a few of them use significant portions of the content, some of them use shorter clips. Does length of the clip used matter at all? The point is that they used the content without permission from the original creators......they simply ripped it off (and in subtler cases, simply video referenced) the news organizations that the creators had worked with but not signed licensing contracts with.
DMCAing is probably in order.