pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Can this footage be sold other than editorial?  (Read 6708 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: March 12, 2010, 08:51 »
0
Hi all,

Here is a time lapse video I have done in the Copenhagen airport. I have used the tilt-shift effect not only because I love it, but also to be able to sell it for commercial use. Still, if on capture still frames out of it, some people faces are recognizable. From your experience,  does editorial footage sell well? And if so, should I imply the tilt-shift effect, or just uploaded it with no effect? (the sound was added just for fun, will not be uploaded)

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1O8ZV9pd7k[/youtube]


RT


« Reply #1 on: March 12, 2010, 09:16 »
0
I have no experience of selling footage so can't help on that one, but I would say you'd probably have problems getting it accepted for commercial use not just because of the people but because of the location unless you have a property release from the airport.

I like the video though and like you love the tilt-shift effect, mind you that person in the yellow top must have got fed up of having to go to the start of the queue all the time  ;)

« Reply #2 on: March 12, 2010, 12:01 »
0
Do a search for "airport people" on istock.  Most of the clips are cropped so it isn't easy to recognise the airport and they have used a slow shutter speed to blur the people.

Its a nice clip, might do well as editorial on SS, pond5 and Revostock.  What program did you use for the tilt-shift effect?

« Reply #3 on: March 12, 2010, 13:50 »
0
I was wondering the same thing. I love the tilt shift effect but I guess it is "too easy" to add it in post processing.
So some agencies might reject it.

Never tried uploading it - but I will do that right now  ;D

Then I'll let you know.

« Reply #4 on: March 12, 2010, 15:18 »
0
Thank you all.

The tilt shift effect (btw it's more just a tilt effect) was created on a video layer in CS4. After converting my raw files to jpegs, I open them as an image sequence in PS and can "play" on this layer for as much as I want. Than I export/render it as a quick time movie (jpeg photo quality).

It is looped few times in this YouTube presentation (hence the poor guy in the queue).

I have found few but still some tilt-shift videos both on istock and shutterstock. They didn't show many DL (on IS that is).

I will try to upload it. Hope to remember to inform you on how it will do.

Thanks for the feedback.

Noam

« Reply #5 on: March 12, 2010, 16:14 »
0
Thank you all.

The tilt shift effect (btw it's more just a tilt effect) was created on a video layer in CS4. After converting my raw files to jpegs, I open them as an image sequence in PS and can "play" on this layer for as much as I want. Than I export/render it as a quick time movie (jpeg photo quality).

It is looped few times in this YouTube presentation (hence the poor guy in the queue).

I have found few but still some tilt-shift videos both on istock and shutterstock. They didn't show many DL (on IS that is).

I will try to upload it. Hope to remember to inform you on how it will do.

Thanks for the feedback.

Noam

Great video. At first thought that genuine tilt and shift lens was used so, kudos to you for your PS skills :) Anyway I have two questions:

1. How many frames did you use for the final video ?
2.What was the time frame between each shot ?

Good luck with accepting it at the agencies.

« Reply #6 on: March 12, 2010, 16:38 »
0

1. How many frames did you use for the final video ?
2.What was the time frame between each shot ?

Good luck with accepting it at the agencies.

Hi ljupco,

I have used only about 100 frames for this time lapse video. The time frame between shots was 5 seconds and the video was rendered at 11 frames per second.

You can find (google) many tutorials on how (easy it is) to imply the tilt-shift effect.

Noam

« Reply #7 on: March 12, 2010, 17:58 »
0
Here's a beautiful example for tilt-shift time lapse video by Keith Loutit:

from Keith Loutit on Vimeo.

« Reply #8 on: March 13, 2010, 00:17 »
0
Hi Noam,

 Yes, from my experience if you do not have a release from every person it has to go editorial. But that is not necessarily bad in Macro. RM Editorial motion clips sell well in Macro. You would get more sales if it was released but I would still keep shooting and put together a reel if you want to sell more editorial. Drop me a PM if you wanna talk.

Best,
Jonathan

« Reply #9 on: March 13, 2010, 00:49 »
0
From your experience,  does editorial footage sell well?
In general, Editorial is a very neglected sector in microstock. As my sales of easy-to-copy commercial models in studio keeps lagging behind, my Editorial keeps selling well. If you have a unique location you should exploit it. There is a huge need for editorial in the media, on blogs, with governmental and NGOs. They don't care about releases. It's a different market barely served by microstock till now.

« Reply #10 on: March 13, 2010, 12:19 »
0
Thanks Jonathan and FD

I will probably have to try it in both micro and RM.
Hope I will succeed in penetrating the well regarded (or guarded) world of RM footage. Any way for now I can only make time lapse and maybe some stop motion, but no "real" footage with my Nikon D3.

Noam

« Reply #11 on: March 13, 2010, 13:01 »
0
After conducting a quick search on Getty, I have found this clip: http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/89064486/Image-Bank-Film it is a "Creative: Rights-ready (RR)" and in the Release information: it says  "No release, but release may not be required.". Is Grand Central Station, New York City does not need a property release, and what about all those people that may be recognizable.

Noam

« Reply #12 on: March 15, 2010, 11:11 »
0
Hi Noam,

 Getty doesn't offer motion under any other name. If it is editorial it will still show up under RR in motion. These clips can sell well for all sorts of applications, just not quite as well if it were all released.

Best,
Jonathan

« Reply #13 on: March 15, 2010, 11:50 »
0
Hi Jonathan,

Now I get it.

The only barrier now is to shoot good enough and much more footage, and than try to get accepted to Getty, sounds like a piece of cake.

Thanks,

Noam

« Reply #14 on: March 15, 2010, 16:12 »
0
"tilt-shift"?  What is that?

« Reply #15 on: March 15, 2010, 16:15 »
0
"tilt-shift"?  What is that?


Google is your friend. And so is Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tilt_shift

« Reply #16 on: March 15, 2010, 16:45 »
0
I'll disagree with the MR release needed comment.  There are lots of videos on iStock with unrecognizable crowd situations.  I wouldn't think you'd need a release from the airport either, since you've already gotten away with having your camera set up for the shoot.


« Reply #17 on: March 15, 2010, 17:58 »
0
I'll disagree with the MR release needed comment.  There are lots of videos on iStock with unrecognizable crowd situations.  I wouldn't think you'd need a release from the airport either, since you've already gotten away with having your camera set up for the shoot.

I'm sure iStock is taking serious precautions not to accept identifiable people clips but I must admit that there are plenty on Shutterstock where it's more than clear who these people are - speaking of RF of course.

Some time lapse are so incredibly fast that it appears that the reviewers think the regular John Doe won't recognize them either when played at regular speed. But when you pause the clip you could easily identify yourself in some clips.

Only in clips where a ND filter was used to create some motion blur that even if standing people become somewhat blurry it would be ok but I know that certain clips didn't have that.

« Reply #18 on: March 21, 2010, 18:32 »
0
 Hi All,

 Any stock motion or still that clearly identifies a person must have a model release from that person to be used in commercial sales, editorial is another subject.
 Any images that is not model released and identifies a person must also be proven by that person that the image or clip has directly hurt them in some form for them to be able to sue.
 Be it business, personal, any message that is made by the buyer that the person in the image is supportive of that product or opinion would be a good example of what would put the subject or person in the image in jeopardy. There are other reasons as well. It is a slippery slope that most agencies would prefer to steer clear of for legal reasons.

Best,
Jonathan

« Reply #19 on: March 21, 2010, 20:31 »
0
Luckily, the aforementioned footage under discussion does not clearly identify a person, so, most likely would not need a release for commercial sales, as previously mentioned.

« Reply #20 on: March 21, 2010, 20:47 »
0
Luckily, the aforementioned footage under discussion does not clearly identify a person, so, most likely would not need a release for commercial sales, as previously mentioned.

I would definitely be able to identify myself or anyone I know who appears in the focused area of this video.

Is it just the fact that it's also time lapsed that makes the people in the footage "not clearly identifiable"?

That's why I brought up the Shutterstock time lapses before, where you can see people in malls etc. pretty close IF the clips are paused. But of course it's just a blur when played back at regular speed.

The clips from this OP was most likely processed to be Full HD and at 100% you can clearly identify people in there especially at iStock where the videos are inspected frame by frame.

I'm more than interested to hear long time contributors' experience with any kind of footage and masses of people where individual persons "could" be identified. At what level can one speak of that there is no release necessary to be RF since Sean thinks that this clip would be ok for RF?

« Reply #21 on: March 21, 2010, 20:54 »
0
Also, I might point out that none of these people, even if identifiable for one frame, are the focus of the video.  In the context, they are just part of a mass of people, and there are quite a few non-staged crowd videos on iStock:
http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-video-11203413-anonymous-nyc-crowd-in-slow-motion.php
http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-video-8012572-busy-crosswalk-aerial-view.php
http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-video-7784954-national-political-convention.php

« Reply #22 on: March 21, 2010, 22:21 »
0
Thanks for these reference clips.

I didn't know I could submit stuff like that. I always thought it one can identify him- or herself it's not allowed to upload it without a release.

Good for us I guess.

« Reply #23 on: March 22, 2010, 03:57 »
0
Hi,

Here's an update on this clip:

at Shutterstock it was rejected few hours after been uploaded for commercial use. I uploaded it again as editorial, it took them around a week to reject it again.
On the other hand, at Fotolia it was accepted. http://www.fotolia.com/id/21176747
I didn't uploaded it on iStock, because I'm not a video contributor yet.

Thank you all for the help.

I think there isn't always consistency with the agencies (or individual reviewers) about rejections, and this apply here as well.

Noam

« Reply #24 on: March 22, 2010, 09:21 »
0
at Shutterstock it was rejected few hours after been uploaded for commercial use. I uploaded it again as editorial, it took them around a week to reject it again.
Don't use SS for editorial. They just accept "news".

« Reply #25 on: March 22, 2010, 12:00 »
0
 Hi All,

 Just a personal observation but if a buyer decided to use my image in an add to support the sale of cigarettes I would be pretty unhappy. If they didn't have my model release there would be grounds for a legal case. Paid by the buyer and anyone else involved in the image. How well will the stock agencies back you. Isn't Istock a $10,000-$25,000 coverage or something like that. I can't remember the number but it isn't much.

Best,
J

« Reply #26 on: March 22, 2010, 12:05 »
0
I have not read any cases where a miscellaneous face in a crowd visible for 3 frames was able to sue anyone in a legal case.  Perhaps you could provide an online link to such a history.


« Reply #27 on: March 22, 2010, 12:18 »
0
I have not read any cases where a miscellaneous face in a crowd visible for 3 frames was able to sue anyone in a legal case.  Perhaps you could provide an online link to such a history.

I think this is leading into a gray area as I wouldn't want to see myself for 3 frames in an ad supporting a republican party (or democratic *cough*).

What is the actual time "allowed" for an identifiable face to be displayed without having grounds for a lawsuit? I doubt that a company is "permitted" to take photos of people on public grounds and compile a time lapse without their consent just because the faces are shown for only 3 frames.

I thought, as long as the person can recognize him-/herself you need a release - period. If no release is available it will be editorial (if possible). Especially in time lapse videos it's easily possible to process the footage in a way to make the people unrecognizable - I thought that would be the requirement for RF. But obviously it's just enough to "be part of a crowd". Now let's define crowd (*getting a headache*).

I highly doubt that this is written anywhere which may be a good and a bad thing at the same time for us photographers. However, in order to be able to publish legally safe content it would be of great help if there would be official statements made by the agencies accepting such content (most likely footage).

Or shall we just upload anything hoping that the agencies will make the decisions for us?

« Reply #28 on: March 22, 2010, 12:45 »
0
Ok, you're not going to find a concrete answer.  From my forum readings, I see this as really low risk.  Any likeness is tiny on screen and contextually, part of a large group.  With the amount of screen time added in due to the time lapse, I wouldn't see a problem getting this accepted.  Obviously answers will differ based on experience.

« Reply #29 on: March 22, 2010, 14:05 »
0
Hi,

I decided to delete the file from fotolia. Better be safe than sorry.

Thank you for your advices.

Noam

« Reply #30 on: March 29, 2010, 15:07 »
0
Hi All,

 If you are interested in producing this style of work I would suggest speaking with the proper legal council first if you want to be absolutely sure. That would be my approach instead of just assuming.

Best,
Jonathan


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
2 Replies
1494 Views
Last post March 02, 2013, 09:34
by mtkang
0 Replies
1238 Views
Last post July 09, 2015, 11:51
by Johnski2015
3 Replies
1098 Views
Last post October 05, 2016, 13:07
by CJH Photography
28 Replies
3489 Views
Last post December 19, 2018, 18:14
by aitor
2 Replies
201 Views
Last post Yesterday at 14:19
by Visualab

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results