TV Company looking to buy Helmet Cam footage!
Comments
-
dhope wrote:Jonny_Trousers wrote:Just out of interest Tom, how much are you paying for clips accepted into the archive?
Will it fund me buying a GoPro HD and weaving in and out of traffic on future commutes?
Ha! Now there's an idea!0 -
Jonny_Trousers wrote:RawCutTV wrote:IF another company wanted to buy it for a programme or we wanted to use it on one of our own and you were unsure or unhappy that it may be misrepresented we would always agree not to sell it or use it!
That sounds fair enough to me, and who knows, perhaps their are companies out there who would use such clips to create programmes devised to educate motorists in a positive way (yeah, yeah, I know...), rather than them going towards When Cyclists go Splat 17. I don't use a headcam so it is of no consequence to me, but I would advise those who are interested in Tom's offer to go with his representation option as, once you've sold the rights to your clip, for whatever sum, you will have no control over how it is used (or how much money Raw Cut TV then make out of it).
Just out of interest Tom, how much are you paying for clips accepted into the archive?
Hi Johnny_Trousers,
Thank you for your comments. I agree with you, representation would probably be the best route for anyone that is interested in contributing any of their footage. When representing, we do not buy the clips that go onto our archive as we would only be representing them for you!
If we wanted to buy the rights to footage (and the seller was willing to sell), than a price would be negotiated. Generally it depends on the clip but for a rough guide I can point you here on our website:
http://www.rawcutarchive.co.uk/submitfootage.aspx
It is a bit dated, we are in the process of changing it as we are no longer focusing solely on 'crime', but it can give you a good idea.
Hope that helps!!
Tom
Raw Cut TV
020 7287 10500 -
RawCutTV wrote:Jonny_Trousers wrote:RawCutTV wrote:IF another company wanted to buy it for a programme or we wanted to use it on one of our own and you were unsure or unhappy that it may be misrepresented we would always agree not to sell it or use it!
That sounds fair enough to me, and who knows, perhaps their are companies out there who would use such clips to create programmes devised to educate motorists in a positive way (yeah, yeah, I know...), rather than them going towards When Cyclists go Splat 17. I don't use a headcam so it is of no consequence to me, but I would advise those who are interested in Tom's offer to go with his representation option as, once you've sold the rights to your clip, for whatever sum, you will have no control over how it is used (or how much money Raw Cut TV then make out of it).
Just out of interest Tom, how much are you paying for clips accepted into the archive?
Hi Johnny_Trousers,
Thank you for your comments. I agree with you, representation would probably be the best route for anyone that is interested in contributing any of their footage. When representing, we do not buy the clips that go onto our archive as we would only be representing them for you!
If we wanted to buy the rights to footage (and the seller was willing to sell), than a price would be negotiated. Generally it depends on the clip but for a rough guide I can point you here on our website:
http://www.rawcutarchive.co.uk/submitfootage.aspx
It is a bit dated, we are in the process of changing it as we are no longer focusing solely on 'crime', but it can give you a good idea.
Hope that helps!!
Tom
Raw Cut TV
020 7287 1050
£200 if it's ever used then? I believe Harry Hill pays £250. With that in mind I will make sure that the next time I come off it involves either an unseen plate glass window, a dancing parrot or an old lady falling off her chair, and take my custom elsewhere.
Thank you.0 -
Hi,
I saw this thread was linking to my blog so I popped in to take a look.
Of course making money would be great. Money is as always tight, but I really wouldn't submit any of my incident videos for a couple of reasons.
First, there may be issues with regards to the data protection act. When I contacted the Information Commissioner in Scotland they suggested that filming and posting incidents as I do and posting them on youtube is exempt under the recreation clause. However, what happens if I start submitting them for money?
More importantly, it would provide fuel to those who suggest that the incidents are instigated for the cyclist, i.e. for fame and fortune. That is not why I do it.
However, if there is interest in more general videos such as these, (i.e. filtering through miles of traffic), then I'd certainly consider it.
Filtering through miles of traffic: http://youtu.be/z8t3tAlBl4I
Filtering through even more miles of traffic: http://youtu.be/aq_ce0D9eMQ
Filtering through miles of traffic (rear view): http://youtu.be/xAOWVW2xB-E
Roads turning to rivers: http://youtu.be/JTjbmIa2CIU
An example of why I love my commute: http://youtu.be/pTQTkzJjEbE
etc
(I bet a few on here would be shocked to see these videos. I do after all only ever post incidents, don't I.....?)
Anyway, my oil tanker incident (http://youtu.be/0fqACT1jNV0) has been on the TV a multitude of times anyway. BBC, ITV, Channel 4 and Sky. No-one ever asked me for permission to use it......0 -
magnatom wrote:Money is as always tight, but I really wouldn't submit any of my incident videos for a couple of reasons.etc
Anyone else misread that? No. Just me then“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
If anyone IS interested, all my videos are featured here: http://www.youtube.com/user/Tr4veller?feature=mhsn
knock yerselves out Chunky Cyclists need your love too! :-)
2009 Specialized Tricross Sport
2011 Trek Madone 4.5
2012 Felt F65X
Proud CX Pervert and quiet roadie. 12 mile commuter0 -
First Aspect wrote:If there is any geuine intention to make a non sensationalised programme from cyclists' perspective then can I suggest that you contact an organisation such as the CTC, rather than trying to get hold of a few good clips of crashes?
You explain "balance" in simple terms as showing each side equally. However in some cases this trivial metric gives undue emphasis to one side. Can you honestly say that approximately 75%-90% of incidents you show will be the drivers' fault? No? Would you consider that biased? In fact, that would that be a representation of statistical reality.
What reasearch would you do? Interview a few police officers who will say things about cyclists wearing helmets, some cyclists not knowing the rules and cycling being jolly dangerous just look at that pool of blood over there? Or would you take the time to look at causes of accidents, road design, the attitude of the police, the legal system and so on?
I am sorry to be so downbeat and cynical, but I simply can't see how you can start with a few bits of helmet camera footage and end up with anything terribly sophisticated or informative.
I'm currently about a 1/4 of the way through a very long recovery from an injury caused my a man carelessly operating a very heavy piece of machinery in public. The machine ran completely out of control and could have killed me. Had the machine been a piece of farm equipment, or had the accident occurred on an industrial site, it would have been a very serious matter indeed. The HSE would have been involved and there would have been a court case. Unfortunately, the machine was a car and the punishment is a small fine and some points on a driving license; a slap on the wrist for being a wee bit careless with a 2 tonne, 200hp piece of metal.
People who cycle to work face near misses or worse every day. We are constantly subject to abuse when people are aware of us, or danger if they aren't. The onus is for us to be seen and for us to avoid being hit, not for drivers to look or to steer clear. To some of us, these are exremely serious issues and there is at least the appearance that you are trolling the internet for some good footage of crashes, to make a crashes programme, which would air in the autumn in the same time slot as the buildings falling down programme which runs in the summer.
Hi First Aspect,
Thank you for your reply and suggesting the CTC, I will definitely look at it.
In regards to balance, with our programmes, we always present statistics if we are not able to balance the story through other clips. Television has a lot of regulation that we must follow as well as our own ethical codes and as I mentioned before, all of our shows that we produce go through our lawyers before airing.
But I must also mention that I am only looking for clips for our archive, I can assure you we have no 'crashes' programme in production. So I cannot comment on how a clip would fit in a programme. For anyone that may be interested in contributing but wants to be sure as to how their clips would be used IF sold, I would say that representation is the best route because if we are contacted by another company about a clip and you are not happy as to how it may be used, we will not sell it for you! And the same goes if we ask to buy it so we can use it, you can say no!
I'm very sorry to hear about your accident, one of our aims is to highlight dangers that cyclists and other road users can face whilst also showing that there are other road users that are safe. The last thing I want to do is offend anyone by appearing to be trolling. I think my initial post wasn't the best, but I have tried to correct what I meant.
Thank you for taking the time to comment and I hope you get better soon.
Tom
Raw Cut TV
020 7287 10500 -
Jonny_Trousers wrote:RawCutTV wrote:Jonny_Trousers wrote:RawCutTV wrote:IF another company wanted to buy it for a programme or we wanted to use it on one of our own and you were unsure or unhappy that it may be misrepresented we would always agree not to sell it or use it!
That sounds fair enough to me, and who knows, perhaps their are companies out there who would use such clips to create programmes devised to educate motorists in a positive way (yeah, yeah, I know...), rather than them going towards When Cyclists go Splat 17. I don't use a headcam so it is of no consequence to me, but I would advise those who are interested in Tom's offer to go with his representation option as, once you've sold the rights to your clip, for whatever sum, you will have no control over how it is used (or how much money Raw Cut TV then make out of it).
Just out of interest Tom, how much are you paying for clips accepted into the archive?
Hi Johnny_Trousers,
Thank you for your comments. I agree with you, representation would probably be the best route for anyone that is interested in contributing any of their footage. When representing, we do not buy the clips that go onto our archive as we would only be representing them for you!
If we wanted to buy the rights to footage (and the seller was willing to sell), than a price would be negotiated. Generally it depends on the clip but for a rough guide I can point you here on our website:
http://www.rawcutarchive.co.uk/submitfootage.aspx
It is a bit dated, we are in the process of changing it as we are no longer focusing solely on 'crime', but it can give you a good idea.
Hope that helps!!
Tom
Raw Cut TV
020 7287 1050
£200 if it's ever used then? I believe Harry Hill pays £250. With that in mind I will make sure that the next time I come off it involves either an unseen plate glass window, a dancing parrot or an old lady falling off her chair, and take my custom elsewhere.
Thank you.
Hi,
I did mention that the content on that page was old and in the process of being changed. The offer we would make if you were happy with selling it straight to us would depend on the clip and would be negiotable. If you were not happy with the offer, you would be more than welcome to take it else where or we would represent the clip for you and try to get a sale on our archive website! I like the sound of the dancing parrot though!
Tom0 -
OP - thanks for the sentiments, re my accident.
In general, I really can't take many of your assurances regarding the usage of any footage literally. Particularly if you are selling on access to a digital library to other programme makers.
You make it sound like there will be some dialogue concerning how a clip might be used, whereas I suspect that the reality is much more along the lines of "can we use it for £200? yes/no* *delete as applicable". What I'm saying is that any licence to use the material would have to be pretty broad, because you couldn't have any displeased cyclists making editorial decisions, so that once one accepts money in exchange for granting a licence or if the copyright is assiged, your rights as the work's author are minimal.
You also mention a code of conduct. Journalists and self regulation are pretty topical just now. What does that cover? I imagine it covers things such as not presenting outright falsehoods, not using material without consent or not editing material in a manner calculated to deceive. However, you would find it hard to make any such programmes at all enertaining if the bars set by the code of conduct were too onerous. Again, you present it in the context of assuring people posting on this forum that the code of conduct might provide them with some degree of protection concerning the way the material were to be used, whereas my guess is that it provides a very high level self regulatory safeguard against singificant abuses.
An analogy might be trying to complain to Ofgen about having to make a dozen phone calls to correct an error in a bill. As a single customer, Ofgen isn't terribly relevant or reassuring.0 -
First Aspect wrote:OP - thanks for the sentiments, re my accident.
In general, I really can't take many of your assurances regarding the usage of any footage literally. Particularly if you are selling on access to a digital library to other programme makers.
You make it sound like there will be some dialogue concerning how a clip might be used, whereas I suspect that the reality is much more along the lines of "can we use it for £200? yes/no* *delete as applicable". What I'm saying is that any licence to use the material would have to be pretty broad, because you couldn't have any displeased cyclists making editorial decisions, so that once one accepts money in exchange for granting a licence or if the copyright is assiged, your rights as the work's author are minimal.
You also mention a code of conduct. Journalists and self regulation are pretty topical just now. What does that cover? I imagine it covers things such as not presenting outright falsehoods, not using material without consent or not editing material in a manner calculated to deceive. However, you would find it hard to make any such programmes at all enertaining if the bars set by the code of conduct were too onerous. Again, you present it in the context of assuring people posting on this forum that the code of conduct might provide them with some degree of protection concerning the way the material were to be used, whereas my guess is that it provides a very high level self regulatory safeguard against singificant abuses.
An analogy might be trying to complain to Ofgen about having to make a dozen phone calls to correct an error in a bill. As a single customer, Ofgen isn't terribly relevant or reassuring.
Hi First_Aspect,
Thanks for the comments. In regards to the clips that we represent, it is down to who owns the rights as to whether it is used or not, in this case if you had a clip that we were representing, you still hold the rights to it so you can say no if you are not happy with the proposal or the price. We also protect clips that we represent from being used by a broadcaster or production company without permission, and if there is evidence of this, we provide them with a bill on your behalf.
I know that media regulation is a hot topic at the moment for obvious reasons. As I am sure you are aware, television is regulated by Ofcom (http://www.ofcom.org.uk/) which sets out what we can and can't do, as you mentioned.
We are small company and so value our contributors. But as I said, this is not for a Television programme, only our archive. If a contributor sells us the right to the clip than unless stated in the contract, they would lose the right to say how it is used. That is why we also offer to represent clips for contributors, we offer to place the clip on our website and if we are contacted by a third party that is interested in buying it, we contact the owner and begin discussions as to how they want to proceed. When we represent a clip, the rights always stay with the owner, not us!
Hope that helps and you get better soon.
Tom0 -
RawCutTV wrote:We also protect clips that we represent from being used by a broadcaster or production company without permission, and if there is evidence of this, we provide them with a bill on your behalf.
Tom
Besides sending a bill after the event, what exactly does this protection consist of?
If the after the event bill is ignored, what do you do next?0 -
Greg66 wrote:RawCutTV wrote:We also protect clips that we represent from being used by a broadcaster or production company without permission, and if there is evidence of this, we provide them with a bill on your behalf.
Tom
Besides sending a bill after the event, what exactly does this protection consist of?
If the after the event bill is ignored, what do you do next?
Morning Greg66,
Thank you for your question.
As a company we know many people within the production process at the different channels as well as other companies and so do get our calls answered. In the rare event that the bill is ignored, we would pursue it until it is resolved.
Hope that helps,
Tom0 -
RawCutTV wrote:Greg66 wrote:RawCutTV wrote:We also protect clips that we represent from being used by a broadcaster or production company without permission, and if there is evidence of this, we provide them with a bill on your behalf.
Tom
Besides sending a bill after the event, what exactly does this protection consist of?
If the after the event bill is ignored, what do you do next?
Morning Greg66,
Thank you for your question.
As a company we know many people within the production process at the different channels as well as other companies and so do get our calls answered. In the rare event that the bill is ignored, we would pursue it until it is resolved.
Hope that helps,
Tom
Not much
"we would pursue it until it is resolved."
I'll pre-empt Greg66's next question...
How? A few phonecalls and snotty emails? Legal action?
He's a legal type so is probably looking for some specifics, more than "Don't worry fella, we'll keen an eye on it for you"0 -
dhope wrote:RawCutTV wrote:Greg66 wrote:RawCutTV wrote:We also protect clips that we represent from being used by a broadcaster or production company without permission, and if there is evidence of this, we provide them with a bill on your behalf.
Tom
Besides sending a bill after the event, what exactly does this protection consist of?
If the after the event bill is ignored, what do you do next?
Morning Greg66,
Thank you for your question.
As a company we know many people within the production process at the different channels as well as other companies and so do get our calls answered. In the rare event that the bill is ignored, we would pursue it until it is resolved.
Hope that helps,
Tom
Not much
"we would pursue it until it is resolved."
I'll pre-empt Greg66's next question...
How? A few phonecalls and snotty emails? Legal action?
He's a legal type so is probably looking for some specifics, more than "Don't worry fella, we'll keen an eye on it for you"
Hi,
We do have our own lawyers and so in the very rare event it got that far, than they would become involved.
As I'm sure you are aware, copyright theft is taken very seriously but would rarely get that far within the industry.
Hope that helps,
Tom0
