Who Owns the Clip? - A Response
by Tom Beckman
December 18th, 2019
Editor's Note: Please see Part 1 and Part 2 in order to see what led to this response.
December 18th, 2019
Editor's Note: Please see Part 1 and Part 2 in order to see what led to this response.
In my opinion, the filmer owns a clip...
Of course, I understand that the rider may have worked for hours for that clip. And, honestly a lot of riders work their whole lives to make something that's actually "unique." But, a filmer also might work their whole life to get to that moment. And they haven’t just put in years of time, they also might have put in extreme financial investments to make it happen. So its easy for me to say, being both a rider and a filmer, that things are pretty equal concerning what's “been put in.”
My view is that everyone needs to get something in one way or another and a proper compromise needs to be reached for each specific situation. On the other hand, if a person doesn't want something out of it, that's their choice and that's just fine, but that is not where I am at in my “career.”
"Getting something out of it" can mean different things to different people. From a business perspective, that usually means getting money, exposure, or a connection of some kind. And, let’s face it, this discussion comes down to business. The BMX industry is certainly a business. Being a professional rider is also akin to being a one-person business (private contractor) as well. And, being a creative content provider as a filmer is also being a business. And just like the BMX industry or the pro rider who have claim to deserving pay for their production/work, the filmer needs to get paid for filming.
So all sides have legitimate claims to "getting something out of it" in a business sense. What does each party get out of a clip? Let’s define each party’s possible gains. For me, I see the rider getting exposure for themselves and a product of a brand they represent. Though there is no money involved, it is a payment of sorts. The rider is earning something that they can say was of value to them as “work done” for their sponsor. As for the brand, it gets exposure for its brand identity, its product, and its brand rider. Again, there is no money involved, but these are all things of value to the brand that are provided through the use of a filmed clip. But what about the filmer? Does exposure matter as much to them? What will more exposure gain them aside from more jobs filming; which if are all paid with “exposure” means there is no actual payment for the filmer. The brand uses the exposure to sell product and gets actual money. The rider uses the exposure to fulfil sponsor obligations and thus get paid from the sponsor. But, if the filmer doesn't own and get paid for the only product they make—the actual clip—where do they get compensation (money) from? And from a financial perspective, how can they continue to produce a product that they don't own and can't sell? The filmer has possibly years of schooling to pay for as well as tons of expensive equipment. Even if they don’t need to “pay the bills,” these two things are valuable assets brought to the table when filming. How are they to be compensated for these if they do not own the media they produce and if they cannot then sell it for actual money?
In my opinion, the filmer should own the clip. They can choose to give it away and not get money from it, but the baselines is that they need to be able to get something out of it and primary ownership of the clip is the only way that can happen.
From the other end, should the filmer just do it for the love of it? Maybe the rider should just ride for the love of it, instead of sharing it with the world. Maybe the brand should just sell parts for the love of it and not worry about profit. It would be great to look at things and not have to consider money, but it can't happen when you're talking about a culture that happens to have an industry related to it. This is the real world and this is business. Filmers need to eat too.
In Mike's case from the original article, the brand he represents owns the clip because the filmer was contracted to provide the clips for a specific pay. That's great.
But, how does the filmer get paid if they don’t start out as the primary owner the clip?
It sounds hard, but when it comes to business, if one has the expertise and equipment to produce a quality product, then they should be compensated. If you desire for them to work for you, then you should give something for that work. If not, do the work yourself (self film it). Or, try to find someone willing to work for free and see how that product turns out.
Of course, I understand that the rider may have worked for hours for that clip. And, honestly a lot of riders work their whole lives to make something that's actually "unique." But, a filmer also might work their whole life to get to that moment. And they haven’t just put in years of time, they also might have put in extreme financial investments to make it happen. So its easy for me to say, being both a rider and a filmer, that things are pretty equal concerning what's “been put in.”
My view is that everyone needs to get something in one way or another and a proper compromise needs to be reached for each specific situation. On the other hand, if a person doesn't want something out of it, that's their choice and that's just fine, but that is not where I am at in my “career.”
"Getting something out of it" can mean different things to different people. From a business perspective, that usually means getting money, exposure, or a connection of some kind. And, let’s face it, this discussion comes down to business. The BMX industry is certainly a business. Being a professional rider is also akin to being a one-person business (private contractor) as well. And, being a creative content provider as a filmer is also being a business. And just like the BMX industry or the pro rider who have claim to deserving pay for their production/work, the filmer needs to get paid for filming.
So all sides have legitimate claims to "getting something out of it" in a business sense. What does each party get out of a clip? Let’s define each party’s possible gains. For me, I see the rider getting exposure for themselves and a product of a brand they represent. Though there is no money involved, it is a payment of sorts. The rider is earning something that they can say was of value to them as “work done” for their sponsor. As for the brand, it gets exposure for its brand identity, its product, and its brand rider. Again, there is no money involved, but these are all things of value to the brand that are provided through the use of a filmed clip. But what about the filmer? Does exposure matter as much to them? What will more exposure gain them aside from more jobs filming; which if are all paid with “exposure” means there is no actual payment for the filmer. The brand uses the exposure to sell product and gets actual money. The rider uses the exposure to fulfil sponsor obligations and thus get paid from the sponsor. But, if the filmer doesn't own and get paid for the only product they make—the actual clip—where do they get compensation (money) from? And from a financial perspective, how can they continue to produce a product that they don't own and can't sell? The filmer has possibly years of schooling to pay for as well as tons of expensive equipment. Even if they don’t need to “pay the bills,” these two things are valuable assets brought to the table when filming. How are they to be compensated for these if they do not own the media they produce and if they cannot then sell it for actual money?
In my opinion, the filmer should own the clip. They can choose to give it away and not get money from it, but the baselines is that they need to be able to get something out of it and primary ownership of the clip is the only way that can happen.
From the other end, should the filmer just do it for the love of it? Maybe the rider should just ride for the love of it, instead of sharing it with the world. Maybe the brand should just sell parts for the love of it and not worry about profit. It would be great to look at things and not have to consider money, but it can't happen when you're talking about a culture that happens to have an industry related to it. This is the real world and this is business. Filmers need to eat too.
In Mike's case from the original article, the brand he represents owns the clip because the filmer was contracted to provide the clips for a specific pay. That's great.
But, how does the filmer get paid if they don’t start out as the primary owner the clip?
It sounds hard, but when it comes to business, if one has the expertise and equipment to produce a quality product, then they should be compensated. If you desire for them to work for you, then you should give something for that work. If not, do the work yourself (self film it). Or, try to find someone willing to work for free and see how that product turns out.
Responses
Do you have something to add? Click the button above and get involved in the conversation.