I was watching this old video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=US&hl=uk&v=oHqUipinDyw
Look at 0:27-0:31 (yes, I know it goes by really fast). Still, that's got to be the Strasburg RR. I can't help but wonder if they got paid for that.
It got me wondering, does a museum or tourist operation get compensation if a stock movie outfit gets film/video from a moving train?

If they know about it -- maybe, but that's up to them and how they arrange it, if they're aware of it. It's comparable to asking if the photographers who shoot Strasburg pay them to do so.

Stock footage is akin to "found footage" both in terms of production and post-production. It's possible the footage of Strasburg was lifted from a pre-existing production that was shot for other purposes, for which they may have gotten compensation for.

Typically if a true production is looking to shoot any organic ("in the wild") stuff, they will need a permit, appropriate permission, etc which may induce a fee if the host or subject knows about it and especially if the production has large footprint or if the footage is bound to include logos, talent, etc.

Of course, nowadays its so easy just to send an operator in with a camera and have at it. One could claim that the subject of a video is copyright, trademarked, or private property, but that's money that would come later through claims instead of upfront as part of the production.

There's big money in selling stock footage/photos. Here's a link to one of the biggest sources: http://www.corbismotion.com/

Not like there was... istockphoto and the like have caused prices to fall dramatically for the vast majority of stock images.

Corbis is still expensive, but most photographers who deal in the "stock market" (No, not the one on Wall Street) aren't getting rich from it.

Also, of importance to the question posed. most stock photography places are very strict about not having company logos or names etc. They won't accept an image of a locomotive with "UNION PACIFIC" in big letters on it. They don't want problems when that image is used in an ad or other setting that the company might not approve of.

The same goes for any recognizable people, you have to have a model release for anyone in the image that can be identified, and that basically means anyone in the shot unless it's a distant crowd scene.

Bob, there's still money in it. I have several friends who make a good chunk of their living from stock.

It all depends on the level you're at.

Stephen

I have shot film on 8mm at Strasburg, I could put it up for sale as a home movie, Strasburg wouldnt see a dime.

Documentary style does not call for explicit rights, you can stand in the middle of the street and shoot film, with cars flying past you, you don't need permission.

This debate about rights has gone on and on, you the filmmaker own the film and that is your right. How the subject matter there's been subject of all kinds of copyright issues.

I've talked about it in other places till the subject is dead in the water, if you shoot film like at Strasburg and sell/post it up on youtube whatever, your giving free publicity to the Strasburg that they didn't have to pay for. This has been my argument about all them freebies who follow/chase trains with their cameras and don't buy tickets. I say leavem be.

Having shot film of the restoration of 765 which I am now getting transfers to video done (long job, I do the transfers, all the work) I paid for all the film, development, and even helped work directly on the engine. When the production is done I plan something monetarily if it sells in donations to the FWRHS, whatever.
will see how it goes, but its work work work here still like I am still restoring the engine all over again...heh.

But what is most important to me is the education of restoring an engine which is what this film will show, money not so important than the sharing.

Consider say Gilligans Island, the actors were paid for their performances, however all the reruns, they don't get a penny. sad fact.

I make money on it too -- but that doesn't mean the subjects make any.

::braces for sudden influx of lawsuits::



About time!!!! ;)



This may be true for Gilligan's Island, but many television shows and films have talent with residuals built into their contracts, meaning they get paid for each subsequent airing.


KL

One of the problems here is control.

The fact remains that if you can see it from public property, you are allowed to photograph or video it--a fact often being lost on much of the nation's law enforcement in the wake of the Department of Homeland (In)Security.

If a person wants to show up at a public crossing, or secure permission to climb atop a private building or hillside, and photograph a private photo charter, there's really nothing the railroad or charter operator can do about it, aside from either not operating such trips or putting clown faces, traffic cones, and/or ugly locomotives on the front when visible from public property.

If Michael Moore wants to show up and video-record the Strasburg, Cass, Sierra, Durango & Silverton, etc. polluting the air and befouling Mother Earth in the name of the almighty dollar, there's really nothing any of them can do except carefully explore the resulting documentary for outright actionable libel, or actively work to discredit Moore's propaganda with more propaganda.

Ideally, a railroad or museum can be easy to work with. We've seen shows that have used a museum positively, and one of dubious merit (the fabled motorcycle jump over a Texas State RR train years ago). The balance has to be between extracting every dollar possible, paying your costs, and fulfilling any mission to your shareholders or public.

Speaking of corbismotion does anyone know the details of this footage http://www.corbismotion.com/wicker/clip ... 572_003.do

"Denver & Rio Grande", an early 50s western filmed on the D&RGW narrow gage. The two old 2-8-0s that collided were "helped" along to explosion by dynamite charges.

Howard P.

same film that the railroad said yea, their 2 old engines about to be scrapped, wreckem?

We have a posted policy indicating that filming / photography for commercial purposes is not permitted without permission. Being a museum which is not generally accessible without paying admission, we don't have to worry about a movie crew taking images at a public crossing.

We generally charge for commercial shoots, the rates and agreements are set by our film industry liason. Commercial use can vary from local film students and fashion shoots to major movies. Use of images taken of our equipment is covered in the contract. Typically, the company can use images they've paid for without a lot of restrictions but they can't pass them on to other companiies for further usage.

Gord McOuat
OERHA / Halton County

In general if you incidentally photograph a person on public property, like a city street, that person has no ownership or control of the photo. A person has no right of privacy when on public property. Any potential copyright would be property of the photographer.

Likewise if the photo contains an image of a McDonald's restaurant in the background, the restaurant copyrighted name owner has no control over use of the photo as long as it is not used in a libelous manner.

If the person in the photo is easily recognizable and the photo is used in advertising or other commercial manner, then some different issues arise.

An audience member in a televison studio passes a sign that admission to the studio automatically grants a release to use a person's image in any manner.

I dealt with these things in the wonderful world of television.

Its interesting that early model railroad manufacturers the railroads actually manifested the manufacturers to use their logos, references etc on the model equipment, it promoted their railroad. Now its turnabout, Union Pacific was very brash about how their logo's got used and many model manufactures slapping the UP logo's on their equipment had to stop and sell unpainted models leaving out the UP, while still doing other roads because of licensing fees making it impossible to produce the model otherwise. MTH went into a lawsuit about it and got the UP to free its licensing, (MTH in return had to produce a model that featured the logos of many railroads and manufactures on one model, imagine the BLI/MTH logo side by side, subject of many court cases...)

Each organization has their reasons/purposes, many of it is about protection of its image and doing it right and the safety for the filmers and performers and so on.

Now comes the million dollar question. How many of you have shot stock footage of your outfits to get a little extra $$$? What orginazation coulden't use a little extra money these days.