Potential subscription service (need your advice)

[Aerial Entertainment Studios]

Hi everyone,

I need your advice on something that came to mind a few days ago. As some of you may know, I am a forum sponsor. I am asking a genuine question to end users on an idea I had. I am seeking for feedback before I decide to implement or not this idea.

I was thinking of implementing a monthly payment system to content creators who post content for sale on our site. This monthly payment would increase in amount based on the number of clips they have available for sale on the site.

The idea here is to support content creators who display their footage and help build our initial database of content.

So I have a few questions.

1- Does this idea make sense to you. Is this a different and original approach?

2- If the answer to the above is 'yes', what would you consider being a reasonable amount we should pay on a monthly basis for people who post 50, 100, 250 and 500+ clips on the site.

Your thoughts on the topic are appreciated.

Cheers

Patrice

 

[GadgetGuy]

First of all, if there is any remuneration involved, it would appear to be commercial use of the drone footage, which theoretically would require a 333 Exemption held by the copyright holder, and a licensed pilot having flown the drone. Because of that, I think it's a bad idea. YMMV.

 

[Aerial Entertainment Studios]

First of all, if there is any remuneration involved, it would appear to be commercial use of the drone footage, which theoretically would require a 333 Exemption held by the copyright holder, and a licensed pilot having flown the drone. Because of that, I think it's a bad idea. YMMV.

What if the footage is not captured in the USA, then the rules would not apply right? We are focused in exotic content that is mostly outside the US, and we are based in Hong Kong so those rules don't apply here.

 

[GadgetGuy]

What if the footage is not captured in the USA, then the rules would not apply right? We are focused in exotic content that is mostly outside the US, and we are based in Hong Kong so those rules don't apply here.

USA rules would not apply, but local laws where the footage was shot might, and might be even more restrictive, getting the film maker into trouble locally, with your site offering their content as proof of a violation. If you are Aerial Entertainment Studios, your exclusive right to sell the content would be a deal killer for me, as a film maker. See how it goes. You'll know soon enough. Also, one time use for a fixed fee, without knowing the extent of the use, is contrary to all other licensing models. You also have no way of protecting the film maker from re-use or resale of their creations by your purchasers, which would kill sales, as you retain the exclusive rights, but won't protect them!

 

[Aerial Entertainment Studios]

USA rules would not apply, but local laws where the footage was shot might, and might be even more restrictive, getting the film maker into trouble locally, with your site offering their content as proof of a violation. If you are Aerial Entertainment Studios, your exclusive right to sell the content would be a deal killer for me, as a film maker. See how it goes. You'll know soon enough. Also, one time use for a fixed fee, without knowing the extent of the use, is contrary to all other licensing models. You also have no way of protecting the film maker from re-use or resale of their creations by your purchasers, which would kill sales, as you retain the exclusive rights, but won't protect them!

This is good feedback and very appreciated. Yes we are AES and I would be interested in addressing the concerns you mention, and would like to know what would it take for a filmmaker like you to make this a no-brainer.

Aside from how the footage itself was shot (which is the responsibility of the filmmaker and clearly stated in our terms and conditions), what else would be required in order to protect the filmmaker?

A few ideas.

- multiple licensing options (with various degrees of pricing for each)
- more robust T&C's to ensure we can recourse to legal actions in case of violation
- added flexibility around the concept of exclusivity.
- what else.

In the end, this whole platform was built for content creators so if we can find ways to adapt the offering to ensure everyone is happy, that would be the desired outcome.

Cheers

 

[TheRealNick]

I hate paying anything monthly....should be free

 

[Aerial Entertainment Studios]

I hate paying anything monthly....should be free

I don't think you properly understood. I am saying I would be paying content creators the monthly amount AND would pay them commissions when sales are made. Not only is it free, it's money guaranteed. I'm asking if this makes sense.

 

[TheRealNick]

Ah yes, I like this! Sorry for misunderstanding....

 

[Aerial Entertainment Studios]

Ah yes, I like this! Sorry for misunderstanding....

No worries ;-)

Now, what do you believe would be reasonable in terms on monthly amount based on people who post 50, 100, 250 and 500+ clips on the site?

Cheers

 

[GadgetGuy]

This is good feedback and very appreciated. Yes we are AES and I would be interested in addressing the concerns you mention, and would like to know what would it take for a filmmaker like you to make this a no-brainer.

Aside from how the footage itself was shot (which is the responsibility of the filmmaker and clearly stated in our terms and conditions), what else would be required in order to protect the filmmaker?

A few ideas.

- multiple licensing options (with various degrees of pricing for each)
- more robust T&C's to ensure we can recourse to legal actions in case of violation
- added flexibility around the concept of exclusivity.
- what else.

In the end, this whole platform was built for content creators so if we can find ways to adapt the offering to ensure everyone is happy, that would be the desired outcome.

Cheers

As to the few ideas:
- Just allow the filmmaker to negotiate the fee and the licensing limitations with the end user, with payment arranged through you
- Eliminate the exclusivity completely. Why do you need it?
No other stock agency I am aware of requires it.
- As long as there is no exclusivity, and I am still free to enter into multiple arrangements with others for licensing, I am less worried about theft or resale or misuse by one of your buyers. Litigation will always be a lost cause in an international market, which is why the licensing fee must be high enough to cover the risk that the buyer will breach the licensing terms.

That's all that comes to mind at the moment.

 

[Aerial Entertainment Studios]

As to the few ideas:
- Just allow the filmmaker to negotiate the fee and the licensing limitations with the end user, with payment arranged through you
- Eliminate the exclusivity completely. Why do you need it?
No other stock agency I am aware of requires it.
- As long as there is no exclusivity, and I am still free to enter into multiple arrangements with others for licensing, I am less worried about theft or resale or misuse by one of your buyers. Litigation will always be a lost cause in an international market, which is why the licensing fee must be high enough to cover the risk that the buyer will breach the licensing terms.

That's all that comes to mind at the moment.

i get your point, but at the same time, no stock footage agency gives back 70% to the content creator when sales are made. In fact no one even comes close. Most give back 30% to 40%, not 70% which is why I ask for exclusivity of content. However, we don't prevent content creators from making direct sales by themselves, or post on their Facebook, Vimeo, etc.

Plus, content creators can remove their content from our site at any time and we don't lock people in for the long term. No one else allows that either. I'm many ways what we are doing is game changing, but still needs to be perfected.

Can I take this offline with you to capture more of your thoughts. Let me know if you are ok with that. Cheers.

 

[GadgetGuy]

i get your point, but at the same time, no stock footage agency gives back 70% to the content creator when sales are made. In fact no one even comes close. Most give back 30% to 40%, not 70% which is why I ask for exclusivity of content. However, we don't prevent content creators from making direct sales by themselves, or post on their Facebook, Vimeo, etc.

Plus, content creators can remove their content from our site at any time and we don't lock people in for the long term. No one else allows that either. I'm many ways what we are doing is game changing, but still needs to be perfected.

Can I take this offline with you to capture more of your thoughts. Let me know if you are ok with that. Cheers.

If I give you an exclusive agency listing, 70% of nothing is still nothing, so the bigger percentage is of no value unless the volume of sales is the same, and you can protect my copyright on each sale, and I can dictate the terms of the licensing, and the fee to be charged, based upon the type of usage. I'd be happy to discuss this offline. Just PM me.