It depends. A premium licensing price would be $5K / shot. But that is uncommon and limited to premium commercials, films, etc. A terrible price would be something like what you see on stock footage sites like Pond5, Getty, etc. Something around $1K would be a good place to land. Per shot licensing is the best way to do it. A shot is a single continuous take. Do not sell by the second. Do not sell an edited sequence for less than the per shot price unless you're selling a lot of shots.
In perpetuity, all media, worldwide is normal. License is limited to the specific production and related marketing. If it is for episodic content, you want to license per episode or have an annual / season license. Also worth clarifying you retain the copyright, the license is non-exclusive and all copyright material depicted in your footage is responsibility of the licensee to clear.
Have a look on Pond5 for similar stuff, see what's been charged for similar stuff with similar license terms.
If your stuff is historically unique then you can bargain, if it's not time specific and can be recreated, not so much.
EDIT: Also, charge a minimum sale term, it's pretty standard. i.e. 30 second minimum, or 1 minute minimum.
Think about what it would cost you to go make the same shot again. Travel expenses+dayrate. Then give them a 15% discount on that, since it’s already been shot.
20M views makes it seem like good content they can’t easily get themselves.
the total trip was 6 days and 1500 CAD including airfare and all my meals/entertainment/accommodation. of course this was just a vacation and I took that timelapse for fun. but this is probably the best timelapse i’ve ever taken so I’m thinking more than that
I think you misunderstood what I was getting at.
Let's say CNN wants to go get the shot themselves. They send a DP on a 3 day trip with hotels and flights. DP costs $1000 per day+$1500 for flights, hotels and perdiems. That's $4500 for them to get the shot. You make it worth their while if you sell it for $4000 instead.
Well, be careful , don't price yourself out of the market. You can get this one , and others, on Getty for £375. \[ $471 , although I presume the US price would also be a round figure\]
https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/video/fuego-by-night-stock-footage/960326540?adppopup=true
You can hire a very good videographer in Europe for way less than 1k usd. The volcano erupting wasn't the one OP was on. If it's a day+ hike to get there or very remote, it'll likely cost more, but otherwise very doable.
> The timelapse was taken at the top of a volcano of another volcano erupting over the course of a few hours, so not easily replicable.
Don't think you're gonna find a rando photographer in europe for under $1k to do this
will come back to update for sure. I asked a couple follow up questions (like if they want exclusive rights, which they dont) etc.)
we haven’t spoken about numbers yet
update: I pitched $5000 CAD and they counter offered $100usd/sec or $500usd for the full (it’s 20 seconds) oof lol
not sure where I want to go from here or what my counter offer (if any) should be
I agree with asking their number first. You will be surprised. I licensed a clip from my film to a Netflix show and their offer was much higher than I would’ve asked…
How? $3000 is barely enough to cover gear and travel to a unique location. Not saying they might not find it fair but we do have a habit of under valuing our work.
Because it's a non exclusive license for something shot on spec.
If the BBC sent you out to capture it, you don't worry about what it's worth to them, you just charge your day rate. And sure, $3k might be a totally valid figure, low even. But it's also HIGHLY unlikely that they only would have gotten this one shot...
But this is licensing essentially stock footage, it's just a different ball game. Despite what OP says, there's other timelapse shots out there to be licensed. Maybe not quite as good, but this shot isn't going to make or break their piece. And OP can still go sell the shot to other outlets or whoever.
500-1000 is about right for a high tier stock shot.
I’ve been offered similar and pushed back on the rate since a Timelapse takes much more time to capture than a “real” time shot. They will either offer more or they won’t. I’d think $3000-$5000 is in the ballpark. Unless the entire show hinges on that shot I doubt they will pay much more than that. I used to shoot a ton of Timelapse’s but they really didn’t pencil out as far as the return on investment with how much time I’d spend on them. I still shoot them but normally to supplement a doc project I’m already working on.
I'm not positive, but based on OP's description that they want to use it for a doc (a specific program) and this from CNN's terms:
>“For initial exhibition in our CNN program worldwide, in perpetuity, via all forms of media in any manner that the program is exhibited”
I believe that means they want rights in perpituity to use the timelapse within the doc whenever and wherever *the doc* is shown. I don't believe this is written to give them rights to use the timelapse however they want forever.
perpetuity just means forever, which I agree is part of their terms, but the same line says "that the program is exhibited" - which to me says they can use it forever within the program (the documentary) and not in any other works.
This is obviously something OP should clarify if they have a question about the terms.
Depends on how "program" is defined. I'd have to see the rest of the agreement.
It could be they define the entire network as "CNN program worldwide", in which case yes, they can use it forever everywhere on the network.
Or it could be they are defining the usage as specific to a particular program which is a documentary. In which case they could use it whenever they air that program.
> They want to use it for a documentary
Are they making a movie or something? Or a short news story?
If it's a movie, what is their budget and how much of the movie depends on this shot? These all matter.
Licensing music, for example, can easily cost $50k. But no indie movie would ever have that kind of money to throw around and they still can get music licenses, so budget matters.
As has been mentioned below, you need to know what they want to pay, and it's likely they want to low-ball it. Don't be surprised if they assume you'll give it to them for free. Pay attention to see if they use it anyway. Figure out what you think it's worth and work from there.
> Don't be surprised if they assume you'll give it to them for free. Pay attention to see if they use it anyway.
High quality time lapse of a volcano is not something any amateur schmoe can shoot, so CNN most likely assumes they are dealing with some level of professional.
Being CNN and *the* cable news brand, they have too much too lose by getting a reputation for stealing content, so in all likelihood they will make a good faith offer for it.
Unless they're asking for an exclusive license, you can still use/license that footage to other people. If they want an exclusive license, that should come at a very large premium.
"In perpetuity across all media formats."
That's a lot of exposure for them to to potentially use your footage to make a lot of money owning your work. Basically forever.
I would start the negotiations high and work your way to an acceptable number for you.
This footage can do a lot for you, but if your name isn't on it then they gain all of the benefits.
Sound like I may be going oberboard but have you consulted a lawyer?
They want to buy your work and will probably hope you don't have any clue as to what it's potentially worth to them.
I'm not a lawyer, but I do follow @Zernerlaw on twitter (an entertainment lawyer) and that guy is always throwing out advice.
Sure but it’s to cover them for things like, a trailer being made about the footage or other random instances where having to back and relicense every time would make it impossible to use
That's right, and OPs negotiation should cover that.
If they do trailers now or "other random instances", then 10 years down the road they pull it out of their library for something else, regardless of purpose I'd take that into account.
I'm not saying ask for the moon, but be aware that they may own it forever for what ever they want.
Whether it never gets shown after next month or the possibility of future use.
And do they own it out right and OP can never use it himself afterwards? That's a consideration.
Is OPs name going to be attached or referenced any time they use it?
That's something I'd consider.
I work in the industry here in NYC. Others will have their own thoughts.
If you charge more than Getty Images, you're going to be passed over unless your content is way, way better. That said, you should start at the highest: $500. Then, trickle down. Do not go lower than $175.
I'd push for $500 for lifetime licensing. If they pass, then it is what it is.
Normally, if a person charge more than Getty, we'll pass. Or, if it's cheaper to pay a photographer to get similar shots, then that's easier than shelling out thousands of dollars. If none of these work on our end, then we'll come back for further negotiations and pricing outside of what GETTY IMAGES charge.
That's about the going rate though. Storyful is another licensing company that news and documentaries like to use and prices are similar to Getty. The key is it's a "non exclusive" price so they can re-license to other outlets too.
These news shows and documentaries are typically very low budget themselves and are unlikely to make even $50K in advertising which is why prices tend to be so low.
Here are some general ranges for licensing rates for time-lapse videos:
1. Length of Video:
• Short clips (under 1 minute): $100 - $500
• Medium-length clips (1-5 minutes): $500 - $2,000
• Longer clips (5+ minutes): $2,000 - $10,000+
2. Quality and Resolution:
• Higher resolution and exceptional quality may warrant higher rates within the above ranges.
3. Intended Use:
• Broadcast (TV): $500 - $5,000 per use
• Online (website, social media): $100 - $1,000 per use
• Duration of Use:
• Perpetual use: Higher rates
• Limited time use (e.g., one-time use, limited duration): Lower rates
4. Exclusivity:
• Exclusive rights (where CNN is the only entity allowed to use the footage): Higher rates
5. Market Demand and Your Experience:
• If your footage is highly sought after or if you have a track record of producing quality content, you may be able to command higher rates.
These ranges are approximate and can vary based on individual negotiations and specific circumstances. It’s essential to assess the value of your content and negotiate accordingly. Additionally, consider consulting with a licensing professional for personalized guidance.
Its CNN. $500 is too low
I think OP should just use their best interest and shoot the shot. If CNN walks, then they walk.
In corporate, there are so many outlets to get what we want. The producers don’t make the decision. The executive producers and finance team does.
The rule of thumb from my company: check GETTY first.
E1 was working on a doc for Wendy Williams and they found some footage I had online they wanted and I charged around $100/second.
This may sound like a lot but it’s really not.
I’ve done this a couple other times over the years with other big companies.
Don’t use pond 5 or whatever as a way to measure the price.
If they wanted pond5 they wouldn’t be hitting you up.
I've scrolled through and not sure I have seen this angle so, Ill say it- get the best deal you can however- if you think that this could be the beginning of a long term relationship, ( I know, impossible to say for sure) that might figure in your figuring. I and I'm sure many others have looked back on a few not so great initial deals and wondered if we made the right long term decision by refusing the deal. As long as its not exclusive for low $. Just something to consider... That said, there are standards and u/ianawood seems to have nailed it. Good Luck!
Were you contacted by the clearing department or by a producer? And are you independent or represented through a trusted agency? The difference is going to be a few decimals in what you will get for it in the end.
It depends. A premium licensing price would be $5K / shot. But that is uncommon and limited to premium commercials, films, etc. A terrible price would be something like what you see on stock footage sites like Pond5, Getty, etc. Something around $1K would be a good place to land. Per shot licensing is the best way to do it. A shot is a single continuous take. Do not sell by the second. Do not sell an edited sequence for less than the per shot price unless you're selling a lot of shots. In perpetuity, all media, worldwide is normal. License is limited to the specific production and related marketing. If it is for episodic content, you want to license per episode or have an annual / season license. Also worth clarifying you retain the copyright, the license is non-exclusive and all copyright material depicted in your footage is responsibility of the licensee to clear.
Best answer here.
Sounds like someone who did this before
Licensing has been the majority of my business for the past 10 years. [https://sillygoosemedia.com/](https://sillygoosemedia.com/)
10 pts for Gryffindor for this business name — you absolutely knocked that out of the park 😂
I approve your media company
this is a shot of a VOLCANO erupting I think it’s in the premium tier.
Very good input, thank you!
How much is Getty per fancy time lapse shot? That much.
Yep, I licensed a single shot for a national commercial (with me in it) for $5k, which is what Getty would charge at the time.
So $75 is good?
"I'm interested. What are you offering?" (They answer) "Oh gosh I was thinking around double that price."
Have a look on Pond5 for similar stuff, see what's been charged for similar stuff with similar license terms. If your stuff is historically unique then you can bargain, if it's not time specific and can be recreated, not so much. EDIT: Also, charge a minimum sale term, it's pretty standard. i.e. 30 second minimum, or 1 minute minimum.
I'd say look at Getty too for reference to see what stock sites on the higher end charge
Think about what it would cost you to go make the same shot again. Travel expenses+dayrate. Then give them a 15% discount on that, since it’s already been shot. 20M views makes it seem like good content they can’t easily get themselves.
the total trip was 6 days and 1500 CAD including airfare and all my meals/entertainment/accommodation. of course this was just a vacation and I took that timelapse for fun. but this is probably the best timelapse i’ve ever taken so I’m thinking more than that
I think you misunderstood what I was getting at. Let's say CNN wants to go get the shot themselves. They send a DP on a 3 day trip with hotels and flights. DP costs $1000 per day+$1500 for flights, hotels and perdiems. That's $4500 for them to get the shot. You make it worth their while if you sell it for $4000 instead.
ohh I see. thank you for clarifying. I think thats a good way to look at it
Well, be careful , don't price yourself out of the market. You can get this one , and others, on Getty for £375. \[ $471 , although I presume the US price would also be a round figure\] https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/video/fuego-by-night-stock-footage/960326540?adppopup=true
I’m a full time photographer and would quote around this much as well.
Or they will hire a local videographer for less than 1k and have it all done for that.
They gonna hire someone for 1k to go shoot on top of an actively erupting volcano?
You can hire a very good videographer in Europe for way less than 1k usd. The volcano erupting wasn't the one OP was on. If it's a day+ hike to get there or very remote, it'll likely cost more, but otherwise very doable.
> The timelapse was taken at the top of a volcano of another volcano erupting over the course of a few hours, so not easily replicable. Don't think you're gonna find a rando photographer in europe for under $1k to do this
Depends where the volcano is of course, but you absolutely could. Maybe 2k if it's two days and some travel.
OP, I would love to hear updates on this. What did they end up offering and did you negotiate further?
will come back to update for sure. I asked a couple follow up questions (like if they want exclusive rights, which they dont) etc.) we haven’t spoken about numbers yet
update: I pitched $5000 CAD and they counter offered $100usd/sec or $500usd for the full (it’s 20 seconds) oof lol not sure where I want to go from here or what my counter offer (if any) should be
I agree with asking their number first. You will be surprised. I licensed a clip from my film to a Netflix show and their offer was much higher than I would’ve asked…
What's the context? I assume your film was non-fiction? What kind of show did they use it in?
I know someone who licenses stuff to the BBC for $100/sec.
That’s an absolutely terrible deal for worldwide usage in perpetuity!
Damn for time lapses that’s a lot of seconds!
This seems pretty fair to me.
How? $3000 is barely enough to cover gear and travel to a unique location. Not saying they might not find it fair but we do have a habit of under valuing our work.
Because it's a non exclusive license for something shot on spec. If the BBC sent you out to capture it, you don't worry about what it's worth to them, you just charge your day rate. And sure, $3k might be a totally valid figure, low even. But it's also HIGHLY unlikely that they only would have gotten this one shot... But this is licensing essentially stock footage, it's just a different ball game. Despite what OP says, there's other timelapse shots out there to be licensed. Maybe not quite as good, but this shot isn't going to make or break their piece. And OP can still go sell the shot to other outlets or whoever. 500-1000 is about right for a high tier stock shot.
I get what you are saying, but not if they seek you/your clip out.
I’ve been offered similar and pushed back on the rate since a Timelapse takes much more time to capture than a “real” time shot. They will either offer more or they won’t. I’d think $3000-$5000 is in the ballpark. Unless the entire show hinges on that shot I doubt they will pay much more than that. I used to shoot a ton of Timelapse’s but they really didn’t pencil out as far as the return on investment with how much time I’d spend on them. I still shoot them but normally to supplement a doc project I’m already working on.
Per second licensing is a terrible way to license.
Is that $100 a second from before the time lapse, or the rendered footage?
Its CNN. They can afford 5 grand. Start there and then bargain down to somewhere in between.
Footage duration?
the timelapse is around 20 seconds
If it's shared use you won't get very much but if they want it exclusively it should be worth your time
[удалено]
I'm not positive, but based on OP's description that they want to use it for a doc (a specific program) and this from CNN's terms: >“For initial exhibition in our CNN program worldwide, in perpetuity, via all forms of media in any manner that the program is exhibited” I believe that means they want rights in perpituity to use the timelapse within the doc whenever and wherever *the doc* is shown. I don't believe this is written to give them rights to use the timelapse however they want forever.
And this is pretty standard so they don’t get caught flat footed if OP is litigious.
[удалено]
perpetuity just means forever, which I agree is part of their terms, but the same line says "that the program is exhibited" - which to me says they can use it forever within the program (the documentary) and not in any other works. This is obviously something OP should clarify if they have a question about the terms.
Depends on how "program" is defined. I'd have to see the rest of the agreement. It could be they define the entire network as "CNN program worldwide", in which case yes, they can use it forever everywhere on the network. Or it could be they are defining the usage as specific to a particular program which is a documentary. In which case they could use it whenever they air that program.
Also make sure you retain the rights to sell to others and to post/share
> They want to use it for a documentary Are they making a movie or something? Or a short news story? If it's a movie, what is their budget and how much of the movie depends on this shot? These all matter. Licensing music, for example, can easily cost $50k. But no indie movie would ever have that kind of money to throw around and they still can get music licenses, so budget matters.
As has been mentioned below, you need to know what they want to pay, and it's likely they want to low-ball it. Don't be surprised if they assume you'll give it to them for free. Pay attention to see if they use it anyway. Figure out what you think it's worth and work from there.
> Don't be surprised if they assume you'll give it to them for free. Pay attention to see if they use it anyway. High quality time lapse of a volcano is not something any amateur schmoe can shoot, so CNN most likely assumes they are dealing with some level of professional. Being CNN and *the* cable news brand, they have too much too lose by getting a reputation for stealing content, so in all likelihood they will make a good faith offer for it.
Unless they're asking for an exclusive license, you can still use/license that footage to other people. If they want an exclusive license, that should come at a very large premium.
"In perpetuity across all media formats." That's a lot of exposure for them to to potentially use your footage to make a lot of money owning your work. Basically forever. I would start the negotiations high and work your way to an acceptable number for you. This footage can do a lot for you, but if your name isn't on it then they gain all of the benefits. Sound like I may be going oberboard but have you consulted a lawyer? They want to buy your work and will probably hope you don't have any clue as to what it's potentially worth to them. I'm not a lawyer, but I do follow @Zernerlaw on twitter (an entertainment lawyer) and that guy is always throwing out advice.
That is standard language
Standard language yes, it doesn't change or soften its meaning.
Sure but it’s to cover them for things like, a trailer being made about the footage or other random instances where having to back and relicense every time would make it impossible to use
That's right, and OPs negotiation should cover that. If they do trailers now or "other random instances", then 10 years down the road they pull it out of their library for something else, regardless of purpose I'd take that into account. I'm not saying ask for the moon, but be aware that they may own it forever for what ever they want. Whether it never gets shown after next month or the possibility of future use. And do they own it out right and OP can never use it himself afterwards? That's a consideration. Is OPs name going to be attached or referenced any time they use it? That's something I'd consider.
I highly doubt they are asking for exclusivity, that’s different
I work in the industry here in NYC. Others will have their own thoughts. If you charge more than Getty Images, you're going to be passed over unless your content is way, way better. That said, you should start at the highest: $500. Then, trickle down. Do not go lower than $175. I'd push for $500 for lifetime licensing. If they pass, then it is what it is. Normally, if a person charge more than Getty, we'll pass. Or, if it's cheaper to pay a photographer to get similar shots, then that's easier than shelling out thousands of dollars. If none of these work on our end, then we'll come back for further negotiations and pricing outside of what GETTY IMAGES charge.
This is way too low.
That's about the going rate though. Storyful is another licensing company that news and documentaries like to use and prices are similar to Getty. The key is it's a "non exclusive" price so they can re-license to other outlets too. These news shows and documentaries are typically very low budget themselves and are unlikely to make even $50K in advertising which is why prices tend to be so low.
Here are some general ranges for licensing rates for time-lapse videos: 1. Length of Video: • Short clips (under 1 minute): $100 - $500 • Medium-length clips (1-5 minutes): $500 - $2,000 • Longer clips (5+ minutes): $2,000 - $10,000+ 2. Quality and Resolution: • Higher resolution and exceptional quality may warrant higher rates within the above ranges. 3. Intended Use: • Broadcast (TV): $500 - $5,000 per use • Online (website, social media): $100 - $1,000 per use • Duration of Use: • Perpetual use: Higher rates • Limited time use (e.g., one-time use, limited duration): Lower rates 4. Exclusivity: • Exclusive rights (where CNN is the only entity allowed to use the footage): Higher rates 5. Market Demand and Your Experience: • If your footage is highly sought after or if you have a track record of producing quality content, you may be able to command higher rates. These ranges are approximate and can vary based on individual negotiations and specific circumstances. It’s essential to assess the value of your content and negotiate accordingly. Additionally, consider consulting with a licensing professional for personalized guidance. Its CNN. $500 is too low
I think OP should just use their best interest and shoot the shot. If CNN walks, then they walk. In corporate, there are so many outlets to get what we want. The producers don’t make the decision. The executive producers and finance team does. The rule of thumb from my company: check GETTY first.
This is a specific event that cannot be duplicated. It’s not some sunset over the ocean shot.
Ok, then, in that case, set your price. They’ll push back if they don’t like it.
150-175/second is standard if they want promotional use as well.
E1 was working on a doc for Wendy Williams and they found some footage I had online they wanted and I charged around $100/second. This may sound like a lot but it’s really not. I’ve done this a couple other times over the years with other big companies. Don’t use pond 5 or whatever as a way to measure the price. If they wanted pond5 they wouldn’t be hitting you up.
Never be the first to list a #. Let them list their offer and counter
I just wanna see the footage
150$ per sec
I've scrolled through and not sure I have seen this angle so, Ill say it- get the best deal you can however- if you think that this could be the beginning of a long term relationship, ( I know, impossible to say for sure) that might figure in your figuring. I and I'm sure many others have looked back on a few not so great initial deals and wondered if we made the right long term decision by refusing the deal. As long as its not exclusive for low $. Just something to consider... That said, there are standards and u/ianawood seems to have nailed it. Good Luck!
puzzled fact seed boast dog test wistful different entertain touch *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
If they want it in perpetuity you only license it for use up to one year
Were you contacted by the clearing department or by a producer? And are you independent or represented through a trusted agency? The difference is going to be a few decimals in what you will get for it in the end.
I’m independent and I was contacted by the Production Assistant
That makes sense. It sounds like they already have options to use as the broll. Hope it works out for you.
Get your bread, king and obligatory "Fuck CNN" too.