Value In Versatility: Use the options offered by stock footage companies to feed your creativity.

One year ago in this space, my DV101 column “Stocking the Store,” was about utilizing stock footage and discussing some of the myriad online outlets that offer reasonably priced clips.

Twelve months later, one of the primary differences I see in the stock footage scene is the increased prevalence of high-def footage. Many of the sites that I surveyed a year ago that had no HD footage, now offer that option and sites that already had some HD footage seem to have a lot more HD choices now. In addition, we’re starting to see even higher-resolution clips become available.

In October, Artbeats.com started offering 4K stock footage originated on the RED One camera, and other sites quickly followed suit. This may seem like overkill for many stock footage users, but higher-resolution images are easily downconverted and rescaled for 2K, 1080, 720 and even 480 projects.

In the past year, I’ve had several occasions where I’ve turned to stock footage and primarily used the two top companies from last year’s list of suppliers: istockvideo.com and Pond5.com. I’ve also found that I have always chosen the HD version of any footage, whenever available, whether for an HD project or not. Just as I would choose a stock photo that was higher resolution than I actually needed to offer me more flexibility, I try to do the same with stock footage. On two occasions, I was working on standard-definition industrial projects that would ultimately end up on SD DVD and, in both cases, I went with 1920x1080 footage for the 720x480 project. Choosing the HD version of the shots I wanted allowed me the freedom to scale and reposition the footage exactly as I needed.

Obviously, not all sites are offering 4K, or even 2K clips, just yet, and those that do have them available, including Shutterstock.com, charge a premium price — but as higher-resolution clips become the norm the prices will even out.

One of the questions I received from last year’s column was the difference between rights-managed and royalty-free footage, so I thought I’d clarify that here.

Rights-managed clips, which are invariably more expensive, are those in which the specific use of a clip (the exposure and the timeframe in which the clip is used) dictates its cost. If the clip is to be used for a one-time, in-house presentation, the charge will be a nominal fee. If the clip is to be used in a commercially available DVD, or on television, for example, the cost will be considerably more. The more available, longer term and the more venues/formats the clip will be utilized, the more expensive the license. Each license for a rights-managed clip is unique and specifically spells out the exact usage and exposure a clip can receive for the given fee. In a rights-managed situation, the copyright owner (or authorized licensor) of the footage strictly controls — and is compensated for — its usage.

Royalty-free is the polar opposite of rights-managed. In a royalty-free license, one price fits all. Within the terms of the specific copyright holder’s (or authorized licensor’s) agreement, a royalty-free clip can be used however the purchaser may desire. A user who purchases a royalty-free clip for an in-house one-time presentation will pay the same rate as one who purchases a clip for a commercial DVD, as long as the general terms of the license allow for commercial distribution. Therein lies the rub — each royalty-free license, like each rights-managed license, is unique and has its own restrictions and freedoms. Sites such as istockvideo.com offer several types of royalty-free license agreements for their footage. Depending on your needs, you may pay slightly more for a more inclusive agreement. As always, carefully review your license agreements with any site you purchase footage from and make sure the license suits your needs.

In the past few years more and more material has popped up, especially on the Internet, under Creative Commons license. First released in late 2002 by the Center for the Public Domain, Creative Commons licenses are specifically designed so that the creator of a piece of work can freely authorize any user to utilize their work, within set restrictions, without any cost. The copyright holder sets the terms of the Creative Commons license and, once set and identified, anyone can utilize that material free of charge, and without further specific permission, as long as they abide by the terms of the license.

Creative Commons is like a “Public Domain Lite” option in which the copyright holder can set the specific free rules.
There are four levels of Creative Commons licenses: Attribution, Share Alike, Noncommercial and No Derivative Works. The available licenses are all various combinations of these four levels. For instance, one copyright holder might set an Attribution/Share Alike license for their work whereas another might set an Attribution/Noncommercial license. All of the licenses feature the base level of Attribution in which the original copyright holder must be credited for the use of their work. A simple Attribution CC license is the freest option available. It means a user can alter, distribute (even commercially) the work as long as proper credit is given. The most restrictive license, Attribution/Non-commercial/No Derivatives is sometimes called the ‘free advertising’ option as it doesn’t allow a user to commercially utilize, change or alter the work in any way and full credit must be given.

Very few Creative Commons licenses of video footage, that I’ve seen, allow for commercial distribution. Generally, the owners of footage that are licensed with CC are allowing other artists to use their work, but don’t want them to be able to profit from it. If you’re creating a project that will be commercially distributed, you’re going to have a tough time finding CC-licensed footage.