We live in an age were most every family in America owns a video camera and editing software, even if they never sought out either. Anyone with an internet connection can put their video online where it can be seen by everyone on the planet. The web has given anyone who wants it, access to far more information than any film school alone can provide. The world of video production has entered a golden age. There are no more excuses not to pursue whatever goals you hope to achieve with video.

In the late ’90s, when the average middle-class American could purchase video editing software to run on the home computer they already owned, it was clear that we were entering a new era of video production. Consumer camcorders were already common, but with non-linear editors entering people’s homes, so too, was a quality of production reserved only for professionals or those willing to spend thousands on uni-tasking equipment.

Consumer video production stayed at that point for about 10 years, as individuals shot SD footage on their home camcorders and edited on their PC or Mac.  In the last few years, however, we’ve seen a surge forward in the process of consumer level video production. It’s a result of computers and cameras getting cheaper, and moving into every electronic device in the home.

When The Blair Witch Project came out, people were amazed that someone could shoot an entire film that would be released world wide, on a simple consumer camcorder. Today, an iPhone 4S could easily take better quality video and cost significantly less. The only reason, I believe, that we haven’t seen a nationally released film shot entirely on a smartphone yet is simply because an upgrade in picture quality and functionality can be purchased for under a thousand dollars.

It’s not just the cost of quality cameras and accessibility of editing software that is bringing good looking video to the masses, it’s also the size. It turns out that a fluid-head tripod capable of supporting a 3lb camcorder doesn’t cost a lot of money. The same can be said about slider dollies, jibs, and even stabilizers.

Of course some equipment is as pricey as it’s ever been. Lights and microphones, for example, don’t seem to be getting any cheaper, but we live in the age of the internet. It’s much easier to learn from others about how to build your own lighting rig, or even record studio quality ADR straight into your laptop or iPad.

Cameras and editing systems are getting cheaper by the day, and the free flow of information on the internet is making it easier than ever to break into video production. As a result, Hollywood is losing its hold on the film industry, which is a good thing for both consumers and producers of great video.

Last week, we looked at what fair use ISN’T.  So now let’s look at what it is.

Basically, fair use depends on a few factors, most importantly (1) the amount of material you copy from the original work,  (2) your purpose in using that material, (3) the nature of the work that you’re copying, and (4) the effect that your copying has on the original art.

(1) The amount of material you copy from the original work –For the first factor, you are generally allowed to use snippets of a work as long as you don’t appropriate the “heart and soul” of the work…what, exactly, that means is open to some debate. As an example, if you grab a few seconds from another film, you’re probably in the clear. However, you would probably not get away with including the entirety of that film in your own project. How much is too much? That’s different in every case, so just try to exercise some common sense.

(2) Your purpose in using that material — Fair Use allows you to make use of a pre-existing artistic work for purposes of education, training, news reporting, scientific research, critique or commentary, or parody. Think of the last time you watched critic review a movie on television. It probably included a short clip from the movie being reviewed, right? Likewise, you might have been in a classroom lecture where the teacher will show video clips to illustrate some point or other. These are other examples of situations that are more likely to be deemed Fair Use.

(3) The nature of the work that you’re copying — Certain sorts of material are more likely to fall under the fair use exception – for example, clips from non-fiction works. We generally agree that it’s a good thing for the public to be well-informed on history, so would it be in the public interest for a historical video – like, say, the Zapruder film of President John F. Kennedy’s assassination – to be blocked from public view because someone claimed copyright ownership? (In fact, Time magazine did make such a claim after a history book used stills from the film as illustrations. They didn’t prevail.)

(4) The effect that copying has on the original art — Finally, let’s look at the effect on the original work. Remember that copyright law exists in theory so that an artist can profit from his own hard work without someone else undermining him. Thus your work can’t be so similar that people would start buying yours instead of the original. One sticking point for many is that fair use depends a lot on intentions and motivations. For example, let’s pretend that I wrote a parody song making fun of Lady Gaga’s latest song by changing the lyrics to be about cheeseburgers. It’s fine if people listen to my song and think, “Hey! This song makes a good point. Its sharp and biting satirical message has made me realize that Lady Gaga is a hack and I will henceforth refuse to purchase her music!” If Lady Gaga’s sales start to drop as a result, she can’t sue me because my ridicule was too effective. HOWEVER, I could get in trouble if people listen to my parody and think, “Hey! This song is pretty good! It’s pretty much like Lady Gaga, so instead of buying the original song from her, I’ll just buy this parody instead.” A parody work that hurts the original artist by becoming a substitute for their work will most likely not qualify for a fair use exception.

Again, acknowledging that you don’t own the original artistic work, giving credit to the original artist or using a work without any intention to profit will often encourage an original artist to let you use his work, but it does not necessarily mean that your work will fall under fair use.

If you really want to be sure you’re in the clear when it comes to copyright with your video project, you owe it to yourself to check out Videomaker’s Archival Storytelling book.  It breaks down all the elements of copyright, so that you’ll know exactly what you can get away with when you need to use footage from another person’s work.

We frequently get questions from video creators about the rules for making use of other creators’ work in their own projects.

If a piece of art was created so long ago that its copyright has expired and it’s since fallen into the public domain, you’re free to make use of it any way that you want. (To learn more about using archival footage in your videos, check out our  informative Archival Storytelling book) But if a piece of art is still under copyright, you’ll want to make sure that you’re in the clear. Most U.S. Creators are aware of a legal doctrine here in the States called “fair use,” an exception to copyright law that lets you make use of copyrighted material for your own artistic purposes. Unfortunately, there’s a lot of confusion about exactly what constitutes fair use. Let’s try and clear up some of the misconceptions so you can better understand when you can incorporate others’ material into your videos.

(First, please be aware that nothing said by Videomaker should be construed as legal advice. If you’re really worried about your rights, you should consult an attorney or legal expert before you make any rash decisions.)

Here are some common misconceptions that we see from video creators:

“This counts as Fair Use because I gave credit to the original artist.” Giving credit where it’s due is always a best practice – and just good manners. However, giving credit does NOT instantly bestow fair use protection upon you. At best, a polite tip of the hat may encourage the original artist to allow you to use their work for free. But this is entirely up to the artist’s discretion. They don’t have to let you use their work just because you acknowledged that they are the original creator and, if they don’t like what you’ve done, they can still try to make you remove it.

“I’m not making any money off of this, so it must be fair use.” Again, whether or not you make money can be a consideration in fair use, but it is not dispositive. In fact, some fair use works can be sold for profit. The fact that you’re not profiting may again make the original artist more sympathetic to your case, but it doesn’t mean that you’re automatically covered by fair use.

“I found this original artwork on the Internet, so obviously it’s free for me to use.” Just because an artist places his or her work on the Internet does not mean that they are giving you carte blanche permission to use it as you will. The same copyright restrictions that apply offline still apply online.

Again, acknowledging that you don’t own the original artistic work, giving credit to the original artist or using a work without any intention to profit will often encourage an original artist to let you use his work, but it does not necessarily mean that your work will fall under fair use.

You’ll always want to make sure that you’ve got your rights protected when you put together a video project.  Besides Archival Storytelling, you can get more help in keeping your project legally in the clear with our Indie Film/Video Legal Documents DVD.

“Today, everybody’s a filmmaker.”  That’s the message of director Wim Wenders (“Paris, Texas” and “Wings of Desire” among many other films, as well as music videos for U2 and The Talking Heads) as he introduces a new innovative video competition in partnership with the pen and watchmaker, MontBlanc. Launched in September, the competition, titled “The Beauty of a Second” is designed to celebrate the 190th anniversary of the invention of the Chronograph by Nicolas Rieussec, which was able to record time to an accuracy of one fifth of a second, quite a feat in 1821.

“One of the great things about cinema is how it makes us aware of time.  Each film consists of many brief moments of life that altogether create a unique and new space in time.”  If you’re familiar with the project, or if you’re paying close attention to the tile of the competition, you’ll realize that the emphasis here is definitely on “brief.”

The MontBlanc video competition is for films one second in length.  As Wenders eloquently points out, every video we shoot is a series of one-second moments.  But what if you as a videographer set out specifically to capture the perfect one-second on film?  Would it be a moment in nature?  The start of a smile on a child’s face?  A white shirt hanging to dry on a line?  How do you capture not only a beautiful moment, but perhaps even a compelling story in just one second?  Maybe it’s not possible, but that’s precisely the goal of this competition.  And from the entries so far, it looks like many videographers are capturing great moments in very small cuts (or, more precisely, in very precise edits).

Since the competition opened, the first three submission timeframes, or “rounds,” have been completed.  As of this writing, we’re mid way through round four.  The final round will finish on February 12th.  At the conclusion of the contest, Wim Wenders will select the winning one-second film.  Once you’ve viewed a few dozen of the one-second clips, you’ll likely agree that choosing a winner seems like an impossible task.  Just how good can one second of footage be?

But the hosts of the website, “The Beauty of a Second,” provide an additional incentive for film makers and film buffs alike to join the fun. Even if you haven’t submitted your one second entry, you can assemble your favorite one-second films into a “Playlist,” thus editing together a film of up to sixty seconds, comprising sixty segments.

In our Videomaker blogs and forums we’ve talked frequently about outlets for creative videography and film making.  We’ve even reviewed the history of continuous shot films that can last as long as  eight hours.  This film contest from MontBlanc is clearly at the other extreme.

But MontBlanc is not the only outfit with a focus on the one-second film.

“The 1 Second Film” is a non-profit organization that has already produced what they describe as “the world’s biggest shortest film.”  The concept here is to produce a one-second animated film where each two frames of animation is comprised of a single collaborative painting.  (Actually, the twelve paintings that compose the animated film were produced at a kick-off party years ago.)  The one-second film will then be followed by a one hour credit roll, during which a “making of” documentary will run while all the contributors (the “producers”) to the non-profit will be listed.  The project’s beneficiary is The Global Fund for Women.  Producers, who have contributed everything from a few dollars to tens of thousands, include everyone from celebrities (Kevin Bacon, Steven Colbert, Kiefer Sutherland, and many more) to corporations (Apple, FotoKem, and others).

These two projects have a couple of things in common.  First, participants share a love of visual arts and experimental video.  Second, both projects are profoundly rooted in a sense of collaboration.  Both are worth paying attention to in 2012.

Videographers are in the business of creating artistic, instructional, or archival moving images. Creating and sharing original work is what it’s all about. But what if you don’t have the perfect sequence to tell your story? Or what about the times when in order to tell your story effectively you need historic or iconic footage from another source? That’s when online sources of stock footage, images, and other audio and video content can come to the rescue. Sometimes these sources even provide inspiration for what direction to take your story.

At Videomaker we have an ever expanding archive of sound effects available. You should really check out our sound effects resource page. But if in addition to a sound file you need to flesh out your story with video from the news, from unique places around the world, or from historical events, there are many resources available to you.

Among the great online sources for audio and video is Getty Images Inc. And now Getty is home to an even larger collection. This week Getty announced that they are adding video from Bloomberg, the American Museum of Natural History, MacNeil/Lehrer Productions, Barcroft Media, and WGBH in Boston. These additions bring the Getty licensing library to over 825,000 video clips. From clips of produce markets in Tehran, Iran (from WGBH) to footage of Paul McCartney marrying Nancy Shevell this fall (from Barcroft), you’ll find amazing footage at Getty.

Getty Images puts it this way: “Leveraging creative research, trend data and analysis of the visual communications landscape, Getty Images has selected content from each partner to create collections that meet the growing demand across media, broadcast and educational segments for fact-based footage including news, science, technology, iconic moments and historical events.”

Getty isn’t the only source for audio, still, and video files, but it is among the best.

People in the video production world have a variety of motivations for making video.  Some are striving for a unique voice or to explore a particular facet of an artistic vision.  Others are in the video production business, recording events for paying customers.  Others are just starting out with ambitions to become accomplished directors, videographers, and producers in the film industry.  Still others are educators utilizing video in the classroom to enhance student learning and to get kids jazzed about the topic at hand.  The bottom line for everyone in the video production world is to reach as large an audience as possible.

Last week the Federal Communications Commission announced a program that will help, on multiple fronts: the “Connect to Compete” initiative.

Expected to hit the ground in the spring of 2012, this private and public partnership, coordinated by the FCC, will bring affordable broadband internet service to millions of households where there is none today.  As described on the Connect2compete.org website, “Connect to Compete is a national private and nonprofit sector partnership created to increase broadband adoption and digital literacy training in disadvantaged communities throughout the United States. The initiative is designed to help residents improve outcomes in education, health, and employment through broadband opportunities and technology solutions.”

In a world of hyper-connectivity and ever-faster devices providing instant access to information and near instant recording and sharing of the events of our lives through video, it’s startling to realize how many people are being left out. According to the Pew Research Center, fully a third of all Americans are currently without broadband internet service.  Of course, some of these households are opting out as conscientious objectors to the ubiquity of communications channels.  Clearly for many, many others, though, it’s a simple matter of economics.  Hard choices are being made about what to put in the shopping cart and broadband Internet connectivity just isn’t always at the top of the list, or on the list at all.  And when these households include school-age children eligible for free school lunch programs, for instance, or the poorer elderly, it means that the lack of affordable Internet access is just one more way in which many people are being left behind.  What used to be a non-essential luxury, a fast Internet connection at home, is increasingly an integral tool for education, employment, community action, and political engagement.

Connect to Compete, with the full participation and support of the cable industry, computer suppliers like Microsoft and Redemtech, and finance institutions like Morgan Stanley, will make broadband internet connections available to any household with a student currently eligible for free school lunches for about $10 per month.

And why should we in the video technology world be paying attention?  It goes back to who’s making and sharing video and, importantly, who’s watching.  We all benefit from a broader and more diverse audience for the work of videographers, short film producers, and those exploring the capabilities of the expanding field of video.  Connect to Compete will help to enable more and more of us to participate in the coming years.

(For another take on the importance of high-speed internet connectivity for sharing video, see Daniel Bruns’ “Internet at the Speed of Light: How Faster Connections Affect the Video World.”)