Disney Parks emailed me!

[ginna74]

here is the page where you can see the final video that disney made.....



http://disneyparks.disney.go.com/blog/

 

[robinb]

can someone post a link to the promo video?

It's at minute 27 of the announcement:
http://www.ustream.tv/disneyparks

 

[sbell111]

First of all, I don't care to know what the final terms of the deal reached between the OP and Disney was... it's none of our business.

That said, likewise I'm sure the place that sold the "official" copy of the Declaration of Independence for $2.48 in 2006 (later auctioned for close to 1/2 million dollars) also thought it was sufficient.

I also don't like the practice of companies that try and low-ball people like Disney did with their initial lithograph offer.

Imagine that there are 200 families who have posted online videos that Disney would like to show on their commercial, but they only need 50. They offer a litho to the owners of the 50 best videos. 40 of them accept the offer. They offer the same deal to fifteen more video owners and ten of them take the deal.

Based on this, none of the people were lowballed because clearly the litho was the market rate for such use of a youtube video. Some would have let them use the video for nothing. Others would demand a higher price, but the offer was sufficient to fill the demand. That is the very definition of market price and paying market price is not 'lowballing'.

 

[dodukes]

It's at minute 27 of the announcement:
http://www.ustream.tv/disneyparks

thanks.!

 

[ginna74]

your welcome lol

 

[Geoff_M]

That is the very definition of market price and paying market price is not 'lowballing'.

Let me position this notion in another way. There are a lot of former professional photographers that are out of work, or are now "part-time", nowadays because universities and pro sports teams that they used to work for have learned that there are plenty of people ("GWC's" or "Guys With Cameras", as they're known) that think that "fair compensation" for their work is a press credential that will get them on the sidelines of a game. The problem is that the people working for free don't understand the promotional value that their work offers to the other party. Now, I'm not suggesting that the people that accepted Disney's offer are putting video production companies out of work, but I use this point to show that "fair" compensation can often be different than "market" compensation. In my book, when there's a great disparity between what something is worth and what people will knowingly try to pay for it.... that's "low-balling".

If the OP is happy with the deal, then they're happy with the deal. But if Disney approached me and said they saw one of my photos on-line and wanted to use it exchange for something that only costs them a few bucks in the hope that I'd be overjoyed and honored that Disney would want to use my photo, I'd say "no thanks". If they then said, "Well, plenty of people are willing to give us their stuff for free", I'd reply "Well, I'll let the other guy give HIS stuff away for free... since you approached me, you must think the work has some value to your company as part of your major upcoming promotional campaign." I'd expect them to act like it.

 

[vettechick99]

That was too cute - both your video and what Disney did with it. How fun!

 

[sbell111]

... In my book, when there's a great disparity between what something is worth and what people will knowingly try to pay for it.... that's "low-balling". ...

The problem with your argument is that the price that people will routinely be willing to buy and sell something for determines 'what it is worth'. If you offer a widget for sale at X dollars and people buy it, the widget is worth X dollars. Similarly, if Disney offers families a litho for use of their youtube videos and the families agree, then those youtube videos are worth exactly one litho.

 

[FergieTCat]

Just putting in my two cents.

Disney knows that they can offer whatever compensation they want for the videos and someone somewhere will accept the offer. If someone accepts Disney's offer, then apparently that person thought it was a fair deal. If Disney was concerned about how much the video was "worth", they would have contacted the families and asked for an invoice and then paid that amount.

 

[npmommie]

I have an email in my box right now from Disney looking for photos and video of vacation memories that we may want to share, also video of how we broke the news of a disney trip.
Is this how Disney got the video OP? did you upload it to them to view, or did they find it on their own at youtube?
just wondering.
anyway, I may send them a couple of pics. not sure. I have a really cute one of my dd hugging mickey at garden grill.

 

[tink_about_it]

I did ask, but was told that's their best offer...if I wanted to be a part of it, that was fine...if not, well, ok.

I will say that Greg Montz from Disney contacted me saying my video had made the 2nd round and asked that all of my family (even the 5 year old) sign legal docs. I may have been able to hold out, but I don't think so .....I think it'd been another family.

 

[DawnCt1]

I saw this on tv last night. Very cool!

 

[tink_about_it]

I have an email in my box right now from Disney looking for photos and video of vacation memories that we may want to share, also video of how we broke the news of a disney trip.
Is this how Disney got the video OP? did you upload it to them to view, or did they find it on their own at youtube?
just wondering.
anyway, I may send them a couple of pics. not sure. I have a really cute one of my dd hugging mickey at garden grill.

I had an inbox message on youtube from Greg Montz asking to contact him regarding using our video for a new promotion. I contacted and had to upload the video to a site that they had sent me along with lots of paperwork. They actually found the video 1st and inquired about using it, but I had to release it.

 

[npmommie]

I had an inbox message on youtube from Greg Montz asking to contact him regarding using our video for a new promotion. I contacted and had to upload the video to a site that they had sent me along with lots of paperwork. They actually found the video 1st and inquired about using it, but I had to release it.

It is a super cute video, I can see why they wanted to use it!

 

[Magpie]

Let me position this notion in another way. There are a lot of former professional photographers that are out of work, or are now "part-time", nowadays because universities and pro sports teams that they used to work for have learned that there are plenty of people ("GWC's" or "Guys With Cameras", as they're known) that think that "fair compensation" for their work is a press credential that will get them on the sidelines of a game. The problem is that the people working for free don't understand the promotional value that their work offers to the other party. Now, I'm not suggesting that the people that accepted Disney's offer are putting video production companies out of work, but I use this point to show that "fair" compensation can often be different than "market" compensation. In my book, when there's a great disparity between what something is worth and what people will knowingly try to pay for it.... that's "low-balling".

If the OP is happy with the deal, then they're happy with the deal. But if Disney approached me and said they saw one of my photos on-line and wanted to use it exchange for something that only costs them a few bucks in the hope that I'd be overjoyed and honored that Disney would want to use my photo, I'd say "no thanks". If they then said, "Well, plenty of people are willing to give us their stuff for free", I'd reply "Well, I'll let the other guy give HIS stuff away for free... since you approached me, you must think the work has some value to your company as part of your major upcoming promotional campaign." I'd expect them to act like it.

I probably see this a bit differently as a writer, since it's impossible to "water mark" my words.

If I post something on-line - anywhere on-line! - I've given it away for free and it will never earn me any money. Books and short stories published on-line are not print-publishable by any reputable (non-vanity) publishing house.

So from my perspective, the OP has already given the video away to all-and-sundry for free. Getting anything for it at all is a bonus!

After all, anyone can copy the code from YouTube and past it into their blog, without giving the OP a dime compensation - the "get code" link is right there on the page! Once something's on YouTube (or almost anywhere on the net), it's out of your hands. It's gone, free to wander the interwebs, and there's not a darn thing you can do about it.