Talk:Stock footage

External links

I'm not sure we should have any of the current External Links here. By their nature they are all commercial links and therefore could be classed as Wikipedia:spam. The only saving grace of the ABC, BBC and CNN sites is that they at least have presumably not been added by the site owners. -- Solipsist 18:51, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Stock Footage Links

I certainly hope the criteria for what is a valuable link is not dependent on who added the site but rather, does the site illuminate the subject. Stock Footage is a commercial venture almost by definition and sites that would bring greater understanding of the subject would almost necessarily be commercial. As a shooter of stock imagery for 22 years and specifically Stock Footage for the past 6 years, I feel a visit is worth a thousand words. The idea that it might also be worth a thousand dollars should not detract from it's value as a vehicle for illuminating the subject of Stock Footage. Warm Regards, Mark Adams.

See the guidelines at Wikipedia:External links - What should not be linked to: Links that are added to promote a site, by the site operator or its affiliates. -- Solipsist 22:00, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Whitelist for stock footage page russianfootage.com web site

Hello, I would like to contact an administrator of Stock Footage web page, please whitelist russianfootage.com  

We provide Russian footage to producers Worldwide and our stock was in use for Seconds from Disaster for Discovery Channel, by Borat feature film.. etc.. Unfortunately we were inaccurate submitting our links to relevant pages and thus our site is black listed ... I was in contact with Dirk on a notice bard discussion to remove from black list and he recommended to address the issue to stock footage page administrator Please white list our web site for this page, our services – researching footage from state run Russian archives as well as licensing our own archive ...

Thanks for U help Oxana

Proper Example

I'm just wondering if the ST:DS9 reference as the only example is really propper by Wiki standards. That entire episode was composed of the characters interacting with the original series story line, so much footage from the original was used. I don't know if that qualifies as "stock footage". The first season of JAG, for example, staged action scenes using clips from "Clear and Present Danger" and "Top Gun", cutting them in as part of the JAG story. That seems more along the proper use of the term.

The opening definition of stock footage is film or video footage that is not custom shot for use in a specific film or television program which to me implies usage such as wartime or natural disaster footage spliced into documentaries and dramas to fit the story line. The footage used in Star Trek: DS9 footage was shot for the Star Trek franchise and I agree it is not a proper example of stock footage in accordance with the opening definition. Ephraim Katz, The Film Encyclopedia, 1979, defines stock footage thusly: ""Existing film footage, previously shot, that is taken from the company's archives or a newsreel library and incorporated into a new production. Also called "library footage." A single unit of stock footage is known as a "stock shot" or a library shot. Stock footage often consists of coverage of important historic events or of shots that are difficult or too expensive to duplicate, such as planes crashing, boats sinking, cities being bombed, or a variety of other man-made or natural disasters."" Naaman Brown (talk) 19:21, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Stock Footage vs. File Footage

I don't think file footage used in TV news is comparable to stock footage used in video production. One goal of using stock footage is to save money by using clips that would be too expensive or impossible for the show's budget (like helicopter shots of a city, foreign destinations, or historical events). Stock footage is usually chosen or altered to blend into a production's photographic style. File footage is used to fill up time when TV news stories don't have enough original video to cover the voice over and/or illustrate generic concepts (like smoking, obesity, prescription drugs, etc.) Little care is taken in shot composition, color balance or cinematic style. And I think that's what sets them apart. One is chosen for specific visual composition, while the other is simply time filler. --24.249.108.133 00:39, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia 101

Nothing belongs in Wikipedia that is unverified. Sometimes people justify unsourced lists of wikilinked items with the claim "each one has a verifiable source in the wikilinked article". Maybe. But there is no way in hell that a redlinked, unsourced item in a list passes WP:V. This is Wikipedia 101. Bring an independent source, or leave it out. Jytdog (talk) 01:13, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

jytdog, SimonP. Hi there colleagues. The issue appears to be that of research. Maybe these redlinked companies are in fact article material. I would suggest we should not remove redlinked companies wholesale without a check on each one. They can then be deleted as "no supporting R/S to create a viable article based on WP:V" or a similar edit summary. They may well be notable, and aa potential article is thus encouraged for creation, but I would suggest that they be checked out, and removed or retained as redlinks on a case by case basis. Simon. Irondome (talk) 01:16, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

See above. I do not give a flying fuck if it is redlinked or unlinked. The issue is VERIFY not REDLINK. Do not restore unsourced content - see WP:BURDEN. This is the stupidest kind of edit war. Why you want to support spammers who violate policy, and violate policy yourself in doing so, is beyond me. Jytdog (talk) 01:18, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

You know I wouldn't want to support spammers FFS. I've been around long enough to hate that shit, especially commercial crap. And stop the swearing jyt. We've interacted before and it's been fine so whats with the effing. Have we checked the companies? Irondome (talk) 01:24, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

We've got some unsourced content that was removed. The normal Wikipedia way is that the responsibility for checking sources falls to the person who wants to put the content back. - MrOllie (talk) 01:32, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

I'll leave you two to it. I don't understand what there is even to talk about here, so I should not be in this and am unwatching. Sorry for the swearing. Jytdog (talk) 01:33, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

It don't matter dog. We've probably both had a drink, so sod it. I don't really have a burning interest in stock footage, been on my W/L for years, I think I did one edit on it in 2012. I suspect you don't either. No need to apologise Jytdog, shit happens. See you around! Si. Irondome (talk) 01:46, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for being so gracious. Jytdog (talk) 03:50, 23 August 2016 (UTC)