Archive Footage

"Incorporating archival footage into your documentary film can bring a level of authenticity unmatched by other means, furthering the film's impact and reach."

This is definitely true when speaking about this project. In fact, I would not be able to make this project if it were not for moving image websites like Youtube, and a few websites that allow you to download a Youtube video. 

Most of the footage I have used is archival, and comes from sources like propaganda films by charities such as PeTA and the BUAV. Some of these clips I have seen in other propaganda made by other companies (some clips were included in the vegan documentary Earthlings), so I know that this is definitely archive footage. Some footage has come from trailers or commercials, and some has come from regular Youtube uploads. 

I know I am treading a line with using people's content, but a lot of documentaries use found footage and archive footage to create their films, as illustrated above. The documentary Blackfish uses archive and never-before-seen footage, apart from footage that features interviews undertaken for the film (e.g., with ex-trainers, divers, witnesses). I would not be able to illustrate the points that I am making in my video if it were not for using Youtube footage. Royalty-free footage is expensive (one website I went on wanted $71 for less than one minute of footage of a dog with his head out a car window), and a lot of the footage I have included I would not be able to film myself, mostly due to access issues (the inside of a slaughterhouse, for example). I also think that using archive footage gives it a certain aesthetic look that cries back to propaganda and guerrilla videos.

The way in which I use the footage also adheres to Youtube's fair use guidelines. 

• The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes

The clips of footage I am using are being used for nonprofit educational purposes - they are being used in my film to illustrate a personal point of view, and are not being used in a documentary context

• The nature of the copyrighted work: Using material from primarily factual works is more likely to be fair than using purely fictional works. 

All of the footage that I have used have been factual, there is no fictional work included in my final film

• The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole: Borrowing small bits of material from an original work is more likely to be considered fair use than borrowing large portions.

In comparison to the overall length of the pieces that I am borrowing from, the length of clips that I use are never more than half as long as the original source. Also, I have used some videos that are over 5 minutes long, just for less than ten seconds of footage.

• The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work: Uses that harm the copyright owner’s ability to profit from his or her original work are less likely to be fair uses

I will not allow my film to be monitised in any way, as I see it to be morally wrong to profit by using aspects of other people's work without their knowledge. I will also not put it on my professional website because of this.

I will be uploading my finished video to Youtube so that I can link it to this blog page for viewing and marking, however I will make it so that it cannot be viewed without the source link, and I will not accept any monitisation offer.