Insurance
 

Can anyone recommend insurance companies in the U.S. that don't balk at insuring DV equipment (for professional/personal use)...especially when it's going to experience a lot of travel...and that have fairly reasonable rates?

Thanks.

Hi John,

Do a quick search on "insurance" and it'll bring up a number of threads here... this is a good question with no easy answers. Would make an excellent article for the site if I could find somebody in the know who can spell out what the options are in plain English.

The Wedding & Event Videographers Association here in the U.S. just recently dropped their equipment insurance policy offers.

Registering Camcorder/Traveling Issues
 

Gotz a question for you guys:

1) I read somewhere in my camcorder packaging that it's a good idea to register the camera with the manufacturer so they have it on file in case you lose you camera? That brings up some other questions. Say you are under warranty with the camera but it's stolen? Are you SOL? Is the only way to cover that through insurance?

2) So, reason I'm thinking this stuff is I'll be taking my canon gl-1 out of the country for about a week and will be utilizing it a lot out in the open. I'm a litle worried about it getting stolen but not that worried. Anything I need to know about bringing a camcorder through the airport or anything like that. I doubt there are any problems with it goign through x-ray? customs? Been a long-ass time since I've been outside the country.

insurance
 

I just went through insuring my GL and XL for "commercial use" and learned several things. First the insurance companies are NOT HAPPY about the idea of several people other than the owner using the camera, as in a company. We're with USAA and they farmed out the policy to a company called "Great American" which takes policies from $350.00 and up, nothing less. It was the only insurer willing to accept the idea other people---i.e: partners, would sometimes use the camera.

You have to have a police report w/ insurance companies if the camera is stolen ....and there has to be evidence of a break-in if it
disappears from the car. The deductible is still high, $500.00 and it's only insured for replacement value in it's first two years.

I guess if you drop it---first, it had better be YOU who dropped it...and then I guess it's insured for fixing or replacement.

My policy---so I guess most policies---is for the contigous USA only---nothing else.

In all, not a great deal. The "commercial" part makes it expensive, but USAA, at least, makes a very clear difference between "personal" shooting and "commercial".

Meg

"Carnet"
 

And I have a question: "Back in the day" when I was in TV reporter in Philly we always had to get a "Carnet" for our gear before we went out of the country---seemingly to be sure we took the gear OUT again (not selling it) at the end of our shoot. It was always a big deal and troublesome, with customs.

Would a camera/wireless mic/tripod assemblage still require something like that to go, say, to an EU country?


Meg again

Hi Chris,

Seems this is one territory that does need more information. None of the postings have any solutions mentioned, just questions like mine.

I'll have to find something, though. No choice in that matter. And I'll also have to find out about Customs regulations, registering, etc. So when I get it all sorted out, I'll write it all down and send it to you. I'll see if I can find some specialty coverage intended just for broadcast media, or something of the sort.

Business insurance...
 

There seems to be no easy answer. Most videographer insurance or film insurance/bond comapnies are really geared for much larger concerns.

You tell them you have a camera and edit suite to insure, they think BVW-D600 Betacam SP and Avid DS...and charge you $5000 per year.

Now for "low end equipment" like say an XL-1S or a DV500 these large insurers don't have the time or expertise to determine if it is a total los or a repairable expense. Given the rapid depreciation of these things they figure it isn't worth it to get teh expertise. So, they just make everything a total for replacement costs. That is expensive for you, back to the $5000 per year.

Well, I'd rather toss that $5000 in money market account and other investment vehicles, then if something ever happens you are covered.

This only leaves general liability insurance and insurance on equipment you might rent. Most insurance agents working with large insurers can in fact handle this, though THEY may not know it.

Your NLE...insure that as a normal business computer for replacement value, anyone who handles business insurance can handle this.

So...you have to use your own sense and shop around for an agent you trust, but for many at the $20000 or less investment level (in their video business) there are paths to follow that make some sense.

I do hope that there is a mroe reasonable camera insurance out there, but I have not found it yet. I figure something priced like car insurance,,,$500 per year, would be worth it as insurance. Otherwise I'll take my "insurance premium" to the bank.

Hey John,

We just picked up $20,000 coverage for equipment and a multimillion dollar general business liablity policy for about $600 a year. In my experience it isn't the equipment insurance that kills you, it's the E&O insurnace, which is running about $2500 per year.

We chose the 20k on equipment to cover field use and travel - a couple cameras, mics, lights, etc. For home theft coverage, I added a rider on my home insurance for the difference. Did cost too much. Just watch out for the insurance company and the fine line between personal and business use. Remember when the insurnace company asks for your occupation for home/car/etc policies? They can deny claims for misrepresentation, and these days (since 9/11) they are looking for reasons not to pay.

Good luck on the move.

That sounds ideal, who was the insurer ?
 

Subject says it all.

Who is the insurance company ?

Do they have a website ? Can your agent give refferals ?

I'd prefer this sort of thing over my haphazard self insurance method.

Thanks in advance!

We went through an insurance agent/broker. I will talk to my partner and find out what company issued the policy. I just do technical, he's the brains.

I will be out shooting the A.R.C.A. Rock Crawling event in Utah the next few days so may take me until Monday or Tuesday to reply- thats American time for those overseas, thank you :)

Also, anyone interest can send me an email with your return email address and I will also copy the information and send it out directly.

michael@azuho.com

Thanks for the info, Michael. I'll send you my address now.

Before I buy, I'll do a bit of research and see if I can find a company that has an existing specialty policy. There's gotta be one or more out there...companies that will sign your equipment up initially as "pro-use" and not balk when it's time to cough up.

Thanks again.

Try good ol State Farm, I just got $20k in equipment coverage (no questions asked, $500 deduct.) and a half million in liability coverage all for $375 year. After trying the "big" guys like gearinsurance.com which have tons of restrictions and do seem to be geared towards larger companies, the policy I got sounds real nice.


hope this helps.

Chris

Thanks, Chris.

That's the best news I've heard concerning insurance yet! Thanks for the info.

John

We went with $20K field equipment coverage and 1 million property and liabillity (P&L)insurance for $597 a year through Zurich. Sounds like State Farm has the deal.

Photographer's insurance?
 

I'm getting close to purchasing a camera and will buy it from a North American (or local) dealer.

I heard that you can buy the same kind of "idiot's" insurance that photography people buy which guards against everything including theft or carelessness. Does anyone have something like this? What kinds of things should I look for and what price range would be reasonable?

Where should I look for this?

Does WEVA offer it to their members?

I don't even know what that is.

Hi,

I have all my equipment covered as part of my home owners policy. It is a "Whole Risk Rider". That means it is not subject to any deductable and the insurer assumes all the risk, meaning theft and any type of user damage. It is not very expensive. I pay about $200 or so anually for $20,000 of coverage. I should also point out that it covers replacement value not the purchase value. If you have business insurance your equipment can be covered under that, but you would have a deductable.

Jeff

WEVA is the Wedding and Event Videographers Association. They have a web site; http://www.weva.com. They list insurance as a member benefit.

I have all my equipment (both still and video) covered under the insurance plan of the National Press Photographers Association (NPPA). It's a good plan that provides full coverage and prompt reimbursement for all losses (you have to be an NPPA member to use it).

We aware that most home insurance policy riders usually cover only camera equipment for personal use, not professional or work related.

Doug

Thanks to everyone who replied. It's strange but the photography shops that I queried had no idea about camera insurance and some of these places have been around for a long time. You'd think they would be quick to make referrals.

Ride-along legal question
 

Hi everyone!

I am filming a documentary and have the opportunity to ride along with some EMS responders as part of the program. However I am unsure as to what the legalities are as far as showing the faces of any 'civiliains' that are worked with.

It would appear that with the show COPS, they are allowed to show any face but that of a minor (being under the umbrella of the police). Does anyone know from experience what the proper procedure is here? Standard releases here or something more?

Also, when somone signs a waiver allowing themselves to be filmed at all times during an event and then asks the camera person to turn off the camera to make a statement, do they have the legal right to make such a request and have it granted? My guess would be nada. Any takes on that?

Thanks!!
Jason

Here's the deal, Jason... at all times, to protect yourself legally (we call it CYA, or "cover your assetts"), you'll need a signed waiver.

The way it works on "Cops" is that signed waivers are required for that show as well. When the people on camera find out that it's for such a largely popular network television program as "Cops," they usually sign on the spot, or at any rate, they sign before the air date. With that particular show, I've heard of some instances where a judge will make it a condition of probation to sign such a waiver.

There has been a lot of legal discussion about this sort of thing, and the current direction with regard to cameras in a police environment is that a person occupying their primary dwelling (where they live, whether they're renting, own a house, or whatever), has the right to deny the entrance of video cameras in all cases except felony warrant service. This law varies from state to state, however.

And, more recently, hospital patients are more empowered to refuse cameras in their presence while undergoing treatment. I've heard of new legislation protecting patient's privacy rights even though the subject may be unconcious or physically unable to sign on a waiver while in the hospital.

The whole breed of police and medical reality shows is definitely spawning a new interest in privacy rights, and where cameras are and are not allowed to go without express written permission. To avoid devastating legal consequences, or at least to avoid the high cost of legal defense, you'll want to get it in writing every time. Hope this helps,

sanjuro1 said:

"Also, when somone signs a waiver allowing themselves to be filmed at all times during an event and then asks the camera person to turn off the camera to make a statement, do they have the legal right to make such a request and have it granted? My guess would be nada. Any takes on that?"

In the interest of having your subject cooperate with you and your crew, you should turn the camera off. If they see that you're rolling when they've asked you not to, they are likely not to want you in their vehicle and no longer give you access. That is all in their rights. If it is a documentary give people some room, make them feel comfortable and they'll give you all the material you need. You shouldn't overtly abuse their hospitality.

Thanks
 

Chris,

Thanks for the thoughtful and insightful input. This is certainly something I will be discussing with the Chief on duty and working out with the responders.

Justin,

I agree with you and have done just that. My only concern is that they have been kinda abusing that favor I have shown to them. To the point that sometimes I have missed the 'meat and potatoes' conflict of the peice. I wasn't talking about the ride along in this case, rather the other portions of the shoot with everyday people. Thanks for the advice as well though.


Any more thoughts?


Jason

Jason, a little explanation goes a long way.
I think explaining to them that the stuff they want you to shut down for is the stuff you really need. Explain to them that you really have to capture it so that whoever sees your docu will understand what their job is really all about and how important it really is.

ie. Butter them up. :)


As for your other problem, get a realease form, make 100 copies of it and carry them with you. Get everyone to sign it.
If you don't get people to sign it, you may have to blur individual faces out of the shot, which is probably better than not using it at all. Of course, laws differ from area to area.

Identity releases
 

Jason,
I had the very same question ten years ago. I was just out of school and ready to hit it hard. I chose to do a reality program for cable just like "Cops" because of the doability, is that a word?, meaning you shoot it and then cut it. However, after getting into it, I found that there's much more to it, get ready for some long hours in post, especially with key framing with the blurr! Anyway, I was curious about how they were able to show suspects' faces. I mean who would want they're personal problems broadcast all over the world. Well, you would be surprised who will sign that dotted line. When told they would be on a national program many of them looked at it as their 15 minutes or part of it. I called Barbour/Langley the producers of "Cops" and spoke with the editor and he said that the crew had releases for signing and that many of the incidents did not air until much later after producers followed up to get consent to show the faces. They could air it without consent and conceal identity, but they know faces make it more interesting so they try hard for consent. Not knowing what to do and not able to afford a lawyer to draw up releases, I just composed my own and kept it simple making sure that it was clear that the individual would NOT receive ANY reward or compensation for consent to use their video image or likeness in any capacity and having the officer sign as a witness. Now that's the best proof you can get! I think the biggest fear with consent is being sued for harming reputation or for compensation for using their likeness so be careful. I made it a rule not to shoot at private residences on domestic calls or private family matters. I was threatened one time and that's when I made the rule. You don't want to introduce more stress to the incident by shooting someone who doesn't want to be on camera, and sometimes they WILL come after you because of their state mind. I had the s_ _ t scared out of me more than once. I wouldn't want a crew in my house taping me at a difficult time. Use good judgement. Luckilly, there were plenty of foot chases and incidents on public ground to keep me busy and a few people signed. I could not believe it. From what I understand, news organizations are protected by a law or clause because of the public's right to know and can, without a release, use your likeness for public information without compensating you. They can even shoot footage of you on your private property in your house with a zoom lens and use it without consent as long as they did not physically step foot on your property without consent to get that footage. Isn't the law fun? You can view a unit of an episode of my program at the link below. Hope this helps. Enjoy!


Task Force

http://community.webtv.net/JEFCom/TASKFORCE

Wow -- straight from someone who has been there and done that. Excellent advice, James! Many thanks,

Thanks James!
 

Hey James, thanks for the really great first hand account. This will certainly be a different experience and I will post how things go. As it stands now, it will take place next month sometime.

I sincerely thank everyone who posted advice and stories. This board has saved me a fortune in both money (with the great sponsors) and heartache (by listening and learning from others). Very cool combination in my book. I only hope I can make the transition soon to advice distributer rather than constant advice recipient, and be able to give back a little.

Jason

As a shooter/producer (and sometimes editor) of many medical ("Trauma: Life in the ER" and "Maternity Ward," etc.) and police documentaries ("Police Force," "Miami Homicide," etc.), let me share what I know about the release issue.

Broadly speaking, there really is only one issue: right to privacy. About 2 years ago, Supreme Court ruled that a camera crew (I believe it was from NBC) violated right to privacy of suspects whose home was invaded by police executing a warrant. It didn't matter that the camera crew was invited by and given consent to filming by the police. And it didn't matter that camera crew didn't air the footage. The court ruled that the MERE ACT of filming someone's private space constituted an invasion of privacy. And of course this ruling applies to many filming situations. Say, for instance, a homicide detective is canvassing the neighborhood for witnesses and knocks on a door. You can ask the homeowner for his/her permission to film the detective while he/she is inside the house talking to the homeowner. If they say, no, then you absolutely can't film. But if they say yes (and what I do is, while I'm talking to the homeowner, I keep rolling but point the camera down to the ground to make its presence non-threatening--so that you have an audio recording of the conversation), at the end of the filming, you get them to sign a location release (giving you permission to shoot his/her private space and use it in your program), and an appearence release for whomever you filmed inside that space.

This same principle applies to every space that the court has ruled is "private." I agree with other posters here that great portion of the subjects, provided you've clearly explained what you're doing (and smile a lot), will give you permission to shoot and then sign a consent form. In fact, from my experience, people whom you think will be embarrassed to have a footage of themselves being aired (as such as suspects) are often MORE likely to give consent than many law-abiding, middle-class (and often white) subjects who have nothing to lose by appearing in your program. In case of minors, you need an appearence release from their guardians (parents, grandparents, etc.). Also remember that minors do not have the right to give you permission to enter into their homes/private spaces.

Since this Supreme Court ruling, and the patient privacy act that the Clinton administration enacted (that's now being pretty much gutted by the Bush administration!), hospitals and other healthcare institutions have put down strict rules about filming patients. In the early days of producing "Trauma," we would shoot the patients freely as they entered the hospitals, and then use that footage if we received their written consent later. This strategy was needed by the simple fact that, many patients when they entered the trauma unit are in no condition to give legal consent! Now, hospitals put many restrictions on what we can film in the first place (this varies from hospitals to hospitals).

Finally, remember that even written releases, no matter how they're worded, do not give you (the producer) much legal protection. It's not a binding contract because there is no exchange of goods and services. All it is a document that says the subjects understands the circumstances of the shooting and that he/she agrees to them. I've had instances of people changing their minds about appearing in the show months after they've signed the appearence releases--and only few days before the show was to air! Because it's not a legally binding contract, the subjects have the right to change their minds.

I completely agree with the other posters here that your best defense is your power of persuation, sense of journalistic fairness, and your ability to build trust and goodwill with your subjects.

Good luck with the project!

Wow, someting to think about
 

Excellent info from everyone..........

I do have one question that fingers off from the specific topic.

<Snip> All it is a document that says the subjects understands the circumstances of the shooting and that he/she agrees to them. I've had instances of people changing their minds about appearing in the show months after they've signed the appearence releases--and only few days before the show was to air! Because it's not a legally binding contract, the subjects have the right to change their minds<Snip>

How does this relate to your crew?
Our current project requires that our unpaid production crew sign something to the same effect.

Since there is zero dollars changing hands, how does this part of the law effect your crew who is not actually on film? Can they change their minds about compensation where it could effect shots (that made post) where they were on the crew?

We actually paid big bucks to our attorney for our form everyone signs that are on our production crew. We have a few regulars, but there is always someone on crew who is new and maybe is only on our set once.

Any insight to these potential issues?

You obviously need to consult on this issue, perhaps a labor relations lawyer. But in terms of a crew member who's not paid, my feeling is that they're getting something in return for their labor both behind the camera and in front, whether it's on-screen credit or production experience. Again, I don't think these specific scenarios have been covered by significant court rulings, so I would hesitate to venture a guess. I think what it comes down to is, how comfortable are you about your usage of his/her likeness in your program? How you portraying them in an unfavorable light? If so, are you defaming him/her? If he/she decides to sue you, on what grounds would it be? How would you feel about those grounds?

Again, our best defense is our own sense of fairness.

Thanks
 

Thanks for the input.

I don't know if this is a valid or not but...
What if you paid every one appearing in the footage one dollar at the time they signed the release. Then you could make it a contract since there is an actual exchange going on.

How 'bout it?

I was wondering the same thing
 

We have (requested by our 2 of our regulars on crew) made DV Christmas cards for them to send home this year. I consider that a form of compensation, since we spent hours of company time(including post) to get them what they wanted.

Both of the cards we produced are quite comical since they used their own scripts(funny on purpose). I'll post them during the holiday season if they give the release.

<<<-- Originally posted by Doug Thompson : I have all my equipment (both still and video) covered under the insurance plan of the National Press Photographers Association (NPPA). It's a good plan that provides full coverage and prompt reimbursement for all losses (you have to be an NPPA member to use it).

We aware that most home insurance policy riders usually cover only camera equipment for personal use, not professional or work related.

Doug -->>>

Doug,

I am also a member of the NPPA and need insurance. What is the cost for coverage?

Paul:

The rates vary, based on value, usage and whether or not you keep your equipment in a locked car trunk (there is a discount for that, which is useless for those of us with SUVs).

I pay about $5500 a year for coverage of $170,000 worth of equipment. There's a $1,000 deductible.

Doug

Doug,

Will they cover my computer equipment also? I thought of this after my initial post.

Wow, $5500 seems expensive. It's more than I pay for insurance on my house, cars, and all worldly belongings, which probably ad up to a bit less than $170,000us anyway, but not too far off.

I'm sure the rate is justified, it just caught me off guard.

One of the big things in determining rates is if the equipment is used outside the place of business. There is a lot more risk if the equipment is outside the office. I tried association rates (the old ITVA) and switched to a Broker who found some companies more familiar with video and film production. My premiums were cut by more than half (better coverage, too). However, I only insured about $45,000 of equipment outside the office. If I was going to take more than the $45,000 on a shoot it was at my own risk or I could buy short term coverage.

Jeff