Entry of
The nine lines a footage research request needs
Most requests describe a feeling and a deadline, and come back with fifty clips of which two are usable. Nine written lines fix that, in about fifteen minutes.
ResearchTemplate9 min read
A footage researcher can only find what you have described. Most requests arrive describing a feeling and a deadline, and come back with fifty clips of which two are usable. A written brief of nine lines fixes that, and takes about fifteen minutes to produce.
Why the request is written, not phoned
A written brief can be forwarded to a colleague, pasted into a catalogue search, quoted back in a dispute and re-used on the next project. It also forces the one decision productions like to defer: what the license actually has to cover. A researcher who does not know the media, territory and term cannot filter out material you will never be able to afford or clear.
The nine lines
- Subject. What is happening in the shot, in the words a cataloguer would have used at the time.
- Date range. Not "the sixties" but a window, with the tightest and widest acceptable bounds.
- Place. Country, city, and whether a recognisable landmark is required or must be avoided.
- People. Whether identifiable individuals are needed, acceptable, or a problem. This is the line that decides half of what can be sent to you.
- Shot types. Framing, movement and viewpoint. Wide establishing shots and tight inserts are found by different queries.
- Format. Delivery resolution, frame rate, aspect ratio, codec, and whether upscaled or interlaced material is acceptable.
- License scope. Media, territory, term, exclusivity. One sentence.
- Deadline. Two dates: when you need previews, and when the edit locks.
- Budget frame. Not a number you are hiding, but the shape: how many clips, how long each, and whether this is a one-off or the first of a series.
A brief you can copy
Send it as plain text in the body of the message. Attachments get lost, and researchers work with their catalogue open in the other window.
- Subject
- What was filmed, described as an event.
- Period
- Ideal range, then acceptable range.
- Location
- Country and city; landmarks required or excluded.
- People
- Identifiable faces required, acceptable, or to be avoided.
- Shots wanted
- Two or three framings, with movement if it matters.
- Delivery
- Resolution, frame rate, aspect ratio, codec.
- Use
- Media, territory, term, exclusivity, in one sentence.
- Dates
- Previews needed by; picture lock.
- Scale
- Number of clips and approximate duration of each.
- Reference
- One or two links or frame grabs showing the register you are after.
How to describe a shot so a stranger can find it
The useful test: could someone who has never seen your film search for this line? "A sense of isolation" fails. "Single figure walking away from camera, snow, no other people in frame, wide" passes, because every element is something a cataloguer might have written or a contributor might have tagged.
Give a second-best option on every line. Researchers work faster with a stated fallback than with a perfect specification they cannot meet.
What to ask for in the reply
- Asset identifiers, not just links.
- The source collection, so that duplicate offers from two aggregators can be spotted.
- The rights position: who controls the material, and what will be warranted in writing.
- Release status, per clip.
- Available formats, including whether a broadcast quality scan already exists or has to be made.
- Whether handles are included, and how the section will be measured for pricing.
- Any restriction on context, credit or editing.
Screeners, holding periods and research fees
Three practices are common enough to plan for. Archives often charge a research fee for a researcher's time, sometimes credited against a later license. Screener copies arrive watermarked and with burnt-in timecode, and are for internal use only. And material can usually be placed on hold for a limited period while a decision is made, which is worth arranging explicitly rather than assuming.
| Line | What it prevents |
|---|---|
| Date range | Results spread across fifty years of a collection |
| People | A shortlist that is entirely editorial-only when the film is commercial |
| Format | Falling in love with a shot that cannot be conformed to your timeline |
| License scope | A quote that has to be redone from scratch a week later |
| Two deadlines | Previews arriving after the edit has locked |
| Scale | Being quoted per clip when a package would have applied |
Five mistakes that cost a week
- Asking for "anything you have on" a subject. It produces volume, and volume is what you were trying to avoid.
- Omitting the frame rate, then discovering the only available master is 29.97 for a 25 frames per second delivery.
- Describing the intended emotion instead of the filmed event.
- Leaving the license scope until after the shortlist, which forces the whole quote to be reissued.
- Sending the brief to one supplier at a time. Sending it to three in parallel costs nothing and reveals who actually holds the material.
Where to go next
To decide who receives the brief, see the seven criteria for choosing a footage library for documentary work. If the license scope line is the one holding you up, how footage licensing works sets out the four parameters it has to contain.