Keith you're exactly right. It is a case by case thing. Could be 5 seconds of a coffee tree blowing in the wind. I will say that Starbucks may not have been the best example as I've been more successful negotiating the license back clause with smaller companies rather than publicly traded companies. But it also depends on the creative. Sometimes companies think that the creative agency is so amazing that they will agree just so they can work with them (note, if needed, it can be stipulated that its only certain types of footage and it won't be re-used until two years after the release of the project to make it more agreeable to the company). Bottom line is that I've successfully negotiated the clause for companies/cinematographers that are members of Nimia, so it does happen.
This topic brings to light another change we are seeing in the industry - boutique production companies doing it all (coming up with the creative, bidding the project, producing project all in-house including post work, etc.). Before there was more of - creative agency pitches project and wins bid, creative agency contracts third party production company to shoot the project, creative agency contracts third party for post production, etc. I think we are seeing this change because there are more and more small to medium sized businesses that are needing video (commercials, product videos, pitch videos, etc.), and boutique production companies are providing a value solution.