"The Hidden Cost of Documentaries"

David G. Smith

Steak Knife Member
Here is a great article from the New York Times about clearance cost for documentaries. The cost are amazing.

The Hidden Cost of Documentaries
By NANCY RAMSEY

THE moment seemed innocuous enough.

Michael Vaccaro, a fourth grader, had just left P.S. 112 in Brooklyn and was headed home with his mother. Two filmmakers were in front of him, their camera capturing his every movement on video, when his mother's cellphone rang.

"It was such an indicator of today's culture," said Amy Sewell, a producer of "Mad Hot Ballroom," the documentary that follows New York City children as they learn ballroom dancing and prepare for a citywide contest. "Michael's mom had just asked him how school was, her cellphone rings, she answers it, and the look on his face says, 'I don't get to tell my mom about my day.' "

In addition, the ringtone was "Gonna Fly Now," the theme from "Rocky," and the neighborhood was Bensonhurst. "How perfect was that?" Ms. Sewell said.

Perfect, but a problem. Had the ringtone been a common telephone ring, the scene could have dropped into the final edit without a hitch, the moment providing a quick bit of emotional texture to the film. But EMI Music Publishing, which owns the rights to "Gonna Fly Now," was asking the first-time producer for $10,000 to use those six seconds.

Ms. Sewell considered relying on fair use, the aspect of copyright law that allows the unlicensed use of material when the public benefit significantly outweighs the costs or losses to the copyright owner. But her lawyer advised against it. "I'm a real Norma Rae-type personality," Ms. Sewell said, "but the lawyer said, 'Honestly, for your first film, you don't have enough money to fight the music industry.' " After four months of negotiating - "I begged and begged," Ms. Sewell said - she ended up paying EMI $2,500. (Total music clearance costs for "Mad Hot Ballroom," which featured songs of Frank Sinatra and Peggy Lee, came to $170,000; total costs over all were about $500,000.)

Today, anyone armed with a video camera and movie-editing software can make a documentary. But can everyone afford to make it legally?

Clearance costs - licensing fees paid to copyright holders for permission to use material like music, archival photographs and film and news clips - can send expenses for filmmakers soaring into the hundreds of thousands of dollars. Jonathan Caouette's "Tarnation," for instance - a portrait of a young man's relationship with his mentally ill mother that Mr. Caouette edited at home, on a laptop computer - was widely reported to have cost $218. In fact, after a distributor picked up "Tarnation," improved the quality with post-production editing and cleared music rights, the real cost came to more than $460,000. Clearance expenses were about half the total.

Securing rights to music has long been a serious challenge. Ten years ago, for instance, the filmmaker Steve James paid $5,000 to include the song "Happy Birthday" in "Hoop Dreams," the 1994 documentary that followed two Chicago basketball players through high school. One memorable scene portrayed a young man's 18th birthday, as the family sang "and his mom baked him a cake," Mr. James said. "It was an important scene, there was some amazement that Arthur had made it to 18. Of course, we wanted that in."

Scrutiny by rights holders has increased, Mr. James said, as the profit potential in documentaries has risen. "When I was starting out, documentaries were under the umbrella of journalism," he said. "Now, the more commercially successful documentaries have become and the more they're in the public eye, the more they're perceived as entertainment."

In another change, said Peter Jaszi, a law professor at American University, "rights holders are slicing their bundle of rights in finer and finer ways and selling them off in smaller and smaller pieces." He asked: "Would music copyright owners 10 years ago have predicted they'd be making a substantial part of their money over ringtones on cellphones?" (It's now a reported $3 billion industry.) As a result, he said, there's been "a tremendous upsurge in intellectual property consciousness and anxiety on the part of all kinds of users."

Mr. Jaszi is an author, with Patricia Aufderheide, the director of American University's Center for Social Media, of a report titled "Untold Stories: Creative Consequences of the Rights Clearance Culture for Documentary Filmmakers," for which 45 filmmakers were interviewed. Among the more striking examples he cites is "Eyes on the Prize," the series on the civil rights movement. Henry Louis Gates Jr., chairman of the department of African and African-American studies at Harvard, has called "Eyes" "the most sophisticated and most poignant documentary of African-American history ever made." But it was last broadcast in 1993, and while schools or libraries may have a copy, it is not legally available for sale or rent on DVD or video.

"There's a whole generation out there who have not seen the program," said Sandy Forman, an entertainment lawyer heading a project to reclear the rights so that "Eyes" can be rebroadcast and distributed to the educational market. "When the rights were originally cleared, they were acquired for different terms. Some were in perpetuity, some were for 3 years, some for 7, some for 10." Once just one group of rights expired - and there are 272 still photographs and 492 minutes of scenes from more than 80 archives, plus the music - "we had to pull the film from distribution."

In August, the project received $600,000 from the Ford Foundation and $250,000 from the New York philanthropist Richard Gilder. PBS's "American Experience" is considering a 2006 broadcast of "Eyes."

"It's not clear that anyone could even make 'Eyes on the Prize' today because of rights clearances," Mr. Jaszi said. "What's really important here is that documentary commitment to telling the truth is being compromised by the need to accommodate perceived intellectual and copyright constraints."

On occasion, storytelling takes a back seat to legal and financial considerations. When Jon Else was completing his film "Sing Faster: The Stagehands' Ring Cycle," a backstage look at an opera company that won a Filmmakers Trophy at the Sundance Film Festival in 1999, he wanted to use a scene in which the stagehands watched "The Simpsons" as Wagner roared overhead.

"I felt it was a wonderful cultural moment to see two stagehands playing checkers while the gods are singing about destiny and free will and Marge and Homer are arguing on the television set," Mr. Else said. "We got permission from Matt Groening's company," which produces "The Simpsons," and then went to Fox.

"The first response was $10,000 for four seconds," Mr. Else said. "When I explained this was for public television, they replied that was their public television minimum. We eventually worked our way down to $7,000, but it was at the end of production, we were exhausted and out of money." It became more complicated. "Fox said, Wait a minute, any chance you're going to sell this? It wasn't the case of Fox being intractable jerks; it's just this odd gray area.

"At the last second, I replaced it with a shot of a film that I own," he said, adding, "I'll burn in journalistic hell for that."
 
it's like the scene in "the incredibles" when mr incredible is running accross the bridge being pelted by little gooey balls. all that inertia and hope, and in the end you're stuck in a puddle of crap you can barely see out of.

thanks, david. now i'm ready to give up!
 
Dam! thnx for that article. it was a real eye opener and at the same time very depressing. What the music industry is charging it criminal. But to have to pay for the use of the song Happy Birthday is completely insane.

You could work your ass of trying to make a film that means something and have a shot/scene completely destroyed over a dam ringtone. OMG, this is just too much.

What I find interesting is that after apple's Soundtrack came out I heard musicians were complaining that they are being run out of business by cheap music any schmoe (sp?) can make on computer (I'm sure he was made about other sound/music programs too). But what alternative do we have when musicians/there companies charge ridiculous amounts of money.

Yes they should get paid for their art, but come one, make it affordable for independent's. However, no one should have a license on happy birthday. that just pisses me off.
 
Rasquachemedia said:
What I find interesting is that after apple's Soundtrack came out I heard musicians were complaining that they are being run out of business by cheap music any schmoe (sp?) can make on computer (I'm sure he was made about other sound/music programs too). But what alternative do we have when musicians/there companies charge ridiculous amounts of money.

as a musician, i can assert that we are being run out of business. third party licensing is our last bastion. (you can get a song for 99 cents on itunes - that's the ones that are actually being paid for, obviously, not just ripped onto a cd for nothing - say you get 55 cents on that sale as the artist. do the math to see how many sales you need to hit your rent and pay for some computer gear)...

HOWEVER, take the instance of the rocky ringtone. i wonder how much the composer is getting for that? (i doubt the original trumpet players get anything). i'm sure if you were to dig through the music industry side of it you'd find that it's a lot of industry insiders finding ways to fill their coffers off of old licences with the slightest of slivers actually going to musicians...

there needs to be a law for the filmakers. just a little shield to guard against the mighty swords of industry. if you film something that's a spontaneous moment that belongs to synchronicity more than to tchaikovsky there ought to be something that lets you have that moment for a resonable price. (or at least not have to pay up front.)
 
What was being paid for? The royalties on the tune? The "sync rights" for a ring tone?

"The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers." -- Wm. Shakespeare
 
robmyers said:
as a musician, i can assert that we are being run out of business. third party licensing is our last bastion. (you can get a song for 99 cents on itunes - that's the ones that are actually being paid for, obviously, not just ripped onto a cd for nothing - say you get 55 cents on that sale as the artist. do the math to see how many sales you need to hit your rent and pay for some computer gear)...

I hear you. take the case of TLC, world famous and were left dead broke. I figure they did better later, but the story i saw in VH1 it was. they were touring the world and selling records, but the record company took everything. I think they even filed for bankruptcy!
 
Hmmmm.... Dont give up. Just become more creative and make your own music.....

There are a lot of samplers and softsynths out there...... If not find someone who can compose your own.... Don't need the music industry to make our work presentable. It's them that needs us for there filmclips..... Mike
 
M-Audio Pro-Sessions... there are 68 volumes and 7 are specifically tailored towards video production... "Liquid Cinema".

If you can put in a tenth of the time you have to learn editing... then there's your key to freedom.

My zombie flick was a total rush job... it was edited in my spare time of the last two or three days before deadline. I'd say it took me a couple hours total to choose sounds and drop 'em on the timeline... then adjust fades. If I'd have spent my normal time on it I could have imported my video into Acid Pro and then fully scored it... that would have taken between two days and a week depending on how lucky I was in getting the feel I wanted.

For Indi-Film I really think that's the answer... another option is to search for musicians who would like more exposure and work deals out with them. I've got two really good guys on the line as well. It's a lot harder to find good musicians who will work with you on the sound you want though. Most guys who are highly skilled aren't flexible... and they can start worrying that you'll somehow profit on thier work... then they want to change the contract. I normally offer musicians a simple contract which guarantees them a portion of the profits (like there would be any) 'cause what do you have to lose anyway? It's only fair.

But to get back to my original point... if you can commit just a little time there are DIY alternatives that offer fewer headaches... and the end quality will be in your own hands... for better... or worse.
 
You mean if someone accidentally catches someone on camera humming a tune of mine, I should sue the filmmaker for a gazillion dollars?

Nah.
 
No one said that. But I'm sure no one here would appreciate if someone else used part of their work without permission.
 
As an artist if someone used my tune in a movie they used I would feel flattered. I thought I read somewhere that if you got a musician to play lets say "rocky" you would only have to pay the musician for performing the song for you but you can use their rendition of the song however you said in the contract with the musician. Not sure if I am remembing everything about this.
 
I can see people not wanting their work used for free, but $10,000 for a few seconds? Or to be paid for a ring tone heard in a movie? They should have been paid for that when the phone company buys it to use.

I was told by a friend who has a band that if they do cover songs they really owe the owner of the music some money. So they are real careful who they cover and they play most of their own stuff.
 
rights suck.

there will come a day where everything in film is copyrighted. The close-up, the 2-shot, the master. And you will have to pay money for every single angle. Then again, if we weren't allowed to use these shots, we'd probably be forced to come up with something pretty original.

i take it back.

rights rule.
 
I'm working on a new reality series now and we're incredibly sensitive about rights, inadvertent logo or product placement and unreleased atmosphere.

I hardly remember the days when I could simply take a shot without worrying over errant radio signals playing in the background, silencing of cellular phones, obscuring unwanted persons, signage or locations from the frame and so on.

In the instance at the center of the NYTimes article, a filmmaker without deep pockets who wants his product to see the light of day has but one option - tell the copyright holder and or enforcement body to go to hell and place your own proprietary tone in the place of what was once there.

Would the shot be better for the original and factual content? Perhaps yes, but documentary filmmakers have been stretching infinitely larger story points since the beginning for myriad reasons more significant than a $10k music label extortion payday.

As a content creator in docu-reality, I constantly straddle the line between presenting fact and recreating it in an accurate way for the eventual audience - worrying over stepping on a million toes is just another hurdle in an already impossibly complicated business.

Take the shot.

e
 
thisiswells said:
Good read. Thanks, Rosestar.

Thanks for remembering.

I can see the point of charging for rights, but the price vs. value equation here is vastly skewed. I would think that this would be more negotiable then it is. I quess not.

One thing we have to remember is that we have been spoiled by the quasi-independents, what diid you call them Brian, Indiewood, and their use of popular songs in their movies. If you want a soundtrack like Tarrantino, get your check book. Remeber, He did not have an original soundtrack until Kill Bill Vol. 1. As independent, we should break that habit and invest in original, possibley regional music.

IMO, do not write your script with pop music as an influence, look around you and find independent muscians, who have the same passion as you do.
 
David G. Smith said:
IMO, do not write your script with pop music as an influence, look around you and find independent muscians, who have the same passion as you do.

but i don't think the music is so much the point. it's the incidental properties that are uncontrollably tied into the synchronicity of your footage. the things that are making "your footage" not yours. i'm sure you're happy to pay for music when you're making your movie and it's playing a part.

it might not be as expensive [the music that is] as you think. we sold "lebanese blonde" to zach & co for the "garden state" soundtrack for somewhere in the vicinty of $5,000. it was a tiny movie at the time. the co-producer was a thievery fan from the old days and really wanted the song. as an artist you're not likely to turn down the opportunity to get your stuff injected into the popular mainstream. whatever the price.
 
David Jimerson said:
OK, guys; wait 'til someone lifts something of yours.
hey, we're all getting lifted from. what hurts is the idea of getting your film to the goal line and then seeing the last yard expand like a salvador dali painting, with evil spikes coming out of the grass! :evil:
 
Back
Top