"The Hidden Cost of Documentaries"
- Thread starter David G. Smith
- Start date
David G. Smith
Steak Knife Member
Yeah, I hate that too.robmyers said:
I can understand the concerns for rights holders. I is just that one side of me (I'll admit the idealogical side) thinks that documentary filmmakers are so hamstrung now, that it is effecting the art form. If you are making a verite style doc and one of your subjects happens to watch a clip on TV, or has a copyrighten ring-tone, it is part of the real world you are documenting and should, IMO, be covered under "fair use". Popular culture is so prevalant in our society that it is part of society. Of course, the lawyers are not going to let that happen. Sad.
robmyers
Active member
David G. Smith said:
bingo. you don't have to worry about copyrights on the species of trees in the background, OR the font being used on a stop sign OR a type of car that just happens to pass by.
they're just going to stick it to you when they've got you on the hook.
and speaking of hooks. i think it will loosen up in the future - it will ALWAYS be a minefield, mind you, but - it'll be like the music biz now. they can't bust you for using most percussion loops or single note stabs that were taken from a previous work, but they're going to hunt you down the the more your sample is part of the song's main hook.
David G. Smith
Steak Knife Member
robmyers said:
Right.
I like the example of a car driving by. GM or Ford owns the copyright to the cars design, but if one drives by, you do not have to pay a fee. Look at old TV shows, all the cars will be of one make. The car makers wanted their cars seen. Music companies need to lighten up and look at the use of the music as advertisement for their products. (I know, I'm dreaming).
David G. Smith
Steak Knife Member
Another issue. Didn't the music company get $$ for liscensing the song as a ring-tone? I am sure they did. Now, when that compensated ring-tone is captured in a verite style doc, they want more.
Boooo!!
Boooo!!
robmyers
Active member
David G. Smith said:
that's how they see it already. great songs are being literally given away night and day. it's like going to the price-negociable market... an ancient buddha statue in gold for $20 is a find, and the $5 per tomato is a ripoff. but you need the tomatoes....
just depends on the transaction and the intermediary companies involved. our policy in the indie music biz is: do it all, if you're going to get your stuff heard: do it. $500, $5,000 or $50,000 dosen't matter it's all treated the same. you just hope for more zeros.
the doc maker could always strip out the ring tone and sell that space to the highest bidder... but then that'd be movies, not documentries...
for now.
I'm with you, rob and David. I don't have any problem with paying for lifting significant parts of someone else's work to add to my own. Nobody should be able to lift music from a CD and use it as background without paying for it. But nothing is considered "incidental" anymore.
For the last 50 years every company has been pushing their particular logos onto anything and everything (T-shirts, jeans, sides of cars, etc.). Now you also have every music company blasting their tunes into malls, music while holding on the phone, and on cell phones).
Fine. That's part of advertising. But then don't turn around (after you've saturated the public space with your logo and music) and tell me it can't be included in any kind of work I'm doing without paying you for the right.
If I was the emporer of rights management, once you put something in the public space, you couldn't charge if that thing was recaptured (with exceptions for obvious rip offs). Thus there would be somewhat reasonable rules such as:
1) Any music captured that is rebroadcast (such as something playing on the radio or a cell tone ring) could be captured up to about 20 seconds without infringing on the original copyright.
2) Any building visible (and any signage thereon) could be filmed from public property.
3) Any logos showing on any commercially available products (clothing, appliances, food) could be filmed without copyright infringement.
Charging for all of these things borders on criminal, in my world. Because by making it financially impossible for the common man to make a movie documenting a particular place and time, corporations are limiting not only the production of art, but also the cataloging of history.
For the last 50 years every company has been pushing their particular logos onto anything and everything (T-shirts, jeans, sides of cars, etc.). Now you also have every music company blasting their tunes into malls, music while holding on the phone, and on cell phones).
Fine. That's part of advertising. But then don't turn around (after you've saturated the public space with your logo and music) and tell me it can't be included in any kind of work I'm doing without paying you for the right.
If I was the emporer of rights management, once you put something in the public space, you couldn't charge if that thing was recaptured (with exceptions for obvious rip offs). Thus there would be somewhat reasonable rules such as:
1) Any music captured that is rebroadcast (such as something playing on the radio or a cell tone ring) could be captured up to about 20 seconds without infringing on the original copyright.
2) Any building visible (and any signage thereon) could be filmed from public property.
3) Any logos showing on any commercially available products (clothing, appliances, food) could be filmed without copyright infringement.
Charging for all of these things borders on criminal, in my world. Because by making it financially impossible for the common man to make a movie documenting a particular place and time, corporations are limiting not only the production of art, but also the cataloging of history.
Rasquachemedia
Well-known member
Joe Kras said:
Well said. In fact, some company's are beginning to sponsor citys. For instance San Diego could be officially sponsored by Pepsi and LA by Coke. City buldings and property can/will have banners, signs, and vending machines that advertise those products, under the agreement that the city wll not do the same with other competitors. This is the sickest thing in the world. Politicians who are already in bed with corporations will now be there sex slaves.
robmyers
Active member
and some companies *cough* ...illiam morris... are having and eating so much cake they need a person on each side to shove it into their mouths.
"hello, mr film man, for a small fee i will find music for your movie/advertisement
hello, madam musician, for a small fee i will get your music placed in a film..."
they get paid for being a router. the tolls are on both sides of the tunnel. the money must be beyond counting.
"hello, mr film man, for a small fee i will find music for your movie/advertisement
hello, madam musician, for a small fee i will get your music placed in a film..."
they get paid for being a router. the tolls are on both sides of the tunnel. the money must be beyond counting.
wabbit
Evil has Ears
The ability of the copyright holder to have complete control over how their art is used is perfectly just and fair (in a society built on capitalism). Lines need to be drawn and sometimes they are drawn a little wide in favor of the copyright holder. Sometimes that sucks but usually it is fairly just.
What sucks (IMHO) is when the big corporations use their money to influence lawmakers to change the laws mid-stream. Back in the late 90's Disney helped change the copyright time back another 20 years. Specifically they were worried that Mickey Mouse was about to enter the public domain and they were gonna lose a cash cow. Life plus 50 years is more then enough for copyright holders to get their just compensation. The only one that benefits after that is megacorps trying to squeeze one last dollar out of the consumer without actually producing anything new.
If they keep upping the public domain rights, maybe someone can start getting paid everytime someone does a Shakesphere play, movie, or even quote. Imagine the bidding war to get a hold those rights. :grin:
What sucks (IMHO) is when the big corporations use their money to influence lawmakers to change the laws mid-stream. Back in the late 90's Disney helped change the copyright time back another 20 years. Specifically they were worried that Mickey Mouse was about to enter the public domain and they were gonna lose a cash cow. Life plus 50 years is more then enough for copyright holders to get their just compensation. The only one that benefits after that is megacorps trying to squeeze one last dollar out of the consumer without actually producing anything new.
If they keep upping the public domain rights, maybe someone can start getting paid everytime someone does a Shakesphere play, movie, or even quote. Imagine the bidding war to get a hold those rights. :grin:
dustino
Well-known member
David G. Smith said:
Great point, David. The problem is that no documentary distribution company has the balls (maybe I should say capital rather than balls) to challenge this - "fair use." It's kind of a legal stalemate where everyone is scared to go to court. McDonald's didn't take "Supersize Me" to court because they were afraid of losing and having definitive settled law in favor of fair use.
On the other hand, distributors and filmmakers have agreed to pay fees as opposed to risking lawsuits not just because the legal fees incurred immediately from that particular (hypothetical) lawsuit. They are afraid of having law settled definitively AGAINST fair use so that a Supersize Me can never be made again and because the already outrageous prices for content and intellectual property would skyrocket even further.
Again, I couldn't care less what someone wants to charge for the overt and obvious use of their work - I see that as a free market issue. If the Rolling Stones want to charge a million dollars for a song in some hollywood Ashton Kusher vehicle soundtrack while Thievery only charges $5000 for exposure in a quality film, so be it. But when I can't afford to use two seconds of a Chase Bank logo plastered on a billboard in my documentary, that's total bullshit and it's ****ing criminal.
I see this as a first amendment issue. Basically my speech is limited by my pocketbook in an obvious and dramatic way. Multibillion dollar corporations have the means to plaster their names all over the world - LITERALLY. As a result, I have no access to the world? That's insane. It's a genuine loss of rights - no hyperbole, no bullshit.
GenJerDan
Veteran
dustino said:
But someone should let it go to court. The climate these days....who do you think a jury would award? The Big Corporation or the Poor Little Filmmaker being sued because a cell phone rang?
dustino said:
It also doesn't happen.
Can anyone cite me one actual case or one law that says says logos and such are protected in that way?
David G. Smith
Steak Knife Member
GenJerDan said:
I gotta go with Dustino. It is not what the jury does, it's what will happen in the appeals process. With the political power of media giants, our increasingly conservative, corporate loving judges will not let a judgement for the little guy stand. Nobody in power now wants to maintain the rights of independent film and video makers to tell the truth. Since the cost of media production has drastically dropped since the advent of digital technology, there has to be something to reign in free thinkers with cameras.
robmyers
Active member
wabbit said:
the most ridiculous one i've seen in the last couple years was the TM they put on the end of "seize the day" for smart start cereal.
"carpe diem, yeah i came up with that..."
i remember when gene simmons of KISS was trying to copyright the use of the word "AXE" when describing a guitar, too. hilarious :laugh:
OK, folks . . .
Discussing the cans and can'ts is one thing, but let's not go down the politics road. This isn't about conservative vs. liberal or anything of the sort.
Discussing the cans and can'ts is one thing, but let's not go down the politics road. This isn't about conservative vs. liberal or anything of the sort.
David G. Smith
Steak Knife Member
David Jimerson said:
The funny thing is that you are absolutly right, David. Is not conservative vs. liberal. Both sides want to stiffle free speech. If it is not to protect some bloated money hungry media giant it is to try and protect some farcical outdated politically correct ideal. IMO, this is about freedom and personal expression, which no one in government, conservative or liberal, gives two sh*ts about.
"It just goes to show ya', it's always something!"- Roseanne Roseannadanna. :grin:
Terry_Lasater
All about the Caption
David G. Smith said:
A Mr. Richard Fetter from Ft. Wayne, NJ wrote in to say: "Dear Roseanne Rosanna Danna, why is their so much sax and violins in the movies?".
The music business is a high risk venture for every 1 album that makes a profit, 10, 15, 20 or more albums fail. Each with enormous costs for producing, recording and marketing. They rely on this 1 successful album to make up for the many losses. I have read quite a bit about musicians totally getting screwed though by the labels. It's so difficult because making a successful album is hit or miss. Like for moviemaking, there is no scientific formula for success.
I license music from the music business on a regular basis. The fees are enormous. It is not out of the ordinary to pay $100,000 to license a popular music track for a TV commercial. Someone is making very good money (agent, artist, label). From an economic perspective, I am OK with this though. It's like actors in Hollywood. To book an unknown principle SAG actor for a 1 day commercial shoot were talking around $1500. Tell me another business where someone can make $1500 for a days work with basically zero fixed cost (other than professional training, if they have that, of course). That kind of money is pretty much left to doctors and lawyers. Camera operators can go out near that rate, but with a $150k+ investment in gear. A lot of that cost is for gear, not just for the labor. Ok so my point is that I am also happy to pay actors that amount for a day of work because it allows the industry to survive. Actors don't work everyday. If we paid them more typical hourly wages like $20, $40, $60/hr these people couldn't survive as working actors and the industry would collapse. I look at the music industry the same way. I depend on an music industry functioning and making money to help ME do my job. For this I am willing to pay a premium to make an industry economically stable.
I hope this makes sense.
I license music from the music business on a regular basis. The fees are enormous. It is not out of the ordinary to pay $100,000 to license a popular music track for a TV commercial. Someone is making very good money (agent, artist, label). From an economic perspective, I am OK with this though. It's like actors in Hollywood. To book an unknown principle SAG actor for a 1 day commercial shoot were talking around $1500. Tell me another business where someone can make $1500 for a days work with basically zero fixed cost (other than professional training, if they have that, of course). That kind of money is pretty much left to doctors and lawyers. Camera operators can go out near that rate, but with a $150k+ investment in gear. A lot of that cost is for gear, not just for the labor. Ok so my point is that I am also happy to pay actors that amount for a day of work because it allows the industry to survive. Actors don't work everyday. If we paid them more typical hourly wages like $20, $40, $60/hr these people couldn't survive as working actors and the industry would collapse. I look at the music industry the same way. I depend on an music industry functioning and making money to help ME do my job. For this I am willing to pay a premium to make an industry economically stable.
I hope this makes sense.
David G. Smith
Steak Knife Member
natob2 said:
I absolutely agree with you. I am not arguing about paying to liscense a song for a commercial or for a fictional narrative film. I think comparing music for a commercial and a verite doc are apple and oranges. Like someone posted above. Media companies have plastered there logos and products all over the world, and if we try to show that world, we have to pay. I am not saying that documentary filmmakers should not have to pay for music in their films, they should pay for all the music they chose to include on the sound track. However, if out in the real world, if pervasive popular culture images or sounds (including music) are documented, and are germain to the content of the doc, they should not have to mortage the farm to use the image or sound. It's just gotten out of hand.