"The Hidden Cost of Documentaries"

[natob2]

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.

I see your perspective but in the eyes of musicians and music labels a commercial is a profit-seeking business venture just as is a documentary. And more than ever documentaries have strong potential for making a healthy profit.

 

[David G. Smith]

I see your perspective but in the eyes of musicians and music labels a commercial is a profit-seeking business venture just as is a documentary. And more than ever documentaries have strong potential for making a healthy profit.

Well, "Strong potential for making a profit" is a tad bit general. Morgan Spurlock and Michael Moore have changed things for docs, that is for sure, but for the most part, profit is the last thing that most docs are made for. I have been devoloping a couple of docs with purely regional interest, and with very little potential for profit and this stuff just makes it harder. Of course, filmmaking is not easy, never has been, never will be. Life goes on.