Re: [Frameworks] High-definition frame grabs

[Ingo Petzke]

Very, very well said Chuck!

 

Ingo

 

From: FrameWorks [mailto:frameworks-boun...@jonasmekasfilms.com] On Behalf Of 
Chuck Kleinhans
Sent: Donnerstag, 1. Oktober 2015 05:58
To: Experimental Film Discussion List
Subject: Re: [Frameworks] High-definition frame grabs

 

I think Marilyn Brakhage is a model of sweet reason and rationality and looks 
out for artists and the community.  That’s wonderful, and I would go direct to 
her for any of the Brakhage images.  However, you don’t have to spend much time 
in the experimental film community to run into artists who have a vastly 
inflated opinion of themselves, incredible insecurities, and just plain 
nuttiness.  They may never answer you, insist on reviewing everything you are 
saying about them for pre-approval, or want to gouge you.  (I am speaking from 
personal experience with some of these folks.)

 

Even worse, and even more prevalent now, the world of “artist media” usually 
actually owned by private galleries, not the artists themselves.  They view 
their “films” ($35,000 for a one hour 16mm print, anyone?) and “video art” as 
precious and rare items, like paintings and sculptures to be sold to collectors 
and museums.  Restricting access is what makes them unique and valuable.  
Welcome to the capitalist art market.

 

Chuck

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On Sep 30, 2015, at 5:21 PM, marilyn brakhage  > wrote:





I strongly agree with Pip's suggestion to get authorization.  If it's for a 
serious academic book you should want, and surely the filmmakers would want, a 
good selection of high quality images to represent the films.  Disney is one 
thing, but if you're talking about avant-garde filmmakers, I doubt they would 
be charging "exorbitant fees".  Using the example of Brakhage films, I don't 
end up making any money from stills when all is said and done, but do collect 
some small fees -- most of which goes (usually) to Fred Camper for the work he 
does in providing them.  However, we also sometimes waive fees, depending on 
circumstances.  My concern in the matter of film stills is not making money, 
but having the films reasonably well represented.  I'm sure others would feel 
likewise about their films. 

 

Marilyn Brakhage

 

 

On 30-Sep-15, at 4:43 PM, Chuck Kleinhans wrote:





I strongly disagree with Pip’s suggestion to get authorization. 

 

To even make an inquiry reveals an intention and an awareness of possible legal 
ramifications that does two things:

 

1. the rights holder may well demand an exorbitant fee, and there’s no way to 
re-negotiate that; you’ve undercut your own position.  (if you don’t believe 
me, try to get rights by sending a letter to Disney Corp for one frame grab of 
any Disney film).  The people you are often dealing with are not artists but 
low level lawyers whose job is to extract as much money as possible out of the 
rights.

—Yes they have a case: you shouldn’t be able to take a frame grab of a Disney 
film and put it on a T-shirt and sell it without them giving permission, 
forming a contract, and you paying them part of the proceeds.  HOWEVER the 
exact same procedure is used for someone wanting to use an image in a critical 
essay in a film journal or a PhD dissertation: pay up front or you face endless 
threats of "cease and desist” letters, threats of lawsuits, or actual suits 
(these people have nothing else to do; they get paid to harass you.)

 

2.  the law on copying of “copyrighted” images varies greatly by country and 
jurisdiction.  For example, in he USA, the Society for Cinema and Media Studies 
has conducted many years of campaigning and advocacy for the right to use frame 
grab images in academic/critical publications without permission or paying for 
“rights” when the intent is clearly intellectual and critical.  Think Bordwell 
and Thompson’s textbook: FILM ART, AN INTRODUCTION.

 

Details and a position paper on the SCMS website

 

Also essential: the work of Patricia Aufderheide at  American University’s 
Center for Social Media.

  www.centerforsocialmedia.org

which has worked to fight for the rights of creative people (especially in 
documentary forms)—e.g. your are filming/taping an interview on the street and 
a passing car goes by with the strains of a Kanye West  or Taylor Swift song 
being heard….you should NOT have to pay the “rightsholder” any fee for this 
accidental arrival of a thin slice of reality in your environment.  But the 
above mentioned lawyers want the law enforced so you do have to pay full 
freight.

 

Today most (but not all) US university presses follow the SCMS guidelines:  
look at the webistes for ms. submission for Duke, California, NYU, etc. for a 
rough guildeline.  However, fair warning, UK publishers tend to be incredibly 
backward and chicken about these matters.

 

I’d say get your images first without asking anyone anything.  Then if your 
book ms is 

Re: [Frameworks] High-definition frame grabs

[marilyn brakhage]

Well -- yes.  That's probably true too.

Marilyn


On 30-Sep-15, at 8:58 PM, Chuck Kleinhans wrote:

However, you don’t have to spend much time in the experimental film  
community to run into artists who have a vastly inflated opinion of  
themselves, incredible insecurities, and just plain nuttiness.  They  
may never answer you, insist on reviewing everything you are saying  
about them for pre-approval, or want to gouge you.


___
FrameWorks mailing list
FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com
https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks

Re: [Frameworks] High-definition frame grabs

[Amanda Christie]

Yes but for every asshole, there are probably 5 people who will allow you to 
use the image for free.  Just ask.

Here are some solid reasons why you should approach the owners of the image:

1.  If this is an academic publication, you absolutely need to get the artists' 
permission to use the image, otherwise it falls under plagiarism.

2.  If you get the image from the artist or their distributor the image will be 
of much higher quality than from a screen grab

3.  If the artist or distributor does charge a fee, it likely won't be 
exhorbitant.  In Canada, the organizations CARFAC and CARCC set fee schedules 
as guidelines for the cost of licensing to reproduce images... and the fees 
vary depending on what you're doing with them (i.e. type of publication, 
whether it's for sale or not, print run, etc.) 
You can find the list of their fee schedule here: 
http://www.carcc.ca/fee_schedule_2015_2_reproduction.html

4.  Integrity:  Getting an artist's permission to reproduce their image is a 
good thing to do if you are using it to talk about their work or to illustrate 
something.  Don't steal it or plagiarize.


On 2015-10-01, at 7:40 AM, marilyn brakhage wrote:

> Well -- yes.  That's probably true too.
> 
> Marilyn
> 
> 
> On 30-Sep-15, at 8:58 PM, Chuck Kleinhans wrote:
> 
>> However, you don’t have to spend much time in the experimental film 
>> community to run into artists who have a vastly inflated opinion of 
>> themselves, incredible insecurities, and just plain nuttiness.  They may 
>> never answer you, insist on reviewing everything you are saying about them 
>> for pre-approval, or want to gouge you.
> 
> ___
> FrameWorks mailing list
> FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com
> https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks

___
FrameWorks mailing list
FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com
https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks

Re: [Frameworks] High-definition frame grabs

[Adam Hyman]

#1 isn¹t true but the rest are.

Fair Use for critical commentary is a real thing, at least in the United
States, for US-originated publications.  (Copyright law is different from
country to country, although the US & Europe at least have been working to
sync up their laws.)
Just because artists or distributors or film studios don¹t want it to be
doesn¹t mean it isn¹t; to the best of my knowledge, no one has ever sued on
that point and won, as they know that a more likely result would be that
they would lose.

In addition, something is never plagiarism if it is credited.  (It might be
other things, but not ³plagiarism².)  And an image to illustrate a point
that you are making in an academic context also isn¹t ³plagiarism².

However, using an image without permission for advertising or marketing is
not fair use.  You can¹t use it on the cover of a book or in an ad without
full permission.

But the other reasons are more then good enough to ask permission from the
artist.  It¹s also good form, and to let someone know that their work is
being discussed, which might lead to some publicity, and good dialogue.  And
most people in my experience do let you use it for free.

Best regards,

Adam
(I also have extensive experience doing rights & clearance work for a
living)


On 10/1/15 4:50 AM, "Amanda Christie"  wrote:

> Yes but for every asshole, there are probably 5 people who will allow you to
> use the image for free.  Just ask.
> 
> Here are some solid reasons why you should approach the owners of the image:
> 
> 1.  If this is an academic publication, you absolutely need to get the
> artists' permission to use the image, otherwise it falls under plagiarism.
> 
> 2.  If you get the image from the artist or their distributor the image will
> be of much higher quality than from a screen grab
> 
> 3.  If the artist or distributor does charge a fee, it likely won't be
> exhorbitant.  In Canada, the organizations CARFAC and CARCC set fee schedules
> as guidelines for the cost of licensing to reproduce images... and the fees
> vary depending on what you're doing with them (i.e. type of publication,
> whether it's for sale or not, print run, etc.)
> You can find the list of their fee schedule here:
> http://www.carcc.ca/fee_schedule_2015_2_reproduction.html
> 
> 4.  Integrity:  Getting an artist's permission to reproduce their image is a
> good thing to do if you are using it to talk about their work or to illustrate
> something.  Don't steal it or plagiarize.
> 
> 
> On 2015-10-01, at 7:40 AM, marilyn brakhage wrote:
> 
>> Well -- yes.  That's probably true too.
>> 
>> Marilyn
>> 
>> 
>> On 30-Sep-15, at 8:58 PM, Chuck Kleinhans wrote:
>> 
>>> However, you don¹t have to spend much time in the experimental film
>>> community to run into artists who have a vastly inflated opinion of
>>> themselves, incredible insecurities, and just plain nuttiness.  They may
>>> never answer you, insist on reviewing everything you are saying about them
>>> for pre-approval, or want to gouge you.
>> 
>> ___
>> FrameWorks mailing list
>> FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com
>> https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
> 
> 
> 
> ___ FrameWorks mailing list
> FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com
> https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks


___
FrameWorks mailing list
FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com
https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks

Re: [Frameworks] High-definition frame grabs

[Chuck Kleinhans]

I think this thread is very useful and gives everyone things to think about.

My original response was provoked by the person writing thinking they should 
get permission BEFORE having a contract with a press.  My advice was “don’t 
ask” before hand.  When you are going to publication your publisher can 
probably help you out, and as Adam points out, Fair Use operates in the US 
context, but not everywhere else.

There is a rights issue for deceased artists.  In some cases the rights pass to 
a trust or to an heir who see their ownership as a cash cow, or who may be 
totally indifferent to the artist’s retrospective reputation, etc.  Or who may 
feel a need to control reputation, or deny aspects of the deceased’s bio (esp. 
around sexuality in the past, etc.).

Chuck



___
FrameWorks mailing list
FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com
https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks

Re: [Frameworks] High-definition frame grabs -- the other side

[Jeff Kreines]

There are certainly artists and filmmakers who can be difficult to deal with.  
Many of them are my good friends.  Nothing wrong with being a curmudgeon.

But there is another side of the equation —  writers who are full of 
themselves, and ignorant about the genre of film they are writing about — in 
short, jerks.  

I have had fine relations with many writers, and gone to a lot of effort (even 
in the pre-digital days) to provide specific frame blow-ups they requested (at 
no charge, of course). 

But there was a case where I was approached by a writer to be included in a 
book (commissioned, and funded by a large grant) about a particular sub-genre 
of film I was (not bragging here, just accurate) a pioneer of — 
autobiographical cinema-verite family films.  Every question this writer asked 
was insulting, and clueless.  He was under pressure to include my work because 
it was important to the history of this type of filmmaking, and influenced the 
work of many filmmakers (their sentiments, not mine).  

This author was extremely full of himself — and acted like it was a great 
privilege to have him write about one’s work.  (There are some hilarious bits 
on the internet about other filmmakers lobbying to be included in one of his 
tomes, and his smug replies, toying with their desires to be one of his chosen 
few.)  

Fortunately, we distribute all of our films, and while there are some bootlegs 
out there it is not easy to see our work without going through us.  So we 
simply did not make that work available.  It meant being written out of a 
history of a type of film we are best known for, but sometimes you’d rather be 
ignored than included if you have no faith in the writer.  


Jeff Kreines
Coosada, AL



___
FrameWorks mailing list
FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com
https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks

Re: [Frameworks] High-definition frame grabs

[Amanda Christie]

Good catch on #1 Adam!

I replied before I had my morning coffee and was assuming the worst case 
scenario.

Coffee has been had and now the world is a friendly place again... :-)


On 2015-10-01, at 12:55 PM, Adam Hyman wrote:

> #1 isn’t true but the rest are.
> 
> Fair Use for critical commentary is a real thing, at least in the United 
> States, for US-originated publications.  (Copyright law is different from 
> country to country, although the US & Europe at least have been working to 
> sync up their laws.)  
> Just because artists or distributors or film studios don’t want it to be 
> doesn’t mean it isn’t; to the best of my knowledge, no one has ever sued on 
> that point and won, as they know that a more likely result would be that they 
> would lose.
> 
> In addition, something is never plagiarism if it is credited.  (It might be 
> other things, but not “plagiarism”.)  And an image to illustrate a point that 
> you are making in an academic context also isn’t “plagiarism”. 
> 
> However, using an image without permission for advertising or marketing is 
> not fair use.  You can’t use it on the cover of a book or in an ad without 
> full permission.
> 
> But the other reasons are more then good enough to ask permission from the 
> artist.  It’s also good form, and to let someone know that their work is 
> being discussed, which might lead to some publicity, and good dialogue.  And 
> most people in my experience do let you use it for free.  
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Adam
> (I also have extensive experience doing rights & clearance work for a living)
> 
> 
> On 10/1/15 4:50 AM, "Amanda Christie"  wrote:
> 
>> Yes but for every asshole, there are probably 5 people who will allow you to 
>> use the image for free.  Just ask.
>> 
>> Here are some solid reasons why you should approach the owners of the image:
>> 
>> 1.  If this is an academic publication, you absolutely need to get the 
>> artists' permission to use the image, otherwise it falls under plagiarism.
>> 
>> 2.  If you get the image from the artist or their distributor the image will 
>> be of much higher quality than from a screen grab
>> 
>> 3.  If the artist or distributor does charge a fee, it likely won't be 
>> exhorbitant.  In Canada, the organizations CARFAC and CARCC set fee 
>> schedules as guidelines for the cost of licensing to reproduce images... and 
>> the fees vary depending on what you're doing with them (i.e. type of 
>> publication, whether it's for sale or not, print run, etc.) 
>> You can find the list of their fee schedule here: 
>> http://www.carcc.ca/fee_schedule_2015_2_reproduction.html
>> 
>> 4.  Integrity:  Getting an artist's permission to reproduce their image is a 
>> good thing to do if you are using it to talk about their work or to 
>> illustrate something.  Don't steal it or plagiarize.
>> 
>> 
>> On 2015-10-01, at 7:40 AM, marilyn brakhage wrote:
>> 
>>> Well -- yes.  That's probably true too.
>>> 
>>> Marilyn
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 30-Sep-15, at 8:58 PM, Chuck Kleinhans wrote:
>>> 
 However, you don’t have to spend much time in the experimental film 
 community to run into artists who have a vastly inflated opinion of 
 themselves, incredible insecurities, and just plain nuttiness.  They may 
 never answer you, insist on reviewing everything you are saying about them 
 for pre-approval, or want to gouge you.
>>> 
>>> ___
>>> FrameWorks mailing list
>>> FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com
>>> https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
>> 
>> 
>> ___ FrameWorks mailing list 
>> FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com 
>> https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks 
> 

___
FrameWorks mailing list
FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com
https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks

Re: [Frameworks] Millennium Film Workshop

[Jay Hudson]

According to New York State law, in a membership nonprofit, the board has
the right to add or remove board members at will, unless there is anything
in the bylaws or the corporate charter that states otherwise.  Even in that
case, if there is a justifiable reason, like proven embezzlement, or
something like that, the board probably could get rid of the offending
board member.  There is nothing wrong in the appointment of board members,
with members approval or not.

According to MFW bylaws, the president can call for an election at any time
for a special purpose at their discretion.  Stephanie Wuertz could have
made that decision at time.  I am not criticizing her because of
Millennium's extenuating circumstances.  I also don't think that it is fair
nor appropriate to bag on George, Lili, or the rest of the current board
either.

There has been a lot of stuff going on, but as far as I know, the board is
working on getting the bylaws together, etc., so that when the time comes,
the meeting will be able to go on smoothly.  I have trust in the current
board, and would prefer that they can have the space to do their job.  If
one has concerns, it is much better that they contact board members
personally, rather than through public forums.

David Baker's criticisms about the movement to reform MFW was predicated on
"negating howard" and that there was no interest in the archive and
completely false and oversimplified.  MFW had been in decline for many
years.  The problems were not personal but structural.  The NYSCA grant
went from $30,000 to $12,000, to $8,000.  There were considerable debts to
the landlord, who were about to pull the plug.  NEA stopped funding MFW.

When I spoke to the funders, they both said that MFW was suffering from
severe and obvious "founder's syndrome," where one individual dominates the
organization, and can not distinguish between their own affairs and the
affairs of the organization.  MFW was in danger of imminent collapse.  If
nobody had stepped in the following would have happened:  the landlord
would have pulled the plug, the archive would have been hastily sold, the
landlord would get that money, the equipment would have gathered by
vultures, etc. It was in the best interest of all parties that something
was done.

Regarding the finances, all of that information should be available.  As
for myself, the "undocumented income", that Sasha describes totals $22K,
which includes 3K of debts from my works as a monitor, or 19K, basically
10K a year.  I can document that I worked an average of 15, 16 hour days
for months on end, including thirty six hours clearing stuff from the
theater and putting it in a dumpster.  I worked my ass off well past the
point of exhaustion and payed and significant personal price for it.  If
anyone has a problem with that, tough shit.  I have no complaints about it,
nor any animosity towards anyone, but I am not going to take shit for it
either.

I have been away from MFW for two years and have moved on.  As tough as it
was, it was a great experience for me.  I was thankful to have the
opportunity.  I also am supportive of the current board.  I think that
people should not think about how MFW was or how MFW should be, but how MFW
is, what MFW can do and what they themselves can do to contribute.  If
people want to be stuck on negative shit from the past, that is their
problem, not mine.  If people don't like the "now" MFW, they don't have to
participate.




On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 1:41 PM, Francisco Torres 
wrote:

> I would like to bring something up may seem harsh to most people on this
> discussion- Why not close the place for good already? After all these years
> it seems like the only sensible thing to do. As of ''As if it was our
> last day'' it seems that day is long past for the MFW. Maybe it was the day
> they closed shop at 4th street. Only the journal will remain as testimony
> of its greatness. And our memories.
>
>
>
>
> 2015-09-30 12:26 GMT-04:00 David Baker :
>
>> Dear Sasha,
>>
>> For all those who enter the orbit of this strange institution
>> there are endless irreconcilable ironies to untangle.
>>
>> There is considerable mystery in how Howard Guttenplan was able to
>> preside despotically for forty years
>> without adherence to any of the precepts set forth in the bylaws,
>> simultaneously acting single handedly as steward to a cultural milieu of
>> such importance
>> that MoMA would proffer eighty five thousand dollars
>> (a number I believe was low for the staggering trove therein)
>> to obtain the archives.
>>
>> Lili White as much as she may vex
>> (I have no appreciation for gender biased curation whatever the rationale)
>> decisively stepped up to lead a tiny group of people in order to preserve
>> the
>> Millennium Film Workshop Archives at a moment of almost unimaginable
>> disorder and chaos.
>> Were she not to have acted with such forceful authority this treasure
>> could easily have

[Frameworks] monitor or projector in Brooklyn in November ?

[Amanda Christie]

Hey folks!

I'm going to be spending November in Brooklyn  editing a film, and I am 
bringing my own gear, and I have a studio lined up to work in... but... I don't 
have room in my car for my monitor  ( it was all shot on 35mm, but I'm 
editing digitally)

Does anyone know if it would be possible to borrow or cheaply rent a monitor 
(or projector) in Brooklyn for the month of November so I can see what I'm 
doing?  
It would be so much easier if I didn't have to pack mine!  

I'll be editing using headphones too... so if anyone has speakers I could 
borrow, that would also be awesome... but not as vital as a monitor for me to 
see what I'm working on.



Also... while I'm there... I would love to have a little viewing / feedback 
session if anyone is interested in seeing a rough cut and discussing.  I've 
been feeling rather isolated and like I'm working in a silo on this one for the 
last few years... feedback from peers would be great.  I've been working on 
this film for 6 years... it's my first feature length experimental doc 
Spectres of Shortwave... about radio towers...   there's an older 5 minute 
preview of it on my website that I made when I just started filming 
http://www.amandadawnchristie.ca/new-page-1/  I'm hoping to finally finish the 
whole thing while I'm in Brooklyn.

Anyhow... let me know if it's possible to find a monitor in Brooklyn, and also 
if anyone is interested in a little viewing/feedback session while I'm there.

Looking forward to meeting some new folks and talking film!


Amanda Dawn Christie

506-871-2062
www.amandadawnchristie.ca
ama...@amandadawnchristie.ca
___


___
FrameWorks mailing list
FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com
https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks

Re: [Frameworks] monitor or projector in Brooklyn in November ?

[Elizabeth McMahon]

Hi,

Honestly, I don't know the equipment available here, but I am passing this
along nevertheless. It could be exactly what you're looking for! Even if
not, it is still good for people to know about.

BRIC Opens a New TV Studio at Coney Island Library

http://www.thelmagazine.com/2015/07/bric-opens-new-tv-studio-coney-island-library/

Best, Good Luck!

Elizabeth

On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 5:22 PM, Amanda Christie <
ama...@amandadawnchristie.ca> wrote:

> Hey folks!
>
> I'm going to be spending November in Brooklyn  editing a film, and I am
> bringing my own gear, and I have a studio lined up to work in... but... I
> don't have room in my car for my monitor  ( it was all shot on 35mm,
> but I'm editing digitally)
>
> Does anyone know if it would be possible to borrow or cheaply rent a
> monitor (or projector) in Brooklyn for the month of November so I can see
> what I'm doing?
> It would be so much easier if I didn't have to pack mine!
>
> I'll be editing using headphones too... so if anyone has speakers I could
> borrow, that would also be awesome... but not as vital as a monitor for me
> to see what I'm working on.
>
>
>
> Also... while I'm there... I would love to have a little viewing /
> feedback session if anyone is interested in seeing a rough cut and
> discussing.  I've been feeling rather isolated and like I'm working in a
> silo on this one for the last few years... feedback from peers would be
> great.  I've been working on this film for 6 years... it's my first feature
> length experimental doc Spectres of Shortwave... about radio towers...
>  there's an older 5 minute preview of it on my website that I made when I
> just started filming http://www.amandadawnchristie.ca/new-page-1/
> I'm hoping to finally finish the whole thing while I'm in Brooklyn.
>
> Anyhow... let me know if it's possible to find a monitor in Brooklyn, and
> also if anyone is interested in a little viewing/feedback session while I'm
> there.
>
> Looking forward to meeting some new folks and talking film!
>
>
> Amanda Dawn Christie
> 
> 506-871-2062
> www.amandadawnchristie.ca
> ama...@amandadawnchristie.ca
> ___
>
>
> ___
> FrameWorks mailing list
> FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com
> https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
>



-- 
Elizabeth
___
FrameWorks mailing list
FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com
https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks

Re: [Frameworks] Millennium Film Workshop

[Sasha Janerus]

Yes, at this point MFW ought to be wound down. Still, it'd be good to know what 
happened and maybe hold some folks accountable, for some of the equipment to be 
placed with other non-profs, etc. For that you need a few people who between 
them can screw in a light bulb.

I'm not about to read or respond to JHs comments--there's not much to be gained 
from quarrelling with the mentally ill-- but if they raise any specific 
questions or concerns among others on the list I can respond.

-Original Message-
From: "Jay Hudson" 
Sent: ‎10/‎1/‎2015 4:27 PM
To: "Experimental Film Discussion List" 
Subject: Re: [Frameworks] Millennium Film Workshop

According to New York State law, in a membership nonprofit, the board has the 
right to add or remove board members at will, unless there is anything in the 
bylaws or the corporate charter that states otherwise.  Even in that case, if 
there is a justifiable reason, like proven embezzlement, or something like 
that, the board probably could get rid of the offending board member.  There is 
nothing wrong in the appointment of board members, with members approval or not.


According to MFW bylaws, the president can call for an election at any time for 
a special purpose at their discretion.  Stephanie Wuertz could have made that 
decision at time.  I am not criticizing her because of Millennium's extenuating 
circumstances.  I also don't think that it is fair nor appropriate to bag on 
George, Lili, or the rest of the current board either.  


There has been a lot of stuff going on, but as far as I know, the board is 
working on getting the bylaws together, etc., so that when the time comes, the 
meeting will be able to go on smoothly.  I have trust in the current board, and 
would prefer that they can have the space to do their job.  If one has 
concerns, it is much better that they contact board members personally, rather 
than through public forums.


David Baker's criticisms about the movement to reform MFW was predicated on 
"negating howard" and that there was no interest in the archive and completely 
false and oversimplified.  MFW had been in decline for many years.  The 
problems were not personal but structural.  The NYSCA grant went from $30,000 
to $12,000, to $8,000.  There were considerable debts to the landlord, who were 
about to pull the plug.  NEA stopped funding MFW.  


When I spoke to the funders, they both said that MFW was suffering from severe 
and obvious "founder's syndrome," where one individual dominates the 
organization, and can not distinguish between their own affairs and the affairs 
of the organization.  MFW was in danger of imminent collapse.  If nobody had 
stepped in the following would have happened:  the landlord would have pulled 
the plug, the archive would have been hastily sold, the landlord would get that 
money, the equipment would have gathered by vultures, etc. It was in the best 
interest of all parties that something was done.


Regarding the finances, all of that information should be available.  As for 
myself, the "undocumented income", that Sasha describes totals $22K, which 
includes 3K of debts from my works as a monitor, or 19K, basically 10K a year.  
I can document that I worked an average of 15, 16 hour days for months on end, 
including thirty six hours clearing stuff from the theater and putting it in a 
dumpster.  I worked my ass off well past the point of exhaustion and payed and 
significant personal price for it.  If anyone has a problem with that, tough 
shit.  I have no complaints about it, nor any animosity towards anyone, but I 
am not going to take shit for it either.


I have been away from MFW for two years and have moved on.  As tough as it was, 
it was a great experience for me.  I was thankful to have the opportunity.  I 
also am supportive of the current board.  I think that people should not think 
about how MFW was or how MFW should be, but how MFW is, what MFW can do and 
what they themselves can do to contribute.  If people want to be stuck on 
negative shit from the past, that is their problem, not mine.  If people don't 
like the "now" MFW, they don't have to participate.








On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 1:41 PM, Francisco Torres  wrote:

I would like to bring something up may seem harsh to most people on this 
discussion- Why not close the place for good already? After all these years it 
seems like the only sensible thing to do. As of ''As if it was our last day'' 
it seems that day is long past for the MFW. Maybe it was the day they closed 
shop at 4th street. Only the journal will remain as testimony of its greatness. 
And our memories.







2015-09-30 12:26 GMT-04:00 David Baker :

Dear Sasha,

For all those who enter the orbit of this strange institution
there are endless irreconcilable ironies to untangle.

There is considerable mystery in how Howard Guttenplan was able to preside 

Re: [Frameworks] Millennium Film Workshop

[Elizabeth McMahon]

"--there's not much to be gained from quarrelling with the mentally ill--"
WOW. This sets the benchmark for a new low. I appreciate why that youngster
fled Frameworks after 2 hours just a couple of days ago. Sasha, whoever
you, for shame on you. What a contemptible and offensive remark. If you
were at all involved in Millennium, I can see how might have helped steer
it towards its ruination. I am appalled.

Elizabeth McMahon

On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 6:41 PM, Sasha Janerus 
wrote:

> Yes, at this point MFW ought to be wound down. Still, it'd be good to know
> what happened and maybe hold some folks accountable, for some of the
> equipment to be placed with other non-profs, etc. For that you need a few
> people who between them can screw in a light bulb.
>
> I'm not about to read or respond to JHs comments--there's not much to be
> gained from quarrelling with the mentally ill-- but if they raise any
> specific questions or concerns among others on the list I can respond.
> --
> From: Jay Hudson 
> Sent: ‎10/‎1/‎2015 4:27 PM
> To: Experimental Film Discussion List 
> Subject: Re: [Frameworks] Millennium Film Workshop
>
> According to New York State law, in a membership nonprofit, the board has
> the right to add or remove board members at will, unless there is anything
> in the bylaws or the corporate charter that states otherwise.  Even in that
> case, if there is a justifiable reason, like proven embezzlement, or
> something like that, the board probably could get rid of the offending
> board member.  There is nothing wrong in the appointment of board members,
> with members approval or not.
>
> According to MFW bylaws, the president can call for an election at any
> time for a special purpose at their discretion.  Stephanie Wuertz could
> have made that decision at time.  I am not criticizing her because of
> Millennium's extenuating circumstances.  I also don't think that it is fair
> nor appropriate to bag on George, Lili, or the rest of the current board
> either.
>
> There has been a lot of stuff going on, but as far as I know, the board is
> working on getting the bylaws together, etc., so that when the time comes,
> the meeting will be able to go on smoothly.  I have trust in the current
> board, and would prefer that they can have the space to do their job.  If
> one has concerns, it is much better that they contact board members
> personally, rather than through public forums.
>
> David Baker's criticisms about the movement to reform MFW was predicated
> on "negating howard" and that there was no interest in the archive and
> completely false and oversimplified.  MFW had been in decline for many
> years.  The problems were not personal but structural.  The NYSCA grant
> went from $30,000 to $12,000, to $8,000.  There were considerable debts to
> the landlord, who were about to pull the plug.  NEA stopped funding MFW.
>
> When I spoke to the funders, they both said that MFW was suffering from
> severe and obvious "founder's syndrome," where one individual dominates the
> organization, and can not distinguish between their own affairs and the
> affairs of the organization.  MFW was in danger of imminent collapse.  If
> nobody had stepped in the following would have happened:  the landlord
> would have pulled the plug, the archive would have been hastily sold, the
> landlord would get that money, the equipment would have gathered by
> vultures, etc. It was in the best interest of all parties that something
> was done.
>
> Regarding the finances, all of that information should be available.  As
> for myself, the "undocumented income", that Sasha describes totals $22K,
> which includes 3K of debts from my works as a monitor, or 19K, basically
> 10K a year.  I can document that I worked an average of 15, 16 hour days
> for months on end, including thirty six hours clearing stuff from the
> theater and putting it in a dumpster.  I worked my ass off well past the
> point of exhaustion and payed and significant personal price for it.  If
> anyone has a problem with that, tough shit.  I have no complaints about it,
> nor any animosity towards anyone, but I am not going to take shit for it
> either.
>
> I have been away from MFW for two years and have moved on.  As tough as it
> was, it was a great experience for me.  I was thankful to have the
> opportunity.  I also am supportive of the current board.  I think that
> people should not think about how MFW was or how MFW should be, but how MFW
> is, what MFW can do and what they themselves can do to contribute.  If
> people want to be stuck on negative shit from the past, that is their
> problem, not mine.  If people don't like the "now" MFW, they don't have to
> participate.
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 1:41 PM, Francisco Torres 
> wrote:
>
>> I would like to bring something up may seem harsh to most people on this
>> 

Re: [Frameworks] Millennium Film Workshop

[David Baker]

Jay,

Because I, along with Margot Niederland  and Howard helped Lili White
to organize and move the vast archives to a safe warehouse
I know firsthand how perilous that moment was.
There was a porousness and scariness at Millennium then which I hope  
never to encounter again.

It was like NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD
(Romero 1968 black and white version).
We had to work with the utmost speed and efficiency for fear
all would be lost in one scenario or another.
Again I will say it is my deeply considered opinion that had Lili not  
initiated action
at the moment she did the fate of the archives would have been very  
different.

There was no question amongst those working to preserve this material
of the stakes involved. We were simply not willing to leave it in your  
hands.
Your relentless assassination of Howard's character was common  
knowledge.


Because I spent time with Howard until his last month
I know the uncommon grace with which he worked with everyone connected  
to the Millennium

after he was deposed
even when shut out of important channels of communication.
I know he was absolutely devoted to keeping the Millennium going.
I also know that he regarded you as I do as someone
who consistently hits below the belt.

Criticism I have for the current organization pales
before that which I reserve for you.

You will live in infamy in the annals of the Millennium Film Workshop.
You hit Howard when he was down (health crisis / in the hospital).
You took the Millennium from a righteous threadbare struggling  
cultural organization
to an obscenely chaotic mess that accomplished nothing during your  
regime but the humiliation of Howard

and the dissolution and loss of the space on Fourth Street.
It was you the full board finally had no choice but to remove (in  
ignomy).


It pains me to be so blunt.
You must understand that morally I feel the need to push past
the complicated smoke screen of words you are so adept at conjuring
and testify as truthfully as I can to what I witnessed.

David


On Oct 1, 2015, at 4:27 PM, Jay Hudson wrote:

According to New York State law, in a membership nonprofit, the  
board has the right to add or remove board members at will, unless  
there is anything in the bylaws or the corporate charter that states  
otherwise.  Even in that case, if there is a justifiable reason,  
like proven embezzlement, or something like that, the board probably  
could get rid of the offending board member.  There is nothing wrong  
in the appointment of board members, with members approval or not.


According to MFW bylaws, the president can call for an election at  
any time for a special purpose at their discretion.  Stephanie  
Wuertz could have made that decision at time.  I am not criticizing  
her because of Millennium's extenuating circumstances.  I also don't  
think that it is fair nor appropriate to bag on George, Lili, or the  
rest of the current board either.


There has been a lot of stuff going on, but as far as I know, the  
board is working on getting the bylaws together, etc., so that when  
the time comes, the meeting will be able to go on smoothly.  I have  
trust in the current board, and would prefer that they can have the  
space to do their job.  If one has concerns, it is much better that  
they contact board members personally, rather than through public  
forums.


David Baker's criticisms about the movement to reform MFW was  
predicated on "negating howard" and that there was no interest in  
the archive and completely false and oversimplified.  MFW had been  
in decline for many years.  The problems were not personal but  
structural.  The NYSCA grant went from $30,000 to $12,000, to  
$8,000.  There were considerable debts to the landlord, who were  
about to pull the plug.  NEA stopped funding MFW.


When I spoke to the funders, they both said that MFW was suffering  
from severe and obvious "founder's syndrome," where one individual  
dominates the organization, and can not distinguish between their  
own affairs and the affairs of the organization.  MFW was in danger  
of imminent collapse.  If nobody had stepped in the following would  
have happened:  the landlord would have pulled the plug, the archive  
would have been hastily sold, the landlord would get that money, the  
equipment would have gathered by vultures, etc. It was in the best  
interest of all parties that something was done.


Regarding the finances, all of that information should be  
available.  As for myself, the "undocumented income", that Sasha  
describes totals $22K, which includes 3K of debts from my works as a  
monitor, or 19K, basically 10K a year.  I can document that I worked  
an average of 15, 16 hour days for months on end, including thirty  
six hours clearing stuff from the theater and putting it in a  
dumpster.  I worked my ass off well past the point of exhaustion and  
payed and significant personal price for it.  If anyone has a  
problem with that, tough shit.  I