Re: [Videolib] HELP: Best response re libraries and PPR
Morning, I like to think that all distributors realize that they have an obligation to their filmmakers to promote the films that they acquire to the benefit of the filmmaker. I joke that here at Kino Lorber Edu and Alive Mind Cinema we are running the equivalent of an orphanage for docs: the filmmakers call me, tell me about their beloved and gifted child, and want to know if I am willing to nurture it through its adolescent years and supply quarterly updates regarding its progress. Juno help us all if it brings home less than an A! Then I get the dreaded parent-teacher conference call. Needless to say, it makes a distributor selective when acquiring films. Distribution at its best is a partnership with a filmmaker that expands the audience and increases revenue. The distributor should, in addition to an extensive network and established pipeline, advise their filmmakers regarding the best path and use of resources for a film's release. I spend an inordinate amount of time discouraging filmmakers from a 'Theatrical' releases, i.e. a week in NYC, which frequently cost more than it generates, both in terms of revenue or critical buzz. I advise my filmmakers to consider alternate paths to reach their audience, and this usually entails a Community Screening campaign with targeted outreach to their organic audience. This can include screenings at venues such as The Rubin Museum in NYC, the Yerba Buena Center for the Arts in SF, MoMA, and frequently, the local library. On behalf of our filmmakers, who in the spirit of a partnership, receive half of all proceeds, we ask for a Public Performance Rights license for any public exhibition, whether or not admission is charged. Without the support of the organizations such as those I named above and local libraries across America, many indie films would sink to the bottom of the proverbial sea, never to be seen or discussed. I believe that most established distributors, I am thinking here about WMM, First Run, Cinema Guild, see their role in today's world where DIY is an alternative as a partner who brings more to the table in regards to resources and knowledge than we take away. That means advising our filmmakers regarding the best release path to reach their audience and generate revenue. To generate revenue, we must ask for fees on behalf of our filmmakers, if we don't, not only will many long-standing and reputable distributors go out of business, but filmmakers will suffer as well. Because, if a filmmaker makes a film but nobody knows about it, is it not like the proverbial tree that falls in the forest that nobody hears? Best, Elizabeth Elizabeth Sheldon Vice President Kino Lorber, Inc. 333 W. 39th St., Suite 503 New York, NY 10018 (212) 629-6880 www.kinolorberedu.com www.alivemindcinema.com On Sep 16, 2011, at 9:11 AM, Dennis Doros wrote: Just a quick reply to Joyce's email, which is mostly correct and appreciated. But a little defense of distributors -- and in my world, it's a 50% cut of nontheatrical sales. (The retail world is where filmmakers make very little -- $29.95 retail, 60% discount to the major buyers, then 20% of that.) In this way, good distributors are really like lawyers or paid consultants. It seems outrageous to be paying somebody $600 an hour to make some phone calls. But what you're actually paying for (hopefully) is their knowledge and connections accumulated over years of hard work. I'll use an outdated story because I don't want to damage current relationships, but Vincent Canby used to have lunch with New Yorker's Dan Talbot at least once a month for years. It's because they liked each other and shared a common love for good cinema. However, I would bet that upcoming releases were discussed and enthusiasms shared. It probably didn't influence Canby's reviews, but it probably helped New Yorker get Canby to cover a film rather than the second-tier reviewer. And from my own experience, as a distributor who rarely leaves his basement office and is party-phobic, I always am surprised how many journalists and exhibitors and television buyers I can call my good friends. Joyce is correct, however, when a film fails -- sometimes a distributor picks up the film and then loses enthusiasm or sometimes there's just bad luck -- overhead and marketing (newspaper ads are incredibly expensive) can eat up any profit a filmmaker will ever see in their lifetime. And filmmakers can (and definitely have been) screwed over by bad distributors with false-bookkeeping and late or never paid royalties. And I actually think that self-distribution may be the wave of the future. Distributors are having very tough times these past few years and profits are slimming down drastically. It's very possible that we can't sustain the percentages filmmaker's need to make a living. It would be a shame on both sides. There are incredible people in distribution who have devoted
Re: [Videolib] HELP: Best response re libraries and PPR
Forgot to include Icarus and Zeitgeist, two of my fave competitors! On Sep 16, 2011, at 10:41 AM, Elizabeth Sheldon wrote: Morning, I like to think that all distributors realize that they have an obligation to their filmmakers to promote the films that they acquire to the benefit of the filmmaker. I joke that here at Kino Lorber Edu and Alive Mind Cinema we are running the equivalent of an orphanage for docs: the filmmakers call me, tell me about their beloved and gifted child, and want to know if I am willing to nurture it through its adolescent years and supply quarterly updates regarding its progress. Juno help us all if it brings home less than an A! Then I get the dreaded parent-teacher conference call. Needless to say, it makes a distributor selective when acquiring films. Distribution at its best is a partnership with a filmmaker that expands the audience and increases revenue. The distributor should, in addition to an extensive network and established pipeline, advise their filmmakers regarding the best path and use of resources for a film's release. I spend an inordinate amount of time discouraging filmmakers from a 'Theatrical' releases, i.e. a week in NYC, which frequently cost more than it generates, both in terms of revenue or critical buzz. I advise my filmmakers to consider alternate paths to reach their audience, and this usually entails a Community Screening campaign with targeted outreach to their organic audience. This can include screenings at venues such as The Rubin Museum in NYC, the Yerba Buena Center for the Arts in SF, MoMA, and frequently, the local library. On behalf of our filmmakers, who in the spirit of a partnership, receive half of all proceeds, we ask for a Public Performance Rights license for any public exhibition, whether or not admission is charged. Without the support of the organizations such as those I named above and local libraries across America, many indie films would sink to the bottom of the proverbial sea, never to be seen or discussed. I believe that most established distributors, I am thinking here about WMM, First Run, Cinema Guild, see their role in today's world where DIY is an alternative as a partner who brings more to the table in regards to resources and knowledge than we take away. That means advising our filmmakers regarding the best release path to reach their audience and generate revenue. To generate revenue, we must ask for fees on behalf of our filmmakers, if we don't, not only will many long-standing and reputable distributors go out of business, but filmmakers will suffer as well. Because, if a filmmaker makes a film but nobody knows about it, is it not like the proverbial tree that falls in the forest that nobody hears? Best, Elizabeth Elizabeth Sheldon Vice President Kino Lorber, Inc. 333 W. 39th St., Suite 503 New York, NY 10018 (212) 629-6880 www.kinolorberedu.com www.alivemindcinema.com On Sep 16, 2011, at 9:11 AM, Dennis Doros wrote: Just a quick reply to Joyce's email, which is mostly correct and appreciated. But a little defense of distributors -- and in my world, it's a 50% cut of nontheatrical sales. (The retail world is where filmmakers make very little -- $29.95 retail, 60% discount to the major buyers, then 20% of that.) In this way, good distributors are really like lawyers or paid consultants. It seems outrageous to be paying somebody $600 an hour to make some phone calls. But what you're actually paying for (hopefully) is their knowledge and connections accumulated over years of hard work. I'll use an outdated story because I don't want to damage current relationships, but Vincent Canby used to have lunch with New Yorker's Dan Talbot at least once a month for years. It's because they liked each other and shared a common love for good cinema. However, I would bet that upcoming releases were discussed and enthusiasms shared. It probably didn't influence Canby's reviews, but it probably helped New Yorker get Canby to cover a film rather than the second-tier reviewer. And from my own experience, as a distributor who rarely leaves his basement office and is party-phobic, I always am surprised how many journalists and exhibitors and television buyers I can call my good friends. Joyce is correct, however, when a film fails -- sometimes a distributor picks up the film and then loses enthusiasm or sometimes there's just bad luck -- overhead and marketing (newspaper ads are incredibly expensive) can eat up any profit a filmmaker will ever see in their lifetime. And filmmakers can (and definitely have been) screwed over by bad distributors with false-bookkeeping and late or never paid royalties. And I actually think that self-distribution may be the wave of the future. Distributors are having very tough times these past few years and profits are slimming down drastically. It's
Re: [Videolib] HELP: Best response re libraries and PPR
Janice: vtape is Canadian. Therefore, PPR is required to show the film in a Canadian classroom. However, since the US did sign the Berne Copyright Agreement, the American purchaser only has to apply the law of their country, not the law of the originating country where the film was made (or sold). No doubt, vtape is not up to snuff on S. 107 or 108 or 109 for that matter of the US copyright Act. But they are quoting the law of the land where they operate. Face-to-face and classroom exemption are not what vtape would normally have to deal with. Think how unfair it is to us Canadians when we buy US productions, then have to pay for PPR for the same use that many of you have: classroom and face-to-face. Be glad you have the exemptions you do have, and fight to keep them. Susan On 15/09/2011 6:04 PM, Jessica Rosner wrote: They way I am reading that quote, they are basically justifying the cost on what I would call contract not copyright law grounds. I am going to assume none of their titles are available through your standard retailers. I don't think explaining face to face etc. to them would do any good. The first person seemed to honestly think there was a law somehow requiring libraries to purchase PPR rights, this one seems to just be explaining why they charge you more. Again if a company completely controls the distribution of a title they can pretty much charge what they want to who they want, but it is frustrating when they try to dress it up using PPR which is of course not actually needed or involved in 99% of the cases. Jessica On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 5:41 PM, jwoo j...@cca.edu wrote: Thanks for all your suggestions, and yet, I'm still going back and forth with the filmmaker trying to help her understand all the legalese. On top of that, now I've got another vendor (vtape.org) who is clueless about PPR and whom I quote, Public performance is rated on levels of presentation beyond home use. Circulating and using in College and University classrooms is actually a level of public performance rights and requires a rate that reflects this type of purchase. Therefore may I beseech someone to write up an explanation addressed to filmmakers and film distributors that clearly and simply states what PPR, home-use, lending, the TEACH act etc. means in relation to libraries? It would be wonderful to be able to send out a pdf that says it all, rather than spending a whole morning going back and forth over these issues again and again. Thanks in advance, Janice California College of the Arts On Sep 12, 2011, at 1:53 PM, Chris McNevins wrote: Hi Janice, I had a similar experience last year which I posed to VIDEOLIB for guidance. Here’s the summary: [Videolib] FW: Institutional Version of Film Pane Amaro/Bitter Bread Chris McNevins Fri, 26 Feb 2010 12:32:05 -0800 (PST) This is what I sent. Feel free to use it as a template. Thanks to Dennis, Jessica, et al. for the words and the encouragement. I'll keep you posted Chris McN From: Chris McNevins Sent: Friday, February 26, 2010 2:23 PM To: 'Gianfranco Norelli' Subject: RE: Institutional Version of Film Pane Amaro/Bitter Bread Dear Mr. Norelli, While I understand that the library does not have the right to publicly screen this DVD with or without an admission fee, US Copyright Title 17 does allow for library and classroom use: See: http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#110 § 110. Limitations on exclusive rights: Exemption of certain performances and displays43 http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#1-43 Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#106 the following are not infringements of copyright: (1) performance or display of a work by instructors or pupils in the course of face-to-face teaching activities of a nonprofit educational institution, in a classroom or similar place devoted to instruction. If and when there is an occasion on campus where this DVD will be shown in a manner that merits public performance rights the library will make every effort to contact you for permission. With kind regards, Chris McNevins Acquisitions Coordinator University of Connecticut Homer Babbidge Library Collections Services Acquisitions-Financial Services-Statistics Team 369 Fairfield Way Unit 2005AM Storrs, CT 06269-2005 ph: 860-486-3842 fax: 860-486-6493 From: videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu [mailto:videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu] On Behalf Of Ball, James (jmb4aw) Sent: Monday, September 12, 2011 4:13 PM To: videolib@lists.berkeley.edu Subject: Re: [Videolib] Best response re libraries and PPR Janice, The ALA fact sheet seems like a good place to start. You could also direct them directly to copyright 109. On a slightly different but related note, I've noticed in my discussions with some distributors that for them value is related to use or potential use, meaning the number of times a video is viewed or may be viewed.
Re: [Videolib] HELP: Best response re libraries and PPR
We are marketing our new film and since we are on the other side of this issue, I feel bad that people in my business and in distribution who don't understand the difference in rights and give them the appropriate price especially considering the economy. I think it is crazy to ask $350 for a PPR to a film. What small group or library can pay that?! We have libraries closing all around us and hours being cut down. But, I guess this doesn't apply to school libraries. We try to keep our prices down to increase our exposure, but there are some very greedy distributors out there. Just so you know filmmakers only get 30% of the money when they work with distributors and if the distributor is using a sub-distributor who gets a hefty discount then the money is pretty much a joke. That is really pathetic especially if you sign with a distributor that just lets your film sit on the shelves collecting dust and doesn't promote it properly. That is why we do it ourselves. It is a slower process but in the end we don't get so mad at the distributor. We keep our prices much lower too. Keep the faith, more and more filmmakers are realizing the scam and are distributing their own films. Thankfully we have the internet and CreateSpace. I see a new distribution process in the next 5 years that will make it better for everyone except distributors. Joyce Producer Tiroir A Films Productions On Sep 15, 2011, at 3:41 PM, jwoo wrote: Thanks for all your suggestions, and yet, I'm still going back and forth with the filmmaker trying to help her understand all the legalese. On top of that, now I've got another vendor (vtape.org) who is clueless about PPR and whom I quote, Public performance is rated on levels of presentation beyond home use. Circulating and using in College and University classrooms is actually a level of public performance rights and requires a rate that reflects this type of purchase. Therefore may I beseech someone to write up an explanation addressed to filmmakers and film distributors that clearly and simply states what PPR, home-use, lending, the TEACH act etc. means in relation to libraries? It would be wonderful to be able to send out a pdf that says it all, rather than spending a whole morning going back and forth over these issues again and again. Thanks in advance, Janice California College of the Arts On Sep 12, 2011, at 1:53 PM, Chris McNevins wrote: Hi Janice, I had a similar experience last year which I posed to VIDEOLIB for guidance. Here’s the summary: [Videolib] FW: Institutional Version of Film Pane Amaro/Bitter Bread Chris McNevins Fri, 26 Feb 2010 12:32:05 -0800 (PST) This is what I sent. Feel free to use it as a template. Thanks to Dennis, Jessica, et al. for the words and the encouragement. I'll keep you posted Chris McN From: Chris McNevins Sent: Friday, February 26, 2010 2:23 PM To: 'Gianfranco Norelli' Subject: RE: Institutional Version of Film Pane Amaro/Bitter Bread Dear Mr. Norelli, While I understand that the library does not have the right to publicly screen this DVD with or without an admission fee, US Copyright Title 17 does allow for library and classroom use: See: http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#110 § 110. Limitations on exclusive rights: Exemption of certain performances and displays43 http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#1-43 Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#106 the following are not infringements of copyright: (1) performance or display of a work by instructors or pupils in the course of face-to-face teaching activities of a nonprofit educational institution, in a classroom or similar place devoted to instruction. If and when there is an occasion on campus where this DVD will be shown in a manner that merits public performance rights the library will make every effort to contact you for permission. With kind regards, Chris McNevins Acquisitions Coordinator University of Connecticut Homer Babbidge Library Collections Services Acquisitions-Financial Services-Statistics Team 369 Fairfield Way Unit 2005AM Storrs, CT 06269-2005 ph: 860-486-3842 fax: 860-486-6493 From: videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu [mailto:videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu ] On Behalf Of Ball, James (jmb4aw) Sent: Monday, September 12, 2011 4:13 PM To: videolib@lists.berkeley.edu Subject: Re: [Videolib] Best response re libraries and PPR Janice, The ALA fact sheet seems like a good place to start. You could also direct them directly to copyright 109. On a slightly different but related note, I've noticed in my discussions with some distributors that for them value is related to use or potential use, meaning the number of times a video is viewed or may be viewed. Clearly the mission of most libraries is not aligned with that philosophy. As
Re: [Videolib] HELP: Best response re libraries and PPR
They way I am reading that quote, they are basically justifying the cost on what I would call contract not copyright law grounds. I am going to assume none of their titles are available through your standard retailers. I don't think explaining face to face etc. to them would do any good. The first person seemed to honestly think there was a law somehow requiring libraries to purchase PPR rights, this one seems to just be explaining why they charge you more. Again if a company completely controls the distribution of a title they can pretty much charge what they want to who they want, but it is frustrating when they try to dress it up using PPR which is of course not actually needed or involved in 99% of the cases. Jessica On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 5:41 PM, jwoo j...@cca.edu wrote: Thanks for all your suggestions, and yet, I'm still going back and forth with the filmmaker trying to help her understand all the legalese. On top of that, now I've got another vendor (vtape.org) who is clueless about PPR and whom I quote, Public performance is rated on levels of presentation beyond home use. Circulating and using in College and University classrooms is actually a level of public performance rights and requires a rate that reflects this type of purchase. Therefore may I beseech someone to write up an explanation addressed to filmmakers and film distributors that clearly and simply states what PPR, home-use, lending, the TEACH act etc. means in relation to libraries? It would be wonderful to be able to send out a pdf that says it all, rather than spending a whole morning going back and forth over these issues again and again. Thanks in advance, Janice California College of the Arts On Sep 12, 2011, at 1:53 PM, Chris McNevins wrote: Hi Janice, I had a similar experience last year which I posed to VIDEOLIB for guidance. Here’s the summary: [Videolib] FW: Institutional Version of Film Pane Amaro/Bitter Bread Chris McNevins Fri, 26 Feb 2010 12:32:05 -0800 (PST) This is what I sent. Feel free to use it as a template. Thanks to Dennis, Jessica, et al. for the words and the encouragement. I'll keep you posted Chris McN From: Chris McNevins Sent: Friday, February 26, 2010 2:23 PM To: 'Gianfranco Norelli' Subject: RE: Institutional Version of Film Pane Amaro/Bitter Bread Dear Mr. Norelli, While I understand that the library does not have the right to publicly screen this DVD with or without an admission fee, US Copyright Title 17 does allow for library and classroom use: See: http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#110 § 110. Limitations on exclusive rights: Exemption of certain performances and displays43 http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#1-43 Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#106 the following are not infringements of copyright: (1) performance or display of a work by instructors or pupils in the course of face-to-face teaching activities of a nonprofit educational institution, in a classroom or similar place devoted to instruction. If and when there is an occasion on campus where this DVD will be shown in a manner that merits public performance rights the library will make every effort to contact you for permission. With kind regards, Chris McNevins Acquisitions Coordinator University of Connecticut Homer Babbidge Library Collections Services Acquisitions-Financial Services-Statistics Team 369 Fairfield Way Unit 2005AM Storrs, CT 06269-2005 ph: 860-486-3842 fax: 860-486-6493 From: videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu [mailto:videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu] On Behalf Of Ball, James (jmb4aw) Sent: Monday, September 12, 2011 4:13 PM To: videolib@lists.berkeley.edu Subject: Re: [Videolib] Best response re libraries and PPR Janice, The ALA fact sheet seems like a good place to start. You could also direct them directly to copyright 109. On a slightly different but related note, I've noticed in my discussions with some distributors that for them value is related to use or potential use, meaning the number of times a video is viewed or may be viewed. Clearly the mission of most libraries is not aligned with that philosophy. As allowed by 109, we can buy something once and check it out as many times as patrons want it. Many distributors feel, however, that if a video is likely to be viewed many times then we should pay more for it. If we were income-producing institutions and our missions were to create profits then perhaps, but we are not income-producing (indeed, most of us are dealing with annual budget cuts) and our missions are to collect, preserve, and provide access etc. etc. etc... But really, it's about 109. Cheers, Matt __ Matt Ball Media and Collections Librarian University of Virginia mattb...@virginia.edu 434-924-3812 On Sep 12, 2011, at 2:00
Re: [Videolib] HELP: Best response re libraries and PPR
Below I wrote the response to PPRs. Upon reflection, I wanted to clarify some of the things I wrote and add some more. Yes, we have had bad experiences a few years back with our first titles titles and yes, they haunt me to this day. On the other hand I also know very well that there are good distributors that greatly increase the exposure of small, important films that might never have seen a good size audience. Librarians and teachers use their catalogues to find out about new and diverse films that they may never have known about. They have a staff to pay, overhead along with publishing and trade show expenses. However, I do stand by my opinion that 25% -30% is an unreasonable cut that filmmakers must accept in order to get this needed exposure. Regardless that is the going rate and this does not show any signs of changing for the better. Also the sub-distribution makes the filmmakers earnings insignificant. These complaints are not new. Tools are now available to filmmakers to distribute their own films and distributors should consider that and make their offers more appealing. Independent filmmakers spend years of their lives putting a film together with little or no pay in the hopes of having a film that will be enjoyed by a large audience and that will allow them to make a reasonable living to keep making films. Independent filmmaking and independent film distribution are an important part of a healthy democracy as they are the alternative to the corporate owned media. Filmmakers and distributors need to find a middle ground that can keep this needed symbiotic relationship healthy. Joyce On Sep 15, 2011, at 5:14 PM, Joyce Johnson wrote: We are marketing our new film and since we are on the other side of this issue, I feel bad that people in my business and in distribution who don't understand the difference in rights and give them the appropriate price especially considering the economy. I think it is crazy to ask $350 for a PPR to a film. What small group or library can pay that?! We have libraries closing all around us and hours being cut down. But, I guess this doesn't apply to school libraries. We try to keep our prices down to increase our exposure, but there are some very greedy distributors out there. Just so you know filmmakers only get 30% of the money when they work with distributors and if the distributor is using a sub-distributor who gets a hefty discount then the money is pretty much a joke. That is really pathetic especially if you sign with a distributor that just lets your film sit on the shelves collecting dust and doesn't promote it properly. That is why we do it ourselves. It is a slower process but in the end we don't get so mad at the distributor. We keep our prices much lower too. Keep the faith, more and more filmmakers are realizing the scam and are distributing their own films. Thankfully we have the internet and CreateSpace. I see a new distribution process in the next 5 years that will make it better for everyone except distributors. Joyce Producer Tiroir A Films Productions On Sep 15, 2011, at 3:41 PM, jwoo wrote: Thanks for all your suggestions, and yet, I'm still going back and forth with the filmmaker trying to help her understand all the legalese. On top of that, now I've got another vendor (vtape.org) who is clueless about PPR and whom I quote, Public performance is rated on levels of presentation beyond home use. Circulating and using in College and University classrooms is actually a level of public performance rights and requires a rate that reflects this type of purchase. Therefore may I beseech someone to write up an explanation addressed to filmmakers and film distributors that clearly and simply states what PPR, home-use, lending, the TEACH act etc. means in relation to libraries? It would be wonderful to be able to send out a pdf that says it all, rather than spending a whole morning going back and forth over these issues again and again. Thanks in advance, Janice California College of the Arts On Sep 12, 2011, at 1:53 PM, Chris McNevins wrote: Hi Janice, I had a similar experience last year which I posed to VIDEOLIB for guidance. Here’s the summary: [Videolib] FW: Institutional Version of Film Pane Amaro/Bitter Bread Chris McNevins Fri, 26 Feb 2010 12:32:05 -0800 (PST) This is what I sent. Feel free to use it as a template. Thanks to Dennis, Jessica, et al. for the words and the encouragement. I'll keep you posted Chris McN From: Chris McNevins Sent: Friday, February 26, 2010 2:23 PM To: 'Gianfranco Norelli' Subject: RE: Institutional Version of Film Pane Amaro/Bitter Bread Dear Mr. Norelli, While I understand that the library does not have the right to publicly screen this DVD with or without an admission fee, US Copyright Title 17 does allow
