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 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 much of >> their lives to advancing the careers of filmmakers such as (just naming the >> people I've known closely as friends and mentors) Jose Lopez and Dan Talbot >> of New Yorker Films, the late Don Krim of Kino, Nancy Gerstman and Emily >> Russo of Zeitgeist, and of course, Linda Duchin (the dean of us all) and >> Jessica Rosner. >> >> >> Best regards, >> Dennis Doros >> Milestone Film & Video/Milliarium Zero >> PO Box 128 >> Harrington Park, NJ 07640 >> Phone: 201-767-3117 >> Fax: 201-767-3035 >> email: milefi...@gmail.com >> www.milestonefilms.com >> www.comebackafrica.com >> www.yougottomove.com >> www.ontheboweryfilm.com >> www.arayafilm.com >> www.exilesfilm.com >> www.wordisoutmovie.com >> www.killerofsheep.com >> >> AMIA Austin 2011: www.amianet.org >> Join "Milestone Film" on Facebook! >> >> Follow Milestone on Twitter! >> >> On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 12:16 AM, Joyce Johnson <jo...@tiroirafilms.net> >> wrote: >> 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 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 PM, "jwoo" <j...@cca.edu> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> This filmmaker wants to know why I don't need PPR for videos purchased >>>>> for my library (where they are only loaned to individuals, watched in the >>>>> library by single viewers, or in on-campus classrooms). Is the ALA >>>>> Library Fact Sheet 7 the best explanation for the unenlightened? Thanks >>>>> - Janice >>>>> >>>>> Begin forwarded message: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> From: >>>>> Date: September 11, 2011 9:39:37 PM PDT >>>>> To: jwoo <j...@cca.edu> >>>>> Subject: Re: DVD >>>>> >>>>> Hi Janice, >>>>> My understanding is that Performance Rights are required for an >>>>> institution that lends repeatedly. Can you please explain how your >>>>> library is exempt? Once I understand, I'd be very open to discussing the >>>>> Individual rate. >>>>> Thank you, >>>>> T----- >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 12:29 PM, jwoo <j...@cca.edu> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Dear -----, >>>>> >>>>> Thank you for your offer, but $150 is too much to pay for a 20-minute >>>>> DVD. My library does not need Public Performance Rights, so I would be >>>>> willing to purchase it for $50. Let me know if this is possible. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> >>>>> Janice Woo, Director of Libraries >>>>> California College of the Arts >>>>> 5212 Broadway Oakland CA 94618 >>>>> 510.594.3660 || libraries.cca.edu >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> VIDEOLIB is intended to encourage the broad and lively discussion of >>>>> issues relating to the selection, evaluation, acquisition,bibliographic >>>>> control, preservation, and use of current and evolving video formats in >>>>> libraries and related institutions. It is hoped that the list will serve >>>>> as an effective working tool for video librarians, as well as a channel >>>>> of communication between libraries,educational institutions, and video >>>>> producers and distributors. >>>>> VIDEOLIB is intended to encourage the broad and lively discussion of >>>>> issues relating to the selection, evaluation, acquisition,bibliographic >>>>> control, preservation, and use of current and evolving video formats in >>>>> libraries and related institutions. It is hoped that the list will serve >>>>> as an effective working tool for video librarians, as well as a channel >>>>> of communication between libraries,educational institutions, and video >>>>> producers and distributors. >>>> >>>> VIDEOLIB is intended to encourage the broad and lively discussion of >>>> issues relating to the selection, evaluation, acquisition,bibliographic >>>> control, preservation, and use of current and evolving video formats in >>>> libraries and related institutions. It is hoped that the list will serve >>>> as an effective working tool for video librarians, as well as a channel of >>>> communication between libraries,educational institutions, and video >>>> producers and distributors. >>> >>> VIDEOLIB is intended to encourage the broad and lively discussion of issues >>> relating to the selection, evaluation, acquisition,bibliographic control, >>> preservation, and use of current and evolving video formats in libraries >>> and related institutions. It is hoped that the list will serve as an >>> effective working tool for video librarians, as well as a channel of >>> communication between libraries,educational institutions, and video >>> producers and distributors. >> >> >> VIDEOLIB is intended to encourage the broad and lively discussion of issues >> relating to the selection, evaluation, acquisition,bibliographic control, >> preservation, and use of current and evolving video formats in libraries and >> related institutions. It is hoped that the list will serve as an effective >> working tool for video librarians, as well as a channel of communication >> between libraries,educational institutions, and video producers and >> distributors. >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> >> VIDEOLIB is intended to encourage the broad and lively discussion of issues >> relating to the selection, evaluation, acquisition,bibliographic control, >> preservation, and use of current and evolving video formats in libraries and >> related institutions. It is hoped that the list will serve as an effective >> working tool for video librarians, as well as a channel of communication >> between libraries,educational institutions, and video producers and >> distributors. > VIDEOLIB is intended to encourage the broad and lively discussion of issues relating to the selection, evaluation, acquisition,bibliographic control, preservation, and use of current and evolving video formats in libraries and related institutions. It is hoped that the list will serve as an effective working tool for video librarians, as well as a channel of communication between libraries,educational institutions, and video producers and distributors.
