I need the term limits to to accurately and honestly report to the sales agents based on our contract. They have the right to audit all of my activity.
I don't want you to have to keep paying either, I charge a very nominal rate for renewals. But once we lose the rights - that's the end. We don't know what sort of losses, if any, will occur as the result of selling streaming rights in perpetuity - especially with theatrical titles. Maybe none - but I need to need more time to make that calculation. Sorry. I would LOVE to unburden the economics of producer/distributor/filmmaker interaction. I would also love a house in Spain. Ben On Mar 16, 2012, at 7:03 PM, [email protected] wrote: > I don't see why libraries can't do the > same AT LEAST until we work out the language in our contracts that > allows us to do this with full disclosure to the rights holders. > > You mean why can't libraries pay over and over and over again for access > to static content? I don't think so... We do it now in many cases > because that's the lay of the land, but it sucks (to put it bluntly). > > Libraries license rights to access other databases (such as journal > databases) on an annual/semiannual/whatever basis. In such cases the > product almost always evolves over time, adding content or other value > added features. > > The notion that the value of a video title to the institution increases > when the format changes simply is not accurate (or supportable). The > notion that access to online access (limited to institutional primary > clientele)has anything whatsoever to do with market loss (at least for > non-theatrical films) is equally inaccurate and non-supportable. > > If we're gonna discuss these matters, we need to unbundle the economics of > distributor/producer interaction and the value and uses of these > productions to the institution. If you're telling me you need to term > license because that's the only way to deal contractually with filmmakers, > I can (almost) understand the argument (while still not liking it at all). > If you're saying something else, I don't buy it. > > Gary Handman > > > > >> Elizabeth, I'm sorry you know I love Kino and appreciate all that you >> do but we simply disagree on this (relatively small) issue. >> >> What you just said implies that we are only in the business of >> generating immediate profit for rights holders regardless of the >> future implications or even our contractual obligations. I can't >> reconcile that. >> >> Zeitgeist is not exclusively in the business of selling to educational >> institutions and it's not my job to offer rights that we don't have >> simply because a customer would like that option available. We sell >> our films on iTUNES for personal use, not educational exhibition. It's >> a completely different section in the contract. >> >> All kinds of digital streaming sites - Netflix, Amazon, etc. work just >> fine with termination dates. I don't see why libraries can't do the >> same AT LEAST until we work out the language in our contracts that >> allows us to do this with full disclosure to the rights holders. >> >> If we were just an educational company buying lifetime rights would be >> a different story. But the pedigree and universality of films that >> both Zeitgeist and Kino distribute, in my opinion, require careful >> consideration about which rights we attach to our packages in >> accordance with our contracts with sales agents. >> >> But I have no doubt you've given this careful consideration on your >> end and have come to your decision as I have come to mine and we will >> just have to see what the future holds. >> >> I'd very much like to get a group of distributors to talk about this >> further, both educational and theatrical, but probably off the >> listserv! :) >> >> Ben >> >> Benjamin Crossley-Marra >> Zeitgeist Films Ltd. >> 247 Centre St, 2nd fl >> New York, NY 10013 >> P: 212-274-1989 >> F: 212-274-1644 >> http://www.zeitgeistfilms.com >> >> >> >> >> >> On Mar 16, 2012, at 5:57 PM, Elizabeth Sheldon wrote: >> >>> Ben, >>> >>> If you are 'buying exploitation rights for profit' it implies that >>> you are in the business of generating revenue for your filmmakers, >>> which means offering licenses that the customers not only want but >>> will be requiring; how can a librarian catalog a stream which they >>> do not have a permanent copy of? Perhaps a library prefers to >>> archive a digital file on their server rather than the DVD on a >>> shelf. It is our business as distributors to the educational market >>> to offer our customers these choices. >>> >>> And digital formats change all the time. 3 years ago Flash was the >>> universal standard for streaming. Now it is becoming HTML5 for ios >>> compatibility. That is a recent change in digital format in this >>> nascent market. There will be more to come. >>> >>> I liked Bob's analogy that a digital site license is not analogous >>> to broadcast, but, as I originally suggested, a download. If >>> Zeitgeist is selling films on iTunes, you are selling digital copies >>> for the life of the file. >>> >>> Have a great weekend everybody. >>> >>> 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 >>> >>> On Mar 16, 2012, at 5:26 PM, Benjamin Crossley-Marra wrote: >>> >>>> Bob, >>>> >>>> The likelihood of schools desiring new digital formats after the >>>> stream has been sold is still matter of conjecture at this point. >>>> They sure don't seem to be too interested in Blu Ray. >>>> >>>> Due to the nature of (our contracts) at least I do feel obligated >>>> to set a termination date on a digital file which can potentially >>>> be preserved forever. >>>> >>>> I also don't particularly agree with the philosophy of just because >>>> there's nothing in the contract that says you can't do it than it's >>>> all right. We are buying exploitation rights for profit and those >>>> rights have an end date. Just because a producer or entity may be >>>> receiving more money from a sale you're making doesn't mean that >>>> they are OK with you doing it. If they are comfortable with a >>>> distributor selling lifetime rights than there's no reason not to >>>> have that in the contract. >>>> >>>> This is especially tenuous issue with major foreign sales agents >>>> whose films are released theatrically here. We're talking about >>>> millions of dollars floating around these films of which >>>> distributors are accountable for reporting honestly and accurately. >>>> >>>> Ben >>>> >>>> Benjamin Crossley-Marra >>>> Zeitgeist Films Ltd. >>>> 247 Centre St, 2nd fl >>>> New York, NY 10013 >>>> P: 212-274-1989 >>>> F: 212-274-1644 >>>> http://www.zeitgeistfilms.com >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mar 16, 2012, at 5:03 PM, Bob Norris wrote: >>>> >>>>> I'm going to have to disagree. Selling streaming rights for the >>>>> life of the digital file to a university is not comparable to a >>>>> broadcast sale in perpetuity. >>>>> >>>>> In the former case you are selling to a single entity. Using >>>>> Facets as an example, the school could pay $20 for in classroom >>>>> face to face use of a DVD. But if they want to stream the school >>>>> pays $500. So the producer is the beneficiary of a higher royalty. >>>>> And if Facet's license expires and a new distributor picks up the >>>>> title they can sell a new digital format to that school. (Believe >>>>> me, formats will change.) Plus they can sell to all the other >>>>> schools that never purchased the title. >>>>> >>>>> If a distributor sold broadcast rights in perpetuity that would >>>>> lock up the whole broadcast market in that territory forever. That >>>>> would not be right. The difference is you are selling a right, not >>>>> a thing. >>>>> >>>>> iTunes does not place a time limitation on my music downloads of >>>>> major recording artists. I don't think video distributors are >>>>> required to set an arbitrary termination date on the use of a >>>>> particular digital file either. Of course if the producer's >>>>> agreement prohibits lifetime sales then Film Ideas would not grant >>>>> them. >>>>> >>>>> Respectfully, >>>>> Bob >>>>> >>>>> Robert A. Norris >>>>> Managing Director >>>>> Film Ideas, Inc. >>>>> Phone: (847) 419-0255 >>>>> Email: [email protected] >>>>> Web: www.filmideas.com >>>>> >>>>> On Mar 16, 2012, at 2:54 PM, [email protected] >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> 1. Re: Facets launches EDU site with streaming rights >>>>>> (Jessica Rosner) >>>>>> >>>>>> From: Jessica Rosner <[email protected]> >>>>>> Date: March 16, 2012 2:52:35 PM CDT >>>>>> To: [email protected] >>>>>> Subject: Re: [Videolib] Facets launches EDU site with streaming >>>>>> rights >>>>>> Reply-To: [email protected] >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Elizabeth >>>>>> I know we have disagreed on this and I have run this by many >>>>>> companies >>>>>> that distribute foreign film in particular and all I have spoken do >>>>>> not believe their contracts permit the sale of lifetime streaming >>>>>> if >>>>>> they for instance have the right to sell downloads to individuals >>>>>> for >>>>>> the fixed period on the contract. I believe the closer comparison >>>>>> is >>>>>> to a TV sale. Most contracts don't permit a distributor to make a >>>>>> sale >>>>>> for a cable, Internet or other broadcast form to that would >>>>>> permit the >>>>>> companies broadcast or download the film forever. The rights are >>>>>> limited by the term of the contract. More specifically I have >>>>>> directly >>>>>> asked several European companies about lifetime streaming rights >>>>>> and >>>>>> they refused and some of these are the same companies Kino/Lorber >>>>>> has >>>>>> films from. I feel very strongly that if these rights were allowed >>>>>> they should be explicitly included in a contract because you are >>>>>> not >>>>>> selling a physical item like a print or a VHS but rights that can >>>>>> literally never expire in a format that can be used forever. >>>>>> >>>>>> Since again I have been explicitly told by several major overseas >>>>>> rights holders that their contract do not include this I think it >>>>>> would be unfair to have institutions in the middle. Frankly there >>>>>> have >>>>>> in fact been a number of cases in which >>>>>> after a contract expired a rights holder told an institution that a >>>>>> distributor had no rights to sell a particular item with lifetime >>>>>> PPR >>>>>> and they insisted that showings be cancelled and the film never >>>>>> shown. >>>>>> It is not common because most large overseas companies have little >>>>>> knowledge or interest in such things but again this should be >>>>>> between >>>>>> distributors and rights holders. Obviously if you believe your >>>>>> contracts cover this you should make sure the rights holders are >>>>>> informed and agree to this. >>>>>> >>>>>> On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 3:01 PM, Elizabeth Sheldon >>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>> Dear All, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> As a film distribution company who offers DSL with streaming >>>>>>> rights 'for the life of the digital file,' we consider a DSL >>>>>>> analogous to a download in the consumer market. If one of our >>>>>>> customers wants to purchase a DVD with or without PPR, great; if >>>>>>> they would prefer the digital file with a streaming license, we >>>>>>> will supply it. We think that a DSL is a premium license and >>>>>>> this is reflected in our pricing, which is very close to Facets >>>>>>> pricing. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Just as when we sell a DVD with PPR to a school, when our >>>>>>> original agreement expires with the filmmaker, we do not ask our >>>>>>> librarian customers to return the DVDs because the PPR license >>>>>>> has not expired. The rights we sell during the term continue >>>>>>> beyond the term of our original license with a filmmaker. If in >>>>>>> our agreements there is specific language that prohibits us from >>>>>>> selling either PPR or DSL, it is not available from our site: >>>>>>> www.kinolorberedu.com >>>>>>> . >>>>>>> >>>>>>> However, what we do frown upon is encoding from a DVD without >>>>>>> purchasing the DSL. Now that irritates me. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 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. >> > > > Gary Handman > Director > Media Resources Center > Moffitt Library > UC Berkeley > > 510-643-8566 > [email protected] > http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/MRC > > "I have always preferred the reflection of life to life itself." > --Francois Truffaut > > > 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.
