Adam Montgomery was not someone with whom I was familiar until yesterday afternoon (although it appears we have been Facebook friends for a while) when I received multiple (6) emails in effect demanding that I take down the WAB vs. Filmmaker's Rights post which was put up to warn filmmakers that they might put their film rights in jeopardy if they agree to the withoutabox (WAB) Terms of Service Agreement, which was in effect at the time the May 3rd post was created, and that they should be cautious and aware before signing any Terms of Service agreements.
I explained to Adam that I was busy and didn't have time to read his messages but that the comment box on the post in question would be the best place to share his thoughts. He became more and more agitated that I would refuse to drop everything and focus on his issues.
When I'm busy, I'm busy. I say so and get back to work. Bullying me and getting nasty isn't going to endure my cooperation or change my schedule.
In the end, it seems his goal was to only bully me into taking the post down rather than to post his thoughts publicly so that filmmakers would know where he stands on the issue. I'm rather unimpressed with Adam Montgomery, Manager of Programming for the Sundance Film Festival. I would expect more professionalism from someone conducting festival business.
Honestly, I don't trust people who will only talk in private about such public matters that affect so many people. It's usually a sign that their actions aren't quite as straight forward as they might have one believe.
When I'm busy, I'm busy. I say so and get back to work. Bullying me and getting nasty isn't going to endure my cooperation or change my schedule.
In the end, it seems his goal was to only bully me into taking the post down rather than to post his thoughts publicly so that filmmakers would know where he stands on the issue. I'm rather unimpressed with Adam Montgomery, Manager of Programming for the Sundance Film Festival. I would expect more professionalism from someone conducting festival business.
Honestly, I don't trust people who will only talk in private about such public matters that affect so many people. It's usually a sign that their actions aren't quite as straight forward as they might have one believe.
It turns out that Sundance's Submission deadline was Sept 26th. The same exact date Adam was going bonkers on me. What a coincidence. All of a sudden it seemed a lot more likely that Adam dropped the ball and decided that if only I would take down the post he could somehow miraculously fix his problem - not the problem of filmmakers and protecting their rights - just his immediate problem, whatever that may be.
Of course, every filmmaker has had the opportunity to submit to Sundance through snail mail or whatever back up system Sundance put in place to secure that indie filmmakers could submit online directly to Sundance... actually, I'm guessing Sundance had no backup plan to protect filmmakers and so Adam's quick fix was for me to take down the post. Is 'Screw the Filmmaker if it makes Adam's life easier!' his motto? I don't know but it's not my motto.
I believe all packages have to be received by a certain deadline with Sundance. Did Adam blow it and not give filmmakers the right date for the postmark? Honestly, I don't know but I'm guessing that I'm fairly close to what his real motives were and caring about filmmakers keeping their rights sure didn't seem to be one of them. If Adam made a mistake then he should fix it on his end to make it fair for those filmmakers who would otherwise suffer from his error.
This actually brings up an interesting question about rights and films that Sundance screens online. Does anyone know what the rights agreement is between Sundance and filmmakers? Please read all Terms of Service and Terms of Agreements before you sign anything particularly when it comes to something as vitally important as ownership of your film.
Basically, you want to keep your rights. You don't want to give away your exclusive rights unknowingly to any entity even if those rights are non-exclusive, because that means the entity you signed your rights away to will always have a piece of your film and profits which essentially decreased the overall value of your film since exclusive rights would no longer be available.
Watch out for the term 'royalty-free'. Actually, just read the WAB vs Filmmaker's Rights post for the specifics. It's up for reason. Filmmakers need to know where they stand and if they could lose their rights. It's okay to choose to give up your rights, as long as it is a choice and not taken from you without your knowledge.
Of course, every filmmaker has had the opportunity to submit to Sundance through snail mail or whatever back up system Sundance put in place to secure that indie filmmakers could submit online directly to Sundance... actually, I'm guessing Sundance had no backup plan to protect filmmakers and so Adam's quick fix was for me to take down the post. Is 'Screw the Filmmaker if it makes Adam's life easier!' his motto? I don't know but it's not my motto.
I believe all packages have to be received by a certain deadline with Sundance. Did Adam blow it and not give filmmakers the right date for the postmark? Honestly, I don't know but I'm guessing that I'm fairly close to what his real motives were and caring about filmmakers keeping their rights sure didn't seem to be one of them. If Adam made a mistake then he should fix it on his end to make it fair for those filmmakers who would otherwise suffer from his error.
This actually brings up an interesting question about rights and films that Sundance screens online. Does anyone know what the rights agreement is between Sundance and filmmakers? Please read all Terms of Service and Terms of Agreements before you sign anything particularly when it comes to something as vitally important as ownership of your film.
Basically, you want to keep your rights. You don't want to give away your exclusive rights unknowingly to any entity even if those rights are non-exclusive, because that means the entity you signed your rights away to will always have a piece of your film and profits which essentially decreased the overall value of your film since exclusive rights would no longer be available.
Watch out for the term 'royalty-free'. Actually, just read the WAB vs Filmmaker's Rights post for the specifics. It's up for reason. Filmmakers need to know where they stand and if they could lose their rights. It's okay to choose to give up your rights, as long as it is a choice and not taken from you without your knowledge.
I've been quite disenchanted with Sundance's new direction since Geoff Gilmore left. John Cooper has openly slighted Robert Redford's philosophy (on how things should change every 5 minutes or something to that effect) during a panel at the Cannes Film Festival. An unforgivable arrogance particularly since Cooper only has his job as a direct result of Redford's dream coming to fruition. In fact, if I'm not mistaken Redford's Sundance has employed Cooper for nearly two decades. You'd think Cooper would have a little more gratitude and respect for those who have given him so much.
A dream to share independent American film with broader audiences: Redford has been ever so successful in achieving his goal. For Cooper to be only just into his position (at the time) and already talking such trash spoke quite poorly of the overall respect Cooper has for the festival, the meaning of it and it's long term direction.
As I see it, Cooper likes whistles and bells, things that are shiny and sparkle. He's caught up in the hoopla and couldn't give a hoot about indie filmmakers just crowds and profits - both are important as long as they are for the independent filmmaker not at the expense of the independent filmmaker. I suppose with that governing attitude prevalent, it's not surprising that Montgomery would rather bully me into taking down the post than fix whatever problem it was he created on his end. Perhaps he's not ready for things to change every 5 minutes...
A dream to share independent American film with broader audiences: Redford has been ever so successful in achieving his goal. For Cooper to be only just into his position (at the time) and already talking such trash spoke quite poorly of the overall respect Cooper has for the festival, the meaning of it and it's long term direction.
As I see it, Cooper likes whistles and bells, things that are shiny and sparkle. He's caught up in the hoopla and couldn't give a hoot about indie filmmakers just crowds and profits - both are important as long as they are for the independent filmmaker not at the expense of the independent filmmaker. I suppose with that governing attitude prevalent, it's not surprising that Montgomery would rather bully me into taking down the post than fix whatever problem it was he created on his end. Perhaps he's not ready for things to change every 5 minutes...
No comments:
Post a Comment