What you guys are saying here is simply incorrect! (Based on what facts?) I can see how you are interpreting it that way, but neither WAB or IMDb owns the rights to any video you upload for Festival Submissions purposes.
You're a funny man! You just want filmmakers to take your word for it at face value, because you said so? Really? But wait, you also just said that Sundance wasn't affiliated or associated with WAB... Maybe you just want what you want so you're just telling me whatever you want filmmakers to believe whether or not it is the truth - are you trying to manipulate the situation so you'll get what your desired result no matter the actual situation? That seems more plausible at this point. Are you going to back up your statement in any way shape or form? Or, do we just have to believe it's true because you said so? Your demand that it is correct doesn't make it so. It's better to deal with facts.
I guess it doesn't really matter how you or I would interpret WAB's Terms of Service (TOS). What really matters is how a court of law would interpret it. If a court of law were to give favor to WAB then a filmmaker would lose their rights and WAB (Amazon) would have a tremendous library that they basically scammed from trusting filmmakers. You want that on your shoulders? Are you so sure about your stance? What if you're wrong? If you were wrong, filmmakers would be out the rights of their films. This should be your first concern.
The words in the TOS, of May 3rd, speak for themselves. It's not a matter of interpretation. If WAB is denying what was written in the TOS then they are, once again, just trying to back out of something they shouldn't have done in the first place! I will not be party to such wrong doings nor willingly give you a platform to misinform filmmakers particularly when it seems to be that you blew it with your submission process and now think I should cover for you by taking down a post that directly addresses filmmaker's rights!
When you upload a video through WAB/IMDb for the sole purpose of allowing Festivals to consider that film, you must enter into some sort of rights agreement with them, (I am assuming that you have read the WAB vs Filmmaker post so you know that the quote was quoted from the Terms of Service page, not inside WAB. Why haven't you posted the exact contract here so people can see for themselves what it reads? Wouldn't that be the expedient and informative approach?) otherwise the Festivals you submit to would have no right to view it! (Actually, I believe you just brought up a good point. WAB could have a contract agreement in place that allows the festival the right to view the film while not extending viewing privileges to WAB itself. The 'upload' could go directly to the festival without ever entering into WAB's system. I know for a fact this could easily be set up and that the technology exists. Let's put it this way, the set-up is easy enough that even I could set it up securely. This procedure could help to eliminate any questions as to whether or not WAB was keeping perpetual, royalty-free, non-exclusive rights (etc) of the films. WAB claiming those rights for themselves just so a festival can see a film seems rather extreme, don't you think? In fact, when you send a DVD you are giving the festival permission to screen the film but you are not giving them perpetual, royalty-free, non-exclusive rights which equates to WAB being able to sell your film to anyone, on any site, for any reason without your permission, for life and for a fee that they would then have the right to keep for themselves without sharing said profit with filmmakers!) If you send a DVD to us instead of uploading, these rights are implied (Oh, no they are not! Don't you read these contracts? Do you have any idea what they say? It is spelled out that the person who is sending the film has the legal right to do so either as the filmmaker or by the owner of the film and is giving the festival the right to screen it... essentially.) -- by mailing a DVD to Sundance, you are essentially saying that it's okay for us to watch it. (Adam, come on. Do you have any idea what you are talking about or do you just assume that if you baffle with BS you'll win and I'll take the post down? How are you doing? Does it look like the post is coming down... if you had to... take a guess? Okay, Adam. Before Sundance started using WAB, Sundance had a contract all filmmakers had to sign which allowed Sundance to screen films. Nothing was 'implied'. Everything was written out and clearly stated. Just like how giving away perpetual, non-exclusive, royalty free rights is pretty damn straight forward!)
- Just to be clear, who at WAB told you that they (WAB/IMDB/Amazon or any other Amazon entity) keep no rights of any filmmaker during digital downloads and that the filmmaker's rights were still as legally safe and secure as before the filmmaker agreed to WAB's TOS? Name and postition held, please. Specifics are helpful when it comes to clarifications, accountability and legalities and even more relevant if a filmmaker ever needs the information for legal purposes. In fact, you do you it in writing? That would optimal!
Digital uploads work differently-- all of the language that you are referring to is there so that WAB/IMDb can actually get permission from you to act as an intermediary between your film and the Festival(s) you are submitting it to. (Who told you this? Was it someone at WAB? If so, who? Is this your own deduction? No matter the source, you are dead wrong. WAB does not need royalty-free, non-exclusive, perpetual rights to send a film to Sundance or any other festival. Stop talking nonsense. At best, they need the filmmaker's permission to upload the film and be guaranteed the upload goes directly into the festival's inbox without stopping off at WAB along the way. Don't spew crap as though it's fact or has any legitimacy at all. You are harming the integrity of filmmaker's rights when you do that. It is completely irresponsible and unacceptable behavior. Get it together. I expect more from an employee of Sundance.) If they didn't include this language, you could actually sue them for allowing a Festival to view your upload for consideration! (Again, a gross misrepresentation of the facts. Who are you quoted or are these your own deductions?) "Distribution" as it is described here is not the traditional selling of copyrighted work-- it is merely the ability for WAB to distribute your work to Festivals via a secure channel AT YOUR DISCRETION! (If this is an attempt to quote WAB then it is was not successful. Taking one word out of context doesn't nothing to substantiate your position or validate any point you may be trying to make. If you are quoting WAB then you need to actually use and site the source. ie, where did you find the information? Is it the only information pertaining to the rights of filmmakers and their films in connection to their relationship with WAB and all entities associated or affliated with WAB including WAB's parent company, Amazon? Is there a link? Etc.)
By agreeing to these terms, (What terms? Imaginary terms? You have shown no terms that you are referencing? If you have a card, play it! Show your hand.) you are simply saying that it is okay for WAB to store your film and any related information about it on their servers and then provide a secure, private channel that may then be used by a Festival in order to view your film. Those are the ONLY rights that you are granting them! They are pretty clear when they say that they "do not acquire any right or ownership in your Intellectual Property when you use our Services." This means that they CANNOT sell your film via any method. (Again, you need to quote more than one little sentence. You also need to state your source. Honestly, you need to give a lot more detail. And more importantly, it's a mute point. According to the last time I checked which was back when I wrote the May 3rd post, when a person agrees to WAB's Terms of Service on the WAB log-in page that person also agrees with Amazon's broader Terms of Service contracts and agreements per the link on WAB's TOS login page. Have you ever tried to follow that trail. It's ridiculously long and I never did find the end. That being said, I did read all the contracts that linked from one contract to another - until I ran into an page with far too many of them at which point I gave up and had enough information to know that the anything uploaded on an Amazon owned site would have already surrenders rights during the agreement to upload - meaning that in the process of agreeing to those Terms of Service and Terms of Agreements a filmmaker would have lost their rights to anything they might have uploaded onto Amazon or any of its subsidaries or child companies, etc. Like I said, I've been busy so I haven't had the time to check WAB's status since I wrote the May 3rd post, but I wouldn't touch it with a 10 foot pole. I clearly read on WAB's TOS login page that you were also agreeing to other TOS's, for which some links were provided, and the rights would be lost once upload happens according to those pages. Amazon clearly states the TOS covers all their companies. WAB is owned by Amazon. One gets to this Amazon TOS through the TOS log-in page for WAB. Therefore, rights lost. End of story.)
They go on to say that "you grant us the right to copy, retransmit, encrypt or otherwise manipulate your data for the purposes of storing the information on our system, transmitting it across the Internet, securing it, or submitting it to film festivals or other parties as requested by you." This means that they CANNOT transmit your work to any entity unless you specifically request that they do so!! When you accept these terms, all you are agreeing to is that you grant WAB/IMDb the right to store it on their system and allow Festivals to view it ONLY when you want them to. If you don't officially submit the film that you have uploaded to a Festival, no Festival will ever have access to it, nor will any other entity. (Nonetheless, rights are lost at the login as stated above. If you care about this then you should do your homework and check it out. Don't tell me to take my post down. The post is honest, helpful and important information for filmmakers. If it has upset the status quo of deceitfully stealing rights of films then that is fabulous! The goal is that companies like WAB will no longer be able to steal our filmmaker's work and that filmmakers will become educated about scams and low brow tactics being used to relinquish them of their rights. If protecting the integrity of filmmaker's rights is not your goal, then we aren't on the same team. Personally, I haven't read Sundance's agreements related to online works. Why don't you send me a copy. I'd love to read it for shorts, features, films put into Sundance theatrical distribution, as well as films screened online both during the festival and after. Does Sundance keep the rights of these films? If so, for how long? Are you showing them for free? If so, are you still making a profit? If so, are you sharing this with the filmmakers? If so, during the fest, only after the fest has ended or never? Just curious where Sundance stands with all this. Glad you stopped by. You're bringing up a lot of great questions!)
This is all pretty clear if you really read the full text of Section 13 that was included in the original post. Withoutabox and IMDb have no interest in snatching away the rights to your film from under you (I'm not a filmmaker. I have nothing at stake here. I just want filmmakers to be the one's to make the money from their films and not get ripped off in the process. I don't care how it's always been. It's time to protect independent filmmakers and to create systems and safeguards which ensure they are the ones who profit from their creations. It's a new world out there and it is time to bring the power back to the people.) -- I'm sure it's a lot more interesting and dramatic to think that there is some sort of conspiracy going on here that is intended to rape independent filmmakers everywhere, but this is simply not true!! (You choose to use the descriptive word 'rape' instead of 'ravage' when speaking to a woman. Really? Hmmm. Actually, you're being quite foolish here. The issue of online sites steal the rights of filmmakers has come to my attention because it has been happening, it is happening and honestly, if you are saying otherwise you are oddly naive or perhaps just incredibly condescending and would say anything to get me to take the post down so you don't need to fix whatever mess up you seem to be responsible for. A couple years ago, filmmakers were telling me they had no choice and all online sites had 'non-exclusive' deals. Look how far we've come. Filmmakers now know they have a choice and the tide has begun to turn in their favor. It is important companies are accountable for their actions and that filmmakers are aware of all transactions they are involved in which have to do with their film rights.)
I am not going to sit here and say that Withoutabox is perfect-- they are a business that is owned by a larger business (IMDb), which is in-turn owned by an even larger corporation (Amazon.com). Like any smart, for-profit entity, they are trying to make money just like all the rest of them, and they might not always have the best interest of filmmakers in mind, but I can assure you that they are NOT trying screw anyone over or steal their work! (Fine, assure me. How exactly are you going to do that? Face value? Or something a little more concrete. I have had many personal dealing with WAB. I know how they do business. I know what they are willing to do and not do. I know that it's common practice for them to remove something from their site if it comes into question then play it off like it was never there once they get caught in the act. I know that one of our festivals made its money in Euros but WAB refused to pay the US equivalent. Instead only paying dollar for dollar which would have made the festival lose a lot of money that was not WAB's to keep. WAB's response was, if you don't like it you can walk away. We didn't like it, we demanded they pay what was legally due to the festival and we have not done business with them since. Sometimes the best way to learn how a business handles its dealings is by doing business with them. WAB may very likely treat a large festival, like Sundance, differently than it might a smaller festival. This could bring imbalance to the entire festival circuit if some fests are promoted favorably by WAB while others are intentionally held back by practices WAB prefers to do in a clandestine manner. It's not the sort of thing a person might even suspect initially and one might presume that those who complain about it are apt to get squashed by WAB. That is not how the reason a festival should faulter nor should WAB, or any other submission service, hold sHave you read WAB's privacy policy for festivals? Maybe you should. They have every right to share any information in a festival's account with anyone they so choose - or at least that was how it was written the last time I checked. Read the festival agreement. Did you really think this was just about filmmakers? Do you really want WAB to have the power to share Sundance's film submission info whether or not they would actually use that power? I would think such privacy would be extremely important to a festival like Sundance. When asked about it WAB basically said in a blanket letter, if you don't like it you can leave. Okay, maybe Sundance is exempt for now... but most festivals aren't. And even so, do you really want WAB to have the power to share Sundance's submission info? Is that really a solid business strategy?) Think what you want about Withoutabox, but if they didn't exist, hundreds of Film Festivals in the United States would simply die, leaving even fewer channels available for independent filmmakers to display the results of their blood, sweat and tears. That is a FACT. (Actually, glad you brought it up. I met with Chris Hyams in the Cannes Film Festival a couple years back. I was looking for a WAB alternative and had heard rumor he might have something. Apparently he did and after announcing that it was going to go live Christian Gaines contacted him and informed him that he would never get from under the courts and lawyers if he tried to compete. Hyams backed off. The system still exists and is now in the hands of the company that bought his technology platform, Slated. To my knowledge Slated has done nothing with it. Honestly, WAB needs competition. They have the power to open the flood gates for one festival while shutting them on another. I have experienced this firsthand and have record of it. It's quite easy to identify the patterns particularly when mixed with the corresponding emails. I've heard that WAB charges a festival 18% commission on each film submission. Seems like $5 per submission should be plenty. Did they forget that these festivals need the money? Remember, most of these festivals aren't Sundance and don't have hordes of submissions and sponsors coming in, so every penny counts. But, thanks for your input. It's always nice to chat about such an interesting topic.)
I have been contacted by a few filmmakers who have read this post and are now under the impression that WAB will steal their work if they submit to us, but I am here to tell you that this is absolutely misguided and misinformed. (Who are you to tell me anything? Under what authority? Did I ask for your opinion? I'm not even sure you can find your head from your... I'm anything but impressed with how you've gone about contacting me. You're like a little boy throwing a tantrum because he's not getting his way. Not my problem. Go to your room.) All you are doing here is preventing filmmakers from submitting their work (Are you saying Sundance doesn't have a submission process without my involvement? Really? Seems like you should have your ducks in a row better than that. All kidding aside, Sundance should always have a system set up that allows filmmakers to safely and securely submit their films to the festival and it sounds like you are saying that as part of your job you forgot to set this up, Mr. Programmer Dude.
The reality is that WAB has a system in place so that filmmakers can submit either by uploading or via mail. If a filmmaker feels the safer choice is to submit by snail mail than you should have that option set up for them. I understand yesterday was Sundance's last day of accepting submissions but if they had the envelope in the mail by yesterday's date - per the postmark - it seems you should take it even if Sundance's policy is that the submission must be at your office by yesterday because if you're throwing a tizzy fit on the last day of submission in my direction then you're looking for a scape goat because you messed up and don't want to take responsibility for your actions.), which will only serve to make it even more difficult for them to ever make their money back on the works that they have created. (Fear tactics. Really? You must be desperate... and you're also wrong!) If they don't submit, we won't play it, and that's one less place that their work will be seen and potentially purchased for distribution. (Oh, wow! So, if they do submit, you will play their film? Promise? Damn. Nice odds. The reality is that most distribution deals often aren't worth the paper they are written on. Do you really want to address that now or can we wait until the next time you message me repeatedly when I'm busy!)
15 hours agoChristine ScottPost it in segments.
And yes, FilmFestJunkie is most certainly my blog. Everyone knows it. I'm proud of it! I don't broadcast it because I'm a rather low-profile person that isn't looking for recognition but is interested in making sure filmmakers have a level playing field.
15 hours agoAdam MontgomeryHave you read my comments? If you agree with my interpretation, you might simply want to retract your previous statements and post the text of my comments in a new blog post. Entirely up to you-- I could also try to post it in segments if you'd prefer.
- 14 hours agoChristine Scott
lol no, I haven't read it. I'm busy. Anyone is allowed to post. I have nothing to retract.
- 14 hours agoAdam Montgomery
Wow, the irresponsibility of your post kind of floors me... (ditto!) I have no reason to defend Withoutabox, but what you wrote is just misinformed and outright untrue... even worse, there are people out there who actually believe it. You should do your research before you spread such blatant untruths-- there are people who have decided not to submit their films because of your interpretation of that text (Actually, they decided not to upload. They would still be able to submit via snail mail. Unless, you are saying Sundance is only taking films via upload this year? In which case, I would say that is very irresponsible on your part not to give filmmakers a safe alternative and to demand they be subjected to potential loss of rights particularly since you are in the business and have an obligation to be aware of such things.) (it actually feels like you didn't even read it before you jumped to such ridiculous conclusions), which will do nothing except hurt their chances of ever seeing any sort of distribution for the films that they worked so hard to make. "lol" indeed. (BS, very few films ever get into Sundance and very few of those get distribution, and even fewer ever receive distribution worth having. Filmmakers can always submit via snail mail unless you refused them that option, in which case you totally blew it.)
- 13 hours agoChristine Scott
I don't have time to read your post above... I read the first sentence and I'm not interested in you badgering me. If you have a post then post it. If you're here to bully me and 'put me in my place', I'm not impressed or influenced.
If you're not willing to say what you have to say in public and ONLY want me to delete what I've said than I think I've posted something that should remain up. I'll read your post once you have posted it.
I'm busy and don't have time for this nonsense. Stop giving me your grief. Act like an adult and post your damn comment!
- 13 hours agoAdam Montgomery
I'm not badgering you. Just trying to help clean up your mess (I'm fully capable of cleaning up my own messes and I'm not looking for help. Don't presume yourself to have such a broad ranging scope in my life. I have made no mess. I am utterly pleased that filmmakers are beginning to realize the problem and are beginning to take charge of their own financial destiny.), but it won't let me post comments. Sorry to waste your time. If you don't have time to read what I wrote, then you probably don't care all that much about being truthful anyway, so I won't waste any more of your time. You say you don't have anything to retract, which is a clear indication that you are more interested in claiming to be right than you are in letting people know the truth. It's just irresponsible, that's all. You are hurting filmmakers by not taking any action, but you're "busy" so I guess it doesn't matter. (Listen, young man, what I do on my time is none of your business and for you to presume that your 'mess up' is more important than whatever it is I am attending to is simply selfish, childish and utterly out-of-line. I stand by my post and can back up my facts which is more than can be said for you.
Sundance has always been a wonderful and important festival both within the United States and in how it has influenced independent film around the world. Maybe from your error, this can be a lesson to other festivals to always remember that it is absolutely essential each and every filmmaker have a safe option for submitting their film. All contracts and Terms of Service agreements should be there to protect the rights of the filmmakers and to help them in their endeavors, never to underhandedly or deceptively steal their rights. With the world economy in such upheaval it is more crucial now than ever before that we ensure money goes back to those that deserve it, have earned it and can then bring it back into their communities. We need to empower our filmmakers... not greedy middlemen and careless corporations whether they be for profit or not-for-profit!)
- 11 hours agoChristine Scott
I am not going to read your messages to me here. If you have something to say about an article, then make a comment and share your thoughts. That's the point of comment option. This is a public matter that effects filmmakers. If you're hiding behind closed doors, so to speak, then I don't trust your motivates. Post your comments and, please, stop sending me messages. As I told you, I'm busy and this is not the place for that sort of thing. Responding on the blog about the blog you have a problem with would be very appropriate. I trust that people are coming from an open and honest place when they are willing to post there, not when they tell me to take down a post here.
- Note to reader: Okay, so in the end, I found the time to read Adam's messages and to respond. I truly am quite busy these days so I'm grateful for the opportunity to once again address this very essential topic. I'm passionate about ensuring filmmakers learn enough about the business end to keep their rights and make their money. If these posts help to achieve that end, fabulous! And, clearly, at least to some degree our independent filmmakers from around the world are beginning to take control of their own financial destiny!
- To Independent Filmmakers: May passion and fortune always be yours, my beloved filmmakers, and may you, in turn, continue to share your stories with us... your audience!
- One final observation, Robert Redford's highly acclaimed latest film, "The Conspirator" opened at the Toronto Film Festival, not Sundance.
No comments:
Post a Comment