So now you've made it so that comments only display pending your approval? Typical. (Actually, comments have always been subject to approval. Previously, you stated your inability to post was due to the length of your comment (Adam's words: "I will send you the text of the comment I was trying to post-- I think that it won't let me because it's too long.") not the comment itself. No change has been made on how comments are accepted to this blog which is very 'typical' of the way I do things. I see you did have a comment pending this time around. Your first sentence was, "You're really lame." Uhmmm, if a person cannot be respectful or refrain from acting like he's in the third grade then he doesn't get to post comments on my blog. Act like an adult or take your whiny little ass somewhere else. That sort of behavior isn't welcome here and is part of the reason all comments must be approved. Although, the main reason comments need approval is to avoid spam.)
So much for "anyone can post comments." (Okay, I'll rephrase. Anyone acting like a civilized, respectfully communicative adult can post. Rude, indignant brats can see if their comments get through but should not hold their breath as such behavior is not appreciated or easily tolerated here. There! Feel better?)
You have completely misinterpreted everything I wrote. I never asked you to take your post down-- (Adam wrote: "you might simply want to retract your previous statements and post the text of my comments...") I merely requested that you post my comments because your blog wasn't allowing me to post them myself. (Really? Read your words above!)
I stupidly thought that if you read my comments, you might change your opinion-- I was wrong, and that's perfectly fine, because you obviously have the right to your own opinion. However, in this case, it isn't a matter of opinion, it's a matter of simply reading the TOS. (Which Terms of Service? The old one that I wrote the blog about or the new one which Withoutabox created due to the demand and concern by filmmakers that use the service? The current Terms of Service on Withoutabox is NOT the same Terms of Service that was up and which I initially blogged about. This means that the blog was helpful to and constructive for filmmakers and that it forced Withoutabox to change the Terms of Service to better suit filmmakers. I'm damn proud of this and will not take the blog down. It serves a purpose to remind filmmakers of where Withoutabox is coming from and what Withoutabox is capable of. It is not only Withoutabox. I've had filmmakers tell me Vimeo has the same wording and it has been suggested that YouTube also uses the same wording. I have personally seen the same wording on Prescreen. I know that Sundance did have a little site with some films up - I saw it over a year ago but couldn't find it more recently. The Sundance VOD site said that they owned the films on the site. Maybe you could explain how Sundance came about acquiring the rights to all those films. One of the problems for filmmakers is that if they talk about it then chances are Sundance will never accept another one of their films. Since I am not a filmmaker and not looking for a job in the industry, I can tackle these weighty subjects without concerns that most in the industry might have. I asked you before to see Sundance's contracts with filmmakers. Why haven't you sent it? Do you have something to hide? If not, send it over. I want the opportunity to evaluate it.) (All of the sources that formed the basis of my comments were taken directly from the user agreement that YOU originally posted. (Actually, the source you used was WAB's internal download contract that was recently changed and the source I quoted was the Terms of Service at Log In for Withoutabox which would supersede/blanket the internal download agreement.)
Nobody needs to take my word for it-- it's all written very clearly in your original post. It isn't my fault that you have interpreted it incorrectly. (I have not interpreted it incorrectly. If I had, WAB would have sued me by now! Below is WAB's original TOS which is also posted in my original post. While it is true that nothing is conveyed (which means transferred) it is also true that 'you do grant WAB a nonexclusive, royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, and fully sublicensable right to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, and display any material you submit to WAB, including Content, throughout the world in any media.' which basically gives shared ownership so that the filmmaker would no longer have full and exclusive rights to their own film. Of course, this would water down their potential earning power in the long run while building a huge film library for WAB or any other service acting in such a clandestine manner.)
13. Proprietary rights, limitations on use
Nothing in this TOS conveys to you any rights or ownership in our or any other parties' copyrights, trademarks, patents or trade secrets ("Intellectual Property"). Similarly, we do not acquire any right or ownership in your Intellectual Property when you use our Services. However, you do grant us a nonexclusive, royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, and fully sublicensable right to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, and display any material you submit to us, including Content, throughout the world in any media. You grant us and our sublicensees the right to use the name that you submit in connection with such material. You represent and warrant that you own or otherwise control all of the rights to the materials you submit, including the Content; that these materials are accurate; and that use of these materials does not violate our site's policies and will not cause injury to any person or entity. 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. Without limiting the foregoing, the Services, the Content, the computer software used in connection with the Service ("Software"), the name, Without A Box," the names of our advertisers, and the information provided by advertisers are proprietary or contain proprietary information that is protected by applicable intellectual property and other laws. Except as expressly authorized by us (or if applicable our advertisers if the content or name belongs to them), you agree not to copy, redistribute, sell, modify, create derivative works from, decompile, or exploit for any commercial purpose, the Services, the Content, the Software or any trademarks, except as specifically provided for in this TOS. You agree not to access the Services by any means other than through the interface that is provided by us for use in accessing the Service. You agree not to publish or post information on our website that is defamatory,libelous, [obscene] or might otherwise be considered unlawful.
- If you really believe that the user agreement states that filmmakers are signing away all rights to their work by uploading their film for festival consideration via Withoutabox, then why hasn't this already come into play? Because it's too early. No one has a hold on the VOD market. There is nothing WAB/IMDB/Amazon can do with the films yet accept collect them and build a library. Many distributors are doing the same thing. It would not be strategically adventageous for Withoutabox do something other than gather rights at this point since there is no clear vehicle for profit that actually works. The most adventageous approach currently is to build libraries and so this is what people are doing. The one thing I heard over and over again at the Tribeca Film Festival 2011 (from Harvey Weinstein, Joe Roth and others) is to build a library of films if you want to make money because the more films you have the more you can sell the library for. Joe Roth owns 47 films. Weinstein sold his library for $660 million dollars. It would be foolish for Withoutabox to announce that by using their service you were surrendering your your exclusive rights to your film when instead they could just gather the rights quietly and let you get stuck with the consequences of their actions later... after they've made a bundle off your naivety and mistake! I'm fairly sure Sundance is doing the same thing! Send me your filmmaker contract. I want to see it! I also want to know how recent it is and when the date of the last time it was updated. Here is an article I wrote which includes Harvey Weinstein's take on film libraries and ownership of films: The Grill @ Tribeca Film Festival.)
- We received plenty of digital uploads last year that ended up playing the festival-- if what you are saying is true, then why didn't WAB/iMDB/Amazon simply distribute those films themselves without paying any royalties to the filmmakers? (To whom would WAB/iMDB/Amazon have shown these films? There is not truly obtainable audience yet. All they can do is build the library quietly and wait until the time comes when the market is figured out and they can reach the audience. That day has yet to arrive.)
- I'll tell you why-- it''s because the agreement doesn't give them the right to do that!! READ IT. I mean REALLY read it. (It's like your lips are moving but nothing making any sense is coming out. Do your homework. Re-read the original post then shut the fuck up!)
- I understand that it isn't the most clearly written agreement in the world (Actually, I think it's very clear and straight forward to anyone who takes the time to read it. The problem is that most people don't read Terms of Service on Log In Pages... which is exactly why Withoutabox probably put the contract there. I didn't read it until I started to have problems with Withoutabox, started asking them questions to which I was told that if I didn't like how they did business I could walk. Then, I knew there was a serious problem and I started reading everything. It's not like a person goes into this thinking they are going to get ripped off by the people/corporation they are doing business with...) and I can see how it could be interpreted a certain way at first glance (Really? You really think I just glanced at it? Okie Dokie!), but Withoutabox needs the filmmakers' permission (I addressed viable options to give permission without stealing rights in the previous blog on this topic. Yes, Withoutabox needs permission. No that does not mean Withoutabox needs to steal the rights of filmmakers. Send me your filmmaker contract. I don't trust where you are coming from and want to see it with my own two eyes. Trust me, I won't just glance it over.) to allow a film festival to view the film for consideration. That's all the agreement says (You are simply wrong.).
- Your interpretation of it is just incorrect. (No it's not. But let's say it is and Withoutabox wants to fix it. Have their lawyer write up a statement which says that Withoutabox has never, does not and will not ever take any rights of any film from any filmmaker Withoutabox ever does business with and if in any way Withoutabox has ever done this - even unintentionally - then Withoutabox immediately and irrevocably withdrawls claims to those rights, specifically any financial rights without exception. That would clear it up! And, by the way, send me one of those from Sundance while you seem so adamant to address the issue.) I'm not saying that to be judgmental or to make you feel stupid-- I'm just stating the facts. (lol... cute.)
Look, I'm sure you're an awesome person and you truly believe that you're looking out for the best interest of the filmmakers (condescending much?), but I have no reason to speculate or lie about this (actually, you have every reason to lie if Sundance is doing the same thing Withoutabox is doing but doesn't want to catch slack for it. Send me the filmmaker/Sundance contract. I really want to look it over. I'm sure you're an awesome person looking out for filmmakers... but send it anyway, just in case!) -- show the text of the agreement to any lawyer and they will confirm that what I'm saying is true (Oh really? You know this as a fact? Which lawyer did you show it to that is backing up your statement? Or, are you just talking trash?).My later comments were a result of your indifference to what I was saying. To me, you just didn't seem to care that you were affecting the way people thought, even though what you were saying was completely untrue. (Hey Adam, you may not give a shit about anyone else's schedule but as I told you, I was busy. Don't expect me to drop what I'm doing for you. If I'm busy I'm busy. I owed you nothing and if you contact me then I will get back to you when I have the time, not immediately because you are throwing a little temper tantrum.)
I don't really care what you say at this point, I just hope that you recognize the fact that I am simply trying to provide a more accurate interpretation of what the TOS stated. Yours just isn't correct, and you are doing people a disservice by continuing to stand by it. (I have done and am doing filmmakers a service by helping them to learn the business end of their business and to not take everyone and everything at face value. Over and over I have heard filmmakers say that they are not 'business people'. This is what distributors have told them for years to keep filmmakers out of the loop and to disempower filmmakers. My goal is to bring the power and the money back into the hands of filmmakers. When filmmakers begin to question things that are wrong they begin to make positive change. We are moving into a world where small, independent filmmakers can make real money from their films if they keep their rights. My object is to help them achieve that goal. Your goal seems to be the opposite. I understand that Sundance is basically just a corporation at this point... albeit non-profit, so one must question the motives of Sundance. Just like one must question why Gilmore left and why Redford's last film did not open at Sundance. Send me the Sundance/Filmmaker contract. I want to see it!)
I wish you all the best with anything you're involved with, but I really have to stand by my interpretation of the agreement. (Go for it! And, I'll stand by mine!) Filmmakers aren't giving away any rights by providing a digital upload to us (actually, I saw something that made it look like Withoutabox was now uploading through Google which is not a good can of worms to open and which also means that once again you cannot speak for their policy as it relates to filmmaker's rights, so stop sounding like you have some sort of control or authority in this area when you don't! You are Head of Programming for Sundance, not Legal for Google or Withoutabox. You don't have the authority to speak on their behalf.) -- they just aren't.I really felt like my comments would make you see that, and that was the only reason I was trying to get you to read and post them (You need to respect that other people don't say 'how high' when you say 'jump'). If you still don't feel that way, then I guess there's nothing more I can do, but I hope you understand that there is no malice involved on my part. (lol... again, cute.)
Hell, I have to get 11,000 films watched, so this is the last thing I want to be taking up my time. If I didn't feel passionate about it, (I don't care about passion. I care about facts and filmmakers.) I wouldn't be sitting here writing to you when I obviously have more important things to do (Actually, if you're in the business of trying to help independent filmmakers then helping to ensure indie filmmakers keep their rights should be top on your priority list as should ensuring the service you use to accept indie films protects said filmmakers.). So all I ask is that you consider that fact-- if I didn't truly believe in what I'm saying, I would have no reason to continue engaging you in the conversation. (Dude, I couldn't care less why you are doing this - although I don't trust your motives, logic or attitude - and I am certainly not about to take your word over what I have read on WAB's log in Terms of Service. It's not personal so what you say is highly irrelevant when it's based on your impression or assertion rather than the terms laid out in Withoutabox's agreement.)
I'm not a "silly man" and I think you were wrong in posting that. (ahhh... that's cute.) We don't have to agree, but I would appreciate a non-biased representation of the facts. (yeah... me, too. Send me Sundance's filmmaker agreements at all stages of acceptance whether it be the submission stage, the festival stage or the distribution stage. I will set plenty of time aside to read them all with my undivided attention.)
I feel like I am being punished because your blog wouldn't allow me to post my thoughts. (Feelings aren't facts. Get over yourself.)
- Legend:
- Adam Montgomery's writings are in BLACK and once in DARK TEAL.
- My writings are in TEAL.
- The WAB Terms of Service is in DARK RED.
Saturday, October 8, 2011
Sundance vs The Independent Filmmaker
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
