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
Tuesday, September 27, 2011
Sundance Programmer ?s Filmmaker Rights - Pt 3
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 Scott
Post 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 Montgomery
Have 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.
Sundance Programmer ?s Filmmaker Rights - Pt 2
Below please find the email communications between Adam and myself from yesterday, including his comments he requested I post on his behalf.
Legend: My notations, below, will be made in italics in this color (teal?). Adam's original messages as well as my initial responses will remain in black ink. My introduction and conclusion will also be in teal, but not in italics.
- 15 hours agoAdam Montgomery
Christine-- I have been referred to your blog post from May 3rd by a couple of filmmakers, and I have been trying to post a (rather long) comment about it, but I haven't been able to do so. Could I possibly send it to you to post?
- 15 hours agoChristine Scott
Absolutely! Is this a FB post you are referring to? If not, please send the link.
- 15 hours agoAdam Montgomery
I am referring to the following post, which I believe was on your blog (if that's not the case, let me know):
http://filmfestjunkie.blogspot.com/2011/05/if-you-use-withoutabox-wab-you-have.html
Obviously, this is your blog, and if you don't agree with me then you are under no obligation to disperse it, but I STRONGLY disagree with the original statements and I feel strongly about ensuring that filmmakers are not misled by the information. (Cool! Me, too!) I guess that, in a perfect world, it would be great if you could edit your post with my comments attached, but I would prefer not to post them directly on Facebook for personal reasons. 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.
- 15 hours agoAdam Montgomery
Here are my comments-- I am open to any questions or thoughts you might have:
I know that I am coming into this thread late, but I felt compelled to comment on this. I am the Manager of Programming for the Sundance Institute, which means that I run the entire submissions process for the Sundance Film Festival, all of which goes through Withoutabox. I am not associated or affiliated with WAB in any other way.- While you may claim not be associated or affiliated with WAB many at WAB are close with many at Sundance. John Cooper, for instance, is chummy with Christian Gaines who runs IMDB, if I am not mistaken. You remember Gaines, he ran the AFI Film Festival - some would say he ran the AFI Film Festival into the ground abruptly leaving for greener pastures moments before the near fatal demise of the long-running, incredibly prestigious festival. Under his leadership of either his last year or one of his last year's there, the AFI Film Festival's centerpiece film was snagged by another festival which completely left AFI hanging without enough time to replace it. BTW, the film premiered at AFI Dallas. The incident received plenty of press. No blame to AFI Dallas, it's a cut throat business and if you can get a premiere and you're smart, you run with it!
- Don't be confused by the name. There was no direct connection between the two festivals, as I understand it. The Dallas fest leased the name from AFI which helped the newer festival build a reputation. The festival has now relinquished paying those fees and is doing quite well on its own. It was after Gaines joined WAB and, if I'm not mistaken, after Cooper took over at Sundance that Sundance began using WAB exclusively discontinuing the practice of allowing filmmakers to submit directly to Sundance. (Perhaps that's where your problem lies? Perhaps you should have continued to allow filmmakers ) So, as you can see, while you may not work for WAB there certainly does seem to be an 'affiliation' or 'association' firmly in place!
Sundance Programmer ?s Filmmaker Rights - Pt 1
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.
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.
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...
Wednesday, June 15, 2011
Always Label Your DVDs
While DVD labeling is obvious to many, it is not always apparent to a newer filmmaker.
Here are some things to write on the actual DVD:
1. Name of the Film
2. Email address (phone number, if it fits and if you are so inclined)
3. Runtime
Other options if there is space on the actual DVD:
4. Country
5. Genre
Labeling your DVD with a Sharpie Pen is the best option. Just write clearly. This way, when someone opens your package they can see the name of the project right and runtime right there on the DVD whether or not they choose to read the attached paperwork first.
It is always better to be safe then sorry. Programmers are a busy, overworked and underpaid group of people. Don't put them in a situation where they need to figure out who's DVD it is and how to contact the person. Make it as easy and convenient for them to watch your film, know the name of it, how long it is and how to contact you!
Best of luck with your submissions!
Wednesday, May 18, 2011
Don't Be a Film Snob - Think Inclusion, Not Exclusion
Monday, May 9, 2011
Netflix's Paltry Payout to Indie Filmmakers
Repeatedly, we watch independent filmmakers pushing so hard to get onto Netflix you can feel the labor pains... but to what avail?
