So what's the bottom line...? Can you spell "greed"?

It's not just greed. I know it seems that way, and a lot of it is...but there are so many people that have to be cleared. If it's a shoot by a DGA director, with SAG actors, ALL people in the shoot must be cleared. Same with music if it's a music gig and union people were used. Who pays for someone to go to all those people, their reps, etc? SAG can clear it, but at what cost? Each person is paid for their appearance or performance. In the case of this article, the 250.00 budget swelled to 400K because of video clearances, not music clearances. It's just a big, big, PITA for small time people to get access to, but it's not just music. Video is worse. In fact, although it doesn't seem like it, it's easier to get clearance for a Celine Dion song than it would be to get clearance for a George Lucas video clip, simply because of all the players involved.

:::In fact, although it doesn't seem like it, it's easier to get clearance for a Celine Dion song than it would be to get clearance for a George Lucas video clip, simply because of all the players involved.:::

I can believe it.

Another advantage of working with small-time (but competent) musicians is that they tend to be the "without a doubt, for sure" owner of their own copyright and probably don't have an agent, a lawyer, any affiliation with BMI or ASCAP or, a lot of times, even a record company (in this magical time we're inhabiting, in which a bedroom can be and is used as a recording studio / pressing plant.)

It works the other way with the musicians, who sometimes need access to video production but couldn't afford the expensive guys. Barter can work wonders.

But I still get everyone to sign a release form. And I sign theirs (after a careful read-though!)

My only concern is for documentaries, I can understand for everything else.

So far, we have had some well tested "fair use" exclusions for journalism.

The next step could be newspaper photographers needing clearance or Photoshop masking if any trademark is visible where something newsworthy happens.

Right now I'm drinking a really good..., well I wish I could tell you but I haven't cleared this with the maker yet., and this is a public forum after all.

I think I better self-censor to be on the safe side... :O|

Douglas, that's understood, but what we were talking about was documentaries. Greed is what's driving companies like Turner to buy up what should be in the public domain then charging folks an arm and a leg to license it.

My own experience wasn't any different than those metioned in the above stated article. I was after a 5-second clip of Clark Gable from Gone With The Wind. Turner's leeches wanted $7,000--that's greed, pure and simple. I told them I didn't need it that badly.

I agree, 7K is a lot for 5 seconds, but to look at it from the other side....
One reason Turner bought the rights to the film is so they'd own licensing. That's their goal. They sat down at some point in time and said "if we buy the rights to this film for 1M, we'll need to license it at XXX per minute or second or broadcast use. Like any investment, they'd have to amortize it over time divided by the number of anticipated licenses.

Then take into consideration that they keep the cost high not for the reason of greed, but to prevent the branding, value, name, recognition, artistic value of the piece from being diminished. For example, George Thorogood has set a limit to the number of times that "Bad to the Bone" could be licensed over a 5 year period, because he knew that if you could hear the song in just any film, it would diminish the value of the song. He keeps the song value high, based on demand and supply.

As I've said many times before, I've been on both sides of this frustration, more on the "small/limited use" side lately than on the "I own it and you want to license it" side of the discussion. It's frustrating to be on this side, and it's not been pleasant in the recent times I've needed to even call friends looking to use a piece of video or music. I'm not even permitted to use the video sequences I've scored for films like Hidalgo or Last Samurai in my concerts. I'd like to be able to perform those pieces of music live, while showing clips from the vid on a screen. But they won't allow it. Disney in particular is nasty, nasty about this. Try to license 5 seconds of any Disney piece. 7K won't cover one second.
Some of it is greed, some of it is protecting the value over the long term.

It's an old paradigm that's kind of crumbling in this day and age, but the dinosaurs still fight tooth and nail.

You'd think Turner et al would think: hell, it's only 5 seconds, it helps promote something we own the rights to, and we get mentioned in the credits. Yes, thousands or even millions of people might see the clip and we may "lose" money on it (WTF?!), but what is the value of the publicity generated when thousands or millions of people are reminded (yet again) that THIS FILM (GWTW) EXISTS? That has to be worth something, and probably a lot more than $7000.

I understand artists / rights holders don't want to be screwed, and I think some sort of compensation should be offered / expected. But when you can't film your subject walking through a supermarket talking to his friend because a Madonna "tune" is playing on the store PA and you're afraid Madonna's people would squash you like a bug if you don't open your wallet---well, HELL.

I'm of the opinion that no one, other than the original copyright holder, has any business/right to buy the right to license anything once it has gone into the public domain.

I'll second that, Jay.

But that's part of the point, Gone With the Wind never went PD. However, someone has to pay for the duplication, archival, admin, etc of the film.
I agree, once something is PD, then it should be just that, PD. However, it's VERY easy to prevent something from ever getting into the PD.
It's funny/ironic you'd bring up Gone With the Wind, as it has become a benchmark case for Fair Use and parody, as a critical parody of the book/show was written called "The Wind Done Gone." Mitchell Trusts tried to prevent it from being published, and after a lengthy, protracted lawsuit, they lost. (Actually, it settled, but insiders say that it boiled down to attorney's costs being paid, after the book had already been on the best sellers list for months)
I entirely agree w/you on this one, Jay...once something hits PD, it should never be licensable, and the only costs should be those related to duplication, and administrative. (someone has to duplicate it, pack it, ship it, keep records of it) Those fees should be nominal and pre-set so that there is no negotiating based on number of units replicated, etc. But for the most part, this is the way that it is anyway. But there are very few works of motion media in the PD at this point anyway. There wasn't a lot happening before 1929, by way of film. :-) Can you imagine PD in 2100? That'll be something else!

Another point about fees, the real driving issue, is that everyone knows that since the mid90's the cost of licensing is 100% immediately written off the books. This has change the view about licensing cost with no long term write-offs, a nice ideal in the beginning until CPAs and attys shown investors and the "industry" the angles.

I'll go further. After a reasonable length of time, I believe EVERYTHING should become public domain, with no opportunity for re-licensing.

U.S. Copyright law seems to suggest that "a reasonable length of time" should be 70 years (i.e., the lifetime of the individual who holds the original copyright). Unfortunately, there are so many loopholes in the law that this is rarely enforced. And as Disney proved when they got a special exception from Congress for MIckey Mouse, if you throw enough campaign money around, you can get what ever you want.

I'd like to see this 70-year standard rigidly enforced. That's plenty of time to make a huge profit.

I could be mistaken, Douglas, but GWTW, along with many other "classics" had gone into the PD. Then, the likes of Turner gobbled them up (when they bought the original MGM library) and copyrighted them after the fact through fancy wrangling. Two other classics, for example, were It's A Wonderful Life and Casablanca. The only reason I know this is because of a conversation I had several years ago with a producer in L.A. He had already started on a lengthy project for educational purposes that used clips from Casablanca. When Turner got wind of it, they nearly had a cow. They fought him on it and wound up allowing him to use It's A Wonderful Life. A few years after that, they tried to sock him for licensing IAWL as well!

Brian, I agree with you 100% and have voiced similar thoughts in the past. It was not well received. I'm of the opinion that no one is owed anything beyond the artist. Once he has died, that should be it, end of story (and the gravy train). If the family wants to whine and moan, let 'em. If they want more money, let them go out and create new art.

The loopholes in the laws you mentioned, seems we're on the wrong side of loopholes!

I can't speak to the others, but Gone With the Wind has NOT entered the public domain, it couldn't have. According to LOC, the book is in copyright until 2031, and the film will come into PD in 2009. It WAS PD in Australia, but couldn't have been imported into the US. However, Australia ratified the Bono extension, which means it is now death +70 years there, as well.
Turner bought the original masters, so they own the copyright as it was, but the NEW digital remasters are theirs until hell freezes over, basically. But they did not buy masters that were in PD.
Eldred v. Ashcroft would have caused this film's originals to be dropped in 2009. But...question is how you'd access it. Turner will have to turn the masters over to PD in 2009, but the question is what the public will do with them. Who pays for the very expensive archival of nitrate? (highly flammable) Who pays for dupes from the original? Hopefully, Turner will hand the originals over to the LOC, but then it's you and me footing the bill. Turner will/has registered copyright on the digitally restored masters, and this is a different copyright than the original 1939 copyright.
Funny that the book's copyright will outlast the film copyright, eh?

"Hopefully, Turner will hand the originals over to the LOC, but then it's you and me footing the bill."

Fine with me. I can't think of a better use of taxpayer's money than fully supporting the Library of Congress.

If I remember correctly, It's A Wonderful Life, slipped into public domain because it's copyright was not renewed. It was an oversight. Part of the reason for that is the movie was not successful when it was released. It's only with the passage of time did it find it's audience. Part of that is nostaglia. Part of that is we long for that idealized past. But the contemporary audiences in that past were already far too cyncical.

My understanding of copyright is that any time Mickey Mouse is about to become public domain then copyright in the US gets extended.

"Fine with me. I can't think of a better use of taxpayer's money than fully supporting the Library of Congress."

I can think of a few... one of which is letting us taxpayers keep our own money!

BrianStanding,

I don't think Disney got a special exemption for Mickey Mouse; I think Mickey was perhaps the most famous property that would have gone into public domain had Congress not passed that recent copyright extension act.

Slate has good overview of how It's a Wonderful Life fell out and then back into copyright.

Erk,

Ummm.. yeah... you may be right. I think my original point is still valid, though.