Dear Jaime, I am interested in copyright law and recently took a course about it. Regarding online copyright infringement of experimental filmmakers, I can offer this message from Jonas Mekas to Kenneth Goldsmith, the founder of Ubuweb, who has been very gracious in removing films when asked by filmmakers or their families:
February 27, 2010 Ken, It has come to my attention that you have placed on your website several of my films, including THE BRIG, ZEFIRO TORNA, LAST THREE DAYS OF ALLEN. You have done this without asking my permission, wich I consider irrespectful of me as a person and as author of the works you have placed on your website. I have no income, I am trying to survive, and any income that I can get from my work is VITAL to my existence and cotinuation of my work. I think your website is very valuable for classics of the past, works of deceased film-makers, etc, but I am alive and working, and all those works that you have appropriated are available to purchase through either myself or Re:Voir or Anthology. So I would appreciate very much if you'd remove all my works from your website. Thank you, Jonas Mekas Regarding classics of the past and works of deceased filmmakers, copyright law gives families and estates ownership and rights for a determined length of time. This link gives detailed information about how much time: https://www.whoishostingthis.com/resources/copyright-guide/#copyright-length All work in a fixed or recorded form is automatically protected by copyright since the Berne convention of 1988. Even transfers of copyright revert back to the author after 35 years, to protect authors who bargained away their rights. Re:Voir actively removes from YouTube any films for which we have a contract with the filmmaker or their family and to whom we pay royalties for home video sales. In addition we have actively fought to pursue copyright protection in the case of perceived infringement, for example for Isidore Isou’s daughter Catherine Goldstein or for Maya Deren’s heir Tavia Ito. Many estates are struggling to preserve and archive the work or in some cases to support family members. Therefore I think it is justified to pay them royalties that are due. Also the filmmakers, families or the distributor have invested heavily to make high quality transfers, and they are justified in recovering their expenses. It is the mission of coops and archives and distributors like Re:Voir to make these films available, and these are not rich institutions but struggling organizations whose members are mostly underpaid and overworked. The families are certainly not rich. Therefore we support legal streaming and download and make the effort to remove unauthorized copies. I hope this helps! Pip Chodorov > On Apr 19, 2020, at 2:23 AM, jaime cleeland <[email protected]> wrote: > > It further promoted a discussion with the Australian filmmaker Peter Tammer. > Who then emailed me this. Please read below and feel free > to add your opinions. > > > ---------- Forwarded message --------- > From: Peter Tammer <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> > > > Now here's my argument: one reason these films are being withdrawn from > YouTube and other sources is that the estates of the artists are claiming > them as "property", the same way paintings and sculptures gain value in > monetary terms, whereas novels by great writers of the past and music > compositions by the great composers, are free to everyone, except where > performance, recordings and recording rights come into play. In the case of > classical music, novels, poetry, etc... these great works are not denied to > lovers of the arts. > > But in the visual art world, only the rich, or richly endowed museums, can > hoard the work and deny access to the greater part of humanity. Including us > who value the work for its own intrinsic value and not as property to be > bought and sold. > > PT
_______________________________________________ FrameWorks mailing list [email protected] https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
