VJ Book (split from Major new Vj Site... thread)

[mf]

I find it very sad that DFuse only ever post here to promote there own projects (and if there book is anything to go by i'd read the fine print very carefully before signing anything to do with this BMW site) - as established experts who have been in the bussiness a long time they have a lot to contrubute to the global vj scene - however they seem willing to do this only when they profit from it - be that on some kind of commision from BMW or through the dodgyest licence agreements that i've ever read.


OK, Tom what's your point?
sounds like sour grapes to me!
what's the book got to do with BMW site?
The legal agreement for the book was written by Lumens + D7 [maybe we should boycott AVIT USA?.... as they are evil americans] apart from killing Iraqs, they have written a dodgyest contract that you have ever read. Quite clearly you don't read many contracts.


i would certainly not make adverts for BMW - doesn't matter how much they were going to pay (yes i have turned down large sums of money to make ads before more than most people earn a year )

I am also interested in this job you turned down.
one years salary you say...the fact is 50%+ people on planet live on less than 50 cents a day, so thats not much to brag about.

or was it was a ?3k day rate you mentioned. I don't ANY people who earn that, but clearly you do, or maybe your base this information on your fathers salary!!!!!
I don't have a trust fund, I DON'T have the privilege or finacial freedom to choose between Good corporations and Bad ones. You still haven't defined the difference between say Red Bull [AVIT] + BMW [avience].
We work with people who give us platform to develop our work. we aim to get paid [unlike the VJ book].
Most people on the post have complimented the work. what's your thoughts?


Mike f
D-Fuse

PS Tom we emailed you about the book, but we had no reply!

[sleepytom]

Originally posted by mf
OK, Tom what's your point?
sounds like sour grapes to me!
what's the book got to do with BMW site?
The legal agreement for the book was written by Lumens + D7 [maybe we should boycott AVIT USA?.... as they are evil americans] apart from killing Iraqs, they have written a dodgyest contract that you have ever read. Quite clearly you don't read many contracts.
on the contrary i read quite a few contracts - your contract for the dfuse book gives you the rights to use for whatever purpose you like (including reselling as stock footage) any matireal (words, pictures, video clips) that people submit -- this sucks - it amounts to a policy of "either you give us clips for the dfuse content archive (and recive no royalties when we resell them) or we write you out of the history of VJing"



I am also interested in this job you turned down.
one years salary you say...the fact is 50%+ people on planet live on less than 50 cents a day, so thats not much to brag about.

?50,000 from a well know multinational for what would of been about 3 weeks work - the company in question have a longstanding campaign running against there production methods - we chose to turn the job down based upon this campaign (and yes that was one of the hardest desisions we ever took)



or was it was a ?3k day rate you mentioned. I don't ANY people who earn that, but clearly you do, or maybe your base this information on your fathers salary!!!!!
i know (as do you) Plenty of people who are charged to clients at ?3K+ a day - sure thats not there take home pay (nothing like it) but that is how much the client will be paying - as to my family situation WTF you don't know me or my family - i don't have trust fund as it goes - yes i do consider myself to be rich but as you have pointed out most of the world lives on less than a 50cents a day so i consider everyone posting here to be rich (my own income is actually pretty low in comparison to the average in the UK)


I DON'T have the privilege or finacial freedom to choose between Good corporations and Bad ones.

yes you do! - you live in the west and there is plenty of ways you can survive without promoting "bad" companys


You still haven't defined the difference between say Red Bull [AVIT] + BMW [avience].
i haven't - and i won't - all i will say is that i wouldn't work for a car company (= personal choice, you can do what you like bassed upon your own morality - personally i have allways considered myself an environmentalist (treehugging hippy :) )


Most people on the post have complimented the work. what's your thoughts?

i like it! - nice overlays and stuff personally i feel that the interior car shots seem a little out of place as they are just a bit too "clean" compared to the slightly crunchy feeling of the lines and stuff. (maybe this is due to the lowres of the streaming file??) did you get to film the car yourself or did they just send you some rushes?

[mf]

(yes i have turned down large sums of money to make ads before[more than most people earn a year] )
?50,000 from a well know multinational for what would of been about 3 weeks work - the company in question have a longstanding campaign running against there production methods - we chose to turn the job down based upon this campaign (and yes that was one of the hardest desisions we ever took)
Tom, this doesn't add up. You turn down a job for ?50K [which is 3 times more than most people earn a year!!!!!!!]
that you have been lobbying against and your not even going to mention who they are !!!!
Surely the point of the campaign was to expose them.

Sounds like bullshit to me.

BUT I want to hear more detail, nobody can come out with statements like this, without more information. or you would be lying

How did they contact you?
How do you know big corporations like this? ..............or did they stumble across you're up to date and informative website?
+ what were you going provide for this ?16.6K a week?

I think everybody wants to know more



also
it amounts to a policy of "either you give us clips for the dfuse content archive (and recive no royalties when we resell them) or we write you out of the history of VJing"

actually, if you can be bothered to read the text carefully you would see this book is a co-production.
I hope you will discuss this with Lumens + D7


mikef
D-Fuse

[brain]

mf, if you insist on more details on tom's rejected job, how about telling us how much BMW payed you for the avience project? just to be able to compare the rates discussed here.

hey, guess my remarks may kick me out of the long-awaited dfuse VJ book? but we submissors haven't heard a single word anyway since we sent our clips, text and pictures to you to use them for free... :rolleyes:

[mf]

mf, if you insist on more details on tom's rejected job, how about telling us how much BMW payed you for the avience project? just to be able to compare the rates discussed here.

we're discussing job details, name of company, brief, etc., not budgets
Tom introduced his deal this post.

I simply don't believe it...do you?

Mike f

[elbows]

I believe it, dont see why you doubt it at all to be honest, you're not another person who thinks "everybody has a price" are you?

You make me angry by calling someone I respect a liar, especially when your only basis for disbelief appears to be that someone would turn such money down.

Also the way I read it Tom doesnt say that HE had a long campaign against them, rather that such a campaign existed and probably highlighted to him the moral questionability of dealing with this company.

[sleepytom]

I don't have to tell you anything more about work that i have or haven't turned down - you can call me a liar if you like i don't give a shit.

I'm not going to tell you where that job came from either

or indeed anything else about it

people who use the forum regularly know that I'm not a liar - some of them i have probably told the story to already (complete with all the little details you seem so keen to know) - i don't have to post any details of any potential contracts past or present and i don't intend to do so in public - it is not a good way to go about doing business and i shall not do it.



actually, if you can be bothered to read the text carefully you would see this book is a co-production.
I hope you will discuss this with Lumens + D7
OK lets have a look at this text shall we - you are correct to share the blame with lumens and D7 however it doesn't change the fact that this is an outrageous licence - far worse for the contributors than anything i have seen before in any media inc broadcast tv and print.
this is the licence agreement you have to sign to have work included in the dfuse book
I hereby grant permission for D-Fuse/Lumens to include my presentation, in any and all forms, in the above-named Publication. I further
grant permission for D-Fuse/Lumens to transcribe and reproduce this submission as part of the D-Fuse/Lumens Digital Library, and to
distribute or sell this submission in complete or partial form, on CD-ROM, DVD, videocassette, broadcast, cablecast, webcast, laserdisk,
multimedia and any other media format now or hereafter known. I accordingly give D-Fuse/Lumens the right to use my image, voice,
pronouncements, likeness, and my name and any biographical material submitted by me in connection with the Event named above, whether
used in excerpts or in full, for purpose of the reproduction and distribution described above and for any associated advertising or exhibition.
I understand that D-Fuse/Lumens and others will invest considerable resources in reliance on the permissions and release herein, and
that D-Fuse/Lumens is under no obligation to exercise any or all of the rights, licenses, and privileges herein granted. I hereby release
and discharge D-Fuse/Lumens and other Publication sponsors and organizers from and all liability arising out of my participation in the
Publication or in connection with the performance of any of the activities described in this document as permitted herein, including but
not limited to my rights of privacy or publicity, copyright, patent rights, trade secrets, moral rights, or trademark rights. All permissions
and releases granted by me herein shall be effective in perpetuity and throughout the universe and extend and apply to D-Fuse/Lumens
and its assigns, contractors, sublicensed distributors, successors, and agents. In the event that any materials used in my presentation
contain the work of other individuals or organizations (including any copyrighted musical compositions or excerpts thereof), I understand
that it is my responsibility to secure any necessary permissions and/or licenses* and will provide them in writing to D-Fuse/Lumens.


so lets say i fancy having a little bit about me in the book and i submit a couple of clips to go on the dvd that comes with the book - i would expect to sign a licence that gives you the right to use my words and picture in this one book (and any reprints there of) and my clips i would expect to go out on this one dvd (and any reprints there of) BUT the licence agreement goes way beyond this - my words/ images/ clips become part of the "D-Fuse/Lumens Digital Library" and that the may be sold by dfuse/lumens to whoever they want at any point in the future or used by dfuse/lumens in their own work or work they do for any clients

if there was some payment of royalties for usage outside the initial book and dvd then this would be reasonable but this is not the case - once you have signed your work is effectively owned by DFuse/Lumens - they even have the right to sell your work to third party sublicensees such as stock footage companies (and you will never see a penny)

make up your own mind about this - but be aware of the ever increasing demand for video clips not only from VJs looking to buy footage but from mobile phone companies, advertisers, TV companies and the like.

i have spoken to many people who have sent stuff for the book but didn't realise that they had given all the rights to D-Fuse/Lumens - it is arguably there own fault for not reading the licence agreement properly but it is also an abuse of trust by D-Fuse/Lumens for not explaining the implications of the licensee to their fellow VJs, many of whom have much less experience of contracts and licensing than D-Fuse and who trust D-Fuse/Lumens because they see them as working in the same small industry which genrally has a very strong ethic of not stealing from your fellow artists.

[Rovastar]

You don't tell your contacts/info here on the forum Tom.

But do hawever if you turn then down again let me have the contact. My soul is already sold on but can always get hold of another.

[PilotX]

Originally posted by mf
I simply don't believe it...do you?


actually, yes I do. for three reasons: 1) I know that there are people who get paid 16.6k per week who are not ceos/chairmen
2)I know that sleepytom/brighton arts can produce the quality of work that rates these kind of stupid sums being paid
3)I know tom to be an ethical person who sticks to his beliefs. knowing tom personally, I would happily believe that he has turned down 50k to do a job for a company he wouldn't feel right working for.

aside from that, there are many people who turn down work/contracts with businesses they do not feel they want to support in any way. Chumbawamba finally accepted money from Nike for tubthumping after agreeing with corpwatch and someone else to hand it over to them for anti-nike/sweatshop campaigns. previously they had turned down offers to use their music for advertising companies they dont want to be associated with.. why is it unbelievable that someone would turn down a heck of a lot of cash for ethical considerations?

[sleepytom]

Originally posted by Rovastar

But do hawever if you turn then down again let me have the contact. My soul is already sold on but can always get hold of another. LOL sure mate - next time the darkside call i'll pass on your mesenger details (i think the devil only sorts out contracts using msn these days some guy called gates did a deal ages ago and BT just can't match it!!!)

[hamageddon]

can we take the vjbook stuff to a diff thread pls....

@mf: i'd really love to see your answer about that license policy there

btw: tom has earned my respect tru his work round here
and esp @ avit'03 - and, sorry, as much as i love and respect
the work of d-fuse - i've not seen something comparable from u
yet...

[BrainStove]

All permissions
and releases granted by me herein shall be effective in perpetuity and throughout the universe and extend and apply to D-Fuse/Lumens

Sheeesshh!! They just forgot to include: "... and way beyond in time before the Big Bang" <<<$%$@#&$%>>>

Herrhehe... A Mandr?gora contract (http://www.wordsources.info/words-mod-anesthesiaPt1.html) :P

[mf]

I don't have to tell you anything more about work that i have or haven't turned down - you can call me a liar if you like i don't give a shit.

I'm not going to tell you where that job came from either

or indeed anything else about it

Put up or shut up....... there's too many self professed "experts" in this forum
It's real shame.

Mike F

no intention for this to become nasty...
(sorry if i've offended anyone so far)

no intention for this to become nasty...
(sorry if i've offended anyone so far)

[mf]

so lets say i fancy having a little bit about me in the book and i submit a couple of clips to go on the dvd that comes with the book - i would expect to sign a licence that gives you the right to use my words and picture in this one book (and any reprints there of) and my clips i would expect to go out on this one dvd (and any reprints there of) BUT the licence agreement goes way beyond this - my words/ images/ clips become part of the "D-Fuse/Lumens Digital Library" and that the may be sold by dfuse/lumens to whoever they want at any point in the future or used by dfuse/lumens in their own work or work they do for any clients

if there was some payment of royalties for usage outside the initial book and dvd then this would be reasonable but this is not the case - once you have signed your work is effectively owned by DFuse/Lumens - they even have the right to sell your work to third party sublicensees such as stock footage companies (and you will never see a penny)

make up your own mind about this - but be aware of the ever increasing demand for video clips not only from VJs looking to buy footage but from mobile phone companies, advertisers, TV companies and the like.

i have spoken to many people who have sent stuff for the book but didn't realise that they had given all the rights to D-Fuse/Lumens - it is arguably there own fault for not reading the licence agreement properly but it is also an abuse of trust by D-Fuse/Lumens for not explaining the implications of the licensee to their fellow VJs, many of whom have much less experience of contracts and licensing than D-Fuse and who trust D-Fuse/Lumens because they see them as working in the same small industry which genrally has a very strong ethic of not stealing from your fellow artists.

ok, I will get Grant [D7/AVIT] to contribute towards the contract details.

Tom, quite clearly you not ever sold clips to photo libaries or received royalties from DVDs
but before you say "you have released many dvds + clips worldwide ...."

I will add some food for thought..........

Think about this, say we sell 5k units of the book, [the VJ world is a very small world, believe it or not]
Fact is the average author earns ?12k a year and that includes Harry Potter !!!!!
Also, I am not going to argue any figures, until we have true figures.

We have been told our fee for each book will around ?2 per unit, so the total will be ?10K,
we deduct ......sub editors, writers + designers fees. DVD authoring, say ?6k
we then split the rest with D7 + Lumens...?2k each [70% of your day rate Tom!!!!]
Don't forget that D-Fuse have already spent 2 months on the project , plus Xarene and Grant have done loads of work.
Plus we have real work to do [not these pointless, dick swinging contests]
OK, how shall we divide the money between the 150+ vjs.
say we gave them all a a cheque for ?5 [?750]... you would loose that on bank charges.
all this about 2 pints of beer.

Also, can you imagine how time we have spent filling , emailing, viewing 150 peoples work.
Best option would be to be efficient and fast on the project and only select a few VJs. But we want to get everybody in the book. that is the people bothered to submit.

Hmm, maybe D-Fuse are not the corporate evil VJs, that don't care about the community
as Tom lead us to believe

Tom.....WAKE UP!!!!!!!!!!!

Anyway I'm going to focus on more productive things,
...... although if I get time I may look into Red Bull [AVIT sponsor],
I'm sure they are owned by a big nasty corporate, and me Tom can go boycott them.

Mikef

[brain]

Originally posted by mf
Put up or shut up....... there's too many self professed "experts" in this forum
It's real shame.

thats what i wanted to hear from someone in his 6th post in this forum :P

i like hama's idea to have a new topic on the book. please feel free to move posts.

mf, your points on the sales figures and all the work from you going into the book are right. i respect very much that you are willing to pull a project like this, and thank you for all the work you do on it for little or no money.

but tom did not complain about that we will not get royalities from the book. he pointed out that dfuse and lumens get all sales rights for all submissions, for "every part" (this means even the music in the clips!), without any royalties to the creator ever.

this means theoretically you could have sold BMW any VJbook submission for the avience project, without giving a share to the creator. i do not say you did this, but it would have been possible according to the submission rules. do you understand that this causes some people to be a little suspicious?

you point out that the work on the book can not be financed by sales of the books, so this sounds like you are seriously considering to make some money from the sale of submissions in other contexts.

[mf]

i like hama's idea to have a new topic on the book. please feel free to move posts.

sorry, I have used up too much time to go into the book, we have been working a longtime on this and I don't want to talk about things too much
as I have little control about ....... Publishers control this book!!!! lets boycott them

mf, your points on the sales figures and all the work from you going into the book are right. i respect very much that you are willing to pull a project like this, and thank you for all the work you do on it for little or no money.

thank you, this is what makes me upset, D-Fuse work very hard [we are worried about the financial loss on this book]
we simply cannot afford to work for low fees ..anymore

but tom did not complain about that we will not get royalities from the book. he pointed out that dfuse and lumens get all sales rights for all submissions, for "every part" (this means even the music in the clips!), without any royalties to the creator ever.

tom emails too much, before doing the maths. He believes in polarized world of rich corporate and poor staving artists.
which shows he is either rich + stupid or just naive. There's a lot of trust fund artists out there
I agree with his politics, I just don't like his negatively.
I think there is a lot of bully experts on this forum. who think a few hundred emails cut it.
I constantly see new posters cut down in flames.
Has VJ forum become a to 'negative' space? Is this a new post?

In terms of the book.....
we can only spend VERY limited time on the book. we have to use this time wisely.
we could spend weeks viewing and discussing the material.
we can't do that. we have no allocation of time. It has been used up
imagine how long simply copying 150+ dvds to the hard disks is going to take!!!!!!!!

Tom .....lesson to learn...... 'seize' opportunity, not 'strange' it.
Tom if you want, we will put you in the book, regardless of the quality of your work.
you just need to fill in some forms, you can even write you own contract

this means theoretically you could have sold BMW any VJbook submission for the avience project, without giving a share to the creator. i do not say you did this, but it would have been possible according to the submission rules. do you understand that this causes some people to be a little suspicious?


Again, even if we did this, how much would be generated? not much.
the contract was a full on thing so that we could on + work fast and not get caught in to bearucracy.
chasing people, out of the 400 emails out we had 250+ confirmations, + 80 submissions, another 80 came externally

In terms of contracts, you should see major labels contracts, even if there is money generated you don't see it.
because its swallowed up by admin. on our book that admin money is our small fee

you point out that the work on the book can not be financed by sales of the books, so this sounds like you are seriously considering to make some money from the sale of submissions in other contexts.

BMW commissioned us for D-Fuse work, as very creative/open brief, . Only if we passed this off as our own work, we could have done this.
Why would we do that? we have our material to use.

I do understand peoples concerns, but we have more important worries about the book.
the whole thing is bridged between 3 publishers and 2 vjs teams. It''s really hard.

to be honest, it's only the fact that we have too much time on the book already, means we to have finish.



sorry no more mails
I leave this forum with a sampler page of the book

signing off
Mikef

[vjculture]

Lumens and D-Fuse certainly aren't lawyers but we do need to cover bases.
When working with so many variations of broadcast for publicity we have to cover all aspects of licensing.
Selling off the content as stock footage never crossed our minds but it is good that you bring it up.
Our intention for retaining rights is solely for promotion of the book.
We plan to promote the book via web, cable, live events and TV.
Without this contract we could be sued if we were to say...... Do a live set on the Late Night w/ David Letterman Show. Now that's a long shot but, TV execs, corporate sponsors and grant foundations will want to see that we have covered our bases while we are promoting your and our work.
As for the live events promotion side of things. We have not and WILL NOT use any artist?s content for our own purposes until the book is in promotional stages. Even then, it will be a VJ BOOK (Whatever the name of the book is) event, highlighting the artists in the book.
I know many artists have worked hard to submit a track for the DVD, we never asked anyone not to brand/watermark their track.
Lumens + D-Fuse respects every artists work and we have no intention of selling the footage as stock footage. As soon as the book releases I'm sure 5000 other VJ's are going to have this in their own library of content.
I admit that it is our fault letting anyone assume that there is a certain level of trust amongst us and our small community regarding the use of artist?s content for stock footage purposes. It?s our responsibility to reach out to the artists and let them know that any other agreements with the content will need to be renegotiated.
Currently we are in a holding pattern with our publishers. As soon as we have a green light we will be contacting all the artists that submitted.
BTW, no said there can't be two VJ books. If you don't like the way this one is being managed, please publish another one. Eventually someone has to release another book.

[syzygy]

(this should be moved if the book stuff is separated off)

A few points based on my experience of the publishing industry (I have worked as a Commissioning Editor and have written for books on a variety of programming topics)


* No one is likely to make a tonne of money on this VJ book - the market is just too small. 5000 would be pretty good sales for a niche book like this (books on major programming languages range between 10,000 - 50,000 sales with some outstanding books doing better)

* There are clear problems with the contract that submitters were required to sign and the fact that some submitters did not understand what they were signing.

* It looks to me like rights signed by submitters to DFuse will be passed to the publisher through the contract that DFuse has with them. That means that it's not DFuse that submitters need to trust, but the publisher, who may have different motives for involvement with the book.

* A good, fair contract is not just important if you think a book is going to make a lot of money. A good contract can prevent problems in the case of unexpected success or if someone sees an opportunity involving content that noone else had thought of.

* Signing a contract like this can actually cause problems when you want to do something else with the content (Hypothetical situation - a PR person hears an audio track on the DVD and decides they want to use it for an advert. They may not buy the track if the contract that was signed for the book makes it possible that the publisher could sell the track to another advertiser)

* Contracts should only sign over the rights that they need to sign over. If anyone ever tells you "We won't actually ever use this clause; its just there as a standard/to make things simple etc " then treat them with suspicion. Publishers should always be willing to make changes to clauses of a contract that you are not happy with, or explain why they can't.

* The only time I would sign a contract that grants rights like this one would be if I were receiving a lump sum amount for my work on the content. Otherwise I would expect some sort of provisions that limit the use of the content and possibly some provisions for royalties being paid in the unlikely event that pots of cash is made.


I don't think there is any malice on the part of DFuse etc here. It looks like the problems have come about because a contract usually used to sign content over to a publisher who is paying for the creation of content has been used to cover DFuse etc so that content from others can be used in the book. I do think that they need to listen to the concerns about the contract (as they already seem to be doing) and put a better agreement in place with submitters.


Dan.

[littlecatalyst]

Originally posted by mf
Fact is the average author earns ?12k a year and that includes Harry Potter !!!!!Also, I am not going to argue any figures, until we have true figures.

ok so i am confused.... is Harry Potter aware that someone named JK something has made a couple of hundred million dollars off his name? What kind of stuff does he write? Because if anyone tries to tell me that JKrowlings makes only ?12k a year, i think that was before she started writing, when she was an unemployed mom and writing books for her kids.... I really dont want to throw any gasoline on a fire here, just this one sentence has been bugging me for a while now.... these can not be the true figures for the Harry Potter empire. seriously, thats just making things up

[syzygy]

I think he meant "authors earn on average..." rather than "the average author earns"

I can believe that the average earnings <i>from writing</i> of all authors (i.e. total amount earned by all authors divided by the number of authors world-wide) might be somewhere around ?12,000 per year. There are a lot of authors who earn a lot less than ?12,000 per year from their writing (usually those for whom writing is a part time thing)

Sounds like a vague statistic to me though - are amateur and semi-pro authors included, or only those who make a living from writing? Does income from other jobs count?

Whatever the actual figures, it is a fact that most authors don't earn much money from their writing.

Dan.

[vjculture]

Thanks for your post Dan. Very insightful.
As the contract with the publishers has not been signed we can dictate how much access the publishers has to the content.
For those unfamiliar with the process. If we had to re-negoitate everytime the publisher wanted to create a little bulb about one artists in the book we would never get the book released.
If we limit the contract too much then we are stuck constantly asking for permission from everyone involved. At that point we would never get the book released.
D-Fuse and Lumes will be responsible for the majority of the publicity. Our contract with the artists will be different than the contract we have with the publisher.
To be fair, we created the contract to be understood in simple terms. (simple by legal standards).

[sleepytom]

simple terms - that give you pretty much unlimited rights to use and resell any part of any submission!

contracts don't have to be all encompassing - it would be perfectly reasonable to include a line in the contract saying something like "contributors agree that any part of there submission may be used in any media for the sole purpose of publicising the dfuse/lumens book" - this would give you the necessary rights to make adverts and the like without people being concerned about non book related use of the material.

i simply don't understand why you have a contract that gives you unlimited rights to any submission and when everyone involved in the project keeps saying that they are going to loose money on it i get very worried. any business adviser will instantly tell you to resell some of the content that you have received to cover the losses of the book.

but the vjs who have submitted stuff are supposed to trust you that you don't intend to sell any of there content - even though you have a written contract that gives you the legal right to sell it as and when you choose.

to me the point of a contract is that it is draw up between two parties so that they do not have to depend on trusting one another - if we are going to be working on trust then what is the point of a contract?

with increasing demand for VJ style content for adverts and the like a large and varied digital content library becomes a very valuable thing (look at the price of stock footage) - in this climate i would be very wary of signing contracts that give others the right to sell your work.

[littlecatalyst]

this is pretty neat-- i am wondering about this: aside from the standard copyright laws, and the creative commons, are there ther agreemenst somewhere in between?

from what i have read, it does seem a little over the top to grant away all rights to some work just to get into a book (or just to submit?), and the obvious answer is sitting down with the lawyer who wrote it and DICTATING TO HIM/HER what you want. The lawyers in my experiences will always go 101% to the extreem to both give their clients rights (that they may not even want) as well as to protect their client from any and all possible things that may happen one day ((you gotta love a creature that is always looking for the worst case scenarios-- they're just so.... positive!)) so the only way around this is being a bigger obstinate force and insisting that they write up what you want....

if you want to acquire as much VJ work aspossible for a library then stick to business as usual, but if you don't want to step on any toes all you have to do is s-p-e-l-l i-t o-u-t to the lawyers, and they will do what you want (they are only after you paying them, after all). What i am more isntersedted in is the partial rights... kinda like creative commons....

like if a dvd company came out with a bunch of VJ discs, and you wanted to be on their lable... what type of rights would you want a) to keep b) to give the lable and c) the viewer?

so in one case (c) would you allow for the performance in non-theatrical venues in part, but not in whole? would you allow the dvd lable exclusive rights to the footage for sale on disc? what about broadcasting? what kind of rights would you want to allow there?

...and ideally would you be happy with an olnline submission form wherein you check off the types of rights you would like to grant (both to the lable/distributor but also to teh person buying the disc)? That way if some dont want to grant a lot of rights they wont, and if someone wantd their stuff to be placed into a library (assuming that there is additional paperwork so that they actually get paid if someone selectws their stuff from the library) then both could be served....

ultimately it requires foresight, thats all, (and a lawyer who wont run the meter while trying to disuade you) but at this point i think its probably more important for people to express what rights they want to relinquish and which they want to safeguard... once this dialogue opens up a little more lables and companies making book/dvds will no longer have to get caught up in mudslinging.... once there are standards we will have a good footing for getting over this and just back to work....

and vjCulture-- if you're in the Bay, yo uare the luckiest of all as they have that weekly free lawyers for the arts things, and you get soem of the best lawyers in the states working for you for free! they will for sure be down with creating liscencing that makes everyone happy

[holly]

Lil-Cat, I'm going to assume you are asking for general knowledge for anyone who may in the future want to participate in a distributed work. I didn't participate in the vj book, but have and will contributed to future group projects, plus we created the EyeWash DVD on pretty much an experimental basis. The artists contributed in good faith, but we were dealing with only 7 or 8 people.

Would you mind copy/pasting these questions into a new thread so we can continue with these ideas without derailing the Book topic?
Thanks.

[devonmiles]

I would recommend everyone willing to publish a book, dvd pr what matter else, or to contribute to it, to become member of his countries apropriate national artists association. for a small monthly fee ( depending on your income) you get regular information about copyright issues, you can obtain sample contracts for various purposes and contact their law counselor at no cost (okay, the phone charges) and that is - speaking for germany- an excellent informed well trained and skilled former 68ties mate who always waits for an oportunity to kick some major label/publisher in the ass.

elektroschroeder
_______________________
if the kids like it loud why dont they go working in a car factory?

[vjnixmix]

:grrr:

I am clear as to the discussion taking place wanting to understand contracts and such. Which is great (of course as long as you are all civilized, ahem) BUT my big question here is what on earth does this have to do with AVIT North America and one of our sponsors - Red Bull??? Since when do we set out to hurt those that are trying to better the overall community by throwing around accusations???

A just explanation is in due order, and as I see it... an edit to your post to reflect the fact that we are not all under the order of G.W. Bush! The first thread on this post - while difficult to understand because it has been pasted from somewhere else is extremely offensive!

Red Bull is no where near "corporate" as far as their contribution to AVIT. They are helping us with printing and other logistical costs that come when throwing an event. not throwing lump sums of money at us! And we can't get art funding like you guys can in the UK.

A lot of people put effort and time into AVIT and it remains open to the community - so please with all decency have some respect!

:grrr:

[Rovastar]

vjnixmix,

This thread was a split from the AVIENCE/BMW thread here:

http://www.vjforums.com/showthread.php?&threadid=6698

SAdly some of the previous thread found it's way in there.

Where DFuse raised the simple question:

WHat difference is the between me using BMW as 'sponsership' and AVIT using RedBull?

To be honest I find it a reasonable question and one which never received a response and was repeated again and then the thread was split and now that post was first in this thread.

I conversation was heated and a little offtopic at times.

I hope that explains a bit more.

But good news as 'Red Bull' didn't appear on tom's homepage of www.corpwatch.org it appears all ok to use them. :)

On a lighter note I will end with this thought.

Originally posted by mf

I am also interested in this job you turned down.
one years salary you say...the fact is 50%+ people on planet live on less than 50 cents a day, so thats not much to brag about.


Oh FFS now 50% of the population are bottomfeeding VJ's now. God I hate them they are everywhere. ;):P

[syzygy]

Sorry about the confusion between the two threads - it's really hard to split threads where two issues are intermigled, but several people asked for the thead to be split so I did my best with it.

As for why the question wasn't answered, I think that most people who had problems with the avience site were not complaining about the fact it has a corporate sponsor, but rather about the specific marketing approach that BMW used in that case. Since AVIT has shown no signs of using similar techniques, its a different situation.

Furthe discussion of the avience site should take place back at the original thread (http://www.vjforums.com/showthread.php?&threadid=6698)

Dan.

[holly]

Originally posted by vjnixmix
:grrr:
Red Bull is no where near "corporate" as far as their contribution to AVIT. They are helping us with printing and other logistical costs that come when throwing an event. not throwing lump sums of money at us! And we can't get art funding like you guys can in the UK.
:grrr:
Thank you Nix. In the US the government is officially NOT funding arts after a conservative Christian backlash in the early 90's over supposedly "gay" art. What they do instead is give tax breaks to profit corporations for sponsoring arts and community projects, but even that tax break is minimal -- it's not like corporations are getting some great kickback. It's rare that companies take any interest in their communities, but obviously the ones who make a product (RedBull=a drink served in bars and clubs) that can be associated with a live event, might be persuaded to sponsor some printing and promotional items in exchange for their logo. They generally justify it by channeling any sponsorship through their advertising budget. Even FMT as an arts not-for-profit we are expected to approach companies for sponsorship and fundraising, NOT the US govt.

The idea that this is selling out to the corporate beast is like Americans claiming that Avit/UK is selling out with funding from the UK government which promotes and funds war for oil. The profits from this war are funding artists in the UK! The big difference is while you get thousands in cash, americans get flyers and some free product to give away.

I for one, would be thrilled to give away a BMW at the next EyeWash.

[syzygy]

hang on, who was accusing AVIT NA of anything like a sell-out regarding Redbull?

If anyone was, I don't think it was anyone involved in AVIT UK, so for all we know, they might see government funding as selling out... I'm not sure how the comparison to the funding of AVIT UK is relevent...

Giving away a BMW is one thing, but how would you feel about all of the artists performing at the next Eyewash having to base their sets around advertising footage of a BMW?

Argghhh, the whole thread splitting thing has gone horrobly wrong!

Dan.

[vjnixmix]

The reason this came up is because of the first post on the thread. Which mentions boycotting AVIT and relates us to the war in Iraq.

Yes I agree this thread is getting silly.

[sleepytom]

this thread is totally confused and pointless

I'll try and sum up my feelings on what has been said.

on the AVIT funding v's sponsorship issue i feel that there is somewhat of a misconception of how UK arts funding is sourced - most of it is from the national lottery (not from government taxes - all though the lottery is referred to as "a tax on the daft" it is not a government run taxation scheme) - the lottery is run by a private company which is legally required to redistribute 28% of each ticket sale to "good causes" - the good causes are "arts", "sports", "charities", "heritage", "millennium projects" and "health, education and environment" - the arts section is distributed by the arts council who are the people who provided AVITuk with funding for the 2003 event.

avit UK also received direct commercial sponsorship from a number of corporations - some of this was "in kind" and some of this was direct cash input.

as to wether or not to accept sponsorship from an individual company this is a matter for the organisers to discuss - avit UK has drawn up an ethical policy which defines activities which avit UK does not want to be associated with - when considering a companies offer of sponsorship we will look at there activities and see how they fit with the ethical policy

I'm impressed if you have managed to get actual cash out of redbull - at events I've been involved in that were sponsored by redbull the most we've ever managed to get is a few crates of there hideous drink!

all in all my feelings on commercial sponsorship remain the same - research the companies first and be happy with the activities you are promoting - and make sure you are await of the cost of advertising space in clubs - screen time should come at a premium

[vjculture]

Oh, of all the companies to point a finger at.... Red Bull doesn't ask for screen time and they don't put up any banners.
They are the easiest company to deal with regarding sponsorship.
Just so everyone knows, none of the sponsors of AVIT NA are getting screen time during the evening events.
It was made clear to all of them that branding during the mix sets would do more damage than good. All of the sponsors respect our conditions and haven't asked for anything more.
If anyone felt they didn't get a reply regarding sponsorship at AVIT, it because we are too busy trying to put a festival together.
It's a 10 hour a day job everyday for the past few months.:zzz:
So if you have anymore questions regarding this thread, it will probably be another week before I can come back

[sleepytom]

i don't think anyone has said that redbull are a bad company to have as sponsers of avit
?
its good that you have found companys that your happy to work with who are supporting avit and the vj scene

[genoflex]

As I submitted my work t VJ book, I was stunned by the liberty let by the license we had to sign with Dfuse/Lumens and their subcontractor ....
So ... I sent my work but not the signed licence.
In fact I feared it was against the usages and boundings we have in Belgium with our author associations.
and I was right ! when I showed the licence to the lawer of the association, he reacted quite clear : in the measure that the contractor use the material in other fields than thoses controled by the association, the artist is free to negotiate what he want ..... But this is not the case here as the contractors (Dfuse/Lumens) want to use it in all the fields of the universe .....
included broadcasting and reproducing it on CD/DVD or whatever for their own purpose ....

Sorry but it's not my fault, I cannot sign your agreement .....

but on another way, i think there is solutions for the specific purpose of this project VJbook .... which is promotion of the vjs and scene, and which (seems) not to be commercially intended.

What I think of is a Attribution-NoDerivs-NonCommercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd-nc/1.0/)

with this (that I still have to discuss with my athor association lawyer) I think that the editors have all they need to publish and promote (concidering DFuse/Lumens get monney for their work as technical poeple, and no other extra supper fee that would come from big unexpected sells)
For all other usage, including remix the content on tv, you'll have to pay (or the tv will have to pay) things throegh either the publishing company or the author association network.

I will continue this negotiation with both party (DFuse/Lumens and my author association) on private basis by personal mail, but I wanted to add my cents to this conversation wich seems to concern all of us for the future of the common usage in the VJ scene and more (all digital content is concerned by this problem, we should learn from the other field too!!)

Genoflex

[spark]

yup the creative commons organisation is _a _good _thing.

for the record, all the avit material's we've produced are under the 'Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike License'; we chose this as it basically puts the fruits of everyone's effort out there for people to use, makes sure people get credited, and stops them being ripped off for commercial ends.

http://www.avit.info/avit-files.shtml
...its a work in progress as the scene develops and we get time to document all that we do as avit.

toby

[mf]

http://www.vjforums.com/newreply.php?action=newreply&threadid=6792#

As Grant says we just needed to cover our backs

EVEN if people wanted to buy material, unless the material was exclusive they won't be interested

The contract doesn't acutely say exclusive?

Toby, you signed it, you never mentioned it.
if somebody had pointed it out early we could have resolved it !
it's too late, Everybody who has submitted has sign the forms , so what's the issue?
everybody involved is ok

we are not distributors, we do not distribute any of our dvds

selling to material to moving image libraries does not make much money,
sure it generates some money ....we have done 2, But we still haven't paid 10% of the advance.
stills make more money

I think people should us a break,
All we really want to is produce a good book.

I have accepted that people will dislike the book, based on no details or info.
on what grounds? a contract
[I hope they read software contracts in such detail]

I feel very negative about these emails in vj community
2 years we have been trying to convince publishers to produce this book
I am wondering... why bother.

I yes, I remember because we going to be RICH...bollocks

don't know what else to say
apart from sorry about my deslexia, typing is hard

mikef

[asterix]

- Fuck it - I think the books a positive step for the community. I wouldn't expect a fully legally airtight contract from these guys - and if there was one I'd be fukn suss as to how they could afford a lawyer to write one up!

- I stilll thought the BMW site was a bit cheeky!

- Im Looking forward to a copy of the book and the dvd.





PS I don't see the difference between Red Bull and BMW sponsorship. They both do it for a reason - and we all know what it is. So what - we all get to enjoy avit and other wonderful things. Not much we can do about the corporate presence in our lives...

[spark]

yup i signed it as myself, i view the book as a good thing and an important step for the vj community. i'm also not too fussed about the materials i submitted, and know they certainly aren't exclusive to the book. the chance of someone making money out of them are slim, and the promo benefits potentially great. but that's specific to me and my stage in my work.

i think this book/thread has provided a great insight into a few things...

-- the role of organisations such as avit - now i admit i'm not to clued up on the legalese of such things. but within the wider group of people who i am involved with in taking this scene forward, such as avit, there are, and we have shared things we care about. so when i mentioned the vj book and the docs got passed around, someone piped up about the license terms. so i phoned some commercially focused people who have a lot more to lose than i who also submitted, and they said they just added a few words to the middle to limit the use of the materials to promotion of the book alone. i thought a) simple, and b) its great to have these networks.

-- its such a shame things don't pan out as they could sometimes. in my opinion, there was zero malice/exploitation-motive involved in the license terms, and its been a positive education all round. so if people haven't submitted because of them, when they could have been changed early on, thats a real shame. and a part of that goes to me, as i hadn't got back to d-fuse with the avit licensing issues as the avit article is waiting for avit sf to finish so grant has got the time again. but, others did modify their terms to d-fuse's knowledge (to my knowledge), so i'm not going to loose any sleep over that. and the general tone of this thread hasn't been wonderful, so what can you do. it would be so much easier if we could meet over a beer...

toby

[akira_k]

I don't know if I said my words here but if not, I will now.

I read the agreement and I thought "fuck, this is one heavy thing!". Read it 2 or 3 times. Regardless I signed it. I sent stuff and all. Who would want to buy a picture of us? unless we become famous :D

I decided I wouldn't send any loops because of the agreement, so I didn't. That was the most "potentially dangerous" thing you could of send. I thought thsi would do no harm at all to us, more of a benefit by appearing in such a great book!

Maybe I could have changed the terms a bit but I'm a fucktard regarding most legal stuff, I really need to learn and the stuff I have read in this thred has been useful (the creative commons link is ACE, thanks for pasting it here), so for the next-ish I'll be more prepared ;)

I hope the book gets finished soon and we can nab a copy!

[mondo]

have to agree here with spark's point

knowing dfuse well, i know that there was never any greed nor malice intended

the legalise certainly didnt get fully checked by dfuse nor those of us who submitted.....a serious lesson to be learnt here for all of us progressing up the professional ladder

why did some of us submit knowing the terms were spurious....?

well, i knew that the stuff i was submitting wouldn't necessarily....
see the light of day beyond closet vjs _ there is obviously no publishing budget -
- BUT if it did, i made sure my clips were medium res DRAFTS...which is what we always release for teh sake of viewing only.

should dfuse (or any other client) require final full res clips - THEN - the final contractual negotiations should be entered into.

this is standard practice in commercial exhibition, interiors, publishing & graphics companies.

now ....going off topic again....heh heh heh
***********************************************
<devil's advocates hat on>....my other argument is more anarchic and questions the whole copyright/copyleft issue

Q? in these hypermedia times where assimilation, and re-assimilation of footage and imagery happens at a faster and faster pace - who REALLY has rights to anything anymore - and who gives a damn?

take all imagery (especially commercial), sample it and chuck it back....sod the copyright, sign anything off, who cares.....who out there has the time and money to bother suing......no one has yet in our field that i know of, and i welcome the battle......

let the disorder and chaos of copyright reign, fuel it by subverting the whole notion of artistic $$$ grabbing egos.....ideas come from many places, nothing is original....sod it ....ill even sample dfuse's dvd at my next gig...so what... everyone else does
************************************************

i'll get my coat and start taking the codeine again;)

[MoRpH]

D'oh seems like I totally missed this entirely... is this book thing finalized or is it still possible to get in? Is it a geographical thing or open to ppl all over the world? Link or details of the producers as I am interested in being in it.