Monday, 17 October 2005
The New York Times has reported on the rising cost of licensing intellectual property, noting that the asking price for licensing six seconds of a popular telephone ringtone for use in a documentary film was US$10,000 (eventually negotiated down to US$2,500). Overall, the documentary cost approximately US$500,000 to make, of which about US$170,000 were music licensing costs.
I’m all for compensating artists for using their works. But it’s clear that making low-budget films (particularly documentaries) is not necessarily so low-budget after all, particularly if the creators would like to make use, however fleeting, of clips of music, photographs, or other works protected by copyright.
This makes me think, should there be a sliding scale for licensing fees? Perhaps one based on the intended use of the licensed material, or on the profits received? Such a system might not be such a good deal for the rights holder. However, assuming that the high cost of IP has lead to people creating copyright works that infringe other works, it would be interesting to find out if cheaper licensing fees in certain situations might increase compliance with IP laws.
Bookmark or share this story:
Del.icio.us | 
Digg | 
Reddit | 
ma.gnolia.com | 
Newsvine | 
furl |
Technorati | 
IceRocket | 
PubSub | 
Google | 
Yahoo
6 Responses to “The rising cost of IP”
Leave a Reply
Do not post material that is defamatory or obscene, that infringes any third party's copyrights, trademarks or other proprietary rights, or that violates any other right of any other person.
We reserve the right to remove or edit any comment for any reason.
Note: Posting more than two links in a comment may cause it not to appear because it will be submitted for moderation. Also, links in comments will not be counted by Google, so spamming is pointless.
Posts
Comments
Posts
October 17th, 2005 at 5:41 pm
Interesting story. See also my old comments on the film Tarnation, and the cost of copyright clearances in that case (there’s a link in that post to the Jaszi report mentioned by the New York Times). I’ve also written a story for the Arts Law Centre newsletter, ‘Art + Law’, but I don’t know whether the paper version is out yet – the article is certainly not online.
October 18th, 2005 at 12:06 am
Actually, usually there is a sliding scale…
There are two types of rights involved in a film
– the reproduction /synchronisation right (which the producer of the film gets from the music publisher for the music and the record company for the recording)
– the public performance right (which the cinema or television station gets from the performing right societies – APRA for the music, PPCA for the recording)
The reproduction / synchonisation rights usually has a sliding scale depending on
– whether it is featured music or background music
– how long the clip is
– whether it is a documentary, or a short, or a low budget feature, or a mega million blockbuster.
In particular, the synch fees range from 0 (on the basis that the record label knows they will get half the performing right royalties from APRA /PPCA, and because they want exposure for their song or artist) to mega bucks.
At least in Australia, there are people who specialise in negotiating these licences, for example Christine Woodruff.
October 18th, 2005 at 6:31 am
Yes, as I understand it sliding scales are normal. The issues that tend to hit in these stories (like this one on Mad Hot Ballroom are threefold though:
1. Even the documentary rates can be very high;
2. Some songs cannot be cleared for love or money; and
3. Clearances required (for insurance reasons, etc) even when the use is clearly ‘fair’ (like the clearance required in Mad Hot Ballroom when some kid got on stage and said ‘Everybody Dance Now’).
October 18th, 2005 at 8:38 pm
Copyright is not just the right to get money.
Copyright is also the power to say no, the spirit of personality, droit d’auteur and moral rights and all that.
If you organise it before the film is released, particularly if you get someone who knows what they are doing to organise it before the film is released, the synch rights in Australia are often zero.
If you take the chance and get sued, it won’t be zero.
October 19th, 2005 at 9:18 am
Point taken. But the nature of copyright, particularly with respect to moral rights, etc, is not the same in the US as in Australia. And neither is the licensing situation (although I am not an expert here, and welcome comments from anyone who is).
I did not mean to suggest that the solution to the issues raised by the NYTimes article are simple. The issues are complicated, and solving them requires a re-examination of what copyright is intended to achieve in the first place.
October 19th, 2005 at 6:23 pm
There may be an issue in the US.
But in Australia, there is less of an issue.
And Australians making documentaries and making low budget films would be dealing with the Australian office of the record labels, even if the music is US music.
And Australians making documentaries and making low budget films are usually charged by the Australian office of the record label zero to nominal synch fees.