in the light of recent events, what's the consensus on this?

         

Hmmmmm good question. The band funded the first video; the directors wouldn't have had this piece for their reel without them. Postal Service chose these guys from a pool of several ideas, in effect co-creating it, financially at least.

If I were Ben, I'd be more pissed at the agency than the directors. Still - I'm sure they're selling a lot of albums this week as tons of people see their video. (I had never seen it when it came out)

I completely understand why the directors would go ahead and remake their video for Apple. Having a spot get this much buzz is so much more valuable than staying cool w/ any band.

         

what's the common policy on this then? i mean, the legal policy? being a designer, i know that you would usually transfer some of the rights to your work (yet not all) to the client, but you should do so explicitly.

PS that s probably why (in this case) they simply had to re-shoot the scenes, instead of using the same footage, in order not to violate their contract with postal service/sub pop. right?

         

"The band funded the first video" - the band, or the label? is it all just grey/slippery terrain, or are there rules, explicit or not?

         

It seems that the default agreement between label and director is that once money has passed hands then the image copyright belongs to the label. After all, they paid for the job. But this got me thinking, and it may be the case with the Postal Service/Apple video that the Director kept the image copyright and so was able to re-shoot the same idea for a different project. Or there may have been something else…..

However, the concept of image copyright is something that directors (even new ones) are going to have to take a little more seriously as labels now have another revenue stream open to them in the form of downloadable videos (this was another antville topic). Which means the ‘standard director’s agreement’ will have to be re-written to accommodate royalties from video downloads.

         

there is such a thing as a "standard director's agreement"? u.k. or u.s.? who signs what to whom? is there always some form of explicit agreement?

         

this is really something which needs to be cleared up. in the case of music, if a musician writes and records a piece, and then say the recorded piece (master) and the written music (publishing) are both owned by other people, the musician still remains the author and still gets some type of royalties if the piece is broadcast in a public domain.

in my opinion the same should apply to music videos, i think there is something similar in photography as in music with maintaining authorship.

         

well, this generally applies in all areas recognised as "art": music, photography, books, movies/theatre. music videos (and also commercials) do not qualify, or that seems to be the general leaning. (this will vary from country to country, and things have changed over time...). an italian example: commercials used to be done on the side by movie directors - by transferred logic, directors were therefore attributed creative/authorial rights, and were paid their share for repeats (much like actors are still paid nowadays.) then everyone+dog started directing commercials, the director's association/union began to flounder, and now such rights are no longer attributed (and thus they receive no payment for repeats).

         

Photographers usually keep copyright of their work and licence its usage. Increasingly, due to digital distribution, companies are demanding 'buyouts' being as they are finding it difficult to control how a piece of work is distributed and used in the digital domain.

For music video, generally speaking, a director will be forced to sign a buyout, relinquishing all creative, intellectual and moral rights to his/her work.

Moral rights are the director's right to specify how his or her work is used. For example, the right to stop their work being re-edited, changing it's content or message. Moral rights exist only in Europe(as part of the human rights legislation). In reality it's often impossible to retain your moral rights.

Copyright / usage rights are an altogether different matter. Usually all usage rights are signed over to the label, universally and in perpetuity. The justification for this is that music videos are a promotional format for the music.

However, the advent of paid for video downloads on iTunes etc changes all that. Directors are auteurs, conceiving of and creating the video part of a music video. As such, if that work is being sold, then they should be paid publishing and reproduction royalties, like a musician.

Whether this will happen is another matter, since I suspect labels will be keen to maintain the status quo (not Status Quo the band ;) ) and protect a future revenue stream.

However, many labels now apparently have exclusivity deals with download outlets like iTunes - and unsanctioned internet distribution of music videos is under threat as piracy.

This would be fine and understandable if film-makers were receiving royalties, but they're not.

The royalty issue being sorted out could catalyse what has been a bit of a renaissance in music video lately, with production outfits much more likely to work speculatively. On the other hand, a clampdown could kill it off permanently.

It would be a shame (not least for sites like videos.antville) if this channel of distribution were shut down.

(Excuse the long post)

         

on the basis of this, it would seem sub pop records have an serious bone to pick with tbwa/chiat/day&apple (since it seems they were unaware of the ad being made). is the fact that the video is now being promoted on the iTMS a sign of a reparatory deal that's been struck by apple&sub pop? what leverage does gibbard really have in this (other than an interest to not be seen siding with the moneymongers)? it's be nice if someone round here had some inside dope (shurely some of you are in the know...) - but please also keep opinions rolling...

         

also: how does the fact that (apparently) lots of bands foot the bill for their videos directly factor into the ownership equation? would their contract usually assign the rights to the label regardless?

         

who is saying the band funded the video? my understanding from josh and xander themselves speaking at the mvpa awards benefit i attended in 04 was that they had in fact put their own money into shooting this. (and if you want to know how they shot in a chip plant with almost no budget, the answer is they did it in Mexico) directors do this all the time to build reels. i myself did subpop videos for Frausdots and Holopaw for free to get my work out there.