|
VOICES
OF EXPERIENCE The
team from Docs in Progress brings you candid interviews with experienced
film and video professionals who offer their personal perspectives and
advice on the craft and major issues of documentary.
Summer
2008: Top
Ten Online Resources for Doc Filmmakers
Spring 2008: Morrie
Warshawski, Robert Bahar, Almudena Carracedo, and Christopher Wong on
Fundraising Houseparties
Winter 2008: Joy
Butler, Lawyer
Fall 2007:
John Keltonic, Composer
Summer 2007:
Trinh Duong, Funder
Spring 2007:
Fernanda Rossi, Trailer Expert
Winter
2007:
Thom Powers, Festival Programmer
Fall
2006:
Kurt Engfehr, Editor
Top
Ten Online Resources for Doc Filmmakers
(Summer 2008)
While there
are plenty of other websites and blogs out there which have resources
for independent documentary filmmakers, there are a few we've come
across in the past year which we think are especially useful. They are
listed in no particular order.
(1)
How to Increase Your Chances of Getting a Grant?
From Wildsound’s website. While
this advice is fairly generic and you should always look at the specific
requirements for any grant, this is probably one of the most succinct
descriptions of the elements which belong in most grant proposals.
(2)
ITVS: Meet the Execs
The D-Word has been putting together useful online forums on various
topics of interest to doc-makers for years. One of the most beneficial
in recent months was this Q&A with four leading executives from the
Independent Television Service (ITVS) who explain the ins and outs of
applying for funding from ITVS. Note: You will need to sign-up
for D-Word to see this forum, but it is free.
(3) Ask the
Documentary Doctor
You remember Fernanda Rossi’s column from the print version of The
Independent. She always seemed to know exactly what challenge you
were having with your film at just the right moment. Her sage advice can
continue to be found online through Documentary
Educational Resources and the new online version of The
Independent.
(4)
The Ten Rules of Personal Documentary Filmmaking
We’ve screened and
worked with so many films which have a personal element and found that
these can be some of the most challenging to make - either because the
filmmaker is ambivalent about putting himself/herself in front of the
camera or goes to the other extreme and dominates the film at the
expense of the greater story. There are a handful of filmmakers who have
made a successful career out of telling personal stories and Doug Block
(51 Birch Street and Home Page) is one of them.
(5) and (6) Fair
Use Resources
Rights clearances and costs can often be the biggest nightmare for doc
filmmakers, but perhaps nothing is more confusing than the issue of fair
use. When and how can it be used? The Center for Social Media at
American University is perhaps best known for their Statement of Best
Practices in Fair Use, but their website
has many more resources and examples which help define what can be
considered Fair Use. And
for filmmakers considering taking the Fair Use route, Stanford
University’s Law School has launched a Documentary
Film Program, providing filmmakers with information about fair use,
access to insurance for liability arising out of copyright litigation,
and access to lawyers who will defend copyright claims pro bono or at
reduced rates.
(7)
Archive.org
A wealth of moving images are available for download, the majority of
which are free and have unrestricted access. Includes the
Prelinger Archives of more than 60,000 ephemeral films, many of which
are in the public domain.
(8)
25 Best Festivals for Documentary Films
AJ Schnack’s All These Wonderful Things is one of about half a
dozen documentary blogs out there. We picked this entry from
earlier this year because knowing which festivals are considered the
A-list for documentaries is essential to helping to map out a festival
strategy.
(9)
True Fans and True Films
Kevin Kelly's must-read for those who want to go the self-distribution
route or even those who plan to combine a more traditional path with
grassroots outreach. An excellent primer on finding your audience.
(10)
Peter Broderick’s Distribution Bulletins
And in the same vein, Peter Broderick has some of the best advice out
there for those who are navigating the wilds of distribution. While
others are often pessimistic about the future of documentary as being a
viable career for true independents, Broderick’s wealth of knowledge
about independent success stories offers a bit of hope.
Know of other online resources you've found useful to making your
film? Post
them on our blog.
Party
Like a Doc Star: Expert Advice on Houseparties and Other Private
Fundraisers
(Interview by Erica Ginsberg, Spring 2008)
Beyond
helping with story structure, Docs In Progress is committed to helping
documentary filmmakers with what it takes to get to the point of making
their films: namely money. For
independent documentarians who would rather spend energy on the creative
process of making the film, it is the funding (or lack thereof) which
often dictates how far the film can go.
While previous articles have focused on traditional methods of
fundraising such as grants or novel ways of finding funding online, this
time we are going to focus on finding private donations through
fundraising parties. A party
may look like a fun way to raise much-needed dough, but they are a lot
of work. Yet, as we found
out, they can have pay-offs far beyond the money raised to get to the
next step of the film. 
We recently
talked to fundraising expert Morrie
Warshawski,
whose must-have book The
Fundraising Houseparty: How to
Party With a Purpose and Raise Money for Your Cause,
just came
out in its second edition and includes new sample
invitations, new tips on making use of the Internet for the party, and
brainstorming worksheet to help filmmakers identify potential new
partners and hosts. Warshawski
is also the author of Shaking
The Money Tree: How To Get Grants And Donations For Film And Video- 2nd
Edition and is a regular on the speaking circuit about
fundraising and career issues for independent filmmakers.
 We
also spoke with filmmakers Almudena
Carracedo and Robert Bahar who successfully raised funds through
parties for their 2007 film, Made
in L.A. about the labor struggles of immigrant garment
workers in
Los Angeles
.
The film
screened on the PBS series
POV and is continuing to play
festival and community screenings around the world.
 Also
providing insights fresh from the experience of his first fundraising
houseparty was first-time producer/director Christopher
Wong. He is in the process of raising funds for his film Whatever
It Takes about a year in the life of an urban high school
whose staff is determined to protect their kids from falling through the
cracks.
Q: At what point in
the process of making a film should one consider holding fundraising
parties? Do you need to already have a trailer? A fiscal
sponsor? Money raised from other sources?
Morrie Warshawski: I would
consider it as soon as I have an idea for a film.
You can throw a party at any point along the process from idea,
through production, post production, and even during the distribution
phase.
Almudena
Carracedo: You almost definitely need a respected fiscal sponsor.
People prefer to be able to make tax-deductible donations, and they will
feel more secure donating to a fiscal sponsor that guarantees that
the funds will be spent in the project in a professional manner.
We were honored to be able to work with Women
Make Movies on Made in
L.A.
Morrie Warshawski: You
don’t absolutely need to have a trailer, but these parties work much
better if you can show a strong, engaging trailer that is a portion of
the film you plan to make.
Robert
Bahar: I suppose some filmmakers might be able to hold an event
without a trailer, but we always felt that a trailer was essential. Screening
and discussing the trailer gives the event a focal point; it helps the audience
connect emotionally to the film, and it demonstrates that you really are
doing what you say you are doing.
Morrie
Warshawski: If you’re throwing the party early in your process,
you might be trying to raise enough funds to shoot your trailer.
In this case, you’ll need to be creative and present something
else – slides, clips from previous work, have subjects of the film
come in to give personal testimonials, do a script reading.
Almudena
Carracedo: Even though it always helps to have previously raised
some funds, it is probably not a necessity in a fundraiser. People are
going to support you because they believe in your cause, that you're
making something valuable, and that you have the capacity to finish it.
The more you can use the event to make the case that "this film
needs to be made" and "this film is important, urgent, and
new" the more persuasive you'll be.
Morrie
Warshawski: It always helps to be able to say that other people have
already given you some support, but this is not a requirement.
Remember that some people want to be known as the risk-takers who
jumped on the wagon first. But
it does help a party if you can have someone commit to matching gifts
that night.
Q:
How would you compare fundraising through parties to fundraising through
grants? Are the potential rewards worth the effort?
Morrie
Warshawski: Oh my – this is a big question!
There is a world of difference between these two avenues of
fundraising – in fact, they are two opposite ends of the fundraising
spectrum. Fundraising
through grants involves an intensive period of research, followed by
making contact with a funder, then the creation of an extensive written
proposal that might be supplemented with ancillary materials.
The whole process of researching, applying for and then hearing
about a grant can take many months.
And, because the competition for grant dollars is so intense, the
odds are stacked against you, so you receive many more rejections than
awards. When you do get a
grant, however, you’re likely to land something in the mid to high 5
figure range of support.
Robert
Bahar: In comparison to applying for a comparably sized grant, in
this case YOU have control of how much money you'll raise, and there is
virtually zero chance that you'll end up empty handed. With a grant, the
odds are probably 80 or 90% that you'll be rejected. Of course sometimes
small grants open doors to bigger grants from the same funder, and
there's no one right choice. Most projects will use a number of
fundraising methods across their lifespan.
Christopher
Wong: Raising money through a houseparty is such a different feel
from going through a foundation or a film organization. The level
of personal interaction is so much more crucial with a houseparty.
In addition, the appeal one makes is much more raw, and less reasoned
than with a written proposal. The other major difference is that
one gets the money immediately at a fundraiser, instead of having to go
through 4-6 months of deliberation.
Morrie
Warshawski: With a houseparty everything is much faster.
You only need about six weeks lead time.
It’s much more personal. You
work with a group of people. There
is little research involved. You
don’t have to write a proposal. And,
if you do it right, you can pretty much guarantee you will get money
that night, though the amounts will be more modest, generally in the
high 4 or low 5 figure range.
Whether the rewards are worth the effort depends very much on the
nature of the project, how fast and how much money is needed, and the
personality of the filmmaker.
Q: So take me a
little bit through the process. Let’s
say I wanted to have a fundraising party for my film.
Should I put together a big public soiree or can I really raise
funds with just a small home-based event?
Almudena
Carracedo: We had several
fundraisers. One was a concert. The other ones were houseparties. All of
our events brought in the same level of donors, but they were in
different communities, either geographically, or in different networks
around
Los Angeles
. I think you want to create an event where people feel that have been
invited to something special. Even if 100 people show up, you don't want
it to feel "public" per se. Rather, you want people to feel
that they received a special invitation and that the event is being
hosted by people that they respect in their community.
Morrie
Warshawski: I am a big fan of the smaller houseparty as opposed to
the large, public fundraising special event.
With a large special event, it is possible to make some money,
but it is highly likely that you might actually lose money in one of two
ways. One obvious way is
that the event actually costs you more than you paid for it.
But a more insidious and invisible way you lose money is that you
don’t get as much from each person as you could or should.
For instance, if you charge a $50 admission to a benefit
screening, the donor feels they’ve made their contribution and you
can’t ask them for more money that evening (unless you’re conducting
an auction where they feel they are “buying” something).
But if that same donor was worth and could afford a $500
donation, you just lost $450!
The beauty of the houseparty is that when people make a donation
it’s at the level they’re most comfortable with, and that’s
usually quite a bit more than the price of a special event admission
fee.
Q: Is it
typical to have only one party for a film or to hold several parties at
different stages of production or with different types of funders (such
as one for people who could afford to donate $50 or $100 separate from
one for people who could afford to donate in the four or five figures)?
Morrie
Warshawski: It is very unusual to hold only one party for a film.
Usually you are holding a number of parties, sometimes in a
number of different cities. Part
of the strategy for a houseparty is to keep the invitees homogeneous and
not heterogeneous – you want to invite donors of modest means to one
party, major donors to a separate party and not mix the two up.
This makes a big difference in how much you will ask for and get
at each event. Talk to the
host and set a goal that is reasonable – or a slight stretch – for
the worth of the people being invited and for the number you hope will
attend. This means your
realistic goal will be different for every party you throw.
It’s pretty common for modest parties to bring in $3,000 -
$7,000. I’ve received
notes from filmmakers in the past six months that said their parties
netted anywhere from $12,000 to $23,000 in one night.
I also know of parties that have brought in as much as $120,000
and as little as a few hundred dollars.
Christopher
Wong: I just had my first
fundraising party in New York and plan to have at least two other
fundraising parties in the near future – one in Los Angeles and one in
Boston.
Q: So what is a
realistic goal for most films to make from a fundraising party?
Robert
Bahar: A houseparty is worthwhile if you set a fundraising goal that
you are happy with, and if you really put in the forethought and effort
to achieve that goal. In our experience, successful events yielded at
least $8,000-10,000, given the audience that we were fundraising from.
It really depends on the community that you're reaching out to. Since Made
in L.A. is about immigrant labor issues in
Los Angeles
, it was natural for us to reach out to labor, social justice and
activist communities in
L.A.
And in reality, we were already working with those communities in the
making of the film so it wasn't hard to find them!
Christopher
Wong: I thought I would be able to raise $10,000 at the
New York
fundraiser. That night we only raised $4,000. But there were
some potential donors who couldn’t make it at the last minute.
I stayed in
New York
for a few additional days and met with some who had been invited, but
couldn’t make it that night.
Since these were people with whom I had a prior friendship or
acquaintance, I took advantage of the opportunity to invite them to
lunch or coffee. Because they had already received the invitation,
most people were open to just meeting one-on-one. I managed to
raise another $4,000-5,000 from these follow-up meetings.
Q:
You bring up an important point about people already receiving
the invitation, so there were no surprises that you would be asking them
to donate. But for the party
itself, what is the most diplomatic but direct way of conveying this in
a written invitation, so guests are not surprised when they are being
hit up for money?
Morrie
Warshawski: You have to make it very clear that people are going to
be asked for money at the houseparty.
This is very important. You
never ever want to blindside invitees who think they are coming to a
“party” and then find out they are being asked for money.
Your invitation will always include an RSVP card, and that card
allows people to make a donation even if they can’t come, so that is
signal enough that the event is about fundraising.
You could say things like “You are invited to a celebration and
fundraising event….” or “Please join us for a benefit for….”
I even saw an invite once that said “… and don’t forget to
bring your checkbook and/or credit card!”
My book has other examples.
Realize that
being upfront about the fundraising purpose of the party is going to
discourage lots of people from attending, which is why you must invite 3
or 4 times as many people as you would like to show up.
But, that is one of the wonderful “self correcting” aspects
of the houseparty. Many
people will say “no thanks,” but the rest that do show up know what
they are in for and come to the party ready to be asked and to make a
donation.
Almudena
Carracedo: It's very important that the invitation be clear that the
event is a fundraiser. We suggest including phrases like these in the
invitation:
You
are invited to a garden party to introduce you to the film...
All
proceeds will benefit the completion of this film.
Your
support is crucial to bring this story to light.
Suggested
donation: XX No one will be turned away for lack of funds!
Your
donation is tax deductible.
Christopher Wong: For my
fundraiser, I made a list of everyone whom I knew in the city.
Then I mentally calculated what each person could potentially give.
Next, I determined if the individuals would mesh well in a group setting
(or if some of the individuals would best be approached separately).
Once I had a good list, I sent an invitation to each guest, clearly
stating that this party was for fundraising purposes. The
invitation was sent one month in advance, with a reminder sent one week
previous.
Q: If going
with the model of having the party hosted at a home, how does a
filmmaker approach a potential host if it's not already someone with
whom you have an existing relationship?
Morrie
Warshawski: First, let me say that I would ALWAYS have the party at
someone’s home – never in any other venue.
The ideal Host is someone who already knows you and your project
and who has already made a donation, or will guarantee to make a
donation at the party. Never
work with a Host who will not make a cash donation.
Generally you can find new hosts for more parties every time you
throw a party. It’s very
difficult to “cold call” and nab a Host.
Better to work within the circle of people you know personally
and their connections, people who have already made a contribution, or
people/organizations that you are fairly certain will want to be
involved once you meet with them. I
would always make the houseparty one of many options for involvement
with your project (in your written materials, on your website, and in
conversations).
Christopher Wong: I picked
the host based on two factors: 1) who had a place that was both big
enough and nice enough; and 2) who had other friends that they could
invite (in addition to my own invites). I arranged for
someone who was really passionate about the project to give an intro for
the evening.
Q: And the
actual “ask” for money. Who
should do that? The
filmmaker(s) or someone else?
Morrie
Warshawski: Never the filmmakers! - which is one more lovely aspect
of the houseparty that filmmakers should appreciate.
My rule is that the person who makes the ask is a “peer” –
someone who is personally known and respected by most attendees, and is
from the same social circle. This
could be the Host, if the Host wants to make the ask, or more usually
someone else that you and the Host will identify before the party.
Robert
Bahar: An “ask” actually happens at three points in the process.
First you invite people to be hosts, sponsors, co-sponsors, etc.
and to be listed in the invitation. This would entail a commitment to
"give or raise" a certain amount, for example $500, $250, 100
respectively. These invitations to host, sponsor, etc. might come from
the filmmaker, or they might come from the person who is hosting the
party. They might also come from an influential person in the community.
Then you might ask for donations at the door. We normally asked
for $35 with lower amounts suggested for students and couples. Usually a
volunteer can handle a table positioned near the entrance.
Then you can do a direct "ask" after screening the
trailer, when people have a deeper understanding of who you are and what
you're doing. It's better if someone else can do this on the filmmaker's
behalf, as they can be more of a cheerleader for the project. Again, if
this person is a respected figure in the community, that helps give
people confidence, especially if they're not familiar with the filmmaker
or with the filmmaker's previous work.
Christopher
Wong: I have one friend in
New York
who is a really large donor, and I asked him if he would do the
“ask”. However, this person wanted to remain anonymous, so I
ended up doing the “ask” myself. Not the ideal situation
because I still am finding it hard to get used to requesting money from
friends. But I try to convince myself that there is no reason to
apologize for asking for money, since I really believe that my project
deserves their support.
Q:
If the host is someone who has not done something similar before, what
are some recommendations a filmmaker might make to him/her to do the
"ask"?
Morrie Warshawski: Of course, my first recommendation would be
to give the Host a copy of my book and tell them to read it
cover-to-cover to get comfortable with the whole process.
I would say to the Host, that you hope they will want to make the
“ask,” but if they’re not comfortable with that, it’s okay and
you two will just have to find another “peer” to do the job.
With either scenario, I would definitely role-play the ask before
the event. In my book, I
have a sample script that can be used for the “ask.”
You might help create one for your Host or peer.
Basically, tell them to speak from the heart, make a very direct
ask to everyone to give that night, mention how much you want to raise
that night and what the money will go for, and thank everyone for
coming.
Almudena
Carracedo: Above all, the asker needs to be bold and direct in
asking for funds. Of course they should be polite and diplomatic, but
they can't afford to be shy. We had one person who took a wonderful
comical approach. He very directly encouraged the audience
"Filmmaking is expensive! These filmmakers need money! Who can give
these filmmakers money?" He then asked us to explain all the things
that filmmakers have to spend money on! That approach wouldn't work in
every setting, but it can certainly break the ice for the right group.
Q: Should donors be given something in return for
giving at a certain level?
Morrie
Warshawski: The rule is, if the donor typically likes to get
something in return for their donation, give them something!
That means you need to know something about your potential donors
before you make the “ask.” Some
donors want nothing, they like to remain “anonymous.”
For others there are a whole range of options that are only
limited by your imagination (and budget), including: credits large and
small on-screen (btw, I would give everyone
who donates, no matter the size of the contribution, an onscreen credit
of some size – there is no downside to doing this); invites to preview
screenings and cast parties; opportunity to watch production and meet
the crew; “tchochkie” items like t-shirts, hats, posters, copies of
the DVD. It’s so important
that you say “thank you” to everyone who gives support, and that you
keep them informed regularly on the progress of the project.
Almudena
Carracedo: First and foremost, the event itself should be a great
experience for everyone and it should bring together a community of
people who are looking for an opportunity to come together or who like
to come together anyway. People should engage in a discussion, and if
you can have a special guest speaker or if one of the characters in the
film can be there, that will make everyone happy.
Robert
Bahar: We offered credits to people who donated more than a certain
amount, but of course ultimately crediting may be governed by a
particular broadcaster's crediting regulations, so you need to be
careful not to promise something that you can't deliver. We steered away
from offering anything concrete, although t-shirts and hats might be a
good idea. Do give people postcards that they can take with them and
that include your website. We've heard of some people pre-selling the
DVD. The only caveats are, again, to be careful not to promise something
that might not happen, and be careful because there are specific IRS
rules about charitable donations: generally if you receive something in
exchange for a donation, your donation may not be fully tax deductible.
A good fiscal sponsor can help guide filmmakers through this process.
You also want to be sure to add people to your e-mail list and to
send them occasional updates, so they feel that you remember them, and
that they are part of a community around the film.
Almudena
Carracedo: This is an important point.
The ideal event will have several objectives beyond simply
fundraising. You are truly building your audience and a houseparty
is a beautiful way to connect to your core audience and to
"get out of the filmmaking cave."
In our case, there was a time when we were not yet getting much
funding from grants or foundations, and these events helped us
tremendously emotionally. When someone comes to you crying and hugs you,
and says: "You must complete this film!", that really pushes
you forward and reminds you of why you started the process in the first
place, of the bigger picture of why the film is important, and of why
your struggle is worthwhile.
Q: While social issue films may seem to be the
easiest to do this kind of fundraising (since you can identify people
who are already committed to the cause), how would a filmmaker approach
things differently for a film which is not about a social issue? A
personal film or an experimental documentary, for example.
Robert Bahar: We think that this might be harder, but the key issue
is finding a core audience – people who are deeply committed to the
film being completed. In the case of an issue, that is likely to mean
people who are already passionately involved with the issue or with
related issues. In the case of a personal film you might need to reach
out to people who really are committed to that filmmaker as a person, to
that filmmaker's story, or to themes that might be brought out through
that story.
Morrie
Warshawski: What makes social issue films easier to fundraise for is
not the fact that you can readily identify their supporters, but rather
that their cause is much easier to articulate in a compelling way that
moves people emotionally and intellectually.
If you’re asking for donations (as opposed to investments) for
a documentary about saving the environment as opposed to a short
personal narrative about your relationship with your first pet dog –
well you can see the difference. You
can do houseparties for quirky, personal work but the range of potential
supporters will be smaller than for a social issue doc.
Typically, you’ll have Hosts who are close friends or
relatives. Invitees will
already be known to you, or will be attracted to the subject matter of
the film, to the locale where you are shooting, or to its format.
These parties can work well if you can present a clip that really
moves people and gets them excited about the project.
Q: It seems that, no matter the film, the key to
effective houseparty fundraising is to build on existing relationships?
Almudena
Carracedo: Yes, very much so. Our
relationships with our donors were built up over many years. We made a
big effort to make everyone feel that they were an essential part of our
process and that we were building and maintaining a community around the
film. The events themselves were beautiful and provided the opportunity for
everyone to meet us – "the filmmakers" – and to meet
characters in the film. As a result, the events were really special, and
we still remember how beautiful they were! The discussions after
screening the trailer were also really illuminating, and we actually
listened to people's feedback and got a lot of good ideas that helped us
to improve the film! I think that's the trick. You follow through and
you make it a two-way, symbiotic relationship. This requires building
real trust, asking real questions, and being open to hearing responses
that might not be what you were expecting.
Robert
Bahar: This also, of
course, means that you are actually seeking out potential donors who
really are deeply invested and interested in seeing your film completed.
You might impress them with your subject, your characters or story, your
art, your passion, or even your personality. But the bottom line is that
you are looking to create a long term relationship and that you hope
that people will want to follow the project along its whole journey.
Ideally, they'll be so happy that they'll be ready to host a houseparty
when you start your next project!
Joy
Butler
Lawyer
(Interview by
Adele Schmidt and Erica Ginsberg, Winter 2008)
At some
point or other, many documentary filmmakers face the issue of clearing
rights for their films. Whether it is for archival footage, music,
or the rights to a story, once a producer steps into the territory of
rights clearances, a potential nightmare begins. How can
filmmakers navigate the ins and outs of obtaining rights for materials
from all kinds of different sources without losing patience or running
broke?
 We
recently posed that question to Joy Butler, a Washington,
DC attorney who is well acquainted with rights clearance matters.
As part of her entertainment
practice, Butler works with independent
film, television and radio producers clearing rights. She is the
author of The
Permission Seeker’s Guide Through the Legal Jungle: Clearing
Copyrights, Trademarks, and Other Rights for Entertainment and Media
Productions and has her own blog about entertainment and
intellectual property law issues called Guide
Through The Legal Jungle.
Q: Some filmmakers go out and start shooting
and editing their films without worrying about the rights. Toward
the end they confront the difficult situation of having included
material, such as music or news clips, which they can not afford to pay
for or do not have the rights to use. What would you recommend to a
filmmaker to avoid that situation?
At
what point in production should a filmmaker start contacting the rights
holders?
There’s a very simple
solution and most filmmakers already know what it is. Don’t wait
until the last minute to start clearing rights. If you do, you
guarantee yourself the maximum in frustration and cost. By the time
production ends, you have made and implemented decisions about which
material to use in your production. Undoing those decisions, if possible
at all, is time-consuming and expensive.
Rights clearance should
begin during pre-production and continue throughout the production
process. While some rights holders are efficient in responding to
permission requests, others take weeks to get back to you. Start
seeking quotes as soon as you have some concrete ideas of the materials
you might want to incorporate into the production.
Q: But
sometimes a filmmaker doesn't know what he'll need when he is still in
production. How
can he budget the fees for rights clearances if he is not sure how much
material will be used?
The answer is be flexible and be realistic. Be flexible by thinking of
several works that can potentially fill each of your needs. In
that way, you have a backup in the event your first choice is
unavailable or too expensive. Be realistic about what rights you can
purchase with your budget. A $5,000 rights acquisition budget
won’t cover the licensing fees for hit songs by famous recording
artists or clips from hit movies.
Q: It
may not always be easy to predict
what kind of release a film may have. The range goes from festivals to
educational to broadcast rights for various outlets to DVD sales to
international rights to the web, or even theatrical distribution. The
rights process for each can be confusing. Is it recommended to
clear all rights from the start or clear them in tiers, upgrading as
needed?
You need the rights that correspond to your intended distribution for
the film. The most important categories of rights are media, market,
term, and territory:
Media and Market. Common
categories for the breakdown of media are theatrical, videocassettes,
DVDs, television, and the internet. Some license agreements specify a
particular market such as the educational market.
Term. The
term is the duration for which you have rights in the material. Common
terms are one year, five years, ten years, the duration of the
copyright, and perpetuity.
Territory. The
territory specifies the geographic region in which you may use the
material. Common breakdowns for territories are local, regional, the
United States, North America, Europe, international, worldwide, and the
universe.
The broader the rights, the
more expensive the license fee will be. If you are unable to purchase
all the rights you may need at one time, try to negotiate the option to
expand your use of the material and include that option in your
licensing agreement along with the specific cost for upgrading rights.
In that way, you do not have to go through a new negotiation when and if
you need additional rights.
Q:
When it comes to archival
material, many filmmakers use a combination of resources with some
coming from professional sources with fixed rates and standard contracts
(such as news archives or footage houses) and others from
non-professional sources (such as home movies or photos from the
characters in the film). Does a filmmaker need to clear those rights
too? What kind of agreement is needed for non-professional sourced
material?
While it may be true that a non-professional source may not protect its
material as aggressively as a professional source, there is no legal
distinction in the copyright for material from professional sources
versus the copyright for material from non-professional sources.
You need to clear rights for materials from non-professional sources
too. Your license agreement will address the same terms (license
fee, duration, media, etc.) for both.
Q:
Music licensing is another big issue for a lot of filmmakers. Are
there major differences between clearing archival rights for images and
music rights?
Music and images often pose different rights-clearance challenges.
The rights holders of images can be especially difficult to track down.
Music is often difficult to clear because its ownership changes more
frequently than other forms of media and it tends to have multiple
owners from whom you must obtain permission.
Q: What
has been the most difficult situation for you to help a client clear
rights?
Much of rights clearance work is researching who and where the rights
holder is and then contacting the rights holder – and contacting him
again – until you get a response to your permission request. This
hands-on aspect of clearing rights does not require an attorney.
While your attorney should preferably be involved as an advisor in the
process, it’s typically not economically efficient to have her handle
the entire process.
As an attorney, my role in rights clearance usually
involves reviewing the production to assess potential problems and
risks, determining whether and what type of permission is needed, and
drafting appropriate licensing agreements. The most difficult situations
for me are those in which the client has no information regarding the
source of the material.
As an example, a client created an audio collage by randomly taping the
audio portion of numerous television programs. The client had not
tracked which television programs were on the clip. While the
average listener could not identify the programs on the tape, Murphy’s
Law suggests that a rights owner with material in that clip would have
been able to pick out his work. In any case, without knowing what
was on the tape, it was impossible to clear it unless the client’s use
could be squeezed into a fair use or First Amendment use.
Q: Ah, fair
use. That is one of the most misunderstood aspects of
filmmaking. While our friends at The
Center for Social Media have done a lot to educate filmmakers on the
issue of fair use, we wanted to pose to you what we really consider some
other major areas of confusion for filmmakers when it comes to
rights. Here are the some of the questions and conceptions we've
heard most frequently:
"I
do not need to get a signed release form if I get the person stating
their name and date on camera and that they agree to be filmed."
Technically True. A verbal consent can be valid.
Personally, I prefer that all consents be written. If you later need
to prove that consent was given, it is easier to do so if you can
produce a signed release.
"I
do not need to worry about release forms if my film is not going to be
on television since I don't need errors and omissions insurance."
False. Your film needs to be properly cleared regardless
of the media in which you distribute it. You can still be sued
even if your film is shown only on the internet or only in cinema art
houses. Also, television networks are not the only distribution
channel that may require errors and omissions insurance.
"I'm
filming in a public place and there are some people who are clearly
visible in the film. But as long as they are not actually
talking on camera, I don't need to worry about release forms."
It depends. Like many rights clearance questions,
this is a question of how much risk you are willing to take. I
prefer having consent from every recognizable person appearing on
camera. While I prefer express consent, a person can also give
implied consent through his conduct. For example, you can post a
notice on the street indicating that anyone walking through the area
may be captured on camera and appear in your film. If the person
walks through the area after reading the notice, he provides implied
consent for his appearance in your film.
"I
have an interview with a public figure who refused to sign a release
form and is now saying I can't use the footage. I think I can
still use it because public figures are not covered by the same kind
of libel and slander protection as non-public figures."
It depends. Your right to use the interview
completely depends upon your unique circumstances including the
subject matter of your film. Libel is a false statement that
harms a person’s reputation. If you knowingly include false
statements in your production – even if those statements concern a
public official – you risk getting a claim for libel. However,
in my mind, libel is not the primary area of law on which to focus in
this situation.
If the public figure granted the interview with an accurate
understanding of how the interview would be used, you likely have
implied consent to use the interview. Is the interviewee a
presidential candidate to be included in your documentary about the
presidential race? If yes, your use is probably covered by the
First Amendment. Or are you using a celebrity interview as part
of a promotional trailer for your documentary. I would want a
release for that use as the public figure might have a right of
publicity claim.
"I can use copyrighted
material such as music or a TV show without clearing rights as long as
I do not use it for longer than 30 seconds."
False. There is no automatic fair use safe harbor for the
use of fewer than thirty seconds of a film or fewer than eight bars of
a song or fewer than 250 words of a book. Use of a small amount of a
copyrighted work has been deemed by courts as infringement. However,
it is true that the less of a copyrighted work you use, the more
inclined a court will be to view your use as a fair use.
"Any
footage of a government figure, such as the President of the United
States, is considered to be in the public domain, even if I get the
footage from CNN or network news."
False. Even
though news footage typically focuses on public events, the footage is
copyrightable and requires a license for use unless your use qualifies
for fair use or another exception to copyright protection. Your
use of the footage is not a fair use just because the footage includes
images of a public figure.
"Any
footage I find from a public source, such as the National Archives or
the Library of Congress, is in the public domain."
Not necessarily. Federal government works and works in
which the copyright has expired are in the public domain. The
National Archives houses mostly government records so many of its
materials are in the public domain. However, the National
Archives also has some donated and other materials that may be
copyrighted-protected.
As the largest library in the world, the Library of Congress has
millions of videos as well as books, recordings, photographs, maps and
manuscripts. Many of the materials in its collection are
copyright-protected.
"I
do not need rights to show a newspaper headline."
It depends. Showing the newspaper headline might be
covered by the First Amendment under certain circumstances. It
also matters whether you are showing an image of the complete
newspaper along with the headline or just repeating the text of the
headline. The latter is less risky than the former.
"I'm
a poor documentary filmmaker and am unlikely to make a profit from my
film. Therefore, I should be able to clear the rights at the
price for a non-profit organization even if my film ends up on PBS."
It depends. That completely depends on the licensing fee
you’re able to negotiate with the rights holder. Rights
holders have no obligation to lower the licensing fee for a non-profit
organization.
"I have an important
scene with one of my main characters singing karaoke. I do not
need to clear rights to the song because this would come under Fair
Use."
Not necessarily.
Documentarians often ponder whether they need to license such
background music and images. Unfortunately, there is not a simple yes
or no answer that is applicable to all situations. In supporting the
documentarian’s right to use the material without a license, you
would argue fair use. However, there is no bright line rule in
determining what qualifies as fair use and court decisions are
inconclusive on the question of whether background music in
documentaries so qualifies.
Hence, documentarians must ask themselves “How much risk is there if
I use this music without permission and am I willing to accept that
risk?” Note that there is always risk when you use copyrighted
material without permission. While the risk may be minimal, it is
never zero. Many documentary filmmakers opt not to take the risk and
they either get permission to use the material or remove unlicensed
copyrighted sounds or images from their film.
Q:
We've talked a lot about filmmakers dealing with procuring rights from
other sources. But there's also the issue of filmmakers needing to
protect their own intellectual property rights. How can a
filmmaker ensure her film doesn't end up being used without her
permission, such as being posted by others on YouTube or screened at a
festival without having applied?
Register the copyright in
your film with the United States Copyright Office. Registration is
not necessary for a valid copyright but registration does maximize your
ability to protect your film. If someone is infringing your film,
low-cost responses that might be effective include sending a cease and
desist letter to the film festival or sending a Digital Millennium
Copyright Act take-down notice to YouTube.
Q: Rights
clearance is obviously a big issue and, since this interview cannot
possibly cover every situation faced by every reader, we would recommend
for filmmakers to contact an entertainment lawyer to discuss their
specific cases. But we all know many independent filmmakers are
struggling for funding and legal fees may be lowest on the priority
list. How can a filmmaker with limited funds
make the most use of his or her time with an entertainment lawyer? In
addition to rights issues, what are some other typical
situations for a filmmaker to contact an entertainment lawyer?
In addition to rights clearance, other issues with which I help
filmmakers include business entity formation, joint venture
arrangements, guild compliance, private investor financing, and the
negotiation of talent, distribution and other contracts. It’s
better and less expensive to bring your attorney into the project early
enough so that she can help you structure your project correctly rather
than bringing your attorney in at a later date to fix things that have
gone wrong. There’s truth to the adage “an ounce of prevention
is worth a pound of cure”.
John Keltonic
Composer
(Interview by
Adele Schmidt and Erica Ginsberg, Fall 2007)
The role music
plays in documentary is a subtle but important one. Good music can help
move a story along, underscore the emotions of a sequence, and – let’s
be honest – help cover those problem sound areas you couldn’t quite “fix
in post.”  Many
independent filmmakers dream of ways they can convince their favorite
artists to give them a good deal on the rights to the perfect song or
feel like the only thing they can afford is pre-packaged “needle drops”
from a music library. But original music composed for a documentary is
not as much of a pipe dream for the independent filmmaker as you may
think.
We recently talked to
film composer John Keltonic of
JDK Music about what filmmakers should
think about when working with a composer. Keltonic has been composing
original music for documentaries for almost 20 years. He has
scored major films for PBS, Discovery Channel, BBC, Animal Planet,
Hallmark Channel, and many others. “Autism Is A World”, a film he scored
for State of the Art Productions in Washington DC, was nominated for an
Academy Award.
Q: At what
stage do you normally get involved with a
documentary film? What typically attracts you to a project?
As you’d expect, every project is different.
With directors that I haven’t worked with before, I like to get involved
as early as possible. It helps to see how the project is developing –
moving from rough cut through fine cut to picture lock. This process
gives me a better idea of the direction that the producer and director
want to move in. With directors that I’ve worked with before, this isn’t
as crucial, because I’m under the delusion [smiling] that I know
how the director thinks, and what he or she is looking for.
As to what attracts me to a project, there can
be any number of elements. I guess I’m looking for a story that hasn’t
been told before, or hasn’t been told in this particular way. I love to
find a director that’s passionate about his or her subject, and who is
willing to let me bring my own musical ideas of my own to the project.
Q: If a director
approaches you with a potential project, what things should he be
prepared to discuss?
In addition to all the logistical stuff that
needs to addressed first – budgets, time frames, etc. – I love to hear
the director just chat about the film. What interested them in the
subject? What are they trying to say? What they hope to accomplish with
their film? All of this info gives a composer a look into the director’s
point of view, which after all is what a composer is being hired to
enhance.
Q: How can a director
best convey what emotion he wants, even if he doesn't know much about
music?
Believe it or not, I don’t think it’s crucial
that a director be an expert about music. Instead he or she needs to
know their film intimately - what they want their audience to be
feeling at any particular moment in the film, how much foreshadowing
there should be, things like that. It’s my job to translate that
direction into a music score. I’m looking for emotional and descriptive
adjectives from a director, not necessarily a musical solution – that’s
where the composer comes in.
Q: Do you usually
compose to an existing edit or provide music for the editor to cut to?
What are the advantages and disadvantages of each approach?
The vast majority of my work is “post-scored”
music, meaning music that is composed to existing picture, with very
little work being “pre-scored” where the music is composed first.
Pre-scoring is usually done when the editor prefers to cut to music. I
usually prefer to post-score a film, although it involves more work on
my end. There are just so many variables that can’t be described in a
script – the speed at which the camera pans, the light on the edge of a
face, etc. – that can affect the direction of the music. I’ll often
find small things in a picture – maybe a single sparkle of sun on water
– that I’ll catch with something musical when I post-score. Those kinds
of things can’t be done well if the music is created before the picture
is edited. The other danger of a pre-score is that, because the music
wasn’t done to picture, the score can come off sounding like glorified
library music. Post-scoring really lets the music breathe with the
picture.
I’ve even done one film that I didn’t pre
or post score, because, I was never allowed to see the film at all!
Years ago, I scored a secret film done for the Joint Chiefs of Staff at
the Pentagon. Instead of being allowed to watch the film, I was given
only verbal instructions - things like “OK, at 1 minute and 14 seconds,
something really big happens.” Um, OK...Imagine me scratching my head
here. Is this a “good” big thing or a “bad” big thing? Like I said,
every project is different…
Q: How do you approach
projects where a director or editor has used a temp track and grown
attached to the music?
Great question! There’s actually a term for
this in the industry – it’s called “temp-love.” Even the greatest
directors of all time have succumbed to this temptation. There’s a
terrific score that composer Alex North (Spartacus, Death of a
Salesman) wrote for Stanley Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Odyssey.
Kubrick never used North’s score, because by the time the music was
finished, Kubrick had so fallen in love with the temp score of Strauss
waltzes that nothing else would do. Temp scores are a great tool, and
provide for a common frame of reference between composer and director,
but beware of that “temp love!”
Q: What do you wish more
producers and directors thought about when it comes to music?
The budget! Seriously, it’s often the case for
newer directors that they don’t allot enough time or money to do the
music right. When you consider that audio is half of the experience of
your average film audience, music often does get the “short end of the
stick”. When this happens the entire film can, and often does, suffer.
Also, directors sometimes make the mistake of
creating an audio track of narration, voiceover, and sound effects that
is very full before handing the project to a composer. When this
happens, there isn’t much room for the music to breathe – that is, to
live on its own with just picture. By the time a composer gets a film to
score, the narration, voiceovers, interviews, and sound effects
sometimes have so filled the audio that the music winds up being not
much more than audio wallpaper. Experienced directors will intentionally
leave holes in the audio track for the music, so that the pictures and
music alone can advance the story. It’s not necessary to have human
language filling in every hole or telling all of the story. Sometimes
the film is best served with sections using just music and picture and
no dialog. Listen closely to some high-end docs, and you’ll see what I
mean.
Q: On average, how long
does it take compose for a one hour film? What would be your ideal lead
time for such a film?
Usually, I can compose and arrange about two
minutes of music a day. Producing and recording the music can either
take a lot or a little additional time, depending on how the music is
produced, the number of musicians involved, etc. For directors that I
haven’t worked with before, I like to allow for extra time, so that they
can live with each music cue for a while before deciding where they
might like changes made. Ideally it’s great to have six weeks to score
a one-hour film. That almost never happens, of course, but you did
ask what was the “ideal” lead time…
Q: How do you know what
kind of music is appropriate for a film?
The most honest answer that I can give you is
that even after 20 years of composing music for films, I’m still
learning. I’ve scored hundreds of different projects, and yet I still
come up with new musical solutions almost every day.
The process I use to determine what kind of
music is appropriate is pretty much the same for most music cues. While
watching the film, I start playing around with musical ideas. I figure
out what musical ideas seem to be working, and start narrowing down the
possibilities, eventually discarding everything that doesn’t work
perfectly. I suppose it’s not that different from Michelangelo’s alleged
quote “All you do is start with a block of marble, and chip away
everything that doesn’t look like David.”
Q: How do you adapt to
music in a style or tradition you may not already be well versed in?
For any film composer, I’m not sure that’s a
viable option. While every composer will have his or her own musical
strengths, a good composer should be able to emulate most existing
musical styles and forms, in addition to being able to create his or her
own unique style.
If you listen to
samples of my film scores, you’ll find a pretty wide variety of
types and styles of music. Full-blown orchestral cues, small piano
solos, hard-edged rock, big band, etc. I’m not just “blowing my own
horn” here; any good full-time film composer will be able to handle a
multitude of styles pretty easily.
Q: Which elements of a
documentary make it particularly enjoyable to work on and why?
I love to compose for films that are about a
subject I may not know much about. I love opportunities to explore new
musical directions, even if the director may not see their project as
such. I’m not too interested in copying or emulating something that’s
already been done. I’m more interested in “creating” than “re-creating,”
if that makes sense.
Q: What documentaries --
other than ones you have worked on -- are great examples of use of
music?
The Nature series on PBS is usually
very well scored. I love most of the music NOVA series on PBS as
well (even those NOVA shows that I didn’t score!). Scores like
this stand out to me because they’re not the standard music fare.
So many docs on cable stations these days use
the same distorted heavy metal guitars over rock drums and bass – it
gets really old. It may have been new and fresh at one time, but now
it’s just boring. While there certainly can be a place for this style,
it’s really overused. I prefer innovation in music, wherever it’s found.
Q: How would you
approach a documentary differently than a fiction film?
It’s not as different as you may think. In
both cases, it’s the job of the composer to work within the director’s
vision. In documentaries, however, sometimes a composer has to create
music that’s historically or ethnically very accurate – usually not as
much of a requirement in a fiction film.
Q: What should an
independent filmmaker with a modest budget do when it comes to music?
A perfect question! Probably the best thing a
filmmaker can do is talk to a composer early in the process, finding out
what is and isn’t possible within the given budget parameters. Because
of the advances in digital technology in just the past 10 years, a
director may learn that more is possible than they might have thought,
even with a limited budget.
Q: When is it
appropriate to bring real performers in?
Whenever the budget allows! Actually, whenever
a composer is going for a “real instrument” sound, it’s almost always
best to use a real player. That said, it’s often not possible for
financial reasons to use live players. Often, I’ll use mostly instrument
samples, but bring in a real violinist, guitar player, etc., for those
sections where a solo instrument needs to stand out from the rest of the
music.
Q: How has the digital
era affected your work?
In the last 20 years or so, the entire music
production business has changed drastically because of digital
technology. It’s hard to count all of the ways. I almost never compose
or arrange using music paper anymore, but usually compose directly on
the computer, printing out parts for individual musicians. It’s now
possible to have frame accurate mixing with the ability to recall all
dynamic parameters -not just volume and panning, but virtually
everything else, including compression, reverb, delay, limiting, pitch
correction, you name it.
Also, with the advent of faster computers and
the Internet, it’s now as easy to work with a composer across the
country as it is with a composer across the street. I’ve done several
films for KCTS in Seattle, scored projects for the NOVA series
(out of WGBH in Boston) without ever meeting any of the WGBH directors
in person. Next month, I start scoring a two-hour film for WTTW in
Chicago, and I’ve never met the directors or producers. So much can now
be done over the internet via mp3s, Skype or iChat video conferencing,
ftp sites, etc. It’s easier than it sounds, and it’s a pretty efficient
way to work as well.
But I would guess that the biggest change in
the digital era is the newfound ability to digitally create and sample
the sounds of real musical instruments – some of them with amazing
accuracy. Even some tricky individual instrument sounds that would have
been considered impossible to duplicate only a few years ago – a solo
violin, for example -- are being reproduced with greater and greater
degrees of realism. That said, I’ll always use a “real” instrument if
time and budget permits.
A year or two ago, a very high PBS executive
(who will remain nameless) called to compliment me on a score I’d just
done for PBS. He had nothing to do with this particular film, but wanted
to thank me for the music, saying how nice it was to hear real
live instruments again instead of all that “electronic crap”. Truth
be told, there wasn’t a live musician to be found in the entire score.
Nothing but good samples of real instruments. While I was stammering a
thank you to this guy, and trying to find a way to tell him that there
were no real instruments, he said he had to go, and hung up. Not sure
if he ever found out how the score was really done.
I also did some music for
VisaCard recently, where I was asked to compose an orchestral piece
using a real orchestra for a long-form “smiling faces” spot. I did a
demo for them, using only MIDI instruments. I didn’t spend much time on
the actual sounds, because I knew that they would be replaced by real
instruments. Of course you know the rest of the story. They approved the
demo as a “final”and told me not to make any changes! That’ll teach me!
Q: Is there anything
else you think it is important for the documentary community to know
about working with composers?
Every pro in this business understands that
film-making is a collaborative process, where everyone is working
together, bringing his or her expertise to the project. A composer is
just another part of the same team, working for the same end: an
excellent film. Remember, as Red Green says, “We’re all in this
together!”
To hear samples from John Keltonic, visit
his website at
http://www.jdkmusic.com/.
Trinh Duong
Director of Grantmaking
Funding Exchange
(Interview by
Erica Ginsberg, Summer 2007)
Even as we
focus our discussions at Docs in Progress workshops on the creative side
of making a film, one of the questions we ask every filmmaker is to
think about who his/her audience is. We ask this not only because it is
key to structuring the film, but also to plan for fundraising and
outreach. If you read our January 2007 article
“How to Find Funding for Your Documentary,”
you gained a few tips on where to look for funding. We wanted to
follow-up that article by talking to a few people who work for
institutions that fund media projects to help demystify the process of
fundraising. We are starting by talking with Trinh Duong, who is
the Director of Grantmaking at
the
Funding Exchange.
Q: Sometimes
Funding Exchange (FEX) and the Paul Robeson Fund for Independent Media
are referred to interchangeably. But the Robeson Fund is actually just
one component of FEX. Is it the only funding source of FEX to support
film and video projects or are there other initiatives?
While the
Paul Robeson Fund
exclusively focuses on creating and distributing film, video and radio
projects, the Funding Exchange has also funded media through our
issue-based grantmaking programs. These programs include the
Emergency Fund,
Criminal Justice Initiative,
Saguaro Fund for organizing in communities of color,
and
OUT Fund.
The
FEX Media Justice Fund
supports projects that organize people to increase media accountability,
build infrastructure and affect policy.
Q: What kind of
film and video projects are appropriate for the Paul Robeson Fund?
The Paul Robeson Fund
funds video, film and radio projects of all genres. We are most likely
to fund artistically compelling projects that deal with contemporary
social issues. The focus of the Paul Robeson Fund is on pre-production
and distribution phases only
Q: Why do you
specifically focus on these two stages of production?
The Funding Exchange
is a public foundation that raises the funds that we give away in
grants. Since our funds are limited, it is important for us to be
strategic in our grantmaking. We fund pre-production to help filmmakers
develop their projects to the point where they are substantial enough to
go to another funder for additional support. We fund distribution
because we feel that media has tremendous potential to catalyze
community change when communities have the opportunity to view the work.
The work of our grantees is important and needs to be visible.
Distribution is often an afterthought; we'd like to change that.
Q: Many
filmmakers are mystified by the grants process. Can you shed some light
on what actually goes on once a film reaches your office by the funding
cycle deadline? How is it reviewed? What criteria is used?
The initial
applications are reviewed by staff, sometimes in coordination with an
outside reviewer. We read each proposal and view submitted sample
work. The staff recommends approximately 60-80 applications to the
Robeson grantmaking panel. The panel consists of six media makers or
media activists who represent diverse constituencies across the
country. The Panel reads proposals and comes together to view submitted
sample work. At this meeting, the panel selects the grant recipients
and allocates the funds available for grantmaking. We evaluate
applications on many different levels:
·
Talent, vision and potential of filmmaker, especially for new or
emerging artists
·
Social and political relevance of the subject matter
·
Strength of the sample work
·
Fundraising plan and ability to bring the proposed project to completion
·
Innovative and thought-out distribution strategy (even for
pre-production applicants)
·
Realistic budgeting
Q: How many
project submissions do you typically receive in a year? How many get
funded?
We receive
anywhere between 200-400 applications a year and fund approximately
20—30 projects.
Q: Is there any
disadvantage to being a first-time filmmaker?
The Robeson Fund
has always been willing to take risks, funding new and emerging
filmmakers with fresh perspectives and innovative ideas.
Q: For your
grant, is it a help or a hindrance to already have a broadcaster on
board or interested?
Whether or not
an applicant has a broadcaster on board has not played much of a role in
the evaluation process. | 
