Jump to content


Photo

"Kodachrome" wins award at the world's oldest short film festival


  • Please log in to reply
31 replies to this topic

#1 Jurgen Lossau

Jurgen Lossau
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 138 posts
  • Producer

Posted 05 April 2007 - 03:08 PM

Our music clip "Kodachrome," shot on Super 8, wins the Shoestring trophy at The 49th Rochester International Film Festival, New York (USA). The film is an homage to the Kodachrome 40 Super 8 film that ceased production last year. The short, realized by Heiko Riemann and Jürgen Lossau, uses the hit "Kodachrome" by Paul Simon to tell its story. "Kodachrome" was produced in September 2006 and processed at the last lab in the world able to work with Kodachrome: Dwayne's in Kansas (USA). The video transfer was performed by AVP in Munich (Germany), using a Rank Cinetel MK III.

The award is a special honour for us, because it is presented in Kodak's hometown, Rochester, New York. The Rochester International Film Festival is, according to its claim, the world's oldest continuously-held short film festival. On May, 3, 2007, the film "Kodachrome" will be shown in the Dryden Theatre at George Eastman House. This cinema has nearly 600 seats. The organizers of the festival, Movies on a Shoestring, Inc., is an independent, non-profit, all-volunteer organization. They are not affiliated with George Eastman House, but do greatly appreciate its support.

Juergen Lossau
www.smallformat.de

Posted Image

Edited by Jürgen Lossau, 05 April 2007 - 03:09 PM.

  • 0

#2 Douglas Hunter

Douglas Hunter
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 356 posts
  • Other
  • Los Angeles

Posted 05 April 2007 - 04:16 PM

It must have cost a bundle to clear Paul Simon's "Kodachrome."
  • 0

#3 Chris Cottrill

Chris Cottrill
  • Sustaining Members
  • 22 posts
  • Other
  • Miamisburg, Ohio

Posted 05 April 2007 - 06:48 PM

Great to hear this! This is the best recent film made on Super-8 I have seen. I highly recommend buying the DVD.
  • 0

#4 Michael Ryan

Michael Ryan
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 182 posts
  • Other
  • Toronto, Canada via Huntington Beach, California

Posted 05 April 2007 - 07:21 PM

Congratulations!



Mike
  • 0

#5 Jonathan Bowerbank

Jonathan Bowerbank
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2815 posts
  • 1st Assistant Camera
  • San Francisco, CA

Posted 05 April 2007 - 07:33 PM

Ahhhh, lovely Kodachrome...I'll miss your black.
  • 0

#6 Alessandro Machi

Alessandro Machi
  • Sustaining Members
  • 3318 posts
  • Other
  • California

Posted 05 April 2007 - 10:46 PM

It must have cost a bundle to clear Paul Simon's "Kodachrome."


If every artist that ever became famous had put a warning on their first album release that stated, "don't even think of ever using this music for anything or I'll sue your ass", do you think they would have sold as many albums or been as famous? Isn't it possible that other emerging recording artists, in an effort to get their albums on the store shelves, would have offered more friendly terms? Of course that is what would have happened. By not putting any kind of visible warning on the albums at the time of sale artists and record labels profited handsomely, so they should show some tolerance now.

I wouldn't blindly support artists and recording labels who got rich and popular but did not put easy to read "Warnings" regarding fair use as it relates to their music and the consumer who buys their music.

What I think would be "fair" nowadays would be to calculate the fee that a typical television station or radio station pays to ASCAP or BMI to play a particular song for a year, and then divide that by how many people will hear the song on that channel station during the year. If it works out to 5 cents a head, then the fee to display the kodachrome film with the song in a non-profit environment would be 600 people times 5 cents a head, or 30 bucks for this one showing, and frankly, that may be a bit high.

Instead, it would probably cost the filmmaker thousands of dollars for this one time viewing, and I find that elitist.

An artist does not have to permit anyone to use their music, especially if the music is being used for commercial, political, religious or initiation purposes. On the other hand I am pretty sure that Rush Limbaugh plays introduction music on his radio program from bands that probably can't stand his politics but because some fee has been paid to Ascap or BMI, Limbaugh can pretty much use whatever music he wants, and I doubt he is paying anywhere near 5 cents a head to do it. Independent filmmakers working in much smaller circles should not have to pay a per person music fee for audiences viewing their films that is higher than what Rush Limbaugh pays.
  • 0

#7 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19769 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 05 April 2007 - 10:56 PM

Sometimes it's the record label that controls licencing, and aggressively protects their copyright with lawyers, not the original artist.
  • 0

#8 Matt Sandstrom

Matt Sandstrom
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 464 posts
  • Director
  • Stockholm, Sweden

Posted 06 April 2007 - 04:29 PM

when it comes to derivative work it's not just protecting your copyright and/or making money, but also or even mainly the right to control what you're associated with. in this case i'm sure the association is fine with everyone, but this is a fact that people often forget. copying music and using it in your movie are two completely different things.

/matt
  • 0

#9 Alessandro Machi

Alessandro Machi
  • Sustaining Members
  • 3318 posts
  • Other
  • California

Posted 06 April 2007 - 05:17 PM

when it comes to derivative work it's not just protecting your copyright and/or making money, but also or even mainly the right to control what you're associated with. in this case i'm sure the association is fine with everyone, but this is a fact that people often forget. copying music and using it in your movie are two completely different things.

/matt


That's why I brought up the Rush Limbaugh angle. I'm pretty sure he plays music on his talk radio show from rock bands that disagree vehemently with Limbaugh's political views, and I don't think that Limbaugh's radio show pays that much for it either.
  • 0

#10 Matthew Buick

Matthew Buick
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2345 posts
  • Student
  • Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.

Posted 06 April 2007 - 05:34 PM

My first ever Super 8 was Kodachrome. :)

It'll also feature in Sacred Mushroom (the last time I'll ever use it). :(
  • 0

#11 Laurent Andrieux

Laurent Andrieux
  • Sustaining Members
  • 1527 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • France

Posted 06 April 2007 - 07:35 PM

Tonight was broadcasted a documentary film by Jakob Kneser and Tristan Chytroschek about K40 on the french cultural TV channel, featuring Jurgen and Heiko and some of their work.

On 2006 october the 11th was processed the last roll by Kodak in Lausanne, Switzerland. It was 100.000 rolls a year in the "big" years. If you consider its resolution was higher than HDTV is, or very close, it kind of make me mad, though I understand why they stopped. RIP.

Thanks for your work, Jurgen
  • 0

#12 Matt Sandstrom

Matt Sandstrom
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 464 posts
  • Director
  • Stockholm, Sweden

Posted 07 April 2007 - 08:51 AM

That's why I brought up the Rush Limbaugh angle. I'm pretty sure he plays music on his talk radio show from rock bands that disagree vehemently with Limbaugh's political views, and I don't think that Limbaugh's radio show pays that much for it either.

that's not derivative work though.

/matt
  • 0

#13 Jim Simon

Jim Simon
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 93 posts
  • Director

Posted 07 April 2007 - 10:58 PM

An artist does not have to permit anyone to use their music


Maybe not, but in the United States, the songwriters and publishers certainly have the legal right to say who can and who can't, as well as charge money for those they allow.

And sue those who do so without permission. "Fair Use" does not include using an entire song in a movie.
  • 0

#14 Alessandro Machi

Alessandro Machi
  • Sustaining Members
  • 3318 posts
  • Other
  • California

Posted 08 April 2007 - 07:39 AM

Jim, I'm not so sure that the quote of mine that you used is actually disagreeing with your position. However because record labels never really let it be known in an obvious way several decades ago that their music was not useable by the same adoring fan base that made them famous by buying their records, those labels took advantage, and it could probably be proved in court.

There are artists out there who never became famous but who would have gladly been more liberal in the area of fair use if it meant getting on a store shelf, but they never got that opportunity because the established groups basically misrepresented their public image by not letting it be known back then how strict they would be when it came to fair use.

Fans should have a right to choose who's music to buy if it turns out that one music label would have been more liberal when it came to fair use versus another group. By more liberal, I'm talking about using music on someone's wedding video, or the kodachrome song in which the song is used to denote an event that actually relates to, kodachrome.

Maybe a distinction should be made in the kind of music one has created. If someone writes a song about the Viet Nam War, of course people should be able to use it for non-profit, non recruitment situations, if the project relates to the Viet Nam War and isn't being made by a "group" with a political agenda, and I certainly wouldn't be against a per head charge, as long as it was in line with what the networks pay.
  • 0

#15 K Borowski

K Borowski
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3905 posts
  • Camera Operator
  • I.A.T.S.E. Local # 600 Eastern Region

Posted 08 April 2007 - 07:58 AM

Jim, I'm not so sure that the quote of mine that you used is actually disagreeing with your position. However because record labels never really let it be known in an obvious way several decades ago that their music was not useable by the same adoring fan base that made them famous by buying their records, those labels took advantage, and it could probably be proved in court.

There are artists out there who never became famous but who would have gladly been more liberal in the area of fair use if it meant getting on a store shelf, but they never got that opportunity because the established groups basically misrepresented their public image by not letting it be known back then how strict they would be when it came to fair use.

Fans should have a right to choose who's music to buy if it turns out that one music label would have been more liberal when it came to fair use versus another group. By more liberal, I'm talking about using music on someone's wedding video, or the kodachrome song in which the song is used to denote an event that actually relates to, kodachrome.

Maybe a distinction should be made in the kind of music one has created. If someone writes a song about the Viet Nam War, of course people should be able to use it for non-profit, non recruitment situations, if the project relates to the Viet Nam War and isn't being made by a "group" with a political agenda, and I certainly wouldn't be against a per head charge, as long as it was in line with what the networks pay.



Because it's Easter, I'm not going to tear everything you've said here apart.

Hey, there's still time to run for President Alex, then you might actually find people that care to listen to this hype. Other than that, why don't you try to stay on topic for once.

I am damned well sure Vietnam has nothing to do with a film shot on Kodachrome, except for Kodachrome was probably shot a lot over there as it was a mainstay filmstock at the time.

You are really disrespecting the gentleman who started this thread by politicizing it.

Take care.
  • 0

#16 Matthew Buick

Matthew Buick
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2345 posts
  • Student
  • Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.

Posted 08 April 2007 - 09:00 AM

Ahem...anyways...getting back on track, does anyone know the effective resolution in lines of a Super 8 Kodachrome frame put though a Rank Cinetel?


Happy Easter all!!! It's such an important day .
  • 0

#17 Matt Sandstrom

Matt Sandstrom
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 464 posts
  • Director
  • Stockholm, Sweden

Posted 08 April 2007 - 11:20 AM

the songwriters and publishers certainly have the legal right to say who can and who can't, as well as charge money for those they allow.


no, because they give up this right to a copyright bureau. anyone who pays a license fee to the bureau can use any music they want, that's the way the world works. the license fee for such a license that covers derivative work is enormous though, so basically only tv networks can afford it, but a basic performance/broadcast license is pretty cheap, which is how bars, radio stations, live venues and so on pay for music. you can purchase further rights directly from the artist/label, but they can never limit your rights to less than the license you've bought from the bureau grants you.

/matt
  • 0

#18 Douglas Hunter

Douglas Hunter
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 356 posts
  • Other
  • Los Angeles

Posted 08 April 2007 - 02:24 PM

no, because they give up this right to a copyright bureau. anyone who pays a license fee to the bureau can use any music they want, that's the way the world works.


What world you are talking about? In the U.S. their are often a number of people who need to be contacted to clear a song for useage, the folks who own the publishing copyright, the people who own the copyright for the specific performance being used, the performing artist(s) themselves. Artists can and often do deny specific uses of their work in the realm of T.V. Last year I had to pull several songs from shows because they would not clear because the artists denied the request.

On a different point.
A.M. reveals, yet again, that he is without a clue.

Finally,
I am glad that the film won an award, and I hope the filmmakers benefit from that, but if they really just ripped off Paul Simon AND are selling a DVD of their film that includes the Simon song, the filmmakers are clearly breaking U.S. intellectual property law and deserve what should be comming to them. A top dollar request for payment from Simon's record lable for use of the song. If you didn't know the fees for using music are often managable; for example, non MFN deals are often under $2,000 for a 3 year T.V. useage agreement for cable. But the fees go MUCH higher if you use a song without permission and get caught later.
  • 0

#19 Alessandro Machi

Alessandro Machi
  • Sustaining Members
  • 3318 posts
  • Other
  • California

Posted 08 April 2007 - 02:53 PM

Because it's Easter, I'm not going to tear everything you've said here apart....
......You are really disrespecting the gentleman who started this thread by politicizing it.
Take care.

Douglas Hunter made the FIRST comment that politicized this issue about rights and clearances, get a clue, get your observations straight, and quit looking for an excuse to made completely idiotic statements about my comments.

It must have cost a bundle to clear Paul Simon's "Kodachrome."

The above comment by D.H. politicized this thread and came first, take it up with him.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Oh, wait, here is Douglas Hunter to the rescue also making snide comments. You two should get a room.

On a different point. A.M. reveals, yet again.....

Quit spouting off your nonsensical slandering opinions. I was once invited to contribute my fair use ideas to a symposium over copyright issues because my opinions are original and bring a new focus to the issue.
  • 0

#20 Matt Sandstrom

Matt Sandstrom
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 464 posts
  • Director
  • Stockholm, Sweden

Posted 08 April 2007 - 06:00 PM

What world you are talking about?

"the" world. afaik there's only one. ;-)

In the U.S. their are often a number of people who need to be contacted to clear a song for useage

of course, it's the same everywhere obviously. just read my post again and you'll see that i'm not contradicting this. my point is that artists and publishers can't really control what happens to their work in every case since they've given away some of their rights to a copyright bureau. they can still negotiate their own deals with people, but if somebody buys a music license from the copyright bureau they can play any song they want and the artist can't do anything about it. if you don't like it, don't use the bureau, but at the same time you say good bye to a steady revenue stream. radio stations, clubs, restaurants, and so on use this licensing scheme since they play so much music it just wouldn't work to negotiate every single track for either party. i don't think a license to create derivative work really exists for independent producers, i know some tv networks have it but they're a special case and they pay millions, but even if there was it wouldn't make sense since the number of tracks they need a license for is normally not that high.

did i make myself clear?

/matt
  • 0


Broadcast Solutions Inc

Paralinx LLC

rebotnix Technologies

Wooden Camera

Ritter Battery

Rig Wheels Passport

The Slider

FJS International, LLC

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Aerial Filmworks

Visual Products

Technodolly

CineTape

Tai Audio

Metropolis Post

Willys Widgets

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Abel Cine

Glidecam

CineLab

Opal

CineLab

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

FJS International, LLC

Paralinx LLC

Aerial Filmworks

Wooden Camera

Tai Audio

Technodolly

Abel Cine

Rig Wheels Passport

Ritter Battery

Metropolis Post

Visual Products

Willys Widgets

CineTape

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

The Slider

Glidecam

Opal

rebotnix Technologies

Broadcast Solutions Inc