Does Criterion give any $$ to the artists?

[VoodooSamurai]

Does anyone know if Criterion gives any % to the writer/director, or filmmakers behind the movies? Or is it strictly buying them out from the studios? I know on regular studio releases a director or someone get a % of every sale, even if it's just a buck. How does it work for Criterion?

[Scooter1836]

Originally Posted by Clint Eastwood

Does anyone know if Criterion gives any % to the writer/director, or filmmakers behind the movies? Or is it strictly buying them out from the studios? I know on regular studio releases a director or someone get a % of every sale, even if it's just a buck. How does it work for Criterion?

Probably like everyone else.

They would have to abide by all contractural elements for getting the rights to produce and distribute the video. Unless they can negotiate a change.

It depends on the movie and the contracts that bind it which most of us here are not privy to.

[Hayabusa85]

Well considering Criterion usually work with the director or others involved I don't think they would have them so willing to help with the release if they didn't pay them. Obviously there are lot of cases where people are dead involved with Criterion releases so not sure if their family or anybody see money in that case.

[GuruAskew]

Though it's certainly nice to think that a company like Criterion would just willingly compensate creators out of respect or ethics the truth is Criterion wouldn't be around for nearly 3 decades if they just threw money at people when they weren't legally obligated to.

I'm sure people are paid for supervising transfers, participating in commentaries etc. Is there someon saying "BLANK should get 5% of this title's profit because this movie wouldn't be the same without him?" Sorry, but no.

[retablo]

Director's aren't obligated to "sign off" on transfers. Many times, a studio won't even consult the director over a home video release. I'm sure they do compensate for recording a commentary, but not sure about anything else. When Warner issued Neverending Story, Wolfgang Petersen was never approached about about it, and said later in an interview he had no clue it was even coming out until he saw the disc in stores - but if they had asked him, he would've gladly supervised the transfer just to make sure his vision was handled properly. I'm assuming many directors would do this for free (and it only applies to films over a certain age) if for no other reason than to see their films archived and released properly. They are already most likely getting ancillary rights form a home video release anyway, so I doubt they are paid on top of that for other duties. That's just my guess.

[Gardenofstone10]

I can't see any instance where an artist wouldn't get money for their work.

[RodneyOz]

Originally Posted by GuruAskew

Though it's certainly nice to think that a company like Criterion would just willingly compensate creators out of respect or ethics the truth is Criterion wouldn't be around for nearly 3 decades if they just threw money at people when they weren't legally obligated to.

I'm sure people are paid for supervising transfers, participating in commentaries etc. Is there someon saying "BLANK should get 5% of this title's profit because this movie wouldn't be the same without him?" Sorry, but no.

Just an example I know about which should some indication on this - when Adrian Martin's brilliant commentary for 'Vivre sa Vie' was ported from the Australian release for the Criterion, the first he knew about it was when he started getting messages from Americans saying how great his commentary was. Not only didn't he get paid, but he wasn't even asked. Madman (the Australian DVD company) got paid, as it was their property for which Criterion bought the US rights.

And that was completely fine legally. And, although understandably a bit put out, Martin is also fine with it (if I'm remembering correctly).

[bboisvert]

Originally Posted by RodneyOz

Just an example I know about which should some indication on this - when Adrian Martin's brilliant commentary for 'Vivre sa Vie' was ported from the Australian release for the Criterion, the first he knew about it was when he started getting messages from Americans saying how great his commentary was. Not only didn't he get paid, but he wasn't even asked. Madman (the Australian DVD company) got paid, as it was their property for which Criterion bought the US rights.

And that was completely fine legally. And, although understandably a bit put out, Martin is also fine with it (if I'm remembering correctly).

Well, in that particular example, it would seem that Martin recorded said commentary knowing that his work was then the product of Madman. And I'm sure everything he signed in advance of speaking into the microphone made that clear.

It doesn't take a brain surgeon (or even a lawyer) to realize that they can then sell (or license) said product.

[tenia]

Originally Posted by bboisvert

Well, in that particular example, it would seem that Martin recorded said commentary knowing that his work was then the product of Madman. And I'm sure everything he signed in advance of speaking into the microphone made that clear.

It doesn't take a brain surgeon (or even a lawyer) to realize that they can then sell (or license) said product.

Exactly.

He has probably signed for giving all the uses' rights to Madman, who chose to sell the use to Criterion for that edition.

A bit like when your DVD includes the rights to rent it.

[RodneyOz]

Originally Posted by bboisvert

Well, in that particular example, it would seem that Martin recorded said commentary knowing that his work was then the product of Madman. And I'm sure everything he signed in advance of speaking into the microphone made that clear.

It doesn't take a brain surgeon (or even a lawyer) to realize that they can then sell (or license) said product.

Not sure what part of this you might think I disagree with, but that's my point - when someone makes a film, it's then owned by whoever has the rights, and they can then sell or otherwise pass it on to Criterion, who have no legal or moral obligation to pay the filmmakers any further. It's the same legal situation as with Martin's commentary (and when I said he was a little peeved, it was because nobody on either side bothered to give him a heads up that his work was going to be used, not that he necessarily wanted more money).