Re: Subject: Re: [Harp-L] Pocket full of Soul Kickstarter appeal

[Richard Hunter <turtlehill@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Ken Deifik wrote:
<...It was when I saw that you had to surrender all rights JUST TO SUBMIT 
<your music that I saw red...

I agree 100% with 100% of this post.

And like Ken, I was absolutely infuriated when the producers solicited submissions of pieces for the movie's title theme, and demanded full rights in perpetuity to every piece SUBMITTED.  As I said at the time, that's the kind of deal an artist should only take when there's a gun pointed at said artist's head.  

People who defend these producers as nice guys who only want to advance the harmonica should explain why they're exhibiting such predatory behavior towards the people they ostensibly seek to serve.  Professional naivite doesn't go far enough to explain what I've seen so far, especially when the supposedly naive parties are brandishing one-sided contracts written by cutthroat lawyers. (If you think that's an exaggeration, read the contract.  I've read and signed or rejected a number of contracts in this industry, but I've NEVER seen a contract before this that basically said "you give us your intellectual property free and clear, and we exploit it forever without payment to you.") 

Now they're asking the same people they exploited to get material for the film to bankroll the project.  And according to their page on Kickstarter, if you put up $10,000--40% of the $25,000 in total funding they're requesting on Kickstarter--they'll give you a private screening of the film in return. Not a piece of the action--not a percentage of the gross in return for an investment that probably represents at least 10-20% of the total cost of the film--but a private screening.  A private screening plus a piece of the action would be a reasonable deal.  A private screening by itself represents zero return on a substantial investment in a commercial project.  That, my friends, is a deal made by sharks for dummies.  
 
This latest Kickstarter request is simply horrifying, but no more so than demanding full rights in perpetuity to songs that won't even appear in the film.  At least the behavior is consistent--consistently predatory, that is.

I am reminded of Taj Mahal's words: "a handful of gimme and a mouthful of much obliged."  This ain't a home video we're talking about.  This is a commercial project.  The first rule of a commercial project is that the people who contribute to time, effort, and money to it get paid, if not up front, then when the project earns money.  Neither is on offer here.  

Regards, Richard Hunter








author, "Jazz Harp" 
latest mp3s and harmonica blog at http://hunterharp.com
Myspace http://myspace.com/richardhunterharp
Vids at http://www.youtube.com/user/lightninrick
more mp3s at http://taxi.com/rhunter
Twitter: lightninrick