THE PRODUCERS BUILD AMERICA PRODUCERS GUILD OF AMERICA, INC. 400 SOUTH BEVERLY DRIVE BEVERLY HILLS, CALIFORNIA 90212 (213) 557-0807 January 29, 1990 The Honorable Congressman Robert W. 2137 Rayburn HOB Washington, D.C. 20515 Dear Congressman Kastenmeir: At the January 9, 1990 Los Angeles hearings of your The title is necessary, firstly to separate the in- I would also like to clarify the relationship between the career producer, the director, the screenwriter and the cinematographer throughout the various phases of the motion picture-making process. In the development phase of the motion picture-making process, In the pre-production phase of the motion picture-making The cinema In the production phase of the motion picture-making process, the creative responsibility of the producer, acting on his In the post production phase of the motion picture-making process, neither the cinematographer nor the screenwriter are involved. The director has total autonomy...in achieving "the director's cut", but it stops there. After presentation of "the director's cut", the creative future of the motion picture passes to the control of the producer, either acting on his own behalf, if he is the ultimate authority (copyright owner), or The acting on behalf of the ultimate authority, if he is not. "director's cut" may be accepted, or it may be altered in whole or in part in determining the "final cut" of the motion picture to be eventually released to the public. After the "final cut", the creative embellishment of the motion picture, with replacement or added dialogue, replacement and added sound effects, musical score, titles and opticals, etc., and the ultimate re-recording session, where all the creative elements of the motion picture are finally "married", are all under the control of the producer. The director has specific rights to consult and to be present, but the screenwriter and the cinematographer have none. It is the producer, either acting on his own behalf, if he is the ultimate authority (copyright owner) or on behalf of the ultimate authority, if he is not, that determines the final "form" in which the creative contents of the motion picture will actually be released to the public. I hope that the above will be of assistance in explaining to your committee members the relationship between the career producer, the director, the screenwriter and the cinematographer throughout the motion picture-making process and the claim of the career producer to be entitled to moral rights because of his participation in the creative authorship of the form and content of the motion picture as it is finally released. It has occurred to me that some of your committee members must have asked themselves why it is that The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences has a "best picture" award separate and apart from its best director, best screenplay, and best cinematography awards and why the best director award, best screenplay award and best cinematography award do not always accrue to the "best picture"! I found As I am sure you could tell from attending the hearing, the Again, thank you for your testimony at the hearing, and for your letter expanding on that testimony. APPENDIX 4.-LETTER AND STATEMENT FROM DANIEL L. JAFFE, EXECUTIVE March 11, 1992 The Honorable William J. Hughes Subcommittee on Intellectual Property 207 Cannon House Office Building Dear Mr. Chairman: The Association of National Advertisers, Inc. (A.NA.) respectfully requests that the enclosed statement be inserted in the printed record for the hearing on H.R. 3051, the Film Disclosure Act of 1991, which was held by the Subcommittee on Intellectual Property and Judicial Administration on March 5, 1992. In addition, A.NA. asks that this letter, which discusses an important development which occurred at the hearing, also be inserted in the printed record. As you know, Representative Mrazek, the author of H.R. 3051 stated at the hearing that he believes that S. 2256, the Senate version of H.R. 3051 which was sponsored by Senator Alan Simpson, is a "superior" piece of legislation to H.R. 3051. Representative Mrazek added that he would consider introducing S. 2256 as a substitute for his own film labeling bill. A.NA. would like to state for the record that although S. 2256 does not require the extensive labeling requirements regarding film alterations to be repeated in advertising and promotional material for films, as does H.R. 3051, A.NA. remains strongly opposed to S. 2256. Like H.R. 3051, S. 2256 represents a radical departure from American copyright law which would set a major precedent that would most likely lead to an explosion of demands for "moral rights" recognition by creative collaborators in numerous industries, including advertising. Directors: RICHARD S. BARTLETT, Eastman Kodak Company TOM CAMPANELLA, Prom Pictures Corporation DAVID R. DRESCHER, Frult of the Loom, Inc. DWITT F HELM JR Assation of National Adverters, Inc. MAURICEL KELLEY JR. Smekane Beacham Consumer Brands L. ROSS LOVE The Procter & Gamble Company 64-867 O 93 - 8 |