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.
Kastenmeir, Chairman House Judiciary
Sub-committee/Copyright Matters

2137 Rayburn HOB

Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Congressman Kastenmeir:

At the January 9, 1990 Los Angeles hearings of your
sub-committee on the motion picture industry, there
was obviously some confusion among the committee
members regarding the concept of the professional
career producer.

The title is necessary, firstly to separate the in-
dividual from the production company, since production
companies frequently refer to themselves collectively
as "the producers" and secondly, to further separate
the particular individual who actually performs the
producer functions on a motion picture from those who,
without performing producer functions, are nevertheless
afforded "negotiated" producer credits, as a part of the
deal-making process. The proliferation of such "negotiated"
credits has made it necessary to distinguish between function-
ing and non-functioning producers. The function of producer
is as much a profession as the function of director, screen-
writer or cinematographer.

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,
unless the screenwriter is speculating on an original work, or
is working directly for the development department of a studio
or production company, it is the producer who supervises the
writer's work, not the director or cinematographer. It is
the producer who will have supplied, or approved the original
concept, or a pre-existing literary work. It is to meet the
creative demands of the producer that the various succeeding
"drafts" become necessary.

In the pre-production phase of the motion picture-making
process, it is the producer who selects or recommends the
selection of the director and briefs him on the creative
It is the producer
thrust of the project, net vice-versa.
and director in tandem to select, brief and supervise the
It is
other creative contributors, as they join the team.
the producer and director in tandem who select, and where
necessary, "read" the cast. At this phase, the screen-
writer's contribution is strictly limited to making the
necessary script changes to achieve a "shooting script"
that incorporates the final creative demands of the pro-
ducer, director and principal cast and the logistical demands
of the production. The cinematographer does not become in-
volved until the final days of pre-production, and then only
to view the completed sets and pre-selected locations from a
photographic point of view and to make whatever photographic
tests that might be required.

The cinema

In the production phase of the motion picture-making process,
the director has complete control of the "set".
tographer is in control of cinematography, but he must photo-
graph the "set-ups" created for him by the director and the
The screenwriter
elements supplied to him by the production.
has no say during this phase. It is, however, the creative
responsibility of the producer to review each day's work
(dailies) and to make whatever creative comments he deems
necessary on the work of the director, the cinematographer,
the performers and the other creative contributors and to
order such changes, re-takes, or additional set-ups as he
may deen necessary to achieve and preserve the creative ob-
jectives of the production. When the chips are down, it is

the creative responsibility of the producer, acting on his
own behalf, if he is the ultimate authority (copyright owner)
or on behalf of the ultimate authority, if he is not, to remove
and replace the director, or a performer, or the cinematographer,
or any other creative contributor, for the creative integrity
of the production.

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
Thank you very much for your letter of January 29.
your description of the role of the professional career producer
very clear and most helpful. I intend to add it to the record of
my Subcommittee's January 9 hearing in Los Angeles.

As I am sure you could tell from attending the hearing, the
issue of artists' rights in the film community is an extremely
complicated one. It involves so many different, and often
conflicting, interests within the film community itself, and in
society as a whole. I consider the issue a fascinating one, and
my Subcommittee will continue to monitor it as events require.

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
VICE PRESIDENT, ASSOCIATION OF NATIONAL ADVERTISERS, INC.,
TO CHAIRMAN WILLIAM J. HUGHES, MARCH 11, 1992 AND MARCH
5, 1992

March 11, 1992
A.N.A.'s 82nd Year

The Honorable William J. Hughes
Chairman

Subcommittee on Intellectual Property
and Judicial Administration

207 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

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
GAIL BLANKE. Aven Products, Inc.

TOM CAMPANELLA, Prom Pictures Corporation
RICHARD A COSTELLO. General Electric Company
HARRY E DAYS. Du Part

DAVID R. DRESCHER, Frult of the Loom, Inc.
JONN J FLIEDER Atate nurance Company
RICHARD A GARVEY, LEGO SVstems, Inc.
LINDAS GRAEMER. Dot Food Company, Inc.
PHILIP GUARASCIO, Generators Corporation

DWITT F HELM JR Assation of National Adverters, Inc.
HELEN P JOHNSON-LEIPOLD $.C. Jahnson W

MAURICEL KELLEY JR. Smekane Beacham Consumer Brands
ROBERT KLUGMAN. Coors Bring Company

L. ROSS LOVE The Procter & Gamble Company
EDWARD C MacEWEN. GTE Corporation
THOMASK MCCRNEY. The House of Sangram
PEGGY MITCHELL-KING. Amencan Express Company
BRADA MOORE Maman Cards incorper
JOHN MORRISON The Coca-Com Company
JOHN O'C MUGENT Under US, Inc.
JAMES C REILLY Corporate
JOHNE AUNAAK United Arlines
JANETL SODERSTROM. Was USA
JOSEPH M STEWART Raloog Company
GEORGE TYRRELL Johnson & Johnson
JOHN VANDERZEE Ford Motor Company
ROBERT W WATSON, AT&T

64-867 O 93 - 8