News

Special Stips

By DonnaFrench

I have sent through to Equity two sets of special stips; the first for the White Queen and the second for Southcliffe. I thought it was worth attaching the responses so that we are all aware of the areas of contention.
Southcliffe:
· Clause 1, i assume you are ok with the fee including all those add in’s? We would argue that the fixed fees may not represent full and proper equitable remuneration for rental and lending rights
· You can rebut the suggestion within clause 7.2 by way of inserting “The Artist hereby asserts his/her moral right to be identified as a performer, conferred by section 205D of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 as amended by the Performances (Moral Rights etc) Regulations 2006”
· Clause 7.4 doesn’t make sense and is dangerously linked to clause 15. The internet is just the means and platform by which the consumer can access product and in its self isn’t really a means of exploitation
· Clause 15 should be struck through. VoD services and catch up is within the remit of the commissioning broadcaster , in this case C4, and therefore such means of exploitation and payment is accommodated by way of a collective licence negotiated by Equity with C4 and payment distributed by BECS. DTO is not analogous to ROW as DTO is essentially a making available right and not a broadcast right and C4 , if they have the rights operate a 17% pro rata royalty share of the download price with some dedication before the application of the royalty. Whilst DTO appears to be analogous to DVD the application of the royalty is different as the business model is different. What im trying to say is get rid of that clause in its entirety.
The White Queen
Nothing really jumps out at me but i would offer up the following observations:
· Who is the broadcaster/commissioning company
· Clause 14 ‘over run’ is not contained within the agreement and nor is ‘pencil’ they can either opt to extend the period of first call clause(T17) of the PACT agreement or not
· Clause 15 you can if you so wish seek to rebut the suggestion to waive moral rights by inserting “The Artist hereby asserts his/her moral right to be identified as a performer, conferred by section 205D of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 as amended by the Performances (Moral Rights etc) Regulations 2006”
There you go.
Thanks