Killer of Sheep

I'm going to see this apparently legendary film tonight. I don't, however, really understand this:

Over the years, "Killer of Sheep" has been shown here and there in museums and at festivals, from a tattered 16-millimeter print. With a soundtrack dominated by classics from George Gershwin, Paul Robeson, Etta James and Dinah Washington, the music rights have made a wide release prohibitively expensive. Until now. Through the good offices of archivists at UCLA and the cinematic saints at Milestone Films, "Killer of Sheep" can now finally be seen -- and heard -- in all its glory.

That's some old music. I have a hard time seeing how the rights holders wouldn't be better off waving the fee, letting the movie go into wide release, and then selling a soundtrack album. I mean, how many Paul Robeson CDs sell in any given year? Certainly it seems like an odd reason for a celebrated film to be so hard to see.

Comments

Reason #4,128 that IP law is woefully inadequate, if not actively detrimental.

Posted by Anthony Damiani | June 7, 2007 2:42 PM

"That's some old music. I have a hard time seeing how the rights holders wouldn't be better off waving the fee, letting the movie go into wide release, and then selling a soundtrack album. I mean, how many Paul Robeson CDs sell in any given year?"

Because rights holders are not always rational, and in the last decade it seems a significant percentage of them are fairly irrational.

Posted by Linus | June 7, 2007 2:47 PM

sounds like the Gershwin estate.. the same reason you'll never the 1959 Porgy & Bess on DVD..

Posted by rod | June 7, 2007 2:53 PM

The type of companies interested in putting out Killer of Sheep aren't exactly the kinds with huge budgets, or the kinds that put out soundtrack records.

Plus, there's an Earth Wind and Fire song on the soundtrack too, and that's not as old.

Posted by mark | June 7, 2007 2:56 PM

It also costs money to negotiate and write the contracts, and lawyers aren't cheap. That could well be a factor for small, non-lucrative projects like this, even if the rights holders are willing to talk.

I'm always happy to see you keeping up the fight against intrusive IP law!

Posted by ed | June 7, 2007 2:58 PM

Also, since you seem to be under the impression these are all really ancient performers who've been dead, like, for a billion years at least, it's worth noting that Etta James is still very much alive. Though given the ubiquity of AT LAST in all sorts of venues, I agree the Gershwin estate is the most likely culprit for the prohibitive cost.

Posted by PJ F. | June 7, 2007 3:01 PM

This all leads me to a tangential thought...while I'm no fan of ever expanding IP laws, the notion of a 90 year old copyright is bound to seem nuttier to a 26 year old than to a 65 year old.

Posted by PJ F. | June 7, 2007 3:04 PM

"Remember the sheep killed in Utah awhile back? Well they were naked!

Signed,
Mothra"

--- National Lampoon, Letters to the Editor, c. 1972

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | June 7, 2007 3:06 PM

The type of companies interested in putting out Killer of Sheep aren't exactly the kinds with huge budgets, or the kinds that put out soundtrack records.

Sure, but neither do they need huge budgets to reach their audience. Independent film = distribution category.

The soundtrack record does seem unlikely, however, since soundtrack record strikes me as a mass-marketed distribution category, though I suppose one could be released through indie record stores.

Posted by Kriston | June 7, 2007 3:09 PM

There's a lot of music in the movie. It's beautiful, and damn important to the whole feel of the thing, but when the film was first made in something like 1977, that music wasn't as old as it is now, and it would have been impossible to clear it all. I suspect the reason the movie is finally getting a release is exactly that the music is now old.

It's a great, great film, btw. It's really too bad that IP could hold it up for quite so long. It's like what happened with "Eyes on the Prize."

Posted by Antid Oto | June 7, 2007 3:11 PM

The reason is that licensing is the purview of "music publishing" companies, who are usually entirely unrelated to the record companies. Thus if artist X were to sell a ton of CDs, because their song was heard in a popular film, the "music publishers" won't see a dime -- their profit comes only from the licensing fees.

Of course this is insanely stupid for the music industry as a whole -- they would be much better off to wave licensing fees entirely and sell more records. Then they wouldn't have to bribe radio stations to play their music... If the powers that be had any sense at all -- they would buy out and put out of business the music publishers, and set up a low cost, simple licensing procedure. It would still be expensive to license a band like The Beatles who don't need the advertising, and don't want people becoming sick of their music, but the rights for low selling artists, who could use the promotion, would be available for a song.

But this won't happen, because the music industry is tenaciously clinging to a nearly century old business model, and will continue to do so until most new artist start self publishing, and put the entire industry out of business for good.

Posted by Ted T. | June 7, 2007 3:22 PM

Apparently, the crucial question for IP law is now, "Is it older than 'Steamboat Willie'?"

Posted by rea | June 7, 2007 3:23 PM

like antid, i too have actually seen the film (on videocassette, from my local specialty video store), so i envy matthew's opportunity tonight to see it in good quality: it's a remarkable movie.

Posted by howard | June 7, 2007 3:37 PM

What a coincidence! I'm going to see it tonight, also. Been looking forward to it for a few months, since I saw it was going to play in Dallas.

Posted by strannix | June 7, 2007 3:40 PM

I don't understand how this situation arose. Making
a movie - even an arthouse movie - is a big-money
business, and you can't get people to put up the
money unless there's at least a possibility of
making a profit. So anyone who's even marginally
sane would avoid using music without getting the
appropriate licenses or waivers.

Anyone know the history behind this ?

Posted by Richard Cownie | June 7, 2007 4:00 PM

My understanding of the reason the music wasn't cleared earlier was because this was Charles Burnett's student film when he made it and it wasn't originally expected to ever have a sizable audience, so the question of clearing the music was completely irrelevant. And when it became critically-acclaimed, by that point it was too late in the process.

Also, the time during which this film was unavailable due to the clearance of the music rights was exactly the period that many of the gaps in those rights due to enhancements in the distribution and playing media, and when the amount of money in the various sides involved was increasing exponentially, so my guess is that some of the rights to that music was held by comanies that were worried about setting a bad precedent for the rest of their catalogue.

Posted by msmackle | June 7, 2007 4:05 PM

It's really too bad that IP could hold it up for quite so long. It's like what happened with "Eyes on the Prize."

IIRC, what happened with "Eyes on the Prize" is that they obtained the rights to use music for airing on public television and in classrooms, but did not obtain the rights to air it on pay TV or to sell copies on tape (that was pre-digital). (Indeed, I saw portions of it in college, well after it aired initially on PBS.) This saved money, since the music publishers will bargain for much lower royalties if they know that no one else is making money on the deal. Perhaps these savings either allowed the producers to use more music than they otherwise would have. No one anticipated changes in the marketplace that would leave the producers wanting to sell copies on DVD.

Posted by Tyrone Slothrop | June 7, 2007 4:11 PM

Ah! These comments from reviewers at www.imdb.com
explain the situation - a student film, tiny
budget, and the current distributors have paid
$150K (?) for the music rights. That seems quite
reasonable: I think the IP system is working about
right in this case - if you don't think about IP
issues upfront, then the licensing is an obstacle
to getting your work distributed, but not an
insuperable obstacle.

There are problems with IP law, but allowing
students to steal valuable music IP and make money
off it would hardly be a step forward.

Comments from imdb:

"Around the seventies, when films like Annie Hall, Star Wars, Close Encounters of the Third Kind, and Saturday Night Fever ruled the age, Charles Burnett silently crafted Killer of Sheep, his thesis film for UCLA.

Burnett shot Killer of Sheep over a series of weekends on a shoestring budget of just under $20,000, using friends and relatives as actors"

"Ever since moving to L.A. in the mid-80's, I've heard of KILLER OF SHEEP in almost hushed tones - as if it were some well-kept local secret that non-natives couldn't be let in on. And, the film HAS been elusive. I can only remember a couple of screenings having occurred in the ensuing two decades. Up until now, I didn't know that it COULDN'T be commercially released because of the music rights. Ironically, the music rights cost the current distributor (Milestone) 15 TIMES what the original budget of the entire film was ($10,000)! The money is well spent as the Blues infused tracks add dimension to the piece."

Posted by Richard Cownie | June 7, 2007 4:12 PM

Waiving (the fee).

Waving the flag...

Posted by Granny Grammar | June 7, 2007 8:14 PM

Hello! Good Site! Thanks you! ikondywxiv

Posted by oroaesrnox | June 18, 2007 2:20 PM