PBS’ Video Rights Policy Stirs Dispute : Television: Filmmakers worry the network could use it as a condition not just for what programs get funded, as stated, but for which ones get aired.

In the financially insecure world of the documentary filmmaker, the ability to retain video rights is often the next best thing to having a steady paycheck. That’s why a coalition of independent filmmakers and distributors is squaring off with PBS over a new network policy regarding those rights.

The battle stems from a letter that PBS President Bruce Christensen sent to program producers in August, in which he said that “PBS will reserve the right to condition its program funding commitments on the availability to PBS of institutional, audiovisual and/or home video rights.”

In other words, when PBS considers funding requests from filmmakers, it’s also going to put video rights in the negotiating package.

Independents, who are only now beginning to organize in opposition to the policy, see it as a truly threatening gesture.

“PBS funding is a significant part of the independent documentary community’s funding source,” says Betsy McLane of the International Documentary Assn. IDA is a member of the recently formed Coalition for Public Television Access and Diversity, which is opposed to the PBS policy.

“This can bring such pressure upon an independent producer to comply with (PBS’) terms in order to get funding,” says McLane, “even though it might not be the most advantageous place financially for the producer, or the market they want to reach.”

PBS Senior Vice President Peter Downey says the policy actually codifies a practice that has been ongoing at the network for several years. “It seemed useful,” he says, “to put it in writing: ‘Here it is; this is the way we intend to operate.’ ”

Downey says the network broadcasts approximately 200 hours of new documentary programming yearly, of which only 25 hours has been made without any PBS funding. But he rejects allegations that the policy is an attempt to muscle potentially lucrative video rights from relatively powerless independents. Quite the opposite: Downey claims the network’s mandate to deliver quality children’s programming and courses for college credit is a key element in the new dispensation.

“We are rethinking how we accomplish our mission in light of the new broadcast technologies available to us, like cable and video,” he says. “To take advantage of those new distribution needs requires that we obtain the rights from the producer.”

Independents, already beleaguered by a limited number of funding and broadcast sources, see statements such as Downey’s as the equivalent of the 500-pound gorilla trying to dictate terms. They worry that if a filmmaker rejects a network offer, their work won’t be broadcast. There are concerns that even if a producer is inclined to deal with PBS, the financial package offered might not be as good as what they could get from another video distributor. They also feel PBS Video might not be able to provide the kind of specialized marketing required by some films--lesbian and gay films or experimental/avant-garde works, for example.

And, says Robert Richter, president of the Assn. of Independent Video and Filmmakers, which is also a coalition member: “They’re saying they want these kinds of rights for what they fund. But they could say they want those rights for anything they put on the air.”

Distributors of independent documentaries have other objections. Their discontent with the network goes back two years, when PBS refused to allow them to use the PBS logo when promoting work that had aired on public television. Pacific Arts Home Video, which distributes PBS Home Video, has exclusive rights to the logo.

The distributors also allege that PBS is a program licenser, not a program producer, and that the network is attempting to buy ancillary rights to productions in which it has very little financial stake.

“They’re a government-subsidized corporation,” says Mitch Block of Direct Cinema Limited, a major distributor of independent product. “Nowhere in the PBS charter does it say PBS should be involved in home video and educational distribution. It doesn’t make any sense for government entities to compete with for-profit and nonprofit entities.”

PBS’ Downey responds that the network is “a private membership corporation owned by the stations. We do not receive federal funds directly, just some funding through the Corporation for Public Broadcasting”--$27 million of the network’s $110-million programming budget comes from CPB.

Directly addressing the video licensing flap, he adds that “Congress has historically urged us to find and develop new sources of revenue, to allow the federal sources of revenue to drop.”

Downey also claims that PBS programming decisions will continue to be made on the basis of “whether we want the program,” not the availability of video rights. And for those filmmakers who worry about being financially undercut by the network, he says, “when we talk to producers on the basis of obtaining audiovisual or home video rights, it’s on the basis that we will match the best offer they can find.”

PBS has already negotiated several video deals under the policy and, says Eric Sass, senior vice president for video marketing, “We have seen very little effect from it.” He points to two deals that he claims should allay independents’ fears. In one, PBS matched another distributor’s offer and secured video rights; in the other, the network would not match a higher offer yet still committed to broadcasting the program.

Yet filmmakers remain wary of PBS’ intentions. So far, the coalition formed to oppose the PBS policy has attempted to negotiate with the network, while taking its case to the media. But a letter written to PBS by a coalition lawyer has also threatened to “seek appropriate relief at the FCC and Congress” if the situation is not resolved satisfactorily.