Dear Sirs,

Belinda Hale B.A Hons M.A

Flat 6

32 Pembridge Square

London

W2 4DT

0207 243 3413

14 September 2004

Dear Ray,

I’m writing to advise you that I attended the AGM of the London Production

Division of BECTU on Saturday the 26^th June. An issue has arisen in respect of the status of the rules and byelaws for the Division. At an October meeting of the Division in 2003 a paper by the AGS was endorsed pending legal advice,

The intention was to alter the rules and byelaws of the Division. The main consequence was in respect of the status of non-elected representatives to the LPD. My own status was affected as a previously elected Representative as our Branch had failed repeatedly to achieve a quorate AGM. I had been considered to have been Acting Chair and I obviously requested clarification in light of the situation as to how the affairs of the Animation Branch were to be dealt with. In light of the paper that was considered to have been endorsed by the committee my status and that of other individuals from Branches in a similar position was considered to have been as an ‘Observer’ with no power to vote. Not even in respect of any matters directly concerning the Animation Branch. Of course this has worried me deeply especially in light of the fact that BECTU have no formal complaints procedure as well as in light of the issues that I consider to be present in respect of the Animation members copyright interests and BECTU/DACS handling of these matters. Of course I have taken up issues with the NEC directly.

At the meeting on Saturday a decision was taken at LPD AGM to agree the original rules & byelaws as the constant in order that the AGM might proceed. In effect a decision has now been taken to reduce the quorum for the LPD AGM as well as the ordinary LPD meetings. A request to reduce the AGM and ordinary meeting quorums for the Animation members was denied. I will be requesting a breakdown of the LPD Branches by number of members and by number of committee each branch committee and their ‘quorums’. I am well aware of the fact that a precedent exists whereby the quorum for the Producers & Directors Branch was reduced, the committee was revitalised and I would argue that there is no reason that a quorum shouldn’t be increased accordingly. I am hopeful that the Animation members will achieve a quorum but I am very concerned that insufficient support has been given to these members in light of the obvious difficulties that we have experienced and I can say that without establishing an initial steering committee not even the most basic steps can be effected in order to get the Branch motivated. I do not think that BECTU have shown enough support for such ranches and I would query the manner in which resources have been directed by LPD. The members in LPD have after all faced extreme difficulties in recent years due to staff shortages prior to our move to Clapham as well as the knock on effect of that move and the difficulties that members have in attending meetings in Clapham at that hour of the day. Central London is a preferred meeting place for people in the business and why the Branch should be charged over the

odds for a move that was decided by the N.E.C beats me. I don’t think that BECTU should be charging individual branches in this way. Personally I had even proposed the use of my office in Notting Hill without charge. Not something that I would have done indefinitely but certainly until we had overcome certain changes. At least members could have had their travel re-imbrued. They do have to attend an AGM from all over the South East; equally a suggestion that we had a postal ballot has never been followed up.

BECTU have to follow the law and the rules but they can’t the members if they

put the resources in. Frankly for the last 10 months wee have been unfairly denied any representation in respect of out affairs as we were not even permitted to submit an agenda for an ordinary meeting for which we might have had a quorum. Like me past acting committee members were deemed to be no longer formal delegates let alone acting. Is that the way to treat members of long standing who have given time and support to the Union at their own expense?

The status of LPD has now got to be clarified most urgently in order to establish what the rules & byelaws now are? Not to mention what status members have and what democratic representation a large percentage of it’s’ members have. My view is that they must all be formally notified by LPD directly in the absence of any reps that can promote the rules & byelaws to them. They may not be interested in rules and bylaws as one Official present intimated but they only receive benefits of the Union subject to rule therefore they must be informed.

Sincerely,

Belinda Hale B.A Hons M.A

8.7.01

Dear Roger,

I previously corrected the attachment but it didn't save the correction in the source file. Also the letter that I received from Joanna Cave was copied to A.Egan. I will be responding to it more fully than I previously have done. I think that it should also be noted that it was at my insistence that a representative

from the Art Department make representation to DACS on behalf of their interests due to the fact that

I had concerns for them but it was never my intention that their interests should override those of the Animation Artists. I personally attended a meeting of the Art Department due to the lengthy discussions that were taking place with regard to various rights because I think that direct representation form the quite various areas which DACS represent is necessary and the correct manner for the consultative process.

It grieves me that in the meantime the Animation Artists who have initiated so much have been sidelined so blatantly and I think all have to agree that it is due to the magnitude of their claims and an overriding interest in seeing them minimised due to the relatively small amounts so to say in the pot. I have proposed a way of addressing this in writing to DACS and was very sorry that Joanna in her letter to me made no mention of it which is why I now insist that in fairness a fee per use per work be made rather than the complex calculations that have been proposed that invariably which-ever way they are applied

must mean a capping on the amounts paid to the Animation Artists, which is why the Animation Artists have consistently raised legitimate issues and requested clear rules which could not possibly infringe the database protection act? No names or data have to be mentioned if clear rules per use per work apply

and the calculations are quite simply based on a division of the pot accordingly. It was always made clear that no value judgement would take place. Therefore a fee per use per work is the only correct way to precede.

My apologies for my earlier error in the attachment, I have no wish to compromise the Animation Artists Rights Primary or Secondary which as I pointed out are clear in the general context of my correspondence to you.

yours sincerely

Belinda Hale M.A

----- Original Message -----
From: visiblearts

To: rosie russon ; Roger Bolton ; Joanna Cave ; Andy Egan

Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2001 4:08 PM

Subject: Fw: Animation Artists Rights

Dear Roger,

Please find attached a revised letter just in case my error in the final paragraph was not understood as an obvious error given the overall context of my letter to you.

I can not put into words how angry I am at the manner in which the animation artists Primary Rights Interests have been sidelined when all the other catagories of creative in BECTU have been issued with

application forms to apply for Primary Rights membership of various affiliated Organisations due to numerous propositions that I personally have drafted, written, presented to the Animation Committee,

put to SOC and had passed, subsequently put to Conference and had passed despite intense derision from numerous sources.

These propositions have benefited so many individuals who seem to be wholly and blissfully ignorant if my longstanding contributions in this area, to then be told that I have no remit in these matters

which are rights that no one other than the creative themselves can mandate, where I am the elected Chair representing these individuals and alerting you to a blatant neglect of those who have been empowered to enable these rights by omitting to ensure that the necessary forms are distributed to them really is tantamount to being proverbially pissed on from the highest level. I also insist that my correspondence to you is taken to the NEC with the letter from Joanna Cave from DACS.

I again urge you to take issue and establish who is responsible for these decisions that are totally irregular. You have a mandate from the Animation Committee the LPD and Annual Conference to ensure that the Animation Members are enabled to pursue their legitimate copyright Interests and any monies due to them,not to prevent them from doing so.

yours sincerely Belinda Hale M.A

----- Original Message -----
From: visiblearts

To: Roger Bolton

Cc: Spencer MacDonald ; Joanna Cave

Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2001 12:33 PM

Subject: Animation Artists Rights

Dear Roger,

Please find attached a copy of a letter that I am sending to you by recorded delivery.

Thanks

Belinda Hale M.A

Flat 6,

32 Pembridge Square,

London,

W2 4DT

Tel: 0207 243 3413

31.7.01

Dear Roger,

I am writing to you with regard to Animation Artists copyright entitlements. The manner of the distribution of monies via DACS in the absence of a clear and accurate account of the rules for such distribution is cause for concern especially as DACS and BECTU appear to have over looked the serious consequences of neglecting the fact that no primary rights have on many occasions been properly assigned. What-ever the reasons for this it is basically an infringement of the artists rights and no one other than the artist themselves has any right to assign these rights in order to redress the problem.

Agreement has to be reached with the artists directly and individually; discussing secondary rights prior to addressing the matter of the Primary Rights is totally irregular. I have always pointed this out to DACS this is why the animation discussions were repeatedly held over and it was agreed that the members should be invited to join DACS as Primary Rights holders. I will not accept that any BECTU Official or employee has any remit with regard to those individual Primary Rights and the request for the Primary Rights Forms to go out via BECTU was in order that the members also obtain an incentive to sign up as the fee is reduced for BECTU members. The fact that members have been waiting in legitimate expectation of receiving these forms in order to submit legitimate applications to join DACS as Primary Rights holders and have not submitted applications to do so due to not having yet had the forms distributed to them because of a decision by BECTU staff on the matter should not prejudice their claims for secondary rights.

My concern is that it will be maintained that as individuals were not willing to sign up for Primary Rights Membership their applications for secondary rights payments are questionable. The issue of the Primary Rights infringements was raised at the outset and this should have been systematically addressed immediately rather than via the deployment of methods that query over and over again the actual rights and entitlements of the claimants who have had enough intimidation over their rights for years without having to endure it from those they are paying to support and enable their claims. The onus should be on those who have committed infringements to prove that they own the rights not the other way around. In addition the only effective way to address the distribution fairly is on a payment basis of a fee per use of a work subject to rules that are approved and agreed by the elected representatives for the Artists and that should be balloted on. What is more the Primary Rights issues will first have to be resolved and any damages due negotiated and payments in lieu of such damages made anything else will immediately be disputed by the Animation Artists. There is a workable formula, it's called fairness and it really is about time that the issues in the animation sector were properly and formally addressed via the legitimate routes in order that the prevalent abusive practices do not spread elsewhere which would be highly detrimental all around.

I am copying this to yourself and Joanna Cave and notify both DACS and BECTU formally herewith that I reserve all my rights until an acceptable position on these matters has been arrived at that does not compromise the interests of the Animation Artists and I would request that a formal notice to the Animation Artists be sent out advising them to notify DACS and BECTU formally that they too should reserve the rights to which they are affiliated to DACS via BECTU for payment until they are satisfied that a workable arrangement has been achieved.

With all respect due

Belinda Hale M.A

Cc Joanna Cave DACS

Cc Animation Committee

Cc Spencer MacDonald

28.2.02

Dear Roger,

In the light of your recent correspondence to me with regard to my representative

position at DACS, could you please copy to me the rules and constitutional

position of the Copyright as a sub-committee of the NEC.

I would also be grateful for clarification of the decision making processes of this

committee and the manner in which representation, Chairing and appointments etc

are decided.

I would also like an explanation of why BECTU Policy considers that it is undesirable and

unreasonable for the BECTU Animation Artists to have their Primary Rights administered by

DACS as it was put to me by Andy Egan at the animation committee meeting of the 6th February

2002.

The meeting was attended by Tudor Gates, Janet Ibbottson and Andy Egan. The meeting

was also attended by Dick Horn, Spencer MacDonald and myself. Currently only 4 animation artists

expressed interest at continuing to be active on the committee at the AGM which Mr Egan

also attended. So in fact we could claim that we had a quoram. Unfortunately Mr Egan in sending

out a letter to the committee which clearly expresses the points that I mention above precluded

real debate on the matter as the letter and his general position at the meeting was not in any

way designed to express willingness let alone openness towards the interest that has been expressed

by various members of the Animation Sub-Division to me personally that they are interested in having this

option made available to them. In fact it was ventured by Ms Ibbotson that DACS wouldn't want the job,

ironically I was told that as an individual I could sign up as a Primary Rights member of DACS but that it

would not be in line with BECTU Policy. Was a threat implicit or not? What would the consequences to me

as a member of BECTU be if I were to sign up to DACS as a Primary Rights Member be? Would it

different if it were a different Collecting Society? Also given my current dispute with DACS I would not

consider joining them as while my rights are reserved they cannot administer them. The debate on Primary

Rights is one of principle for the Animation Artists and separate from the issues surrounding the Secondary

Rights Distribution. Given the unwillingness of DACS to date to put into writing the requested

rules and principles governing the distribution and the dates for their application it is also open to

debate as to whether it would be acceptable that DACS administer any Primary Rights in Animation

let alone conceivable.

I found Mr Egan's assertions irrational, contradictory, highly personal and designed to undermine my

standing as the Chair of Animation. The Animation Committee over the past years have sought to address

various matters concerning the sector in which they work. We have to be highly committed to our work

in order to survive. Tenacity on the few rights that we do have is essential. Ceding something that we cannot

be compelled to cede as it is a human right is not something that the Union should be seeking to

compel us to cede and Mr Egan knows full well that this is the case. I brought with me to the meeting

a memo which was recently circulated to the Film Policy Committee by him on the matter of freedom of expression.

As originators we have a right to hang on to our position with full recognition of what we contribute to and

create as well as co-create. Our working practices may not be 'normal' let alone designed to be administered

by 'bureaucrats' but if BECTU recruit and take subs from such originators it is in order to protect their integrity

rather than to undermine it and defraud them of their rightful entitlements to income under the protection of the law.

However inconvenient this may be in an administrative sense! Originators have to put themselves out on a limb

a lot of the time. This does not preclude them from a well earnt share in the profits of their work or entitle

a trade union to interfere with the only viable means of establishing a fair remuneration for such work. The long

run in times for such productions with little money during that period earn the big fees at the end and this has to be

shared with those who create the copyright, not just with those who sealed the deal. BECTU will no doubt

find it self the subject of major litigation if it does not put it's house in order over the treatment that was meted

out to me which no doubt serves to intimidate others whose names were requested of me that might want

to further pursue monies due to them. BECTU could hold a ballot on the matter but those individuals have

as much right to confidentiality as I do with regard to my personal position which was clearly defamed and

misrepresented by Mr Egan/ BECTU in a number of ways.

The high-handed manner and arrogance with which I had to endure the repeated illogic of Mr Egan's argument

and Ms Ibbottsons assertions that my writing is incoherent and that she could not understand my position?

Assertions that were backed up with claims that people are highly satisfied with BECTUs' policy on these matters

concern me deeply as it is not what is put to me as the Chair of Animation. Thus I can only ask that Mr Egan

supply the names of these happy individuals with written statements as to why they are so happy to

disprove any claims that they might be profiting from the losses as a direct result of BECTUs Policy

that serve as detrimental to others. Perhaps everything would be resolved if DACS laid bare it rules and principles

which in their changing nature might fall foul of being found to be so flexible as to be entirely wanton and fictitious.

Bearing in mind that DACS articles and memorandum of association do allow for such change.. still, I don't think

that conceptual rules applied as deemed fitting for the moment would inspire confidence in taking up membership of an organisation. Mr Egan's lack of any concern over this matter leads me to ask whether Mr Egan stands to benefit it

in any way in the context of his own work outside of BECTU. Mr Egan has quite a reputation which precedes him.

His work outside of BECTU with legal associates which he was keen to promote at the DACS Launch when I

introduced him to a fellow committee member no doubt gives him a great deal of interest in the outcome of these matters.

I would hate to think that he staked his personal reputation on guaranteeing an outcome that he cannot deliver,

likewise the arguments that he promised to wipe the floor with were not in evidence, personal character

assassination really is low level and hardly stylish. Lynch mob comes to mind but on behalf of whom is the

legitimate question here? I here-with request that Mr Egan make assurances in writing to the Animation Artists that his

associates have nothing to lose as a result of the Animation Artists legitimately asserting their Primary Rights.

I continue to be in correspondence with my solicitors who have a keen interest in the matters that we are discussing.

Likewise I continue to reseve my rights and have still had no explanation from DACS over the mysterious co-incidence of the

notice sent to me and the matchin sum of monies paid into one of my accounts for which DACS had no details

and for which my bank cannot identify a payee. As soon as DACS are happy to confirm that they paid the monies in I will take it up accordingly, they will get it back and I am informed by the Police that their action would be deemed malicious under the circumstances.

Maliciuos harrassment is extremely unpleasent to experience, I will not let this rest and if Mr Egan is concerned for my

state of mind which he considers to be negative I can only assure him that in the face of his attitude on these matters to express

delight let alone happinesss would certainly indicate derangement in my book. He may rest assured that there are

many satisfactory areas in my life which serve me well in maintaining a life/work balance. Originators constantly seek

inspiration and if there were copyright in ideas BECTU could certainly claim to inspire many and serve as wonderful

if not altogether affirmative source of character references which may explain the Animation Artists real benefit in membership and

the reason why they have held back from complaining for so long. The sheer and fascinating display of characters on offer even leads Mr Mac Donald to concede that our meetings are the most exciting meetings that he attends... Thank God for humour, grace

and hell.. but it's about time our rights were properly recognised! On this I joke not. Ps I know Tudor wouldn't believe

it but I once won an award for writing! I'd recomend 'The Colour Purple' the original book not the film script. It's style is

inspiring. Making people think is what counts and, yeh, it can be hard!

If this goes to court BECTU would have to prove that they were not playing one part of the membership off against

another part unfairly for BECTU or anybody elses' own benefit.

with sincerity and best regards!

Belinda Hale M.A

Chair Animation

19.4.02

Dear Andy,

Please note the correspondence below and ensure that Ms Russons'

paper as copied to me is circulated with the agenda of the next copyright

committee meeting.

Thank-you for your attention to this.

Belinda Hale M.A

----- Original Message -----

From: visiblearts

To: Rosie Barlas

Sent: Friday, April 19, 2002 7:05 PM

Subject: Re:

19.4.02

Dear Rosie,

Thanks for you response and I am sure that we will enjoy discussing

your views at the next copyright committee in the light of the clarification

of BECTUs' policy in a letter from Roger Bolton as recently circulated

to the Animation members on which I have already commented and

which no doubt will also have been circulated to you.

Do you support it?

All the best

Belinda Hale M.A

----- Original Message -----

From: Rosie Barlas

To: visiblearts

Cc: Spencer MacDonald ; Roger Bolton

Sent: Friday, April 19, 2002 11:56 AM

Subject: Re:

Dear Belinda

My email was a reply to your email, answering the questions you posed to me. It was sent out of courtesy to you.

Regards

Rosie

_________________
Rosie Russon Design
25 Hartland Road
London NW1 8DB

----- Original Message -----

From: visiblearts

To: rosie russon

Cc: Spencer MacDonald ; Roger Bolton

Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2002 11:18 AM

18.4.02

Dear Rosie,

Hope that you are well, I have not read your email but would suggest that

you forward it to Andy Egan or the NEC as my understanding is that

discussion should take place at committee. Any other general enquiries

with regard to Animation should be forwarded via Spencer Mac Donald

the National Official who you know deals with the Animation Sub Division.

This is to ensure accountability and transparency at all levels. I have been

warned not to enter into correspondence with DACS directly over the

Animation Rights and would suggest that if this causes you a problem that

you take it up with the NEC, Roger Bolton or the National Supervisory Official

for LPD Martin Spence. As far as i am aware I am not accountable under

rule to you directly and have been informed by virtue of the NEC minutes that

I have no representive function with regard to Animation at DACS.

I am copying this to Roger Bolton, Martin Spence and Spencer Mac Donald for

their attention.

yours sincerely

Belinda Hale M.A

apologies, please see the underlined inclusion of words that had been ommitted in my first email, altough I credit you with the intelligence to have guessed them correctly from the context

thanks for your attention to this

Belinda

----- Original Message -----

From: visiblearts

To: Andy Egan

Cc: dave elvin ; Roger Bolton ; rosie russon ; Spencer MacDonald

Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2002 10:47 AM

Subject: BECTU Collective Policy Copyright

16.1.02

Dear Andy,

Just for clarification purposes, you proposed that the BECTU Copyright Committee formulate

the BECTU Collective Line on Copyright, I personally objected as I regarded this as creating

a potential issue over liability with regard to the line formulated. I would like further clarification of

how any actions taken by BECTU on behalf of it's members would be handled if the members

suffered damages as a consequence of the line as formulated by the copyright committee.

In addition issues over fees/rates due to members of any Branch/Sub-Division when subject to

any kind of collective agreement are usually balloted on. I don't understand why the

Animation members cannot be balloted over the level of fees proposed in lieu of royalties

due to them. I also don't understand why there is such an issue over the demonstration

in writing of the rules and principles for any distribution to secondary rights members of the

collecting societies. Collecting Societies who demonstrate their rules and principles for

distribution don't appear to suffer as a consequence. On the contrary it increases confidence in them

as making limited information available leads to the type of unease you say that BECTU wants to

avoid. This is simply due to the fact that it is likely to be misconstrued in the absence of awareness

of the greater context of the strategies being employed for distribution. Otherwise it simply

would appear that secondary rights members are being coerced into accepting nominal fees in lieu of

past infringements of their works. If the fees were beneficial it would be another story but 2.5p per work?

Advertising? The minimum fee payable was cited as £25? The information available publicly does

neither DACS or BECTU credit as it stands. 'Success' has to be qualified and to know who the real

benefit went to is a legitimate question.

Likewise a formal means of appeal with regard to claims ensures that in principle critique is accepted.

Any bodies distributing public monies ought to endeavour to operate in line with best

practice. Feedback is usually more than welcome. Frankly the copyright committee should not

be addressing Sub Division or Branch matters. As the issue has been raised and discussed at LPD

Conference perhaps we need to discuss how the LPD Committee should address the issues of

areas of the Union Membership where despite all attempts no agreements have been negotiated.

This might be considered an issue of serious urgency in the light of the meeting yesterday.

Further the issue of past Pirating of works is at the root of the dissent and BECTU have to ensure

that they are effecting constructive strategies to address the matter not attempting to sweep blatant

infringements under the carpet. In the light of forthcoming legislation and issues with regard to new

technology piracy needs to be on the agenda for the copyright committee and frankly discussed.

as does the provenance in Artwork and the miss-attribution of art-works to individuals not responsible for

the practical origination of them. Issues of concealment and fraud, I remind you of the proposition

on credits remitted at Annual Conference to the NEC a few years ago, the expense was cited as the issue?

It would be embarrassing to BECTU if it were made to look as if inaction on the matter was concealment.

Obviously the matter of commissioning creates great dissent as differentiation was made between

commissioned works and non commissioned works. The creator of the work has copyright regardless

of whether the work was commissioned or not. If the work is original an original copyrightable work has been

created and the copyright in the work has to be assigned in some form or other whether it be by virtue of employment status,

contract or a genuine verbal agreement to the commissioning party if they want to control it's use.

In the absence of any agreement or discussion with regard to the copyright in the work artists clearly and

patently have the right to trade and retain ownership of the copyright in their work. It is certainly not for the

BECTU Copyright Committee to adjudicate over whether individual creators have copyright or not in the

absence of evidence with regard to individual cases and they are certainly not appointed agents to the

BECTU members.

If the BECTU Collective line is to be formulated it must be enshrined in writing and subject the approval of the

NEC as they would have to account for it? Equally it must reflect past Conference decisions on these matters

and the Animation Members have made clear representation to Annual Conference with regard to these matters

regularly for many years and the Primary Rights have clearly been raised on numerous occasions. It is tedious

boring and tiring work but it has been the will of the Sub Division and Conference that these matters be addressed.

If it affected other members terms & conditions of work and pay in the way that it does the animation members

perhaps there would be more interest.I don't have to remind you that the interests of the groups that I have most

vociferously stood up for have almost been entirely left out of the entire equation which probably suits those who

benefited most. In the absence of rules and principles for the distribution being made public of course my viewpoint

cannot be backed up. Which again no doubt suits those who have benefited and raised no objection. Those who

you testify as having expressed their deep thanks to BECTU. I haven't received a single vote of thanks and I wouldn't

expect thanks for honesty. It doesn't appear to fit in with the BECTU Collective Policy. How can we have a

Collective Policy without a plebiscite? As you readily state that it is your decision that Application Forms for Primary Rights Membership should not be distributed to the Animation members can you personally justify your decision to the NEC

or the Animation Members who formally requested the distribution of application forms in the first place?

The animation members proposition on Primary Rights that went to Annual Conference last year (2001) was

remitted to the NEC at the request of the NEC. I will not be made to look as if I have had any part in seeking to defraud

them or mislead them as to their human rights as laid in law. likewise I expressed the view at Conference that BECTU

members should not be forced into a contract by virtue of their membership of BECTU to commit criminal offences.

This would cover fraud, concealment and any other misdemeanour that might arise out of sheer lack of considered action

on BECTUs' behalf. As a member of the Union I have a legitimate right and duty to require the Union and any

organisation to which it is affiliated to maintain accountability. Frankly my main concern has been to see that BECTU

and DACS maintain legitimate and accountable working practices. If it cannot be demonstrated that this is the case then

issues will arise. I would rather that this was addressed by both organisations internally rather than by external forces.

Unless BECTU are prepared to take the necessary actions in order to effect a resolution of these matters, by court

action if necessary I am concerned that BECTU will find itself the subject of serious court actions against it. I have expressed

this concern over the past years and my concern is only increasing.

I agree that this is causing me anxiety, I am a BECTU member and the attitudes expressed last night were deeply worrying

especially as copyright is now a human right enshrined in law and I would find myself at odds with any line that opposed,

undermined or sought to deprive individuals of such basic rights. Like any organisation if we cannot account for ourselves in a clear manner we may be held liable for the consequences and if it is my view that BECTU are acting in an illegal manner I would have to take the necessary steps to address the issue as any responsible member of an organisation required to account for itself in law must do.

I hope that this better expresses to you why I sent my previous email. It was written in haste but meant in good faith. I welcome

further discussion of these matters and look forward to clarification and a resolution of the problems that I have outlined to you

above as promised. BECTU has a duty to address the issues of what has been a very painful teething process, there were never

any doubts that there would be issues. I do however certainly expect BECTU to take action if and where is appropriate and would like clarification over how such a decision will be made?

yours sincerely

Belinda Hale M.A

16.1.02

Dear Andy,

Just for clarification purposes, you proposed that the BECTU Copyright Committee formulate

the BECTU Collective Line on Copyright, I personally objected as I regarded this as creating

a potential issue over liability with regard to the line formulated. I would like further clarification of

how any actions taken by BECTU on behalf of it's members would be handled if the members

suffered damages as a consequence of the line as formulated by the copyright committee.

In addition issues over fees/rates due to members of any Branch/Sub-Division when subject to

any kind of collective agreement are usually balloted on. I don't understand why the

Animation members cannot be balloted over the level of fees proposed in lieu of royalties

due to them. I also don't understand why there is such an issue over the demonstration

in writing of the rules and principles for any distribution to secondary rights members of the

collecting societies. Collecting Societies who demonstrate their rules and principles for

distribution don't appear to suffer as a consequence. On the contrary it increases confidence in them

as making limited information available leads to the type of unease you say that BECTU wants to

avoid. This is simply due to the fact that it is likely to be misconstrued in the absence of awareness

of the greater context of the strategies being employed for distribution. Otherwise it simply

would appear that secondary rights members are being coerced into accepting nominal fees in lieu of

past infringements of their works. If the fees were beneficial it would be another story but 2.5p per work?

Advertising? The minimum fee payable was cited as £25? The information available publicly does

neither DACS or BECTU credit as it stands. 'Success' has to be qualified and to know who the real

benefit went to is a legitimate question.

Likewise a formal means of appeal with regard to claims ensures that in principle critique is accepted.

Any bodies distributing public monies ought to endeavour to operate in line with best

practice. Feedback is usually more than welcome. Frankly the copyright committee should not

be addressing Sub Division or Branch matters. As the issue has been raised and discussed at LPD

Conference perhaps we need to discuss how the LPD Committee should address the issues of

areas of the Union Membership where despite all attempts no agreements have been negotiated.

This might be considered an issue of serious urgency in the light of the meeting yesterday.

Further the issue of past Pirating of works is at the root of the dissent and BECTU have to ensure

that they are effecting constructive strategies to address the matter not attempting to sweep blatant

infringements under the carpet. In the light of forthcoming legislation and issues with regard to new

technology piracy needs to be on the agenda for the copyright committee and frankly discussed.

as does the provenance in Artwork and the miss-attribution of art-works to individuals not responsible for

the practical origination of them. Issues of concealment and fraud, I remind you of the proposition

on credits remitted at Annual Conference to the NEC a few years ago, the expense was cited as the issue?

It would be embarrassing to BECTU if it were made to look as if inaction on the matter was concealment.

Obviously the matter of commissioning creates great dissent as differentiation was made between

commissioned works and non commissioned works. The creator of the work has copyright regardless

of whether the work was commissioned or not. If the work is original an original copyrightable work has been

created and the has to be assigned in some form or other whether it be by virtue of employment status,

contract or a genuine verbal agreement to the commissioning party if they want to control it's use.

In the absence of any agreement or discussion with regard to the copyright in the work artists clearly and

patently have the right to trade and retain ownership of the copyright in their work. It is certainly not for the

BECTU Copyright Committee to adjudicate over whether individual creators have copyright or not in the

absence of evidence with regard to individual cases and they are certainly not appointed agents to the

BECTU members.

If the BECTU Collective line is to be formulated it must be enshrined in writing and subject the approval of the

NEC as they would have to account for it? Equally it must reflect past Conference decisions on these matters

and the Animation Members have made clear representation to Annual Conference with regard to these matters

regularly for many years and the Primary Rights have clearly been raised on numerous occasions. It is tedious

boring and tiring work but it has been the will of the Sub Division and Conference that these matters be addressed.

If it affected other members terms & conditions of work and pay in the way that it does the animation members

perhaps there would be more interest.I don't have to remind you that the interests of the groups that I have most

vociferously stood up for have almost been entirely left out of the entire equation which probably suits those who

benefited most. In the absence of rules and principles for the distribution being made public of course my viewpoint

cannot be backed up. Which again no doubt suits those who have benefited and raised no objection. Those who

you testify as having expressed their deep thanks to BECTU. I haven't received a single vote of thanks and I wouldn't

expect thanks for honesty. It doesn't appear to fit in with the BECTU Collective Policy. How can we have a

Collective Policy without a plebiscite? As you readily state that it is your decision that Application Forms for Primary Rights Membership should not be distributed to the Animation members can you personally justify your decision to the NEC

or the Animation Members who formally requested the distribution of application forms in the first place?

The animation members proposition on Primary Rights that went to Annual Conference last year (2001) was

remitted to the NEC at the request of the NEC. I will not be made to look as if I have had any part in seeking to defraud

them or mislead them as to their human rights as laid in law. likewise I expressed the view at Conference that BECTU

members should not be forced into a contract by virtue of their membership of BECTU to commit criminal offences.

This would cover fraud, concealment and any other misdemeanour that might arise out of sheer lack of considered action

on BECTUs' behalf. As a member of the Union I have a legitimate right and duty to require the Union and any

organisation to which it is affiliated to maintain accountability. Frankly my main concern has been to see that BECTU

and DACS maintain legitimate and accountable working practices. If it cannot be demonstrated that this is the case then

issues will arise. I would rather that this was addressed by both organisations internally rather than by external forces.

Unless BECTU are prepared to take the necessary actions in order to effect a resolution of these matters, by court

action if necessary I am concerned that BECTU will find itself the subject of serious court actions against it. I have expressed

this concern over the past years and my concern is only increasing.

I agree that this is causing me anxiety, I am a BECTU member and the attitudes expressed last night were deeply worrying

especially as copyright is now a human right enshrined in law and I would find myself at odds with any line that opposed,

undermined or sought to deprive individuals of such basic rights. Like any organisation if we cannot account for ourselves in a clear manner we may be held liable for the consequences and if it is my view that BECTU are acting in an illegal manner I would have to take the necessary steps to address the issue as any responsible member of an organisation required to account for itself in law must do.

I hope that this better expresses to you why I sent my previous email. It was written in haste but meant in good faith. I welcome

further discussion of these matters and look forward to clarification and a resolution of the problems that I have outlined to you

above as promised. BECTU has a duty to address the issues of what has been a very painful teething process, there were never

any doubts that there would be issues. I do however certainly expect BECTU to take action if and where is appropriate and would like clarification over how such a decision will be made?

yours sincerely

Belinda Hale M.A

this is hopefully the last update on this matter but mailing the issue out certainly seems to have jogged somebody into action...thanks for bearing with with

----- Original Message -----
From: Belinda Hale

To: Joanna Cave

Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2003 8:53 AM

Subject: Re: DACS payback

18.12.03

Dear Joanne,

With all respect I do not want a royalty cheque re-issued from DACS and as I expressly reserved my rights in writing and informed you of this I still fail to understand your inability to comprehend my reasons for doing so. I would be grateful for a copy of your complaints policy.

Just for your records my claim for Distribution 1999 was not processed or remunerated. To my recollection and according to my records the BECTU members claims were taken on board too late for processing. Issues that still needed to be addresed in respect of processing of such claims were to be clarified in Payback 2001 which was to have been distribution 2000. Of course you were not at DACS in 1999 and I appreciate that in the handover you may not have had this point drawn to your attention. However the Animation Claims are clearly reported on in the report of the 1999 distribution.

The fact that you appear to be unaware of the fact that I wrote to you in respect of the notice issued to me and the payment made in 2001 concerns me. I also sent an email to you in respect of the matter and this too was copied to a lawyer and the Union. I correspond with BECTU on a regular basis in respect of matters that attract my attention in the DACS reports.

All of the BECTU members who attended the DACS Launch in 2001 welcomed the fact that DACS were to further address the Primary Rights issues which you did. Despite DACS reservations in respect of such administration as expressed at the review meeting and in your letter to me in the same year we held out hope of convincing DACS yet of the necessity of this as well of the judiciousness of such administration.

If you are not aware of this correspondence or do not understand the fact that individuals may reserve their rights and withdraw from your scheme I would urge you to re-evaluate your response to me in the light of some investigation of the matters alluded to above.

I still fail to understand your inability to comprehend the reasons for my actions.

I have raised my concerns with Andy Egan at BECTU who I know has discussed some of them with DACS, i.e the manner in which DACS addresses complaints. If you re-read the complaint that I mailed to you will see that I clearly express the reasons for the monies return.

Do confirm to me that you have a copy of it or not I will re-issue it to you if not. I do think that

I have sent it 3 times now. I will give you this much information in order to spurn your enquiries on: the account into which the monies were paid was not the account for which I had supplied details to DACS. The account for which DACS had details had been closed at the same time that I had reserved my rights. The Bank assure me that this was not an error and it took them some time to ascertain where the monies had come from. Once they had the monies were returned and I have written confirmation of this. I was at first unaware of the fact that this money had been received and assumed that the DACS notice that I received was sent

in error. Not that it did not further raise concerns in my eyes as the manner in which the breakdown is notified is sparse to say the least but then I assume that the premise for the assessment is reflected in this rather than claimants interests.

We can disagree without being abusive! I would not rule out that someone might have deleted my correspondences or intercepted the recorded delivery letter to you. However it was sent recorded delivery and in my experience only when it is not deliverable is it returned to the sender. It is a criminal offence to interfere with the royal mail. I will investigate as to whether it was delivered or not.

Of course you responded to queries that I raised in 2001 unfortunately the response raised more queries. However I am sure that once I have a copy of DACS complaints procedures some of the issues will be clarified. How they will be resolved remains the question.

What is your policy timeline for dealing with complaints in respect of issues with claims

rather than procedures? Only when a complaint is raised with full public exposure?

Can I be assured that you will actually receive this if I do not cc it to all of my mailing list?

I'll pop it in the mail to you 1 st recorded delivery and I will advise you that I am writing strictly in the capacity of an aggrieved Artists/Animation Artist and the allusions to BECTU are simply in respect of putting into context certain responses to your correspondence. When I mention the Primary Rights I do not do so in any other capacity than as a rights-holder. BECTU are still discussing certain aspects of their Primary Rights Policy which I have requested from the General Secretary. He should be responding to me in respect of this point quite imminently

as it is necessary under BECTU rule. It appears that there may be 2 views in circulation.

with respect,

Belinda Hale B.A Hons M.A

----- Original Message -----

From: Joanna Cave

To: Visiblearts@homechoice.co.uk

Cc: zuzia

Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2003 4:15 PM

Subject: RE: DACS payback

Dear Belinda,

Thank you for your email.

According to our records, you submitted Payback claims to DACS in 1999 and again in 2001 in order to receive a share of the collective licensing revenue collected by DACS on behalf of visual creators. The Payback claim form offers claimants a choice of receiving their royalty payment either by cheque or via a BACS transfer directly to your bank account. You supplied DACS with your bank details and opted to receive a BACS payment. Accordingly, once your claim had been processed we transferred the money to your account. Some time later, you returned it to us, for reasons that we do not understand.

I am taken aback by the comments in your email, for several reasons. You and I have discussed Payback issues on several occasions, thought not for some considerable time. In my view, our discussions have always been amicable and constructive. At your request, I appeared in person at a BECTU committee AGM to address you and your members directly on the subject. When you were last in correspondence with DACS in 2001, we replied to the queries that you raised at the time. I have no record of any further communication from you received since then and I am not aware that you have ever submitted a complaint to DACS. Should you wish to complain about any aspect of our service, please feel free to do so. I give you my personal assurance that we shall respond promptly and in accordance with our complaints policy.

In the meantime, and in the event that this email clarifies any misunderstandings which have occurred, we should be glad to re-issue your Payback royalty payment to you, by cheque should you prefer. Please let me know if you would like us to do this.

With all good wishes,

Joanna Cave
Chief Executive
Design and Artists Copyright Society (DACS)
tel: 020 7336 8811
fax: 020 7336 8822
www.dacs.org.uk

This message including any attachments is confidential. It may also be privileged or otherwise protected by work product immunity or other legal rules. If you have received it by mistake, please let us know by reply and then delete it from your system. You should not copy the message or disclose its contents to anyone.

----------
From: "Belinda Hale" <Visiblearts@homechoice.co.uk>
Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2003 14:56:45 -0000
To: "zuzia" <zuzia108@hotmail.com>, "Zuhair Boulos" <zuhair@eskay.demon.co.uk>, "Yvonne Gegory" <ygregory@bectu.org.uk>, "Women" <Women@bectu.org.uk>, "Willie Donaghy" <wdonaghy@bectu.org.uk>, "webmaster bbfc" <webmaster@bbfc.co.uk>, "verger" <verger@stmarylebone.org>, "Tudor Gates" <tudorgates@compuserve.com>, "trish lavelle" <tlavelle@bectu.org.uk>, "tracy hunt" <thunt@bectu.org.uk>, "Tony Lennon-BECTU" <tony.lennon-bectu@bbc.co.uk>, "tlennon" <webmaster@tonylennon.info>, "time-enquiries" <time-enquiries@freeserve.com>, "tim potter" <tcspotter@aol.com>, "The Production Show Team" <enquiries@ctsnet.co.uk>, "terry" <terry@cartoonology.com>, "tdebrou" <tdebrou@bectu.org.uk>, "stevedesktop" <steve@desktop-people.co.uk>, "steve roberts" <steve@beulah43.freeserve.co.uk>, "Stephen Stokes" <office@stmarylebone.org>, "Stephen Stokes" <sstokes@stmarylebone.org>, "spencer macdonald" <smacdonald@bectu.org.uk>, <slr@uktvadverts.com>, "Slavka Svarakova" <slavkasverakova@hotmail.com>, "simon stern" <simonstern@atlas.co.uk>, "Simon" <S.FART@Virgin.Net>, "sian" <sian@dacs.org.uk>, "shirley ashton" <sashton@bectu.org.uk>, "Sharon Elliott" <selliott@bectu.org.uk>, "Scholarships Leeds" <scholarships@adm.leeds.ac.uk>, "Sarah Prosser" <Sarah.Prosser@bfi.org.uk>, "Sandra Vickers" <svickers@bectu.org.uk>, "Sam Gurney" <SGurney@TUC.ORG.UK>, <Sally-ann.Suich@rbkc.gov.uk>, "sally lebern" <naa@gn.apc.org>, "Sally" <Sally.Goggin@BC-Jerusalem.sprint.com>, <s.loudwell@adm.leeds.ac.uk>, "RPK" <RPK@Saunders.co.uk>, "roy" <raf@publiconline.co.uk>, "rosie russon" <rosie@russon.net>, "rosie barlas" <rosie@barlas.net>, "Roger Bolton" <rbolton@bectu.org.uk>, "Rob Newland" <rnewland@bectu.org.uk>, "Rick Harley" <rickharley@hotmail.com>, "Rebecca Dean" <rebecca@animationuk.com>, "Rajai Khouri" <aicgroup@clara.co.uk>, "Rajai Khouri" <RFKhouri@aicgroup.clara.co.uk>, "Que Diep" <que@easynet.co.uk>, "Production Base" <info@productionbase.co.uk>, "prisca barth" <prisca.barth@web.de>, "Philip Keddell" <lis.pip@ukonline.co.uk>, "mary hilyard" <mary@hilyard.udo.co.uk>, "Mary Hawes" <mary.hawes@london.anglican.org>, "martin wansborough" <martin.wansborough@virginnet.co.uk>, "Martin Spence" <mspence@bectu.org.uk>, "marklindsay" <mark.2.lindsay@bt.com>, "Mark Stephens" <mstephens@fsilaw.co.uk>, "Marcelle Davis" <mdavis@bectu.org.uk>, "marcelle davies" <mdavies@bectu.org.uk>, <mail@acme.org.uk>, "Lynne Korniak" <lkorniak@bectu.org.uk>, <lucie.laurent@tiscali.fr>, "Lora Lewis" <nyclondon@hotmail.com>, "Lora Lewis" <londonnyc@comcast.net>, "Lisa Vine" <Lisa@pipal.net>, "linda" <linda@bapla.org.uk>, "Lifeline Appeal" <LifelineAppeal@cpw.co.uk>, "Liberty Impact" <Ragnar@libertyimpact.com>, "Lesley Burt" <lburt@bectu.org.uk>, "Lance Paul" <lancepaul7@hotmail.com>, "kladex" <kiladex@home.com>, "Kier Vine" <Kier@pipal.net>, "ken brookes" <kenbrookes@msn.com>, "keir" <keir@pipal.net>, "Kate Hills" <august@cathcity.demon.co.uk>, "Kate Elliott" <kelliott@bectu.org.uk>, "KARENFEAST" <feasty@juno.com>, "karen looker" <klooker@fsilaw.co.uk>, Jürgen Barth <Juergen.Barth@t-online.de>, "JURGEN BARTH" <022977575-0001@T-ONLINE.DE>, "jurgen" <joba97@hotmail.com>, "Johnathon Harvey" <jharvey@acme.org.uk>, "john t" <Johnt@nuj.org.uk>, "john newnham" <mrjonotron@hotmail.com>, "john henry" <john.henry@arup.com>, "John Challis" <fax:recipientjohnchallis@0208-533-9357>, "John" <johnhandley@csi.com>, "joanna cave" <joanna@dacs.co.uk>, "Jill Holmes" <jholmes@stmarylebone.org>, "Jasongoodchild" <Jasongoodchild@hotmail.com>, "Jason Sanz/BBFC" <jsanz@bbfc.co.uk>, "janice turner" <jturner@bectu.org.uk>, "jane freud" <jmca.freud@virgin.net>, "Jack Powell" <jackpowell1@learndirect.net>, "Iva" <ivaschroeder@futurefilmgroup.com>, "issy" <f_izzy@hotmail.com>, "Isolde Freeth-Hale" <isoldefreethhale@yahoo.com>, "Information Unit" <UNITINF@bfi.org.uk>, "info_1" <info@freeserve.com>, <info@saunders.co.uk>, <info@londonprintstudio.org.uk>, <info@advertisingarchives.co.uk>, "info cobyphiliips" <info@cobyphilips.co.uk>, "Info" <info@BBC.co.uk>, "Imtiaz Osman/BBFC" <Imtiaz_Osman/BBFC@bbfc.co.uk>, "IMDb User Registration" <register-help@imdb.com>, "Ilka" <Ilka@skillsformedia.com>, "Ian Comfort" <student.support@rbkc.gov.uk>, "I bisset" <lbisset@parliamenthill.camden.sch.uk>, "hwjv" <hwjv@clara.co.uk>, "hugh valentine" <bacp@london.anglican.org>, "Howard_Etchells" <howard_etchells@hotmail.com>, "Homechoice" <customer-care@homechoice.co.uk>, "harriet" <harrietb@a-o-illustrators.demon.co.uk>, "Hannah Hamad" <Hannah.Hamad@bfi.org.uk>, "Hanna Doyle" <squidgy83@yahoo.com>, "gwen" <gwen@aophoto.co.uk>, "Grimes Grisoni & Grimes" <toona@toona.co.uk>, "griffen" <gjc94@dial.pipex.com>, "ghada karmi" <ghada.karmi@btinternet.com>, "gerry morrissey" <gmorrissey@bectu.org.uk>, "gerard" <gftierney@hotmail.com>, "frank hodges" <frank.hodges@tinyworld.co.uk>, "francis schwarze" <francis.schwarze@fobot.uni-freiburg.de>, "Florence Adebayo" <fgsadebayo@aol.com>, "Deborah Randall-Cutler" <info@art-department.co.uk>, "david cormack" <dcormack@bectu.org.uk>, "David Chatterjee/BBFC" <David_Chatterjee/BBFC@bbfc.co.uk>, "Dave Elvin" <blue-toe@freeuk.com>, "Darulfazl" <darulfazl@sancharnet.in>, "Daisy Cockburn" <dcockburn@candi.ac.uk>, "creators rights alliance" <cra@britishacademy.com>, "Coverplan" <Coverplan@dixons.co.uk>, "Courtney Hopper" <snowbaby_uk@hotmail.com>, "Christopher Gower" <cgower@stmarylebone.org>, "cet" <cetsdress@aol.com>, "cellops" <customercare@cellps.com>, "Carol Mac Farlane" <maccarol77@yahoo.com.uk>, "carmel bedford" <carmel.bedford@creatorsrights.org>, "carlotta" <carlotta@dacs.co.uk>, "bt2" <webmaster@bt.com>, "bt" <bt.athome@bt.com>, "Brynn Webb" <brynnwebb@yahoo.co.uk>, "Brian Kelly" <bkelly@bectu.org.uk>, "Boram Lee" <blee@royal.net>, "Bithell, Michael $UK - London$" <mbithell@deloitte.co.uk>, "bill rhodes" <bill@rhodesitl.com>, "Bill" <Archdeacon@london.anglican.org>, "bernie kay" <bernie.kay@btopenworld.com>, "ben hale" <benhale@web.de>, "arber kochi" <odinn@blueyonder.co.uk>, "Anthony Stadler" <stadler@btinternet.com>, "Anthony Stadler" <anthony@stadlers.com>, "anthony" <anthonystadler@hotmail.com>, <Annabelossel@aol.com>, "anikaka" <anika121@hotmail.com>, "Angela Knight-Monitoring" <angela_knight@mon.bbc.co.uk>, "aneThanjsshanecockram" <ane!Thanjsshane.cockram@uk.easynet.net>, "Andy Egan" <aegan@bectu.org.uk>, "Aileen Morton" <amorton@sfilaw.innocent>, <advice@cap.org.uk>, "Admin Diorama" <admin@diorama-arts.org.uk>, <accom@adm.leeds.ac.uk>, "Abe Ncube" <abe.ncube@freepint.com>, <a.dipalma@adm.leeds.ac.uk>, <aa@adassoc.org.uk>, "a morton" <amorton@fsilaw.co.uk>
Subject: Fw: DACS payback

6.12.03

Dear Joanna,

How many times do DACS require emails to be mailed to them
in order to effect a response?

Given that you haven't responded to the below despite receiving
it hard copied and sent recorded delivery you must agree that DACS
have problems, or is this DACS style?

regal and unyielding to complaints, however serious? If there were a slogan
for DACS what would it be?

Just to remind you that to date I have not yet received an explanation for how DACS
paid monies into an account for which they did not have details, I am still awaiting
confirmation of why DACS made this payment despite the fact that I expressly reserved my rights.

I remind you that the monies have been returned to you by my bank due to the fact
refereed to above. Neither have I since or do I in the future intend to seek payments
via DACS due to their premise for distribution. However I do think that DACS urgently
need to investigate this incident as I require an urgent explanation.

with respect,

Belinda Hale B.A Hons M.A
----- Original Message -----
From: visiblearts <mailto:visiblearts@visiblearts.homechoice.co.uk>
To: Joanna Cave <mailto:joanna@dacs.co.uk>
Cc: Andy Egan <mailto:aegan@bectu.org.uk> ; Roger Bolton <mailto:rbolton@bectu.org.uk>
Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2001 9:53 AM
Subject: DACS payback

25.10.01

Dear Joanna,

I have today received a notification informing me that I have had monies transferred to my account by yourselves in lieu of the claim that I made for the distribution.

I cannot accept the monies as I reserved my rights and notified both BECTU my solicitors ( not BECTUs solicitors)and DACS of this in writing, the account into which you have supposedly transferred the monies no longer exists, I closed it at the time that I reserved my rights as a precaution against such an action.

I have made clear to BECTU my issues with the premise for the distribution and the manner of breakdown to be given.

Given that I made a number of clear claims on the publishing form where I can provide copies of the
publications in which my work appeared I am also more fully convinced that the information made available to the artists from DACS is not satisfactory. If a claim has been disregarded some indication should certainly be given as to why.

Yours sincerely

Belinda Hale M.A

Dear Sirs,

Excuse my typos etc last night but the anger that I feel at this matter

had me left me not as composed as I might have been had the matter in question actually been given the fair and deserved hearing that it is long overdue.

I would like the propositions in question to be copied to the LPD committee as directed by Roger Bolton as they have not yet been to date.

I am sure that I will get the sympathy and support that we are long overdue and perhaps some recognition of the misrephresentations that have been made in respect of the 'success' of the DACS distributions. It increases my anger only more to know that the Footballers Association are part of the Federation of Entertainment Unions and they certainly get their dues no offence but for those who are not members of the copyright committee I can assure you that it meets so that key members may be home in time for the 'footie'. I am sick and tired of the lip service bing paid to these matters and ask myself from whom certain staff at BECTU derive their main income? Do they declare their outside interests? I think that it would be most appropriate. The make-up of the contact groups in BECTU really needs some clarification and those individuals who are in the tightly knit circle of power should be identified to the membership with all of their connections.

I think this type of profiling would much better inform the members of who and what they are voting for at the next NEC Elections.I appreciate fully that the corrected email below certainly needed a few clarifications and that you will take the time to read it.

As for BECTU policy I never supported fraud at DACS and no funds were to my knowledge distributed to BECTU members prior to the review meeting at DACS that took place on the day of the formal LAUNCH by DACS for the DACS distribution. The report for the meeting was agreed by BECTU copyright committee members at a BECTU copyright committee meeting who had not even the attended the review meeting in question at DACS. Any likelihood of fair treatment was ruled out and in order to not lose face the copyright committee subsequently decided against my express objections that it was not desirable for the Animation members to have 'Primary Rights'. This was a face saving exercise which they cannot deny and became the official grounds for removing me as a representative from DACS as I would not accept that this could be BECTU Policy in the light of the many propositions that have been to brought to BECTU Annual Conference on the matter. I still do not accept the principle and although I want nothing to do with DACS I want an apology and a clarification to the BECTU NEC that unless they support fraud they will apologies to me and accept that I was misrephresented to them vby infdividuals with much to conceal. DACS to date have not provided a copy of a claim that was disputed let alone provided clear rules and principles to clarify how they assessed this claim despite the willingness of the claimant to allow their claim form to be used as the basis for such a demonstration. The one proviso was that the works and identity of the individual remain anonymous. Given that the breakdown on the basis of the information available publically would indicate a 99% on the fees due to the claimant I would very much like DACS to demonstrate their own concerns that artists in animation have been substantially overpaid. This is expressed in their most recent reports.

Much like the footballers the animation artists deserve the share that they are due in respect of their interests unlike the footballers DACS have kindly

protected them for the consequences of being overpaid I would like clarification as to DACS reasoning in this matter as it is not evidenced that the Animation Artists are not in any way deserving of the fees that reflect the success of their efforts. Neither have they ever signed any proviso allowing for any redistribution of their income by DACS let alone BECTU. Any shortfall could certainly be charged to those generously giving away what is not theirs to give in the first place. Big spenders should make sure that they are spending big what is theirs to spend. I don't think that any of the individuals concerned here will be handing their credit cards over to strangers come the Christmas season despite its' being the season of good will. I am not looking for some good will here but to individuals doing for those who pay their wages what they should be doing to actually earn them as well as some attention to honesty, integrity and direct action before Christmas.

Thanks for your attention to it,

Belinda Hale B.A Hons M.A

---- Original Message -----

From: Belinda Hale

To: Martin Spence

Cc: Dave Elvin ; Andy Egan ; Rob Newland ; Roger Bolton ; Rosie ; Tudor Gates ; steve roberts ; Tony Lennon-BECTU ; tim potter ; Nick Ardizzone

Sent: Sunday, October 26, 2003 9:30 PM

Subject: DACS Distributions

26.10.03

Dear Martin,

In light of the LPD discussion on the LPD report and the passage on copyright could you provide clarification in respect of the following points:

Why was the issue of the Animation Artists representation and feedback to DACS not

considered to be relevant to the passage? I was literally prevented from going into the detail on the matter that I would like to have presented.

My view on the representation in respect of Animation Artists copyright concerns to DACS was not sufficiently answered let alone addressed or given fair hearing in light of the valid points that I had to make. It was not sufficient to state that BECTU policy is represented at DACS especially in light of points made in DACS own public reports with reference for its own identified need a 'verification procedure for claims'. I warned BECTUs' NEC of this issue and they took no action at the time despite the Animation Artists continued concern with the matter. The NEC need to urgently address its own track record on this matter as it has most certainly been drawm to their attention by me on numerous occaisions now. Are the NEC members prepared to pick up the outstanding liability or not? I doubt that they can afford to do it and I certainly doubt that BECTU can. Perhaps BECTU might discuss the matter with those actively countering my views and ask them to pick up the liability. Not to mention the fact that BECTU annual conference has already had remitted to them a proposition in respect of complying with all relevant authorities in respect of rights infringements. I hope that for BECTUs sake they are already doing so. The propostion was brought to conference by the animation members who were already dissatisfied at that juncture with the actions that were not being taken in respect of Primary Rights issues that they faced.

I alluded to the complaints procedure that we have been promised at the Copyright Committee that we have to date had no further information on this was 6 months ago now. Further there is an outstanding complaint in respect of a claim put to DACS that has not yet been addressed. Largely due to the fact that the individual to whom a complaint would have to be brought to date has already had sight of the matter and nothing has yet been done despite 2 years of waiting. Why should anyone realistically expect support from DACS or BECTU in light of this.

It seems that there is blatant cynicism over the matter and I would like a further investigation carried out by officers and members who have had no previous involvement with the matter. It is only fair under the circumstances to guarantee impartiality and fairness. Especially as DACS funds are exhausted in respect of that period of claims. Dispute appears to be apparent in respect of the treatment of existing complaints and you yourself seem not to appreciate the history of the matter. I can assure you that I have copious paperwork and memos in respect of the representations that were made to DACS and it is not acceptable to ignore these issues especially in respect of the Primary Rights matters. I can assure that I will not not tolerate the cheating or defraudment of BECTU members by officials or other members in a position to

turn a blind eye to crucial issues such as blatant rights infringements in the Animation sector.

I hope that this matter be addressed with the serious and committed attention to detail and financial support that it commands and I assure you again that I would like BECTU to clarify its'

position in respect of damages that could be due to the Animation members in question as a direct result of this seeming negligence in respect of their interests.

I hope that you can give me firm assurances that this matter is getting the attention that it obviously warrants. I would urge you to read the DACS reports in details and be wary of its ex staff flagging it through what is relevant is any wrongdoing and likely prosecution that BECTU might find themselves unwittingly involved in or does BECTU policy involve outright fraud?

I would like a direct confirmation that BECTU do not support fraud and that BECTU is committed to direct action against any members or officials knowingly involved in such activities.

In light of the fact that I was told today that the propositions that I had written could have gone

forward to S.O.C had they been submitted by the secretary to S.O.C I am deeply dissapointed that despite the extensive enquiries in respect of the problems that the Branch have experienced since the disappointing discussion that took place with DACS in respect of Primary Rights membership in animation I was not told this and I would like to know why not? I would also like to know whether this has been an issue for other branches in LPD who might be experiencing similar problems. It just isn't acceptable that vital issues are being suppressed. and that fair means of bringing complaints without fear of harassment or pressure to cut 'deals' are in place. No one is going to sell out their legitimate rights for monkey nuts we didn't spend 6 years putting measures in place to recieve remuneration for interests that we hold in order to have measly buy-outs imposed on us. I wouldn't do it to anyone else nor would the members who supported this and if we can't expect fairness from the Union the Union may as well accept that they deserve all the action that they will undoubtedly get out of it. I have said it before and I will say it again people are well aware of what is going on and sticking your heads in the sand like ostriches will only make you look more blatently liable.

I thank-you for your attention to this asap

with respect

Belinda Hale B.A Hons M.A

____‰___L___9___X-From_: mspence@bectu.org.uk Thu Oct 21 10:36:52 1999

Envelope-to: Visible_Arts@Angel82.freeserve.co.uk

Delivery-date: Thu, 21 Oct 1999 10:36:52 +0100

Received: from [195.172.113.114] (helo=bectu01.bectu.org.uk)

      by mail14.svr.pol.co.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2)

      id 11eEeL-0001BT-00

      for Visible_Arts@Angel82.freeserve.co.uk; Thu, 21 Oct 1999 10:36:45 +0100

Received: by BECTU01 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.1960.3)

      id <TCY2B0ZJ>; Thu, 21 Oct 1999 10:35:14 +0100

Message-ID: <6B85C211154ED21183A900A0C9E1D2AA051709@BECTU01>

From: Martin Spence <mspence@bectu.org.uk>

To: "'Visible_Arts@Angel82.freeserve.co.uk'"

      <Visible_Arts@Angel82.freeserve.co.uk>

Subject: LPD/RPD Recruitment Strategy

Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1999 10:35:04 +0100

MIME-Version: 1.0

X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.1960.3)

Content-Type: text/plain

Belinda,

At the LPDC meeting on 11th October you suggested an amendment to the

paragraph in Marilyn's document regarding Animation and Copyright.

Rather than rely on my notes, could you send me your suggested form of

words?

Martin.

_____Š___@

__-

__X-From_: newsletter@freeserve.net Fri Oct 22 17:19:36 1999

Envelope-to: all-freeserve-users

Delivery-date: Fri, 22 Oct 1999 17:19:36 +0100

Received: from [194.152.76.137] (helo=gate-isdn.freeserve.theplanet.co.uk)

      by mail.freeserve.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2)

      id 11ehPk-0000Cx-00

      for all-freeserve-users; Fri, 22 Oct 1999 17:19:36 +0100

Received: from newsletter by gate-isdn.freeserve.theplanet.co.uk with local (Exim 1.62 #1)

      id 11ehPM-00034Y-00; Fri, 22 Oct 1999 17:19:12 +0100

To: all-freeserve-users

Message-Id: <E11ehPM-00034Y-00@gate-isdn.freeserve.theplanet.co.uk>

From: Freeserve Newsletter Editor <newsletter@freeserve.net>

Subject: Freeserve Newsletter

Date: Fri, 22 Oct 1999 17:19:12 +0100

We like to credit our members with being pretty smart - which is

why you might like to check out the latest great financial service

from Freeserve at

____K___4___"___X-From_: mspence@bectu.org.uk Fri Aug 04 16:22:55 2000

Envelope-to: Visible_Arts@Angel82.freeserve.co.uk

Delivery-date: Fri, 04 Aug 2000 16:22:55 +0100

Received: from [195.172.113.114] (helo=bectu01.bectu.org.uk)

      by imailg3.svr.pol.co.uk with esmtp (Exim 3.13 #0)

      id 13KjJG-0003pq-00

      for Visible_Arts@Angel82.freeserve.co.uk; Fri, 04 Aug 2000 16:22:55 +0100

Received: by BECTU01 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)

      id <Q12K2A65>; Fri, 4 Aug 2000 16:16:23 +0100

Message-ID: <6B85C211154ED21183A900A0C9E1D2AA14BAA5@BECTU01>

From: Martin Spence <mspence@bectu.org.uk>

To: 'Belinda Hale' <Visible_Arts@Angel82.freeserve.co.uk>

Subject: RE:

Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2000 16:16:22 +0100

MIME-Version: 1.0

X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)

Content-Type: text/plain

Belinda,

To take things in order:-

1) BECTU's lay reps on the DRC were elected a long time ago from the P/Ds

and (I think) the NEC.

2) The DRC action quite deliberately focused on live action TV productions -

not film, not commercials, not radio, not animation.

3) The focus of the Campaign is to get all live action TV Directors to

register with and assign their rights to the DPRS. Any Director who

registers & assigns will be kept in touch with developments. Those who don't

are not part of the Campaign.

4) It follows from all the above that it's not up to me to decide which

Directors are kept informed of DRC developments. It's up to individual

Directors to decide whether the Campaign is relevant to them, and to sign up

for it if they so decide.

5) If you want to copy Dick Horn in on Animation mailings you should speak

to Spencer.

6) Re Skillset your best contact is Trish Lavelle. Her e-mail address is

tlavelle@bectu.org.uk

7) Skillset is not a co-operative. It is a National Training Organisation,

i.e. a body recognised and funded by the Government to co-ordinate training

in our industries.

8) Re Skillsbase your best contact is Ilka Walkley, the Project Manager. I

know her internal e-mail address but not her "external" address. She's based

here at Wardour St. I suggest you phone her.

9) So far as I am concerned the Animation Claim could have gone in some

weeks ago. The only thing that has been holding it up is the reference to

the lawyers which you asked for. I believe we should submit it and I'm

delighted that you now agree.

Martin Spence.

> -----Original Message-----

> From:     Belinda Hale [SMTP:Visible_Arts@Angel82.freeserve.co.uk]

> Sent:     04 August 2000 10:01

> To: Tracy Hunt; spencer macdonald; steve roberts; martin spence

> Subject:

>

> Dear Martin,

>

> I'm writing to request that Dick Horn be up-dated and kept informed about

> the Directors Rights campaign. He is a director, still works and as a life

> member does not need to pay subscriptions however he is past retirement

> age so although being a member of the Animation Committee and recieving

> the relevant committee papers is not recieving mail-outs re the DPRS or

> invitations to be in the Animation Directory. Please can it be arranged

> that he does recieve all mailings.

>

> Additionally, I am in the process of putting together a paper for the

> Copyright Committee with regard to the proposition passed at last years

> LPD Conference re Skillset. I have just been checking their website to see

> if they have a mission statement or formal constitution. I would be

> grateful if you have any such literature you could copy it to me. I

> re-collect that at the time you stated that Skillset viewed itself as a

> co-operative of some sort, this has never to my knowledge been stated on

> the website. Likewise is there any literature about Skillsbase as a member

> was requesting more information about it's current status and it's current

> funding position? They have beeen told that the service is not available

> currently. If this is the case can you tell me when it will be?

>

> It was also agreed that the claim animation claim should go to PACT now.

>

> thank-you for your attention to this

>

> Belinda Hale M.A

>

> Chair Animation

>

>

>

Many of the below emails were retrieved from a corrupted harddrive after many of us had been hit by an email virus..notably my hotmail account picked up on one that was sent to me from AIC

------ =_NextPart_000_01BF90E1.ADD8F442--

__ö____i__øh__X-From_: rosie@barlas.net Mon Mar 20 11:07:06 2000

Envelope-to: visible_arts@angel82.freeserve.co.uk

Delivery-date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 11:07:06 +0000

Received: from [149.174.206.154] (helo=spdmraac.compuserve.com)

      by imailg2.svr.pol.co.uk with esmtp (Exim 3.13 #0)

      id 12X01Z-0003wI-00

      for visible_arts@angel82.freeserve.co.uk; Mon, 20 Mar 2000 11:07:06 +0000

Received: (from mailgate@localhost)

      by spdmraac.compuserve.com (8.9.3/8.9.3/SUN-REL-1.3) id GAA09941

      for visible_arts@angel82.freeserve.co.uk; Mon, 20 Mar 2000 06:06:59 -0500 (EST)

Sender: rosie@barlas.net

Received: from rosie-shack (mfs-pci-bqk-vty62.as.wcom.net [212.211.12.62])

      by spdmraac.compuserve.com (8.9.3/8.9.3/SUN-REL-1.3) with SMTP id GAA09863

      for <Visible_Arts@angel82.freeserve.co.uk>; Mon, 20 Mar 2000 06:06:48 -0500 (EST)

Message-Id: <4.1.20000320101034.00936e10@mailgate.ftech.net>

X-Sender: rosie@mailgate.ftech.net

X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1

Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 10:19:39 +0000

To: "Belinda Hale" <Visible_Arts@angel82.freeserve.co.uk>

From: Rosie Russon <rosie@barlas.net>

Subject: Re: DACS

In-Reply-To: <001601bf901b$af4c6780$2656893e@default>

Mime-Version: 1.0

Content-Type: multipart/alternative;

      boundary="=====================_432113021==_.ALT"

--=====================_432113021==_.ALT

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Dear Belinda

I tried to send this response to you several times, but it kept coming back to

me - I now understand from your recent e-mail (17th March) that you have

changed your e-mail address.....so I hope it now reaches you.

I have recently been nominated to the Council of Management for DACS but until

Friday when I met with Rachel Duffield, I was not officially in a position to

say more. You need not worry too much for the Art Department; things are

moving along, and certain things have developed. Jim Carroll and I agreed that

it would be beneficial for me to be affirmed to the Council, and meet with

Rachel before a meeting with the Art Dept was set up. My approach is to plan

considered moves, as I have experienced through Chris' involvement that this is

the best way of speeding things up in the copyright world. I now have to get

the designers to act on what I have achieved, as they are not good at even

attending meetings, so communication with them is restricted.

Speak to you soon (provided this reaches you)

Rosie

From: Rosie Russon <rosie@barlas.net>

>Subject: Fwd: Re: Copyright Forum!!!!! BECTU

>

>>Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 11:43:31 +0000

>>To: "belinda hale" <visible_arts@hotmail.com>

>>From: Rosie Russon <rosie@barlas.net>

>>Subject: Re: Copyright Forum!!!!! BECTU

>>

>>Dear Belinda

>>

>>Can you tell me which the cross over grades are? Maybe Jim Carroll can be

>>of some help there, as, apart from graphic designers, I'm not sure who else

>>would qualify. I have made substantial inroads re. copyright for designers

>>in the art department including graphic designers, but cannot go into detail

>>at present as I'm awaiting certain confirmation.

>>With regards to the meeting with Rachel Duffield, at the moment, I'm not

>>sure that it would be in the interests of the art department or indeed

>>animation if we attended your forum.   I think too much diversity of grades

>>would confuse the issues and at the moment, designers in general do not

>>understand the concept. I have to come up with a way of educating them, but

>>I don't think your forum is the answer. Maybe they need one of their own,

>>but getting them to attend would be the problem.

>>

>>With regards numbers, I think this is an issue for the art dept. chair Andy

>>Mackay - what are the number requirements? I'm not sure how many art dept

>>members there are.....certainly a great many more than ever come to

>>meetings. I think if it is thought to be an issue, which it may not be as

>>there are a lot of different grades in the dept. and I think substantial

>>membership, it will be addressed.   I will however bring it up at the next

>>meeting but I have to say, that as most people are self employed, one would

>>hope they know whether or not their DD's are being paid otherwise they will

>>have far bigger problems with the tax man than with BECTU.

>>

>>Cheers. See you soon

>>

>>Rosie

>>

>>At 03:06 17/02/00 -0800, you wrote:

>>>Dear Rosie,

>>>

>>>The Animation Sub-Division are holding a Forum on copyright with Rachel

>>>Duffield, Andy Egan and Geoffrey Adams on the 28th of March.

>>>This is to clarify some of our issues, I understand that the Art Department

>>>has some cross-over grades with Animation therefore it would be in the

>>>interest for such members to attend. We are hoping that this will launch the

>>>pay-outs to our members. Initiatially I had understood that the Art

>>>Department would be invited too. If I were you I would get this on the Art

>>>Dept. Agenda asap and also recommend that you draw their attention to the

>>>challenge required over membership figures in the Branch, needs to be done

>>>by the 24th of Feb I think. It effects the number of candidate entitled to

>>>go to Conference from your Branch and also their eligibility for runnung for

>>>the NEC. There have been serious problems with the membership database ie

>>>paid-up members are showing as lapsed and even deduction at source members

>>>are showing as lapsed! The excuse being that the software won't talk to the

>>>printer....seems to effect a lot of old actt members...Yuk! As in me wonders

>>>who's playing around with the system. It might also affect payouts from DACS

>>>if individuals are not deemed to be paid up. One of our members had a live

>>>direct debit which

>>>was authorised and it wasn't being called on by BECTU. So no-one seems

>>>immune from potential knock on effects such as falling out of entitlement to

>>>public liability insurance.

>>>

>>>all the best and hope to see you soon

>>>

>>>Belinda hale M.A

>>>

>>>

>>>

------=_NextPart_000_001F_01BF9301.177D4800

Content-Type: text/plain;

      charset="iso-8859-1"

Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Dear Belinda.

what time is the tuesday meeting.

Allthe best.

Steve

    -----Original Message-----

    From: Belinda Hale <Visible_Arts@Angel82.freeserve.co.uk>

    To: Stephen Roberts <steve@beulah43.freeserve.co.uk>

    Date: 18 March 2000 11:18

    Subject: Re: Animation paid-up figures

   =20

   =20

    Dear Steve,

    =20

    I am so sorry, believe me I have 'we won't talk about it' pact with =

certain people as every time we get on to "Bectu' the blood pressure =

level gets so high we grasping for the beta blockers, believe me there =

is great dissatisfaction all around. There is a meeting on Tuesday the =

28th of March with DACS at Wardour Street this is very important as we =

need to decide what we want to go for in terms of fees,

    it will be touched on as ultimately DACS council will decide but if =

we thought collectively that our postion was not being fairly =

remunerated in terms of numbers of works allowed per programm for fees=20

    this is when it needs to be said. Notices have gone out and I would =

say anyone who wants to join can come to the meeting and I will =

personnally ensure that their application forms are processed that week. =

There has been a total change in the processing of applications and it =

does seem to be getting better

    but I anticipate staff changes despite this because their has been =

such a monumental failure in records.

    I am now told that we have 50 paid-up members (31st December date) =

as opposed to my estimated 70 and current figures say 80-90. Given the =

DACS distribution this will need to be kept strictly under control as =

lapsed membership would mean lost residuals with regard to some rights. =

Frankly I think bringing in the fraud squad might get BECTU to act =

faster and save BECTU money in terms of trying to find out what's gone =

wrong. You can't blame a computer for data that hasn't been entered =

which I think is happening and I am worried that we cannot establish how =

many people are paying and if BECTU have no record of recieving payments =

the money may be being syphoned off to another account. As members we =

have the right to scrutinise BECTU accounts at any time and frankly if =

you have been making payments I would have your bank trace where they =

are going and verify it, if they're going to BECTU and BECTU don't =

acknowledge it there could be fraud somewhere along the line. Please do =

this as it is in everyones interest and bill BECTU for any costs. It =

used to cost about 5 pounds to have a cheque traced it must similiar for =

a direct debit. I had a problem with my studio landlords denying that =

they had recieved payments and not cashing cheques etc. It's an old scam =

that landlords use to get rid of tenants.

    =20

    The next Animation Committee meeting is the Thursday the 20th of =

April. I hope that you can make it!=20

    Please come to the Tuesday 28th meeting which will as I said =

previously be very important. There is enormous misunderstanding about =

rights buy-outs and I think that getting information directly at this =

meeting will be very helpful to people. There are rights that we have =

which simply can't be bought out and this isn't just equitable =

remuneration. Many universal buy-outs are designed to intimidate rather =

than stand-up in court and it is about time that contractual bullying =

was made illegal and fined accordingly but hey that's something for the =

future!

    =20

    all the best Belinda

   =20

        -----Original Message-----

        From: Stephen Roberts <steve@beulah43.freeserve.co.uk>

        To: Belinda Hale <Visible_Arts@Angel82.freeserve.co.uk>

        Date: Saturday, March 18, 2000 9:12 AM

        Subject: Re: Animation paid-up figures

       =20

       =20

        Belinda.

        I've sent all the stuff to Spencer and a new subs form because I =

don't think the union will ever be able to sort out the fact that I'm =

paying them and they don't relise it. I sent them a whole load of bank =

statements about six months ago and nothing was done about it.

        I've been getting complaints recently from ex students of mine =

that have joined the union and have never recieved a reply from the =

union. I'm sick to death of making up excuses for administrational =

incompetence at the union.

        All the best.

        Steve.

        ps when is the next meeting, please don't make it a wednesday. i =

can't do wednesdays, any other day.

            -----Original Message-----

            From: Belinda Hale <Visible_Arts@Angel82.freeserve.co.uk>

            To: steve roberts <steve@beulah43.freeserve.co.uk>

            Date: 15 March 2000 17:16

            Subject: Animation paid-up figures

           =20

           =20

            Dear Steve,

            =20

            I've had a letter in response to my challenge to the figures =

for paid-up members. In order to confirm the figure he has asked me to =

provide evidence to support your payments. i would be grateful if you =

could supply this, I don't have to see it but I would need you to =

confirm to me that this has been done if you haven't done so already.

            =20

            Currently the official total for the LPD membership is 4 =

short of 6000. We need to find 4 paid-up members who have not been =

listed as such in order to get an additional LPD member onto the NEC.=20

            Obviously without evidence to prove it we cannot list you as =

such. Please let me know of your intentions! I am also quite prepared to =

take issue with BECTU on behalf of the members who have been left off =

the list but I am still going over the figures. If you have heard of =

anyone in a similiar situation to yourself please could you let me know =

and either get them to contact me or perhaps give me a number for them =

if they want me to contact them.

            =20

            all the best

            =20

            Belinda

------=_NextPart_000_001F_01BF9301.177D4800

Content-Type: text/html;

      charset="iso-8859-1"

Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">

<HTML>

<HEAD>

<META content=3Dtext/html;charset=3Diso-8859-1 =

http-equiv=3DContent-Type><!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD W3 =

HTML//EN"><!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN"><!DOCTYPE HTML =

PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">

<META content=3D'"MSHTML 4.72.3110.7"' name=3DGENERATOR>

</HEAD>

<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>

<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2>Dear Belinda.</FONT></DIV>

<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2>what time is the tuesday =

meeting.</FONT></DIV>

<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2></FONT><FONT size=3D2>Allthe =

best.</FONT></DIV>

<DIV><FONT size=3D2>Steve</FONT></DIV>

<BLOCKQUOTE=20

style=3D"BORDER-LEFT: #000000 solid 2px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-LEFT: =

5px">

    <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><B>-----Original =

Message-----</B><BR><B>From:=20

    </B>Belinda Hale <<A=20

    =

href=3D"mailto:Visible_Arts@Angel82.freeserve.co.uk">Visible_Arts@Angel82=

.freeserve.co.uk</A>><BR><B>To:=20

    </B>Stephen Roberts <<A=20

    -----Original Message-----

    From: Belinda Hale <Visible_Arts@Angel82.freeserve.co.uk>

    To: spencer macdonald <smacdonald@bectu.org.uk>

    Cc: steve roberts <steve@beulah43.freeserve.co.uk>; martin spence =

<mspence@bectu.org.uk>; nick ardizzone <nickardizz@aol.com>

    Date: 15 October 1999 12:38

    Subject: Animation Committee

   =20

   =20

    15.10.99

    =20

    Dear Spencer,

    =20

    Please could you let me know by when you will have finalised the =

draft agreement for the PACT & AFVPA Claim, I would also like to know =

when it is intended to put this claim to the respective Organisations. =

As proposed last night by Dick Horn I think that a General Meeting of =

the Branch needs to be held in order to get support for Animation Issue =

from a wider range of members. I am copying this to Steve Roberts, Nick =

Ardizzoni and Martin Spence.

    =20

    I would propose a date for the end of October/ start of Novemeber. I =

think that an appropriate subject for the meeting would be the =

agreements and that this would generate a response. I am also copying =

the letter to Roger Boltoin re the issue of specific funding for =

animation to the above people and would draw your attention to the =

report that I brought to the meeting last night on the DACS Distribution =

Policy Working Party.

    =20

    Further on DACS, the copyright committee is to co-ordinate a meeting =

of Animation members with the Consultant Geoffrey Adams and the Chair of =

thbe Committee Andy Egan to discuss further input to DACS on Animation =

matters, please see the report. I am to talk to the Art Dept. members =

and would request that the report be made available to all relevant =

committees including the Visual Artists Branch.

    =20

    The propositions from Conference on Skillset and Contracts have gone =

to the Training committee and Copyright committee respectively. A =

concern voiced is that where copyright is covered in a model contract =

this might preclude people from getting work, I would take the view that =

not to address copyright in the contract would leave producers in breach =

of the broadcast act. Technically this is what I am told is the =

position. It would be helpful to have feed-back from Jim Carroll on this =

as he has been addressing precisely the same problem in Radio, I thought =

that this had been quite successful? He was to report to the Copyright =

Committee but has not yet done so. As is always the case with model =

contracts they are only model and individuals can adapt them to their =

own needs. What I view as important is that contracts define pay and =

conditions and are a starting point for negotiations. In any serious job =

a contract is required and as professionals we have no option but to =

address the issue.

    =20

    The other proposel that we survey the membership as to what their =

current requirments and needs may=20

    be is very in line with suggestions made to the FG&P by the London =

Production Division in response to the Structure Working Party Report. =

So no doubt it is likely to take place one way or another. I hope that =

the next meeting will achieve a coram and will certainly send out a =

letter to the committee members urging their attendance. The issue of =

the AGM needs to be discussed by a coram committee meeting but I do =

think that this will happen and really it is a question of whether we =

call a General Meeting first or call a committee meeting, personally if =

we call a General Meeting it is likely that a fair number of committee =

members will attend and we can have what-ever discusiions are necessary. =

I would certainly point out that individuals have been pulling their =

weight by attending such extra meetings as the one with Mavis Sargent =

and Freda Chapman.

    =20

    I would suggest circulating the DACs Report and Mavis paper to the =

members, on the other hand not circulating them might provide an =

incentive to attend the meetings..! What she suggested though was that =

we may be able to make a plea for particular tax breaks for individuals =

in Animation if we can sufficiently argue that out of proffessional =

necessity they are having to invest in certain types of equipment. This =

was in response to John Challis request for 100% Capital Allowance =

write-offs.

    =20

    I don't know how many people know about the Christmas Party =

situation but this might have upset people.....food for thought, I think =

that it is viewed as a good net-working opportunity.

    =20

    all the best=20

    =20

    Belinda Hale M.A

    =20

    Chair Animation

    =20

   =20

    =20



    martin spence <<A=20

    href=3D"mailto:mspence@bectu.org.uk">mspence@bectu.org.uk</A>>; =

nick=20

    ardizzone <<A=20

    =

href=3D"mailto:nickardizz@aol.com">nickardizz@aol.com</A>><BR><B>Date:=

=20

    </B>15 October 1999 12:38<BR><B>Subject: </B>Animation=20

    Committee<BR><BR></DIV></FONT>

    <DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2>15.10.99</FONT></DIV>

    <DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>

    <DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2>Dear Spencer,</FONT></DIV>

    <DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>

    <DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2>Please could you let me know by =

when you=20

    will have finalised the draft agreement for the PACT & AFVPA =

Claim, I=20

    would also like to know when it is intended to put this claim to the =

    respective Organisations. As proposed last night by Dick Horn I =

think that a=20

    General Meeting of the Branch needs to be held in order to get =

support for=20

    Animation Issue from a wider range of members. I am copying this to =

Steve=20

    Roberts,  Nick Ardizzoni and Martin Spence.</FONT></DIV>

    <DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>

    <DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2>I would propose a date for the =

end of=20

    October/ start of Novemeber. I think that an appropriate subject for =

the=20

    meeting would be the agreements and that this would generate a =

response. I=20

    am also copying the letter to Roger Boltoin re the issue of specific =

funding=20

    for animation to the above people and would draw your attention to =

the=20

    report that I brought to the meeting last night on the DACS =

Distribution=20

    Policy Working Party.</FONT></DIV>

    <DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>

    <DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2>Further on DACS, the copyright =

committee is=20

    to co-ordinate a meeting of Animation members with the Consultant =

Geoffrey=20

    Adams and the Chair of thbe Committee Andy Egan to discuss further =

input to=20

    DACS on Animation matters, please see the report. I am to talk to =

the Art=20

    Dept. members and would request that the report be made available to =

all=20

    relevant committees including the Visual Artists =

Branch.</FONT></DIV>

    <DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>

    <DIV><FONT size=3D2>The propositions from Conference on Skillset and =

Contracts=20

    have gone to the Training committee and Copyright committee =

respectively. A=20

    concern voiced is that where copyright is covered in a model =

contract this=20

    might preclude people from getting work, I would take the view that =

not to=20

    address copyright in the contract would leave producers in breach of =

the=20

    broadcast act. Technically this is what I am told is the position. =

It would=20

    be helpful to have feed-back from Jim Carroll on this as he has been =

    addressing precisely the same problem in Radio, I thought that this =

had been=20

    quite successful? He was to report to the Copyright Committee but =

has not=20

    yet done so. As is always the case with model contracts they are =

only model=20

    and individuals can adapt them to their own needs. What I view as =

important=20

    is that contracts define pay and conditions and are a starting point =

for=20

    negotiations. In any serious job a contract is required and as =

professionals=20

    we have no option but to address the issue.</FONT></DIV>

    <DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>

    <DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2>The other proposel that we =

survey the=20

    membership as to what their current requirments and needs may =

</FONT></DIV>

    <DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2></FONT><FONT size=3D2>be is very =

in line with=20

    suggestions made to the FG&P by the London Production Division =

in=20

    response to the Structure Working Party Report. So no doubt it is =

likely to=20

    take place one way or another. I hope that the next meeting will =

achieve a=20

    coram and will certainly send out a letter to the committee members =

urging=20

    their attendance. The issue of the AGM needs to be discussed by a =

coram=20

    committee meeting but I do think that this will happen and really it =

is a=20

    question of whether we call a General Meeting first or call a =

committee=20

    meeting, personally if we call a General Meeting it is likely that a =

fair=20

    number of committee members will attend and we can have what-ever=20

    discusiions are necessary. I would certainly point out that =

individuals have=20

    been pulling their weight by attending such extra meetings as the =

one with=20

    Mavis Sargent and Freda Chapman.</FONT></DIV>

    <DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>

    <DIV><FONT size=3D2>I would suggest circulating the DACs Report and =

Mavis=20

    paper to the members, on the other hand not circulating them might =

provide=20

    an incentive to attend the meetings..! What she suggested though was =

that we=20

    may be able to make a plea for particular tax breaks for individuals =

in=20

    Animation if we can sufficiently argue that out of proffessional =

necessity=20

    they are having to invest in certain types of equipment. This was in =

    response to John Challis request for 100% Capital Allowance=20

    write-offs.</FONT></DIV>

    <DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>

    <DIV><FONT size=3D2>I don't know how many people know about the =

Christmas=20

    Party situation but this might have upset people.....food for =

thought, I=20

    think that it is viewed as a good net-working =

opportunity.</FONT></DIV>

------=_NextPart_000_000E_01C014BC.B55927A0--

_ ¤< ’< From: "Belinda Hale" <Visible_Arts@Angel82.freeserve.co.uk>

To: "andy egan" <aegan@bectu.org.uk>

Subject: DACS MEET 4.9.00

Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2000 11:40:18 +0100

MIME-Version: 1.0

Content-Type: multipart/alternative;

boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0004_01C0172E.10E12960"

X-Priority: 3

X-MSMail-Priority: Normal

X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.5

X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_0004_01C0172E.10E12960

Content-Type: text/plain;

charset="iso-8859-1"

Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Dear Andy,

Quick up-date on the Distribution Policy Working Group which met =

yesterday afternoon. You're probably aware of some things that I may say =

but take this as my official report!

Jo Cave the new Chief Executive will be responsible from now on with =

David Remmington for the DACS '99/2000 distribution although as it =

becomes a more routine activity more responsibility will reside with =

David.

A final report on Distribution '99 is in preparation, some issues are =

still to be resolved. It is intended to revisit the maximum & minimum =

fees. Currently they stand at 10-2000 pounds. The fee per work is at 18 =

pounds if monies are due from all the pots.

It is illustrators in the main that are due fees from all pots. A =

maximum of 25 works per programm can be paid out on. In some cases the =

maximum fee can be reached on a payout for 1 programm due to the repeat =

fees. These were descussed again but the group still thinks that for the =

sake of simplicity repeat fees should remain at 50% of the first fee.

Disincentives to claiming were discussed as there is concern that the =

administrative work involved is to costly to make it worth it. This was =

raised from the point of view of the artists themselves and that of the =

BAPLA members who are agents for photographers. (They are observing at =

the meetings as there members are concerned that they do not have the =

information in order to make claims, pass on to the artists that they =

represent and that the administraion involved in getting the information =

is something that they have ventured should be paid for out of the fees =

due to the artists.) DACS policy is to pay the artist. The view of the =

group was that this was an issue for the artists to take up with their =

agents and that how the administrative work involved was paid for was =

not soemthings that DACS could decide. It was suggested that an =

appropriate Union be approached in order to help resolve this issue. =

Gwen Thomas of the Assosciation of Photographers was clearly willing to =

assist. However it was stressed that BAPLA could make representation to =

them over the issue and that DACS would like to see the claims. Where =

collectives are involved discussion could take place over who the payee =

would be. Concern was also expresed and a question raised as to whether =

agents had the right to withhold information pertaining to a potential =

claim from an artist, was there a legal requirment for the artist to be =

informed of all use's of their work arranged by the agent? Where the =

rights cearly reside with the Agencies payments would be due to them. =

However not many of them had yet been able to demonstrate this......

With regard to the Animation claims it has been acknowledged and agreed =

that a different formula will need to be put in place.

Representatives from BECTU and DACS will be discussing this in the next =

few weeks. There are still claims from Animation Artists. There is a =

good system operating in Germany and this is being looked at as a =

potential model.

A question of whether an upper cap on claims was nescessary was raised =

and how and on what basis the Broadcastors made payments to the =

collecting societies was also asked. The system is said to be complex =

and that it isn't the Broadcastors who decide. Parity of fees with other =

collecting societies was also raised but it was stated that there is no =

fixed principle. It was also pointed out that as the claim periods apply =

to 5 years respectively and that future claims will apply on an annual =

basis there was potential discrepancy in the capping if it were to =

remain at 2000 pounds. The issue of whether the minimum payout =

guaranteed was too low to act as the desired incentive to make =

individuals claim was also discussed and it is to be reviewed.

The issue of the Statute of limitations and the cut off date for payouts =

was again discussed. It was volunteered that the rumour is that it is 6 =

years from when the information is possessed ( Geoffrey HELP what when =

or where? ask KEN BCC).

The next phase of distribution will probably roll into one claim form =

for '99/2000 and dates will identify the periods for which claims apply. =

Forms are expected to go out in December. Bespoke software is being =

prepared and the whole distribution should run far more smoothely. Some =

issues being dealt with are the VAT implications as payments can be =

comibg from anywhere in the world

and going out to anywhere in the world. DACS are endeavouring to ensure =

that they are acting correctly and have been warned that dealings with =

customs & excise can take a while. The issue of the review of the =

taxation of intellectual property was pointed out by Gwen and ot was =

advised that BECTU can help as their copyright committee has made =

representation on it via Andy Egan

thanks to Geoffrey Adams who drew their attention to it. DACS has 'Agent =

' status and provides a service.

Publicity was discussed again. As well as the issue of monies that may =

not be distributed, I assume that these will continue to be discussed as =

we move into the next phase. The main difficulty is trying to explain =

their rights to artists and counter-acting the misinformation that is =

being put about by people who have a vested interest in deterring =

individuals from making claims. Notably there does seem to be exhaustion =

on this point. My view is that only education will disperse the =

ignorance. With potential claimants well over school or college age how =

can this educating take place? Attention was drawn by myself to the =

large number of predominantly female animation artsists that I am fairly =

certain would have claims but may well be in the child-bearing phase of =

thier lives. '99/2000 claims would apply clearly to this group. =

Statistically I think that this could be proven and I would like to see =

some specific publicity targeted at this group. I have raised it with =

BECTUs GEC in the past when the initiatives on residuals=20

started.

The next meeting of this group will take place on the 10th October.=20

Belinda Hale M.A

Chair Animation

------=_NextPart_000_0004_01C0172E.10E12960

To: "'visiblearts'" <visiblearts@visiblearts.homechoice.co.uk>

Subject: RE: Animation Urgent

Date: 17 July 2001 16:55

Belinda. Thanks for the info about a meeting with Cyberia. A good time for

me would be any day next week except Tuesday. With regard to the next

animation mtg, I have another evening meeting scheduled for the 26th so this

date is no good for me. Also Martin has resigned from the cttee so our

numbers now are very low.

Let me Know your thoughts.

Spencer

If you are not the intended recipient of this email, please regard yourself

as being under a duty of confidentiality not to disclose its content. please

use Reply to alert the sender, then Delete the message. We would do the same

for you.

> ----------

> From:     visiblearts[SMTP:visiblearts@visiblearts.homechoice.co.uk]

> Sent:     16 July 2001 12:10

> To:       Spencer MacDonald

> Cc:       martin wansborough

> Subject: Animation Urgent

>

> 16.7.01

>

> Dear Spencer,

>

> hope you got my message with regard to Que from Cyberia, the training

> organisation who are interested

> in staging some sort of an event with BECTU for the Animation members with

> regard to utilising new technology and internet facilities in their work,

> from exchanging files, co-coordinating productions via online

> sites to designing and creating with web compatible programmes with a view

> to digital delivery and distribution. We are proposing a meeting with

> myself, you, Que and Cyberias training manager and are looking for a date.

> Cyberia are based in Central London, I suggest that you check their

> website to

> get an idea of their status which I think is just about right for our

> members. I have mentioned that it was agreed at the recent LPD meeting too

> stage some sort of event re new tech and it may be possible to

> combine our event with the LPD event. It would however be very helpful to

> have a meeting, at Wardour Street? I think that this would be convenient

> for them. Off the top of my head I think that they are based in Warren

> Street I have to look it up, as I told you they started the first internet

> cafe and have a number

> of cafes and do training as well. Their site is well presented, giving

> clear information about the courses

> that they offer and details of what entry level is required to do the

> course. They also provide tailored

> training and work with free-lancers in the business too. I have compared

> what they offer to the type of courses listed on the BFI website and

> consider that Cyberia have a name and reputation that is less

> geared to towards academic accreditation and more in line with the fast

> moving pace of the free-lance sector and it's needs, pricing is the only

> issue that I see as they do list prices on the site. It would be a great

> idea to see if we cannot come to some sort of an on-going arrangement with

> them and pilot it with

> an event. Please get bakc to me with a time that we could get together I

> have let Que know that I will be

> communicating with you about this today.

>

> I am in the process of getting the next agenda together and writing up the

> propositions for LPD Conference that I need to email to Martin Wansborough

> for his approval, It would be a good idea to send copies of the most

> recent 2 Animation Committee Meetings to the Committee members as I think

> that individuals simply thought that the committee weren't meeting due to

> the fact that they were not mailed out but were distributed at the

> meetings. I would like to propose a meeting on the 26th for the committee

> and would appreciate it if you could phone some of the members and let me

> know if this is convenient. I have also received a long report form DACS

> and this will need to be addressed.

>

> I am aware that some artists have been approached by DACS to accept

> estimated pay-outs and think that BECTU need to keep an eye on this.

> Individuals were given the option of providing DACS with account details

> for direct payment. Given that I am not prepared to accept an estimation

> of fees payable I have closed the account for which I gave DACS details

> and I would advise other members to do the same until we are clear that

> there is no chance of payments being and members not being aware of it

> until it is too late for them to take action. Members who have been

> written to have been informed that if no reply is forth-coming they will

> be deemed to have accepted such estimations. I am extremely worried that

> given many members do not even supply BECTU with addresses that are their

> main residence they would receive the correspondence too late for them to

> reject such an offer. I thank that the members should be balloted and I

> also think that the primary rights have to be asserted or clarified before

> secondary rights payments can be made to any individuals as we could be

> accused of seeking to cover up the quite clear and widespread primary

> rights infringements that have occurred. I am worried as I told DACS in

> the discussions that we had on publicising the distributions that the

> members do not always give their actual addresses as they move around so

> much and that they often give their parents addresses. You are fully aware

> that the issue of the primary rights has been consistently raised

> throughout our discussions. This fundamental issue was what led to all the

> propositions that the Animation committee have put to Annual and LPD

> Conference on the matter of creators rights.

>

> Thanks for your attention to these matters!

>

> all the best Belinda

>

>

>

From: "belinda hale" <visible_arts@hotmail.com>

To: <aegan@bectu.org.uk>; <Visible_Arts@angel82.freeserve.co.uk>; <david@dacs.co.uk>

Cc: <joanna@dacs.co.uk>; <mspence@bectu.org.uk>; <martin.wansborough@virginnet.co.uk>; <mary@hilyard.udo.co.uk>; <nickardizz@aol.com>; <rbolton@bectu.org.uk>; <rosie@barlas.net>; <smacdonald@bectu.org.uk>; <steve@beulah43.freeserve.co.uk>; <tony.lennon@mcr1.poptel.org.uk>

Subject: RE: Copyright

Date: 25 July 2001 09:47

25.07.01

Dear Andy,

I will be expecting a hard copy of your email signed by yourself in

confirmation of the official representation of the Animation Artists

at DACS with regard to their rights, I herewith formally notify BECTU that I

reserve all my rights until my Primary Rights have been dealt with. I will

advise the Animation members of their right to reserve their rights until

they are satisifed with the arrangements for their representation, obviously

this is up to them entirely on an individual basis but they should as I have

on number of occaisions made clear be

fully informed of the arrangements between DACS and BECTU with regard to

their various interests.

I appreciate that the Primary Rights Forms are soemwaht complex I have

already completed mine but I want to satisfied that the Animation Members

are being kept clearly informed of their responsibilities andoptions with

reagrd to their interests which could be severly undermined if they accept

secondary rights payments in advance of dealing with their Priamry Rights

which given the insistence of the nimation Committee on the matters

indicates to me as the Chair of the Commitee that they too are also well

aware of the implications

of accepting secondary rights payments in the absence of dealing first with

the matter of the infringements. That the matter should be dealt

with by individuals not in direct consultation with the Animation Committee

and the Animation Sub-Division on these matters appears to me to be higly

irregular and if necessary I will take it outside of BECTU.

You appreciate that I have to guard my position on this.

yours sincerely

Belinda Hale M.A

Chair of Animation

Thank-you for your urgent attention to this

>From: Andy Egan <aegan@bectu.org.uk>

>To: 'belinda hale' <visible_arts@hotmail.com>

>Subject: RE: Copyright

>Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2001 11:02:14 +0100

>

>Belinda

>

>The hard copy of the email will be in the post today.

>

>Tracey

>(Andy is now on leave for two weeks so I am dealing with his

>correspondence)

>

> > -----Original Message-----

> > From:   belinda hale [SMTP:visible_arts@hotmail.com]

> > Sent:   23 July 2001 11:03

> > To:     aegan@bectu.org.uk

> > Cc:     Visible_Arts@angel82.freeserve.co.uk

> > Subject:      Re: Copyright

> >

> > 23.7.01

> >

> > Dear Andy,

> >

> > Please confirm to me asap in hard copy that you are the email below was

> > sent

> > by yourself,

> >

> > yours sincerely

> >

> > Belinda Hale M.A

> >

> > Chair Animation

> >

> >

> > >From: Tracey Hunt <thunt@bectu.org.uk>

> > >To: "Belinda Hale (E-mail)" <visible_arts@hotmail.com>

> > >Subject: Copyright

> > >Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2001 16:32:15 +0100

> > >

> > >Dear Belinda

> > >

> > >1.     Thank you for your various communications.

> > >

> > >2.     As agreed at the Copyright Committee, we will review Payback 2001 at

> > >the end of the process and not in mid-distribution. You will be

>invited

> > to

> > >participate in the review.

> > >

> > >3.     Again, as agreed at the Copyright Committee, Rosie Russon represents

> > >BECTU as a whole and not just any individual section on DACS Council.

> > We

> > >do not have nor have we sought multiple and separate sectional

> > >representation (eg for animation, art department, visual artists).   If

> > >there are potentially conflicting interests between the various

> > categories

> > >of BECTU members, these should be discussed at the Copyright Committee.

> > >Rosie would then be expected to represent BECTU's collective view at

>DACS

> > >Council.

> > >

> > >4.     The primary rights forms are now at BECTU. Having discussed the

> > >matter with our copyright consultant, I am clear that we need to give

> > >consideration to drafting advice and information to accompany the

>forms.

> > >Sending them "blind" to members will simply cause confusion. I will

> > >therefore put this as an item for discussion at our Copyright Committee

> > >meeting in September. The forms will not be sent out until we have had

> > >that

> > >discussion.

> > >

> > >Yours sincerely

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >Andy Egan

> > >Research Officer

> > >

> > >

> > >cc     Roger Bolton, Spencer MacDonald, Geoffrey Adams, Rosie Russon

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, please regard

> > >yourself

> > >as being under a duty of confidentiality not to disclose its contents.

> > >Please use Reply to alert the sender, then Delete the message. We

>would

> > do

> > >the same for you.

> > >

> >

> >

> > _________________________________________________________________

> > Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at

>http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

_________________________________________________________________

Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

From: "Spencer MacDonald" <smacdonald@bectu.org.uk>

To: "'visiblearts'" <visiblearts@visiblearts.homechoice.co.uk>

Subject: RE: Animation

Date: 14 June 2001 14:42

Belinda, I have moved the meeting to next Thursday. However I have spoken to

Dave and Steve but not anyone else. If we do need to contact any other ctte

members then I will have to leave this with you.

Thanks

Spencer

> ----------

> From:     visiblearts[SMTP:visiblearts@visiblearts.homechoice.co.uk]

> Sent:     14 June 2001 14:20

> To:       Spencer MacDonald

> Cc:       steve roberts; martin wansborough

> Subject: Animation

>

> Dear Spencer,

>

> Please confirm to me that theAnimation Committee meeting will take place

> next Thursday and

> that you have contacted Dave Elvin and the rest of the committee

> accordingly.

>

> Andy Egan has contacted me to say that Application Forms for Priamry

> Rights Membership of DACS at the reduced rate of £15 for life membership

> will be sent out now that the deadline for Payback 2001 has passed and to

> advise me that Joanna Cave will be answering the queries that

> I have raised. A meeting to review the distribution is to take in

> September however there is still a meeting with regard to the current

> distribution to take place in a few weeks time. We do need to stay posted

> as this could be quite crucial to the members to whom no monies from the

> previous distribution have yet been paid but are out-standing ie the

> animation artists. The issue of a proposed Class Action is in my view in

> need of urgent discussion and their are soliciters potentially interested

> in running such an action.

>

> I also need to be emailed any contributions for the newsletter, I have

> started a mock-up and think that it is time to start developing the

> Animation Website. I'm currently using Windows M.E and can accept

> compatible file formats, I also have Frontpage Express and can put content

> into that format and email it to you directly to paste it up on to the

> site?

>

> All the best Belinda

>