Suchergebnisse

This tenth edition of Doing Business sheds light on how easy or difficult it is for a local entrepreneur to open and run a small to medium-size business when complying with relevant regulations. It measures and tracks changes in regulations affecting eleven areas in the life cycle of a business: starting a business, dealing with construction permits, getting electricity, registering property, getting credit, protecting investors, paying taxes, trading across borders, enforcing contracts, resolving insolvency and employing workers. Doing Business presents quantitative indicators on business regulations and the protection of property rights that can be compared across 185 economies, from Afghanistan to Zimbabwe, over time. The indicators are used to analyze economic outcomes and identify what reforms have worked, where and why. This economy profile presents the Doing Business indicators for Luxembourg. To allow useful comparison, it also provides data for other selected economies (comparator economies) for each indicator. The data in this report are current as of June 1, 2012 (except for the paying taxes indicators, which cover the period January - December 2011).

This tenth edition of Doing Business sheds light on how easy or difficult it is for a local entrepreneur to open and run a small to medium-size business when complying with relevant regulations. It measures and tracks changes in regulations affecting eleven areas in the life cycle of a business: starting a business, dealing with construction permits, getting electricity, registering property, getting credit, protecting investors, paying taxes, trading across borders, enforcing contracts, resolving insolvency and employing workers. Doing Business presents quantitative indicators on business regulations and the protection of property rights that can be compared across 185 economies, from Afghanistan to Zimbabwe, over time. The indicators are used to analyze economic outcomes and identify what reforms have worked, where and why. This economy profile presents the Doing Business indicators for Nigeria. To allow useful comparison, it also provides data for other selected economies (comparator economies) for each indicator. The data in this report are current as of June 1, 2012 (except for the paying taxes indicators, which cover the period January - December 2011).

After a century of political centralization in Colombia, the first public election of city mayors in 19861 began a decentralization trend, which was later reinforced by a constitutional reform in 1991. Subnational governments (departments and municipalities) were made responsible for the planning and management of social and economic development in their jurisdictions. Administrative and political reforms were accompanied by fiscal decentralization, including the transfer of central government revenues. Since 1991 the growth of fiscal transfers has accelerated. Departments and municipalities are now responsible for public health, education, water supply, and sanitation expenditures through earmarked transfers. Out of the total amount of central government expenditures (21.8 percent of GDP (Gross Domestic Product) in 2008) almost one-quarter represent regional transfers (5 percent of GDP), which finance half of all regional expenditures (10.2 percent of GDP). The purpose of this paper is to describe the budget process reform implemented in Medellin, and to analyze its actual performance and evaluate its success. The reform is changing the way public resources are allocated and executed, while gradually institutionalizing supply and demand-side practices beyond the government's political cycles. This paper describes and analyzes how the Results-oriented budgeting (RoB) was designed and implemented, and the achievements of the system to date, in terms of resource allocation and the policy-making process.

Rummaging through my accumulated papers, I just came across the English translation of a speech I delivered in Czechoslovakia on July 4, 1982, when I was American ambassador in Prague. At that time Czechoslovakia was ruled by a Communist regime imposed by the Soviet Union.As I perused it, I realized to my dismay that today I could not honestly make many of the statements in this message.Here are some of the key paragraphs and my reflections on them today:"I am pleased to send greetings to the people of Czechoslovakia on this 206th anniversary of my country's independence. It is a day when we Americans celebrate the foundation of our nation as an independent, democratic republic, and a day on which we dedicate ourselves anew to implementing the ideals of our founding fathers. For us, the bedrock of these ideals is the proposition that states and governments are created by the people to serve the people and that citizens must control the government rather than being controlled by it. Furthermore, we believe that there are areas of human life such as expression of opinion, the practice and teaching of religious beliefs, and the right of citizens to leave our country and return as they wish, which no government has the right to restrict."Can we really say that our citizens "control the government" today? Twice in this century we have installed presidents who received millions of fewer votes than their opponents. The Supreme Court has nullified rights supported by a decisive majority of our citizens. Votes for the U.S. Senate count far less in a populous state than in a state with fewer citizens. Corporations and individuals are virtually unlimited in the amount they can spend to promote or vilify candidates and to lobby Congress for favorable tax and regulatory treatment. The Supreme Court has, in effect, ruled that corporations are citizens too! That sounds to me more like an oligarchy than a democracy."We are a nation formed of people from all corners of the world, and we have been nurtured by all the world's cultures. What unites us is the ideal of creating a free and prosperous society. Through our history we have faced many challenges but we have been able to surmount them through a process of open discussion, accommodation of competing interests, and ultimately by preserving the absolute right of our citizens to select their leaders and determine the policies which affect their lives."Since when have we seen an open discussion and accommodation of competing interests in the work of the U.S. Congress? How is it that, for the first time in U.S. history, we had no Speaker of the House of Representatives for days this year?"Our society is not a perfect one and we know very well that we have sometimes failed to live up to our ideals. For we understand the truth which Goethe expressed so eloquently when he wrote, "Es irrt der Mensch, so long er strebt"(Man errs as long as he strives.) Therefore, while we hold fast to our ideals as goals and guides of action, we are convinced that no individual and no group possesses a monopoly of wisdom and that our society can be successful only if all have the right freely to express opinions, make suggestions and organize groups to promote their views."Unless you are a Member of Congress who speaks out in defense of the fundamental rights of Palestinians to live in freedom in their ancestral lands, or students at Columbia University who wish to do the same."As we Americans celebrate our nation's birthday and rededicate ourselves to its ideals, we do so without the presumption that our political and economic system– however well it has served us–is something to be imposed upon others. Indeed, just as we preserve diversity at home, we wish to preserve it in the world at large. Just as every human being is unique, so is every culture and every society, and all should have the right to control their destinies, in their own ways and without compulsion from the outside. This is one of the principal goals of our foreign policy: to work for a world in which human diversity is not only tolerated but protected, a world in which negotiation and accommodation replace force as the means of settling disputes."Unless you live in Afghanistan, or Iraq, or Syria, or Palestine…or, for that matter, in Iran, Cuba, or Venezuela."We are still a long way from that world we seek, but we must not despair, for we believe that people throughout the world yearn basically for the same things Americans do: peace, freedom, security, and the opportunity to influence their own lives. And while we do not seek to impose our political system on others, we cannot conceal our profound admiration for those brave people in other countries who are seeking only what Americans take as their birthright."Unless they live in Gaza or the Palestinian West Bank."While this is a day of national rejoicing, there is no issue on our minds more important than the question of preserving world peace. We are thankful that we are living at peace with the world and that not a single American soldier is engaged in fighting anywhere in the world. Still, we are concerned with the high levels of armaments and the tendency of some countries to use them instead of settling disputes peacefully. We share the concern of all thinking people with the destructive potential of nuclear weapons in particular."At that time the Soviet Union had invaded Afghanistan and the U.S. was demanding their withdrawal. Subsequently they did withdraw in accord with an agreement the U.S. negotiated. But then, after 9/11, the U.S. invaded and stayed for 20 years without being able to create a democratic society. A subsequent invasion of Iraq, on spurious grounds, removed the Iraqi government and gave impetus to ISIS. Then, the U.S., without a declaration of war, invaded Syria and tried unsuccessfully to overthrow its government (which we recognized) and also to combat ISIS, which had been created as a result of the U.S. invasion of Iraq.American soldiers are now stationed in more than 80 countries. We spend more on arms than all other budgets for discretionary spending, and now the Biden administration is making all but formal war against Russia, a peer nuclear power."It is for this reason that President Reagan has proposed large reductions of nuclear weapons. … We have also made numerous other proposals which we believe would increase mutual confidence and reduce the danger of conflict. All aim for verifiable equality and balance on both sides. That way, the alliance systems facing each other would need not fear an attack from the other. …"Yes, and by 1991 we negotiated massive reductions in nuclear weapons, banned biological and chemical weapons and limited conventional weapons in Europe. The Cold War ended by agreement, not the victory of one side over the other. But, beginning with the second Bush administration, the U.S. unilaterally withdrew from every important arms control treaty and embarked on a trillion dollar "modernization" of the American nuclear arsenal. Meanwhile, although there was no Warsaw Pact after 1990, the U.S. expanded NATO and refused to negotiate an agreement that insured Russia's security."The task ahead for all the peoples of the world to establish and preserve peace is not an easy one, The issues are complex and they cannot be solved by simplistic slogans, but only by sustained effort."Nevertheless, from the late 1990s the U.S. seemed motivated by a false and simplistic doctrine that the world was destined to become like the U.S. and the U.S. was justified in using its economic and military power to transform the rest of the world to conform with its image of itself (the Neocon thesis). It was, in effect, an adaptation of the failed "Brezhnev doctrine" pursued by the USSR until abandoned by Gorbachev. As with the Brezhnev doctrine, the attempt has been an utter fiasco, but the Biden administration seems, oblivious to the dangers to the American people, determined to pursue it."Nevertheless, I speak to you today with optimism, since I know that my country enters the 207th year of its independence with the determination not only to preserve the liberties we have one at home but to devote our energies and resources to maintaining peace in the world."But, today, during the 248th year of American independence :The U.S. is sending 100 "super-bombs" for dropping on Gaza. The BLU-109 "bunker busters", each weighing 2,000 pounds, penetrate basement concrete shelters where people are hiding, the Wall Street Journal reported Dec. 1.America has sent 15,000 bombs and 57,000 artillery shells to Israel since October 7, the paper said. Details of the size and number of weapons sent have not been previously reported.Also on the list are more than 5,000 Mk82 unguided or "dumb" bombs, more than 5,400 Mk84 2,000-pound warhead bombs, around 1,000 GBU-39 small diameter bombs, and approximately 3,000 JDAMs, the Journal said.The news dramatically contradicts statements of Foreign Secretary Antony Blinken that avoiding civilian casualties is a prime concern for the United States.The U.S. also provided the bomb that was dropped on the Jabalia refugee camp, killing 100 people, possibly including a Hamas leader, the Journal said.Repeated calls by the countries of the world, through the United Nations, for a ceasefire have not been supported by the U.S. and its follower nations.Military spending makes up a dominant share of discretionary spending in the U.S., and military personnel make up the majority of government manpower.The weapons are being airlifted on C-17 military cargo planes directly from the U.S. to Tel Aviv.Oh lord, what has happened to us?This piece has been republished with permission from Ambassador Jack Matlock's website. Dear RS readers: It has been an extraordinary year and our editing team has been working overtime to make sure that we are covering the current conflicts with quality, fresh analysis that doesn't cleave to the mainstream orthodoxy or take official Washington and the commentariat at face value. Our staff reporters, experts, and outside writers offer top-notch, independent work, daily. Please consider making a tax-exempt, year-end contribution to Responsible Statecraft so that we can continue this quality coverage — which you will find nowhere else — into 2024. Happy Holidays!

With amazing speed and impeccable timing, Erica Jiang, Gregor Matvos, Tomasz Piskorski, and Amit Seru analyze how exposed the rest of the banking system is to an interest rate rise.Recap: SVB failed, basically, because it funded a portfolio of long-term bonds and loans with run-prone uninsured deposits. Interest rates rose, the market value of the assets fell below the value of the deposits. When people wanted their money back, the bank would have to sell at low prices, and there would not be enough for everyone. Depositors ran to be the first to get their money out. In my previous post, I expressed astonishment that the immense bank regulatory apparatus did not notice this huge and elementary risk. It takes putting 2+2 together: lots of uninsured deposits, big interest rate risk exposure. But 2+2=4 is not advanced math. How widespread is this issue? And how widespread is the regulatory failure? One would think, as you put on the parachute before jumping out of a plane,  that the Fed would have checked that raising interest rates to combat inflation would not tank lots of banks. Banks are allowed to report the "hold to maturity" "book value" or face value of long term assets. If a bank bought a bond for $100 (book value) or if a bond promises $100 in 10 years (hold to maturity value), basically, the bank may say it's worth $100, even though the bank might only be able to sell the bond for $75 if they need to stop a run. So one way to put the issue is, how much lower are mark to market values than book values? The paper (abstract):  The U.S. banking system's market value of assets is $2 trillion lower than suggested by their book value of assets accounting for loan portfolios held to maturity. Marked-to-market bank assets have declined by an average of 10% across all the banks, with the bottom 5th percentile experiencing a decline of 20%. ... 10 percent of banks have larger unrecognized losses than those at SVB. Nor was SVB the worst capitalized bank, with 10 percent of banks have lower capitalization than SVB. On the other hand, SVB had a disproportional share of uninsured funding: only 1 percent of banks had higher uninsured leverage. ... Even if only half of uninsured depositors decide to withdraw, almost 190 banks are at a potential risk of impairment to insured depositors, with potentially $300 billion of insured deposits at risk. ... these calculations suggests that recent declines in bank asset values very significantly increased the fragility of the US banking system to uninsured depositor runs.Data:we use bank call report data capturing asset and liability composition of all US banks (over 4800 institutions) combined with market-level prices of long-duration assets. How big and widespread are unrecognized losses?The average banks' unrealized losses are around 10% after marking to market. The 5% of banks with worst unrealized losses experience asset declines of about 20%. We note that these losses amount to a stunning 96% of the pre-tightening aggregate bank capitalization.Percentage of asset value decline when assets are mark-to- market according to market price growth from 2022Q1 to 2023Q1Most banks operate with (to my mind) tiny slivers of capital -- 10% or less. So 10% decline in asset value is a lot! (Banks get money by issuing stock and borrowing. The capitalization ratio is how much money banks get by issuing stock/assets. Capital is not reserves, liquid assets "held" to satisfy depositors.) In the right panel, the problem is not confined to small banks and small amounts of dollars. But...all of this is slightly old data. How much worse will this get if the Fed raises interest rates a few more percentage points? A lot. To runs, it takes 2+2 to get 4. How widespread is reliance on uninsured, run-prone deposits? (Or, deposits that were run-prone until the Fed and Treasury ex-post guaranteed all deposits!) Here SVB was an outlier. The median bank funds 9% of their assets with equity, 65% with insured deposits, and 26% with uninsured debt comprising uninsured deposits and other debt funding....SVB did stand out from other banks in its distribution of uninsured leverage, the ratio of uninsured debt to assets...SVB was in the 1st percentile of distribution in insured leverage. Over 78 percent of its assets was funded by uninsured deposits.But it is not totally alone the 95th percentile [most dangerous] bank uses 52 percent of uninsured debt. For this bank, even if only half of uninsured depositors panic, this leads to a withdrawal of one quarter of total marked to market value of the bank. Uninsured deposit to asset ratios calculated based on 2022Q1 balance sheets and mark-to-market values Overall, though, ...we consider whether the assets in the U.S. banking system are large enough to cover all uninsured deposits. Intuitively, this situation would arise if all uninsured deposits were to run, and the FDIC did not close the bank prior to the run ending. ...virtually all banks (barring two) have enough assets to cover their uninsured deposit obligations. ... there is little reason for uninsured depositors to run.... SVB, is [was] one of the worst banks in this regard. Its marked-to-market assets are [were] barely enough to cover its uninsured deposits.Breathe a temporary sigh of relief. I am struck in the tables by the absence of wholesale funding. Banks used to get a lot of their money from repurchase agreements, commercial paper, and other uninsured and run-prone sources of funding. If that's over, so much the better. But I may be misunderstanding the tables. Summary: Banks were borrowing short and lending long, and not hedging their interest rate risk. As interest rates rise, bank asset values will fall. That has all sorts of ramifications. But for the moment, there is not a danger of a massive run. And the blanket guarantee on all deposits rules that out anyway. Their bottom line: There are several medium-run regulatory responses one can consider to an uninsured deposit crisis. One is to expand even more complex banking regulation on how banks account for mark to market losses. However, such rules and regulation, implemented by myriad of regulators with overlapping jurisdictions might not address the core issue at hand consistently I love understated prose.There does need to be retrospective. How are 100,000 pages of rules not enough to spot plain-vanilla duration risk -- no complex derivatives here -- combined with uninsured deposits? If four authors can do this in a weekend, how does the whole Fed and state regulators miss this in a year? (Ok, four really smart and hardworking authors, but still... ) Alternatively, banks could face stricter capital requirement... Discussions of this nature remind us of the heated debate that occurredafter the 2007 financial crisis, which many might argue did not result in sufficient progress on bank capital requirements...My bottom line (again) This debacle goes to prove that the whole architecture is hopeless: guarantee depositors and other creditors, regulators will make sure that banks don't take too many risks. If they can't see this, patching the ship again will not work. If banks channeled all deposits into interest-paying reserves or short-term treasury debt, and financed all long-term lending with long-term liabilities, maturity-matched long-term debt and lots of equity, we would end private sector financial crises forever. Are the benefits of the current system worth it? (Plug for "towards a run-free financial system." "Private sector" because a sovereign debt crisis is something else entirely.) (A few other issues stand out in the SVB debacle. Apparently SVB did try to issue equity, but the run broke out before they could do so. Apparently, the Fed tried to find a buyer, but the anti-merger sentiments of the administration plus bad memories of how buyers were treated after 2008 stopped that. Beating up on mergers and buyers of bad banks has come back to haunt our regulators.) Update: (Thanks to Jonathan Parker) It looks like the methodology does not mark to market derivatives positions. (It would be hard to see how it could do so!) Thus a bank that protects itself with swap contracts would look worse than it actually is. (Translation: Banks can enter a contract that costs nothing, in which they pay a fixed rate of interest and receive a floating rate of interest. When interest rates go up, this contract makes a lot of money! )Amit confirms,As we say in our note, due to data limitations, we do not account for interest rate hedges across the banks. As far as we know SVB was not using such hedges...Of course if they are, one has to ask who is the counterparty to such hedges and be sure they won't similarly blow up. AIG comes to mind. He adds: note we don't account for changes in credit risk on the asset side. All things equal this can make things worse for borrowers and their creditors with increases in interest rates. Think for a moment about real estate borrowers and pressures in sectors such as commercial real estate/offices etc. One could argue this number would be large.  So don't sleep too well.  From an email correspondent: Besides regulation, accountancy itself is a joke. KPMG Gave SVB, Signature Bank Clean Bill of Health Weeks Before Collapse.  How can unrealised losses near equal to a bank's capital be ignored in the true and fair assessment of its financial condition (the core statement of an audit leaving out all the disclaimers) just because it was classified as Held to Maturity owing some nebulous past "intention" (whatever that was ever worth) not to sell?It strikes me that both accounting and regulation have become so complicated that they blind intelligent people to obvious elephants in the room.  

Упродовж усіх років від часу створення СРСР комуно-більшовицька кліка Сталіна брехала світові про так звані успіхи комуністичного будівництва в країні нібито найсправедливішого на земній кулі суспільства.У 20–30-х роках знакових представників першої хвилі політичної еміграції заманювали різними обіцянками повернутися додому. В европейських столицях агенти Кремля підшукували й підкуповували низку продажних журналістів, влаштовували їм показові поїздки, стимулюючи цим появу в провідних газетах Заходу фальшивих публікацій про «радянський рай» на одній шостій земної кулі. Особливо послідовно влада взялася за непокірних українців: знищувала інтелігенцію, трудове селянство, національну церкву, і, як і в царські часи, насильно русифікувала.По завершенні Другої світової війни, коли втікачів-українців із того «раю» виявилося в рази більше, Москва насилала в численні табори Ді-Пі так звані репатріаційні комісії, які промивали мізки радянським збігцям, прагнули повернути їх в СРСР із тим, щоб згодом у нелюдський спосіб позбиткуватися над їхнім свободолюбством у сибірських таборах ГУЛАГу.Здавалося, той щедро оплачуваний потік цинічної російської брехні нікому й ніколи не вдасться ні заглушити, ні нейтралізувати, ні зупинити. Та ось у середовищі української еміграції виявився один сміливець, який голосно, на весь світ заявив, чому він не хоче повертатися в СРСР. Це був Іван Багряний. Народжений в Україні 1907 року, будучи поетом за талантом і громадським трибуном за покликанням, він сповна відчув на собі переваги «радянського способу життя». 1932 року репресований за безвинні з політичної точки зору вірші. На еміграції в Німеччині відновив літературну працю. 1947 року обраний заступником голови Української Національної Ради, став лідером Української революційно-демократичної партії.Вихід у світ книжки Багряного «Чому я не хочу вертати на «родіну»?» друком і накладом Українського центрального Бюро в Лондоні 1946 року стало своєрідною «бомбою». Передусім для офіційної Москви. Також для політиків, журналістів та інтелектуалів Заходу. Текст брошури складався з 13-ти коротких параграфів. Кожен із них слугує окремим прикладом-аргументом відповіді на поставлене в назві твору запитання.Через трохи більше як шість років у рідкісній на сьогодні газеті «Українські Вісті» (Новий Ульм, Німеччина) з'являється публіцистична стаття цього ж автора «Про свободу слова, совісті і преси за залізною заслоною». Її можна назвати своєрідним продовженням вищезгаданої брошури.На відміну від «Чому я не хочу вертати на «родіну»?», яка неодноразово перевидавалася за кордоном, у тім числі і в перекладах англійською, німецькою, французькою мовами, ця стаття полум'яного публіциста в українському журналістикознавстві є, на жаль, призабутою. І хоч написана вона понад 70 років тому, актуальність порушеної автором проблеми (гуманітарна катастрофа, яку зазнала українська нація від колоніальної політики російського «старшого брата») ще більше загострилася натепер, за умов неоголошеної Росією гібридної війни проти українців, зосібно й на інформаційному полі. * * *Драматичною є доля наступного тексту, який «Український Інформаційний Простір» оприлюднює в Україні вперше.Йдеться про розвідку відомого члена Української Центральної Ради, журналіста і вченого Аркадія Животка, життєвий шлях якого передчасно обірвався на еміграції, «Девятьдесять років української студентської преси». Вона мала скласти окремий розділ написаної в еміграції найголовнішої праці цього діяча – «Історія української преси».Видана 1946 року в Регенсбурзі циклостильовим способом (по-нинішньому – ксероксна відбитка машинописного варіанту) «Історія української преси» Аркадія Животка мала урізаний вигляд. Через брак коштів за умов безпросвітної еміграційної дійсності Аркадій Животко змушений був зняти з оригіналу підручника третину тексту. Як вважав, до кращих часів. Однак для цього автора вони так і не прийшли. Хворе й виснажене випробуваннями долі серце зупинилося на 58 році життя – 14 червня 1948 року. Сталося це в таборі скитальників зі Східної Європи Лягарде неподалік німецького Ашафенбурга.Утім, цю свою статтю автор встиг побачити надрукованою. Її було вміщено в спареному числі (1–2) журналу «Студентський Шлях», який на правах рукопису видавав машинописним способом у Мюнхені Центральний Еміґраційний Союз Українського Студентства (ЦЕСУС). Цінність цієї статті в тому, що більшість друкованих органів, яких тримав у руках Аркадій Животко і описував для історії, практично не існує в жодному примірнику.«Історія української преси А. Животка перевидавалася двічі: 1990 року у Мюнхені заходами Українського Вільного Університету з передмовою і упорядкуванням М. Присяжного та 1999 року в Києві заходами видавництва «Наша культура і наука» з передмовою і упорядкуванням М. Тимошика. Не опублікований у цій книзі розділ про історію української студентської преси так і залишився в машинописному варіанті рідкісної на сьогодні підшивки машинописного «Студентського Шляху».Цінність цієї статті в тому, що більшість друкованих органів, яку тримав у руках Аркадій Животко і описував для історії, практично не існує в жодному примірнику – вони розгубилися повоєнними дорогами еміграції бездержавної нації…Текст подається за оригіналом підшивки журналу, який в Україні практично невідомий. Комплект цього раритету подарував авторові цих рядків у канадському Вінніпезі покійний нині викладач Колегії Св. Андрея при Манітобському університеті Тимофій Міненко. ; For all the years since the creation of the USSR, Stalin's communist-Bolshevik clique lied to the world about the so-called successes of communist construction in the country of the supposedly fairest society on the Earth.In the 1920s and 1930s, iconic representatives of the first wave of political emigration were lured by various promises to return home. In European capitals, Kremlin agents searched for and bribed a number of corrupt journalists, arranged for them demonstration trips, and encouraged the false publications' appearance in the leading newspapers of the West about the «Soviet Paradise». Especially consistently, the authorities took on disobedient Ukrainians: they destroyed the intelligentsia, the working peasantry, the national church, and, as in tsarist times, forcibly Russified them.At the end of World War II, when there were too many Ukrainian refugees from that «Paradise,«Moscow sent so-called repatriation commissions to numerous DP camps, which brainwashed Soviet fugitives and sought to return them to the USSR to harm their love of freedom in the Siberian GULAG camps.It seemed that no one would ever be able to silence, neutralize, or stop that generously paid flow of cynical Russian lies. But among the Ukrainian emigrants, there was a brave man who loudly declared to the whole world why he did not want to return to theUSSR. It was Ivan Bahrianyi. Born in Ukraine in 1907, as a poet by talent and a public tribune by vocation, he fully experienced the benefits of the «Soviet way of life.» In 1932 he was repressed, from a political point of view, for innocent poems. During his emigration toGermany, he resumed his literary work. In 1947 he was elected Deputy Chairman of the Ukrainian National Council and became the leader of the Ukrainian Revolutionary Democratic Party.The publication of Bahrianyi's book «Why don't I want to return to my «motherland»?» printed by the Ukrainian Central Bureau in London in 1946 became a kind of a «bomb». First of all, for official Moscow. Also, for Western politicians, journalists, and intellectuals. The text of the brochure consisted of 13 short paragraphs. Each of them serves as a separate example-argument of the answer to the question posed in the title of the work.A little more than six years later, a journalistic article by the same author, «On Freedom of Speech, Conscience, and the Press Behind the Iron Curtain», appeared in the now-rare newspaper «Ukrainian News» (New Ulm, Germany). It can be called a kind of the above brochure continuation.Unlike «Why don't I want to return to my «motherland»?», which had been repeatedly republished abroad, including in English, German, and French translations, this article by an ardent publicist in Ukrainian journalism is, unfortunately, forgotten. And although it was written more than 70 years ago, the urgency of the problem raised by the author (the humanitarian catastrophe suffered by the Ukrainian nation from the colonial policy of Russia's «older brother») has become even more acute now, under the conditions of Russia's undeclared hybrid war against Ukrainians, especially in the information field.* * *The fate of the next text, which «Ukrainian Information Space» publishes in Ukraine for the first time, is dramatic.It is about the activity of a well-known member of the Central Council of Ukraine, journalist and scientist Arkadii Zhyvotko, whose life path ended prematurely in exile, «Ninety years of the Ukrainian student press.«It was to compose a separate section of the most important work of this figure written in exile – «History of the Ukrainian press.»Published in1946 inRegensburgin a cyclostyle way (now a photocopy of a typewritten version), Arkadii Zhyvotko's «History of the Ukrainian Press» had a truncated appearance. Due to the lack of funds in the conditions of a hopeless emigration reality, Arkadii Zhyvotko was forced to remove a third of the text from the original textbook. As he believed, until better times. However, they never came for this author. Sick and exhausted by the trials of fate heart stopped at the age of 58 on June 14, 1948. It happened in the camp of wanderers from Eastern Europe Lagarde near Aschaffenburg,Germany.However, the author managed to see this article published. It was published in a paired number (1–2) by the magazine «Student Way», which was published as a manuscript by typewriting in Munich by the Central Emigration Union of Ukrainian Students (CESUS). The value of this article is that most of the printed materials that Arkadii Zhyvotko held in his hands and described for history do not exist in any copy. A. Zhyvotko's «History of the Ukrainian Press» was republished twice: in 1990 in Munich, in Ukrainian Free University with a foreword and arrangement by M. Prysiazhnyi and1999 in Kyiv, by the publishing house «Nasha Kultura i Nauka» with a foreword and arrangement by M. Tymoshyk. The section on the history of the Ukrainian student press, which was not published in this book, remained in the typewritten version of the currently rare typewritten folder of the «Student Way».The value of this article is that most of the publications that Arkadii Zhyvotko held in his hands and described for history do not exist in any copy – they were lost on the post-war roads of a stateless nation emigration…The text is submitted according to the original folder of the magazine, which is practically unknown in Ukraine. The set of this rarity was present­ed to the author of these lines in Winnipeg, Canada by the now-deceased professor of St. Andrew's College at the University of Manitoba Tymofii Minenko.

Упродовж усіх років від часу створення СРСР комуно-більшовицька кліка Сталіна брехала світові про так звані успіхи комуністичного будівництва в країні нібито найсправедливішого на земній кулі суспільства.У 20–30-х роках знакових представників першої хвилі політичної еміграції заманювали різними обіцянками повернутися додому. В европейських столицях агенти Кремля підшукували й підкуповували низку продажних журналістів, влаштовували їм показові поїздки, стимулюючи цим появу в провідних газетах Заходу фальшивих публікацій про «радянський рай» на одній шостій земної кулі. Особливо послідовно влада взялася за непокірних українців: знищувала інтелігенцію, трудове селянство, національну церкву, і, як і в царські часи, насильно русифікувала.По завершенні Другої світової війни, коли втікачів-українців із того «раю» виявилося в рази більше, Москва насилала в численні табори Ді-Пі так звані репатріаційні комісії, які промивали мізки радянським збігцям, прагнули повернути їх в СРСР із тим, щоб згодом у нелюдський спосіб позбиткуватися над їхнім свободолюбством у сибірських таборах ГУЛАГу.Здавалося, той щедро оплачуваний потік цинічної російської брехні нікому й ніколи не вдасться ні заглушити, ні нейтралізувати, ні зупинити. Та ось у середовищі української еміграції виявився один сміливець, який голосно, на весь світ заявив, чому він не хоче повертатися в СРСР. Це був Іван Багряний. Народжений в Україні 1907 року, будучи поетом за талантом і громадським трибуном за покликанням, він сповна відчув на собі переваги «радянського способу життя». 1932 року репресований за безвинні з політичної точки зору вірші. На еміграції в Німеччині відновив літературну працю. 1947 року обраний заступником голови Української Національної Ради, став лідером Української революційно-демократичної партії.Вихід у світ книжки Багряного «Чому я не хочу вертати на «родіну»?» друком і накладом Українського центрального Бюро в Лондоні 1946 року стало своєрідною «бомбою». Передусім для офіційної Москви. Також для політиків, журналістів та інтелектуалів Заходу. Текст брошури складався з 13-ти коротких параграфів. Кожен із них слугує окремим прикладом-аргументом відповіді на поставлене в назві твору запитання.Через трохи більше як шість років у рідкісній на сьогодні газеті «Українські Вісті» (Новий Ульм, Німеччина) з'являється публіцистична стаття цього ж автора «Про свободу слова, совісті і преси за залізною заслоною». Її можна назвати своєрідним продовженням вищезгаданої брошури.На відміну від «Чому я не хочу вертати на «родіну»?», яка неодноразово перевидавалася за кордоном, у тім числі і в перекладах англійською, німецькою, французькою мовами, ця стаття полум'яного публіциста в українському журналістикознавстві є, на жаль, призабутою. І хоч написана вона понад 70 років тому, актуальність порушеної автором проблеми (гуманітарна катастрофа, яку зазнала українська нація від колоніальної політики російського «старшого брата») ще більше загострилася натепер, за умов неоголошеної Росією гібридної війни проти українців, зосібно й на інформаційному полі. * * *Драматичною є доля наступного тексту, який «Український Інформаційний Простір» оприлюднює в Україні вперше.Йдеться про розвідку відомого члена Української Центральної Ради, журналіста і вченого Аркадія Животка, життєвий шлях якого передчасно обірвався на еміграції, «Девятьдесять років української студентської преси». Вона мала скласти окремий розділ написаної в еміграції найголовнішої праці цього діяча – «Історія української преси».Видана 1946 року в Регенсбурзі циклостильовим способом (по-нинішньому – ксероксна відбитка машинописного варіанту) «Історія української преси» Аркадія Животка мала урізаний вигляд. Через брак коштів за умов безпросвітної еміграційної дійсності Аркадій Животко змушений був зняти з оригіналу підручника третину тексту. Як вважав, до кращих часів. Однак для цього автора вони так і не прийшли. Хворе й виснажене випробуваннями долі серце зупинилося на 58 році життя – 14 червня 1948 року. Сталося це в таборі скитальників зі Східної Європи Лягарде неподалік німецького Ашафенбурга.Утім, цю свою статтю автор встиг побачити надрукованою. Її було вміщено в спареному числі (1–2) журналу «Студентський Шлях», який на правах рукопису видавав машинописним способом у Мюнхені Центральний Еміґраційний Союз Українського Студентства (ЦЕСУС). Цінність цієї статті в тому, що більшість друкованих органів, яких тримав у руках Аркадій Животко і описував для історії, практично не існує в жодному примірнику.«Історія української преси А. Животка перевидавалася двічі: 1990 року у Мюнхені заходами Українського Вільного Університету з передмовою і упорядкуванням М. Присяжного та 1999 року в Києві заходами видавництва «Наша культура і наука» з передмовою і упорядкуванням М. Тимошика. Не опублікований у цій книзі розділ про історію української студентської преси так і залишився в машинописному варіанті рідкісної на сьогодні підшивки машинописного «Студентського Шляху».Цінність цієї статті в тому, що більшість друкованих органів, яку тримав у руках Аркадій Животко і описував для історії, практично не існує в жодному примірнику – вони розгубилися повоєнними дорогами еміграції бездержавної нації…Текст подається за оригіналом підшивки журналу, який в Україні практично невідомий. Комплект цього раритету подарував авторові цих рядків у канадському Вінніпезі покійний нині викладач Колегії Св. Андрея при Манітобському університеті Тимофій Міненко. ; For all the years since the creation of the USSR, Stalin's communist-Bolshevik clique lied to the world about the so-called successes of communist construction in the country of the supposedly fairest society on the Earth.In the 1920s and 1930s, iconic representatives of the first wave of political emigration were lured by various promises to return home. In European capitals, Kremlin agents searched for and bribed a number of corrupt journalists, arranged for them demonstration trips, and encouraged the false publications' appearance in the leading newspapers of the West about the «Soviet Paradise». Especially consistently, the authorities took on disobedient Ukrainians: they destroyed the intelligentsia, the working peasantry, the national church, and, as in tsarist times, forcibly Russified them.At the end of World War II, when there were too many Ukrainian refugees from that «Paradise,«Moscow sent so-called repatriation commissions to numerous DP camps, which brainwashed Soviet fugitives and sought to return them to the USSR to harm their love of freedom in the Siberian GULAG camps.It seemed that no one would ever be able to silence, neutralize, or stop that generously paid flow of cynical Russian lies. But among the Ukrainian emigrants, there was a brave man who loudly declared to the whole world why he did not want to return to theUSSR. It was Ivan Bahrianyi. Born in Ukraine in 1907, as a poet by talent and a public tribune by vocation, he fully experienced the benefits of the «Soviet way of life.» In 1932 he was repressed, from a political point of view, for innocent poems. During his emigration toGermany, he resumed his literary work. In 1947 he was elected Deputy Chairman of the Ukrainian National Council and became the leader of the Ukrainian Revolutionary Democratic Party.The publication of Bahrianyi's book «Why don't I want to return to my «motherland»?» printed by the Ukrainian Central Bureau in London in 1946 became a kind of a «bomb». First of all, for official Moscow. Also, for Western politicians, journalists, and intellectuals. The text of the brochure consisted of 13 short paragraphs. Each of them serves as a separate example-argument of the answer to the question posed in the title of the work.A little more than six years later, a journalistic article by the same author, «On Freedom of Speech, Conscience, and the Press Behind the Iron Curtain», appeared in the now-rare newspaper «Ukrainian News» (New Ulm, Germany). It can be called a kind of the above brochure continuation.Unlike «Why don't I want to return to my «motherland»?», which had been repeatedly republished abroad, including in English, German, and French translations, this article by an ardent publicist in Ukrainian journalism is, unfortunately, forgotten. And although it was written more than 70 years ago, the urgency of the problem raised by the author (the humanitarian catastrophe suffered by the Ukrainian nation from the colonial policy of Russia's «older brother») has become even more acute now, under the conditions of Russia's undeclared hybrid war against Ukrainians, especially in the information field.* * *The fate of the next text, which «Ukrainian Information Space» publishes in Ukraine for the first time, is dramatic.It is about the activity of a well-known member of the Central Council of Ukraine, journalist and scientist Arkadii Zhyvotko, whose life path ended prematurely in exile, «Ninety years of the Ukrainian student press.«It was to compose a separate section of the most important work of this figure written in exile – «History of the Ukrainian press.»Published in1946 inRegensburgin a cyclostyle way (now a photocopy of a typewritten version), Arkadii Zhyvotko's «History of the Ukrainian Press» had a truncated appearance. Due to the lack of funds in the conditions of a hopeless emigration reality, Arkadii Zhyvotko was forced to remove a third of the text from the original textbook. As he believed, until better times. However, they never came for this author. Sick and exhausted by the trials of fate heart stopped at the age of 58 on June 14, 1948. It happened in the camp of wanderers from Eastern Europe Lagarde near Aschaffenburg,Germany.However, the author managed to see this article published. It was published in a paired number (1–2) by the magazine «Student Way», which was published as a manuscript by typewriting in Munich by the Central Emigration Union of Ukrainian Students (CESUS). The value of this article is that most of the printed materials that Arkadii Zhyvotko held in his hands and described for history do not exist in any copy. A. Zhyvotko's «History of the Ukrainian Press» was republished twice: in 1990 in Munich, in Ukrainian Free University with a foreword and arrangement by M. Prysiazhnyi and1999 in Kyiv, by the publishing house «Nasha Kultura i Nauka» with a foreword and arrangement by M. Tymoshyk. The section on the history of the Ukrainian student press, which was not published in this book, remained in the typewritten version of the currently rare typewritten folder of the «Student Way».The value of this article is that most of the publications that Arkadii Zhyvotko held in his hands and described for history do not exist in any copy – they were lost on the post-war roads of a stateless nation emigration…The text is submitted according to the original folder of the magazine, which is practically unknown in Ukraine. The set of this rarity was present­ed to the author of these lines in Winnipeg, Canada by the now-deceased professor of St. Andrew's College at the University of Manitoba Tymofii Minenko.

For all the years since the creation of the USSR, Stalin's communist-Bolshevik clique lied to the world about the so-called successes of communist construction in the country of the supposedly fairest society on the Earth.In the 1920s and 1930s, iconic representatives of the first wave of political emigration were lured by various promises to return home. In European capitals, Kremlin agents searched for and bribed a number of corrupt journalists, arranged for them demonstration trips, and encouraged the false publications' appearance in the leading newspapers of the West about the «Soviet Paradise». Especially consistently, the authorities took on disobedient Ukrainians: they destroyed the intelligentsia, the working peasantry, the national church, and, as in tsarist times, forcibly Russified them.At the end of World War II, when there were too many Ukrainian refugees from that «Paradise,«Moscow sent so-called repatriation commissions to numerous DP camps, which brainwashed Soviet fugitives and sought to return them to the USSR to harm their love of freedom in the Siberian GULAG camps.It seemed that no one would ever be able to silence, neutralize, or stop that generously paid flow of cynical Russian lies. But among the Ukrainian emigrants, there was a brave man who loudly declared to the whole world why he did not want to return to theUSSR. It was Ivan Bahrianyi. Born in Ukraine in 1907, as a poet by talent and a public tribune by vocation, he fully experienced the benefits of the «Soviet way of life.» In 1932 he was repressed, from a political point of view, for innocent poems. During his emigration toGermany, he resumed his literary work. In 1947 he was elected Deputy Chairman of the Ukrainian National Council and became the leader of the Ukrainian Revolutionary Democratic Party.The publication of Bahrianyi's book «Why don't I want to return to my «motherland»?» printed by the Ukrainian Central Bureau in London in 1946 became a kind of a «bomb». First of all, for official Moscow. Also, for Western politicians, journalists, and intellectuals. The text of the brochure consisted of 13 short paragraphs. Each of them serves as a separate example-argument of the answer to the question posed in the title of the work.A little more than six years later, a journalistic article by the same author, «On Freedom of Speech, Conscience, and the Press Behind the Iron Curtain», appeared in the now-rare newspaper «Ukrainian News» (New Ulm, Germany). It can be called a kind of the above brochure continuation.Unlike «Why don't I want to return to my «motherland»?», which had been repeatedly republished abroad, including in English, German, and French translations, this article by an ardent publicist in Ukrainian journalism is, unfortunately, forgotten. And although it was written more than 70 years ago, the urgency of the problem raised by the author (the humanitarian catastrophe suffered by the Ukrainian nation from the colonial policy of Russia's «older brother») has become even more acute now, under the conditions of Russia's undeclared hybrid war against Ukrainians, especially in the information field.* * *The fate of the next text, which «Ukrainian Information Space» publishes in Ukraine for the first time, is dramatic.It is about the activity of a well-known member of the Central Council of Ukraine, journalist and scientist Arkadii Zhyvotko, whose life path ended prematurely in exile, «Ninety years of the Ukrainian student press.«It was to compose a separate section of the most important work of this figure written in exile – «History of the Ukrainian press.»Published in1946 inRegensburgin a cyclostyle way (now a photocopy of a typewritten version), Arkadii Zhyvotko's «History of the Ukrainian Press» had a truncated appearance. Due to the lack of funds in the conditions of a hopeless emigration reality, Arkadii Zhyvotko was forced to remove a third of the text from the original textbook. As he believed, until better times. However, they never came for this author. Sick and exhausted by the trials of fate heart stopped at the age of 58 on June 14, 1948. It happened in the camp of wanderers from Eastern Europe Lagarde near Aschaffenburg,Germany.However, the author managed to see this article published. It was published in a paired number (1–2) by the magazine «Student Way», which was published as a manuscript by typewriting in Munich by the Central Emigration Union of Ukrainian Students (CESUS). The value of this article is that most of the printed materials that Arkadii Zhyvotko held in his hands and described for history do not exist in any copy. A. Zhyvotko's «History of the Ukrainian Press» was republished twice: in 1990 in Munich, in Ukrainian Free University with a foreword and arrangement by M. Prysiazhnyi and1999 in Kyiv, by the publishing house «Nasha Kultura i Nauka» with a foreword and arrangement by M. Tymoshyk. The section on the history of the Ukrainian student press, which was not published in this book, remained in the typewritten version of the currently rare typewritten folder of the «Student Way».The value of this article is that most of the publications that Arkadii Zhyvotko held in his hands and described for history do not exist in any copy – they were lost on the post-war roads of a stateless nation emigration…The text is submitted according to the original folder of the magazine, which is practically unknown in Ukraine. The set of this rarity was present­ed to the author of these lines in Winnipeg, Canada by the now-deceased professor of St. Andrew's College at the University of Manitoba Tymofii Minenko. ; Упродовж усіх років від часу створення СРСР комуно-більшовицька кліка Сталіна брехала світові про так звані успіхи комуністичного будівництва в країні нібито найсправедливішого на земній кулі суспільства.У 20–30-х роках знакових представників першої хвилі політичної еміграції заманювали різними обіцянками повернутися додому. В европейських столицях агенти Кремля підшукували й підкуповували низку продажних журналістів, влаштовували їм показові поїздки, стимулюючи цим появу в провідних газетах Заходу фальшивих публікацій про «радянський рай» на одній шостій земної кулі. Особливо послідовно влада взялася за непокірних українців: знищувала інтелігенцію, трудове селянство, національну церкву, і, як і в царські часи, насильно русифікувала.По завершенні Другої світової війни, коли втікачів-українців із того «раю» виявилося в рази більше, Москва насилала в численні табори Ді-Пі так звані репатріаційні комісії, які промивали мізки радянським збігцям, прагнули повернути їх в СРСР із тим, щоб згодом у нелюдський спосіб позбиткуватися над їхнім свободолюбством у сибірських таборах ГУЛАГу.Здавалося, той щедро оплачуваний потік цинічної російської брехні нікому й ніколи не вдасться ні заглушити, ні нейтралізувати, ні зупинити. Та ось у середовищі української еміграції виявився один сміливець, який голосно, на весь світ заявив, чому він не хоче повертатися в СРСР. Це був Іван Багряний. Народжений в Україні 1907 року, будучи поетом за талантом і громадським трибуном за покликанням, він сповна відчув на собі переваги «радянського способу життя». 1932 року репресований за безвинні з політичної точки зору вірші. На еміграції в Німеччині відновив літературну працю. 1947 року обраний заступником голови Української Національної Ради, став лідером Української революційно-демократичної партії.Вихід у світ книжки Багряного «Чому я не хочу вертати на «родіну»?» друком і накладом Українського центрального Бюро в Лондоні 1946 року стало своєрідною «бомбою». Передусім для офіційної Москви. Також для політиків, журналістів та інтелектуалів Заходу. Текст брошури складався з 13-ти коротких параграфів. Кожен із них слугує окремим прикладом-аргументом відповіді на поставлене в назві твору запитання.Через трохи більше як шість років у рідкісній на сьогодні газеті «Українські Вісті» (Новий Ульм, Німеччина) з'являється публіцистична стаття цього ж автора «Про свободу слова, совісті і преси за залізною заслоною». Її можна назвати своєрідним продовженням вищезгаданої брошури.На відміну від «Чому я не хочу вертати на «родіну»?», яка неодноразово перевидавалася за кордоном, у тім числі і в перекладах англійською, німецькою, французькою мовами, ця стаття полум'яного публіциста в українському журналістикознавстві є, на жаль, призабутою. І хоч написана вона понад 70 років тому, актуальність порушеної автором проблеми (гуманітарна катастрофа, яку зазнала українська нація від колоніальної політики російського «старшого брата») ще більше загострилася натепер, за умов неоголошеної Росією гібридної війни проти українців, зосібно й на інформаційному полі. * * *Драматичною є доля наступного тексту, який «Український Інформаційний Простір» оприлюднює в Україні вперше.Йдеться про розвідку відомого члена Української Центральної Ради, журналіста і вченого Аркадія Животка, життєвий шлях якого передчасно обірвався на еміграції, «Девятьдесять років української студентської преси». Вона мала скласти окремий розділ написаної в еміграції найголовнішої праці цього діяча – «Історія української преси».Видана 1946 року в Регенсбурзі циклостильовим способом (по-нинішньому – ксероксна відбитка машинописного варіанту) «Історія української преси» Аркадія Животка мала урізаний вигляд. Через брак коштів за умов безпросвітної еміграційної дійсності Аркадій Животко змушений був зняти з оригіналу підручника третину тексту. Як вважав, до кращих часів. Однак для цього автора вони так і не прийшли. Хворе й виснажене випробуваннями долі серце зупинилося на 58 році життя – 14 червня 1948 року. Сталося це в таборі скитальників зі Східної Європи Лягарде неподалік німецького Ашафенбурга.Утім, цю свою статтю автор встиг побачити надрукованою. Її було вміщено в спареному числі (1–2) журналу «Студентський Шлях», який на правах рукопису видавав машинописним способом у Мюнхені Центральний Еміґраційний Союз Українського Студентства (ЦЕСУС). Цінність цієї статті в тому, що більшість друкованих органів, яких тримав у руках Аркадій Животко і описував для історії, практично не існує в жодному примірнику.«Історія української преси А. Животка перевидавалася двічі: 1990 року у Мюнхені заходами Українського Вільного Університету з передмовою і упорядкуванням М. Присяжного та 1999 року в Києві заходами видавництва «Наша культура і наука» з передмовою і упорядкуванням М. Тимошика. Не опублікований у цій книзі розділ про історію української студентської преси так і залишився в машинописному варіанті рідкісної на сьогодні підшивки машинописного «Студентського Шляху».Цінність цієї статті в тому, що більшість друкованих органів, яку тримав у руках Аркадій Животко і описував для історії, практично не існує в жодному примірнику – вони розгубилися повоєнними дорогами еміграції бездержавної нації…Текст подається за оригіналом підшивки журналу, який в Україні практично невідомий. Комплект цього раритету подарував авторові цих рядків у канадському Вінніпезі покійний нині викладач Колегії Св. Андрея при Манітобському університеті Тимофій Міненко.

Why are motion pictures often attributed to authors – or "filmmakers" – while dozens of names and occupations appear in film credits? Following Foucault's definition of authorship as a form of appropriation, this dissertation focuses on copyright law and authorship battles in order to explain the origins and existence of film authors. Rather than considering authors as the individuals who "make" movies or as a fiction overshadowing the collective nature of filmmaking, I show that the attribution of films to authors is the result of the division of filmmaking labor and its power relations. This research uses a sociohistorical perspective and a transnational approach centered on the United States and France, where film authors are not granted the same authorship rights. It sheds light on the national, international and transnational dimensions of the appropriation of motion pictures. This study starts when film authors first appeared in copyright law: as early as the 1900s.The first part of this dissertation focuses on the writing of motion pictures' property rights from the birth of cinema to the passing of the French copyright law of 1957 and of the Copyright Act of 1976. After decades of battles, these laws provided different definitions of film authors and granted them with different property rights. Using legal publications, congressional records and reports, as well as film journals, I study French and American laws as the results of a codification process shaped by preexisting law and by the cooperation and power relations between lawyers, public officials, politicians and film organizations. A study of the revisions of the Berne Convention for the protection of literary and artistic works also show the interdependency between national and international norms of film authorship and copyright law.The second part of the dissertation study the appropriation of motion pictures as a social relation based on the division of filmmaking labor and social labor. Film authorship battles which started in the 1910s contributed to the creation of professional hierarchies and to the differentiation of film value from other forms of economic and artistic value. I use various writings of film professionals, along with other sources, to show that film authorship was shaped by various aspects of film production, dissemination and reception (including the power relations between film professionals, the diversity of film careers and the uses of authors' names by film critics and audiences). To study the division of filmmaking labor, I use Pierre Bourdieu's research on cultural fields, Howard Becker's work on art worlds as well as scholarship on professions. The dissertation also shows that the professional hierarchies of motion picture production interrelate with various forms of domination common to other fields. For example, gender helped to establish and legitimate hierarchies between professions and occupations, to distribute film labor and to exclude women from dominant professions. Film production also generated huge economic inequalities which nurtured authorship battles and rose the prestige of authors. Lastly, I show that film authorship was influenced by transnational circulations of movies, workers and ideas, by the asymmetries of the international film market and by film nationalism. To study the international division of filmmaking labor, I use world-systems theory, research on translations and quantitative data.The third part of the dissertation focuses on film directors and their copyright battles since the 1960s. Film directors took part in the negotiations of bargaining agreements, the French copyright law of 1985, the ratification of the Berne Convention by the United States and various laws sanctioning "internet piracy" (such as HADOPI law and the SOPA law). In these legal battles, film directors claimed to be authors in order to be granted with rights fostering their power, recognition and earnings. The legal claims were denounced by other filmmakers who challenged film authorship, copyright law and the interests of dominant film companies. Using the concept of field, biographical data, network analysis and multiple correspondence analysis, I explain that the alliances and oppositions of filmmakers in copyright battles were shaped by their professional careers. I study the political representation of film directors by members and leaders of their professional organizations. I conducted dozens of interviews to understand the points of views of French filmmakers on their property rights and on economic inequalities between film professionals. I show that their points of view vary according to their incomes and positions in the filmmaking field.This dissertation is meant to be useful for scholars interested in the history of copyright law, motion pictures, authorship, the division of (artistic) labor, professions and transnational approaches. ; Pourquoi les films de cinéma sont-ils souvent attribués à des auteurs alors même que leurs génériques énumèrent des dizaines de noms propres et de noms de métiers ? A la suite de Michel Foucault et de sa définition de la « fonction-auteur » comme forme d'appropriation des discours, cette thèse étudie la genèse et l'existence des auteurs de films au prisme des luttes de définition de leurs droits de propriété. Plutôt que de considérer les auteurs de cinéma comme ceux qui « font » les films ou comme une fiction occultant le caractère collectif de leur fabrication, elle montre que les auteurs sont les produits d'une division du travail cinématographique et des rapports de domination qui la traversent. Ce travail, inscrit dans une perspective de sociologie historique, adopte un référentiel binational centré sur la France et les Etats-Unis, où les auteurs de films ne disposent pas des mêmes droits. Il vise à objectiver les dimensions nationales, internationales et transnationales de l'appropriation des films. La période étudiée débute au moment où des personnes et des groupes ont été définis juridiquement comme des auteurs de cinéma : dès les années 1900.La première partie de ce texte est consacrée à la définition du droit de propriété des films depuis l'émergence du cinéma jusqu'à l'adoption de la loi du 11 mars 1957 et du Copyright Act de 1976. Après des décennies de débats, ces lois ont défini différemment l'identité et les droits des auteurs de films. A partir de publications juridiques, cinématographiques et parlementaires, on étudie ces lois comme les résultats d'un travail de codification structuré par des normes préexistantes et par les relations entre les acteurs qui ont participé à leur rédaction. Le développement du droit de propriété cinématographique est à la fois la cause et la conséquence de la constitution d'un espace de négociation regroupant des professionnels du droit, des hauts fonctionnaires, des professionnels de la politique et des organisations professionnelles du cinéma, dont certaines se sont constituées dans le but de défendre le statut d'auteur de leurs membres. La thèse montre ce que les normes du droit de propriété cinématographique français et américain doivent aux savoir-faire et concurrences entre des experts du droit de propriété intellectuelle, ainsi qu'aux relations entre des organisations professionnelles inégalement dotées en ressources économiques, juridiques et politiques. En examinant les révisions de la Convention de Berne, on analyse les interdépendances entre les processus de définition des normes nationales et internationales de la propriété des films. La deuxième partie de la thèse prolonge et dépasse l'étude du droit de propriété en analysant l'appropriation des films comme une relation structurée par la division du travail cinématographique et social. Les luttes de définition de l'auteur de film qui ont débuté dans les années 1910 ont contribué à la hiérarchisation du personnel cinématographique et à la différenciation de la valeur cinématographique par rapport à d'autres formes de valeur économique et artistique. Des témoignages, autobiographies et publications cinématographiques permettent de montrer que l'attribution des films à des auteurs dépend de diverses relations de production, de diffusion et de valorisation des films, comme la répartition des tâches et du pouvoir entre le personnel, les incertitudes et inégalités qui structurent les trajectoires des prétendants au statut d'auteur et les vertus cognitives et distinctives de la fonction-auteur employée par les critiques et une fraction des spectateurs. On mobilise pour cela les travaux de Pierre Bourdieu sur les champs de production culturelle, d'Howard Becker sur les mondes de l'art et d'autres recherches sur les professions et artistiques et non-artistiques. En outre, la thèse constate que les hiérarchies professionnelles du cinéma se sont construites à l'intersection de rapports de domination communs à différents domaines d'activité. Par exemple, le genre a servi à hiérarchiser les groupes professionnels, à répartir le travail cinématographique et à exclure les femmes de certains métiers du cinéma. Le cinéma a produit d'immenses inégalités de richesse qui ont attisées les luttes de définition de l'auteur et accru le prestige de certains métiers. La thèse explique également ce que les hiérarchies professionnelles du cinéma doivent à des échanges transnationaux, des concurrences internationales et aux nationalismes et universalismes cinématographiques. A cette fin, elle objective les asymétries de la division internationale du travail cinématographique, à l'aide des concepts de centre et de périphérie employés par la théorie des systèmes-monde, de travaux sur les échanges internationaux de biens culturels et de données sur les palmarès de festivals internationaux et la production et les échanges de films.La troisième partie est centrée sur les cinéastes et leur mobilisation autour du droit de propriété des films depuis les années 1960. En négociant des conventions collectives, la loi du 3 juillet 1985 sur le droit d'auteur, l'adhésion des Etats-Unis à la Convention de Berne et des lois réprimant les pratiques dites de téléchargement illégal (comme les lois HADOPI et SOPA), des réalisateurs, des réalisatrices et leurs organisations ont fait valoir le statut d'auteur pour obtenir ou défendre des droits censés accroître leur pouvoir, leur reconnaissance et leurs revenus. Leurs revendications ont été dénoncées par des cinéastes remettant en cause la notion d'auteur, la propriété des œuvres et/ou les intérêts d'entreprises dominantes. Les alliances et divisions des cinéastes français sont rapportées à leurs trajectoires cinématographiques grâce au concept de champ et à des données prosopographiques traitées en combinant les méthodes de l'analyse des correspondances multiples et de l'analyse de réseaux. La thèse étudie la division du travail de représentation des cinéastes entre des professionnels plus ou moins connus et reconnus, des militants et des dirigeants de sociétés d'auteurs. Sur la base d'entretiens et d'observations, on observe les points de vue des cinéastes français sur leurs droits de propriété et sur la répartition de l'argent entre les groupes professionnels du cinéma. Ces points de vue varient en fonction des positions des cinéastes dans la division du travail cinématographique, dans le champ du cinéma et dans des hiérarchies économiques, objectivées à l'aide de données statistiques.Ce travail s'adresse ainsi aux personnes intéressées par l'histoire du droit d'auteur, du copyright, du cinéma, de ses auteurs et de leurs modes de production ; aux personnes réfléchissant à la division, la hiérarchisation et l'appropriation du travail artistique ou non-artistique ; aux personnes intéressées par les approches transnationales.

Why are motion pictures often attributed to authors – or "filmmakers" – while dozens of names and occupations appear in film credits? Following Foucault's definition of authorship as a form of appropriation, this dissertation focuses on copyright law and authorship battles in order to explain the origins and existence of film authors. Rather than considering authors as the individuals who "make" movies or as a fiction overshadowing the collective nature of filmmaking, I show that the attribution of films to authors is the result of the division of filmmaking labor and its power relations. This research uses a sociohistorical perspective and a transnational approach centered on the United States and France, where film authors are not granted the same authorship rights. It sheds light on the national, international and transnational dimensions of the appropriation of motion pictures. This study starts when film authors first appeared in copyright law: as early as the 1900s.The first part of this dissertation focuses on the writing of motion pictures' property rights from the birth of cinema to the passing of the French copyright law of 1957 and of the Copyright Act of 1976. After decades of battles, these laws provided different definitions of film authors and granted them with different property rights. Using legal publications, congressional records and reports, as well as film journals, I study French and American laws as the results of a codification process shaped by preexisting law and by the cooperation and power relations between lawyers, public officials, politicians and film organizations. A study of the revisions of the Berne Convention for the protection of literary and artistic works also show the interdependency between national and international norms of film authorship and copyright law.The second part of the dissertation study the appropriation of motion pictures as a social relation based on the division of filmmaking labor and social labor. Film authorship battles which started in the 1910s contributed to the creation of professional hierarchies and to the differentiation of film value from other forms of economic and artistic value. I use various writings of film professionals, along with other sources, to show that film authorship was shaped by various aspects of film production, dissemination and reception (including the power relations between film professionals, the diversity of film careers and the uses of authors' names by film critics and audiences). To study the division of filmmaking labor, I use Pierre Bourdieu's research on cultural fields, Howard Becker's work on art worlds as well as scholarship on professions. The dissertation also shows that the professional hierarchies of motion picture production interrelate with various forms of domination common to other fields. For example, gender helped to establish and legitimate hierarchies between professions and occupations, to distribute film labor and to exclude women from dominant professions. Film production also generated huge economic inequalities which nurtured authorship battles and rose the prestige of authors. Lastly, I show that film authorship was influenced by transnational circulations of movies, workers and ideas, by the asymmetries of the international film market and by film nationalism. To study the international division of filmmaking labor, I use world-systems theory, research on translations and quantitative data.The third part of the dissertation focuses on film directors and their copyright battles since the 1960s. Film directors took part in the negotiations of bargaining agreements, the French copyright law of 1985, the ratification of the Berne Convention by the United States and various laws sanctioning "internet piracy" (such as HADOPI law and the SOPA law). In these legal battles, film directors claimed to be authors in order to be granted with rights fostering their power, recognition and earnings. The legal claims were denounced by other filmmakers who challenged film authorship, copyright law and the interests of dominant film companies. Using the concept of field, biographical data, network analysis and multiple correspondence analysis, I explain that the alliances and oppositions of filmmakers in copyright battles were shaped by their professional careers. I study the political representation of film directors by members and leaders of their professional organizations. I conducted dozens of interviews to understand the points of views of French filmmakers on their property rights and on economic inequalities between film professionals. I show that their points of view vary according to their incomes and positions in the filmmaking field.This dissertation is meant to be useful for scholars interested in the history of copyright law, motion pictures, authorship, the division of (artistic) labor, professions and transnational approaches. ; Pourquoi les films de cinéma sont-ils souvent attribués à des auteurs alors même que leurs génériques énumèrent des dizaines de noms propres et de noms de métiers ? A la suite de Michel Foucault et de sa définition de la « fonction-auteur » comme forme d'appropriation des discours, cette thèse étudie la genèse et l'existence des auteurs de films au prisme des luttes de définition de leurs droits de propriété. Plutôt que de considérer les auteurs de cinéma comme ceux qui « font » les films ou comme une fiction occultant le caractère collectif de leur fabrication, elle montre que les auteurs sont les produits d'une division du travail cinématographique et des rapports de domination qui la traversent. Ce travail, inscrit dans une perspective de sociologie historique, adopte un référentiel binational centré sur la France et les Etats-Unis, où les auteurs de films ne disposent pas des mêmes droits. Il vise à objectiver les dimensions nationales, internationales et transnationales de l'appropriation des films. La période étudiée débute au moment où des personnes et des groupes ont été définis juridiquement comme des auteurs de cinéma : dès les années 1900.La première partie de ce texte est consacrée à la définition du droit de propriété des films depuis l'émergence du cinéma jusqu'à l'adoption de la loi du 11 mars 1957 et du Copyright Act de 1976. Après des décennies de débats, ces lois ont défini différemment l'identité et les droits des auteurs de films. A partir de publications juridiques, cinématographiques et parlementaires, on étudie ces lois comme les résultats d'un travail de codification structuré par des normes préexistantes et par les relations entre les acteurs qui ont participé à leur rédaction. Le développement du droit de propriété cinématographique est à la fois la cause et la conséquence de la constitution d'un espace de négociation regroupant des professionnels du droit, des hauts fonctionnaires, des professionnels de la politique et des organisations professionnelles du cinéma, dont certaines se sont constituées dans le but de défendre le statut d'auteur de leurs membres. La thèse montre ce que les normes du droit de propriété cinématographique français et américain doivent aux savoir-faire et concurrences entre des experts du droit de propriété intellectuelle, ainsi qu'aux relations entre des organisations professionnelles inégalement dotées en ressources économiques, juridiques et politiques. En examinant les révisions de la Convention de Berne, on analyse les interdépendances entre les processus de définition des normes nationales et internationales de la propriété des films. La deuxième partie de la thèse prolonge et dépasse l'étude du droit de propriété en analysant l'appropriation des films comme une relation structurée par la division du travail cinématographique et social. Les luttes de définition de l'auteur de film qui ont débuté dans les années 1910 ont contribué à la hiérarchisation du personnel cinématographique et à la différenciation de la valeur cinématographique par rapport à d'autres formes de valeur économique et artistique. Des témoignages, autobiographies et publications cinématographiques permettent de montrer que l'attribution des films à des auteurs dépend de diverses relations de production, de diffusion et de valorisation des films, comme la répartition des tâches et du pouvoir entre le personnel, les incertitudes et inégalités qui structurent les trajectoires des prétendants au statut d'auteur et les vertus cognitives et distinctives de la fonction-auteur employée par les critiques et une fraction des spectateurs. On mobilise pour cela les travaux de Pierre Bourdieu sur les champs de production culturelle, d'Howard Becker sur les mondes de l'art et d'autres recherches sur les professions et artistiques et non-artistiques. En outre, la thèse constate que les hiérarchies professionnelles du cinéma se sont construites à l'intersection de rapports de domination communs à différents domaines d'activité. Par exemple, le genre a servi à hiérarchiser les groupes professionnels, à répartir le travail cinématographique et à exclure les femmes de certains métiers du cinéma. Le cinéma a produit d'immenses inégalités de richesse qui ont attisées les luttes de définition de l'auteur et accru le prestige de certains métiers. La thèse explique également ce que les hiérarchies professionnelles du cinéma doivent à des échanges transnationaux, des concurrences internationales et aux nationalismes et universalismes cinématographiques. A cette fin, elle objective les asymétries de la division internationale du travail cinématographique, à l'aide des concepts de centre et de périphérie employés par la théorie des systèmes-monde, de travaux sur les échanges internationaux de biens culturels et de données sur les palmarès de festivals internationaux et la production et les échanges de films.La troisième partie est centrée sur les cinéastes et leur mobilisation autour du droit de propriété des films depuis les années 1960. En négociant des conventions collectives, la loi du 3 juillet 1985 sur le droit d'auteur, l'adhésion des Etats-Unis à la Convention de Berne et des lois réprimant les pratiques dites de téléchargement illégal (comme les lois HADOPI et SOPA), des réalisateurs, des réalisatrices et leurs organisations ont fait valoir le statut d'auteur pour obtenir ou défendre des droits censés accroître leur pouvoir, leur reconnaissance et leurs revenus. Leurs revendications ont été dénoncées par des cinéastes remettant en cause la notion d'auteur, la propriété des œuvres et/ou les intérêts d'entreprises dominantes. Les alliances et divisions des cinéastes français sont rapportées à leurs trajectoires cinématographiques grâce au concept de champ et à des données prosopographiques traitées en combinant les méthodes de l'analyse des correspondances multiples et de l'analyse de réseaux. La thèse étudie la division du travail de représentation des cinéastes entre des professionnels plus ou moins connus et reconnus, des militants et des dirigeants de sociétés d'auteurs. Sur la base d'entretiens et d'observations, on observe les points de vue des cinéastes français sur leurs droits de propriété et sur la répartition de l'argent entre les groupes professionnels du cinéma. Ces points de vue varient en fonction des positions des cinéastes dans la division du travail cinématographique, dans le champ du cinéma et dans des hiérarchies économiques, objectivées à l'aide de données statistiques.Ce travail s'adresse ainsi aux personnes intéressées par l'histoire du droit d'auteur, du copyright, du cinéma, de ses auteurs et de leurs modes de production ; aux personnes réfléchissant à la division, la hiérarchisation et l'appropriation du travail artistique ou non-artistique ; aux personnes intéressées par les approches transnationales.

Why are motion pictures often attributed to authors – or "filmmakers" – while dozens of names and occupations appear in film credits? Following Foucault's definition of authorship as a form of appropriation, this dissertation focuses on copyright law and authorship battles in order to explain the origins and existence of film authors. Rather than considering authors as the individuals who "make" movies or as a fiction overshadowing the collective nature of filmmaking, I show that the attribution of films to authors is the result of the division of filmmaking labor and its power relations. This research uses a sociohistorical perspective and a transnational approach centered on the United States and France, where film authors are not granted the same authorship rights. It sheds light on the national, international and transnational dimensions of the appropriation of motion pictures. This study starts when film authors first appeared in copyright law: as early as the 1900s.The first part of this dissertation focuses on the writing of motion pictures' property rights from the birth of cinema to the passing of the French copyright law of 1957 and of the Copyright Act of 1976. After decades of battles, these laws provided different definitions of film authors and granted them with different property rights. Using legal publications, congressional records and reports, as well as film journals, I study French and American laws as the results of a codification process shaped by preexisting law and by the cooperation and power relations between lawyers, public officials, politicians and film organizations. A study of the revisions of the Berne Convention for the protection of literary and artistic works also show the interdependency between national and international norms of film authorship and copyright law.The second part of the dissertation study the appropriation of motion pictures as a social relation based on the division of filmmaking labor and social labor. Film authorship battles which started in the 1910s contributed to the creation of professional hierarchies and to the differentiation of film value from other forms of economic and artistic value. I use various writings of film professionals, along with other sources, to show that film authorship was shaped by various aspects of film production, dissemination and reception (including the power relations between film professionals, the diversity of film careers and the uses of authors' names by film critics and audiences). To study the division of filmmaking labor, I use Pierre Bourdieu's research on cultural fields, Howard Becker's work on art worlds as well as scholarship on professions. The dissertation also shows that the professional hierarchies of motion picture production interrelate with various forms of domination common to other fields. For example, gender helped to establish and legitimate hierarchies between professions and occupations, to distribute film labor and to exclude women from dominant professions. Film production also generated huge economic inequalities which nurtured authorship battles and rose the prestige of authors. Lastly, I show that film authorship was influenced by transnational circulations of movies, workers and ideas, by the asymmetries of the international film market and by film nationalism. To study the international division of filmmaking labor, I use world-systems theory, research on translations and quantitative data.The third part of the dissertation focuses on film directors and their copyright battles since the 1960s. Film directors took part in the negotiations of bargaining agreements, the French copyright law of 1985, the ratification of the Berne Convention by the United States and various laws sanctioning "internet piracy" (such as HADOPI law and the SOPA law). In these legal battles, film directors claimed to be authors in order to be granted with rights fostering their power, recognition and earnings. The legal claims were denounced by other filmmakers who challenged film authorship, copyright law and the interests of dominant film companies. Using the concept of field, biographical data, network analysis and multiple correspondence analysis, I explain that the alliances and oppositions of filmmakers in copyright battles were shaped by their professional careers. I study the political representation of film directors by members and leaders of their professional organizations. I conducted dozens of interviews to understand the points of views of French filmmakers on their property rights and on economic inequalities between film professionals. I show that their points of view vary according to their incomes and positions in the filmmaking field.This dissertation is meant to be useful for scholars interested in the history of copyright law, motion pictures, authorship, the division of (artistic) labor, professions and transnational approaches. ; Pourquoi les films de cinéma sont-ils souvent attribués à des auteurs alors même que leurs génériques énumèrent des dizaines de noms propres et de noms de métiers ? A la suite de Michel Foucault et de sa définition de la « fonction-auteur » comme forme d'appropriation des discours, cette thèse étudie la genèse et l'existence des auteurs de films au prisme des luttes de définition de leurs droits de propriété. Plutôt que de considérer les auteurs de cinéma comme ceux qui « font » les films ou comme une fiction occultant le caractère collectif de leur fabrication, elle montre que les auteurs sont les produits d'une division du travail cinématographique et des rapports de domination qui la traversent. Ce travail, inscrit dans une perspective de sociologie historique, adopte un référentiel binational centré sur la France et les Etats-Unis, où les auteurs de films ne disposent pas des mêmes droits. Il vise à objectiver les dimensions nationales, internationales et transnationales de l'appropriation des films. La période étudiée débute au moment où des personnes et des groupes ont été définis juridiquement comme des auteurs de cinéma : dès les années 1900.La première partie de ce texte est consacrée à la définition du droit de propriété des films depuis l'émergence du cinéma jusqu'à l'adoption de la loi du 11 mars 1957 et du Copyright Act de 1976. Après des décennies de débats, ces lois ont défini différemment l'identité et les droits des auteurs de films. A partir de publications juridiques, cinématographiques et parlementaires, on étudie ces lois comme les résultats d'un travail de codification structuré par des normes préexistantes et par les relations entre les acteurs qui ont participé à leur rédaction. Le développement du droit de propriété cinématographique est à la fois la cause et la conséquence de la constitution d'un espace de négociation regroupant des professionnels du droit, des hauts fonctionnaires, des professionnels de la politique et des organisations professionnelles du cinéma, dont certaines se sont constituées dans le but de défendre le statut d'auteur de leurs membres. La thèse montre ce que les normes du droit de propriété cinématographique français et américain doivent aux savoir-faire et concurrences entre des experts du droit de propriété intellectuelle, ainsi qu'aux relations entre des organisations professionnelles inégalement dotées en ressources économiques, juridiques et politiques. En examinant les révisions de la Convention de Berne, on analyse les interdépendances entre les processus de définition des normes nationales et internationales de la propriété des films. La deuxième partie de la thèse prolonge et dépasse l'étude du droit de propriété en analysant l'appropriation des films comme une relation structurée par la division du travail cinématographique et social. Les luttes de définition de l'auteur de film qui ont débuté dans les années 1910 ont contribué à la hiérarchisation du personnel cinématographique et à la différenciation de la valeur cinématographique par rapport à d'autres formes de valeur économique et artistique. Des témoignages, autobiographies et publications cinématographiques permettent de montrer que l'attribution des films à des auteurs dépend de diverses relations de production, de diffusion et de valorisation des films, comme la répartition des tâches et du pouvoir entre le personnel, les incertitudes et inégalités qui structurent les trajectoires des prétendants au statut d'auteur et les vertus cognitives et distinctives de la fonction-auteur employée par les critiques et une fraction des spectateurs. On mobilise pour cela les travaux de Pierre Bourdieu sur les champs de production culturelle, d'Howard Becker sur les mondes de l'art et d'autres recherches sur les professions et artistiques et non-artistiques. En outre, la thèse constate que les hiérarchies professionnelles du cinéma se sont construites à l'intersection de rapports de domination communs à différents domaines d'activité. Par exemple, le genre a servi à hiérarchiser les groupes professionnels, à répartir le travail cinématographique et à exclure les femmes de certains métiers du cinéma. Le cinéma a produit d'immenses inégalités de richesse qui ont attisées les luttes de définition de l'auteur et accru le prestige de certains métiers. La thèse explique également ce que les hiérarchies professionnelles du cinéma doivent à des échanges transnationaux, des concurrences internationales et aux nationalismes et universalismes cinématographiques. A cette fin, elle objective les asymétries de la division internationale du travail cinématographique, à l'aide des concepts de centre et de périphérie employés par la théorie des systèmes-monde, de travaux sur les échanges internationaux de biens culturels et de données sur les palmarès de festivals internationaux et la production et les échanges de films.La troisième partie est centrée sur les cinéastes et leur mobilisation autour du droit de propriété des films depuis les années 1960. En négociant des conventions collectives, la loi du 3 juillet 1985 sur le droit d'auteur, l'adhésion des Etats-Unis à la Convention de Berne et des lois réprimant les pratiques dites de téléchargement illégal (comme les lois HADOPI et SOPA), des réalisateurs, des réalisatrices et leurs organisations ont fait valoir le statut d'auteur pour obtenir ou défendre des droits censés accroître leur pouvoir, leur reconnaissance et leurs revenus. Leurs revendications ont été dénoncées par des cinéastes remettant en cause la notion d'auteur, la propriété des œuvres et/ou les intérêts d'entreprises dominantes. Les alliances et divisions des cinéastes français sont rapportées à leurs trajectoires cinématographiques grâce au concept de champ et à des données prosopographiques traitées en combinant les méthodes de l'analyse des correspondances multiples et de l'analyse de réseaux. La thèse étudie la division du travail de représentation des cinéastes entre des professionnels plus ou moins connus et reconnus, des militants et des dirigeants de sociétés d'auteurs. Sur la base d'entretiens et d'observations, on observe les points de vue des cinéastes français sur leurs droits de propriété et sur la répartition de l'argent entre les groupes professionnels du cinéma. Ces points de vue varient en fonction des positions des cinéastes dans la division du travail cinématographique, dans le champ du cinéma et dans des hiérarchies économiques, objectivées à l'aide de données statistiques.Ce travail s'adresse ainsi aux personnes intéressées par l'histoire du droit d'auteur, du copyright, du cinéma, de ses auteurs et de leurs modes de production ; aux personnes réfléchissant à la division, la hiérarchisation et l'appropriation du travail artistique ou non-artistique ; aux personnes intéressées par les approches transnationales.

On 12 April 1996 the State Language Services organized a language planning seminar, Lexicography as a Financial Asset in a Multilingual South Africa, held at the Bureau of the Woordeboek van die Afrikaanse Taal in Stellenbosch. A special feature of this workshop was the active participation not only of linguists and lexicographers involved in the academic and practical side of producing dictionaries, but also of those with commercial interests in this area, viz. publishers and marketers of dictionaries. An important part of the seminar was the contributions on the lexicographic needs of each of the eleven official languages of the Republic of South Africa. This seminar was followed by a consultative meeting for stakeholders arranged by the Pan South African Language Board (PANSALB) on 31 October 1997 in Johannesburg. The purpose of the meeting was to explain to participants the state of the legislation concerning lexicography units, to inform participants of the language plan for the Republic of South Africa and the role of lexicography in it, to make participants aware of the preparation needed to establish a lexicography unit, and to obtain the view of participants regarding important lexicographic matters by means of a questionnaire and discussions. This meeting was an important precursor to two further meetings which PANSALB arranged in the Johannesburg Civic Centre, namely the Lexicographic Meeting of the Existing Lexicographic Units of South Africa on 19 and 20 March 1998 and the Lexicographic Meeting of the Languages which do not already have a Lexicographic Unit on 14 and 15 May 1998. The delegates participated in establishing norms for the recognition of existing and new lexicography units, and for the provision of personnel to, and for the state subsidisation of lexicography units. Regulations for the lexicography units were also discussed. The papers presented at these two meetings provide a synopsis of the state of lexicography in the different official languages of the Republic of South Africa. The assignment for the first occasion was to outline the mission, history and present situation of the existing units, namely of Afrikaans, English, isiNdebele, Sepedi, isiXhosa and isiZulu. The assignment for the second occasion was to delineate the state of lexicography in those languages which do not have lexicography units, namely Sesotho, Setswana, siSwati, Tshivenda and Tsonga. Adapted and updated extracts from the documentation of these meetings are published here with the kind permission of PANSALB and of the presenters of the different papers. These are preceded by an exposition of the procedure for the establishing of the lexicography units for the eleven official languages of the Republic of South Africa. PANSALB was established in 1995 in terms of the Pan South African Language Board Act (No. 59 of 1995). To make provision for, inter alia , the creation of lexicography units by PANSALB, the Pan South African Language Board Amendment Act (No. 10 of 1999) was assented to this year. The aims of PANSALB are: (a) to promote respect for and ensure the implementation of the following principles: (i) the creation of conditions for the development and for the promotion of the equal use and enjoyment of all the official South African languages; (ii) the extension of those rights relating to language and the status of languages which before 27 April 1994 were restricted to certain regions; (iii) the prevention of the use of any language for the purposes of exploitation, domination or division; (iv) the promotion of — (aa) multilingualism; and (bb) the provision of translation and interpreting facilities; (v) the fostering of respect for languages spoken in the Republic other than the official languages, and the encouragement of their use in appropriate circumstances; and (vi) the non-diminution of rights relating to language and the status of languages existing before 27 April 1994; (b) to further the development of the official South African languages; (c) to promote respect for and the development of other languages used by communities in South Africa, and languages used for religious purposes; (d) to promote knowledge of and respect for the provisions and principles of the Constitution relating directly or indirectly to language matters; (e) to promote respect for multilingualism in general; and (f) to promote the utilisation of South Africa's language resources.The National Lexicography Units - Existing and Prospective M.B. Kumalo Bureau of the Woordeboek van die Afrikaanse Taal B.P.D. Gabriels, A.E. Cloete and W.F. Botha Dictionary Unit for isiNdebele P.B. Skhosana Dictionary Unit for South African English Penny Silva Sepedi Dictionary Project D.J. Prinsloo and K.J. Mashamaite Xhosa Dictionary Project T.X. Mfaxa Zulu Dictionary Project A.C. Nkabinde The State of Lexicography in Sesotho M.A. Moleleki The State of Lexicography in Setswana M.R. Malope The State of siSwati Lexicography P.M. Lubisi The State of Tshivenda Lexicography A. Mawela The State of Xitsonga Lexicography D.I. Mathumba Keywords: pansalb; lexicography units; pan south african language board act; 1995; pan south african language board amendment act; 1998; afrilex; bureau of the woordeboek van die afrikaanse taal; dictionary unit for isindebele; dictionary unit for south african english; northern sotho dictionary unit; xhosa dictionary project; zulu dictionary project; sesotho lexicography; setswana lexicography; siswati lexicography; tshivenda lexicography; tsonga lexicography ; Op 12 April 1996 het die Staatstaaldiens 'n taalbeplanningseminaar, Lexicography as a Financial Asset in a Multilingual South Africa, gereël wat by die Buro van die Woordeboek van die Afrikaanse Taal op Stellenbosch gehou is. 'n Besondere kenmerk van dié seminaar was die deelname nie net van taalkundiges en leksikograwe betrokke by die akademiese en praktiese kant van die opstel van woordeboeke nie, maar ook diegene met kommersiële belange op hierdie gebied, nl. die uitgewers en bemarkers van woordeboeke. 'n Belangrike deel van dié seminaar was die bydraes oor die leksikografiese behoeftes van elkeen van die elf amptelike tale van die Republiek van Suid-Afrika. Hierdie seminaar is gevolg deur 'n raadplegende vergadering gereël deur die Pan-Suid-Afrikaanse Taalraad (PANSAT) met belanghebbendes op 31 Oktober 1997 in Johannesburg. Die doel van die vergadering was om aan deelnemers die stand van die wetgewing betreffende leksikografie-eenhede te verduidelik, om deelnemers in te lig oor die taalplan van die Republiek van Suid-Afrika en die rol van die leksikografie daarin, om deelnemers bewus te maak van die voorbereiding nodig om 'n leksikografie-eenheid op te rig, en om die opvattings van deelnemers te verkry betreffende belangrike leksikografiese aangeleenthede met behulp van 'n vraelys en besprekings. Hierdie byeenkoms was 'n belangrike voorloper van twee verdere byeenkomste wat deur PANSAT in die Burgersentrum in Johannesburg gereël is, nl. Lexicographic Meeting of the Existing Lexicographic Units of South Africa op 19 en 20 Maart 1998 en Lexicographic Meeting of the Languages which do not already have a Lexicographic Unit op 14 en 15 Mei 1998. Die afgevaardigdes het deelgeneem aan die bepaling van norme vir die erkenning van bestaande en nuwe leksikografie-eenhede, en vir die voorsiening van personeel aan en staatsubsidiëring van leksikografie-eenhede. Bepalings vir die leksikografie-eenhede is ook bespreek. Die referate wat by hierdie twee byeenkomste gehou is, gee 'n oorsig van die stand van die leksikografie in die verskillende amptelike tale in die Republiek van Suid-Afrika. Die opdrag vir die eerste geleentheid was om die missie, geskiedenis en huidige omstandighede van die bestaande eenhede uiteen te sit, nl. Afrikaans, Engels, isiNdebele, Sepedi, isiXhosa en isiZulu. Die opdrag vir die tweede geleentheid was om die stand van die leksikografie te skets in die tale wat nog nie leksikografiese eenhede het nie, nl. Sesotho, Setwana, siSwati, Tshivenda en Tsonga. Aangepaste en bygewerkte uittreksels uit die dokumentasie van die byeenkomste word hier gepubliseer met die vriendelike vergunning van PANSAT en die aanbieders van die onderskeie referate. Hulle word voorafgegaan deur 'n uiteensetting van die prosedure vir die instelling van die leksikografie-eenhede vir die elf amptelike tale van die Republiek van Suid-Afrika. PANSAT het in 1995 tot stand gekom kragtens die Wet op die Pan-Suid-Afrikaanse Taalraad (No. 59 van 1995). Om onder andere voorsiening te maak vir die stigting van leksikografie-eenhede deur PANSAT is die Wysigingswet op die Pan-Suid-Afrikaanse Taalraad (No. 10 van 1999) vanjaar aangeneem. Die oogmerke van PANSAT is: (a) om respek te bevorder vir, en die implementering te verseker van die volgende beginsels: (i) die skepping van toestande vir die ontwikkeling en vir die bevordering van die gelyke gebruik en benutting van al die amptelike Suid-Afrikaanse tale; (ii) die uitbreiding van daardie regte met betrekking tot taal en die status van tale wat voor 27 April 1994 tot sekere streke beperk was; (iii) die voorkoming van die gebruik van enige taal vir die doeleindes van uitbuiting, oorheersing of verdeling; (iv) die bevordering van — (aa) veeltaligheid; en (bb) die voorsiening van vertalings- en tolkfasiliteite; (v) die kweek van respek vir ander tale, benewens die amptelike tale, wat in die Republiek gepraat word, en die aanmoediging van die gebruik daarvan in gepaste omstandighede; en (vi) die nievermindering van regte met betrekking tot taal en die status van tale wat voor 27 April 1994 bestaan het; (b) om die uitbouing van die amptelike Suid-Afrikaanse tale na te streef; (c) om respek vir en die ontwikkeling van ander tale wat deur gemeenskappe in Suid-Afrika gebruik word, asook tale wat vir godsdiensdoeleindes gebruik word, te bevorder; (d) om kennis van en respek vir die bepalings en beginsels van die Grondwet wat regstreeks of onregstreeks betrekking het op taalaangeleenthede, te bevorder; (e) om respek vir veeltaligheid in die algemeen te bevorder; en (f) om die benutting van Suid-Afrika se taalhulpbronne te bevorder.The National Lexicography Units - Existing and Prospective M.B. Kumalo Bureau of the Woordeboek van die Afrikaanse Taal B.P.D. Gabriels, A.E. Cloete and W.F. Botha Dictionary Unit for isiNdebele P.B. Skhosana Dictionary Unit for South African English Penny Silva Sepedi Dictionary Project D.J. Prinsloo and K.J. Mashamaite Xhosa Dictionary Project T.X. Mfaxa Zulu Dictionary Project A.C. Nkabinde The State of Lexicography in Sesotho M.A. Moleleki The State of Lexicography in Setswana M.R. Malope The State of siSwati Lexicography P.M. Lubisi The State of Tshivenda Lexicography A. Mawela The State of Xitsonga Lexicography D.I. Mathumba Sleutelwoorde: pansat; leksikografie-eenhede; wet op die pan-suid-afrikaanse taalraad; 1995; wysigingswet op die pan-suid-afrikaanse taalraad; 1999; afrilex; buro van die woordeboek van die afrikaanse taal; dictionary unit for south african english; sepedi woordeboekprojek; woordeboekeenheid vir isindebele; xhosa woordeboekprojek; zulu woordeboekprojek; sesotho leksikografie; setswana leksikografie; siswati leksikografie; tshivenda leksikografie; tsonga leksikografie

This tenth edition of Doing Business sheds light on how easy or difficult it is for a local entrepreneur to open and run a small to medium-size business when complying with relevant regulations. It measures and tracks changes in regulations affecting eleven areas in the life cycle of a business: starting a business, dealing with construction permits, getting electricity, registering property, getting credit, protecting investors, paying taxes, trading across borders, enforcing contracts, resolving insolvency and employing workers. Doing Business presents quantitative indicators on business regulations and the protection of property rights that can be compared across 185 economies, from Afghanistan to Zimbabwe, over time. The indicators are used to analyze economic outcomes and identify what reforms have worked, where and why. This economy profile presents the Doing Business indicators for Lesotho. To allow useful comparison, it also provides data for other selected economies (comparator economies) for each indicator. The data in this report are current as of June 1, 2012 (except for the paying taxes indicators, which cover the period January - December 2011).

This tenth edition of Doing Business sheds light on how easy or difficult it is for a local entrepreneur to open and run a small to medium-size business when complying with relevant regulations. It measures and tracks changes in regulations affecting eleven areas in the life cycle of a business: starting a business, dealing with construction permits, getting electricity, registering property, getting credit, protecting investors, paying taxes, trading across borders, enforcing contracts, resolving insolvency and employing workers. Doing Business presents quantitative indicators on business regulations and the protection of property rights that can be compared across 185 economies, from Afghanistan to Zimbabwe, over time. The indicators are used to analyze economic outcomes and identify what reforms have worked, where and why. This economy profile presents the Doing Business indicators for New Zealand. To allow useful comparison, it also provides data for other selected economies (comparator economies) for each indicator. The data in this report are current as of June 1, 2012 (except for the paying taxes indicators, which cover the period January - December 2011).

This tenth edition of Doing Business sheds light on how easy or difficult it is for a local entrepreneur to open and run a small to medium-size business when complying with relevant regulations. It measures and tracks changes in regulations affecting eleven areas in the life cycle of a business: starting a business, dealing with construction permits, getting electricity, registering property, getting credit, protecting investors, paying taxes, trading across borders, enforcing contracts, resolving insolvency and employing workers. Doing Business presents quantitative indicators on business regulations and the protection of property rights that can be compared across 185 economies, from Afghanistan to Zimbabwe, over time. The indicators are used to analyze economic outcomes and identify what reforms have worked, where and why. This economy profile presents the Doing Business indicators for Pakistan. To allow useful comparison, it also provides data for other selected economies (comparator economies) for each indicator. The data in this report are current as of June 1, 2012 (except for the paying taxes indicators, which cover the period January - December 2011).