MPAA getting smarter about DRM?

Great news, relatively speaking, out today that Dan Glickman, head of the MPAA is committed to fair use, interoperability and DRM. From a report on Arstechnica (by way of Public Knowledge):
"Glickman said the movie studios were now fully committed to interoperable DRM, and they recognize that consumers should be able to use legitimate video material on any item in the house, including home networks. In a major shift for the industry, Glickman also announced a plan to let consumers rip DVDs for use on home media servers and iPods."
This is a major step forward, publicly, for the MPAA. While the studios are still committed to digital rights management (DRM), they are at least realizing that consumers want to be able to play movies that they purchase on multiple devices and that current DRM schemes aren't up to snuff. Most people who study DRM think it will never work, but Hollywood is scared to death of piracy, so getting Glickman this far in his thinking should be considered a good first step.
The MPAA is eventually going to have to face the facts that soon consumers will want to mix/mash and sample video as well, and will do it whether or not the MPAA likes it. You should also be able to buy a film and give it to a friend - whether on DVD, tape or new formats. Under current DRM you can't, which studios love because they make more sales. But there's a legal precedent called "right of first sale" which says you are allowed to do this. Currently, DRM stops this, and the MPAA will have to address this or consumers will eventually revolt as well. But, a positive sign.

First Academy Award Film under Creative Commons

Click To Play

From Interplast - "In 1997, a film crew accompanied an Interplast volunteer surgical team to An Giang province in Vietnam's Mekong Delta. The filmmakers donated their services to document the team's experiences and produce A Story of Healing, which earned the 1997 Academy Award for best documentary short subject. The 28-minute film is followed by a short epilogue after the credits which follows-up on two patients 16 months after their surgeries.

Ten years after its original release, A Story of Healing has been released under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivatives license (by-nc-nd) and is available for free online."

Wow! This is great. And, they are also making the DVD available for sale, for those who don't want to watch it for free online. I bet their sales increase, and will try to find out. Great publicity (I saw this first on BoingBoing which means the entire world has now seen it), and a great way for a nonprofit to better accomplish their mission.

MPAA ban effect on theaters

Today's post is given over to the text of a recent email from Ray Privett of NYC's Pioneer Theater. He's calling a meeting to discuss the potential ramifications of a recent MPAA pushed law in NYC aimed to fight piracy, but which could have broader implications. The meeting is today, and I can't make it, but Ray has promised updates.
From the email:

Hello, as some of you know I have called an informal meeting about a recently passed New York City law, relating to the videotaping in movie theaters. The Hollywood Reporter published an article on the topic, which says the following:
"Secretly videotaping movies in a New York City theater for illegal sale on the street would be a misdemeanor, with penalties including possible jail time, under a bill the City Council approved Thursday."

The law is here, and it proves to be more restrictive than the HR article indicates. As a movie theater operator, who is very concerned about the ongoing strength of theaters as exhibition spaces, and also as someone who cares a lot about filmmakers being able to profit from their hard works, I am very sympathetic to and appreciative of the law.

However, I have some pretty sincere reservations. It is in that context that I have called the informal, open meeting for Thursday, April 19, 1pm, at the Pioneer Theater, 155 East Third Street Near Avenue A.

At this meeting I want to discuss the ramifications of this law as it relates to film showings of public domain or other free to copy / reuse movies, where videotaping is encouraged. What defines a movie theater? What defines a movie? Does this resolution overlook contexts where sharing is authorized and appropriate, in a rush to redefine movie theaters according to the MPAA's dictates? Should a protest exhibition / civil disobedience act be mounted?

Feel free to bring your friends who might also be interested. If you or your friends are lawyers, or city council people, you are all very welcome.

In the remainder of this letter, I sketch out my reservations in further detail.


Best wishes

Ray Privett
Pioneer Theater

Appendix: commentary.

Here is the law, which, from my reading, seems to have passed and will become active within the next few months.

Int. No. 383-A
Full text is here:


Let's look at a few scenarios that this law affects. I'll start with a few scenarios about which there should be little debate, but then I'll move onto a scenario that I think is more complicated.


Scenario A - Robert:
Robert buys a ticket to a screening of THE DEPARTED, which has reserved all copyrights. Robert gets a seat with a clear view, from which he videotapes and audiotapes the entire movie. He goes home, and dumps his taping of the movie onto his computer. From that, he prints DVDs, which he sells on the street.

Has Robert violated this law? Yes, he has. In the parlance of the law, Robert has used a Recording Device, within a Place of Public Performance, in an Unauthorized Operation.

By selling DVDs, he also is directly profiting from this action.

Should this be a criminal act? In my opinion, yes. As it is.


Scenario B - Alice:
Alice buys a ticket to another public screening of THE DEPARTED, which, still, has reserved all copyrights. Alice also gets a seat with a clear view, from which she videotapes and audiotapes the entire movie. She goes home, and dumps her taping of the movie onto her computer. She then places the file online for download.

Has Alice violated this law? Yes, she has. In the parlance of the law, Alice has used a Recording Device, within a Place of Public Performance, in an Unauthorized Operation.

She has not, however, profited from this action, because she has not sold anything.

Should this be a criminal act? In my opinion, yes. As it is.


So, those are two scenarios that are relatively clear. They are also, probably, the scenarios the law intends to address. They are the scenarios addressed by the spirit of the law and also the letter of the law.

But let's look at Scenario C.


Scenario C - Bill:
Bill buys a ticket to a public screening of some short movies. Casey and Rudy made one of those short movies. Their short is licensed under a Creative Commons 2.5 Attribution, Non-Commercial, Share Alike license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/). The screening is in a commercial venue, but Casey and Rudy have authorized the screening, thus waiving the "non-commercial" part of their license.

Bill goes to the screening, and videotapes Casey and Rudy's short while it plays in the theater. He then posts his taping of that screening online, in a manner from which he clearly has not profited. From their own website, Casey and Rudy themselves even link to the tape Bill recorded in the theater.

Has Bill violated the law in question? Yes, it seems, he has. In the parlance of the law, Bill has used a Recording Device, within a Place of Public Performance, in an Unauthorized Operation (as he did not receive any explicit authorization from the theater owners and managers, who only found out about his taping after the fact).

Should this be a criminal act? In my opinion, no. Why should it be? For starters, no copyright law has been broken. But, according to the law that went into effect, Bill has broken a law.

I doubt the people who crafted this law had any such scenario in mind as they were moved by the spirit of the law and as they wrote the letter of the law. However, the letter of that law would indeed make what Bill did a criminal act.

In fact, exactly this scenario has already played out, as you will see if you click here


Now, I don't think the law affects exactly the scenario as documented in that link, because everything happened before the new law passed.

But if something similar took place again, it seems the law would be violated.

Why? Aren't we inappropriately constraining the definition of what a movie theater is, and of what can be shown there? Doesn't it constrain the definition of a movie theater as a place that only shows "all rights reserved" movies? How does the law affect the ability to remix and reuse "some rights reserved" and public domain works?

If you come to the meeting, let's chat about this. Again, this is an informal meeting. To some, the context might seem trivial. But I think the kernel of the issue is important.

Future of Nonprofits may be in Minnesota

Just back from a great conference in Minneapolis, hosted by IFP Minnesota called REFOCUS: The Future of Production in Minnesota. Minnesota, like the rest of us, has been feeling the crunch lately when it comes to all things media. Unlike most place, however, they've gotten together to do something about it. With grants from the Jerome Foundation, McKnight Foundation and Bush Foundation, IFP Minnesota pulled together a full day of panels focused on saving the media arts scene in the state and making Minneapolis/St Paul a leader in the field. As the conference program described it:
Join other top leaders in the film and new media community to begin a conversation about transforming the future of the industry in Minnesota. The goal of this summit is to strengthen Minnesota’s economic infrastructure and create a vibrant film and new media industry through all of its relevant sectors, including: education, non-profit organizations, production (including commercial and feature), exhibition and the digital revolution.

It was great to join people like Richard Seitz of ITVS, Mike Maggiore of Film Forum, Janet and John Pierson of the Austin Film Society and Grainy Pictures, and Bruce Sheridan of Columbia College, Chicago (among others) to work with the folks in MSP to explore ways to revitalize and sustain their media arts community. I spoke about recent changes affecting nonprofit media centers, looming trends - threats and opportunities, and how we are trying to revitalize what we do at my organization. Others spoke about transforming education, or improving exhibition possibilities, and even how to emulate what Austin has in terms of community.

They have a lot going for them - great producers, a good crew base, exciting emerging and established media artists, supportive city leaders (two mayors showed up), and some of the most forward-thinking foundations in the arts. Add to that a great school - MCTC, and some great leaders of local nonprofits - and they might just have the recipe to create real change.

It was exciting to see a group come together in this fashion to really think of all the aspects needed to sustain the media arts in a community. I'm not sure we could pull together such a group in a meaningful dialogue in NYC, but maybe we'll try soon. I thought the best quote of the day came from the leader of a small nonprofit that helps women and girls in MN to make media:

"It would be great if there could be an organization that promotes real advocacy, research on the front edge of media arts, training on that front edge and help with distribution. If such a place existed, its what I'd want to join."

She's right, and hopefully IFP Minnesota can start to build that home, they're thinking about it already.

Miranda July knows Websites

Miranda July has a new book coming out, so she made a website for it. Proof, finally, that there is still creativity on the web.
Read more, buy more.

Open Education, Media and Electracy

Just back from a great conference at Rice University, in Houston, sponsored by Connexions and the Hewlett Foundation. The conference was on Open Educational Resources – which I must admit gets my vote for worst name for an important concept since Net Neutrality. Open Educational Resources (OER) essentially means what it says, even though it doesn’t say it memorably - to make resources available for free for educational purposes. It’s more than that. In fact, it’s a movement with global participants, and it’s something which filmmakers and those working with them (foundations, organizations, etc) should know and think more about.

A recent analysis of the OER Movement (pdf) defines OER as:

…teaching, learning, and research resources that reside in the public domain or have been released under an intellectual property license that permits their free use or re-purposing by others. Open educational resources include full courses, course materials, modules, textbooks, streaming videos, tests, software, and any other tools, materials, or techniques used to support access to knowledge.

The best way to think about OER is to imagine a hypothetical “student.” Imagine, for example, a college-aged teen in Guatemala (or Kansas, it doesn’t matter) who can’t afford to attend MIT, but who could go online to the MIT Open Courseware site (perhaps via cellphone) and have access to the same materials on engineering that an MIT student has access to – the syllabus, the readings, the videos shown in class, a videotape and/or podcast of the entire semester’s lectures, the notes of students in the class and even the emails or online comments back and forth between students and faculty. Imagine still further that the Guatemalan student could also easily link to works referenced in the course, and have access to those for free as well. For example, the student could be watching a video of a lecture given by MIT faculty on the mathematical principles behind bridge construction practices. When the professor shows a clip from a PBS documentary on the subject, the student could watch not just that clip, but could opt to watch the entire film. When someone in the film references a study done by scholars in London, the student could hyperlink to that study, and access it online, for free, immediately and in a format that allowed the student to easily reference the study in her future scholarship.

I could go on with this example, but I think it’s easy to imagine the possibilities – which, by the way, aren’t new, but have been inherent in the nature of the internet and hypertextuality for years, but are now called web 2 or 3.0. The possibilities for further study by this student are immense. The possibilities for education outside the system, the possibility that this student may never attend a university but could be educated and perhaps make change in her society are immense and real. The underlying idea – that anyone anywhere could (should) have access to the same educational resources as anyone else, that education should be open to all – is powerful. In fact, I believe it is more than powerful, I think it’s a natural belief – i.e., one that resonates as “correct and incontrovertible” by all but the most hard-hearted. The possibilities for our world are staggering – that anyone, anywhere, even the poorest among us, could have access to the same knowledge that anyone else, even the richest, have access to and use it to become educated. I don’t think I need to elaborate much, but the same study on OER that I mentioned references astounding figures given by Sir John Daniels, currently President and CEO of the Commonwealth of Learning in Canada, and formerly Vice-chancellor of the Open University, UK.

• Half of the world’s population is under twenty years old.

• Today, there are over thirty million people who are fully qualified to enter a university, but there is no place available.

• This number will grow to over 100 million during the next decade.

• To meet the staggering global demand for advanced education, a major university needs to be created every week.

• In most of the world, higher education is mired in a crisis of access, cost, and flexibility. The dominant forms of higher education in developed nations—campus based, high cost, limited use of technology—seem ill-suited to address global education needs of the billions of young people who will require it in the decades ahead.

The possibilities of OER to address this situation are limitless, except by the bounds of our imagination. Unfortunately, our legal systems, our educational practices and our societal norms are more confining than our imaginations.

Imagine again the hypothetical student above. While the MIT Open Courseware site exists, not all that is put forth could probably be done now. There are potential copyright concerns, privacy concerns, financial concerns – policy concerns that are real, and which undermine a truly open system. Further, there are the concerns of academic journal publishers, professors, not to mention university presidents about how to get paid for this stuff. Further still, are the concerns of parents wondering why they should pay Harvard prices if all the info is available free online (of course, that’s not the same as a Harvard education). There are economic, political and even technical problems, but it doesn’t take much imagination to envision a world where these could be addressed and worked out. But, the concerns are real, and at times just as staggering as the possibilities.

All of these concerns, and more, are being thought about and addressed by many people around the globe, people who share the belief that OER is a good goal, but who know it won’t be easy. Copyright concerns, for example, can be partially addressed by Creative Commons licenses and the new Creative Commons Learn project. They can also be addressed, at times, by Fair Use. But, that won’t solve everything. They can be addressed in conferences like the one I attended, in academic circles, in governing bodies like WIPO, in federal, state and local governments, and - more practically – by those of us producing knowledge for others, by thinking about how our cultural production meshes with the concepts of OER.

How could OER affect a filmmaker, for example? It means at least that we need new economic models so that filmmakers could be compensated for their work, yet the work could be accessible under OER frameworks. It means that educational distribution will change dramatically. It means that filmmakers will have to think quite differently about their films – perhaps people only need parts of your film for their education, and you may have to think not just about different versions, but also about people literally snipping clips that are relevant to their class, and then a student perhaps “visually quoting” a clip of that clip from your film in their thesis - which will no longer be a paper, but instead a hyper-linked website that might compare your film clip with someone else’s, and perhaps not in the context you intended.

This may all seem a bit much – something that can be ignored until you have to think about it, or perhaps irrelevant to you – you don’t make educational films. But, I would argue that these changes affect all visual media, and that as our world becomes more visually based, so will our education. In fact, Greg Ulmer argues that we are moving from orality to literacy to electracy. Ulmer describes electracy as electronic enabled thought, processes, writing, storytelling, business practices - all based on electronic, visual, motion media communication. The media arts then are not just the visual heritage of our society, but are also crucial to our future development as a culture. If he’s right, which I think he is, then your fiction, non-educational film, may become perfect material for someone else’s educational use, and these concerns will affect you. If he’s right, then we need to think about a system that enables electracy, but also enables media artists to make a living while contributing to our culture.

I’m not advocating that any filmmaker get too ensconced in OER theory and practice, but if you make films because you think that art can contribute to the world, and possibly change it, then perhaps you should think a little about the concepts behind OER. As I said, this is a global movement, and while you haven’t heard much about it yet, you will hear more soon. I do think that organizations like the one I run, and many others, should be part of this conversation – there’s a lot of work to be done, and lots to think about. When people are debating new models, we should be advocating for systems that take into account the needs and concerns of media artists. When visual media is so central to these new developments, we should be making sure that our best practices remain central to the debate. Too, we have much to contribute – we can tell stories, make visual representations of these concepts and arguably create the most important potential OER materials – visual, motion-based media.

OER, like its unwieldy name (an even worse one is being proposed - Open Participatory Learning Infrastructure or OPLI), is a little concept that gets bigger the more you think about its implications. I’ll be thinking about what it means for the field of media arts for more than a little while, and will probably have more on this topic soon.

Ann Arbor, Censorship and Advocacy

The Ann Arbor Film Festival recently announced a small crisis – in that their state government is threatening to pull their funding due to supposedly “indecent” material being shown (Ann Arbor ends up rejecting the funding to maintain its integrity). There’s not been much on the film blogs about this, although Gabe Wardell wrote a nice summary recently, and Ann Arbor itself has mentioned the issues in a series of advertisements on IndieWire. The Ann Arbor website sums up the issue as well, so I won’t dwell on the details here.

This is quite disconcerting, although not unexpected. It also brings up another reason to mourn the loss of AIVF. Back in the day (long ago, I realize), AIVF would have quickly been rallying the troops in defense of this festival, as well as helping other nonprofits think about these issues and how to prepare for similar attacks. Even in their later stages (close to death) they had staff who would at least make sure the issue was known to all their members. None of the current nonprofits, mine included, have risen to fill this void. Part of this is because we are glacially moving ships, slow to raise the funds needed to cover the work of advocacy. Part of it is because Foundations aren’t funding this work anymore. But, I suspect, part of it is that most of us are too busy raising sponsorship dollars to worry about anything else but our own survival, and/or simply don’t have interest. It’s a sad state of affairs when fest organizers will attend, and bloggers blog incessantly about, a film festival summit that teaches more cities how to open fests and raise money, but none can get bothered to organize about some truly fundamental issues of concern to them all. I’m just as guilty, because blogging doesn’t always equal advocacy – but it seems like we need a conversation about this serious gap in the field.

Gabe also mentioned the little controversy started by the American Family Foundation over the NEA’s funding of Sundance. The NEA had only funded the Institute for its educational Labs program, not the festival, but Wildmon’s group tried to claim that the NEA had funded two controversial films as well as their screenings (by sponsoring the festival, which it hadn’t done). The NEA sent out a press statement clarifying that they were being attacked for something they didn’t do, but I imagine the zealots didn’t notice the distinction. What’s most worrying here is that the NEA didn’t seem to take the time to also argue that they do fund festivals and support freedom of speech, expression and creativity. Would be nice, but they probably feel they are attacked enough that they can’t be too vigorous in their defense of the arts. Once again, an advocacy need on behalf of the field that is missing. It seems to me that Sundance themselves could take on this role in these particular instances. I don’t think they should become an advocacy organization in general, but as the largest film fest in the US, they could have an impact by publicly affirming the underlying principles of which all these fests are a part, and by even rising to the NEA’s defense. Redford’s name carries. It’s not in their general mission, but they could be a powerful member of a coalition at least. Anyway, the point remains the same- we’ve got some needs that aren’t being addressed by any of the existing organizations (including mine) at this time.

Future of Nonprofit Film at SXSW – Wrap

My trip to SXSW was great, except that I missed all of the good films. I had to leave early for work reasons, so I missed the many great films and panels that I keep hearing about on other blogs. So, kudos to Matt, Jarod and the rest of the SXSW team.

The panel I moderated went pretty well – The Future of Nonprofits and Film. I was surprised that people even showed up for this one, especially on the first day after a great opening party. Before we started, I bet we’d get three people. Rebecca Campbell of Austin Film Society bet 30, and we ended up with a good 40-50 people. I asked the audience at the beginning how many ran, worked in or wanted to work in nonprofits, and more than half raised their hands. There were many familiar faces – from the Brattle, Woodstock Film Fest, Janet Pierson and others from Austin Film Society and Mobile Film School just to name a few.

The panel started a bit slow, as everyone wanted to talk about what they did and how their nonprofits were helping people and adapting to the changes in the field – and they are. The Austin Film Society, for example, has made a concerted effort to build a substantial reserve, to ensure their capacity to keep serving the field. Their big Gala had been the night before and they raised something like $400,000 for the organization and plan to put about $150,000 in direct grants to filmmakers in Texas through their Texas Film Production Fund, all while building up a substantial reserve to keep them prepared for any downturn. (apologies Rebecca if I have the numbers wrong). Tracie of Brave New Films, Robert Greenwald’s nonprofit arm, spoke about how they’ve made their outreach/film party tools available online for filmmakers and other nonprofits – smartly addressing the most pressing issue for most filmmakers – reaching an audience. Gabe Wardell of IMAGE spoke about his organization’s plans to build local based programs that can better serve a regional and even national audience.

Everyone was also quite open, if guarded, about the challenges they face. We spent a fair amount of time discussing the need to diversify funding. It’s quite common to hear nonprofit types talk about the need for more sponsorship, donors, etc. But, it was clear that a few people were noticing some ominous trends in these areas. For example, many of us, especially film festivals, have become quite reliant on corporate support. But corporate marketing dollars aren’t here for some altruistic reason – they are here to advertise to large numbers of people. And, many of the traditional supporters of these events are realizing that their money can be better spent elsewhere (sorry, I take the negative tone, because I generally agree with them). Furthermore, there is an increasing trend by some larger organizations to expand nationally. Without picking on them at all, take AFI for example. They now have a festival in LA, Silverdocs in Maryland and the just launched AFI Dallas Film Festival. It’s much easier to get big sponsors this way, and it’s a detriment to the established, smaller players. After the panel, I saw Bart Weiss of the Dallas Video Festival, and without being negative, he was clear that AFI Dallas has affected his future. It seemed to be a room-wide consensus that we’ll see more of this soon. One could easily imagine any of the bigger fests – the AFIs, Sundance, Tribeca’s of the world, expanding to a town near you soon, and probably having a negative impact on your local fest.

The argument against this trend is that a large, national fest/organization doesn’t have the local connection and the money-“leaves town” so to speak. This also came up in regards to places like Landmark taking the traditional role of the smaller regional theaters. There was much bemoaning of this situation, but I have to say that I am a bit conflicted on this, and think I come down as follows:

Theoretically, these theatres, festivals and organizations started to fill a gap in their community. In the 70s, when many started, they were the only game in town, and without them, it would be impossible to see an indie or arthouse film in many cities. They did a great job, struggling all the way. In fact, I would argue that they succeeded greater than anyone acknowledges. To use an example close to the panel, the Austin Film Society literally paved the way for a film culture in their town that now supports indie film at SXSW and the Alamo. You could argue these places couldn’t exist without AFS. So, if we’ve made it so that a larger entity can come in and serve this need, or a commercial theater, then we need to move on to some other gaps. If you find yourself competing with an AFI or a Landmark, then I would consider that a sign that you’ve succeeded and its time to move on to something else. There’s lots of good work, and good films, to be done/shown. Along these same lines, while I do believe in regionalism, and in smaller community minded organizations, the power of diversity and all that – lets face it, as a field we’ve been struggling, and often because we can’t ever “go to scale.” So, I applaud those who can go to scale – if, and it’s a big if, done properly then these newer models could be even more successful than we’ve been so far. Last, and this doesn’t apply to everyone, but I feel many of these organizations/fests have been suffering from an unacknowledged bout with a lack of imagination. We all need to think imaginatively about new models for serving the field, and may the best models rise to the top.

That said, it was also clear that many of these nonprofits, but not all, serve some key needs in the field that perhaps need more attention. Panelists and audience members all brought up the need for advocacy, community, money (to artists), screening and distribution opportunities and in-depth education/information. The death of AIVF and the fact that no one has really filled that gap (although there are some small things, nothing to scale) was felt by all in the room. And their seemed to be an underlying acknowledgement that some places are in danger of becoming irrelevant without some major changes.

We also had more than one brief conversation about the recent controversy at FIND over their tax status, service to the field and how they count the Spirit Awards and LA Film Fest as fundraisers or programs. One journalist asked if it was appropriate to take them to task on this question. My answer, and I think the consensus in the room, was that as a public charity it is absolutely correct for a journalist or anyone else to ask how a nonprofit is serving the field – it is a public trust, essentially, that gets certain benefits because of its service. But, everyone who spoke, felt that FIND was correct in changing their returns (if a bit late and awkward) to say that the two events are principally programmatic events serving the field. The film festival, in particular, is undoubtedly a service to the field. The Spirit Awards can easily be argued as one of the more important services to filmmakers, although a few of us agreed that this one was anyone’s call – plenty of similar groups in other art forms could make this same argument, but count these as fundraisers. Bottom line – it was ok to look into this, but the reporter seemed to take it too far, and FIND seems justified. It’s also clear, however, that nonprofits need to expect more scrutiny, and my personal opinion is that openness and transparency are the only way to nip these problems in the bud.

At the end of the panel, many people lingered for quite some time. We debated whether AIVF strayed too far from advocacy and this hastened its death, we discussed who was missing from the conversation, we formed some beginning ideas of ways to work together to fill some gaps in the field, we traded some war stories and spoke even more openly about our challenges. A good 15 people or more stuck around to passionately talk about these issues, which is probably in itself a good sign for the field.

A Novel Approach to Distribution and the Public Domain

Jonathan Lethem, the popular author of "You Don't Love Me Yet," and "The Fortress of Solitude" has hit upon a novel way (pun probably intended) to sell rights to his book. According to an article in the New York Times, and subsequently in Variety, he plans to give it away with no option fee, but with the stipulation that he eventually be paid 2% of the budget (once the film gets a distribution deal); and that after 5 years of exploitation, the ancillary rights enter the public domain. According to his website (and I first saw this quote in the NYTimes), he is "fitful of some of the typical ways art is commodified."
Bravo. Lethem is doing two really cool things. One, he is making it possible for smaller indie producers to take a chance on this, because they don't have to pay an extraordinary fee upfront. You agree to pay him based on the budget, but only if it sells. So, let's say you end up making the film for $2-Million, you sell it and owe him 2% which is $40,000. If you end up only raising $500K then you owe him less, and if for more...you get the point. This in itself is a good model to consider for other aspects of film. For example, what if you could use stock footage in your doc based on this model, or even a richer variant - what if you agreed to pay a percentage of your royalties back to the stock footage holder based on the length of time the clip runs in your film (in proportion to the film) and on how much it sells? This would take away a lot of risk for producers (my film may never make a dime), and for rights-holders (I get nothing up front, but get more if the film is a success, and get my fair share proportionally). Anyway, it's a cool idea.

Second, he is preempting many copyright issues from the beginning. The film could be remade, an adaptation could be made, a etc without a lawsuit, or the possibility of being stopped by a lawyer. Why care about this? Well, think of "The Wind Done Gone." The book, a parody of "Gone with the Wind" was almost halted because of Lawsuits claiming that it wasn't fair use. It was, but without a really good lawyer (Joe Beck, of Atlanta, one of the best), many authors would have caved in to the legal threats and a valuable cultural conversation would have been missed. Imagine further if Disney couldn't have made "Snow White" because it copies the Brothers Grimm. (You don't have to imagine the irony that they then over-protect the resultant work, Snow White, in a manner that stifles creativity, we're living with those copyright laws).

Lethem cares about this deeply. He recently wrote a brilliant article for Harper's on this issue, and he understands that the ever-increasing copyright/commerce regime is harming creativity. He thus creates a legal way to ensure that his work can contribute to culture in an ongoing manner, and simultaneously allows the producer to exploit their rights for five years and make back their money.

It would be interesting to know if he intends for the DVD, etc of the work to enter the public domain after 5 years. I don't think this is what he intends, from the wording on his website, but that too would be a good idea. Yes, it limits the profit potential, but it allows a profit to be made, and ensures that the work could be used for education, etc and that it won't end up "stuck on the shelf" like so many films.

Anyway, what Lethem is acknowledging is that all authorship, all creativity, stems from something else. He is building upon other stories, other knowledge - perhaps creatively, but always, already having been done. Lethem's article in Harper's ends with a pretty nifty quote, itself referring back to a Saul Bellow quote, which nicely sums up his thinking:

As a novelist, I'm a cork on the ocean of story, a leaf on a windy day. Pretty soon I'll be blown away. For the moment I'm grateful to be making a living, and so must ask that for a limited time (in the Thomas Jefferson sense) you please respect my small, treasured usemonopolies. Don't pirate my editions; do plunder my visions. The name of the game is Give All. You, reader, are welcome to my stories. They were never mine in the first place, but I gave them to you. If you have the inclination to pick them up, take them with my blessing.

This is just one small new business model, but it's an interesting one and one that should be explored further.

SXSW and Nonprofits

If you've made it past the title of this post, maybe I have a chance of enticing you to stop on by the panel I am moderating at SXSW - The future of nonprofits and film. Still reading? It may actually be interesting, we'll have: Rebecca Campbell from Austin Film Society, which was founded by Richard Linklater; Gabe Wardell, the new head of IMAGE, and I promise to ask him what was the worst mess that I left behind for him to inherit; and Tracy Fleischman of Brave New Films, founded by Robert Greenwald.

I have an agenda that includes the good, bad and ugly. We'll talk about what nonprofits are doing to help filmmakers, whether filmmakers should start their own nonprofit, some recent failures in this arena and controversies, such as the recent dust-up over FIND and the Spirit Awards. One panelist already dropped out from fear - ok, they were just bored with the topic, but I like rumors - and others may follow. Join us this Saturday at the Austin Convention Center.

The future of Web 2.0

I first saw this through BoingBoing, and have seen it posted on a lot of blogs, but not to any of the ones I check out on film. A professor at Kansas State University, Michael Wesch created it, and it's a brilliant videoexplanation of hypertext, the web, web 2.0 and why this stuff matters. We made it mandatory viewing for the staff here at Renew Media, and I highly recommend it for anyone who cares about where the net is taking us, and what it means for video, copyright, politics, etc. Enough said, cause this man does it better than I can. Link.
I don't know why, but the start image is a bit screwy - the video does seem to play though.

Nonprofits and Film at SXSW

I've written a lot here about the future of nonprofits and film, as well as how nonprofits can help filmmakers. I'll be moderating a panel about it, The State of Nonprofit Film, and will post the agenda and other speakers here soon, as well as a few follow-up posts. Be sure to check out their full line-up. Panelists are still being confirmed, but I do believe that Rebecca Campbell of the incredible Austin Film Society will be one of them. If there's things you'd like to see covered, just email me, or post a comment here.

New - New Media Blog

One of my favorite places in NYC, Location One, just launched their blog - and it promises to be a great one. Limbo Hog - (IMHO Blog) - will feature interviews with the artists they showcase, as well as other new media matters. As one of the more inventive orgs in town, I'm looking forward to more.

Get a real life

Just stumbled upon this: Get a First Life. A Great parody of all the Second Life hype (which I've been a part of as well). "First Life is a 3D Analog World where Server Lag Does Not Exist."

Sundance Wrap-Up - Unforseen and GWS

My favorite films at Sundance this year were Laura Dunn’s The Unforseen and Craig Zobel’s Great World of Sound. Both were films that made me glad I attended the festival, and that reminded me why I keep working in the realm of indie film. They are very different films, but similar in one key way – they are both artistic, small films about big ideas, with a lot of heart and apparently little chance of being seen by the masses.

Laura Dunn is one of our Fellows, but I don’t think I need much of a disclaimer – we’ve never met, she received her fellowship before I started working for Renew Media and it was for a different film. So half-hearted disclaimer aside, I think The Unforseen is one of the best documentaries I’ve seen at any festival in at least two years. It helps that it was shot by Lee Daniel, the cinematographer for Rick Linklater among others, and that her graphics (no small part of the movie) were done by Kyle Cooper, who has done the opening credits of Seven and Spider Man. Daniel’s footage is ethereal - a combination of old super-8 (from the looks of it) and modern footage which is always well-lit, beautifully framed and gorgeous to watch. Laura’s style evokes Terrence Malick, who was an executive producer of the documentary, and leaves you mesmerized – not an easy task for a film about urban sprawl, politics, the environment and a vanishing way of life in the Southwest. This is not a sensibility seen in many docs today, which often eschew visual style and an attention to form to focus solely on interesting subject matter. It’s one of the biggest problems facing documentary today, this lack of attention to form, and Dunn firmly establishes herself as one of the smartest documentary filmmakers precisely because of her attention to it. This film could have easily been much less of a movie, but through her attention to the craft of filmmaking, Dunn has styled an important film about a weighty subject. It is nuanced – you feel real pain for the “big, bad” developer - without striving for some mythical journalistic “balance.” It is important – urban sprawl and its effects on our environment shown for the political choices they are - without putting the weight of the world on your shoulders, like a powerpoint film. It is also beautiful, an aesthetic choice made not to save money and get it done fast, but to do it right. It is also, unfortunately, doubtful to be seen at a theatre near you anytime soon. It’s not easy to market, too long for most and while it has a star (Reford), he’s not the focus of the film. I never thought that the effects of a developer on little Barton Springs in Austin, Texas could have such an affect on me, but Laura Dunn’s treatment of the subject gives me new hope for documentary film.

Craig Zobel has been trying to make Great World of Sound for many, many years. I remember him pitching it years ago at the Atlanta Film Festival when he was working the fest scene affiliated with David Gordon Green. Zobel shows there truly was something in the water of North Carolina where he went to school with David (and Tim Orr and Lisa Muskat among others), because GWS is another little gem of Southern filmmaking, bigger by far than such a little film would at first seem. Manohla Dargis and Stu Van Airsdale have already beaten me to the punch with pointing out what a great little film this is, and that it hasn’t yet sold (rumor has it that some little distribs are looking into it), and that it is one of the only films that represents all that Sundance used to mean. It’s an accomplished film, with little in the way of budget or stars – although damnit if Kene Holliday wasn’t the best PI that Matlock ever had! But it does make a big ol’ lump well up in your heart with its beautiful, brutal honesty and bravery. Zobel’s story is ostensibly about a record production company that steals people’s money selling them the dream of getting famous quickly by helping to produce the record of their dreams and market it to the masses. You’ve seen the ads before in real life – let us help you make your record and become a star, but the producers here are just salesmen, and the company just a shell account for a get-rich-quick schemer. The brilliance of the film is that the two principal characters are dupes themselves, thinking at first that they really are helping discover talent and helping others realize their dreams. As these two slowly realize they too are pawns in a bigger racket, they actually warm to the game - becoming better salesmen even as they lose their faith in what they are doing. Zobel smartly, albeit painfully, keeps this film from coming around to a cheery ending – the characters aren’t redeemed, life hasn’t gotten much better by the end. But the film is as real as I could find at Sundance this year, and I learned afterwards that it was both more real, and more false, than I imagined.

Zobel approached GWS as an art experiment, in a way. The movie contains numerous scenes of talent auditions – actors, presumably, playing the role of really bad (and some good) singers, trying to get a break and make their dreams come true. After the film, I learned that most of these people weren’t actors, but had answered an ad in the Charlotte paper not unlike the bogus ads in the film. They would show up at the recording studio, which was really a production office for the film, with cameras hidden behind mirrors, and audition for two supposed record producers from LA – the principal actors of the film. The actors would improv their roles, in effect trying to sell their services – and some people would fall for it, while others didn’t – but all were filmed. These “reality” segments thus bringing an eerie sense of truth to the film. Of course, it’s not real – and quite problematic in many ways - but it also brings another dimension to the film, when these same people find out that they have been misled. They know they won’t get famous for their music, but hey, the film might play Sundance, and that’s somethin’. According to one producer, very few people got upset, and while some people knew elements of what was really going on, none knew the whole story. Yes, the great singer at the end was a “plant,” and yes, the parents of a little girl in the movie knew she wasn’t really auditioning, but for the most part, the people in the film are real folks, trying to get discovered. While I haven’t put my head around all of this yet, I’m pretty sure it’s no more misleading a practice than what we see on American Idol, and it’s definitely been put to greater artistic use, and commentary.

One of the lead characters, Martin (played superbly by Pat Healy), has a recurring line in the film about how there’s so much talent out in the world that deserves to be discovered, which is why he initially takes the job. I couldn’t help but find lots of parallels with the film world converging at Sundance, something that Zobel confirmed was on his mind as well when we spoke after the film. Sundance received over 5000 submissions for their 150 something slots this year. Festivals across America subtly tout the possibility – come play our festival, find a distributor or show on the big screen in front of an audience and maybe get discovered. Distributors come up to some of the “lucky” ones with an advance to buy their film and make you a big star – and yes, much like the shady producers in the film, all that some require is that you show a little faith and deliver a few items (like a print) that may cost as much as your advance. And yes, like the characters in this film, many of the employees of this film world have fallen for the hype, and truly think they are helping some talented people to get discovered.

Yes, there are many exceptions, but as almost any honest person who has been to Sundance more than once can tell you – there’s more than a little snake oil in Park City each year, and more than enough people willing to fall for the sales pitch in the hopes of being discovered. Zobel has smartly tapped into this dynamic with GWS, and ironically enough, is having a hard time selling his vision. I think it’s one that each of us can relate to, so some weird part of me has been hoping he finds a buyer and makes it big. Another part, of course, hopes he runs for the hills and takes the DIY approach of many a musician and does the hard work of taking himself on the road, being his own salesman and connecting to the millions of us with a dream of being discovered and a history of getting burned. In the process, he just might find an audience and get discovered as the artist he really has become.

Sundance and Swag

Lots of people (and now me) keep writing articles about how Sundance is officially trying to cut back on swag. Just today, for example, Variety ran an article on how "For Sundance, Swag becomes a Drag." But, I'd like to be contrarian for a moment and call them on this nonsense - all of their press releases, conversations against swag, buttons pushing films over swag, etc. do nothing but entice more marketers to see Sundance for what it is - a big market for their products. Like it or not, Sundance, you're stuck with this one. Let's be clear - Sundance is only upset about this because it distracts attention away from them and their sponsors. And let's also acknowledge what any marketing person will tell you - they are sponsoring swag tents and storefronts as unofficial sponsors because it's not cost-efficient to become an official sponsor. I know - we tried once (at another job) to sponsor an official brunch through Sundance, and they made it impossibly expensive and prohibitive, so we were forced to just throw the brunch ourselves without their help.

Sundance's proposed efforts to stop swag include working locally to try to keep these marketers from renting space, to making it seem uncool to be a guerilla marketer and to "disincentivize" them from sponsoring unoffically. Sounds familiar to me - this is much the same way they reacted when Slamdance started. It took them years to realize they could coexist, and that their efforts to fight Slamdance were just bringing Slamdance more press. If Sundance were smart, they would rent all the space in town themselves, getting bulk rate discounts from landlords, and turn them around for a better deal to these sponsors. Or, lower their rates to something realistic and have more sponsors. Instead of fighting them, embrace them and get a little bit for yourself. Or, just ignore them - we (attendees) are getting sick of it all anyway.

Yes, it is now impossible to tell the real sponsors from the unofficial ones, but it just points out a simple truth - that being an official sponsor has never been all that special. Let me be clear - I like Sundance, and having run a smaller fest, understand the need to keep sponsors happy, but nothing I've heard so far sounds like a good idea to me. I think it's truly too late to reclaim Park City for some pristine ideal of film watching - which hasn't existed for a long time, and probably never will. Sundance is either going to have to embrace the circus-like atmosphere and come up with some way to make an official sponsorship be more valuable than a logo on a trailer (i.e. meaningful sponsorship relationships), or embrace a lot more sponsors for less money - which could net more profit for them in the long run. I don't have the answer for them, but I'm willing to bet we're all going to have to think about this more and more as Sundance is usually a harbinger of things to come for other fests.

4 Eyed Monsters Second Life 1-9-07

Four Eyed Monsters' Second Life screening is tonight. In typical, excellent, fashion, they have created a video which serves not just as an invitation, but also a tutorial to help you create a second life account and get started. This should be great:

Top Ten Stories for Indies and Resolutions

I’ve seen lots of year-end film lists, and even participated in some. What I haven’t seen, however, is a list of the top stories that matter to indie filmmakers. I wouldn’t say this is my definitive list, but it’s the top ten things that come to mind, in reverse order, along with New Year resolution suggestions.


10. Mermigas Firing proves Hollywood is still out of touch.
Diane Mermigas was the best writer in the film world. Who, you may be asking? Mermigas wrote a column on technology for the Hollywood Reporter - how it was disrupting business models and where things may be going. As most indie folks can’t afford the HR, very few may have read her column, but work picked up the tab for me, and I was a fan. Her last prediction - that Google might buy the NY Times (original) and she could be right. This only makes the top ten list because it would be like the Washington Post getting rid of Bob Woodward during Watergate – you don’t get rid of the one reporter that really knows what’s going on when your ship is sinking. Geeky blogs always thought she was old-fashioned (or worse), but she was the only columnist in film land who consistently understood the shifting landscape, and the Hollywood Reporter letting her go recently shows how out of touch old media remains about how the changes that are affecting them now are just the tip of the proverbial iceberg.
Resolution suggestion: Independent filmmakers should pay more attention to the geeky business news about the industry, because its going to affect your world as much as it will Hollywood, and you might just be able to use the changes to your advantage. Start with Mermigas’ old columns.


9. Orphan works proposals show there is some hope in copyright land.
An orphan work is one whose author can’t be found, even after extensive searching. In film, this usually affects documentaries that use rare footage, and with an orphan work, no one can authorize you as a filmmaker to use the footage in your film. Even though the rights-holder probably died years ago, no E&O Insurer will insure your film, and thus no one would distribute or broadcast it if it contained this footage. This year, a coalition of groups representing filmmakers (disclaimer: including the one I work for) made recommendations to the copyright office for a fair system to allow such works to be used, while maintaining safeguards for rights-holders. The proposal is now being considered by Congress, and could represent a nice change for filmmakers.
Resolution Suggestion: Click here to take action.


8. FCC acts indecent

Think that Janet Jackson’s breasts are unrelated to your issues as a filmmaker? Think again. Her exposure in the Super Bowl is just one example of the things that led the FCC to begin cracking down on things they consider “indecent.” Well, that and a bunch of right wing nuts, but the FCC’s actions have led PBS stations to not broadcast films due to fears of large fines, and while most of the films affected have been big (Saving Private Ryan, Ken Burns), this has huge implications for indie filmmakers. All broadcasters need is one more excuse to not show your unrated film.
Resolution suggestion: Marjorie Heins of the Free Expression Policy Project at NYU is leading the charge against this nonsense, and you should take an interest.




7. AIVF collapsed/Others Didn’t (yet?)
When AIVF started to go under, a group of us met to debate whether we cared. The consensus was, I think, that now more than ever, filmmakers needed a place like AIVF, but that the situation had deteriorated to the point that it couldn’t be salvaged. In early 2006, the board finally pulled the plug, and AIVF no longer exists. As I wrote then, the ideals of AIVF (it could no longer serve them) were still needed – in-depth information, advocacy, and a national community among the many needs. AIVF could have been the place to unite the UGC and Indie worlds and make a powerful lobby for creative concerns on the net; they could have been active in the recent debates about Showtime and the Smithsonian; they could have thrown a real awards for independent filmmakers (maybe in Brooklyn), when other awards shows departed from indies. On the plus side, my prediction that they were the first of many to go was either early or just wrong. IDA, IFP and others are surviving, IMAGE and Film Arts have new leaders and may rise from the (near) ashes. On the other hand, none seem to have taken the place of AIVF. Perhaps more will be clear when I moderate a panel on this subject at SXSW in March of 2007. (photo credit: Indiewire.com)
Resolution suggestion: Make your organization accountable by letting your voice be heard – let their executive directors know how you feel. Me included.



6. Fair Use gets a boost, and a manual
Fair Use is the legal concept that allows you to utilize copyrighted material, under certain conditions without asking for it. For example, Kirby Dick used this concept to make his recent doc This Film Is Not Yet Rated… because it allowed him to comment on the way the MPAA treated certain films, without having to pay large fees to show certain clips. For years, however, there was no clear system for filmmakers to follow in utilizing fair use, so Pat Aufderheide, a professor at American University and Peter Jaszi, a law professor, got together with filmmakers and their organizations (again, we participated) and crafted a Filmmakers guide to Fair Use. IFC used it in deciding to distribute Dick’s film, and rumor has it that Arthur Dong will be using the principles to release his new work The Chinese in Hollywood Project.
Resolution suggestion: Read the manual and stay informed via Agnes Varnum’s blog for the Center for Social Media.




5. New Distribution Models (and reminders of some old ones)
It still boggles the mind that anyone debates whether the windows model of releasing is a bad idea. Yes, Bubble didn’t work, but it’s clear to everyone that consumers want their media when they want it, where they want it, when they want it and on whatever device they want to see it on. The key will be versioning – having different versions, so that you can show one version at fests or theatres while the download is available, and possibly sell the extended (or educational) version later. While Holly/Indy-Wood distributors debated this, many simply threw up their hands in disgust and started their own distribution. Four Eyed Monsters showed the best way to use the internet to build buzz, Lance Weiler self-distributed to success and blogged about it, Sujewa focused his blog on self-distribution, Landmark made four-walling a little easier, and even David Lynch took to the streets to promote his own self-distribution (photo credit: Defamer.com). It was also fun to listen to filmmakers propose a self-distribution collective or system, when one already exists with New Day, and it was great to see filmmakers opening their eyes to the simple truth that getting a distributor can often be the worst thing that can happen to your film.
Resolution suggestion: Use fests to find an audience, instead of a distributor. Start here or here.

4. Death of VHS goes unnoticed

In November, Variety ran the obituary for VHS. Yes, you can still find them, but Hollywood and all but a handful of small distributors have abandoned them altogether. VHS lasted around 30 years, but no one expects DVD to last nearly that long. While people continue to debate whether consumers will switch to digital downloads or streaming, there are clear signs that DVD sales are slowing, and this has huge implications for indies. While every other technological advancement showed such promise in the past only to be closed down, we once again have the chance that indies can get their films to a wider audience through digital downloads, TiVO, Revver, or even through your Xbox. With the Long Tail model changing business, and with everyone from Amazon to Wal-Mart (I would go all the way to Z with Zune, but it’s such a bad player) getting in the digital download business, 2007 should be a interesting year.
Resolution suggestion: Read up about the implications with this report we produced, and check out your options for self-distribution online.


3. Google/Youtube and future implications

This one has been talked about enough online that I don’t need to add much more. Any way you look at it, however, it’s one of the most important media stories of 2006, with huge implications (still being sorted out) for distribution, copyright, revenue models for new media, etc. My hopes for 2007 – that independent filmmakers realize their kinship with the supposed amateurs of UGC, especially in regards to reaching audiences. This is about participatory culture and your audience finding your content more easily, not just finding videos of a frat boy falling down the stairs. You can use it to get people interested in your work, promote films you are trying to raise money for (advanced trailers) and to find your audience before your film is completed. Gootube is, of course, just one part of the story, but every filmmaker should be thinking about how to use online video to their advantage.
Resolution suggestion: Post teasers or trailers for all of your films online for free – even better, put a Creative Commons license on them, and read the book about your opportunities by Scott Kirsner.


2. Sundance Channel opens a Screening Room in Second Life
I’ve been suggesting for a long time that filmmakers need to get a presence in Second Life, and I wasn’t the only one. Recently, Sundance Channel announced they will launch a Second Life screening room and will premiere Four Eyed Monsters online in January of 2007. Second Life is a growing phenomenon, and people are making real money there. More importantly to filmmakers – it’s another place to find an audience for your work.
Resolution suggestion: I’m willing to bet that some media artists can make something more creative than some suits at Sundance Channel (okay, I know many people there who don’t wear suits), so get online, create an avatar and corner the market for cool visuals in Second Life.


1. Net Neutrality
Unfortunately, much of the above-mentioned promise for indies is threatened by the possible end of the internet as we know it. That’s what net neutrality means – saving the internet. I could go on and on about this, but many people have made great videos about it, like this one:




Resolution Suggestion: Educate yourself on Net Neutrality, get active in the debate and stop big media from ruining our possible future(s) online.

And Happy New Year!

More on net freedom

Great new video from the Save the Internet folks.
click on their site to take action.

Big Brother FIND and piracy

I got an email yesterday from FIND about how I could watch screeners of the Spirit Award nominees through Netflix. Great, I thought, and saved it to follow-up on later. Then I got this draconian email from them (see below) making extra sure that I know not to pirate any of these DVDs. My main beef is with the erroneous claim: "As you are aware, piracy is a threat to the entire industry."
Oh really? I guess that FIND and IFP are now in bed a little too often with the MPAA if they are buying this garbage. The MPAA (and Netflix, etc) are trying to protect a certain business model, but its more about making sure they control distribution than it is about protecting any indie filmmakers rights. Several serious studies have shown that the statistical effect of illegal downloading on the industry is....a lot, a little...actually, nil. The one linked here is just one of many regarding the music industry - as Harvard's website puts it: "Professor Felix Oberholzer-Gee and co-author Koleman Strumpf floored the disbelieving music industry with their findings that illegal music downloads don’t hurt CD sales. Oberholzer discusses what the industry should do next." You can read the whole article, but what he suggests is that online trading actually helps push sales, and that the industry should develop new models.

I won't go on and on, like most of my posts, but I do suggest that film people read Oberholzer-Gee's study and think about what it means for independent film instead of just echoing the MPAA's BS. In fact, a long time ago, we would have expected film orgs like these to do it for us, and help us think about new possibilities afforded by new technologies instead of pushing for old, tired ones. As I've heard someone else say - If these filmmakers haven't gotten distribution or are no longer screening in theatres, then they have bigger worries than piracy - try obscurity.

In all fairness to FIND, they are probably just protecting their asses, but the letter is a bit too much:

Dear Film Independent and IFP members:

The Spirit Awards and Netflix are pleased to be able to send you DVDs of the 2007 Spirit Award nominated films. (By now, you should have received the email from Netflix with your special offer code.) Please read this letter carefully—it contains important information about your screeners.

As you are aware, piracy is a threat to the entire industry. Netflix and the Spirit Awards have special permission to provide screener copies of nominated films for your personal viewing. Many of these DVDs are individually coded with invisible, unique watermarks that identify the screener and any copies of the screener. If any unauthorized copies (including internet uploads) of the film are traced back to your screener, you risk civil and criminal penalties. We ask you to be especially careful while the screener is in your possession, and do not circulate, transfer, distribute, loan, sell, reproduce, or give the screener to anyone else.

This special site created by Netflix solely for the Spirit Awards voters is a privilege for members that is invaluable to the nominees and to the voting process. Many of the nominated films have not had distribution or are no longer screening in theaters. The Neflix site ensures that these films can be seen by our voting members. Any abuse of this privilege may result in criminal penalties against you and the discontinuation of this program.

Thank you in advance for helping us all protect the rights of filmmakers in our fight against piracy.

Second Life Screening Room

The Sundance Channel announced yesterday that they will open a screening room in Second Life: Studio 4A. The studio will open with the Second Life premiere of Four Eyed Monsters, followed by a live Q&A session with film creators Arin Crumley and Susan Buice plus an after party.
I've been wondering when someone (that I know) would make such a move on Second Life. While many web-readers may consider this old news, I learned this weekend just how few filmmakers are even thinking about this right now. We were hosting a retreat for 15 filmmakers in Los Angeles, and I gave a presentation on using the web for marketing through the web and forming communities for independent films. I used Four Eyed Monsters as an example of people doing a great job, and then showed Second Life and suggested to the attendees that they put down a footprint there, and think of how it could build community for their films. Only one attendee had even heard of Second Life, and only two had heard of Four Eyed Monsters. This isn't to say they were behind the times, or that I am up to speed with it, but does show that the field is changing rapidly enough for many filmmakers that what some people take for granted is news to many others.
Sundance Channel is a corporate entity, and the Four Eyed Monsters gang are pretty savvy, so it's no surprise they had the resources and the web know-how to pull this off quicker than many others. At the recent National Black Programming Consortium conference, many black filmmakers discovered and discussed Second Life and its potential for building an audience for their films. It's becoming a great place for filmmakers to find audiences for their films. We'll see a lot more of this soon.

Re:Sources Blog

My day job - the one that keeps getting in the way of my writing on this blog - is running Renew Media (formerly NVR). We've been going through a lot of change in the last six months, and part of this change is the launch of our new blog - Re:Sources. The blog arises directly from the feeling that in this post-AIVF era, someone needed to fill the gaps left behind, such as advocacy, in-depth information on creativity, distribution, policy, etc. It's a small step, but one which we hope grows into a much bigger source for filmmakers.
The blog just launched, hosted and edited by Agnes Varnum, who also has her own fine blog. She'll be making regular posts, as well as inviting guest bloggers for certain topics. This week, for example, Parul Desai of Media Access Project posted on why net neutrality matters to filmmakers.

Creative Commons and New Models of Funding

I've always been a big fan of Creative Commons, and after watching their new fundraising/explanatory video -




I am an even bigger fan. Most people probably already know this, but just in case - because they hosted the video on Revver with an ad at the end, they have the potential to earn money whenever it is watched. If someone watches the clip all the way to the end, Creative Commons will get a split of the advertising revenues. How it all works is here.

The video itself is quite creative, much more interesting than most fundraising pitches that I've received from nonprofits this year. I'd much rather watch an animation about the relationship between the White Stripes and Creative Commons, than read a boring appeal for my year-end donations. I'm even more impressed that CC head-honcho and (much more popular) fellow blogger Larry Lessig has agreed to personally write a thank you to every donor. Not a form letter either - doubt you'll get that much from many other nonprofits. Nor will you see as much "impact" from them either - and I say this as someone who runs a nonprofit. Not many of us have had the success, the impact on policy (or anything else for that matter) as Creative Commons has had in just a few years. Kudos.


Importance to Filmmakers:

But this campaign is even more important to me for what it suggests about fundraising for others, not just nonprofits. Filmmakers can take a tip from the CC folks and apply this kind of fundraising to their film projects. Instead of maxing out your credit card, perhaps you should make a cool viral video, post it on Revver and similar sites, and use the money to make the feature. You can even link them back to you to donate more, watch longer versions, etc. While you may not make tons of money, it's a lot more inventive than most strategies I see the majority of us trying to use to raise funds for our films, projects, etc.

Viva Les Amis

My good friend Nancy Higgins recently screened her film Viva Les Amis as part of a showcase put together by my other friends at SXSW. The film is a great look at something that seems to happen everywhere - the replacing of a great cafe by a Starbucks. Well, it's not that simple. Les Amis was a cafe in Austin, Texas that was the quinessential college town cafe - run by quirky characters, worked at by drunks serving cheap food to other drunks and providing a place for slackers, punks and probably some students to hang out.






And it was slackers - in fact, Linklater's Slacker featured the cafe prominently. As the town got less weird, contrary to the current shirts proclaiming to "Keep Austin Weird," the cafe eventually closed down. High rents being a major part of the problem. Today, a Starbucks sits on the site.

No, Starbucks didn't force them out, but like so many other places, they benefitted from the changing demographics of the town. What makes this film great is that Nancy doesn't just play to the stereotype of the evils of gentrification, changing populations and green logos. She explores what the cafe meant to residents, but she also takes time to get to know the new employees of Starbucks. They are much more sober, but also have better health care, than the workers from Les Amis. She also fashions a film that becomes interesting to others than Austinites or Slacker fans. The film is about the dying of a culture, the changes that inevitably face any town that starts to grow and serves as a testament to the importance of the smaller things in life. It's great regional cinema - little films that say big things by focusing on something seemingly insignificant.

The film was recently programmed in Austin at the Alamo, and in Orlando at the Global Peace Film Festival. You can purchase the DVD, or just watch the clips online, but either way - you should check out this film.

YouTube Googlized

TechCrunch reports that the rumored sale of YouTube to Google is complete - in an all stock deal worth 1.65 Million. While many people, like Mark Cuban, wonder whether YouTube is worth such a price, you have to believe that Google spent millions in legal fees just contemplating whether this deal would land them in court and - if so - whether they could win any lawsuits. When Google announced the Google Book Project, the Author's Guild and others were quick to sue. My old friend from Atlanta, Joe Beck, is defending that case, and I'm willing to bet he'll win - he won for the Wind Done Gone, and in some ways that may have been more difficult. I'm sure that many a distributor will sue Google - its what you do when you are dying and scared - but I don't think Google scares easily.

It may be too much to dream, but I hope that the content industries start to wake up and realize that everyone will benefit from some changes to the rights-control-regime. Some money is better than no money, and could possibly be mo' money. I don't believe that advertising alone can support all video, we've seen how that works with TV - not everything gets supported, so there are definite tiers. But we also learned that people will pay for good content (HBO), and we've even seen that people will pay for what they can get for free with video (through sales of TV shows). While YouTube will probably always have illegally posted material, it also shows a demand - for content that's hard to find, for content made outside the system, etc. I bet Google could figure out a variation of the ideas proposed by Terry Fisher in Promises to Keep. Perhaps some combination of free, taxes or license fees for certain copyrights and fee-based video.

More thoughts on this soon, but this will be one of the more interesting business developments for film/video in years. Maybe this will get me posting more often than the once a month average I've had this summer.

Day of the Longtail Video

Day of the Longtail

Great video on the rise of participatory, or disintermediated, or whatever you want to call it - media and the fall of corporate media. I don't think it will actually happen this way, but great video nonetheless. We've definitely seen that people want their stuff when they want it, however they want it, whenever they want it and on whatever device they want it on. And we'll continue to see more content posted by the people - i hate the term UGC, but we don't have a better one yet - and a lot of the other things this video implies will keep occuring.

Unfortunately, every new technology has brought about utopian visions of the democratization of media - the printing press, ham radio, public television, the phonograph, the telephone, the list is endless. And each time, the range of possibilities has been narrowed immensely by corporate interests, and the regulatory bodies which serve their interests.

What we are seeing today - the long tail, YouTube's success, etc - was all easily envisioned back in the early 90s (maybe earlier), but we could also see then that corporations would take back control. And it has really already occured. We'll have a mix of both, but you would be dead wrong to think that Fox, Google, and other Hollywood companies won't still rule the media landscape.