Film Fest Junkie

Sundance vs The Independent Filmmaker

2011-10-08T18:32:00.000-07:00

16 hours ago
Adam Montgomery (Manager of Programming for Sundance Film Festival)
So now you've made it so that comments only display pending your approval? Typical. (Actually, comments have always been subject to approval. Previously, you stated your inability to post was due to the length of your comment (Adam's words: "I will send you the text of the comment I was trying to post-- I think that it won't let me because it's too long.") not the comment itself. No change has been made on how comments are accepted to this blog which is very 'typical' of the way I do things. I see you did have a comment pending this time around. Your first sentence was, "You're really lame." Uhmmm, if a person cannot be respectful or refrain from acting like he's in the third grade then he doesn't get to post comments on my blog. Act like an adult or take your whiny little ass somewhere else. That sort of behavior isn't welcome here and is part of the reason all comments must be approved. Although, the main reason comments need approval is to avoid spam.)
So much for "anyone can post comments." (Okay, I'll rephrase. Anyone acting like a civilized, respectfully communicative adult can post. Rude, indignant brats can see if their comments get through but should not hold their breath as such behavior is not appreciated or easily tolerated here. There! Feel better?)
You have completely misinterpreted everything I wrote. I never asked you to take your post down-- (Adam wrote: "you might simply want to retract your previous statements and post the text of my comments...") I merely requested that you post my comments because your blog wasn't allowing me to post them myself. (Really? Read your words above!)
I stupidly thought that if you read my comments, you might change your opinion-- I was wrong, and that's perfectly fine, because you obviously have the right to your own opinion. However, in this case, it isn't a matter of opinion, it's a matter of simply reading the TOS. (Which Terms of Service? The old one that I wrote the blog about or the new one which Withoutabox created due to the demand and concern by filmmakers that use the service? The current Terms of Service on Withoutabox is NOT the same Terms of Service that was up and which I initially blogged about. This means that the blog was helpful to and constructive for filmmakers and that it forced Withoutabox to change the Terms of Service to better suit filmmakers. I'm damn proud of this and will not take the blog down. It serves a purpose to remind filmmakers of where Withoutabox is coming from and what Withoutabox is capable of. It is not only Withoutabox. I've had filmmakers tell me Vimeo has the same wording and it has been suggested that YouTube also uses the same wording. I have personally seen the same wording on Prescreen. I know that Sundance did have a little site with some films up - I saw it over a year ago but couldn't find it more recently. The Sundance VOD site said that they owned the films on the site. Maybe you could explain how Sundance came about acquiring the rights to all those films. One of the problems for filmmakers is that if they talk about it then chances are Sundance will never accept another one of their films. Since I am not a filmmaker and not looking for a job in the industry, I can tackle these weighty subjects without concerns that most in the industry might have. I asked you before to see Sundance's contracts with filmmakers. Why haven't you sent it? Do you have something to hide? If not, send it over. I want the opportunity to evaluate it.) (All of the sources that formed the basis of my comments were taken directly from the user agreement that YOU originally posted. (Actually, the source you used was WAB's internal download contract that was recently changed and the source I quoted was the Terms of Service at Log In for Withoutabox which would supersede/blanket the internal download agreement.)

Nobody needs to take my word for it-- it's all written very clearly in your original post. It isn't my fault that you have interpreted it incorrectly. (I have not interpreted it incorrectly. If I had, WAB would have sued me by now! Below is WAB's original TOS which is also posted in my original post. While it is true that nothing is conveyed (which means transferred) it is also true that 'you do grant WAB a nonexclusive, royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, and fully sublicensable right to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, and display any material you submit to WAB, including Content, throughout the world in any media.' which basically gives shared ownership so that the filmmaker would no longer have full and exclusive rights to their own film. Of course, this would water down their potential earning power in the long run while building a huge film library for WAB or any other service acting in such a clandestine manner.)

13. Proprietary rights, limitations on use

Nothing in this TOS conveys to you any rights or ownership in our or any other parties' copyrights, trademarks, patents or trade secrets ("Intellectual Property"). Similarly, we do not acquire any right or ownership in your Intellectual Property when you use our Services. However, you do grant us a nonexclusive, royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, and fully sublicensable right to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, and display any material you submit to us, including Content, throughout the world in any media. You grant us and our sublicensees the right to use the name that you submit in connection with such material. You represent and warrant that you own or otherwise control all of the rights to the materials you submit, including the Content; that these materials are accurate; and that use of these materials does not violate our site's policies and will not cause injury to any person or entity. You grant us the right to copy, retransmit, encrypt or otherwise manipulate your data for the purposes of storing the information on our system, transmitting it across the Internet, securing it, or submitting it to film festivals or other parties as requested by you. Without limiting the foregoing, the Services, the Content, the computer software used in connection with the Service ("Software"), the name, Without A Box," the names of our advertisers, and the information provided by advertisers are proprietary or contain proprietary information that is protected by applicable intellectual property and other laws. Except as expressly authorized by us (or if applicable our advertisers if the content or name belongs to them), you agree not to copy, redistribute, sell, modify, create derivative works from, decompile, or exploit for any commercial purpose, the Services, the Content, the Software or any trademarks, except as specifically provided for in this TOS. You agree not to access the Services by any means other than through the interface that is provided by us for use in accessing the Service. You agree not to publish or post information on our website that is defamatory,libelous, [obscene] or might otherwise be considered unlawful.

If you really believe that the user agreement states that filmmakers are signing away all rights to their work by uploading their film for festival consideration via Withoutabox, then why hasn't this already come into play? Because it's too early. No one has a hold on the VOD market. There is nothing WAB/IMDB/Amazon can do with the films yet accept collect them and build a library. Many distributors are doing the same thing. It would not be strategically adventageous for Withoutabox do something other than gather rights at this point since there is no clear vehicle for profit that actually works. The most adventageous approach currently is to build libraries and so this is what people are doing. The one thing I heard over and over again at the Tribeca Film Festival 2011 (from Harvey Weinstein, Joe Roth and others) is to build a library of films if you want to make money because the more films you have the more you can sell the library for. Joe Roth owns 47 films. Weinstein sold his library for $660 million dollars. It would be foolish for Withoutabox to announce that by using their service you were surrendering your your exclusive rights to your film when instead they could just gather the rights quietly and let you get stuck with the consequences of their actions later... after they've made a bundle off your naivety and mistake! I'm fairly sure Sundance is doing the same thing! Send me your filmmaker contract. I want to see it! I also want to know how recent it is and when the date of the last time it was updated. Here is an article I wrote which includes Harvey Weinstein's take on film libraries and ownership of films: The Grill @ Tribeca Film Festival.)

We received plenty of digital uploads last year that ended up playing the festival-- if what you are saying is true, then why didn't WAB/iMDB/Amazon simply distribute those films themselves without paying any royalties to the filmmakers? (To whom would WAB/iMDB/Amazon have shown these films? There is not truly obtainable audience yet. All they can do is build the library quietly and wait until the time comes when the market is figured out and they can reach the audience. That day has yet to arrive.)

I'll tell you why-- it''s because the agreement doesn't give them the right to do that!! READ IT. I mean REALLY read it. (It's like your lips are moving but nothing making any sense is coming out. Do your homework. Re-read the original post then shut the fuck up!)

I understand that it isn't the most clearly written agreement in the world (Actually, I think it's very clear and straight forward to anyone who takes the time to read it. The problem is that most people don't read Terms of Service on Log In Pages... which is exactly why Withoutabox probably put the contract there. I didn't read it until I started to have problems with Withoutabox, started asking them questions to which I was told that if I didn't like how they did business I could walk. Then, I knew there was a serious problem and I started reading everything. It's not like a person goes into this thinking they are going to get ripped off by the people/corporation they are doing business with...) and I can see how it could be interpreted a certain way at first glance (Really? You really think I just glanced at it? Okie Dokie!), but Withoutabox needs the filmmakers' permission (I addressed viable options to give permission without stealing rights in the previous blog on this topic. Yes, Withoutabox needs permission. No that does not mean Withoutabox needs to steal the rights of filmmakers. Send me your filmmaker contract. I don't trust where you are coming from and want to see it with my own two eyes. Trust me, I won't just glance it over.) to allow a film festival to view the film for consideration. That's all the agreement says (You are simply wrong.).

Your interpretation of it is just incorrect. (No it's not. But let's say it is and Withoutabox wants to fix it. Have their lawyer write up a statement which says that Withoutabox has never, does not and will not ever take any rights of any film from any filmmaker Withoutabox ever does business with and if in any way Withoutabox has ever done this - even unintentionally - then Withoutabox immediately and irrevocably withdrawls claims to those rights, specifically any financial rights without exception. That would clear it up! And, by the way, send me one of those from Sundance while you seem so adamant to address the issue.) I'm not saying that to be judgmental or to make you feel stupid-- I'm just stating the facts. (lol... cute.)

Look, I'm sure you're an awesome person and you truly believe that you're looking out for the best interest of the filmmakers (condescending much?), but I have no reason to speculate or lie about this (actually, you have every reason to lie if Sundance is doing the same thing Withoutabox is doing but doesn't want to catch slack for it. Send me the filmmaker/Sundance contract. I really want to look it over. I'm sure you're an awesome person looking out for filmmakers... but send it anyway, just in case!) -- show the text of the agreement to any lawyer and they will confirm that what I'm saying is true (Oh really? You know this as a fact? Which lawyer did you show it to that is backing up your statement? Or, are you just talking trash?).

My later comments were a result of your indifference to what I was saying. To me, you just didn't seem to care that you were affecting the way people thought, even though what you were saying was completely untrue. (Hey Adam, you may not give a shit about anyone else's schedule but as I told you, I was busy. Don't expect me to drop what I'm doing for you. If I'm busy I'm busy. I owed you nothing and if you contact me then I will get back to you when I have the time, not immediately because you are throwing a little temper tantrum.)

I don't really care what you say at this point, I just hope that you recognize the fact that I am simply trying to provide a more accurate interpretation of what the TOS stated. Yours just isn't correct, and you are doing people a disservice by continuing to stand by it. (I have done and am doing filmmakers a service by helping them to learn the business end of their business and to not take everyone and everything at face value. Over and over I have heard filmmakers say that they are not 'business people'. This is what distributors have told them for years to keep filmmakers out of the loop and to disempower filmmakers. My goal is to bring the power and the money back into the hands of filmmakers. When filmmakers begin to question things that are wrong they begin to make positive change. We are moving into a world where small, independent filmmakers can make real money from their films if they keep their rights. My object is to help them achieve that goal. Your goal seems to be the opposite. I understand that Sundance is basically just a corporation at this point... albeit non-profit, so one must question the motives of Sundance. Just like one must question why Gilmore left and why Redford's last film did not open at Sundance. Send me the Sundance/Filmmaker contract. I want to see it!)

I wish you all the best with anything you're involved with, but I really have to stand by my interpretation of the agreement. (Go for it! And, I'll stand by mine!) Filmmakers aren't giving away any rights by providing a digital upload to us (actually, I saw something that made it look like Withoutabox was now uploading through Google which is not a good can of worms to open and which also means that once again you cannot speak for their policy as it relates to filmmaker's rights, so stop sounding like you have some sort of control or authority in this area when you don't! You are Head of Programming for Sundance, not Legal for Google or Withoutabox. You don't have the authority to speak on their behalf.) -- they just aren't.

I really felt like my comments would make you see that, and that was the only reason I was trying to get you to read and post them (You need to respect that other people don't say 'how high' when you say 'jump'). If you still don't feel that way, then I guess there's nothing more I can do, but I hope you understand that there is no malice involved on my part. (lol... again, cute.)

Hell, I have to get 11,000 films watched, so this is the last thing I want to be taking up my time. If I didn't feel passionate about it, (I don't care about passion. I care about facts and filmmakers.) I wouldn't be sitting here writing to you when I obviously have more important things to do (Actually, if you're in the business of trying to help independent filmmakers then helping to ensure indie filmmakers keep their rights should be top on your priority list as should ensuring the service you use to accept indie films protects said filmmakers.). So all I ask is that you consider that fact-- if I didn't truly believe in what I'm saying, I would have no reason to continue engaging you in the conversation. (Dude, I couldn't care less why you are doing this - although I don't trust your motives, logic or attitude - and I am certainly not about to take your word over what I have read on WAB's log in Terms of Service. It's not personal so what you say is highly irrelevant when it's based on your impression or assertion rather than the terms laid out in Withoutabox's agreement.)

I'm not a "silly man" and I think you were wrong in posting that. (ahhh... that's cute.) We don't have to agree, but I would appreciate a non-biased representation of the facts. (yeah... me, too. Send me Sundance's filmmaker agreements at all stages of acceptance whether it be the submission stage, the festival stage or the distribution stage. I will set plenty of time aside to read them all with my undivided attention.)

I feel like I am being punished because your blog wouldn't allow me to post my thoughts. (Feelings aren't facts. Get over yourself.)
Legend:
Adam Montgomery's writings are in BLACK and once in DARK TEAL.
My writings are in TEAL.
The WAB Terms of Service is in DARK RED.

Sundance Programmer ?s Filmmaker Rights - Pt 3

2011-09-27T19:18:00.000-07:00

Continued from Part 2

What you guys are saying here is simply incorrect! (Based on what facts?) I can see how you are interpreting it that way, but neither WAB or IMDb owns the rights to any video you upload for Festival Submissions purposes.
You're a funny man! You just want filmmakers to take your word for it at face value, because you said so? Really? But wait, you also just said that Sundance wasn't affiliated or associated with WAB... Maybe you just want what you want so you're just telling me whatever you want filmmakers to believe whether or not it is the truth - are you trying to manipulate the situation so you'll get what your desired result no matter the actual situation? That seems more plausible at this point. Are you going to back up your statement in any way shape or form? Or, do we just have to believe it's true because you said so? Your demand that it is correct doesn't make it so. It's better to deal with facts.
I guess it doesn't really matter how you or I would interpret WAB's Terms of Service (TOS). What really matters is how a court of law would interpret it. If a court of law were to give favor to WAB then a filmmaker would lose their rights and WAB (Amazon) would have a tremendous library that they basically scammed from trusting filmmakers. You want that on your shoulders? Are you so sure about your stance? What if you're wrong? If you were wrong, filmmakers would be out the rights of their films. This should be your first concern.
The words in the TOS, of May 3rd, speak for themselves. It's not a matter of interpretation. If WAB is denying what was written in the TOS then they are, once again, just trying to back out of something they shouldn't have done in the first place! I will not be party to such wrong doings nor willingly give you a platform to misinform filmmakers particularly when it seems to be that you blew it with your submission process and now think I should cover for you by taking down a post that directly addresses filmmaker's rights!

When you upload a video through WAB/IMDb for the sole purpose of allowing Festivals to consider that film, you must enter into some sort of rights agreement with them, (I am assuming that you have read the WAB vs Filmmaker post so you know that the quote was quoted from the Terms of Service page, not inside WAB. Why haven't you posted the exact contract here so people can see for themselves what it reads? Wouldn't that be the expedient and informative approach?) otherwise the Festivals you submit to would have no right to view it! (Actually, I believe you just brought up a good point. WAB could have a contract agreement in place that allows the festival the right to view the film while not extending viewing privileges to WAB itself. The 'upload' could go directly to the festival without ever entering into WAB's system. I know for a fact this could easily be set up and that the technology exists. Let's put it this way, the set-up is easy enough that even I could set it up securely. This procedure could help to eliminate any questions as to whether or not WAB was keeping perpetual, royalty-free, non-exclusive rights (etc) of the films. WAB claiming those rights for themselves just so a festival can see a film seems rather extreme, don't you think? In fact, when you send a DVD you are giving the festival permission to screen the film but you are not giving them perpetual, royalty-free, non-exclusive rights which equates to WAB being able to sell your film to anyone, on any site, for any reason without your permission, for life and for a fee that they would then have the right to keep for themselves without sharing said profit with filmmakers!) If you send a DVD to us instead of uploading, these rights are implied (Oh, no they are not! Don't you read these contracts? Do you have any idea what they say? It is spelled out that the person who is sending the film has the legal right to do so either as the filmmaker or by the owner of the film and is giving the festival the right to screen it... essentially.) -- by mailing a DVD to Sundance, you are essentially saying that it's okay for us to watch it. (Adam, come on. Do you have any idea what you are talking about or do you just assume that if you baffle with BS you'll win and I'll take the post down? How are you doing? Does it look like the post is coming down... if you had to... take a guess? Okay, Adam. Before Sundance started using WAB, Sundance had a contract all filmmakers had to sign which allowed Sundance to screen films. Nothing was 'implied'. Everything was written out and clearly stated. Just like how giving away perpetual, non-exclusive, royalty free rights is pretty damn straight forward!)
Just to be clear, who at WAB told you that they (WAB/IMDB/Amazon or any other Amazon entity) keep no rights of any filmmaker during digital downloads and that the filmmaker's rights were still as legally safe and secure as before the filmmaker agreed to WAB's TOS? Name and postition held, please. Specifics are helpful when it comes to clarifications, accountability and legalities and even more relevant if a filmmaker ever needs the information for legal purposes. In fact, you do you it in writing? That would optimal!
Digital uploads work differently-- all of the language that you are referring to is there so that WAB/IMDb can actually get permission from you to act as an intermediary between your film and the Festival(s) you are submitting it to. (Who told you this? Was it someone at WAB? If so, who? Is this your own deduction? No matter the source, you are dead wrong. WAB does not need royalty-free, non-exclusive, perpetual rights to send a film to Sundance or any other festival. Stop talking nonsense. At best, they need the filmmaker's permission to upload the film and be guaranteed the upload goes directly into the festival's inbox without stopping off at WAB along the way. Don't spew crap as though it's fact or has any legitimacy at all. You are harming the integrity of filmmaker's rights when you do that. It is completely irresponsible and unacceptable behavior. Get it together. I expect more from an employee of Sundance.) If they didn't include this language, you could actually sue them for allowing a Festival to view your upload for consideration! (Again, a gross misrepresentation of the facts. Who are you quoted or are these your own deductions?) "Distribution" as it is described here is not the traditional selling of copyrighted work-- it is merely the ability for WAB to distribute your work to Festivals via a secure channel AT YOUR DISCRETION! (If this is an attempt to quote WAB then it is was not successful. Taking one word out of context doesn't nothing to substantiate your position or validate any point you may be trying to make. If you are quoting WAB then you need to actually use and site the source. ie, where did you find the information? Is it the only information pertaining to the rights of filmmakers and their films in connection to their relationship with WAB and all entities associated or affliated with WAB including WAB's parent company, Amazon? Is there a link? Etc.)

By agreeing to these terms, (What terms? Imaginary terms? You have shown no terms that you are referencing? If you have a card, play it! Show your hand.) you are simply saying that it is okay for WAB to store your film and any related information about it on their servers and then provide a secure, private channel that may then be used by a Festival in order to view your film. Those are the ONLY rights that you are granting them! They are pretty clear when they say that they "do not acquire any right or ownership in your Intellectual Property when you use our Services." This means that they CANNOT sell your film via any method. (Again, you need to quote more than one little sentence. You also need to state your source. Honestly, you need to give a lot more detail. And more importantly, it's a mute point. According to the last time I checked which was back when I wrote the May 3rd post, when a person agrees to WAB's Terms of Service on the WAB log-in page that person also agrees with Amazon's broader Terms of Service contracts and agreements per the link on WAB's TOS login page. Have you ever tried to follow that trail. It's ridiculously long and I never did find the end. That being said, I did read all the contracts that linked from one contract to another - until I ran into an page with far too many of them at which point I gave up and had enough information to know that the anything uploaded on an Amazon owned site would have already surrenders rights during the agreement to upload - meaning that in the process of agreeing to those Terms of Service and Terms of Agreements a filmmaker would have lost their rights to anything they might have uploaded onto Amazon or any of its subsidaries or child companies, etc. Like I said, I've been busy so I haven't had the time to check WAB's status since I wrote the May 3rd post, but I wouldn't touch it with a 10 foot pole. I clearly read on WAB's TOS login page that you were also agreeing to other TOS's, for which some links were provided, and the rights would be lost once upload happens according to those pages. Amazon clearly states the TOS covers all their companies. WAB is owned by Amazon. One gets to this Amazon TOS through the TOS log-in page for WAB. Therefore, rights lost. End of story.)

They go on to say that "you grant us the right to copy, retransmit, encrypt or otherwise manipulate your data for the purposes of storing the information on our system, transmitting it across the Internet, securing it, or submitting it to film festivals or other parties as requested by you." This means that they CANNOT transmit your work to any entity unless you specifically request that they do so!! When you accept these terms, all you are agreeing to is that you grant WAB/IMDb the right to store it on their system and allow Festivals to view it ONLY when you want them to. If you don't officially submit the film that you have uploaded to a Festival, no Festival will ever have access to it, nor will any other entity. (Nonetheless, rights are lost at the login as stated above. If you care about this then you should do your homework and check it out. Don't tell me to take my post down. The post is honest, helpful and important information for filmmakers. If it has upset the status quo of deceitfully stealing rights of films then that is fabulous! The goal is that companies like WAB will no longer be able to steal our filmmaker's work and that filmmakers will become educated about scams and low brow tactics being used to relinquish them of their rights. If protecting the integrity of filmmaker's rights is not your goal, then we aren't on the same team. Personally, I haven't read Sundance's agreements related to online works. Why don't you send me a copy. I'd love to read it for shorts, features, films put into Sundance theatrical distribution, as well as films screened online both during the festival and after. Does Sundance keep the rights of these films? If so, for how long? Are you showing them for free? If so, are you still making a profit? If so, are you sharing this with the filmmakers? If so, during the fest, only after the fest has ended or never? Just curious where Sundance stands with all this. Glad you stopped by. You're bringing up a lot of great questions!)

This is all pretty clear if you really read the full text of Section 13 that was included in the original post. Withoutabox and IMDb have no interest in snatching away the rights to your film from under you (I'm not a filmmaker. I have nothing at stake here. I just want filmmakers to be the one's to make the money from their films and not get ripped off in the process. I don't care how it's always been. It's time to protect independent filmmakers and to create systems and safeguards which ensure they are the ones who profit from their creations. It's a new world out there and it is time to bring the power back to the people.) -- I'm sure it's a lot more interesting and dramatic to think that there is some sort of conspiracy going on here that is intended to rape independent filmmakers everywhere, but this is simply not true!! (You choose to use the descriptive word 'rape' instead of 'ravage' when speaking to a woman. Really? Hmmm. Actually, you're being quite foolish here. The issue of online sites steal the rights of filmmakers has come to my attention because it has been happening, it is happening and honestly, if you are saying otherwise you are oddly naive or perhaps just incredibly condescending and would say anything to get me to take the post down so you don't need to fix whatever mess up you seem to be responsible for. A couple years ago, filmmakers were telling me they had no choice and all online sites had 'non-exclusive' deals. Look how far we've come. Filmmakers now know they have a choice and the tide has begun to turn in their favor. It is important companies are accountable for their actions and that filmmakers are aware of all transactions they are involved in which have to do with their film rights.)

I am not going to sit here and say that Withoutabox is perfect-- they are a business that is owned by a larger business (IMDb), which is in-turn owned by an even larger corporation (Amazon.com). Like any smart, for-profit entity, they are trying to make money just like all the rest of them, and they might not always have the best interest of filmmakers in mind, but I can assure you that they are NOT trying screw anyone over or steal their work! (Fine, assure me. How exactly are you going to do that? Face value? Or something a little more concrete. I have had many personal dealing with WAB. I know how they do business. I know what they are willing to do and not do. I know that it's common practice for them to remove something from their site if it comes into question then play it off like it was never there once they get caught in the act. I know that one of our festivals made its money in Euros but WAB refused to pay the US equivalent. Instead only paying dollar for dollar which would have made the festival lose a lot of money that was not WAB's to keep. WAB's response was, if you don't like it you can walk away. We didn't like it, we demanded they pay what was legally due to the festival and we have not done business with them since. Sometimes the best way to learn how a business handles its dealings is by doing business with them. WAB may very likely treat a large festival, like Sundance, differently than it might a smaller festival. This could bring imbalance to the entire festival circuit if some fests are promoted favorably by WAB while others are intentionally held back by practices WAB prefers to do in a clandestine manner. It's not the sort of thing a person might even suspect initially and one might presume that those who complain about it are apt to get squashed by WAB. That is not how the reason a festival should faulter nor should WAB, or any other submission service, hold s
Have you read WAB's privacy policy for festivals? Maybe you should. They have every right to share any information in a festival's account with anyone they so choose - or at least that was how it was written the last time I checked. Read the festival agreement. Did you really think this was just about filmmakers? Do you really want WAB to have the power to share Sundance's film submission info whether or not they would actually use that power? I would think such privacy would be extremely important to a festival like Sundance. When asked about it WAB basically said in a blanket letter, if you don't like it you can leave. Okay, maybe Sundance is exempt for now... but most festivals aren't. And even so, do you really want WAB to have the power to share Sundance's submission info? Is that really a solid business strategy?) Think what you want about Withoutabox, but if they didn't exist, hundreds of Film Festivals in the United States would simply die, leaving even fewer channels available for independent filmmakers to display the results of their blood, sweat and tears. That is a FACT. (Actually, glad you brought it up. I met with Chris Hyams in the Cannes Film Festival a couple years back. I was looking for a WAB alternative and had heard rumor he might have something. Apparently he did and after announcing that it was going to go live Christian Gaines contacted him and informed him that he would never get from under the courts and lawyers if he tried to compete. Hyams backed off. The system still exists and is now in the hands of the company that bought his technology platform, Slated. To my knowledge Slated has done nothing with it. Honestly, WAB needs competition. They have the power to open the flood gates for one festival while shutting them on another. I have experienced this firsthand and have record of it. It's quite easy to identify the patterns particularly when mixed with the corresponding emails. I've heard that WAB charges a festival 18% commission on each film submission. Seems like $5 per submission should be plenty. Did they forget that these festivals need the money? Remember, most of these festivals aren't Sundance and don't have hordes of submissions and sponsors coming in, so every penny counts. But, thanks for your input. It's always nice to chat about such an interesting topic.)
I have been contacted by a few filmmakers who have read this post and are now under the impression that WAB will steal their work if they submit to us, but I am here to tell you that this is absolutely misguided and misinformed. (Who are you to tell me anything? Under what authority? Did I ask for your opinion? I'm not even sure you can find your head from your... I'm anything but impressed with how you've gone about contacting me. You're like a little boy throwing a tantrum because he's not getting his way. Not my problem. Go to your room.) All you are doing here is preventing filmmakers from submitting their work (Are you saying Sundance doesn't have a submission process without my involvement? Really? Seems like you should have your ducks in a row better than that. All kidding aside, Sundance should always have a system set up that allows filmmakers to safely and securely submit their films to the festival and it sounds like you are saying that as part of your job you forgot to set this up, Mr. Programmer Dude.
The reality is that WAB has a system in place so that filmmakers can submit either by uploading or via mail. If a filmmaker feels the safer choice is to submit by snail mail than you should have that option set up for them. I understand yesterday was Sundance's last day of accepting submissions but if they had the envelope in the mail by yesterday's date - per the postmark - it seems you should take it even if Sundance's policy is that the submission must be at your office by yesterday because if you're throwing a tizzy fit on the last day of submission in my direction then you're looking for a scape goat because you messed up and don't want to take responsibility for your actions.), which will only serve to make it even more difficult for them to ever make their money back on the works that they have created. (Fear tactics. Really? You must be desperate... and you're also wrong!) If they don't submit, we won't play it, and that's one less place that their work will be seen and potentially purchased for distribution. (Oh, wow! So, if they do submit, you will play their film? Promise? Damn. Nice odds. The reality is that most distribution deals often aren't worth the paper they are written on. Do you really want to address that now or can we wait until the next time you message me repeatedly when I'm busy!)
15 hours ago
Christine Scott
Post it in segments.
And yes, FilmFestJunkie is most certainly my blog. Everyone knows it. I'm proud of it! I don't broadcast it because I'm a rather low-profile person that isn't looking for recognition but is interested in making sure filmmakers have a level playing field.
15 hours ago
Adam Montgomery
Have you read my comments? If you agree with my interpretation, you might simply want to retract your previous statements and post the text of my comments in a new blog post. Entirely up to you-- I could also try to post it in segments if you'd prefer.
14 hours ago
Christine Scott
lol no, I haven't read it. I'm busy. Anyone is allowed to post. I have nothing to retract.
14 hours ago
Adam Montgomery
Wow, the irresponsibility of your post kind of floors me... (ditto!) I have no reason to defend Withoutabox, but what you wrote is just misinformed and outright untrue... even worse, there are people out there who actually believe it. You should do your research before you spread such blatant untruths-- there are people who have decided not to submit their films because of your interpretation of that text (Actually, they decided not to upload. They would still be able to submit via snail mail. Unless, you are saying Sundance is only taking films via upload this year? In which case, I would say that is very irresponsible on your part not to give filmmakers a safe alternative and to demand they be subjected to potential loss of rights particularly since you are in the business and have an obligation to be aware of such things.) (it actually feels like you didn't even read it before you jumped to such ridiculous conclusions), which will do nothing except hurt their chances of ever seeing any sort of distribution for the films that they worked so hard to make. "lol" indeed. (BS, very few films ever get into Sundance and very few of those get distribution, and even fewer ever receive distribution worth having. Filmmakers can always submit via snail mail unless you refused them that option, in which case you totally blew it.)
13 hours ago
Christine Scott
I don't have time to read your post above... I read the first sentence and I'm not interested in you badgering me. If you have a post then post it. If you're here to bully me and 'put me in my place', I'm not impressed or influenced.

If you're not willing to say what you have to say in public and ONLY want me to delete what I've said than I think I've posted something that should remain up. I'll read your post once you have posted it.

I'm busy and don't have time for this nonsense. Stop giving me your grief. Act like an adult and post your damn comment!
13 hours ago
Adam Montgomery
I'm not badgering you. Just trying to help clean up your mess (I'm fully capable of cleaning up my own messes and I'm not looking for help. Don't presume yourself to have such a broad ranging scope in my life. I have made no mess. I am utterly pleased that filmmakers are beginning to realize the problem and are beginning to take charge of their own financial destiny.), but it won't let me post comments. Sorry to waste your time. If you don't have time to read what I wrote, then you probably don't care all that much about being truthful anyway, so I won't waste any more of your time. You say you don't have anything to retract, which is a clear indication that you are more interested in claiming to be right than you are in letting people know the truth. It's just irresponsible, that's all. You are hurting filmmakers by not taking any action, but you're "busy" so I guess it doesn't matter. (Listen, young man, what I do on my time is none of your business and for you to presume that your 'mess up' is more important than whatever it is I am attending to is simply selfish, childish and utterly out-of-line. I stand by my post and can back up my facts which is more than can be said for you.
Sundance has always been a wonderful and important festival both within the United States and in how it has influenced independent film around the world. Maybe from your error, this can be a lesson to other festivals to always remember that it is absolutely essential each and every filmmaker have a safe option for submitting their film. All contracts and Terms of Service agreements should be there to protect the rights of the filmmakers and to help them in their endeavors, never to underhandedly or deceptively steal their rights. With the world economy in such upheaval it is more crucial now than ever before that we ensure money goes back to those that deserve it, have earned it and can then bring it back into their communities. We need to empower our filmmakers... not greedy middlemen and careless corporations whether they be for profit or not-for-profit!)
11 hours ago
Christine Scott
I am not going to read your messages to me here. If you have something to say about an article, then make a comment and share your thoughts. That's the point of comment option. This is a public matter that effects filmmakers. If you're hiding behind closed doors, so to speak, then I don't trust your motivates. Post your comments and, please, stop sending me messages. As I told you, I'm busy and this is not the place for that sort of thing. Responding on the blog about the blog you have a problem with would be very appropriate. I trust that people are coming from an open and honest place when they are willing to post there, not when they tell me to take down a post here.
Note to reader: Okay, so in the end, I found the time to read Adam's messages and to respond. I truly am quite busy these days so I'm grateful for the opportunity to once again address this very essential topic. I'm passionate about ensuring filmmakers learn enough about the business end to keep their rights and make their money. If these posts help to achieve that end, fabulous! And, clearly, at least to some degree our independent filmmakers from around the world are beginning to take control of their own financial destiny!

To Independent Filmmakers: May passion and fortune always be yours, my beloved filmmakers, and may you, in turn, continue to share your stories with us... your audience!

One final observation, Robert Redford's highly acclaimed latest film, "The Conspirator" opened at the Toronto Film Festival, not Sundance.

Sundance Programmer ?s Filmmaker Rights - Pt 2

2011-09-27T19:01:00.000-07:00

Continued from Part 1

Below please find the email communications between Adam and myself from yesterday, including his comments he requested I post on his behalf.

Legend: My notations, below, will be made in italics in this color (teal?). Adam's original messages as well as my initial responses will remain in black ink. My introduction and conclusion will also be in teal, but not in italics.

15 hours ago
Adam Montgomery
Christine-- I have been referred to your blog post from May 3rd by a couple of filmmakers, and I have been trying to post a (rather long) comment about it, but I haven't been able to do so. Could I possibly send it to you to post?
15 hours ago
Christine Scott
Absolutely! Is this a FB post you are referring to? If not, please send the link.
15 hours ago
Adam Montgomery
I am referring to the following post, which I believe was on your blog (if that's not the case, let me know):

http://filmfestjunkie.blogspot.com/2011/05/if-you-use-withoutabox-wab-you-have.html

Obviously, this is your blog, and if you don't agree with me then you are under no obligation to disperse it, but I STRONGLY disagree with the original statements and I feel strongly about ensuring that filmmakers are not misled by the information. (Cool! Me, too!) I guess that, in a perfect world, it would be great if you could edit your post with my comments attached, but I would prefer not to post them directly on Facebook for personal reasons. I will send you the text of the comment I was trying to post-- I think that it won't let me because it's too long.
Attachment Unavailable
The attachment source was deleted or the privacy settings on this attachment do not allow you to view it.
15 hours ago
Adam Montgomery
Here are my comments-- I am open to any questions or thoughts you might have:

I know that I am coming into this thread late, but I felt compelled to comment on this. I am the Manager of Programming for the Sundance Institute, which means that I run the entire submissions process for the Sundance Film Festival, all of which goes through Withoutabox. I am not associated or affiliated with WAB in any other way.
While you may claim not be associated or affiliated with WAB many at WAB are close with many at Sundance. John Cooper, for instance, is chummy with Christian Gaines who runs IMDB, if I am not mistaken. You remember Gaines, he ran the AFI Film Festival - some would say he ran the AFI Film Festival into the ground abruptly leaving for greener pastures moments before the near fatal demise of the long-running, incredibly prestigious festival. Under his leadership of either his last year or one of his last year's there, the AFI Film Festival's centerpiece film was snagged by another festival which completely left AFI hanging without enough time to replace it. BTW, the film premiered at AFI Dallas. The incident received plenty of press. No blame to AFI Dallas, it's a cut throat business and if you can get a premiere and you're smart, you run with it!

Don't be confused by the name. There was no direct connection between the two festivals, as I understand it. The Dallas fest leased the name from AFI which helped the newer festival build a reputation. The festival has now relinquished paying those fees and is doing quite well on its own. It was after Gaines joined WAB and, if I'm not mistaken, after Cooper took over at Sundance that Sundance began using WAB exclusively discontinuing the practice of allowing filmmakers to submit directly to Sundance. (Perhaps that's where your problem lies? Perhaps you should have continued to allow filmmakers ) So, as you can see, while you may not work for WAB there certainly does seem to be an 'affiliation' or 'association' firmly in place!

Continue to Part 3

Sundance Programmer ?s Filmmaker Rights - Pt 1

2011-09-27T01:34:00.000-07:00

Adam Montgomery was not someone with whom I was familiar until yesterday afternoon (although it appears we have been Facebook friends for a while) when I received multiple (6) emails in effect demanding that I take down the WAB vs. Filmmaker's Rights post which was put up to warn filmmakers that they might put their film rights in jeopardy if they agree to the withoutabox (WAB) Terms of Service Agreement, which was in effect at the time the May 3rd post was created, and that they should be cautious and aware before signing any Terms of Service agreements.

I explained to Adam that I was busy and didn't have time to read his messages but that the comment box on the post in question would be the best place to share his thoughts. He became more and more agitated that I would refuse to drop everything and focus on his issues.

When I'm busy, I'm busy. I say so and get back to work. Bullying me and getting nasty isn't going to endure my cooperation or change my schedule.

In the end, it seems his goal was to only bully me into taking the post down rather than to post his thoughts publicly so that filmmakers would know where he stands on the issue. I'm rather unimpressed with Adam Montgomery, Manager of Programming for the Sundance Film Festival. I would expect more professionalism from someone conducting festival business.

Honestly, I don't trust people who will only talk in private about such public matters that affect so many people. It's usually a sign that their actions aren't quite as straight forward as they might have one believe.

It turns out that Sundance's Submission deadline was Sept 26th. The same exact date Adam was going bonkers on me. What a coincidence. All of a sudden it seemed a lot more likely that Adam dropped the ball and decided that if only I would take down the post he could somehow miraculously fix his problem - not the problem of filmmakers and protecting their rights - just his immediate problem, whatever that may be.

Of course, every filmmaker has had the opportunity to submit to Sundance through snail mail or whatever back up system Sundance put in place to secure that indie filmmakers could submit online directly to Sundance... actually, I'm guessing Sundance had no backup plan to protect filmmakers and so Adam's quick fix was for me to take down the post. Is 'Screw the Filmmaker if it makes Adam's life easier!' his motto? I don't know but it's not my motto.

I believe all packages have to be received by a certain deadline with Sundance. Did Adam blow it and not give filmmakers the right date for the postmark? Honestly, I don't know but I'm guessing that I'm fairly close to what his real motives were and caring about filmmakers keeping their rights sure didn't seem to be one of them. If Adam made a mistake then he should fix it on his end to make it fair for those filmmakers who would otherwise suffer from his error.

This actually brings up an interesting question about rights and films that Sundance screens online. Does anyone know what the rights agreement is between Sundance and filmmakers? Please read all Terms of Service and Terms of Agreements before you sign anything particularly when it comes to something as vitally important as ownership of your film.

Basically, you want to keep your rights. You don't want to give away your exclusive rights unknowingly to any entity even if those rights are non-exclusive, because that means the entity you signed your rights away to will always have a piece of your film and profits which essentially decreased the overall value of your film since exclusive rights would no longer be available.

Watch out for the term 'royalty-free'. Actually, just read the WAB vs Filmmaker's Rights post for the specifics. It's up for reason. Filmmakers need to know where they stand and if they could lose their rights. It's okay to choose to give up your rights, as long as it is a choice and not taken from you without your knowledge.

I've been quite disenchanted with Sundance's new direction since Geoff Gilmore left. John Cooper has openly slighted Robert Redford's philosophy (on how things should change every 5 minutes or something to that effect) during a panel at the Cannes Film Festival. An unforgivable arrogance particularly since Cooper only has his job as a direct result of Redford's dream coming to fruition. In fact, if I'm not mistaken Redford's Sundance has employed Cooper for nearly two decades. You'd think Cooper would have a little more gratitude and respect for those who have given him so much.

A dream to share independent American film with broader audiences: Redford has been ever so successful in achieving his goal. For Cooper to be only just into his position (at the time) and already talking such trash spoke quite poorly of the overall respect Cooper has for the festival, the meaning of it and it's long term direction.

As I see it, Cooper likes whistles and bells, things that are shiny and sparkle. He's caught up in the hoopla and couldn't give a hoot about indie filmmakers just crowds and profits - both are important as long as they are for the independent filmmaker not at the expense of the independent filmmaker. I suppose with that governing attitude prevalent, it's not surprising that Montgomery would rather bully me into taking down the post than fix whatever problem it was he created on his end. Perhaps he's not ready for things to change every 5 minutes...

Continue to Part 2

Always Label Your DVDs

2011-06-15T15:09:00.000-07:00

It is important to always label your DVDs before you send them to a film festival. Why? Because if there is no information on the DVD then it will not be easy to identify if it because separated from the paperwork.

While DVD labeling is obvious to many, it is not always apparent to a newer filmmaker.

Here are some things to write on the actual DVD:

1. Name of the Film
2. Email address (phone number, if it fits and if you are so inclined)
3. Runtime

Other options if there is space on the actual DVD:
4. Country
5. Genre

Labeling your DVD with a Sharpie Pen is the best option. Just write clearly. This way, when someone opens your package they can see the name of the project right and runtime right there on the DVD whether or not they choose to read the attached paperwork first.

It is always better to be safe then sorry. Programmers are a busy, overworked and underpaid group of people. Don't put them in a situation where they need to figure out who's DVD it is and how to contact the person. Make it as easy and convenient for them to watch your film, know the name of it, how long it is and how to contact you!

Best of luck with your submissions!

Don't Be a Film Snob - Think Inclusion, Not Exclusion

2011-05-18T16:00:00.000-07:00

Earlier today, I was speaking with someone who works at a film society. The lady informed me that their programmers weren't teenagers looking at a computer screen but rather adults who sat in movie theaters while programming. Her elitist, rather ignorant comment hit several nerves with me.

1. Does she really think we (the industry, society, film festivals, film societies) want to exclude well-informed teens from the process of sharing indie films with larger audiences? Wouldn't we be better off ensuring that we reach the younger audiences. Who is more in tune with the teen audience - a 35-50 year-old or a teenager? Equate it to this, older people prefer phones or emails. Younger people prefer to text. You may tell them your way is better but it doesn't mean they'll believe you or start doing it your way. It is important to include teens in the conversation of independent film - from beginning to end. As a result, we will all benefit.

2. Did this lady really think most programmers watch the films on the big screen rather than on their computers at home or at the office? (In case you don't know, the majority of programmers watch films on small screens whether it be a TV or computer.)

What's Wrong With Elitism?

The main problem with this small-minded, narrow and elitist attitude is that the festival circuit losing the younger audiences and excluding them from the process is not going to improve this situation. Most festival goers are at least 35 years old. So, yes, many programmers are reaching their own demographic but the industry needs to embrace younger generations if they plan on gaining a younger crowd and hence survive. A middle-aged programmer is most likely not going to get the same out of a film that a teen might. Why would anyone condemn teen participation on any level rather than wanting that demographic represented and embraced? It is foolishly short-sighted and incredibly harmful to the longevity of our industry.

Snobby elitists are by definition some of the most narrow-minded, exclusionary people without reason generally basing their actions and reactions of fear and a lack of self-worth rather than any real basis for their holier-than-though attitudes. Quite unfortunately, there are a ton of these misguided souls in the independent film world. Thankfully, there are also a lot of well-rounded, respectful film lovers who wish to create and share indie films with the masses.

Where the Future Leads

The snob mentality is the past and on it's way out. There are too many people around the world feeling the pains of financial strain to carry on such high-falootin' airs... yet people of all backgrounds tend to be very creative. The industry can't sustain the damage that the snob mindset is doing to itself. Rather, it needs forward thinking equalists who are less concerned with appearance and attitude than they are with substance and quality of films. Arnold and Maria are a great example of a facade that way too many people - including themselves - bought into. (Side note: When indie filmmakers can begin to profit off their own work rather than continue to surrender their films to greedy middlemen much of this arrogance will be a thing of the past.)

If we don't embrace the Y Generation then the they won't embrace the independent film world either. We want the youth to be involved in expressing their voices freely and articulately in the medium of film whether they be programmers or filmmakers. We want them informed, curious and participatory. If we do not offer this opportunity to them then we will most likely hurt the industry as a whole. Maybe teens turn to video games instead of films because what is offered to them on a mass basis is generally lowball crap whereas video games actually stimulate and intrigue them. To disrespect the need and value of the Y Generation is fool-hearted at best and down right negligent as an industry.

Walking the Talk

My teen daughter knows more about film then most people her age or not. No, she doesn't know everything, but who does? She is better qualified then a lot of programmers and has a more practical and educational film background then many when it comes to choosing films. She programmed films like FIX starring Olivia Wilde before she was famous and HOW TO BE starring the then-unknown Robert Pattinson. There are a lot of films out there that older programmers aren't interested in and don't 'get' but her generation would love if we'd give them the chance to see them. She fought hard to get both FIX and HOW TO BE in the festival. Her choices were solid. She stood by them and as a festival we benefited from her input. Neither film would have been in the festival if it was not for that then 15 -16 year old. HOW TO BE won Best Actor in 2008. FIX won Best Film in 2009. Both films were packed. As a global society we are dead wrong to discount the importance, knowledge, input or intelligence of our youth. How can we raise productive members of society without allowing them to learn and be part of the process. This teenager has always been the festival's most dedicated and enthusiastic supporter of documentary films. Age matters less than sensibilities.

Inclusion Not Elitism

Including our youth is essential to the film industry. The lack of interest in films by our youth is evidence of this fact! It's interesting how people who work for companies with more expensive equipment or more money think that anything less should be treated with disdain. We call d'em folks 'Snobs'! Unfortunately, this unwielded ignorance that runs rampant in the film industry does nothing but keep indie filmmakers oppressed by under-educated, culturally-lacking, conservatism.

Ignorance is Bliss

The lady on the other end of the line also proclaimed that independent filmmakers need public relations representatives to help get their films out seen. How ignorantly snobby and insensitive can someone be? Is she indirectly saying that if someone can't afford a PR person they don't deserve to get their film seen because anyone who is anyone would, of course, be repped! Grrrrr. I guess this goes along with her theory that programmers with 24/7 access to movie screens are better than programmers who watch films on their computers or TVs? I personally wouldn't mind if a programmer was sitting on the pot taking a two hour dump while watching a film on an iPhone as long as the person was qualified, open-minded, could hear and see the screen fine and had the same interests as the festival.

Okay, let's examine the PR statement from a rational, realistic and informed viewpoint. Most independent filmmakers are broke spending every cent and more on the production of on their films which 999 times out of 1000 will never earn a profit. Now their work should be discarded and not considered relevant because the filmmaker doesn't have the means to hire a PR person? What about the filmmaker from North Carolina, Macedonia or Bolivia? Should we just discard these films because they aren't well-represented? This is why countries like France, Germany and Norway get their smaller films screened. These countries have the money to take the films to festivals and spend on PR. Maybe that's why the majority of films screened through this particular film society are already on the festival circuit and have momentum behind them.

Obligation and Opportunity to Serve the Independent Film World

Film Societies have the opportunity, if not responsibility, to bring new and retrospective works to local audiences. To coast on one's laurels by picking previously viewed, tried and true films from franchises (specifically speaking of governmentally sponsored film commissions) which programmers pick up at the largest of festivals might save them the time of actually seeking out new works and might make their peacock feathers ruffle but also does an absolute disservice to the independent film world. Maybe serving the independent film world is not their job. Maybe it's not their concern. But then, hey, maybe they shouldn't mock it because some of us really do give a shit!

Netflix's Paltry Payout to Indie Filmmakers

Use Withoutabox.com and Lost Content (film) Rights

People in Power Need People Like You

Netflix's Paltry Payout to Indie Filmmakers

2011-05-09T13:02:00.000-07:00

Quite unfortunately, Netflix has been the best option around for many independent filmmakers albeit difficult to get onto if possible at all.

Netflix has a built-in audience so the chance of getting your film seen via this online option is more likely then a site like Amazon which, in effect, is a needle in a haystack scenario for indie films.

Repeatedly, we watch independent filmmakers pushing so hard to get onto Netflix you can feel the labor pains... but to what avail?

From what I've read Netflix buys dvds from indie filmmakers in lots of 100 and pays anywhere from $4-16 per dvd. I have not heard any numbers of what Netflix pays for streaming. If you have please comment and let us know. Knowledge is power. Let's get independent filmmakers educated about the facts of the game so they know whether or not it is the right game (ie. distribution option) for them.

Back to the numbers. If Netflix pays a filmmaker $4 per dvd at 100 dvds per pop, the filmmaker has only made a paltry $400 for the feature film. On the high end, Netflix is willing to pay $1600. If you've heard higher numbers for independent film payouts through Netflix please let us know. We'd all like to know that the numbers are much higher than a measly $400-1600 for all the hard work that goes into making a film.

These incredibly low standards and self-imposed expectations are why filmmakers sing to the chorus of "It's not about the money, it's about getting your film seen." and "Don't expect to making a living off your work." Dumb songs if you ask me. It's time we start hearing filmmakers singing to the chorus of "I'm living off the profits of my film." and "I made enough from my last film to support me and I'm working on my next project." and how about "I love my career and the life it affords me." and "It's great to share my work with so many and make a living from it."

Netflix is not a winning scenario for filmmaker. Just wait. Better is right around the corner. Netflix helps themselves, not indie filmmakers (not even studios or the industry, as a whole, for that matter). Don't be in a hurry to sell yourself short.

Oh... and if Netflix reorders an independent film from the distributor they'll just buy replacements because the dvds that were in stock were damaged or destroyed. That's really all Netflix has to offer independent filmmakers and quite honestly, it's not worth it.

Be patient. Better is coming. Don't be in such a hurry to get rid of your rights. You can move forward with your next project with or without giving up the rights to your film or selling yourself short. So hold tight, trust and allow yourself the possibility to earn a reasonable living off your work in the future. The times are changing. Be part of the change in a positive way that will monetarily benefit you and your future.

Let's say you decide the $400-$1600 is worth it. Did you figure in the cost of the distributor, the dvds, shipping? Really? If that's the best the industry has to offer you're too good for it, deserve better and should hold out for better. It's coming. I promise you. Do not sell yourself short. Demand and wait for better. Good movies are always good. Those companies snagging your films as they tell you the films aren't worth anything understand how valuable your work it. You should, too! Stop listening to thieves if you don't want to get ripped off!

Use Withoutabox.com and Lose Rights to Uploaded Content (Films)

People in Power Need People Like You

"People in Power Need People Like You (Indie Filmmakers)

2011-05-06T12:17:00.000-07:00

Charlie Rose and Joe Roth at 2011 Tribeca Film Festival

Brian Grazer once called Joe Roth‘the last mogul’. I would assume that was before Harvey Weinstein was firmly planted in the sandbox.

Roth discussed a bit of his work history such as how he would hire good people and how he set up a system where he could make 5 films a year to sell to Sony - films like Blackhawk Down. This process went on. He increased his numbers and eventually got so big that Sony resented his presence.

Roth owns his films - 47 of them.

If you are an independent filmmaker it is very important to note that both Joe Roth and Harvey Weinstein saw fit to keep ownership of their work. Both of these filmmakers are very well established and powerful. They own their libraries of films. They own their films. How about you? What are you doing with your library. Your films. Your future. Your legacy. Are you giving it away for free or protecting it, holding onto it until the day you can profit from it? Keep your rights. It is not the number of hits on YouTube that will make you wealthy. It is creating an income for yourself from the ownership of your library. You worked to create it. Keep it! It is valuable.

Over the course of time, Roth has slowed down a bit making far fewer films than in previous years. He prefers his lifestyle now. He even took a little hiatus to coach soccer. Who knew? He attributes some of his success to his street smarts and sensibilities. He is a ‘content person, not a traditional business person’. Unlike when Roth started out, now there is an ability to make films inexpensively.

When reading a script, he looks for ‘absolutely nothing’. He has ‘no expectations’ and ‘does not judge’ the work until after he finishes it... just like watching a movie. He reads scripts in about the same amount of time that it takes a person to watch a film. This was something he taught himself early on. He reads about 300 scripts per year and only critiques it after he has finished reading it. He looks for something that hits a ‘primal nerve’.

Roth states that ‘People in power need people like you more than (we) need him’. Studios are desperate for you to be good or the system fails!(Note: That is why you never need to worry about the competition.)

Rose inquires, “What does a producer do?” Roth says that in the best of worlds a producer is the first man in and the last man out. The producer gets the money, talent, marketing plan and hopefully the film he wanted.

Roth has directed six films. He wanted to be a better director but had to look in the mirror and admit that he is a better producer. He’s better at business than the creative part. He wasn’t bursting at the seams with ideas unlike many of the directors he works with. He decided to stick with what he is good at.

Roth notes that a lot of the middle has dropped out. He believes that cutting out the middleman is good allowing for more control.

Roth believes that studios should buy theatres. He admits he is alone on this but feels it would allow the film creators more control over distribution and the process of bringing a film to an audience. He feels that a film lives or dies in the first 30 days but that some films need time to develop and leaving the run of a film in the hands of people who care about popcorn sales isn’t the best for a film. He elaborates that putting billions of dollars into films and having no control over distribution equates to bad business.

Currently, it is illegal for studios to own theaters. I believe the reason was so that studios could not control (and perhaps manipulate and promote propaganda) what audiences see, think and feel. It used to be the case that media could not be owned by corporations on the scale they are now. We used to have many independent radio stations and freer TV. With fewer companies ruling the media world Americans have less opinions and hear fewer viewpoints and the industry becomes narrowed and more controlled in almost a heavy handed manner by corporations... and at this point, political parties (or, again, the corporations behind them).

Roth feels that Premium VOD is a positive transition and that people want to see what they want, where they want and when they want to see it. 95% of a movie’s gross is achieved in the first 30 days in a theatre. VOD increases flexibility. Currently there is a hold time of about 8 weeks before films are released on DVD. This creates a 4 week window when the film is not available at all except through piracy. Premium VOD could close that gap.

Roth observes that the ‘history of movies is additive’ and therefore VOD is just another addition to history. The industry has always reacted with ‘We’re dead’ when change comes - such was the case with TV, VCR, DVD and such is the case now with the internet.

Moving onto what Roth is doing now he says, “The movies I’m doing now are in the public domain so they’re all free. To develop material doesn’t cost me anything.” This allows him strong leverage and no loss.

Charlie Rose asks, “It’s hard to create anything, so why are there so many bad movies?”

Roth explains that it is a numbers thing. You start off with your first choice director but can end up with your ninth choice. There is often compromise all the way through... with the script, the actors, etc. Things get watered down in the process. Roth says that while driving to a preview undoubtedly the chicken comes to roost. He says he’s usually right in knowing what the audience reaction will be, that out of about 300 films only once was he wrong.

Charlie Rose asked, “Is it art?”

Roth says that ‘there are some artists. Who am I to judge?” and that ‘movies are not linear. You do not have to enjoy all of it.’ You can like a film but not be crazy about the ending, or the supporting actor, etc.

Questions from the Peanut Gallery

PG: Can you talk a little about post ‘08 financing?

JR: There is a gigantic worldwide audience for art films - Black Swan, King’s Speech - King’s Speech cost something like $13-14 million to make and will bring in $200 million worldwide

Note: Listen to the experts. Harvey Weinstein basically says the same thing. In fact, Weinstein claims that 2011 will be his best year, financially, ever.

JR: Discusses how ‘A Boy’s Life’ was shot down by pre-marketing but ended up doing fine. Therefore he doesn’t believe in pre-marketing. Oh, ‘A Boy’s Life’ changed names and became known as ‘ET’.

(Note: Couldn’t hear many of the questions... hence, answers only.)

JR: Studios aren’t interested in docs.

PG: Brand Entertainment

JR: “Anything you have to do makes it a harder sell”

JR: “Romantic comedy is hard - where do you go - everything has been done.”

(Note: Harvey Weinstein just purchased the romantic comedy “The Submarine” at Toronto IFF. I’ve seen a lot of really adorable independent romantic comedies over the past few years. It’s not that it is not being done. It is more that Hollywood just isn’t doing it.)

PG: Are new directors worth taking a risk on?

JR: You can help people who don’t have everything. If he’s bad at post there are people who can help in that area, etc.

JR: Use private investors and studios. Venture capital in Silicone Valley has always stayed away from movies. Digital distribution has brought Silicone Valley into the picture. (Which shows the potential power and force the online industry will be.)

JR: Most important thing for a producer to learn is how to read scripts. Roth worked as a reader in the early years. That is where he learned how to read scripts. He expects them to be formatted properly and the appropriate number of pages.

JR: Video games and movies are different businesses.

JR: Too dumb to quit.

--------------------------------------------------

So the question begs, why did the Hollywood Reporter mainly mention how Roth feels studios should own theaters instead of how important good material is and how people in power need the indie filmmaker.

The reason is probably multi-faceted starting with time-crunched, over-worked under-paid writers who have to grab headlines that their boss will approve of and the need to fit an article into a certain number of words mixed with the complete lack and disrespect we show for artists and culture as a whole and the movement over the past few decades to dumb down films as if it were a gnarly game of limbo.

Why theaters instead of how the people in power need indie filmmakers? Theaters have big budgets that buy ad space. Indie filmmakers don’t have a pot to piss in. Perhaps in part because they are constantly relegated to the sidelines by middlemen like news media and distributors. News media can’t make a living off independent filmmakers while it is simply not in a distributor’s interest to inform and empower a filmmaker when they can just snag the film instead.

It’s the power of persuasion. Here is today’s typical scenerio.
1)Tell a filmmaker his work is worthless.
2)Get a better deal.
3)Run off with the profits.
4)Have the filmmaker grovel back the next time he makes a film.
5)Continue to steal his library while he begs you to do it.
6)Rinse and repeat.

Word to the wise. Once you realize you were a victim you no longer are. At the point of understanding you become a willing participant. So, if you want to slave away on a film putting your heart, money, soul and time into it to give to someone else blindlessly... well, I say, ‘Go for it!’. It’s a choice. A fool and his money will soon be parted. You do not need to be foolish. Understand the game. Show up and start making some serious cash from the film you created!

-------------------------------------------------

Side Note: The Power of Marketing So my daughter and I walk into the theater where she sees a “Bloomberg Presents” sign and she says, “Man, he’s everywhere.” Then, as we enter the cinema a lady smiles and hands her a “Bloomberg Businessweek”. She takes it says, “I didn’t know he had a magazine.” Sits down. Opens it up. Says, “Hey, we should subscribe to this.” My response, “You’re exactly why marketing works and precisely why Bloomberg sponsors such events.”

Use Withoutabox (WAB) = Surrender Content Rights (ie. Uploaded film rights)

2011-05-03T13:58:00.000-07:00

Withoutabox's Terms of Service agreement is long and by signing into your account you are agreeing to it!

Under Item 13 it states, in short, that while Withoutabox (WAB) 'does not acquire any right or ownership' of your work when you use their service YOU AGREE TO GRANT Withoutabox IRREVOCABLE, non-exclusive, ROYALTY-FREE, perpetual and fully sublicensable right to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, create derivative works from , distribute and display ANY MATERIAL YOU SUBMIT TO WITHOUTABOX INCLUDING CONTENT throughout the world IN ANY MEDIA. You further grant WAB and their sublicensees the right to use the name you submit in connection with the material.

Did you know that? In short, the moment you log onto WAB you give them permission FOREVER to sell your film anywhere in the world. They keep all money earned from your film (and anything else you upload or add to their site).

Basically, WAB is stealing all the content they can from naive and vulnerable filmmakers.

Submit directly to festivals. Do not use WAB or any other entity that forces you to surrender your rights to them! YOUR WORK IS VERY VALUABLE (or else WAB wouldn't want it so bad) SO PROTECT IT!!!

It is fair to say that WAB is a wolf in sheep's clothing preying on filmmakers...

The long version via Withoutabox's log in page...

13. Proprietary rights, limitations on use

Nothing in this TOS conveys to you any rights or ownership in our or any other parties' copyrights, trademarks, patents or trade secrets ("Intellectual Property"). Similarly, we do not acquire any right or ownership in your Intellectual Property when you use our Services. However, you do grant us a nonexclusive, royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, and fully sublicensable right to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, and display any material you submit to us, including Content, throughout the world in any media. You grant us and our sublicensees the right to use the name that you submit in connection with such material. You represent and warrant that you own or otherwise control all of the rights to the materials you submit, including the Content; that these materials are accurate; and that use of these materials does not violate our site's policies and will not cause injury to any person or entity. You grant us the right to copy, retransmit, encrypt or otherwise manipulate your data for the purposes of storing the information on our system, transmitting it across the Internet, securing it, or submitting it to film festivals or other parties as requested by you. Without limiting the foregoing, the Services, the Content, the computer software used in connection with the Service ("Software"), the name, Without A Box," the names of our advertisers, and the information provided by advertisers are proprietary or contain proprietary information that is protected by applicable intellectual property and other laws. Except as expressly authorized by us (or if applicable our advertisers if the content or name belongs to them), you agree not to copy, redistribute, sell, modify, create derivative works from, decompile, or exploit for any commercial purpose, the Services, the Content, the Software or any trademarks, except as specifically provided for in this TOS. You agree not to access the Services by any means other than through the interface that is provided by us for use in accessing the Service. You agree not to publish or post information on our website that is defamatory,libelous, [obscene] or might otherwise be considered unlawful.

Translations. Notwithstanding the foregoing, if you have received permission from us, we grant you the nonexclusive right to translate all or any portion of the Withoutabox.com website into non-English languages for the sole purpose of providing such translation or translations ("Translation") to us. You grant us a nonexclusive, royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, and fully sublicensable right to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, create derivative works from, distribute, and display such Translation throughout the world in any media. You represent and warrant that the Translation is your work and that the Translation is reasonably accurate.

------------------

The below comments are from Facebook. I thought the comments would be better served here. So, I have added them. I hope this is valuable information for filmmakers! Sometimes it is hard for filmmakers to believe that their rights can so easily be taken away. Awareness was the point of this article. Filmmakers need to read everything and understand that their rights are at stake and must be adamantly protected. Your films are very valuable. Any entity that says otherwise while at the same time tries to get you to give them your film for free should be looked at with suspicion. Keep your rights or someone else will profit from your film!

Meagan D. Clark Yikes!
5 hours ago ·
Christine Scott Exactly, and the big problem is that most filmmakers are unaware of this innocently thinking that WAB is simply providing a service to them.
4 hours ago ·
Greg Runnels It is a wonder to me why most Film Festivals in Europe do not charge a fee, while there are start ups on WAB that charge $$$.
4 hours ago ·
Christine Scott
Most film festivals in Europe are funded by the EU, their respective country, the region within which they live and/or their city. This allows European film festivals to be fully funded without the aid of submission fees. It also obligates them to tow the party line and accept the films that the funders approve of or risk not being funded again. This often creates a barrier for independent filmmakers who were not funded by a government entity as most would rather have films screened that they also supported initially... it makes them look better and proves their choices in funding were worthwhile.
4 hours ago ·
Chris Taylor
Christine, I read your blog post --I think you are off base on your interpretation. Your statement that submitting your film to film festivals via WAB allows them unfettered royalty free use of that film is not correct, as I read the TOS. What they are claiming is that material you submit to them--in my case that would have been a press kit, a director's statement, stills, a trailer, etc--they can distribute that as requested by interested film festivals. That seems to be exactly what I want from WAB.
46 minutes ago ·
Chris Taylor Part 2--Now if you elect to enter into a VOD agreement with WAB, that is different...but I don't see any language that requires you to upload your movie to their site.
44 minutes ago ·
Christine Scott Chris - you are absolutely right in terms of what you gave them access to. If that is what you have submitted then that is exactly what they will have rights to. Not bad. I see no harm in allowing WAB or any other entity the freedom to promote and publicize your work. If a person submits a film the person is then giving WAB access to that 'irrevocable' and 'royalty-free".
43 minutes ago ·
Christine Scott Part 2 - VOD is a non-conversation. If you give WAB irrevocable, non-exclusive and royalty-free rights to any content you upload onto their site then you have just said they can do whatever they want with your film forever including, but not limited to, VOD.
41 minutes ago ·
Christine Scott Part 2 cont. There is no language which requires you to upload your film. It is a choice. Most filmmakers are not aware that uploading their film gives WAB lifetime, non-exclusive rights to their film. I believe they have a right to know. Film rights are not the only rights at stake, but certainly they are the most valuable rights.
39 minutes ago ·
Christine Scott WAB's statement specific to content, "you do grant us a nonexclusive, royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, and fully sublicensable right to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, and display any material you submit to us, including Content, throughout the world in any media."
32 minutes ago ·
Chris Taylor Christine, I do not think that WAB is trying to trick anybody here. What I responded to in your blog post was the notion and the tone of your post (really an accusation) that WAB is trying to take advantage of naive filmmakers. I think that anybody that has the talent to finish a film also has the smarts not to upload their film to any online site without knowing what's going to happen.
27 minutes ago ·
Chris Taylor Your quote: "It is fair to say that WAB is a wolf in sheep's clothing..." That seems needlessly inflammatory...
23 minutes ago ·
Christine Scott
I believe you are very much mistaken there, Chris. I believe filmmakers are for the most part quite unaware that they are surrendering their rights FOREVER to WAB when they upload their films. The only place WAB says it (to my knowledge) is in fine print, in the 13th term of service agreement that everyone agrees by simply logging onto the site. Let's say a filmmaker uploads their film to WAB so festivals can consider it online (WAB's selling point is that it saves time and money with no mention of the surrendered rights of uploaded content), who would think such a simple upload would surrender one's rights? The problem is that people do not know what they are getting into, not that they are okay with giving up the rights to a film they worked so hard to create. I agree it is hard to believe and I know it is hard for filmmakers to come forward about this since they probably feel fairly vulnerable in this area. Any filmmaker that was unaware of their lose of rights when uploading onto WAB was probably, as you say, 'tricked'.
18 minutes ago ·
Chris Taylor
One other note that is germane to the specific language you are quoting--there are times that a filmmaker has exhausted all the "for pay" options of distribution--and just wants to get the film seen by any means possible--this is exactly the service that WAB is offering here, and I can see how this could fill a niche that is valuable. If you don't want it, then don't upload your film, and by the way, WAB is very clear about this on the opening page of the website.
17 minutes ago ·
Christine Scott
Chris, filmmakers are regularly told not to do the business end but to leave that to the business people. Far too many filmmakers have told me they aren't business people. Many don't even think of publicity or distribution. Do you have any idea how little filmmakers make (if anything) on distribution deals? The industry does not protect or work on the behalf of filmmakers. The post was written to work toward enlightening, informing and helping to create change. If filmmakers know beforehand that they will be surrendering their rights (albeit 'non-exclusively') to WAB by uploading their content then they can make an informed decision before moving forward. Then it is a choice... rather than a deceitful or clandestine maneuver.
12 minutes ago ·
Christine Scott No, actually, that is not at all the service WAB is offering here. WAB allows filmmakers to upload at the beginning of the process, not the end of it. This means that once your film is completely and ready to be entered to film festivals you can upload your entire film (short or long) onto WAB and they it can be shared online directly with any film festival you choose to pay to submit it to. This saves the filmmaker postage and the cost of dvds, etc. What these filmmakers generally don't know is that it also means they lose their exclusive rights FOREVER to WAB before the film is even out of the gate. Basically, it devalues the film forever. Let's say a site won't take their film because they can't have exclusive rights to it because WAB has chosen to put the film anywhere and everywhere (like Amazon or other AMZN subsidiaries). This potential hurts the financial income for that filmmaker not to mention DYI or traditional distribution deals for the filmmaker.
6 minutes ago ·
Christine Scott As far as 'exhausted all the 'for pay' options for distribution'... it's simply too early for that. Don't throw your film away. Keep it. It is valuable. No one knows where the industry is going and no one has made indie films profitable for any online entity yet. Why then would any filmmaker give up their rights. Keep them. Ride it out. Own your rights when you can profit. Be patient and allow your patience to pay off. Keep strong, stay focus and loyal to your work. This is not what the industry tells filmmakers to do because it is not in the best interest for those building libraries if you keep your work. It is in their best interest if you give it to them while it is still worth nothing. Patience, due diligence and faith in one's work and value of one's work are essential in this game for now.

Chris Taylor LOL! Since I have spent the last 5 years making, publicizing, and distributing my doc, I know something about these issues. I disagree with your view of the language--and your portrayal of WAB in general. I'm ready to move on.
8 minutes ago ·
Christine Scott Since you have spent the last 5 years making, publicizing and distributing your doc, please tell us how you have addressed the world of film rights and distribution. If you are the sole owner of your film have you given your rights to another or do you still control them? If you have signed a distribution deal who have you signed it with and what financial gains (real, not promised) have you seen from your 5 years of effort? It would be most interesting if you would share this information so we can all learn from your experience.
a few seconds ago ·

Christine Scott
Ohhhh.... you did Food Fight! I absolutely love this film. I'm so glad you made it and even happier if you were smart enough to hold onto your rights. That's not an easy task. I will remain in opposition of your stance while in such strong support of your work. We were so very pleased to screen your film. I hope it has been profitable for you. If so, you have simply made wiser and more astute choices then many. This is not the fault of others, more a willingness to be too trusting at times - as many of us tend to be with our food. You are dead wrong on this issue just as so many are when they blindly trust what our food industry and government say about food.
about an hour ago ·
Chris Taylor I've made money off my distribution, Cargo for international, and Brainstorm for domestic. Great people, also I retained direct DVD sales. Thanks for your remembrance and words of support...
about an hour ago ·
Christine Scott
I'm so glad you retained DVD. I hope you have also retained VOD. Particularly for YOUR film. There is a huge niche audience for you online and when the time is right the market will be profitable for your film. My embrace of your film is nothing compared to the embrace it received at the festival. Your work inspires and educated people. Docs are one place where indie films can find niche audiences and make money. I hope you haven't felt like you have exhausted your resources. No one can make money online... yet. The only thing people are doing is gathering large libraries so they can later sell them for a profit. This benefits the middleman who takes the film from the creator. It is not a necessity, but it is the conversation spun over and over again to filmmakers. Most entities take the films after the film is made. WAB is taking it upfront. I am not wrong about the wording. It is so important that filmmakers understand what is at risk. Many, like yourself, have worked so hard to create such fabulous projects and then to have these works taken away because the filmmakers don't really believe that can be what the Terms of Service says just isn't right. Prove me wrong. Do you know how many films we watched online last year via WAB? So many filmmakers are doing this and completely unaware that they are losing their rights. It's not okay. It is an unacceptable devaluation of their most important currency - their film. You are an investigative film director. I'm glad you are questioning it. But do more than just decided that I'm wrong. Be sure I am. Do your homework. I understand how unfathomable it is to think filmmakers are unknowingly losing their rights... but what if they are? The terminology is clear. Ask WAB. See if you get a response and share that response with us.
47 minutes ago ·

Digital by Design at Tribeca Film Festival

2011-04-28T09:49:00.000-07:00

TFF 2011 put out a slate of several free talks geared toward discussing the current and future nature of the film industry. Digital by Design was one of them...

Digital by Design was broken down into three parts - funding, rights and distribution - each to be tackled separately by the five panelists - Eugene Hernandez (EH - Director of Digital Strategy at the Film Society of Lincoln Center), Michael Lang (ML - CEO of Miramax), John Sloss (JS - Founder of Cinetic Media and Sloss Eckhouse LawCo LLP), Trevor Kaufman (TK - CEO of Possible Worldwide), and Tom Lesinkski (TL - President of Digital at Paramount)- and moderated by Richard Whittington (RW - Senior VP of Media and Entertainment at SAP). The panel was strong coming from diverse fields and viewpoints within the industry allowing for a wide variety of opinions on topics and a wealth of information for audience members. A gift from Tribeca to help inspire, educate and move our industry forward.

Most of what I’ll write below will be snippets based on my utter lack of time and my attempt to keep this article below 5 pages which has proven an attainable feat as of late...

Funding

ML - feels that creating fewer films for less will bring about better quality

JS - didn’t think this year’s Sundance films were as good as in year’s past

-felt that films sold for ‘roles’ (who was in the film) rather than quality of film

-felt that up to 80% of the films sold at Sundance in 2011 sold for VOD

EH - technology is great for films but not the business concerned with the economics

TL - there are only 3/4 as many beans in the jar digital distribution is mainly via piracy and free films

-videos are 30% down while digital has seen an overall 5% increase in the business overall

-not a huge fan of crowd-sourcing suggesting using an ad supported model instead

TK - brands and independent filmmakers have not figured out how to get together, yet

- challenge is online advertising vs online sponsorship

-online advertising is very low end money, very low CPM

EH - supports using crowd-sourcing entities such as Kickstarter

RW - Aisan online $4 billion

JS - Kevin Smith has 1.8 million followers on Twitter, markets film directly to public

ML - lack of innovation protects jobs

-it is safer to blame the ad agency (safe bet) then to try something new (risky)

JS - art is truth, film is storytelling - mix both

TK - brands comfortable with TV level budgets

ML - Premium ad space with little-to-no user generated programming

JS - Kickstarter does not necessarily translate to mass audiences

Rights

ML - Rights are hard to define

- presell at the Cannes Film Festival

JS - limited rights as only one protal at a time

- he sees himself as a bit of a Pollyanna

ML - endless inventory online, positive

EH - advises indie filmmakers speak with John Sloss (JS) before the others on the panel, thinks JS has good advice

- if you were in Tribeca Film Festival this year speak with TFF filmmakers from last year

ML - Theater exhibition is not over, find balance

TK - video games make more money than movies

- Microsoft says they are the biggest cable company in the world (because of games)

TL - Transmedia not worth investing in upfront, can't plan for it but it is a great experience when it works

EH - Shorts are not worth getting into theaters when it is easier to just put them on YouTube

JS - packaged short content will work in the future

ML - just get your product out there

- ESPN paid to be on cable in the beginning now it gets something like $4 per subscriber

- don't overprice your online content

EH - prefers free, loves various devices

JS - SVOD and ad driven models are the way of the future

ML - consumer product is terrible

- why buy when you can rent

- need better clouds

- better price points are needed

- a huge number of people love to own content

JS - hates product placement but loves Brands

head-on branding is fine if it entertains

TK - branding films is a good idea but hard to execute because bad is bad so you must be careful

Where will we be two years from now?

TL - films on Facebook

TK - says there may be a demise of cable in two years

- says that in AOL's old model it has assess, content and advertising but then audiences started expanding their reach and moving off that one source for what they wanted

---

My notes are limited. The entire talk is available online via Tribeca Film Festival.

Digital by Design was a valuable conversation which can be viewed in its entirety via TribecaFilm.com. The panelists are forerunners in their fields. Whether or not you agree with them it is invaluable that you understand what people are thinking and saying in the industry. Such knowledge allows for more informed indie filmmakers which will give you an inevitable edge in the industry when it comes time to promote, sell and make money off your work.

Your Film is Your Golden Goose

2011-04-25T07:40:00.000-07:00

Hello My Wonderful Filmmakers,

I’m putting on my gloves and up for a fight. I want you, indie filmmakers, to hold onto your rights. I want you to be the ones to profit from your films. Everything I hear and read advises the contrary. Give up your rights, you’ll make the system happy and if they really like you they may let you give up your rights next time, too! It’s like filmmakers are a bunch of neglected children vying for the attention of abusive, uninterested parents who will never show up for them. Stop it. Stop it now! Grow up. Take responsibility for your work and make money. You deserve it. Your film deserves it. Audiences deserve it!

It is essential you understand that the ‘your film has no monetary value’ mentality is a load of crap built to work on behalf of ‘the system’, not you. You need to stop buying into the rhetoric even if it is all you ever hear. It is simply not true. Nor does it need to be your story. If you give your no-to-low budget film to a middleman then that company thinks your work is good enough to potentially make some serious cash because they have learned from past experience that indie films can have some of the highest profit margin of any type of film or because they are building a film library and want all the films they can grab... often at the expense of the independent filmmaker.

Not all middlemen are equal. Paramount or Warner Bros fall into a different category then an online distributor who wants your rights - even if the rights are ‘non-exclusive’. It is important to know whether or not the entity you are working with is acquiring your rights or if you are maintaining full control and ownership over them. If the entity is acquiring the rights, for how logn and to what degree? Many filmmakers have mistakenly given up lifetime non-exclusive rights of their films to online entities. This is a fool’s error. Please don’t cut off our nose despite your face. If you give away partial rights forever, this can potentially hurt you forever. Most often, in an online environment no money is given to the filmmaker for this exchange.

If your film is potentially profitable then you can make money off it. So do it! No one without exception has discovered the path to making money for filmmakers through online distribution, not even the studios. Therefore, the potential for financial long term gain is very real and very much there and you should be the one to profit... and can be. So don’t be led astray by other people’s greed or self-interested business savvy.

Types of Filmmakers - What Kind Are You?

There are different types of filmmakers. Below are a few basic and distinctly different types. Each is and should be treated differently but with equal respect.

1. Big Budget Studio
2. The Mogul
3. Director for Hire
4. The Indie Filmmaker

This article is for the Indie Filmmaker in regards to their work. It is essential that all categories are acknowledged and that a filmmaker has a genuine understanding of which category they fit into. Do you work for a studio? Are you a mogul? Are you a gun for hire? Or, are you an independent filmmaker?

Oftentimes independent filmmaker want to fall into one of the top three categories thereby dismissing the reality of where they are and belong and how their position can benefit them. Often indie filmmakers believe that by way of surrendering their indie film they will somehow magically fall into one of the other categories, when the reality is that they will have simply given their film to another so that distributing entity, instead of the independent filmmaker, can profit from the film.

Brown-nosing makes you a sucker and puts you at the mercy of another. It’s never an advantageous or desirable position from which to work. How is it that so many independent filmmakers wimp out at the end after working so hard, fearlessly and diligently to create the work in the first place. Most distribution deals for independent filmmakers offer financial rewards that are slim-to-nill. Is that really what you want? Because if that is all you agree to then that is all you will get! Be responsible to yourself and to your film. Change the conversation into one that benefits both you and your work.

The self-dismissal of the importance of an independent film or the independent filmmaker is easy to understand. Everyone says that ‘there is no money in indie filmmaking’ and that what you really want is to make studio films or to get paid upfront for your work. That being said, Paranormal Activity (2007) is the most profitable film ever made. Paramount bought it. Paramount made the profits. In today’s world, production costs can be very low and profits can be very high. Online distribution isn’t settled. Keep your rights. Allow yourself to gain the financial benefits in this new territory. It’s your right because it’s your work!

Just the other day at the ‘No Fear for the Future of Indie Film’ conference one of the organizers told me that independent filmmakers want to make studio films and that is why they are willing to give their films away for free because that is how it has always been and that independent filmmakers ‘want to be part of the system’. I assured her that there is no ‘how its always been’ since we’re in new territory and no one has found a way to profit from online distribution for indie films, yet. Besides, who wants to be part of a system that isn’t profitable for you or doesn’t support you? Get real!

What independent filmmakers have always wanted is to profit from their films. They have never wanted to be broke with a second job. They’ve wanted to be rich beyond their wildest dreams from their own creations. Ask Tarantino.

Online distribution potentially allows independent filmmakers to profit from their films like never before. They no longer need to be a slave to the system. They can now begin to make real money. That is... if they don’t give their rights away. If they keep their rights and make the money then they can continue to make the films they want to make without surrendering their dreams, livelihood and profits to a studio or other distribution avenue. If they give away the rights to their film the entity that picked up the rights will be the one to profit.

Someone will profit from distributing independent films online. Let it be the filmmakers. Let it you! This is ultimately a choice that each and every filmmaker who owns the rights to their film will make for themselves. Filmmakers do not need to give up the rights to their work. They can use it as leverage for future profits which can then directly support their immediate livelihood as well as future projects.

Independent filmmakers are in new territory. They are being told to sell their films (often for absolutely nothing). As Douchbag’s director put it ‘I was hoping to sell it to IFC for 20 bucks’. Although he said it with a laugh, he was able to laugh because he sold it to a studio, not IFC. Those who have sold their work to IFC haven’t made much off their sweat, dreams and achievements. On the other hand, IFC is thriving. Do you want to thrive or do you want the corporate heads at IFC to thrive. Truly it is your choice. If it is your work then it is your choice!

It is clear that those who own the work are profiting off the films or at least have the potential to profit from the work in the future. It is also clear that the person without the rights or ownership does not have the right to profit from the film. So the nagging question is ‘Why would an independent filmmaker sell their film if there is nothing in it for them and someone else is flourishing off their work or will potentially gain from it later?” Much of this answer rests in one simple word ‘Fear’. Filmmakers are people. People often let fear rule the day. Filmmakers are told [by (1) the industry and (2) well-meaning types who might be guided by fear or not have a clear understanding of the business end of film] that an independent filmmaker’s only hope is to sell their work, hope it makes a studio money, try to make another film that gets picked up and repeat.

Filmmakers, you are not morons so I expect you to stop acting like brainless twits ... IMMEDIATELY.

At the ‘No Fear’ conference held at the Tribeca Film Festival on this past April 22, Harvey Weinstein said that it was his intention from the beginning to build a large library and to sell it for a profit. He said he got a lot of ridicule from people (like Peter Bart of Variety - who now is kinder toward the man) who could not see or understand Weinstein’s vision.

If Weinstein can do it, so can you. Jim Jarmusch does it. For the most part he has kept the rights to his films and profited from them which has not only allowed him to make more films but has also allowed him to support himself. Did you hear that? SUPPORT HIMSELF! Do you support yourself? If not, maybe you should take heed from someone who does. Harvey Weinstein supports himself from the profits of the films he has produced and owns. He sold his library for $660 million dollars. Are you listening to him or someone who hasn’t made any money from their work because they keep giving their films away for free or for pennies on the dollar? Over in TV world, Oprah has done just fine for herself... but she hasn’t given her golden goose away. How about you? What have you done with your golden goose? Your film lays the golden eggs. If you no longer have the film then the golden eggs belong to someone else and that person will profit from the goose, not you. Perhaps you will make more in the long run if you keep the goose and allow it to lay the golden eggs for you!

Filmmaking is a Profession, Not a Hobby

Filmmaking is a profession. A career. A very important job. If you say otherwise, slap yourself into correct thinking. If other filmmakers you know berate the role of a filmmaker, set them straight or move away from them. Filmmaking brings in billions of dollars every year. This is your industry. Keep it. Own it. Be proud of it! Profit from it! Do not belittle it. Embrace it. Know that profits exist. Know you have a right to those profits. Don’t be bullied out of your money by ignorance, rhetoric, intimidation, misinformation or greed - by those that aren’t foolish and knows the true value and worth of your work!

A couple years ago, filmmaker, Ted Hope, wrote an article which encouraged filmmakers to put their films online for free. The article was sent around and Hope’s words were touted as wise and supported throughout the system and all too often heeded by admiring filmmakers newer to the business.

At the time, Ted suggested that exposure was what was really important and not to worry because the money would work itself out. This suggestion seemed rather fool-hearted. You can’t just base your future on a whim and a prayer hoping that someone else will set things right for you. There are no knights in white armor protecting your golden goose. If you don’t get on that horse and fight for your own financial survival then someone else who preys on your ignorance will be happy to profit from your foolery.

Today, I read an article by Ted which, in effect, stated that as a filmmaker you need a second job, that filmmaking won’t support you, and that he hated reading scripts because he didn’t want to fall in love with anything since he knew he’d never make a buck. Basically, the man seems broken and completely discouraged. He claims to have made over 65 films. That’s one heck of a library. What happened? Where’s the profit? He is respected within our community. It’s like he lost the ball with no hope of ever finding it again. Might I suggest you stop following him. I wish him well. I do not wish him the ability to help you dig the same hole for yourselves that he has dug for himself, both professionally and personally, from the money he has chosen not to make from his craft.

Ted wrote the articles for IndieWire. IndieWire is owned by SnagFilms. SnagFilms puts your documentaries online for free (and those of Ted Hope, I would assume, based on his support for the failed system). FOR FREE! At the TFF ‘No Fear’ conference Rick Allen, CEO of SnagFilms, said that filmmakers received 50% of all gross profits from all revenues including ad revenues, etc. That means 50 cents on each dollar off the top, not after SnagFilms’ expenses and overhead have been paid. If that’s the case why is Ted so damned broke?!?

Ted’s articles appear on SnagFilms’ IndieWire. Do you see a correlation? SnagFilm bought IndieWire to promote the business of SnagFilm according to Rick Allen. This makes IndieWire a site of propaganda with a specific agenda rather than an unbiased news source. Basically, it makes IndieWire the equivalent of a savvy product placement.

By the way, I’ve never heard of any filmmakers that have made any money from SnagFilms. Have you? The site has been up for at least a couple years. If you have made money from the site or know of someone who has, please speak up in the comments box below. We want a true and honest assessment of how putting your film up for free has financially benefited you, the filmmaker. From Ted’s article, it sounds like the death of a filmmaker, their vision, their dream and their vitality. His article was meant to help realistically guide filmmakers, one would assume, but ‘getting a second job to support your career as a filmmaker because money will never come your way’ isn’t very encouraging... and simply is not an acceptable business model for independent filmmakers. Period!

TheGrill@Tribeca: An Objective Viewpoint

2011-04-23T10:46:00.000-07:00

Setting the Stage

So I came home and told my daughter that Jane was humble and I liked Weinstein. She laughed saying that no one likes Weinstein and this was the first time she had ever heard someone say a kind word about him. I suggested that he’s an indie mogul in a studio world and that could be a threat to some.

One of the things Harvey asked the audience was ‘at what budget is a film no longer an indie?’. One audience member belted out ‘$20 million’ while another shouted out ‘$10 million’ and another said something like ‘five thousand’. I guess everyone has a different interpretation and definition of independent film. Do you think indie film’s definition is based on the budget? Is Harvey a mogul or an independent? Can a mogul make independent movies when so enwrapped in high-end financing deals? Why would we only give this credo to studios? Studios are no longer the only film producing entities with deep pockets. $5,000 for a film sounds pretty independent. $20 million does not. Astute of Weinstein to question it.

First up was Sharon Waxman. Sharon started a blog called The Wrap which is now a full blown entertainment news site... I think. The Wrap’s website does say “Covering Hollywood”. Covering it with a blanket? Covering the news objectively? Exactly how is The Wrap covering Hollywood? I ask this because news sources are supposed to be impartial but - like many others out there these days - The Wrap seems anything but impartial toward how their news (information?) is portrayed. In fact, the website seems to have a vested interest in the outcome.

The Wrap does not stand alone in this presentation of biased coverage. IndieWire is owned by SnagFilms. This very morning Rick Allen, CEO of SnagFilms, touted using IndieWire to promote the films in SnagFilms roster. This does not sound very objective for a news source. Wait. Is IndieWire a news source or a propaganda tool to market and promote SnagFilms’ agenda? Hmmm. Let’s see what IndieWire says about themselves. Their tagline is “Filmmakers. Biz. Fans.” IndieWire’s ‘About’ page claims ‘The leading news, information, and networking site for independent-minded filmmakers, the industry and moviegoers alike...’ Okay, so IndieWire is claiming to be a legitimate news source while having a very specific agenda. Doesn’t that create bias, a conflict of interest, and preferential treatment? Do you want a tobacco company telling you how good or bad tobacco is for you or do you want an independent, unbaised review of the product?

A Waxman Introduction

So Sharon welcomed everyone to the event. By the way, the event was $500 per head. Only a couple filmmakers were present who were not invited to sit on the panel. This was not an event designed for filmmakers. Perhaps to prove the point the entrance bar was so high that it kept most interested, non-industry types away by simply setting an exorbitant ticket price.

Sharon suggested that independent films have ‘a challenged business model’ and encouraged debate, questions and conversation... apparently not from filmmakers since they couldn’t afford to sit with the elite who are preparing to financially thrive off their films.

Maybe it’s better to simply instruct filmmakers on what they need rather than to allow them to have a say in the process? Perhaps that would allow industry types to keep more of the profit and more easily control the direction of the future for independent filmmakers.

Studios, moguls and independent filmmakers fall into different categories and when we choose to lump them all together those at the bottom of the food chain tend not to have a voice and get whatever is left... if anything is left.

So if I understand correctly, independent film has a ‘challenged business model’ and this conference orchestrated by The Wrap decided to limit access and participation to the event by indie filmmakers. By the way, several independent filmmakers arrived at the event trying to get in but were not allowed access because they could not afford the price of the ticket and no exceptions were permitted. Another noteworthy point is that TheWrap had ultimate say in which media were allowed into the event. The Wrap’s website states in part, “In order to curate and balance the audience, media attendance will be by invitation-only.” ‘Curate and balance’ could be replaced with ‘Control and limit’ or... you fill in the blanks.

Jane and Geoff

First up were Jane Rosenthal and Geoff Gilmore. I’d like to say that Jane is lovely. She wore a cute, simple black pseudo 60’s mini, black stockings and thigh high black suede boots. Lovely!

Sharon introduced Jane as someone who had worked on many successful indies including ‘About a Boy’. Jane was quick to differentiate between studio and indie films clarifying that most of the films she had worked on were not indies but rather studio projects, including ‘About a Boy’.

Jane was honest and humble and ‘highly optimistic about where we’re (online distribution) going’. Gilmore questioned how to find visibility for independent films claiming the problems today were in many ways the same as 20 years ago, and wondering how to find audiences for the independent film market. Gilmore acknowledged ‘new emerging companies’ and stated that traditional ways no longer work - such as critics, traditional advertising, etc. Some people were surprised by Gilmore’s assertion based on the sighs of exasperation that were heard throughout the room.

Sharon went on to address the catastrophic box office for this year thus far. (Note: Largely, studios and theaters have agreed that last year was a very good year and the films this far simply haven’t been as good blowing the differential somewhat out of skew.) Waxman asked what the biggest issue was facing indie film. Gilmore suggested an ‘importance of driving visibility’ while Rosenthal noted that people ‘under 45-years-old are platform agnostic’.

Waxman stated that the future of online distribution was problematic because it was hard to monetize and exclaimed that NATO (National Association of Theater Owners) complains about the quality of films. Rosenthal addressed the underlying problems creating the lack of quality on screens today being that over-bloated budgets and salaries are limited to a certain type of director creating a watered down final version. Waxman said, “that’s on the filmmaking community to fix”. (Note: Actually, if the films are made by the studios then it is the studio that is held responsible for the final product, not the overall community of filmmakers.)

Gilmore questioned if watching a film on a device creates a lack of immersion thereby, by effect or design, creating the need for a different type of film. Rosenthal feels that while there is a sense of intimacy created by watching films on a computer in the privacy of one’s own space she also enjoys the interaction and laughter from the communal experience of a theater.

The conversation with Jane and Geoff should have been longer. Both were quite interesting and it would have been advantageous if audience had received more in depth insight from the leaders of the Tribeca Film Festival.

Then came Harvey Weinstein...

I wasn’t sure what I was going to think of this man. He gets a lot of bad press. Ends up that he is just passionate about film and a good business man who thinks long-term. He screened a trailer of ‘The Submarine’ which is a little English indie film he bought at the Toronto International Film Festival. He was interested in seeing the audience reaction. This man gets excited about film.

When asked what his assessment is of indie films, Weinstein said that lots of independent films did well last year. For example, he brought a King’s Speech to audiences in 2010.

Weinstein hears rumblings that he’s ‘all about the Oscar’. His assertion is that the Oscar is a good catalyst which gets people in seats siting the example when Travolta said the he wasn’t interested in seeing the Australian made independent film ‘The Piano’ until after its Oscar nod. While Travolta still did not like the film, the Oscar attention did convince him to buy a theater ticket.

Weinstein believes that people want to go to the movies but the film community ‘needs to find a model that fits’. He also reminded doubters that independent films have been making money and finding audiences for a long time - films such as Scary Movie, Inglorious Bastards, King’s Speech, etc.

Weinstein feels that fewer distributors, for now, is a good thing and will remain so until the US has a better appetite for avant-garde films, like France. He mentioned the NEA (?). Perhaps he was referring to France’s National Endowment for the Arts equivalent? Not sure. Note: CNC (National Cinema Center in France) directly and indirectly controls everything that has to do with film, in France, from funding both low and high budget films to distribution in theaters. The problem with a socialized system for films is that the system determines which films are made and seen. This heavily impacts who can bring what into theaters. Such a system creates a door too heavy to be opened by many, if not most, filmmakers who don’t have an ‘in’ or cannot efficiently work within the system or do not have a story the system wants told. For example, Arte (France’s main creator of documentary films) is funded by the government which brings into question the freedom of documentaries to tell unbiased stories. Independent films created outside of a government or studio system have greater opportunity to express views that are not watered down, controversial, or might be potentially in conflict with a government’s own views.

Weinstein feels it is better to keep independent films out of the theaters to make room for the big films. (Question: Would he feel that way if he didn’t have ‘big films’ that needed distribution?) That being said, he spoke of a film that was doing quite well at the box office, a while back, and another film that was small and not very marketable, Weinstein refused to allow theaters to take his larger more profitable film if they did not also agree to screen his smaller film.

It is clear that Weinstein loves theaters and feels there is a place for theater in today’s movie world as well as that of tomorrow. But, he does not feel bad for theater chains because their parent owners are often - ‘not to name any names... AMC’ - very wealthy with market caps of $10-20 billion. Waxman proclaimed that Weinstein was no pauper which Weinstein responded to with saying that he ‘lives well, works hard and is proud of both’. He explained that the initial success he experienced he did not appreciate but that after he lost it and regained it he learned to appreciate what he had.

Waxman addressed a recent lawsuit where Weinstein is being sued by a filmmaker because they would like to, perhaps, distribute their film through another distribution company although the filmmaker has an existing contract with Weinstein. (Note to filmmakers: Make sure you are ready to give up your distribution rights before you do it. Often, there is no backtracking once the deal is signed. What is no longer yours, is no longer yours.)

Weinstein explained that at age 19 he worked for Paul McCartney who had a large library and from that experience he learned to value, and the value of, a large library. He explained that from the beginning he and his brother had the intention of creating a large film library to later sell for a huge profit. The mogul shared with the audience that ‘libraries are big business’ and to ‘think library’. (Note to filmmakers: Libraries are big business for those who control the library. Jim Jarmucsh has a tendency to hold on the the rights of his films which allows him to create and profit from his work. Oprah has retained ownership of her work. Weinstein believes in keeping ownership, as well. If you sell your film, you will not be the one who profits from it. This is not a statement made for ‘Directors for Hire’. This statement is for those who actually own the rights of their work and then need to decide whether or not to keep those rights. It is wise to consider long-term benefits and gains. If your work is worth the investment of another, perhaps it is also worth holding onto the rights for future profits? Only the owner of the film can make that decision. The important thing is to remember that more than one option exists and you control your own destiny by way of your own actions.) Weinstein’s former company, Miramax, sold for $660 million. He feels that Miramax is currently in good hands and likes the direction in which the new management is taking the company stating that he works well with them. Weinstein says that he’ll have his library back with the debt paid off within 2-3 years.

He says that indie films are doing fine and that 2011 will be his best year ever financially, even outgrossing the Miramax years. He said that last year was okay, he was able to live off Inglorious Basterds. Weinstein believes that VOD is catching up claiming that King’s Speech will probably do $12-15 million.

When asked where he was going, Weinstein resoundly stated that ‘We’re going to stay the same.’ that he is good at what he does and runs into trouble when stepping outside his box. He consults with others when need be but stays within his comfort zone. He said that he is learning to appreciate success and that that losing it made him humble which made him grateful for the success when he got it back.

Before screening the trailer of ‘Submarine’ he explained Ben Stiller’s Executive Producer credit like this ‘Ben did it because it was a good thing to do not because there was anything in it for him’ which Weinstein felt showed Stiller’s love and commitment for the medium.

For filmmakers, Weinstein’s advice is to ‘own the material’ and says ‘you’ll jump to the front of the line.’

Waxman asked how hard it is to raise capital. Weinstein said that it depends on the script. A script about a stuttering king is a hard sell where as a film starring Brad Pitt where Johnny Depp runs off with the girl might not be.

What I walked away with from this Keynote Speaker (Note: I thought Keynote Speakers were not Q&As but rather the speaker directly addressing the audience... No?) was that, as an industry, we are lucky to have this man among us because he genuinely likes film - large and small. He gets excited about it. He’s passionate about it and he’s a good enough business man to have brought an awful lot of worthwhile films to you and me.

In Conclusion

Tribeca Film Festival would like this conference to become an annual event. Perhaps next year, the festival will have the event sponsored by a different entity to ensure balance and objectivity. Having one media source limit the access to an event for other media outlets makes the event appear non-objective with a direct conflict of interest. It is doubtful such an event would intentionally be presented in such a way by the festival.

There were rumblings that the event did not break even as a result of the over-price tickets and that the line-up was somewhat weak. Case in point, a self-proclaimed nerd that Waxman often seemed bored by while questioning was the sole panelist for a half-hour talk on Transmedia which was twice as much time as Waxman allotted to Rosenthal and Gilmore for ‘The Landscape: Indie Film and Its Future - Now” and only 15 minutes less than the allotted time for Weinstein.

Apparently, balls were up in the air over at The Wrap and no one was really taking responsibility for complete and suitable panels. It was not beneficial to the audience that the second half of the event seemed thrown together and not well thought out. This is not a slam against those who participated in the second half of the conference, more an observation of what was not there yet sorely missed.

The Grill is DeNiro's restaurant in Tribeca. Throughout the restaurant are is a permanent collection of DeNiro's father's artwork. It's quite lovely and a beautiful tribute and sign of respect and love for his father.

Festival Director Hassled by Cops for Screening FIlm

2010-11-16T00:20:00.000-08:00

Melbourne Underground Film Festival finds controversy a familiar and worthwhile friend having just finished it's 12 year and once again basking in the glory of sharing films with the local community that would not otherwise be available to them.

Festival Director, Richard Wolstencroft, seems to embrace controversy whether it be the rebel in him or the do-gooder who simply feels people should have options and the right to choose and thereby brings it upon himself to ensure the Melbourne community has the opportunity to watch unique, experimental, off-beat films which are often a far cry from mainstream expectations.

A couple years ago, Wolstencroft wrote an open letter announcing that for MUFF's 10th anniversary the festival would run concurrently to MIFF screening the films MIFF refused to screen but that audiences had the right to watch. Withoutabox's reaction was to refuse to let MUFF take submissions on WAB. Being that WAB is the largest, best known and most widely used submission site in the world the affect the company can have on a festival isn't unnoticed. While WAB never officially gave a reason for such aggressive and harsh actions against The Little Fest That Could the submission service (or dictator) posted an unsigned notice for all to read to basically play nice or be in jeopardy of losing your fest too! Basically, it was a 'shut up and follow the lead and don't get out of line or you're next' notice.

Wolstencroft moved forward unfettered never steering from his plight to bring further diversity to the film world always questioning the right of others whether in his own country or internationally to dictate the viewing options of others.

Now in its 12th year, MUFF and Wolstencroft once have the privilege and honor to embrace controversy in the name of film. This time on behalf of Bruce LaBruce's LA ZOMBIE. While I haven't had the privilege to see LaBruce's latest work my daughter and I were fortunate enough to watch OTTO, UP WITH DEAD PEOPLE at Berlinale 2008 and to screen it at Strabourg Int'l Film Festival.

LaBruce is an artist. Yes, he's totally into gut fucking scenes and tons of gay sex. But hey, who's to say that's not simply a hardcore gay guy's version of THE BIG EASY or 9 1/2 WEEKS. Isn't it a matter of taste? I doubt LaBruce would get as much out of YOU'VE GOT MAIL as one of his own films.

Trivia: The only scene in OTTO, UP WITH DEAD PEOPLE LaBruce didn't direct was the orgy scene. Why? Because he was a participant, of course. LaBruce is clearly a hand's on director but so is Rob Reiner and was Hitchcock - both of whom frequently appeared in their films. LaBruce just comes from a different place with different objectives.

Why is it that we don't mind gratuitous tits flying about the screen endlessly but a pee-pee here and there or a little gut fucking and that's it! I guarantee you I don't want to take my daughter to films that exploit women or treat them like they are just a couple of boobies.

Is this a gay issues? Do we think that we can turn them all straight if we don't let them make their films? How many prison chick flicks have been run out of countries for being appropriate? How many have ever been appropriate? I'd guess NONE!

So the cops came banging at Wolstencroft's door demanding that he hand over the hot, sexy and gory gay zombie film by the prolific LA director, Bruce LaBruce. Quite unfortunately for them Wolstencroft had already destroyed his copy and had nothing to offer.

LaBruce did a Q&A after the screening we went to at the Berlin Film Festival. Berlinale was the film's international premiere. The film's world premiere took place at Sundance where 20 years before LaBruce had also premiere one of his films. LaBruce is down-t0-earth albeit rather perplexed as to why my 16-year-old daughter and I might wish to watch his film, perhaps. But honestly, art is art and the man is truly an artist and a filmmaker. By the way, my daughter did not turn into a gay, gut fucking zombie man although the goth child in her was totally into the film - not to mention the often strong acting, incredible cinematography and fabulous wardrobe. Rather, she's an honor student in college. See what bad parenting gets you! I swear I tried. ;-)

LaBruce is a filmmaker. He is not an exploitationist as are so many directors just showing tits to make a buck. LaBruce can't help it... the man love dick and sex and kicks ass in the world of art films. For this reason, we as an audience should not have the doors to his work shut on us. Nor should we be forced to see it. Rather, we should be given the right to choose our own options not have them dictated to us. LaBruce make it clear that porn can be a part of an art film and beautiful. Would I rather have beautiful, intriguing, artistic, sexually explicit gay sex scenes or random tits flying around the screen hoping that some numb minded 16-year-old boy with a hard-on will by the dvd and the full screened titties will get me some dvd distribution -hooba! Uh... going for the art, anyday.

One Filmmaker's 2 Cents on Withoutabox.com

2010-05-09T21:55:00.001-07:00

The below filmmaker's take on Withoutabox.com seems to be a fairly consistent tune these days. Maybe if WAB treated filmmakers and festivals like the lifeline they are to WAB's existence instead of acting like a dictatorship the submission service wouldn't be experiencing the backlash that is pounding on its door. On a positive note, the easiest way to submit to a festival is directly!

"Why is Withoutabox like a dead mall that people don't use anymore?

Mostly it is dead because of the economy. People are barely getting by with a 10% percent unemployment rate. So no one has money to spend entering film festivals. Plus those entry fees can pile up fast.

Some filmmakers also just gave up on filmmaking. Who can blame them in this economy and an industry with an even higher unemployment rate. And it has become harder and harder for indie films to get released in this economy.

Plus Withoutabox became this sort of annoying and, dare I say it, arrogant middle man. Like you HAD to submit via Withoutabox for many major film festivals or you couldn't enter them. It was kind of like WTF? Why do we have to deal with Withoutabox? Many festivals don't use Withoutabox. But many still do.

Plus it was also the MySpace effect. MySpace was once seen as this big, unstoppable, popular thing. Now it is pretty much a joke. MySpace was seen as the cool networking site. But it is old hat now. I saw the film Kick-*** and the characters had MySpace pages and I thought, huh? People still use MySpace? Teenagers still use MySpace? It is all about Facebook now.

Withoutabox became sort of the same thing. Not relevant anymore. The Withoutabox site is a sad shadow of its former self. Sure, some old timers may still hang around and the ocassional fresh face. But that's it.

Withoutabox is like a dead mall. This big thing that was once popular but is now strangely empty and outdated.

And like a dead mall, it ain't comin' back.

Just my 2¢."

C.J.

How Valuable is Your Film?

2010-04-05T01:18:00.000-07:00

One of the problems with putting films online for free is that it creates no commitment of interest on the side of the viewer. When an audience member pays to watch something there is more of a chance they will sit through the entire film.

Creating an environment where people are apt to walk away from or shut off your work is not how a film will be best viewed, appreciated, gain the most word-of-mouth or create great buzz.

In this new world of sharing and distributing films it is important to always respect your craft and to expect the same from your audience. If your work isn't worth paying for and so you give it away for free then is it really worth the viewer's time? What unconscious scenario do you want to set up for your work in the viewers mind? Treat your work as though it is valuable and your audience will be more inclined to do the same.

Festivals, Theaters & Filmmakers Working Together

2010-03-21T01:30:00.000-07:00

As we all know, the market in the independent film world is changing. It is anybody's game and I've been a solid advocate of moving the ball into the hands of the filmmakers, keeping festivals strong and independent, as well as valuing alternative venues and independent film houses.

Nomadic Tendencies is the roaming arm of the Strasbourg International Film Festival which took SiFF into 8 venues throughout Strasbourg, France in it's first year, screened several of the films in Germany during the second year's festival and in SiFF's third year will bring both a 3-day retrospective and a 10-day film fest to the Beach Theater in St Pete Beach, FL.

One of the progressive moves SiFF's Nomadic Tendencies has made going into 2010 is its focused directive related to independent film distribution. The Beach Theater has agreed to give a limited theatrical run to any film playing at the SiFF Retro that sells out the 246 seat theater. The distribution deal will be a typical deal between the theater and independent filmmaker. In essence, the festival has helped facilitate self-distribution deals for filmmakers based on a film's performance during the festival run. The theater wants films that are in high demand and well received. Therefore, if a film sells out during its single screening during the retrospective then the theater is willing to bet that the film will play well during additional dates.

This is a win-win situation for all entities involved. The festival is most likely become more valuable to filmmakers as a result of the distribution opportunities available to films participating in the festival. The theater gains access indie films that it might not otherwise come in contact with and that it knows were well received. The filmmaker gets a foot in the door of self-distribution.

Many independent filmmakers still neglect promoting their films during festival dates. Rather, they tend to think that burden belongs to another. If the film is not in distribution (as is the case with most indie films particularly during the festival run) the responsibility of promotion belongs to the independent filmmaker. This sort of distribution opportunity makes it clear that a film can be self-distributed if the filmmaker is willing to put the effort into marketing and promoting their work. Every film has a niche. Every filmmaker has the opportunity to reach its potential audience and share their work. It is up to the filmmaker.

The time for change is here and it is happening. Many smaller, independent theaters have been going under because old ways of distribution no longer work. The Beach Theater is changing with the times and seeking advantageous strategies which will allow it to bring a wider range of films to its audience. The SiFF Retro is creating a mechanism by which the theater can pre-gauge independent films to see which are good fits for extended runs as a direct result of ticket sales. All the while, this strategy allows a tangible avenue to see real money for filmmakers as they are encouraged to reap the rewards of their savvy promotion and marketing skills.

Details: The Beach Theater has agreed to give qualifying films (films that sell out during the SiFF Retro) a 'limited theatrical run' of at least 3 screenings within the a year's time after the festival dates have ended. The deal a filmmaker works out with the theater will probably be dependent upon what the theater and filmmaker agree upon and how long they realistically feel the film can fill the seats. There is probably little reason to keep a film running longer than it can realistically hold an audience. The time period of within a year is to allow both parties time to be ready for a theatrical run. The theater will want the films to play in slots where they compliment other films in their line-up or where films are needed - not all weekends are big holiday weekends or leading up to the Oscars. Therefore, there is a lot of downtime when theaters have more wiggle room for what they screen. Additionally, an eligible film may want or need to wait until its festival run is over before going into an sort of distribution. This time frame allows flexibility for both entities. I hope these guidelines help other festivals, theaters and filmmakers when considering their options!

Join us in bringing festivals, theaters and filmmakers together!

Don't Give Your Film Away for Free

2010-02-17T20:07:00.000-08:00

Many filmmakers, consultants and distributors are changing how people think about film and not for the better. While audience members were previously conditioned to pay for films, the new train of thought (seeminly forced upon audience members) is to give it to them for free and without profit to the filmmaker.

The thinking is that the money will come. The reality is that the money isn't coming, didn't come for the music industry, and soon will not be there at all for filmmakers if filmmakers don't start acting responsibly on their own behalf.

The problem is simple.
a) If you give it away for free why should someone pay for it?
b) If you give it away for free how are you going to make money off it?

Simply put, filmmakers are destroying their ability to create profit from their own work. Independent filmmakers seem to be the first to jump off this cliff and into the arms of poverty. Why? Perhaps, in part, out of desperation. It is important for filmmakers to share their work with others. But at what cost? The price of impoverishment is too high. Indie filmmakers put everything they have (heart, soul, time and money) on the line to make their films. For them to give their work away for free is not acceptable and filmmakers need to stop doing it.

Filmmakers need to have faith in their work and faith in their audience. History shows that people are willing to pay for films. If your film is worth seeing then it is worth paying for. If not, please don't waste anyone's time with it and try to do better next time or find a new profession. If you believe in your film then you need to believe in yourself and your audience, as well. You need to trust your film and believe it will make money over time. Reservoir Dogs was not an immediate hit. It gained word of mouth, grew feet and moved forward. Tarantino was not in a position where he could have given his film away for free online. One wonders if people would have been less interested in it if it were that overly available. If that sort of access would have decreased it's overall word of mouth and appeal.

The Problem with Online Ads
The problem with online ads is that there simply isn't enough ad money to go around and those who are creating the sites need that money to function and pay their own expenses - not to mention it's just not enough money on a per film basis to equal the value and worth of your project. I recently visited a beautiful site called, OpenFilm. I love the look of it. It's cool. The problem is that a filmmaker will be hard pressed to ever make more than a couple bucks every couple of months off it. (OpenFilm offers a 50/50 deal on ad revenue for films that get advertisting.) Another problem is that most filmmakers won't know that upfront so they might think it's a good deal, put their film up, and only later realize it isn't profitable for them. In the meantime, this online venue just gave away your film for free... along with tons of other indie films. None of you made any money and you just taught the audience not to pay for your work. Tell me how that benefits you? I'm not looking for enemies here, not meaning to bad mouth the site, but do want people to start thinking about what they are doing and why. Even if OpenFilm has the best intentions, it's not a sustainable option for indie filmmakers. Where's the money? If you are a filmmaker making money on OpenFilm, then leave a comment telling us how much you are making monthly of the site and the name of your film. I will be happy to be wrong. The project has some very cool people attached to it whose intentions are undoubtedly to help the indie film world!

Honestly, if you don't think your film is worth paying for, why should I... or any other audience member. If you think it's only worth seeing if it's seen for free then it's probably not worth seeing at all. Now that may not be true, but I'd guess a lot of people think that way.

As an audience member, I just want to see good films. I don't want to see just anything. My time is limited and valuable. I have a saying, "Not everything free is worth having." Therefore, I'm skeptical of things that might be offered to me for free. The question is, "Do I really want this?" The answer is unknown when it comes to films. But my immediate thought is that they're only going to give me the crap for free. The other stuff I'll need to pay for. How do you want people to think of your film? Crap? Or worth seeing?

That being said, there are tons of really good films offered for free online. This is a shame and will hurt both those films and the film industry in general - both for studio films as well as independent films. Independent filmmakers need to stand up, be counted and lead the way. Do not expect someone else is taking care of you. It is not happening. Middlemen can't even figure out how to take care of themselves, they sure can't figure out how to take care of you. That's okay, but know it and take charge of your own destiny and the destiny of your film.

Why Filmmakers Cannot Depend on Online Ads
I will share my personal experience. I have a few websites that bring in approximately 30K hits a month. On average the sites make $65 per month combined as a result of online advertising. All but one of the sites brings in money through other means. Therefore, the online ad money pays for the site, but nothing else really. The money is made through actual money made from sales made from the site. For example, let's say you have a dog grooming site where the site makes $5 a month from ad revenue and $800 from revenue generated as a result of what you actually sell on the site (such as grooming services, dog collars and doggie travel bags.) This is where the money is made. Trying to live off the $5 is never going to work. Waiting endlessly for the $5 to increase to a decent revenue probably isn't going to work either. Selling products that generate income works! Filmmakers aren't doing this, but they need to start.

How Can Filmmakers Make Money Online
Sell your film(s) for a profit - a reasonable price, don't scalp the consumer or their look for a better option generally a free one (think of the problems the music industry ran into as a result of overcharging). Additionally, sell merchandise. Cool merchandise is best and will vary from film to film. Pencils, magnets, t-shirts, note pads, stickers, posters, messenger bags, etc. You have something cool. Let people who like it buy more of it. By the way, isn't that exactly what the majors do? So do it. Act like a filmmaker. Sell your film and make money!

Allow the indie audience the opportunity to buy your film and merchandise and show it off to their friends... yes! they truly are the coolest indie film lover they know and are willing to prove it by wearing your t-shirt of the coolest film they've seen in the last 5 years, etc. Remember, as they show off their cool buys they are also selling your film to a much larger audience. Trust your film and your audience. Embrace your passion and allow it to work for you and your audience. Don't be cheap and sell yourself short by giving it away for free.

When it is time, put your film online for a profit. If a venue is not available yet, wait. It will be. Respect your audience. In doing so, they will respect you. Trust yourself. In doing so, your audience will trust you. Help the independent film world become self sufficient simply by trusting the field you've devoted so much of your life to. It's that simple. Now do it!

Why Money Matters

2009-11-27T01:56:00.000-08:00

Perhaps things went off track from the beginning when it came to monetizing online. It is changing but has been and still is a hard road for many. During the dot.com boom tons of start up companies were given millions of dollars in hopes the start-ups would become profitable for the investors. Many of these start-ups have inevitably gone under or the idea people simply lived off the investors while a few (such as Google, Amazon, Ebay) have found or are finding (Facebook) their way toward profitability.

This easy money model that was based on investments rather than revenue started the profitability model off on the wrong foot for online businesses. To this day, I regularly hear people say that 'it'll work itself out' in reference to making money online in the film business. Online commerce will not work itself out. People will work it out and people will make it a profitable venture - not the system itself but rather the people behind the system and those creating what happens within it.

If it doesn't seem right or you don't understand it then maybe there is a reason for it and maybe you should think twice about what you are hearing. It is easy for someone who got several million dollars for a start up to say 'don't worry about the money'. Why? Because they don't need to worry about the money. They already have it. But what does that have to do with you? Nothing! You still need to worry about the money. So, if they are saying to give your film away for free maybe they are talking about their own best interest (needing product for their site) not your best interest.

Another thing to consider is that a lot of the time people act out of desperation, not sensible business strategies. If someone doesn't need money but has an idea for a site they might be willing to give everything on the site away for free. If you have a product they want they might try to convince you that you should give away your product (your film!). The reasoning might be that they aren't making money on it either but 'the money will work itself out later' or perhaps 'the exposure the films gets is the most important thing'. Keep in mind, they may not need the money. They may have been given the money already. They may need the film to fill their site. They may not have any idea how they can bring profitability to the filmmaker or the site... but, they already have the money from the backers so they can survive just fine until the money aspect works itself out. But where does that leave the filmmaker?

How does that benefit the filmmaker? It doesn't. Instead, it begins to change the public mentality that 'spending money to rent or purchase films is okay' into a mentality that films should be given away for free. This is a very dangerous mentality to instill in an audience that has always been willing to pay to watch films.

Films should not be given away for free. There is no money in it. There is money in making films available at a cost. Don't be fooled by those who are being foolish with your film. If you are a filmmaker then you need to make money from it if you wish to live off it. This is not a complicated idea or equation. It is terribly simple - to make money there must be an avenue for income. People think it's complicated because they can't make sense of it but everyone is buying into it. The reality is that it doesn't make sense to give your films away for free. So stop doing it!

Ticket prices for online movies do not need to be as high as for cinemas because the same cost for marketing and distribution do not exist. Therefore, ticket prices can become attractive and realistic for the movie going audience. There needs to be balance. Ticket prices should not be so low that filmmakers cannot make a living off their work, or so high that it makes more sense for the audience to pirate the films for free.

Another idea to consider is paying cast and crew. Many low budget films defer payment. Online companies can create systems that guarantee payment to those that work on the projects. A lot of people have spent their valuable time working to beef up a resume or learn a skill know that the money rarely, if ever, comes via deferment. The inception of an idea is the time to secure people's rights. Online film exhibitors can help promote and protect the rights of all those involved in the filmmaking process, rather than just those of the filmmaker. It is best to ensure the rights of all from the beginning so that a working model is in place to protect the rights everyone involved.

In the last couple of years contracts for actors have been changing toward one where major actors are not paid upfront so much anymore but rather they have to wait until a film is profitable to see their money. It can be hard to claim money on the back end. Each creative team member of a film is a vital entity of the film's success and each deserves to sustain their livelihood from their contributions to the films they work on. Online exhibitors can help to ensure that the profits are distributed as agreed upon by the filmmakers, cast and crew.

When we talk about online exhibition or distribution let's look at the whole picture. Let's think about everyone's needs. Let's think inclusively about all those we included in the filmmaking process and know that the more profitable it is for everyone as a whole the more the industry will thrive and the better films the audience will have at their disposal. Think through the eyes of abundance rather than limitation, fear and greed.

Money matters because people and creativity matters, because money is needed to pay bills and sustain livelihoods, because people deserve to be paid their worth, because we want good films as audience members and because the best way to watch great movies is to make sure those making them can afford to continue to make them and can afford to survive and thrive off their craft, skills and creativity.

Support the artists and value their work. It is a model that will allow the independent film industry to flourish!

FFJ and Indie Music

2009-11-15T03:12:00.000-08:00

Filmmaker: Does FilmFestJunkie.com accept music or is it just a platform for film?

FFJ: Yes! FFJ is happy to give musicians the same possibilities for exposure that we offer filmmakers.

FFJ values all artists equally. (Maybe we should start a section for painters!)

All contributors must own (or legally represent) all rights to their work to be able to participate.

Many independent films use original music. FFJ is fully capable of working with both entities and look forward to the opportunity.

FilmFestJunkie wants all artists - no matter their chosen form of expression - strong, healthy and financially secure. Respect each other and prosper!

Pics, Articles, and Tidbits for FilmFestJunkie

2009-11-13T02:05:00.000-08:00

The idea of FilmFestJunkie is to build a bridge between independent film and its global audience.

Independent filmmakers are a unique bunch. Many are true individualists willing to take risks and follow their vision no matter current trends or nay-sayers. This is something to be valued and treasured in the indie filmmaker and FFJ has every intention of doing just that!

I know some of you are having a hard time figuring out what we're doing and trying to conceptualize it while others just want us to give them the formula. If you're having a hard time trying to figure it out, it's probably because something like this doesn't exist yet. We are creating it as we go along. FilmFestJunkie comes from a need and a desire to fill an unnecessary void.

We want our audience to get to know both indie film

and the filmmakers behind the projects. Independent filmmakers are cool and absolutely fascinating. FFJ wants to share this incredible group of people - almost a subculture of people - with their global audience. Part of the FFJ experience will be to bring the behind the scenes events, stories and pictures to life.

In that vein, we are looking for articles, photos, clips, etc about filmmakers and their work.
We have rules. We are not looking for tabloid trash. We respect filmmakers for the artists they are and expect all articles, photos, footage, etc to be respectful as well. If you're looking to write or submit trite mind-numbing, bottom of the barrel crap then you'll want to send it somewhere else. We aren't that kind of enterprise. We're here to uplift the mind, soul and senses with quality, thoughtful and respectful work. We don't want anything that is invasive or intrusive into a person's private life. Give the respect you would want. We are here to share, not to rip people down. Consider the Golden Rule when submitting. All things will be considered but not accepted.

That being said, we are not a goody too shoos site. We like hard, rough wild rides that lead to the unexpected and could only come out of the mind of a singularly focused and directed mind. Totally twisted, f'd up, absolutely wrong... but in all the right ways works here. That doesn't mean we don't love completely, sweet and charming love stories. We do! We also have a very soft spot for sensitive, touching animation and well-thought out docs.

Things to consider: Interviewing (video or written word) independent filmmakers, actors, cinematographers, etc while on the set or perhaps during a film festival. Photo shoot with film crew. Preferably fun and off-beat. If there is an indie film that you love and you happen to be a wild and crazy widget wonder, make one. It'll be fun! Basically, we're open to idea. If you're an aspiring writer, journalist, photo journalist, etc this could be up your alley.

If you would like to submit we'd love to see what you have to offer. We want to give our audience the inside scoop on our filmmakers or on the fabulous area where this or that film was shot, or the hilarious antidotes of how everything that could have gone wrong did... yet the film still came together. Filmmakers put their heart, soul, life and often every cent into their work. We want to hear, see and feel the passion.

Initially, there is no paid compensation. That may change in time as the site develops. We can compensate in other ways, such as viewship options, etc.

If interested, feel free to contact us at filmfestjunkie@ymail.com.

FilmFestJunkie on Facebook

What if our US Rights Were Sold?

2009-11-09T03:24:00.000-08:00

Filmmaker: Would you be interested in my film? It did very well on the festival circuit and won a few awards. The U.S. rights were sold, but it sounds like you could block that out?

FilmFestJunkie: Yes! FilmFestJunkie would be interested. And yes! The platform can block countries, states, provinces, regions, cities, etc. No problem. We can help you make money directly off the rights you still own!

FilmFestJunkie is a flexible platform created to meet the various needs of independent filmmakers in reaching their global audience!

FilmFestJunkie on Facebook

Is this a Non-Exclusive Deal?

2009-11-09T03:14:00.000-08:00

FILMMAKER: I’d be delighted to join FilmFestJunkie. I presume this is a non-exclusive deal, and that we can withdraw specific territories if we sell them later on? (Or leave altogether, if necessary?)

FILMFESTJUNKIE: We'd be delighted to have you! You presume correctly. You can withdraw from specific territories if you sell them later on, or leave altogether, if necessary. We're here to help, not to hinder!

Can I Sell DVDs Through FilmFestJunkie?

2009-11-09T03:05:00.000-08:00

Filmmaker: You mention DVD sales. So, filmmakers can sell DVDs via FilmFestJunkie?

FilmFestJunkie: FFJ can link to the film's website, if the filmmaker sells DVDs directly. This would allow the filmmaker to keep 100% of the DVD profits. FFJ is not in the business of selling dvds nor does the platform have any plans to move in that direction in the future.

How Would We Benefit From FilmFestJunkie?

2009-11-09T02:10:00.001-08:00

Filmmaker: We have a bank of films that we have access to - in terms of rights and access - how we would benefit from that and how would it help you.

FilmFestJunkie: You would benefit financially from the profits each time the film screened on FFJ. It's a 50/50 split before net. FilmFestJunkie would profit from our end of the split after expenses were covered. The filmmakers would profit before expenses.

The Old Distribution Model is Broken

2009-11-09T01:19:00.001-08:00

The old film distribution model broke a long time ago. There is nothing left to fix and it never worked very well for indies. It's time for a change and it's time to put independent filmmakers in charge and independent films on the map!

FilmFestJunkie is a platform created to empower independent filmmakers and global audiences by building a bridge between indies and their views.

FilmFestJunkie on Facebook