John Sloss, the man and the legend, and Ryan Werner of IFC Films were among the panel's participants. IFC Films is certainly the leader in terms of number of films that they are putting up on VOD, and John, among many other things, probably sells more films to them than anyone else. Sloss's Cinetic Digital Rights Management initiative is also probably the leading aggregator of digital rights for feature films.
This whole arena is new for everyone and it all can easily be looked at as one big experiment for the time being. The market is being created as I type and as you read. The model is not yet set by any means. Yet Cinetic and IFC are arguably the market leaders of the moment. That's why I was so heartened by what I heard them claim they were open to -- something that could truly be a great step towards creator empowerment and ultimately also towards audience access.
Neither company, to my knowledge and according to what was said on the panel, currently does anything to provide the content generator/creator/filmmaker with access to any of the data that their work generates. I hope that's now going to change, and what was said on that panel makes me believe it could.
Matt Dentler, Cinetic's Digi-maven, has expressed that Cinetic's DRM initiative is all about transparency for the filmmaker. John Sloss backed that on the panel by saying that he thought it made sense that future contracts include a provision mandating that buyers provide the digital data to the filmmakers. Not that Cinetic does that yet for its clients, but it can, and as John said, it will. Ryan Werner also replied to an earlier question that he felt that such information could be provided to the filmmakers if they asked for it (even if they did not contract for it).
Now its up to the filmmakers to demand that their lawyers craft such language. What will that be? What is the information we need? And how can we make sure that we are able to share it with each other? It would be great if an industry leader on the legal side really stepped up and showed their commitment to filmmakers' rights and drafted something that could become industry standard. It would be great if we could link to it now! Who's going to help?
If you are licensing your film for next to nothing, if you have decided to split your revenue with your sales agent, shouldn't you at the very least get the information on who your audience is, where they are located, when they are watching or purchasing, whatever. If you, the filmmaker, feel forced to make this kind of deal, shouldn't you at the very least be getting the data your work generates? As filmmakers, not only should you be asking for language from your lawyer, but demanding that your licensor, your distributor provide this. Do it and according to the leaders on the panel yesterday, they will listen and provide. I hope it is so.
2 comments:
Ted,
I am the jerk from the Woodstock Panel who took up everyone's time contesting your point of view. I can't stand it when people do that at panels, and I really don't know how it happened. The topic is close to my heart and my wallet, so I'm passionate about it.
On the other hand, I spoke to a lot of people in the industry after the panel who felt the same way as myself, so at least it spurred conversation.
Background on myself: I'm Eric Levy, a member of Sweaty Robot, the group of filmmakers from Philadelphia whose feature film, "Happy Birthday Harris Malden" is making the rounds on the festival circuit. We world premiered at the CineVegas Film Festival, were just at Woodstock, and will be in Austin the weekend of Oct. 17th.
You've brought up some great points on this post. Our movie, Happy Birthday Harris Malden, is in an unannounced deal for it's digital rights. When the film goes live, I'd be very interested in knowing the demographics of my audience. The hard numbers could help inform how we go about our DVD campaign, which we're spearheading ourselves.
Also, we're lucky to know a couple of lawyers personally, who looked over our contracts for the digital rights deal. We were able to reasonably negotiate the contract, but for most filmmakers, they wouldn't even know where to begin. It's a good thing you're posting about this. I agree that every filmmaker from here on out should be asking for language in their contracts demanding their numbers to be revealed.
You spoke about the possibility of doing College Tours on the Woodstock panel. As I shouted from the back, there is someone doing that right now: Todd Sklar with Range Life Entertainment. He took his own movie "Box Elder" out on tour, and is doing it again this Fall and Spring with a small collection of other films. His story has been written about on John August's blog, and should be easy to track down. Unfortunately, this is an exception, and far from the rule. Contacting colleges has been a slow and unrewarding process. Yes, Morgan Spurlock's booking fees are high, but Eric Levy's are not. He is a household name. No one knows who I am, so people at colleges have a hard time paying at all. It looks like we'll book a place or two at around $500-$1,000, which is great, but it's still uncomfirmed.
For filmmakers already entrenched in the industry, it may be a reasonable notion to collect an extra $10,000-$250,000 as you suggested in the panel. For guys like ourselves, who self-funded our movie, there wasn't any outside money to begin with, and there still isn't any. Also, any additional money we spend on the movie still has to be recooped somewhere. Industry support is hard to come by, and the support has never been in the form of extra dollars.
You brought up the case of Four Eyed Monsters the other day. It's three years later, and I still see only one writing and directorial credit on their imdb profile. For the young film maker who wants to make movies and not spend three years distributing them, this is a depressing thought. How long is one bound to their film, before they can make another? This could just be part of the sea-change in indie filmmaking, and a new reality for film makers. My ideal has me making a living making movies, not distributing them. Maybe my ideal needs tweaking, but I thought Mark Duplass offered a reasonable perspective on the panel. Working within the system has its benefits, and trying to buck that system doesn't work so easily or linearly, as he described about Baghead.
You also discussed making additional materials and short films available to promote your product. You went to see "Knocked Up" after watching a short film with Jonah Hill and Katherine Heigl. I am Eric Levy. You, the audience member, don't know me. In the off chance you see one of the 15+ short films I've made with Sweaty Robot, you do not care, nor do you see my movie. Again, lacking recognition and a 'Name' makes it difficult to convert views into money. Short films are a fantastic way to hone your skills as a film makers, but there's not much of an audience for them. Skits and people getting hit in the nuts go a lot further with the YouTube crowd-- and those aren't making any dough. I agree that a videocast can help keep interest in your product, connect you directly with your audience, and keep you relevant. The tough part is having an audience in the first place, when you don't have any cultural capital in your name.
Fundamentally, my realist point of view clashes with your ideal point of view. I really do appreciate what you're saying, and I felt like a dick at the panel. It probably wasn't the right time for that discussion. Anyways, the answer probably lies somewhere in the middle.
Thanks,
Eric Levy
www.happybirthdayharrismalden.com
ericmlevy@gmail.com
sweatyrobot@gmail.com
This type of information about who is actually buying your film seems crucial to have access to.
Has anybody seen the Marc Rosenbush tutorials on internet marketing of indie films? What, if any, other success stories like his marketing of "Zen Noir" are out there? Has anybody else tried the techniques in the videos ?
I'm with Brooklyn Reptyle Films and we have recently completed 2 features "Boppin' at The Glue Factory" and "Audie & The Wolf." We are discussing self-distribution vs. traditional and exploring a way to utilize both. Anybody out there with experiences to share?
Post a Comment