Self-Distribution: Not Just for Amateurs Anymore

http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/illustration/movie-film-and-canister-royalty-free-illustration/110873469

There are countless stories in the entertainment industry concerning the difficultly in, not only making a film, television series, record, etc., but also the struggles in finding a company to distribute the final product. Blood, sweat and tears are poured into these works of art only to be shelved and never seen by the masses. In the film industry, big named distributors are primarily interested in safe projects by well-known filmmakers and will take a hefty fee and ownership rights in exchange. Even venues once loyal to the independent artist, such as the Sundance Film Festival, have reverted to a more corporate structure in the past few years. Recently however, the phenomenon of online marketing, funding, and viewing of films has created a venue for online distribution as well. The concept is quite simple in that a platform is provided for filmmakers to create and interact with their own fan base while maintaining creative control and rights to their projects. It also saves a fair amount of money in the process, considering how expensive it is to produce a film in the first place.

Print on Demand (POD) companies such as Kaltura and CreateSpace provide a safe, connected and respected venue for filmmakers to create a virtual as well as tangible product for the public.  Filmmakers are also encouraged to speak and sell directly to their target markets through websites and social media forums.

One such social media tool in the self-distributor’s arsenal is Twitter. The site has become a necessity for all independent filmmakers looking to distribute their own material without the backing of a major studio. Kevin Smith, infamous Indie director and sometimes actor, has brought this issue to the forefront. He famously denied all studio funds and backing for his 2011 film, Red State, in order to maintain creative control by distributing the film himself. He has 2.3 million Twitter followers (myself included) that follow his work and respect his craft. John Sloss of Cinetic Media and a close friend of Smith’s told The Hollywood Reporter that Smith has always said “he doesn't have to work for the studios, because he works for his public”. Studio Daily printed a statement Smith released describing his frustrations with the fact that marketing and distributing films cost twice as much as actually producing them, especially since he had already cultivated the audience on his own. His goal is to educate other filmmakers on learning to work outside the traditional methods. This grassroots mentality has led other well-known and established artists such as comediennes Louis C.K. and Aziz Ansari to sell concert tickets and promote projects solely through their social networks.

The major studios are taking a queue from independent filmmakers and formulating ways to utilize social media in their distribution techniques. The Hollywood Reporter describes a panel discussion at the 2011 Tribeca Film Festival led by Paramount Digital Entertainment president, Tom Lesinski. The panel examined the importance Twitter and Facebook hold in bringing films to not only theaters, but also homes and mobile devices globally. The social media activities of celebrities are even being tracked in order to dissect the methods they use to interact and sell to their fans.

This shift in tactics has not gone unnoticed by industry staples. Mashable reports that even the aforementioned Sundance Film Festival announced this year that they have partnered with POD, Reelhouse, to allow their participants to self-distribute online once the festival is over. If apps, games and music can find distribution success in the virtual world, there is no reason that film should not be quick to follow.

The Oscars Shed a Light on Sundance Darling

Every year at this time, film enthusiasts from around the globe begin making predictions, planning viewing parties and criticizing Academy members for overlooking their personal favorite as the Oscar nominations are announced. While most of the nominees come as no surprise, there are always a few shockers that are thrown into the mix. Many times, films and actors are nominated that have received very little publicity and recognition or had scarce viewing opportunities due to limited distribution. This year, the imaginative and powerful independent film, Beasts of the Southern Wild, made its way into the hearts of the Academy while remaining relatively unnoticed by the rest of the world. The LA Times reports on the struggles the film encountered with unknown and inexperienced actors relaying the vision of relative newcomer, Behn Zeitlin. Beasts was made on a $1.5 million budget and struggled to find appropriate crew and equipment. Worldwide distribution was not considered to be a reality by the director and producers when they entered the 2012 Sundance Film Festival until the film and its breakout star, 8-year-old Quvenzhané Wallis, captured the hearts of the jurors, the audience and coincidentally, Fox Searchlight Studios.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2125435/

Katey Rich of Cinemablend.com describes the magic Beasts of the Southern Wild created that led to a 6 minute standing ovation, the Grand Jury Prize and executives from Fox Searchlight to offer a distribution deal before the festival even ended. Fox Searchlight has a reputation for bringing darling independent films such as Little Miss Sunshine, which would ordinarily go unnoticed, into the lives of the public. Beasts was released June 29, 2012 in limited markets to fair reviews and is still an unknown to mass audiences.

While everyone loves an underdog, many times those stories cannot be made or viewed by the masses due to the difficulty in obtaining a distribution deal. IMDb revealed a total of 110 feature length films were entered into Sundance in 2012 with only 30 securing deals with studios for distribution, many only limited releases. Stories such as Beasts of the Southern Wild showcase how important it is to have a studio sign on to distribute but simultaneously demonstrates how easily they can still slip under the radar of the general public. In a statement I very rarely admit and will certainly deny in the future, the members of the Academy shed a beacon of light on this beautiful film. Where it would otherwise have gone unnoticed, the usually elitist group will allow this small and scarcely distributed film to enter the lives of audiences around the world.

Seeking Advice: Navigating the Legal Terrain of Business

The legal aspects of starting and maintaining a successful business can make or break a company. Law professionals from across the nation have their own secrets to success, some are good and others border on illogical. When listening to the advice of these various attorneys, they all appear to sing a similar anthem of being prepared, doing the appropriate research, and when all else fails, being flexible in this perpetually changing discipline. In delving into the side of starting a business that terrifies me to my core, I sought the advice of practicing attorneys who were sharing their pearls of wisdom via legal podcasts to ease my fears, examine the pitfalls and gain some valuable knowledge on the legal properties of business.

The first podcast appeared on The Un-Billable Hour program and was titled Women Rainmakers & Legal Marketing and featured renowned female attorney Teddy Snyder, Esq. Ms. Snyder can pride herself as a member of the influential legal group, the American Bar Association Women Rainmakers, which aims to assist females in business. Her most poignant argument was the importance of being appropriate. Whether it was marketing, social media tactics, or even using the “gender card”, the situation and audience determines the strategy she exhibits. Taking advantage of the hand you are dealt in the gender arena was an interesting perspective. Being a woman attempting to break into the entertainment industry, I am aware that the “glass ceiling” is still prevalent, but it is encouraging to hear that women in business are being urged to use the fact that they are female to their advantage and as a tool for success. Having women in the courtroom and the boardroom is an effective strategy, when appropriate, that can demonstrate diversity and soften clients’ reputations, which can benefit both men and women. She also discusses utilizing social media such as Twitter and LinkedIn to reach out to younger clientele while ad benches at bus stops are still being employed for an older demographic.

Along the lines of the importance of effectively utilizing social media, attorneys Antigone Peyton and Ernest Svenson discuss the benefits and dangers of conducting business under the ever-watchful and never-forgetful eye of the Internet on the podcast Social Media and Lawsuits on the Lawyer2Lawyer program. They discussed the prevalence of social media in recent court cases and the damaging effects Twitter updates and Facebook posts can have on a person’s future. The truth is, the Internet holds information indefinitely and even when posts are supposedly deleted, they remain in cyberspace and can be retrieved with limited effort. The duo expressed the importance of learning how to use social media as a tool that can further business, gain clientele and share information. It is vital in this day in age that a business sets up and maintains a social media presence but it is equally important to understand how to properly capitalize on this tool and not unknowingly drive a company and its reputation into an inconsequential entity. This “E-Discovery” as they reference, can sidestep lawsuits, maintain clients and protect against defamatory claims, which can translate to the world of entertainment and celebrity. Celebrities have found themselves in hot water by posting defaming comments on their personal pages about individuals, that although were removed, still managed to come back to harm not only the pocketbook but the reputation of the star.

Entertainment attorney Gordon Firemark discusses the challenges of representing unpredictable and demanding superstars in the podcast Entertainment Law & the Challenges of Celebrity on the Lawyer2Lawyer program. Doing business in the entertainment industry surrounded by celebrities, whether in a legal, managerial or production capacity, is not as glamorous as it may seem. Celebrities reside in what Firemark describes as a “fish bowl” where their every movement is being examined. Those that stay out of the limelight are never heard about in the tabloids while others create chaos to feed a demanding ego. They often feel as if they are above the law, which has led to many producers instituting insurance policies to protect a picture from an unstable talent. It is vital when starting a business in the entertainment industry to be aware of the potential hardships concealed by the fantasy. Getting swept up in the glamour and not remaining vigilant to potential scandals that could ruin a celebrity’s reputation can leave a hardworking and faithful employee unemployed.

Working in the entertainment industry requires a lot of patience, the ability to multi-task and always being prepared for anything that comes along. The passion for the industry is what creates the survivors. Coupled with knowledge and a whole lot of bravery, a successful career can be forged. 

Hollywood Rights: Recent Legal Cases in the Film Industry

Creating a brand is a long and arduous process that involves calculated maneuvers and strategic actions. Film has long been a financial gold mine for product developers and advertisers as it is a medium that can spark ideas for new and moneymaking product endeavors in front of an audience of millions. Recent legal controversies concerning the landscape of branding in film raises concerns about how the two can coexist in a mutually beneficial manner and avoid legal dilemmas.

There has been an emergence of court cases involving brands suing studios over unlawful portrayal of their products in films. Eriq Gardner of The Hollywood Reporter discusses this spectacle in his article "Hollywood’s IP Wars: Inside the Fight Over Trademarks". He discusses Anheuser-Busch suing Paramount Studios over the amount of their iconic beer, Budweiser, Denzel Washington consumes in the recent film Flight while the estate of famed author William Faulkner is pursuing legal ramifications over two lines said in Sony Pictures Classics Midnight in Paris. Gardner discusses the basic definitions of Trademark and the appropriate and lawful methods for including brands in film as well as the many ways producers get away with not paying for the use of a product. In short, it is free advertising and in many cases, it is the brand itself that pays to have their items on the big screen. The tides turn however when a negative image comes with the publicity, as in the case of Flight. Recent press concerning airline pilots drinking in abundance before a flight coupled with the iconic brand left Anheuser-Busch concerned with the image their consumers might conjure. I agree with Gardner’s perspective on the over-saturation of trademarks on everything from names (i.e. Beyoncé and Jay-Z’s daughter, Blue Ivy) to the sole of a shoe (i.e. Christian Louboutin). While producers need to be wary and ethical about using brands in their projects, a slippery suing slope is being created and freedom of expression is being tested.

Film phenomenon The Lord of the Rings is also in the news and not due to the anticipated release of The Hobbit. The estate of the author of the novels, J.R.R. Tolkien, is suing the producers of the series due to what they believe is unauthorized use of the iconic name. Matthew Belloni discusses this in his article "Tolkien Estate Sues Warner Bros. Over 'Lord of the Rings' Slot Machines". The estate is arguing that the initial contract forged over a decade ago was for “tangible merchandise” and did not extend to any digital or electronic mediums. An online slot machine game is, according to them, a direct violation of this agreement in addition to allowing Tolkien’s name to be associated with gambling, which his loyal fan base would see as derogatory. This case is a stellar example of why careful consideration and focus on not only the present but also the future is so important. Online games were around 10 years ago and the original contract negotiators should have forecasted to the future and included technology provisions. This oversight could potentially allow them to miss out on millions of dollars as well as an additional $80 million in damages the estate is seeking.

Cult favorite comic creator Stan Lee produced some of the most well recognized characters of all time but who owns them is still undecided. In the article "Stan Lee Media sues Disney: Claims copyrights to Marvel characters", Ted Johnson explains how when Stan Lee transferred the rights to his company along with his beloved characters, a verbal contract with Stan Lee Media may have superseded a written contract with Marvel and therefore left them out of the approximate $2 billion that has since come Marvel’s way. Stan Lee Media believes they have the legal rights over these characters and the profits they procured due to the verbal contract with Lee. This case is a great example of making sure to get everything in writing and entering all deals with a sense of hesitancy and the need to protect ones-self. Stan Lee Media trusted their namesake and a verbal agreement without thinking realistically about protecting themselves, the power of money in negotiation, and the nature of the business. Stan Lee was persuaded by a better deal and his former company was left with no contract, no money and no Spider Man.

There is an increasingly popular trend of needing to put an owner’s stamp on everything and the landscape of cinema is being affected.  We live in a world of brands and labels and film is often times a reflection of our lives, but accuracy is tarnished with blurred out soda cans, fake labels and generic everything. The two facets, brands and movies, need more accuracy, stronger methods, and concrete laws in order to protect themselves without destroying the art of film.

Where is the Limit? : Celebrities peddling the wares of every product in sight

Once upon a time in a Hollywood long, long ago, advertising was a thing of class and strategy. When a movie star or singer attached their name and identity to a product or advertising campaign, it was done articulately with intense consideration. If you wanted to know what product Marilyn Monroe wore in bed, it was expressed with thought and creativity; “well Chanel No. 5, of course”. In today’s society with the rapid emergence and market saturation of reality television and gossip magazines, it seems that celebrities are hawking anything and everything they can get their hands on. The growing popularity of social media forums such as Facebook and Twitter have now made these celebrity endorsed product campaigns increasingly popular. The question that lingers is why is THIS celebrity endorsing THIS product and why should it matter to me? Does Peyton Manning really drive a Buick? And if so, what makes him an expert in luxury automobiles to the point that we should spend thousands of dollars upon his recommendation? In the 1950’s, it was not a far stretch to believe that Ms. Monroe, a sexy and fashionable icon would sleep with nothing more on than a few drops of the equally fashionable and iconic perfume. Well-placed ads in magazines and billboards displayed a rhyme and reason to the product and celebrity pairing. Today however, every time I log onto my Twitter account, I have celebrities posting about how they “Just ate the best (insert awesome product here)! Everyone go buy a (fill in the blank with awesome product)! #ad”. It is sneaky and manipulative and frankly, makes very little sense.

The most current trend is taking these tricky tactics one-step further with celebrities tweeting and posting pictures of themselves in front of well-placed products in order to incite purchasing purely on assumption that they endorse it. No Twitter characters are spent promoting the product. Rebecca Leffler of The Hollywood Reporter explains that this new tactic is designed to bypass long-term contracts and messy connections between products and unpredictable and media fodder celebs. This short-term relationship allows a product line to escape any potential backlash from an artist scandal while still creating a brand linked to a star personality. The stars (no matter their placement on the “ Hot List” hierarchy) are being paid overtly large amounts to link themselves and their 140 characters or Instagram accounts to a product. Christina Rexrode of The Huffington Post reports that Khloe Kardashian collects upwards of $8000 per promoted Tweet, no matter the product, its affiliation, or potential competition to her own brand.

http://www.eurweb.com/2012/05/kim-kardashian-does-she-endorse-any-products-that-arent-dubious/ 

While celebrities have always garnered attention and amazement from the general public allowing companies to sell products and gain instant credibility when linked, there is an apparent lack of cohesion present in today’s celebrity endorsements. There is not enough thought going into why certain products should be promoted by specific celebrities. Furthermore, there is a serious lack of responsibility on the part of stars on which products to endorse. When lawsuits for the Kardashian credit card, Kardashian endorsed Sketchers and Kardashian endorsed Quick Trim all appear, the consumer needs to be aware of the possibility that money, and not quality or even personal usage, is what drew the celebrity to the product.