The Internet Archive hosts something they call Open Source Cinema, which is difficult at first pass to distinguish from YouTube in terms of content- though it is less fun to navigate. Apparently, all the media they host is user generated, with a Creative Commons license, so that it not only is free to download and watch, but presumably to use in other noncommercial projects.

A few feature-length films have been created in an Open Source model- one coming up in December is called THE LAST DRUG. I can’t say this approach has yielded films I’d want to sit through for any length of time, but it’s a concept that will no doubt be explored more thoroughly as social networks and cheap technology allow for experimentation.

At Power to the Pixel, Brian Newman explained the mission of ReFrame, which largely seems to be to deliver films by independent producers to the educational market.

Through a regrant from the New York Council on the Arts’ Electronic Media and Film program, free103point9 is administering a grant that allows artists and independent filmmakers from New York to apply for funding to help support their distribution efforts.  The potential distribution can include (but is not limited to) electronic distribution including VOD and online, and money can be used to purchase equipment that would make distribution viable (the money may not be used for production or post).  The maximum amount of the grant is $10,000.  Grants are due by online submission by 12/31/08.

At Digital Media Law, Jonathan Handel has an interesting article about the shifts in film distribution as a result of technology.  He concludes that though there are definitely a number of challenges, Hollywood has many factors in its favour.  However, the sheer speed at which things are moving may be its downfall.

Independents have flexibility in their favour.  On the other hand, the resources needed to react and reach markets are hard to access.  Think Mugsy Bogues here…

Chis Anderson’s latest post on the subject of “freemium” models of software pricing naturally has parallels to the issue of selling films in the digital age. I think there are some differences between utilitarian products and aesthetic ones, but fundamentally, how to create something that traditionally has cost a lot (a lot being 1-20 million for an indie and 40-200 million for a studio) and find a way to reach an audience who wants it without the audience directly paying for it.

The models he proposes are:

1. Time Limited, Then Pay- This model is definitely better for a utilitarian product since most people just want to watch the film one time. But some sites do work on a model similar to this, i.e. downloads cost more than streaming.
2. Feature Limited- Something like, if you pay you get the HD version or you get the DVD extras perhaps?  This seems like a possible model, like if a site could license a lot of special material that only subscribers could access.
3. Seat Limited- this one, that limits a  license to a certain number of computers, seems fairly specific to software, though some DRM works on a similar principle.
4. Customer Type Limited- the idea is that small companies get software more cheaply; for film, there has generally been a theatrical convention of senior and student pricing- perhaps continuing that online by making films very cheap or free for those groups would be a way to bring more older independent film lovers into the mix and perhaps even reduce piracy.

The Institute for International Film Financing hosts a panel on Monday, November 17 at SVA.  Included among the presenters are David Rosen and Ted Hope.

Over at Films.com, Christine Champ has an interesting article about the MPAA’s successful efforts to force Kevin Smith to take down a “red band” trailer of his film Zack and Miri Make a Porno from his own website. Alex Billington at FirstShowing.net goes into more detail, explaining that as a signatory of the MPAA (though not a member), the Weinstein Co. must follow certain rules related to trailers. Of course, they can make up whatever rules for members they want, in theory, but the idea that the MPAA can regulate a basically ungovernable region seems somewhere between ludicrous and spooky.  There are other reasons why most small distributors (and independent producers) don’t generally submit films to the MPAA (primarily financial) but freedom is a nice side benefit.

ht: Chris Thilk

Over at Truly Free Film, Ted Hope mentions Take 12, an initiative by the UK Film Council and the National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts (NESTA) in the UK ” to encourage independent film companies to embrace new digital technology and use it to build new revenue streams.”

Basically, the government will provide about $75,000 of consulting money for 12 companies to help them develop new revenue streams in the digital marketplace.

It’s an interesting idea but I can’t help be a little cynical about it, both because I have worked with goverment organizations on several occasions and would not vouch for their efficiency in any way, and even more because I’m not sure any kind of consultant would be able to open up enough in the way of revenue streams at this stage to be worth their fees.  The online demand just isn’t there yet and the VOD market is not big enough for 12 companies to jump in and make a killing.  I would be happy to be wrong.