So, this little item from yesterday about how she’s been getting bombarded by folks with links to YouTube user Jaron Pitts‘s superbly fan-made Green Lantern and Technotise movie trailers caught my eye for a particularly noteworthy reason, in terms of copyright and infringement issues.  Before I dive in to that, though, first, the Technotise trailer he cut so you know what I’m talking about:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TPu-PRHtCWE

Basically, Pitts has assembled a trailer almost entirely out of infringing content from all kinds of sources (just as he did for the Green Lantern fake).  Sure, he’s doing it as a fan and we could get in to issues of participatory culture and the work of Henry Jenkins and why this isn’t necessarily a bad thing (and we all know I’d be a hypocrite to call him out for it myself… ahem) but what is REALLY interesting isn’t so much that Pitts is doing the infringing, but rather for WHOM Pitts is doing it.  More after the jump.

Finke points out that both the Green Lantern fan trailer and the Technotise fan trailer are for Warner Bros. movies, which would otherwise be nothing more than mere coincidence.  However, Pitts openly admits that he cut the Technotise trailer at the behest of “Hollywood producers”.  From the video’s description on YouTube:

This is a trailer I made for some producers in hollywood who are making this into a live action. Its based on a great anime film from last year, Technotise.

He even goes on to post a link to a website, http://www.technotise-remake.com/, with a link to an email address for a guy named Scott Glassgold.  One can only assume that this website, which prominently features Pitts’ trailer, is something of an “official” endeavor on the part of the producers of this remake film.

Now, like I already alluded to and I constantly espouse – I really don’t have anything against the appropriation, co-option, or commodification of previously copyright-protected material, as that process helps create new cultural products, new narratological approaches, and, inherently, new speech.  Memesis naturally causes user-agents to create new forms from old, to tell new stories and convey new meanings.  We do live in a participatory culture, and fan fiction is a part of the dialogue that exists between content producers and their audiences.  The Information Commons and the concept of social production have changed the way we use and value creative works.  Infringement, like it or not, is the norm in today’s social media landscape.

So, all of that makes this fan trailer otherwise fairly insignificant, aside from it being expertly produced and interesting to watch. However, what does make this truly interesting is the fact Pitts has either been commissioned or otherwise encouraged to produce it by the actual Technotise filmmakers.  While Finke merely passes this off as another WB marketing gimmick, what she fails to recognize is that this Technotise trailer is loaded with intellectual property from rival studios.  In essence, the producers of the Technotise remake and/or Warner Bros are not only getting a free, soon to be viral slice of marketing material, something to track and test, helping them to gauge how well the real film may do, how they should target it, and a million other points of useful data, but they’re getting it off the backs of their competitors, too.  And they’re effectively getting away with stealing content from their competitors (if it wasn’t for Pitts’ admission) by laundering it through a “fan”.  That, to me, is truly remarkable – clever, no less.

Anyway, I think it’s fascinating to think about how appropriation and user-generated content is impacting marketing strategy for large media corporations.  On the one hand, they slap the hands of users who attempt to steal their content, yet they rely on those same users to spread word-of-mouth and help build buzz for their films.  Why do these companies “bite the hand that feeds” like that?  Moreover, it’s clear that the rule of thumb is “it’s only infringement when it happens to us”.  Well, it will be interesting to see how fan-made videos like this are utilized in marketing strategy down the line.

Considering the profound global success of James Cameron’s Avatar, as well as the hype surrounding practical 3-D television at this year’s Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas, the growing frenzy surrounding the current 3-D craze has got me thinking about the future of cinema and immersive entertainment yet again. Now, we’re no where near seeing holographic, pliant, lifelike simulations like the one illustrated in the clip above – in fact, in our lifetimes we’re more likely to see something like a real starship Enterprise constructed before we ever see its famous Holodeck – but, for all the commotion surrounding 3D, well, it has got me looking at some new entertainment ventures that are edging us closer to true, fully immersive digital entertainment.

Whether or not you enjoyed the narrative or metaphor behind Avatar, the consensus is growing that James Cameron has rocketed forward motion picture design and execution for years to come.  Through his use of groundbreaking visual effects and new motion capture techniques, Cameron has raised the bar for what CGI in film can achieve.  By employing RealD‘s 3D cinema technology, the immersive, photo-realistic, and highly captivating world of Pandora has kept audiences glued to their seats and coming back for repeat viewings at their local cinemaplex.  Hollywood studios have already been planning that their future projects will employ similar special effects and 3D tech.  Plus, as this year’s CES has shown, the popularity of 3D at the cinema will fuel the adoption of 3D at home in the living room.

And it’s telling that Avatar, which centers around a soldier’s experience plugging in to and controlling an alien body, would be so successful in today’s media landscape.  The multi-billion dollar video game industry and the Web (including MMORPGs like World of Warcraft) have each served to propel the notion of what it means to possess and control a virtual character, becoming immersed as an actor or player in a new narratological space.  The sense of empowerment and satisfaction that comes from worthwhile passive entertainment is certainly only heightened for the fully engaged user of interactive entertainment.  What was once only the fodder of William Gibson-style science fiction is slowly becoming science fact.  So, while we are certainly a far ways off from the Holodeck or the Matrix at this point, science seems destined to continue to take us that direction.

Haptic (meaning, tactile feedback) gaming technologies are also furthering the popularity of the immersive entertainment field.  Already, motion-sensing input devices like the Nintendo Wii’s Wiimote have helped make that gaming console one of the most popular in the world today – haptic controllers are not far behind.  Sony and Microsoft are already introducing motion-detecting devices and technologies for their PlayStation3 and XBOX 360 consoles.  Controls and input devices that require more than tapping away with thumbs and index fingers are another way interactive agents can become immersed in the play worlds games serve to create.

But, full immersion in all things science-fiction-y or videogames might not be a complete turn-on for all audiences, especially demographics accustomed to old media entertainment.  The success of Avatar and the Wii will help, but accessibility is paramount.  This is where the simple technology of Yoostar comes in.  Yoostar uses simple green-screen technology like that employed by weather forecasters on the nightly news to insert users in to famous scenes from popular Hollywood movies, right in the comfort of their living room.  Yoostar users can mimic their favorite performers or create their own dialogue.  So, while this may appear pedestrian as compared to haptic technology or James Cameron’s 3D, it’s only a matter of time before someone pioneers a device that combines such immersive 3D technology with the simplicity of a Yoostar home entertainment game.

One of the biggest industries, for better or for worse, in helping to fuel the widespread diffusion and adoption of new home entertainment technologies is the Adult entertainment industry.  Porn company Pink Visual (NSFW!) recently introduced a Web camera system that employs similar chroma key technology to that seen in Yoostar to insert adult performers right in to the backgrounds of users’s Web camera captures, effectively placing users inside their porn.  This form of augmented reality, while lascivious in nature, may eventually see itself utilized in other forms of home entertainment, as well as video conferencing and other technologies.  Leave it up to the porn industry to further advances in augmented reality technology.

I look forward to seeing where haptics, augmented reality, 3D, and other forms of cyber-immersion take us in the near future.  Whether it’s as big as the next Avatar or as simple and fun as the Yoostar, it will be exciting to see if we ever do get to finally perform Hamlet on the holodeck.  Janet Murray would be proud!

Self-contained narratives are iterations of a larger type, what we have classically referred to as “movies” or “films”.  Movies can be anything from that 15 second clip of a dog on a skateboard to a two-hour long Netflix stream of Spider-Man 3.  To a degree such videos can serve a functional external purpose – for example, the skateboard video could be co-opted by a skateboarding website to help generate pageviews, and we certainly understand a large Hollywood movie like Spider-Man 3 is going to have all kinds of licensed merchandise tie-ins – but invariably, “movies” are, in the old media sense, individual SKUs meant to be consumed on a per-performance basis.  By individual SKU, I mean that we think of these movies as products, something we would have traditionally exhibited on the aforementioned per-performance basis; we’d sell tickets or rent the DVD or otherwise distribute, or commoditize, these self-contained narratives for no other reason than to create a viewing experience, or an individual performance of a narrative which, hopefully, would be paid for individually.  Moreover, the experience can end when the curtains close and the lights come up.

Now, the fortunate thing about the Web is that anyone, anywhere, even collaboratively over great distances, can produce movies, the 15-second or 2-hour variety, completely unrestricted, and post them almost anywhere on-line.  From there, movies can take on new life in the social media space, too, in that they can spread an idea, help build a filmmaker’s portfolio and reputation, foster a meme, and perhaps lead to further work for the filmmakers.  Also, movies can become an active part of participatory culture.

The unfortunate thing is that, as digital commodities with a reproduction price of zero, movies on-line are painfully difficult to sell as self-contained narratives.  Almost all must (or inevitably will via infringement) be shared for free.

Which brings me to our second variety of Web video, material that serves a functional external purpose… As explained above in our skateboarding dog or Spider-Man examples, Web videos with functional external purposes can also be self-contained narratives – most, in fact, are.  However, web video that serves a functional external purpose does not rely on itself as a monetizable commodity.  As indicated, in today’s information economy, ones-and-zeroes are tough to sell on a per-unit basis.  The only goods that can still command a reasonable price are tangible ones.  Thus, wise digital storytellers will realize that their Web videos will go further and produce a higher return on investment if they serve a functional external purpose.  Viral videos that directly or indirectly share information about certain products or services which must be obtained elsewhere easily and immediately fit in to this category.  However, don’t conclude from this that Web video should only exist as a marketing or advertising strategy.  There are many examples of how Web video can serve a multitude of external purposes, purposes which exist outside of the narrative of your video.

Web videos that serve a functional external purpose exist to inform viewers about cultural artifacts, social conditions, or related material assets.  They explicitly or implicitly offer viewers a choice about an outside agent(s).  That external subject matter may or may not be featured in the video, but somehow the video will direct viewers towards such agents, inviting them to do something tangible.  A TV station’s news clip can inform the public about a dangerous situation, such as a police stand-off in a particular neighborhood – the viewer is implicitly invited to make a choice – go or do not go to that neighborhood.  A documentary about small business owners facing up against large chain stores can indirectly invite viewers to take political action in their home town.  A short video about the ills of alcoholism can explicitly invite viewers to donate time or money to Mothers Against Drunk Driving.  A promotional piece for the latest James Bond film can encourage the audience to purchase tickets at a local cinemaplex or to buy James Bond DVDs.  A comedy clip on Funny Or Die can help create a fanbase surrounding a particular actor or actress, indirectly inviting the viewer to consume that performers craft in other forms, such as watching the star in his or her latest TV series.  An entire Arrowsmith music video anthology could be posted to a music service for free, inviting users to remix and mashup the videos, creating additional cultural artifacts while simultaneously promoting Arrowsmith concert tickets and merchandise.  All of these examples represent ways in which Web video can serve a functional external purpose.

I believe the days in which we pay for movies in the traditional sense are swiftly coming to a close.  My proposal for a solution to the net neutrality debate represents one way in which traditional movie content can be monetized (it behaving as a selling point for distribution services, but that particular solution is more pipe-dream than anything).  No, instead I think the best way to monetize Web video, even old-fashioned “movies”, is to use them as a platform to communicate messages about functional external purposes – or, if not that, such as in our TV newsstation example, to at least inform the public of societal circumstances (in which case you make your money through your reputation as a reliable news source, selling what advertising space you can).  Fostering a free information commons and encouraging participatory culture only helps to spread the messages you share through video.  If you try to control your content and expect people to pay for it as a standalone product, you will fail because you are working against the tide – you fail to understand that by digitizing your content you are changing the way it is used and consumed.  Forward-thinking institutions and businesses recognize this and are wise to marry their content to functional external purposes.

My hope, as a New Media Producer, is to help organizations create video that serves a functional external purpose and promote that video within the social media landscape.

Hey, I don’t condone piracy or content theft of any variety – I’m just discussing what’s already happening. Copyright is a broken concept. You see, as long as the cost of reproducing content is basically zero, then you look pretty foolhardy trying to protect your right to sell an individual media item when it doesn’t cost you anything to create that individual SKU beyond its initial production. And for the little guys who have very limited production costs, they look even more foolish trying to sell digital product for net gain! Why on Earth would you expect people to gullibly contribute to your net profits when they KNOW, right or wrong, how to reproduce it and that it doesn’t cost a dime to do so?

So, by now you’re asking: Well, how do I recapture my production costs, in the least? My answer is that you can only expect to make money off of performances (movie tickets, concerts) and fixed media (CDs, DVDs, etc – if people are somehow interested in your fancy packaging enough to buy your product in that increasingly outmoded way) and licensing of any tangible related goods. But, yeah, you have to realize that anything beyond that becomes a question of greed, even for the little guy. But, because of online and the way people behave, you can’t expect to make much money from fixed media anymore. If you want to make money in the digital age, you have to find an alternative means of generating revenue and recapturing your investment. Independent producers should stop whining about what they lose to piracy and should start thinking about giving their content away for free and generating interest in ancillary product (say, asking for donations at a meet-and-greet screening, or raising capital for future productions with people you can package your content with, or contracting with larger production companies who can otherwise fund you). What it comes down to is YOU HAVE TO MAKE GOOD CONTENT. All of these things are sacrifices you’ll have to make if you want to compete. Besides, think of the exposure you get for embracing “free”! It’s very forward-thinking of any independent content producer. Just don’t quit your day job!

The more I think about it, piracy, or any other unauthorized reproduction, just serves as quality control for your product.  If you’ve made a brilliant independent feature, then you should hope to generate enough buzz to get discovered and to find yourself being courted by a larger distribution entity who wants to pick up your film and subsequently monetize it through indirect channels (because you were smart and posted it on-line for free, so lots of people could see it and share it and talk about it).  If you’re movie is terrible, then the crowd will filter it out and you’ll just have to deal with rejection.  As far as I’m concerned, all small and undiscovered films should be posted on-line for free, shared via the bittorrent protocol or in some other manner, and otherwise freely distributed.  The same kind of thing is working in the music world and should be applicable in the games industry, too.

And, generally speaking, fans of independent films still enjoy the cinema-going experience and will pay for tickets once your feature platforms to their town.  My program director Hanson Hosein has made his independent films available for free through services like Hulu and SnagFilms while still finding ways to sell tickets at screenings and select copies on DVD for those who want them.

So, I think the little guy has a lot to gain from piracy.  Why make just a little bit of money off of a small group of people who pay to see your film at it’s first screening or two, who just subsequently turn around and tell the world if they should or should not see it?  If your movie is bad, then you’ve just greedily capitalized on that tiny window of control, and that’s about it.  You have far more money to gain by making good product and sharing it for free on the offset then by simply churning out features for the heck of it.  That old media model doesn’t work anymore.  Piracy forces everyone to step-up their game.

The Seattle International Film Festival is a organization dedicated to promoting communication through extraordinary films from around the world.  The annual festival brings together filmmakers and film denizens from parts far and wide, including the greater Seattle area, the Pacific Northwest, and the globe.  In addition to the festival, SIFF Cinema presents classic Hollywood pictures and other events throughout the year.

Current Reach

The mission of SIFF is simple: to create festival experiences that foster the film community here in Seattle.  To generate awareness, SIFF has traditionally utilized basic festival promotional techniques to promote their annual festivities.  This includes but is not limited to print advertising, marquee displays, and posters.  More recently, SIFF has executed a broad web strategy, consisting primarily of a website promoting the organization and the festival’s entries.  In addition to their website, SIFF has established partnerships with other Seattle-oriented organizations’ websites and various local blogs.  On top of this, SIFF has begun a foray into social media, creating Myspace, Facebook, and Twitter accounts.

Challenges

The success of films and film festivals often depends on socially produced word-of-mouth.  Positive word-of-mouth, especially that shared on-line, can make or break a movie.  Merely establishing a presence within social media, where this word-of-mouth can be generated and spread, does not do enough to promote the festival or its films.  Moreover, the impact of SIFF’s participation in social media is yet to be seen.  Additionally, SIFF’s biggest fans are not always the most social individuals.  How can the SIFF audience participate in a collective experience when being social-able is not always the M.O. of the biggest SIFF filmgoer?  And, how can SIFF bolster positive word-of-mouth?

Suggested Strategy

You can’t make an anti-social person change all of their ways, but it is much easier to approach and take part in a community through one’s computer monitor than any other means.  Also, we live in a day and age where messages, once they hit the social space, can no longer be controlled.  SIFF needs to embrace all forms of word-of-mouth about their festival and its films.  An active conversation with the audience must take place, fearless of what is being said.  SIFF can invite conversation and get participation out of their audience through aggressive engagement with the filmgeek world.  This will build social capital for the SIFF brand, and more social-able bodies will take notice.  Therefore, it is proposed that SIFF implement three primary strategies to improve the way SIFF engages its audience.  These steps will also serve to grow SIFF’s exposure.

1. Take initiative and be responsive. Don’t merely broadcast information about SIFF events and films to social networks and Twitter, but aggressively participate in these social nets. Monitor these networks for chatter from interested parties and initiate contact with them.  Continue to respond and engage interested parties, again and again.  Even the most socially independent of SIFF filmgoers can appreciate being approached by SIFF as an official entity. This shows that SIFF truly relies upon and cares about their audience.
2. Open the doors. Re-create SIFF’s website as a blog and establish commenting sections and forums.  Actively monitor and respond to all posts.
3. Break the rules. Hire an in-house social media director and allow him or her to feed information about the festival and films to established movie fanboy communities on-line, such as Ain’t It Cool News, CHUD, and the IMDb.  Invite reviewers from these sites to press screenings and other advance screenings, and encourage them to report on their experiences on these fanboy sites – good or bad.  Provide screeners to the reviewers as early as possible.  Give your social media director license to circumvent usual promotional and critical channels as well.  This social media director could also actively operate steps one and two above.

Necessary Tools

To accomplish the three-fold strategy above, implement these social media tools:

1. Twitter Search, Google Search, Facebook Search. In order to take iniative and be responsive, SIFF will have to know when people are talking about them and what they are saying.
2. WordPress. Download and install the latest version of WordPress blogging CMS to your website and re-craft your site appropriate to WordPress standards.
3. Hire Matthew Stringer as your Social Media Director. Yes, hire me to do your dirty work.  Trust me.  I have enough experience both in the entertainment industry and the social media world as a new media producer to get the job done.  And for a reasonable salary!

Conclusion

SIFF has made a lot of headway in to the web and social media, but much is left to be done.  It is in this space that word-of-mouth and community is fostered, and SIFF needs to become a more active participant if they wish to see continued and expanding success.

Prepared by Matthew Stringer for Hanson Hosein’s Social Production Class, Spring Qtr. 2009, MCDM Program, University of Washington.