YouTube's Demonetization a.k.a. #YouTubeIsOverParty

Recently, many YouTubers have made a stink about YouTube's (already in place) demonetization policy. Critics of the policy have labeled YouTube as "political correct" and "a form of censorship."

As anti-censorship as I am, YouTube has become a cesspool of the worst of the Internet. Many of the videos flagged for demonetization have racist, xenophobic, and sexist slants. If YouTube (or Google) wants to set an advertising standard, then that just makes good business sense.

YouTube is a FREE platform. This isn't about censorship. This is about someone using a free platform to make money. It's a gift to content creators. Demonetization isn't the real problem on YouTube. It's false copyright claims. False copyright claims have the power to shape actual policy and laws and make it harder for creators to create, even for those who don't utilize YouTube.

As far as money goes, ads have taken away from the enjoyment of YouTube anyway. Host your vid somewhere else where you can generate revenue from your fans. Or don't. I don't utilize YouTube enough because of all the ads and rabble a free platform seems to harbor. I prefer Vimeo, even though Vimeo's free service is limited. But lately, I have considered making informational videos. YouTube would be perfect for those, as well as the other blog-like, business-centered videos that live there already.

I'm actually MORE inclined to use YouTube with the policy clarified. Imagine that.

Happy Filmmaking.

Know the Law: Face blurring available at YouTube

YouTube recently released a new feature that allows the uploader to "blur" faces in a similar manner to many reality or hidden camera shows. This feature is a huge advantage to both an amateur or professional videographer.You now have the option to censor faces of people you catch in your videos that you did not receive releases from. Hence, you can avoid lawsuits, or even more serious consequences, like possible retaliation for activist activities in places like Egypt and Syria.

In the good ol' days, when people stepped out in front of a camera and that image was displayed to the public, fair use could be argued. Especially if that artist or hobbyist did not expect to make money from the image. Nowadays, when Johnny-Come-Sue-You slaps you with a lawsuit, you will need all common usage laws at your disposal to fight the suit. Because of the invent of viral videos, memes, and the like, even a cat pretending to play the piano can make money. Blurring faces in your videos can save money and lives. If you are planning to promote your video and wish to not censor the background faces, it might be worthwhile to draft a standard release. If you neglect to do that, good luck....

Happy Filmmaking!

Amazon Studios: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

Amazon Studios has been making a lot of noise around the blogosphere. Because there is so much information out there about it, I originally was not going to comment about it. But given that this is an indie film blog, I now feel I have to give my two cents.

If you haven't heard already, Amazon decided to launch an indie crowdsourcing venture called Amazon Studios. Writers can upload scripts in order to win cash prizes and possibly receive a deal through Amazon and Warner Bros. I'll just touch on the good, the bad, and the ugly.

The Good: Uploading to Amazon Studios is free. Contests usually cost an entry fee. This option might be attractive to a struggling filmmaker or writer. Also, the contest is a monthly one, with cash as a prize. Who doesn't love that? Also, Amazon Studios seems serious about democratizing the filmmaking process. Amazon Studios forms a community and encourages collaboration. Also, scripts do not have to be in English, which is usually a requirement for many other screenwriting contests. Now for the caveat.

The Bad: I think this speaks for itself:

You grant us a worldwide, royalty-free, non-terminable, sub-licensable, transferable right, during the License Period, as defined below, to copy, use, edit, add to, modify and otherwise alter any Original Property you contribute to Amazon Studios and to create, develop and produce derivative works based on the Original Property on and off of Amazon Studios in the form of treatments, screenplays, writer 's pitches, trailers, videos and other written, audio or audiovisual works (each a "DerivativeWork" and these rights, our "New Content Creation Rights"). Our New Content Creation Rights are exclusive during the License Period and you will not grant similar rights in your Original Property to anyone else during the License Period. After the License Period, if we don' t exercise the Option, our New Content Creation Rights will expire and you may grant similar rights to others. --Amazon Studios Development Agreement

In order words: a free option. For 18 months, you cannot shop around the same script to others for a better deal. For free. Usually, when given an option, you would receive some cash incentive not to shop around the script, per WGA rules. I do not know about you, but to me this is a major deal-breaker. Working as a writer, unless you have an exclusive personal relationship with a producer AND you are receiving a co-producer credit, I would avoid the so-called "free option." Even if you do not have a free option, you would at least want a negotiable term option. At Amazon Studios, you would receive neither. In addition, when your screenplay is optioned, you will be eligible for the WGA. Submitting your script to Amazon Studios will not qualify.

If you are a filmmaker, you have to create a "test movie" in order to test the script's validity. The test movie does not need to be a full scale production. However, Amazon expects you to test the entire script. Here, Amazon should have just asked for a trailer or a scene from the movie instead. It seems pointless to make a "test movie" for a potential production. You would be making the movie twice. If I were to create a feature-length test movie, I might as well produce the film myself and call it a day. Plus, Amazon seems to forget that the internet crowd has a short attention span. Who is gonna sit at their computer and watch a semi-produced movie?

The Ugly: John August already pointed this out, but I would make another point. We writers are a paranoid bunch. Many of us are too paranoid. I'm not as worried about others "stealing" my ideas, because if a writer was truly afraid of that, he or she would be afraid to pitch ideas to others. You have to let that go in order to market your work. You must learn to protect your work in a legal way. That being said, losing your rights to your work by uploading to Amazon Studios is not the worst part of Amazon's terms. Amazon is very vague about its procedure facing copyright and attribution issues. Further murking that up, other users can add revisions to your original work, without your permission. And if Amazon agrees to the changes, you have to recognize Goompykid94 as a co-writer.

Whenever I send a script to someone, I send it as a .pdf. Amazon Studios likes the obsolete file format .rtf instead. Not .doc or .docx. Not any Movie Magic or Final Draft format. Not even Celtix. But the same file format used in Wordpad. If you are like me, you predict major formatting issues. Last time I used this file format for a major project, I was wearing butterfly clips and waiting for my dial-up internet to connect via CompuServe. It was also the same time I was allowed to turn in a paper written in Comic Sans.

Last ugly point: Amazon expects the winning script to make $60 million in the box office before they pay you any more money. You might as well bend over. I'm assuming that's Domestic Box Office. This is assuming your script is any good and the resulting film is worthy of a theatrical distribution and release. Also, what about ancillary markets? Foreign release? Digital distribution. Not only does this deal overpromises, the deal is bad for you regardless of how well the film does. Amazon comes out on top. Either way, you will be underpaid and screwed out of your true compensation.

I expected more from the company that owns IMDb. Maybe I expected too much. But I guess it'll be useful for some script you care less about. I would not recommend Amazon Studios for your really good stuff, regardless of the promise of a first look from Warner Bros. Just use Vimeo or YouTube instead.

Happy Filmmaking.

Why 98.9% of all YouTube videos are garbage!

What's the fastest way to make your YouTube upload suck? Well, if I could only limit the list to five:

5. Gimmicky transitions.

4. Unreadable or cheesy fonts.

3. Complete disregard for copyright.

2. Crappy Tribute/Slash videos.

1. Using the prepackaged title cards from Windows Movie Maker as is.

Let's take a short, but detailed look at all of them.

5. Gimmicky transitions:

The Simpsons said it best. NO MORE STAR WIPES! For that matter, let's get rid of page wipes, pixelated wipes, sliding wipes, block wipes, any type of wipe. Unless you are Star Wars or some 1980s sitcom, only two transitions really matter: the clean cut and the dissolve. That's it. Anything else and you risk looking like a 12-year-old with too much time on your hands (please see #2).

4. Unreadable or cheesy fonts:

Titles or captions should not be in Curlz, Tempus Sans, or Comic Sans. They should be in a readable text, like Arial or Verdana. That also means your dark-colored title or text should not have a dark-colored background. And I have no idea why the YouTube developers decided annotations were a good idea.

Comic Sans strikes again.

3. Complete disregard for copyrighted music:

Hey, I'm all for public domain or fair use. But at least cite from where you got the copyrighted material. Biggest offenders: home videos that must have Ying Yang Twins accompanying your dog chasing his tail. They both have nothing to do with each other; which brings me to...

2. Crappy Tribute/Slash videos:

If it's been on television, odds are a tribute video exists, regardless of how obscure. Growing Pains? Yep. Family Matters? Covered. Dawson's Creek? Duh. Wuzzles?(Off topic: every person born after 1988 is scratching his or her head right now.) You bet your sweet tail!

Even worse are those videos that hint at some type of sexual relationship, usually between two characters of the same gender. I'm not a homophobe, but yeah, some of these videos exist because homophobes exist. Well, some--like Spock and Kirk--are quite good. Others, not so much. But come on, you know Olivia Benson and Alex Cabot were meant for each other! Elliot who?

You know you want it, Benson.

1. Using the prepackaged title cards from Windows Movie Maker as is:

Oh. My. God. I really don't have any words for this. Wait. Yes, I do. Stop it. At least change the background color from that VHS blue to black or something. And no more double-superimposed titles or spinning newspapers. But seriously, Windows Movie Maker can only take you so far. Buy Final Cut Pro or Avid. If you want to go all out, create your titles with AfterEffects. Or if you are broke, download one of these Ubuntu Linux editors.

Gotta love clichés that are dated even for Windows.

Bonus: Booty clapping videos.

I'm pretty sure this one borders on child pornography. All 14-year-old girls everywhere: this is not cute!

See you in Trig, Becky.

Happy Filmmaking.

The Marketability of Independent Film

Exactly how marketable is independent film? All through college I was told that indie films are really not that marketable. And it seems my professors and industry insiders were right. However, Cinderella stories such as District 9 and Paranormal Activity are hard to ignore. And Precious, a film endorsed by Oprah and Tyler Perry may not be far behind.

So was I lied to? Were millions of film students lied to? Not really, but I believe the tides have turned. Nowadays, it is far easier to self-produce and fund independent films. Give me $10,000 or even $5,000, and I can probably make something watchable. With such a small budget, turning a profit on my film may not be as hard as people make it.

But will it sell? Ahh. There's the rub. One has to be completely original, yet remain within the framework of some familiarity. Such as District 9. At first, it sounds like a typical alien invasion story, but the twist reveals that these aliens live in the ghetto. And humans have put them there. And the movie takes place in Africa. The familiarity of the alien invasion story draws us in, while ghetto aliens in bras and panties who abuse cat food like crack keeps us there.

The genre rules are the same though. You still have the bankable horror film, crime drama, romantic comedy, or sci-fi adventure. Indies can play around with genre constructs, especially to drive up originality factor, but too weird and you might be another Ed Wood (one can argue Plan 9 was a genre experiment).

As much as we would hate to admit, the Industry is a business. You gotta play to the masses if you want to stay on top. Of course, the most bankable thing you can do is to bring "a name" to your project. Names come at prices, but sometimes the names alone sell. For example, Tyler Perry can take a crap on a piece of paper, call it Madea Goes to the Bathroom, and will still turn a profit because of the marketability of his name. Hell, may even be #2 at the box office, right after the Halle Berry/Angelina Jolie lesbian film, also co-starring Beyoncé as the jilted lover.

Are there some films that prove marketable even while failing at these "rules"? Sure, but for most of us, we might as well throw that $5,000 off a cliff because no one will see our films. Alternatively, you could shoot the money floating gracefully towards the bottom of the abyss and call it a social commentary about the American banking loan system. Then post it on YouTube. Take that, Keyboard Cat!

Happy Filmmaking!

The Blurry Line Between Video Games and Film

In 2006, my alma mater changed its name from USC School of Cinema-Television to USC School of Cinematic Arts. Why the change? School officials noted the emergence of video game and interactive media in the curriculum and felt the name change was best suited for the school's 21-st century image.

If you think about it, many amateurs already use video games to crossover in filmmaking. The so-called YouTube phenomenon known as machinima is similar to fan fiction in the early days of the world wide web. Unlike fan fiction, however, these video game fans usually make up their own characters and storylines, similar to an actual film production. The videos are staged, edited, and posted for other fans to enjoy.

Some games incorporate filmmaking into their gameplay, like the game I'm addicted to, The Sims 2. I already use The Sims to build families and set Sim A with Sim B so that Sim C can inherit Sim D's money when she croaks, so making a film with the game is not to large of a stretch. Check out the music video I made with just my game and that amateurish video editing system known as Windows Moviemaker.

Happy Filmmaking!