<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/">
<channel>
<title>Techdirt. Stories filed under &quot;documentaries&quot;</title>
<description>Easily digestible tech news...</description>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/</link>
<language>en-us</language>

<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 26 Sep 2012 08:56:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Shockingly, Kickstarter Doesn't Work For Every Movie (Psst: Neither Does The Old System)</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120925/23204520514/shockingly-kickstarter-doesnt-work-every-movie-psst-neither-does-old-system.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120925/23204520514/shockingly-kickstarter-doesnt-work-every-movie-psst-neither-does-old-system.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Internet contrarian Evgeny Morozov has built something of a career out of being the online curmudgeon du jour when it comes to being skeptical about those who see benefits and opportunity on the internet today.  So it comes as little surprise that he's now turned his "hype deflater ray" on Kickstarter, in an article for Slate that <a href="http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2012/09/kickstarter_s_crowdfunding_won_t_save_indie_filmmaking_.single.html" target="_blank">tries to bash Kickstarter for not funding every possible movie</a>.  I'm not joking.  That's about the extent of the critique.  He cites a study that finds that certain types of movies do well on Kickstarter (and other similar platforms), while others don't.  Uh.  Yeah.
<blockquote><i>
...this revolution has a few mitigating circumstances. First, Kickstarter might produce many new documentaries, but the odds are that those documentaries will be of a very particular kind (this critique also applies to other sites in this field like indiegogo.com, sponsume.com, crowdfunder.co.uk, pledgie.com). They are likely to be campaign and issue-driven films in the tradition of </i>Super Size Me<i> or </i>An Inconvenient Truth<i>. Their directors seek social change and tap into an online public that shares the documentary's activist agenda. A documentary exploring the causes of World War I probably stands to receive less&#8212;if any&#8212;online funding than a documentary exploring the causes of climate change.
</i></blockquote>
I see.  And does the "old" system of Hollywood regularly make documentaries exploring the causes of World War I?  I'm really not sure I understand how this is a criticism at all.  Unless a platform can fund <em>any and all</em> types of movies, it's not really that big of a deal?  Under those conditions, nothing is particularly good.  Basically, what this paragraph seems to argue is that, "gee, Kickstarter is good at funding projects that lots of people want to see, but not so good at funding projects that people aren't as interested in."  I'm not sure that's a critique.  It seems to be <i>the purpose</i> of the site itself.
<blockquote><i>
Second, some films require significant startup costs (think drama-documentaries or history movies) or involve considerable legal risks that may be hard to price and account for. Say you are making a film that includes an undercover investigation of the oil industry. When you have the BBC's lawyers backing you up, you'll probably take many more risks than when you are relying on crowdfunding. But if Kickstarter is your platform of choice, you'll probably forgo venturing into the thorny legal issues altogether. 
</i></blockquote>
I'm curious to know if there's any actual evidence to support this argument.  One could just as easily claim that when your project has the backing of a big corporation with liability-averse lawyers, you're a lot less likely to be allowed to take risks, than when you rely on crowdfunding.  I don't know which is true (though having spent too much time around movie industry lawyers, I'm pretty sure my statement is a hell of a lot more accurate than Morozov's), but where is the actual data to support this bizarre claim?
<br /><br />
There are further complaints that seem equally silly.  For example, Morozov points out that someone raised money on Kickstarter to help get his film on physical screens in movie theaters -- and that's somehow proof that Kickstarter isn't that special, since the "old" way of showing a movie is still involved.  I'm at a loss as to how any of this is mutually exclusive.  There is nothing inherent to Kickstarter that says if you use it, you can only do things online.  What's wrong with using it to show a film in theaters?
<br /><br />
All in all, this seems a lot like Morozov set up what he thinks Kickstarter should be about -- and then knocked that down.  In the logical fallacy world, that's known as a <a href="http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman" target="_blank">strawman</a>.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120925/23204520514/shockingly-kickstarter-doesnt-work-every-movie-psst-neither-does-old-system.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120925/23204520514/shockingly-kickstarter-doesnt-work-every-movie-psst-neither-does-old-system.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120925/23204520514/shockingly-kickstarter-doesnt-work-every-movie-psst-neither-does-old-system.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>pointless-articles</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120925/23204520514</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 30 Aug 2012 00:04:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Filmmaker Using BitTorrent &#038; TopSpin To Distribute Free Copies Of Older Movie To Promote New Skateboarding Documentary</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/casestudies/articles/20120829/01372720203/filmmaker-using-bittorrent-topspin-to-distribute-free-copies-older-movie-to-promote-new-skateboarding-documentary.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/casestudies/articles/20120829/01372720203/filmmaker-using-bittorrent-topspin-to-distribute-free-copies-older-movie-to-promote-new-skateboarding-documentary.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Skateboarder and filmmaker (often focusing his films on skateboarding) <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stacy_Peralta" target="_blank">Stacy Peralta</a> is releasing his latest skateboarding documentary, <a href="http://bonesbrigade.com/trailer/" target="_blank"><i>Bones Brigade: An Autobiography</i></a>, about the Bones Brigade skateboarding crew -- Tony Hawk, Lance Mountain, Steve Caballero, Mike McGill and Tommy Guerrero -- which Peralta helped put together in the first place.  Rather than go the traditional route with releasing the movie (as he's done many times, including with the acclaimed skateboarding documentary <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogtown_and_Z-Boys" target="_blank"><i>Dogtown and Z-Boys</i></a>), Peralta has decided to go direct to fans.  The movie was shown at Sundance earlier this year, where it got some attention and <a href="http://espn.go.com/action/skateboarding/story/_/id/8293000/autobiography-trailer" target="_blank">had a bunch of opportunities</a> to go with traditional distribution partners, but instead Peralta figured it was time to take control, noting that the DIY ethic of direct-to-fan is <a href="http://bonesbrigade.com/blog/2012/08/21/note-from-stacy/" target="_blank">similar to the way skateboarding evolved</a> in the early days:
<blockquote><i>
As skateboarders, as people that have always lived on the outside, have always had to sneak over fences or through the back door, have always had to create our own terrain, we&#8217;ve decided to put that ethic towards how we release &#8220;Bones Brigade: An Autobiography.&#8221; We turned down all of the conventional offers for distribution when we came out of the festival in favor of doing it ourselves.
</i></blockquote>
One part of this DIY approach is that to promote this new movie, Peralta teamed up with BitTorrent and TopSpin to help with direct-to-fan digital distribution and promotion.  Via BitTorrent, people can <a href="http://featuredcontent.utorrent.com/" target="_blank">download a "Bones Brigade Bundle,"</a> including a bunch of extras, and then using a TopSpin feature (either on the web, or directly in the uTorrent client), if you submit your email address, you can download an entirely free copy of the classic skate film, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Search_for_Animal_Chin" target="_blank"><i>The Search for Animal Chin</i></a>, which was released 25 years ago, and featured the members of the Bones Brigade.  So the combined effort, from Animal Chin to the Bones Brigade documentary is sort of a "full circle" situation.
<br /><br />
It's great to see more filmmakers really embracing both direct-to-fan, but also realizing that things like BitTorrent aren't automatically bad, but have a place in a marketing campaign as well.  In this case, it's interesting to see Peralta using a combination of a few different tools to create an integrated and comprehensive campaign not only to market the new film, but also to distribute the old film (the first time it's officially available in digital format).  Oh, and if you'd like to download <i>The Search for Animal Chin</i>, there's an embedded widget right below this sentence...<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/casestudies/articles/20120829/01372720203/filmmaker-using-bittorrent-topspin-to-distribute-free-copies-older-movie-to-promote-new-skateboarding-documentary.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/casestudies/articles/20120829/01372720203/filmmaker-using-bittorrent-topspin-to-distribute-free-copies-older-movie-to-promote-new-skateboarding-documentary.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/casestudies/articles/20120829/01372720203/filmmaker-using-bittorrent-topspin-to-distribute-free-copies-older-movie-to-promote-new-skateboarding-documentary.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>bittorrent-as-promotion</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120829/01372720203</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 12 May 2010 01:46:13 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Is A Documentary Investigative Reporting? Should Filmmakers Be Covered By Journalist Shield Laws?</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100510/0248309355.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100510/0248309355.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ While there are still ongoing <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100426/1329379174.shtml">arguments</a> over <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100507/0344459334.shtml">whether</a> or <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100427/0121149190.shtml">not</a> bloggers should be considered journalists when it comes to keeping their sources and source materials confidential, there's another arena impacted by all of this as well: documentary filmmakers.  A judge has <a href="http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/05/06/judge-rules-that-filmmaker-must-give-footage-to-chevron/" target="_blank">ordered a documentary filmmaker to turn over "cut" footage</a> to Chevron from the filmmaker's documentary about Chevron's involvement in pollution of the rainforest in Ecuador.  Chevron believes that there may be footage that will help it get a lawsuit filed against the company by Ecuadorians dismissed.  While the filmmaker argued that the works were protected, the judge shot that down in saying that since there were no confidentiality agreements signed, that the material is not confidential.  That seems like a rather broad ruling over whether or not a journalist can protect their sources.  Do all journalists now need to sign confidentiality agreements with sources?<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100510/0248309355.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100510/0248309355.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100510/0248309355.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>seems-reasonable...</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100510/0248309355</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 6 Apr 2010 18:50:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Part Of Civil Rights Documentary Finally Coming Out On DVD After Years Of Copyright Battling</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100405/1250218885.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100405/1250218885.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Back in 1988 and 1990, PBS aired the two parts of the seminal documentary <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eyes_on_the_Prize" target="_blank"><i>Eyes on the Prize</i></a> about the civil rights movement.  Since then, it's been considered one of the best ways of explaining and showing the civil rights struggle to those who did not live through it.  Yet, it soon went out of print, and for years there have been fights to get it released on DVD.  The problem?  You guessed it: copyright.  When the original documentary makers made the film they were only able to secure limited licenses for the archival footage they used, and once those licenses expired, the film was effectively dead in the water.  For obvious reasons, this greatly upset some people, who started <a href="http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/2005/02/66550" target="_blank">encouraging people to download</a> copies of the film to get it seen -- even if this did <a href="http://www.sharp-tools.net/archives/000191.html" target="_blank">upset others</a> who were (loosely) associated with the film, fearing that it would hurt the ongoing negotiations for eventual licensing.
<br /><br />
While it's taken a long, long time, the good news is that <a href="http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/la-et-eyes-prize3-2010apr03,0,4902711.story" target="_blank">part I of the documentary has finally been released on DVD</a>, even though part II is still tied up in licensing problems.  While I can understand why some have been upset in linking the issue of civil rights with copyfighting, this seemed like a perfect example of the problems of copyright law today.  Allowing this DVD to go forward would, in no way, "harm" the market for the original archival footage.  It was a way to get it much more attention -- on an incredibly important topic that has deserved much greater awareness.  To have all that content mostly locked up for nearly two decades is a real shame, and speaks to the censoring power of copyright law.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100405/1250218885.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100405/1250218885.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100405/1250218885.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>slowly,-but-surely</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100405/1250218885</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 29 Apr 2008 10:10:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Is Copyright Law Killing The Documentary?</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080428/131808970.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080428/131808970.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ A few years back, we wrote about a documentary that <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20041222/0950253.shtml">couldn't be shown</a> due to copyright problems.   It appears this problem is only getting worse.  <b>jprlk</b> writes in to let us know about growing concerns from documentary filmmakers that <a href="http://www.cbc.ca/arts/film/story/2008/04/27/creative-commons.html" target="_new">issues concerning copyright make it increasingly difficult to actually make documentary films</a>.  Having reached this age where so many people are claiming "ownership" of content and demanding huge fees for any usage, documentary filmmakers run the risk of either getting charged repeatedly with copyright infringement or going through the long, difficult and expensive process of securing the rights.  As the article quotes one documentary film maker saying, "Half of my budget is rights clearances, if you can get them."  Given that the whole point of documentaries is to <i>document</i> things that are actually happening, it seems rather silly to realize that they can't document many things without first paying for the permission to do so.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080428/131808970.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080428/131808970.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080428/131808970.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>ain't-copyright-grand?</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20080428/131808970</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>