Digital Marketing for the Entrepreneur

As I researched my way to push our company and films through social media campaigns, I encountered the following tools and prospect company services:

1.     There is a website called Buysocialpower.com. If you have the budget and are willing to be a do-it-all-yourself entrepreneur, this website allows you to buy a fan base for Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter. You might think, is this organic at all? But the truth is, it is just a lead way. Right after you buy your fans (basically the website connects your social platform’s title page with people in your market place and that would be interested in your product) you still have to do the work of multiplying these fans and maintaining them by promoting your services and products through campaigns and inciting these fans to tell others about yourself.

   Visit their website

Right when you access the landing page, there is a video explaining the whole process of social marketing and how can their company help in giving you that lead way of 1000, 5,000, or 10,000 fans so you can work with a real social media campaign. They have different plans according to the amount of fans you want them to connect to your page and the platform (Facebook, Twitter, YouTube) you will be choosing. For the self-starting businessman, I encourage you to check it out.

Now, if you are the kind of entrepreneur who finances his own projects through Indiegogo.com and Kickstarter.com, you may take your project and create an amazing campaigns with stunning artwork, great pitch videos, and attractive pledging offers that will raise the money to push your projects forward. In social media, there are several companies that focus in advancing this craft. Some of them are very independent and others are very corporate. In my research of finding such companies, two entities caught my attention:

2.   Film Marketing Services, LLC focuses in pushing independent films forward through socials marketing, distribution, and event planning. John Gursha, who has been associated with the entertainment industry for over ten years and started his career at the NBC lot with an NBC page in 2001 on the tonight show with Jay Leno, leads the company. If your desire is to let a professional handle your connections as a producer and your social media campaign, Film Marketing Services, LLC is your answer.

Visit their website

 3.     Banyan Branch is a more structured company, which focuses not only on film, but also other products and events. The company works with other companies such as Disney, Porsche, FOX, Microsoft, Paramount, Hartz, Univision, and Gilt Groupe. However, they also have smaller clients like Grasshopper and Clarisonic.

  Visit their Website

In the world of marketing, PR and distribution, social media has become a pivotal elements in today’s modern industries and the world of the Internet. Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube play the primary roles in the way we connect across the world.

Artemis: A new director’s viewfinder designed for digital filmmakers

Chemical Wedding has an extraordinary application for directors and cinematographers that indulge in the digital world. Artemis Viewfinder and now Artemis HD bring a whole new world to filmmakers on a budget or simply filmmakers that believe digital is the new way to go in the motion picture industry.  The power of this application consists in this: it allows you to build your set of lenses and equipment while location scouting. However, you don't need to rent a $200 director’s viewfinder, and it gives you the ability to record images for storyboard reference. In the past, cinematographers and directors had to use an eyepiece, which depending on where they set the ring, they could see the way the camera was going to capture the scene. Nowadays, this application allows you to not only capture digital samples with different types of lenses and aspect ratios, but also lets you view the way you would capture a scene with new digital formats such as a Red One camera, a Viper, or the now famous DSLR cameras Cannon 7D and 5D.

What is even more amazing is that the application is now available in the Android Market and Apple Store, meaning you can make use of this great new way to build your scenes either through an iPhone, iPad, or an HTC Sensation. It doesn’t matter. Artemis Viewfinder is $29.99 and its remote version to control it through a secondary device is $4.99. Yes, it can be remotely controlled. Thus, if you have an iPad and an iPhone you can give the iPad to your director and as a cinematographer you frame the shots through the iPhone. Artemis will let you adjust the focal point, aspect ratio, or the focus in order to provide you flexibility with the way you frame your shots. After the work is done, the recorder frames will also capture the information so you can rent the equipment necessary if you with to acquire a desired look. It will even incorporate in the picture’s information GPS data so you are able to remember where you precisely took the shot.

Current supported lenses and formats include:

Standard and Super 16mm
Super 16mm Anamorphic
Standard and Super 35mm
35mm Anamorphic
65mm
35mm Digital (D-21, RED, F35, Genesis)
2/3 " Digital (F23, Viper)
1/2" Digital
1/3" Digital
Canon 5D and 7D

 I encourage all of you who really want to take seriously digital filmmaking and even analog filmmaking to acquire this new application. It will be costly in the beginning, but it will make you precise in your decisions regarding the look you wish to give to your new projects. And don’t worry about new formats or updates. They are all free once you buy the application and have an Android Market or Apple App Store account. Go ahead! If you want to find out more, go and visit Chemical Wedding's Website.

Indiegogo opens Distribber, a real chance for independent filmmakers

As I researched Distribber, I found out they are partnered with Indiegogo.com. Indiegogo is an online platform which allows you to pitch a project to a main audience and ask for funding support. Thus, I found excellent that one as a filmmaker can use their services to request distribution funds for Distribber itself. Distribber is an excellent aggregator of independent films that sells works to the most used VOD distributors such as Netflix, iTunes, and Amazon on Demand. However, in order to allow the filmmaker to maintain full rights and revenue collection of their works, they always charge up front fees for every project and the quantity varies per distribution channel. In the many eyes of filmmakers, this may look extremely unfair as there is no sense in charging the seller for its product. However, Distribber's variety of channels and speed of processing is fast, and they will represent you while your content is up and running. Also, Distribber helps push some of the marketing and advertisement of the film through their website along with a particular distributor's online platform during a certain time.

Therefore, here is where I find both entities' partnership ideal. By Distribber making part of Indiegogo, one as a filmmaker will be able to pitch a project and request for the necessary funds needed to pay Distribber's distribution fees. One can use the Indiegogo platform to acquire funding from the project's fans themselves. This service, on the contrary of what Distribber offers, is free and allows the filmmaker to pursue his own funds without having to get them out of his/her own pocket. The only part you have to do as to contribute to the process is work a captivating video, a portion of the film, a trailer of the film, an animated proposal that shows your fans and future investors a) why should they invest in a project, b) what is the project about, and c) how do you plan to benefit them as investors of the project. This last point doesn't mean necessarily you will pay them back, but it could be you providing them with a free copy of the film, free tickets and food to your next screening, or even you making them part of your credits list.

Overall, I believe Distribber is not meant for all filmmakers and all types of outlets. However, if one plans to distribute a product for the most part online, and also, one expects to make more than $1300 in revenue, then I believe Distribber is right for you. Still, if the problem is about acquiring the necessary funds to pay their services, then use Indiegogo's platform to acquire the necessary budget to pay for Distribber's fees. It will not only be helpful to have knowledge of this possible procedure, but also it is great practice for a filmmaker to acquire funding for upcoming projects by making part of these funds originate from the project's fans themselves. 

Walking Wolf 2012

Walking Wolf Productions is at the brink of launching it's new product line of feature films with it's short compilation, "The Remenents". The company's purpose is to start the line with an intrinsic set of stories which deliver a message inspiring survival. All of it's stories/short films are award-winning and will add up 90 minutes of feature length content which will be distributed through main stream aggregators such as Create Space, IndieFlix, and Distribber. These aggregators will give the film access to the iTunes, Netflix, Amazon VOD, Amazon.com, Hulu.com, and Comcast VOD market places. In addition, Walking Wolf Productions will have the chance to continue playing in the festival circuit and retain all of it's rights as a creator for the projects. 

It's a given fact Walking Wolf Productions will need to redesign artwork and marketing strategies now that the shorts will enter the feature-length content market. Still, the company wil not only work on given tasks, but also redeliver its now compiled products through another major screening in Miami, FL, home base of the corporation. Also, Walking Wolf Productions will be traveling next month to the United Kingdom to exhibit it's newest short film, "Fractured Minds" and see the possibility of selling to distribution sales presentatives of the European market that will be attending the festival its new feature film product. The company will thereafter travel between November and December to Los Angeles to sell it's new product at the American Film Market and Distributors Exhibition.

Furthermore, Walking Wolf Productions plans to have four new projects launched for next year. The first one will consist in opening its first brand new office in Kendall, Florida, the second one will be creating it's new Web TV site which will start with three mini-series which are currently under development, the third will be doing a final revision of it's next action-thriller "In True Nature", and the fourth will be finishing the development phase for "Matters of the Heart" (working title) it's next heart-wrenching drama. As it is visible, Walking Wolf Productions has it's hands full for several months to come.

Entertainment Law Podcasts of the Week

1.     How the Power of Branding Drives Trademark Law (From the Thompson Compumark Podcasts Series by Thomson)

The podcast centers in how trademark law has had to adapt given to the new branding rules brought by the world of the Internet. Nowadays, protecting a company’s name and the image that represents that name has become global. No longer does trademark law center on the U.S, but also in worldwide markets. The following cases were addressed to prove this point:

b.     Metel v. Barbies

“Barbies”, a restaurant in Canada decided to post their menu online in order to give leverage to their brand and attract new customers. However, Mattel, the creator of the doll line, “Barby”, became aware of the incident and asked the Canadian restaurant to please remove their website for it was infringing the “Barby” trademark. The Canadian restaurant did not comply, and Mattel went to court with the case alleging, “we were famous” and thus deserved to ask for other similar brands to be expunged. Yet, the supreme court of Canada responded to Mattel that there had to be a connection between the channels of trade before an opposition could be upheld. Thus, the court specified they still had to use the totality of the circumstances and not the mere statement Mattel “was famous.”

In my opinion, no matter how much leverage and popularity your brand acquires, procedures in court have to be made within the process established for that particular infringement. People cannot get “too cocky” as the lawyer in the podcast expressed. The law is the law, and although popularity is for the masses, a country is ruled by a code and not by self-centered individuals with elevated egos.

c.      Jaguar v. Remo Imports

Jaguar, the motorcar trademark expanded to sell leather-made goods in the 1980’s. However, Remo imports filed a lawsuit that Jaguar was associating goods that competed with their trademark and thus was driving consumers into a market in which they did not belong. Jaguar backfired their claim by arguing it was a natural extension for a brand like Jaguar, which inspires luxury and wealth, to sell leather-made merchandise with the logo of the company on it. In addition to this argument, they added that Remo on the contrary was using their claim to diminish the value of their brand in order to sell products of their own which resembled Jaguar’s and which were fabricated way after. The result was the court ruling an expunge of the Remo products.

d.     Levi’s v. Small Businesses

Small businesses filed lawsuits against Levi’s for using the word “overalls” as part of their trademark association. Levi’s argued back that although it was their purpose to expand as a brand, the word “overalls” could not be taken away from their trademark’s association to consumers given jeans (the primary product of Levi’s) were technically considered a type of overall. Yet, the court asked Levi’s in return of reversing the small businesses’ claims to include “male, female, and children overalls” in their advertisement if they desired such expansion of the brand legally to take place.

2.     Monkeying around with copyright law (Episode 23 of the Entertainment Law Update Podcasts Series by Gordon P. Firemark)

The podcasts comment about different cases regarding copyright law and copyright infringements happening now.

b.     Righthaven, a copyright troll (company that goes around acquiring rights in copyrighted materials so that instead of suing people, they can get money by settling the matter on their own without litigating), has been filing lawsuits against bloggers and online users who have been republishing work that official newspapers and magazines rightfully own. Yet, they have failed three strikes in a row based on the court not favoring Righthaven’s actions and the court’s interpretation that the true copyright holders of the pieces in question are the magazines and newspapers that originally produced them.

                                               i.     Righthaven v. Democratic Underground

                                              ii.     Righthaven v. Hoean

                                            iii.     Righthaven v. Dibiase

c.      Jack Kirby v. Marvel

Jack Kirby appeals loss in Marvel copyright lawsuit based on his work made between 1958-1963 in the company stating that there was never an official contract that mentioned Kirby working for the company in order to deliver ideas that would be used later by Stan Lee in the final comics. Marvel restated this was a work for hire and that in any work for hire when one works for a company, one’s creations belong to that company. Yet, Kirby has shielded in the copyright act of 1909 (act ruling during that time), which does not specify what a “work for hire” entails (meaning it didn’t exist back in the time). He has mentioned he was only instructed to create pages of ideas through sketches, but was never told they would be the base of current Marvel characters, which catapulted the brand to success. This appeal is in proceedings since the time due to lack of evidence from behalf of Kirby.

d.     Warner Brothers Entertainment, Inc v. X1X Productions

Although the Lyman Frank Baum characters by law should have entered to be public domain by now, Warner Brothers, with the creation of “The Wizard of Oz” in 1939, acquired a renowned trademark over specific looks of the characters. This has been a battle between being a trademark claim and a copyright claim. Warner Brothers wants to claim other people need to acquire license and rights from them in order to use the characters. Yet, other entities have been smart by not being detailed about the main characters and have stayed with secondary characters which weren’t very well depicted in the 1939 version such as in the case of the “Wicked” play producers.

3.     YouTube, Hurt Locker, and Idea Theft (Episode 12 of the Entertainment Law Update Podcasts Series by Gordon P. Firemark)

The podcasts comment about different cases regarding copyright law and copyright infringements happening now.

a.     Michael Douglas v. Diandra Douglas

The film Wall Street 2 reignited a battle between superstar Michael Douglas and his ex-wife Diandra Douglas given her divorce decree stated when would receive 50% of the income from any “spin-off” of a film made during the time of their marriage. However, the court brought a problem to the definition of the term “spin-off” which is not a legal term. According to the speakers of the podcast, what she should have drafted in the decree was “any derivatives.” Nonetheless, the case is currently pending a decision.

b.     Viacom v. Google/Youtube

The district court of the southern district of New York ruled that Youtube/Google is not liable to the contributory copyright infringement Viacom was claiming. The court protected Youtube/Google based on the safe harbor provision section 5.12 of the DMCA where the service provider is not liable for infringement by reason of storing user generated material if the provider is not knowledgeable that the material is infringing. Viacom opposed arguing Youtube knew about its infringements and was only pretending not to know in order to fill their website with content.

c.      The U.S. Copyright Group v. 5,000 illegal downloads

The creators/producers of the award-winning film “The Hurt Locker” incorporated a copyright protection firm, which accuses 5,000 Internet users of downloading illegal digital copies of the film via bi-torrent software. Comcast when alleged said they would work on the matter when the time comes on a per-case basis, and the court is currently questioning if filing against/persecuting 5,000 people is a legitimate way of copyright protection. Copyright can only protect when there is a specific defendant and when there is a series of transactions (in terms of illegal downloads) harming the filing company. However, with bi-torrent in extremely hard to calculate given elements which trigger a lawsuit.

References:

How the Power of Branding Drives Trademark Law

http://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/how-power-branding-drives/id264628681?i=23010931

Monkeying Around With Copyright Law Podcast

http://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/id313301718?i=96594890

Use the Force, Big Boy, and Watch Out for Beyonce’s Undies

http://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/entertainment-law-update-podcast/id313301718?i=93105276

Infringment in the Entertainment Industry

This week’s post will be centered in legal liabilities within the entertainment industry and the world. I believe it is of crucial importance to quote and refer our resources when we write and create any type of material. From books to music to schoolwork, we always need to be original and deliver proper credit to the people who said or thought concepts we are using for our new thesis.

The first article I encountered in my search for legal liabilities within this year was Adrian Jacob’s lawsuit for copyright infringement against J.K. Rowling. Jacob, who died in 1987, but was represented by family members, wrote the children book series “Willy the Wizard”, which were claimed to be very similar to his counterpart’s series “Harry Potter”.

The lawsuit was filed in a court of London and the PR representing the family stated it would be a lawsuit worth millions of dollars. The suit more specifically accused “Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire” to have identical elements stolen from “Willy the Wizard: Livid Land”. Yet, Judge Shira Sheindlin from the United States court said “The contrast between the total concept and feel of the works is so stark that any serious comparison of the two strains credulity" (Guardian UK). She clarified the absurdity of the claim and favored Rowling.

I believe this case was not only absurd, like Judge Sheindlin implied, but also was a waste of time given to the passing of time that took the suit to take place after the publishing date of the Harry Potter sequel. “Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire” was published in 2000, Jacob’s book was written before 1982, and yet the suit was made last year. Furthermore, Rowling’s books have already acquired amazing success including 7 blockbusters in Hollywood, which have grossed millions one at a time. Even if she had plagiarized a page or half a book, the fans of Harry Potter are so vast that the public acclaim would be overwhelmingly shielding against the faulty lawsuit. Not only has Rowling written a book 600 pages long which surpasses Jacob’s 36 pager, but she has created an entire world book after book, which has built a worldwide franchise.

http://www.csmonitor.com/Books/chapter-and-verse/2010/0218/J.K.-Rowling-faces-another-plagiarism-suit

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2011/jan/07/harry-potter-plagiarism-case-us-court

The second article I encountered was NME’s accusation against Lady Gaga in copying Madonna’s “Express Yourself” with her hit “Born this Way”. Infuriated, she said in return the only element she had transcended was the song’s beat rhythm or to be more exact:

“What a completely ridiculous thing to even question me about… If you put the songs next to each other, side-by-side, the only similarities are the chord progression. It's the same one that's been in disco music for the last 50 years. Just because I’m the first f***ing artist in 25 years to think of putting it on Top 40 radio, it doesn’t mean I’m a plagiarist, it means that I’m f***ing smart. Sorry.” (USMagazine.com).

In my opinion, I also think this accusation (which has not been taken into a law suit yet) is not relevant. “Born this way” is not similar neither in lyrics nor in style, it is only similar in tempo. Thus, I find ridiculous they accuse her of copyright infringement just because they relate in their support for the LGBT community, and not in tangible evidence that “Born this Way” is literally a copy of “Express Yourself”. Even the videos if you check them on YouTube differ drastically. While Gaga’s video resembles an orgy from the point of view of a drug addict (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wV1FrqwZyKw), Madonna’s video resembles a classic piece that illustrates entrapment and confusion, not perverted sex (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GsVcUzP_O_8). Ultimately, I would say the beats in both songs are similar, but Madonna’s has way more congas and an 80’s style than Gaga’s. From a tangible standpoint, I do believe NME is out of place in accusing Miss Germanotta of copyright infringement.

http://www.usmagazine.com/moviestvmusic/news/lady-gaga-calls-madonna-plagiarism-charges-retarded-2011204

My third and last search of the day was the famous lawsuit filed in Germany from the University of Bayreuth against defense minister Karl-Theodor Freiherr Zu Guttenberg. Although it is a case not pertaining to the entertainment industry, I am bringing it to this blog because I consider certain politicians such a George W. Bush and Sarah Palin to be celebrities of gossip and publicity money makers. Just as such, I believe in Germany Mr. Guttenberg to be the same. He was “shooting star” of conservatism driven by the public force to become Germany’s future chancellor. The 39-year-old baron, as they call him, excelled the expectations of his fellow Germans:

“In less than two years as defense minister, Guttenberg pushed through the most drastic reform of Germany's armed forces since the second world war. Most notably, he successfully fought for a plan to end conscription, part of an effort to slim down the German military and make it better adapted to an era in which it faces growing demands to deploy overseas.” (Hellen Pidd, Guardian UK).

However, one lawsuit, one accusation accompanied by massive press was all that Guttenberg needed to cease power. Bayreuth University accused him of plagiarizing his PHD thesis and although it is not considered in the US a felony or IP transgression, it was enough because of the media to shoot him down. This was aggravated when he testified in public, “I was always prepared to fight but I have reached the limits of my powers” and “I did not deliberately cheat, but made serious errors”.

Quite opposite in this case, I am in favor with the University of Bayreuth because of the nature of the case and the background of the accuser. I believe Mr. Guttenberg should have never agreed in public he did some errors in his thesis. He did not only feed a destructive force such as the media, but also directed his journey as a politician onto having to resign or he would lose faith from the people. Also, I believe this time the accuser was a scholarly source with a lot of background concerning law and education. If you are fighting against a scholastic institution and the media at the same time in a country like Germany, an individual like Mr. Guttenberg no matter how much power acquired will almost always fail. I believe he only plagiarized by not focusing and taking care of accrediting his sources; it wasn’t a voluntary action. However, it was his position in Germany’s society, which weakened his possibilities in winning a case against a force like the media who is specialized in destructive spin when it come to informing citizens.

http://articles.cnn.com/2011-03-01/world/germany.politics_1_defense-minister-plagiarism-scandal-guttenberg?_s=PM:WORLD

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/01/german-defence-minister-resigns-plagiarism

APPLE VS GOOGLE/HTC

I have found mesmerizing the battle between Apple and HTC about copyright infringement issues. I believe Apple in a way has to take a grip and realize that although they were the innovators of the smartphone market, they still need to compete outside of a courtroom. The world will change and adapt to innovators in order to compete and stay up with emerging technology. It is Apple who needs to drastically bring something new to the table with its new iPhone 5.

On the other hand, I believe HTC has also to make something unique that in combination with Android’s operating system sets their company apart from Apple. Android has an amazing apps market that although it hasn’t reached the number of applications the App store has; it still develops each year in large quantities. I believe HTC is a company that prides itself of selling its products all over in the US no matter which provider it is. The company does give exclusivity with certain models to specific providers; however I believe this factor makes HTC way more flexible than Apple.

Apple has always given exclusivity to AT&T and recently gave exclusivity to Verizon. I think they were very smart in choosing a high profile counterpart for AT&T which worked without Sim cards. As we know, the market is separated in two different types of technology: GSM, which utilizes Sim Cards (AT&T, T-Mobile & Simple Mobil) and CDMA, which works without Sim cards (Verizon, Sprint, Metro PCS). The fact Apple chose to have two carries with these two different types of technology allows their phones to be used by both types of customers, which fight between speed and versatility. Apple also prides itself to have the biggest apps network available in the world. Its App store contains more than 400,000 applications today while the Android market has somewhat more than 150,000. Thus, it is the app store that currently carries the iPhone, not necessarily the phone itself. 

Ultimately, it is visible why Apple and HTC are having a copyright debate. One company is the innovator and the other has become the developer of smart phone technology. I believe Apple should come up with a mind blasting iPhone 5 next year and new features in its App store in order to catch up with HTC instead of arguing in courtrooms. On the other hand, I believe HTC should create something unique about them aside of making their phones available for tethering, and Android having Flash incorporated (a super + for HTC/Android over Apple). HTC should bring technology that stets them apart of Apple in order to make Apple adapt to their technology in order to compete in today’s cell phone market.