Working Backward to Move Forward

EU Officially Seizes The Public Domain, Retroactively Extends Copyright

As was unfortunately expected, despite no evidence that this made any economic sense at all, the member states of the EU have agreed to retroactively extend copyright another 20 years, at which point you can expect it to be extended again. This is nothing short of governments and the entertainment industry seizing works from the public domain.

As someone that works on documentaries I’m in a somewhat unique position of creating original content that very often relies on the intellectual property of others to help tell the story so I can understand where both sides are coming from. If you create something you want that creation to be protected so that you can monetize it otherwise there is no way to make a living from your work.

On the flip side I think the length and breadth of copyright laws should be reasonable. Extending them repeated destroys their intended purpose and stifles creation of new, original works. Unlike some people I don’t rail against copyright law or think it should be abolished. They serve a good purpose but like anything they can be abused and taken too far. Ultimately, I believe copyright law should be a shield, not a sword, and the more it is aggressively used as a weapon the more it will hurt everyone in the long run.

I recently saw a top list of YouTube stars and it reminded me of a great book I read a while ago called Fans, Friends & Followers by Scott Kirsner.  The book is about 18 months old but I still believe there is a lot of pertinent information in it.  Even though he profiles a pretty large cross section of ‘new media’ success stories there are a number of common threads between them.

For example, many of the successful people have done it individually and not as part of a group or band.  Which of course cuts down on overhead and expenses ($80,000 split one way is a nice annual income but $80,000 split across four band members is not).  I also noticed that many people relied on their fan base (hence part of the book’s title) to help keep costs down.  For example, a singer on tour might be able to couch surf at fans’ homes to reduce travel costs or a fan might to make/run an artist’s website for free (or for very little).

This sense of community and connectivity is certainly different from the ‘old media’ experience and can help people achieve things they otherwise wouldn’t be able to.  On the flip side though, depending on the benevolence of strangers doesn’t sound like that solid of a business plan to me.

This is an alarming must read for all filmmakers (especially documentary filmmakers).

Why filmmaking cannot be a hobby

Documentary filmmakers have become especially vulnerable to the perception that they are engaged in a hobby rather than an activity for profit. Because development takes so long and revenue sources are so difficult to sustain, filmmakers often endure losses over many years. They persevere because they become so passionate about their subject matter and the need to spread their message to the world that generating a profit may not seem primary.

Unfortunately the unfair and incorrect perception that documentary filmmakers are not interested in profit has resulted in unsettling scrutiny of our industry by the U.S. Internal Revenue Service. In a case now in U.S Tax Court in Arizona, the IRS has been asked to demonstrate whether or not the primary purpose of documentary filmmaking in general is “to educate and to expose” and is thus “an activity not engaged in for profit.”

What I find most maddening is how this narrow field of view is being focused on documentaries. Is a journalist’s primary purpose not to educate and expose? Are no pro athletes playing for love of the game? The idea that’s coming across, that loving what you do and making a profit from it are mutually exclusive, is ridiculous.