12 |
Short Film Distribution
Co-written with David Russell,
President, Big Film Shorts
We now can move on to awakening the sleeping giant that is short films.
A chapter on short film distribution? Does that mean you can write a business plan for short films? You can't write a traditional business plan quite yet, but short films are the fastest growing and changing market segment in the entertainment industry, a sector of the industry that is changing faster than others. New revenue sources are developing rapidly. As a producer or director of a short film, you need to know everything you can about the business side. We are both getting emails every day asking for information on finding funding for short films.
The whole industry knows about short films. In fact, the industry has always known about short films; they invented them. Prior to the last few years of the 1990s, student filmmakers were able to use short films as showcases; however, exhibitors and distributors didn't pay attention. Nor did the audience. Now that some exhibitors are daring to show their audiences short films, there is the emergence of a revenue-producing business.
This chapter can present only the tip of the iceberg. You may be reading it three years after publication. Of course, you will have to add your own research on this subject to be sure you have the most updated information for yourself and to include in the business plan you will write. There are minimal amounts of money for investing in short films now, but the future shows promise. This is only the beginning.
Originally, we contemplated writing an entire book about the business side of short films, but it would have been very short, like the format itself. Why? There was not much to say, partly because the short form has never been fully exploited as a revenue source. People are just beginning to figure out how they can use short films beyond the usual filler. As more money looms on the horizon for makers of short films, we feel we can now make this chapter worth your while.
WHAT IS A SHORT FILM?
There is nothing new about the format or the length. Compared to films today, silent films and talkies were short. The first public film screening by the Lumière Brothers in 1895 included approximately ten short films lasting 20 minutes in total. The majority of their films were documentaries and some were comedies. In the first decade of the 20th century, Edison and others made films that took up only one roll of film, thus earning the format the nickname “one-reelers”; the length of time to play these single-roll movies was 10 to 12 minutes, so, by their very nature, they were short films.
Newsreels were introduced in England in 1897 by the Frenchman Charles Pathé, but became popular in the 1920s. From the 1920s through the 1940s, five companies—Fox Movietone, News of the Day, Paramount, RKO-Pathé, and Universal—made the five-minute-long newsreels for the approximately 85 million people attending films each week. Along with the newsreels, the theaters also showed a variety of short films between 1919 and 1930; for example, Pathé produced a series of short documentaries for film audiences. When projectors were modified to accommodate longer reels, a “short” became 20 minutes long. In addition, Pete Smith, Robert Benchley, and others made popular 15-minute black-and-white featurettes from the 1930s until the television revolution of the 1950s. The cartoons that were shown in addition to the newsreel and specialty shorts were usually 5 to 8 minutes in length.
At one point, a short film could actually run up to 59 minutes. As television became the accepted source for filmed news stories and feature films became longer, short subjects became unnecessary. At the moment, the most acceptable lengths at the more prestigious festivals range from 15 minutes for Cannes to a limit of 40 minutes for Sundance, the Academy Awards, and Clermont-Ferrand, the largest international short film festival.
WHY MAKE A SHORT FILM?
Calling Card
A lot of people want to make a short film strictly as a calling card to introduce themselves to companies for future work or to show to investors for their feature films. Filmmakers often think that a calling card film should be half an hour, in three acts, and an example of why someone should give you $3 million to make a feature. The experience of distributors is that you can't get anyone to watch a half-hour film. What will get their attention is a very successful 5to 15-minute film that will get buzz like George Lucas in Love (8 minutes), The Spirit of Christmas (5 minutes), or Bottle Rocket (11 minutes). The last film secured a studio deal for Wes Anderson and Owen Wilson, who went on not only to a feature-length version of their short film, but also to Rushmore and The Royal Tenenbaums, as well as individual projects. Since then, many well-known actors have either appeared in shorts (to help out their struggling friends) or produced and directed them for their own creative reasons. Christine Lahti won an Oscar for her film Lieberman in Love in 1995. Other names that have appeared in short films in the past few years are Wentworth Miller, Josie Moran, Sandra Oh, Amy Adams, Eric Stoltz, Karen Black, Sarah Chalke, Michael York, Tippi Hedren, Gordon Clapp, Jim Belushi, Oliver Hudson, James Denton, and many others. None of these films, according to the filmmakers, were made for financial rewards. But they were rewarding creatively and gave the celebrities a chance to try something different.
More than one person has emailed Business Strategies saying that they had an investor with $500,000 to make a short film. Why would you want to do that? These days, with digital movies and the new equipment available, chances are you can make a full-length feature for the same amount of money. In that case, show that you can tell a story and make a feature. If not, make one or several short films for a lot less money.
Raise Money for a Feature
Making a short film that is essentially a promo for that $3-million feature is another useful purpose. The tendency often is to try to tell the entire story of the film, but instead, you want to give the potential investors a short glimpse of what the feature film is about. A short scene will do well, even a partial scene. If the film is intense, include something very dramatic. If the film is a comedy, a short guffaw will do. You don't want to spend a lot of money. For one thing, you don't want the investor to think that you will be wasting his money. For another, you don't want to waste your own.
When making a short for this purpose, keep in mind that the film is essentially a piece of hype, similar to a colorful brochure or a storyboard, meant to entice the investor. The movie has the plus of showing some of the director 's skill as well.
Filmmaking Experience
Making a short is the cheapest way to get the experience of going through the filmmaking process. It is better to make mistakes on a $10,000 short than on a $1-million feature. What filmmakers often don't realize is that the steps involved in making a five-minute short are the same that they will be using for the rest of their filmmaking lives. Many inexperienced people leave out important elements in the beginning because they cut many corners, don't know what is essential, or just plain forget things in their first effort. The result is that they end up with a film that is not releasable or is missing needed rights that prevent it from ever being shown. One of our hardest tasks is to convince the filmmaker: Be smart and believe. Distributor T C Rice says,
Shorts are essentially for the development of filmmakers; it is how they learn their craft. This is the whole process of learning by trial and error. No matter how many film courses anyone takes, they are no substitute for hands-on experience. Shorts are the training ground for the feature filmmakers of tomorrow.
Make Money
Making money is another story. Most filmmakers don't start out to make a short film to sell. It never crosses their minds. Until now there have been few good reasons to think about it. The philosophy of the indie filmmaker was “just do it”—just get something made. Well, that was in the good old days, the 1990s. Now there's potential for short films beyond making a calling card or getting experience. If you want to get some of your money back and sell or license your film in commercial markets, be aware of guild rules, distributors’ requirements, music, and property rights. As more buyers eagerly anticipate short films, the differences between the short form and long form are the variety of markets and the eventual amount of money the filmmaker is likely to make.
SOURCES OF FINANCING
Probably the question most frequently asked both of us is, “Where do I find the money?” Usually money for short films comes from two places: (1) family and friends and (2) grants. Until more revenue sources open up, the money has to come from people who want to see your film made for either personal or business reasons and who don't expect a return on their investment. Until now, there has been no return to promise them. As we will see, this situation may be changing. At the moment, however, money invested in a short film should be considered a donation.
Family and Friends
If you want to raise money from a private investor, that person is usually a friend or member of your family. The only reason for someone to give you money for a short is to see their name on a screen, or because they love you. At the moment, it is unlikely that investors will make all their money back, much less a profit.
Grants
Getting a grant for a short film is not that different from getting one for a feature documentary. The big difference is that there are fewer foundations and companies that are likely to be interested in shorts. Each grant has to be applied for with an understanding of what the granting body requires. The process can be very complicated. To write a successful grant application, you'll need to understand the granting philosophy of the donor organization and its budget.
One client, for example, applied for $30,000. Since the foundation he applied to had a $10,000 cap, the application was rejected. It would seem rational that they might award part of the budget; however, this foundation didn't work that way. Because they only would fund one project a year, it was all or nothing.
Another short film client submitted this story:
The biggest mistake I ever made in regard to trying to get a grant was in submitting what I thought at the time to be a flawless application and essay. Later I learned from the foundation's director that my mistake was not submitting any personal information about myself. I had, in effect, turned in a very professional, comprehensive, and worthy application but forgot that the people reviewing it wouldn't know anything about who I was as a person. Therefore, they felt no emotional connection to me whatsoever. My advice is to be as forthright and transparent as possible so that the people reading your application will want to give you what you're asking for. In the case of grants, they need to not only like and admire your work but like and admire you.
The grant market is so different from the commercial market that the filmmaker has to do extensive research on every organization to which she wants to apply. The Internet and the library have much reference material. In addition, when you approach a group, ask as many questions as you can.
MARKETS
The market for short films has been very limited. While there are new markets opening up in theaters, television, cable, and DVD, they are not yet mature. Nor do we know to what size they will grow. Still, the filmmaker needs to understand how all the markets work in order to decide how to proceed. Carol Crowe of Apollo Cinema says,
The short film market continues to evolve. Apollo Cinema has quadrupled the number of cities where it tours the Oscar Shorts showcase theatrically in the U.S., which is a 300% increase over what we did just two years ago. Our sales to airlines and new media outlets also continue to grow. There are only four companies in the United States that distribute short films and each year we each continue to build and expand our businesses. We are all hopeful that the shorts will be more part of the mainstream and not on the outer edges of the art house arena.
It takes a long time to sell short films, because there are not large companies, such as studios, taking them for worldwide distribution. Every sale is a one-on-one negotiation that has to be customized individually for the buyer. It is not unrealistic to have a film that will appeal to a majority of the world markets. Nevertheless, it takes as much work as, if not more than, selling a feature film.
Festivals
Film festivals are a good way to get your film seen by a large number of people. There are several reasons to enter: to have your film seen by potential buyers, create a name for yourself with feature film companies and investors, and make your film eligible for the Academy Awards. Distributors; theatrical, television, and cable buyers; critics; and other festival directors attend the major festivals and are always looking for interesting films and the talent who makes them. As with features, the major competitive festivals give the filmmaker more chance for exposure. The competition for all these festivals is still growing at a high rate despite other outlets. At the 2009 Sundance Film Festival, for example, there were 5,632 short film entries for 96 spots. The Tribeca Film Festival received 2,643 entries for 46 slots. However, being in any festival, whether competitive or not, may bring notice for your film.
Worldwide
The markets for shorts are expanding at a more rapid pace than they have in the past 50 years. Bronwyn Kidd, Director of Flickerfest Short Film Bureau (Australia), says,
Short film is the truly independent storytelling medium of our generation, devoid of studio interference and filmmaking by committee, it enables the individual to make some really unique insights into the moments, experiences and events that define our modern world. As interest in this independent art form continues to grow, so, too, will the markets for shorts throughout the world.
Although there has always been a very small theatrical market worldwide for shorts, major theater chains in the United States are beginning to pay attention. At the moment, the United States has the only real theatrical market for shorts. Anything over six minutes generally gets knocked out of the theatrical ballpark, however. The broadcast markets want very short films also. Most buyers pay by the minute, so technically a company would have to pay more for half-hour films. Among cable casters, Starz plans to show shorts on all their channels, but the payment, if any, is not known. This is an example of a company realizing that there are new uses for the short film that people didn't see before. Other cable channels, such as Comcast and Time-Warner, also are gearing up to add shorts to their programming; of course, there is no information yet available on what types of deals they will offer. The filmmaker has to decide if the exposure (and possible loss of future sales) is worth it. For DVDs, the pay may not be by the minute, but it is a new market still finding its structure.
In Europe and the other international markets, currently there is no theatrical distribution for shorts. Even in countries where the government supports the making of short films, the exhibitors choose not to comply with rules to show the films. On the other hand, those countries have a more lucrative ancillary market for shorts than the United States. Jean Charles Mille, general manager of Premium Films in France (one of the top three short film companies in Europe), says,
Our main objective is to motivate TV stations to broadcast shorts, and our 140 international shorts from 17 countries are our best asset. The TV and the DVD rights are the sole important revenue for short film producers and the good news is that more and more European TV channels are interested in airing shorts not only as fillers but also in some special short programs—and they don't hesitate to broadcast them on prime time! We are confident in short films in Europe and hope that the digital broadcasting will increase the sales.
Advertainments/Advertorials
Questions keep coming to us about short films as advertisements or “advertorials.” There are two types going on at the moment. Most filmmakers are aware that BMW and a few other companies have commissioned filmmakers to do short films. These films, often referred to as “advertainment,” are product promotions disguised as entertaining short films. At the moment, these shorts are commissioned by the company that makes the product. As a rule, these companies have been hiring well-known directors, such as Ang Lee and Guy Ritchie.
Another concept, “advertorials,” comes from Regal CineMedia Corp. In October 2002, they announced an agreement with NBC followed by one with Turner in January 2003 to produce “entertainment snippets” to be part of Regal's 20-minute preshows in their theaters. It is still a small market.
No one has yet developed these into a profitable position in the industry. There are many companies still trying to figure it out. It is suspected that they will emerge in a much higher profile at some point down the road. And when that happens there will be opportunities for short filmmakers to work in this arena, developing short series or episodes that incorporate products in an entertaining way. And they won't be going to star directors for the content.
The Internet
The way the market works today, putting a short film on the Internet is a deal-breaker for any possibility of selling the film through other media. Distributors insist on having the Internet rights, because the buyers want them. It doesn't matter whether the buyers have any plans to use the Internet rights; they don't want anyone else to have them, and with good reason. If IFC or Sundance just paid money for a film, they don't want to see it pop up on the Internet.
The big channels are still going to want exclusives, because the Internet is worldwide. For example, IFC may buy the film for the United States but insist on a worldwide exclusive for the Internet rights. If the Internet could be split, then the cable channel would probably only want the U.S. rights. That territory is their only concern. Since the other channels don't pay as much, they either don't ask for the Internet to be included or, if they do, don't ask for an exclusive. Since the distributor doesn't know in advance what the deal will be, Internet rights have to be available.
Remember that the distributor can always negotiate. Continuing this example, if IFC has the rights for a short for distribution in the United States, including the Internet rights, and then a month later Canal Plus wants it for Canal Plus International, which covers a lot of Europe, it is likely that the sale can be done. Canal Plus will discount for the fact that those rights are currently held. If the distributor says that IFC has the rights for the world but has no plans to use them at the moment, the European company might ask how long the contract is. IFC is not going to relicense it, nor does the European company care. The goal of both companies is to keep the film off the Internet. Sometimes they even pay extra for that right. When the IFC contract runs out, it can be licensed to the European company.
Another example is when a distributor has a film for which an American company has nonexclusive rights. There is a buyer in Japan who wants exclusive Internet rights. It can be worked out with the Japanese company by offering them the exclusive for their country and an agreement that it will not relicense the short to any competitors in Japan who are going to subtitle it in Japanese. That is all they are really concerned about. They know that worldwide is worldwide; however, an American company is not going to subtitle the film in Japanese. If the distributor has nonexclusive deals like that, he can make that deal in every country, but each of these contracts has to be negotiated separately with each buyer.
Subscription broadband is an emerging market. It could become a valuable market, when there is some kind of convergence and Internet companies will pay for the privilege. Since most of the films that short film distributors see are “unsaleable” by their description, showcasing on the Internet is a way to go. If it is only a calling card and you have no intention of ever trying to make any money from the film, go ahead. All the Internet sites that feature short films need content, which works in the filmmaker 's favor. Read all contracts carefully, however, all the way to the end. Before signing anything, take the contract to your attorney as you would with a feature film.
Ah, the Internet! The Web! This venue has been a bright light for the future that keeps going on and off, then on and off again. The light was getting brighter in the past few years when a lot of the major companies were developing exhibition plans for short films on the Internet—everyone from Sony, Apple, Google, and Yahoo to Viacom (MTV and Comedy Central). They were all trying to figure out how to use these great little entertainments, get them out to the public, and make money on them. Then along came the phenomenon, YouTube. Now everyone is looking at “shorts” of every kind— for free. Granted, most of the stuff on YouTube is not short films as we know them. But the success of this channel has challenged the traditional short form to come up with ways to attract an audience. The initial attempts have been advertiser-based business models that rely on sponsors for the content. That has not panned out yet. Currently there are a number of Web “channels” that will contract for short films. There is seldom any license fee paid upfront. Most of the deals outline various types of revenue sharing from download fees, subscription fees, or ad revenue. But there are little glimmers ahead and someone out there will figure out how to create a business model that will generate enough revenue from short film exhibition to warrant buying films from filmmakers. Some companies are beginning to explore the possibility of contracting with short filmmakers to create series for the Internet.
SHORT DOCUMENTARIES
As with feature-length films, fiction and documentary shorts require different handling. Not all festivals accept short documentaries. Cannes does not accept them in either the short film category or the Cínéfondation, which accepts short and medium-length films from schools. Sundance accepts short documentaries in its short film program, even though the Oscars separate narrative, animated, and documentary short subjects. Which festivals do accept documentary shorts and in what category needs to be checked individually.
Every day brings new opportunities. The cable universe is making more room for short documentaries, for example. The Canadian Documentary Channel buys shorts as well as features. Sundance has said that it is starting a documentary channel, but currently compromises by regularly programming a “Doc Day” on its main channel. In 2003, Japan established a new doc channel that accepts short films of 15 minutes and shorter. They license the films for two months, as opposed to most buyers, who want three years.
The success of recent high-profile feature documentaries has created renewed interest in short documentaries within the industry; however, the market for them has not flourished as was hoped. Nevertheless, several outlets are still working on finding the audience for them and getting them out there.
POTENTIAL REVENUE
If you are making a ten-minute film, the likely return is $5,000. Big Film Shorts uses the formula of $15 to $100 a minute, with a film selling to five different markets on average. Don't interpret this to mean the longer the film, the more money. Ten minutes and under is still the best. The longer a film, the less saleable it is, and the less likely the revenue formula is to be pertinent. As mentioned above, it takes a long time to sell short films, because every sale is one-on-one. But it is realistic to expect that, if you have a film that appeals to most of the world markets, you can make back $5,000; in some cases, you can even make more.
Short films usually show on Cinemax as fillers and interstitials after features. Meaning “in between,” interstitials are usually 20 to 130 seconds long and were developed as a form of entertaining advertising for television. The term has evolved to mean anything that fits in the space that might otherwise be dead air. The same deal as fillers and interstitials can work with Showtime. Whatever price Showtime pays entitles the company to show your film on its other channels: MTV, Comedy Channel, and the Sundance Channel.
Quality of Product
With short films, as with a feature, how the movie needs to look depends on what you are going to do with it. For theatrical release, the product has to look crisp and clear whether it is on digital or 35mm. Distributors say that they often receive shorts that look grainy. But if you are going into the marketplace, it is still preferable to be on film and look like it is film, no matter what genre. In general, the buyers and the audience do demand the same production quality. The movie has to compete in every way with the other content in a given market. Content is paramount, if the film passes all the other criteria. A slick-looking film with no content, long or short, only seems to work if a Hollywood studio made it.
Unless a short film is going to have a theatrical life, there will be no need for a 35mm print. But all the other formats that will be delivered to the various worldwide markets will look better if they come from a 35mm or high-definition shoot.
Distributors say that most films don't sell because most films are not good. It's all about all the ingredients coming together and making magic. Quality is the end result. If it's saleable, it's watchable; if it's watchable, it's because good talent made it. That doesn't mean that the whole world will love it, but that there's an audience out there for it somewhere.
Documentaries can get away with digital and CGI (computergenerated imaging) animation of anything else created on computers. The audience doesn't demand the same quality as they do with fiction films. They want docs to look more like the creator meant them to look. With a narrative, however, the audience wants it to look like a clean print.
Unfortunately, markets vary. Big Film Shorts had films that were delivered to HBO Latin that were shot on high definition in 16:9 (the digital widescreen format) and transferred to 35mm for festivals. HBO Latin will not accept the 1.85:1 ratio that all the prints and tapes were made with, as they require 4 × 3 (television) format. On the other hand, major European broadcasters have been transmitting widescreen in Pal Plus (analog) and now in digital broadcasting. There isn't any reason it can't work both ways. There are several conversion systems available. It is important to be aware that different buyers have different requirements for delivery. Investigate your target market's specs before making your film. Generally, however, no matter what system you edit on, distributors in the short film business prefer films that have been shot on 35mm.
Even more important than the look is the sound. The reality of the marketplace is that the short has to compete with the highest end feature in terms of sound. Whether on a theater screen or on cable, the film is going to be paired with a feature. It has to fit in the same class of filmmaking as the feature. For example, Big Film Shorts had the experience of having a film that was monosound. Everyone in the theater had just heard the last booming trailer. This little short came on with monosound, and the audience started complaining, thinking that there was something wrong with the theater 's sound system. The exhibitor stopped showing the short.
CONTRACTS
Owning Your Film
In order to “own” the copyright, the filmmaker must have releases (signed permission) or contracts for everything in the picture, just as he would have to have for a feature film. This list may include the following:
• Actors and extras: Any nonunion actor and even regular people like friends and relatives must sign a release giving you permission to use their likeness and voice in all possible exhibition venues. It is not necessary to get every person on a street or in a crowd to sign a release as long as the camera does not linger on them and is a doing a “drive-by.”
• Sound: Music, effects. The use of music without permission is the single most abused element in short film production. The producer must get permission from the owners of both the publishing and the sync rights.
• Locations: Any private property, public property (usually via permits). You also need releases that give you permission to use someone's private property for filming their car, building, sign, pond, or woods. In other words, if it's not your property, it's theirs. In the case of public property, you need a permit from the local authorities (see your film commission). For drive-by shots, be careful not to “establish” a building, or even a FedEx van, or that 18-wheeler with the famous brand name logo on the side. If the camera lingers too long, it could be inferred that you are incorporating that object into your storyline. Legal complications show up when you least expect them!
• Décor: Anything and everything on the walls or furniture or exteriors of buildings can be protected by other people's copyrights: posters, paintings, book covers, or other identifiable props like Coke cans, Apple (or any) computers, etc. If you thought you were safe by shooting in your own apartment, hold on. Look around. An object may be in your house, but is it really yours? Louise has American Indian paintings on her wall. However, when a commercial was being filmed in her home, the paintings were removed. Why? Case law has established that a reproduction for sale could not be made of any of the paintings without the artists’ permission. If one of the paintings was a permanent background in the shot, it could be construed that the painting was being used for a commercial purpose. Why tempt the litigation gods?
• Clips: Stock, excerpts from other works. The producer must get releases for everything seen or heard in the movie. Borrowing a nice scene from your videotape collection is not allowed. What do you do? Spend all your time getting signatures? It is better to be safe than sorry. In Clearance & Copyright, Michael Donaldson says that it is always safest to clear. “Fair use” is mentioned in the copyright law; however, “the law doesn't give a list of uses that are always and under all circumstances permitted under the doctrine of fair use.”
Deliverables
Any distributor of short films will require roughly the same delivery of materials (at your expense) as a feature film distributor. These items may include the following:
• One DIGIBETA or BETASP (stereo) videotape master of the picture in the NTSC format (also in PAL format if requested)
• Anywhere from two to five NTSC DVD copies
• Postproduction dialogue list
• Music cue sheet
• Copyright registration for the film and other chain-of-title and insurance information
• Key artwork
• Stills (usually color) in JPEG format
• Release print(s) in available format if requested for theatrical rental(s)
• Current list of festivals and awards
• An authorization to the laboratories and suppliers of, respectively, preprint materials and foreign tracks and accessories to accept orders for materials to permit distributor to service agreements
• Copies of all paperwork giving permission and release for use of actors or statements regarding Screen Actors Guild (SAG) agreement, writers, music, trademarks, and logos; clips or excerpts from other copyrighted material; and locations
Guilds
The SAG offers a variety of contracts that allow a filmmaker to “employ” professional, card-carrying union actors. There are contracts that allow only screening at festivals. Sound good? What if someone comes along and wants to sell the film to television or show it to a paying audience? You must renegotiate the contract with SAG and the actors. New since the previous edition is a Short Film Agreement, which has replaced the Experimental Film Agreement. It covers productions with a maximum running time of 30 minutes and maximum budget of $50,000. Compensation is deferred unless the project exceeds the budget limitation or has exhibition beyond parameters set in the agreement. These limitations are that the film is mainly intended for nonpaying environment, such as film festivals, director's reels, visual resumes, and similar venues, that allows the filmmaker to display his work and talents. However, if your primary intention is immediate theatrical distribution and/or sale of your project, you are not eligible to use the SAG Student Film Agreement or Short Film Agreement.
Past experience shows that you cannot convert a short film for revenue-producing markets without each actor 's permission. This puts the actor in a bargaining position in terms of money and other demands. In addition, according to the experience of short film producers, SAG does not allow the filmmaker to prenegotiate a “what if” scenario with the actors. From the Guild's point of view, it is protecting the actor from being taken advantage of, because he was willing to be in your ten-minute film. On the other hand, the actors can demand more money than the film will ever make. This happened to one of our filmmakers under the experimental contract. Not expecting the short film to be distributed, he paid his actors because “it was the right thing to do.” When the opportunity for distribution arose, he had to get the actors’ permission and pay them a second time. Of course, one of the actors then held out for a big payday.
If you have any thoughts of going to a festival, market, or finding distribution in any other way, it is best to go with the low-budget or, perhaps, modified-budget contract. Before deciding, check the current contract information on SAG's indie site (www.sagindie.com), find the location of the nearest office, and meet with a representative to discuss all the possible scenarios for your film. There is also a handy “Film Contracts Digest” that SAG can send you. Consider the optimum possibilities for the film and ask the representative what the next step will be, and the next, and the next, etc. Do not assume, as many feature filmmakers do, that SAG won't know. They are very good at knowing if anyone owes money to their members.
The Directors’ Guild of America (DGA) also has an experimental contract. It is applicable if the purpose of the film is to provide a DGA member with experience or to serve as a “resume piece,” and if the film is equal to or less than 30 minutes in length, is not for commercial release in any medium (this includes the Internet or any other commercial source that may come along), and has a budget less than or equal to $50,000. The film may be entered in festivals and submitted for award consideration to the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences (Oscars) and/or the Academy of Television Arts and Sciences Awards (Emmys). As with other Guild contracts, the DGA's are constantly updated. Check the DGA's web site and speak with your nearest representative. If you have any thought of commercial uses for the film, it may be best to follow their low-budget contract.
THE FUTURE
Worldwide markets at least doubled from 1996 to 2006. Considering the commercial opportunity at the time, we thought that the markets would double again in the next two years, but they haven't. Undoubtedly, the buyers who were coming on board did not promote other companies to copy them. We still hope to see the market return. When people see that there is money to be made with short films, they will find new ways to create more demand.
Big Film Shorts, while exploring the opportunity for more theatrical screening of short films in the United States, recently made agreements for the viewing of shorts via video-on-demand (VOD). This market has just begun to open and promises to be a profitable opportunity for filmmakers. On different systems—such as Rogers Cable, Cox, Time-Warner, and Comcast—they are using different system labels, but it is all VOD. There are two kinds of VOD: pay-per-view and free-for-view. In the future, the goal is to get sponsors for the free-for-view showings. Although some of the cable systems have technical problems with VOD, the problems are currently being worked out. Because of high-definition broadcasting, the cable companies have more limited space and have been forced to restructure their programming.
Specialty channels may or may not be in existence when you are reading this page. For example, Here! TV and Logo (MTV) are buyers of gay-themed films. Nano (a division of Big Film Shorts) has a VOD channel with cable and satellite agreements for distribution. For these deals, Big Film Shorts shares in the ad revenue. Canal Plus in France has a separate division that buys short films to sell specifically to countries on the continent of Africa. This type of proliferation is important, because the fee a buyer like Canal Plus pays is based on the number of territories they buy for.
China is another expanding market. At this time, the country is due to join two international intellectual properties treaties as part of its World Trade Organization requirements. Analysts forecast major growth in China's digital sections with these agreements in place and the proliferation of new technology.
The burgeoning market of mobile/cellular is in its infancy at this time. Despite CinemaNow and Movielink offering download-to-own movies, studies show that current consumer tastes still lean toward shorter-form video. How this will work out for the filmmaker in terms of remuneration remains to be determined. During the 2006 Sundance Festival, speakers representing both cellular and content providers acknowledged that there was not necessarily crossover from one to the other. For example, one distributor can try to put your film on any screen. However, your cellular provider may use only its own content. Whether or not they have a contract with Google or any other content provider depends on each individual company. Costs could vary widely, again depending on each carrier and the content provider. Nevertheless, one subject on which they all agreed is that this form of download is perfect for short content and perhaps documentaries but not fiction features. Remember that these business models are in constant flux.
From our perspective, the future for shorts is bright. Since everything is still evolving, we can't give the short film market a dollar value. However, as companies see others making money from short films from various outlets, we believe that they will rush to jump on the bandwagon.
New uses for shorts are evolving every day. The number of buyers is increasing, as are the audiences to whom the films are available. As people become used to seeing short films, it is hoped there will be a larger market for DVD collections, Xbox, and other new media.