Jump to content



Photo

My First Feature


  • Please log in to reply
38 replies to this topic

#1 Macks Fiiod

Macks Fiiod
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 875 posts
  • Director
  • Og from DC, Now in NJ

Posted 23 September 2016 - 12:00 PM

Due to a lack of budget, I took the Woody Allen approach and decided to dub something in a comedic sense, having the entire project rely on editing, screenwriting, and audio mixing/directing. I finished this in just under 3 months.

 

I shipped it out to a few friends on VHS tapes for some added aesthetic. What you see on Vimeo is a rip from those tapes.

 

 

If any of you had 45 minutes of free time, It'd be a great help for me to see if people outside of my usual demographics found enjoyment out of my current output.

 

Thanks.


Edited by Macks Fiiod, 23 September 2016 - 12:01 PM.

  • -1

#2 Heikki Repo

Heikki Repo
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 395 posts
  • Director
  • Finland

Posted 23 September 2016 - 12:57 PM

I watched a few minutes. I got to say, your dubbing skills are quite good.

 

However, I can't help but to wonder how long your video is going to stay online -- the copyright owners might not find your work amusing. Using material from a children's television series and combining it with characters that use foul language might be popular in some demographics, but I find it to be a turnoff for me.


  • 0

#3 Macks Fiiod

Macks Fiiod
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 875 posts
  • Director
  • Og from DC, Now in NJ

Posted 23 September 2016 - 01:01 PM

However, I can't help but to wonder how long your video is going to stay online -- the copyright owners might not find your work amusing.

 

In order for it to get taken down, it would need to gain enough momentum for a representative to see and report it. I'll take that as a bittersweet resolve knowing it gained enough momentum to reach that point. Youtube on the other hand automatically removes things in seconds.


  • 0

#4 Richard Boddington

Richard Boddington
  • Sustaining Members
  • 5402 posts
  • Director

Posted 23 September 2016 - 03:43 PM

 

In order for it to get taken down, it would need to gain enough momentum for a representative to see and report it. I'll take that as a bittersweet resolve knowing it gained enough momentum to reach that point. Youtube on the other hand automatically removes things in seconds.

 

Hmmmmm, I think you need a course in basic film copyright.  What you're doing is illegal and you can easily be sued.

 

Youtube relies on the producers of the content to send in take down notices.  A job I must personally do each week, because a-holes around the globe keep uploading my movies to YouTube.  YouTube does not delete the accounts of these people or punish them in anyway, they are simply allowed to flaunt copyright laws.

 

So you're on very very thin ice my friend.

 

R,


  • 0

#5 Robin R Probyn

Robin R Probyn
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1461 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Tokyo

Posted 23 September 2016 - 08:10 PM

Macks... be careful.. I got a take down order out of the blue from a clip in my showreel the I had shot !  it doesn't  have to get alot of attention.. I assure you my show reel didnt  :).. big companies have "Bots" that go through the internet looking for their stuff.. they are not doing it by themselves all day long.. 

And to make matters worse..Vimeo has a 3 strike and your out rule.. your banned for life !.. i.e. no show reel for me !!  whilst this is good news for producers who,s footage is being used illegally.. its not for a DP with a 30 sec clip of their reel that they shot and the prod co gave permission to use..

I did manage to get the take down order rescinded .. but the clip that I had shot myself had to be taken off my site..  but for you the problem could be being banned from Vimeo if you get 3 take down orders.. I had no warning email or anything.. they took the clip off and I got this email telling me I had used up one strike !!


  • 0

#6 Macks Fiiod

Macks Fiiod
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 875 posts
  • Director
  • Og from DC, Now in NJ

Posted 24 September 2016 - 12:28 AM

 

Hmmmmm, I think you need a course in basic film copyright.  What you're doing is illegal and you can easily be sued.

 

Youtube relies on the producers of the content to send in take down notices.  A job I must personally do each week, because a-holes around the globe keep uploading my movies to YouTube.  YouTube does not delete the accounts of these people or punish them in anyway, they are simply allowed to flaunt copyright laws.

 

So you're on very very thin ice my friend.

 

R,

 

I'm completely aware of all of this, and there will come a point where I take things like this down. The law versus the law's enforcement are two very different things though. I could show you a load of people doing exactly this who faced, at the very most, a channel getting banned. If my Vimeo gets banned I can make another, really not concerned with an account on the internet.


  • 0

#7 Richard Boddington

Richard Boddington
  • Sustaining Members
  • 5402 posts
  • Director

Posted 24 September 2016 - 08:35 AM

 

I'm completely aware of all of this, and there will come a point where I take things like this down. The law versus the law's enforcement are two very different things though. I could show you a load of people doing exactly this who faced, at the very most, a channel getting banned. If my Vimeo gets banned I can make another, really not concerned with an account on the internet.

 

It's the rights holders reaching you PERSONALLY that should be a concern, and they can.

 

R,


  • 0

#8 Mark Dunn

Mark Dunn
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2279 posts
  • Other
  • London

Posted 24 September 2016 - 10:04 AM

Just because someone else suffered only minor consequences doesn't mean you won't be hammered. You may have a fair use or transformation defence, but it could cost you tens of thousands to get as far as being able to argue it in federal court. If those properties are on the US copyright register the penalties start at $150,000 per infringement- that's $150,000 for the images, $150,000 for the music.... you get the idea, I hope.


  • 0

#9 Phil Rhodes

Phil Rhodes
  • Sustaining Members
  • 11679 posts
  • Other

Posted 24 September 2016 - 10:09 AM

The sad reality is that anyone can sue anyone for anything at any time, and the winner will be the person with the most money for lawyers. The facts of the matter and the law are almost completely irrelevant.

 

I have never distributed anything I didn't own, but that doesn't really matter. If a big media company, or a producer like Richard, decided to take against me, they could do more or less anything they wanted to me and I'd be almost powerless to stop it.

 

P


  • 0

#10 Macks Fiiod

Macks Fiiod
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 875 posts
  • Director
  • Og from DC, Now in NJ

Posted 24 September 2016 - 10:39 AM

 

It's the rights holders reaching you PERSONALLY that should be a concern, and they can.

 

R,

 

Well put it this way, let's say you have twice the cash in your bank account right now and you see someone just throwing up a random no-profit thing goofing on Against The Wild 2 using the footage. Are you going to write a C&D/digitally remove it? Or go through with an elongated court case and thousands in legal fees?


  • 0

#11 JD Hartman

JD Hartman
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1649 posts
  • Gaffer
  • Edison, N.J. U.S.A.

Posted 24 September 2016 - 11:12 AM

 

Well put it this way, let's say you have twice the cash in your bank account right now and you see someone just throwing up a random no-profit thing goofing on Against The Wild 2 using the footage. Are you going to write a C&D/digitally remove it? Or go through with an elongated court case and thousands in legal fees?

 

If you're are Sony and you have suits on retainer......  The answer is obvious, they would bring suit against you just for target practice.


  • 0

#12 Macks Fiiod

Macks Fiiod
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 875 posts
  • Director
  • Og from DC, Now in NJ

Posted 24 September 2016 - 11:17 AM

 

If you're are Sony and you have suits on retainer......  The answer is obvious, they would bring suit against you just for target practice.

See that's what I would assume too. However the internet has sprawled things out to the point where huge offenders aren't getting slammed with lawsuits like you would expect. If it WERE to happen, Youtube for instance would be a VERY different place than what it is right now.


  • 0

#13 Bill DiPietra

Bill DiPietra
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2336 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • New York City

Posted 24 September 2016 - 01:50 PM

Legal issues aside (and Richard is absolutely right with the scenarios he brings up,) what exactly are you trying to sell yourself as with this?...


  • 0

#14 Macks Fiiod

Macks Fiiod
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 875 posts
  • Director
  • Og from DC, Now in NJ

Posted 24 September 2016 - 02:00 PM

Legal issues aside (and Richard is absolutely right with the scenarios he brings up,) what exactly are you trying to sell yourself as with this?...

 

Joke writer, ADR director, and sound designer. I've done shorter things like this (as portfolio pieces) in the past and catch a decent amount of employment.

 

I feel like people are assuming I'm trying to get this a distribution deal for some reason..


  • 0

#15 Bill DiPietra

Bill DiPietra
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2336 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • New York City

Posted 24 September 2016 - 03:08 PM

Joke writer, ADR director, and sound designer. I've done shorter things like this (as portfolio pieces) in the past and catch a decent amount of employment.

 

 

To be blunt, if I were advertising for a sound designer and you sent me this, I would quickly move on to the next person simply due to a lack of originality.  I don't even know which voice is yours.  One?  All?  Sound is an integral part of media and you should just concentrate on recording, right now.  Location, studio, whatever.  But make it yours.


  • 0

#16 Richard Boddington

Richard Boddington
  • Sustaining Members
  • 5402 posts
  • Director

Posted 24 September 2016 - 06:40 PM

 

Well put it this way, let's say you have twice the cash in your bank account right now and you see someone just throwing up a random no-profit thing goofing on Against The Wild 2 using the footage. Are you going to write a C&D/digitally remove it? Or go through with an elongated court case and thousands in legal fees?

 

All of the above.  No such thing as "random no-profit thing."

 

R,


  • 0

#17 Richard Boddington

Richard Boddington
  • Sustaining Members
  • 5402 posts
  • Director

Posted 24 September 2016 - 06:42 PM

Legal issues aside (and Richard is absolutely right with the scenarios he brings up,) what exactly are you trying to sell yourself as with this?...

 

I'm afraid I have to agree with Bill on this, I fail to see how this markets you as a creative person with any skill?

 

R,


  • 0

#18 Macks Fiiod

Macks Fiiod
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 875 posts
  • Director
  • Og from DC, Now in NJ

Posted 24 September 2016 - 11:48 PM

 

I'm afraid I have to agree with Bill on this, I fail to see how this markets you as a creative person with any skill?

 

R,

Think we're jumping into firm subjectivity here. I've built a fanbase with projects like this going into that, people with clout to employ have found these very entertaining and pulled the trigger on me. On the flip side I could show "Against The Wild" to that same fanbase/circle and they'd say the same thing you're claiming about my cut: "uncreative, boring, etc".

 

I personally don't claim this about your work but I simply ask that you acknowledge there have been many new audiences emerging since you decided on your target audience years ago.

 

Comedy/video/film is always evolving, you've considered that it might evolve into something that isn't your cup of tea, right?


  • 0

#19 Richard Boddington

Richard Boddington
  • Sustaining Members
  • 5402 posts
  • Director

Posted 25 September 2016 - 12:14 AM

 On the flip side I could show "Against The Wild" to that same fanbase/circle and they'd say the same thing you're claiming about my cut: "uncreative, boring, etc".

 

The flip side is.....I created Against The Wild, it's my work.  All you've done here is rip off the work of others, and tried to pass it off as your own.  It's not just illegal, it's not at all in keeping with what this community is about.

 

R,


  • 0

#20 Macks Fiiod

Macks Fiiod
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 875 posts
  • Director
  • Og from DC, Now in NJ

Posted 25 September 2016 - 12:26 AM

 

The flip side is.....I created Against The Wild, it's my work.  All you've done here is rip off the work of others, and tried to pass it off as your own.  It's not just illegal, it's not at all in keeping with what this community is about.

 

R,

Well if you also claim that Woody Allen's first feature was also just a "rip off" then we just have to agree we come from two very different places. I know many communities that hold his film as a clever improvement to whatever he was editing/dubbing over.


  • 0


CineLab

Abel Cine

FJS International, LLC

rebotnix Technologies

Visual Products

Tai Audio

Paralinx LLC

Rig Wheels Passport

Metropolis Post

Aerial Filmworks

Broadcast Solutions Inc

The Slider

Quantum Music Works

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Glidecam

Ritter Battery

Technodolly

CineTape

Willys Widgets

Pro 8mm

ZoomCrane

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Ritter Battery

Abel Cine

Rig Wheels Passport

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Metropolis Post

Aerial Filmworks

Visual Products

Paralinx LLC

rebotnix Technologies

CineTape

Willys Widgets

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Quantum Music Works

ZoomCrane

Pro 8mm

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

The Slider

Glidecam

Tai Audio

CineLab

FJS International, LLC

Technodolly