Social Media Update for Indie Filmmakers, Part 3: Twitter
In the previous two posts, I wrote about changes I think most independent filmmakers should be aware of when it comes to using Facebook and Instagram for their marketing efforts. This post will talk about Twitter. Is having an account here still necessary?
With 69 million monthly active users in the United States, 267 million worldwide, Twitter is one of the top social media sites that brands still actively use. We can’t go a day without hearing news of a certain someone ranting on the platform, and without a doubt, Twitter is the number one social media platform for breaking news. But is that helpful for the average indie filmmaker?
While it isn’t likely that filmmakers will post breaking news that is of interest to a broader public, one great reason to use Twitter is for video sharing. Over the last 12 months, tweets containing videos perform the best in terms of reach compared to posts with links, images, and GIFs. Filmmakers need to be able to produce a regular supply of short videos, ideally less than 1 minute long (Twitter mainly allows for videos of 2 minutes 20 seconds in total), with the first 3 seconds serving to capture thumb-stopping attention (thumb-stopping-causing someone on a mobile device to pause scrolling through their newsfeed). Give some thought to the kind of clips and trailers you will post to social versus what you would make for a theatrical experience (where the audience won’t be scrolling on their phones). Also, don’t forget to make these videos square (600 by 600 pixels) or vertical (600 by 750 pixels), instead of horizontal, to optimize for mobile viewing.
In 2018, Twitter has been grappling with slow user growth and has deleted thousands of fake and bott accounts, lowering follower numbers on most accounts. If you have seen a slight drop in followers, likely you had a few of these accounts following you.
A recent update to the Facebook Platform Policies ended the ability to automatically post Tweets to your Facebook profile or page. This was never a good idea as audiences on the two platforms are different and it was a lazy way of marketing. But for those who did connect their Twitter accounts and Facebook pages, a more manual process is now needed for posting to the different platforms.
As of September, Twitter has re-enabled the ability to see tweets in purely chronological order, if you change your settings. Two years after phasing out this ability in favor of top-ranked or “curated” tweets, Twitter gave back the functionality that most people loved about the platform. But you have to make a change in your settings, by unchecking the box that says Show the Best Tweets First. In a world where it seems your newsfeed is programmed by an algorithmic guess, finally having the ability to see news according to the time it was posted is refreshing.
Like Facebook and Instagram, Twitter has instituted its own political content policy on advertising. The platform considers ads that advocate for legislative issues of national importance to be governed by their new policy and in order to advertise, advertisers must go through Twitter’s certification process (https://business.twitter.com/en/help/ads-policies/restricted-content-policies/political-campaigning/US-political-content/how-to-get-certified-issue-ads.html). Most likely, if you are making a documentary with an issue of national significance at its core, such as abortion, civil rights, climate change, guns, healthcare, immigration, national security, social security, taxes, and trade, you will need to register your account in order to use Twitter advertising in the future.
Getting back to the question of whether indie filmmakers still should be using Twitter, it all depends on your ability to handle multiple social media accounts and what you want each account to do as far as your goals. If connecting with Twitter influencers, or perpetuating a campaign hashtag, or reaching a global audience outside of the U.S. are some of your main objectives, Twitter is still a great place to do that.
Sheri Candler December 31st, 2018
Posted In: Marketing, Social Network Marketing, Twitter
Tags: digital marketing, film marketing, independent film, Marketing, Sheri Candler, social media, The Film Collaborative, Twitter
Legal Issues with Blockchain Technology (Part 3 of a 3-part series on Blockchain)
by Max Hacker
Nathan Apodaca, also known as 420doggface208 on the popular social media video site TikTok, recently announced that he was selling an NFT of his virally iconic skateboard-riding, Fleetwood Mac-lip synching, cranberry juice-swilling 2020 TikTok video. Bidding for the NFT starts at $500,000. If you’ve seen the video, you may be surprised to learn that Fleetwood Mac’s “Dreams” and Ocean Spray’s logo are absent from the NFT version.
Unless you’ve been living under a digital rock, you’ve probably come across this somewhat new form of digital collectible. If not, you can learn more here, here or here. It’s clear from the $69 million price tag digital art piecerecently fetched, NFTs provide a way for creators to capitalize on a seemingly insatiable market. Calling the crypto craze a “digital gold rush” is not far-fetched.
Proclamations abound that NFTs are a massive untapped revenue source and are here to save the arts and entertainment industry. While the financial upside for sellers (copyright owners/licensors) is tremendous, it’s uncertain how the smart contracts that form when an NFT is acquired will impact those purchasers (NFT owners). Are the restrictions in the smart contract consistent with U.S. copyright law or are purchasers at risk of facing punitive measures beyond copyright protections? Transactions on a blockchain are immutable, so do NFTs open the door for harsh penalties enforced on NFT purchasers who are never put on notice of what terms they violated?
First-sale doctrine
One specific issue to monitor is whether NFT smart contract terms reach beyond the first-sale doctrine. The first-sale doctrine, codified at 17 U.S.C. §109, establishes the clear right for purchasers of copyright works (e.g. songs, albums) to sell copies of that work without seeking the original seller’s consent. In other words, the copyright holder can control the initial sale by setting the price and choosing distributors to sell copies of their copyrighted work. However, for example, once I buy Fleetwood Mac’s Rumours on vinyl (which this author can confirm he does indeed own a copy of), I can freely transfer that copy. No need to get consent from Mick, Stevie or (most thankfully not) Lindsay to sell my copy to a friend or a used record store.
But imagine in a not-too-distant future in which the Mac releases an NFT version of Rumours. It’s possible that the smart contract controlling the purchase bars me from selling to certain sellers, via certain platforms or otherwise restricts my transfer rights in an overreaching or even hostile manner. One of the intoxicating elements to the crypto craze in general is the wild, investment-like nature. Purchasers are seeing large returns within weeks of their initial investment. However, if smart contracts controlling NFT sales are more prohibitive than my first-sale doctrine right to sell my vinyl copy to my local record shop (don’t worry, I’d never sell my copy), potential purchasers may start to shy away, and industry skepticism may set in.
IP licensing for NFTs
Back to 420doggface208, why didn’t he include the song or the logo in the NFT if he was allowed to include it in his TikTok?
For the song, TikTok has a license to use the song and that license allows users of TikTok to upload songs for use on TikTok. That license is likely very narrow; TikTokers do not have the right to take their TikTok videos w/ songs included and then sell it in some other medium or version. Fleetwood Mac no doubt loved the resurgence in their streaming numbers, but apparently not enough to let Apodaca use “Dreams” in the NFT (more on this later).
As for the juice, despite Ocean Spray’s public embrace of Mr. Doggface, his use of the logo in the NFT without consent is trademark infringement, a clear attempt to profit off of the brand’s logo without any license to do so. Or so a lawyer for OS may claim.
What does the future hold?
As the NFT market grows, many artists and creators will benefit from a hot, emergent revenue stream. Works of digital art and music are selling for eye-popping figures, and we haven’t yet scratched the surface regarding licensing revenue. NFTs have the potential to breathe new life into older works, presenting an ocean of new licensing opportunities for use within third party NFTs. Despite the fact that smart contracts have been designed to simultaneously and instantly kick all interest holders their piece of the pie, significantly reducing transaction costs and delays in receiving payments, it appears no such licensing deal was struck here for “Dreams” or the wave logo. Once intellectual property holders grasp how relatively quick blockchain-based payments are triggered, the aforementioned proclamations may come to fruition. Soon, they will realize that like any gold rush, it’s best to be the one selling the picks and the shovels.
Max Hacker is the owner and founder of the Law Offices of Max H. Hacker. Max earned his J.D. from Southwestern Law School in 2013 and is licensed to practice in California and New York. His practice includes representing individuals and businesses in transactions across the digital media, TV/film and music industry landscapes.
Orly Ravid December 18th, 2018
Posted In: blockchain, Blockchain, Digital Distribution, Legal