COPYFRIGHT! Ken Loach, UK's YouTube Pioneer?
- Posted: 10th Jun 2010
- Category: Articles
DFG kicks off its brand new editorial season on copyright in the digital age with a privileged interview: Ken Loach, one of Britain’s most acclaimed filmmakers, has been struggling to find an audience in his own country. In a radical move to unearth a viewership for his films, he and his producer Rebecca O’ Brien have put up almost all his films on YouTube, absolutely free to watch for a limited period of time. Five of Loach’s films are available to download, and viewers can watch a documentary about the director, Carry on Ken.
Whilst this is by no means a permanent residence for his films, the move risks ire from the distribution companies holding copyright to the work. MGM, for example has objected to the posting of Hidden Agenda and O’Brien has had to pull it off the channel. In an article from the Times, Rebecca O’Brien says she ‘hopes that the Youtube site will act as a “provocation” and stimulate debate about the ownership and the distribution of films’. In the first of a series of articles looking at the impact of the digital economy on documentary filmmaking in the UK, Meghna Gupta interviews Rebecca O’Brien to find out more about her take on ownership and distribution.
MG: We know MGM have objected to the posting of Hidden Agenda. Without having to name them, have any distributors welcomed this more or discussed it with any enthusiasm at all?
RO’B: Yes, I've had some very constructive discussions with some distributors, who do completely understand the value of what we are doing in terms of gathering a new audience and reinvigorating an interest in these films. They are interested especially with a view to the pay-per-view system that we'd like to set up and once that is set up, I am sure more distributors will extend their interest to us.
When do you think a filmmaker stops owning their films?
Never! I don't think a filmmaker ever stops owning their films. They need to stand by what they've made, even if they don't like it. And in terms of ownership, I believe a filmmaker should be able to defend their films. They have created that work and they will always be a part of it.
That’s often seen as the moral ownership of films. However, does the current model of distribution do enough to accommodate ownership from the filmmaker's perspective?
No, the current model does not accommodate this enough. I would especially say this about the Anglo-American model, although we have got a couple of really good distributors in England. Some owners will always continue to exploit films without any recourse to the makers, and that to me seems wrong. We want to see our back catalogue well curated - and this is something a number of our European partners (particularly the French and Belgians) do very well, and have got it more spot on. The culture in Europe amongst distributors is far more understanding to filmmakers' needs. I wouldn't like to say that I support the idea of the 'auteur', where the filmmaker has such complete control over everything at all, which can be prevalent in some European countries. However, the attitude to film in those countries means they do understand filmmakers' needs in a better way.
Having said that Europe have got it more spot on, it seems odd that France have blocked the Ken Loach Youtube channel.
Yes that's happened in both France and Belgium. Unfortunately, the need to monetise film always seems to over-ride the cultural values. On the flip side however, we have some really excellent distributors who have really taken care of the need for these films to be shown. In Europe, distributors can be far more attentive to the filmmaker's need for the film to be accessible and available. As long as these distributors attend to our need for the films to be delivered to their audience, I feel that this is justified.
Film has a massive cost attached to it. How far do you think distributors are justified in safeguarding copyright?
I think they're justified to do so to a certain extent - certainly to recoup costs. However, if they are still controlling that after a certain period of time, I no longer think it makes it sense. If the film has done less well in terms of money than they expected, hanging onto it because a few copies sold here and there are making them money is completely unrealistic, as it simply won't recover the cost. Film should not just be a financial transaction; it is so much more than that. For example, some of Ken's films are 20, 30 years old and in this case it's about making it available easily to people who want to watch it, and to nurture the work. There are so many cases for it, especially in terms of education. We've found that The Wind that Shakes the Barley is on the curriculum at an Australian university, forming part of a Yeats collection of study material. Certainly for cases like these, copyright should not get in the way of the work living on.
If the section of the Digital Economy Act blocking websites using potentially copyright infringing material comes into play, how will it affect the Ken Loach YouTube channel, and how do you feel about it?
I really don't know. I don't want to break any laws. However, I do think people need to be able to access these films, and that in order to make that happen, we've had to be a little provocative.
Well, as these laws are essentially about safeguarding against piracy, what in your opinion forms damaging piracy?
A bad quality film screened online - where the picture and sound quality is crap, and the colours are awful. People accessing something like that is damaging piracy. That is not at all how the work was intended to be shown and is essentially damaging. However, I think that piracy occurs due to a market flaw, and because people haven't been able to get access to films at the right time and the right price. If the films were available we may have a lot less of it. However, I don't think watching illegal downloads or streams makes anyone a vicious criminal. It's mostly about them wanting to get access to it, and finding a way to do that. If they were priced reasonably, I think people would pay.
What sort of licences have the films been released on or have you had to ignore all licences because of the distributors involved?
As far as our distributors are concerned there are a massive variety of licences, and it's especially confusing and complicated in the UK. In regard to the YouTube channel, we haven't used any.
So that would make these films up there at the moment public domain?
Yes, they are public domain at the moment - but for a limited period of time, and they will then be moved to a pay-per-view status where distributors would be involved.
Public domain film is open to being downloaded and made into something else. How do you feel about parts of Ken's films being used by someone for something else?
That's just dj-ing isn't it? Remixing? I think people have a right to that sort of creative expression. It may even benefit the films, as they live on through these new works, and become part of something completely different.
So would you draw a clear line between those accessing and watching illegal film online, and those making something with it?
I think it is a shady line - it is never clear. However, that is the way things are going and we should go with it.
Would Ken or Sixteen Films be interested in releasing any future work on a Creative Commons licence in order to avoid going through a distributor?
We are certainly open to the idea, and it may be something we might consider doing. The internet has changed the way the old models of putting film out work, and I think a lot of us just have not been on the ball about it.
The Copyfright season continues next week. In the meantime, you can watch Ken Loach’s films on http://www.youtube.com/user/KenLoachFilms
Interested? Then read these:
COPYFRIGHT: Creative Confusion in the Digital Age
Olly Lambert: Stealing a Penny from a Rich Man
COPYFRIGHT! Get Off Your Arse and Read This Article!
COPYFRIGHT! Conveying the Right Message: Digital Copyright and Dogwoof
COPYFRIGHT! They think we're fools: Copyright from an Indie Filmmaker's View