The San Francisco Board of Supervisors has passed a filming incentives program whereby producers of theatrical features and television programs can qualify for a rebate of taxes (local payroll, and a portion of hotel and sales taxes) as well as fees paid to the city for those productions that shoot 65 percent or more of their principal photography in San Francisco. Lower budget (less than $3 million) features and TV shows only need 55 percent of their principal photography to take place in San Francisco in order to be eligible.
While formal regulations as to how the initiative is to be applied to projects were being worked on at press time, the incentives are currently available to producers–with the understanding that the rebates will be paid once those regulations are finalized.
Not included in the incentive program are commercials. Stefanie Coyote, executive director of the San Francisco Film Commission, explained that the focus of the initiative were those projects–features and TV programs–that had declined markedly in terms of filming in San Francisco. Commercials, she said, have held steady and thus it would have been difficult to justify spot incentives to the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, which voted to have the newly instituted program in effect for three years.
Steve Caplan, executive VP of the Association of Independent Commercial Producers (AICP), said the organization was disappointed over spots being excluded from the San Francisco measure. He noted that commercials have been a longstanding staple of Bay Area production, helping to sustain the production community there. He added that a rebate-type program is even more relevant to spots than longer form fare. “Recovering certain costs can have a significant impact on the decision of where to shoot commercials,” said Caplan.
AICP/West board member Lauren Schwartz, owner/executive producer of kaboom productions, San Francisco, also expressed disappointment over commercials not being part of the incentives program. At the same time she harbors hope that spots might later be piggybacked onto the measure, benefiting the small entrepreneurial Bay Area businesses that are involved in commercialmaking. She noted that it’s important that San Francisco compete globally for commercials, meaning that incentives are needed to help level the playing field when competing against other cities, states and countries for spot lensing. The financial bottom line, affirmed Schwartz, is critical to attracting commercial production business.
Schwartz contended that there has been a decline in spot filming in San Francisco over the years. She further noted that there’s been attrition in the city’s commercial production house ranks. A San Francisco area market that at one time had assorted spot production companies now has but a few shops active in commercials, such as kaboom, Roaring Tiger, new media house Mekanism, animation studio Wild Brain, and hoytyboy pictures.
Still Schwartz thinks it’s a positive step for San Francisco to have at least put some incentives in place, even if they’re currently just for features and TV programs. As these incentives hopefully draw filming into the city, they could serve to fortify the production infrastructure, which in turn could indirectly benefit the Bay Area commercialmaking industry.
TikTok’s Fate Arrives At Supreme Court; Arguments Center On Free Speech and National Security
In one of the most important cases of the social media age, free speech and national security collide at the Supreme Court on Friday in arguments over the fate of TikTok, a wildly popular digital platform that roughly half the people in the United States use for entertainment and information.
TikTok says it plans to shut down the social media site in the U.S. by Jan. 19 unless the Supreme Court strikes down or otherwise delays the effective date of a law aimed at forcing TikTok's sale by its Chinese parent company.
Working on a tight deadline, the justices also have before them a plea from President-elect Donald Trump, who has dropped his earlier support for a ban, to give him and his new administration time to reach a "political resolution" and avoid deciding the case. It's unclear if the court will take the Republican president-elect's views — a highly unusual attempt to influence a case — into account.
TikTok and China-based ByteDance, as well as content creators and users, argue the law is a dramatic violation of the Constitution's free speech guarantee.
"Rarely if ever has the court confronted a free-speech case that matters to so many people," lawyers for the users and content creators wrote. Content creators are anxiously awaiting a decision that could upend their livelihoods and are eyeing other platforms.
The case represents another example of the court being asked to rule about a medium with which the justices have acknowledged they have little familiarity or expertise, though they often weigh in on meaty issues involving restrictions on speech.
The Biden administration, defending the law that President Joe Biden signed in April after it was approved by wide bipartisan majorities in Congress, contends that... Read More