By Robert Goldrich
We find ourselves rooting for a couple of grassroots efforts to make states more film-friendly. One was covered last week relative to the Wisconsin Film Office being in jeopardy with the move to cut its funding for fiscal year 2005-’06 (SHOOT, 5/13, p. 7).
Members of the Wisconsin filmmaking community have formed a coalition to keep the film commission going as a private sector entity, perhaps as a 501(c)(3) nonprofit corporation. Among those banding together to try to save the film office are: Scott Robbe, producer/director/president of MONDO Productions, Madison; George Tzougros, executive director of the Wisconsin Arts Board; Michael Graf, director/owner of Spot Filmworks, Madison; Anne Katz, executive director of Arts Wisconsin; and Scott Thom, operations assistant at the Wisconsin Film Office.
“If we don’t aggressively work to maintain the entertainment industry in the state, we lose that revenue and tax revenue as well,” Robbe told SHOOT reporter Emily Vines. “So it’s basically a coalition that’s come together to help to revive the business in Wisconsin and hopefully to make it thrive.”
The coalition is holding a town hall-style meeting slated for May 23 from 6-8 p.m. at The Eisner Museum of Advertising and Design in Milwaukee. The prime topic at the session will be the possible restructuring of the Wisconsin Film Office.
Meanwhile in Massachusetts, industry folks have formed their own coalition to help promote and develop filmmaking in the state. The volunteer Massachusetts Production Coalition (MPC) held a general meeting earlier this month. The group is the result of several months of discussions and planning to attain greater unity within the production community, and to effectively represent the broad interests of its members.
MPC founding members include principals at Moody Street Pictures, Boston Camera Rental Company, Picture Park, Element Productions, Red Tree Productions, Finish Editorial, High Output, Rule Broadcast Systems, National Boston, Neoscape, Video Transfer, Silent Partner Entertainment, CrewStar, Boston Casting, CP Casting, Maura Tighe Casting, Filmmakers Collaborative, and Central Booking, as well as representatives from IATSE Local 481, AFTRA and SAG.
MPC’s stated mission is “to help maintain, promote, increase and expedite the development, creation and production of film, video and new media content in the City of Boston and the State of Massachusetts.”
The MPC has begun efforts to promote tax incentive legislation so that Massachusetts can compete more effectively with other states in keeping and attracting lensing activity. Additionally, the MPC is involved in a comprehensive study to put a better statistical handle on the economic impact of the filming industry.
Clearly, the making of features, TV programs, commercials, music videos, branded entertainment and other forms of content can be a major contributor to the economic wellbeing of not only Massachusetts and Wisconsin but every state throughout the U.S. Sometimes this fact is reflected in the policies of municipalities, states and the U.S.–in other instances, there are policies and decisions that don’t properly recognize the importance of our industry. In the latter case, the need for grassroots efforts and a proactive approach by members of the filmmaking community becomes all the more necessary.Google Opens Its Defense In Antitrust Case Alleging Monopoly Over Online Ad Technology
Google opened its defense against allegations that it holds an illegal monopoly on online advertising technology Friday with witness testimony saying the industry is vastly more complex and competitive than portrayed by the federal government.
"The industry has been exceptionally fluid over the last 18 years," said Scott Sheffer, a vice president for global partnerships at Google, the company's first witness at its antitrust trial in federal court in Alexandria.
The Justice Department and a coalition of states contend that Google built and maintained an illegal monopoly over the technology that facilitates the buying and selling of online ads seen by consumers.
Google counters that the government's case improperly focuses on a narrow type of online ads — essentially the rectangular ones that appear on the top and on the right-hand side of a webpage. In its opening statement, Google's lawyers said the Supreme Court has warned judges against taking action when dealing with rapidly emerging technology like what Sheffer described because of the risk of error or unintended consequences.
Google says defining the market so narrowly ignores the competition it faces from social media companies, Amazon, streaming TV providers and others who offer advertisers the means to reach online consumers.
Justice Department lawyers called witnesses to testify for two weeks before resting their case Friday afternoon, detailing the ways that automated ad exchanges conduct auctions in a matter of milliseconds to determine which ads are placed in front of which consumers and how much they cost.
The department contends the auctions are finessed in subtle ways that benefit Google to the exclusion of would-be competitors and in ways that prevent... Read More