Openfilm: Open? Really?

Finding new UGC video sites is like shooting fish in a barrel these days.  At least a couple times a month, a new one will pop up in the pages of Mashable, bub.blicio.us, or some other blog covering the social media space, and of course I love checking them all out.  I can’t remember where, exactly, I first heard about Openfilm, but I do remember reading good things about it. Videomaker magazine even voted it the best video sharing site of 2008.

The first thing I always do on these sites, after I set up my profile, is upload a short video to test the waters.  I invariably use something I call “Prayer“, which is simply an edited digital version of the 8mm movie of my parents 1958 wedding, with a beautful song entitled “Prayer” (by my uber talented friend Sylvia Mann) layed over it.  This is my canary in the coalmine, so to speak.  It’s a short video that can be uploaded quickly for assessing a site’s functionality, and it’s all legal – my video, permission for the music.  done.

So off I went into the wilds of the site (which is both beautifully designed and scores high on usability), created my profile with the 6-year-old pic of me I also always use (I really gotta find  a new one), and uploaded my video.  When it finished uploading, I got the message that the video would appear after it had been reviewed by their moderation team.  This is annoying but pretty common these days since big media have gone all sue-happy about copyrights.  Anyway.  I waited.

A couple days later, I received an email from their Content Review Department which said:

“Hello tomtenney,
Thank you for your recent submission, “Prayer.”  We are happy to inform you that the video has been approved and will be published on your channel within 24 hours.
Congratulations!  We look forward to seeing more of your work.
Best Regards,
The Openfilm Team”

Cool.  I headed over to Openfilm to see how it fared in their player.  Nothing.  Not there.  huh.  Well, maybe it’s been approved but they guy who pushed the “make it visible” button is still at lunch.  I gave it another few hours.  Still nothing.  At this point I’m starting to think they suck, but I have more important things to think about than yet another crappy social network.

Two days later, I’d almost forgotten about the site, when I received this email from Openfilm Service:

“Hello tomtenney,
We regret to inform you that your video Prayer hasn’t been published on Openfilm for the following reason:
While we welcome innovative and unconventional forms of filmmaking, we do require submissions to be complete, self-contained films or documentaries. This particular submission does not qualify for the site.
You can block receiving this notification by clicking here or visiting your account settings page.
Have fun exploring our site!
The Openfilm Team”

So, their “reason” was, essentially ‘we don’t like it’,  therefore it doesn’t “qualify for the site”.  This struck me not only exceedingly snobby, but also counter to the whole CONCEPT of UGC – which is to give people tools that allow them to express their voice, no matter what their personal aesthetic might be, moderated only by the yeas or nays of the public, that is to say, anyone who cares to watch or listen.   Wasn’t the internet supposed to make gatekeepers obsolete?  Isn’t that what MySpace and YouTube taught us?  If we want the opinions of a tastemaker, we can still buy the New York Times or Rolling Stone, after all.   And sharing sites certainly shouldn’t try to define art.   Apparently, my little film was somehow ‘incomplete’ or wasn’t ’self-contained’.  Hey, if you don’t like it, that’s fine, not everyone will – but please don’t try to tell me it’s not a film.  It has video/audio/even NARRATIVE which many films don’t have – so how is it not art??  Hell, even if the film was of my cats puking on my slippers set to Flight of the Valkyries, there is someone out there who would love it.  Probably most would bash it and “thumbs down” it to oblivion, but that’s FINE.  Just as long as I get to show it.

Just this evening, out of curiousity,  I checked out Openfilm’s “About Us” section, and found a little clue as to how a site with “open” in its name could be so douchy.  Here’s a snippet:

“We are closing the gap created by sites where anyone can upload anything and sites that primarily showcase network TV and Hollywood movie content.‘”

ding! on goes the lightbulb!  You guys aren’t a sharing site at all, but the proverbial wolf in sheep’s clothing. In just that one sentence you have shown your hand and revealed what you’re really up to.  You want to be a video destination for “quality” content (thus your bogus definititon of art), but you have no content of your own and don’t want to pay artists or syndication fees, so you masquerade as a social network.  How deliciously evil.  But I have news: “the gap” exists for a reason, intrepid artists made the gap, and now you want to close it?  So we’ve finally come full circle and the tools meant to set the artist free are being used to enslave her once again.

To all artists: I cannot urge you strongly enough.  RESIST THIS.  Do NOT let corporations continue to steal your money and your work.  You should be making money, not them.  Don’t let them dangle that carrot of “exposure”. It’s a trick – I promise.

Tagged as: openfilm, video sharing