Thanks for your comments John.

Low budget filmmaking is all about realising that you can do it yourself (well its founding principles were anyway) and I agree that no one is Reithian anymore - but I disagree that the definition of a filmmaker should be so open.

"Anyone who films something is a filmmaker" ...

That would mean we're a nation of filmmakers! Home movies, video shot on a mobile device... Because there are so many ways to create a film/video - don't you think intent should play a part in defining whether or not someone is a filmmaker?

Is anyone who takes a picture a photographer?

Hello.

Sorry, I was being sarcastic. I am a Reithian, and I hate all the "race-to-the-bottom" crap I see around me.

That would mean we're a nation of filmmakers! Home movies, video shot on a mobile device... Because there are so many ways to create a film/video - don't you think intent should play a part in defining whether or not someone is a filmmaker?

Yes, yes the widest definition would make us all a nation of film-makers, but I don't see why this should be a problematical definition as a general categorical one.
I think your definition would remove a lot of film-makers, especially those who made films in the very early days of cinema, from those who could legitimately be called a "film-maker" because the nature of the medium was too fluid for their prior intent to matter much.
It would also be difficult to describe film-makers cross-culturally, especially for those who don't share the same cultural categories or intents in production as we do.
I also think it sets up problematic dichotomies, especially in terms of (ahhh the glory days...) UCLU FilmSoc. Did our films there count as low-budget films, or User Generated Content?
The reason I ask this question (and I think this, too is the fear that underlies your article) is that if legal ownership rights are set up very differently for User Generated Content (because the side with the legal nous drawing up the documents will be the large media corporations) then it seems likely there will be a "legal creep" whereby low-budget films such as the ones we've made will end up being subsumed into the same copyright categories as UGC.

Or, to be be blunt: you could spend months working on a beautiful production, wringing everything you can from a tuppence ha'penny budget, and complete it yet the only way for it to get decent distribution is for you to hand over the rights to it as if it were a 1 minute clip of kids setting their bums on fire with lighter fuel.

I understand the problems that need to be addressed, and whilst I agree new top-down definitions are required, I'm not sure that these ones would work.

Shorter version: I think those who create UGC are film-makers also.

(Ahh the glory days indeed)

This is definitely the problem I was worried about in writing the article - as soon as you put limitations on the lower boundary of what a filmmaker is, you run in to problems.

This is why I quite liked the notion of linking it to intent - this would mean that the person creating the content could apply the tag of UGC maker or filmmaker themselves.

My predictions….

I think that UGC will over take short filmmaking because of the way that digital distribution channels are evolving. It may be that someone makes a short film, and then decides to label it as UGC, because with the higher production values, it is likely to be more successful in the UGC world, which is more publicly accessible, than the shorts world to the viewing public. UGC is already a revenue based field; and considering how young it is, and how difficult it is to say the same about shorts; that’s pretty impressive. And whether or not they choose to put their content alongside bums on fire is their choice.

Shorts will become more of an artistic niche than they are already are, and will become more firmly grounded in the arthouse and festival circuits.

And at least now that Michael Grade is crossing over to ITV, the broadcaster will sort out its largely non Reithian /reality TV based programming ; )

(Did I mention that I loath reality TV?)

as soon as you put limitations on the lower boundary of what a filmmaker is, you run in to problems.

I work and a web and graphic designer. Graphic design has been going through the "anyone with Photoshop can do it" identity crisis since the the early nineties. Anyone with notepad and an internet connecting can create a website. The film industry is coming to the party later than these industries because the cost of entry has so far been higher, but now it's going to have to deal with the unwashed masses having a go too.

Equall access to technology leads to meritocricy - people's talent (and ability to sell themselves) will be of higher importance than their knowledge of expensive cameras. I know that anyone can train themselves with the skills I use for my job; HTML, CSS and Javascript are not that complicated. This ease of access to web design has lead to lots of competition, but also a thriving and open professional community. People with talent get recognised and the rest don't give up their day jobs.

It'll be no different with filmmaking. Everyone will have a go, some people will enjoy it and practise, some of those will have enough talent/courage/luck to turn professional. The only filmmakers who need to worry about the future availabilty of technology are probably are the ones without enough talent to differentiate themselves from the masses. And the media will eventially get over the excitement of camera phones and remember that filmmaker is (often) a job description not anyone who owns a mobile.

As for professional content sharing distribution channels with UGC (ie Youtube etc.) It's simply an issue of the professionals to use all available ways of promoting themselves as they can. Some will find it usefull some won't. It won't cheapen the films unless it's done badly.

There was an "interesting discussion over on Speak Up" about UGC being used in an advert for Converse . Make sure you read the comments.

"As the exclusive owner of all rights in and to the Film, you agree that Converse will have the worldwide, perpetual right to copy, display,reproduce, exhibit, edit, modify, assign, license, register for copyright or trademark, distribute, sell or otherwise use and exploit the Film and all elements and/or derivative works thereof, in whole or in part, alone or with other materials, in any media now known or hereafter created or devised, for any reason whatsoever."

Many filmmakers, aspiring filmmakers and members of the public apparently thought it was worth being "exploited".

"The results? Converse received 1500 short films. Mr. Butler and his group went through them and chose the best for the television, and next best for the web gallery. They have since received films by name directors, including Mr. Mos Def."

Enjoy the results here

Ed's comments, superficially interesting, and naively endearing as they are, rely on arguments from analogy that simply do not work for film.

Web design is a poor choice of analogy, since the development of "professional" webdesign and its standards is almost concurrent to its apparent democratisation.

Conversely, within film and broadcast media production, the digital revolution has meant that the bottom has fallen out from an industry with otherwise very longstanding professional standards*.

To claim that the two are somehow similar really isn't on. Its a bit like saying that because, in the early days of film, it was possible (and indeed it was) for amateur cameramen to make amateur films which were of a similar quality to that of the nascient professionals, standards of broadcast film and media production today won't suffer thanks to the digital revolution.

I think that, by the way, is the strongest of your arguments, Ed.

'The only filmmakers who need to worry about the future availabilty of technology are probably are the ones without enough talent to differentiate themselves from the masses.'

Well, where do you begin with a statement as crass as that? Asserts that talent will be the main requirement of future success... which is a pretty head-on rhetorical strategy for taking on any critics of the future of broadcast film and media production, since it assumes any problematic they may bring to the table is essentially fueled by their own ineptitude. How lucky that we benighted filmmaking savages can now learn the truth from a successful webdesigner, who has made it in that cut-and-thrust meritocracy, despite not even being able to spell the word "meritocracy" correctly.

No, sorry, are we meant to take that seriously?

Bringing up Converse is a spectacularly striking example of completely missing the point; and, since Zara and I both seem to be able to understand what that point is in our discussions, I'm going to assume its relatively clear. I won't be explaining it again.

• Some of you will remember Hi8. UCLU FilmSoc used to have Hi8 transfer decks. Hi8, of course, was the analogue amateur video technology which very much DID NOT lead to a crisis of the nature of what is professional within the broadcast film and media industry.
  Ground-up technologies have made assaults on broadcast film and media before, you know.