I'd personally use it!

I can think of some sites that do this, but none of them are democratic. Applying web2.0-style collaboration concepts to this sort of thing might make it awesome.

I think this is a great way to improve the film offerings that are available to us. It has excellent $ making power both from royalties on the film itself and perhaps an "application" fee paid to Cambrian House to fly "The Funder". Great Idea!

I think that this would be great for the independent film community and a model for raising capital for other industries as well.

A second revenue stream would be through advertising for things like Final Draft, Final Cut Pro, etc.

This is a good I dea.

Kevin Spacey (the actor) has a web site that does just this.

This is a really great idea. Your methodology and reasoning behind the project is also quite good. I'd love to see this become a reality. I for one would love to see some independant films get more recognition.

Great idea.

The Kevin Spacey site that Moogy refers to is http://www.triggerstreet.com and it's not exactly the same as what I purpose.

Trigger Street is more of a community of peers helping each other with their creative works. The service allows writers or film producers to submit their works for review by other like minded people.

My vision for the Film Funder idea is to help join the creative people with the general public. There will be room for comments and critique, but in a broader sense. The real focus will be to allow users to get behind the projects they believe in and follow them through to completion.

Concerning things that have been done, there's always room for improvement. Imagine if the people at Google said "search engines have been done" and never gave their idea a shot.

I love the idea, AndyDoan. Hopefully it would help self-expression do different media become a reality. Perhaps it would up film to people who never dreamed they could because of the money but they've great ideas? You've got my vote.

great thinking!!! I hope this turns into a reality.

I think this is a great idea with the potential to be huge. We've seen some great success by independent film makers in recent years, and I do believe there must be many more great films out there that just can't get off the ground because of funding.

One concern I would like to point out is that I would think the film directors would be quite concerned about giving up so much of their ideas (story boards, scripts, etc) for fear of their ideas being taken. They currently pitch their ideas to a relative small group looking for funding, but this would expose them to the entire world of potential copyright violaters. But, it also exposes them to tons of potential funders too.

I think this could be overcome though. I vote for it!

There may be something similar in the site of zoetrope online studio which is described at http://www.zoetrope.com/tour.cgi

motiggidy,

Zoetrope ( http://www.zoetrope.com/tour.cgi ) is a lot like http://www.triggerstreet.com which I talked about in another comment. Basically a tool for peer to peer collaboration and support. With Film Funder I want to open that community up to the general public. Please see my other post for more information.

As too gyrofoo's comments about writers and directors being afraid to share their ideas. This site shows that it's not going to be too much of a problem. Most would rather share their ideas and see something happen with them then watch them rot on the vine.

I've had a similar idea in the past. I envisioned this not only as a way for you to raise money by selling "shares" in your film, but also as a way to keep your community of shareholders in the loop as the film gets made, then screened at various festivals, etc. After all, each investor has a stake in how well the film does.

I especially like the idea of micro-investors. For instance, I would want lots of people to be involved, at various levels of investment, as low as $5.00 or as high as $5,000. (Everyone has different comfort levels, right?)

And how hard would it be to get people to invest $5 in your film? Get enough of those, and you're set.

Terrific idea!

That idea is really cool. WOndering if it could work where a large section of the community becomes a small-time investor. Perhaps 100 people giving $200 or so would be really cool as an easy way to help fund a movie you like.

Sounds like a specific application of "Early stage investor", posted Jul 15, 2006, 5:25 pm

Top idea. It'd need a large number of small investors (or a small number of large investors) but I think it's an idea whose time has come.

Alot of creative people who doesn't have the money will greatly benefit from this. Count me in!

I see now Andy, your idea is focused on the ability for a screen writer to obtain funding for the production of their movie script. From the perspective of the screen writer your website provides funding, whereas from the perspective of the money lender your website provides an investment, where the investment is a movie.

This is similar to the site prosper.com which allows people to loan money to other people for a wide range of unspecific reasons. However, your site is tailored to the investment in a movie and so has specialized tools to aid in this process. I like it though I think you will have to overcome peoples reluctance to spend a lot of time reading through movie scripts, and perhaps a perception of high risk and lack of control over the outcome. It is actually somewhat similar to two of my ideas - prosper insurance and free housing.

This is a great idea and I think it would definetly have a good revenue model for Cambrian House and good potential long term royalities

Even if writers only posted a short treatment of their scripts online, if it was well written and intriguing it could motivate people to invest in order to see the idea realized. I love it!

Andy-

This is a wonderful idea. I was thinking along similar lines few weeks back, but then circulated an idea that has to do only with creation of screenplays (creation of screenplays is actually writing i guess), only because CH wants kind of stuff that can be coded. My point i guess is that there's not much to be coded here - you propose a network and you propose a repository. Now i think that i'm mistaken (so i'm changing my vote). I think there's a lot dependant on the way the system is designed and i believe that such system may be designed here. I'm inherently trustworthy, i guess :)

Hereby my thing if you haven't seen it yet:
http://www.cambrianh...er/ideas-id/bWRak08/

Who knows, i might get lucky - what with all that ideas merging business going on :)

This is a great idea, perhaps it is not software intensive or a challenging technical development but i don't think that should be a reason why CH shouldn't get involved.

It is a great business model that is Internet driven and for that reason i think it has great potential.

BTW, have a look at siliconglen's idea Early Stage Investor of Jul 15th
www.cambrianhouse.co...ter/ideas-id/NvXdhsd

it is very similar and the film funder idea is almost a niche of this concept .. so what i am saying is i think this model is great and could be applied in many niche areas.

I like it.......allows "riskier" ideas to see the light of day.

I love your idea of film funding. I've posted an idea for collaborative movie creation, purely digital animation, which also embeds this concept to attract more users for movie creation.

http://www.cambrianh...er/ideas-id/A3xqSGs/

Besides supporting a way to have a movie funded, you could also provide services to market & distribute it. This would serve both the creative people & investors

This sounds a lot like a mix of Prosper (http://www.prosper.com) and the niche/small/indy film industry.

I think it could really work if you could provide a way for aspiring young directors and the like to show their credibility. For example, I would have to be really impressed with an 18 year old using a camcorder with no previous projects versus a 24 year old with full script, storyboards, previous films, etc.

This is a really interesting idea.
You could fund filmmaker all over the world with this.

how different is this from
http://www.betelnutkillers.com/.

Also there was a similar british film on the same lines which was asking for a million pounds.

Kora:

This is a perfect indication that the film industry is ready for this application. www.betelnutkillers.com is only a single movie and they've managed to raise $14000. If film funder becomes operational hundreds of producers, directors and writers will be able to launch their own similar campaign. Users will be able to browse through a whole directory of different proposed film projects in order to pick one that suits them best.

The british site kora is mentioning is actually thos one
http://www.aswarmofangels.com/process/
These guys are aiming for 1 million british pounds and already reached a target of 2500.

This definitely shows their is a market for this ! I'm sure independent filmmakers are waiting on an initiative like this to support funding of their movies : a central site will offer them much more opportunities marketing & funding wise then trying to achieve this as a single fund raising project !

Fundable - http://www.fundable.org/

Not with the movie slant specifically, but pretty similar.

Ryan_Williams:

Funable has as much in common with the FilmFunder proposal as they both do with PayPal.

Fundable is used for gifts and donations and does not allow users to track the progress of their funds after they have been given. Where someone could potentially accomplish the same goal with the Fundable application, it would require the use of another application to bring the entire concept together. Besides, a quick search of the Fundable website yields no report of someone using it to fund a film production.

The FilmFunder concept allows the purchase of ownership in a proposed film project.

This will promote and infuse more creativity into independent filmmakers. Lets make it happen.

I think that if you combined this with something like Prosper it could be reallllly powerful and amazing.

http://www.prosper.com

hell, i would love to work on this and get in on begging for sweet moola to make a movie.

Being a filmmaker, I can't deny that this would be a sick application. Dig it!

I think it could be enhanced *just that much more* by also creating a network whereby these said films might be distrobuted. With great equipment getting cheaper by the day, the major hurdle now is getting seen (but not in coporate-run theater monopolies nor in the bargain basement that is YouTube).

Im in! Im tired of watching overly expensive crap on the big screen.

You may want to look into the legalities of this. It's very similar to investing in a business, if you own stock or shares in a company with overy 5 shareholders you have to be an accredited investor - which means you have to have assets worth over $1M or make over $200K a year if your single. This is a US law and i'm not sure if I have all the details exactly but it's worth looking into before investing time and energy.

JDS

The legality of a system like this was actually called into question on someone else's idea.

http://www.cambrianh...er/ideas-id/N6GNvHo/

The research that followed shows that fund raising and the selling of shares is allowed without regulation as long as the amount sold is no more than one million dollars.

Here's a link that outlines the American laws surrounding this issue.

http://www.sec.gov/about/laws.shtml

http://www.postbubbl...your-favorite-bands/

Saw this today about a similar idea for funding bands and was reminded of the Film Funder idea, so there is some precedence for doing it. It would be interesting.

This just reminded me of one of my ideas for profitable program distribution I'm going to post it now!

i am part of a project at HaveMoneyWillVlog.com and also started fundavlog.com. these are similar but meant for indie video makers, which are not nec filmmakers but certainly some are and do use vlogs for sharing clips and raising money.

also, sites like fundable.org and chipin.com can easily add communities/groups to cater to filmmakers, musicians etc.... so you will have competition of course.

the idea in and of itself is def a good one, though not original.

have you seen sellaband.com?
also similar.

When I saw the title, I thought of the exact same thing. I think it's a great idea, which, with a little marketing, I think it will be a success. Love movies with an arts background myself, and this would really help a lot of them.

1. I would be happier if this had no age barrier, if it were just about the films.

2. Maybe offer investment opportunities at different stages of development, not just at the film-making stage. If the film is already made, people could actually watch it (maybe for a membership fee or something) and then decide if they want to invest in getting the film marketed. There would be a lot less risk - consequently investors would have to pay more to get in at a later stage (less risk - less reward).

3. Leads into further consideration (and ideas) about how films are marketed, who makes money on them, what can be done to broaden the model. Out of scope for this thread but the commenters here clearly know what they're talking about - so how about figuring out (as another idea) how to profitably link viewers and makers of indie films?

Legal concerns aside, I like this idea. Would the signup fee be based on the amount being raised, or would it be a fixed fee? Maybe 1% of the shares in lieu of a signup fee? Other pricing models?

Andy,

while doing some research for my own idea, I stumbled upon a site which comes very close to your idea.

Have a look at http://www.fylmz.com/

Still, I believe it's possible to differentiate with some of the extended features you describe in your idea submission or possibly by combining your idea with something like mine ( see Collaborative movie creation ) .

Apparently the site lacks good marketing ( google exposes some 573 links ??? ) so if CH is quick, I'm convinced there is an opportunity to make a difference. Even a possible partnership with these guys to take off to the market with rocket speed ?

Let's move quickly ( I'm sure you'd agree :-))

http://www.bbc.co.uk...lms/oneminutemovies/

BBC - One Minute Movies - website was open to movie submissions (1-minute shorts) from the public (I think) - you can view movies on this site, discuss them. Not that dissimilar from your idea, except the funding mechanism isn't built into it.

AndyDoan, nice idea but I have voted it down b/c I don't think it is the #1 fit for the type of work CH says it wants - mass-market software which can be sold over the internet.

Not meaning to be an ogre, but why does everyone think this is the best thing for CH to develop now?

Cheers.

its not easy for new artists to to use their art to generate an income so i like the idea alot!

i smoke weed every sunday and make movies with my mobile how can i hook up me jah man

taste the future passing through sand of time..........

wishes are never old

Now that's a great Idea, I really like the Idea that people will know the Idea of the movie (the basic Idea probably), and if they think it might be a good movie they can join in with the funding and later on gain a bit from the movie profits.
Sounds like a great Idea to me.

As a DIY, independent creator, and supporter of the new Internet meritocracy, I love this idea. I can see it being applied to any independent creative endeavor, not just films.

As a beginner Film maker, would be pretty cool.

This would void there copyrights to there work, and there ideas would be exposed and could easily be stolen and riped off.

Any one that is worth there salt would want things to be done in closed doors, and would want a any one that sees there work to sign a written non-disclosure agreement.

Also, any one that is in the media can all ready distribute there work easly. After they are done with it.

I am sorry but, this idea just would not work well.

Kevin_Cox: Making your work viewable to the public does not void copyrights. If this was the case then I'm not sure how movie theaters or radio stations are permitted to function. Content creators are allowed to reserve the rights to all materials no matter how the works are displayed. This application would display whatever level of copyright or creative commons protection the author chooses.

Most authors that I have talked to fear obscurity more than plagiarism. With the plethora of media available to the general public any tool someone could use to get people talking about their work is a good thing. Even if a user has no intention of financially supporting a project the added exposure would be worth the effort.

Distribution is a problem for independent producers. Even films that gain exposure through various festivals are not getting the distribution they deserve. Under published authors struggle to get the word out about their works using the DIY channels alone. There are a lot of web sites out there that attempt to help with this problem but considering the number producers, mediums and ideas, I personally don't think there are enough.

Remember Independant works are not all pretentious and artsy. There are hundreds of high quality genre based productions out there that benefit from being away from bright lights of Hollywood.

"Making your work viewable to the public does not void copyrights."
Actually, yes it dose you must have a REGISTERED COPYRIGHT or the work is then considered to be in public domain. If you all ready have a copyright on the work it is just fine to show the work in public.

This is why the media companies make you sign non-disclosure agreement along with other reasons to protect there rights.

"If this was the case then I'm not sure how movie theaters or radio stations are permitted to function. Content creators are allowed to reserve the rights to all materials no matter how the works are displayed. This application would display whatever level of copyright or creative commons protection the author chooses."
Movie Theaters buy the rights to show the movies and the movie itself has a copyright on it. On the radio there are different circumstances and rules and most of the music they play all ready has a copyright. The can reserve the rights but to do that you MUST apply to the copyright office or it is not considered legal.
Over all, you will for sure have legal disputes, especialy when you are trying to take a cut of the money. It would be very hard to control in the first place.
"Most authors that I have talked to fear obscurity more than plagiarism. With the plethora of media available to the general public any tool someone could use to get people talking about their work is a good thing. Even if a user has no intention of financially supporting a project the added exposure would be worth the effort."

"Distribution is a problem for independent producers."

This is true with places like YouTube / Movie Sites / Writing sites etc... But, usually anyone that posts on this sites is not looking to make money because in there TOS they give away there rights. I don't really see how this idea is very unique because there are hundreds of video site, thousands even.
I know a lot of independent workers in media usually this are a lot of film shorts most of the time. I am not quite sure how this would make much money as an idea. Maybe with adverts or something.

Over all, I think for this idea to work I needs to have something new, or unique. Because this site would require a lot of costs.

looking at this idea you would be using a ton of bandwidth, need a complex system to run the site, and dose not have anything that would make it very competitive. Also, there could be lots of legal disputes over the work and the distribution.

Next, because other sites all ready established would have a huge advantage and a large user base. I have worked with web development, to get this site up and running it would take a lot of work and a lot of cost.

I think the idea needs to actually be a NEW idea for this to work. Especially because most do the same thing for free.

I couldn't agree more with Kevin_Cox's comments. I think there are some major legal hurdles and the copyright issues makes this impossible. The biggest legal issue I see is how you manage the profit generated by the film and return that to investors. If I'm the filmmaker creating a film with film funder then what motivation do I have to report how much money the film has made? How can film funder track which film is and isn't making money. What trust do I have that if I invest in a film that I'll actually see any return on my investment. You could have legal contracts, but it just seems full of legal battles and possible abuse of the money the filmmaker gets.

This doesn't seem like a Cambrian House project at all. There's no clear revenue stream for at least 1-2 years(the production time and distribution time for a good movie).

Even if you could hold out until the revenue arrived, I don't see a movie ever making enough money on film funder to actually fund a movie. Looking at the comment about betelnutkiller http://www.betelnutkillers.com/ I see why this won't work. Betelnutkiller's goal is to raise $1 million. They've raised $14960 in about 6 months. At that rate (if my math is correct) it will take them 33 years to obtain $1 million.

Of course on film funder you'll be competing with potentially hundreds of films for funding. Leaving you with lots of competition for investors who won't realize a return on their investment for years.

Kevin_Cox:
I'm afraid you have copyright and trademark mixed up. Trademarks have to be registered in order to be protected copyrights do not (although it doesn't hurt). Besides Creative Commons licenses offer more flexibly protection for digital media. I would suggest you read up on the topic a little more. http://creativecommons.org/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright to name a few.

I will also suggest you read over the idea proposal again. I'm not proposing this idea as a video distribution site. The distribution I refer to, is in the form of finished works (ie DVDs) or purchased downloads. The only videos that would be displayed on the site would be promotional videos. I see no reason why YouTube couldn't be used for video hosting saving the bandwidth costs all together.

canchita:
This application would benefit by hosting a number of perspective projects. Betelnutkiller is one movie on one site. if a user doesn't care for that movie they have no where else to go. One million is a lofty goal for any fund raising project, I hoping our users set their goals a little lower. Great digital films can be produced for under ten grand these days, I think most people will agree.

You must misunderstand the revenue model for the site. Film Funder receives it's income from service fees on the money as it changes hands. When and if a film project is completed makes no difference to incoming funds. I also propose that the application be equip with some e-commerce capability and ad space to add to it's potential.

I hope this clears things up for both of you. Thanks for the comments!

I wrote this entire idea out in detail, including a business model and a outline of it's competitors on my personal blog. http://www.spaceshipent.com/?p=28 Please feel free to check it out.

I love the idea, im a film maker and money is a constant pain in the ass.

Good luck

To quote you from an earlier comment ?One million is a lofty goal for any fund raising project, I hoping our users set their goals a little lower. Great digital films can be produced for under ten grand these days, I think most people will agree.?

Well, lets take this assumption and most of your projects are of the ten grand scale because frankly I don't see many big budget productions coming to the site. In your blog you suggest Filmfunder will take somewhere between 1 to 7% of the monies raised and that is the main revenue source.

To be generous, lets take the maximum of the scale, 7%.

On funding raised of $10 000, will give Filmfunder $700 dollars commission ? not a lot!

100 movies is quite a lot to be in production but that would only give Filmfunder $70,000 in revenue - hardly very impressive!

Lets be really generous and push that up to 1000 movies in production, that will generate $700,000 - nice for a one man band!

Now, lets go ridiculous and put that figure up to 10,000 movies in production, that will generate $7 million in revenue commissions ? not exactly a google chaser and not exactly realistic to think you will get anywhere near that number of projects!

How many movies do you think you will have in Filmfunder on a yearly basis. How many films do you think will be realistically made?

Hollywood, for example churned out only 563 movies in 2005 (and that was their best year) and the average movie cost $60 million to make! OK, you are talking Indies and low budget stuff but I am just trying to put a scale on the opportunity. Even if you got 10,000 low budget productions you are not going to make much money ? this is not a BIG idea - not the "next big thing"!

The thought is nice and the solution is noble but I think you must seriously re-look at your financial business model to justify this as a viable big business idea.

Throwing advertising at it isn't going to generate much and neither will selling memorabilia and T-shirts!

This is an example of a nice idea where no one has bothered to look at the financial viability of the project. You need to do some serious rework on the financial model here.

andy54:
I'll admit that the Film Funder business plan won't see "Google-like" money for it's entire life span. It's not going to change the way large numbers of people view and use the Internet everyday.

If it's built properly and it serves it niche well, I can see it evolving into a bigger more profitable resource. The delivery of feature length digital movies is just a few years from being a mainstream market. There is also the possibility of it having features that allow "job-board" like postings for independent talent. I can also see a feature where different production crews bid on commissioned projects.

Keeping in mind the mantra of the proposal: "Resources for independent producers of entertainment" shows hundreds of different directions it could go in it's lifespan while achieving it's goal.

I've always loved this idea.. lets give "Snakes on a Plane" a run for its money :) I'm sure sponsorships and other revenues will jump on board when they see this ideas potential..

A lot of great Ideas to improve this concept have been posted. After reading everyone?s ideas the only thing I can think of that has not been already covered is the Name of the site or "product". "Film Funder" might not work for the large number people that have the potential of using this project. Andy, you should give the name a grassroots feel.

both of these ideas are great, i just see more market appeal with the filmfunder idea, not to mention personal interest on the level of filmmaking. rock on, guys.

actually something like this already exists, though there aren't that many choices for VC support, angels, etc.

Francis Ford Coppola started a site where you can submit film scripts, film sets, designs, stories, images, etc., for peer review, and for professional sale. Firms have bought several movie scripts posted from the site, as well as novels:

http://www.zoetrope.com

Andy:
Congratulations on making it to the finals.

Your idea is well thought out and you supported and presented it well and i think your position in the finals is well earned.

You and your competitor share common support so i would like to pose you two questions:

The two ideas are very different, address completely different market niches and have diversely different revenue generation models. Why in your belief would it be more attractive for CH to develop and market your idea as opposed to Spoil My Spouse?

What do you see as your ideas strengths and what are its weaknesses?

Good luck!

dunno... I just think the focus of this idea is for a very limited "target audience" and not that many people would get benefit off of it

Aren't there already sites that do something similar to this?
I like the loan and shares idea, this will probably do it better, if you need any ideas or help with this project, PLEASE think of me, I could submit some of the first screenplays to be shopped.

Being a filmmaker and visual effects director, I think this is a great idea.
If you can get a storyboard artist to block out the film, or better yet shoot a prototype and reshoot scenes to improve them. You would be able to evolve the concept out before going commercial.
Allowing investors to have input on the project...I know that sounds dangerous but, if everyone did it communally then we can distemper the problematic.

The major problem is getting good on camera talent, that will love your project.
Then trying to get an audience to watch it...even though it has no hollyweird names...I know Blair Witch, but those success are far and few.

But Andy. Best of luck and I sure would like to help and learn.

I like it a a lot but I'm kinda concerned with trust issues... what guarantees me that the funded person/team will not run away with my money?

Hey andy.. got alot of connections in the movie industry.. and upcoming directors and producers.. can contribute with connections.. let me know

Great project idea. I'll be keeping an eye out for this! =]

aswarmofangels.com

I had an idea very similar to this about a year ago and decided to go in another direction after doing some major research. The biggest issue that you face with you idea is that you can't just sell shares of a film to anyone who wants to be involved. Your investors have to be accredited which means they have a net worth of over 1 million dollars and they are extremely savvy. You can also only have twenty five of these investors. To offer shares to individuals, you would need to offer a public stock offering which is incredibly expensive and there are very strict SEC rules regarding advertising your offering. Each film would have to be its own separate business and register for an offering. I hate to be the bearer of bad news but this is exactly why I have abandoned the idea for the time being. I spoke to several attorney's about the legalities and an accountant involved with corporate due diligence and it just isn't feasible. You could raise money as loans but that is really it. Good ideas though.

Additionally, you could tap to Third World but First Rate production studios. They abound in countries like Argentina, Brazil, India,...

Sorry, i haven't read through all of the posts, just the last two, so...

If it is too expensive to create a business like this (according to Roth who has done the research), would it be possible to run it like a non-profit or charity?

While you may not make as much money being the founder/owner, you could still set your own salary (along with employees/film makers), plus use the remaining profits for the charity of your choice. Hey, Cambrian could be one of those!

If it is a non-profit or maybe a charity, film makers could register, post the scripts and whatnot. Each film would then have charities that match the content of the film, which would be listed. Those interested in the film/script can then donate money and designate whatever profit is generated to go towards the charity of their choice.

Again, I don't think you would make as much money, but that may be the best way to get around the financial issues.

well it's stunning~~~i love it....and I also think the business model as well this small indepent film might fit the Cell much more...so commercial ad would mix with the film if the users watch it for free on other hand if u'r a paid user there is no ads.

I think this idea is a total winner.

As for copyright let me clear things up.
http://www.copyright...general.html#protect

A concept for a movie, the outline for the movie is not copyright protected. The idea for the plot or storyline is not copyright protected. The set up idea of how to take the movie scene not copyright protected.

But, work put in tangible form is copyright protected the moment it is made. Example the actual written script or the movie footage.

Why there should be investment at all? People simply pay to get a movie done. They pay and will receive a free copy of the movie in return.

Is this idea still being pursued?