Please contact us
with corrections
or breaking news
Without A Clue: The Withoutabox Issue by Sky Tallone
Once an exemplar of creative destruction, Withoutabox, for a lot of folks, have switched to uncreative destruction. illo: D. Blair
OPPROBRIUM IS RAPIDLY RISING
against Withoutabox, but not nearly as fast as it should, considering both festivals and filmmakers have increasing reasons to hate them. The once-useful conglomerator, which started in 2000, allowed filmmakers to submit to multiple festivals using one form and online, saving lots of time.
The site currently offers 3000 festivals on five continents including Cannes, Sundance, and even Mill Valley, which can be submitted to digitally instead of through the mails with DVDs as in the old days of 2007. Of course, this also allows festivals and Withoutabox to market to the latter's 400,000 enrollees.
Withoutabox was started by David Straus, a UCLA film school graduate as well as Fulbright scholar, and his business partner Joe Neulight, out of Dartmouth. Although their first company was only operational for four years, they produced ten shorts and four features, winning some attention on the festival circuit and a little domestic and international distribution.
It was Neulight who came up with the idea of a film submission service and its proprietary software. Alas, the bloom is off that brilliance.
Festivals have come to hate them because of the fees they charge and the exclusivity of their contract. The Withoutabox monopoly has made it nearly impossible to be successful without being in their system.
As for filmmakers, it wasn’t until after I’d submitted my two short films through Withoutabox that I learned that they reserve the right to do whatever they want with the material I submit! Guess I should’ve read the terms of service in more detail:
"You grant us a nonexclusive, royalty-free, worldwide, perpetual, irrevocable, and fully sublicensable license right to use, copy, reproduce, transmit, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, and display any information, data, Work, or any other information associated with your Work (collectively the “Submitted Materials”) you submit to us via the Services in any media or format."
What the!?!?
The Withoutabox logo before they upgraded to a 'modern' look and won the Oscar for Most Boring Identity. illo: courtesy of Withoutabox
Why that’s even scary if you put aside that Withoutabox was purchased by Amazon in 2008, which started creating its own content in 2012. Does this mean Amazon can take anything they want from submitted films?? It’s not far-fetched, considering Facebook is already using the photos people upload for advertisements in other countries.
Shortly after purchase by Amazon, Withoutabox began attracting criticism, notably of excessive charges, unfair practices, poor technology and the common-enough claim of aggressive litigation by Amazon. After it was exposed in the press, the monopolistic exclusivity requirement was finally deleted in 2012.
As many filmmakers admit, Withoutabox still boosts numbers and streamlines submissions—to a degree. So far, everyone who has attempted to offer the same services—"'Withouttheevil' anyone?" has been completely destroyed by Amazon's python-like attorneys.
The new contender is Film Freeway, trying to offer film festival services, although they are still a lot smaller. Hopefully, they won’t face the same fate as their predecessors. Check them out!