1 / 15

Digital Rights Overview Materials for PTV’s Digital Working Group March 29, 2006

Digital Rights Overview Materials for PTV’s Digital Working Group March 29, 2006. EXPLANATION OF MATERIALS. This presentation was used at a meeting with public television’s Digital Rights Working Group to provide an overview of the state of digital rights for public broadcasters.

mabli
Télécharger la présentation

Digital Rights Overview Materials for PTV’s Digital Working Group March 29, 2006

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Digital Rights OverviewMaterials for PTV’s Digital Working GroupMarch 29, 2006

  2. EXPLANATION OF MATERIALS • This presentation was used at a meeting with public television’s Digital Rights Working Group to provide an overview of the state of digital rights for public broadcasters. • Much of this deck is based on the digital rights research conducted by WGBH, WNET, PBS and Oregon Public Broadcasting. Special thanks go to Sue Kantrowitz of WGBH for shaping this presentation and providing detail about individual program offerings.

  3. THERE ARE REAL WORLD LIMITATIONS ON WHAT WE CAN DO, PARTIALLY DUE TO THE SHEER NUMBER OF PLAYERS INVOLVED Within each of these categories, there can be a myriad of different elements

  4. THERE ARE ALSO A LARGE NUMBER OF DIFFERENT TYPES OF RIGHTS TO MANAGE With each source, we must negotiate . . . • Uses (e.g., broadcast, download, HV, etc.) • Term (how long) • Payments (how much: up-front; back-end) • Territory (geographic) • Language (e.g., English, Spanish, etc.) • Other (promotion, editing/manipulation, approvals, etc.)

  5. BECAUSE OF OUR CONSTRAINED RESOURCES, PUBLIC BROADCASTERS MAY HAVE LIMITED LEVERAGE • Of the programs that public television invests in, we typically provide only 32% of the funding • Rights exploitation opportunities (e.g., pre-sales, international rights, co-productions, home video) are frequently part of how producers secure “green light” financing for content and manage their investment risk • Often producers must make strategic trade-offs with respect to rights clearances in order to get the project into production

  6. IT IS ALSO NOT FEASIBLE TO HAVE A ONE-SIZE-FITS-ALL APPROACH… • Rights are negotiated on a case by case basis • Without a clear distribution strategy (e.g., how we treat windowing, the balance between fee and free content), it is very difficult to develop a clear rights acquisition strategy that could be applied across the board • Negotiations also happen in a range of places around the system

  7. … PARTICULARLY WHEN YOU CONSIDER THE SHEER SIZE OF OUR LIBRARY Number of original hours of programming, 2004 • Within the national programming hours, we have 99 series • Do we want the same approach for all series? • How do we decide which hours or series to make more widely available? 100% = 36,011 Children’s programming National programming Local programming* News/Public Affairs programming Primetime *Excludes Pledge programming and hours from WGBH (because SABS does not distinguish between their NPS programs and other local content). Sources: PBS, SABS FY2004

  8. WE HAVE MADE SIGNIFICANT PROGRESS ON SELECT SHOWS Case example 1: Frontline Unique attributes • Executive Producer has strong commitment to providing free content • Team is constantly exploring new opportunities on new platforms (e.g., currently researching rights clearances for downloads)

  9. THERE MAY BE ADDITIONAL OPPORTUNITIES TO EXPLOIT OTHER TYPES OF CONTENT Case example 2: Antiques Roadshow Unique attributes • Because series has segments consisting of originally shot content, it may be easier to transition program elements to other platforms

  10. PROGRAMS WITH EXTENSIVE THIRD PARTY RIGHTS FACE OTHER CONSIDERATIONS Case example 3: American Experience Unique attributes • The series uses a significant amount of unique third party material, making it more challenging to clear all the rights • Research into how to clear downloadable rights is currently underway

  11. LOCAL CONTENT MAY HAVE GREAT POTENTIAL FOR WIDE ON-LINE DISTRIBUTION Case example 4: KQED’S Spark Unique attributes • KQED has chosen to make Spark freely available online from a variety of sites • Station offers additional on-line only arts content (Gallery Crawl, produced for web-only broadcast by KQED Interactive) • This content is made at lower cost and with fewer rights restrictions • It is even more broadly distributed online (e.g., through RSS feeds, on commercial sites, through podcasts) Sources: Tim Olson, KQED

  12. GREATER BOSTON FROM WGBH HAS SIMILAR ON-LINE OFFERINGS Case example 5: WGBH’s Greater Boston Unique attributes • WGBH currently has three significant on-going local series available on multiple platforms, including Google Video, iTunes and OMN

  13. SEVERAL THEMES EMERGE FROM EXAMINING INDIVIDUAL EXAMPLES • Public broadcasting is not currently capitalizing on the full range of platforms, windows, or content formats available • Individual producers play an active role in how a property is positioned in the marketplace • Genre alone does not determine the ease of rights exploitation, e.g. • Clearing the rights on a documentary with significant unique archival footage and period music is more difficult than clearing rights for a documentary comprised primarily of originally produced content • Although dramas might appear to have multiple encumbrances, sometimes dealing with a limited number of guilds can actually be easier than multiple negotiations with many individual rights holders • The number and type of encumbrances a show has is the best indicator of how easy or difficult it will be to clear the rights

  14. AND IT IS CLEAR THERE ARE SOME PATHS WE MAY NOT BE ABLE OR WILLING TO PURSUE • Some rights are too expensive and unavailable for use on certain platforms • Some rights may only be available on limited platforms and we must consider the need to create different versions for different uses

  15. THERE ARE MANY UNANSWERED QUESTIONS, BUT WE CAN’T AFFORD NOT TO ACT There are many market uncertainties… … but there are issues we must tackle now • The marketplace is still immature – many archives and rights holders have not considered how to price their content for multiple, digital platforms • It is unclear if rights holders will embrace the notion of providing “open content” for users to manipulate • Some of our current rights deals (i.e., for music rights) need to be updated to address changing market conditions • We do not know what impact new business models will have on our current businesses or our current audiences (e.g., impact on underwriting) • We need a clear and comprehensive rights strategy that distinguishes us from commercial counterparts, including a consensus on how we treat windowing and the balance between fee and free content • We need to consider how to best help local stations that want to exploit content on multiple platforms (e.g., through standard guidelines) • We need to consider the issue of branding in new media and on new platforms

More Related