Who owns the work? Copyright in 2016

[Björn Benckert]

Jake's case seems to be two fold:

Using a free/ubiquitous tool attracts clients who expect you to give them more, for the same or less - i.e hand over the project file even though that may not be what you want to do. You can say no to this, but you may not get asked to do the job again for such clients - the whole process of which devalues your work as a specialist (people can modify your work after you have done it, which may see you get credited on work that is not up to your standards, they can do additional outputs without you QCing those outputs, which has the same potential impact, and they can also more easily reverse engineer your artistic techniques - which is bad for business when they also don't have to invest anything in getting and keeping up with the software involved.)

Not using Resolve simple solves these problems - And generally the sorts of clients that are willing to pay a lot for long form color correction are not going to notice the price difference between a colorists who uses resolve and one who use baselight etc - the savings on software still pale in comparison to hardware, infrastructure, staffing and rent (a properly calibrated room with DCP projector and good engineers outweighs software costs easily).

Not taking work where you have to hand over project files is a separate stance, that is further supported by not using Resolve.

Meanwhile, Bjorn is talking more often about short form projects which are VFX heavy, and my experience of this world is that such projects often require a myriad of changes at short notice and revisions further down the line (TVC's).

I know in his world, a spot is never done. It might be finished and delivered, but it could always be reversioned - and having to go back to the same freelance colorist to make a minor or major change because he doesn't have the project file is likely a non starter - he can't say to a client 'No, I can't make that specifc change to your very expensive commercial this month, because a freelance colorist is busy on another job and I don't have access to the project files'. I imagine often in his world of tightly controlled high end VFX commercials the sorts of tweaks he may need to do in the intermediary grade before VFX integration are completely vital to delivering an end product up to his standards.

While in principal these may seem to be mutually exclusive stances - the reality is that they are mutually exclusive generalizations based upon the sort of work involved and the nature of clients. If Bjorn was to hire Jake - I am sure Jake might change his stance if he feels he's being fairly compensated for his collaborative effort - but he may also simply say 'no' because it may be too complicated to determine what would be fair compensation if he genuinely thought that they way he skinned the cat in terms of color correction was valuable enough i.p. to not share, regardless of price.

My take is it's never reasonable to expect a freelancer to give you any info about how they are creating their deliverables unless you contract them to do so in the first place. Communicating up front that you will need the project files delivered seems mandatory if you do, expecting it seems abnormal to me if you aren't providing the software and equipment for them to work on.

Copyright law as such holds no sway here, because irrespective of the work being done - you can only expect to be given the deliverables you have contracted to get - if you don't have a contract saying you will get project files then why would a freelancer hand them over, and there is no way that anything generated in the process of creating a 'work' (as defined under copyright) is automatically to be revealed to the end copyright holder without strict contract language saying so - otherwise VFX houses would all automatically be owned by the studios that purchase the work off them.

Now, if the freelancer is working on your equipment and your software and you have contracted them to work for 'x' hours to produce a certain end product under those conditions, then they'd have no reason to expect to own the project files - the means of doing the job is entirely dependent on your facility's equipment - but again, it's contract law not copyright law that should determine that then.

After all, if you hire someone to push buttons, and the end up creating art - then legally in most territories you are obliged to have a contract in place stating you will own that art at the end of the process otherwise all you really can be certain of is what you hired them for (to push buttons).

Agree with all the above.

 

[Marc Wielage]

Now, if the freelancer is working on your equipment and your software and you have contracted them to work for 'x' hours to produce a certain end product under those conditions, then they'd have no reason to expect to own the project files - the means of doing the job is entirely dependent on your facility's equipment - but again, it's contract law not copyright law that should determine that then.

Contract law is different state-to-state and country-to-country, and a lot would boil down to the specific deal. The problems occur when the agreement is ambiguous or unspecified, and then you could have an issue. If you hire me to color-correct your indie feature, my own terms specify that you get 2 passes and a final, plus a reasonable number of fixes as necessary, plus textless files. Nothing is said about the session files. You only get the results of the work, not the work itself.

If I work on a client's machine, chances are I'll bring in my own plug-ins and accessory files (like transitions, grain, and PowerGrades) which don't get left on the client machine. In rare cases, I'll give the clients the actual source files used only for that session, but not my whole library.

It would be different if I was a staff employee and worked full-time for a specific facility. If they own the entire room, the servers, the software, and are responsible for the overhead, then they own the whole enchilada. There have been cases in California law that proved that if the employer owns the computers, and the employee has email on that computer, then the employer owns the email and can read it. In that sense, the employee has lost their privacy on that machine. But if I brought in my own laptop or tablet and did my own email separately, then I'd own it and the employer couldn't legally see or use the emails.

 

[jake blackstone]

Meanwhile, Bjorn is talking more often about short form projects which are VFX heavy, and my experience of this world is that such projects often require a myriad of changes at short notice and revisions further down the line (TVC's).
I know in his world, a spot is never done. It might be finished and delivered, but it could always be reversioned - and having to go back to the same freelance colorist to make a minor or major change because he doesn't have the project file is likely a non starter - he can't say to a client 'No, I can't make that specifc change to your very expensive commercial this month, because a freelance colorist is busy on another job and I don't have access to the project files'. I imagine often in his world of tightly controlled high end VFX commercials the sorts of tweaks he may need to do in the intermediary grade before VFX integration are completely vital to delivering an end product up to his standards.

About 90% of my work is commercial work and about 30% of that is Remote Graded. So, if anything, I'm very familiar with that kind of work.
With Remote Grading I must use Resolve, because it is the most economical and simple way to grade remotely. As i had mentioned it already, once we are done with the session, clients machine has the full session file. The final render is done on than machine. That is the process and it is clearly understood by both parties before the start of work. So, there are no problems with who owns session files. Yes, occasionally there are last minute changes. Most of my Remote work is in Europe, so the time difference works to our advantage. In some cases I may do the change myself. Usually it takes a few minutes and I don't even charge for those short "fix" sessions. And, yes, there are times, when clients asked me, if it is OK to apply the grade on another take. I usually have no problem with that- it's just copy and paste! However, I would have a problem with clients, that are DEMANDING my work files and refuse to work with anyone who doesn't provide them. Which means, it looks like Bjorn and I will not be working together in the future
In all of my time doing Remote grading, I had never had a problem with any of my clients, because of last minute changes. They are respectful of my contribution and don't throw a tantrum when something doesn't go their way...
When i work in my office in LA, i have yet to encounter a client, that would insist on using Resolve. They happy to see the result, regardless of the platform used and I'm happy, that I can deliver better results. They get rendered files and matching XML, EDL or AAF. That's it.
So, again, anyone, who insists on only using a particular grading platform- Resolve, shall we say, very short sighted, as they are missing out on working with the best professionals in the business.

 

[Wayne Morellini]

Sorry, I don´t mean to distort what you are saying.

I though this thread was about resolve but then the headline change. And you keep saying people aint using resolve and refer to other platforms, well you are possibly right. But I know for certain that we use it quite a lot and people we work with tend to use it even more and at some places I go it´s almost like a standard.

Regarding the third party plugins and other IP that you say can not be shared (still talking about resolve, not the other platforms) I have not found too many of those plugins that cost more than a few thousand USD and most are very much possible to buy straight over the web. So those things can usually be paid for and easily sorted if needed. But again, no doubt, if somebody does not want to play ball then its rather easy to be difficult and add some unique home made plugin that renders the whole project file useless for anybody else.

But for some reason I think the main thing here is simply that you do not want to collaborate in such way and again, as I said before, I totally respect that. And yes, of course like any kind of business deal the terms needs to be made up before the shit is tossed towards the fan. And also of course nobody can force you to sell anything that is yours and that you do not want to sell. Its all very basic stuff.

The way I work, I normally do not give away or sell VFX files, archive or any such. Our norm is to just offer master files and clean versions and nothing more. But again all is negotiable. But for logic reasons I try very hard not to promise to keep any archives of the work we do, simply because I can not give any warranty that I can open them in the future as upgrades and such are not always back compatible, discs breaks, tape formats gets old etc. And most of all it makes it easer for me to sleep at night as even if my office would burn down to the ground I would not be responsible for any lost of data or such. Same with discs I receive, I take no responsibility for them. That does not mean I do not archive my work or throw away clients discs, or does not have a big fat fireproof safe at the office. But if there would be a legal situation I rather stand without those responsibilities.


The other discussion here about employees not owning what they do in their spare time. I know it´s common practice on a lot of post companies and production companies to put in the contracts for their employees that they are not aloud to do any work that is competitive with the employer, if such work is done then they they loose the right to that work. For freelance staff things are of course a totally different not really possible to tie them up the same way. But I know of freelance contract that where made out so the freelancer could not work with the same client else place with a certain number of years etc which I both understand but also thinks is a bit rough. And for TV station I only know that for 20 years ago when I was employed by the Swedish government TV station I remember that they had a pretty rough contracts that would immediately terminate my employment if I did any kind of media work that they did get to approve beforehand, even probono work was under that clausul. So simply put they could fire me if I would edit anything else than their productions and they could even sack me for just being on a film set that was not theirs. Which by Swedish standards where quite rough or even according to swedish law at the time.

Oh, great, I thought this was a thread on actual copyright law. I was wondering why people kept get bogged down in grading.

 

[Wayne Morellini]

Jake skipped through it, but sounds great to me. Get files enough so it can be revisited, refuse to work with everybody that won't give them, get everybody else to do the same. Grading is so far on the very technical end of art to be barely such. 90% of the stuff I will do will probably be shot right and auto graded, with a standard look or graded by me. The other 10% would be done by me or other people. Simply it is that I and most work does not require such high grade of grading most of the time. Most people can work like this and not even grade a job and let the camera set it, most don't do movies.

 

[Björn Benckert]

About 90% of my work is commercial work and about 30% of that is Remote Graded. So, if anything, I'm very familiar with that kind of work.
With Remote Grading I must use Resolve, because it is the most economical and simple way to grade remotely. As i had mentioned it already, once we are done with the session, clients machine has the full session file. The final render is done on than machine. That is the process and it is clearly understood by both parties before the start of work. So, there are no problems with who owns session files. Yes, occasionally there are last minute changes. Most of my Remote work is in Europe, so the time difference works to our advantage. In some cases I may do the change myself. Usually it takes a few minutes and I don't even charge for those short "fix" sessions. And, yes, there are times, when clients asked me, if it is OK to apply the grade on another take. I usually have no problem with that- it's just copy and paste! However, I would have a problem with clients, that are DEMANDING my work files and refuse to work with anyone who doesn't provide them. Which means, it looks like Bjorn and I will not be working together in the future
In all of my time doing Remote grading, I had never had a problem with any of my clients, because of last minute changes. They are respectful of my contribution and don't throw a tantrum when something doesn't go their way...
When i work in my office in LA, i have yet to encounter a client, that would insist on using Resolve. They happy to see the result, regardless of the platform used and I'm happy, that I can deliver better results. They get rendered files and matching XML, EDL or AAF. That's it.
So, again, anyone, who insists on only using a particular grading platform- Resolve, shall we say, very short sighted, as they are missing out on working with the best professionals in the business.

Yes I do think the chances that we would work together are rather slim... almost negative fat even. But on the other side I can not help think that it would be very tempting to toss a huge project with great budget for grading on you just to see if you live by your standards and turn down such offer. So when the next one comes I for sure will have you in mind

Anyway. My scenario can be something like this. I fly out to SouthAfrica I supervice a shoot. Then I sit with a german director and DP, agency producer and creatives from Indonesia and a producer from India in a grading suite down in Capetown... The grade is done to everybody's liking with the normal shit storm with 10 guys in a small room all showing the standard back set driver kind of behaviours.

But as the film at that point is just a rough cut done on set and the final film will be pretty much a messed up nestled shit pile that is drowning in CG and none of us that attend the grading session do really know what will happen in the offline edit and further more we do not really know what we will do / or what we will need for the VFX work later on. Still the grade is important and it´s important that it´s done when everyone is there not looking at different monitors, laptops iphones etc. I know about the remote sessions and such and we done it, but with everyone spread out that is not really what we want to do and usually it cost us quite bit as we need to have monitors or grading suites in all different places and just that organizing bit cost more then the actual grading session not to mention the need for plugins etc.

Anyway that usually takes a day and then everyone flies home.

Then the minute I get home with a copy of the source and that resolve file, clips are being rendered left and right. Some as straight lin conversions to be comped then flipped back to log to go through the grade, some in full res, some in HD, some in 16 bit to be keyed, Some as a graded source with a supplementing 3D lut from the grade to be used in nuke etc...

It would simply not be a good solution for us to get it all in one resolution and bit depth. different shots, plates etc demands different treatment, some need ADD, some needs to be brought out in passes, one for the explosion one for the background etc etc.

And then time is always short the normal scenario is that we get about half the time we request for the average project. So if we would be stressed as fuck to finish in 4 weeks time then usually we get a week and a half. No joke the norm is we work 24/7.. A bad example is me at my office right now working together with guys in India, that luckily do not believe in Christ... And the norm is there is usually no real possible scenario that all the creatives involve will meet again before delivery, of course some will come visit me in Stockholm during the post process but then usually not everyone that was involved.

So for me, in such scenario. I do what I can to have the producer pick a colonists down in SA that has no problem to let go of his precious, and that is of course agreed before the grading season starts, usually long before we fly down there. So no, I do not see what you think that I do that is so bad, or what is that bothers you so much.

The other scenario is that I get a disc with graded dpx files and ungraded source clips. When we get that we do have a plugin called "Copy Grade" it simply extract the grade and turn it into a 3D lut from checking the difference between two frames of source and graded source. Ofcourse splines and such does not carry over but it has a little rectangular select box so with a few alterations it usually very possible to get good enough copy of the grade. But that approach is more messy and again I rather have the project file, so that is what I´m buying.

 

[jake blackstone]

Yes I do think the chances that we would work together are rather slim... almost negative fat even. But on the other side I can not help think that it would be very tempting to toss a huge project with great budget for grading on you just to see if you live by your standards and turn down such offer. So when the next one comes I for sure will have you in mind

Yep, Bjorn is being a drama queen and throwing up a tantrum, when he can't get what he wants.
The name of my company- MOD Color. The name of my company is the explanation why I won't work with someone like you

The other scenario is that I get a disc with graded dpx files and ungraded source clips. When we get that we do have a plugin called "Copy Grade" it simply extract the grade and turn it into a 3D lut from checking the difference between two frames of source and graded source. Ofcourse splines and such does not carry over but it has a little rectangular select box so with a few alterations it usually very possible to get good enough copy of the grade. But that approach is more messy and again I rather have the project file, so that is what I´m buying.

Yes Bjorn. After your rather lengthy description I can tell you, that yes, I have participated in such messy projects. Except in one such project, the fuck up was on a VFX side and I had to get involved and straighten out the VFX house in Belgium. Initially they tried to BS me, like you do now, but when they realized, that this will not fly and they will not get paid, so they went back and did it all correctly. It was all smooth sailing after that
In one Remote session for a Moscow client, the director was in Paris and agency and the producer was back in Moscow, while I was grading from LA, all speaking different languages. It is difficult enough working with many clients while IN the room, but talking to them on Skype is even more difficult, but everyone kept their cool and we managed. Working with clients in multiple locations doesn't happened often, but it does happen.
I have a great client in Prague. He does very much the kind of work you do, while also using Flames and we both couldn't be happier working remotely with our multinational clients. The last job we did three weeks ago, the client was British, it was shot and finished in Prague, the director was Austrian and DP was from Slovenia. Or was it the other way around? It's hard to keep it straight with so many players involved And before that, the director was British, with spots done for China and Middle East. You are not the only one doing multinational work
Anyway, way to go Bjorn. Just because you happened to do multinational work doesn't mean in the name of expediency you should reduce someone else's work to a single FrankenLUT.

 

[Nick Morrison]

Grading is so far on the very technical end of art to be barely such.

Im surprised you dont see the "art" in grading, considering its one of the creative disciplines that has the greatesf effect on the final look of a movie.

And yes, like most filmmaking - its both highly technical and highly creative.

But to dismiss it as so technical as to "barely" be art, I think may going a bit too far. In that case - most of filmmaking must barely be an art, because I dont see a gaffer or DPs job being any less "technical" than a colorist...in the grand scheme of things.

 

[jake blackstone]

Agree with all the above.

You just agreed with this statement Bjorn? That is a bit surprising.
"My take is it's never reasonable to expect a freelancer to give you any info about how they are creating their deliverables unless you contract them to do so in the first place. Communicating up front that you will need the project files delivered seems mandatory if you do, expecting it seems abnormal to me if you aren't providing the software and equipment for them to work on."
Because how do you reconcile your earlier statement in the same thread?
"I always, up front demand the resolve project file for my projects and I find colourist that does not want to provide such as hard to work with. I simply do not book them."
Do you like to talk out of both sides of your mouth Bjorn. Or you just "being a producer" and then anything goes?
I strongly object to your characterization of anyone who decides to assert the rights of ownership of his/her IP as someone, who is "hard to work with" and being the basis for not hiring.

 

[David Battistella]

Computers do not auto create power windows.

 

[Björn Benckert]

You just agreed with this statement Bjorn? That is a bit surprising.
"My take is it's never reasonable to expect a freelancer to give you any info about how they are creating their deliverables unless you contract them to do so in the first place. Communicating up front that you will need the project files delivered seems mandatory if you do, expecting it seems abnormal to me if you aren't providing the software and equipment for them to work on."
Because how do you reconcile your earlier statement in the same thread?
"I always, up front demand the resolve project file for my projects and I find colourist that does not want to provide such as hard to work with. I simply do not book them."
Do you like to talk out of both sides of your mouth Bjorn. Or you just "being a producer" and then anything goes?
I strongly object to your characterization of anyone who decides to assert the rights of ownership of his/her IP as someone, who is "hard to work with" and being the basis for not hiring.

Yepp, I agree with the yellow text and thats is exactly what I been trying to explain. Who does not make an agreement before project starts for what they want and negotiate the price for what ever is requested. And ofcourse if, for some reason, the person I deal with can not provide it or does not want to give it up for the price I´m able / willing to pay, then I have to look else place, how the hell else would I work, I can not really tell people this is what I want and then twist shit out of their hands, that stealing it´s not really what we discuss. is it?

 

[Wayne Morellini]

Im surprised you dont see the "art" in grading, considering its one of the creative disciplines that has the greatesf effect on the final look of a movie.

And yes, like most filmmaking - its both highly technical and highly creative.

But to dismiss it as so technical as to "barely" be art, I think may going a bit too far. In that case - most of filmmaking must barely be an art, because I dont see a gaffer or DPs job being any less "technical" than a colorist...in the grand scheme of things.

It is so little art that consumer camcorders have been doing it in firmware for may decades. Sure you can add more by hand but it is rather like saying one that washes the house and puts light bulbs in somehow was involved in building the house propper. They did not even put the paint on. Take away the contributions of others to the image and what do you have left. I think it is a bit precious to deny the 'stability' data for the project outright.

 

[jake blackstone]

Yepp, I agree with the yellow text and thats is exactly what I been trying to explain. Who does not make an agreement before project starts for what they want and negotiate the price for what ever is requested. And ofcourse if, for some reason, the person I deal with can not provide it or does not want to give it up for the price I´m able / willing to pay, then I have to look else place, how the hell else would I work, I can not really tell people this is what I want and then twist shit out of their hands, that stealing it´s not really what we discuss. is it?

You DEMAND to have something, that doesn't belong to you, as it is your right, while at the same time agreeing with the statement "it's never reasonable to expect a freelancer to give you any info about how they are creating their deliverables". You can't have it both ways Bjorn. You can't DEMAND project files from an artist for a price you're "able/willing" to pay, while at the same time respecting artist's right to own them. That's called demagoguery at best or lying based on convenience at worst. You must look into changing your profession to a politician Defending ownership of IP is a legitimate right. Showing those, that assert that right as "difficult to work with" is more demagoguery. By the sound of it, the way you feel about an ownership of a property, I'd think you are a communist or mafia. You know, kinda"we're gonna make you a deal you can't refuse" :smiley:
If you end up sampling someone else's work, because it was refused to be given to you, then yes, it is technically form of theft.
This is not that different, Bjorn, from the time you tried to pass AutoDesk's LUTs around as your own creations, quite illegally i might add
http://www.reduser.net/forum/showth...ion-LUT-Test&p=1179931&viewfull=1#post1179931
http://www.reduser.net/forum/showth...ion-LUT-Test&p=1182524&viewfull=1#post1182524

 

[Wayne Morellini]

So, somebody "owns" a part of your film IP after they process it and you paid for it?

Anyway, you and Bjorn are talking across language barriers I think. Even though Bjorn speaks good English he is thinking and coming from the view point of another language. Maybe things are a bit confused in translation as to contexts. What he is saying is true depending on what he means, as both are different parts of the context. He has right to negotiate to get it or find somebody else. The freelancer has the right to do the same in reverse. Seems harmonious. But am I interpreting this right?

 

[jake blackstone]

So, somebody "owns" a part of your film IP after they process it and you paid for it?

Anyway, you and Bjorn are talking across language barriers I think. Even though Bjorn speaks good English he is thinking and coming from the view point of another language. Maybe things are a bit confused in translation as to contexts. What he is saying is true depending on what he means, as both are different parts of the context. He has right to negotiate to get it or find somebody else. The freelancer has the right to do the same in reverse. Seems harmonious. But am I interpreting this right?

You lost me after your first statement:banghead:

 

[Nick Morrison]

It is so little art that consumer camcorders have been doing it in firmware for may decades. Sure you can add more by hand but it is rather like saying one that washes the house and puts light bulbs in somehow was involved in building the house propper. They did not even put the paint on. Take away the contributions of others to the image and what do you have left. I think it is a bit precious to deny the 'stability' data for the project outright.

Wayne...your almost charming belief in the innfalibilty of cinematography...is as endearing as it is unrealistic.

Clearly you have not seen the reams of crappy shoots that have been saved by colorists in the grade. Just because the camera records the "raw" material...doesnt mean it's any good.

Good colorists have saved many poorly concieved shoots - and turned many good shoots...into GREAT ONES.

Take my own work, for example. We shoot on Epic Dragons in often trying situations (with mixed lighting). We use the "auto" in-camera settings you have so much faith in (Ie DC2/RG4), and what we get is often GOOD.

But once Jake logs in remotely, and "grades" our dailies...they often become GREAT. There is SO MUCH HE CAN DO...that a computer or "auto setting" never could.

And I guess thats the difference. You seem to have faith in machines and settings? Wheres Im more comfortable having faith...in people.

Im also comforted knowing most of my favorite movies have been graded by colorists the industry reveres and admires.

For me, colorists are an indispensible part of the communal image chain. What starts with a writer, gets shot on set by a crew, and then graded by a colorist. Filmmaking to me is like a team sport, where everyone plays a role - and everyone is important.

Also, you do realize that recently...some very famous movies have been ENTIRELY RELIT IN POST, right? "Birdman" and "The Revenant" were almost entirely relit in grade by colorists...almost proving what was shot in camera was not nearly enough to deliver a final movie.

To me - colorists are indispensable artists. A part of what makes movies "magic".

But that's just me!!

 

[David Battistella]

Wanye,

You are either making an attempt to be provocative or there might be a true lack of understanding of what a colorist brings to the process. Probably 100% of any major release film or TV commercial has had a color pass. There are reams of reels on the internet showing what color passes do. To enter into the conversation with such a banal statement about cinematography and color correction just leaves me scratching my head.

 

[Wayne Morellini]

My statement howerver holds true. While cinema cameras images often are raw needing a manual color grading, most other cameras do the grading internally, so they can assist or skip this step. So even cheap basic consumer cameras have been doing that for decades and they were very basic. We seem to have gotten into this thing that 'Im really sigficant and deserve the big money' because I color. A basic color balance can be done automatically, and that is mostly good enough outside cinematography. I find it offensive. If somebody wants to pay me $100 or thousand an hour (x hundred/thousand first hour min) thats fine with me, I just have to realise it is a privaledge to get paid that much.

Nick and David

Now, I don't have ultimate faith in the on set skill of the crew, things don't work out even if you try, but it practical step to try to set the image there. It is people working with machines, controlling them on set to their arvantage. I've been advocating for over a decades, even before that, good cameras that you can do everything in post, but that does not mean at the moment, and for much of w end suburban work, which I have done, you try to do the minimum in post. Working with an adequate auto mode (Is the Red ones like that) you can tune and set a look while shooting, traditionally like but enhanced. This is low end stuff, not money awashed fashion of big budgets. But I agree with a lot of what you say, it mattes where I suites. But consider the early Dirty Harry films, decades latter they looked like faded messses played on TV, below what many might consider acceptable now, but did that stop them being great films, no. And about writers, if you didn't have a writer, what would you film, if you did not have the crews work what would you color, but great writing and acting and film production makes a great movie, it would be rare for a colorist to make a badly written, acted, directed and filmed, production good. The greatness of the film has to be before this step and the color the cake icing. For my 6th birthday I think, I had got a birthday cake done as an old western fort, with water walls and juicy chocolate cake inside. As much as I wished, I never got anything like that again. But what would it be if there were no juicy chocolate cake in the middle, it would not be very tasteful, but what if we took away everything but the color on the wafers, we would just have a splodge of color. But again, you are right, grading adds to a film, but every creative on set could claim that they could hide details of their setups and arrangements. As part of team work they don't. The sculptor mentioned earlier is an example of somebody out to be the head rather than team work.


Now, these conversations ussually go into, oh but consumer cameras are usually crappy at it. But consumer cameras are deliberately done that way to attract people to buy more expensive models, and not to compete with professional models. However, those cheap cameras can get the same treatment if the manufactures let them. I have a sub $100 720p camera that, though not perfect, was way better than more expensive name brand cameras of the day. And you can't compare to Eng cameras as they are set up for a look, but any can be setup for a cinema look. Anyway, I'll defend Bjo n, but otherwise I am not well with a headache and want to stick out of it. I think enough has been said, all the graded contrasts are in (contrasting academically used in essay writing) and everybody has heard everybody.

 

[Björn Benckert]

You DEMAND to have something, that doesn't belong to you, as it is your right, while at the same time agreeing with the statement "it's never reasonable to expect a freelancer to give you any info about how they are creating their deliverables". You can't have it both ways Bjorn. You can't DEMAND project files from an artist for a price you're "able/willing" to pay, while at the same time respecting artist's right to own them. That's called demagoguery at best or lying based on convenience at worst. You must look into changing your profession to a politician Defending ownership of IP is a legitimate right. Showing those, that assert that right as "difficult to work with" is more demagoguery. By the sound of it, the way you feel about an ownership of a property, I'd think you are a communist or mafia. You know, kinda"we're gonna make you a deal you can't refuse" :smiley:
If you end up sampling someone else's work, because it was refused to be given to you, then yes, it is technically form of theft.
This is not that different, Bjorn, from the time you tried to pass AutoDesk's LUTs around as your own creations, quite illegally i might add
http://www.reduser.net/forum/showth...ion-LUT-Test&p=1179931&viewfull=1#post1179931
http://www.reduser.net/forum/showth...ion-LUT-Test&p=1182524&viewfull=1#post1182524

Every time I write something on reduser Dr Blackstone for some reason need to jump in and twist and turn every word I write. Which in one way is really good as I get to practice on my poor english skills but also it gets a bit frustrating.

So here is one last attempt to explain and then I´m out, I promise, no matter what shit you type up next, I will not reply.

I admit "Demand" does not sound right... again possibly my shitty english. Demand, as I understand is a harsh word, To correct myself, try change demand to "request". As I understand "to demand something" from somebody without a contract or agreement could be difficult with out going into criminal territory and thats not where I want to be. But, I think I actually wrote "demand upfront”..again it´s bad english but what I mean with that is something like: ask for it before bookings are done or agreements are made. So before a booking is made I ask to include the resolve file together with the graded material as deliverables. To me, if both parties are happy with such agreement, then what IP is stolen? And why would such arrangement make me a Communist of all things, that I do not understand? I know, I am coming from Sweden which is a ultra socialistic country, but just for you info, I never voted, I find all available parties way to left oriented to deserve my vote. So no, I'm no communist. On the contrary I believe in open market and fair trade, I wish all people to be in a place where they are able to trade as they please and where everyone is also free to sell even their IP´s if they so wish.

So to make it really simple and easy for you Jake. Try to read this line bellow that I agreed to, just one more time:

"it's never reasonable to expect a freelancer to give you any info about how they are creating their deliverables".

Then in context of that sentence and together with my rambling above. Now please try to picture the "resolve project file" as being the "deliverables" and add to it that I do fully respect the freelancers rights if he does not want to give me any info about how he created that file, possibly he looked at his histograms, vector scope and screens and then made some clever decisions and applied his knowledge and taste into a set of nodes and sliders he saw fit, I don’t know and I do not need any info about how he did it. Possibly I ask some stupid questions while he do it to show my interest but thats about it.

So even if your business, as I understand, revolves around delivering rendered files there are other people on this planet that choose to be in the market of selling setups. Thats the beauty of a free market, there is pretty much options for all tastes. Same with CG, some people sell their 3D models on Turbosquid.com , other sell rendered clips, some sell setups and of course some do all of the above depending on what’s requested at the time.

Also, I just have to ask, why do you write: "If you end up sampling someone else's work, because it was refused to you, then yes, it is technically form of theft?"

I mean that is a given, it´s like saying stealing is not right. So what are you hinting at when writing that? Do you mean I´m a thief when I´m doing compositing and pickmatch graded clips to suck out the color setup made by the colorist? Wow, I mean I do that to match the CG to the background… I think most compositors do something similar. Never ever during my 20 year in this industry has I even had a single comment about doing so from any colorist I worked with, film making I see as a group effort and I just try to do my part best possible.

Regarding Discreet Logic luts, No I never claimed them to be my creations. But yes, even if they are free to use or at least they been included in Autodesk free download of smoke and also been available to download on autodesk web page. Its likely, so that its wrong to share them over my server. As also free IP is illegal to share even when done without profit or such. One could say that it´s as bad as giving a copy of quicktime 7 to somebody instead of pointing them towards apples download page. So there I´m guilty no doubt.

 

[Wayne Morellini]

You lost me after your first statement:banghead:

That was a question about what you were saying, because that is what is the end consequence of adding to the film by processing it but keeping back how the adjustment thst is now integrsted into the film was done. That adjustment and how it has changed the film is integrated into the films IP, but apparently that is now secret. What would a studio think if a lighting crew decided they were not going to share the setup of the lights per scene and the set crew the items and arrsngenrnts on set, the canera crew the camera setup, and the sound crew the sound setup, that the studio needs if they needed to reshoot a shot or revisit. It would make things difficult. Grading is even more insidious to decipher, but it still is part of the same process. Anyway, I'm saying it should be different, but as it currently stands I am saying it needs to be negotiated. What we might use instead, if there was a system to describe the movement of the pixel values, that can be used to push the image backwards and models it in order to change it or recreat the look in adjustments or additional footage, instead of the project files outright. Such a system could be designed as an industry interpolatability standard for different packages to pickup if worse comes and to worse.