Who owns the work? Copyright in 2016

[Marc Wielage]

Computers do not auto create power windows.

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?

Look at it this way: what if I was to go to a VFX company and say, "I want you to do all the composites and effects for my movie. But just in case of any problems or changes, I want you to give me all the After Effects and Maya and Houdini and Fusion sessions so I can redo them myself or give them to a competing firm to do the work instead of you,"? How do you think that would go down?

What is generally done in LA is there's an understanding that if there's any redos or fixes necessary, they'll do them for free up to a reasonable point. But if they want massive changes that require many hours (or days or weeks) of works, then the job has to be renegotiated. There has to be an element of trust in any business, and that goes for both the client and the worker.

 

[AndreeMarkefors]

Wow. You guys are really going out of your way to put words in Björn's mouth that he didn't say. What's up with that?

In his last post he is pretty clear with what he means. It's still obvious that what he wants won't fit within everyone's comfort zone. But Björn isn't targeting those of you who don't want to work that way. He is looking for similar minded creators for whom it is NO PROBLEM AT ALL to deliver the AGREED UPON files. And if I understand him correctly, he is explicit before each collaboration about what he'll want in the end.

In my mind, 'explicit' beats any understanding or assumption(<-- mother of all fuck-ups, no?) that might be prevailing in a certain region. Especially since these projects seems to involve world wide collaboration regularly.

So… why the angst and irritation? What is the real problem?

Those of you who want to sit on your project files—completely understandable, by the way—are you worried that Björn and similar minded creators will create a new standard of what's expected?

 

[jake blackstone]

Now please try to picture the "resolve project file" as being the "deliverables"

i don't have to picture it, because project file is not a deliverable item. May be in your imaginary world it is, but on planet Earth it is not.

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.

Some people selling snake oil, some selling some made up LUTs, claiming they will make images look like there were shot on film, some decide to distribute someone else's LUTs, claiming they created it themselves. Colorists deliver finished images, plain and simple.

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?

I know you'd like to change the subject, but that is not what is discussed here. You proposing a completely different scenario:
"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."
In other words, in case a colorist refuses to turn over a session file, you're then willing to do whatever it takes in order to to bypass non-cooperating colorist. Sampling their work in order to create a pseudo LUT has nothing to do with normal course of doing VFX work.

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 to somebody instead of pointing them towards apples download page. So there I´m guilty no doubt.

Well, that's the point Bjorn. It's not "likely, that is wrong to share them". It is a CERTAINTY. i don't want to spend anymore time on the subject, but I want to be clear. When you posted those Autodesk LUTs, you claimed they were developed by someone in your company. Not once have you mentioned, that they weren't yours to distribute. Only after I pointed that out, Juan Melara expressed his surprise and immediately stopped using those LUTs. Guess what? You never so much as even acknowledged your role in this sordid affair. You never said I'm sorry or it's my fault. You just let Juan take the fall for it and he truly had nothing to do with that...

 

[Wayne Morellini]

Look at it this way: what if I was to go to a VFX company and say, "I want you to do all the composites and effects for my movie. But just in case of any problems or changes, I want you to give me all the After Effects and Maya and Houdini and Fusion sessions so I can redo them myself or give them to a competing firm to do the work instead of you,"? How do you think that would go down?

What is generally done in LA is there's an understanding that if there's any redos or fixes necessary, they'll do them for free up to a reasonable point. But if they want massive changes that require many hours (or days or weeks) of works, then the job has to be renegotiated. There has to be an element of trust in any business, and that goes for both the client and the worker.

But vfx is real substantially more work. But tough luck to them, sounds good to me.

 

[Wayne Morellini]

Wow. You guys are really going out of your way to put words in Björn's mouth that he didn't say. What's up with that?

In his last post he is pretty clear with what he means. It's still obvious that what he wants won't fit within everyone's comfort zone. But Björn isn't targeting those of you who don't want to work that way. He is looking for similar minded creators for whom it is NO PROBLEM AT ALL to deliver the AGREED UPON files. And if I understand him correctly, he is explicit before each collaboration about what he'll want in the end.

In my mind, 'explicit' beats any understanding or assumption(<-- mother of all fuck-ups, no?) that might be prevailing in a certain region. Especially since these projects seems to involve world wide collaboration regularly.

So… why the angst and irritation? What is the real problem?

Those of you who want to sit on your project files—completely understandable, by the way—are you worried that Björn and similar minded creators will create a new standard of what's expected?

+1.

 

[James Falco]

Software developers like to eat, have families and own homes too. I think it is great that companies offer educational versions of their software to learn on. Even have trial software so you can try before you buy. But if you are going to do commercial work, and expect to get paid for it, you should pay for the tools you used to create your work. I think what BlackMagic has done with the free copy of Resolve actually crosses the line. It hurts other software companies in the same field.

There is plenty sustainable free software models, to mention a few, Mac OS, Red Cine-X, Google mail / maps / earth.
Nobody is saying software developers should starve. I am just rooting to sell a million copies for $1 instead of 10 for $100,000.

We as a society are still adapting to evolution of technology, and fear the fact that we can't make a living of something that is accessible to evrybody for free.
I believe that its people with skills, technical knowledge, and talent that make great things, not the price tag of a tool.
The problem is that a lot of people believe the opposite, mostly because the way products are marketed to us.
That all you need is the right camera or software and they can all get an oscar. Like just figuring out the right instagram filter and they can be a colorist.
Nobody thinks that because they brush there teeth, they are a dentist. Lol.

 

[Björn Benckert]

i don't have to picture it, because project file is not a deliverable item. May be in your imaginary world it is, but on planet Earth it is not.





Some people selling snake oil, some selling some made up LUTs, claiming they will make images look like there were shot on film, some decide to distribute someone else's LUTs, claiming they created it themselves. Colorists deliver finished images, plain and simple.




I know you'd like to change the subject, but that is not what is discussed here. You proposing a completely different scenario:
"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."
In other words, in case a colorist refuses to turn over a session file, you're then willing to do whatever it takes in order to to bypass non-cooperating colorist. Sampling their work in order to create a pseudo LUT has nothing to do with normal course of doing VFX work.



Well, that's the point Bjorn. It's not "likely, that is wrong to share them". It is a CERTAINTY. i don't want to spend anymore time on the subject, but I want to be clear. When you posted those Autodesk LUTs, you claimed they were developed by someone in your company. Not once have you mentioned, that they weren't yours to distribute. Only after I pointed that out, Juan Melara expressed his surprise and immediately stopped using those LUTs. Guess what? You never so much as even acknowledged your role in this sordid affair. You never said I'm sorry or it's my fault. You just let Juan take the fall for it and he truly had nothing to do with that...

Reading this bullshit, but as I wrote before I´m not replying.

 

[shashbugu]

This all sounds very interesting, but honestly you are clearly missing the point of having bonds, insurance and lawyers on projects that need it. As a producer, director working in LA on various types of projects I can safely say "money and influence talks". Money and influence can buy all artistic integrity. Spielberg can claim all the files he's paid for as his and there's not much anyone can say or do about it.

 

[Wayne Morellini]

Bjorn is in Sweden, and as much as I know people don't want to listen to reality... LA/US is not the center of the world, or the whole world. People do things differently in different countries, and the basis of law in a country greatly affects that, and most countries have different legal system to the anglo saxon axis. We should not expect him to live in our world and have our ideals just because that is it in America. I cut everybody slack around here, even academy award winners, so I think a professional in Sweden whoes second language is English should be given double a lot of slack. Maybe you will find out something better and think differently.

Bjorn, I respect you and your work flow, have a good day.

 

[Scott Crawley]

But vfx is real substantially more work. But tough luck to them, sounds good to me.

I know sarcasm when I see it but it seems that you are devaluing somebody's work here. It is just unclear who's work.

I don't think you are comparing apples:apples.

 

[Terry VerHaar]

...

Nobody thinks that because they brush there teeth, they are a dentist. Lol.

Haha - I love this.

 

[Dermot Shane]

. There has to be an element of trust in any business, and that goes for both the client and the worker.

+1


i do archive all metadata for bonded projects as per agreements, and zip em up with a password, and add that to the archive. the password is held by me, and a copy with my lawyer in case i get hit by a buss

if you have a reason to open the archive, let's talk about it...

i will NEVER EVER use another person's archive/DRP with knowing for sure and first hand tha they are ok with that, i haev re-done shows, but only by starting fresh and never using another artists grades to start from- unless they have given me their blessings.. but i also do not expect others to fallow the same rules i set out for myself..


Recently i had a pretty weird situation, last year i sent out a viewer LUT for a company to use on a feature i was gradeing, very sytylised, the flim was well recived.
Move on to a few weeks ago, i get a shot film, and the editor sent me a LUT that the dp loved to base the grade on, yea, you guessed it... my own file came back to me from someone completly seperate from the VFX company i sent it to.....

coulda gone to anyone, i did ask then not to share it.. ehhhhh

 

[David Battistella]

One thing this thread is showing is how murky things can get.

Agreements ahead of time with clear deliverables, etc, seems to be the most important thing to lay out.

One thing is for sure, a high level of communication is essential.

There has been a lot of back and forth here and it's been fairly heated but civilized.

David

 

[jake blackstone]

Reading this bullshit, but as I wrote before I´m not replying.

You just did and as usual, you had done it with class and grace:nono:

 

[Björn Benckert]

Yes no grace at all.

As I promised not to write here, but I could not stop myself, so here is some more ramblings. I guess when somebody points at me and say that Im a criminal communist it affects me more than i thought, In a bad way.

So today I actually took the time to contact Stephane Labrie, A friend of mine since 18 years back, I dont know Stephane's exact title, but its something like "head of development / Autodesk / discreet logic". in short he is one of the executive dudes that makes flame, smoke and luster.

Any way, the point is that Stephane confirmed to me that: Yes, I am aloud to share the discreet logic luts.

Further more Jake also insinuate that I, or somebody at my office said we created those luts. No, I never stated such thing. But somebody at my office created "cube versions" of them, simply by running them trough latice or possibly photoshop.

Then Jakes next assumption, hint or insinuation that I steal from colorists I work with when I copy their grade to use onto CG layers... Well that is also plain fucking wrong. As what Jake is missing is that its done as a collaboration, every one involved is in on it. Same thing as when we take light probes onto set to sample the DPs light setups, or when we make 3d scan from the art departments, scenography or puppets to make post clones of them.. to people I work with all that is called collaboration, none of it is theft.


So Jake, pretty please, with sugar on top, Now take away every single one of your fucked up posts where you even make the smallest little hint about me being a thief.

Because writing such shit about me or anyone else with nothing but ill made assumptions on your feet is, what I think is referred to as: "libel" in english.

see: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/libel

To jump to something else.

Then this discussion regarding things working differently on other continents etc... I think not so much different. I don't work much in hollywood or LA but when David Fincher came to Stockholm with Dragon Tattoo I heard rumours that his post producer made an agreement so that he got the key to the door and also claimed "above CEO authority" at the biggest post house in town which has above 250 people in staff. And all that was just to grade the dailies and do clones etc at that place... so simply it seams IP rights can be a bit scrutinized even when not working on small projects like mine.

So what Im trying to say is there must be a few more productions out there that actually do not follow the common protocol, no?

 

[Wayne Morellini]

I know sarcasm when I see it but it seems that you are devaluing somebody's work here. It is just unclear who's work.

I don't think you are comparing apples:apples.

Wrong person, I was commenting on Marc's comparison. But VFX is more work. But I merely counter agreed with Marc's exmple, and think that VFX guys sharing as well sounds good to me. People paying for work to be enslaved to come back to only a certain group in order to support their gravey train, is self entitlement, and does not sound good, to me. If they are truly competitive to work with then people should come back to them normally anyway. This is supposed to be a competitive free market system with any such uncontracted monopolies. Anyway, an off the cuff remark.

 

[jake blackstone]

Yes no grace at all.

As I promised not to write here, but I could not stop myself, so here is some more ramblings. I guess when somebody points at me and say that Im a criminal communist it affects me more than i thought, In a bad way.

So today I actually took the time to contact Stephane Labrie, A friend of mine since 18 years back, I dont know Stephane's exact title, but its something like "head of development / Autodesk / discreet logic". in short he is one of the executive dudes that makes flame, smoke and luster.

Any way, the point is that Stephane confirmed to me that: Yes, I am aloud to share the discreet logic luts.

Further more Jake also insinuate that I, or somebody at my office said we created those luts. No, I never stated such thing. But somebody at my office created "cube versions" of them, simply by running them trough latice or possibly photoshop.

Then Jakes next assumption, hint or insinuation that I steal from colorists I work with when I copy their grade to use onto CG layers... Well that is also plain fucking wrong. As what Jake is missing is that its done as a collaboration, every one involved is in on it. Same thing as when we take light probes onto set to sample the DPs light setups, or when we make 3d scan from the art departments, scenography or puppets to make post clones of them.. to people I work with all that is called collaboration, none of it is theft.


So Jake, pretty please, with sugar on top, Now take away every single one of your fucked up posts where you even make the smallest little hint about me being a thief.

Because writing such shit about me or anyone else with nothing but ill made assumptions on your feet is, what I think is referred to as: "libel" in english.

see: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/libel

To jump to something else.

Then this discussion regarding things working differently on other continents etc... I think not so much different. I don't work much in hollywood or LA but when David Fincher came to Stockholm with Dragon Tattoo I heard rumours that his post producer made an agreement so that he got the key to the door and also claimed "above CEO authority" at the biggest post house in town which has above 250 people in staff. And all that was just to grade the dailies and do clones etc at that place... so simply it seams IP rights can be a bit scrutinized even when not working on small projects like mine.

So what Im trying to say is there must be a few more productions out there that actually do not follow the common protocol, no?

You should have followed your own promise Bjorn and stayed quiet, as you promised. But, i guess, breaking promises is nothing new to you.
You can try to parse your words anyway you want, but actions speak louder, than words.
So, these are the facts, so go ahead and sue me for libel. Good luck with that.
You stated, that someone in your office "created" these LUTs. Nowhere did you say they were LUTs from AD, until I mentioned it. You had contacted AD about distribution of LUTs NOW, but did you bother to contact them back, when you posted them? You yourself admitted, that "it's likely, so that its wrong to share them over my server.". So, at that time you distributed them, you knew, that it was likely wrong thing to do and yet, you still distributed them And when I pointed out the fact, that "your company's developed LUTs", weren't really yours, you just ran for the hills, leaving Juan holding the bag. Yes, actions speak louder, than words, Bjorn.
Let's move on to your second inflammatory statement. You posted this:
"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.".
Let me translate it for you Bjorn.
I demanded a Resolve project file, so I could re-use previous colorist's work and possibly get paid for it, but the colorist was "difficult and not a team player", so I couldn't get it. I then used whatever technical means necessary to extract his/her grades anyway. Call it whatever you want, but it is not VFX work. That is a knowing misappropriation of someone else's work.
Moral values have no geographical boundaries, Bjorn. First it was bad English and now you're using some rumors about someone else's actions from another country as justification to act like... well you...
You can continue to try to rewrite the history and keep explaining away your business practices, but frankly, i feel I have nothing else to add to this subject. I'm going to bow out of this conversation. And unlike you, Bjorn, i'm intending to keep my word.

 

[Wayne Morellini]

Now, I don't know if anybody was actually accusing of stealing, or if it was merely used an example of unacceptable conduct bynthe poster that said it.

But, when people start attacking each other as such (and I would think when people are belligerently not understanding the other person and producing issues also would be good) the moderators normally step in and stop it. Now guys, I humbly suggest, go away lick the wounds, come back reread next week, and then post any corrections of your own understandings and peaceful mutual understandings? There is too many discussions going on and tensions.

 

[Scott Crawley]

Wrong person, I was commenting on Marc's comparison. But VFX is more work. But I merely counter agreed with Marc's exmple, and think that VFX guys sharing as well sounds good to me. People paying for work to be enslaved to come back to only a certain group in order to support their gravey train, is self entitlement, and does not sound good, to me. If they are truly competitive to work with then people should come back to them normally anyway. This is supposed to be a competitive free market system with any such uncontracted monopolies. Anyway, an off the cuff remark.

Thank you for clarifying your position. It seemed you were suggesting that because the Colorist does less work (as you see it) that it was somehow OK that he be pushed into an agreement that strips him of his rights to his work. It didn't square with my impression of you, so I found the idea confusing.

I don't mean to break balls here but I do still take issue with the idea that VFX is more work. It can be but it is a gross generalization that again in context, seemed to suggest that it was therefore of greater inherent value. The project files we are talking about could conceivably represent the same number of work hours and in such a case might be of similar value.

I am relatively confident that you would agree that artists of each discipline should have the same right to be compensated for the hours they put in, to exercise rights of ownership and have equal opportunity to capitalize upon their own work. Yes?

 

[Marc Wielage]

Spielberg can claim all the files he's paid for as his and there's not much anyone can say or do about it.

I have done work for Dreamworks quite a few times (and spent a few days on War of the Worlds​ with Spielberg's editor), and they never got any files -- only the results of the files.

Wrong person, I was commenting on Marc's comparison. But VFX is more work. But I merely counter agreed with Marc's exmple, and think that VFX guys sharing as well sounds good to me. People paying for work to be enslaved to come back to only a certain group in order to support their gravey train, is self entitlement, and does not sound good, to me.

I think any work agreement should have or at least imply a "good faith / best effort" clause where both sides agree that every effort will be made to do a decent job and serve the client. VFX is not necessarily more work -- I know of cases where a VFX artist worked on a project for a week, while I was stuck on the project for 2 months. There's a lot of "it depends" involved; not every project is Lord of the Rings or Star Wars.

The key is that the client shouldn't be hobbled or prevented from finishing their projects on time. But to take this to the logical end: I know of a major, major post house in LA that makes their clients sign an iron-clad contract that basically says, "you may not take this project to a competing company and deprive us of the work." Basically, once you commit to them, you cannot leave. You can change artists, you can move around different employees, but you can't take the job to another company. And it's basically in the top 3 or 4 companies on the West coast. They did this because they had a few early jobs that left them in the lurch after they spent weeks trying to satisfy the clients, only to have them yank the project and take it elsewhere at the last minute.

This is in the case of feature films. For episodic TV and commercials, I think things are a little looser and projects do occasionally bounce around. But even then, project files are not shared between companies. They are sometimes shared within a facility, so if "Joe" in room 2 takes over a project that I started in room 5, it's all in the family. No big deal -- he finishes a job I started or vice-versa. But they don't get to keep the file. And that goes for color or sound mixes.