It bodes me well to be real careful when writing this post.
If not, it has the potential of sounding like a rant and rave post- the likes of which we find on Facebook sometimes- but truth is, incidents of this sort happen a dime a dozen, and I'm pretty sure I'm not the only vic in this whole game.
The Media and Entertainment industry, given its name alone and what it is, is built upon the structure of Intellectual Property. There's nothing to dispute a claim as this- it goes back a long, long, long time ago. The level of Intellectual Property might be the same as a patent or trademark, it might be lesser, or it might be much more.
That doesn't matter.
What matters is that it exists, and that it cuts across all aspects of the industry. Many people assume that it is only the creative aspect, or that it applies only to the final work.
Wrong.
Very wrong.
It applies throughout, from the beginning to the end. The bottom line is very simple. Whichever part you do, whichever part belongs to you. If you do this single aspect of the whole movie, then that part belongs to you. If you're not the person doing this aspect of the whole movie, then it doesn't belong to you. Can you claim IP of the whole movie? No. Can you claim that you did this part of the movie? Yes.
Making a disclaimer here, it is a thin line, and it being so thin a line, I prefer that good entertainment and good IP lawyers expound on it rather than me blabbering about legal statutes and theories I am no expert on.
Mind, I say 'good', because good ones- despite charging clients shark-like legal fees- cut deals that form the basis for industry rules and guidelines. In other words, whatever judgment it is they get goes into the archive of do's and don'ts of the industry, and sets the motion for how working processes and approaches are like.
Bad ones obtain judgments that let thieves get away with their loot, and let them have the illusion that they can do it again, and again, and again.
If you thought the creative people abide by the pride and professionalism they have in their work, I'll gladly tell you that there are a surprising number of people out there who operate otherwise.
They are the sort who believe that they can simply wrap their blankets around a work and cart it off for their own use, or that they can simply manipulate themselves around the work however they wish to.
What makes them function this way, I don't know.
Survival, perhaps.
I know of someone who politely requested us for a shortlist of works relevant to a project specifics because they lacked certain capabilities. We provided the works and a whole bunch of relevant questions. What happened was that they simply thanked us, took the shortlisted works, passed it off as their capabilities to the prospect, and conveniently forgot to mention us.
That's not right, you know.
A portfolio is a portfolio. A sample of works is a sample of works. What's the difference? A portfolio belongs to an artist. A sample of works belongs to a studio. You can take the portfolio of an artist and go pitch for a project with it, and then after that, hire the artist for the project, thank you very much. But you cannot take Frozen, Avengers and Wreck-it-Ralph from Disney, lump it all into your pitch and say that these are your capabilities. In the same way, you cannot take The Sound of Music, Edward Scissorhands and Cleopatra from Fox, put it into your pitch and claim that they're your capabilities.
Is it not common sense?
Put it this way, yes, it does, no?
But said someone didn't seem to understand it.
Anyway, rumors abound that said someone who tried passing off our shortlisted works did not get the project, and to date, hearsay also abounds that said client has not yet pursued new candidates as well.
There's another story.
This one is a lil more... interesting.
Let's say Person A has a group of peeps working under her. Now, these peeps have their capabilities but Person A wishes to win this project and her peeps just do not have the directional nor workflow capabilities to handle the project. So Person A goes about hunting and she decides that she can work with this Person B who has sufficient capabilities to win the thing. So they work together, with moolah agreements and all.
Now, somewhere along the way, Person A figures out that being the primary liaison peep with the client, she's got a positional advantage and she should maybe try recouping back the moolah amounts she's forked out to Person B, so what does she do? She takes the work that Person B has done for her, hands it over to the (cheaper) peeps working under her, tells them to imitate it, and then at the same time, conjures up a whole bunch of stuff to let Person B know that goodness knows why but he f**ked up his part of the project, that the client's pissed off, that they're all in deep s*** because of his f*** up, that oh gawd, we're gonna lose this project on client's orders etc. etc. etc, all the while thinking that Person B will be shaken, cower, beg for an opportunity to redeem himself, which of course, Person A could then demand for some moolah back, or squeeze more value out of her moolah already paid.
Person B, however, has his own notions that such matters be managed the way the industry manages them, and so that takes place, Person B continues to work on the project the way that has been agreed upon, and the project makes a wrap.
I shan't elaborate further to what happens after the project wrapped, because this I'm pretty certain is still being broadcasted, and it will do no one no good to blabber more into it.
But it is a pity, I say, that some peeps in the industry have to utilize such tactics and measures to keep their status afloat. True, this is a wheeling and dealing industry, and goodness knows how much goes on behind the scenes.
Still, there is a foundation, there are rules, there are guidelines, there are industry norms, there are industry methods, and short of trying to outdo them all and learn from the wrong side, one might as well improve thine self, focus on their present work and build up their own capabilities such that competition be better off for everyone anyway.
If not, it has the potential of sounding like a rant and rave post- the likes of which we find on Facebook sometimes- but truth is, incidents of this sort happen a dime a dozen, and I'm pretty sure I'm not the only vic in this whole game.
The Media and Entertainment industry, given its name alone and what it is, is built upon the structure of Intellectual Property. There's nothing to dispute a claim as this- it goes back a long, long, long time ago. The level of Intellectual Property might be the same as a patent or trademark, it might be lesser, or it might be much more.
That doesn't matter.
What matters is that it exists, and that it cuts across all aspects of the industry. Many people assume that it is only the creative aspect, or that it applies only to the final work.
Wrong.
Very wrong.
It applies throughout, from the beginning to the end. The bottom line is very simple. Whichever part you do, whichever part belongs to you. If you do this single aspect of the whole movie, then that part belongs to you. If you're not the person doing this aspect of the whole movie, then it doesn't belong to you. Can you claim IP of the whole movie? No. Can you claim that you did this part of the movie? Yes.
Making a disclaimer here, it is a thin line, and it being so thin a line, I prefer that good entertainment and good IP lawyers expound on it rather than me blabbering about legal statutes and theories I am no expert on.
Mind, I say 'good', because good ones- despite charging clients shark-like legal fees- cut deals that form the basis for industry rules and guidelines. In other words, whatever judgment it is they get goes into the archive of do's and don'ts of the industry, and sets the motion for how working processes and approaches are like.
Bad ones obtain judgments that let thieves get away with their loot, and let them have the illusion that they can do it again, and again, and again.
If you thought the creative people abide by the pride and professionalism they have in their work, I'll gladly tell you that there are a surprising number of people out there who operate otherwise.
They are the sort who believe that they can simply wrap their blankets around a work and cart it off for their own use, or that they can simply manipulate themselves around the work however they wish to.
What makes them function this way, I don't know.
Survival, perhaps.
I know of someone who politely requested us for a shortlist of works relevant to a project specifics because they lacked certain capabilities. We provided the works and a whole bunch of relevant questions. What happened was that they simply thanked us, took the shortlisted works, passed it off as their capabilities to the prospect, and conveniently forgot to mention us.
That's not right, you know.
A portfolio is a portfolio. A sample of works is a sample of works. What's the difference? A portfolio belongs to an artist. A sample of works belongs to a studio. You can take the portfolio of an artist and go pitch for a project with it, and then after that, hire the artist for the project, thank you very much. But you cannot take Frozen, Avengers and Wreck-it-Ralph from Disney, lump it all into your pitch and say that these are your capabilities. In the same way, you cannot take The Sound of Music, Edward Scissorhands and Cleopatra from Fox, put it into your pitch and claim that they're your capabilities.
Is it not common sense?
Put it this way, yes, it does, no?
But said someone didn't seem to understand it.
Anyway, rumors abound that said someone who tried passing off our shortlisted works did not get the project, and to date, hearsay also abounds that said client has not yet pursued new candidates as well.
There's another story.
This one is a lil more... interesting.
Let's say Person A has a group of peeps working under her. Now, these peeps have their capabilities but Person A wishes to win this project and her peeps just do not have the directional nor workflow capabilities to handle the project. So Person A goes about hunting and she decides that she can work with this Person B who has sufficient capabilities to win the thing. So they work together, with moolah agreements and all.
Now, somewhere along the way, Person A figures out that being the primary liaison peep with the client, she's got a positional advantage and she should maybe try recouping back the moolah amounts she's forked out to Person B, so what does she do? She takes the work that Person B has done for her, hands it over to the (cheaper) peeps working under her, tells them to imitate it, and then at the same time, conjures up a whole bunch of stuff to let Person B know that goodness knows why but he f**ked up his part of the project, that the client's pissed off, that they're all in deep s*** because of his f*** up, that oh gawd, we're gonna lose this project on client's orders etc. etc. etc, all the while thinking that Person B will be shaken, cower, beg for an opportunity to redeem himself, which of course, Person A could then demand for some moolah back, or squeeze more value out of her moolah already paid.
Person B, however, has his own notions that such matters be managed the way the industry manages them, and so that takes place, Person B continues to work on the project the way that has been agreed upon, and the project makes a wrap.
I shan't elaborate further to what happens after the project wrapped, because this I'm pretty certain is still being broadcasted, and it will do no one no good to blabber more into it.
But it is a pity, I say, that some peeps in the industry have to utilize such tactics and measures to keep their status afloat. True, this is a wheeling and dealing industry, and goodness knows how much goes on behind the scenes.
Still, there is a foundation, there are rules, there are guidelines, there are industry norms, there are industry methods, and short of trying to outdo them all and learn from the wrong side, one might as well improve thine self, focus on their present work and build up their own capabilities such that competition be better off for everyone anyway.