sup antvillers? I recently directed a video for an underground label that was done completely on greenscreen. After directing and editing the video, i gave them my cut with my graphics work. They didnt like my graphics work and took the video to an outside graphics person. I had almost no contact with the graphics artist. I eventually got the cut back and was pleased with the results. It was the same cut i had done, but now with different colored backgrounds and fancier effects. The issue is that i found out the label gave the graphics artist a co-directing credit without telling me. Now that graphics are becoming more and more prevalent in videos, i am wondering if anyone else has had an experience like this?

         

Sounds bad. Graphics on a cut do not a co-director make. From a professional point of view, based solely on your brief side of the the story, they had no right to give co-directing credit without your permission.

Was it your treatment?

Furthermore, as an editor I often completely change the character of a video as an alternative to present to the director. If he or she happens to like that concept and decides to go with it, I would never consider asking for a co-directing credit unless the director insists. Sometimes these changes in direction are massive and altering.

         

I'd be interested in seeing both versions. Is it posted anywhere?

         

Toddy is right on. Furthermore, just know that everyone is becoming very very savy when it comes to greenscreen shoots. To them it's a game of mix and match.

I've seen agencies just decide to take an entire spot and do work "in house" (with nightmarish results!). For those on the post end it's frustrating, but for production people, it's the worst of the worst.

My best advice: Don't shoot greenscreen. And if you have to, fight to make sure said shots are in every way integrated (and integratable) into live action plates.

I've always felt that letting post decide the look/feel of a piece is rather precarious.

         

I second the 'don't shoot green screen' notion.

but if you're pleased with the results, just change the story. "we shot this footage, then gave it to the so and so company, and they got the exact look I was going for." just stretch the truth a bit. like a first time director who hires a great DP and colorist, and the footage looks great - doesn't have to admit he had no idea how it would look.

co-director credits usually slip under the radar when it really matters. You send someone your reel, feel free to omit it. You can back up your claim (my concept, my shoot); but rarely will a label or agency confront a director and say "hey, i saw that video on someone else's reel."

just be glad the thing doesn't suck.

         

I cut a lot of commercial beauty footage and that stuff really goes through the clean up ringer yet the DP still gets credit for shooting nice film and the make up and hair people still get credit for making the girls look good. And rightly so on both counts. The Inferno guy doesn't get co-cinematographer credit. I don't know why this gets me so riled up.
I just think people should not go around handing out credits.

Really, where is this video?

         

The label not telling or asking you was very impolite. But if this other guy had a crucial hand in getting the product they wanted, I can understand why they would give him credit.

I don't think such an after-the-fact effort counts as directing. But by shooting a greenscreen video, you put an emphasis on what gets composited in. People who make videos like that tend to be collectives or animators. If you are not directing, certainly the pay on an indie video will not persuade you to spend a month or two animating it.

         

video, video! we want to see.

         

If we were strictly adhering to idea of the director being the vision and voice behind a piece, then he/she should be 'directing' the post, whether that means giving extremely explicit instructions or giving them the green light to go nuts-- either way its a conscious decision that the director should be making.

Of course, that's not always the case, as we can see in this instance.

Oh, and please just post the video.

         

Is it rude of the label to not tell you this was happening? Yes.

Is it standard operating procedure? Also, yes.

Many/most outlets don't even list the dir: credit. It seems like kind of a non-issue regarding your career. On a personal level it sucks to be denied just credit, but career-wise it matters not.

When you see a hip-hop artist's name listed as co-director do you think the rapper was REALLY involved enough to deserve the co-director credit? Artists think picking out clothes and showing up at the casting to sexually harass the auditioning dancers is "directing."

The directing credit does not really exist. No guild. No formal structure for application of credits. Don't sweat it. Put the damn thing on your reel and don't tell anyone the label forced the "co-" on you.

On the upside: I bet the label promised the post house folks a "co-" so that is why your finished product looks so good for the $. Without this sharing of credit that nobody will ever know about, the video wouldn't look as good.

         

As someone who's done some time creative directing at indie labels, I can tell you that a lot of these decisions are made on the fly by the label owner or marketing people without really thinking too much about the ramifications. I'd agree with 30f that there was probably an unwritten agreement between the label and post that the credit would be added. Maybe the label even thinks that it's a common practice to give the post credit in a situation like this, and they're trying to do right by both of you.

         

I think the problem comes down to an inflated importance being put on the role of the "director". Or at least an assumed inflation of importance. Filmmaking is a colaborative artform and in 95 percent of cases, a good film/video is the result of 5 to 100 hard working individuals. So, the director should get credit for directing, but not necessarily for the full completion of the project.

A director directs. Which can mean a lot of things, but at the core of it, the director is the final arbiter of all decisions. In order to make things work smoothly, you need one person to say yes or no to things according to their final vision of things. That's essentially what a director does.

Of course, in the case of videos and low budget projects, the director is also the writer of the project, which lends even more weight to the myth of the auteur.

I've sorta experienced this thing firsthand with a video I did for the band Irving. SITUATION VIDEO I produced and "directed" it, but the work was greatly improved by the talents I surrounded myself with. I teamed up with my pal Max who created the art work and our buddy PJ Fidler and his team of after effects artists took Max's and my storyboards and direction and made them move.

Did PJ and his crew "co-direct"? Not in this case. Did they use their expertise to shape the video in a way in which only they could have? you betcha.

I guess to me a big part of being a director is the concept that the project would be pretty much the same no matter who else worked on it. Like, say, a Peter Jackson movie is a Peter Jackson movie no matter the effects house. In my case, while PJ did an awesome job, I think we could have had comparable results by using another highly skilled AE artist.

At the end of the day, if you have a good enough body of work, people are going to notice. And in any case, a good co-directing credit shows you can collaborate well.

         

i disagree. if the video sucks; no one will blame anyone but the director. If the special effects or gfx suck; the director either hired the wrong gfx company or was working way outside his limits budget-wise.

So, because he'll get blamed for it sucking, he needs to get most of the credit when it's good. Two way street.

         

'Dont shoot greenscreen', what a bloody daft piece of advice! Generally vids are shot in that way through necessity of the final intended effect or to achieve something for the budget that would otherwise be unattainable. To write treatments restricted or hampered by a notion that there is a possibility of an unhappy client changing the piece before youve even committed something to paper is ridiculous, paranoid & lacking faith in your own execution. At the end of the day if a client isnt happy with a promo they are contractually able to re-use or edit or appropriate the live footage & re-do it, they have paid for it after all. The issue is purely one of credits, and this should have been broached at the contract stage ... worth checking there ought to be a clause stipulating your credit prior & after production. HOWEVER - as much as it would fucking gall me to be in a similar situation, i can to some extent understand the co-direction credit... though its impossible to judge without seeing before/after evidence. I would suggest that if the backgrounds & effects are substantially different and that those new ideas, methods, techniques etc were generated by the new post party - that there is an arguement that they did co-direct. i guess it also would depend on whether you directed the live action elements, if not then you were effectively directing post production which didnt make the final cut. The comparison with Peter Jackson is off the mark as he personally oversees & has final say on all elements which Landroid obviously didnt... as such he cant claim credit for generation of those elements/ideas and didnt 'direct' their application... Ive every sympathy, but it ought to be tempered with the fact that they paid their money, and werent happy for whatever reason. That said, if they could afford to re-comission the post, why the fuck didnt you get that budget in the first place which would have solved everyones problems?

As to the comment that directors are responsible for post production deficiencies, this is a bit daft too - maybe with mega budget jobs you can throw hissy fits & get work re-done but in the case of the majority of music promos how often is that the case? For anyone with a competent knowledge of post to be in charge of a less than effective post team through necessity of the scale of the task is as frustrating a situation as you could imagine & not the fault of the director. As to their over reaching their budgetry capabilities & suggesting this is a shortcoming -whatever happened to ambition?! Fucksake. Again the real world intrudes on antvillians dreams of what constitutes 'the life of a director'. As winch says the job of the director is one of instigator & overseer, but the ultimate success or failure of a job rarely if ever hinges soley on that one individual as any director with any self awareness and humility would readily admit.