Network wants Resolve project?

DEREK HAAGER Dec 13, 2016

  1. Has anyone had a network request color correct projects before? I know delivering edit projects is normal, but I have never been asked for a color project before, feels like giving away secrets!
  2. Yes, that has happened to me a while ago. This was really awkward because the network was trying to outsource color correction to Bangladesh, but couldn't get the people in Bangladesh to deliver a proper show. Therefore they had the balls - or stupidity - to call me and ask me for the Resolve project (after I graded and delivered the show). I ended up giving them a friendly speech about intellectual property and never had to give the DRP.
    Andrew Webb likes this.
  3. one simple answer : no way..... . as colorist the "work" is unique.
  4. I've seen this happening before, one thing you can do is ask as much money as you charged for the original project, or more. You could argue that this is your intellectual property and would constitute a potential loss of future business by giving the master project away, not too mention someone tinkering with your work while your name is on it. There's gotta be some high compensation for that. And you're not refusing to it.
  5. I've been asked by an agency before. I explained to them that no one would expect a BBQ place to give them the recipe for their sauce or rub.
  6. Read your contracts or deal memos carefully.
    I had been threatened with a lawsuit, if I didn't hand over project files, until I pointed out, that deal memo I signed was crew deal memo, which obviously I am not a part of. So, this time I got lucky, but lesson learned, clients starting to include work product in their contracts, so if you don't want to be forced to hand those project files over, don't sign your rights away...
  7. We have done this only a couple of times, and only when agreed upon up front. In one recent case, we scanned films for an experimental filmmaker who lives on the other side of the country. Because of the nature of the films and the low quality of the reference videos he gave us for doing the grade, we agreed to give him the project files so that he could modify the color on his end should that be necessary - without a supervised grading session, that kind of thing is almost impossible to get exactly the way the artist wants it, so we basically got him in the ballpark, and let him tweak from there. I don't really have a problem with that because it's for a single filmmaker who isn't going to turn around and try to make money off of our work.

    We wouldn't do the same for most of our commercial clients though, for all the reasons already enumerated above.

    This has come up before, (for After Effects, Photoshop, DVD and Blu-ray Authoring and even Film Restoration project file requests) and our argument is simple: The client is paying for the end result, not the project files. We're happy to modify it until they're satisfied with it, but the project files are our intellectual property, based on years of experience, that contain proprietary techniques (and in some cases, like DVD/Blu-ray, code).
  8. Marc Wielage likes this.
  9. as Jake said, it's about contracts... some deliverables are asking for all project files, have since the 90's when project files started to appear.

    every feature has the avid project, and all gfx /pshp etc projects, edl's, xml.'s etc etc, that's standard and not a debating point.

    what they do not typicaly get are finishing, color, VFX & mix facility projects, but the do get a conformed, complete flat pass with all efects and titles from online, and the facilities if bonded have to keep the project, software and machine to run it alive for 7 years, that seems a reasonable compromise

    It's usualy in a "lab access letter" that you will be asked to sign, if you are not a bonded facility you may need to have these elements held at a bonded facility somewhere else, but there's no reason why you could not zip up the project and put password on the zip file, and make sure the password is in your lawyers hands
  10. Thanks for all the responses everyone! Good to know I'm not the only one that feels weird about it.
  11. they really should hve asked for a lab accesss letter, that's a bit more standard

    but keeping a project for seven years after delivery menas that one film i graded/finished that was in the theatres in 2008 can finaly be cleared off in three weeks... delivery was not complete untill the 4x3 pan-n-scan passed 100% qc in 2009, and the seven years starts when the distb accepts completed delivery.. so i have w7/32bit DS 8.4 on a xw8600 parked in a corner untill 2017 starts

    one facility localy has an amazing rack of old machines mothballed for this very reason, prolly most do, i just don't see their vaults....
  12. That is not the case, at least not the sound part. The ProTools file is a required deliverable for a number of networks, as well as other distributors. It has been for a number of years now.
  13. i'm used to them accepting a lab access letter on bonded shows that are working in bonded facilities...

    Not seen an issue on that file as of yet, but Canadian bonding requirments may have more room for flexiablity?

    i'l look back at a few film's i've post suped in the last few years, seeing protools sessions on a hard deliverables list does not ring a bell, but it does shift the burden of maintainig an archive off the facilities shoulders... and that's a good thing
    Last edited: Dec 14, 2016
  14. What is interesting is that film labs would almost always include their color-timing punch-tapes in with the original camera negative. But the funny thing was, every lab -- Technicolor, Deluxe, Fotokem, etc. -- all used different standards, so the tapes were worthless to another facility.

    I can see some situations where the client could own all the session files: that's if you're employed by a client facility that has you work on their equipment, under their roof. In that case, they get the session but I take away all my PowerGrades, LUTs, grain files, and any other secret sauce I use. I don't have a problem with it since they literally own all the hard drives, all the monitors, all the computers, and it's their copy of the software.

    If it was my system moved into a client's room, then I'd have a problem with giving them anything but the final renders.
  15. The main problem I see, is not what a given colorist does with the project files. One can say, hey, it's my decision how to structure my relationship with my clients. If I feel I need to hand over my project files in order to maintain a good working relationship, so be it. Unfortunately, precedents do pile up. How many times you were confronted with something like- all our colorists we work with always give up their projects, why wouldn't you do the same? Aren't you a team player we thought we were hiring? What I'm saying is your decision to give up your IP directly affects everyone else. So, please think about it, once clients get used to the idea, that your IP is their for the taking, there is no walking it back.
    Luckily, using anything else beside Resolve does help in taking care of these uncomfortable types of conversations.
  16. i had a look at a current delierables list for a major studio's TV division series, it includes;

    I'm working on a feature for the same studio currently, the feature contract does not require phyiscal delivery of the same items, accepting a "lab access letter" for the same, but note they do call for a archival ProTools mix, they are not asking for the working session, only a flatened /one track / no effects session;

    Marc Wielage likes this.
  17. This is a great point. For DVD Authoring, we have used Spruce Maestro since about 2003. It runs on Windows NT4, requires a specific motherboard/chipset combination and an unusual video out card that's hard to find. And there are probably a couple dozen of us left worldwide who still use this application (which is too bad - it's some of the best software I've ever used). So those authoring projects are pretty much worthless except to the few of us who still use Maestro.
  18. I'm with Ryan (#8) and Marc (#14). (and Robbie) If a client wants to argue IP it almost means you will never work with them again. A legal option (with Resolve) is to use Preferences/Color Management/Generate LUT from Current Grade (barring any window tracking and dealing with the tedium of every shot) but you replace your node tree with the LUT and your legal obligations are satisfied (and your relationship is done). (Someone else's suggestion.) Mostly applicable for short form projects with short sighted minds. Luckily I haven't had it go that far yet.

Share This Page