54 Messages
•
552 Points
Duplicate page problem- merge option seems like a bad idea. Need help. Long standing, issue.
Back in 2011, my former film partner, without my consent, started a film page on IMDB for the film we were working on and deemed the film "released" after a screening I didn't authorize. He was fired and removed from the project. Because this partner also had media coverage of this event, when I talked with IMDB legal in 2014 over bringing down the page or re-starting it, I was told no- because even though I "alleged" the screening illegal, a fact was a fact proven by publication and that the page had to stand. This was IMDB's policy. I was floored. I told legal that I was the copyright owner of the film and could prove chain of title and copyright and still was told no. Unbelievable. Its been 6 years of torment.
Fast forward to today. Recently I attained distribution for my film with a major distributor. I was able to create a second page with all the correct information and release date of 2017. Also there is a link that follows to the Amazon product page showing public proof of a legitimate tangible product. This is good. However, recently this former partner noticed I got distribution for my film and vindictively uploaded a bootleg film for free viewing attached to the old page. IMDB copyright was swift to remove it. So after doing some research on getting the old page removed I found info that says the old page has to be merged. Can you see how this is a very risky option for me considering my former partner's track record and IMDB's stance? I am tired of being bullied by that old page. I have not listed anything in the way of page links in this complaint until I get to speak to someone who will help resolve this cyber bullying once and for all. Thanks for your attention in this matter.
Fast forward to today. Recently I attained distribution for my film with a major distributor. I was able to create a second page with all the correct information and release date of 2017. Also there is a link that follows to the Amazon product page showing public proof of a legitimate tangible product. This is good. However, recently this former partner noticed I got distribution for my film and vindictively uploaded a bootleg film for free viewing attached to the old page. IMDB copyright was swift to remove it. So after doing some research on getting the old page removed I found info that says the old page has to be merged. Can you see how this is a very risky option for me considering my former partner's track record and IMDB's stance? I am tired of being bullied by that old page. I have not listed anything in the way of page links in this complaint until I get to speak to someone who will help resolve this cyber bullying once and for all. Thanks for your attention in this matter.
eboy
2.1K Messages
•
65.1K Points
Hace 5 año
Secondly, IMDb doesn't really want to "re-start" title pages. They prefer that the errors from the original page are corrected and information updated. Again, film/series/project has the opening and end credits and that's what IMDb wants to list. While not necessarily easy, the easiest way still is to merge these two pages, correct the errors and update the information. Your former partner's track record is not the issue here if the info is eventually corrected (=follows the actual credits). They don't list who "started/created" the page anyway.
1
0
eboy
2.1K Messages
•
65.1K Points
Hace 5 año
http://m.mysanantonio.com/entertainme...
Based on the credits (2011 and 2017 entries), the main issues:
- 2011 entry lists only one director (Dino Reyes), while the 2017 entry has two directors (and Reyes is not listed at all).
- 2011 has no writers, while 2017 has one.
- 2011 has one additional actor (Ryan Lee, Auction kid), and 2017 has also one additional actor (Michelle Manx Sefcik, Green lady).
- 2011 has one additional line producer (Ken Lewin). I also assume that exe producer John Paris/John Andrew Paris is listed with two different names (these names should be merged?). Also cinematographer Christopher/Chris Webb has now two names on IMDb.
- Editor is different person on both entries.
- 2011 has graphic artists listed.
- Sound personnel differ.
ETC (sorry, I lost steam to check these all)
I believe the main question now is that who of these personnel are actually listed in the credits? Were some of them first listed in the "film festival" credits and then later removed for the "2017 version"? Was the 2011 "film festival" version drastically different than the 2017 version? Or maybe some of the names from the 2011 version were simply removed from the 2017 credits (even when they did some work for the project) and are now disputing the credits?
I believe these issues should be resolved BEFORE merging 2011 and 2017 entries.
0
0
walter_7946974
200 Messages
•
4.4K Points
Hace 5 año
0
0
john_paris
54 Messages
•
552 Points
Hace 5 año
What matters the most here is cyber bullying and copyright infringement. I may not own the page but my property is being used against me in the old page. Empowering a crazy, vindictive nut job that I fired 6 years ago is a real issue here.
EBoy said this:
"I believe the main question now is that who of these personnel are actually listed in the credits? Were some of them first listed in the "film festival" credits and then later removed for the "2017 version"? Was the 2011 "film festival" version drastically different than the 2017 version? Or maybe some of the names from the 2011 version were simply removed from the 2017 credits (even when they did some work for the project) and are now disputing the credits? "
Eboy- none of that matters. This is my property. Its a business and I'm tired of it being misrepresented. FORGET 2011. It was an illegal screening that ended someone's job. I didn't consent to the original page. Stop thinking inside of this insane box that IMDB operates inside.
16
0
eboy
2.1K Messages
•
65.1K Points
Hace 5 año
1
eboy
2.1K Messages
•
65.1K Points
Hace 5 año
"It was under the production company Bajakaloop! LLC. That company lost the copyright on October 26, 2012 when post production of the film was not complete. There was a reversion clause in the contract that stated all materials were to revert back to the Author(John A Paris) for his(my) dispersement. In 2013 I formed Grexican Films LLC and had to start the film over. "
My personal opinion here, but this info could be crucial. I mean if the "2011 entry" (referring to IMDb) was NOT finished (post production was not complete etc), then the "unfinished" film was added to IMDb (at that time) and shown at some of the festivals. Based on that info, IMDb could be willing to rethink their stance and it could be deleted. But like I said, this is just my personal opinion.
5
0
frankrdana
49 Messages
•
1.4K Points
Hace 5 año
If I'm interpreting this correctly, that's the thing that's most problematic for John, rather than any of the credits info or other metadata, and if it was uploaded by someone not authorized to post it then surely the video should be taken down? Then the data can either be merged or not merged or whatever the final consensus is on how to treat the various showings of the film.
2
john_paris
54 Messages
•
552 Points
Hace 5 año
0
0
john_paris
54 Messages
•
552 Points
Hace 5 año
In this conversationhttps://getsatisfaction.com/imdb/topics/duplicate-page-problem-merge-option-seems-like-a-bad-idea-ne... somebody made the horrible decision to change my title's year to (2010) rather than (2017) and now I'm blocked with a rejection. My company Grexican Films didn't even exist in 2010. Grexican Films was formed in 2013 and the film was release this year by Grexican Films and Gravitas Ventures.
0
0
Col_Needham
Employee
•
4.7K Messages
•
148.3K Points
Hace 5 año
1
john_paris
54 Messages
•
552 Points
Hace 5 año
3
0
john_paris
54 Messages
•
552 Points
Hace 5 año
0
0
john_paris
54 Messages
•
552 Points
Hace 5 año
0
0
eboy
2.1K Messages
•
65.1K Points
Hace 5 año
1
0
john_paris
54 Messages
•
552 Points
Hace 5 año
0
0