Adding a poster image to my films page...FOR FREE!

  • 11
  • Question
  • Updated 3 years ago
  • Answered
Archived and Closed

This conversation is no longer open for comments or replies and is no longer visible to community members. The community moderator provided the following reason for archiving: No longer relevant

I find it's kinda odd, and a little crappy that one can put their entire movie, for free, on their film's page, but adding a little .jpg costs $35! You've probably gotten this before, but please, please, please allow us to add a poster image to our film's page so we can make it look more complete and professional. We already spend so much on creating our films and submitting them through your portal to all the various festivals, the least you could do is allow us to upload 1 single poster image. I'm not asking for anything fancy and I'd be perfectly fine if you restricted it's size, quality, and amount of photos. But charging a whopping $35 just for a single image leaves a really bad taste in my mouth, especially when it's free almost everywhere else on the internet and you already allow me to put my entire film on IMDB for free.

Thank you
Photo of Mark Bauer

Mark Bauer

  • 8 Posts
  • 6 Reply Likes
  • disilusioned

Posted 6 years ago

  • 11
Photo of bluesmanSF

bluesmanSF, Champion

  • 10815 Posts
  • 6429 Reply Likes
I spend a lot of money getting to see films. High gas prices...can't bring food, gotta pay huge prices for popcorn and soda...maybe if they let you advertise for free...you'll let me see your films for free??? Cool...thumbs up for your idea! I don't want you to pay a cent to get exposure to millions of people!!!
Photo of molly mcgivern

molly mcgivern

  • 2 Posts
  • 3 Reply Likes
You sir are clearly not a filmmaker. You don't know low-budget indie films exist because the creators haven't been able to afford to expose the work they've spent their hard earned sweat and tears making. As this gentleman expresses, $35 for those just getting starting is certainly representative of the glass roof that keeps many artists in the shadow of the high budget blockbusters that are blinding your perspective.
Photo of bluesmanSF

bluesmanSF, Champion

  • 10815 Posts
  • 6429 Reply Likes
Re: "You sir are clearly not a filmmaker."

So, that means I can't think?  Not sure of your point or its relevance to the discussion.

You, madam, are clearly not a rocket scientist (did I play your game correctly?).

I love when people think/say "you're clearly not a (whatever they are)!" not realizing that other people might actually have a couple of connected brain cells and can understand their situation.

You resurrect a 9 month old idiotic discussion to make haul out that gem of a line?  That's even more ridiculous than the OP.

Oh, oops, is this discussion reserved for "film" makers only?  I wasn't aware. 

Re:  "$35 for those just getting started..."

Starting out working at McDonald's costs the employee more than that in buying work pants and shoes that are dress code...I'd think that sitting around whining about it on a web site is less effective than going out and collecting cans and bottles and turning them in for cash to get together the $35 would be a better use of the time.

You're aware that people need to process this feature of the site and they need to be paid, right?  Who do you want to pay for that?  The regular users of the otherwise free site?  There'd be very few visitors to the site if they needed to pay to get in.  Then, what use would it be to "advertise" the result of your sweat and tears if no one would see it?

Oh, but I am clearly not a webmaster either...so I shouldn't mention any of that.

But, a thought....if $35 represents a glass roof keeping you down, perhaps you should go the McDonald's route instead?  Just a thought...

Lastly, if you can find a better deal than $35 for exposure to 100 million visitors or so, you should jump at it instead of whining to get it for free.  And, I' e owned and managed businesses for many years and know that for a fact, "filmmaker" or not.  I've also been a professional tennis player and gave it up because the travel expenses, cost of racquets and shoes, etc. (which other, better players got for free) became the glass roof that kept me down (expenses to go on tour averaged about $100,000 per year, win or lose...and is a lot more now)...but you didn't see me whining over $35.  You seem to miss the point that it is something many, if not all, people go through and you don't have to be film maker to understand something they'd go through. I've worked for small businesses in finding new ways to profit and lower expenses to be able to compete with corporate chains and have worked for Salvation Army and Society of St. Vincent de Paul who are non-profits that support underserved in their communities and help them be "profitable" and able to have more funding to support their programs.  So, this is not a real tough subject for me to understand without having made a film.

Re:  "You don't know indie films exist..."

I actually do.  I find a lot of interesting ones on IMDb regardless of their makers' ability to afford a poster or not.  Having/not having one has no effect on locating them via the searchable database.  Personally, I wouldn't mind if they eliminated all posters.  I don't choose what to watch/skip by a poster.
(Edited)
Photo of Colin Camden

Colin Camden

  • 1 Post
  • 3 Reply Likes
Your attack on Molly McGivern seems wildly inappropriate and unnecessary. You may not look for a poster, but many people do, and distributors are unlikely to give a second glance at a film that doesn't even have a poster. This is especially obnoxious as most filmmakers, especially on the indie level, pay $125.00 per year to have access to the contact information they need on the database. You see someone complaining about what, to you, is an insignificant cost, yet most people who are paying the $35 are already paying IMDb an annual fee. $35 is a lot of money when you are already paying for a service, and you have already invested thousands of your own hard-earned dollars into a project, not to mention years of your time. In the very least, IMDb should waive the $35 fee for Pro subscribers.
Photo of Tupac Amaru

Tupac Amaru

  • 51 Posts
  • 33 Reply Likes
Will be nice to be free and anyone to add a poster to a game / movie/ tv becouse are a lot of title without posters and this will make IMDB more good, becouse i personaly i dont even watch a movie /tv that do not have any posters .
Photo of Vito Daniel Pellegrino

Vito Daniel Pellegrino

  • 2 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Interesting observation. Thanks for this useful piece of info
Photo of Emperor

Emperor, Champion

  • 6418 Posts
  • 3002 Reply Likes
I'd like to see a way to add posters for public domain films and a photograph for dead people, as this would tend not to parasitise the cash flow:
https://getsatisfaction.com/imdb/topi...

The problem is that IMDB make their money through things like IMDB Pro and the poster service, this income (along with money from ads) is what lets them pay for the servers and staff needed to keep the site going. If they started making the paid-for-services available for free then they'd struggle to make ends meet, so would need to start charging everyone for using the site or find some other way to generate money. Charging for the site would mean a lot less visitors, so a big reduction in the people who could potentially stumble across your film's entry which would impact your bottom line more than a one-off charge of $35.
Photo of Zakary Shupe

Zakary Shupe

  • 1 Post
  • 0 Reply Likes
IMDB IS OWNED BY AMAZON
Photo of Emperor

Emperor, Champion

  • 6418 Posts
  • 3002 Reply Likes
Indeed, so they need to show they turn a profit - Amazon didn't get where they are by writing blank cheques.

It does, however, provide a way to possibly get a poster on IMDB - if there is a poster on Amazon it is, theoretically, possible to post a request asking for that to be moved over. No guarantees, but worth a shot.
Photo of John Slegers

John Slegers

  • 4 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Actually, Amazon did get where they are by writing blank cheques.

Amazon.co.uk offering free shipment throughout Europe (for shipments pf 25 pounds and up) is one of the main reasons I became a regular customer. Whenever they offered prices similar to those of the competition, that free shipping made all the difference. Them currently offering free shipments only to the UK and Ireland is the only reason I now buy from Amazon.fr and Amazon.de instead... which will probably stop offering free shipment in the future as well.

It seems to me that there Amazon got where they are because they understood what its customers need. It also seems that that time is over now.
(Edited)
Photo of Mark Bauer

Mark Bauer

  • 8 Posts
  • 6 Reply Likes
Of course I am not on the inside of IMDB so I don't pretend to know their finances, but that sounds like a whole lot of bologna to me. I doubt very much that a $35 charge for a single poster image is what is keeping the lights on at the IMDB offices. When Iron Man takes over the IMDB home page for several weeks, that's what is paying their bills. Not starving artist filmmaker paying to upload their single movie poster to a page 15 people see.

I'm not asking for ALL the services of IMDB pro, I'm not asking for unlimited photo uploads, I'm not asking for free galleries, or anything like that. All I'm asking for is one free poster image per film, that's it. They let me upload my entire film for free, when that seems like something they should charge for! So why is that free, but uploading 1 image costs $35? I do know that hosting images is A LOT less server intensive than hosting full streamable films and probably requires less staff. To me it's just high-way robbery charging for that.
Photo of Emperor

Emperor, Champion

  • 6418 Posts
  • 3002 Reply Likes
I doubt very much that a $35 charge for a single poster image is what is keeping the lights on at the IMDB offices.


Of course not, but 1,000 a year would mean they could get a dedicated member of staff on the job, ensuring that there is a poster service - if there wasn't you'd need to subscribe to IMDB Pro, which would cost you a lot more.

When Iron Man takes over the IMDB home page for several weeks, that's what is paying their bills.


It's not either/or, they need a range of revenue streams to keep the site going. You can't rely on one-offs like the Iron Man promotion.
Photo of Mark Bauer

Mark Bauer

  • 8 Posts
  • 6 Reply Likes
I don't really care to debate what is making IMDB money and what isn't, I don't really care. The point is they are likely doing just fine and could afford to give the filmmakers that already give them hundreds (sometimes thousands) of dollars a year submitting to the various festivals through their portal site withoutabox a lousy low-res .jpg poster image to accompany their film's page. That's all.
Photo of Sean Huze

Sean Huze

  • 1 Post
  • 0 Reply Likes
Mark, I'd venture that if you don't have $35 left over in your budget for something that is obviously very important to you that you hire a better line producer the next time. It really doesn't matter anyway, does it? Usually the sales rep/distributor will pay for all that anyway. Focus on festivals and markets and selling your movie then making the next one. Best of luck! - SH
Photo of Mark Bauer

Mark Bauer

  • 8 Posts
  • 6 Reply Likes
Thanks for the tip Suze, but the point is not that I don't have $35. The point is that is a ridiculous charge for something as simple as a poster image.

I'm an independent filmmaker who doesn't "hire" anyone, everyone who works with me volunteers and does it for the love of making films and sharing them with the world, not because we're looking to commercially distribute or make money. So yes, for the large distributor and filmmaking machines who actually hire line producers, $35 is nothing, probably cheaper than their lunch and they'll likely recoup it. That's not what I am, that's not what a lot of my friends are. IMDb could easily charge $35 more for something unique to the mega distributors/studios and give away a poster image to independent filmmakers. That will make the site look better and it will help independent filmmakers.
Photo of DavidAH_Ca

DavidAH_Ca, Champion

  • 3261 Posts
  • 2917 Reply Likes
You complain about a "whopping $35 just for a single image". This image will be on IMDb as long as it continues, seen potentially by millions of people.

How much were you charged to enter your film in the various Festivals, where it was shown once (or possibly a couple of times) to only a few people?

IMDb is already providing a page with the complete textual information about your movie at no cost to you; requiring payment only if you want to enhance the entry with a poster.
Photo of molly mcgivern

molly mcgivern

  • 2 Posts
  • 3 Reply Likes
People, people! It's the fact of the matter Mark is talking about! Principles! Unlike a whopping percentage of people in the industry, Mark has creative integrity and doesn't like the general statement that IMDB infers by making artists pay for a simple photo. As an actor who's expected to pay $15.95 a month for the same simple service, I support his cause. It is a disservice that IMDB pages pop up before the page of the movie/actor itself on a google search. When people see that film has no poster/this actor has no photo, etc. it speaks for our professionalism. Therefore, we feel forced to pay and therefore appease this inferred obligation.
(Edited)
Photo of Ryan Caldwell

Ryan Caldwell

  • 5 Posts
  • 1 Reply Like
I agree 100% Mark.
What I don't think has been made clear to the commenters disagreeing with you is that you(and I) have already given IMDb a ton of money by submitting all of the materials/images to them for festivals on their "Withoutabox.com." I'm not sure people realized these are the same company. Withoutabox, the online festival submission site, is a part of IMDb.

THAT is what frustrated me and brought me here. I've already PAID their company to upload the image to a Digital Press Kit that I want to use on the IMDb page. I have already paid them to upload the image I want to use. Again, I've ALREADY paid them to put this image in their database!

They created the IMDb page for me with the information I provided to Withoutabox.com, so it's very clear that they can port the data right over.

Now, I'd understand charging for the poster image if someone simply wanted to start a page for their film having not used Withoutabox.com. But when they automatically set it up for you with the information you've submitted to festivals through them, spending into the thousands of dollars, they should port at least ONE FREE Poster Image with the rest of the data they already took the initiative to make the page with.
Absolutely.
Photo of bluesmanSF

bluesmanSF, Champion

  • 10815 Posts
  • 6429 Reply Likes
Ryan,

You might make that suggestion separately. It's clearly a whole different matter from, "I want what I want and for FREE!"
Photo of (closed account)

(closed account)

  • 379 Posts
  • 430 Reply Likes
"... IMDb is already providing a page ..."
True, and they'll produce such a page and populate it with information regardless of whether someone wants or doesn't want them to do so.

That can be described as a free service provided "at no cost to you," but I think it is also interesting to note that the service provided is not optional:

If you make a film, IMDb is within their rights to make a page about it, or if you are in the business they can make a page about you (and IIUC it is apparently within their policies to refuse requests to remove information considered factual).

Not to stray off-topic, but as a very loose ("apples and oranges") analogy:
I have a choice as to whether or not I'll be listed in the telephone directory.  (I'd have that choice regardless of whether I am or am not a well-known public personality.)  I choose not to be listed (and the telephone company charges me money every month for the privilege of not being listed).

But If I were to make a film, and if a title page about it and a name page about me appeared on IMDb, and if I were to decide that I'd prefer not to have my film or my name listed on IMDb, such removal probably would not be an option available to me.

That's not to say that I'd ever want to "own" such a page (not even one about me, if such a page existed):  Some IMDb documentation has used the term "your page",  but if they had a page about me I'd understand that the page wouldn't be "mine" in the sense of ownership or control.  It'd continue to be owned and controlled by IMDb.  (It's their website after all, not ours.)

Returning to my very loose apples-and-oranges analogy:  Obviously, I don't "own" the phone book, either.  Yet I'm given a choice to not be listed in the phone book (albeit I pay a monthly fee for the privilege, but at least I have the choice).

Yes I realize IMDb is not the phone book!  "Apples and oranges."  Terrible analogy!

Fine.  Well, I suppose the observation I'm trying to make is that when we extol the virtues of the free services that some sites such as IMDb provide to us, we also understand if some of the services provided are not optional to us.  Pages about people and projects will appear regardless of whether any such people want such pages or not.

And because IMDb is popular, pages on IMDb might sometimes dominate results for some relevant web searches:
"... IMDB pages pop up before the page of the movie/actor itself on a google search. ..."
Knowing that search result patterns can vary, I cleared my browser's local storage and I set a Google option to try to avoid customization of results. Then I searched Google with the name of the person who posted that comment.

Indeed, an IMDb Name page was the first (text) result for that search.  (I noticed that the page did not show a headshot, which of course could be added but not for free.)  The next web search result appeared to be from the person's own website.

I searched again but enclosed the name in quotation marks ("...") and in this case the IMDb Name page was again the first result.  This time the second and third text results were from Lostpedia (a fan Wiki about the TV show Lost).  What appeared to be the person's own website was the 4th text result.
(Edited)
Photo of Ryan Caldwell

Ryan Caldwell

  • 5 Posts
  • 1 Reply Like
bluesman, thanks , it should be repeated elsewhere, BUT it's not a different matter at all. Like I articulated above, I was merely re-explaining his point more thoroughly.
*See his original post at the top of the page.*
He/we are NOT asking for anything for FREE.

He has ALREADY paid THEM through their Withoutabox portal to submit to film festivals. As have I. They've made plenty of money from us with our submissions-- those include the images, and they subsequently create a page with that very same info. They port all those credits when we pay them for submissions, but conveniently not the images so they can charge us twice. Same company.
If they are going to USE the info we paid to give them to create a page for THEIR database, they should have the courtesy to use all of it.
Photo of bluesmanSF

bluesmanSF, Champion

  • 10815 Posts
  • 6429 Reply Likes
Slow your role, Champ...trying to help you...

Huh? "The subject line is "Adding a poster image to my films (sic) page...FOR FREE!"

Then, none of the text mentions anything you've mentioned. He just wants a poster for free. I think you're not reading carefully.

And, if you post an idea thread...maybe not keep shouting the same lines over and over. You loose your audience a bit.
Photo of Ryan Caldwell

Ryan Caldwell

  • 5 Posts
  • 1 Reply Like
well if the audience lacks comprehension, some things bear repeating.
shouting? gimme a break. Here, let me use italics for you.
and spell it out again.

yes, I read the subject line, but, if you read the post you can clearly glean his position.
-
"We already spend so much on creating our films and submitting them through your portal to all the various festivals, the least you could do is allow us to upload 1 single poster image."
And Again,
"We already spend so much on creating our films and submitting them through your portal to all the various festivals, the least you could do is allow us to upload 1 single poster image."
While he's asking to upload that image for "free," the point is still the same. I'm just cutting out that extra unnecessary step. It's the same request. Don't charge me again to submit data I've already paid to submit through you.

As the films are submitted, so goes the poster, stills, and digital press kits.

Slow your roll. I don't want to lose my audience.
Photo of bluesmanSF

bluesmanSF, Champion

  • 10815 Posts
  • 6429 Reply Likes
Wow. Decaf, Smartguy!

Picturing your head about to blow off.

Or sober off and have Mom read it to you in the morning.

The OP is about FREE posters. Not paying IMDb via WAB already. Which is what you good idea was. Just trying to help you. You're not helping yourself by shouting like a freakin' lunatic in the wrong thread.  Make an idea one without shouting and repeating yourself over and over and make your case like an adult. Folks might just agree with your good idea (but they won't see it here and cannot vote for it here)...is all I am saying.

Oy ve...

Good luck!
Photo of Ryan Caldwell

Ryan Caldwell

  • 5 Posts
  • 1 Reply Like
right.
so you still can't comprehend. wow.
my head is screwed on fine. placid, if dumbfounded.
Photo of bluesmanSF

bluesmanSF, Champion

  • 10815 Posts
  • 6429 Reply Likes
Then you should realize, now, that you're posting in a two year old, "question" thread that was marked as "answered" and your comment are not going to be noticed much here, particularly by staff (I only noticed it due to the odd comment below added yesterday-and that's after 7 months of no response to your message).

Again, an "idea" thread could be voted for by other users and might catch the eye of staff if there is enough interest.

I am not sure why you want to voice a good idea, but not take 10 seconds to put it where it will be seen...but that's your dealio...again, I'd loose the histrionics and just type out the idea that you've already paid IMDb and uploaded a poster, then ask if it can be moved over and added to the IMDb then created.

Good luck!
Photo of (closed account)

(closed account)

  • 379 Posts
  • 430 Reply Likes
"... again, I'd loose the ..."
"lose"

just sayin'
(Edited)
Photo of Ryan Caldwell

Ryan Caldwell

  • 5 Posts
  • 1 Reply Like
Yeah. I had already mentioned that in the last sentence of the previous comment. ...and he did it again. Not everything landing with this one.
Photo of Vito Daniel Pellegrino

Vito Daniel Pellegrino

  • 2 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
I agree with everyones point of view on this. As a filmmaker it would be nice to lower the cost as $35 for an indie filmmaker that has probably made their film for £200-£1000, maybe that £35 might seem like a lot. But at the same time if you do want people to see your work and a bit more interest in your film and you want to look that more professional then an extra $35 to add marketing and production value to your film is a good investment.
Photo of The Oomun Group

The Oomun Group

  • 1 Post
  • 0 Reply Likes
Couldn't agree more with this thread. I've just finished a 9-month project, working 10 hours-a-day to complete the film to the highest quality possible. I am flat broke. As in, the film was completed in a squat in London! Charging for a single jpeg is unfair to us indie producers. Come IMDB, help us out!
Photo of Peter Halm

Peter Halm

  • 1 Post
  • 0 Reply Likes
posters/photos are now free for pro accounts!!
(Edited)
Photo of bluesmanSF

bluesmanSF, Champion

  • 10815 Posts
  • 6429 Reply Likes
Photos to Name Pages have always been (not "free" but) included in the features of a paid subscription to IMDbPro at no additional charge. Nothing requiring paid subscription could ever really be accurately referred to as "free."

Some images can be added to title pages now, via a standard User Account.  They go into a gallery and one might be chosen as poster if it adheres to the requirements for having a poster appear.

This conversation is no longer open for comments or replies.