Contribution Declined, despite being requested by the producer

  • 2
  • Problem
  • Updated 1 month ago
  • Solved
  • (Edited)
I had a contribution declined, but it was actually requested by the producer in question. The explanation said the information couldn't be verified, but I included the producer's contact information with the issue, because she is currently having trouble logging into her own IMDB account to take care of this. The details of the contribution were:

""SoBe Heat" (????)production executive

“Dee was on this project as a producer for several years after it was initially pitched by the writer/creator. However, this project has since been dropped. She is no longer affiliated with SoBe Heat, and has asked to have it removed from her IMDb profile. She wasn't sure how to do this, and I offered to do it for her (I am also a writer and would-be producer developing projects with her) but she was also surprised and a bit upset that it could be added to her slate of projects without her knowledge. I am hoping this request to remove it will be enough, because she has been having trouble logging into her own account - she was unable recently to renew her IMDb Pro account, because her associated email address is no longer accessible to her, and she asked if I would try to get this removed for her while she tries to get her account issues resolved. If you need to verify this information with her, her valid contact email is ******@****** Thanks in advance for your time.”

The contribution ID was: 190512-204646-742000

Thanks in advance.

Best,
James
Photo of James Martin

James Martin

  • 10 Posts
  • 12 Reply Likes

Posted 1 month ago

  • 2
Photo of Joel

Joel, Employee

  • 890 Posts
  • 1036 Reply Likes
Hi James,

Thanks for your post.

I've re-reviewed this request for you now and have removed the credit.

I appreciate your patience, have a great day. 

Joel 
Photo of James Martin

James Martin

  • 10 Posts
  • 12 Reply Likes
Thanks much for your help, Joel! I have a follow-up question if I may? I went in and looked today before I checked here and was glad to see it off the official project list, but then I noticed it is still technically listed in her mini-bio under "*** is known for..." It is the second title listed. I know the "known for" credits are things that an IMDB pro user can edit themselves on their own Pro page, but since she currently can't access her Pro (because her associated email address is no longer accessible to her, for purposes of changing password, renewing her subscription, etc.) is there a way that can be removed for her?

Thanks again for your help, and sorry if my questions are that of a Luddite, I'm very new to the contribution process!

Best,
James

Photo of J.J.

J.J.

  • 15 Posts
  • 23 Reply Likes
So basically you want history to be re-written? If she worked on the film for several years she should still be credited as it's historical fact. It doesn't matter if she left the project later on she still contributed. It doesn't matter what the person wants. Facts are facts.
Photo of James Martin

James Martin

  • 10 Posts
  • 12 Reply Likes
So, are you trying to be an ass or is it just something that comes naturally for you? Just a summer thing, maybe?

It was never a "film," television program, or anything of the sort. It was added to her profile without her consent, and to say she worked on it for several years is also inaccurate. It was pitched to her, she said "hey, that sounds like it might be a good idea," and then proceeded to GO NOWHERE. No development, no attachments, etc. The creator added it to her profile unbeknownst to her, and she wants it off.

I think the majority of what I just wrote would have been apparent if you read the original submission above, but I thought we could all benefit from actual facts. Which I'm told, are facts.
Photo of J.J.

J.J.

  • 15 Posts
  • 23 Reply Likes
IMDb is a historical record. It doesn't need to ask for your "consent" or knowledge of it being added. Like I said, facts are facts. IMDb deals with facts not with what people want on their page. Don't like a film you were in? Tough. You did it and it's now historical fact and you cannot change history just because you don't like it. I'm disappointed in IMDb's decision to remove the credit and I strongly advise they revert it. IMDb needs to keep their integrity as the largest historical archive of film and not be censored or re-written just because people don't want all of their works listed.
Photo of James Martin

James Martin

  • 10 Posts
  • 12 Reply Likes
In that case, we might consider IMDB's accuracy and integrity as a historical record with regard to what vetting process they used to accept the credit in the first place, especially when no development actually took place. It was something the producer was interested in, yes. At the same time, the same writer also pitched a reality project with similar content, and THAT project is the one that's been focused on from the very beginning. The other project was never in development, and so, really just falls into the category of "Thing with a title that no one did anything on," which, unless I'm mistaken, isn't a valid category for credits.

I get the fact that if a person does something on a project, they should be credited for that, for better or worse. This was never in development and should never have been added as a credit in the first place. Which is why reversing the decision to remove the credit would be a bit contrary to IMDB's mission as an accurate historical record of work in the entertainment field.
Photo of Ed Jones (XLIX)

Ed Jones (XLIX)

  • 12199 Posts
  • 13845 Reply Likes
This title below has been in development for a very long time. It may never get to the screen.
It "IS" trivia. These people may have their name pages loaded with a known for trivia or not. But it is accurate. While she received no on screen credit and therefor had her name removed, it still does not change the fact that she was considered. Many movies have within their trivia pages actors or directors that were considered. The same goes for their name pages. Eric Stoltz was in Back to the Future as Marty McFly.
Then he was not. He is in the trivia. He remains to this day in the trivia. Facts are facts. If it "IS" fact it should remain. Whether you like it or not.
Sorry, but those are the facts.
Cheers

Ed

(Edited)
Photo of James Martin

James Martin

  • 10 Posts
  • 12 Reply Likes
I still think we're talking about two different things. Your examples make sense, because to be in consideration implies there was some level of work done (either an audition, talk between representation and production, etc.) so that the ball was rolling at some point. Whether it's a script being worked on or rewritten, an actor in talks/auditioning, etc. If the ball stops rolling, for whatever reason, that doesn't change the fact that the artist in question was involved with the project.

In the case of the project in question, no such work took place - the writer pitched it, the producer said, "I like that idea." That's the extent of it. A project isn't in development just because someone says, "Yes" with no further work or development. The ball was never rolling. At this point, all there is is a mutual understanding that, at some point, a ball existed.

I mean, I've got about 5 ideas right now in various stages of the creative process, but personally I would expect the only ones that should be listed as in-development on a page are the ones that have actually been picked up and are being developed (rewrites, picking up attachments, etc.) See what I'm saying? Maybe this is just a difference of opinion, but that's my thinking.
Photo of Ed Jones (XLIX)

Ed Jones (XLIX)

  • 12199 Posts
  • 13845 Reply Likes
It was that persons act of making the title page and having her name on it.
That is the root for the inclusion of a trivia item in her bio.
Your issue is with the person that made up the page. He created the facts as IMDb knows them.
Nothing is incorrect.
There is no "Opinion". Just facts as presented.
You have yourself confirmed these very facts here.
Do you now see the logic?
Thanks

Ed
Photo of James Martin

James Martin

  • 10 Posts
  • 12 Reply Likes
I agree, that would be the person at fault. However, you don't create facts. Facts are facts, remember? So, if he created the page as an in-development title when it really wasn't, and listed her as producer, then yes, IMDB is obviously not at fault because they don't know any differently. However, that makes it no less appropriate that the credit be removed when it was added using "invented" facts.

If I could submit my name as part of a project and get the change accepted, IMDB not having any evidence to the contrary wouldn't make me somehow entitled to the credit.

Also, just to clarify, when you say "Trivia Item," are you talking about a trivial credit that never came to be, or an actual item under the "Trivia" portion of a person's page? Because this particular person doesn't have any Trivia listed. Not sure if that's what you mean.
(Edited)
Photo of Ed Jones (XLIX)

Ed Jones (XLIX)

  • 12199 Posts
  • 13845 Reply Likes
Credit was removed. Credit was there however.
Trivia in a bio makes a statement to the fact that it was there in the first place.
Question
If a tree falls in the woods and no one is around to hear or see it. Did it actually fall? It was standing. Now it's not.

If no credit is on a page and then it is, and then it's not, did it actually happen?
Now
If some one picks up that tree and chops it up for firewood, then the tree never existed according to you.

#illogical...
Photo of Ed Jones (XLIX)

Ed Jones (XLIX)

  • 12199 Posts
  • 13845 Reply Likes
You or her did not submit your own names. Someone else did.
Photo of Ed Jones (XLIX)

Ed Jones (XLIX)

  • 12199 Posts
  • 13845 Reply Likes
And if it is one of the 4 "known for" titles on her "Name" page, then you have made an incorrect reference.
There are ''Name" pages and "Bio" pages on Imdb.
They are referenced together but are seperate pages.
Than this whole discussion has been for no reason.
Photo of James Martin

James Martin

  • 10 Posts
  • 12 Reply Likes
No, I haven't incorrectly referenced anything. Perhaps you've incorrectly read it. Originally, the title showed on her list of active projects, but didn't show up under the 4 "Known For" titles. It did, however, also show up under the "Mini-bio" on her page which says "so-and-so is known for...." which I clearly said in my second post above (replying to Joel.)

The title has since been removed from her list of projects. Now, because there is no way to edit a mini-bio (I checked, and the only option I have is to add a bio, because none exists) then I rather thought that must somehow be auto-populated, and that when the title was removed from her list of projects, I thought it would also be removed from the "Mini-bio." However, her mini bio still shows the project which has been removed from her list of projects. It is still mentioned under the "is known for" sentence. Still not listed in the 4 "Known for" tiles, though.
(Edited)
Photo of Ralf

Ralf

  • 29 Posts
  • 46 Reply Likes
Hi James Martin please wait for the servers to update the bio. Sometimes this can take a couple of days. I'm sure it would have been removed. If not please come back here and someone will help to remove it.
Photo of James Martin

James Martin

  • 10 Posts
  • 12 Reply Likes
Thanks, Ralf! Will do, I appreciate it.
Photo of Ed Jones (XLIX)

Ed Jones (XLIX)

  • 12199 Posts
  • 13845 Reply Likes
Ralf is partially incorrect. The 4 "known for" will update. The data in the mini bio will not. And it is not auto populated. It is an original work of a registered users contribution.


So it will remain. You can edit a mini bio to correct it. Try it. If it is accepted. Woo Hoo!!! Don't be surprised if it is not.
See here. This is the correction page for a mini bio as an Example:


(Edited)
Photo of Ralf

Ralf

  • 29 Posts
  • 46 Reply Likes
Ed Jones (XLIX) let's wait and see if the servers update the bio before we go into panic mode.
Photo of James Martin

James Martin

  • 10 Posts
  • 12 Reply Likes
Thanks Ed - that's what I thought, too, however, her mini-bio does not have "IMDB mini-biography by..." It actually has nothing. Just the sentence saying "...is known for..." and a link that says "View full bio," which just takes you to the same mini-bio with no byline.

When I went in originally to do a Change contribution on the Mini-bio, it had nothing to correct. What you show in the "Biography" box in that screenshot wasn't there, it was actually an empty box saying that no bio had been submitted, and so nothing to change. (It appears that IMDB uses the term Mini-bio on the Name page, but the word "Biography" on the edit page, because your screenshot shows "by woodyanders" next to the Mini-bio on the main page, but then next to the full Biography on the Contribution page.)

I'm thinking that if no bio is submitted, there must be some pre-filled information that IMDB uses as a placeholder, either from an algorithm (like how they determine the 4 known-for titles) OR, just a boiler-plate "So-and-so is known for..." which pulls the first few titles from their project page for any users with no submitted bio.

Thinking that was the case (because I was noticing Mini-bio and Biography appeared to be the same thing according to the contribution page) I checked with her this morning and got a full bio to put in. When I submitted a contribution, I went to "Add 1" instead of "Change" and this gave me the textbox to fill in the bio, so hopefully that will replace the pre-filled Mini-bio that is there now.

Thanks again, folks!
Photo of Ralf

Ralf

  • 29 Posts
  • 46 Reply Likes
The reason it had nothing was because the servers were updating it. However you have added a new bio which should overwrite the old one.
Photo of James Martin

James Martin

  • 10 Posts
  • 12 Reply Likes
No, I mean, I did all of that (attempted bio edit) before I even did the update to the list of projects. There was literally nothing there, which is what caused me to dig deeper and find the project list and request a removal there (thinking THAT would fix the bio, too! :-) Now I've done both, so fingers crossed!
Photo of Ed Jones (XLIX)

Ed Jones (XLIX)

  • 12199 Posts
  • 13845 Reply Likes
Those one sentence bios are computer generated and should have updated already.
That is why there is nothing to update or edit.
24 hours are all that is needed.
This topic is marked solved.
Once that happens, staff unfollows.
If the known for is still there, start a new topic.
Addressing it here will go nowhere.


And Ralf.
No one is panicking here.
And
If not please come back here and someone will help to remove it.
Read my reply about "Solved"
Photo of Ralf

Ralf

  • 29 Posts
  • 46 Reply Likes
You sounded like you were becoming very panicky and excited. 
Your reply about being solved means  zero to my answer.
If not please come back here and someone will help to remove it.
This means the customer can come back and start a new post. You are not the gatekeeper and do not control what happens on here. 
Have a nice day.
(Edited)
Photo of Ed Jones (XLIX)

Ed Jones (XLIX)

  • 12199 Posts
  • 13845 Reply Likes
Then be precise.
Photo of Ralf

Ralf

  • 29 Posts
  • 46 Reply Likes
You don't have to keep replying trying to get the last word in. But if you must then go ahead,
Have a nice day.