Should joke credits be included in the IMDb credits? I know if a fictional person is credited, it should be in Crazy Credits. However, what if a real person who worked on a film is given a joke role, like fluffer, if clearly he wasn't a fluffer? What if a famous person who didn't work on the film is given a normal role? Should it be included but with (credit only)? Is it our place to judge whether or not the credits in a film are accurate, or should we represent exactly what's on screen (with the exception of the bizarre changes IMDb forces to conform job titles, e.g. catering to caterer)? I can't find anything that specifically answers these questions in the IMDb help section.
Posted 4 years ago
Michelle, Official Rep
Michelle, Official Rep
Hi Matt -
Thanks for posting the example, I have passed your comment to our data editors who will take a look and clarify the best way to list this type of credit. As soon as I hear back I will update you with the information here.
Thanks for posting the example, I have passed your comment to our data editors who will take a look and clarify the best way to list this type of credit. As soon as I hear back I will update you with the information here.
I'm curious about this too. I know this is an old post, but is there any updated information?
GMJ, Champion
Bobby,
If you have a specific example, please consider submitting a New Post on this matter. As mentioned, this is an old post and is listed as Solved so any IMDb representatives will likely not respond.
If you have a specific example, please consider submitting a New Post on this matter. As mentioned, this is an old post and is listed as Solved so any IMDb representatives will likely not respond.
To be fair, it hasn't been solved, because there was never a reply. I still don't know what to do with that credit.
Admins, please delete the "SOLVED" mark for this topic, because it's not solved in any way:
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt5718698/fullcredits
https://getsatisfaction.com/imdb/topics/joke-credits?topic-reply-list[settings][filter_by]=all&t...
And there is no "Policy for Listing Joke credits" explained in the official guidelines.
PS BTW: the Simpsons example above is not a good example here, because this topic aims on those people who credited in a farcical or joky way for no actual participation or work done, while the crazy credits for Simpsons involve only the alternate titling.
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt5718698/fullcredits
https://getsatisfaction.com/imdb/topics/joke-credits?topic-reply-list[settings][filter_by]=all&t...
And there is no "Policy for Listing Joke credits" explained in the official guidelines.
PS BTW: the Simpsons example above is not a good example here, because this topic aims on those people who credited in a farcical or joky way for no actual participation or work done, while the crazy credits for Simpsons involve only the alternate titling.
(Edited)
GMJ, Champion
What about when someone jokingly gives themselves a bunch of credits? Like if someone made a youtube video and put directed, produced, cinematography, costumes, makeup, etc. and put their name for all of theme even though there was no cinematographer or costume department, makeup department, etc.? Can those be moved to crazy credits or something?
Technically, they did do those jobs, even if the credits were tongue-in-cheek. Sometimes people do seriously put themselves down for everything though, and it's not necessarily possible to tell whether it's a joke or serious.
Matt, what do you mean they technically did those jobs? How do you know what jobs someone did?
If you make a video by yourself, you are the director, writer, producer, cinematographer, etc. It's not usual to credit yourself in a bunch of different roles, but it's not inaccurate.
If you just pointed a camera at yourself and hit the record button, that doesn’t make you a cinematographer. It also doesn’t make you a producer, writer, makeup artist, set designer, gaffer, etc. If someone makes a video and lists a bunch of credits like that because they think it’s funny to have their name listed a bunch of times in a video as a joke, that isn’t the same thing as people who legitimately do that kind of work as their profession and whose credits aren’t actually tongue-in-cheek. I don’t know why IMDb wants to include such credits. I think that diminishes the credibility of the site because because it’s no longer easy to tell when some credits are legit and when some aren’t.
I also find it incredibly disturbing that even copyrighted or stolen material is allowed to be credited. I’ve seen people on here complain that they privately shared a rough cut of their film with someone and that person uploaded it to YouTube, made it public, and then added it to IMDb. Whether the people who’ve complained about this are lying or not isn’t the issue. The issue is that if that were to happen, IMDb would add and refuse to delete the credits of the pirated work.
I also find it incredibly disturbing that even copyrighted or stolen material is allowed to be credited. I’ve seen people on here complain that they privately shared a rough cut of their film with someone and that person uploaded it to YouTube, made it public, and then added it to IMDb. Whether the people who’ve complained about this are lying or not isn’t the issue. The issue is that if that were to happen, IMDb would add and refuse to delete the credits of the pirated work.
(Edited)
Michelle, Official Rep
Hi Matt -
When an individual is given a bunch of credits on-screen as a joke or as "fluffer", we will still retain those credit listings on the site, but these should include the "credit only" attribute; which indicates that while the individual was credited under this role they didn't perform the actual role, they were only credited on-screen for it.
When an individual is given a bunch of credits on-screen as a joke or as "fluffer", we will still retain those credit listings on the site, but these should include the "credit only" attribute; which indicates that while the individual was credited under this role they didn't perform the actual role, they were only credited on-screen for it.
(Edited)
Michelle, I made several youtube videos and gave myself a bunch of credits for things I didn't actually do, like produce, write, cinematography, executive producer, wardrobe, makeup, etc. The videos I made were scenes from Quentin Tarantino movies where I copied and I wrote all these credits on screen. Someone added all of these videos to IMDb including all the credits I gave myself. They even added credits to Quentin Tarantino's IMDb page because I included Tarantino's name in the credits. At some point those credits were removed from Tarantino's page. Why? Why aren't they still there with the attribute "credit only"? Are celebrities given preferential treatment and allowed to have certain credits removed while normal people can't?
GMJ, Champion
In my opinion, it's never a good idea to add the name of a well-known person to credit for a project they had nothing to do with unless you directly asked the person if it's OK. Whether it's an inside joke or out of respect for the filmmaker, one might get into some serious legal trouble.
Legal trouble seems unlikely if the credit is clearly a joke or is connected to a spoof of a real work, but regardless, IMDb wouldn't be responsible and it's still the point of the website to record credits as they appear regardless of how accurate the credits are. It would look odd though for Tarantino's page to have credits from indie projects he's never worked on. IMDb just needs a consistent guideline for this scenario.
(Edited)
If IMDb's policy is to include credits as they appear on screen, regardless of how accurate they are, why did Tarantino's credits get removed? Obviously big celebrities have lawyers or other people who are able to get stupid credits removed. I mean, I agree that stupid credits should be removed from ANYONE'S page, regardless of how rich or famous they are, but why is it almost impossible for regular people to get stupid credits removed but big celebrities are much more able to get them removed?
What's ridiculous is that IMDB's policy is to include credits on screen regardless of how accurate they are. I mean, that is one of the dumbest things I've ever heard. What is the point of having a giant database filled with fake and/or joke credits, solely because they appear on screen? Why not try to make a database with only legitimate credits? I bet if most people knew about this they would agree that this policy is idiotic. I wonder if the guy who owns/created IMDb even knows about this or if some employee created this insane policy.
What's ridiculous is that IMDB's policy is to include credits on screen regardless of how accurate they are. I mean, that is one of the dumbest things I've ever heard. What is the point of having a giant database filled with fake and/or joke credits, solely because they appear on screen? Why not try to make a database with only legitimate credits? I bet if most people knew about this they would agree that this policy is idiotic. I wonder if the guy who owns/created IMDb even knows about this or if some employee created this insane policy.
I wonder if the guy who owns/created IMDb even knows about this or if some employee created this insane policy.That "Guy" is still around!
That "Guy" reads these posts!
That "Guy" has and still does approve policy!
It is not nice to call that "Guy's" policies "Insane"
Ta Ta For Now
IMDb is a database of credits, not a database of resumes. Credits that are written on screen incorrectly or missing on screen are marked on IMDb with various attributes to explain them. The point though is to catalogue the credits of films and TV shows. Editing IMDb is easy and doesn't involve lawyers. In the case of my Tarantino credits not getting approved, it's likely that the data guy who reviewed my edit decided that it was incorrect (they often make incorrect decisions - they likely blast through edit requests very quickly). In the case of your Tarantino credits getting deleted, someone likely submitted a deletion for them and the data guy just assumed the credits shouldn't be there. Your credits for yourself should be there, so if you tried to delete them, the data guy made the correct decision to keep them. They don't delete credits just because you think it makes your profile look bad. It's not a double standard for celebrities and normal people, it's just the data guys making assumptions.
(Edited)
Matt:
I mostly share your concerns, but the most important question said is why in similar situations the database is processed differently according to someone's subjective taste or inclination. For such things no rules can be written.
I mostly share your concerns, but the most important question said is why in similar situations the database is processed differently according to someone's subjective taste or inclination. For such things no rules can be written.
Matt:
I mostly share your concerns, but the most important question said is why in similar situations the database is processed differently according to someone's subjective taste or inclination. For such things no rules can be written.
I mostly share your concerns, but the most important question said is why in similar situations the database is processed differently according to someone's subjective taste or inclination. For such things no rules can be written.
Ed Jones, I doubt the owner/creator of IMDb reads these boards. Why on earth would he listen to a bunch of people complaining on here about credits? Has he ever posted on here before? And again, the policy to include every single on-screen credit, regardless of how serious, fake, or incorrect the credits are, is insane in my opiNo one
Ed Jones, I doubt the owner/creator of IMDb reads these boards. Why on earth would he listen to a bunch of people complaining on here about credits? Has he ever posted on here before? And again, the policy to include every single on-screen credit, regardless of how serious, fake, or incorrect the credits are, is insane in my opiNo one
Col Needham, the founder of IMDb, posts here all the time; it's part of his job, presumably. The company is owned by Amazon. (Jeff Bezos does not post here.)
It's not insane; it's the point of IMDb to catalogue credits. It's not causing any problems.
It's not insane; it's the point of IMDb to catalogue credits. It's not causing any problems.
(Edited)
It's causing problems ever since they opened the flood gates to allow virtually any video to be added to IMDb. Even Ed Jones on these forums had his page messed with, and when he tried to have those credits deleted, an IMDb employee moved them to a different Ed Jones page, which wasn't the correct thing to do since the original credit had nothing to do with a guy named Ed Jones. Look at this thread. Toward the bottom I showed a bunch of evidence how an innocent Ed Jones now has fake credits on his page:
https://getsatisfaction.com/imdb/topics/an-attempt-to-vandalize-gs-user-imdb-page-with-a-title-addit...
https://getsatisfaction.com/imdb/topics/an-attempt-to-vandalize-gs-user-imdb-page-with-a-title-addit...
It's causing problems ever since they opened the flood gates to allow virtually any video to be added to IMDb. Even Ed Jones on these forums had his page messed with, and when he tried to have those credits deleted, an IMDb employee moved them to a different Ed Jones page, which wasn't the correct thing to do since the original credit had nothing to do with a guy named Ed Jones. Look at this thread. Toward the bottom I showed a bunch of evidence how an innocent Ed Jones now has fake credits on his page:
https://getsatisfaction.com/imdb/topics/an-attempt-to-vandalize-gs-user-imdb-page-with-a-title-addit...
https://getsatisfaction.com/imdb/topics/an-attempt-to-vandalize-gs-user-imdb-page-with-a-title-addit...
Matt