2007Legal / Business Practices forum
Accuracy and honesty in film crew credits for work performed
19 years old. Gear and prices may have changed since.
DisputedParticipants disagreed and reached no conclusion. Read the findings as positions, not as an answer.
What the thread found
- A crew member should only claim a credit for a role they actually performed on set, not simply because they were hired for that position.
- Taking credit for work not done can damage professional reputation, as the film industry is small and word spreads about dishonesty.
- When a crew member performs only part of a role during a production, using a qualifier like 'Additional Steadicam Operator' is more accurate than claiming the main credit.
- Actually operating equipment or performing the work, even for just one day or shot, earns the legitimate right to that credit.
- Resume accuracy matters because potential employers will verify qualifications, and false claims can lead to professional consequences.
- Distinguishing between roles performed matters when rates differ by equipment type, though compensation practices vary by production.
Depends on
- The discussion references practices from 2007 and may not reflect current industry standards.
- Some participants mention difficulties correcting credits on IMDb and general credit inconsistencies in final productions, suggesting formal credit systems may not always reflect actual work.
- The conversation includes disagreement about what constitutes earning a credit, with some arguing that being hired for a role justifies the credit even if duties changed, though this view did not reach consensus.