Want to be on Motionographer? Submit your work here!

Vitamin updates


Vitamin updates with a killer new reel.

Posted on 12 April 2011 |

Tags:

43 thoughts on “Vitamin updates

  1. 90% of Vitamins work is what they have stolen form Ryan dunn and myself once we left the company. Shameful misrepresentation.

  2. It makes sense for them to have a design reel with the projects they’ve worked on. But Vitamin also are claiming to have directed the live-action for several commercials that Vince Haycock and myself (Ryan Dunn) in fact directed.

    I normally wouldn’t be petty about this, but with this latest reel and updated website, they have very intentionally sought to create some market confusion in an effort to continue their own board flow.

    Can’t fault them for riding it, but it’s a bummer to those of us who poured our hearts and souls into jobs, only to be uncredited after we move on.

    …ryan

    • looks like ryan dunn has a history of trashing the companies that paid him to do work:

      http://motionographer.com/2009/07/23/2009-emmys-outstanding-main-title-design-nominees/
      “it’s me again, mr. complainer. this time i want to bring up a sore point. as a designer and director myself, i don’t live for awards but it is a compliment to receive one. especially for those who work on titles like these and get nominated (and win) emmy’s…”

      http://www.liftingfaces.com/2009/04/silhouettes-unite/
      “Not going to say too much here, but our friends at Digital Kitchen certainly have no shortage of inspiration. Here is a piece they did for Seattle International Film Festival, 2009… But seriously, let’s be real; the pieces bare a eerily strange resemblance in palette, technique, and execution to one another. The concepts are different sure, audio, etc. but it’s still a good idea to push things far enough away from the source so that the police (ie. me) don’t come out of the woodwork to make a point of it.”

      • Yes, I have an annoying habit of outing stolen work, especially when the artist from whom the work was taken never receives the fruit of the derivation’s labor.

        …ryan

        • well ryan, you’ve made your point that you’re a great director.

          unfortunately, your “history of calling it how you see it” also makes you a great liability to your current and future employers.

          • I’m glad you think so. Feel free to communicate that to my current and future employees.

            …ryan

  3. I think the work and the site are you looking amazing. I really think the new site design is amazing, simple and clean. Keep on rocking the new work!

  4. Put the credits on the site to make Vince and Ryan Happy. They need to relive their glory days. Zing! Good work regardless who was the “director” was. I’m sure the whole team is what really made the work solid.

  5. Well for what it’s worth, these guys were paid by Vitamin to do work, therefore it is in fact Vitamin’s work. If you are commissioned to do a painting for someone and then 2 years later you decided you don’t like that person displaying it in their house, then too bad. Stop crying. These guys obviously regret leaving and are bitter about their present.

    • @jsmith

      Do you know the details of our contracts with Vitamin when we worked there? Do you know the agreements that were made when I left the company? Do you know the difference between directing and creative directing, and how work is respectively credited/owned thereafter?

      My argument is not about stifling their ability to show that work, but to NOT misrepresent their role on those jobs. The issue is already being resolved, but for those of us who actually directed the commercials, it is a shame to see the misrepresentation.

      And as someone who was admittedly misrepresenting my own work from Digital Kitchen before I started at Vitamin, believe me I know the consequences of those actions.

      …ryan

        • Are you Stardust NY, or LA? We should get drinks, you sound like an awesome person.

          …ryan

    • Hi everyone,

      I think there is some confusion about what Vitamin WAS and now currently IS.

      Here is the story, for what its worth. When I was brought on by the owner to start Vitamin, we all agreed we were starting a director collective/production company and NOT a design shop. The name Vitamin was to be only the name of the company, not a director label. Here are a couple of examples for those of you who obviously cant tell the difference.

      production company
      http://www.furlined.com/

      director collective
      http://www.collider.com.au/

      design company
      http://www.stardust.tv/

      When we initially started the company my reel was all we had. Im not talking graphic montage sizzle reel, Im talking 5-6 spots or music videos, all owned by me. Then we brought Ryan over from a staff position at NIKE. We had reels from DK but also work we owned as hired directors. Most of this work was done outside of VItamin. So the reel was just Ryan and me, Vitamin owned none, nor was it done there… AND this includes some of the work Vitamin was showing until just this last month… This is where Vitamin is in the wrong.

      As a director, you own your work, end of story. I’m DGA and this is how it goes, there is no legal argument against it. I’m hired to direct, and unless there is a signed agreement previously, no one else can credit themselves as a director. BTW there was never any signed agreement, actually it was the exact opposite. We weren’t hired guns at a design company. It was agreed upon that we owned the credits, period.

      This part of the argument is not up for debate. By not crediting us as directors, Vitamin is going against its agreement and creating an intentional confusion in an effort to get more boards they can direct.

      So this whole petty project counting and second tallying of what percentage is old versus new on this reel is a rather useless argument. Vitamin wasn’t set up as a “design” company when Ryan and I worked there, everyone owned credit, designers, animators, editors, and, we even had a photographer, Tim Richardson, represented on our site for a time, who I still credit on my work as a co-director where appropriate.

      When we left, Vitamin was only allowed to say they did post work on those jobs, because that is all they did. Vitamin was not set up as a typical design shop like many of you posting on here seem to think, where everyone is blanketed under one name. We as directors were not interested in that, so we forged a different idea and agreement. This was so that clients & other collaborators could see who does what transparently, and hire us as people not as an engine.

      In the end, we moved on to other things and Vitamin changed out of necessity. I personally have no problems with that and have only encouraged and supported whatever form Vitamin took on for better or worse. We poured three years of hard work into something we enjoyed but decided to part from for reasons not important to this debate. We left very amicably, happy to move on, and proud of what we created.

      To the outside eye maybe it seems standard play for a studio to take the credit for directorial work, but that’s not how it works outside of the motion graphics world. Maybe now you can understand why Ryan feels the need to fact-check Linas. Ryan’s hard work and directing career is now benefiting others who strive to direct commercials as well?

      In the end it’s not about the current employees, or career paths, its about being honest and placing credit where credit is due.

      -vince

      One last note to @jsmith:…..we know who your are ;)

      YOU SAID: “If you are commissioned to do a painting for someone and then 2 years later you decided you don’t like that person displaying it in their house, then too bad. Stop crying.”

      Actually, if I give you a painting I did, and you put it on the wall, you wouldn’t scratch out my name and put yours on it right before all your friends come over to check out your house… you fucking retard.

  6. Danny is a nice, talented director. However, he’s been at vitamin for almost two years. If your reel isn’t filled with enough quality work that you did, you need to own up to the quality of your clients.

  7. I never would of thought that our coming out party would bring such controversy, but here we are. The last thing I wanted to do is get involved, but I can’t stay mute any longer. Our little shop has come a long way in the last year and a half, and we were ecstatic to share all this new work with you. We’ve been working tirelessly to get this studio off the ground and unfortunately I now have to sit here and defend the fruits of our labor. I went back and literally counted the frames in the real, and the grand total of old Vitamin work on there is 9.6 sec out of 75 sec. I’m deeply saddened that it’s come down to this petty bs, but I just can’t sit here and let people defame us and all the blood sweat and tears we’ve put into this place in the last year and a half. I’m done. Have a great weekend.

    • @Linus (I think that’s you)

      It’s not petty when the work is being misrepresented and you guys as an entire whole had nothing to do with them. It’s confusing, unfair, and wrong. If you guys want to represent that work in your reel, fine, just make sure you are clear who directed the work that predated all who now work there.

      And believe me, I know what it’s like to have “worked tirelessly to get that studio off the ground,” I was in your shoes in the same place six years ago.

      I do truly wish you the best of luck, but I have to defend and protect my work at the same time.

      …ryan

        • Okay then, Linas.

          …ryan

          P.S. Nice work on that Nike project. Vitamin is lucky to have you.

      • Also, because I don’t have your email, there is no stop-motion in aerie, nor is there any stop-motion in Steelcase. Since you guys are showing those jobs still, I figured you might want to get the “process” part of it right.

        …ryan

  8. whoever owns the work legally owns the work and can do, market or portray the work anyway they please, whoever directed it, well directed it. I’ve been through a similar circumstance and unless you want to spend a lot of money legally, its cheaper and cooler to just make new and better work. gripings only gonna frustrate you more.

    • Indeed PJ, yours is a great example of how to properly handle this situation. As opposed to the parties involved here – who have both come off looking really bad – you just went out and shut everyone up by starting a cool company. I was always inspired by that story.

  9. Uhmm…… read all the comments and really i’m very disgusted.

    9.6 sec only, why not just take it off if you think is petty to duel on 9.6 sec.
    also I though that crediting was the right thing to do.

    is funny how things are petty when is not happening to you.

    PS. i’m not agains anyone.

  10. Hi everyone,

    I think there is some confusion about what Vitamin WAS and now currently IS.

    Here is the story, for what its worth. When I was brought on by the owner to start Vitamin, we all agreed we were starting a director collective/production company and NOT a design shop. The name Vitamin was to be only the name of the company, not a director label. Here are a couple of examples for those of you who obviously cant tell the difference.

    production company
    http://www.furlined.com/

    director collective
    http://www.collider.com.au/

    design company
    http://www.stardust.tv/

    When we initially started the company my reel was all we had. Im not talking graphic montage sizzle reel, Im talking 5-6 spots or music videos, all owned by me. Then we brought Ryan over from a staff position at NIKE. We had reels from DK but also work we owned as hired directors. Most of this work was done outside of VItamin. So the reel was just Ryan and me, Vitamin owned none, nor was it done there… AND this includes some of the work Vitamin was showing until just this last month… This is where Vitamin is in the wrong.

    As a director, you own your work, end of story. I’m DGA and this is how it goes, there is no legal argument against it. I’m hired to direct, and unless there is a signed agreement previously, no one else can credit themselves as a director. BTW there was never any signed agreement, actually it was the exact opposite. We weren’t hired guns at a design company. It was agreed upon that we owned the credits, period.

    This part of the argument is not up for debate. By not crediting us as directors, Vitamin is going against its agreement and creating an intentional confusion in an effort to get more boards they can direct.

    So this whole petty project counting and second tallying of what percentage is old versus new on this reel is a rather useless argument. Vitamin wasn’t set up as a “design” company when Ryan and I worked there, everyone owned credit, designers, animators, editors, and, we even had a photographer, Tim Richardson, represented on our site for a time, who I still credit on my work as a co-director where appropriate.

    When we left, Vitamin was only allowed to say they did post work on those jobs, because that is all they did. Vitamin was not set up as a typical design shop like many of you posting on here seem to think, where everyone is blanketed under one name. We as directors were not interested in that, so we forged a different idea and agreement. This was so that clients & other collaborators could see who does what transparently, and hire us as people not as an engine.

    In the end, we moved on to other things and Vitamin changed out of necessity. I personally have no problems with that and have only encouraged and supported whatever form Vitamin took on for better or worse. We poured three years of hard work into something we enjoyed but decided to part from for reasons not important to this debate. We left very amicably, happy to move on, and proud of what we created.

    To the outside eye maybe it seems standard play for a studio to take the credit for directorial work, but that’s not how it works outside of the motion graphics world. Maybe now you can understand why Ryan feels the need to fact-check Linas. Ryan’s hard work and directing career is now benefiting others who strive to direct commercials as well?

    In the end it’s not about the current employees, or career paths, its about being honest and placing credit where credit is due.

    -vince

    One last note to @jsmith:…..we know who your are ;)

    YOU SAID: “If you are commissioned to do a painting for someone and then 2 years later you decided you don’t like that person displaying it in their house, then too bad. Stop crying.”

    Actually, if I give you a painting I did, and you put it on the wall, you wouldn’t scratch out my name and put yours on it right before all your friends come over to check out your house…

  11. seems pretty simple to me…

    vince and ryan direct live action. vitamin is a production company that represented them as live action directors and there names were prominently used and promoted as such at the time.
    there’s obviously no problem with vitamin taking credit for there aspects of the creation of the work, or including past work in a montage. the problem here is that there is no credits listed on there project pages and there are project summaries that insinuate ‘director’ credit. it’s simply disingenuous. for example, where is the live action director credit on this almost purely live-action piece?

    http://vitaminpictures.tv/work/nike_team_elite

    i think some people are confusing the credit situations that many have encountered at motion graphic studios with individuals working under the titles “art directors” or “design directors” and the problems people have had ‘owning’ there work when they have left (that’s obviously a whole other can of worms). these guys were listed as director’s on the vitamin site, pushed and promoted as such, not working ‘namelessly’ under a company banner. to not be properly credited sucks in any situation, but to do so when you’re name was being used to obtain the work in the first place is a different scenario altogether.

  12. http://vitaminpictures.tv/work/nike_team_elite

    Thats a perfect example Cassidy. This Nike spot wasn’t even done through Vitamin Ironically. Only contribution Vitamin gave was the type animations. It was produced through Streetgangfilms, and Tim Richardson, the photographer I mentioned shot it with me. The reason this is on the Vitamin website blows my mind, its like they took any quicktime I left behind and just threw it up on the site.

    nice one guys.

    • its funny you point out that nike spot in this discussion, as had I not known where/who it came from, I would have thought it was done by Nagi Noda.

      • Nagi Noda, really? Has the artist ever even filmed/photographed any men before? I wouldn’t have thought of Noda as much as Tim Richardson (http://www.timrichardson.tv/), a photographer who actually collaborated with Vince on the project I believe.

        …ryan

  13. Let me be even more blunt, because this is not bickering, it’s informing young designers who strive to become directors…

    Vince and myself both worked at Digital Kitchen, a work-for-hire company. We ACD’d and CD’d several jobs there, all of which we put a lot of work into and sometimes single-handedly helped the company win.

    Upon our respective departures, we were basically able to represent all of that work regardless of our role as something we did FOR DK. This came to bite us when Vince and I rejoined forces to direct at Vitamin, but two things to note.

    1. We came together at Vitamin for one very specific reason: Because we were told and ensured that our work there would not be work-for-hire, but commission-based DIRECTORIAL projects. Meaning Vitamin facilitates the production and post-production of jobs we in some way-shape-form direct.

    2. We were very soon after starting served with papers by DK informing us they would sue us if we even remotely showed any of our work we did while working there.

    In hindsight, we understand the sentiment as we are complaining about it right now. At the time, we were outraged and upset at such an insult given the blood-sweat-tears we gave over to them as a company.

    In the end, however, it’s all about protecting yourself. Vince and I went to some lengths to try and do that, but since our departure, Vitamin have continuously mis-represented their (and our) roles on the jobs that (in my opinion) are noteworthy projects on their reel.

    What happens when a call comes in through their reps asking after the person who directed the McDonalds stop-motion work. What do you think Vitamin will do?

    Those are the questions that can put someone’s career in the balance.

    When DK was a fledgling boutique just on the heels of Six Feet Under’s acclaim, their DP was mis-representing the title sequence as something he directed. Why would he do that?

    To get work from it, obviously. But it also put DK in a bad position, because any and everyone that DP lied to would have a false impression of the reality that it was Danny Yount at DK who in fact directed that sequence.

    …ryan

    • In Conclusion:
      1.) Vitamin, Just add a proper credit list to the work. I mean this obviously a widespread problem beyond this example. Studio credit lists are much easier to compile than Feature Film credits, yet the Feature lists are more extensive and thorough that most VFX / Design studios credits. shit they even credit the Accountants and Craft Services. Studios need to loose this “protectionist” attitude and realize artists like Vince & Ryan are a necessity to create certain work. They need to be adequately credited. Studios don’t want to admit to agencies who is truly doing the work, no more than the Agencies want to admit to their client who is truly doing their work. This is definitely a huge trickle down problem.

      2.) Open discussion and opinion on how studios have properly and improperly handled these situations is bad business. This is a quick way to burn bridges with people, studios & agencies in turn you are loosing potential new business. Contact the studio directly to hash out any legalities over crediting, if that doesn’t work and you are that passionate about it get a lawyer.

      3.)Otherwise, Don’t bitch. Grinding it out and making great work will keep your bank account full.

  14. NLS…. you nailed it. Especially #3.

    Charlex, you are next. Ryan the CREDIT MONSTER is coming for you soon.

    Get those credits up or you will feel his wrath!!!!

    • @awesome

      I just don’t want someone else profiting off of my own directorial work. What’s so wrong about that? I worked for over five years as an ACD and a CD and I have no trouble with those companies not crediting me. It’s different when you are directing work and bringing it to the production company you work with.

      …ryan

  15. The obvious solution is to take the work off the reel. I’m in agreement with Ryan on this, a director needs to protect authorship.

*