Updating an older project film: retain, revise or retire

1. Record the reason for reviewing it

Identify the trigger before requesting a general refresh. The trigger might be a factual correction, a changed role title, a project moving to a later stage, new brand material or a different intended audience. Those situations may need different responses.

Find the exact film and version being discussed. A shortened copy, a social edit and the original main film may contain different statements.

• Film title and version:
• Original project and period shown:
• Reason for review:
• Person who raised the issue:
• Current or proposed use:
• Date a decision is needed:
• Owner responsible for the review:

Keep cosmetic preferences separate from changes affecting meaning. Both can be discussed, but they should not be confused when deciding whether a current use is appropriate.

2. Decide whether the changed detail alters the meaning

Compare the film’s wording with the context in which it is now presented. A film clearly describing an earlier project stage may remain accurate as a historical account. The same material could mislead if a new page or introduction presents it as the current state.

Ask the relevant project owner to check the point rather than assuming that every old reference is wrong or that every old approval still covers a new use.

• Statement or image being questioned:
• What was accurate at the time shown?
• What is different now?
• How the current presentation could be understood:
• Evidence or owner who can confirm the difference:
• Context needed for a fair account:
• Decision still required:

If a material question is unresolved, ask the responsible owner whether the affected use should pause while it is checked. Do not settle a rights, confidentiality or factual question simply by adding a new date to the filename.

3. Map the change across the whole release

One change may appear in several places. A role title could be spoken in an interview, written in a lower-third label, included in captions and repeated on the page around the film. Updating only one of those places could leave the package inconsistent.

Make one entry for each affected element:

• Main film or short version:
• Spoken words or interview passage:
• Picture, label, diagram or end card:
• Captions, transcript or other text alternative:
• Thumbnail, page description or accompanying copy:
• Publishing destination and owner:
• Change needed, or reason no change is needed:

Check the actual published copies where possible. The approved master and an older downloaded copy may not be the same version. Record what you inspected so the next person can follow the decision.

4. Choose a response to discuss

Use these working decisions to organise the review. They are not technical instructions or promises about what can be edited.

• Retain: the existing film remains accurate and appropriate for the intended use.
• Retain with context: the film still serves its purpose, but the surrounding explanation needs a clear date or qualification.
• Investigate a revision: a defined change is needed and production should assess the available source material and work involved.
• Replace or retire from the current use: the film no longer explains the required story, or an unresolved issue prevents that use.

Ask the original production contact what files and materials are available before treating a revision as straightforward. A change may affect an interview, music, graphics, captions or several exports. Existing retention, revision and handover arrangements should be checked rather than assumed.

5. Work through a fictional review

Imagine a fictional project film was made during an early construction stage. A team now wants to put it on a page describing the completed project. The old film might accurately show the earlier stage, but the proposed page could imply that those pictures represent the finished result.

The review could decide to keep it as a dated progress record, commission a new account of the completed work or assess a revision using suitable approved material. The decision depends on what the page needs to explain and what evidence is available. Replacing the title card alone would not change what the pictures show.

This invented example demonstrates a maintenance decision. It does not describe a Live Images project, establish that older footage is available or promise an included update.

6. Close the decision and keep the release consistent

Name one person to coordinate the result. If a revision is agreed, identify who will check the changed meaning and who will update the destinations. If the decision is to retain the film, record why and when it should be reconsidered.

• Decision and responsible owner:
• Versions and destinations affected:
• Approved context or revision brief:
• Production assessment or quote needed:
• Reviewer of factual changes:
• Publisher replacing or withdrawing each copy:
• Current approved version location:
• Next review trigger or date:

Use the publishing handover checklist when updated files are ready. For comments on a newly prepared revision, use the feedback worksheet. This maintenance record explains why the change was needed and where it must take effect.