if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained?"
-- Chief Justice John Marshall, Marbury v. Madison, 1803
“Okay Fink, let’s chow.”
by
Although I’m not a big fan of unions, I find myself somewhat supportive of the WGA. They don’t seem to be asking for anything unreasonable. In fact, some of their demands sound completely fair. To not give them residuals on shows that are shown over the internet seems similar to the kind of crap the music labels pull. See, they have control over how much is given away as “promotion” and they don’t have to pay you on that. In fact, some contracts even add the cost of promotion to your “account” so you end up paying for promotion that you can’t control before you ever see a dime. The studios are now streaming shows over the internet and they argue that it’s promotion. However, they’re selling ad space along with those streams and the WGA argues that they should get a share of that. Also, both the music and TV/film industry contracts are riddled with ridiculous language related to specific technology and mediums. Just because a technology is new, doesn’t mean the content creator shouldn’t share in the profits.
Anyway, here’s a fairly simple explanation of the WGA position:
I should admit my bias here. I have a friend on the verge of his “big break” and it’s on hold due to the strike. I really hope it works out for him.
Update: Production managers walk with the writers so now things are really heating up. Production will be stopped sooner than first thought.
Comments
Seems hard to argue with, the % they are talking about seem pretty small as well.
Maybe the other side can produce a slick youtube video pointing out their positions, then we can get both sides of the coin.
Perhaps I am off base (and if somebody is in “the business” maybe they can correct me) but I always thought writers were one spoke in the entire wheel of a tv show. Aren’t writers paid on scale, much like the gaffers or the film splicers or the caterers or even the studio sweepers? Don’t they get paid the same wage regardless of if the show bombs or takes off? Isn’t it the actual studios that assume all the risk, that if shows do well they make more money but if shows bomb then they LOSE money? Since the studios assume the risk shouldn’t they make the profit? I do not see scale paid writers taking any risks in this endeavor and don’t understand why they are getting any royalties now (you don’t see gaffers getting royalties or caterers getting any).
Isn’t this analogous to somebody starting up a sofware company. He hires engineers to write software programs. The employess are all salaried, they get paid regardless of how well the business is doing. Then one day he makes a deal with HP to have his virus protection software bundled with every new HP computer. The owner is now rich and to show his appreciation he gives all his engineers big bonuses.
Does each engineer deserve a royaltie or a percentage of every new HP computer sold?
Perhaps I am off base (and if somebody is in “the business” maybe they can correct me) but I always thought writers were one spoke in the entire wheel of a tv show. Aren’t writers paid on scale, much like the gaffers or the film splicers or the caterers or even the studio sweepers? Don’t they get paid the same wage regardless of if the show bombs or takes off? Isn’t it the actual studios that assume all the risk, that if shows do well they make more money but if shows bomb then they LOSE money? Since the studios assume the risk shouldn’t they make the profit? I do not see scale paid writers taking any risks in this endeavor and don’t understand why they are getting any royalties now (you don’t see gaffers getting royalties or caterers getting any).
Carteres have little to do with quality of the output, they do a job - to an expected standard. Their job istn’t creative.
Actors, writers, products etc do. In the same way an author will get paid based on how many sales g through, so do writers.
Yes, writers appear to have a salary - but part of the salary they get is based on royalties. That is how it has worked for a long time, the studios are just trying to change the rules now because the medium of distribution has changed.
And getting payments based on success of your product is not just about taking on risk. All sorts of positions get bonuses - and even in your software example often a company will motivate their employees with stock options.
I spent some time yesterday reading over the whole thing, and as much as I despise unions, the writers guild makes an excellent case and the opposition comes across like a bunch of world class jerks.
Carteres have little to do with quality of the output, they do a job - to an expected standard. Their job istn’t creative.
Yes but good caterers facilitate the production, and a bad caterer can hamper it, so each studio will hire the best caterer they can find, just like writers.
Actors, writers, products etc do. In the same way an author will get paid based on how many sales g through, so do writers.
So are you saying that producers and directors get royalties as well? They are afterall part of the creative process.
and even in your software example often a company will motivate their employees with stock options.
I should of stipulated, my software example was not a public traded company (stock options would of convoluted the premise)In this company the engineers are paid a good salary to be creative and design software but shoulder no risk, in this example do these engineers deserve a royaltie on each HP sold?
I guess my question is this, do the writers deserve any royalties at all or is it just because it has always been this way, they are going more on precedent than actual fairness?
Maybe the other side can produce a slick youtube video pointing out their positions, then we can get both sides of the coin.
That would be great. I’ll post an update if someone sends me a link. My suspicion though is that they have a far less palatable position and don’t really want to have to defend it in public.
Isn’t this analogous to somebody starting up a sofware company.
I think that some software engineers do get a royalty if that’s the deal they worked out with their employer. By and large though, they don’t. If you develop a patented algorithm while working for a company, the company will most likely own that without owing the engineer anything.
I guess you could argue that no one should have a contract that includes any kind of royalty or residual. I think the difference is that the WGA members are engaged in an artistic endeavor which is not a sustainable profession without this model. It’s pretty standard for writers (TV/Film or music) to be paid a residual.
Gaffers, caterers and stage crew are a totally different thing.
Yes but good caterers facilitate the production, and a bad caterer can hamper it, so each studio will hire the best caterer they can find, just like writers.
Yes, but good food won’t make the studio billions and bad food make the show fail. People are paid on performance when their performance is essential to the output. It istn’t for carters, cleaners etc but is for actors, producers and writers.
So are you saying that producers and directors get royalties as well? They are afterall part of the creative process.
Yes, I believe they do; and in fact they want the same sort of deal regarding royalties paid on work distributed on new media; they have seperate unions so part of the reason the studios is paying hard ball is their negotiations come up afterwards and whatever is agreed here will set the tone for that.
I should of stipulated, my software example was not a public traded company (stock options would of convoluted the premise)In this company the engineers are paid a good salary to be creative and design software but shoulder no risk, in this example do these engineers deserve a royaltie on each HP sold?
I guess my question is this, do the writers deserve any royalties at all or is it just because it has always been this way, they are going more on precedent than actual fairness?
Software generally dosen’t work on a royalty basis, people either get equity or bonuses. I give the people who work for me a bonus based on their work and how well the software has sold.
I think part of the reason for this is software is a lot more complicated an industry, there are all sorts of ways to price things and a fixed % really woulnd’t work. For writers they have a negotiated settlement that can work across a whole industry which is really only possible because there are only a few suppliers (the studios).
This is also part of the issue. With tens of thousands of software companies, there is a market clearing rate for wages/rewards. For tv shows the studios work as an oligopoly. This is just a response to that, the workers acting as monopoly supplier to counter the oligopoly studios.
I guess my question is this, do the writers deserve any royalties at all or is it just because it has always been this way, they are going more on precedent than actual fairness?
I support their getting royalties because they are creating something and the residuals provide incentive to create something with a lasting effect. It’s not an issue of whether or not they deserve it as much as it is a model that is appropriate for the profession. Many writers would not be writers for very long if they didn’t have the residuals to sustain them when they aren’t writing. It’s in the studios best interest to keep writers as writers.
Also, no offense to caterers but how many caterers are out there compared to quality writers? How important is catering in the process compared to the writing? When you have a skill or ability that is considered special or critical, it will always be compensated accordingly. Residuals are one way that happens.
Many writers would not be writers for very long if they didn’t have the residuals to sustain them when they aren’t writing.
I think this is an important difference between a writer and a programmer. Programmers can work all year round, you don’t get “programmers block”. Writing seems to be something quite different. There also is a lot more job security being a programmer.
Thanks gripe and padders for well thought out arguments.But this is why I would like to hear the other side’s position. It does not appear that the writers are asking very much, yet studios are willing to shut down over this. Yes, greed is a motivating force, but I wonder why the studios would go to the mat over a pitance.
On at least some show, actors have refused to cross the picket line: THE OFFICE was the first I heard of where the actors were refusing to come to work, although I’m sure there are others. And HEROES filmed an alternate ending to one of their episodes so that, if the writers don’t return soon, they can just end the season early.
Any fans of STTNG? The last time there was a writer’s strike was when the show was gearing up for its second season. That’s why it had four episodes less than any other season and such wonderful gems like “The Child” and “Shades of Grey.”
"but I wonder why the studios would go to the mat over a pitance.”
Rich—Because there are other strikes coming up, and if the studios cave to the writers’ guild, they’ll only make things more difficult for themselves in the coming months.
Yay, now I’m totally stoked to finish film school in 2 months when the industry is shut down. I dread getting stuck working in reality tv. Or is this not expected to last that long?
This seems like a simple case of the market at work. If the writers are worth their demands, the networks will rewrite the contracts. If they aren’t worth it, the networks will hire some other set of writers. The invisible hand will do its job and we’ll all be better off for it.
Next entry: How come you guys can can't make my shoes smell good?
Previous entry: Give 'Em an Inch..
Seems hard to argue with, the % they are talking about seem pretty small as well.
I think part of the problem is the actors/actresses get paid such a massive % that there is less in the pie for everyone else. It’s perhaps that that needs to change.