Threaded Order Chronological Order
| re: I query this drafting | |
| Posted by: ryhog 07:30 pm EST 11/21/20 | |
| In reply to: I query this drafting - pcot 07:12 pm EST 11/21/20 | |
|
|
|
| I'll concede it is not a model of draftsmanship, but I don't read anything to require that the show be something previously planned, which seems to be your main point. I also think 2e informs the rest. But what do I know? LOL | |
| reply to this message |
| re: I query this drafting | |
| Posted by: pcot 07:43 pm EST 11/21/20 | |
| In reply to: re: I query this drafting - ryhog 07:30 pm EST 11/21/20 | |
|
|
|
| It doesn't have to be the same show as previously planned, but it seems that it does have to directly replace a show that was previously planned for AEA to assert primary jurisdiction. And you're right, 2e initially reads as a catch-all, but the phrasing in the permissive and the location in the parameters seems to imply that AEA isn't asserting jurisdiction over the small stuff -- SAG's basically saying: If you can compel them to bargain with you for that stuff, go for it. Again, though, just ruminating, don't rely. Cheers. ~pcot |
|
| reply to this message |
| re: I query this drafting | |
| Last Edit: writerkev 06:46 am EST 11/22/20 | |
| Posted by: writerkev 06:44 am EST 11/22/20 | |
| In reply to: re: I query this drafting - pcot 07:43 pm EST 11/21/20 | |
|
|
|
| I’m no expert and haven’t digested it to the degree you have. But it seems they’re using the phase “replacement for” as another way of saying “alternative to.” Perhaps that wording might have been clearer. Seems like the spirit of the argument is about cases where a streaming presentation replaces what ordinarily would have been done on stage, rather than a literal replacement of a particular production. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: I query this drafting | |
| Posted by: pcot 10:56 am EST 11/22/20 | |
| In reply to: re: I query this drafting - writerkev 06:44 am EST 11/22/20 | |
|
|
|
| Hm. Well, I hope you're right. AEA might cite the difference from the proposed waiver language as outside proof of that reading. But these understandings have to stand up to the other person's rational reading of the deal, and the deal doesn't become less binding if the other's reading prevails. Fingers crossed. Again, uninformed speculation on my part, no real expertise to offer on it. Just a union member struck by the plain terms of the deal that seems to concede a fair swathe of jurisdiction to the moving-picture & talkies types. ~pcot |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: I query this drafting | |
| Posted by: ryhog 01:20 pm EST 11/22/20 | |
| In reply to: re: I query this drafting - pcot 10:56 am EST 11/22/20 | |
|
|
|
| re "concede," the starting point is that AEA has no jurisdiction over any of this. The deal was an accommodation to AEA in the nature of comity. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: I query this drafting | |
| Posted by: ryhog 07:58 pm EST 11/21/20 | |
| In reply to: re: I query this drafting - pcot 07:43 pm EST 11/21/20 | |
|
|
|
| when I first read it, it seemed very heavily pitched to non-profits, but apparently a commercial producer can use it too, and ticketholders or subscribers seems to cover that. Ruminate on; just don't hibernate. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
Time to render: 0.016884 seconds.