| re: You are fundamentally incorrect. | |
| Posted by: sondheimobsessed7090 09:42 pm EDT 05/29/23 | |
| In reply to: You are fundamentally incorrect. - ryhog 11:16 am EDT 05/29/23 | |
|
|
|
| I am an agent for writers, directors, designers, and music directors, and I can say that my work for a writer is not the same as having a union. Most other artists (including the directors and designers I represent) have an agent or lawyer AND a union. These other artists 100% have a leg up in terms of advocacy for having a union. For example, when I represented a music director and an author on the same show for a short weekend run where the author was involved, because the music director also conducted, which is covered by the musicians union, that music director got several times more money than the author did, even though the author was in the room working for almost the entire process, and they essentially worked almost the same number of hours. It's relatively common for the other artists in a process to be paid more and treated better than the author is in new play processes, because playwrights are generally not being paid for their work in the room even though in a new play process they are working full days. That is because they are treated as copyright holders rather than as employees. I'm not entirely sure what you're talking about with their relationship with producers, but I can assure you that the reason they don't have a union is because the law as it stands does not allow an association of copyright holders i.e. property owners, to unionize. The Dramatists Guild made the choice to protect copyright, while the WGA in film/TV chose to unionize. That's why TV/Film writers are paid a living wage, but don't own their own work, and theatre writers don't own their own work, but are generally paid far below living wage. The Dramatists Guild has been campaigning for years to change this law so that the playwrights can protect copyright and have a union. This is all tangential to the main point, and I agree that authorial intent does not override a union agreement, unless the union agrees to it. We don't know what the subject of those discussions are. I was responding to the tone which seems to dismiss authors in favor of labor as if that authors are not also laborers who are actually at more of a disadvantage than musicians (and the musicians Union is possibly the strongest union). But my point is that if authors had a union and had a union agreement that required authorial approval over orchestrations, I'm sure there would have been an actual precedent set for situations like this in the League's agreement with AFM. |
|
| reply | |
|
|
|
| Previous: | You are fundamentally incorrect. - ryhog 11:16 am EDT 05/29/23 |
| Next: | re: You are fundamentally incorrect. - ryhog 11:33 pm EDT 05/29/23 |
| Thread: |
|
Time to render: 0.201831 seconds.