Threaded Order Chronological Order
| re: You are fundamentally incorrect. | |
| Posted by: ryhog 11:33 pm EDT 05/29/23 | |
| In reply to: re: You are fundamentally incorrect. - sondheimobsessed7090 09:42 pm EDT 05/29/23 | |
|
|
|
| I would say that what you are doing here is advocating for theatre authors, which is you job and that is fine. You say that union members have a leg up over writers in the theatre but I think a lot of people would beg to differ. A writer in the theatre owns the sine qua non of every production and can negotiate as they see fit. Every other person is replaceable. When they succeed, there is no cap on the upside for the writer; and it is the gift that keeps on giving: an annuity. Obviously for a WGA writer who is a one-hit wonder, it's one and done. I'll take the annuity of the theatrical one hit wonders without blinking. It's pretty facile to say that employees may be better paid in the moment than a playwright. Ask your writer clients if they would rather have the WGA deal. If the answer were yes, the League would jump on it. (And it is laughable to think that the cash flow would be significantly higher. ) Which brings us to your second paragraph. The simple answer is, what you are proposing is intellectually untenable. It's not some mysterious "law." It is the same principle that applies across the board. I have a friend whose family owns a small chain of high end dress shops. The top sales people make more than the owner. But when they die, their heirs do not inherit anything. This notion explains this situation and it has been thus since the invention of capitalism. As I say above, if the DG seriously decided it wanted to be a group of "laborers" rather than owners, they can become employees and the producers will become rights holders. But you can't have it both ways: there is no version of economics in which that can be validated. Owners work hard as hell. Walk into most nice chef-owned restaurants and you will find that the hardest workers are the chef and their dishwashers. You say "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." Guess what? Any writer who wants approval over orchestrations (or casting, or the color of the set, or anything else) just has to have their agent or lawyer negotiate it in their contract. Writers in the theatre have something quite precious: control. The theatre is a crazy business but most of the people I know who have chosen to jump in have an abiding faith in the success of what they believe in. That's true of producers, writers, and everyone else who has a stake. They don't want to give up what is precious. |
|
| reply to this message |
| re: You are fundamentally incorrect. | |
| Posted by: sondheimobsessed7090 12:14 am EDT 05/31/23 | |
| In reply to: re: You are fundamentally incorrect. - ryhog 11:33 pm EDT 05/29/23 | |
|
|
|
| This is still tangential to the thread, but I wanted to clarify this for you since you clearly are not fully educated on the topic of authors and how it works, and as I actively want these laws to change I wouldn't want misinformation to be spreading on this. Owners of restaurants and Authors are not at all in the same boat, Authors don't set wages of anyone, they don't employ anyone, but ultimately set by the producers, they actually don't always have full control, that has to be negotiated, they actually will get a royalty that's mutually agreed upon, that royalty is significantly smaller than the amount that an owner of a business would take home.And often in exchange for producing the work, a producer will demand to get a percentage of an Author's royalties for future productions for a certain number of years, on Broadway, this can be up to 50%. (Non-profits less, but can be up to 10%, with the occasional one taking more than that) A freelancer is a different thing than a business owner. The idea that "there's no version of economics in which this can be validated." is absolutely untrue - actually other countries (I can't speak for every country, but the countries I deal with the most UK and Canada) both have a Writers Guild that can both collectively bargain and protect copyright. The US is actually the odd man out here, and although there is a bargained agreement from decades ago for Broadway only (not off-broadway or regional), the Dramatists Guild is not able to renegotiate that very outdated deal and update terms for writers based on new technology and realities, because of current antitrust legislation in the US. FYI I can promise you that most of my writing clients would prefer the WGA deal, but the point is that it shouldn't be an either/or. You're right that it's negative for TV/Film writers to and frankly part of what's allowing studios to become more and more conglomerates because they own all this IP rather than the authors. But the people writing for TV/Film bargained by the WGA are much more likely to be able to live off of what they make in the room. Unless you happen to write a hit musical that plays on Broadway and is available for licensing, it's almost impossible to make a living in theater - and the folks who can are very very rare - you wouldn't say that everyone would prefer it if you understood how rare it is. Of say, 100 clients, I'd say one of them makes a living off of their theater income. On the other hand, every single one of my clients who is working in TV/Film is supporting themselves with that income. Everyone else in theater has to have a full-time other job, a wealthy spouse or other familial support. To try to put in perspective for you - a writer who recently had a show at a major theater off-broadway only made $10,000. This is for something they worked on for years, specifically with this theater, on top of the three weeks of rehearsal, two weeks of previews, and rewrites outside of rehearsal. and they ended up having to do a lot of marketing and community outreach work themselves for free. The lowest level staff writer in a TV room would make $10,000 in about two weeks. As I said, the Dramatists Guild, along with other writing organizations, have been advocating for years to change these antitrust laws. Here's a letter from them recently detailing why these laws should change. https://authorsguild.org/app/uploads/2023/04/Creators-Together-Collective-Action-Rights-Letter-4.27.23.pdf |
|
| reply to this message |
| re: You are fundamentally incorrect. | |
| Posted by: ryhog 12:56 pm EDT 05/31/23 | |
| In reply to: re: You are fundamentally incorrect. - sondheimobsessed7090 12:14 am EDT 05/31/23 | |
|
|
|
| I could just as easily say that you need a good deal of education. I don't know you and you don't know me so let's just deal with what we don't have to make assumptions about. Some of this takes us pretty far afield from this thread and this board so I will try to keep it short and sweet. First of all, no one doubts that, in terms of present dollars, TV/film pays better. That is partly because of the revenue differential and also because of the copyright belonging to the studio. Nor does anyone doubt the long term value to the writer of a successful Broadway show. Second, there is no direct comparison with the landscape in another country where, often, a corporation owns the copyright, and/or the compensation looks quite different. Likewise, we function in this country and while one can lobby, it is important to understand that the proposed legislation, even if passed, would not make DG a union. Moreover, it is of course naive to think that adding to existing upfront amounts would not have collateral effect on total potential compensation. Third, what you say about DG renegotiating a non-existent collective contract makes no sense. There is no contract, just a model, and that model can and is updated whenever it is deemed appropriate. Fourth, what you say about your clients and what is (partly) in that letter does not jibe. Allowing the DH to function as a union would not alter the dynamic; it just allows collective rather than individual bargaining but in no way suggests what you are saying. Moreover, what you say will come as news to anyone who reads the DG website or other materials that is clearly mindful of what is and is not possible and also of the bedrock primacy of copyright and authorial control. I encourage you to spend a little time when you can understanding the laws, the legislation, and the DG. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: You are fundamentally incorrect. | |
| Posted by: sondheimobsessed7090 01:40 am EDT 06/03/23 | |
| In reply to: re: You are fundamentally incorrect. - ryhog 12:56 pm EDT 05/31/23 | |
|
|
|
| As I said - in the countries that I referenced the author owns the copyright and they have a union collectively bargaining for them. You can look up the Union negotiated deals in Canada and the United Kingdom and see that property rights are included in them. The proposed legislation would not make DG a union, it would give Dramatists the ability to form a Union while retaining copyright, and/or for the DG to start a process to becoming a union. The situation with the APC being an outdated agreement is complicated, but I realize that there's just not enough room to explain it here, but as someone who has negotiated them, I can tell you that what you're saying is not accurate. I'm confused by you saying that something that I literally pulled from the DG's website, (and they release a letter like these basically every year, to revamp an argument about that legislation) doesn't jibe with what's on the DG website and other material.....that just doesn't make sense. Basically you're saying this comes as news to you, and because you hadn't noticed it on the DG website before it didn't exist? But whatever - you seem to just want to say you're right, if you want to continue to make points that contradict actual facts, I suppose I should give up on trying to communicate to you. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
Time to render: 0.020733 seconds.