Those who support writer's strike
- Thread starter Charli
- Start date
- Status
adkimery
Veteran
The home video market is changing direction and the WGA wants terms that factor in those changes. The WGA isn't trying to re-invent the wheel here. If your cut is dependent on the delivery format (TV, VHS, DVD, download, etc.,) it would be kind of stupid to let yourself be cut out of the delivery format of the future, wouldn't it?
Part of the problem, IMO, is the corps not honoring their contracts by using semantics and creative accounting to keep money that should contractually go to someone else. When complete TV shows w/ads get delivered via the internet and a corp dubs them "promotions" so they don't have to pay residuals that's not honoring the contract, IMO. The AMPTP obviously wants wiggle room regarding internet downloads and streaming that is favorable to them and the WGA doesn't want to give it. The WGA tried to be the nice guy in 80's and got severely burned. They aren't going to make that mistake again.
-A
Batutta
Major Contributor
No, the contract isn't the law. It only gives someone the right to sue if the agreement isn't honored. Even then you're not guaranteed the court will decide in your favor. I'm talking about a law on the books protecting writers from being screwed out of their intellectual property rights...I know that will probably never happen, but it's the reality that unless you conrtol the means of production, your just an employee and will be treated as such.
Capt Quirk
Veteran
I have to step in for a second here... the writers may put the idea into writing, but all they are putting into it is time. It is the studio that puts the important part of the equation into it- money. No money= no cameras, actors, no props... all you have is a book.
Without any one contributor, there would be no show.
Writers, who sometimes do double duty as show-runners (executive producers / producers) are the heart and soul of the show and absolutely drive the creative. Not the suits. Not the production company. Not the studio.
As it is with every other craft, the writer is protected by a thorough collective bargaining agreement. Since the last major agreement in 1988, DVDs have come and are starting to go. Now, there are (unforeseen in 1988) new delivery formats that must be added to the formal agreement.
The networks are having the WGA members write webisodes or are building re-edits of member's original work into webisodes ("promotions"), which they then place into emerging, advertising-laden delivery segments and realize revenue from same. WGA members must receive what is contractually due them.
Saying a contract "is not law" is an opportunistic twist on what is enforceable reality. A contract constitutes a legally-binding agreement between two disparate parties. They have agreed to the terms and conditions set forth therein. Period.
If the current contract doesn't adequately or clearly provide language and protections for either party, both have the right to renegotiate at any time during the contract period.
Which WGA did. In earnest.
When no agreement could be reached (not that the nets were actually negotiating), the WGA made the tough decision to ask its entire membership to put down their pencils and stop working until the new agreement could be forged. The money has stopped coming in - for everyone but the nets.
DGA and SAG will soon be addressing these same concerns. IATSE, which I am a member of (IA600 East), most often has no absolutely residual interest in the shows we contribute to. That's our deal, and I'd recommend membership in the IA to anyone here who disdains the idea of residual ownership.
IATSE and the Teamsters support WGA in this current action.
This forum is made up of people who wish to someday be a part of the system, or make a "real feature" or be a part of a "real show". At the same time, some here profess to be mavericks bent on turning over the unions and remaking writers into janitors who have no share of the shows they clean up on.
Why not go after the real estate agent and their 3%? Commissions for stock brokers? It's really not their stock that they're trading anyway? People should just go to work for $38k a year and be happy. The definition of "residual interest" will be confined, soviet-era-style, to our boyhood infatuations with Lindsay Wagner or Lindsay Lohan. I don't even know what the heck I'm talking about at this point. Still, I'll go on...
Residual interest is how it works for content creators in the business of print, music and film. They each have their own hard-won system of practices. To lament it is to fight the entire system you want access to.
You have a completely bankrupt understanding of what goes into creating filmed entertainment if you believe for a moment that a writer goes to work, punches a clock and simply puts dialogue on paper to collect his paycheck. It's time for the nets to do what is right by the people who truly underwrite the shows that are their bread and butter.
e
Writers, who sometimes do double duty as show-runners (executive producers / producers) are the heart and soul of the show and absolutely drive the creative. Not the suits. Not the production company. Not the studio.
As it is with every other craft, the writer is protected by a thorough collective bargaining agreement. Since the last major agreement in 1988, DVDs have come and are starting to go. Now, there are (unforeseen in 1988) new delivery formats that must be added to the formal agreement.
The networks are having the WGA members write webisodes or are building re-edits of member's original work into webisodes ("promotions"), which they then place into emerging, advertising-laden delivery segments and realize revenue from same. WGA members must receive what is contractually due them.
Saying a contract "is not law" is an opportunistic twist on what is enforceable reality. A contract constitutes a legally-binding agreement between two disparate parties. They have agreed to the terms and conditions set forth therein. Period.
If the current contract doesn't adequately or clearly provide language and protections for either party, both have the right to renegotiate at any time during the contract period.
Which WGA did. In earnest.
When no agreement could be reached (not that the nets were actually negotiating), the WGA made the tough decision to ask its entire membership to put down their pencils and stop working until the new agreement could be forged. The money has stopped coming in - for everyone but the nets.
DGA and SAG will soon be addressing these same concerns. IATSE, which I am a member of (IA600 East), most often has no absolutely residual interest in the shows we contribute to. That's our deal, and I'd recommend membership in the IA to anyone here who disdains the idea of residual ownership.
IATSE and the Teamsters support WGA in this current action.
This forum is made up of people who wish to someday be a part of the system, or make a "real feature" or be a part of a "real show". At the same time, some here profess to be mavericks bent on turning over the unions and remaking writers into janitors who have no share of the shows they clean up on.
Why not go after the real estate agent and their 3%? Commissions for stock brokers? It's really not their stock that they're trading anyway? People should just go to work for $38k a year and be happy. The definition of "residual interest" will be confined, soviet-era-style, to our boyhood infatuations with Lindsay Wagner or Lindsay Lohan. I don't even know what the heck I'm talking about at this point. Still, I'll go on...
Residual interest is how it works for content creators in the business of print, music and film. They each have their own hard-won system of practices. To lament it is to fight the entire system you want access to.
You have a completely bankrupt understanding of what goes into creating filmed entertainment if you believe for a moment that a writer goes to work, punches a clock and simply puts dialogue on paper to collect his paycheck. It's time for the nets to do what is right by the people who truly underwrite the shows that are their bread and butter.
e
Batutta
Major Contributor
Yes, but if that contract is unlawful it does not have to be honored. I could enter into a contract with someone demanding a cut of their sexual services, but pimping and prostitution is illegal. I'm on the writer's side here, I'm just saying that until they get the laws changed protecting their rights they will always be treated like ho's by the pimps. Writers create intellectual property. They should not give this away, but license others to use it. The only way to get corporations to respect this is by getting a law passed that legally prevents them from usurping these rights in a contract.
Justin Aguirre
Well-known member
Saw this a few days ago and would love to hear your guys opinions on the tactics some WGA members used.
"This morning, 18 writers were on 4th Street, between Spring and Main, disrupting filming for Warner Bros project "Big Shot." The whistles, shouting, and bullhorns were not constant, but timed when strikers heard "rolling", adding to the noise of cars passing by honking horns in support."
http://blogdowntown.com/blog/2945#comments
"This morning, 18 writers were on 4th Street, between Spring and Main, disrupting filming for Warner Bros project "Big Shot." The whistles, shouting, and bullhorns were not constant, but timed when strikers heard "rolling", adding to the noise of cars passing by honking horns in support."
http://blogdowntown.com/blog/2945#comments
In features, you've already got a deal-by-deal situation, with options and purchases somewhat satisfying the idea of a license concept. Not exactly what you're talking about, but a little closer to the idea of the writer ultimately having ownership of his work.
For ongoing TV, you're missing one thing. Many of the show writers straddle "created by" and pure work-for-hire status.
The lapsed agreement provides an intermediate level of satisfaction. If you look at the link I provided, you'll see that it is already pretty close.
To avoid adding the new segments to the 2007 agreement, the networks would have to make their accounting totally transparent to the trades if they want to to create a defensible situation where writers, directors and actors are not compensated for their work when it is distributed in derivative or ancillary situations.
That'll never happen, at least outside of them disseminating required earnings statements for shareholders. So... the networks are going to have to concede the Internet and other ancillary revenues to get back to work.
It is the only answer. Now, the only remaining question is how much?
e
For ongoing TV, you're missing one thing. Many of the show writers straddle "created by" and pure work-for-hire status.
The lapsed agreement provides an intermediate level of satisfaction. If you look at the link I provided, you'll see that it is already pretty close.
To avoid adding the new segments to the 2007 agreement, the networks would have to make their accounting totally transparent to the trades if they want to to create a defensible situation where writers, directors and actors are not compensated for their work when it is distributed in derivative or ancillary situations.
That'll never happen, at least outside of them disseminating required earnings statements for shareholders. So... the networks are going to have to concede the Internet and other ancillary revenues to get back to work.
It is the only answer. Now, the only remaining question is how much?
e
That's like equating a janitor to a writer. I mean... really? Look, the nets have been happy as hogs in ***t with what they've had - until a few days ago - October 31st. It was an undisputed agreement on both sides.
The 2007 agreement is in question and both parties have the right to not enter into an agreement they're not satisfied with. It is, despite what they might try to peddle, and at will situation.
Why should writers work without a contract? It only weakens their position. Unfortunately, the only way to leverage is to take the cow and the milk that comes with it.
On the matter of tactics. This is a vast and lucrative business. A business. When one party of the business begins to effectively steal from the another party, a lot of the rules of engagment are up for "interpretation".
e
Last edited:
Capt Quirk
Veteran
That's what they make tear gas for.
TwistedLincoln
Veteran
Just to be clear, I wasn't comparing what a writer does to what a janitor does -- I was simply suggesting that just because you are an integral part of a business doesn't automatically mean that you deserve a cut of the sales or profits.
I don't think it's fair to cheat people out of money you owe them through lawyering around with the wording in their contracts. That's not what I'm saying at all.
If you agreed to get paid to write a script for someone, you are entitled to the pay you agreed to. If later you decide that isn't enough, ask for more. If they say no, go work for someone else that recognizes your skills and what they are worth. Don't try to bankrupt them and put other people out of work just to make your point.
I'm just sick of the whole idea that just because you help create something, you should be able to control it and profit from it for eternity, regardless of the circumstances. To use a better analogy -- a construction worker puts sweat and labor into building a toll bridge. Does he deserve a percentage of all the taxes collected from people who use the bridge? Should he be able to decide who can use the bridge, and during what hours? No, of course not. This is no different.
If you create something yourself, for yourself, you have control over it, and do deserve to be able to control it -- up to the point that you transfer ownership to someone else. But when you create something for someone else, it's a whole different ballgame.
I don't think it's fair to cheat people out of money you owe them through lawyering around with the wording in their contracts. That's not what I'm saying at all.
If you agreed to get paid to write a script for someone, you are entitled to the pay you agreed to. If later you decide that isn't enough, ask for more. If they say no, go work for someone else that recognizes your skills and what they are worth. Don't try to bankrupt them and put other people out of work just to make your point.
I'm just sick of the whole idea that just because you help create something, you should be able to control it and profit from it for eternity, regardless of the circumstances. To use a better analogy -- a construction worker puts sweat and labor into building a toll bridge. Does he deserve a percentage of all the taxes collected from people who use the bridge? Should he be able to decide who can use the bridge, and during what hours? No, of course not. This is no different.
If you create something yourself, for yourself, you have control over it, and do deserve to be able to control it -- up to the point that you transfer ownership to someone else. But when you create something for someone else, it's a whole different ballgame.
Batutta
Major Contributor
I never said they should, just that the concept of not being paid residuals should NOT EVEN BE ON THE TABLE. If you, the writer, retained copyright, you would be GUARANTEED these residuals by law.
GenJerDan
Veteran
Pretty sure most don't retain copyright, but their contracts say they will get residuals....and then the accountants step in and say there are not residuals to be had. That's the part that sucks.
Personally, I think the writers should be paid more up front, and the rest treated as "work for hire" and not have to worry about money coming in later.
Personally, I think the writers should be paid more up front, and the rest treated as "work for hire" and not have to worry about money coming in later.
TwistedLincoln
Veteran
That certainly seems fair to me.
DeSica
Well-known member
Sure, but like I posted earlier....I don't think studios will go for it.
Even if they paid more up front, they'd start over paying (as the do with actors) and then crying that the system sucks because expensive scripts are bombing at the box office. Then they'd want to look for a better solution...for them.
Amazing how money always says it is the one taking the risks, but nobody put a gun to their heads. They all want to make a killing, but there is a filp side to that coin. Sometimes you take a bath. If these geniuses are the ones responsible and deserving of all credit and monies when a film does well because they ponied up the dough, who is responsible when it tanks?
Maybe they should cut studio executive's salaries a bit, and give them points instead. That way, they could pull the same crap they do with writers, and stiff them on the payouts.
I support the writers. I worked at one of the 3 big agencies for 10 years. I've seen a lot of stuff go down. You don't know the half of it. Studios and producers screw writers every which way. Even when something is in black and white, the writers still get screwed. Ask any working writer. For example, you are supposed to get paid for re-writes and polishes. For every polish you turn in, you are supposed to get paid. No ifs, buts or maybes. Contractually. And what is the reality? A writer will get "notes" from the producer, and be expected to do a polish for free - it will simply never be called a polish or re-write. Basically, work for free. And writers do it - even big writers. Because otherwise they won't get work. The guild knows about it, but nobody wants to rock the boat. So it's already going toward the model of "payment up front, and that's it, no more". It didn't use to be like that a few years ago. It's getting worse. One of the reasons I left the agency is because I didn't want to see my clients getting screwed, and not being able to do anything about it.
Whatever. I think the whole business is in for huge changes, so while I support the writers 100%, I'm afraid the whole landscape is going to change for everybody. Buckle up.
Whatever. I think the whole business is in for huge changes, so while I support the writers 100%, I'm afraid the whole landscape is going to change for everybody. Buckle up.
"Why We Fight" video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJ55Ir2jCxk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJ55Ir2jCxk
[quote="Arnold]"...the writers that are striking, they are not going to suffer," said the Governator. "Those are all people that have money."[/quote]
That's dishonest. The majority of WGA writers aren't seven-figure-deal-per-year people; they have day jobs and their writing is supplemental income. It's condescending and misleading, to suggest that the people who voted to strike, and who are volunteering their time to walk the picket lines, are so foolish that they don't even understand where their own interests lie - or that they're so wealthy that they don't feel the effects of the strike they called, themselves.
Either Arnold's so insulated from the realities of life for people working in his own erstwhile industry, that he doesn't know what the hell they're about, or he does, and he's spectacularly mendacious.
Flip a coin, I guess.
That's dishonest. The majority of WGA writers aren't seven-figure-deal-per-year people; they have day jobs and their writing is supplemental income. It's condescending and misleading, to suggest that the people who voted to strike, and who are volunteering their time to walk the picket lines, are so foolish that they don't even understand where their own interests lie - or that they're so wealthy that they don't feel the effects of the strike they called, themselves.
Either Arnold's so insulated from the realities of life for people working in his own erstwhile industry, that he doesn't know what the hell they're about, or he does, and he's spectacularly mendacious.
Flip a coin, I guess.
- Status