RSS
Movie Industry: Live By Royalties, Die By Royalties
from the funny-how-that-works-out dept
One of the things that has always been part of the problem with the entertainment industry's business model is the idea that any time any of its content is used for anything, the industry needs to get paid. Most of the rest of the world works in a work-for-hire world. You get paid to do a job and then you're done. The factory worker gets his salary and doesn't make extra royalties every time one of the widgets he builds is sold or resold. Otherwise, you get weird situations with people whining that they need to keep getting paid for work they did 50 years ago. Of course, if you're from the entertainment industry (and I can already hear you readying your replies), you insist that this is how it must be done -- despite plenty of evidence that it need not be done this way (and that doing it that way can limit the potential market for the content). Apparently, however, the movie studios disagree with you. Well, partly. They agree that's how it must be done when they're getting paid money. So every time a movie is being shown or sold, you better believe the studios want their cut. However, the studios feels quite differently when they have to pay money out. That's why they're trying to negotiate residuals out of the new writers' contract. That's right. Suddenly, the movie industry that insists it must get paid for every possible use of a movie, doesn't think it makes sense to pay the writer after the initial set fee for writing the movie. It actually makes much more economic sense for the writers to be paid a straight fee with no residuals -- but it's a bit hypocritical for the Hollywood studios to claim it makes sense when it benefits them and doesn't when it costs them.
50 Comments | Leave a Comment..
- Open Offer To Chris Dodd & Cary Sherman: Meet The Internet Online And In The Open
- NY Times: RIAA & MPAA Exaggerate Piracy Impact Stats... But We're Going To Assume They're True Anyway
- Hollywood Wants To Kill Piracy? No Problem: Just Offer Something Better
- Hollywood Still Doesn't Realize That The Internet Drives Popular Culture Now
- Do Not Discuss The Movie You Just Saw
Reader Comments (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
It's a strange situation
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Not just writers, but actors too
Not that I think that Hollywood needs to get paid every time something of theirs is used. It makes sense that for a number of years they should get paid for replaying their movies/shows, assuming that part of the money trickles down to the bit players. But I'm still all for fair use and a limit to copyright as well.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Logic is flawed ...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
ROTFLMAO
Stop, you're killing me.......
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Residual income for writer
-Bob
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Residual income for writer
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Writing for movies in hollywood is complex
just my two cents
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Logic is flawed ...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Software Developers
I'm sure the answer many artists would give is that one is art the other isn't. I know that's true because I'm an artist too and I hear it all the time. It's a rediculous argument despite the clamour about the value of art in society. Until recent history artists were were considered tradesmen and craftsman. They had valuable talents yes, but they were paid by the gig only - as it should be. A few elitist con-men manipulated the rich and then the other classes to raise artists and their works' percieved value to society in order to cash in. Unfortunately the perception stuck.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Writers
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Logic is flawed ...
*cough* patent licenses *rough*
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
How would they live?
*sarcasm out*
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
I'm not sure that you can necessarily compare it t
But independent actors (or screenwriters) are almost universally independent. If they can't get some sort of income for the commercial re-use of their creations, then what motivates their functions? If only the very top few people can afford to make a living at acting/writing then we'll have a lot fewer actors/writers.
My line of thinking is this:
1. Copyright is a good thing, because it ensures that people who create can earn from their creation. This assumes that there are reasonable limits on the duration and scope of copyrights.
2. Copyright allows the studios to continue to make money from a movie/tv show after it's initial release.
3. While studios pony up the money for most productions, they are rarely the creators. The writers/directors/actors are. Incidentally, these are also the people least likely to be regular employees of a studio/production company and therefore the ones least likely to get a regular paycheck.
4. The studios should be forced to share the residuals with the creators of the work (actors/writers/directors/etc). Otherwise it is the studios who profit from the creative efforts of others.
I don't think that there's anything wrong with the above, as long as there are reasonable limits to the copyright. It gives an incentive to create new works, distribute new works, etc, and makes sure that everyone involved in creation and distribution gets a slice of the pie.
I know some people are morally opposed to letting people profit multiple times from a single creation, but I honestly don't think that there's a problem with it as long as it's done reasonably. In a lot of cases, it's the ability to continue to profit from works over a period of time that makes them financially viable to begin with.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Assuming risk
Sure, you can take a lump sum payment or a salary from someone who can afford the risk. But thats not always the best way to extract value from a project if you can afford the risk of failure.
It's not about being art or elite, although people on both sides of the discussion would like to make it so.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Logic is flawed ... and not the "Ideals"
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Actors used to get regular paychecks from studios, John Wayne did, and that's why he has so many movies under his belt.
Actors rebelled and wanted freedom, it wasn't until the late 60's and early 70's that actors started receiving residuals from the productions they were in. Basically, all the unions, as unions do everywhere, destroyed the structure of the entertainment industry, and not just the actors guilds.
There is a plethora of talented actors in Hollywood, however the majority of them can't get a break. Get rid of residuals, and some of them might get that break they need or want. Let the greedy studios get their money, as they always will in the end anyway.
Maybe they will start backing down on trying to gouge the average paying citizen if they aren't being gouged by their own employees. Highly unlikely, but maybe.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
So not only are they...
But if it weren't for the fact that a lot of writers would get screwed out of money I'd say let them have their way with those new contracts...and then see how long it takes for writers to simply stop signing those new contracts. Yeah they can rig those contracts to say whatever they want but they make the writers sign them.
And I'd like to see the day that other industries start coming after the enteraintment industry for similar royalties:
General Electric wanting to get paid for each time a recording studio uses their already paid for lights.
Car (or any product) companies wanting to get paid every time a movie is played with their cars (or products) in it. I'd like to hear Pontiac, Ford, Hummer, and Chevy have this conversation with the recording studio behind Transofrmers.
Or my favorite. Does this mean that movie studios should be paying media player manufacturers? Because without all those Magnavox, Pioneer, Toshiba....ect. players out there there would be no way to watch all those movies right?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Not just writers, but actors too
ur saying that for the big actors the residual income isnt so important cause they get million dollar contract but for the smaller actors it makes a difference.
to my knowledge only the big actors get a residual income the smaller actors just get there salary for said scene or movie if they have a major part.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Makes sense
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
> Wayne did ... Actors rebelled and wanted freedom,
> it wasn't until the late 60's and early 70's that actors
> started receiving residuals...
The decline of the contract actor/studio system was certainly part of the demand for residuals, but an even bigger reason was technological.
In the heyday of movies, say the 1930's to mid-50's, once a movie had been through first- and second-run theaters, it was so much celluloid in a can. Residuals were basically irrelevant, because there essentially was no income after the movie had had its day on the screen, for the vast majority of films. Most of John Wayne's movies from his prolific contract days were shown and forgotten during his lifetime.
It wasn't until the advent of TV that the studios realized that they were sitting on a gold mine of old movies which hadn't been shown in decades. That's when residuals started to become an issue - the studios were making money renting movies for TV viewing, and the actors and writers wanted a cut. Even then, though, the number of times a movie would be shown was limited.
The second wave came when home video became possible with VCRs, videodisk, DVD, etc. For the first time, a movie could be sold over and over again, not just for one Monday Night Movie a year but every day in every town in America. All of a sudden people all down the chain began to view movies as ongoing day-in/day-out cash generators.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Not just writers, but actors too
2. Learn to spell.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Logic is flawed ...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Residual income for writer
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:Travis O
Sorry Travis, but 99.9999% of all code written isn't patentable and most the rest, as we all know, shouldn't be. Second, patents don't give you a lifetime (and then a considerable some) guarantee of earnings with every USE (in many cases). Thirdly, for the vast majority of engineers and programmers anything they "create" becomes the property of their employer and any residual income from patents and licenses goes into the employers pockets.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Software Developers
Regardless, I don't think a developer should be getting paid forever after for every use of their code, sorry. It doesn't make sense for them or for me any more than it does for the studios, and it seems to me that folks like us arguing we should get royalties because they do obscures the fact that it doesn't make economic or cultural sense for anyone to control the flow of ideas and information the way current copyright and patent laws enable certain industries to do.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
RE: I'm not sure that you can compare it
Oh, you mean like a IT contractor or consultant, or perhaps contracted programmers? Someone who works based on the need of his potential clients? If I work as a contracted programmer I am being creating something, but I generally just get paid per hour, or task.
}} 4. The studios should be forced to share the residuals with the creators of the work (actors/writers/directors/etc). Otherwise it is the studios who profit from the creative efforts of others.
I strongly diagree. The studios shouldn't be forced to do anything. They should have the freedom to contract or employee people with any conditions that people will accept. I do think what they are trying to do is hypocritical, but I don't see anything wrong with it. If you don't think you are getting a good pay for the work you are doing, you can choose to do something else or work with group of people so you have a better negotiating position.
In IT, and almost every other field there are 'creators' that don't get paid for every time their creation is used. A Microsoft programmer doesn't get a cut of the money every time Word is sold or used, the investors get a cut.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
yes production workers earn a constant salary. however so do actors. they work on a movie... get paid and have to look for another job.
it's like an engineer that has to reapply with his company after he does a project. or when a factory worker gets moved from procution to packaging or w/e.
but once they leave, they aren't entitled to any compensation for items they created/designed or w/e.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
t wasn't always that way. A very long time ago actors, musicians, artists and other creators were paid by the job! Like everybody else. Elitist arguments like "well art is different from other kinds of work" are nonsensical and don't hold water.
I think they should go back to working for hire. Nobody else expects to get paid by royalties. I'm a writer and once I've created an article or story, I get paid for it once and move on to the next job. People can feel free to use my works as long as they give credit where credit is due. They don't have pay me over and over again to read, refer to or use my work in their own projects.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: ROTFLMAO
So stop making us conservatives look like a bunch of knee-jerk, close-minded bigots, okay?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: RE: I'm not sure that you can compare it
You're confusing residuals with points. Big name actors can often negotiate for a cut of the box office take, video sales, etc. Those are points. Residuals are payments made for re-showings and sales that are distributed to all of the actors (at least the ones in SAG). Oh, you mean like a IT contractor or consultant, or perhaps contracted programmers? Someone who works based on the need of his potential clients? If I work as a contracted programmer I am being creating something, but I generally just get paid per hour, or task.
If you're not happy with your contracts then you can always negotiate for better ones. Unfortunately for you, most companies looking for contract/consultant work are looking for a person, any person, who can do some specific task. Whereas in Hollywood they're looking a person with a specific look and sound and body type and voice and acting ability and so on who can play a specific role the way a single person envisioned it. That makes contract programmers less scarce and more interchangeable than most actors.
Think about what happens if you eliminate residuals in the future. The income that actors receive from residuals goes away, and instead that money goes in the pockets of the studios. That's what the studios want, because it's a short-term game. But if the actors' incomes from residuals goes down, then their rates for work will probably most likely go up to compensate for it. Either that, or each actor will have to negotiate individually with studios for contracts for higher pay or a cut of residuals. It would almost be easier if there were some sort of standard for this...oh wait, there is.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: ROTFLMAO
By "LEFT Coast" I mean exclusively the pseudo-liberal entertainment types -- greed masked as virtue, committments made on tissue paper, lies as a way of life.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Not just writers, but actors too
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: WhatTECH?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Why is entertainment so important
P.S. No one ever said they had to be actors.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
We're not like you ordinary folk, really ...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: anti-union lunacy
I'll let you in on a secret that everyone knows about organized labor. If there were no unions then all these actors you think would be "get that break" would be paid even less than they are now. Companies, whether they are studios or coal mining companies, will pay as little as possible so that they take home the most money. This is done on the backs of working people.
I realize that the exorbitant amount of money that writers/actors/directors (not to mention athletes) make is skewing this view. My point is, regardless of how much the artist is making, the studio head is making the lions share in spite of the fact that these movie wouldn't exist without these artists.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Residual income for writer
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Not just writers, but actors too
I am an actor who works for scale quite a bit. And then I get residuduals when a TV show is re-run.
If you are an extra, you get no residuals.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: So not only are they...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: RE: I'm not sure that you can compare it
The fact of Friends being such a hit is the combination of the writing and the acting, and the studio that produced it made a TON of money. So the actors joined together and negotiated their first contract renewal to a phenomenal $1M per episode (which, let me tell you, is WAAAAAY above scale) for each of the 6 of them. This is not because they are greedy bastards who always want moremoremore. It is because they recognized the market value of their work. If the studio was going to rake in dollars, they should get a piece of it, because without them, the studio wouldn't get those dollars; therefore, *they* make the difference.
By the way, as an actor who usually works for scale, I'd just like to state for the record that most actors don't make bazillions of dollars. The few who do make it look like all actors get paid that much, but we don't. It can be difficult, grueling work, and it's really much harder to do than most people think it is. The good actors make it look easy, but it's not.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
If you work live, you do get paid for the gig and that's it. Actors who originate roles on Broadway don't get residuals when someone else plays the role -- it's done. It's only when you add technology (life filming or recording) that residuals are involved, because then a producer/studio is using my "one-time" performance again and again.
If someone wanted to reprint your article in a book, would you expect to get paid?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Why Royalties Exist
As someone above also mentioned, portions of these royalties get paid to others involved in the creative process, from directors and producers for a job well done, to writers for their creative products, to actors for the usage of their likeness. However, the lighting guy doesn't get paid for his job, because its not a form of intellectual property nor is he contractually entitled to royalties. He's a day laborer and is paid as such.
Similarly, your factory worker building the widget is simply a laborer with no contract guaranteeing him any rights to future payments. HOWEVER, the inventor/engineer who designed the widget and patented it does receive future payments, because its his intellectual property. Now it was messed up that the studios tried to withhold some of the royalties from New Media from the writers, but in the end justice prevailed. So let's all embrace an economic situation that allows us to get rich for something we haven't worked on in years. :-)
-K
p.s. Check this out for more info on how Hollywood royalties and residuals work.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
megaupoad downloading
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Logic is flawed ...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Logic is flawed ...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: RE: I'm not sure that you can compare it
then they will be turned into storyboards
then cameras will be arranged for direction notes
actor notes
director notes
dialogue is only what is needed
modern movie business
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Add Your Comment