The Worst Credit Rule We Have
We have a number of credits guidelines that I consider “bad”, but one stands out as truly awful. Why? Because I don’t think it’s good for anyone.
There’s basically two philosophical credits camps among WGA writers. One camp believes that the first writer (particularly in the case of original or spec material) must be more protected than they are. The other camp believes that these kinds of preferences are irrelevant, and the rules ought to be the same no matter what the hiring chronology is.
Our current rules state that if you write an original screenplay, anyone who comes along and rewrites you must ultimately show that they contributed at least half of the final shooting script in order to even receive shared credit. Any amount less than half and you get zippo. The rule states:
In the case of an original screenplay, any subsequent writer or writing team must contribute 50% to the final screenplay [in order to receive screenplay credit].
For everyone else…meaning the first writer of an original or any writer involved in an adaptation…the threshold for screenplay credit is 33%.
This means you could contribute the same amount of material for two different movies, but only receive screenplay credit for one of them. Personally, I think that’s nuts, but that’s not the worst rule we have.
Here’s another rule. If you’re a “production executive”, which basically means director or any kind of producer, and you do some rewriting, you always have to show a 50% contribution (even in the case of adaptations). Why? Well, producers and directors have influence over the hiring and firing of writers, and so some argue they ought to be held to a higher standard. I think that’s also ridiculous (given that a contribution is a contribution no matter who makes it or for what reason), but hey, it’s still not the worst rule we have.
Remember how if you write an original screenplay, subsequent writers must show a contribution of at least 50% to share credit? Well…what if you write an original and you’re a producer on it? Here’s the rule:
In cases where the Arbitration Committee finds that the production executive has made a sufficient contribution to the final script to warrant screenplay credit, any other writer or writers employed may, at the discretion of the Committee, share screenplay credit for any substantial contribution without necessarily meeting the usually required percentage.
What that means is that if you sell a spec and are a producer on your spec, you get penalized. The subsequent writers no longer have to meet a 50% threshold. They don’t even have to meet a 33% threshold. They can pretty much get credit for “any substantial contribution”.
This is the worst credit rule we have.
Why? Well, if we believe in protecting the first writer, why are we punishing them for being entrepreneurial? The entire point of protecting the first writer is to discourage rewriting, reward the origination of the material and hopefully…in the end…enhance the prestige of the screenwriter.
Personally, I don’t think social engineering our credits guidelines will ever do that, but hey, if you believe in that sort of thing, then why the hell would you punish the first writer for getting more control over his or her project by serving as a producer???
Now, if you don’t believe in protecting the first writer at the expense of other writers but you also don’t think writers should ever be penalized for being producers, this is one limited way you can at least achieve some small progress. I don’t think we’ll ever get rid of the 50% protection for first writers, so hey…here’s a chance to at least preserve the ability to safely produce movies for some writers.
If you have to show a 50% contribution to get screenplay credit as a subsequent writer on an original screenplay, then that’s that. It shouldn’t matter if the first writer is a producer or not.
What do you think?
No wonder rewriting is perceived as half a task, minimal - even if it means wasting the essential of an entirely original text. :)
Correct me if i’m wrong, but shouldn’t this imply that a 40% credit for a rewrite simply hands over an extra 10% to the remaining 50% for something which was 100% available for collaboration? Credited or not!
While the rule reads as you’ve outlined, what is the practice applied by the arbitration committee?
If the arbitration committee consistently takes into account that the writer and production exec are one and the same, and then applies the 50% rule to subsequent writers, then the screenwriter isn’t being unfairly penalized in practice. But if the arbitration committee is, well, arbitrary in the percentage threshold, then it does seem like an unfair penalization and the rule should be adjusted to reflect more business-savvy writers.
Don’t forget this one:
In other words, it is possible for a writing team to use a spec screenplay to leverage themselves into a producing job, and then if they decide, in their roles as producers, to bring in a subsequent writer, they must show nearly double the contribution that any other writer of a spec screenplay must show (60% vs. 33%). This also means that a subsequent writer must show only a 40% contribution, as opposed to the 50% contribution required in all other instances.
This policies seem to suggest that, in the past, the WGA had a real interest in deterring screenwriters from doing anything on their own movies other than writing.
-
Ted:
Actually, the way I read the rule I quoted in the main body, I believe a subsequent writer need show only 1%, or 2%, or whatever the arbiters consider “significant”.
In short, there is no threshold anymore.
Shelley:
The short answer is, “No one knows.”
The arbiters have broad power to interpret the rules and apply them. When you give them a broad rule, they will pretty much apply it as they decide…and arbiter and arbitrary are two very close words. :)
My suspicion, however, given the membership’s antipathy towards producers, is that the rule is applied with the intent to punish the producer (and that is its intent). In practice, if you’re a producer of your own spec, I believe you are hurt by it during credit arbitrations. Absolutely.
Indeed, being a producer on your spec necessitates an arbitration…even if the only other writer did a polish on three lines of dialogue. You will be forced to defend your credit in any circumstance (other than the rarest circumstance of all…you’re the only writer hired).
Are any changes in the offing?
Jon, I wish. All guidelines changes must be voted on by the membership, so it’s a very long and contentious process.
The first thing that comes to mind is how in the world can the contribution an any writer be measured in percentage.
Can anyone measure in % the contribution of the writer who created an original concept and original characters and story? If a rewriter reworks 50% of the script, is his contribution 50%? Of course not. He didn’t start with a blank page and created the story from thin air, did he?
This sounds awful, but there’s something I never quite understood. I’ve always heard this scenario — spec writer attaches self as producer, gets the shaft on the heightened credit requirement — but there’s something in the definition of the production exec requirements in the credits manual. C.3.a (p. 23 in the booklet) says “if the production executive is the SECOND writer (emphasis mine)he/she must have contributed more than 50%” to get credit.
If the heightened requirement doesn’t kick in until you’re the SECOND writer, how is it possible to write a spec, produce it as well, and get stuck with the heightened requirement? If the heightened requirement DOES kick in for the first writer, then how come this part of the manual references the second (and presumably third or fourth etc.) writer?
It seems to me that having a percentage is not particularly helpful for anyone. All it does is tell each subsequent writer/whoever how much they have to butcher the original script to get a credit. The only thing this can lead to in this incredibly competitive industry is more rewrites as each writer is trying to (supposedly) ‘fix’ the script as well as do enough to gain credit thus furthering their own career. Surely, a simpler solution could be found that is fair to everyone and reduces the chances of rewrites needed, in turn potentially allowing a larger writing budget for each of the fewer writers.