I Guess I Was Ahead Of My Time
Conspiracy?Some people are obsessed with the grassy knoll. Others are sure that 9/11 was the first time fire ever melted steel (except for every single day in every steel mill in Pennsylvania, but hey, Rosie O’Donnell knows best).
In the WGA, there’s only one conspiracy theory worth talking up, and lo and behold, it’s the strange case of Foreign Levies.
This is gonna be a long one, folks, so bear with me.
Last week, no less than three articles were published about this topic. The Los Angeles Times, Fade In Magazine and the L.A. Weekly all weighed in, and with varying degrees of accuracy and sensationalism. Prior to this, I guess the only person really interested in this topic (who isn’t a conspiracy theorist) was me. I wrote an article about foreign levies, and if you want the rest of this piece to make sense, you should probably go read that first.
Before I go into my analysis of the current brouhaha and the players involved, I should note for full disclosure that I spoke with Richard Verrier (the author of the L.A. Times article) on background, and I went on record with Stefan Avalos, who wrote the Fade In article.
Here are some facts.
In 2005, a class-action suit was filed against the WGAw, with William Richert as a named plaintiff, alleging that the WGAw had no legal standing by which they could collect foreign levies, and furthermore, they weren’t distributing them.
Also, a former staff employee at the WGAw named Terry Mial was recently fired. Mial, who had been working in the department that distributed foreign levies, is suing the WGAw for wrongful termination.
One last fact. There are some people who believe that the entire foreign levies program is a massive scam designed to steal money from writers and divert those funds into the pockets of highly placed Guild employees and political muckety-mucks.
I think Verrier wrote a very balanced piece, which you can read here. Avalos also did a very thorough job, and I also found him to be extremely balanced and fair-minded. You can read his piece here (the layout is odd…his article starts on the right side, but once you get past the first bit and hit “continue”, the formatting improves).
And then there’s Dennis McDougal at the L.A. Weekly. His article was awful. I understand that the L.A. Weekly doesn’t exactly “do” journalism the way everyone else does…his piece is a hybrid of reportage and opinion…but it’s such a nightmare of misinformation, it belongs happily nestled between ads for prostitutes and pitches for laser vaginal rejuvenation.
Hey, the L.A. Weekly’s gotta make money somehow…
Anyway, I think all of this publicity was precipitated by a recent court ruling in the Richert case. The Guild, represented by General Counsel Tony Segall, argued that the case should be heard in federal court (nb: Tony is really the WGAw’s outside counsel, but ever since the in-house general counsel was summarily fired by Patric Verrone and David Young, Tony has served as outside and inside counsel, an arrangement that makes me a bit squeamish, although I continue to hold Tony in high regard).
The guild wanted the case in federal court, because it apparently believed it would prevail on the basis that they had not violated the Labor Management Relations Act. See, part of the plaintiff’s anger is at the fact that the WGA and DGA share the foreign levies with the MPAA companies. The WGA wanted the case to be heard on those grounds in federal court (which governs the LMRA), because they were pretty sure they hadn’t violated that law.
And they probably haven’t. However, the judge turned down their request, and remanded the case back to the California courts, because:
Plaintiffs here do not allege that defendants breached their duty to collect or disburse foreign levies under the agreement. Rather, they allege that defendants have illegally converted funds that rightfully belong to plaintiffs by holding themselves out as having the right to collect foreign levies on behalf of non-members without having obtained the non-members’ authorization to do so.
Got that? The judge is saying, “The guys aren’t saying you screwed up by making a bad contract under labor law, they’re saying you screwed up by collecting this money in the first place without asking permission from the people on whose behalf you’re doing this.”
As to whether some limitation of rights occured (which is central to the question of whether or not the plaintiff’s case has merit), the judge said:
By providing that the Guilds would receive less than 100% of the author’s share, the agreement clearly limited plaintiff’s right to receive their full share of the foreign levies. The court therefore concludes that the agreement contains ‘clear and unmistakable language’ circumscribing plaintiffs’ rights.
This is certainly true. If you live in Europe and write a movie there, you retain copyright, and you get 100% of the foreign levies due the author of that movie (which would be 50%, actually, since the director gets half…I think…this may vary from country to country). Through their efforts to get that money out of Europe and into our hands here in the U.S., the DGA and the WGA had to deal with the fact that the talent are authors there but not authors here. Hence, the compromise to avoid litigation that led to the 50-50 split with the companies.
It’s important to note that while the Judge believes the agreement circumscribes the plaintiff’s rights, I don’t think her ruling implies that it does so illegally. That’s still up to the state courts to decide…although I must remind everyone that I’m a layperson. I’m playing the home game along with the rest of you.
As an aside, the plaintiffs sought legal fees from the WGA, but the judge didn’t grant those, because she felt the WGA’s position wasn’t frivolous.
As for Terry Mial, here’s what we know. We know that she claims to have complained a lot about the way foreign levies were being disbursed. We know that she alleges that she was cooperating with a Department of Labor investigation (although there’s no other evidence to date that such an investigation exists, formally or otherwise). Lastly, we know that she told a coworker to keep quiet about the alleged investigation or “I’ll have to kill you.”
Joke? Threat? I have no idea. It got her fired, though, and she’s charging that her termination was retribution for whistle-blowing, rather than murder-threatening. I do know that under Patric Verrone and David Young, the WGAw has become a fire-happy termination festival, with heads steadily rolling since they took power. Some of the costs of that sort of management style are resentment and lawsuits.
Reap/sow, etc.
Personally, I think you probably do have to fire anyone who makes a serious death threat. Let’s see how that case winds up.
Before I get into what the L.A. Weekly article got wrong, let me first talk about what I think the critics of the foreign levies program get right.
The star of McDougal’s article is Eric Hughes, former Guild candidate for President and general WGAw gadfly. I think Eric is a bit unhinged about all of this, and I know he’s certainly wrong about some things, but all in all, I don’t blame Eric for any of his more…shall we say…exciting theories about foreign levies.
It’s the L.A. Weekly’s fault for publishing them without checking facts.
Still, there are some things about foreign levies that trouble me.
First, while I’m basically on board with the concept that without the WGA stepping into the breach, none of this money would find its way to us, I’m growing increasingly impatient with the guild’s inability to do the job competently. It’s not the baloney accusations about “hiding money from easily-found widows” that bothers me (most of that stuff isn’t true, e.g. I hear that Preston Sturges died intestate, his heirs are apparently battling for his money, so the guild doesn’t know to whom his levies should go).
I’m more concerned about the bureaucratic inefficiency. Granted, the Guild was swamped by more money than it knew how to distribute, and granted, the paperwork it often gets from the foreign countries is insufficient or nonexistent. Still, you shouldn’t take on a job if you can’t do it right. While things are getting better, they’re not what I’d call “good.” If the Guild can’t manage to clear out all of the funds it’s holding within two years, it should wave a white flag and give someone else a try.
Second, according to the guild’s own internal investigation of the foreign levies money, $17,000 is missing. Unaccounted for. They’ve turned the results of their investigation over to the police, but how could this have happened at all? Where are the safeguards and procedures to prevent what sounds like outright embezzlement? While $17,000 is a pretty small amount in the grand scheme of the many millions that foreign levies bring in, it’s still seventeen thousand dollars.
I think the membership of the Guild deserves to know who, if anyone, is being investigated, and who, if anyone, has been put on leave or suspension over this incident. It’s incredibly embarrassing and disconcerting, particularly in light of the fact that the conspiracy theorists insist that people are stealing money hand over fist from foreign levies. I keep saying “No, there’s no proof!”, and now, apparently, someone has stolen some money. Arghh. If you can’t keep the cash safe, then stop collecting it.
Third, and why Hughes and Co. don’t spend more time complaining about this I don’t know…is the foreign levies deal with the MPAA a collective bargaining agreement or not? If it is, then why didn’t the membership ratify it through a vote? Our constitution clearly sets out the circumstances under which collective bargaining agreements should be ratified, and I think the language is incredibly clear: all CBA’s must be ratified, in one way or another, no matter what type they are or function they serve.
If the deal isn’t a CBA, then was the WGAw, as a labor union, legally entitled to make it?
Fourth: When I spoke with Patric Verrone to learn about foreign levies, he told me (accurately) that if the Guild doesn’t shift undisbursed levies into the union’s general fund after seven years, those funds would escheat…or default…to the state.
Here’s Avalos on that.
Keeping undistributed money from escheating to the state seemed a reasonable attempt to keep it safe for the writers not yet found, especially if “escheat” were synonymous with “forfeit.” Unfortunately, that was not the case.
Folks, I certainly thought escheat was synonymous with “forfeit.” I was wrong.
According to the California state controller website, “The Unclaimed Property law was enacted to prevent holders of Unclaimed Property from using your money and taking it into their business income. This law gives the State an opportunity to return your money and provides California citizens with a single source, the State Controller’s Office, to check for Unclaimed Property that may be reported by holders from around the nation.”
Hmmm. Okay, but all things being equal, why let it escheat?
And unlike the WGA’s five percent administrative fee, the state charges nothing to a claimant. Its service is free.
Oh. Right. Hmmm, not good.
Wouldn’t it therefore have made more sense for the WGA to let the unclaimed money escheat instead of holding on to it?
Well, from the perspective of a recipient of those funds, I think yes, yes it would make more sense to let the funds escheat.
Eric Hughes questions the legality of the guilds’ policy of keeping the money: “Unions do not have to allow money to escheat if it’s ‘dues-able’ … Once the member dies, the member no longer pays dues, so that money must escheat. Money for nonguild [members] has to escheat immediately.”
I’m not sure if his legal analysis is correct or not, but I think he’s on to something. It’s not necessarily good for the union, but it’s probably the right thing to do. Frankly, why shouldn’t members’ money escheat if the WGAw can’t find them or doesn’t know to whom it should actually go?
Contradicting the 2003 WGA newsletter, Segall denies that any principal amount of undisbursed money has ever moved from the levies fund into the general fund. “The only money that has ever flowed into the general account is interest on the money held in trust and, in the last couple of years, the five percent administrative fee.” Segall wouldn’t elaborate on how money, undelivered for more than seven years, had avoided escheatment, but felt the guild was handling it properly.
Ouch. I hate reading stuff like this. I don’t like it that our union put out a statement in 2003 that our general counsel is now saying is false. I also don’t like it that Tony is claiming that money that should be escheating isn’t escheating and not because it’s in the general fund, but he’s not gonna say how the WGAw is doing it, but it’s “proper.”
I generally give Tony and the union the benefit of the doubt, but I think after misplacing $17K, losing a fight in federal court, getting slapped with a wrongful termination lawsuit and contradicting union publications, I’m owed a better explanation as a member. I think we all are. We should know exactly why the WGAw isn’t letting the money escheat, and we should know exactly how the WGAw isn’t letting the money escheat.
This is why, in a way, I’m happy that guys like Eric are around. Does he seem to have an irrational vendetta against the WGAw? Yes, he does. Is he right about everything he says? No. Is he occasionally right? Yes. Is anyone else as publicly assiduous in their attack? No.
Eric is like a car accident. You don’t deserve to get hit by another car, but it’s one of the only ways you’ll find out if your airbag is working, ya know?
Still, like a car accident, conspiracy theories don’t care whom they hurt. Nor do the proponents of conspiracy theories care for truth. They begin with assured, preconceived notions, and then build cases.
That’s why they say silly things a lot.
(Ed. Note - 5/10/07 - I’ve now had a lengthy discussion with someone close to Eric, and as a result of that discussion, I wish to offer this limited apology to Eric Hughes.
Eric…if you’re reading this…I’ve unfairly associated you with some people who purport to speak on your behalf. I understand now that they do not, and will no longer tar you with that brush. My apologies.)
Here are some excerpts from the L.A. Weekly article that I find objectionable.
Since 1990, these critics contend, the guild has quietly been paying a king’s ransom in writers’ foreign earnings—far beyond the $20 million in withheld checks already acknowledged by Gor—to powerful Hollywood entities without the writers’ agreement or knowledge.
I think what “these critics” are contending is that the writers share in foreign levies money with directors and the MPAA companies. This is a matter of public record. Hell, I’ve written about it here on my blog. It’s possible that writers don’t know about it, the way that many citizens haven’t read the 9-11 Commission report, but that doesn’t mean that fact is being hidden, nor does it justify the use of the word “quietly” in the above paragraph.
The L.A. Weekly has learned that the Department of Labor has been quietly gathering evidence and testimony about the guild’s payment practices for over a year—though it refuses to confirm or deny that it is investigating.
Uhhh…..huh? If the DOL refuses to confirm or deny it, then how does the L.A. Weekly know this? If they have some evidence, why not share it with the rest of us? Why should Eric Hughes and some guy at the L.A. Weekly enjoy the privilege of that knowledge while the rest of us dues-paying schmoes get left out in the cold? If the DOL is investigating the Guild and there’s evidence of it…PUBLISH IT!
If not…why allege it without evidence?
Moreover, on April 12, a 27-page ruling by Los Angeles federal District Judge Margaret Morrow appears to have granted the writers some legitimacy, by rejecting the WGA claim that, as a labor union, it could collect and hold their money—and charge them hefty fees to boot.
I’m not sure that’s what the ruling said. There’s some tricky wording there…re: “as a labor union.” The WGA may still prove a right to collect and distribute (and hold, I suppose) that money, but outside of the federal statutes specifying management-labor relations. That’s the reason there’s still a trial yet to come. This seems unnecessarily misleading to me.
The controversial but, to many, compelling argument made by Hughes, Richert and other critics is that foreign levies are being withheld by all of Hollywood’s talent guilds in a long-standing practice they see as a bizarre twisting of U.S. copyright law.
That virtually unnoticed 1990 decision, by the guild’s board of directors, to funnel more than 90 percent of American writers’ foreign earnings to big studios and other fat cats, mirrors an old practice struck between screenwriters, actors, directors and the studios in the 1940s shortly after the WGA, Directors Guild of America and Screen Actors Guild were born—and conceded authorship of the movies they created to the studios.
Boy, where to begin on that doozy? I’m glad that an alleged “many” find Eric’s argument compelling. First off, Eric’s premise is incorrect. He believes that writers and only writers are due the foreign levies from movies and television. My understanding is that many countries (if not most) recognize that directors and writers share in the authorship of film and television.
Next, who needs pointless language like “fat cats” in there? “Fat cats?” Really? That’s how journalism goes these days? Anyway, the numbers are off. The early levies deals were bad, but they’ve grown increasingly better. Currently, writers are due 25% of foreign levies. The directors get the other 25%, and the AMPTP gets 50%. I’d like to think that when this deal expires, the breakdown will be even more favorable.
The truly big whopper in the above excerpt, though, is this nonsense about the guilds ceding authorship to the studios in the 40’s. Work-for-hire, the uniquely American quirk of copyright that allows a corporation to commission a work and retain copyright, has been applying to motion pictures since 1912, not the 40’s. Decades before the Guilds ever came into existence, Congress ruled that motion pictures (yes, they specified them) fell under work-for-hire. They don’t have to be created under work-for-hire, but they can be.
Because work-for-hire existed, screenwriters and directors couldn’t exercise copyright claims, nor could they license their work. They were, by dint of work-for-hire, employees. And guess what employees can form?
Unions.
The unions didn’t give away copyright to the studios. They unions were only possible because work-for-hire had already been introduced thirty years prior.
A furious Mial started smuggling out of the gleaming glass WGA headquarters records of “undeliverable” foreign levies—essentially, piles and piles of payment records and mysteriously uncashed checks reviewed by the Weekly, which she claims she rescued from the guild’s shredder.
“Gleaming glass?” Jesus, McDougal…have you seen the place? Gleaming? I guess gleaming sounds more evil or something.
I like the quotes around “undeliverable.” Beats having to write out “allegedly undeliverable,” which is accurate and responsible, but not as much fun.
By the time she left last June, she says, the bookkeeping had become so egregious that checks were cut, held for several months, then declared “undeliverable”—after which they were escheated back into WGA bank accounts, allowing the known totals of undelivered payments to swell far beyond $20 million.
Either she’s right, and the Guild is in serious trouble, or she’s really bad at figuring out what’s going where, in which case it’s probably for the best that she got fired.
Until her own death last November, Preston Sturges’ widow, Sandy, had been equally outspoken. At the same time that the guild invited her to unveil its new Preston Sturges Reading Room at the WGA West headquarters at Third and Fairfax in the summer of 2005, her late husband’s name appeared among the long roster of “undeliverables” in the guild’s foreign-levies division. Mial testified in her deposition in the Richert case that she knew of at least one check for $5,000 that Sandy Sturges was never paid—and had documents proving it, which were obtained by the Weekly.
As mentioned above, Preston Sturges died intestate. This is a bad example to keep banging on, because it’s the easiest one to explain away.
But in exchange for a large up-front payday and the promise of future residuals, all of Hollywood’s guilds “assign” copyright to studios, and have done so for more than two generations.
A massive untruth. The Guilds do no such thing. You know who “assigns” copyright to the studios?
We do. The writers. By our own choice. Me, Ted, Eric Hughes, all of us. There’s nothing stopping us from insisting that we retain copyright on our spec scripts, agreeing only to license the movie rights. Completely kosher, and we wouldn’t even have to pay the Guild dues.
Problem is that the studios won’t do business like that. They refuse. The Guild’s MBA is the minimum agreement we follow when we choose to abide by the studio’s terms. It is not some institutional infringement of our rights in any way.
Guild vice president Carl Gottlieb, in a posting to a popular WGA members’ blog called Writer Action, says the foreign-levies diversion scheme was originally hatched in 1990 by two studio lawyers and then-WGA executive director Brian Walton.
Carl isn’t the VP of the Guild. David N. Weiss is. WriterAction ain’t that popular (I’m just being bitchy now, but honestly, it’s the same 30 people talking over there), and the foreign levies program really isn’t a “diversion scheme.” That’s laughable. I guess the L.A. Weekly is a “print ‘journalism’ scheme hatched to lure men to so-called ‘massage’ girls who advertise in the smeary-inked pages.” Sigh.
“Under labor law, ratification is not required,” the WGA’s Segall tells the Weekly. “We don’t read it as requiring ratification.”
Hughes maintains otherwise, saying, “No union has the right to go in and negotiate without the consent of the membership”—not to mention nonmembers or the heirs of dead members.
See, this is what’s frustrating about Eric. He should follow this line of inquiry. Not the baloney moustache-twirling “save the widows from the Gleaming Glass Fortress” stuff. I think Eric has a real case on this point. And it’s not labor law that’s relevant. It’s the WGAw constitution, which is a binding contract between the union and its own members. The constitution demands ratification, regardless of whether or not the law says you don’t have to do it.
But in the end, after all this hullabaloo, here’s the messy truth, far from the world of accusations of theft and evil and so-forth.
The messy truth is that foreign governments collect money for the authors of movies and TV.
Those of us who work in Hollywood are and aren’t the authors of these things. We are in name, we’re not in law.
The foreign countries don’t recognize that corporations can hold copyright.
On the other hand, once the money crosses our border, our laws apply.
Big mess.
One day, maybe they’ll work this all out in The Hague. Given the nature of the international wheel of justice, I figure it will all be settled by 2040, after a few hundred million in legal fees.
What the WGA, DGA and MPAA did was a smart compromise.
Unfortunately, it might not hold up in court.
If it all collapses, we will lose. Of that much, I’m sure. Hughes and Co. believe that the money will finally flow directly to us, and they’re wrong about that. It will be a massive legal battle, and God only knows what we’ll get.
In that sense, I hope they fail.
On the other hand, institutions can’t expect to to build a house of cards in service of a good ideal, because those things never last. Bad structures inevitably fail. It may be that the Guilds’ foreign levies structure is fundamentally flawed.
In a year or two…or fifty…we may find out.
You’re part of the problem, who’s paying you off, conspiracy, lies, watch the skies, mwrah mwrah mwrah. Hiccup!
You asked: “….Third, and why Hughes and Co. don�t spend more time complaining about this I don�t know�is the foreign levies deal with the MPAA a collective bargaining agreement or not? If it is, then why didn�t the membership ratify it through a vote? Our constitution clearly sets out the circumstances under which collective bargaining agreements should be ratified, and I think the language is incredibly clear: all CBA�s must be ratified, in one way or another, no matter what type they are or function they serve.
If the deal isn�t a CBA, then was the WGAw, as a labor union, legally entitled to make it?…”
We have asked, Sweetie, we have, many times. Answers vary, from “We did this so it wouldn’t come up every MBA negotiation” to “It was the settlement of a legal issue, not something mandated in the MBA (though it is.) There are problems either way. It can’t be a collective bargaining agreement because it never got to the membership. It never even got to a full meeting of the BoD; it was an Officer Determined Matter. The problem with the Foreign Levies deal as a settlement of a legal dispute is that the Guilds involved did not have standing to make the deal for non-members, and possibly even for members. Kind of a head scratcher, isn’t it?
No studio employees were involved in the “hatching,” unless you count Robert Hadl, who was retired and available when the Guilds (WGA & DGA both) hired him. What he learned in 30 years of specializing in international financing, production. distribution, quotas, national treatment, etc. at MCA under Wasserman is almost unknowable by anyone else.
Also, a careful reading of the Judge’s decision suggests a “careful what you wish for” to the Plaintiffs. Without the Guild to bargain for them collectively, they may (after prevailing at trial) only win the right to take an extensive tour of the Continent (and Argentina), introducing themselves to each of the foreign collection societies, proving their identities, authorship, and entitlement, and collecting from each society individually in perpetuity. And probably paying Euro taxes on their new-found wealth. The Judge’s careful denial of legal fees suggests the plaintiff’s have a few more checks to write before their share of foreign levies comes rolling in.
Fortunately, Euro lawyers charge a lot less than their US counterparts. Unfortunately, there will be a lot more of them to pay, when (and if) Plaintiffs begin their “Collection Societies of the World Tour - 2010.”
You know, Craig, you and Verrier shouldn’t be messing with the police to try to find an angle to distract people from the real story of 20 million unpaid to this bullshit $17,000. The police have got better things to do with their time, and they aren’t interested in being used for PR spin. Especially to cover up an ongoing criminal investigation by the Feds.
Verrier said that the evidence was being turned over to the DA. That’s in print. Tony Segall was quoted saying it. But you know what? The DA didn’t get it. Now you’re saying it’s being handed over to the police. I hope you’re right about that. But then the LA Times is clearly wrong.
I hope you’re correct about this “evidence” being handed over to the police. I hope you back it up in a future post.
Because if you’re just making all this shit up, watch out dude, you stepped over another line.
Nice spin job! Your motives are not completely transparent or anything.
Enjoyed that piece a lot. It’s a shame that the Guild is being painted with this broad, unflattering, brush. There are many dedicated people, with the best of intentions, working hard on behalf of writers. Will they ever be smart enough, efficient enough, open enough, or good enough to satisfy writers? Nope. Is there room for improvement? Of course. These are complicated matters, but it continues to surprise me that writers are so ready to attack the very people (some would say the ONLY people) fighting their fight each and every day.
Will…okay, I’ll bite.
Which way was I spinning?
Your readers might find this informative. Not that facts play into any of this issue, of course:
http://wga.org/subpage_newsevents.aspx?id=2363
Wow, that WAS long. I have only two thoughts:
“The directors get the other 25%, and the AMPTP gets 50%.”
I thought it was the MPAA?
“Beats having to write out allegedly undeliverable, which is accurate and responsible, but not as much fun.”
Oh, come on! Give the guy a break. He was working under the constraints of a word count - or something. Adjectives like “gleaming” and nouns like “fat cats” have to come at the expense of something.
Just how many class action suits are there involving the Guild? Having just joined, I received the request to have my financial history supplied to the plaintiffs on the age discrimination suit and I thought, all yours, guys. Go with God. This one I’m not so sure about. I still receive foreign SAG residuals on stuff I did in college — 15 years ago. The last one was eighty-six cents. So I’m not holding out much hope for the Swedes owing me much on my writing. Sometimes the insiders forget that so many of us are so overwhelmed by our struggle to become one of you that we can’t imagine a larger cause than that to take up. I had to read your post twice to have maybe eighty percent of an idea what you’re getting at. And yet, I somehow sense that it’s important. Maybe it was the length?
Here’s an interesting fillip to all this …
There seems to be presumption, writ large in McDougal’s article but also touched-on-by-omission in the other two articles, that when it comes to the blank tape levies, any disputes over authorship will be settled under the jurisdiction of the country where the work is exploited (ie, the foreign country where the private copying take place), rather than the country where the work was created (the U.S., natch).
This is a rather important issue, since in the U.S., the Company that produces a movie is almost always recognized as the author of the screenplay and the movie, due to the work-made-for-hire law. However, under the laws of the countries in question, authorship is defined very simply:
(I’m citing Austrian copyright law throughout, but on these points, its similar enough to the laws of the other countries that it really doesn’t make a difference).
And how does the law determine who that person is?
So, failing proof to the contrary, the person credited on the work as the author shall be presumed to be author — that is, the person who created it.
Now we get the aspect of these countries’ copyright laws that has no equivalent under U.S. copyright law: Protection of Moral Interests; that is, the moral rights of authors set forth in the Berne Convention, which includes the right to attribution. Again, quoting the Austrian copyright law:
So if, for some reason, the person credited as the author on, say, a screenplay is not the creator of the screenplay … it’s within the creator’s rights to claim authorship.
And, presumably, if the creator can provide proof of his claim, he will also have the right to the appropriate author’s share of the levies — regardless of who was credited as the author on the work itself.
Now, here’s a little known fact: a unique condition of the WGA Minimum Basic Agreement is that the on-screen “Screenplay by” credit does not recognize the person who was employed in the job of “writer” — it actually recognizes what’s called “screen authorship” of the final script.
Since the usual manner in which the author or authors of a screenplay are designated is screen credit … under the laws of these countries, these are the people who are presumed to be the authors, and so these are the people who are entitled to appropriate author’s share of the levies.
Problem:
As I said, the U.S. does not recognize the moral right of attribution. Screen credit is not a function of the droit d’auteur; screen credit is not mandated by the right to attribution. When it comes to movies made under Guild jurisdiction, screen credit is a form of compensation as term of an employment contract (for all individuals, not just writers).
And that employment contract — the MBA itself, which sets forth the terms by which the Company shall give screen credit — would serve as proof that individuals designated as the authors of screenplays are not necessarily the creators of those screenplays … and so are not entitled to receive the appropriate author’s share of the levies.
Where all the writers who participated in making contributions toward the final script agree with the credit, there’s no issue — but what of the instances where the participating writers don’t agree with that determination?
There’s a number of rather well-known instances of writers who believe they were forced to share credit unfairly, or were denied credit entirely as a result of the WGA arbitration process. Michael Eddy Baker and The Last Samurai; William Richert and The American President; nearly all the writers who worked on The Hulk; and in weird reversal, the writer who received sole credit on Miracle is on record as saying he thought the other guy got a bum deal.
And, of course, there’s a faction of the WGA membership who believe that, in all cases, the first writer should receive sole credit for screen authorship, based on the argument that, in effect, the entirety of the creative act required on any movie is accomplished in the first draft, and everything after that is inconsequential to the final script.
So, basically, every single writer who believes he/she did not receive the screen credit he/she deserved — in television as well as theatrical — could have another shot at making the case that, contrary to the contractually-obligated-and-determined screen credit, he/she is the creator of the work and true author.
Actually, not just one shot: they’d have a shot in Austrian court, in French court, in German court, in Spanish court … etc. etc.
Of course, that’s accepting what seems to be presumed in all of these articles: that when it comes to a work of authorship created in the U.S. in the employ of a U.S. Company, U.S. copyright law and U.S. contract law are irrelevant to determining the authorship of a work for the purpose of dispersing blank tape levies.
Big ol’ can o’ worms, no question.
-
Craig: Thanks for going through this. Very helpful. But there is a problem you kind of skipped over. Everyone ho-hums the Guild pocketing the interest on the foreign levies and then claiming it went to cover expenses. The Guild is no more entitled to that interest than a lawyer who’s executing my estate. The interest belongs to the writers who earned the foreign levies, just as the interest in the lawyer example belongs to my heirs. The problem is even worse when you realize the Guild kept pocketing the interest EVEN AFTER it began charging 5% to the recipients. It’s not a small amount of money we’re talking about. At 6% the interest on $20 million is $1.2 million a year. The cost of processing foreign levies is a lot less than that. What happened to the difference? And what happened to the interest after the Guild started charging 5%? Fortunately the problem got corrected recently, although I don’t know if the back interest was ever returned to the funds. Regardless, there was definitely double-dipping and a misappropriation going on for a long-time. It wasn’t criminal — I don’t think anyone meant to steal anything or profited personally — but it was wrong.
PM
PM:
I agree, the distribution of interest is of great concern. A lot of what is going on seems to rise to the test of “improper” but not “criminal.”
So far, at least.
I always find it curious that keeping money owed to someone else isn’t viewed as a criminal act.
It’s legally wrong, that’s for sure.
So what is it?
It ain’t Traffic Court stuff.
Is it a matter for Civil Courts?
I guess so.
But why does ripping off millions rarely involve the police, yet stealing a tip jar always does?
They’re both crimes - but one gets the police involved much faster than the other.
I find it more than a bit disappointing, sad even, when Disney, a Corporation making $8 billion just from their studio division, signs a contract which guarantees the writers of POTC a piece of the profits for merchandising of the POTC movies…yet in the end, Disney simply refuses to pay them.
Why?
Because they can?
I guess it’s because Disney employs lots of accountants and lawyers who can make it very expensive and difficult to extract owed monies when they don’t want to pay up.
But imagine a renter refusing to pay his rent to his landlord, a cashier refusing to give you change - a boss refusing to pay his employees - all Hell breaks loose when those things happen.
So why is it “accepted practice” yet not seen as “criminal” when a corporation keeps money that isn’t theirs? How different is that from stealing?
Just my musings - I’m not privy to the internal workings of the WGA and don’t know what in Hell is going over there outside of their library.
Boy, I hope this formats right…
Craig, I’m glad you don’t feel that I twisted your words, took you out of context or made you victim to any of the other dangers that are inherent in being interviewed for this kind of story.
I did intend to write the most accurate article possible. If any inaccuracies are found, please take into consideration that — I’m human and subject to the occasional error.
Disclaimer complete.
My honest take, after speaking to a lot of people, from non-guild writers and directors on up to one of the V.P’s of the MPAA is: I think, from the Guild side, the foreign levies program was probably started with good intentions, but by people that really weren’t capable of pulling it off. Brian Walton was, at best, a sucker seen coming from a mile away. His ‘deal’ cost writers, both guild and non-guild, millions of dollars.
And as a screenwriter who has been affected directly, let me say - that really sucks.
The same thing happened at the DGA.
And that really sucks too.
Over the years, I also believe, because minimal effort and ignorance were profitable, there was abuse of the program. People other than the writers and directors the money was meant for, have been profiting with foreign levies money.
Considering the ease with which I was able to track down "unlocated" writers and directors owed money, I can be nothing but suspicious. The interest earned and kept on their money is a pretty obvious eyebrow-raiser. The 5% fee, once interest wasn’t earning enough (I’m paraphrasing Segall’s words from my interview with him), seems another uncool, and excessive thing to do. And by ‘uncool’, I hate to say it, but I do mean - criminal. And honestly, criminal or unintentional - The IRS does not forgive financial transgressions, why should we?
We need to stop drinking the Kool-Aid from the paternalistic non-writers at the Guilds, the MPAA/IFTA/Who-Knows-What-Else and form an honest to god third party collecting society. Guild Status be damned.
If Musicians can do it with, why can’t we? They certainly ain’t smarter. I hear concerns that it would be a mess, and cause all kinds of financial heartache, etc. But so far, everyone I hear those concerns from has a vested interest in the levies programs remaining at the Guilds.
Won’t know unless we try.
As things currently stand, I don’t think the best interest of the writer/director - or even the independent producer for that matter, is being represented the way it should.
That’s my take. Any longer, and this comment will begin to reiterate what I already wrote in the Fade In article.
Now, back to the 14th draft of my latest screenplay, already in progress.
Stefan:
I don’t know if the 5% is criminal or not.
I do agree that we have a situation of good intentions and bad results.
I’m with you on this. I think a 3rd party is probably the way to go, but which 3rd party? And who will hold them accountable? And what will they charge us?
“And what will they charge us?”
10%
You were right, Craig.
This was long.
But, as always, I loved the picture of money.
Craig and Ted and I have been sparing about this for years in private and semi-private.
Now that this scandal has broken to the larger blogshere, I’ll be curious how long it takes others to realize what I found out long ago.
That both of you deliberately take a simple issue “pay people their money” and then to everything you can to complicate it with irrelivant points and long discussions about details that don’t matter.
Since this first broke in the NY Times 2 years ago, the Guild has been holding onto 20 million dollars it should pay to people who deserve it. Pay them.
“The only money that has ever flowed into the general account is interest on the money held in trust.” How is this good intentions? How is NOT letting some portion of $20 million go to escheats (do we know how much?) good intentions? Letting stuff go to escheats means it’s not your problem anymore. If it’s so hard for the Guild to use google and the phone book and find these people, then let it all go to escheats! Why didn’t they do this? Because they are illegally collecting at least $1.2 million a year (as PM calculates above). The $17,000 is nothing—it’s a distraction. Writers are owed MILLIONS—how can you say it’s a case of good intentions? That’s the spin—that you’re defending the Guild for who knows what reasons… You know good people there, I’m sure, and as a writer you support the Guild, fine. Obviously not everyone who works there is a criminal, but someone is. And as they say, if you make a mistake in my favor, it’s an honest one, if you make a $20 million dollar mistake in your favor…
Will:
You’re leaping to a conclusion you can’t prove.
I believe that many of the millions will be distributed…the guild is just being very slow about it. Painfully slow.
I believe that some of the millions can’t yet be distributed because the guild doesn’t know to whom they should distribute the money. You do realize that much of the money that has come in was collected on behalf of the authors of pornography, for instance.
Ever see the names pornography writers use?
Those won’t be in the phone book.
I know that Ted and I tend to complicate things with our facts and words and laws and ambiguities. I know that makes things difficult for some people. Still, I’m not willing to sit here and print stuff under my name that I can’t prove.
I can’t prove that anyone has stolen anything…beyond $17,000.
(And what’s this talking point that 17G is a distraction? Distraction from what? How does that fact derail any of the lawsuits?)
I’m not defending the Guild. Frankly, I don’t like my union very much right now for a number of reasons separate from this issue.
I’m simply doing my duty to the facts I have. No more, no less.
I’ve never been willing to go beyond the facts I have. I have always been puzzled by people who won’t show me evidence they insist they have, and yet get angry at me because I won’t draw the same conclusions they do.
The best I can say to people who say, “You’ll see!” is “Okay!”
I’ve stayed out of this, but the porn writers thing is just so left field…. I have the feeling that if the issue was primarily the usage of pseudonyms by porn writers, there wouldn’t be a big hoo hah over all this.
So tell us, Craig - about how much of that money was slotted for porn writers? Half? Three quarters?
PS: I also seem to recall you opining that Bush was a pretty aright cat, and that we just needed to let his war plan play out before passing judgement on him, so I’m thinking maybe your track record ain’t so hot when it comes to judging duplicity and criminal behavior….
You’re right. I’m not trying to prove anything and of course I’m leaping to conclusions.
And I don’t doubt that the principal will eventually be paid to the writers—but it seems likely that millions in interest, which belongs to the writers, has already been spent (see Segall’s quote above).
But I’m glad you’re sticking to the facts and what you can prove—namely the reason they can’t track down the writers is because most of them are PORNOGRAPHERS!
If I’d have known porn writers were allowed into the Writers Guild, I would have stopped speccing screenplays and started churning out credits like BROKE-CONDOM MOUTAIN, FUCK THE MEEKERS, FISTING FOR FUN AND PROFIT and NEO-CONS AT WORK AND PLAY years ago …
Here I am trying to break into the business in a literary fashion, when all I had to do was porn - sheesh.
BUSH WARS is also a great title for a porn film, isn’t it?
And you bet, anyone who thought he was at least a somewhat capable leader is gonna be eating crow for years, and they’d better chow down with a smile.
Actually, they’re not in the guild, and this is the source of at least part of the strife.
The WGAw took on the task of collecting and disbursing ALL foreign levies on behalf of WGA members and non members as well.
The guild’s argument is that it was told it had no choice.
Regardless, the WGAw now has to figure out how to get the money out to non-members of all stripes. Many have written in animation, many have written documentaries, and yes, many have written in pornography.
Hey Craig: I’m not a conspiracy nut or obsessive-compulsive but I am upset about this pocketing-of-interest issue. I checked with some Guild staffers and they said that until the NY Times story a few years ago, the Guild devoted no more than two staff people to processing foreign levies. That’s maybe $120,000 a year. That means a million dollars a year is unaccounted for ($1.2 million in interest on the funds that weren’t distributed less the $120,000 in staff costs). Now, according to staff sources, there are maybe six or seven staffers at most processing foreign levies. Say that’s $400,000 a year. But the Guild is also charging the recipients 5% to cover the processing costs AND until recently it was still pocketing the $1.2 million a year of interest. So what did happen with the $800,000 to $1.2 million in past years? If it went into the Guild operating budget and got spent, will it ever be returned? Or will it just be forgotten about? That’s a lot of money under the bridge, a whole lot.
PM
PM:
You’re right to wonder about this. I certainly am. There are some mitigating circumstances to be aware of, however.
First, there’s a difference between money spent on dedicated staffers and money spent on staffers who work on foreign levies. For instance, I suspect Tony Segall has billed quite a few hours as an attorney dealing with foreign levies. Also, guys like Don Gor, who act as comptrollers for the entire organization, spend much of their time on these matters.
In addition to staff, there are many other real costs, e.g. computers, mailing materials, an envelope-stuffing machine (that’s one I know they actually had to go out and buy…), etc.
I wish organizational accounting was as easy as “it costs X for seven staffers…so everything above that is gravy.” It ain’t.
Also important to remember is that the 5% only applies to money that’s actually disbursed.
Now, with all that said, there is a serious problem here. Anyone with a brain can see that an organization that is earning large amounts of interest on capital will be disincentivized to hold on to that capital. Even if the interest rate is lower than the 5% it earns on disbursement (and it surely is), holding the money for a year or two or five and then disbursing it and collecting the 5% above and beyond would certainly maximize value for the institution…while minimizing value for the writer.
Here’s a thought…
We’re talking millions of dollars - owed to tens of thousands of writers! Ultimately the very succesful writers might get a check for $500 bucks - peanuts considering their salaries in the US - while the average writer might get a check for $5.73. Am I totally off with these numbers?!
Question is, is the communal effort worth the individual benefit?
The WGA shouldn’t have to act of behalf of non-members. So screw them. At the same time members could agree that all foreign levies will be spend on… say… a new shiny buidling on Sunset. Right next to the DGA! And make it ten feet taller….heh.
Obviously some people begin with the premise that the checks should be for larger amounts, but the levies checks I get tend to be in the mid three figures. I don’t think I’ve ever broken $1,000 with one of them.
My check easily broke four figures. I think a common misperception is that the big movies have the biggest checks. In fact, a lot of ‘B’ product (non-guild stuff) pulls in bigger money because it plays a lot more on EU TV, especially late night TV.
This didn’t seem to go through so I’m posting it again.
The WGA is hiring, for anyone interested. Among the jobs posted for May…
Foreign Levies Administrator, Media Relations Manager, and Senior Counsel. http://www.wga.org/subpage_whoweare.aspx?id=2353
Anyone here interested? :)
J.F. —
If you bothered to actually read the judge’s ruling on whether or not the lawsuit should be tried in state court or federal court, then you’d know that the plaintiffs are not simply demanding that the Guild pay out the money it is holding. They are also asserting they be compensated for losses — those losses being the difference between the amount of money owed to authors under the laws of the various foreign countries, and the amount of money they received or are due to receive from the Guild.
That means that the presumption of the plaintiffs is that, absent the Guild’s involvement, they would have been able to claim the foreign levy money without challenge from any production company recognized as the author under U.S. law, or they would have prevailed in any such challenge.
In other words, the presumption is that, in regards to the foreign blank tape levies, a writer who works under a contract with a U.S. Company under U.S. work-made-for-hire law is not bound by that contract or that law anywhere outside the U.S.
Obviously, you have given zero thought to what it would mean if the plaintiffs prevail on every point in their lawsuit, or how significant that would be for every writer who has ever worked under a contract of ay kind — including a union contract — with a U.S. Company under U.S. work-made-for-hire law.
But that’s because, for all your posturing, you don’t give the smallest piece of gerbil shit about the fact that screen and television writers in the U.S. have been systemically denied the economic and moral rights they are due as authors by the peculiar institution of the work-made-for-hire law.
-
Craig and Stefan are getting checks… the Guild must be doing something right.
Based on their numbers I admit my guesstimates were way off. So, eh, let them gerbils shit away! For this is an important issue afterall.
Talk about big money…
P.S. Ted, will Sparrow kick Spidey’s ass or what?!
I’m not too sure about the inner workings of the WGA but it sounds like some of the corruption that goes on within SAG (at least regarding the interest holdings).
Every production of a certain budget (I think it’s now productions over $75,000) has to post a bond to SAG in the form of a cashier’s check. Although SAG says that they will return the bond after the production has wrapped, most of the time they just keep that money in an interest bearing account for a month and sometimes more.
I know it’s not the same but it seems like the WGA has absolutely no interest in sending out those checks anytime soon until there are some real governmental inquiries.
Ted,
You say:
“But thats because, for all your posturing, you dont give the smallest piece of gerbil shit about the fact that screen and television writers in the U.S. have been systemically denied the economic and moral rights they are due as authors by the peculiar institution of the work-made-for-hire law.”
Gerbil shit.
Gerbil shit.
Yes, Ted, I don’t give a gerbil shit about your desire to talk about gerbil shit “facts” that don’t matter while people would like to be paid the money they are owed without listening to your gerbil shit reasons why they can’t.
But for you to say I don’t care about why writers are denied moral rights? I seriously fucking care.Ted, remember when you and I had a long discussion on the issue of copyright on the writeraction.com blog and suddenly you decided to delete all your posts because you didn’t like the way it was going? I deleted mine out of respect, because I din’t want to argue with a ghost, but frankly you and Craig have never been a friend of moral rights. So make sure this time you’re willing to back all the gerbil shit you are saying. (Because I have a copy of all your posts before they vanished.)
You have no respect for moral rights.
Yes, I know the studios fucked us out of moral rights in 1910 thanks to Edison, but you and Craig keep saying that’s a “good thing.” (We get health care! Like we can’t if we don’t sell all our rights away to the companies.)
Guess what, in 1989 the United States finally signed onto the idea of moral rights for writers by agreeing to the Berne Convention of 1886 (only because it was forced to by the WTO to get the TRIPS agreement.) I’d be interesting to hear your spin about why the United States waited a hundred years to agree that writers have a “human right” to benifit from their artistic creations. (Like you did by getting a piece of that Disneyland ride. Oh, right, you didn’t create that, did you? But I’m sure you enjoy the money Disney Studios pays you. Was it shortly after that you decided to run for the Board of Directors of the WGA and advise writers they didn’t have any right to copyright because of work-for-hire laws?
THE WGA IS STEALING MONEY FROM WIDOWS. I know that seems extreme, but they actively target them. Teri Mial, a WGA staffer who worked in the Foreign Levies department said that widows were given the run around until they “grieved themselves to death.” But you, Ted Elliot, don’t give a gerbil shit about that, do you?
The DGA is doing the same.
And they are both stealing money from all writers and directors.
Thank you and Craig for trying to confuse the issue with gerbil shit.
In the amount of time you devote to pretending to present facts you could try to talk to the staff and make sure at least some people owed are paid the money or find out why.
You want me to provide you with a list of the phone numbers of people the WGA says it can’t find? Would that help? Or would you just talk about bullshit legal issues that prevent you from doing anything?
No, let’s talk about gerbil shit.
Gerbil shit is small.
Like the WGA’s repeated claims that all the money involved in this is small. Small shit. Tiny shit. Tiny stinky shit.
But guess what? The shit you and Craig are in is not small. It’s huge. At least a hundred million dollars a year.
The shit you are standing in is worth tens of thousands of dollars to “each” of the artists you are trying to tell to run away.
I don’t think this time they are going to listen to you. The smell is too large.
J. F. Lawton
As the actual legal holders of copyright, what is to keep the studios from trying to secure 100% of the foreign levies money for themselves? In fact, don’t you think that’s exactly what they’ll do now that this issue is heading toward litigation? There’s a good chance that the guilds will end up with zero as a result of these conspiracy theories of guild theft.
Really, let me collect and distribute all of the money. I’ll do it for a flat 10%. After all, 10% of it is mine anyway.
This is all very interesting. I wonder how I’ll feel about the issue if I ever become a pro screenwriter…
DAYDREAM-STYLE DISSOLVE TO:
I’ll spend most of the morning writing, then I’ll spend part of the afternoon reading comics and pretend it’s research for an adaptation I’m not even in the running for, then spend the rest of the evening playing video games “to relax for a while.” Then if I get a check for $218.44 in the mail for foreign levies, I’ll be like: Oh yeah, forgot about these. I wonder what ever happened with all that stuff people were upset about.
OMG I AM PART OF THE PROBLEM!!!!!!!11!
Well, for all of J.F.’s hullabaloo, it turns out that the WGAw did go to the police over this 17K.
From the L.A. Times…
I’m happy that we at least know the name of the person the Guild suspects.
J.F. —
Yes, your disdain for facts is well-known. For instance:
We did not create the ride, but we (along with Jay Wolpert and Stuart Beattie) did create elements that are now used in the ride, and so should benefit economically from that use.
However, Disney has taken the position that we are not entitled to benefit economically from the use in the ride of the elements created in the movies.
In other words, J.F., the idea that Terry and I get a piece of that ride at Disneyland is not a fact, but is something you made up, a product of your own fevered little imagination, and completely divorced from reality.
And, of course, out of this self-created ‘fact,’ you have spun a scenario of corruption that has Disney paying me to run for the Board of Directors and advise writers that they don’t have any right to copyright because of work-made-for-hire laws.
When the fact is, writers do have a right to copyright — and they also have the right to give up any claim to copyright by entering into a contract with a studio under work-made-for-hire law, which automatically assigns authorship and initial copyright ownership to the studio.
And that is a choice that pretty much every writer who has ever sold a script to or written a script on assignment for a U.S. production company has made.
What surprised me was the number of WGA members who are apparently unaware of this.
What also surprised me was that there are some WGA members who don’t want writers to be aware of this, who would prefer that writers remain ignorant of this fundamental fact of our profession — because, if they were aware of it, that would make it a lot more difficult to sell them on the idea that the reason screen and television writers in the U.S. typically don’t own the copyright in their work is because of other writers in general and the WGA in specific.
You weren’t, by any chance, the source of McDougal’s fabricated history of authorship in Hollywood, were you?
So, yeah, J.F. — I still maintain that you don’t give the smallest piece of gerbil shit about the rights of other writers, because if you did, then you would not view my simply talking about the work-made-for-hire law and its relationship to our profession as tantamount to taking the studios’ side or the WGA’s side, and you want not feel the need to spin your little conspiracy theories in attempt to smear me.
You also would not so cavalierly dismiss how significant a win for the plaintiffs in the lawsuit would be for all U.S. writers, or how a win might impact …
… why, how a win might impact your screen credit on Pretty Woman … since it could conceivably give the other writers who made contributions to the final script the right to claim the co-authorship they were denied under the MBA.
Hm.
Sorry, J.F., I might have underestimated you. Maybe you do recognize how significant it would be if the court found that works created under contract in the U.S. are not subject to U.S. law outside the U.S.— but you’d just as soon certain other writers not be aware of it.
Keep on perpetuating that ignorance, J.F. It’s what you’re good at.
-
Wow. Just wow.
SLAM!!!! :)
Okay.
This is what I don’t understand. All of you guys obviously have a pretty vehement history but from Craig’s past articles and this one included, I’m confused as to where and how one would gather that he’s protecting the WGA in any way. I mean, he’s posted a ton of articles about his displeasure with the WGA.
It seems (I could be wrong) that he just doesn’t accept or go along with every single unfounded theory that comes along. But it’s not even that he doesn’t believe some of these theories but he doesn’t find it helpful to discuss these theories without facts. So instead, he brings up issues and topics that are backed by facts.
Craig, am I close?
Kev:
Here’s how you know you’re doing something right.
Everyone hates you. :)
You’re dead on. I’m absolutely interested solely in the truth, and truth is statements backed up by evidence and fact.
I have zero vested interest here, beyond the grand or two I earn in foreign levies each year.
I will continue to think critically and form conclusions based on evidence rather than allegation.
I can say this, however. I did have a lengthy discussion with someone close to all of this who’s on the “Guild is corrupt and bad” side of all of this, and as a result of that discussion, I can offer this limited apology to Eric Hughes.
Eric…if you’re reading this…I’ve unfairly associated you with some people who purport to speak on your behalf. I understand now that they do not, and will no longer tar you with that brush. My apologies.
I’m including the above in the article, out of due diligence and a sense of fair play.
Craig:
What’s even more interesting is that people like J.F. probably have a valid point but don’t realize that no one can hear them through the foam around their mouths.
So here’s a wacky idea. Let’s kill the insults and the erroneous personal attacks and discuss the WGA some more. I have a feeling that J.F. has some interesting and thought provoking things to say and I’d love to hear more before this degrades even further.
I’m surprised kevin is able to type with all that drool on his keys…
Seriously K, I don’t think these guys need you to mediate. Unless you have something valuable to contribute - like I do with this post - I suggest you let the adults talk and listen quietly from the peanuts gallery.
Interesting. My jury’s still out, but this is a fascinating example of… something or other.
Craig, just for the record - your notion that you’re doing something right when everyone hates you is one of the more self-serving bumper stickers I’ve seen posted here. I’m reminded of a recent interview with Quentin Tarantino in which he talked about how great the women’s dialogue was in Death Proof. There’s some things you just don’t get to say about yourself. Leave it to someone else - and not Arbouet, PLEASE - to declare you a bold maverick. You don’t get to label yourself such. It’s sorta like giving yourself a nickname.
Sometimes everyone hates you because you’re a bold challenger of the status quo, the only one with the balls to tell the truth. But sometimes everyone hates you because you’re a dick. (And by “you,” I mean the generic “you,” buddy. You’re never a dick.)
And to Kevin - plenty of people can hear J.F. through the alleged foam, thanks. I’d argue that your need for arguments to be couched in a specific form and tone speaks more to your limitations than his.
It’s kinda like people who insist that if you use profanity you have a more limited vocabulary than people who don’t.
There’s something really kinda grotesque about an aspiring screenwriter dictating to a pro how he should express himself when discussing issues related to screenwriting.
Lastly, I’m STILL dying to hear about how the real problem is all these damn porno writers….
Sincerely,
Josh “Lone Wolf” Olson Maverick and Rebel, Inc.
Johnny:
I think we’ve all kind of figured out that you have absolutely nothing to contribute. Like…ever. Hush, hush now.
Josh:
I’m not an aspiring screenwriter. I’m an established director/producer. There’s a difference. And what’s really grotesque is that you don’t realize how close you are to Al Sharpton. Sometimes you might have something interesting to say but all anyone can see is the funny hair. But you see, sometimes people agree (like I have with you and/or Joshua). Or sometimes people disagree (like I have with Craig and Ted). But sometimes people just like to scream and shout and show off their cavities.
So…is this gonna turn into another insult free for all or are we gonna hear more about the WGA? C’mon, surprise me. Write back without one, without one insult. I’d seriously like to hear more about your views. I’m not being facetious. I’m genuinely interested.
Josh —
One of the reasons the Guild has given for the backlog in dispersal of the foreign levy money is that there a number of movies and television shows that were not produced under Guild jurisdiction, where there are no credits for writers, or where writers are credited pseudonymously, without any record of their true identities. That includes porno movies, but is not limited to them.
But since the lawsuit against the Guilds asserts that the Guild never had the right to claim and collect the levies on movies and tv shows produced outside Guild jurisdiction in the first place, this may end up being a moot point.
-
For the life of me, I can’t figure out how JF manages to try to paint Ted and Craig as the bag men for WGA failings. They were in office for a time and fought long and hard for internal reform. They stopped serving in large part because they didn’t like how the place was run.
The foreign levies issue is what it is - I’ve read much of the decision and it doesn’t say what some on this board and others are claiming it says - as far as I can tell, the ruling is very narrow and is more jursdictional. Have you read it, JF? Is your argument perhaps based more on your hopes and dreams than the actual law or ruling?
As far as being advocates for writers and their rights, both Ted and Craig are more than stand-up. I often disagree with Craig on substantive issues and who could expect someone to advocate for a writer whose position he didn’t agree with? Yet Craig has and does.
Ted may have the best understanding of copyright law and the legal and business aspects of being a screenwriter of anyone I have met in this town. I can say that having studied copyright law in law school with the drafter of the copyright act. The positions he takes are, more often than not, simply explanations of the reality of the business and law. His personal beliefs rarely intrude on or color these explanations, unlike JF’s J’accuse. With regard to copyright, work-for-hire and moral rights, this is simply how things are. To twist his statements into anything like advocacy on behalf of the studio or toward anything but stronger rights for writers is inaccurate and irrational.
Ted,
Thanks for the clarification. I remember a few years back when I got a check for foreign monies on my first movie, which was not a Guild project, and had been done almost a decade ago. It was a strange and happy little surprise, but I still don’t quite get why the WGA was involved.
And I really mean it - I’m on the sidelines on this one, learning what I can. As a tactic, Craig’s comment about the porno writers felt like a Tony Snow-style sidestep, and cast immediate suspicion on the rest of his comments. Somehow, I truly doubt that the thing that makes this issue so complicated is the porno writers….
Kevin,
Curiously, yours is the only post with any insults in it. Saying that you are not a professional peer of two established screenwriters is simply a statement of fact. And no, my friend, while you may be the greatest filmmaker the world has ever seen, you are not by any definition “established.” And honestly, saying you are is kinda, well… insulting.
Get a few movies into theaters. Or at least into the local video store where any and all can see the fruits of your labors. But don’t be in such a rush to declare yourself a made man. It’s sorta like the comment I made about giving yourself a nickname. When you’re established, you won’t have to tell people. They’ll already know.
Josh:
I’m mostly in television now. I’ve directed a couple of pilots and sold a show to MTV. Whether you recognize my name or not is a silly argument. How many people out there just recognize a director’s name if he isn’t famous? An argument I think even you were making…
Is that a joke?
Whoops, I meant:
The question of foreign levies for pornography isn’t a joke. It’s a serious question that goes to the heart of the conundrum the WGAw finds itself in, both legal and procedural.
I think everybody’s aware that the pornography business is an enormous and global one.
The levies collected on behalf of pornographers are substantial. I suspect the total number of undistributed levies derived from pornographic works of authorship is counted in the seven figures.
Two questions.
How can the WGAw distribute that money when many of the names are pseudonymic?
Does the WGAw have the right to collect money for non-members?
If the word “pornography” is too distracting, substitute “animation”, which is almost entirely non-WGAw (so it’s non-union or IATSE Local 839), or “documentaries”, which also tend to be non-WGAw or non-union productions.
Craig,
I don’t doubt that there are many porno writers due levies. But you brought them up as some kind of justification for why writers who CAN be found haven’t been. It felt then - and still does - like a rhetorical side-step, and as someone with no axe to grind here, it causes me to have some doubts about what you’re saying. That’s all.
Kevin,
“How many people out there just recognize a directors name if he isnt famous? “
We’re not talking about “out there.” We’re talking about in HERE. Yes, if you were established, you’d still have to explain what you do to my grandmother. But not to me.
Sorry, but it’s a big gripe with me, one that’s bugged me since I first set foot on LA soil. Everyone’s in a rush to declare themselves the thing they want to be some day. Do the work. Earn the name. It’s hard. It’s MEANT to be hard.
Craig,
I don’t doubt that there are many porno writers due levies. But you brought them up as some kind of justification for why writers who CAN be found haven’t been. It felt then - and still does - like a rhetorical side-step, and as someone with no axe to grind here, it causes me to have some doubts about what you’re saying. That’s all.
Kevin,
“How many people out there just recognize a directors name if he isnt famous? “
We’re not talking about “out there.” We’re talking about in HERE. Yes, if you were established, you’d still have to explain what you do to my grandmother. But not to me.
Sorry, but it’s a big gripe with me, one that’s bugged me since I first set foot on LA soil. Everyone’s in a rush to declare themselves the thing they want to be some day. Do the work. Earn the name. It’s hard. It’s MEANT to be hard.
Josh:
Sorry, it’s a gripe for you. But I work out of NY. Not LA. And…I’m not sure how you’ve become the litmus test for who works regularly or not. Of course, you win anyway because you’ve roped me into the “I’m somebody!” game. Congratulations.
And thanks for the advice.
Josh:
I’m hard-pressed to see your objection. I wrote:
It stands to reason that the WGAw’s ability to disburse money to individuals for whom they have no internal records will be more limited than their ability to disburse money to WGA members.
While Google and other methods help, they’re not fool-proof, and “we Googled him” doesn’t really hold up in court if it turns out you mailed a check to the wrong Josh Olson.
Pornography is a particularly thorny problem because so many of the names associated with those levies aren’t real.
However, there’s a larger question of organizational purpose. The WGAw is a labor union, not a clearing-house or people-finder. As such, it’s safe to presume that some organization would be better at this task than the WGAw.
The questions that raises are…can that organization make the numerous deals required with the foreign countries who collect levies, and what will that organization charge the recipients?
I’m still a big fat nobody, and, sadly, whipping out the WGA Member card in bars does absolutely nothing to impress women.
I decided to look at how the Writers Guild Canada handled the issue of blank tape levies, since there is no complication of the work-made-for-hire law up there — screen and television writers are recognized under Canadian law as the authors of their work, always.
Turns out, the WGC established a separate organization, the Canadian Screenwriters Collection Society. If a writer works for a production company under a WGC contract, it automatically authorizes the Society to claim, collect and disburse the levies on their behalf, whether they have become a member of the Society or not (membership in the Society requires a one-time $150 initiation fee). Additionally, any Canadian writer may become a member of the Society.
I wonder if the WGA or DGA considered a set-up like that.
Another point of interest, which goes to the Guilds taking 5% of the disbursed levies as an administration fee:
The CSCS charges a 15% administration fee to members (ie, paid the $150 initiation fee), and a 25% administration fee to non-members (ie, worked under a WGC contract, but did not pay the $150 initiation fee).
Here’s a link to their info page, for those interested:
http://www.wgc.ca/cscs/about.html
-
“Im an established director/producer.”
I think I just threw up in my mouth… just a little, but I can taste the cat+fiddle burger.
Back to the beers…
Whipping out the WGA card. Huh. Never tried that one…
But my wife DID get my attention with a wry smile and the slightest hint of her SAG card. :)
Craig,
“While Google and other methods help, theyre not fool-proof, and we Googled him doesnt really hold up in court if it turns out you mailed a check to the wrong Josh Olson.”
Yeah, but there’s only one William Fuckner.
Stephen,
Never use the words “my wife” and “sag” in the same sentence. She’ll thank you for it.
Kevin,
Wow. You got me. It’s only pretentious when people in LA call themselves the thing they want to be. When people in New York do it, it’s cool.
Love,
Josh Olson Established comedy writer
Not completely off the subject, this is my lastest post at my blog: www.wgatruth.com
I repost it here because it will amuse me to see Ted Elliot spending hours trying to make up crap to discredit it. (Have fun Ted!) Like Stefan, I hope the formatting works.
Supposedly in light of the recent LA Times article (more likely the articles in Fade In Magazine and the LA Weekly) the WGA has gone on the offensive with their own “facts” about the collection of Foreign Levies. Here’s the link to the full text:
WGA Commentary on Levies
What is stunning about this is that despite an ongoing investigation by the Federal Government, and two civil lawsuits, the WGA still acts like this is a PR battle they can win by misleading their membership. In print. Don’t they know someone is going to end up on a witness stand being asked where they came up with these “facts?” Here is my edited version with comments:
WGAW Commentary (Posted on WGA.org May 4, 2007)
… the Foreign Levies Program is a notable success story. If not for the WGAW’s efforts dating back to the 1980s, no writer would receive any payments. The money would have remained in the hands of the producers who, as copyright holders under U.S. law, claimed the right to 100% of the levies attributable to American works. By bringing legal and political pressure to bear, the guilds have been able to secure a fair and growing share for writers and directors.
The biggest thing the WGA doesn’t mention here is that WGA officials negotiated these deals in secret without ever bringing the issue to the membership at large, or, as was legally required, getting a vote authorizing them. The deals were only mentioned long after they were signed by Guild representatives and money was being collected (or not collected since most went to the studios). Further, the WGA made no effort to inform non-union writers that they were in the process of negotiating deals to collect their money.
Had the WGA notified its own members of the issues involved, and notified non-members, a debate could have been had about whether the WGA was the proper entity to collect this money, or whether it would be better to create a US collection society, like those in foreign countries, and more like ASCAP or BMI which collect music royalties (which are basically the same as levies). It should be noted that none of the foreign collection societies handling this money for their native filmmakers are unions.
Moreover, in terms of declaring a notable success story, the WGA and DGA ended up with agreements only giving them 7.5% each. Hardly a huge victory for money that in each country only belonged to the artists who created the works, and specifically (by law) not to the corporations distributing them.
The program has grown over time. The WGAW now receives levies from 15 countries in Europe and Latin America. Total remittances from foreign collection societies in the last fiscal year alone exceeded $10 million. Since the inception of the program, the WGAW has distributed nearly $37 million to writers (and their heirs and beneficiaries).
According to this “fact” over a third of the money collected in the last 16 years, if one can trust the WGA’s own math, hasn’t been paid to the people that deserve it. This fact sheet mentions that “37 million” has been distributed and later that there is a “sizable backlog” of funds being held in a “20 million” dollar trust waiting to be paid to the people it is owned to.
It should be noted that WGA documents submitted in civil court cases say that all interest collected by the WGA on this 20 million unpaid goes to “expenses” incurred by collecting the money. That in addition to the 5% off the top. (Apparently, it costs a lot not to pay people.) This hardly gives the WGA any motivation to pay people in a timely fashion since the 3 percent annual interest being collected by the WGA on 20 million in sweep accounts amounts to over $600,000 a year. Compound that over a few years and we’re talking millions of dollars that goes to “expenses.” Seems like more than enough money to find writers that can be easily found.
Also, while one might be excited about the fact that over $10 million a year is now being collected (thanks to the WGA’s efforts for writers) given that a third of that hasn’t historically been paid out in a timely fashion, this seems to be a growing problem. After all, if one does the math according to the Guilds figures, the Guild only collected on average (37 million paid plus 20 unpaid = 57 million collected over 16 years) less than 4 million a year. Over the next 16 years we’re talking about 160 million even if it doesn’t grow. (And given how quickly it grew already, why wouldn’t it continue?) If the Guild continues to fail to pay about a third of the money, for whatever reason, honest or not, we’re talking about over 50 million dollars sitting around in bank accounts waiting for them to “find” the writers who deserve it.
Whether or not the WGA has been acting in an honestly disorganized (or simply corrupt) fashion, after 16 years of handling these funds any writer would have plenty of reason to file a civil case suggesting, demanding, they shouldn’t be trusted to handle these funds in the future. Under the current agreement, the WGAW and the DGA each receives 25% of total foreign levy remittances on behalf of the writers and directors.
In light of recent lawsuits and bad press, the fact that the WGA only pays writers 7.5% hasn’t gone over well with the membership and the press. So there has been much talk about the recent new agreements that writers now get 25%. Of course, once again, the membership wasn’t allowed to vote on these new agreements, and wasn’t informed about the issues and wasn’t asked if, well, maybe they should get 35% or 45%. Let alone getting all the money they are entitled to under the laws of France, Germany, etc. (Like French filmmakers, German writers, etc.)
Anecdotal evidence also indicates writers aren’t suddenly getting three times as much money as they used to, or, given the math that the WGA is collecting over twice as much money on average (10 million from 3 plus million) than they used to, six times as much as they are due now.
How, the WGA can bounce around huge numbers like this without any paperwork available to members to check out what they are talking about is amazing.
Distribution of foreign levies is not an easy or simple matter. The WGAW distributes the money based on data provided by foreign collection societies. The distribution data, however, are frequently incomplete or unintelligible, and in many instances do not include writers’ name. Titles sometimes arrive in foreign languages or are inexactly translated. Where adequate information is lacking, the funds remain in a trust account while the WGAW does the research necessary to permit distribution. While there is still a sizeable backlog of funds awaiting distribution, we have greatly increased the efficiency of the distribution process over the course of 15 years.
So the Guild it just recently re-negociated these deals to get 25% of the money, but didn’t bother to put in the contracts any language telling the collection societies when they had to make payments, in what form, in what translation. We’re talking about deals worth over ten million a year and they didn’t bother to say that the money had to be backed up with computer records in English and has to be deposited each quarter, etc.
Even if I didn’t know the truth this would be a preposterous thing to believe. But I do know the truth. The Guild gets detailed records, the names of the films, the amounts and the writers owed them are carefully listed on the checks with backup documents. How do I know? I’ve seen copies of the documents and the checks. How did I get to see them? Because they were snuck out of the Guild by Teri Mial who worked in the collections department and she handed them over to the Feds.
Now, it isn’t a complete lie that the Guild doesn’t have records of who all this money is owed to. That’s because every six months, they shred all the records to destroy the evidence of who the money was supposed to be given to.
In short, the Foreign Levies Program provides a valuable service to all writers, and the WGAW is committed to its fair and efficient administration.
What the Foreign Levies Program is, in the words of several Guild whistle blowers, is a slush fund. Money is collected from around the world and some of it is paid out to union members, especially well connected ones the Guild wants to keep happy and paying dues. Anyone not paying dues, like widows, their families and no-members, aren’t paid. Also, sometimes members aren’t paid if the Guild is feeling particularly frisky and greedy. The checks not paid out are signed over into the general fund by the Guild’s president, and all records of the money they were owed is destroyed every six months.
So what happens to all that money? It collects interest and slushes around. Since there are no records of who the money is suppose to go to, it can go to anyone. Guild Presidents, Board Members, ex-Board members who need to be paid off to keep quiet, etc. Money can be transfered to people who can then use it for fundraising to buy off politicians, pay to refurbish Victoria Riskin’s apartment in New York, anything. That’s the great thing about a slush fund.
What is a levy?
Under agreements with the member companies of the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) and other producer organizations, the Writers Guild of America, West, Inc. (WGAW) and the Directors Guild of America, Inc. (DGA) receive and distribute “foreign levies” - monies payable under foreign laws to writers and directors of copyrighted works in the United States. These monies are remitted to the WGAW and DGA by foreign collection societies, and represent payment for three types of exploitation of audiovisual works: private copying, video rentals and cable retransmission.
It appears the word “Levy” was deliberately chosen by the studios and unions because it was meaningless and confusing. The word levy means to impose a tax, and yes, these are taxes. So I suppose it’s technically correct to say that these are “Foreign Levies” that is “Foreign Taxes.” But it is also meaningless and unhelpful. What taxes are are the unions collecting money from? What are the purpose of the taxes? The Guild doesn’t want its membership to think about such things.
These are royalties. They very in every country and have names attached to who they are supposed to go to. Like “authors share” of royalties which is to go to authors, that is writers. There are also royalties to “performers” and “directors.”
One of the things the WGA doesn’t want you to know, is that in some countries the money is only suppose to go to writers. But the WGA made a deal to split that money with the directors. In some countries the money goes to both directors and writers and in some to directors, writers and performers. But in none of the 15 countries does the money not go specifically to the writers. So when the WGA made a deal to unfairly split these royalties equally with the DGA, it sold out its own members.
What started it all?
In late 1980’s and early 1990’s, when foreign governments first created these levies, American producers took the position that they were entitled to 100% of the funds, based on American copyright laws. The WGAW and DGA, however, argued that the levies belonged to the writers and directors who had originally created the work.
Eventually, a legal compromise was reached. Under a series of written agreements with the producers, the WGAW negotiated for a share of the levies. Initially, the producers received 85% of the foreign levy money. Then, due to the joint efforts of WGAW and DGA, writers and directors increased their share in 2001 to 25%. In 2005, a subsequent agreement further boosted their share to 50%.
What started it was the Berne Convention in 1886 which stated that authors has a human right to benefit from their writing even after they sold it to a publisher. The idea was that no author should die penniless, or his family be impoverished when their books are still being sold and widely read. The notion of copyright was created, something the author could never be forced to sell and would always own. The governments signing the Berne convention regulated the what rights publishers could control and how they treated the authors of books, music, and other art forms.
As films came around, the same rules applied. If a movie was based on a book, the writer retained human rights in regard to the film. The same with screenwriters. Taxes were passed to make sure that when a film was being shown, in whatever medium, the writer would get a share of it.
However, the United States refused to sign the Berne convention and in 1910 passed laws stripping screenwriters of copyright protection and giving it to the studios. So for many years, the studios collected the money entitled to screenwriters by the laws of other countries.
But guess what, in 1989 the US was forced to sign the Berne convention to get other world trade concessions. So suddenly writers were entitled to all this money. So what did the studios do? Robert Hadl, council for MCA, went around the world with the help of various Guild Presidents including Frank Pierson, John Wells, and Dan Petrie and signed secret deals giving most of the money to the studios, in exchange for the studios helping them to set up a slush fund they could use with the rest. This is about as dirty as it gets. These Guild presidents and treasures, with the help of a corrupt Board, completely sold out the people they were suppose to represent.
How much is involved?
Since the program began, more than $37 million has been distributed to writers (and their heirs and beneficiaries). In the last fiscal year ended March 31, 2007 alone, the amount was more than $10 million. Another $20 million is currently being held in trust pending completion of research necessary to permit distribution.
Since all records are destroyed by the WGA every six months, we don’t know for sure how much money is involved. But we do know that at least twenty million of stolen money is sitting around in the slush fund.
How are the funds handled?
All foreign levy funds are held in a trust account pending distribution. While the goal is to distribute funds as quickly as possible, a variety of circumstances may prevent distribution:
The foreign collection society does not provide distribution data. The distribution data are inadequate or inaccurate. Titles in the distribution data cannot be identified. The credited writers identified in the distribution data cannot be identified or located. There exists a dispute or other uncertainty as to the lawful payee; for example, if there is a dispute between heirs. Funds are held in the trust account only as long as necessary to permit proper distribution.
Again, is the WGA so incompetent it can’t make deals with foreign collection societies to provide them with proper accounting? If it is, why on Earth should Guild members, let alone non-members, allow the Guild to handle this money. If the Guild doesn’t get proper records in a timely fashion, how can it know that all the money is being sent? Moreover, the studios are getting most of this money, are they not bother to ask for records? Are we really to believe that the studios get this money without know what films they are for and when they were shown. And that the Guild doesn’t bother to work with the studios to keep accurate records.
Even if you don’t have any inside information, this sounds implausible and suspicious. But as I’ve said, I know the Guild gets all the records it needs to send out the money, because I’ve seen copies of them. Copies made before the Guild shredded them.
How is the program paid for?
Financial support for the Foreign Levy Program comes from two sources: interest earned on funds held in trust and administrative fees assessed on foreign levy distributions. The fee is currently set at 5%.
I am not a legal expert, but I have been told by one that this fee, on top on interest, is not only excessive, but illegal. In fact, part of the reason this came out is because the Writer’s Guild East tipped off Eric Hughes that this 5% the Guild had decided to take was illegal. They were involved in a war with the Writer’s Guild West. Writer’s Guild East successfully blackmailed Writer’s Guild West by threatening to go public with the dirt they knew about the Foreign Levy program.
Part of that blackmail was telling Eric Hughes about it. But once the blackmail worked, they told Hughes to drop the matter. He didn’t.
Boy-oh-boy, he didn’t.
J. F. Lawton
Nope, the formatting didn’t work. The WGA parts were supposed to be in italics. Here’s another try. I put quotes around the parts from the WGA “Fact” article.
Supposedly in light of the recent LA Times article (more likely the articles in Fade In Magazine and the LA Weekly) the WGA has gone on the offensive with their own “facts” about the collection of Foreign Levies. Here’s the link to the full text:
WGA Commentary on Levies
What is stunning about this is that despite an ongoing investigation by the Federal Government, and two civil lawsuits, the WGA still acts like this is a PR battle they can win by misleading their membership. In print. Don’t they know someone is going to end up on a witness stand being asked where they came up with these “facts?” Here is my edited version with comments:
“WGAW Commentary (Posted on WGA.org May 4, 2007)
… the Foreign Levies Program is a notable success story. If not for the WGAW’s efforts dating back to the 1980s, no writer would receive any payments. The money would have remained in the hands of the producers who, as copyright holders under U.S. law, claimed the right to 100% of the levies attributable to American works. By bringing legal and political pressure to bear, the guilds have been able to secure a fair and growing share for writers and directors.”
The biggest thing the WGA doesn’t mention here is that WGA officials negotiated these deals in secret without ever bringing the issue to the membership at large, or, as was legally required, getting a vote authorizing them. The deals were only mentioned long after they were signed by Guild representatives and money was being collected (or not collected since most went to the studios). Further, the WGA made no effort to inform non-union writers that they were in the process of negotiating deals to collect their money.
Had the WGA notified its own members of the issues involved, and notified non-members, a debate could have been had about whether the WGA was the proper entity to collect this money, or whether it would be better to create a US collection society, like those in foreign countries, and more like ASCAP or BMI which collect music royalties (which are basically the same as levies). It should be noted that none of the foreign collection societies handling this money for their native filmmakers are unions.
Moreover, in terms of declaring a notable success story, the WGA and DGA ended up with agreements only giving them 7.5% each. Hardly a huge victory for money that in each country only belonged to the artists who created the works, and specifically (by law) not to the corporations distributing them.
“The program has grown over time. The WGAW now receives levies from 15 countries in Europe and Latin America. Total remittances from foreign collection societies in the last fiscal year alone exceeded $10 million. Since the inception of the program, the WGAW has distributed nearly $37 million to writers (and their heirs and beneficiaries).”
According to this “fact” over a third of the money collected in the last 16 years, if one can trust the WGA’s own math, hasn’t been paid to the people that deserve it. This fact sheet mentions that “37 million” has been distributed and later that there is a “sizable backlog” of funds being held in a “20 million” dollar trust waiting to be paid to the people it is owned to.
It should be noted that WGA documents submitted in civil court cases say that all interest collected by the WGA on this 20 million unpaid goes to “expenses” incurred by collecting the money. That in addition to the 5% off the top. (Apparently, it costs a lot not to pay people.) This hardly gives the WGA any motivation to pay people in a timely fashion since the 3 percent annual interest being collected by the WGA on 20 million in sweep accounts amounts to over $600,000 a year. Compound that over a few years and we’re talking millions of dollars that goes to “expenses.” Seems like more than enough money to find writers that can be easily found.
Also, while one might be excited about the fact that over $10 million a year is now being collected (thanks to the WGA’s efforts for writers) given that a third of that hasn’t historically been paid out in a timely fashion, this seems to be a growing problem. After all, if one does the math according to the Guilds figures, the Guild only collected on average (37 million paid plus 20 unpaid = 57 million collected over 16 years) less than 4 million a year. Over the next 16 years we’re talking about 160 million even if it doesn’t grow. (And given how quickly it grew already, why wouldn’t it continue?) If the Guild continues to fail to pay about a third of the money, for whatever reason, honest or not, we’re talking about over 50 million dollars sitting around in bank accounts waiting for them to “find” the writers who deserve it.
Whether or not the WGA has been acting in an honestly disorganized (or simply corrupt) fashion, after 16 years of handling these funds any writer would have plenty of reason to file a civil case suggesting, demanding, they shouldn’t be trusted to handle these funds in the future.
“Under the current agreement, the WGAW and the DGA each receives 25% of total foreign levy remittances on behalf of the writers and directors.”
In light of recent lawsuits and bad press, the fact that the WGA only pays writers 7.5% hasn’t gone over well with the membership and the press. So there has been much talk about the recent new agreements that writers now get 25%. Of course, once again, the membership wasn’t allowed to vote on these new agreements, and wasn’t informed about the issues and wasn’t asked if, well, maybe they should get 35% or 45%. Let alone getting all the money they are entitled to under the laws of France, Germany, etc. (Like French filmmakers, German writers, etc.)
Anecdotal evidence also indicates writers aren’t suddenly getting three times as much money as they used to, or, given the math that the WGA is collecting over twice as much money on average (10 million from 3 plus million) than they used to, six times as much as they are due now.
How, the WGA can bounce around huge numbers like this without any paperwork available to members to check out what they are talking about is amazing.
“Distribution of foreign levies is not an easy or simple matter. The WGAW distributes the money based on data provided by foreign collection societies. The distribution data, however, are frequently incomplete or unintelligible, and in many instances do not include writers’ name. Titles sometimes arrive in foreign languages or are inexactly translated. Where adequate information is lacking, the funds remain in a trust account while the WGAW does the research necessary to permit distribution. While there is still a sizeable backlog of funds awaiting distribution, we have greatly increased the efficiency of the distribution process over the course of 15 years.”
So the Guild it just recently re-negociated these deals to get 25% of the money, but didn’t bother to put in the contracts any language telling the collection societies when they had to make payments, in what form, in what translation. We’re talking about deals worth over ten million a year and they didn’t bother to say that the money had to be backed up with computer records in English and has to be deposited each quarter, etc.
Even if I didn’t know the truth this would be a preposterous thing to believe. But I do know the truth. The Guild gets detailed records, the names of the films, the amounts and the writers owed them are carefully listed on the checks with backup documents. How do I know? I’ve seen copies of the documents and the checks. How did I get to see them? Because they were snuck out of the Guild by Teri Mial who worked in the collections department and she handed them over to the Feds.
Now, it isn’t a complete lie that the Guild doesn’t have records of who all this money is owed to. That’s because every six months, they shred all the records to destroy the evidence of who the money was supposed to be given to.
“In short, the Foreign Levies Program provides a valuable service to all writers, and the WGAW is committed to its fair and efficient administration.”
What the Foreign Levies Program is, in the words of several Guild whistleblowers, is a slush fund. Money is collected from around the world and some of it is paid out to union members, especially well connected ones the Guild wants to keep happy and paying dues. Anyone not paying dues, like widows, their families and no-members, aren’t paid. Also, sometimes members aren’t paid if the Guild is feeling particularly frisky and greedy. The checks not paid out are signed over into the general fund by the Guild’s president, and all records of the money they were owed is destroyed every six months.
So what happens to all that money? It collects interest and slushes around. Since there are no records of who the money is suppose to go to, it can go to anyone. Guild Presidents, Board Members, ex-Board members who need to be paid off to keep quiet, etc. Money can be transfered to people who can then use it for fundraising to buy off politicians, pay to refurbish Victoria Riskin’s apartment in New York, anything. That’s the great thing about a slush fund.
“What is a levy?
Under agreements with the member companies of the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) and other producer organizations, the Writers Guild of America, West, Inc. (WGAW) and the Directors Guild of America, Inc. (DGA) receive and distribute “foreign levies” - monies payable under foreign laws to writers and directors of copyrighted works in the United States. These monies are remitted to the WGAW and DGA by foreign collection societies, and represent payment for three types of exploitation of audiovisual works: private copying, video rentals and cable retransmission.”
It appears the word “Levy” was deliberately chosen by the studios and unions because it was meaningless and confusing. The word levy means to impose a tax, and yes, these are taxes. So I suppose it’s technically correct to say that these are “Foreign Levies” that is “Foreign Taxes.” But it is also meaningless and unhelpful. What taxes are are the unions collecting money from? What are the purpose of the taxes? The Guild doesn’t want its membership to think about such things.
These are royalties. They very in every country and have names attached to who they are supposed to go to. Like “authors share” of royalties which is to go to authors, that is writers. There are also royalties to “performers” and “directors.”
One of the things the WGA doesn’t want you to know, is that in some countries the money is only suppose to go to writers. But the WGA made a deal to split that money with the directors. In some countries the money goes to both directors and writers and in some to directors, writers and performers. But in none of the 15 countries does the money not go specifically to the writers. So when the WGA made a deal to unfairly split these royalties equally with the DGA, it sold out its own members.
“What started it all?
In late 1980’s and early 1990’s, when foreign governments first created these levies, American producers took the position that they were entitled to 100% of the funds, based on American copyright laws. The WGAW and DGA, however, argued that the levies belonged to the writers and directors who had originally created the work.
Eventually, a legal compromise was reached. Under a series of written agreements with the producers, the WGAW negotiated for a share of the levies. Initially, the producers received 85% of the foreign levy money. Then, due to the joint efforts of WGAW and DGA, writers and directors increased their share in 2001 to 25%. In 2005, a subsequent agreement further boosted their share to 50%.”
What started it was the Berne Convention in 1886 which stated that authors has a human right to benefit from their writing even after they sold it to a publisher. The idea was that no author should die penniless, or his family be impoverished when their books are still being sold and widely read. The notion of copyright was created, something the author could never be forced to sell and would always own. The governments signing the Berne convention regulated the what rights publishers could control and how they treated the authors of books, music, and other art forms.
As films came around, the same rules applied. If a movie was based on a book, the writer retained human rights in regard to the film. The same with screenwriters. Taxes were passed to make sure that when a film was being shown, in whatever medium, the writer would get a share of it.
However, the United States refused to sign the Berne convention and in 1910 passed laws stripping screenwriters of copyright protection and giving it to the studios. So for many years, the studios collected the money entitled to screenwriters by the laws of other countries.
But guess what, in 1989 the US was forced to sign the Berne convention to get other world trade concessions. So suddenly writers were entitled to all this money. So what did the studios do? Robert Hadl, council for MCA, went around the world with the help of various Guild Presidents including Frank Pierson, John Wells, and Dan Petrie and signed secret deals giving most of the money to the studios, in exchange for the studios helping them to set up a slush fund they could use with the rest. This is about as dirty as it gets. These Guild presidents and treasures, with the help of a corrupt Board, completely sold out the people they were suppose to represent.
“How much is involved?
Since the program began, more than $37 million has been distributed to writers (and their heirs and beneficiaries). In the last fiscal year ended March 31, 2007 alone, the amount was more than $10 million. Another $20 million is currently being held in trust pending completion of research necessary to permit distribution.
Since all records are destroyed by the WGA every six months, we don’t know for sure how much money is involved. But we do know that at least twenty million of stolen money is sitting around in the slush fund.
How are the funds handled?
All foreign levy funds are held in a trust account pending distribution. While the goal is to distribute funds as quickly as possible, a variety of circumstances may prevent distribution:
The foreign collection society does not provide distribution data. The distribution data are inadequate or inaccurate. Titles in the distribution data cannot be identified. The credited writers identified in the distribution data cannot be identified or located. There exists a dispute or other uncertainty as to the lawful payee; for example, if there is a dispute between heirs. Funds are held in the trust account only as long as necessary to permit proper distribution.”
Again, is the WGA so incompetent it can’t make deals with foreign collection societies to provide them with proper accounting? If it is, why on Earth should Guild members, let alone non-members, allow the Guild to handle this money. If the Guild doesn’t get proper records in a timely fashion, how can it know that all the money is being sent? Moreover, the studios are getting most of this money, are they not bother to ask for records? Are we really to believe that the studios get this money without know what films they are for and when they were shown. And that the Guild doesn’t bother to work with the studios to keep accurate records.
Even if you don’t have any inside information, this sounds implausible and suspicious. But as I’ve said, I know the Guild gets all the records it needs to send out the money, because I’ve seen copies of them. Copies made before the Guild shredded them.
“How is the program paid for?
Financial support for the Foreign Levy Program comes from two sources: interest earned on funds held in trust and administrative fees assessed on foreign levy distributions. The fee is currently set at 5%.”
I am not a legal expert, but I have been told by one that this fee, on top on interest, is not only excessive, but illegal. In fact, part of the reason this came out is because the Writer’s Guild East tipped off Eric Hughes that this 5% the Guild had decided to take was illegal. They were involved in a war with the Writer’s Guild West. Writer’s Guild East successfully blackmailed Writer’s Guild West by threatening to go public with the dirt they knew about the Foreign Levy program.
Part of that blackmail was telling Eric Hughes about it. But once the blackmail worked, they told Hughes to drop the matter. He didn’t.
Boy-oh-boy, he didn’t.
J. F. Lawton
Yes, Craig, Verrier came through for you and the Guild by his follow up piece. Interesting he got it wrong the first time and said that the Guild was going to present the information to the DA.
But you got it right, didn’t you?
Because anyone would know that when you have evidence of a crime you don’t present it to the DA, you present it to the police. Every see Law and Order? That’s the way it works. If you go to the DA, they say go to the police.
But I guess Verrier doesn’t watch a lot of TV.
Funny thing about all this. Eric Hughes told Verrier, after he wrote his story, that it was complete bullshit that the Guild went to the DA. They would have to go to the police.
And guess what, next thing we know, you are posting on your blog, praising Verrier’s amazing reporting, but switching, with no mention, to the new story about the police. Which Verrier then publishes.
No wonder you hate what Dennis McDougal writes about the Guild. Because he completely misses this major scandal over the missing $17,000 and instead talks about the Guild shredding every six months the records of millions of dollars being transfered.
Interestingly, Verrier got copies of some of those documents, and didn’t report on them.
But you know what, maybe there is a connection to the millions of dollars the Guild is collecting and then destroying evidence of and the fact that a Guild employee thinks they can get away with sending a check for $17,000 to their boyfriend.
Because the way this 20 million dollar slush fund works is that the Guild can send any money to anyone they want knowing all records are being destroyed. That’s how they pay off Board Members and others to keep the corruption going.
I haven’t got time to read all that. What does the coverage say?
So Ted, I’m very sorry if I’m wrong about the Pirates thing.
I was told, by William Morris, that you sued Disney and won and now get a piece of the rides sales.
Did you sue Disney and lose? Or how did that all work out? You say Disney took the opposite position? Did you engage a lawyer? What was his name?
You want me to recommend another lawyer for you? Because I agree with your position.
I just would like you to go into a little more detail about this.
Because, I do know you and your partner have a deal at Disney, you wrote the seguels to Pirates, right? Or am I wrong about that too.
I mean, you’re completely right that it would be really weird for someone to sue Disney, get a piece of the Pirates ride, and still sign a production deal and be allowed to work on the sequels. Disney isn’t usually very nice about lawsuits. They fight them to the end.
So that’s why I found it so suspicious when I was told that by William Morris. Sounded very odd.
But clearly, you know the full story, so please share it since I think it could be helpful to all of us to understand how writers get screwed by the studios. After all, some elements of the ride you did help create. Please explain.
Here’s the coverage:
The 20 million the Guild is holding is a slush fund they can use to pay off corrupt Guild officials because there are no records.
So, who collects the money on behalf of the studios, and do they pay the porno companies their share?
No, they don’t pay the porno companies.
To defend Craig, I used to tell him it was crap that they took money for pornos.
I was wrong.
They do collect money from pornos but they don’t distribute it. Since it is created by non-members the WGA just collects the money, and the WGA presidents sign over the checks to the general fund and then shred the evidence.
And yes, since Craig brought it up, it’s hilarious to see John Wells signing over a check to “Cock Master” and depositing it in one of the WGA sweep accounts. (Sweep accounts collect the maximum amount of interest possible daily. I’m sure Cock Master believes in maximizing.)
The studios also collect this money from porn and equally distribute it among themselves according to complex deals. There’s going to be a big piece coming out in a major publication soon about “How Much Money Does Disney Get from Porn.” The answer: a lot.
Thanks for the tips, Craig. Here’s another try to format it right;
Supposedly in light of the recent LA Times article (more likely the articles in Fade In Magazine and the LA Weekly) the WGA has gone on the offensive with their own facts about the collection of Foreign Levies. Here’s the link to the full text:
WGA Commentary on Levies
What is stunning about this is that despite an ongoing investigation by the Federal Government, and two civil lawsuits, the WGA still acts like this is a PR battle they can win by misleading their membership. In print. Don’t they know someone is going to end up on a witness stand being asked where they came up with these “facts?” Here is my edited version with comments:
WGAW Commentary (Posted on WGA.org May 4, 2007)
the Foreign Levies Program is a notable success story. If not for the WGAW’s efforts dating back to the 1980s, no writer would receive any payments. The money would have remained in the hands of the producers who, as copyright holders under U.S. law, claimed the right to 100% of the levies attributable to American works. By bringing legal and political pressure to bear, the guilds have been able to secure a fair and growing share for writers and directors.
The biggest thing the WGA doesn’t mention here is that WGA officials negotiated these deals in secret without ever bringing the issue to the membership at large, or, as was legally required, getting a vote authorizing them. The deals were only mentioned long after they were signed by Guild representatives and money was being collected (or not collected since most went to the studios). Further, the WGA made no effort to inform non-union writers that they were in the process of negotiating deals to collect their money.
Had the WGA notified its own members of the issues involved, and notified non-members, a debate could have been had about whether the WGA was the proper entity to collect this money, or whether it would be better to create a US collection society, like those in foreign countries, and more like ASCAP or BMI which collect music royalties (which are basically the same as levies). It should be noted that none of the foreign collection societies handling this money for their native filmmakers are unions.
Moreover, in terms of declaring a notable success story, the WGA and DGA ended up with agreements only giving them 7.5% each. Hardly a huge victory for money that in each country only belonged to the artists who created the works, and specifically (by law) not to the corporations distributing them.
The program has grown over time. The WGAW now receives levies from 15 countries in Europe and Latin America. Total remittances from foreign collection societies in the last fiscal year alone exceeded $10 million. Since the inception of the program, the WGAW has distributed nearly $37 million to writers (and their heirs and beneficiaries).
According to this “fact” over a third of the money collected in the last 16 years, if one can trust the WGA’s own math, hasn’t been paid to the people that deserve it. This fact sheet mentions that “37 million” has been distributed and later that there is a “sizable backlog” of funds being held in a “20 million” dollar trust waiting to be paid to the people it is owned to.
It should be noted that WGA documents submitted in civil court cases say that all interest collected by the WGA on this 20 million unpaid goes to “expenses” incurred by collecting the money. That in addition to the 5% off the top. (Apparently, it costs a lot not to pay people.) This hardly gives the WGA any motivation to pay people in a timely fashion since the 3 percent annual interest being collected by the WGA on 20 million in sweep accounts amounts to over $600,000 a year. Compound that over a few years and we’re talking millions of dollars that goes to “expenses.” Seems like more than enough money to find writers that can be easily found.
Also, while one might be excited about the fact that over $10 million a year is now being collected (thanks to the WGA’s efforts for writers) given that a third of that hasn’t historically been paid out in a timely fashion, this seems to be a growing problem. After all, if one does the math according to the Guilds figures, the Guild only collected on average (37 million paid plus 20 unpaid = 57 million collected over 16 years) less than 4 million a year. Over the next 16 years we’re talking about 160 million even if it doesn’t grow. (And given how quickly it grew already, why wouldn’t it continue?) If the Guild continues to fail to pay about a third of the money, for whatever reason, honest or not, we’re talking about over 50 million dollars sitting around in bank accounts waiting for them to “find” the writers who deserve it.
Whether or not the WGA has been acting in an honestly disorganized (or simply corrupt) fashion, after 16 years of handling these funds any writer would have plenty of reason to file a civil case suggesting, demanding, they shouldn’t be trusted to handle these funds in the future.
Under the current agreement, the WGAW and the DGA each receives 25% of total foreign levy remittances on behalf of the writers and directors.
In light of recent lawsuits and bad press, the fact that the WGA only pays writers 7.5% hasn’t gone over well with the membership and the press. So there has been much talk about the recent new agreements that writers now get 25%. Of course, once again, the membership wasn’t allowed to vote on these new agreements, and wasn’t informed about the issues and wasn’t asked if, well, maybe they should get 35% or 45%. Let alone getting all the money they are entitled to under the laws of France, Germany, etc. (Like French filmmakers, German writers, etc.)
Anecdotal evidence also indicates writers aren’t suddenly getting three times as much money as they used to, or, given the math that the WGA is collecting over twice as much money on average (10 million from 3 plus million) than they used to, six times as much as they are due now.
How, the WGA can bounce around huge numbers like this without any paperwork available to members to check out what they are talking about is amazing.
Distribution of foreign levies is not an easy or simple matter. The WGAW distributes the money based on data provided by foreign collection societies. The distribution data, however, are frequently incomplete or unintelligible, and in many instances do not include writers’ name. Titles sometimes arrive in foreign languages or are inexactly translated. Where adequate information is lacking, the funds remain in a trust account while the WGAW does the research necessary to permit distribution. While there is still a sizeable backlog of funds awaiting distribution, we have greatly increased the efficiency of the distribution process over the course of 15 years.
So the Guild it just recently re-negociated these deals to get 25% of the money, but didn’t bother to put in the contracts any language telling the collection societies when they had to make payments, in what form, in what translation. We’re talking about deals worth over ten million a year and they didn’t bother to say that the money had to be backed up with computer records in English and has to be deposited each quarter, etc.
Even if I didn’t know the truth this would be a preposterous thing to believe. But I do know the truth. The Guild gets detailed records, the names of the films, the amounts and the writers owed them are carefully listed on the checks with backup documents. How do I know? I’ve seen copies of the documents and the checks. How did I get to see them? Because they were snuck out of the Guild by Teri Mial who worked in the collections department and she handed them over to the Feds.
Now, it isn’t a complete lie that the Guild doesn’t have records of who all this money is owed to. That’s because every six months, they shred all the records to destroy the evidence of who the money was supposed to be given to.
In short, the Foreign Levies Program provides a valuable service to all writers, and the WGAW is committed to its fair and efficient administration.
What the Foreign Levies Program is, in the words of several Guild whistleblowers, is a slush fund. Money is collected from around the world and some of it is paid out to union members, especially well connected ones the Guild wants to keep happy and paying dues. Anyone not paying dues, like widows, their families and no-members, aren’t paid. Also, sometimes members aren’t paid if the Guild is feeling particularly frisky and greedy. The checks not paid out are signed over into the general fund by the Guild’s president, and all records of the money they were owed is destroyed every six months.
So what happens to all that money? It collects interest and slushes around. Since there are no records of who the money is suppose to go to, it can go to anyone. Guild Presidents, Board Members, ex-Board members who need to be paid off to keep quiet, etc. Money can be transfered to people who can then use it for fundraising to buy off politicians, pay to refurbish Victoria Riskin’s apartment in New York, anything. That’s the great thing about a slush fund.
What is a levy?
Under agreements with the member companies of the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) and other producer organizations, the Writers Guild of America, West, Inc. (WGAW) and the Directors Guild of America, Inc. (DGA) receive and distribute foreign levies - monies payable under foreign laws to writers and directors of copyrighted works in the United States. These monies are remitted to the WGAW and DGA by foreign collection societies, and represent payment for three types of exploitation of audiovisual works: private copying, video rentals and cable retransmission.
It appears the word “Levy” was deliberately chosen by the studios and unions because it was meaningless and confusing. The word levy means to impose a tax, and yes, these are taxes. So I suppose it’s technically correct to say that these are “Foreign Levies” that is “Foreign Taxes.” But it is also meaningless and unhelpful. What taxes are are the unions collecting money from? What are the purpose of the taxes? The Guild doesn’t want its membership to think about such things.
These are royalties. They very in every country and have names attached to who they are supposed to go to. Like “authors share” of royalties which is to go to authors, that is writers. There are also royalties to “performers” and “directors.”
One of the things the WGA doesn’t want you to know, is that in some countries the money is only suppose to go to writers. But the WGA made a deal to split that money with the directors. In some countries the money goes to both directors and writers and in some to directors, writers and performers. But in none of the 15 countries does the money not go specifically to the writers. So when the WGA made a deal to unfairly split these royalties equally with the DGA, it sold out its own members.
What started it all?
In late 1980’s and early 1990’s, when foreign governments first created these levies, American producers took the position that they were entitled to 100% of the funds, based on American copyright laws. The WGAW and DGA, however, argued that the levies belonged to the writers and directors who had originally created the work.
Eventually, a legal compromise was reached. Under a series of written agreements with the producers, the WGAW negotiated for a share of the levies. Initially, the producers received 85% of the foreign levy money. Then, due to the joint efforts of WGAW and DGA, writers and directors increased their share in 2001 to 25%. In 2005, a subsequent agreement further boosted their share to 50%.
What started it was the Berne Convention in 1886 which stated that authors has a human right to benefit from their writing even after they sold it to a publisher. The idea was that no author should die penniless, or his family be impoverished when their books are still being sold and widely read. The notion of copyright was created, something the author could never be forced to sell and would always own. The governments signing the Berne convention regulated the what rights publishers could control and how they treated the authors of books, music, and other art forms.
As films came around, the same rules applied. If a movie was based on a book, the writer retained human rights in regard to the film. The same with screenwriters. Taxes were passed to make sure that when a film was being shown, in whatever medium, the writer would get a share of it.
However, the United States refused to sign the Berne convention and in 1910 passed laws stripping screenwriters of copyright protection and giving it to the studios. So for many years, the studios collected the money entitled to screenwriters by the laws of other countries.
But guess what, in 1989 the US was forced to sign the Berne convention to get other world trade concessions. So suddenly writers were entitled to all this money. So what did the studios do? Robert Hadl, council for MCA, went around the world with the help of various Guild Presidents including Frank Pierson, John Wells, and Dan Petrie and signed secret deals giving most of the money to the studios, in exchange for the studios helping them to set up a slush fund they could use with the rest. This is about as dirty as it gets. These Guild presidents and treasures, with the help of a corrupt Board, completely sold out the people they were suppose to represent.
How much is involved?
Since the program began, more than $37 million has been distributed to writers (and their heirs and beneficiaries). In the last fiscal year ended March 31, 2007 alone, the amount was more than $10 million. Another $20 million is currently being held in trust pending completion of research necessary to permit distribution.
Since all records are destroyed by the WGA every six months, we don’t know for sure how much money is involved. But we do know that at least twenty million of stolen money is sitting around in the slush fund.
How are the funds handled?
All foreign levy funds are held in a trust account pending distribution. While the goal is to distribute funds as quickly as possible, a variety of circumstances may prevent distribution:
The foreign collection society does not provide distribution data. The distribution data are inadequate or inaccurate. Titles in the distribution data cannot be identified. The credited writers identified in the distribution data cannot be identified or located. There exists a dispute or other uncertainty as to the lawful payee; for example, if there is a dispute between heirs. Funds are held in the trust account only as long as necessary to permit proper distribution.
Again, is the WGA so incompetent it can’t make deals with foreign collection societies to provide them with proper accounting? If it is, why on Earth should Guild members, let alone non-members, allow the Guild to handle this money. If the Guild doesn’t get proper records in a timely fashion, how can it know that all the money is being sent? Moreover, the studios are getting most of this money, are they not bother to ask for records? Are we really to believe that the studios get this money without know what films they are for and when they were shown. And that the Guild doesn’t bother to work with the studios to keep accurate records.
Even if you don’t have any inside information, this sounds implausible and suspicious. But as I’ve said, I know the Guild gets all the records it needs to send out the money, because I’ve seen copies of them. Copies made before the Guild shredded them.
How is the program paid for?
Financial support for the Foreign Levy Program comes from two sources: interest earned on funds held in trust and administrative fees assessed on foreign levy distributions. The fee is currently set at 5%.
I am not a legal expert, but I have been told by one that this fee, on top on interest, is not only excessive, but illegal. In fact, part of the reason this came out is because the Writer’s Guild East tipped off Eric Hughes that this 5% the Guild had decided to take was illegal. They were involved in a war with the Writer’s Guild West. Writer’s Guild East successfully blackmailed Writer’s Guild West by threatening to go public with the dirt they knew about the Foreign Levy program.
Part of that blackmail was telling Eric Hughes about it. But once the blackmail worked, they told Hughes to drop the matter. He didn’t.
Boy-oh-boy, he didn’t.
J. F. Lawton
Craig,
Many thanks for your tips on formatting!
Also if anyone wants to hear me and Stefan talking about copyright issues on an audio podcast they can go to:
http://workbookproject.com/
Ted Elliot, any time you are ready I would love to do an audio podcast with you me and Craig talking about the WGA. Or Disney screwing you out of the pirates ride or just about anything you’d like to talk about. Maybe your views on copyright! You seem to be an expert on the subject.
Of course, all of Craig’s info came from Patric Verrone. He told me repeately he never bothered to talk to anyone else about it. But I’m sure Patric knows a lot.
If only Craig had talked to Bob Hadl, who Craig said a statue should be built to in honor of Bob’s work on Foreign Levies. But I guess the light shinning from Bob Hadl was too bright for Craig to talk to him directly. Only through Patric Verrone could the wisdom of Bob Hadl be known.
Anyhow, Craig, love to have more info on where you get your info from. Oh, right, Patric Verrone. Didn’t you every bother to talk to anyone else?
“The 20 million the Guild is holding is a slush fund they can use to pay off corrupt Guild officials because there are no records.”
Well, there it is. The big “watch the skies” accusation.
Lawton, Eisenson, others who’ve been saying this for, what, 4 years now — where the first shred of proof or evidence about this? it’s a pretty fantasy, but when they can spot 17k missing, it’s hard to believe there aren’t records or that there are millions of dollars flowing out in bribes.
Put up or shut up.
Hey Jeff,
Why don’t you start by reading the LA Weekly piece. Guess what, Dennis McDougal had access to a lot of those documents and reported on them.
Why don’t you have access to the same documents?
Hmm well let me explain. You see, when the FBI is investigating something, they don’t want the criminals involved to know everything they know.
So they are very careful about what documents come out into the public. But it seems strange that Dennis McDougal got those documents. How did that happen? Very strange. I suggest again you read his article.
Why is it that Craig Mazin didn’t get those same documents? Who knows? Because some people think he’s a studio stooge?
Do I have the documents? Maybe.
Will those documents be presented in a court room? Oh, yes.
Will I provide copies of those documents before that on-line.
Maybe.
Do I give a shit about what you think given all the other proof I have already posted.
No.
JF
Jeff,
I already feel bad about my last post.
Let me try to explain again.
Let’s suppose someone sneaks documents out of a “Guild.”
That’s bad.
Unless the “Guild” is involved in a criminal activity.
That criminal activitiy is “more bad.”
Now, let’s suppose those documents are handed to Eric Hughes. Isn’t that bad?
Yes, double bad. Unless, of course, Eric Hughes handles those documents double good. That means, being very careful to make sure the documents are protected and only handed off to the Feds through “lawyers.”
Lawyers are kind of like teachers who help you with advice through life but charge a lot more.
The Feds got those documents and are double double good happy.
They are so double double good happy they want to share them with the world. Or don’t care if others do.
Does this help?
J.F. —
Some notes on your comments on the WGA’s statement:
Before the ruling on the foreign levies case, I would have agreed with you that the WGAw was required by its constitution to put the foreign levies agreement to a membership vote. However, the plaintiffs in the case argued that the foreign levies agreement is not a collective bargaining agreement, but a settlement agreement, and the judge cites case law that indicates that not all union contracts meet the definition of “collective-bargaining agreement” for the purposes of law. There’s no legislation that requires union to put any contracts to membership vote.
The first blank tape levy law was passed in Germany in 1985, entitling writers who are authors of motion pictures to those funds. The United States becoming signatory to the Berne Convention four years later is irrelevant to this. The work-made-for-hire law is still in force, and still means that screen and television writers are not recognized as authors of work created under employment or on commission in the U.S. Nor did the U.S. have to adopt any legislation specifically designed to recognize and protect the moral rights of authors, because it was found that those rights were already protected by a combination of U.S. laws (the first amendment, defamation law and tort law).
It would be nice if the Guild could get foreign collection services to provide more detailed records and more regular payouts. However, the Guild has absolutely no leverage to make any demands in dealing with those societies, and there is no incentive for the societies to do anything other than what is strictly required by their national laws.
This would be different if the U.S. had a blank tape levy of its own. But since it doesn’t, it means that even though blank tape money flows out of the country that imposes the levy to U.S. authors, no money flows in from the U.S. for their native authors. Additionally, if funds earmarked for U.S. authors went undelivered/unclaimed, that money would remain in the country that imposes the levy.
And this issue is completely independent of the Guild’s involvement here. This would be true no matter who or what organization claimed, collected and disbursed these funds on behalf of U.S. authors. The lack of a blank tape levy law in the U.S. means that there can be no reciprocity between a U.S. author, agent or agency and a foreign collection society.
Also: Some foreign countries impose levies on blank recording devices and media that are paid directly by the manufacturer/importer. In these foreign countries these are called, variously, blank tape levies or private copying levies. The only term that could be more accurate in referring to these then “foreign levies” is “foreign blank tape levies” or “foreign private copying levies.”
I don’t have any comment on the rest of what you wrote, because I have no means to verify your statements, one way or the other, and you provide no sources or references that can be verified.
But I also have no comment on the WGA’s statement, other than this: many times, the only means I have to verify the information provided by the WGA is the WGA itself, and I do not trust the WGA as a source of information anymore than I trust you. The difference is, the WGA does not fabricate information to support their position — they simply omit information that should be included, where it would undermine their position.
But because you offer up information that is easily verifiable as right or wrong through sources other than yourself, when you include information that is easily proven wrong, you do yourself the same disservice Dennis McDougal did by including that ludicrous history of authorship in Hollywood in his L.A. Weekly article: it casts doubt on the veracity of everything reported.
Fortunately, some of what McDougal reported was verified by the LA Times article and the FADE-IN article — and I would suggest that anyone interested in this topic read all three.
-
Hey JF-
I’ve read all the articles you cite. No one has gone as far as you do with statements like:
“So what happens to all that money? It collects interest and slushes around. Since there are no records of who the money is suppose to go to, it can go to anyone. Guild Presidents, Board Members, ex-Board members who need to be paid off to keep quiet, etc. Money can be transfered to people who can then use it for fundraising to buy off politicians, pay to refurbish Victoria Riskins apartment in New York, anything. Thats the great thing about a slush fund.”
The articles talk about the possibility that a better deal could have been struck; we had no right to negotiate for non members; we’re doing a shitty job disbursing the money; the agreement wasn’t voted on by membership; an employee stole 17k.
Aside from that employee, none of that approaches the accusations of illegality you and Art and others have been making for years.
You’ve got some documents? Put ‘em up. Shut our mouths.
Or shut yours.
And J.F. again —
I think someone was vaguely remembering the lawsuit that was filed over the Waterworld[stunt show at Universal Studios, which resulted in the writers of the movie getting a piece of the gate for as long as the show was in operation.
But, sorry, I’m not going to offer up details of Terry’s and my business on a public message baord. Suffice to say, our reps continue to work to ensure we are fairly compensated for our professional services.
-
Yeah yeah that’s all nice and dandy… but is Sparrow gonna kick Spidey’s ass, or WHAT?!
I’ve been reading all this and following it, as we all have. I’ve also tried to keep quiet here on Craig’s forum, and just read. However, Without going into guild history right now - history either of the levies deal, or past administrations or executive directors of the guild - I finally wanted to make a couple of points of information to all this, to try and bring it around to what’s real, and what’s conjecture and fantasy. There is a great deal of fantasy and historical fiction floating around, and it’s clouding the real issues.
When the WGA was offered this deal, it was an ‘all or nothing,’ situation. Either we collected for nonmembers as well, or we got nothing. From what I know of this deal, we were not only strongarmed into taking it if we wanted our members to benefit, but we were also overwhelmed by the amount of money, time, and red tape that was involved with the distribution of the funds. My biggest problem with all this is, that in the twenty or so years since the levies deal was made - we haven’t been able to step up, or to catch up, to the situation. And we notoriously have not always had the most effective staff running the show. but that’s only part of the problem here -
My feeling is that the biggest problem we had, was that this was never brought to the membership for a vote. and it should have been. I know that this was discussed internally at the time. But ultimately,it wasn’t brought to us. Why that decision was made, I have no idea. Nor do I have memory. Carl Gottlieb or Greg Strangis would better be able to explain that one.
That there are issues here, is an understatement. To call them criminal or deliberate, is an aberration. somewhere in the middle of all this, lies the truth. I do not for one minute believe that there was any ill intention surrounding this. What was supposed to be ‘found money,’ as Brian Walton used to say, and frankly, a gift to all of us, has become a quagmire of controversy and a nightmare for us. I also know that the WGA is doing everything possible to help rectify this situation. The lists of people who are owed money, is already two years outdated. There are people on those lists who have received their money. But the out of date lists are published anyway. No explanation of estates, confusion, multiple spouses, pseudonyms, anywhere to be found. The WGA W and E have a responsibilty to take care of members first. If we had not agreed to the terms of the deal as laid out to us, we would have lost the levies. That’s my memory of this. And while I was not on the board at the time, believe me, I was ‘in the rooms,’ when much of this went down. and there was much discussion within the WGA halls. This deal wasn’t just ‘hatched.’
With the Accusations flying, and the admonitions to ‘watch the skies…’ It’s all gerbil shit. To quote one of my favorite writers. Listen to the people who were actually there. Guild members who helped to make this deal happen. As for some of the former guild employees who have been quoted in the recent press -
Some of them are not exactly the most reliable sources. We guild members who actually had to deal with them, for the most part had miserable experiences for any number of reasons which I won’t go into here. The bottom line is that we need to consider the source of all of this. And the motive of some of the people who are speaking out against the guild.
Craig Mazin and Ted Elliott have done nothing but fight for us as writers. And as John Turman has said here, Ted has the most comprehensive understanding of copyright laws than anyone I’ve ever known. And Craig and I surely do not agree on all things guild. In fact, we’re polar opposites. But I would more trust what he is saying - and has said - than anyone else who has spoken out on this issue, either in the press, or privately. As I would, Ted. If it’s information and fact you want, then listen to the two of them. If you want the genesis of all this - then listen to Carl Gottlieb and Greg Strangis. Again - I’ve gone toe to toe with both of them as well, but have great respect for them. And what they say is fact. and that’s what’s needed here.
Fact. axes and emotions removed from the mix - pure fact. Stephanie Liss
Jeff L. wrote “….Aside from that employee, none of that approaches the accusations of illegality you and Art and others have been making for years.
Youve got some documents? Put em up. Shut our mouths….”
Federal enforcement officers have the documents to which Mr. Lawton refers, and they would not look kindly at anyone divulging what they know. Neither Mr. Lawton nor I wish to compromise at least one federal case in the making.
Is that case or cases taking a long time in being filed or brought to a grand jury? Absolutely yes. For comparison, look at the time involved in the “Pellicano” investigations. The legal issues involved in the foreign levies matters are multinational, involve buffet of possible charges from RICO violations, fraud, wire fraud, Patriot Act violations, and labor law violations.
People are welcome not to believe any of that, and it is probably a lot more comfortable to not believe that. Others do believe there is both on-going wrong-doing and a federal investigation there-of, and are figuring out what to do about it. It depends who you are.
Art Eisenson
There’s one other thing…
J.F. - The fact that Terry Mial took confidential documents out of the guild building, with personal and confidential member information contained within them, is something that hasn’t been discussed.
If you are truly a whistle blower, with no personal axe to grind, and no personal motive anywhere, then you remove the documents, copy them and return them. Or - you stay late and copy. you do not leave the building with the originals, which if I’m understanding correctly, is exactly what she did. Further - where is the proof that these docs were headed for the shredder? That is one woman’s word. But is there really reliability in that word? I’m wondering if anyone has looked at any employee files for some of the people involved here.
It’s interestng that the morals which are being questioned here, are the same morals and ethics that are being violated by all of those who are crying foul and running to the press. Stephanie Liss
A prediction: In the same way that Stephanie Liss’s nasty, solipsistic, uninformed, emotionally unhinged diharrea of the laptop has pretty much driven everyone off WriterAction, it will now do the same for The Artful Writer.
I misspelled diarrhea. Sorry.
Dear Weary reader…. Interesting that you don’t use your name. But I do like your use of alliteration. Very fancy.
As for my being the reason people have been driven away from Writer Action - thanks for crediting me with that kind of power.
And for the rest - no comment. Just wish you had the balls - or ovaries - to stand behind your comments with your real name. and this is about as far as I’m going to engage. Let’s stick to the issue, shall we? Stephanie Liss
Here’s the coverage:
The 20 million the Guild is holding is a slush fund they can use to pay off corrupt Guild officials because there are no records.—J.F. Lawton
Didn’t Grisham write this one yet? The mystery is solved when the protagonist gets copies of the records from the originating countries. He realizes he was wrong all along, but it’s too late. His meddling causes the foreign levies money to go out of the control of writers and into the control of the corporations. Know what happens then? The writers receive a tiny percentage of the foreign levies money under the current residual formula. Ironic, no?
Almost as ironic as this whole mess coming up right while the Guilds are preparing to negotiate with the companies. Seems like the sort of thing that would be spearheaded by a company man.
Late to the party, but I offer this anyway.
Back around ‘91, I wrote a letter to Brian Walton saying it would have been great if he had clued me in about the foreign levies deal he’d recently negotiated for animation writers.
Since, at the time, I was a union rep for animation writers and he wasn’t.
Never got a reply, by the way.
A reminder to keep the tone civil. You’re new here, “A Weary Reader,” so that’s the warning. I hate deleting comments, but it’s important to me that we at least try and keep our conversation impersonal and civil.
Art:
Do you think Eric Hughes would support or not support your public assertions, particularly within your own stated context of not being able to divulge information?
Craig, you asked “…Do you think Eric Hughes would support or not support your public assertions, particularly within your own stated context of not being able to divulge information?”
Other than that you’re asking for a personal opinion on a public blog about what a friend of mine might do, an opinion which doesn’t seem to add information to the public discourse, I can’t parse your question. I suggest you to ask questions about what Eric Hughes would do to Eric Hughes.
I don’t know J.F. Lawton, and have not seen any of the evidence he claims to have seen, but based on his credits, I would assume he has enough personal assets that he would not risk losing them all in a libel suit by making written accusations against equally well-off writers of fairly insidious behavior unless he had some way to prove his words. Just my conjecture. What seems to be getting lost in the slinging of mud and tin-foil hat accusations is the meat of the LA Weekly story, which reads:
But angry writers say they have evidence of an even more disturbing guild practice: its diverting of 92.5 percent of writers’ pay from foreign airings of their works to Hollywood studios, producers and, perhaps most galling, to the Writers Guild of America West itself. Since 1990, these critics contend, the guild has quietly been paying a king’s ransom in writers’ foreign earnings — far beyond the $20 million in withheld checks already acknowledged by Gor — to powerful Hollywood entities without the writers’ agreement or knowledge.
From my reading of all the published articles, my understanding is that almost every government in the developed world has some centralized office for collecting and distributing funds to creators of original screen work (which they generally recognize to be writers and directors) except the United States.
Some years ago, contact was made between these foreign offices and the WGA and DGA (no idea who reached out to whom, but they were eventually in a room together) and it was agreed that the unions would disperse the funds to those creators in America.
At that point, the studios reared their ugly heads and said, “Whoa! We own the copyright on that here in the good old U.S. of A., so we get that money.”
And the WGA and DGA said, “Okay, how about you take 85% of it and we’ll distribute the other 15% to writers and directors?” And the studios said, “Welllll….okay. We’ll take 85% and you can have the rest.” The 50-25-25 split came about much later.
EIGHTY-FIVE PERCENT! Off the top, with no member approval and no litigation to determine who that money really belonged to and no international body asserting the right of the copyright holder over the right of the creator. Where did that number come from?
And here’s the bigger issue: If someone wrote, directed and produced his own film that never got distribution in the U.S., but did screen in theatres and show on television in foreign territories, with no studio ever involved, the Guild would have collected money for that person and shipped 85% of it off to some fund that was divided among the studios. If that person was not a WGA or DGA member, then he never authorized that transaction, either directly or by allowing his union to negotiate on his behalf. I’m sorry, but this is, quite simply, criminal, whether they sent him the money or retained the interest or charged a processing fee.
The split with the studios is what we need to be outraged about. Hundreds of millions of dollars due to writers and directors was simply turned over to our employers, with no clearly defined legal right, by our unions. We should have at least had a fighting chance to claim a bigger portion for ourselves. And worse, for some writers and directors, it was turned over to people who never employed them in the first place, by a union that never represented them at all.
Who were these men, who, behind closed doors, determined that - copyright holders or not - we and our director colleagues were only entitled to 7.5% of what the rest of the world’s nations thought we were due? And how were they personally enriched by doing so? These are the questions creators need to be asking.
I have. I was just wondering what you thought.
WGA Member:
A good comment with fair questions. I’ll go through it here.
First, I don’t think “He wouldn’t say it for fear of a lawsuit if it weren’t true” is a very good test of truth. Regardless, libel laws in the U.S. aren’t particularly plaintiff-friendly. We all enjoy a fairly wide berth in regard to opinions (particularly political opinions), and words like “corrupt” and so forth are fairly ambiguous.
It’s probably safest to just consider the facts at hand, rather than attempt to infer truth on the basis of bravado.
You ask an excellent question. Why would the DGA and WGA ever accept an 85%-15% split, even with the foreknowledge that the deal would be improved?
First, let’s note an inherent distortion in the L.A. Weely article. The “92.5% diversion” means that McDougal feels that even the money that went to directors is unfair and a diversion. I think reasonable people can agree that no matter what you feel about the authorship value of a director, the foreign nations that collect foreign levies do recognize directors as authors (largely…there may be a minor player that does not…it varies from country to country).
But back to the central question.
One theory is that the WGA and the DGA agreed to the 85-15 split because they were weak.
Could be.
One theory is that the WGA and the DGA agreed to teh 85-15 split because key players inside the guilds were in cahoots with the companies, and people acted unethically or corruptly.
Could be.
I don’t have any evidence as of yet to back either of those theories up.
One theory is that in the quest to get the levies from Over There to Over Here, the writers and directors were outleveraged by the companies.
How?
We know that the foreign countries refused to give the money to corporate “authors,” which was a serious problem for the companies. We also know that under U.S. law, the writers and directors in question hadn’t legally authored anything at all.
Thus, it seems that both parties needed each other to get anything. If the writers asked for the money without partnering with the companies, then the companies would theoretically sue the writers for illegally benefitting from company authorship (would they win? dunno, but they’d be suing individuals, RIAA style, I suspect, and I don’t know about you, but I really don’t like my odds if I’m getting sued by, say, Time-Warner).
The natural partnership would be what we have now. 50-50. On the other hand, could the WGA or DGA convince the foreign nations, on their own, to fork over the money?
Ted’s raised a key question (and I don’t know the answer, so if anyone has any documentation on this, please forward it): do foreign nations have a duty to disburse levies to any author who isn’t a national? Does German law require that they distribute levies to French authors?
Here’s why this is key. If they’re not required, then the WGA and the DGA face a serious problem. We know that the foreign nations make these reciprocal agreements (“We’ll send you your writers’ money if you send us our writers’ money”), but they can’t make that deal with us so easily, because we don’t have any levies to send them, right? We don’t do this sort of thing.
So if we have to no levies to send back to, say, Germany, then we have no chance for an easy reciprocal agreement, so then how do we leverage that money out of there?
One possibility is to ask an extremely powerful trade organization with long arms and influence around the world to step in on our behalf and use their muscle to dislodge the money.
Like, say, the MPAA.
And if that were the case, then we just might find ourselves on the stinky end of the leverage stick.
Now…is this right?
I don’t know.
It could be weakness, it could be stupidity, it could be corruption, or it could be realpolitik getting played out.
Generally speaking, I’m suspicious of any theory that requires large groups of self-interested people to act stupidly, and I’m similarly suspicious of any theory that requires large groups of self-interested people to act corruptly without detection or betrayal.
Thus, I’m left trying to figure out various unsexy bureaucratic or economic explanations.
I grant you it’s not satisfying, nor is it particularly sensational, but until I see evidence to the contrary, it’s all I’ve got.
EIGHTY-FIVE PERCENT! Off the top, with no member approval and no litigation to determine who that money really belonged to and no international body asserting the right of the copyright holder over the right of the creator. Where did that number come from?
Those are the numbers I heard back in ‘91. And I was ticked, because Mr. Walton negotiated the percentages for union members he didn’t represent, and felt zero need to give a heads up to anybody.
When I protested, Mr. W. said in the WGA magazine that he thought I should have shown gratitude for his efforts.
Steve:
That’s really unacceptable, and kind of stupid, to boot. One thing I really can’t explain is why any of the architects of this deal ever thought some of these issues (like blanket representation of another union’s members) wouldn’t come back to bite them in the ass at some point.
That’s not how it went down.
The first of these blank tape levies was instituted in ‘85, and others soon followed (not a lot, though; out of 96 or so countries signatory to the Berne Convention and World Copyright Treaty, only fifteen have blank tape levies).
In almost all cases — I think Argentina is the exception — there is both an author’s share (typically divided among the writer or writers, the director, and the composer) of the levies and a producer’s share.
The MPAA starting claiming the producer’s share, which the countries released to them. At the same time, the MPAA also attempted to claim the author’s share, on the basis that in the U.S., the production company is usually the author of the screenplay and the motion picture.
However, the laws in these countries stipulate that only a natural person can be an author. This means that the various collection societies that administer the levies could not release the author’s share to the MPAA without violating their own countries’ laws.
At that’s the point where the WGA and DGA got involved. In order for the MPAA to get its hands on the author’s share of the levies, they needed natrural persons who were credited as writers and directors on the movies to claim ‘em.
So it would seem as though writers and directors, in the form of the WGA and the DGA were in the driver’s seat, right? Since only writers and directors could claim the funds, what for do they need to make any kind of deal with the MPAA? Particularly one that hands 85% of the funds over to the MPAA?
One possible answer:
The Guilds are corrupt, working in cahoots with the MPAA to screw U.S. writers and directors, with the pay-off for the Guilds being the administration fees, the interest generated by collected funds, and the ability to declare large amounts of the money “undeliverable,” and use it to line the pockets of various Guild staffers, representatives and members.
But here’s another possible answer:
A couple of important points:
The Berne Convention does not define the term “author” as a natural person; in fact, it does define the term at all. It leaves it to the individual countries in the Union to define the term in their own laws.
The term “the Union” here does not mean the European Union. Article 1 of the Berne Convention says “The countries to which this Convention applies constitute a Union for the protection of the rights of authors in their literary and artistic works.” That’s the Union referred to throughout the Convention.
As J.F. mentioned, the United States became signatory to the Berne Convention in 1989. The U.S. is one of the countries to which the Convention applies; it’s part of the aforementioned Union. So are all the countries that impose the blank tape levies.
Okay, so the Berne Convention says that a U.S. author as defined by U.S. law is entitled to the same protections as native-born authors in any other country signatory to the Convention.
And what that does is create the Gordian knot that is at the heart of the foreign levies issue:
The foreign collection societies cannot release the author’s share of the levies to U.S. authors that are not natural person without violating their own countries’ laws — but because the production companies are recognized as authors under U.S. law, the Berne Convention says they are entitled to the same rights in those countries as any native-born author.
One of those rights, of course, is the right to the author’s share of the levies.
What’s a foreign collection society to do?
We know that they won’t release the funds to the production companies. But let’s say that a natural-born person who is credited as the writer-director on the U.S. production Placeholder: The Movie — but is not recognized as the author under U.S. law — walks into one of these foreign collection societies, and asks them to fork over the money due to the author of Placeholder: The Movie.
What happens? Does the collection society give him the money? If so, does the writer get sued by the production company for falsely representing himself as the author of the movie? Does the production company sue the collection society because the Berne Convention says it’s supposed to have the same rights any native-born author, and the collection society violated those rights? Does the foreign court decide that a U.S. author is entitled to the same rights as a native born author only when the U.S. author is a natural person? Does the country have the right to unilaterally interpret the Berne Convention so as to invalidate U.S. work-made-for-hire law? Or does the whole thing get transferred to the World Court? Or something else?
Or … how ‘bout this? The foreign collection society just says “Forget it, pal. Since you’re not the author of the work, we can’t release the money to you, and since the production company is not a natural person , we can’t release it to them … so we’ll just mark the whole wad as ‘undeliverable’ and keep it. Ta.”
How do you think this plays out? Genuinely, I don’t know — but, then, neither does anyone else. I suspect though, that the most likely scenarios all end with writers and directors getting no money.
A bad deal is not iron-clad evidence of corruption; most bad deals happen because one side has a far less leverage in negotiations in the other.
But I want to stess: this is a separate issue from the one that the plaintiffs in the lawsuit are suing over, and the one Steve Hulett mentions. That goes to the legal question of whether or not the Guilds had the right to enter into the agreement on behalf of anyone other than their own members.
-
Stephanie Liss: “If you are truly a whistle blower, with no personal axe to grind, and no personal motive anywhere, then you remove the documents, copy them and return them. Or - you stay late and copy. you do not leave the building with the originals, which if Im understanding correctly, is exactly what she did. Further - where is the proof that these docs were headed for the shredder? That is one womans word. But is there really reliability in that word? Im wondering if anyone has looked at any employee files for some of the people involved here.”
You know, Stephanie, it’s really hard to know what to do when you find out you’re involved in a huge criminal conspiracy. As I did when I became a member of the Board of Directors for the the Writers Guild.
I’ve fucked up a lot. I yelled when I should have probably talked calmly. I made friends with people who turned out to be spies and told them too much only to have them stab me in the back. I lashed out at them with e-mails, when I should have probably sucked up to them to get more dirt. I trusted people I shouldn’t have, and didn’t trust people I should have.
So I guess you are right, that the polite thing to do when you find some documents on Tony Sopranos desk that indicate he is stealing money is to copy them, and then return them.
As far as I know, however, all of the documents Teri Mial gave to the Feds were ones she was ordered to shred. So if she did remove any originals, I don’t know if she did, there was no need to put them back on Tony Soprano’s desk, since he ordered them to be destroyed.
As I said, it’s really hard to know the polite thing to do when you are a minor player involved in an international criminal conspiracy that is destroying a lot of peoples lives.
What Teri did was amazingly courageous. And all writers should thank her for it. But yes, maybe she could have handled it better. I know I wish I could go back and handle my small part in all of this differently.
But I’m doing the fucking best I can.
Let me say, I am glad to see you come here on this forum and express your opinions, open to the public, rather than hide in the weird lurking world of Writer Action were people seem to think that what they say can’t be printed in the press. Or isn’t availible for law enforcement to review.
That wasn’t true, but I prefer talking with people who understand that everything they say will be openingly reviewed by everyone around the world.
That’s what is great about the internet.
Best,
JF
Would someone please read Ted Elliot’s posts and try to explain to me what he means other than to confuse the shit out of people?
And also explain to me why a hot Hollywood screenwriter (I’m not hot anymore, I’m afraid to say) spends so much fucking time looking into all the details of international contracts and laws only to conclude that writers are fucked and should be happy with how they are being treated.
This is a guy who wanted to be president of the Writer’s Guild? A guy who would explain to us that the notion that we have civil rights as authors is not so simple and the corporations have a very good case they should be able to fuck us?
And Ted, I’m going to say this for the last fucking time. (I hope.) Be careful what you write down in print. It is my opinion that a lot of what you write isn’t coming from you, but from the people who are feeding you “facts.” Be careful. You will answer to what they tell you to say in your name.
I write a lot of crap, and regret some of it, but I’m not stealing peoples money. Or helping people steal it.
Thanks for all your helpful info on your fight with Disney to get a piece of the Pirates ride. I’m sorry everyone in Hollywood believes that you won that lawsuit when you say you didn’t. (Or kind of say it.)
JF
WGA Member: “I dont know J.F. Lawton, and have not seen any of the evidence he claims to have seen, but based on his credits, I would assume he has enough personal assets that he would not risk losing them all in a libel suit by making written accusations against equally well-off writers of fairly insidious behavior unless he had some way to prove his words. Just my conjecture.”
Dear WGA Member,
That’s a good point, but its even more serious than that. By being elected to be a member of the Board of Directors of the WGA, I had a fiduciary duty under law. That means, I could be sued if I DIDN’T speak out.
When I created and chaired the Governance Committee I frankly became scared by what the WGA Board of Directors was asking me to do. (Which, in my opinion, was to help them rig the new election after the DOL had determined the previous election was rigged.) I hired the best labor lawyer I could find to get advice. His advice was: “The WGA is most corrupt union in Hollywood.”
This didn’t cheer me up.
So yes, I understand that by speaking out Craig or Ted might say they will sue me for libel. But if I don’t speak out, I could be sued by WGA members for not revealing what I know about a criminal conspiracy that happened while I was a Board Member.
And frankly, I’m stunned that Ted and Craig aren’t more worried about that too.
JF
Craig Mazin: “First, lets note an inherent distortion in the L.A. Weely article. The 92.5% diversion means that McDougal feels that even the money that went to directors is unfair and a diversion. I think reasonable people can agree that no matter what you feel about the authorship value of a director, the foreign nations that collect foreign levies do recognize directors as authors (largelythere may be a minor player that does notit varies from country to country).”
I don’t see how it is a distortion for McDougal to reveal the fact that in some countries, yes, they think the writer is more important than the director.
Maybe that doesn’t fit with your, and Ted Elliot’s, “writers don’t matter so much” opinion (and you were on the WGA Board of Directors?). But if there are some counties that collect money for writers, and not directors, why should the WGA agree to share them with the DGA?
You seem to have this opinion that writers are only half as imporant as directors so we should just split any money (owed to writers) regardless of what the country collecting the money thinks.
Okay, that’s your opinion.
Why not check out if that is the opinion of the rest of the membership before we sign some secret agreements with the DGA to give them a larger share of what they aren’t owed.
Craig and Ted, I’m a writer and director. I’ve directed many films and TV episodes. But writing is the most important thing.
The two of you continue to try to sell out writers by helping to cover up this issue. It’s simply shameless.
JF
Mr. Lawton, with all due respect, you appear to be someone who is bi-polar and has gone off his meds.
I have great compassion for anyone suffering from a mental illness. But the problem is, there are some real issues here and you are mixing them with paranoid fantasies.
You are very talented and it is clear you are someone who cares deeply about things. Please take that same care of yourself. Stop drinking, see your doctor, and take your medications. Otherwise, you will not accomplish anything except the destruction of your career and reputation and a create a lot of heartache for your family.
I’m kind of hesitant to take part in this discussion because English is not my first language. And I don’t have a legal dictionary (even if I did there are some serious differences in legal traditions to contend with).
First, about terminology. I believe the correct term is renumeration (not levy). In several countries there are agencies that collect renumerations for the sale of blank audio and video media and hardware, used for reproduction of material protected by copyright, and distribute to rightholders. The money paid to individuals is called secondary royalties — at least it is in GB. End of terminology-talk.
I think most of the countries that collect renumerations recognize that three groups can claim part-authorship of audiovisual works: 1) performers (actors, musicians etc), 2) producers and 3) authors (screenwriters, directors, editors, novelists, as authors of works films are based on, etc).
How the money is divided between the different rightholder-groups, percentage-wise, differs from one country to another. In at least one country (Iceland) the matter was decided in a court of arbitration.
How the money is distributed to individuals also differs from one country to another. Unions or artists’ associations actually do the distributing in some places (perhaps primarily in the smaller countries where there isn’t a whole lot of money at stake, not enough to justify the setting up of some special distribution apparatus).
It appears that in the US producers/studios, writers and directors simply went ahead and negotiated amongst themselves to get their hands on the money (perhaps no other union knew about the existence of the so-called levies).
I’m by no means an expert on how things are handled in Europe — far from it — but I think J.F. Lawton really needs to make a study of where the money is coming from and why.
Anna:
Your English is exceptional.
My only thought is that when you write “renumerate” you mean “remunerate”.
To Others:
Although I only served one term on the Board of the WGAw and then chose to not run for re-election, I am proud of my record. I made a lot of motions (our equivalent of writing legislation), I got a lot of things passed, I put what I believed was right ahead of what was politically expedient, and I sleep well at night knowing that I acted ethically, legally and morally in service of my union.
I’ll happily defend my honor (in this regard, at least) any day of the week…in public, on record, in here, to all of you…to anyone.
Yes, even to the Feds, whoever and wherever they are. Feds, if you’re watching and reading, my phone number is right there on my tax return. Or you can contact me by email at admin@artfulwriter.com, and I’ll happily sing like a bird. You can interrogate me, polygraph me or give me a sodium pentothal enema. Waterboarding works too. I don’t mind torture—I’m a Republican.
Some people find it hard to believe that Ted or I would spend time on these kinds of things. Some people would have you believe that a complex view of these issues is a virtual impossibility for a mere screenwriter, so we must be getting “fed” information by superior life forms.
Believe it or not, there are screenwriters who actually read and think and research and theorize and postulate independently about complicated issues that affect their lives and livelihood.
We’re two of them, at least.
Wanna know the name of at least one other one?
Eric Hughes.
Dear J. F. No comment about what you directed at me. If anyone investigating this issue - such as the feds or dol or whoever it may be at the moment, wants to question me about what I mean when I say certain things, they can certainly feel free to contact me.
Craig Mazin has my numbers. So when they call him, they can ask him for my info.
J. F. - you have done so much good for our guild and for writers over the years. There was a time when yours was one of the few voices to whom we could go, when things went awry within our guild. I have never forgotten that. Nor will I ever forget that. Now, however, I find myself saddened over the great disparity between what is actual and factual, and what the charges are seeming to be - and by some of the folks being quoted in the press, and by your accusations, here -in this very public forum.
I’m not saddened because I believe the accusations are true. I”m saddened because the people making the accusations have so many walls around them, they are incapable of hearing any other point of view. Usually when we, as writers, duke it out - it’s internally. Not in a public venue. And usually it’s based in facts -not misinterpretations and articles that haven’t been properly researched or fact checked, as we have found in the recent past.
I don’t think any one of us is saying that no mistakes were made. Nor do I think anyone would ever call a true whistle blower anything but courageous. and strong. My concern is not in the ‘what,’ - but rather in the ‘how,’ And the ‘why.’ I am not comfortable with some of the people who are party to all this. That’s all I’m saying.
Craig is working his tail off right now to try and get some answers. To try and get some kind of ‘even,’ responsible, answers. I believe he will get to the heart of this. and I would believe his word beyond anyone else’s who has spoken out about this, or who has been quoted in the press, thusfar. Or who has been posting things on Writer Action with regard to this. There is a ‘watch the skies,’ mentality that suggests there are those writers among us who would love for all this to be blown wide open, for no other reason than to be proven right. And to be given some kind of genuine sense of credibility.
Some of these people have been crying foul for a long time, and allude to all kinds of things, and yet have yet to produce one fact. All anyone has said, is ‘show me.’ Don’t tell me. Show me. And if you can’t produce, then stop talking about it until you have something concrete to share. Because honestly, J. F. - anything else is irresponsible. and feels like self sabotage going into these upcoming negotiations. I”m just sayin’…
Craig Mazin and Ted Elliott have spoken out for writers - on our behalf -for a very long time. I’m saying this publicly because it’s important.
They are not ‘mouthpieces,’ for management. And both are fearless. again, J. F. - I don’t agree with Craig about many of the issues facing us as writers. But I would go to the mat for him, and I would never think that anything he had to say came from anything but a writer’s heart. I have never known him to speak a word that wasn’t true. Or that was exaggerated. Nor has Ted. They have fought tirelessly on our behalf. and I know for a fact that Craig has done more behind the scenes for writers in the two short years he was on the board, than many others do in a lifetime of being in the guild.
so please,J. F. - be careful what you say about Craig and Ted in public. Mazin has the soul of a writer. Spend any time talking to him, and you will know that in a nanosecond.
I’m sorry, J. F. I really don’t want to mix it with you, here. But - This just had to be said. Stephanie
Craig: Yes, it’s remunerate.
I’m mystified by my misspelling because practically the whole paragraph is copied from a collecting society’s website and pasted in the AW comment-window. I also looked the word up because it was so unfamiliar.
So because I quoted the Berne Convention and talked about how the lack of homogeneity between the copyright laws of the U.S. and other signatory countries signatory has an impact on this issue, you characterize my motives as trying to confuse people. Then you reiterate your position that if someone simply talks about the circumstances imposed on screenwriters by U.S. law, it is the same thing as advocating for the continuation of those circumstances.
And because I am a successful screenwriter who creates intellectual property which copyright is exploited worldwide, the notion that I have educated myself about U.S. and international copyright law is, according to you, suspect, if not downright sinister.
Go to Google, type in “Berne Convention,” hit enter. Or type in “WIPO,” hit enter. The resources are not difficult to find.
And here, you continue to try to discredit what I’ve written by implying that the mere existence of it might somehow get me into legal trouble, because it it is being “fed” to me by someone else, presumably the people who made the foreign levies deal.
You are pathetically transparent, J.F. Since you cannot refute what I’ve written, you fall back on the only trick you have and attack me personally.
And, of course, in the way you have chosen to attack me personally, you once again demonstrate that you favor ignorance over information, that you don’t want writers to be knowledgeable about the legalities of our profession, and that you want everyone to believe that the Guild and other writers are solely to blame for the lack of power and control writers have over their work in Hollywood.
You know, more and more, I am coming to the conclusion that you actually meant what you once wrote on WriterAction — that you genuinely believe that writers in Hollywood got greater respect and were treated better before we won the right to bargain collectively, before the Guild was founded. And that your goal is not to expose corruption, or reform the Guild — it is to convince enough writers that that any union is bad, they will vote to end union representation entirely.
P.S. There is only one person in town who thinks Terry and I filed a lawsuit against Disney over the Pirates ride: you. The made-up William Morris person doesn’t count.
-
Anna —
The principle underlying the blank tape levies is that private copying cuts into the royalties an author would receive from the sale of copies of his work. The author, therefore, should be remunerated for that use of his work, as well. That’s why the money authors receive is sometimes called remunerations. But the way the money is generated (so that there’s something the authors can receive) is by imposing levies on the manufacture or import of blank recording devices and media.
-
Ted:
Actually I’m familiar with the underlying principle of the so-called blank tape levies; it’s the English term “remunerate” I’m unfamiliar with. I took part in preparing (or whatever the correct legal term is) one of the cases for the court of arbitration in Iceland.
But thanks for explaining because some explanation was needed.
Icelandic - a language so difficult, it makes learning English seem simple.
This, adapted from my post on Writer Action:
Those geek lists of famous writers listed as “undeliverable” are, as I recall, several years and millions of distributed dollars out of date. Like everyone else here, I’m without specific knowledge of the vetting process in the Foreign Levies department, but consider this:
The Guild’s knowledge of personal details of people in its database are confidential; we have names, social security numbers, birth dates, accountant and business manager details, and much more, which nobody expects us to make available to any third party without a court order.
I submit that nobody on the list would like to see, publicly disclosed, anything like this:
Mrs. Jake Nonmember, daughter-in-law and executor of the estate of the late Mr. Famous Writer, is being sued for mismanagement of the estate and theft by Famous Writer Jr., estranged son and disinherited heir of F.W. Funds due to Mr. F.W. by the WGA are being retained until the Missouri Probate Court resolves the case and determines the rightful beneficiary of the estate.
OR:
Mr. Bigtime Screenwriter, who died in 1972, wrote his Beneficiary Designation Card while in an advanced state of senile dementia, according to the Bank of Canada, which administers the trust he set up for his children, who perished in a fire in 1985, and are unavailable to confirm or deny the report.
OR:
The late Wily Writer created an Irrrevocable Generation-Skipping Trust and assigned his residuals and foreign levies funds in perpetuity to his pregnant daughter’s twins in utero, who were stillborn after his death.
OR:
The WGA’s Foreign Levies Distribution staff has determined that Mrs. Beloved Wellknown Writer-Director, Mother of the Year and founder of ‘Jewish Liberals For Abstinence,’ has $27,580 due for works written under the pseudonyms “Harry Hardcock,” “Saffo Lesbetits,” “Bill Buttreamer,” and “Ju Cee Twatt,” all produced as independent underground video features intended for a specialized market and exhibited on late-night adult channels in Scandinavia and the Netherlands?
Any of these scenarios could exist; as a principal in any of these beneficiary/estate issues, would you want the details online or in print, just to take the heat off the Guild’s Residuals Dep’t?
I didn’t think so.
Carl,
I respectfully disagree.
While the WGA list may be a bit out of date, until a couple months ago, the number of writers currently owed money was not much smaller. In fact quite a few names currently owed money don’t even appear on the dated list.
In my research of both guilds, DGA and WGA: yes there were deceased on the lists, there were some issues of probate, etc. However, far and away, the majority of names were simply non-guild members who were never informed of the existence of levies.
I’m also not sure that I follow your thoughts on the public disclosure argument. Maybe I’m missing something. Why would potentially dirty laundry and/or personal info be made public?
Dear Stefan —
I was responding to a suggestion that if the Guild just EXPLAINED why some well-known names were listed as “undeliverable,” the membership and general public might understand some of the complexities of fiduciary responsibility.
This is the unintended consequence of the European’s insistence that if we wanted to get money for WGA members, we had to take ALL the money intended for US writers, and assume the responsibility for getting everyone paid).
As for non-members not being informed, it’s hard to inform people whose basic contact information is not known. In 1992-2000, there was no “Zabasearch.com,” nor any of the commercial data-mining services available. An under-staffed office augmented by temp workers was swamped. Cold-calling and searching print directories is labor-intensive, detail-oriented work,
Generally speaking, your research should have shown you that the oldest money still in the pool is the hardest to distribute: the first decade of levies checks were the least-documented, most incomplete records supplied to the Guild by the foreign collection societies.
I’M NOT APOLOGIZING OR WHINING, just explaining. Again.
Reap/sow, not reap/sew.
Quite right. Fixed.
Why aren’t the WGA and DGA updating and posting these lists on a quarterly or annual basis? Seems to me this would show what progress the Guilds are making in locating and paying the “authors” in question and lets the public know who it is they are still looking for, including names that may have been added to the list more recently.
I liked this thread more when Josh Olson was bloviating on that poor Kevin dude for no real reason.
Remember those days, guys?
Josh always leans on me. Probably because I’m better looking.
That, and I used the word “established”, instead of “working”.
That, and because you tried to tell an acclaimed screenwriter how to conduct himself…
That, and your only contribution is asking Ted if Pirates of the Caribbean is gonna kick Spidey’s ass…
Again, totally useless.
And what the hell does being an acclaimed screenwriter have to do with behaving badly? Jesus, talk about hero worship…
It’s called respect Kevin, respect for your peers, especially if they’re ten times more successful than you - and I mean YOU - will ever be. My Spidey comment was a joke. You scolding the tone of J.F.’s post was pathetic and pretentious. Come to think of it, so is interrupting the big boys with our banter.
Back to the program…
Johnny…I’m going to very careful with this comment as I don’t want it deleted for being uncivil.
Number one, your Spidey comment wasn’t funny the first time. It certainly didn’t get funnier the second time.
As for respect for your peers…Jesus, Johnny, where the hell do you come from? Maybe in your world you sit back and listen to someone who’s successful, regardless of what they’re saying or how they’re acting. That’s just idiotic. Although the way you think explains how Bush got reelected in 2004.
But you specifically probably shouldn’t interject anything because you never say anything useful. Like EVER. That’s not an insult, just an observation. I specifically wrote that I wanted to hear more from J.F. but his tone just automatically weakens his argument. That was just obvious. As others have stated.
Do me and everyone else a favor. Just stay quiet. Seriously. It’s tired and boring.
some things I don’t understand. Carl touched on them and others of us have stated the point here and on Writer Action, but I’ll have a go at it again -
Why is it so difficult to wrap our heads around teh fact that if in fact the lists of nonmembers owed the money are so long - and we are so limited in staff - that members of our guild should be a priority over nonmembers? Is there anyone out there who disagrees with that concept?
The Writers Guild of America - both east and west - is in existence to serve their members. Members first. Members first. Members first.
We seem to have a problem with this concept in so many areas these days, that it just boggles my mind.
When the levies deal was made, it was made very clear to our guild, as Carl and others have said over and over and over again - that if we were to collect money for our members we had to collect for all writers. If we said ‘no,’ to this arrangement, no one would have this money. It was found money, for us as guild members. And for nonguild members. Is it right that nonguild members haven’t received their money yet? Of course not. But isn’t it right that guild members are serviced first? After all - it is our dues that pays for all this. and we have earned the place in our professional world.
Stefan Avalos (are you any relation to Luis, by the way?) - of all the articles that have been written about this issue, I found yours to be the most well researched, accurate, in for the most part, balanced and fair. So I guess I’m asking you this question, because you are guild member as well -
How would you liked to have seen all this handled? What would you have suggested? And is there a better way to do this , now? You’ve seen documentation to which most of us clearly have not been privy - what’s your take on all this? Because from where I sit - now and having been actively involved with the guild then as well - the only key thing that wasn’t handled appropriately was that this should have been brought to the membership for a vote.
Stefan - agree? Disagree? and why?
Thanks. Stephanie
Stefan Avelos wrote: “….In my research of both guilds, DGA and WGA: yes there were deceased on the lists, there were some issues of probate, etc…”
This concerns matters which are in probate, and I am speaking as a former officer of the Interguild Federal Credit Union, answerable both to the CU’s membership and federal overseers. You treat other people’s money as if it’s toxic waste, particularly if who should get it is in litigation. The money over which there are disputes should be given to probate courts involved to keep in trust. Neither WGAw nor any other institution should make any interest on the money, nor should it prevent the beneficiaries as determined by the courts from reaping any interest.
Further, if the WGA is deciding which probate claims have merit enough to deter distribution, the Guild is usurping the role of the probate court. This is not wise.
Kevin,
My only serious issue was when you started dictating to Lawton what tone he should use. It was a petty, small-minded comment. That YOU can’t get past certain tones is one thing, that you would assert everyone’s ability to comprehend is as limited as your own is another. That you feel comfortable coming into the middle of a discussion among WGA members about a WGA issue and telling them how they may conduct themselves… well, THAT was a bit too much.
As far as I can tell, unless there’s a whole mess of porn flicks out there written by K. Arbootie, this issue doesn’t even affect you.
Stephanie,
No relation (that I know of) to Luis.
Yeah, bringing foreign levies decisions to member attention for a vote just might have been a good idea.
To answer your question, I think though that there are some other issues that everyone can agree are questionable. I won’t get into any conspiracies that may or may not have merit.
I also won’t get into the whole producer/author split issue. Except for one personal observation: How freaking greedy do the studios have to be? I mean, commonly the foreign levies pie is broken into 3 pieces. Authors share, producers share, performers share. The studios are ostensibly already getting their ‘producer’ share. Can’t the producers let the authors have the author share (even if the definition is allegedly cloudy)?
Next they’ll want the Academy credit for “best Screenplay” and any statue that might possibly be go with it.
Anyway, to answer your question about what problems I think there were besides the lack of member vote. Using 2004 as an example because I have those papers in front or me:
The foreign levies money accounted for roughly 30% of the WGA’s TOTAL net assets: 19,008,292.94 of 59,190,634.58 dollars. Why was, to use Mr. Gottlieb’s words, the levies dept. an "under-staffed office augmented by temp workers"?
I can understand being clumsy in the 1st year, the 2nd, the 5th year, but at what point does someone say, "Geez, I don’t think this enormous influx of money is gonna stop. We really need to get a handle on it."
And at what point does being inept cease to be a good excuse? I mean, it’s thirty percent (30%) of the Guild’s total net assets. That’s a lot.
And I know I sound like a broken record but, I just don’t understand why that old "trouble money" didn’t escheat to the state. Heck, a company can let money escheat before the statue of limitations is up. Why not just dump any money that is in the slightest way problematic? Especially that pesky non-guild member money?
Yes, I know that early on, there was trouble with assigning x dollar to x writer - however that doesn’t seem to be the issue now. The majority of the money (perhaps all of it) has names attached to it. The issue seems to be with finding those names. Let someone else deal with it. Let the state deal with it.
Don’t ask me how to deal with Rod Ramrod, or any other Valley based writers. :)
Seriously though, if the guild didn’t want the state to deal with it, why not stick a couple full page ads in Variety or the Reporter? Heck, stick one in the AVN Magazine for Rod and company. Segall disagreed with me, thinking it wouldn’t be cost effective, but I think annual or bi annual advertisements in the trades would get the info out much more effectively than has been done. No dirty laundry has to be aired. Just let people out there know that levies money exists. They can contact the Guilds. At least that way, the guilds could point to an honest attempt being made. It’s just a bit odd, in a business where getting words to the masses is what we do, that it should be so difficult in this case.
I think what most upsets people is the rather clandestine-seeming way 30% of the Guilds assets have been handled. Considering that a lot of that 30%, in fact, ain’t the Guilds assets.
Point in fact, I did write 3 really shitty martial art flicks (shot in Canada) so this does affect me.
The way I figure, I’m owed at least $13 or $14 dollars.
But I can see where there would be a problem because I used to go by the name, Kevin Daniels and not Kevin Arbouet.
Kev, on behalf of all readers and contributors of this great forum, can you please, PEASE, for chist’s sake, pleeease STOP talking about yourself. Nobody gives a damn.
I do. And the law backs me up on this.
A union has a duty of fair representation to anyone who is subject to a union contract — including non-members (ie, agency fee-payors, “financial core” non-members, etc). When it comes to administering and enforcing a contract, a union cannot show favoritism to one person over another one the basis that one has agreed to be subject to the union’s constitution, and the other has not.
The Guild elected to take on the obligation of disbursing money to members and non-members alike. That members are easier to locate then non-members is a reasonable explanation for the more timely delivery of members’ money — but that members are entitled to better treatment than non-members is not.
The WGAw and WGAE do not exist to serve there members. They exist to negotiate, administer and enforce contracts on behalf of employees collectively. That most of those employees also opt to become full members does not alter the Guilds’ purpose.
-
Ted - I’m not disagreeing with you on your last point. I’m saying that our guild has had a history , particularly in the recent past, of seemingly out of balance treatment of members vs nonmembers. I think Stefan has made some good points. (And by the way, thank you Stefan for your thoughtful response. Please stay in this discussion. ) Ted - I also think that we have a fiduciary responsibility to our members. In that respect, are we not in a members first situation with this?
I know we agreed to disburse monies to nonmembers. We didn’t have a choice . If we are in a service position with members to negotiate contracts and uphold the mba, then that includes financial distribution. This would have been more clearly defined had it been brought to the members for a vote - so this raises another question for me -
would this be an issue for the mba, now? Obviously nothing can be done until the suit is settled, Is it too late for us to bring to the membership for a vote at this point, depending upon the suit outcome? Is this even a legit question ?
Craig - Carl - any thoughts on this, please?
With regard to authorship - Ted, can you please run down the implications if this case is lost? Or is this public forum not the place to do this? If not - then can you please outline this on WA?
I don’t think many of us had been thinking in terms of the authorship until you opened it up.
e also problematic on several different levels.
Ted - will you respond either here or on WA? Craig -Carl, as well? Thoughts, please. thanks. Steph
Steph:
Because we apparently could only collect levies for members if we also agreed to collect levies for non-members, we had to enter into a non-collective bargaining agreement (no matter what was argued in court).
We essentially have a contract to do a job.
It’s possible that we didn’t have standing to enter into that contract, but putting that rather large conditional aside, we’re not acting like a union in these matters, but rather like a collection agency.
As such, members and non-members can’t and shouldn’t be treated any differently (which is why the 5% fee is there, at least in theory…so that members’ dues aren’t subsidizing a service for non-members).
Nor would a collective bargaining agreement ratification apply to non-members, who have no stake in our union, and thus our union has no jurisdiction over them.
Steph —
Craig gives a pretty good explanation of why this is not a “members first” situation — the short answer is, from the point of view of the contract, there are not “members” and “non-members,” there are only U.S. writers. It’s the plaintiffs in the case who are drawing the distinction between members and non-members, not the Guild.
This can’t be an issue for the MBA, because the MBA is contract with a multi-employer alliance, the AMPTP. The foreign levies agreement is with a trade organization that represents producers and production companies, the MPAA. That’s why, although the agreement is a union contract, it’s not a collective bargaining agreement (it’s also why it did not have to be put to a membership vote — the WGAw constitution requires only that collective bargaining agreements must be ratified (although, since the Fox Television Agreement, the Independent Film Agreement, the Documentary Film Agreement and any proto-Reality Television Agreement are collective bargaining agreements, one must wonder when — or even if — they will ever be put to a vote …)(another example of a union contract that is not a collective bargaining agreement: the settlement agreement with the WGAE. Where that settlement required amendment to the WGAw constitution, the membership voted on those amendments — but the agreement [i]en toto[/i] was not put to a membership vote, and neither the WGAw constitution or the law require it to be)(I think the Guild’s policy for some time has been, if the constitution does not require a membership vote, or the constitution can be interpreted to not require a membership vote, or we can get away without a membership vote because members don’t bother reading the constitution, then the membership-at-large should not be allowed anywhere near Guild business).
The ramifications for U.S. writers (and directors) would be not so much if the Guilds lost, but if the court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs on a specific point. The plaintiffs are not just demanding that the Guilds disgorge the money collected on behalf of non-members; they are are also suing to be compensated for the losses they incurred due to the Guilds’ involvement in the first place.
Those losses must be the difference between the amount of money they were entitled to under the foreign laws, and the amount they received from the Guilds. It seems to me that in order to prove those losses, the plaintiffs must argue that they were entitled to the entire author’s share, despite not being recognized as authors under U.S. law (because of work-made-for-hire).
If the court does direct the Guilds to compensate them for those losses, then it effectively means that a U.S. court has recognized that U.S. writers and directors are entitled to authorial rights on motion pictures and screenplays, regardless of the work-made-for-hire law.
That seems kind of big to me.
Also: in the recent ruling, the judge rejected the Guilds’ argument that the plaintiff’s rights to the money was created by the foreign levies agreement, stating that their right to the money was created by the foreign countries’ laws. The laws in the foreign countries say that the authors, as determined by those countries laws, are entitled to the money. Since the production companies are recognized as the authors under U.S. law, this ruling already seem to negate the work-made-for-hire law to some extent.
So, I’m a bit torn. It would be bad for the Guilds to lose this case, obviously, but, depending on how the case is argued (by both sides) and decided, that loss could be a significant win for writers and directors.
-
I’m back, and since i can’t discuss guild issues on Craig, Lawton, and Elliott’s level, I’ll stick to what I know: snarkiness.
I reread Kevin’s supposedly egregious comment. It wasn’t that bad. And there’s absolutly no reason for him to kowtow to a writer with bigger credits. That’s ridiculous. I don’t expect any working writer to treat me differantly because of my credits just like I don’t expect someone like Josh Olson to stop standing up to Craig just because Craig has bigger credits.
Kevin, you’re doing fine. Just play nice.
Ted, as you very correctly point out, it could be a significant win for writers and directors. I think - for both guilds - what is frightening them to the core, and one of the reasons they will fight this tooth and nail is the fact that the indemnifications clauses they signed with all the countries make them responsible for the money, if it is decided past monies are owed.
The amount owed could easily be in excess of 120 million dollars. Some estimate it to be closer to 400 million dollars.
Enough to sink both the WGA and DGA effortlessly.
Good for writers and directors, bad for the guilds. Very strange. But we gotta pick our sides. I’m personally in favor of the writers and directors.
Thanks, ProducedWriter. It gets lonely here at the middle!
Okay then. As I read this so far, the issues have been stated, alternatives suggested, questions raised, charges made, defenses offered, rationalizations suggested. An interesting spectrum: from darkly sinister conspiracies to “what else is new” dismissal.
I look forward to fresh developments, let’s not all chew our cabbage twice, rehash, and re-state the obvious. The legal objection “asked and answered” ought to be operative here.
Now to research what’s going on in the Spector murder trial…
Stefan,
If there is some ruling that past money is owed to the authors of the work (particulalry indie writer-producer-directors who never got a dime from the studios and own their own copyrights), then why wouldn’t the lion’s share of that money come from the studios themselves, since they are the ones that took the lion’s share of it without moral right in the first place?
They are also parties to all of these contracts. no? Or was this all a wink-wink-nudge-nudge handshake deal? Have the studios ever actually signed anything stating that they were taking 85% off the top - of everything, even the works they had no stake in?
Wga member, darn good question.
Carl, sorry - nothing fresh here except perhaps for a cut and paste I’m including from Fintage House.
The MPEA and IFTA signed actual contracts with the guilds, which the foreign societies have honored.
About indie product - No, the studios are supposedly not taking that money. They only take money from the work they produced. They seem not to have the same issues with identifying credit that everyone else has had.
I explain it a bit further down as this is a common misperception.
I also wrote about all this in the Fade In article. (due on newsstands this week - or go to: www.fadeinonline.com to read it now)
Producers giving the Guilds back the money? Good luck. That money is gone, baby. Solid Gone.
In fact, seeing as this problem was essentially started because of Studio/producer greed, I think they’d let the guilds burn. Just think about the joy of contract negotiations… coming soon to a theater near you.
And since the WGA signed indemnification clauses, everyone would be pointing to them.
About the producer share of levies money from indie product:
Nobody knows who has the producer share. I mean, somebody knows, but they ain’t telling me. The MPAA strongly denies that any indie money has gone to MPEA members. IFTA, the guys that signed identical foreign levy deals with the guilds for indie product, say that they only collect money they are authorized to collect. However, the reality is that they represent a fairly small percentage of actual movie producers. Most of their members are, um… sales agents. I had a different word there, but I decided to change it.
I spoke with Fintage house (one of the major collection agencies), and they also represent some producers. However, even they were not clear about indie product.
Here is an actual cut and paste from a Fintage House email in regards to your exact question.
The WGA /DGA royalties are extremely minimal compared to the huge variety of royalties for “producers” of filmed entertainment. These are mostly concentrated in Europe and include Cable Re-transmission, Private copy and public performance in most major territories.
Fintage specializes in collecting these royalties for our many producer clients and it is not surprising that you have not seen any of these other monies since anyone can file for these and collect if not challenged.
The legal issue of who is entitled is not entirely clear in some cases but generally the copyright holder of a film will be entitled to these royalties unless another party is contractually given the right to collect (as many sales agents are).
Now, I get a couple things from that email. First: A major chill. Second: Even if they’ve dropped or hidden the ball along the way, I appreciate what the guilds have done in getting any money due writers and directors. Third: This simply further affirms my opinion that the job of collecting foreign levies needs to be done by one central collecting society - not beholden to guilds or studios and absolutely federally accountable.
Don’t know if I clarified anything there.
I also want to remind all that my foreign levies knowledge is subject to gaping holes of ignorance. I have done a lot of research, however by no means do I consider myself clear on absolutely all of it.
Ugh, - my Fintage House cut and paste is not in quotes.
It begins with: “The WGA/DGA…” — and ends three paragraphs later: “… right to collect (as many sales agents are).”
I’m Sorry.
Craig - Ted - thank you both. For everything. Craig - thanks for the breakdown mba/no mba on this one.
Ted - I don’t know why I”m having such a hard time with all this. What interests me, is what interests you - the authorship. And that plays into exactly what you’ve been working on for a long time. I’m even more locked into it now that I’ve been so focused on theatre and my plays. If this case goes the way I think we hope it goes for the authorship issue (although not so hot for the guild, and maybe not even so for us as writers in some areas), then would that open the way for us to begin to adopt more of the rights as television and screenwriters, that we have as playwrights?
You and I have had this discussion before, but I’m even more intrigued with my rights as a playwright, vs my lack of rights in tv/film, now. It becomes even more complex as deals are made to adapt our plays into film either for cable or big screen. So Ted -
How much of the playwright’s rights will we potentially have under the recognition of us as authors of our work? This is the bleed in to copyright, yes?
In theatre, we retain copyright, and are essentially licensing our work to the theatres, giving them the right to produce our work for ‘x’ amt of times. Extensions can be included in that initial contract. After that -new contracts. and then if the play is picked up by a catalogue such as Samuel French - every time the work is produced, royalties ensue. So basically - those royalties become our residuals. And we control the copyright. but - there is no mba in theatre. So - with regard to the suit -
how would this differ in relation to tv and film? Or would it differ? Might this suit be opening the way for this kind of recognition for us? And if so - and the work for hire concept is rendered undoable - then how are we affected by this? and what does that do to the numbers in terms of employing writers on assignment? Or does it then become a field of all original work?
This may be elementary, but I’m particularly interested now with my life in theatre. Those contracts intrigue me. I wish we had more of the same in film and television. As for the constitution -
Craig - Ted - I wish I had paid more attention when I first began my career. I wish I had the time to just sit and study it now. I wish there would be cliff notes and bullet points -
craig mazin -
posted somewhere. But mostly, even though I was active in the guild when all this was initiated, I wish I had paid much more attention and asked many more questions about this particular issue. But as Ted has stated, there was certainly more of a ‘keep them away from guild business,’ attitude than I think we have even now. Not sure we were even sophisticated enough at the time, to have asked these questions. Although I think this all might have been in Walton’s mind when the deal was made. so even though my questions are late to the party - I’m asking.
Ted - authorship. opening the way to copyright? and the same rights we have in theatre translating into film and television? Attrition of assignments for writers in film and television? dissolution of the guild in terms of collective bargaining if we are in fact recognized as authors of our work?
What role does the certificate of authorship play in all this? If none, then why do we have to sign them?
thanks again, guys…. I’m sure I’ll have more questions after your next round of answers. Steph
OK, who had fifteen questions in Liss Lotto? Winner gets two Advil!
(Whoever had “infinity” also wins, thanks to the “I’m sure I’ll have more questions after your next round of answers” clause.)
Allow me to use this lull to entertain the masses…
ProducedWriter
Firstly, may I suggest you sign your real name, otherwise were lead to believe youre Kevins autonomous testicle bouncing around on his laptop…
Benefit of the doubt, lets say you are not mini-Kevin, but truly a produced writer. Congratulations! You still dont have the slightest clue of who you are speaking up for!
Here is a comment Kevin made a while back, the post was directed at no other than Josh Olson:
And just out of curiousity, are you able to express a point of view without being so painfully obnoxious? Even your good points are destroyed with that nasty attitude. Tone it down. — Kevin Arbouet”
Tone it down !
Then this, from KEVINS OWN BLOG:
The truth is, Josh is an asshole. That statement has nothing to do with his talent or his accolades. Most writers dream of being Oscar nominated and to achieve such a goal is an amazing feat. But that doesn’t make you less of an asshole. I’m not going to recount all of the gory details but let’s just say I’m not above throwing him threw a window. Personally, I don’t know if he’s always been an asshole, recently turned into an asshole, or maybe he’s just a cyber internet asshole. I don’t know. So…I just realized that there’s no point to this post. Other than to state Josh’s assholeness.
This is a guy who is telling established screenwriters to tone it down on artfulwriter, while calling one of them six kinds of asshole on his own blog.
Did Craig Mazin hire Kevin Arbouet to police his website?? Did he pin a shiny little star on his chest and tell him to Go getm, tiger!-?
If not, may I kindly and humbly suggest Kevin refrains from telling writers who are far more talented and succesful than he is how to behave on this blog; and you, ProducedWriter, reconsider from interupting an intelligent discussion by sticking up for some kid who thinks he knows-it-all.
Thanks.
Now, back to Steph…
Johnny:
I think all three of you are stuck in a repeating cycle of this sort of thing, and as the actual guy who run this blog, I would appreciate it if you guys gave it a rest.
Did someone say playwright?
Stefan —
It might not be necessary to choose sides. Even though the judge in the jurisdictional dispute rejected the argument that the foreign levies agreement created the writers & directors’ right to the funds, it may still be the case that neither U.S. producer or writers and directors can claim the funds independently of the other. If the Guilds acted against the interests of U.S. writers and directors, then they deserve what they get … but until it all shakes out in court, I’m not going to condemn or defend them.
-
Steph —
If the work-made-for-hire law was wiped away tomorrow, if screen and television writers were recognized under law as both the authors and the initial copyright owners of their work … that in-and-of-itself would not significantly alter the amount of control that writers have over movies made from their work by Hollywood studios. It would not require a studio to produce the script as written; and it would not keep a studio from using as much or as little of the script in the movie as it wants; and it would not even prohibit a studio from commissioning work from other writers for use in the movie, alongside the work of the first writer.
It comes down to the fact that a producing a live performance of a script is an exercise of different authorial right in a work than producing a motion picture from a script. Producing the live performance is an exercise of the right to perform or exhibit a work (the script) publicly. Producing a motion picture is an exercise of the right to create a new work of authorship derived from the work (script). So the relationship between a script and a movie is more akin to the relationship between a novel and a screenplay adaptation then to the relationship between a play and a live performance.
However, what recognition of authorship would do is give us rights outside the U.S. that we could use to leverage better contractual rights from U.S. companies.
Also: work-made-for-hire is considered to be settled law in this country. If it suddenly became unsettled, that would create the opportunity to improve the rights of writers and directors under copyright law. Whether we could take advantage of that or prevail is another question, but the opportunity would be there.
-
Johnny,
I know better than to use my real name on a public board. Obviously I chose my current moniker to make a point. Again, it doesn’t matter whether you have my credits, Olson’s credit, Mazin’s credits or even Elliott’s credits. No matter who you are in this business, I’m right.
And really, that’s all that matters.
Obviously you’re right, producedwriter, as that NO ONE in Hollywood EVER lies about their credits, especially when done anonymously - LOL!
You made your point, but like the man in THE PRINCESS BRIDE says, “I don’t think that word means what you think it means …”
Thanks, Ted. For the explanation. I do actually have more questions, but I prefer to ask them on Writer Action. At least over there, when we go after each other,we know who it is. We’re mandated to use our real names. And if we weren’t, I’ve a feeling we would have the balls/ovaries to use our real names, anyway. And it’s an honest fight. If you don’t mind, there’s more discussion over on Writer Action. couple of people have asked questions relating to all this. I saw your last post responding, but someone emailed me with more. I certainly can’t respond. you’re the one with the handle on all this.
I’d prefer to take this discussion inside. Which is ashame for all those who may not yet be guild members, but who might actually have a legitimate stake in all this, someday. I have too much respect and love for craig to continue this conversation here. Besides, I really would prefer to dialogue in a professional arena, where at least there are other valid contributions to the discussion.
thanks again for your responses. And thanks, Craig, for opening all this up. Important stuff. Well - For those of us who actually have careers. And for those of your readers who actually will have careers. Steph
Since this topic concerns writers outside the Guild, I think it’s appropriate to discuss it on a public message board rather than limit it to a site open only to Guild members.
While there have been a few off-topic posts, this discussion isn’t exactly out of control.
I agree with you that people should sign their real names (many public message boards do require that). It tends to cut down on the chaff. For the most part, if you aren’t willing to stand behind a message with your real name, then maybe you should think twice about whether it’s worth posting. Besides, it’s not like you’re handing out your home phone number.
Aaron, Josh,
You’re right. As I am not willingtouse my real name on this board, I will not post again.
You point has been made.
Aaron, Josh,
You’re right. As I am not willingtouse my real name on this board, I will not post again.
Your point has been made.
Ms. Liss:
I’m confused. Do you want to have this discussion on Writer Action, or do you want to have this discussion with people who actually have careers?
One down, one to go…
Seriously, Steph -
It’s a discussion board - things get off topic. What can I say, it’s not a perfect world.
However, myself - and even Kevin - have stopped cold since Craig’s shout out. So really, there’s no reason for you to take the discussion to another forum. I for one promise to be good… unless Ruairi starts posting… in which case I can’t guarantee for anything.
Seriously,
There is no reason this discussion should be limited to Writers Action, which is becoming increasingly irrelevant to anyone looking for a meaningful debate on this issue.
This is not strictly a WGA issue, obviously. Those affected by the Guild’s actions - collecting foreign levies for writers outside the Guild - have an important place in this conversation.
If Stephanie Liss wants to limit her participation to WA, that’s her choice. I would rather be on a blog where Steve Hullett and Stefan Avalos can weigh in, and where many disaffected WA members are posting.
Keep it here, please. This is important stuff that most writers never get to hear about.
And how else are we writers of porn going to find out about all the tasty levy’s due to us if you migrate to Writer’s Action.
Heh-heh. Action, you said “Action”. Heh. Heh-heh.
Give it a rest Johnny. Your comments on this thread have been tiresome enough already, don’t bring me into it.
“For the most part, if you arent willing to stand behind a message with your real name, then maybe you should think twice about whether its worth posting.”
Agreed.
Signed,
Pauline Rage, Clive Hamilton, Mark Twain, Sieur Louis de Conte, Lewis Carroll, George Eliot, Currer Bell, Lemony Snicket, Silence Dogood, Buddha, Alice Cooper and Groucho Marx.
Oh yeah, how could I forget about all those folks. They always used pen names on Internet discussion boards.
BTW, “ProducedWriter,” my comment was intended generally, not as a specific response to your posts. Apologies if you took offense.
Since Craig loves my conspiracy theories, here’s another one. It’s my opinion that Writer Action was deliberately set up by the WGA to spy on it’s members and the fact that it refuses to allow people to use an alias (meaning they had to be vetted before joining) was to make sure they could control discussion and knew exactly who to go after if they tried to speak out. Marshall Goldberg, former WGA council, had huge binders of all the posts on WGA in his office, with highlights, which when he pulled down to talk to me about gave me a very creepy and threattening neo-Soviet feeling that I was guilty of “thought crimes.”
Also, people should be aware that once on Writer Action, there is nothing preventing the “administrators” from reading the “private” e-mails sent between members on the site. This technique of setting up a “private” BBS has been successfully used by both corporations to spy on it’s employees and by law enforcement to gather information.
Obviously, in a business like Hollywood people have to be careful what they say and given the seriousness of this, all the major studios are involved, many people would be afraid to speak out if they couldn’t use an alias.
Rock on.
Craig and Ted,
I’m working on another post, with documents for my blog: www.wga.org.
Maybe you can help me with something (especially Ted since everything Craig knows comes from Patric Verrone and he has never talked to anyone else about foreign levies).
The WGA says there are 15 countries it collects money from. What are the names of those countries? I’m looking at my BMI royalties collection list and they list 29 countries from which they collect music royalties from around the world. Now, I know royalties aren’t the same as “levies.” (Levies starts with an “L.”) But the reason these royalties are collected has to do with copyright and the Berne collection so I’m confused as to why the WGA and DGA couldn’t collect from all 29 countries. But maybe they can’t. Which 15 countries does the WGA collect from?
Now, I know it must be a lot of work for you to actually call up someone at the WGA and provide a list, but given all the time you’ve already spent talking about the issues I would really appreciate it for the record.
Or have you already posted about this before and I just missed it?
Opps, my blog is:
www.wgatruth.com
Sorry. I wish there was an edit function that worked after posting.
Argentina, Austria, Denmark, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Mexico, the Netherlands, Poland, Spain, Slovakia and Switzerland
Why isn’t anyone upset about things?
That’s just baseless and absurd. I know the admins who created WriterAction. I was an admin of WriterAction. I have major issues with Alex Sokoloff, the founder of WriterAction, whom I think is essentially incompetent and unhinged…as well as uniquely unsuited to administer a forum of any kind, much less one for professional screen and television writers.
Nonetheless, she’s about as capable of pulling off a “conspiracy” as my 2 year-old daughter.
From my experience as an admin there, the admins spend almost all of their time and energy debating minutia and petty dramas. As a group, they are practically paralyzed by a deep-seated need to act communally, because at least a few of them don’t like each other, and there’s no leader or even figurehead leader to corral them and focus them.
This is why, I suspect, I quit, Ted quit, Denise Meyer quit and Eric Heisserer quit. We couldn’t freakin’ take the inaction. Granted, I’m putting words in their mouths. If they disagree, here’s an open forum to let me know.
I hope that punctures your ridiculous theory. You suspect WriterAction’s founders of conspiracy. I’m telling you, as a guy who thinks of most of them as a friend, that they can barely handle the overt job, much less a covert one.
Well, that would be a reflection of your state of mind, J.F. Marshall was an still is a member of WriterAction, because he was a member of the WGA. He switched to “withdrawn” status during his tenure as GC. I don’t know if he’s gone back to Current Active. He may be Lifetime Current. Not sure. Regardless, he certainly had as free and complete access to WA as you.
At last, something that is 100% true. It used to be difficult for an admin to access those PM’s (you’d have to use a MySql utility to browse the database), but over the last year or so, at least one easily installed utility now gives admins the option of easily reading PM’s from inside the forum software itself.
As the admin of forums, I simply do not do this. It’s unethical. The only time I ever infringed on PM’s was when some jerk mass PM’d porn to my users, and I had to go into the database to blow out every message sent from his account.
There’s another privacy issue that I wish the admins at WA would make clearer to their users.
If a member deletes a post, admins can still read it. That’s why I recommend deleting the text within the post before deleting the post itself.
Yes, and there’s a technique of spreading innuendo and outright lies on public forums in order to spread dissent or sway people.
Fact is, WriterAction is guilty of nothing other than institutional mismanagement and paralysis. Fairly mundane crimes, if you can even call them that.
Well, all countries signatory to Berne (including the U.S.) collect royalties from the use of music.
However, not all countries impose specific taxes on blank media to compensate the authors of audiovisual works for presumed reuse. Those countries that do…collect levies that we then attempt to get our share of.
Those that don’t…don’t.
Oh, and J.F…..
…your website is wgatruth.blogspot.com
Stefan,
You only list 13 countries, if I’m counting right. The WGA says 15. Where did you get your info from. And it would be nice to get Craig and Ted on the record at least agreeing, since they pretend to be experts on the subject.
JF
Craig,
Thanks for the correction. You’re right, it is:
www.wgatruth.com
And there is a new post with lots of interesting documents and much more to come.
That other site is where the WGA prints stuff it makes up, but never shows any proof.
JF
Alex worked for WGA crime boss and former President David Rintels, wife of Victoria Riskin who was forced by the Federal Investigation to resign.
You and Ted knew this from the beginning and could have saved me a couple years of confusing by just telling me. (Though you certainly hinted at it with all your Alex is crazy e-mails.)
Alex also could have saved me the confusion of telling me constantly that you were “crazy” by just telling me you worked for the New York mob (John Wells, Dan Petrie, Charles Holland, Carl Gottlieb) while she worked for the Chicago mob (David Rintels, Patric Verrone, Victoria Riskin, Robert King, Elias Davis).
Anyone that doesn’t bow down to the absurdly obvious fact that this is one of the dirties unions in Hollywood, and has been since the sixties when it signed secret deals with Wasserman (you know, Robert Hadl’s boss) is always labeled crazy.
As have you, and Alex, and me and Eric Hughes.
I’m the only one that actually did go crazy, and was hospitalized for it. A fact your pals couldn’t get out into the trades fast enough (despite union rules regarding privacy on member health news).
Thankfully, I’m doing better thanks to yoga. And the fact that now I know the truth, and don’t bother to even try to believe you when you make things up.
JF
Ted Elliot says: “The foreign levies agreement is with a trade organization that represents producers and production companies, the MPAA.”
How do you know that? Who told you the agreement was with the MPAA. Do you have the documents to share? Have you seen them? Or is this all “confidential.”
If not, who told you an why did you believe them?
Hint. It’s not true.
Who signed the agreement for the MPAA? Who signed the agreement on behalf of the WGA and DGA?
Ted, I’m saying again, you’re way over your head here and advise you to stop lying in print. Especially since I’m not sure you know what you are lying about, you’re just passing on stuff you’re being told to say.
Give us some real facts. When was the document between the WGA and MPAA, as you claim, was signed, and by who? And what was the contents of that document.
Does it include a clause where the WGA agrees to assume all damages if writers sue foreign collection societies for the money taken by the studios?’
If you’re an expert on this, you should know.
Last I checked, Alex was no fan of either Rintels or Vicki. Either way, she certainly never worked for them.
Umm, but it’s not true.
I may be many things, but my sanity has never been in question. As for the “New York mob” you describe, I do consider John Wells to be a mentor of sorts (although I only met him after I had already been elected). I certainly consider Dan to be a mentor, and Carl and I share a pragmatic view of unionism and union politics. I have never met with, nor spoken to, Charles Holland.
I’m also close with Robert King. So much for mobs.
J.F. —
Here’s the list of countries that I’ve been able to determine have some form of private copying levy (on recording equipment or both equipment and blank media):
Argentina; Austria; Belgium; Denmark; Finland; France; Germany; Greece; Hungary; Iceland; Italy; The Netherlands; Portugal; Poland; Spain; Sweden; Switzerland.
However, I’m not sure if in all cases, the levies apply to both audio-only and audiovisual works, or if there’s an author’s share to be collected. I’ve been trying to find copies of the various countries’ copyright laws, but not all seem to be either online or in English.
I don’t know what countries the WGA & DGA collect the levies from. If you do, how about posting a list?
I think you’re right that the agreement is not with the MPAA. I’ve found references in a couple of places to the WGA and DGA entering into an agreement with MPAA Companies — which is not the same thing. However, it also is not with the AMPTP.
So, other than the DGA and WGA, what companies or organizations are party to the agreement(s)? If you know, how about sharing that information with the rest of us?
BMI administers performance rights, same as ASCAP. Go look at the BMI royalty statement you posted on your blog, you’ll see that its for “International Performances - Audio/Visual.” So the fact that BMI collects money from 29 countries does not mean that BMI collects money from blank tape/recording device levies from 29 countries. There’s three questions that need to be answered:
How many of those 29 countries have blank tape/recording levies?
Of those that have blank tape/recording levies, how many classify them as performance rights, rather than mechanical or reproduction rights?
In the case of a country which classifies blank tape/recording device levies as a performance right, does BMI collect and disburse that money as part of normal royalty income, as ‘special income,’ or not at all?
Do you know the answers to any of those questions, J.F.?
-
Craig,
“I have major issues with Alex Sokoloff, the founder of WriterAction, whom I think is essentially incompetent and unhingedas well as uniquely unsuited to administer a forum of any kind, much less one for professional screen and television writers.”
Shocking. We actually agree on something. I do NOT have tremendous insider knowledge of how WA works, but I do know from direct personal experience that Craig’s characterization of Alex is dead-on. Not only that, it’s a view that’s shared by most - if not all - of her fellow administrators.
However, the “conspiracy” that J.F. laid out isn’t THAT far-fetched. It wouldn’t take a smoky meeting in a backroom for any one of the administrators on WA to simply type in a few keys and peruse people’s private e mails. In fact, as a general rule, it would be idiotic for anyone to think their e mail in a private forum like that was somehow sacrosanct.
Josh:
Well, the part that has them starting the forum for the purpose of spying in service of the WGA. The people who run it aren’t really WGA insiders or politicians.
Also, when it was started, John McLean was the Executive Director, and Alex hated John.
When it comes to the PM thing…like I said, it’s a possibility, but I don’t think any of them would actually do it. And Alex couldn’t do it, I suspect, because she doesn’t have access to the part of the software that would make that possible, and she’s not very good with computers, IMO.
Still, you’re right to suggest caution and prudence. PM’s in a vBulletin forum should really stand for “personal messages” rather than “private messages.” There’s no true privacy there.
Oh, and I think I should have said “who” instead of “whom” in that one. Sigh.
Ted:
The Swedish collecting society is called Copyswede; the Finnish one is called Kopiosto; the Danish Copydan and the Icelandic IHM. I haven’t checked but their websites probably have links to collecting societies in other countries.
If you really want to delve into this you can always ask individual collecting societies which foreign rightholders, if any, they represent through reciprocity agreements.
Ted: “However, Im not sure if in all cases, the levies apply to both audio-only and audiovisual works …”
Originally the levies only applied to blank audio media (and recording equipment). Years and years later, with the advent of VHS (&Beta) and VCRs, levies were also imposed on blank audiovisual media and recorders (through precedent). But it’s two different sets of rightsholders.
I think this should have been “precedence”, not “precedent”.
Perhaps I should also mention that collecting societies aren’t government agencies. They were established by and are maintained by unions / rightholders’ associations.
Charles Holland was hands down the greatest president this guild ever had.
Goddamn, he RULED!
Ted,
It’s obvious that you are not in the business of giving people information, but in the business of confusing people with misinformation. And your swarmy last post is a great example of it.
There is no reason the WGA shouldn’t be willing to share a list of the 15 countries it is collecting money from, and you, as a former Board Member and self appointed expert in all legal matters concerning copyright and foriegn levies, should be able to simply call someone up and get an answer.
Why don’t I? Well, because in my two years as a Board Member, I did everything I could to get answers to basic questions like, who at the Guild runs elections and makes decisions regarding how elections are handled? (After the rigged Victoria Riskin election.) Even when I was Chairman of the WGA Governance committee they refused to answer or provide me with basic documents.
Now, I came to the conclusion that the fact that I couldn’t get basic information out of the Guild meant that it was corrupt. But maybe I didn’t ask the right way, or maybe I’m just crazy
I suggest you call someone at the Guild and ask them if you can have the names of the 15 countries so you don’t have to spend hours of research coming up with the vague stuff you post here that doesn’t explain anything. Or if you are too busy posting vague “answers” perhaps Craig could do it. Or your assistant.
There is no legal reason the Guild can’t answer that question. And if they refuse to, that alone should be enough evidence for you to suspect something is wrong.
As for what I know, or don’t know, I’m not interesting in being used by you anymore so you can spy for the Guild to find out how much trouble they are in so they can try to improve on their lies. Remember your private, confidential, e-mails asking me for documents? I do. They’re great reading. Can I post them here?
As you suspect, I’m more interested in pinning you and the WGA down in writing so that when we go to court or you are interviewed by the FBI you can be exposed for your lies.
Of course, if you are telling the truth then you have nothing to worry about. So why don’t you try to explain why it is you can spend so much time researching this rather than asking the WGA for some simple information that is required by law to be public?
JF
“Remember your private, confidential, e-mails asking me for documents? I do. Theyre great reading.”
Yes, I remember you attempting to post them elsewhere, too. That was the most sadly dishonourable thing I’ve seen on the internet in a long time.
Since you hold your honour so cheaply, I’m certain others will as well. At least it will be a solid exemplar to other writers as to why you ought never to be trusted.
Yes, Louise, I posted them on Writer Action when Ted Elliot lied and said he never asked his lawyers about the legality of Victoria Riskin non-member status.
I proved him to be a liar. For that I was banned from Writer Action for exposing someone’s lies when they put “confidential” in the e-mail heading. Ted’s only reason for admitting to me “confidentially” that the WGA was corrupt was to request information about what I knew and to share with him documents exposing the WGA so they could do damage control.
Ted claimed he owned the copyright to those e-mails that proved he was a liar. That also proved he didn’t understand what copyright is.
But I’m happy to play this game. If Ted wants people to know the truth, I’ll post them with his permission. If Ted is trying to hide something, then I’m happy not to post them until they are revealed in trial court and legally made public.
That you think exposing a liar, just because he wants to lie in private, like those that suggest this discussion should be hidden in Writer Action, is an honorable thing
Then I am very happy to be the most dishonourable thing you’ve every seen on the internet.
You, who ignore stories of the suffering of widows who call the Writers Guild to beg for money they are owed only to get the run around until they die, for you to defend a hugely successful screenwriter’s right to lie in private about all this is
Puzzling.
And guess what? I have a lot of sweet e-mails from you trying to cozy up to me. Do I have have permission to print them on this site? Or will you claim the copyright to them too?
For the record, there is no copyright to discussion. Only to fictional stories. But Ted and Louise’s completely fictional stories about the WGA might actually apply since they are completely original creations in their own minds with no connection to reality.
Oh, and I applaud Ted’s rapid response team that got you to reply at 5:12AM to try to confuse the issue as to why the WGA can’t give us a list of the 15 countries they collect money from.
JF
Posted by Ted Elliot: “I think youre right that the agreement is not with the MPAA. Ive found references in a couple of places to the WGA and DGA entering into an agreement with MPAA Companies which is not the same thing. However, it also is not with the AMPTP.”
So Ted, you think I’m right. Hmm.
You found “references in a couple places” to what? From what documents that you are looking at?
Could we see the documents? Are there links? What are you talking about in regard to “references?”
Do you have any idea as to who signed the documents that handed over all this money due to writers to the studios? If you don’t, why do you pretend to be an expert? Why don’t you ask the WGA for copies of the documents? Why should they be secret? You love to through out all sorts of facts and quotes, but where are the links to the actual documents that allow the studios to steal all this money from us.
And why, do you keep posting all sorts of confusing stuff without finding out the key facts and documents that will prove or disprove that the WGA is stealing this money?
Here’s my guess.
Alex Sokoloff, when I asked why you had the time to do long posts with all sorts of misleading information that wasn’t true said: “Ted is really rich, he has a huge staff, I wouldn’t be surprised if they wrote it for him.”
I was a little surprised that you were really rich and had a huge staff, maybe just jealous. (I’m less surprised since hearing from many people about your Disneyland ride lawsuit victory, which you say isn’t true.) But a lot of your posts, at all times of the day, would indicate a possible ghost writer.
I have always suspected, but have no proof, that is it Marshall Goldberg, who is ghost writing them (I hope with your own polish).
Because I just find it odd that you would write something weird like, “You might be right that the MPAA” didn’t sign the agreements.
I know who did. Marshall might know. But you don’t know. Do you?
So why do you pass on these lies?
But maybe you aren’t lying. If the MPAA didn’t sign, then who do you think might have? And why?
JF
Anna —
Here’s something I’ve been trying to figure out:
When a country requires that all copyrights be administered collectively, does the government then appoint a specific collection society to administer particular rights? Or do they simply charter private collection societies, with the authors having a choice of which society to go with? Or does it vary from country to country?
-
JF: clue, I live in England. It wasn’t 5:12 am when I posted.
Yes, although it was so long ago I now have no memory of what those emails contained, I do recall emailing you, because, at one time, I respected you; and I was sorry to see a dispute between you and another man I respect highly.
Of course when you went ahead and despite all attempts to pour oil on troubled waters continued to publish private correspondence, I was disabused.
And emails and letters - discussion, professions of love, whatever - are still copyright. As James Hewitt found out when he attempted to publish the contents of the letters of Diana, Princess of Wales. The physical letters were his; the copyright of their content belonged to her estate.
On re-readin I’m wondering if you are taking this discussion seriously, or are just yanking our collective chains.
“I was a little surprised that you were really rich and had a huge staff, maybe just jealous. (Im less surprised since hearing from many people about your Disneyland ride lawsuit victory, which you say isnt true.) But a lot of your posts, at all times of the day, would indicate a possible ghost writer.”
Anybody who reads Ted’s posts knows that this technical-legal style of his is consistent. Sometimes I feel if I were a paralegal I’d get some of it quicker, but always consistent. And you know what Ted’s credits are, why on earth would you suppose anything else? Why would anybody? That’s just ludicrous.
Sorry to post three times in a row, but to respond to this:
“You, who ignore stories of the suffering of widows who call the Writers Guild to beg for money they are owed only to get the run around until they die, for you to defend a hugely successful screenwriters right to lie in private about all this is
Puzzling.”
I make no comment about the Foreign Levies row, because, simply, I do not understand it. Therefore I have no interest in shooting my mouth off about it.
I meant instead to rebuke you for threatening again to publish emails sent to you privately in the expectation of confidence. I don’t stick “confidential” on everything I write, but I do expect that the recipient (assuming I know them) will not broadcast them to the world. Although none of us have a guarantee that our correspondents will keep things private, it is a basic matter of honour to do so.
Ted is not a liar. You undermine your own character when you traduce his. Far more so when you threaten again to publish private letters. It’s beneath you. It’s beneath anyone.
I shan’t respond to you again.
JF — please stop drinking and please get help. You have an illness and you are trying to destroy other people’s lives instead of repairing your own. You are clearly paranoid and delusional. You need some tough love and competent treatment, not yoga classes.
J.F. —
Your refrain is becoming tiresome. On the one hand, you maintain that Alex Sokoloff is a shill for the Guild and David Rintels; on the other, you accept her statement — her alleged statement — that other people write my posts on its face, without question.
Anything that appears under my name, I wrote.
And, yes, I was mistaken that the agreement was with the MPAA. I misunderstood the references to “MPAA Companies” in the FADE-IN article, the L.A. Weekly article, and on the WGAw website to mean the MPAA proper. But the point of initial my post was that the agreements were not with the AMPTP, and so are not part of the MBA — which was what Steph was asking about.
Obviously, for all your grandstanding, you don’t know jack shit about the foreign levies agreements, or what countries impose blank tape levies, or who the agreements are with. You don’t even know what rights you entrusted to BMI to administer on your behalf, or why you get royalties from other countries for the performance of your three-second piece of music.
-
I’ve seen Ted’s staff. It is huge. So much bigger than you would expect.
Gross.
Many of us, in fact, have had to reduce the size of our own staffs in order to accomodate the size of Ted’s staff.
See? That’s what happens when you hang out with the Zucker’s.
Okay… I hate to throw fuel onto the fire, but…
Today I got a check from the WGA for foreign levies. A few days ago, I got one from the DGA. In both cases, the amount of information about where the money came from was pitifully miniscule. In the case of the WGA check, there was no information at all. I know the WGA has the information as some of it was read to me over the phone. Why didnt they include with the check? Unfortunately, there is something more disconcerting. These checks, from both the guilds, are supposed to be identical in size. The most the difference would/should be would be 3% — based on the fact that the WGA takes a 5% commission for their hard work vs. the DGAs 2%.
The WGA check was almost 50% LESS than the DGA check.
This would lead one to believe that perhaps, past the obvious problems with foreign levies that Ive already written about, there is something else problematic. The checks in question are also four figure checks, not a couple bucks. Obviously, I will be investigating this further, and hopefully the WGA will provide me with more information, and an explanation about this rather large discrepancy. Since these are the first checks that have come from foreign levies, past payments, different accounting periods, etc. cant be used as legitimate excuses. Bottom line these checks should be the same size. The thing that is disturbing: Im the writer and director (as well as producer) of the project in question. Had I only been the writer, I would never have known about this nor had anything to compare the WGA check to.
I really hate to be a sore spot for the Guilds, but damn it, why couldnt they be above board?
Stefan:
Agreed. There’s clearly something amiss.
BTW, the “amiss” part clearly doesn’t extend solely to the WGA (as you pointed out in your article). I’ve received foreign levies payments in the past from the WGA, but never from the DGA on the non-DGA indy I directed, which was sold overseas.
Stefan —
The discrepancy definitely demands an inquiry, and an explanation. The breakdown of Foroeign Levies checks by title is possible: I know, because my ex-wife, a forensic accountant by inclination, audited every one of my checks to determine which of them included amounts for projects that were community property and in which she was entitled to share. (Her audit was done last year and covered every check since inception, WGA and DGA).
Carl, That’s funny, and painful.
What makes my situation such a perfect case study is that these levies checks are for one movie only. They are also the first checks that have been written, so there is no carry-over of any sort from other years or payments.
Craig, by no means do I think the DGA is any less troubled than the WGA. They just haven’t had an Eric Hughes type person asking questions. They’ve been laying pretty low.
Just posted the complete BMI documents for my TV show VIP that the DGA says is only playing in two countries but BMI says is playing in 29.
I’m waiting for my check from the WGA and it better show that VIP is playing in more than 2 countries.
There is also some comentary on the ridiculous lie repeated by the WGA that they don’t get “records” when they get checks for foreign levies.
http://wgasmokinggun.blogspot.com/
Ted,
Frankly, you should be flattered that I think someone else writes a lot of what you post. I didn’t believe Alex at the time she said this, but I have too much respect for your intellegence to beleive you would actually print some of the weirdly illogical stuff you have put out. I would hope you are too busy to carefully review it all and do a fast rewrite what I am guessing is Marshall Goldberg’s keen legal insights (he seems stupid enough to write some of the stuff that appears to come from your pen).
Or maybe I’m wrong and you just think I’m stupid and anyone who reads your posts are stupid. You don’t answer the question. Who other than the MPAA signed the agreements? If you know I am right, then you should know who signed them. And if you aren’t just being told what to say by some third party, you should be able to share with us how you figured out.
Instead, you waste your literary talents telling me my “refrain is becoming tiresome.”
Meanwhile, you avoid the key issue, and I know you’re not a dummy, so you are clearly doing it deliberately.
Why on Earth are the WGA agreements on foreign levies not public? Why do you have to ask me about what I know? If you are interested it shouldn’t be hard for you to find out. The WGA as a union is required to make these documents public. Why don’t you link us to where we can find them and people can see for themselves who the deal between the WGA really is.
Again, I’m just stunned you think you can play this game and not get caught. That people can’t see through what you are doing.
You provide absolutely no solid information and ignore serious issues by ruminating over the minor details.
You are either working for the WGA to try to cover up this conspiracy or you have nothing better to do with your life than to argue with people for the sake of arguing. I used to assume the later was the case. Not anymore.
JF
Carl,
Glad to hear you finally think something is distrubing about Foreign Levies. On Writer Action you loved to make jokes about the fact that Mrs. Sturges wasn’t being paid. As if it was silly for anyone to worry about it. (Did I mention she died last year without being paid?)
What is also disturbing about Stefan’s revelations, is that his name wasn’t on the list of people who were “undeliverable.” Which would seem to indicate that even that list was bogus, only for show.
Moreover, Dan Petrie said over two years ago that the amounts of money due to writers in the 20 million dollar fund were all under $205. Since Stefan has already indicated his checks were more than that, it seems clear Dan was lying.
This is a lie you repeating by joking about the couple bucks Mrs. Sturges was owed. When, in fact, it clearly is a lot more. Variety stated she received $9000 in one quarter from Germany alone.
As popular as Stefan’s film might be around the world, I think he would be the first to suspect that if he was due over four figures for that one film, it’s quite likely that Preston Sturges numerous films: Sulivan’s Travels, The Lady Eve, Miracle at Morgan’s Creek, Hail the Conquering Hero, etc. etc. would be a lot more that $205.
So Petrie lied. If you want to see Dan’s letter it is here:
http://wgasmokinggun.blogspot.com/20060501_archive.html
J.F.:
Once again, BMI royalties have nothing to do with foreign levies, so you shouldn’t see a one-to-one on that.
I don’t think something’s “disturbing” about our system. I think there’s ample proof that something’s “amiss.” That means that our system may be incompetent, slow, confused or something worse.
I don’t assume the “something worse” until I have proof of it.
Dan never said that the amounts of money due “writers” were all under $205. He was referring to the amounts owed specific writers cited by the NYT article.
Frankly, J.F., your accusations and sloppy thinking are a discredit to the work that guys like Eric Hughes and Stefan Avalos are trying to do. There is a problem with levies, and you’re doing your best to make it seem like it’s something only a nut would believe.
In that sense, the really interesting conspiracy theory goes like this: J.F. Lawton is hired by the MPAA companies to go on the internet and rant about foreign levies like a sidewalk preacher, in the hopes that reasonable people will conclude that anyone else who investigates foreign levies is as discreditable as he is.
Of course, it’s not true, but it would explain a lot! :)
Eric Hughes deserves a better messenger.
This is a fascinating discussion … even tho some of ya kinda get miffed at one another, it’s really fascinating …
I wondered, while reading, how does this foreign levy work in reverse?
I mean, Luc Besson or maybe Roman Polanksi, when they write and direct a film that is released in the US, I wonder if the problems are similiar when collecting their foreign levies from us and how writers find the compensation game on their end?
I ask because it’s a back and forth thing, right? They give us foreign levies, they give us ours … except possibly in China’s case …
Obviously it’s been said US screenwriters make more money than anywhere else (or so the rumor goes) but part of that could be that the film industry in the US is a bigger producer of world product than anywhere else …
So I wondered how European writers fared. Or those in New Zealand, like Peter Jackson (and his suite against THE MAN over this very issue) …
And if I recall, through most of Europe, don’t screenwriters keep copyright?
I said “suite” when I should said “suit” … silly rabbit … words are for kids!
Joshua:
The U.S. does not impose taxes (with revenue intended for authors) on blank media. There are no levies for foreign authors to collect.
Peter Jackson’s case is not about foreign levies, it is about DVD residuals. Residuals are not the same as levies, though many people interchange the words.
The U.S. does not impose a blank tape levy - so in fact, we don’t send levies money to Europe (or to American filmmakers either).
EU authors get a piece of these blank tape levies also. Blank tape levies have nothing to do with guild or country of production’s origin. They have everything to do with a program playing on TV (generally speaking) in a country that collects levies for “reuse”.
Coincidentally, Luc Besson is on the DGA’s list of unlocated directors. He is owed money for “Messenger”. Evidently that was a non-guild movie.
Craig,
Perhaps you could ask Carl to help us since he is so proud of his involvement in fashioning these agreements on “Foreign Levies.”
What company did the WGA sign with? Ted said it wasn’t the MPAA, after saying that before. He agreed with me that he was wrong, but refused to name the company the WGA actually signed with. Ted refuses to name the actually company involved in all this.
Why?
Why?
Shouldn’t writers be entitled to know who these contracts were signed with that gave up 85% and now 50% of their money to? Aren’t we allowed to know who threattened to sue us if we didn’t give up half or more of the money?
You told me, in private e-mails, that you were concerned with wheither these were collective bargaining agreements. You said you had been investigating, but you couldn’t share the information because of “confidentiality.”
Shouldn’t the WGA be able to at least say who these secret documents were signed with, and I know this is asking too much, to see copies of those documents signed by WGA officials so all writers could review them?
Or is this just crazy talk?
JF
Craig, Ted, and Carl,
I just had a terrible thought. One might consider it a “thought crime!”
Is it possible that the reason you are reluctant to name the actual corporation that WGA signed with to give up the 85%, now 50% is because of tax evasion?
Is it possible the studios we signed with aren’t paying taxes on all that money? Obviously, you should be very afraid of defending a scheme that might involve tax evasion. Especially dealing with money collected from around the world and then transfered into the US.
But maybe I’m just crazy.
Carl, what organization did you sign over all our money to when you went around the world negotiating about it?
Oh, and Ted, who told you, again, it wasn’t the MPAA?
Just curious,
JF
Ah. Interesting … thanks Craig and Stef …
Stefan, you say: “These checks, from both the guilds, are supposed to be identical in size […] The WGA check was almost 50% LESS than the DGA check.”
How do you figure the checks are supposed to be identical in size? The DGA and the WGA receive identical sums of money per year in foreign levies, right? But the WGA-recipients are more numerous and therefore individual writers’ shares are smaller.
This is how I think these things work:
Lets say 1000 American films are aired on tv per year in collecting-society-countries (to use a simple figure). Therefore 1000 directors can expect to receive a check from DGA the following year (or whenever). At the same time 1500 or 2000 writers may receive a check from the WGA. This discrepancy stems from the fact that only one person is credited as a director of a film (with rare exceptions) but commonly two or more people get writer-credits.
Ted:
“When a country requires that all copyrights be administered collectively, does the government then appoint a specific collection society to administer particular rights?”
I don’t really understand this question.
I don’t know about other countries but the procedure in Iceland is very simple: There’s no manufacturing of blank media in Iceland so the levy is imposed on imported media and equipment. The government body in charge of this is the Customs House (don’t know what it’s called in English). Once or twice a year the Customs House pays the levies thus collected to the collecting society.
The collecting society is not government appointed (if ‘government appointed’ means something set up by the government). Rather, it’s an umbrella-organization run by the elected representatives of ten or so authors’ unions and associations. I guess one can say the society is “government approved”; it’s been authorized by the government to distribute the levies collected by customs. Initially there was a great deal of disagreenment (between the unions) re. the distribution — how much the different unions should get — but the matter was dealt with in the judicial system (by a court of arbitration).
Anna —
By “government appointed,” I meant that there is some form of legislation that says “This specific collection society, and no other, administers these rights on behalf of all national authors.”
So if you create a work of authorship, you must — as a matter of law — register the title with the government-appointed collection society or societies in order to receive any economic benefit from its exploitation.
Does that make sense? (Not, “Is that right?” — just, “Am I explaining my question adequately?”)
-
Anna, The money the guilds receive is not prorated across all the movies combined. Each individual movie gets an amount specific to it. The amount is derived from a formula the various countries apply - based on how many a specific movie is played, length of air-time etc. That money “author share” is supposed to be divided equally between the writer/s and director/s of each project. Example - twenty dollars total for authors would be ten dollars for the director, ten dollars for the writer/s.
Movies that play more, get more.
In my case, since I was both the writer and director of the project, the amounts from either guild should have been the same (or within a couple bucks of each other)
J.F, To answer your question: the deals the guilds signed were with the MPEA (motion picture export association) and AFMA (now the IFTA - Independent film and television alliance)
The MPEA includes all the MPAA companies and a few additionals (like television divisions of a studio). I think it’s a total of 13 companies. The MPEA is part of the MPAA.
This is why, though saying “MPAA” is not completely, technically correct, saying MPAA member companies would be alright. Frankly, I think you can interchange both acronyms and not be saying anything fundamentally incorrect.
Ted, you are explaining your question adequately. I don’t know if I can answer it adequately though. I’m not an expert, what little I know is strictly limited to Iceland. And I don’t know how typical Iceland is.
The Icelandic copyright law simply stipulates that levies shall be imposed (for the benefit of authors). But the law doesn’t say anything about who should be in charge of distributing the money or how it should be distributed. The unions /associations are supposed to work that out.
In Iceland you are not required by law to register your work of authorship.
The individual authors’ unions / associations are supposed to do all the relevant bookkeeping. They get (most of) their info/records from the tv stations, that’s how they figure out who should get paid and how much.
At least one court case has arisen in Iceland because of the levies (this was a few years back).
This happened because the writers union (which represents all writers, not just screenwriters) was disinclined to actually distribute the money it received from the collection society. It just kept it.
As a consequence three screenwriters took the union to court. The court ruled that the levies money is indeed supposed be paid out to individuals; the union was dead wrong in assuming that it was free to use the money it receeived on a union level, i.e. for the “common good” of all writers.
The court also established how much money, max, a union / association is allowed to retain (percentage-wise) to cover overhead (the costs incurred by keeping accounts and distributing the money).
In addition I should mention that in Iceland unions are not under legal pressure to track down non-members to pay them. If non-members want to get their share of levies they simply must show up and ask for it. Until that happens the unions simply keep the money that belongs to them in the bank.
So, getting back to your questions:
“Is there some form of legislation that says This specific collection society, and no other, administers these rights on behalf of all national authors?”
No. In Icelaand there exists an umbrella-society that laid a claim, so to speak. It met with government approval because it represents all the authors’ unions (the board of this umbrella-society is crawling with lawyers that are experts in copyright law).
Your other question I’ve already answered. In Iceland you don’t have to register your work of authorship in order to receive economic benefit.
Basically you are asking if there can be more than one collecting society in one country. I don’t think that’s possible. I honestly don”t know how that could work.
Stefan:
“The money the guilds receive is not prorated across all the movies combined. Each individual movie gets an amount specific to it. The amount is derived from a formula the various countries apply - based on how many a specific movie is played, length of air-time etc.”
No doubt you’re right. I really don’t know the formulas used so my guess is a wild one.
Still, I’d say it’s almost impossible for individuals to figure out what’s ‘rightfully theirs’ (for instance by comparing themselves to others) because there is absolutely no relationship between the sources of income (the levies) and the number or films or number or airings in a given year.
Anna,
You’re right. It would probably be very difficult for an individual to figure out what they are owed by various countries. Essentially we have to trust what the foreign collecting agencies tell tell us.
However, the two American guilds - WGA and DGA, which are currently collecting on behalf of American authors, are supposed to evenly split 50/50 that author share of the money - whatever money has come in from the foreign societies. That’s why American director and writer amounts should be the same.
J.F. —
Answers to your questions:
I don’t know who the foreign levies agreement is with. That’s why I asked you.
Who told me the agreements were not with the MPAA? YOU did, you fucking moron, right in this thread. After I read your post, I checked the articles and the WGAw website, I noticed that Tony Segall and the website were careful to say the agreements were with “MPAA Companies,” and not, simply, the MPAA. That’s why I said, I think you’re right that they aren’t with the MPAA. And that’s why I asked you, several times now, who are the agreements with?
-
Thread dead.
nahh….
picture Bruce Willis as Butch in Pulp Fiction, firing up his chopper as he mutters in a hoarse voice:
“Thread’s dead, baby, thread’s dead.”
Vroooommmm…..
Anna,
I’ve been to Iceland a couple times and have some friends there but haven’t pursued this issue.
I’d love to see any availible the documents involved it the foreign leives collection. Where can they be found? Especially the contracts between them and the WGA and DGA.
Thanks,
JF
Mental Heath: “Mr. Lawton, with all due respect, you appear to be someone who is bi-polar and has gone off his meds.”
I am happy to be labled bi-polar if that helps you understand me. My mother always said, “I like labeling people, it comforts me.” And I hope you get some points for confusing the issue and trying to damage me.
After your post, did you go to some WGA officer or some studio guy, knee and get your doggy treat?
I doubt your sincerity in trying to silence me. If I’m just a nut case, it doesn’t matter what I say. But you want me to shut up, and in fact, try to silence me by threattening me with what you have determined is my mental illness. (If you really gave a fuck, you could have contacted me privately at the numerous e-mails I provided.) But you use your concern as a club to threatten me with to make sure I don’t speak out on an issue, that regardless of my mental state, is clearly serious.
I am not afraid of those that think they can can use the weirdness of me, and I’m more fucking weird than you can imagine, to cover up all the criminal activities I uncovered when I served two terms as an elected Board Member of the WGA and was elected to serve as the Chairman of the Governence Committeeduring a DOL investigation.
You don’t think I already know that when I testify against Craig and Ted’s “secret” e-mails to me about how they knew the WGA was corrupt but did nothing that Craig and Ted’s defense lawyers will throw everything at me about my own past. I sure do know that. That is why, frankly, I begged them in constant e-mails not to continue to lie and lie and lie. I would have preferred not to face them in court. But they have left me no choice. And yes, my breakdown, the drugs I was given that through me into depression (and when I stopped bugging the WGA) and the yoga classes that gave me the strength to confront the WGA again, will unfortunately be part of the testimony.
Oh yes, I’m crazy. Crazy about how criminal the WGA is. But in a court room, people won’t care about crazy things I said as much what I uncovered by saying them.
But thank you for your pretended concern. I find Yoga is better alternative to drugs in curing depression caused by feeling helpless against wide spread evil.
And it has given me the strength and courage to fight it against those that try to label me without understanding what is really happening.
I feel sorry for you, who I must now label. You are a mouthpiece, saying stuff you know nothing about, to try to cover up huge human trageties for major corporations. Like the stealing of money from widows and poor writers. You say this, without really understand exactly who your work for, in hope of gaining favors that can advance your life thanks to your part in dismissing the missery others. But I know a lot of people like you, but let me say, your end result is suffering more than those you hurt. But maybe that’s just a Karmic think I learned.
However, you might want to try some Yoga yourself.
JF
Ted,
Why do you need me to tell you who the agreements are with?
Aren’t you the expert in all this? After all you said:
“This cant be an issue for the MBA, because the MBA is contract with a multi-employer alliance, the AMPTP. The foreign levies agreement is with a trade organization that represents producers and production companies, the MPAA. Thats why, although the agreement is a union contract, its not a collective bargaining agreement (its also why it did not have to be put to a membership vote the WGAw constitution requires only that collective bargaining agreements must be ratified (although, since the Fox Television Agreement, the Independent Film Agreement, the Documentary Film Agreement and any proto-Reality Television Agreement are collective bargaining agreements, one must wonder when or even if they will ever be put to a vote )(another example of a union contract that is not a collective bargaining agreement: the settlement agreement with the WGAE. Where that settlement required amendment to the WGAw constitution, the membership voted on those amendments but the agreement [i]en toto[/i] was not put to a membership vote, and neither the WGAw constitution or the law require it to be)(I think the Guilds policy for some time has been, if the constitution does not require a membership vote, or the constitution can be interpreted to not require a membership vote, or we can get away without a membership vote because members dont bother reading the constitution, then the membership-at-large should not be allowed anywhere near Guild business).”
You said all this without actually having read the agreement? Especially the slam at people too busy to read the constitution? What a hypocrite you are. How can you know the agreement didn’t need to be put to a vote if you haven’t read it?
Why would you say all that crap if you haven’t looked at the agreement? Were you just making shit up for fun? Or just posting what Marshall Goldberg told you to post? Or where you just trying to confuse people?
So clearly you haven’t read the agreements. Why don’t you?
There are four possible answers:
You are too lazy to read them. Thus my pondering if someone is ghost writing for you, because you certainly aren’t lazy about writing tons of non-information including chastising people for being to lazy to read the WGA constitution. (Tip for conspiracy fans, one of the ways that bad people get to keep doing bad things is by telling good people to waste their time investigating false leads. Clearly the issue here is the levy agreements, but Ted used a time honored Guild tactic (which Craig is also fond of) by telling people to read the Guilds constitution or MBA. These are thick legalistic documents that have nothing to do with the issue of whether the Guild is keeping records on Foreign Levies, or shredding them, or who the Foreign Levies deals are with. But the idea is for you to go over, look at these thick documents, come to the conclusion that you don’t understand them, or have the time to try, and then assume that Mr. Elliot must know what he’s talking about because he supposedly took the time to read them. Of course, when it gets down to the important documents, like the actually contract on Levies, Mr. Elliot can’t be bothered.
You can’t get access to the contracts. So why don’t you just say you can’t get access to the contracts, and we can all talk about why writers aren’t allowed by the Guild to see these deals that take money away from them and are supposedly “the best deal we could get.”
You may or may not have access to the contracts, but you don’t want to tell anyone any information that might be helpful to writers who want real answers to why this money is being taken from them without their prior approval.
You want to know if I have the documents so you can share that information with the Guild. But why does the Guild need to know what I know? To better prepare new lies about what exactly are in these contracts writers aren’t allowed to see?
Which is it Ted?
To all,
I live in Yugoslavia and like American movies. Sorry my English is bad. I want to say that in Yugoslavia we have hard time keep records. But we send our money to the WGA and hope they can find the writers.
We like American films, but it is hard for us to remember “names” of films and to look at “credits” and figure out who wrote the movie. When we watch a film on TV, or when we buy one on DVD, we put a half a dinar into a jar on our shelf as the law of our country tells us too to give to writers.
Once a week, the Levy officer goes around town and collects from our jars. That money is then sent to the WGA I am told.
I feel bad some American writers not get money. And this causes suffering for noble WGA. Sorry all this money collects interest for great writer leaders who don’t know what to do.
I talk to everyone in village and we now try to write down names of writers and movies on bottom of half dinar when we put them in the jars to be collected.
Hope this will help noble WGA writer helping Guild.
Please tell Pamela Anderson I love her.
Sokoj
Anna,
Where do you live in Iceland? Just curious. And given your knowledge of its laws in regard to filmmaking, I assume you have many friends in Iceland who are directors and writers. Could you give me some names since I also have friends there? Perhaps we know some of the same people.
JF
J.F. —
Because the only type of agreement or contract the Guild enters into that the WGAw Constitution requires be put to a membership vote are collective bargaining agreements.
Collective bargaining agreements are contracts between unions and employers that establish the wages, conditions and benefits that must be given to all employees under the union’s jurisdiction.
The foreign levies agreements are not collective bargaining agreements.
QED: the Guild did not have to put the foreign levies agreements to a membership vote, so it was neither illegal or corrupt that they did not.
Eric Hughes is wrong on this point, Craig is wrong on this point, and you are wrong on this point. And every time any of you — particularly you and Craig, as former Board members — repeats the argument that the Guild failed to put the foreign levies agreement to a vote as required by the constitution, you are simultaneously arguing that the foreign levies funds are a form of compensation for employment, and that all of the work covered under the foreign levies agreement was created by employees under Guild jurisdiction.
Which, you know, is the same argument that the Guild made as to why the case should be tried under federal law, rather than in state court.
Whereas the plaintiffs in the foreign levies lawsuit are arguing that the work was not created under Guild jurisdiction, and that they were not employees, but independent contracts who assigned only limited rights in their work to the production companies, and so are entitled to the foreign levy revenue not because of an employment contract negotiated by the Guild, but because the laws of the countries that collect the levies mandate that they go to the authors of the work.
I happen to think that the plaintiffs are right, and the judge’s decision that the case is not subject to federal labor-management law means she thought the plaintiffs were right, too. I happen to think that even where the work-made-for-hire law assigns copyright and legal authorship to an employer, the fact of authorship is non-transferrable and rest always and irrefutably with the individuals that create the work, and the only economic rights that are or can be assigned to the employer by U.S. work-made-for-hire law are those specified under U.S. copyright law.
You disagree with this, I know, because your only interest in any of this is that it gives you excuse to attack, smear and defame anyone who you think ever done you wrong.
And, I’m done with this discussion. You are an ignorant, hypocritical, small-minded, mean-spirited poseur who adds nothing of value to my life, to these boards, or to the world.
-
Ted Elliott wrote “….The foreign levies agreements are not collective bargaining agreements….”
Yet article 46 of the 2004 MBA refers to “Foreign Performance Fees (Theatrical) on pages 266-267. So the matter is more clearly ambivalent, so to speak, than I believe Mr. Elliott believes it is. It may be more dead-bang than ambivalent, and what’s catching up with the Guild and the companies, along with everything else, is years and years of “let’s leave it fuzzy” as a legal modus operandus.
Dang, hit the post button before I filled in my name. Sorry about that, Craig.
Ted Elliott wrote .The foreign levies agreements are not collective bargaining agreements.
Yet article 46 of the 2004 MBA refers to Foreign Performance Fees (Theatrical) on pages 266-267. So the matter is more clearly ambivalent, so to speak, than I believe Mr. Elliott believes it is. It may be more dead-bang than ambivalent, and whats catching up with the Guild and the companies, along with everything else, is years and years of lets leave it fuzzy as a legal modus operandus.
Posted by: Anonymous* at May 27, 2007 7:36 PM
*Art Eisenson
To be clear, my reference to the CBA aspect of foreign levies (and the necessary ratification that goes along with it) is tied directly to Tony’s legal position that the foreign levies agreement was a CBA.
It appears, however, that the Guild is no longer arguing that it’s a CBA, but rather that it’s a contract of a non-CBA nature.
As such, no ratification would be constitutionally required.
Art:
I just read that section to which you refer.
First, that section applies only to films authored prior to 1960.
Second, performance fees are a very different thing than taxes levied on blank tapes.
Third, while the Companies deny that any foreign laws exist that would require such performance fees to be paid on these pre-1960 films, they acknowledge that if such laws are shown to exist, they will help the writers get that money (in exchange for the Guild not attempting to use said moneys as precedent to screw with the Companies’ legal standing as authors).
Interesting passage, though.
Ted Elliott wrote: “….I just read that section to which you refer.
First, that section applies only to films authored prior to 1960.
Second, performance fees are a very different thing than taxes levied on blank tapes. …. Interesting passage, though….”
Agreed about the differences. What’s significant to the discussion of Foreign Levies is not the source of the money to which it refers, but that it’s in the MBA at all. Clearly article 46 doesn’t refer to wages nor working conditions nor the sorts of reuse fees recognized in previous MBA’s (residuals). But there it is, in an MBA, which means we voted on it.
That would establish precedent for the foreign levies arrangement to also be in the MBA, particularly if article 46 has been in our MBA’s for a while.
Back in 1983 geologist Alex McBirney stated “I believe our present confusion about igneous rocks will rise to un-dreamed of levels of sophistication.” Substitute “foreign levies” for “igneous rocks” and we’ve got the effects of some of this discussion, but good legal work, whether in the drafting of settlements or master contracts should have a gem-like clarity. Explanations shouldn’t have anamolies.
Art —
That was Craig who responded to your post.
I disagree that Article 46 serves as precedent for the foreign levies agreement to be in the MBA, since Article 46 specifically establishes that foreign performance fees on pre-1960s are excepted from, and so not subject to, the MBA. It’s essentially a quit-claim, agreed to by all Companies signatory the MBA.
There’s a similar type of quite-claim in the MBA on behalf of writers: Article 15.A.1 of the MBA, which says that the Guild will not make any claim for compensation (ie, residuals) for television exhibition of pre-1960 movies.
-
Ted and Craig, sorry for getting you two confused with each other. I know you’re not Maziott. But Ted, we’re circling in on the point I’ve been trying to make about article 46 and article 15.A.1 as opposed to the foreign levies deal. They’re both quit-claims, no problem. The thing is, they’re neither one of them collective bargaining language about wages or working conditions. Neither is the foreign levies agreement. So if these two quit-claims or parking valet stubs or whatever the hell they are between WGAw/WGA East and AMPTP are in the MBA, there then the Foreign Levies deal should have been in the MBA as well. Essentially that’s a quit claim — Writers settling for less than we could be getting to settle a claim by some of the companies. So if 46 and 15.A.1 were voted on by members in negotiations, then the foreign levie deal should have been brought to us as well. Which brings us to the inevitable “if not, why not.”
Art —
Isn’t the “why?” at the crux of the lawsuit?
A union can only enter into a collective bargaining agreement on behalf of the employees under its jurisdiction.
In the case of the foreign levies, the WGA and DGA entered into an agreement on behalf of all U.S. writers and directors, regardless of whether they were employed under Guild jurisdiction, or employed outside Guild jurisdiction, or were independent contracts, rather than employers, or even if they were recognized under U.S. law as the authors of the movies, rather than a production company (which is possible — not likely, but possible).
By the very fact that the foreign levies agreement is not limited to writers employed under Guild jurisdiction, it could not be a collective bargaining agreement.
The real question that needs to be asked, is “Why isn’t the foreign levies agreement limited solely to motion pictures produced under Guild jurisdiction?”
I know the answer that can be sourced to the WGA, but, as I’ve said a number of times now, I do not trust the WGA as a source of information (which is not the same as not trusting the elected representatives who present that information. After all, I was on the Board when a staff member flat-out lied to us so we would approve the use of Guild resources for unconstitutional purposes. No one seems to care about that, but it’s the reason I won’t be serving in Guild politics ever again). So I’ll wait until the information as verified by the plantiffs and the court comes out in the course of the lawsuit.
I’m not refuting that some version of the foreign levies agreement could not have been included in a collective bargaining agreement; I am only saying that the foreign levies agreement as it exists is not a collective bargaining agreement.
-
Ted Elliott wrote “….The real question that needs to be asked, is ‘Why isnt the foreign levies agreement limited solely to motion pictures produced under Guild jurisdiction?’
I know the answer that can be sourced to the WGA, but, as Ive said a number of times now, I do not trust the WGA as a source of information….”
That puts us both at least in the same zip code in this discussion. I’ll add that I do not trust the WGA was a source of legal analysis.
Clearly something is wrong at 7000 West Third, and it’s becoming apparent that the problems were transferred from the old place on Beverly Boulevard. The questions raised by the foreign levies deal about the governance of the Guild are symptomatic of a union which has lost its identity.
At last, we are all in the same zip code — we do not trust our union, our union has lost its identity… Now the question remains: what are we going to do about it?
Lizzie wrote: “….we do not trust our union, our union has lost its identity Now the question remains: what are we going to do about it?….”
What makes sense to you?
Bless your heart, Mr. Eisenson.
After following this intense and important (though too frequently lazy and cruel) debate for several weeks, I was relieved to see two of the more prominant interlocutors coming to some rapprochement so I thought I’d chime in with what seemed the obvious next step: taking action.
Even raising the vague spectre of actually doing something about these problems everyone agrees exist seemed to be enough to kill the discussion altogether — until you posted your five word invitation.
What makes sense to me…hmmm…here are a few of things I’ve done:
1) filed a charge with the National Labor Relations Board registering some of the more flagrant violations of the WGA collective bargaining agreement with respect to the guild’s repeated refusal to enforce employee protections with respect to my employment by a signatory company
2) written letters to politicians and leaders who have shown a commitment to corporate and labor transparency alerting them to some of the more troubling actions of the WGA with regard to the guild’s handling of the foreign levies.
3) Spent some serious brain time trying to reconcile the WGAw’s statement in the Agreement of Reciprocal Representation (acting on behalf of itself and the Writers Guild East) that the “WGA hereby represents that it lawfully operates as a Guild of literary authors and qualifies as an alliance of two societies of collective administration of copyright” and Article 10.B.1.c of the MBA which very clearly states that the WGA has no jurisdiction over “any of the warranties or grants of rights made by the writer.” Perhaps this is a spiritual exercise — kind of like the sound of one hand clapping — the guild simultaneously does and does not administer copyright. Wow, man. But after some research, it’s not a koan after all. Though it’s boring and tedious, the above paradox is simply a question of muddying the waters for financial advantage and power. And that’s not right.
I am doing other things as well, and having a good time doing them. If there is any interest, I’ll post some more.
(one last thought, it’s more fun to do things than to fight with other people about what ought to be done.)
Again, thank you Mr. Eisenson.
All the best, lizzy
You’re most welcome, Lizzy, and thank you for what you’re doing. I’ve got a few thoughts and some things in work as well, as do some of my friends. Perhaps we should all have coffee…
That sounds nice. How do we arrange that?
Lizzy - or anyone else to talk about what we can do - if you’re a WGA member with an account on Writer Action, leave a private message to me there.