The New York Times Blows It
No, Brooks. No.So far, the WGA-AMPTP negotiations have gone pretty much how I expected. Both sides started very far apart, and any perceptible motion seems to indicate a widening of the gap. No one seriously expected a deal to be brokered; everyone’s working under the assumption that the WGA will work past expiration, and the AMPTP won’t really start bargaining until they have to face SAG or the DGA.
Still, that doesn’t mean there’s no room for journalists unfamiliar with our industry to lob Molotov cocktails of fiery ignorance into the breach. Ladies and gents, I give you Brooks Barnes and his artitorial on residuals in the New York Times.
Enjoy the slant. It’s delicious.
SCENE STEALER
In Hollywood, a Sacred Cow Lands on the Contract Table
By BROOKS BARNES
Jasper Johns isn’t paid based on the number of years his flag paintings remain popular attractions at museums. Rem Koolhaas doesn’t cash a check every time an architecture fan takes a trip to Seattle to see his space-age public library. So why should the writers, directors and actors responsible for box-office bombs like “Gigli” be able to pocket some cash every time somebody buys the DVD?
It’s a question that cuts to the heart of the biggest fight in Hollywood these days and sums up a fundamental choice the troubled entertainment industry needs to make: whether to cling to old blueprints for running the business or to draft a whole new set.
Brooks couldn’t make it out of the first paragraph without mangling logic, but I let him run on to the second paragraph, because I really enjoyed how he thinks a question he poses out of ignorance is, therefore, a really important question.
When an author creates a work of visual (or, in the case of architecture, “sculptural”) artistry, he holds copyright as well as certain moral rights (yes, even in the United States). That artist can control the display of that work. However, if the artist chooses to freely display his work, so be it.
If you paint a painting on the sidewalk of New York, and I walk by it, my simple act of looking at your artwork doesn’t infringe on your copyright or your authorship in any way. I’m not copying it, I’m not making a derivative work of it, I’m not destroying it and I’m not exhibiting it.
I’m LOOKING at it.
Hey, Brooks….I’m just looking.
That’s not at all analogous to our circumstance as screenwriters. While we do not hold copyright, we are acknowledged by the copyright holders (the studios) in very real ways as part authors of our works. Those copyright holders exploit our authorship for money.
They make copies of our work of authorship. They make derivative works. They exhibit it for money. And yes, they occasionally destroy it.
Just as an author of a book receives royalties for copies that people can possess, so too should we receive residuals for copies that people can own and enjoy.
Or, to please Brooks, if Rem Koolhaas wants to sell little models of his cool library, the manufacturer should pay him a royalty for every item sold.
Duh.
The spat, as always, is about money.
That’s a nice piece of reductive reportage. It’s a bit like saying, “John Smith awoke to find a strange man in his bedroom, rifling through his wife’s jewelry drawer. The ensuing spat was, as always, about money.”
It’s not about money per se. It’s about our rights and our due as authors of the movies we help birth.
Writers, who started talks with studios last month for a new three year contract, want to be paid the way they always have. Movie script writers get an upfront payment, now at least $1 million for a major film, according to studio executives. Screenwriters then receive a residual whenever one of their titles is put on DVD, shown abroad or otherwise resold. Under the same system, a typical TV series writer may get $30,000 an episode, plus residuals.
If any of you know Brooks, could you please ask him to just call me before he writes about Hollywood again? Movie script writers get “at least $1 million for a major film” now??? Really? Last time I checked, scale was still in the five figures. Yes, there are some of us who get paid over a million dollars for a screenplay…or for all of the drafts required to get a movie made. I’m guessing there are about 150 screenwriters in that club in the entire world. Plenty of movies get made where no writer gets paid more than a million.
The residual payments vary widely, depending on a maze of formulas.
Yes, it’s true. There is a maze of formulas. For instance, in movies, there are two.
Two.
The maze is just…arghhh! Can’t find my way out!
A lead writer might earn hundreds of thousands from the DVD sales of a blockbuster movie; a junior member of a writing team for a dud might get a few thousand or less.
Lead writer? Junior member of a writing team? Brooks, sweetheart…please…talk to a screenwriter before your fingers hit the keys. There are no “lead writers” in movies. There are no “junior members.” We’re not grips. We don’t have apprentices. Either you get credit for authorship, or you don’t. Doesn’t matter how old you are, how much you get paid or how long you’ve worked on a project. All that counts toward credit and residuals are the literary contributions you make to the final screenplay.
Studios want to junk the residual payment structure, which dates to the early 1950s, when the fledgling TV business borrowed it from radio. Under their proposal, unveiled with unexpected zest in early July by Barry M. Meyer, chief executive of Warner Brothers Entertainment, so-called creative employees would get residual checks only after the studios have recouped their basic costs.
Have a cookie, Brooks. You made it through a paragraph without getting anything wrong. Except that “so-called creative employees” really are, in actuality, creative employees. Qualifiers not required.
The two groups have reasonable arguments.
This is what I mean by “artitorial.” Is this an article or an editorial? If it’s an article, then what’s with the opinion? And if it’s an editorial…
…you’re totally wrong.
The other side does not have a reasonable argument.
In coming weeks and months, as both sides start huffing and puffing with even more intensity, the writers will declare that they can’t trust Hollywood accounting as to when costs are covered. They’ll also portray the effort to redraw the residual map as a huge rollback in wages. Young writers in particular will be hurt, they say, because they rely most heavily on residual income from failed movies and programs.
Oh, that crazy huffing and puffing! Through huffing and “portrayal” and “they’ll say” arguments, we’ll manipulate the truth!
Except that it is the truth, and no manipulation is required. Anyone whose brain stem is attached knows that Hollywood profit accounting is a joke. No film is ever reported to be in the black. Every film “loses money.” Every…single…one.
This is fact.
Expect studios to battle back with hard facts on finances.
Ah, but see, Brooks thinks that while we engage in huffery and tricks, the studios have “facts” on their side. Unbelievable.
While almost every project turned a profit when the residual structure was enacted, 6 out of 10 movies today will fail to make money even after they are distributed across multiple platforms, according to the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers. On the TV side, almost 90 percent of modern series fail to make money. Studios argue that it’s ridiculous for a business to pay bonuses before it makes back its initial investment.
I’m going to presume, generously, that the above statistics are absolutely true.
So what? If 10 out of 10 films used to generate an aggregate profit of $100 million, and now only 6 out of 10 films are profitable, generating an aggregate of $900 million, then why should I give a damn? These statistics mask an obvious fact of modern Hollywood: franchises are rarer, but endlessly profitable. In short, you need fewer hits than ever to make a ton of dough.
Oh, and residuals AREN’T BONUSES, Brooks. They’re a negotiated equivalent to royalties. They are compensation for the reuse of works of authorship. They’re not a reward for a job well done. They are a payment for continued exploitation of a property.
Already lost in this tit-for-tat skirmish, say analysts and economists who specialize in Tinseltown’s peculiar business models, is the magnitude of the studios’ decision to simply put the residual structure on the table. The studio bosses probably haven’t figured out the best solution, said Josh Bernoff, a media analyst at Forrester Research, but perhaps for the first time they are insisting that cosmetic tweaks to their way of conducting business won’t work.
Hey, Josh Bernoff…you listening?
You got rooked by a frickin’ press release.
Even the studios don’t believe in this crap. It’s an opening salvo in what will be a very long negotiation. The fact that Forrester is often hired by the media corporations we’re negotiating with (and never by, say, me) may have something to do with their narrow view.
At a time when the likes of Paramount and Warner Brothers are having trouble turning a profit on movies that gross $200 million at the box office and the Internet is rapidly making the concept of intellectual property a quaint notion, the sacred treatment of residuals has an air of unreality, according to some economists.
Ridiculous. Anyone in this business knows enough to know that if you gross $200 million at the box office, you will absolutely be generating profits every single time no matter what the movie is.
Every…single…time.
“There is a good question about why they even pay residuals in the first place,” said S. Abraham Ravid, a visiting professor of economics at Cornell, who recently studied how studios price screenplays differently, based on writers’ box-office track records.
Oh God. And now a floating quote from that great center of Hollywood, the inheritor of Lew Wasserman’s throne, the mastermind behind the movie business…
…Mr. S. Abraham Ravid.
Where do they GET these people? It’s only a good question about why a company should pay residuals if you are:
- ignorant of our business
- ignorant of copyright law
- ignorant of the role Mel Nimmer played in creating the residual structure
Few components of Hollywood’s crumbling business model
Sorry, Brooks, stopped reading after you managed to call one of America’s healthiest business models “crumbling.”
John F. Bowman, chairman of the Writers Guild of America’s negotiating committee, said he disagreed with the sacred part, but that untouchable was fair enough. “These are wages to us,” he said. “They’re not bonuses.” He said he thinks that the studios are using the scary-sounding residual retrenchment to make their real target—using material on the Internet without paying a hefty residual—more palatable.
Arghhh! Bowman, you’re not helping! Residuals are not wages. If they were, then yeah, the companies could argue that “you’re paid too much” and our only argument back would be “no we’re not!”
Residuals are compensation not for labor but for reuse of copyright!
We need to start getting that right…because if we don’t, it’s not likely that the Brooks of the world ever will.
Ignoring the ignorance and errors in fact, the logic in the first paragraph is simply bizarre.
Let’s rephrase it to remove the emotion of using a box office failure - the logic should still hold true :
“So why should the writers, directors and actors responsible for the films be able to pocket some cash every time somebody buys the DVD?”
Let’s make it more general - The New York’s Time’s argument is:
“So why should the studio responsible for the films be able to pocket some cash every time somebody buys the DVD?”
In other words … what’s wrong with pirating DVDs? I should just be able to take it for free !? Why on earth should the CREATOR of the film be paid just because I want to make a copy !?
The tide on piracy is truly turning when the New York Times believes this.
Mac
Nice deconstruction. But one quibble:
“Oh, and residuals AREN’T BONUSES, Brooks. They’re a negotiated equivalent to royalties. They are compensation for the reuse of works of authorship. They’re not a reward for a job well done. They are a payment for continued exploitation of a property.”
If residuals are compensation for reuse of a work of authorship, then what’s the basis for actor’s residuals? Or director’s residuals? Or IATSE’s residuals?
I think Bowman’s right on this one. Residuals are a negotiated form of compensation for labor, just like pension and health contributions.
Must admit, I was thinking exactly the same as Mac when reading this post.
Jeff:
Easy.
Directors are considered the co-authors of movies (and this is legally enshrined overseas, for instance, where foreign levies are paid out).
Actors obviously aren’t authors, but reuse of their likeness is what generates residuals for them.
Bowman is wrong. Yes, residuals are a negotiated form of compensation, but not for labor. They are a negotiated form of compensation for reuse, be it for works of authorship or likeness.
Oh, and IATSE workers don’t really get residuals…so…you know…there you go.
His name is Brooks? Brooks? I feel bad for him.
Brooks?
Sometimes, the four right chords can make me cry.
The New York Times lets their writers say anything they want. Fact checking has long been dead.
Still, I wonder why the guy was so slanted against screenwriters?
And I wonder why he was so stupid.
Give the kid a break, look at him, he’s only 9 years old. We should congratulate him that he got an “article” printed in a grown up newspaper. Maybe he won a competition or something.
Every fetus with an opinion can get published these days. ‘probably end up with a book deal.
Surely this snapperhead is on the AMPTP payroll. Seems kinda obivous.
And that “Gigli’ reference is tired. He’s not just a simpleton, he’s a lazy simpleton.
The article-editorial by Mr. Barnes blows my mind. He should be publicly flogged for such a grand display of ignorance. Thank you, Craig, for a taking the first swing. I hope others will follow your lead.
Nice comparison Brooks JaysonBlair Barnes draws with architects.
Indeed, the screenwriter is somewhat similar to an architect - even if people would find it weird to have contractors forbidding the architect to enter the premises of the building while its being built.
So, how much does an architect make, relative to the cost of the building, and how much does a screenwriter make?
$75 000, compared to, say, average cost of Hollywood movies $60M (not sure about this figure, didnt find accurate current infos), is 0.125%.
The IAC building cost $100 M, so by those standards, Frank Gehry should have earned about $125 000.
Riiiight.
For writers, at least, they’re both — a contractual equivalent of royalties receivable as deferred compensation. This arrangement is both necessitated and made possible by the fact that, whether created by an employee or commissioned from an independent contractor, a screen or teleplay is legally defined as a work-made-for-hire. Whereas initial copyright ownership should vest in the individual(s) that create the intellectual property, U.S. law assigns it to the person or party that pays for the property. This cripples the ability of writers to realize the benefits that are their due as true authors under the doctrine of economic right and the doctrine of moral right.
“Still, I wonder why the guy was so slanted against screenwriters? “
Pure speculation (just keeping in the spirit of the whole article ) do I smell a rejected aspiring screenwriter in Brooks writing?
Pure speculation, but you know that would be a fun scenario.
Surely, since Barnes is employed by the New York Times, this must be a well written article.
Well written articles, now, I guess, must include I’m-working-for-the-New-York-Times-and-therefore-know-more-than-you-and-besides-my-job-interview-tasted-a-little-salty logic and assumptions in the place of what one didn’t bother researching.
I think this is a sign of the Apocalypse.
(Let’s bow our heads for a moment of silence for Work Ethics that used to require fact checking.)
Stellar breakdown. The NY Times should be ashamed. They should fire this guy and whoever supervises him. Or move him to ad sales. Can you imagine if someone covered sports with an equivalent understanding of the game? Readers would be outraged.
The headline is “Scene Stealer.” Those screenwriters are STEALING money from the studios, who are just trying their damndest to break even…
Gee, apparently he used to write for the Wall Street Journal, so I’m sure he’s okay.
Where’s Isaiah Washington when you need him?
Wow, really great analysis, Craig. I was appalled when I first read this ridiculous article and your keen insights are very much appreciated.
Boil this down into an Op Ed piece and send to the NYT with dispatch.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/05/business/yourmoney/05steal.html
If you’re registered (free) with NYT, you can click here, then click on Barnes’s byline, and you can send him an email.
If he gets a few hundred emails suggesting that he should learn more about what he’s covering, then maybe he will.
[QUOTE] Pure speculation (just keeping in the spirit of the whole article ) do I smell a rejected aspiring screenwriter in Brooks writing?
Posted by: Dave at August 7, 2007 8:18 AM [/QUOTE] Only if he’s the same Brooks Barnes who wrote the comedy script ROCKET DOCKET, a finalist in the 2006 PAGE International Screenwriting Awards and semifinalist at Scriptapalooza.
davidchecker mentioned him getting a book deal. Of course, if he followed his own logic, he would only get paid for writing the book and not make any money on the sales of the book.
And music artists should get paid only a certain amount when they make the cd, but nothing after that. Of course that would force them to produce many more cd’s since the production of the cd would be their only income.
Wow, that’s a terrible article, and a good dissection of its hackery.
I’m not tin-hat enough to think that the NY Times is in the studios’ pockets, but I’m curious how they crawled so far up their ass.
“….I think Bowman’s right on this one. Residuals are a negotiated form of compensation for labor, just like pension and health contributions….”
Bowman’s economics are correct, because no other industry markets its product on the installment plan. A movie or TV show is never really sold, the way a commodity such as an autmobile or refrigerator is sold. The pink slip doesn’t come with a Blue Ray DVD of The Pink Panther. Since labor compensation is always based on the selling price of the commodity for any industry, our situation is almost unique amongst manufactured goods, because the maker keeps getting revenues, no matter how often the product is used nor by how many end users. So residuals are in fact deferred wages, paid some time after the deferred revenues come in for the studios/copyright holders.
Given the possible speed of getting money transferred these days, we should be asking that residuals be paid sooner, and get the benefit of the float.
“… a finalist in the 2006 PAGE International Screenwriting Awards…”
Proof if proof were needed that dude is clueless. He’s such a maroon he pays to enter no name contests.
Apparently what Larry Brody says about most reporters wanting to be screenwriters is true.
Why does he begrudge us our money anyway? If he made the kind of money we stand to, he’d just waste it on making his apartment more fabulous.
I love the term “Movie script writers” – while not technically wrong, it sounds like something a three year old would say.
Like calling astronauts “moon flying people”.
Art, I just disagree. Wages are for labor. Labor is a fixed cost relative to work done. In our case, work can be defined in terms of time spent or pages created.
In either case, residuals are not paid in proportion to time spent or pages created, but rather in proportion to the amount of copies sold or the number of times exhibitions occur, and as such, are clearly not wages for labor, but compensation for reuse of authorship.
Mockery aside (just for the moment), there’s something wrong about an aspiring screenwriter covering Hollywood for the Times.
It’s such a conflict of interest. Naturally, this reporter’s going to do all he can to buddy up to his potential future employers.
I mean, I expect that with writers for LA Weekly and Variety, but the NYTimes? The business section?
In response to “…So residuals are in fact deferred wages, paid some time after the deferred revenues come in for the studios/copyright holders….”
Craig Mazin wrote “Art, I just disagree. Wages are for labor. Labor is a fixed cost relative to work done. In our case, work can be defined in terms of time spent or pages created.
In either case, residuals are not paid in proportion to time spent or pages created, but rather in proportion to the amount of copies sold or the number of times exhibitions occur, and as such, are clearly not wages for labor, but compensation for reuse of authorship….”
Which actually makes my point about residuals as deferred wages.
What Mr. Mazin and I disagree about is “Labor is a fixed cost relative to work done.”
To some economic theorists that’s an axiom, to others it’s plain wrong. I am of the school (not one of the Ivies +/- Stanford) that holds that wages are determined by the revenue from the transaction price of the commodity, hence in our industry, in which a selling price per se doesn’t even exist, wages are compensation paid out over time, because the revenue comes in over time. We just don’t have to be at the keyboard or legal pad to earn it; the wages are residual in the continued revenue stream.
Other folks may believe other theories of economics and still remain kind to animals, children, and rain forests.
Does anyone have access to the bargaining history to determine why SAG, DGA, and WGAs get payments agreed to by all parties to be referred to as “residuals?” WGA changed from a royalty system, and so-called in 1960 I recall. It’s possible that the economic theories and arguments for residuals as wages reside in that history.
I wonder how Brooks Barnes would feel if I started my own newspaper. Lets say I called it “The Jon Hotchkiss Picayune” (it’s my paper, I can call it what I want!) Suppose I took Mr. Barnes article and put it in my newspaper, “The Jon Hotchkiss Picayune” and sold it here in Sherman Oaks for 10 dollars a copy (I could get that much for it, really! It also has sports scores and a list of reasonably priced Thai massage parlors). Anyway, suppose “The Jon Hotchkiss Picayune” sells thousands of copies and I make tens of thousands of dollars— and all of the articles are written by New York Times reporters — not just the one I stole from Mr. Barnes. How fast do you think the lawyers at “The Jon Hotchkiss Picayune” would get a cease and decist letter… along with a letter from Mr. Barnes demanding a cut of my profits, based on the principal that his writing is what generated my sales? By the way, if you’d like to order a copy of “The Jon Hotchkiss Picayune” you can find subscription cards in this months copy of “Prevention Magazine” (on sale now).
Craig,
Why don’t writers just start a new studio that pays writers the way they want to be paid? It’s not like there’s a shortage of money floating around Hollywood these days.
All the best writing talent would flock there, and a few years later the big studios would be forced to acquiesce with the next contract.
[b]Hey everybody, let’s put on a show![/b]
Talent could never get along with each other w/o the exec mommies and daddies to make them behave. Talent is also prone to chasing rainbows. See Coppola.
The studios do what they do best, organizing men and materiel and using these to invade and dominate the marketplace. Artists aren’t particularly good at or interested in this kind of work.
Craig: All this talk about residuals as wages or royalties ignores a lot of history. Over the years we have become accustomed to thinking of residuals as “reuse” payments, a notion that makes logical and ethical sense but not historical sense. When huge strikes loomed over the videotapes issue in the 1980’s, Lew Wasserman stepped in and “allowed” residuals payments on the theory that the talent was entitled to share in the successes. In those days there really was a primary market, where the studios got 80% of their revenues, and a secondary market (TV runs of theatricals, airplanes, foreign) that accounted for 20%. Letting the writers, directors, and actors share in that 20% piece was the price Wasserman paid for labor peace. It was NOT for reuse, it was sharing in the gravy and later became thought of as reuse. The problem for the studios was that 20% became 40% and then 50%, and they were having to make payments out of an ever-expanding chunk of the revenue stream. They were content to go along for the past twenty years, albeit grumpily, because overall the system was still acceptable to them. The internet issue scares them now because they look into the future and don’t know if the revenues from the internet will be like DVD’s and suddenly take over their revenue sources, which means they will be paying out a certain percentage on a HUGE chunk of their revenues when, in the 1980’s, it was only a 20% chunk. That’s why so many of the companies are thinking of ripping up the current residuals system and starting over. They fear getting choked on residuals. The writers and other talent guilds all say it’s about corporate greed, which is like saying psychotherapy is about the self. Of course it is. But that’s not the point. If residuals are about “reuse,” then logically we should be getting some payment from the get-go — from the second showing in a theater. If residuals are deferred compensation or wages, then logically they should NOT be tied to revenues. If they are tied to revenues, then we should be discussing profit and risk sharing, which isn’t happening and neither side wants to happen. My point is, none of these terms sensibly describes residuals, because originally they were a sop to assure labor peace when only 20% of studio revenues were exposed. Obviously writers (and directors and actors) deserve a meaningful share of studio revenues, just as athletes deserve a meaningful share of their teams’ revenues. And we should fight hard for that meaningful share. But making residuals a sacred historical right based on “reuse” or “deferred compensation” is both illogical and dangerous.
Publius
Brilliant. Yes, please dispatch the Op Ed version to the New York Times, especially in light of that screwy quote from our negotiator. Someone needs to clarify the public discussion.
As for the studios recouping their costs? Cry me a river. If they can’t figure out how to run a profitable business (which, of course they can) then residuals are the least of their problems.
Maybe it’s just me, but their residual argument sounds a little like arguments in favor of child labor or against the minimum wage. Obviously, if you exploit people you can make more profits. But, really, that isn’t allowed.
“I am of the school (not one of the Ivies +/- Stanford) that holds that wages are determined by the revenue from the transaction price of the commodity”
This sounds fancy but it makes no sense. A pair of Nikes cost what they do because of the labor cost? Ridiculous.
Why the fuck are some here rooting against writers getting residuals? Obviously these people are NOT WRITERS! Go find another blog that concerns you…
I mean, why would anybody not involved with the issue invest time and effort into revoking others’ hard-earned rights???
Obviously these folks are bored or bitter or both. For all who feel writers don’t deserve residuals, there are very informative websites for you to check out, like this one…
http://tinyurl.com/3vfqv
Publius:
Thanks for that historical perspective.
However, I still maintain that, regardless of the studio’s view, the only way to make sense of residuals is to view them as the work-for-hire equivalent of royalties.
You’re correct to point out that the so-called primary markets (which now include in-flight showings) are exempt from residuals, so it’s a fair question to ask: if residuals are for reuse, then why not for repeated exhibition in theaters?
My answer is that just as in publishing, where the advance is recouped out of royalties, our initial labor fees (the up-front costs of the work) are essentially recouped out of residuals by waiving our residuals on the so-called primary market.
Look, it’s always going to be a bit of a Frankenstein. It’s not royalties, and we don’t own copyright, so it’s “sort of royalties.”
What it’s definitely not is labor compensation.
Art:
I love you, but your economic theories aren’t really germane to this issue, because they are not the theories either side are using as a basis for negotiation. In this country’s economic system, wages are not determined by revenue, regardless of one’s desire that they be so determined.
I emailed Brooks a link to the blog. I would love to see him come and post a response.
I do see some of these comments losing a little perspective. Whether residuals can be called wages or bonuses is not really the problem. I stated the example of whether an author should get residuals for book sales. Should all the money go to the publisher, or should J.K. Rowling get a `cut’ of the Harry Potter book sales?
anon responded to “I am of the school (not one of the Ivies +/- Stanford) that holds that wages are determined by the revenue from the transaction price of the commodity”
with “This sounds fancy but it makes no sense. A pair of Nikes cost what they do because of the labor cost? Ridiculous.”
Think of it this way. Of course a pair of Nikes doesn’t cost what they cost on the market because of the labor costs. The Nikes sell for what they are worth on the market; the profit is in the difference between what the product is worth on the market and the aggregate costs of making it - raw materials, supplies, and labor. Google for “labor theory of value,” there are many explanations, some of them quite turgid.
Craig Mazin wrote: “….your economic theories aren’t really germane to this issue, because they are not the theories either side are using as a basis for negotiation. In this country’s economic system, wages are not determined by revenue, regardless of one’s desire that they be so determined….”
Actually, the Guild is pretty much using labor theory of value - check some of Howard Rodman’s posts over on WA. Management, obviously, does not ever admit to using labor theory of value. My gosh, they can’t, not and look after all those widows and orphans who own stock and whose interests those people are in business to protect.
So, finally the outcome of this negotiation, like every other negotiation, will come down to, well, will.
Art:
All due respect to Howard, whom I think is a terrific guy, but he’s one voice, and I think you and he are also the only Marxists I know.
That is, if you both specifically identify as Marxist. I think Howard still does.
Publius:
Here’s the interesting thing about history: some of it actually occurred before 1980.
From New York Times article about the studios refusing any further contract extentions, “Big Studios Face Writers’ Strike,” published October 24, 1959:
[Executive Vice President of the Association of Motion Picture Producers Charles. S] Boren said the no-extension decision followed the guild’s rejection Wednesday night of the producers’ proposal that royalties payments for post-1948 films sold to television be postponed until next year. The royalties are the basis for the guild’s demands.
And, just ‘cause history is fun, here’s an excerpt from another New York Times article, “Top Studios Face A Writers Strike,” published November 23, 1959:
“The producers,” said Mr. Boren, “gravely regret that after many years of amicable relations with the Guild, we have come to an irreconcilable difference.
“This difference arose from the Guild’s insistence that any final agreement must provide for some payments to writers from the exhibition of post-‘48 films on free TV or pay TV. The producers took an equally firm position that they cannot make any agreement for such with the Writers’ Guild or any other guild or union.”
Oh, and the article goes to explain why the producers took this position:
The producers say that, if they permit the union to get a share of the income from the sale of post-1948 films to television, there would be no profits left.
Heh.
“Oh, and IATSE workers don’t really get residuals…so…you know…there you go.”
Um, Craig? I’m sure what you meant to say was that “IATSE workers do get residuals, just not individually, instead they are pooled into the Pension and/or heathfunds.”
I know as an IA brother, you know that too…
Below (my IA brother):
Yes, this is why I said IA members don’t really get residuals.
Cuz they don’t.
Tommy can call them residuals, but they’re really P&H contributions disconnected from any sense of authorship or individual work (so neither residual nor labor wage).
As such, IA residuals are like WGA residuals in name only, albeit an important economic benefit for IA workers.
Craig, can we talk about how bad that article was? Did it shock you that one writer could be so wrong so often? Or were you not suprised that the writer of that article did such a bad job?
That writer is a not good at writing and should improve or quit.
Great breakdown, Craig.
Here is the page with the “Send an email to Brooks Barnes” link.
Do we really think that the studios are worried about getting “choked” on residuals?
They give away in individual negotiations far more money than they’ll ever pay in residuals.
As Dave Poland mentioned, it’s not the half-million in residuals that keep Mission:Impossible III from profit, it’s the $80 million in first dollar gross they gave to Tom Cruise.
I have serious doubts that the studios really care about residuals at all beyond wanting to keep the Internet residuals negotiated as low as possible (I think the studios would be very happy to get the DVD residual rate for downloads, etc.)
What’s shocking is not the studios negotiating ploys. What’s shocking is seeing the New York Times be such lackies for the establishment. One gets the feeling that Brooks didn’t even change up the Press Release he got from the MPAA.
Shame all this rage couldn’t be about something of substance…like the negotiations that aren’t going on.
Craig,
I think you, Ted and others in the biz should write Brooks and especially the rag that printed his article and demand (or ask politely) that they print the truth about this situation concerning residuals. Truth is paramount here and this rag needs to know that.
Linda
He’s just jealous.
Ted, I love the 1959 NYT articles. Wonder if Barnes knows about them.
Santayana said it best.
Art, I have to agree with Craig that this isn’t about economic theory. It’s about copyright law. Under copyright law, the “author” of a work automatically owns the copyright. However, once the actual author sells his work, a fiction arises whereby the “author” is no longer the person who created the work, but rather the person who owns it. The residual provisions in our contracts are a way of acknowledging that the actual author is a person, not a corporation, and that he shoud retain some of the benefits that copyright law grants to those who produce the copyrighted work. Copyright law developed both to provide publishers (in the early days of the printing press) to profit from the reproduction of a work of authorship (the analog for the publisher in our business is the studios) and to provide an incentive (in the form of profits) for creative people to produce the work in the first place. Royalties are our share of the profits and they are our just deserts. Profits are the studios just deserts. Since they have complete control over what they do to exploit a work, it is only fair that they should bare the risks associated with the same in their entirety. That’s why our residuals should not be tied in any way to their profits. They do make revenue whenever they sell a DVD, etc. and we should get a share of that.
As for the studio’s so-called “difficulty” dealing with the changing nature of revenue streams, not our problem. They need to figure it out and you can believe they will. Also, (AND THIS ONE’S FOR CRAIG), I know that a smaller percentage of revenues are now coming from domestic theatrical distribution than was true in the past, but how is revenue overall. In other words, are the studios making any less on average than they ever were? Or is it just that the money they’re making is spread out over more platforms? If it’s the latter, then their profits are basically the same and even the weak argument that they’re making now would fall apart. Just curious.
Someone should tell the studios that they’re right, there’s no need to continue to work under this whole RESIDUALS scheme that’s been worked out. Instead, we’ve decided to retain copyright of our scripts and license the performance and copies made of that performance as playwrights do.
I just want to see how they’d react.
Give the kid a break. He’s just trying to make a buck like the rest of us. I mean, are screenwriters all that altruistic either? Even so, the poor guy is probably scraping by on a Porsche and living in bare loft on the lower East side.
has anyone mentioned that its the guilds PR dept who’s responsible for educating the press and managing expectations?
how much time and energy is the guild putting into this? who are they hiring? im having a chance to speak to the new communications director next week. what i know is our oldschool labor ED hired an old school labor communications guy. somewhere, somehow, we’ve got to hire some people that are from the world of hollywood, tech and media. my hunch is that the guild is going with the strategy that PR is better focused organizing membership, than winning hearts and minds. though they are all important (particularly the financial press that the studios themselves can be vulnerable to) id like to suggest that proper management of the press will HELP organizing. my two cents.
I do see some of these comments losing a little perspective. Whether residuals can be called wages or bonuses is not really the problem. I stated the example of whether an author should get residuals for book sales. Should all the money go to the publisher, or should J.K. Rowling get a `cut? of the Harry Potter book sales?
Posted by: Tim W. at August 7, 2007 5:19 PM
indeed - and clear to everyone but brooks that films are more analogous to harry potter books than jackson pollack paintings, sold generally to one buyer collector.
btw, anyone who wants to get the NYT’s attention should send this to brooks’ editor, as well as brooks.
It’s funny that the first over-the-top demand from the studios are getting serious discussion. The WGA should have demanded something equally bizzarre like “Writers are to be compensated with corporate stock” and let NYTimes writers speculate on that.
Did anyone else notice in Ted’s response that the NY Times used almost the exact same headline for both articles?
“Big Studios Face Writers’ Strike,” published October 24, 1959
“Top Studios Face A Writers Strike,” published November 23, 1959
How can we be surprised by an article like this? They were lazy even back in the 50s.
“Google for “labor theory of value,” there are many explanations, some of them quite turgid.”
Ah, thanks for the clarification. I understand where you are coming from now. But based on my cursory reading about the labor theory of value it seems to me that it is meant to apply to commodities which movies clearly are not. There is also a difference between value and price and movies are in a somewhat unique situation where the price is relatively fixed regardless of the actual value of the movie.
I hope somebody is doing a letter to the editor.
Craig, Great response. Hope you submit to the NYT (& elsewhere.)
My jaw dropped when I read this article. Here’s the letter I sent off to Barnes. I’d love to read some of yours:
Well Mr. Barnes, congratulations to you. I’ve been a daily reader of the New York Times for over 15 years, and this is the very first time I’ve ever felt truly — in fact, morally — compelled to write a letter in response.
You most certainly have received hundreds of missives by now contesting your ill-informed article, “In Hollywood, a Sacred Cow Lands on the Contract Table.” It’s hard to decide where to begin an enumeration of the bias, ignorance and outright lies you display in this article, so let’s just start with the greatest hits:
1) To put it mildly, you show an addled understanding of US copyright law. Or to put it more accurately, you demonstrate a blatant and, one has no recourse but to assume, willful misreading of the most basic protections of authorship according to the law. Put simply, residuals are not bonuses. Residuals are not salary. Residuals are a required payment for the exploitation by a third party of a work of authorship. It’s the most basic protection for an author of an exploited material, and, as a writer yourself, it simply defies possibility that you would not possess at least a rudimentary understanding of this area of the law.
2) You demonstrate such a basic deficiency of knowledge of how Hollywood screenwriters work and get compensated that again, one is forced to conclude that your misrepresentations are willful. You write that “Movie script writers get an upfront payment, now at least $1 million for a major film, according to studio executives.” Which studio executives specifically said that? The answer is none, because it simply is not true. A cursory glance at the Writers Guild website (www.wga.org) will reveal the contractual minimum for writing a feature screenplay to be less than one-tenth the number you breathlessly conjure out of thin air. A small handful of writers earn a million dollars or more for a script. The other several thousand working screenwriters labor for a fraction of that number.
Even more preposterous is your claim about the money the “lead writer” of a film earns from DVD residuals, as opposed to the sums raked in by a “junior member of a writing team.” As anyone who has ever bothered to read the credits on the back of these DVDs already knows, there is absolutely, positively no such thing as a lead writer or a junior writer. There are credited writers, and occasionally writers who fail to get credit, but there is no caste system like the one you propose. This is Hollywood 101. Everyone knows this. How did you expect to get away with this egregious a misrepresentation of the facts?
3) Your unconcealed bias for a profit-participation model for screenwriters ignores the most basic and well-known fact about Hollywood studios: they are masters of deception and sleight-of-hand when it comes to revealing profits. Almost no movies are ever listed as profitable. Your failure to address, even in passing, this common industry wisdom does as much damage to your credibility on this issue as any of your factual errors. And that’s saying a lot.
4) Finally, since I’ve decided to refrain from engaging in a line-by-line evisceration of this embarrassing and (one might hope) career-damaging piece of spin, I’ll leave off with one final note. If we choose to ignore the raft of ignorance on display here, and if we choose to ignore the basic factual errors, and if we further choose to ignore your failure to engage the most pressing and obvious counter-argument, we’re still left with the fact that you completely missed the point with this article. The studios’ public stance against residuals is not an actual agenda. It is merely the first shot across the nose (as unrealistic as it is belligerent) in what is sure to be months of tense negotiations with the Writer’s Guild. Absolutely no one expects this stance to hold. It is common knowledge, in fact, that this is merely the studios’ way of announcing that they will take a tough stand as the writers seek to remedy two decades of an unfair, exploitative and ill-gotten deal governing home video and DVD residuals. Since you’re covering Hollywood for the most prestigious and accomplished source of journalism in the country, one would assume that you would know this already. Why this highly pertinent information doesn’t appear in your article leaves a lot to the imagination.
Mr. Barnes, you have forever tarnished your reputation as a journalist with this article, and you have taken your paper down a notch with you. What I’d like to know is why you have done this. I have accused you in this letter of intentionally misleading your readers. The only other alternative is gross incompetence, but I’ve decided to grant your intelligence the benefit of the doubt.
I am herewith demanding nothing less than a full explanation of the motives behind this article. You and The New York Times owe your readers nothing less.
Sincerely,
His name is Brooks!! Brooks!!
Have any of you who’ve written to the Times heard a response from either Brooks or his editors? I’d like to hear his response to the criticism if he has one. Although, given how lazy his journalism is in this piece, I doubt he’ll be motivated to respond to any criticism.
Can the New York Times just go out of business please? Sometimes I really do wish there were laws against sucking the way they do.
No only does Brooks Barnes write for NYT, they wooed him away from WSJ specifically to cover Hollywood. How someone so obviously lacking in journalistic integrity (and who’s a mediocre wordsmith at best) managed to write for not one but two of the most prestigious papers in the country is baffling. That he displays such little knowledge of his beat is frightening.
His snarky know-it-all tone is de rigeur in the blogochasm (I believe the technical term for it is “talking out of your ass”), so maybe it’s the RSS feed set that NYT is trying to engage. As with broadcast journalism, perhaps “info-tainment” is replacing stodgy old “news.”
Way to lower the bar, New York Times. Can’t wait to see what happens to WSJ once Murdoch’s got the pink slip in his skeletal little fingers.
His fellatial technique knows no peer.
Oooooooooh. The New York Times Blows It. Now I get it.
What’s so wrong with the name?
Michael Brooks is a perfectly fine name. A fireman or beekeeper could have that name. However Brooks Michael would be relegated to hosting a show on Bravo, Celebrity Kitchen Makeovers or something.
the new york press has a history of not “getting” hollywood. and by this i mean the NY press ON the hollywood beat. when the times let bernie weinrab (? is that right?) cover the beat while being married to amy pascal, it was clear they didnt get it. again, its our job in the guilds pr dept to start educating these people…
Methinks he’s had one too many rejections from prodcos.
We should probably ease up on him before he opens up his wrists or something. The “movie script writer” thing is embarassing enough, let’s not pile on.
The easiest way to look at this is like dealing with the Mafia. Wasserman wanted to get the rights to films to show on TV that didn’t have TV rights. So he let writers “wet their beaks” with tiny residuals. Only problem was that later the studios started to wonder why they should even let writers “wet the beaks.” So they tried to fuck them. And they kept doing it to this day.
J.F.
Could you elaborate on this:
Since the films were subject to copyright, and copyright includes TV rights, how was it that films in question did not have TV rights?
Also:
Allowing that you’re right, and the films’ copyrights did not inlcude TV rights, how did this result in those copyrights suddenly including the TV rights?
Ted -
Don’t you see? It’s the RUSSIAN-JEWISH MAFIA maaan !!
Sheesh.
Oh shit, Hartmann’s onto us!
While I have no doubt that I will inspire waves of attacks by the poster and other commenters, I think that Brooks does a fine job in conveying the larger picture that the current compensation system might not be the best way to go in a digital world. If the studios are willing to consider scapping the current system entirely, why not meet the challenge and propose a system whereby writers are either explicit full-feldged co-owners of copyright, or a system where they are given substantially more compensation up front in return for no residuals? [Or perhaps even a system that gives the parties a choice of choosing between the two ideas?] If the idea is to make sure that writers are ultimately given compensation for their work, these suggestions might put writers in the same place of ultimately getting the same amount of overall compensation while making distributors feel better about releasing the work in a variety of mediums. (In fact, many, if not most writers could end up profiting even if the up front payment incraese was substantial enough - for the same reasons that it is always smarter to take a lump-sum payment in a lotto winning and invest it, rather than opt for the smaller yearly payments.)
Also, I respectfully submit that your reasoning about why actors should be given residuals is problematic to your underlying argument. If they are entitled to compensation for the copying of their image, then logically, any film/TV worker whose labor shows up visually should be entitled to the same. Do cinematographers and set designers get residuals? Cinematographers might (I honestly don’t know), but I am fairly sure that set designers don’t. If actors are entitled to residuals as a legal/moral right instead of merely a matter of union contract (which seems to be the underlying basis of your argument), then all of these other creative people should be entitled to residuals as well.
There are plenty of other side issues that I could take with your comments (For isntance, Brooks is perfectly justified in describing residual payments as being dependent on a “maze of formulas”. The issue isn’t the amount of overall formulas (2), but how COMPLEX the individual formulas are. Each formula is composed of several components that indeed are “maze” like. Disagree? Then why not just post the complete forumals on your blog and let the reader decide?), but I don’t want to get into each of these side issue disagreements out of fear of sidetracking the real meat of the debate (beyond the one I just mentioned as an illustrative example).
Cordially,
Justin
Ok. I’m in punching bag mode now. Flame away.
Justin,
I think YOU do a fine job of conveying your thoughts, but Brooks gets far too many things wrong to be able to classify him as doing a fine job.
As to some of your comments, actors, directors and writers have a far bigger stake in whether or not a film is successful than, say, a production designer. I’ve never heard of a production designer getting any blame for a movie that does badly, but the actors, writers and directors do. If you star in several bad films in a row, you will find your salary decline. Same goes for a writer and director. No one looks at how well a production designer’s films did when thinking about hiring him. For that reason, those who put their asses on the line should have more of a stake in the profits of said project.
An actor’s face is his/her product. Should the product be overexposed, then their ability to get more work will suffer. Look at the cast of Gilligan’s Island. No one could see them as anything but the characters they played, so getting more employment was more difficult. The production designer/s for the show simply went on to the next series. They don’t get the residuals that the actors do, but they also are able to work much more regularly than actors do.
A writer is able to writer a limited number of feature film screenplays a year. For some, that’s only one or even less. And the chance of that film getting made is slight. Take a look at the credits of some of the more successful screenwriters. The list is generally not that long. How can that be compared to a production designer who can work on several films a year? If the writer becomes more of a script doctor', then they can work more steadily, but don't get the residuals since they are not the author of the work. I think the current system work pretty well. If the writer takes on ahired hand’ role, like what a production designer or cinematographer does, then they are treated like one (no residuals) and can work more steadily. If they writer becomes the author of a work, then their risk is increased (of it not getting made, or if the film bombs etc), but they get residuals as compensation.
Brooks is an idiot. I don’t think there can be much debate about that. He simply doesn’t seem to understand the issues as they are.
I think my point is pretty clear. You can’t really compar
Tim—
Sorry to nitpick, but production designers aren’t a great example as far as amount of work is concerned, because it’s rare to find a production designer who does more than two features a year (more likely just one).
Other than that, I’ve loved reading Mazin’s autopsy of this article and all the comments in response.
Looks like Brooks Barnes might not have been right about his art analogy, either. Did you know that if you resell a painting in California, you’re required to give the artist a percentage of the resale price?
From Anne Avery Andres’ website on Art Law…
“California has a statute which regulates the resale of fine art. This statute requires the seller to retain 5% of the resale price and to remit it to the artist within 90 days of the sale. If the seller cannot locate the artist, the seller is required to transfer 5% of the resale price to the California Art Council within the same time frame. If the seller fails to make the transfer, the artist may bring an action for damages within three years after the date of sale or one year after the discovery of the sale, whichever is longer. The prevailing party is entitled to attorney fees.”
Blow me. All of you.
Wow. Just “wow.”
Barnes, you had wonderful chance to respond intelligently, take the criticism like an adult, and thank Craig, and others, for pointing out where you were wrong about the issue.
You might have shed some light on how it might possibly have happened that you got so much so wrong.
In short, you could have learned from it.
But no, you take the potential of an adult, thoughtful response, and drop it in the toilet…
… and flush it.
Wow.
I guess it’s too much to hope that the real Brooks actually wrote that rejoinder?
Yeah, Dave, I’m pretty sure that’s just someone pretending to be Brooks. This is the internet…
Craig,
I was pretty quick out of the gate to assume it was him.
If the real Barnes does show up, I do clutch a hope that he’ll intelligently respond to this, and own up to his mistakes and learn from them.
… such a response would, of course, demonstrate integrity on Barnes’ part.
Which I’m sure he has.
Somewhere.
In an unopened box.
But he has it.
Did Dave just quote himself to comment on his own quote-?
^ Hey, mom. Are you making Stovetop for dinner tonight? Can Timmy eat with us? His mom said it was OK.
This is normal in case a new comment is posted while one is composin—
— but it’s —
Are you sure?
NO BROOKS! I told you I don’t want that Talbott kid in my house. Last time he was here dad walked in on him playing with my pussy. It took the vet an hour to get the spoon out.
Now, go finish you article on how directors make movies while movie script writers just type pages.
AUG 11
CRAIG:
Thanks again for being totally honest, responsible in your research…and having ther guts to put it all on the line.
More I read your articles…the more I can’t ever understand how many WGA writers, as well as the idiotic suits and their lawyers…could ever, with a straight face and honest conscience…disagree with you.
Thanks for fighting the good fight. I’d give anything to get my WGA card now and join the ranks with you.
If disagreeing WGA cardholders take you to wall for this, they should just burn their cards, throw out their laptops and become studios execs.
MARK11
He works for the NY Times. Enough said.
“No wonder all writers want to direct: one still has to put up with a load of nonsense, but even if wearing two hats (writer and director), there is one under which one is not called a thief and then raped.”
Justin Levine,
I think a lot of writers would be more than willing to do away with the current system and replace it with a different system, especially if said system allowed for writers to potentially earn a larger share of money should the movie be successful.
The problem is that the studios proved long ago that they cheat. Replacing the formulas, even if they are byzantine, with the need to audit every motion picture to see if their definition of “profit” is legitimate seems like a far more complicated scenario. So, it’s either take the studios word (which they’ve proven time again is worthless) as to when movies are in profit and residuals would be paid or come up with another round of complicated formulas to determine when and at what amounts residuals are paid.
Plus, the studio proposals aren’t even “we want to avoid paying on flops and share the wealth on hits. It’s we don’t want to pay on flops, and we’re also not willing to pay on hits”.
I’m not the sharpest tool in the shed, but the proposal so far from the studios seems to be that they want to replace the DVD formula with a formula that pays nothing to any writer at any time on DVDs. And they’d like to use that same formula for downloads, too. That’s not sharing in hits. Their proposal really is to do away with residuals all together, and pretend they’re replacing them with profit participation while also not having any kind of profit participation in the deal at all for any areas in which a movie would normally make most, if not all, of its profits.
Considering that the studios do pay well above WGA minimums for most deals, I think they’d welcome the idea of upping the minimums in order to forgo residuals. Presumably, this would result in a system where writers made essentially the same as now upfront and received no residuals or other payments at all.
“Do cinematographers and set designers get residuals?”
Correct me if I’m wrong -
Actors are paid for their image. That image can be reused. Set designers are paid to build a set, not for the “image” of their set.
Set designers, and most of the crew in general, are grossly underappreciated in their massive contributions to the production (and success) of any given film.
That said, they cannot be said to be “authors” because they are not originating the creative body itself, but component parts as blueprinted by others. You would not hesitate to recognize that a building was designed by the architect and not the construction workers who assembled it - no matter how efficiently and diligently they worked on it.
(Furthermore, that logic has some pretty ridiculous ends - should the guy who developed the film receive residuals as well?)
Authorship refers to the origination (as opposed to, but not mutually exclusive with, the phsyical construction) of the creative body of work as such. I’ll admit this is not a legal definition, but ultimately legal definitions are based on vernacular ones.
I voraciously enjoyed reading your complete deconstruction of Mr. Barnes’ article. Thanks. That is all.
I think Holly Sorenson made a very crucial point about winning the hearts and minds. Brooks is clearly a shil for very sophisticated PR groups now out there setting the tone for the Studios to the disadvantage of the Guilds.
Take one example of a key “hearts and minds” question: Do films make a profit? Brooks adopts the conventional wisdom that they do not and are even less profitable today than in some golden past. You can bet that that view is widely held by the public and even by some percentage of the membership of the guilds. But as many have pointed out that is the wrong question - the question is whether the entities that employ the members of the guilds are profitable. Of course they are or else they would go out of business as Wall Street began to punish their stock price. Instead, hundreds of billions has flowed into Hollywood through Wall Street in the last few years. Why? To lose money? Of course not - to earn a share of the multiple streams of revenue associated with big budget filmmaking today of which theatrical release is only one - and often consciously a “loss leader” aimed at building a brand that generates revenue for years to come in sequels, spin-offs and non-film product lines.
That larger picture of a growing and profitable global business centered in Hollywood, financed by Wall Street and driven by technological change from Silicon Valley is the new formula that is attracting global investors. The attack on residuals is an effort to block the door to the room where the real action is taking place - in emerging new media and digital distribution. (Check out one newcomer: Vudu Labs, with a seven studio deal and a film library of 5,000 titles ready to launch a new in home IP based distribution system this year.)
If that picture of a very profitable business does not win the hearts and minds of the public and of the entire membership of the guilds and, instead, the pablum of the Brooksies of the world is allowed to rule, it will be a very tough year of negotiations.
this is a great point steve. me thinks that there is a some comparison of our industry with the music industry - where an outdated model going south was pushed over the brink rapidly by the inability to shift to new technology and revenue streams. of course we all know for a million and one reasons its not at all analogous. but i keep reading references to the music biz in financial press when discussing HW and they need to be set straight. reminding them that our business is vital and healthy is a good start.
Someone correct me if I’m wrong, but I’d think writers would want to stay away from profitability deals like the flesh-eating virus. You would seem to have some real worry when you’re dealing with companies that are not engaging in arms-length transactions. From my understanding, studios often “rent” items internally and then charge these items to the production. While its a reasonable practice, it also seems fairly easy to exploit from an increase of expenses perspective. Also, I assume that the overhead rates studios charge to films are probably allocated based upon the profitability of the film in question(on the basis that employees spend more time with profitable films, regardless of how true this might be). It seems like there are far too many variables both out of writers control and open to manipulation to prevent profitability from being a worthwile incentivizing factor.
Ryan Paige -
I agree that substituting residuals for a (non-copyright owner) “profit sharing” system would be insane since studios use a very flawed accounting system. I am not talking about that. I am instead suggesting that writers do away with residuals in exhange for a larger fixed/guaranteed payment up front. If a project is successful, writers of those projects will still presumably be indirectly rewarded with offers of more work if people perceive the success as being at least partially attributal to the writer’s efforts.
Mani -
Sorry, but you are indeed wrong. Set designers are not paid to physically construct sets. They hire crews to do that. Set designers DESIGN the look of sets from an artistic viewpoint. That is why they give Oscars for best Art Direction.
Perhaps I am technically using the term “set designer” improperly, and should instead be using “art director”. But it is clear from my comments that I am refering to the person(s) who are responsible for the aesthetic look of the physical sets. In that sense, they are indeed responsible for creating “images” that are reused the same way that an actor’s image is “reused”. True, art directors/set designers are not “authors” of the film, but niether are the actors. That is my entire point. Yet one group gets residuals while another does not.
I will again reiterate another crucial fact to my argument. Actors are not entitled to residuals either as an inherent legal or moral right. They are entitled to them because their guild managed to negotiate for them in their collective bargaining agreements that the studios agreed to. If they were entitled to residuals as an inherent right (divorced from any collective bargaining agreements), then there is no logical reason to deprive residuals to EVERY individual that contributed a visual element to the film (art directors, cinematographers, make-up artists, etc.).
But again, this is just a roundabout way of arguing that writers shouldn’t be so quick to denounce the idea of doing away with residuals - provided that other modes of comparable compensation overall can be agreed on.
Production designers design the look of the sets architecturally and in terms of the essential style. They are also in charge of the department that includes…
…the art director, who serves as the production designer’s right hand man and helps coordinate the work between the various subsets of the art department
…the set decorator, who serves as the interior designer of the set
…the construction crew, who physically build the sets
They also work closely with locations and props.
Carry on.
Justine,
No one is discounting what the Set Designer, or anyone else does. The director and the writer would obviously be considered the authors of the film. The writer created the story and the director brought it to the screen. You can’t really consider the cinematographer, or anyone else as authors, even though they contribute to the artistic vision.
No one considers the actors as authors, but that is not what they are getting paid for. As I mentioned above, the lead actors are much, much more at risk than anyone else except the director. Even the writer can deflect some criticism towards the director. As I said, the lead actors’ face is their product. 99.9% of people watching a film might have no idea who the writer and director are, let alone the cinematographer, set designer, editor or costume designer. The actor, however, is the person most people associate with a film (or television series). If the actor makes enough bad films, people will stop seeing his or her movies. The set designer tales no blame in how bad a movie is. There is no risk in a set designer working on a film. If they are good, they will always be in demand, no matter what the track record of their films is. Not so for an actor, director, and to a lesser extent, the writer.
Conversely, a successful actor could become overexposed, and their success is actually a negative. Not so for any other person working on a film. This is the trouble with their face being their product. Their careers are much more vulnerable than anyone else’s.
“Ryan Paige -
I agree that substituting residuals for a (non-copyright owner) “profit sharing” system would be insane since studios use a very flawed accounting system. I am not talking about that. I am instead suggesting that writers do away with residuals in exchange for a larger fixed/guaranteed payment up front.”
The problem with that is that, as Craig has shown, writers are already paid well above the WGA guaranteed minimums for their work. My fear would be that the overall upfront compensation would, at best, equal the average that writers are paid today.
Plus, in my opinion, there still needs to be an option available for smaller companies and producers to pay “indie” wages to WGA writers on some projects. I’m working on a project right now with a total budget of around $500,000. If the WGA minimum suddenly became $250,000 (up from around $50K), for example, there’d be no way for me to do that project. The money for it is finite.
Of course, just as there are levels of minimums in the WGA MBA now, there could be in the future, as well. So, it’s not impossible to work around.
I know I’m coming late to the party, Craig, but I wanted to say I greatly enjoyed your thoughtful rebuttal of an article that was clearly pulled out of Mr. Barnes’ ass the night before his deadline.
I was at a WGA Contract Captain/Picket Captain m