Actors Now Fighting For Royalties That Will Make It Harder For Big Studios To Compete
from the short-sighted dept
After the TV writers' strike from earlier this year, we noted that the final settlement actually was not in the best interest of the writers, even though they got much of what they wanted in demanding royalties from online usage of their content. The actors unions are now gearing up for that same battle, as well, as they, too, are demanding rights over online usage, including royalties and the right to demand permission before any of the works they appear in can be used online. It's difficult to feel sorry for Hollywood producers here -- as they very much brought this on themselves, convincing lots of people that they should get paid every single time any of their content was used. Thus, it's no surprise that the writers and the actors are now demanding the same rights.However, just as it was wrong for the producers to be demanding a fee for every usage, so is it wrong for the writers and the actors to be demanding such a fee. All it will do is make it much more difficult, time consuming and expensive for any of that content to go online. And that will open up much wider opportunities for other content to go online instead, decreasing the overall value of the content made under these agreements. It's hard to fault the actors (like the writers) for looking out for their short-term interests and demanding the same sorts of things that the producers have demanded of everyone else -- but it's setting up a bad situation over the long-term, where the studios under these agreements won't be able to adapt to the changing media landscape.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: actors, entertainment industry, hollywood, online, producers, royalties, streaming, strike
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Where's their risk?
The producers (typically) are the ones putting up money to have a work of art created. The writers/actors/support crew are all paid for their time. But they have no risk, no investment in the effort.
If these folks want to yield gains, then let them invest in the risk. Drop your wages for a percentage of the return, or make a lump-sum investment. That's what I've done in the software sector. I don't turn around and demand that my company give me a cut of the profits for something I produced under salary.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Where's their risk?
That sounds fair, until the "gross" gets to the accountants and by the time the bones have been picked clean by the studio, the people who actually did the work end up with nothing but their salaries. Sigourney Weaver once remarked how amazed she was that she never got a dime of the profits she was promised from "Ghostbusters" because (you ready for this) IT LOST MONEY! (Yeah, right!)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Where's their risk?
The Actor assumes a huge amount of "risk" - of course this is comparative risk - in starring a movie. Look at the huge list of Actors who have appeared in duff productions and had their careers go down the crapper. To say the Actors and writers asssume no risk is wrong, they assume no immediate financial risk would be a more appropriate way of putting it.
They're all scumbags though top to bottom.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Where's their risk?
If they feel that they are risking, then their current model would dictate they negotiate a better salary.
Don't get me wrong, I'm happy for them to negotiate (ahead of time) for profits from the works revenue stream. But this should not simply be in addition to the current compensation structure where they are paid specifically for the time/effort put into production.
When I negotiate for a bonus or stock option structure, that is taken into consideration with my salary. My employer doesn't separate the two, and I certainly don't go and demand money from last year's work because it is selling well today.
I do ask for more money for the upcoming work if past work is successful...and this is exactly what actors do too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
money
if not, you have to pay it... somehow.
NOTE: i worked 11 hours last night and i haven't been to bed yet and i have carpal tunnel so my spelling is off and i don't care ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ultimately, if and when Hollywood starts experimenting with free business models, I reckon they're going to have to either give their script guys a cut from the ad revenue as well as the scarce goods they market on the back of their movies, or all future movies will be written by people who have a regular job the rest of the time and just write scripts because they enjoy doing it. The question of whether the second option would necessarily be a bad thing is perhaps a bit beyond the scope of this blog...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
In the case of Hollywood, the actors do have a scarce resource to leverage: themselves. They are paid like any employee. If they value their work, they shouldn't accept a lower contract for the initial work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If I want royalties, then I'll negotiate on my own behalf. I'll probably get stock options, or a bonus instead, but I can invest that. No biggie.
I agree. It's a short term fix, and in my opinion on behalf of the people that can't negotiate for themselves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Good.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
wonderful
I can't wait. Maybe this will signal the beginning of the collapse of the big studio movie industry altogether because, as you said, the independent studios are gonna get their content online much faster.
I could also see a situation where the actors simply let their agent, or other semi-trusted entity, approve/deny permission for online use making the approve/deny process equally as redundant. I see the whole "permission" thing as laughable anyway because it means any one actor can have veto power if they don't like the final cut, or where it is being used. I don't see this situation ever occurring since if I can see it then surely someone at the studios can...but I have been wrong about that before.
Either way, I'm pretty sure this is where the movie industry should realize that with the Pro-IP bill passing Congress...they could have their assets seized if they accidentally included something to which they didn't have permission from one of the actors. Imagine there suddenly is no MGM or WB because of one slip up. It wouldn't take long afterward for the pendulum to start swinging the other direction as a result.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
anti-union
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Please God yes - we need something else out there - some new media companies.
It's happening with the news - hopefully Music and TV next.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sure
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Sure
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Permission
Secondly, the denial of permission for usage is a rollback. As it stands now, if you're in a movie, and the producers want to sell a clip starring you to, say, the Ku Klux Klan, the Friends of Robert Mugabe, the Six Year Olds Aren't Too Young To Boogey Fan Club, the Goatf*ckers Chowder and Marching Society, they have to get your permission before selling the clip that will forever associate your face with those people.
So that's already in place for theatrical and broadcast. Why shouldn't it be extended to online? Because they're greedy bastards, that's why, and they don't care if you, yes you, become the public face of some people you'd otherwise cross the street to stay away from.
Just imagine the people you hate most in the world, then imagine your smiling face on their website. There's nothing you can do to stop the implied endorsement, the rest of the world associating you with that cause for the rest of you career/life.
The actors are right to ask. The producers are wrong to challenge.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Actors & Writers not driving fees
Waste no pity on the Big Studios not being able to compete. They don't need actors and writers to help them lose market share, and fail to seize the opportunities to exploit online distribution, the same way they fought the video age.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Actors & Writers not driving fees
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Don't make a wave!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]