Script Writers' Strike

[MikeRivers]

I'm surprised that nobody has mentioned this yet, but it's a good thing that we have something better to do than watch television.

 

It seems to me that their issue is closely related to those in the music industry. They want more money because their work is being used for more things. Isn't that like song writers, composers, and artists wanting more money because not only are they selling physical records, but there are many "soft" methods of distribution.

 

I can see the argument that more people are enjoying their work, so they should get paid proportional to every listener. But are the writers or composers really doing any more work to get wider distribution or additional mileage out of their work? Is the same work any more valuable because it can be distributed in a different form than originally intended?

 

If sales (hard, accountable cash) volume is greater, then I believe that the creator is intitled to a share. But these folks seem to want to be paid more money up front based on other potential use. Is that fair?

 

I'm actually starting to think about this myself. I'm not a songwriter, but I write articles for magazines now and then, and more magazines are starting to take advantage of the Internet to extend both their readership and content. Pro Audio Review's entire issues are now available on like for those with the patience to read them that way, yet I don't get paid any more for my articles than when they were a print-only publication. That doesn't bother me because I submit the same thing I always did. The publisher has additional expernses in putting the magazine on line, so if there's any money to be made from that, I feel that since it's his risk, he's entitled to the profits.

 

But other magazines are using the Internet in a different way. Rather than simply putting the print article on line, they're using their web site to provide supplemental information. When I write one of those articles, I have to do more work than if I was just writing for print - I may need to prepare some sound clips, make a drawing, take screen shots or photos, and write more text, what amounts to sidebars that don't rate paper and ink.

 

I also have to edit my work more severely because they always want fewer words in the print version than they used to, since they can supplement it with an on-line supplement. It's almost like I have to write two articles, or one main article and a few supplemental articles, and edit them as such. Goodness knows! We wouldn't want to make the MAGAZINE EDITORS do more work to organize their supplemental publication, would we? Yet I haven't been offered any more money for the "new media" format.

 

It's fun, it's just supplemental income for me, and I'm not planning to go on strike any time soon. But it makes me think harder about how, and for what, writers are paid and should be paid.

[FireWithin]

...everybody is getting greedy...

[alphajerk]

this just shows the good and bad side of being in/having a union.

[bp]

They deserve a taste of the internet. Eventually that's going to be the delivery for most of this content. Seems fair.

[Lee Knight]

On LA talk radio yesterday I heard a good sound bite from one of the union spokespersons...

 

Our mantra is "If they make money, we make money."

 

That makes sense to me.

[meccajay]

I heard Jay Leno say that he pays his writers sh*t, so he supports them being able to get momey from internet sales/downloads etc.

 

I also heard he took some crispy creme's out to the writers picket line for a show of support. Good for him.

[blue2blue]

One of my old pals is on the line. He's story editor (which makes him a key figure) for the Battlestar Gallactica series. I don't think this is very convenient for them... but, you know, the union's the union and when you got that union badge you got to walk the line with your brothers and sisters. He had to fly down from story conferences to hit the bricks with a sign and a union song in his heart...

[alphajerk]

One of my old pals is on the line. He's story editor (which makes him a key figure) for the Battlestar Gallactica series. I don't think this is very convenient for them... but, you know, the union's the union and when you got that union badge you got to walk the line with your brothers and sisters. He had to fly down from story conferences to hit the bricks with a sign and a union song in his heart...

 

kind of hijacks independence/free will... i dont think i could ever join a union.

[UstadKhanAli]

It's mandatory if you're a teacher for a public school system. We don't have a choice, no matter how effective or lame our union is. A union is a double-edged sword, with great aspects and lousy aspects (I think Alphajerk was eluding to this).

[Magpel]

I'm a writer by trade so I suppose I should be sympathetic, but in some ways I am so brazenly cynical about entertainment industries and product that I kind of laugh at this--"we'll bring the culture to its knees!" I knew a couple of people who made decent money writing screenplays that they were told in advance would never be produced--wheel greasers, fodder, empty calories...there was another name for them that I forget

 

Maybe more kids will read Greek mythology or watch Simpsons reruns...great either way.

 

I though reality TV killed TV writers anyway?

[Zygs Malone]

 

I heard Jay Leno say that he pays his writers sh*t, so he supports them being able to get momey from internet sales/downloads etc. I also heard he took some crispy creme's out to the writers picket line for a show of support. Good for him.

 

 

That's because he's a member of The Writer's Union himself, as is Letterman, Jimmy Kimmel and a lot of other talk show hosts, which bars them from writing their own jokes during the strike.

[meccajay]

That's because he's a member of The Writer's Union himself, as is Letterman, Jimmy Kimmel and a lot of other talk show hosts, which bars them from writing their own jokes during the strike.

 

 

Yep, just as Tina Fey is.. She's also supporting them a bit. Although I bet Tina shoots some picket line footage and adds it to a 30 Rock show

[doug osborne]

 

... I can see the argument that more people are enjoying their work, so they should get paid proportional to every listener. But are the writers or composers really doing any more work to get wider distribution or additional mileage out of their work? Is the same work any more valuable because it can be distributed in a different form than originally intended? ... I'm actually starting to think about this myself. I'm not a songwriter, but I write articles for magazines now and then, and more magazines are starting to take advantage of the Internet to extend both their readership and content. Pro Audio Review's entire issues are now available on like for those with the patience to read them that way, yet I don't get paid any more for my articles than when they were a print-only publication. ...

 

 

The writers aren't doing more work, but their work is being exploited for secondary profits, and it's established practice in many industries to grant revenue for this. This is as if record companies gave no royalties to copyright holders for songs sold on iTunes.

 

Gatski isn't charging for Internet access to his magazines in addition to the print version, is he? It seems to me that for most publications the website is meant to drive people back to print, and in the cases where the website is an attempt to make profit, the writing was contractually a work for hire - if the WGA's members' work wasn't a work for hire (as with any situation where royalties are granted for other markets), compensation is probably due.

[Lee Knight]

What Doug said.

[MikeRivers]

 

Our mantra is "If they make money, we make money." That makes sense to me.

So wait until they make money and then get a cut. In some fields, they call that "residuals." It's like the extra money you get when your song gets used in a movie.

 

Honestly, I haven't studied out the details of this strike. Maybe that's exactly what they're asking for, but it sounds from what I've heard like they're just asking for more money up front on the assumption that their work will get more exposure. Maybe it will, maybe it won't.

 

Of course going on strike and forcing programming into reruns is one sure way of getting more mileage out of their work, for which they no doubt deserve more money for sitting on their butts and not writing.

[MikeRivers]

 

The writers aren't doing more work, but their work is being exploited for secondary profits, and it's established practice in many industries to grant revenue for this. This is as if record companies gave no royalties to copyright holders for songs sold on iTunes.

Well, they weren't, for a while. Well, actually, I guess it was a deal to pay royalties for iTunes downloads that made iTunes possible. And it's a pretty small royalty payment. The only reason why it's worth while at all is because there's such a huge volume of sales. I don't know what they're doing with on-line TV. Will people be able to download CSI episodes for 99 cents?

 

Gatski isn't charging for Internet access to his magazines in addition to the print version, is he?

No, but it's a page-for-page copy of the print issue including the advertising (the ads are even listed in the table of contents!) so I assume that the advertising rate reflects the on-line distribution. Still, as far as "certification" it's the print distribution (only) that counts, at least thus far.

It seems to me that for most publications the website is meant to drive people back to print, and in the cases where the website is an attempt to make profit, the writing was contractually a work for hire

Work for hire in the magazine business is kind of tricky. I'm glad that we don't have any "issues" to take to court. Articles written by the editorial staff are indeed work-for-hire, but articles by free-lancers like me haven't been, in the past anyway. We own the copyright, but we give up the publishing rights, at least for a reasonable period of time. Ty Ford puts microphone reviews on his personal web site that he writes for PAR and they know it. But it's not taking money out of their pocket so it's not worth suing for. But then Ty doesn't make any extra money by putting them on his web site either. It's a convenience for people who ask about a microphone that he reviewed in a long out-of-print issue. But if a magazine on the Internet never goes out of print, the circulation (which is ultimately what determines what everyone gets paid, and what the advertisers pay) can grow indefinitely. It gets harder to count though. You know that you mail out 31,267 issues in a month and that's it. But 20 people a month might look up that issue on line for the next ten years. I don't really care to get an extra five bucks for that, but the publisher has taken the risk to establish the on-line magazine and pays to keep it available, so he's entitled to make money on it. Same goes for TV shows on line or on DVD.

[Jeff da Weasel]

 

Is the same work any more valuable because it can be distributed in a different form than originally intended?

 

 

Yes.

 

 

But these folks seem to want to be paid more money up front based on other potential use. Is that fair?

 

 

Yes.

 

 

But it makes me think harder about how, and for what, writers are paid and should be paid.

 

 

As you should. We people who generate the content are the ones who manufacture the "product" of information and entertainment. If there is more money being made on said content, we deserve a slice of that pie.

[blue2blue]

kind of hijacks independence/free will... i dont think i could ever join a union.

 

Then you might have a hard time working in hollywood.

 

BTW, I kind of demoted my pal, he's actually senior story editor -- which I think is kind of like foreman... you get to yell at the other workers but when the strike comes you're out on the line with them.

 

 

I'm not a union kind of guy, myself, but I'm very aware of the rise of the unions in response to the abject victimization of workers that some large employers engaged in back in the day. (Not like today... ha ha )

 

But then I've never much liked working for big outfits, anyhow. I've always liked smaller joints where you can get up on the boss -- at least if he's not packing.

[alphajerk]

yeah, thats the big downside to hollywood.

[Lee Knight]

 

So wait until they make money and then get a cut. In some fields, they call that "residuals." It's like the extra money you get when your song gets used in a movie. Honestly, I haven't studied out the details of this strike. Maybe that's exactly what they're asking for...

 

 

I heard another representative say "Percentage". And she kept stressing the word...

[Raymar]

I watch PBS stuff and what passes for the news. The rest of it you can flush.

 

Steve

[MikeRivers]

 

We people who generate the content are the ones who manufacture the "product" of information and entertainment. If there is more money being made on said content, we deserve a slice of that pie.

 

But why? We aren't doing anything different. We aren't manufacturing any more widgets and risking that they won't be sold. We aren't paying for web space and commerce software. Someone else is, and they're entitled to make money for their risk and investment.

 

If I got paid for my writing based on the number of units distributed (presumably "sold") then it would be reasonable to get paid for those new sources for sales. But since I get paid by the piece, I don't see why, when I feel that I'm being fairly paid for the amount of time I put into it, that I deserve a raise. I'd be happy to have more money, but I don't see that it's justified yet.

 

What would justify a raise (just like in any job) is if sales increased BECAUSE of my writing. That's pretty hard to trace, though, in a magazine where there are several authors.

 

I hear news stories about screenwriters making only $600 a week for their writing (largely because the pie is cut into so many slices nowadays) and that isn't enough to make ends meet. That's pretty sad, and I sympathize with them. But what they need is a higher base pay, not a trickle of bonus pay for new media sales.

[alphajerk]

i dont see any profits derived from the internet really... i dont really know how google even makes any money except for paid clickthru ads. of course i havent researched it further, but there is CONSIDERABLE cost in developing online sites to simply play TV content from teh servers to the site design.

 

i think writers should get paid fairly for their work, but it should be employeed work or work for hire i would suspect, unless its adaptations of novels/short stories to tv/film. its always nice when companies include profit sharing, but that is usually the exception and not the rule.

[Jeff da Weasel]

But why? We aren't doing anything different.

 

It doesn't MATTER if we're not doing anything different.

 

Think of it as a commodity. Oil keeps bubbling up from the ground, and yet its value changes as the need grows. The process in acquiring and processing it doesn't change.

 

Without the content, there are no extra web features and so on. So the VALUE of the content needs to rise at the same time as its being propagated to more and more places. And if you're producing a product that has risen in value and yet you don't feel any right to participate in the benefits of that value, well... I hear China's nice this time of year.

[Jeff da Weasel]

i dont see any profits derived from the internet really... i dont really know how google even makes any money except for paid clickthru ads.

 

Google revenue: 10.604 Billion USD (2006)

Google net income: 3.077 Billion USD (2006)

 

Over three BILLION dollars in profits last year alone. There are, as it turns out, profits to be made on the Internet.