Third Time’s The Charm

<!--StartFragment-->

I’m all for positive thinking but me thinks it’s going to be a lean holiday season for those of us in California.

You’ll recall the Writer’s Guild of America (WGA) strike against the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers (AMPTP) and how it fairly leveled what then was a good economy in California. Tumbleweeds blew through the poshest shopping districts of Los Angeles. Institutions that had been open for decades quickly folded. Yours truly had to get a second job. Then they came to an agreement. And thank heavens for that because when that strike was over, only Victoria Beckham and Tom Cruise seemed to have any money left.

We held our breath when the Director’s Guild of America (DGA) and the American Federation of Television and Radio Arts (AFTRA) also went to the table. We hoped their strike wouldn’t last as long and it didn’t, and before we knew it, we forgot all about the pesky rumor that the Screen Actor’s Guild (SAG) would also strike.

No, we were too busy celebrating our three seconds of the queers being able to marry. We were immersed in an historical election while watching Wall Street fall apart. Obama won, but we had our rights taken away from us by people who don’t know the first thing about us as human beings and now, yes now, it’s going to get even more interesting.

Because it looks as if SAG will strike after all.

Federally mediated talks between the Screen Actors Guild (SAG) and the AMPTP have failed to satisfy. As a result, SAG released an announcement over the weekend that they are now preparing for a possible strike. By preparing, they mean they will campaign to get the required 75 per cent of their 120,000 members to endorse moving forward with the strike. The Guild has yet to put a due date on the ballot, which further adds to the suspense. SAG stated recently, “Management continues to insist on terms we cannot responsibly accept on behalf of our members.”

What was incredibly painful financially when the went on strike will be nothing compared to what will happen in an already battered economy should SAG go through with their plans. It comes as no surprise there are heated debates on both sides as to the wisdom of this move.

Will the Studios agree quickly to SAG’s terms after already having their run in with WGA, DGA, and AFTRA? Or will they quickly fold due to exhaustion? It doesn’t look likely at this point.

the AMPTP has said, “SAG continued unrealistically to insist on a substantially better deal than all of the other major Hollywood guilds and unions have negotiated so far in 2008. In the end, it was clear that SAG was not serious about using the mediation process to make a deal.”

It’s easy to look at the studios vs. the strikers as sort of David and Goliath. But Goliath is in the eye of the beholder it seems. Oil prices alone caused production costs to soar (think of all those equipment trucks driving from location to location.) And with pirating and flagging ticket sales, the studios are not making what they used to. Paying the actors residuals for Internet web series or repeat viewing of shows already airing on TV. might seem to some as actors being greedy.

But then there’s also the fact that not everyone makes Nicole Kidman’s paycheck or works nearly as often as Ms. Kidman does. Acting, whether some people take it seriously or not, is still a livelihood for scores of people who do not feel they are getting paid their due.

There’s been grumblings around town of greed. Namely one side believes the other to be greedy. I’m not so sure it’s that equal. The economy is in the toilet and FOR RENT signs dot so many lawns in Los Angeles, it’s made Craigslist obsolete, or at least it has for now.

Yes, we borrowed when we shouldn’t have, and went in over our heads. But something else has been happening in this country for a little too long. People aren’t getting paid. Or they are getting paid once but are expected to work for free on other things because there’s scores of others out of a job who would be glad for the chance. There’s this sense of deciding when someone’s been paid enough. As if someone has the right to make that decision over someone else.

I for one hope the studios don’t have to learn a lesson for a third time. The longer they take, the longer we will all pay.

<!--EndFragment-->

Comments [11]

rovermom's picture

what about people who made

what about people who made films back in the 80's, the 70's, the 60's, the 50's, the 40's - prior to DVD's, and prior to VHS?

They didn't have these written into contracts - and why should so and so get all these residuals, just for being a head fucking honcho at CBS or NBC (not being mean to them, but come on).

These people worked - and got paid for such and such distribution, not for unlimited - it's no where in said contract - and that is where artists are standing up and saying, WAIT a minute.

The media corporates out there started digging up the vaults and banged out the old movies onto DVD, and made a fortune - and the artists got nothing for that distribution.

Imagine if you made a piece, and thought it was for something, and it was contracted as such - and years later, someone took it and mass produced it (not part of the contract deal) and made billions off of your work. And all you got was maybe a couple of hundred dollars...or a couple of thousand.

The point is, media has went digital - and infinity became possible - the digital age isn't written into the contracts. And the basic actor contracts are bare-bones - usually non-negotiable. The negotiable ones are those who have more experience, and have the name pull in the industry.

at least this is my opinion.

but I'm not an actor. Tongue

Lezbeth's picture

Speaking as an artist, I'm

Speaking as an artist, I'm aware that there are two considerations:
1. If I produce work for an entity that has hired me to work, I have to decide whether I contract for the rights to display my art, to own it with some restrictions on its reproduction or to own it outright and use it in whatever way the buyer wishes (simplified legal version as I understand it).
2. If I agree to turn over all rights to the work (for example, working for Disney doing animation), they own it. I don't believe I have any claim for the number of times it's used, rebroadcast or whatever.

I wonder what would happen if instead of striking, individual SAG members addressed the issue by negotiating acting contracts for higher amounts and signed over all rights for residuals. If initial income on a particular project reflected what actors were willing to get paid (total) for that project, then the speculation/responsibility about success would be held equally between the employer and the artist. For a successful series, the actor could renegotiate that amount when the individual contract ran out.

Like Tex, I've worked as a private contractor. Once I produced something under that contract, the entity I worked for owned the intellectual property and I had to move on to the next contract. Why isn't it that way for actors, screenwriters, etc?

annemarlen's picture

Writer's strike? oh so no

Writer's strike? oh so no word!

love is a pebble laughing in the sun

anna's picture

I hope your work is rewarded

I hope your work is rewarded as well RobinR!
Thanks for stopping by!

Robin Rigby's picture

Actually, Rover, the writers

Actually, Rover, the writers weren't getting anything for DVDs, which is part of the reason they went on strike. The last contract they negotiated was prior to DVDs killing off videotapes so there was no percentage for DVD, internet or new media of any sort included in their contracts. The people who do all the hard work to create movies and TV shows have always been shafted, did you know that actors in some of the most popular TV shows ever (shows that still are in repeats somewhere like "I Love Lucy", "Gilligan's Island", etc) never received a penny for rebroadcasts? The contracts had to be renegotiated to get that benefit.

The WGA knew when they went on strike that whatever they won would become the standard for DGA, AFTRA and SAG which was a factor in why they held out so long.

As to all the people in Hollywood who went to work during the strike I listen to Creative Screenwriting podcasts and while all of the writers comment on how they didn't/couldn't write during the strike, they also talk about the productions moving forward without them and don't seem bitter. None have commented about line crossing so I wonder if it wasn't just understood that no one wanted to see the city come to a complete halt.

I'm not a member of any of the guilds, but working toward that DGA card some day and would certainly like to think my work would be rewarded no matter how people watched it.

Become a fan of "Sodomy: The Musical" on Facebook!
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Sodomy-The-Musical/302006935414

anna's picture

LongBeachDogLover, i agree

LongBeachDogLover, i agree with you completely. the networks have already cancelled shows preemptively...it's sad and frightening. i have just as many actor friends who are for the strike as i do for actors who are against it.
like many things in this world, sometimes doing what's right is not always done when it comes up against putting food on the table at night. frustrating.

LongBeachDogLover's picture

Hi Anna..... I work in

Hi Anna..... I work in Hollywood. I certainly would hate to see this happen, again. However, I am in support of the actors. I see their point, although I do feel it is a bad time to strike. Perhaps they feel to have the most impact, now is the time. New technology doesn't wait.

During our recent strike here in Hollywood, actors crossed the writers picket lines to work on projects that had been 'stock piled' by the studios. I find that a bit curious. I wonder if the writers will cross SAG picket lines, to work on AFTRA shows.

I'm not so sure that there is, any longer, a tremendous amount of support for strikers. I hate to see that happen, those in power should never control our right to negotiate a balanced contract. I use the term 'balanced' because in our industry that is the issue. It is the 'balance of riches', so to speak. It's difficult to place a 'value' on art, and in this industry... it is about art. It's about talent. Not a college degree, or a history of employment with a fortune 500 company - it is about talent. The decisions concerning 'value', and the equitable distribution of any profits, should be made by those who have the unique distinction of feeding their family with their art AND those who have a financial investment in the projects, i.e - the studios, producers, etc. They all must come to a mutual understanding, a respect for one another.... sometimes, it just doesn't happen. And this time around, 'new technology' is virgin territory, for both parties.

I hope that a strike doesn't happen.... but, if it does I do support the actors.

Life is Good....
Love is Awesome....
LBDL
xxoo

anna's picture

thanks minnesota, tex and

thanks minnesota, tex and rover. so good to see you over here!

rovermom's picture

ugh. My stepdad was or still

ugh.

My stepdad was or still is a part of SAG. There are many actors who don't make anything near Nicole's paycheck; absolutely! I was hearing the talks of it last Christmas/ New Year and this summer, but I have since been busy with other concerns.

I think SAG knows that now is the time to not back down for asking what the countless members, who have been struggling for years, deserve. AFTRA is not really hurting, OBVIOUSLY, but if they keep this up and another strike goes on, especially if it goes on like the writer's strike, they will feel it.

I really don't like the pirating and the dawn of the digital age has sprung infinite copies. It's very GREEN in terms of environment, but very empty in terms of artist's pockets.

In the music industry, at least they can tour, to make more. Giving the musicians more money control. It's not like that in the film industry.

What really sucks was knowing that the writers were only getting pennies per DVD sold, and it makes me wonder how much the upper people, the corporate heads, are getting per DVD, and how much each actor was getting.

It's very unsettling.

The fat cats in Hollywood are not hurting - they still can live lavishly, only now they might actually have to think before they buy...maybe.

and really, is that a bad thing? To think...

I hope the actors in SAG get what they are asking for ...and I hope they don't have to strike for too long in order to get it.

Tex's picture

Anna, I'm not an actor, nor

Anna,

I'm not an actor, nor do I know an actor, but I am an independent contractor. Although I worked more this year than in the prior two, I didn't make as much money. My expenses were horrendous - and the new tax laws that affected those of us making less than $250K made my taxes ludicrous - all the while the fees we were allowed to bill had not changed in three years.

As far as the performing for free part. I do know musicians in Austin - it is absolutely ridiculous how they are treated. The "live music capital of the world" asks way too much from so many for no pay. Asking someone to work for gratuity only is not humane. Why is it that it has always been so easy to not pay artists? They give so much of themselves......

Back to the SAG strike. There are 120,000 SAG members? Now common sense tells me that that 75% needed to strike are not the actors that get the fat contracts as the major players in Hollywood. If they have been treated as the rest of the "75%ers" in this country - then MORE POWER TO THEM - do what they have to do to get someone to listen. Let's hope the new "administrator" sends his mediators and gets the settlement done for us all......

Watching the flicks

Tex

minniesota's picture

Anna, the situation sounds

Anna, the situation sounds very complicated. I just hope that the actors get a fair deal.

Civility is not a sign of weakness.