Why writers get residuals
My Pencils Down article got a lot of links, which led many first-time readers to the site. Most had little experience with screenwriting or the entertainment industry, so it’s no surprise that the concept of residuals was, frankly, odd.
My friend Jeff often jokes (half-jokes, I think) that he wishes he got residuals on spreadsheets he made in 2003. He’s articulating a familiar frustration: Why should screenwriters get paid extra money years after they finish their work? After all, plumbers don’t get residuals. Neither do teachers, secretaries or auto workers.
So I want to explain why writers in film and television get residuals, and why they’re at the heart of the ongoing WGA strike.
The standard analogies
Let’s say you’re a Nashville songwriter. You write a song that Carrie Underwood records and takes to number one. You get paid royalties for writing that song: albums sold, radio plays, the generic Christmas Muzak version. A hit song is worth a lot of money. A moderately successful song is worth a moderate amount of money.
Or let’s assume you’re a novelist. You’re John Grisham, and you write a legal thriller that half the folks on a given flight are reading. You get paid a royalty for every book sold. Like a hit song, a best-seller is worth a lot of money. A book that doesn’t sell as well earns the author less.
In both examples, the way an artist makes money is not necessarily upfront (writing the book or song) but over the course of years. These creative works are annuities that keep generating money, for both the writer and the publisher. Every year, copies are sold. Every year, writer and publisher make money.1
I’ll stop here to say that if you don’t think songwriters or novelists deserve royalties, I’ve lost you. Everything else I’m about to say is predicated on the belief that a creator (i.e. songwriter, novelist) is entitled to profit from the success of his or her work. If you disagree — if you think that once the publisher writes a check, all bets are off — thanks for reading this far. We’re done.
If you’re still with me, let’s play hypotheticals. What would happen if songwriters and novelists didn’t receive royalties?
It would be a lot harder to make a career in either field.
Most songs don’t become hits. Most novels don’t become best-sellers. Songwriters and novelists may only create new, money-generating work every few years. Royalties are what pay the bills in the meantime. Without royalties, very few people could afford to write songs or books for a living. These pursuits would become hobbies for the rich, or patrons of the rich. (And in fact, Western literature was largely written by the people who could afford to write.)
→ Royalties allow for a middle class.
Publishers aren’t interested in financing the American dream, however. They simply want books and songs to sell to the world. They have a straightforward and related interest in keeping royalties flowing:
→ Royalties allow for a larger pool of talent.
Without royalties, there would be fewer people who could maintain a career as a songwriter or novelist. There would be fewer songs and books to publish. It’s in the industries’ best interest to keep writers writing, generating new work to make the publishers money.
Residuals are royalties with special sauce
Writing a screenplay is a lot like writing a song or a novel. The writer goes off and struggles to compose something that is a perfect combination of fresh and familiar, which will hopefully appeal to a large enough proportion of the intended audience. Just like songs and books, most screenplays never make a cent for their creators. Books sit unpublished; songs go unrecorded; screenplays remain unproduced — locked forever in 12 pt. Courier.
But a few make it. A few become movies.
And in the process of converting written words to filmed entertainment, a bit of legal sleight-of-hand takes place. I’m going to oversimplify it to make it comprehensible, but the longer, more accurate version matches the shape of what I’m about to explain.
Whether you write a song, a book or a screenplay, you’re protected by copyright. More than that, you’re acknowledged as the Author of the work, which has important (but eye-glazingly complicated) implications under international law, including certain inalienable creative rights. When movie studios read your screenplay and decide they’d like to make it into a film, they hit a few snags. Two examples:
- As the Author and copyright-holder, you the writer control the ability to make derivative works, such as a movie. Or a sequel. Or a videogame.
- Some of your inalienable2 creative rights as Author (e.g. “no one can mutilate or distort the work in such as way as to be prejudicial to the honor or reputation of the author”) are potential nightmares for a company about to spend $100 million on a movie distributed worldwide.
So a compromise was made.
Screenwriters would sell the “authorship” of their screenplays to the studios,3 and allow themselves to be classified as employees. Original works would thus become works-made-for-hire.
In exchange, screenwriters would get a host of benefits and protections covered by the Writers Guild of America (the WGA), which as a labor union can only represent employees.
The WGA would also collect royalties on behalf of screenwriters. Royalties were renamed “residuals,” since only “authors” collect royalties. 4
If this strikes you as a kludge, you’re not alone. It’s graceless and awkward and weird. It’s completely unlike what happens in playwriting, even though playwriting and screenwriting are close cousins.5
I’ve described the process in terms of a screenwriter working on an original script by herself, but the same basic machinery applies to adaptations or television shows. Staff writers sign contracts which perform similar legal judo, making their words the company’s words.
In exchange for higher guaranteed payments (“minimums”), residuals don’t start accruing in a work’s initial window (theatrical release for a movie, first broadcast for a TV show), but rather down the line, especially when it comes out on home video.
That’s what the current WGA strike is a largely about: the residual rate for home video, and especially work distributed through the internet.6
You’ll note that the studios aren’t talking about eliminating residuals altogether. Even in one of their earlier proposals for “profit-based residuals,” they were acknowledging that writers are entitled to them. Without some form of residuals, the charade of authorship-transference ceases to be mutually beneficial.
What’s more, I suspect that the wiser members of the entertainment industry recognize what publishers have long understood: you want to keep a lot of writers on hand. You never know which one is going to create the next Desperate Housewives.
Residuals are like the research and development fund for the industry.
Why you don’t get residuals for old spreadsheets
Coming back to my friend Jeff, let’s look at why that spreadsheet he made in 2003 doesn’t earn him residuals.
When he created it for his boss, he was an employee of the company. Copyright-wise, everything he did for them was a work-for-hire. They owned it outright.
When a screenwriter writes a script, she’s transferring this bundle of authorship rights to a corporation. In exchange for these legal and creative rights, she gets paid an upfront fee and royalties (called residuals).
Readers from the technology and medical fields might recognize an analogous situation with patents and intellectual property. It’s not uncommon for an inventor to get paid per unit for the right to use some proprietary innovation. So it may help to think of screenplays as “literary inventions,” subject to a strange but industry-standardized procedure to protect both creators and corporations. It’s not pretty, but it gets the job done.
Why gaffers don’t get residuals
While the process of making a movie begins with the screenwriter, it ultimately involves dozens — sometimes hundreds — of professionals, from grips to gaffers to art directors to truck drivers. Most of the people working on a movie receive no residuals.7 Is that fair? After all, these people work long hours, sometimes in very difficult conditions, and make a huge contribution to the finished film. Why don’t they get residuals?
Because residuals are royalties paid to an author. They’re not a bonus. They’re a guaranteed payment to the writer in exchange for giving up copyright and authorship claims.
In the heated rhetoric surrounding the strike, both sides have made misleading claims about the economic status of writers in Hollywood. The studios like to portray writers as greedy millionaires, while the WGA holds them up as middle-class victims of corporate fat-catting. Neither is accurate. Most writers aren’t millionaires — yet the Hollywood middle-class would be the envy of most of America.
The reductionism to “the rich fighting the super-rich” misses the real issue: the internet will replace television, and the industry needs to come to terms with what that entails. The WGA strike will end with compromises over the residual rates. The eventual IATSE strike will be about the definition of what a “program made for the internet” means, how much their members must be paid, and when overtime kicks in.
How to explain this to your buddy Brooks
The take-home lesson, in case you need to explain to a friend who blames “greedy writers” for why The Daily Show is in repeats:
- Writers get royalties: for books, for songs, for literary works.
- For legal reasons, studios want to be considered the “author” of a movie. So screenwriters transfer “authorship” to the studios, in exchange for a bunch of rights, and residuals.
- The studios and the WGA disagree about what rate is fair for work distributed over the internet.
- Since internet distribution will eventually replace DVDs, a bad rate would result in a pay cut for writers.
- That’s why there’s a strike.
Thanks for reading. Feel free to pass it along, or Digg it.
- Note that this is quite different from a Jasper Johns painting, or any other artwork which increases its value because of its singularity. ↩
- As in, “you can’t give them up, even for money.” ↩
- If you’ve ever stayed through to the end of movie credits, that’s the reason behind that block of text reading, “For the purposes of international law, Big Movie Studio is the author of this film (motion picture).” ↩
- There’s another history behind the term “residuals,” referring to the practice of keeping performers on hand as backup for electronic recordings. That’s a partial answer to the question, “But wait, why do actors get residuals?” ↩
- Playwrights retain copyright. If screenwriters were to hold on to copyright and “license” the movie rights to the studios, the whole thing would become incredibly problematic for reasons Craig Mazin has [explained artfully](http://artfulwriter.com/archives/2005/12/reprint_we_dont.html). ↩
- The current DVD residual rate is 0.3%. The studios’ proposed residual rate for the internet is…zero. Because work on the internet is defined as “promotional.” That’s ballsy, frankly. ↩
- Although depending on which guild or union they belong to, residual-like payments might form part of their pension and health fund. ↩
Articles
November 11th, 2007 at 6:15 pm
Brilliant.
November 11th, 2007 at 6:21 pm
Brilliant breakdown of the situation. However, when you wrote, “Western literature was largely written by the people who could afford to write.”, an alarm bell went off in my head. The way things are going, the majority of the media arts will take place on the internet. The problem is that once in the digital domain, content has a way of escaping all forms of media rights management. I don’t care what triple quantum encryption you have devised, someone will always find a away to defeat it, and copyright is almost impossible to police on a global scale. Soon, no one will want to pay for anything (this is already happening with music). Advertising will be the only possible revenue stream for media corporations, but with digital media it is too easy to circumvent (Tivo anyone?). Film, TV, Music will no longer be profitable for corporations, and the only people who will author films, tv, and music are those who can afford to.
November 11th, 2007 at 7:00 pm
It just occurred to me that if the studios really believed that internet viewing was promotion for the aired/theatrical/DVD showings, then they wouldn’t pull such things off of YouTube with such prejudice. I mean, if it’s promotional, then TV shows put on YouTube would be even better than studios and networks putting them on their own websites, since they don’t have to pay to host and stream it if it’s on YouTube.
Somehow I don’t think that this triumph of logic would make a difference in the negotiations.
November 11th, 2007 at 7:28 pm
Thanks Mr. August…you’ve just very clearly outlined what I’ve struggled trying to explain to my ‘regular folk’ friends for the past week.
Forwarding link now.
November 11th, 2007 at 7:49 pm
Batutta,
Although I think you have a valid point, I also think you’re stretching. Sure, people will always want to get something for free. But a lot of people will be willing to pay for something they really want. Take the Radiohead experiment. Many people downloaded the album for free. But a lot of people paid for the download. I paid eight dollars for the download, even though I know Thom Yorke is doing way better than me financially. I also paid eighteen dollars (for two tickets) to see Michael Clayton last night when I could have just waited a couple months and ripped a rental DVD copy onto my hard drive. And the theate was completely full.
Josh
November 11th, 2007 at 8:03 pm
That’s the simplest, most articulate explanation I’ve seen yet of the main strike issue of residuals- and it still took you over 1500 words!
But it’s not as simple as dividing up a pie, it’s figuring out how big the pie really is…two quick examples…NBC gets a million bucks from Ford to sponsor The Office. This includes 26 commercials and a sponsorship of internet streaming…the question becomes how do you calculate the piece subject to residuals? (or is that all first run revenues?)
Or on the flip side the economics of a movie distributed via the internet are quite different than a DVD sold through wal*mart…no production, inventory costs/risk, etc. There probably isn’t a one size fits all answer to all the possible scenarios and that is why I think this strike may last quite a long time.
November 11th, 2007 at 8:05 pm
Wow. Before I read that, I thought you guys were greedy millionaires too. Now I think you’re Intelligent Greedy Millionaires.
November 11th, 2007 at 8:23 pm
August for Prez!
November 11th, 2007 at 8:35 pm
Josh, I’ll agree that theatrical exhibition will be the only thing that keeps the film industry afloat, but it will be more like Broadway today, where there’s a handful of bloated mega-productions people see every few years and not much else. Also, you can’t really expect any corporation to follow the Radiohead model, which is basically the equivalent of a guy playing on the street corner with his hat on the ground collecting change. The only caveat I’ll add is that because of digital technology the cost of production is coming way, way down for film production, much like it did for music, so more people will be able to afford to produce and live off the goodwill of their fans, as Radiohead is doing today.
November 11th, 2007 at 9:36 pm
Speaking as a fan, I second the notion that plenty of people really are willing to pay for their entertainment. Sure, there are the malcontent anarchists who believe all art should be free (and, consequently, all artists should starve), and there are also pirates. There always have been.
But I would argue that the vast majority of potential audience is perfectly willing to pay. We do so already with book sales, movie tickets and cable bills. We do so already even on the Internet by renting out our eyeballs to banner ads, if not by paying directly for content. Apple and the RIAA have already proven that if you charge for it, they will pay.
The roadblock to full digital distribution is not piracy. It is a lack of streamlined revenue models, and a protectionism racket involving advertisers and theater chains who don’t want to let go of their cash cows. Like CD, tape and vinyl manufacturers and record stores before them, the other industries that depend on analog video distribution don’t want to let go of that model.
Switching hats to speak as a journalist, I’ve seen this same problem happen in my industry. The traditional news media who have embraced the immediacy and global reach of online news distribution have survived, and those who insist on primarily or solely producing print or broadcast content are failing. And again, the problem largely comes down to getting our advertisers and distributors to wake up and smell the 21st century. Press operators, like buggy whip makers, need to accept that their profession is dying.
What will help with this, undoubtedly, is getting the ratings system fixed. Nielsen is a complete busted mess, and DVR tracking is woefully inadequate. Obviously, there are only two feasible revenue models for digital video distribution: Ad-supported and pay-per-download. The latter is easy to implement–iTunes has already done so. The former, though, depends on making sure there is accurate hit tracking so advertisers know they’re reaching eyeballs. But it also depends on kicking advertisers to get them to accept this new method of reaching potential customers.
I suspect the studios will be far more willing to do digital distribution–with appropriate residuals–if they can work this out with their sales departments. So perhaps at least some of the focus of this current effort should be on the big clients who spend millions to place ads in the middle of Lost and Heroes.
November 11th, 2007 at 9:37 pm
David Gian-Cursio (#3), you make a great point about YouTube! Good stuff.
November 11th, 2007 at 10:10 pm
Hey John,
To put it relatively briefly, would it be accurate to say:
Screenwriters get residual payments because the total value of a script cannot be determined at the time the script is sold to the production company.
(by total value i mean what a movie based on a given script makes upon release, year after year. and that value cannot be known at the time of sale of the script because no one knows how a given movie will perform in the market place until they actually release it; they may have rough ideas at the moment the script is purchased, but those estimates can be way off)
Thanks.
November 11th, 2007 at 10:13 pm
The only problem with the comparison of screenwriters to songwriters and novelist is this: Their union didn’t in 1942 accept the management position that they (management) is the author of the work (the screenplay). And that agreement remains basically unchanged since then, only to be compounded by the general acceptance of the “auteur theory” which gives everybody but the writer control over his/her own work…
Until such time the WGA challenges those issues, all we’re really fighting for is a slice of the pie – which is ours to begin with – we’re entitled to. The Guild isn’t really standing up for writers, they’re just pretending to be standing up.
I’m a big believer in the words of James M. Cain, who said, “Lease not sell and share the revenue.” Or words to that effect. And what did the Guild do to Cain? Ran his ass out of town, labeling him a communist. So much for the unity of writers, eh?
November 11th, 2007 at 10:56 pm
Good stuff John. This is like ‘The Strike For Dummies’. I can refer a lot of people to this post.
November 11th, 2007 at 10:59 pm
Well, you’ve certainly explained it better than I’ve been able to all these years. I guess that’s why I’ve had more luck saying other people’s words than having my own produced.
That said, how do residuals apply to actors and directors? Are performances and directional choices also considered a form of authorship?
November 11th, 2007 at 11:28 pm
I agree with Sujewa.
As I said over at Craig’s place, understanding residuals is even simpler than that.
Residuals are to writers what stock options are to employees.
Stock options represent the bet a worker makes against of the real value of the work that he/she puts into a company. Stock options allow a company to pay below market rates for work that the employee is not compensated for in their salary. In other words, it means that the company can pay employees less, in exchange for them betting on the future of the company to pay them more over time.
Residuals are what writers get for making the same bet on the content they produce. The production company hopes to make millions if not billions off of the writer’s work. So the production company pays the writer an industry standard, plus a residual for not making said company pay the millions and billions the content might prove to be worth.
So everyone bets on the future. That incentivizes the writer to create content worth millions and billions, and it incentivizes the company to invest in content that might be worth millions and billions.
Until the company starts saying it doesn’t want to invest in that sort of content anymore, the millions and billions kind of content. Which if you think about it, is really what they’re saying now.
Which is a lie.
November 12th, 2007 at 1:03 am
Um, Adam (Post #7), so I assume you get paid for what you do based on what you have in your bank account. I mean, if you’re working alongside someone else, doing the same job and contributing to your company, if your co-worker has less money, they should earn more, right? And, naturally, your boss is the one who should have the ultimate say in what the fair division of monies is based on those inequities, right?
Yeah.
Who cares if SOME screenwriters are millionaires? If you do the work, you should get paid for it. Your net worth at the time of doing the work should not have any bearing on your paycheck.
November 12th, 2007 at 4:17 am
Thanks John. A blog is a great place for something like this because no matter how much the news outlets wish the issue can be summarized in a 30 second sound bite, it hasn’t happened yet in any of the news I’ve read.
It’s especially good because as someone who opposes the concept of residuals, it still gets across why residuals exist within the current system and why with the changes that new media are bringing it’s important that this stuff get revised.
Anyways just an excellent article, period. Thanks again.
November 12th, 2007 at 4:31 am
I always thought residuals were a way to balance things out–since the screenwriter tends to spend a good amount of time writing without pay, he assumes the risk when his product fails. Therefore, he shares the profit when his product succeeds. Your friend gets paid while he is writing the spreadsheet and will continue to be paid even if the spreadsheet is never used.
Your explanation makes a lot more sense though.
November 12th, 2007 at 7:31 am
I still don’t understand why A.D.s get residuals. What do you mean by “residual-like payments might form part of their pension and health fund”?
Also, if I were to sit at home and create a spreadsheet, it would be copyrighted. So, a production coordinator writing out a budget for hire is the same thing as a writer writing a script for hire, right?
Lastly, what about directors? By giving them residuals, aren’t the studios conceding that they are the authors of the film, and therefore all this fighting over the “film by” credit are meaningless?
Don’t get me wrong, I’m an aspiring writer. I hope to get these residuals someday. I just want to be able to explain to my friends why!
November 12th, 2007 at 7:57 am
AD’s don’t get residuals across the board. The upper ranks get them in smaller shares.
The justification is that they are part of the director’s team, and should benefit along with the director. This is silly, of course.
Being the majority of its members, AD’s wield a lot of power in the DGA. Their participation in residuals is a concession to this power.
Also, AD’s, more than anyone else, are the producers’ representatives on set. The main entry point into the AD trade is via the DGA Training program. A program funded not by the DGA, but by the AMPTP.
November 12th, 2007 at 8:27 am
Sandy,
Tongue was firmly in cheek.
November 12th, 2007 at 8:27 am
I find it funny there are people out there who consider the writers to be the millionaires. It’s the same people who see George Clooney make a few million for a 2-star-quality movie and decree that all actors are spoiled and overpaid. For every George Clooney there are 10,000 George Cohans. Who? Exactly.
Great job on educating the public about a topic in the news – something sorely missing lately. There is nothing more refreshing than a heated debate between two parties well equipped with facts and respect for the other side. Conversely, nothing is sadder than people arguing vehemently over a topic (politics, detergent brands, etc.) solely based on what was heard from a news headline or on Oprah. Thank you for at least providing the outline and giving readers a chance to do a little more research and form an opinion.
Mine, you ask? If I CREATE something that the world happens to enjoy to the point they want to spend millions on it, how could I possibly be in the wrong for wanting some of the spoils? Who, other than the creator of a work, is more entitled to the rewards brought forth by its creation? I understand the concept of sacrificing authorship for residuals (thereby losing “creator” status), so if ownership is lost and rewards are not gained, a writer can only write for sport.
The bigger argument can be made over the greed of producers/writers/studios/etc when it comes to HOW MUCH each entity is entitled, but let’s at least get to that point. Recognize achievement and throw the writers a bone so they can earn their just pay and continue creating these worlds which fascinate us day in and day out.
While I’m not looking forward to reruns, thank you to writers everywhere standing your ground for your beliefs. Hopefully your sacrifices will lead to a better profession for all of us “up and comers.” Believe me, it will not be forgotten nor will it go unnoticed!
November 12th, 2007 at 8:51 am
This is the best explanation I have found so far. I will be sharing it. Thanks!
November 12th, 2007 at 9:42 am
John, this is a great explanation and I will refer anyone outside the industry to it.
It made me realize why the Dramatists Guild of America (the organization for playwrights and librettists) is not a union like the WGA. We’re not employees. We hold on to our copyright, always. We don’t get residuals, we get royalty payments. Because of this we could literally shut down a show if they do not perform the play as written (this would be chaotic in the movie biz). Now this doesn’t happen, but legally it could. It’s a trade-off, though. For more creative control brings you less money since producers don’t have to buy the copyright, only lease the rights to your script. In the theatre industry there is also a rising interest in subsidiary rights and percentages just in case the show is the next “Urinetown”.
Bottom line though is that in either industry the writer is the forgotten one in the back of the room, if they’re even invited to the room. That’s beyond just money issues.
So strike on! Be seen! Be heard! We deserve to be acknowledged for our work!
November 12th, 2007 at 9:50 am
re: actors and residuals
i had just assumed that actors get residuals because they are the “owner” of their likeness, and as long as their likeness gets exploited for money (much like a writers’ work). Now, what I really don’t get is… how did directors wind up with residuals?
They do not license their likeness nor an authored piece of work. Yes, they can be very powerful “auteurs” now, but auteur isn’t a contractual term. It’s a critical assessment. One that most directors don’t receive…
November 12th, 2007 at 10:31 am
Adam,
Ohhhhhhh. My bad.
I tend to find spurious arguments annoying, hence my sarcastic rant. Whenever someone’s argument deteriorates into emotional name-calling, it’s likely their point-of-view is weak.
Thank you to John for an excellent explanation of the residuals issue. I’ll be forwarding it, too!
Go Intelligent “Greedy” Millionaire Writers!
November 12th, 2007 at 1:44 pm
I thought the explanation was fantastic, but those looking for a less detailed, easier to read explanation, this was posted on Craig’s site (artfulwriter.com) by one of the readers there (Bill Marsilii)…
“Say you’re Stephen King, and you’ve been struggling for years to get a novel published, and after being broke forever finally you sell CARRIE. And they pay you $10,000 for the book (not uncommon), and lo, it becomes a bestseller in hardback.
“But you never get another check. And when you call to ask why, the publishers (who have since each purchased a private jet) tell you that your book has actually lost $225 million and will likely never generate a profit, and that part of the problem is that writers like you get paid too much to begin with.
“Then they publish the paperback, which sells five or ten times more copies than the hardback did, and they tell you, ‘We already paid you once, we don’t pay the plumber more than once,’ and they still don’t give you a dime for it. Thirty years later your book CARRIE is still on the racks in every bookstore in America, yet you never see a dime.
“Then they make a movie out of it, and they don’t pay you anything for that either, because they say the movie is ‘promotional’ — it’s to help sell the hardback. (Which is now out of print.) And they don’t pay you for the audiobook either, which they had you narrate for free. And they don’t pay you for the DVDs, nor the ITunes downloads, nor the TV miniseries remake of CARRIE that gets made a few decades after your book sells.
“By this time your wife has left you, you HAVE become a plumber, and you’ve burned those other nascent novels of yours like THE STAND and THE SHINING, because if there’s one thing you’ve learned from all this it’s that it is impossible to make any kind of profit in novels.
“That sound like a good deal to you?�
November 12th, 2007 at 3:19 pm
Matt, I’m obviously not John but:
Instead of the person getting green check in the mail every so often, the money goes, instead and directly, to the union’s pension fund.
No. Well, probably not. Facts/information cannot be copyrighted. So if your spreadsheet is just a bunch of numbers, it can’t be copyrighted. Similarly, you can’t copyright the phonebook, which is essentially a database of names and numbers (and addresses).
What is copyrightable–and the purpose of copyright–is unique artistic/creative expression. So, if you arranged the numbers in a particularly creative way, or used a font of your own creation, that would be copyrightable. But the numbers themselves, no. (And note that this is the opposite of a screenplay, where it’s not 12 pt. Courier that makes it copyrightable, but what the writer has written in 12 pt. Courier.)
Co-authors. So the debate over the “a film by” credit would be meaningless if it included both/all the writer(s) and director(s). (The other way to go would be the “Paddy Chayefsky credit”.)
HTH – M
November 12th, 2007 at 3:31 pm
I never really had a question about why writers should get residuals but this is a great explanation nonetheless. It does beg the question though, why don’t all y’all writers make a new studio? Would it be possible to make a “for the writer, by the writer” studio that gave you fair treatment?
November 12th, 2007 at 4:59 pm
You lost me. I work in software, and I don’t get residuals for programs I’ve written.
I think if you’re an entrepenuer, then you take a chance when you create something, since there is nobody to pay you any salary. You take the risk, you have the potential reward.
But when you work for somebody else, they take the risk. Where is the risk the writers are taking.
They should get paid once and once only, IMHO.
November 12th, 2007 at 5:22 pm
Maestro, one little nit-picky comment. Giving directors residuals is definitely not making them co-authors, not even in spirit. When a studio gives anyone other than the writers (the creators of the story), such as a producer or director, residual, it is referred to as giving them “points”, which just means that they get a small percentage of total revenue. They do this so that the director has a “stake” in making the movie a hit. If the movie does well, the director does well. If the director was just getting his flat rate, where’s the incentive (other than the obvious “making a name”)? They do the same thing in the music biz, give hot producers who have already made a name for themselves some points, and then there’s extra incentive to make the record a success. So it has nothing to do with authorship, or anything like that.
November 12th, 2007 at 5:33 pm
This guy did a really great job of convincing me that actually plenty of other people are perfectly entitled to royalties as well.
I write code for a living. People come back to that code, and they’re pleased it still works. I should get royalties for that. The typographer for a book made sure the book looked nice, so it sold more, so he should get royalties too. The plumber who fixes a pipe well and lasting should be paid royalties for the fact it still works and still provides excellent service to the owner of the pipes.
All this article says is that good people deserve to be paid for work that lasts. What he doesn’t do is justify why writers are any different to anyone else, except that they have weird laws surrounding copyright, which forms the basis of their work’s protection.
November 12th, 2007 at 5:44 pm
I’ve always wondered, in relation to every other job on the planet… Why can’t we just pay people who get royalties and residuals a fair wage as a salaried employee of a studio, let the studios take the hit for investment rather than the potentially failed author, and assume it’ll all come out ahead?
I’m on the end of those people who if I’d continued in my chosen career path of working behind the scenes in network television, would be quite frankly completely screwed right now. The jobs don’t pay enough that I’d have more than until the end of the month covered. Thankfully I went off to do cable TV in unscripted productions but this thing affects people I work with so it still sucks to me.
I get an hourly rate for my work. Since not all scripts turn out to work, for some things at least, it seems like it would be a much more fair concept to fight for real wages for writers. If at some point a successful writer wants to stop being part of “the system” and freelance it to get a residual paycheck without their desire for riches affecting the rest of the employees struggling to get by on a monthly basis, I’m all for it. If you’re truly the author capable of making Lost a great TV show, you’ve earned it. If you’re the poor bastard responsible for bringing us Cavemen, I’m sorry but I really dislike the idea of people I know losing their houses over .03 percent off a revenue stream that isn’t anywhere near as awesome as people who use it think it is.
The internet is not going to replace television any time in the next 10 years. I’m sorry that lots of people think it’s the next big thing, but it’s out of the TV networks control until they can find a way to fundamentally alter the landscape of US Bandwidth. Are the cable companies going to support high speed internet connections capable of delivering a high-def quality picture to your home? Absolutely not, that’ll shave $50/mo per customer off the books. Are telcos going to suddenly give everyone huge connections, capable of delivering high bandwdith video? Not without Congressional intervention. The files people buy off itunes is cute, but it’s no Television Revolution. There would almost positively have been plenty of opportunity to negotiate all the online issues over the next 5-10 years or however long a typical union contract would last. It’s not going to change overnight, especially while Congress can’t pass a Net Neutrality law. Anyone who thinks it will, just simply doesn’t understand technology and doesn’t realize that the At-home bandwidth people have in 2008 is fundamentally identical to the stuff we had in 2000 if you were lucky (or smart) enough to have it in 2000. Just because more people have the severely limited high speed connections at home now, doesn’t mean they’ve improved at all in the last 8 years. They’re definitely incapable of delivering a high-def quality picture, and it’s not likely to change any time soon based on the progress made so far.
So, to me, this is a very big waste of a strike and a very unfortunate thing to happen. It’s ultimately going to lose a lot of people their jobs, and create almost no extra revenue for the people “fighting” despite what their agents and friends have told them, if internet revenue really is the heart of the matter.
November 12th, 2007 at 5:48 pm
Very well written.
http://askaslacker.blogspot.com
November 12th, 2007 at 5:48 pm
I believe that cvcobb01’s explanation is the best way to describe residuals, without having to get into never-ending pies and other somewhat strained metaphors. Stocks are exactly the best way to look at residuals. The studios are always talking about stockholders. No one ever questions whether stockholders deserve to get THEIR money (at least not in any of the big media outlets). They put money into a business and we are trained to believe that they should get money out (tech industry aside, yes it was brilliant of them to convince stockholders they should invest for the sheer joy of owning Microsoft or Intel, as opposed to receiving a dividend). Anyone can put money into a company in the form of a stock and receive money (at some rate) over time for doing NOTHING. Now, maybe they worked for the money they put in (but most institutions didn’t WORK, they just got a lot of people together who worked for money to invest in them, but that may be a different story altogether). A writer in Hollywood is basically going into business with a studio to create a separate entity that is a movie, which the studio uses to generate income. The writer is compensated to some degree with money for his time, but not at an hourly rate. Yes, some writers get to work for a few weeks and walk away, but you never know when a job is going to take two years, in which you may be doing many revisions for that initial sum of money (and yes, it shouldn’t happen, but you get sucked in and push through because you hope to get a final payment at the finish line or residuals, etc). The script you write is your INVESTMENT in the movie. You give up your copyright to the studio in order to take advantage of their production, marketing, and advertising advantages, and in return you should receive a payout over time for the entity that results. So let’s call a residual a creative dividend. No one questions the right of a stockholder to receive a dividend, even though they add nothing but money, so why should we question the right of the writer, who in the case of a movie adds far more tangible value? As to the issue of spreadsheets, let’s keep in mind that a spreadsheet does not a business make. Yes, it looks good in the investor relation’s kit. It reminds us of budgeting. It may be an important part of a business plan. But a spreadsheet doesn’t implement anything. It isn’t a business. It doesn’t create anything of value, it reflects the value of something put together by the work of others. Of course, those of you creating spreadsheets are often given options grants as well as participation in employee stock plans, so you are being compensated above and beyond your salary. The writer builds the very foundation of a movie, so there is some expectation of the same or even greater benefits for the writer in the same way that a President, CEO, or key VP would be given such an increased benefit grant.
November 12th, 2007 at 6:11 pm
In my opinion your concept is flawed. You still haven’t explained why should you continue to make money after selling your work. You based your entire article on that one premise and didn’t explain or defend it.
You seem to think that it is somehow a right because that’s how it’s always been and as such it just couldn’t work any other way. At least that is my impression – not trying to put words in your mouth. You also didn’t explain why other professions shouldn’t be paid in the same way.
I am a computer techincian. I work on systems ranging from home/recreational use to large companies who make millions. I develop creative techniques and solutions to meet the needs of my customers. By your logic I should get paid when those companies then use my work to go on and make millions of dollars. What about web design? If I design a really slick web site that increases the profits of my customer by 500% then I should get a percentage of their profits right?
The market dictates what the value of a good or service is. When a company pays you for your work why should you have any right to the fruits of their efforts? If a talented writer continually writes material that goes on to make a lot of money that writer can then demand more money for their work. The market will separate the wheat from the chaff. That’s how it works for nearly every other profession so why are writers and artists so special?
In my opinion your concept just doesn’t work in the real world and it seems obvious to me that you realize this or you wouldn’t be unionizing and basically black mailing the companies you work for. You seem to think your work is critically important to society and people will come groveling back to you. I mean if I told my customers I was on strike because they don’t appreciate me and I wan’t more money what do you think would happen? 99% of them would go find another company and not give it a second thought.
So here is my challenge to you: explain to us dumb readers why your industry is so special and why you can’t get paid just like everyone else?
November 12th, 2007 at 6:29 pm
Than you for the elucidation of “Why authors get residuals”. Your argument is based on analogy to other forms of authorship, and the economics of screenwriting. You make a nice argument relative to existing copyright law.
So… /should/ authors (or musicians) get residuals? I imagine there are more people out there that read this hoping for an opinion on that matter.
Is the best argument that can be made against a spreadsheet author receiving royalties based solely on vagaries of copyright law?
After reading your post, while I do understand your arguments that perhaps you feel like you deserve more money (doesn’t everybody?), I really don’t feel any particular moral outrage.
November 12th, 2007 at 6:40 pm
That’s a bunch of BS. I write software. Why don’t I get paid royalties? It’s a creative piece of work. I don’t get paid royalties because that’s not part of my contract and I can’t find anyone to pay me like that. Plain and simple.
November 12th, 2007 at 6:40 pm
Maybe the spreadsheet argument is why I’m a contractor now, rather than a suffering Microsoft employee.
And just maybe all the developers will join me and strike. Then we’d get a share of Office, Google search, etc.
If not, please don’t attack people who are willing to put it on the line; picket line that is.
November 12th, 2007 at 7:04 pm
If actors and writers can get residuals why don’t computer animators? Are they not creating the action and or story on screen just as much as the writers and actors. Most of the time we are taking “your” ideas and changing them for the better. I can name movie after movie that has pulled in millions not because of an amazing story but because of the individual artists that put hours into making it come alive. Now you might be thinking “well they work for a studio who takes home the residuals. That’s for them to take up with X company”. Which, for the most part is true. But the fact of the matter is that most artists in VFX are, or have been, freelance and had the same conditions you laid out above, “working for one movie waiting for another”. Most of the time because it’s such a cut throat industry they have to. And on top of that, they will work overtime with no pay and compensation, just because they know if they don’t they wont get another gig. If you don’t believe me next time you meet a VFX artist ask him his normal hourly schedules and then look at the top 5 studios output rate. Multiply this by TV, Commercial, Video Game, Scientific Visualization, Animation, Movie, Web…and more. So let me ask what do you feel about the fact that no one in VFX has had any picket and has ever complained. We don’t have a VFX-GA, we don’t have a union, and yet we put just as much if not more, “risk”, into entertainment.
November 12th, 2007 at 7:11 pm
When writers sell authorship, they agree to which mediums they will receive royalties for. Now, because of the introduction of new media, they believe they are being ripped off when a studio offers customers the ability to download a show. They was residuals even if the studio allows free downloading of the show as a promotional event. Imagine if professors went on strike when universities allowed anyone to download lectures for free as a service to the community.
Bottom line: Writers agreed to the contract and are being paid. Technology has allowed a new way for people to receive content and writers feel they should get a piece of the action. What will happen: more reality shows. What won’t happen: better writing and better shows!
November 12th, 2007 at 7:25 pm
This has nothing to do with your post. Will you settle the debate for me. I’m trying to figure out if my media professor is right. I’m writing a screenplay where flashbacks and “the present” converge and we discover that two characters are actually the same person. (He’s wearing sunglasses and has a beard vs. neither in the other. So we’d suspect, but not actually no until he takes the glasses off.) My professor says I should use the character’s name for both representations, but I always thought you keep the reader in the same place as your viewing audience. Any help?? THANKS!
November 12th, 2007 at 7:33 pm
Good explanation, but you didn’t really say why your friend didn’t get residuals from a spreadsheet he wrote 4 years ago. As a software engineer, I am every bit a creative producer as a writer or songwriter. Yet, very few software engineers get “residuals” or “royalties”. Instead, we get a salary, and in turn our employers get the fruits of our labor. If they double the price of our software, do we get a raise? Hell no. And if we don’t like it, we’re free to find another job. Why should writing be any different? As an occasional tech writer, I find that there is very little difference between writing software and writing English. So I don’t see why you the screenwriter feel you deserve royalties/residuals yet feel that I the software writer does not.
November 12th, 2007 at 7:37 pm
Bring in the scabs.
November 12th, 2007 at 7:40 pm
what about a painter? or a dancer? a graphic artist doesn’t get paid every time someone sees their work, nor the dancer or street musician etc. Why does a sitcom need 10-20 writers? all making more than the average American? sell your work just like everyone else, if you don’t like the price than piss off. I’m a teacher in Florida getting paid squat and I couldn’t strike if I wanted to.
what do you write for? so I can steal a digital copy.
November 12th, 2007 at 7:40 pm
You can see the only folks who agree are those that work as Television/Movie writers – odd, no?
Your attempt to bring in other industries as examples was interesting because both publishing and the music business are collapsing now. And really spectacularly to boot.
Music publishing is falling apart at the seams with a clear recognition that the system doesn’t work in the internet age. Paying a few millions and the rest pocket change makes everyone unhappy. Also, as the talent pool and ways of sharing this talent increases people learn to care less about the five people they were presented.
And the same for print publishing. I run a publishing company, and the truth is NO ONE makes books for profit besides maybe a few hundred people. And then the majority of income is from supplements like speaking engagements. Percentage based pay is merely to break even or to push back debt.
In both cases the best material is being created by those who do what they love when they can. Not by overhyped, over-sampled “leaders” of the industry.
I also can’t help but mention the many studies that look at pay for CEOs. The correlation is that higher paid CEOs tend to do worse. They get complacent and comfy. The same applies here as there are a few hundred people hungry for a job in your industry. To act otherwise is misguided. To forget this is sad and possibly career ending to many people in the coming weeks.
Personally, I don’t have a problem with what you make. I’m just letting you know that when things change, and they will, you will be hit and hard.
November 12th, 2007 at 8:38 pm
Out of all the explanations I’ve read about this issue, this was the most intelligent. One thing that nobody has brought up though is the fact that Ellen DeGeneres is a SCAB piece of crap! I’ve been in the construction trades all my life and witnessed first hand what a devastating effect just one scab can have on a strike. She is such a phony bitch, she makes me sick. For a show that depends so much on it’s writers, I hope they all quit after the strike is over, and the rest of the writers guild black-balls her. What was with that friggin lie she told everyone that she had it in her contract that she had to do the show. Leno, Letterman, and John Stewert don’t have contracts. Hopefully some of you writers will give me your opinion on this. BOYCOTT ELLEN
November 12th, 2007 at 8:56 pm
yeah, I’m pretty sure, as in all the way sure, that this is not indicative of reality. You’re making the argument that were it not for some big prize out there people wouldn’t bother to write. That is demonstrably untrue, as shown in the article. The truth is that the writers have a strong union and the union demands a percentage. Nothing wrong with that, more power to the little guy and all, but pretending that writing is some hallowed creation is ludicrous. I’m all for people banding together and demanding their due share of the profits for the part they played in creating something but this argument just isn’t doing for me.
November 12th, 2007 at 9:37 pm
I’ve seen others bring up this code writer question before. I think it’s a valid concern, but one thing that bothers me is that it often can smack of, “Well, I’M not getting residuals, so why should you?”. It’s kind of a self-defeating argument. It’s like the black man saying to the women in 1820, “Well, I don’t get to vote, so why should you?”
I worked in the video game industry for several years, and one thing I did when I was hired was sign over any rights to anything I created while at the company. I never asked for any residuals, so I didn’t get any.
And a writer of code is not like a screenwriter. In the video game industry, anyway, a screenwriter can be more aptly compared to a game designer. A video game does not begin with the code, it begins with the design. The code comes much later. A code writer could be more compared to the crew of a film. They come in to fulfill the vision of the design/script.
Besides, if you really feel that you deserve residuals, THEN BLOODY WELL DO SOMETHING ABOUT INSTEAD OF WHINING ABOUT OTHERS WHO ARE TRYING TO GET IT.
November 12th, 2007 at 9:45 pm
You forgot the obvious plumber analogy, which I have used a couple of times now:
Q: “Why do I pay residuals to a writer? I do not pay residuals to my plumber every time I flush my toliet?”
A: If the Law of the Land required you pay the plumber before you could create any ahem derivative works, you would not be able to pay that plubmer fast enough.
November 12th, 2007 at 9:53 pm
Ross,
A painter or graphic artist DOES get residuals whenever his/her work is reproduced. If you put it in a book, the artist gets a residual. If the painting is used in an advertisement, the artist gets a residual. If you put it in a movie, guess what? The artist gets a residual.
A dancer does not create, but interpret. You can’t copyright a dance and then sell it. If a someone wrote a ballet, then they would get royalties whenever the ballet was produced. The dancer is not the writer but the actor. And actors get residuals, by the way.
If you watch a street musician, no one is actually making money by the act of you watching them. If they create a cd, and you buy it from a store, then they would get residuals. Residuals are from money made on a product they created, not from from the act of someone watching them.
No one is asking you to pay writers a residual. The writers are simply asking the corporations that make money off of their product, for a tiny piece of what they make from it. Not all of it. Not half of it. A tiny percentage.
And by the way, the people, like John August, who make a very good living from writing, are not the one’s who will benefit the most from what the WGA is demanding. It’s the people who are making LESS than the average American (most screenwriters actually make less than the average American) that will benefit the most.
Hopefully you don’t teach your students to judge so quickly without all the facts.
November 12th, 2007 at 10:04 pm
Josh,
I’m glad you brought up the music industry. Do you have any idea WHY the music industry is doing badly at the moment? It certainly isn’t the artists fault. Hell, it wasn’t that all that long ago that companies didn’t even give royalties to artists. The reason the music industry to doing so badly is because the large music corporations took way too long to adapt to changing technology, have been overcharging for their product for decades, and still expect to make the exorbitant amount of money they have always made on the backs of the artists.
As for the publishing industry, if there is no profit in it, then Random House, McGraw Hill and all the other major publishing houses are in the wrong business. My sister is a fairly successful author and relies on residuals while she writes her next book. Without residuals, she would probably be forced to get a second job and not be able to have enough time to write another book. And considering that Random House makes a bit of money off her book, I think its only fair that she see some of that money.
November 12th, 2007 at 10:17 pm
This “royalties pay the bills” business. let me just set the record a tad straighter there.
I’m a writer too. A novelist. The way it works in the publishing industry is that a publisher buys your book (hopefully, and probably after months or YEARS of shopping it around, and then you can’t even GET to the big hitters without a literary agent and you can’t get a good agent without a track record, starting to see a pattern here…?) and gives you an advance. That’s actually short of “Advance against royalties”, and what it means is that you don’t see another dime over and above that amount until and unless your book “earns out”, i.e. sells enough copies for that advance to have been paid back into the publisher’s coffers. And after that, you get anything from 7 to 10% of the price of any copy sold – if it isn’t sold to a heavy discount outifit (like, for instance, Amazon) which means you get a lower royalty, or it gets remaindered and sold below net in which case you get nuttin’ at all. And the advance is usually cut up into itty bitty bits and piecse – as many of them as the publisher can get away with. Often it’s paid out in quarters (on signing, on delivery of MS, on acceptance of a final MS acceptable to a publisher – and this entails, quite often, more work on behalf of the author – and on publication. If you’re lucky, you can get it in thirds (signing, delivery, publcation) and if you’re VERY lucky and have a damned good agent you get it in halves (signing, acceptance of MS).
HOWEVER, and it’s a big however, very often publishers pay on their own schedules which somehow never quite work on the same time scale as the rest of the planet. I’ve received on-signing advance installments MONTHS, once well over a year, after the actual contracts were signed. That’s a year, ladies and gentlemen. You have produced a product and have a contract that states this – and often you have finished the book, and it’s well on the way to publication, before yuo see a dime of the money you were supposed to get when you first signed the contract. And of course the other big “but” is that advances are… not big. A few writers, a handful, get six-figure advances – which, even divided three or four ways, still gives a decent yaerly wadge of income. The rest… get advances like $30 000 or $40 000. If they’re lucky. Of that, the agent takes their cut (15% – call it $4500-$6000) so what the writer gets, out of that initial advance, is anything between $25 000 and $34 000.
In chunks.
Months apart.
And – remember this! – may NEVER see another red cent from that particular work. The only thing they can do is start writing something else, and hope it sells – for at least as much money as the first thing did.
And God help you if your first book didn’t explode on the market in a stellar manner. Your second book gets picked up predicated, at least in part, on how well the first book did. And sometimes a book that everyone who’s actually READ it loves, just doesn’t SELL THROUGH well enough – and a sophomore effort, no matter how brilliant, just never even gets off the ground. And in the meantime, the average Joe Writer is left with less than $30 000 in the kitty a year – take taxes out of that, and it’s even less – and you have NO safety net, NO pension fund, NO health insurance, AND you’re expected to do your own publicity a lot of the time these days. If you go to a conference or a convention, which is WORK, it comes out of YOUR pocket, not the publisher’s. Do three of those a year (which is keeping up a public profile) and – well, you do the math, four or five days usually in a hotel of the caliber of a Hilton with a charge of between $100 and $150 a night (at special convention rates, at that, and if you stay an extra non-con night the rate often jumps to $250 or more), and you have to eat, and you have to GET to the hotel somehow by plane train or automobile.
It ain’t a cushy proposition.
If I were anywhere near LA, though, I’d be down in the writers’ lines asking if I could help, though. We’re all writers. They’re my tribe. They do what I do, in a slightly different format and in a different medium. And they damn well deserve to be paid for it.
November 12th, 2007 at 11:23 pm
Josh,
it’s the content that has value. The content produced by the writers, actors, editors, and directors. What will get hit hard are the execs and corporations who control the old system of production and distribution.
You’re complaining about the “five choices” you’re presented with, as if the Writers Guild had anything to do with that. It’s unfortunate that you haven’t taken the time to understand the issues and the players involved in the strike. I hope you approach you business ventures with more attention to detail.
As to some of the other critics, the best thing for you all to do is google “intellectual property”. There’s an argument made by some people with an anarchist bent that all intellectual property protection should be abolished because it stifles the free exchange of ideas and economic growth. This will never happen because corporations like intellectual property protection just fine, in fact they depend on it for their revenue.
Once you have intellectual property protection, you have to have compensation for reuse. Just like Disney won’t let you make multiple copies of the Lion King DVD and sell them on the net. Disney wants you to pay for each copy of the Lion King. They also want whoever shows the Lion King on TV or the net to pay each time it’s shown.
A lot of the anti writer sentiment comes off as petty resentment. The writers, people say, are not so special. They don’t deserve to make big money. What I do is just as valuable, people say.
It’s the dark side of meritocracy. Special talents combined with hard work can end up being rewarded by the marketplace to a degree that’s out of proportion to what regular people earn. In a world where money is thought to measure worth, regular people working regular jobs seem like failures by comparision. The implication is that if they were any good, they’d be able to cash in too.
Anyone is free, if young enough, to come to Hollywood and sell his services as a screenwriter. The vast majority don’t have the talent, drive, and salesmanship ability to make a go of it. Just as the vast majority don’t have the talent and drive to make it as professional atheletes. Another group who are simultaneously loved and hated by the masses of Americans. The masses need the escape that TV, movies, and sports provide them, so they can’t walk away.
November 12th, 2007 at 11:48 pm
I read this post—and it’s well done—but I’m still not sure why it is someone who’s sold his or her rights (and for damn good guaranteed money) is entitled to more scratch down the road.
How does a screenwriter influence the way the director turns what’s on the page into what makes it on screen? What does the screenwriter do to ensure the studio casts the right talent for the movie? How much influence does a screenwriter have in marketing the product, thereby helping sell more theater tickets and DVDs? What influence does the screenwriter have over anything once the movie’s made?
It seems to me not much at all. And everything I’m reading about the ways the union protects you backs that up. That said, how does that translate into your membership getting any back end, let alone more than what they get now?
Please don’t get me wrong. I, too, am a writer—novels is my milieu—so I’m all in favor of writers making more money. But the fact of the matter is, if I’m reading things correctly, that a single sold script gets union screenwriters more than what most novelists get for a three-book advance… a relationship that puts the author in the hole to publishers until that money is earned back. Then, and only then, does the novelist earn royalties.
The difference, then, is that book authors can, and do, have a responsibility to sell their books (although most think—incorrectly, I believe—it’s only the publisher’s job to do so). And, unlike screenwriters, an author has unique opportunities to influence sales that screenwriters don’t.
The way I see it, book authors actually earn, or don’t earn, royalties based on, not only, the relative merits of the work, but also on their efforts to get lots of people to buy the product.
Once you guys sell something… well, that’s it. You’re done until you sell something else you write. Sounds like a pretty sweet deal.
November 13th, 2007 at 2:11 am
To all the folks asking, “Why don’t I get residuals/royalties when I create ___________ (fill in the blank with spreadsheet, computer code, etc.)”
Yes, it’s simply a matter of copyright law. By law, certain things have been deemed copyrightable, while other things haven’t. Why this is is outside the purview of both John and WGA. Neither of them make the law. They just do what they can to try to get what the lawmakers have deemed is their fair share (from the greedy conglomerates that have no problem paying their executives eight figure salaries). If you’re (understandably) upset that the things you create aren’t copyrightable, please don’t take out on the screenwriters or novelists or musicians. Write your Congressman.
Also, to the folks asking, “Why don’t I get a cut when my __________ (fill in the blank with toilet, website, etc.) is used?”
Note that copyright is about fees for copies, not fees for use. If you had a copyright on a toilet or a website or whatever, you absolutely should get a fee every time that item is copied, but not every time that item is used (at least, not under copyright law).
M
P.S. Jordan, fair enough. I was just trying to point out that, because directors aren’t the sole receivers of residuals, the fact that they receive residuals doesn’t mean that they are the sole authors of a movie.
November 13th, 2007 at 3:26 am
Dana, What happens if something you write becomes obsolete? Or if you finish something you are working on? If the bosses decide a project is no longer worth pursuing?
How did you get your job? Did you interview for it? Or did you spend three years working for free to show samples to agents, producers, managers until you got a job? And did that job last six months?
The average software engineer interviews for a job. They don’t start working until they start getting paid. If there is downtime, they just ride the downtime until the next project starts. If the product flops, the software engineer is generally still employed because they have started another product for the same company. A software engineer’s job security is generally based on their own performance. If they help create a product, but another company has simultaneously created a different product, the software engineer is generally not fired.
And all the software engineers I know generally work on small pieces of a final product. I know of only one who can claim that the final product that goes to the consumer has been primarily his creation.
Screenwriters can spend many years working without pay. If their product fails, through no fault of their own, they get canned. While the typical employee can lose their job through no fault of their own, in most industries it tends to happen when the company is suffering financially. In Hollywood, it will happen despite recordbreaking profits on the part of the company.
The product that is released to the public is very much a reflection of the writers. Your favorite lines and movie quotes would not exist if the script had been written by a different writer. The one software engineer I know well acknowledges that with the exception of an occasional genius idea, their work is very technical, and will look similar regardless of which engineer wrote it. Which often means that the success or failure of a particular product cannot be said to be to the credit or blame of the particular software engineer who wrote it.
So…for the typical software engineer, your job security and pay is based on your performance and the company’s solvency. The company assumes the risk of the ultimate success of the product.
for the typical screenwriter, your job security and pay is based on the product’s ultimate success. If they assume the risk of the product’s failure, they should also reap the benefits of the product’s success.
November 13th, 2007 at 6:58 am
Brilliant post. Linked and forwarded. I wish that I had come up with it.
I have to agree with everything you’ve written. I’ve been looking for an explanation that’s this clear and concise. Especially the part about it behooving corporations/studios to pay writers residuals because they needs that constant stream of talent to create new product.
Now, as to why actors get residuals (full disclosure – I’m an actor) – in addition to the “authorship” of their characters, all of the things their characters do besides their words, actors often make suggestions for new dialogue, camera angles, lighting, etc while on set during the filming process. The artist is a collaborator with the director and screenwriter.
Rob in Denver: The screenwriter (or playwright) is often on set or in the rehearsal hall up until the final filming is done, making small changes in dialogue as needed. It happens quite frequently, so that’s one example of how screenwrights affect their product beyond their initial sale.
For those who claim that VFX artists (or sound designers, lighting designers, etc) should be getting residuals, I can understand your claim, and could possibly even back it. It’s a relatively new industry. You would have to unionize yourselves and be willing to fight very hard for those rights. Actors fought tooth and nail in order to unionize in the early 1900’s. That’s why we have the concessions we have now. If VFX artists were united in this desire, then they could have it too.
November 13th, 2007 at 7:54 am
Interesting article, but it contains multiple logical fallacies. (Begging the Question, Appeal to Pity, Composition, etc.) Because of these errors in reasoning, I did not find your arguments persuasive.
I suggest that you consult a list of logical fallacies. You might find it instructive to weigh your own assertions against such a list.
In fact, I’d argue that learning to form deductively valid and inductively cogent arguments will probably pay you great dividends…but not royalties.
November 13th, 2007 at 9:36 am
It seems to me that with the exception of a teacher, every negative, anti-residuals, comment posted here is from someone who proudly proclaims that they are a programmer.
So I just wanted to say I’m a programmer and I’m all for the writers!
If I was that desirous of making more money (based on the success of my product when used by others) I’d probably do something about it. Maybe get my friends together and make a group…maybe a guild of some kind!
November 13th, 2007 at 9:53 am
I don’t see the problem here, it’s just free enterprise. People get paid in different ways. Waiters get most of their income for a good job and tips, comissioned salespeople may have 100% of their income based solely on what they sell.
I’ve made plenty of awsome spreadsheets in 2003, no doubt creating efficiency and saving the company money. Their is no way of monitizing my work though, and I simply get paid a flat, hourly fee for my efforts.
November 13th, 2007 at 10:47 am
I thought the whole point was that The erstwhile novelist, or songwriter doesn’t actually get paid whilst doing the work, but paid upon his later success. Obviously if he’s not successful he earns no money.
Surely thats kind of the whole point, the plumber gets paid for his work whilst he is doing it, as does the computer coder etc…
But then surely Hollywood writers are salaried? are they not? Why should they receive extra remuneration forever?
It is simply an issue of greed. If it’s such a hardship, why bother going after residuals and not just drop them and become purely salaried. like every other bugger.
Lets not compare it to some high art, its 10 guys sitting in a room writing a TV show.
November 13th, 2007 at 11:33 am
great post on the origin and continued rational for residuals. thanks.
for clarity sake, somewhere else, perhaps, i’d like to see a similar explanation of how tv shows are deficit financed and how studios recoup.
i’m in favor of writer’s residuals, and also think that the amptp hasn’t really clarified their positions and challenges. anyone seen a (semi) rational post on accounting practices?
November 13th, 2007 at 11:53 am
I’m a writer of fiction. It’s my full time day job. I do it in a cubicle for a huge international megacorporation, and the megacorp pays me a salary for doing it. There are no residuals, no royalties, and anything I create here in my cubicle belongs to Megacorp, not me. I’m fine with that. There is no inherent human right to royalties. Instead I get a paycheck; this is the model my industry works on.
It’s too bad Desperate Housewives can’t be written the same way:
It seems to me that the whole way scripts are produced is screwy, and the guild arrangement is a way to patch up a silly system.
November 13th, 2007 at 12:46 pm
while i follow what your saying, your conclusion is not quite correct. Jeff doesnt get residuals on his 2003 spreadsheet, not because he is an employee (which you stated is exactly what writers are), but be cause he is a poor negotiator and his employment contract is not as good as the writers. This is because as an individual jeff cant screw his employer as good as the union (in this case the WGA) can. If jeff had negotiated the same deal as the writers he would have assigned copyright of his spreadsheet to the company, been paid for it (minimums), and then given a royalty, no wait residual, every time someone used it. Writers get residuals for the same reasons UAW members get no cost health care: The UNION IS SCREWING THE EMPLOYERS!
The copyright system is setup to deal with this just fine. The writers can maintain authorship and copyright to their works and then license them to the studios for what ever fees they feel are appropriate. This could include upfront payments, royalties, or any other mechanism the writer likes. This could would also cover re-runs, syndication, dvds, etc.
Also, the mechanics of Copyright and patents are very different. Its best not to compare the two as similar.
November 13th, 2007 at 12:47 pm
Bravo, John August.
Why should screenwriters earn residuals? Because authors do, and screenwriters are authors, too. Any questions?
JP Wolff
November 13th, 2007 at 12:49 pm
Ben
You’re misunderstanding how things work. First of all, the vast majority of screenwriters are not on salaries. Most work freelance. And for those who do work on salary, it still is not stable. If you’re lucky, you are on salary for the entire season. If you’re extremely lucky, your show isn’t canceled and they ask you back the next season.
And some novelists gets advances before they’ve even written a word. Does that mean they should not get residuals?
Music artists are often signed to long term deals, where they get money up front. Should they not get residuals because, in effect, they are being paid to create the music?
And as for greed, who is more greedy, the multi-billion dollar corporation that says that showing a show on the internet is simply promotional, while selling adspace for it, or the writer who created the script for the episode they are showing asking for a tiny slice of the money made on the show? You’re right, this is about greed. Unfortunately you’re a little obtuse if you think the writers are being the greedy ones.
And a plumber is not creating an intellectual property that others are making money off of, is he?
And the only people who think it’s easy to write a television show or movie, are the one’s who haven’t tried it.
November 13th, 2007 at 4:09 pm
“what about a painter? or a dancer?”
Painters hold copyright on their work, even if they sell the painting they retain the rights meaning they can keep selling reproductions, posters, t-shirts, etc. I believe choreographers retain copyright, while a dancer isn’t the author of the work.
It seems like many computer programmers are bitter about not getting residuals. If you really want them, insist on them from your employer and organize with your fellow workers if necessary. But don’t forget that it would mean taking a pay cut in your salary and probably getting switched from being a staff guy to a freelancer. And making very little if anything on projects that got cancelled or didn’t sell well. And creating spec code for free to try and generate work for yourself.
There are plenty of people in tech fields who get a cut. Microsoft at one point had a thousand employees who were millionaires. They made that money from stock options (a share in the company’s success) but most had salaries that were barely enough to live on. It worked out well for both the company and the employees – the company kept their paychecks low and employees ended up rich. In short, the company only had to pay them well when the company did well. The one big downside was that since employees were fully vested after five years, they had made enough to retire so turnover was very high – many could afford to quit and have second careers (often in creative industries since there was little pressure to make money). That was in the big growth years of MS, I don’t know how the situation has changed since the stock growth slowed down.
There’s no question many tech folk are getting screwed. But the solution to that isn’t to root for writers to get screwed as well.
If you’re getting shafted, it’s because you agreed to that shafting. Negotiate for royalties on the code you write if you think you deserve them. Or realize that you’re willing to go without them because they keep you comfortably employed with a consistent salary.
November 13th, 2007 at 4:34 pm
The reason why a lot of tech professionals, and other creative professionals are unable to obtain residuals and the benefits of their creative imput is because of industry standard and because of something even more: they lack bargaining power. Writers were smart enough to unionize. In America, it is still considered bad for creative professionals in other industries to unionize. In part because it is thought we make a lot of money being creative in other industry, but more likely its because public perception isn’t caught up with the nature of our modern economy. A little of unsolicited economics regarding bargaining power that Americans have forgotten.
November 13th, 2007 at 4:36 pm
By the way- the polls show overwhelming support for your strike so maybe the public is slowly catching on- where one falls so do we all.
November 13th, 2007 at 5:33 pm
Thanks for this thorough yet concise explanation. Ive been amazed since the strike began how many otherwise intelligent people have come off sounding like complete fools with regard to the issue of residuals and unions. From here on in, I’ll just point them to this post.
November 13th, 2007 at 6:32 pm
I agree completely with your point of view re: artists and royalties, but I got a kick out of this:
the Hollywood middle-class would be the envy of most of America
A modicum of amour propre perhaps?
November 13th, 2007 at 10:06 pm
Well, if we are talking artistic creation, there are a lot of people who create content for movie’s and television that never see an ounce of residual money. Art Director, Special Effects Designers, Costume Designer, Creature Designers, Grips, Gaffers, Production Designers, Set Builders, etc. All of these people create new and fresh artistic work for film and television and make far less money than any writer working for the networks or writing theatrical movies. I think everything has gotten all mixed up. Yeah studios make alot of money but they also put up and get the money for the movies and television shows. Writers write and get paid quite a lot to do it. If they can’t manage their money during the slow periods they would make lousy Effects Artists because that is all they do. Go from one job to the next. And thanks to the strike alot of people will be out of work who don’t get residuals for generating artistic content for films and movies.
Does a creature designer get monies for the toys based off of their drawings. The answer is a big fat NO. Do they get money every time their design is shown on television or at the theater or on DVD. The answer is a big fat NO. This is just as important as the written word. Most of the time the writer just mentions a creature or alien and the designer at an effects house has to come up with the look. Not the writer.
Well that’s all I have to say. Everyone should get residuals that help make any film or television show because it is all a hard creative process. Not just the above the line personnel.
November 13th, 2007 at 10:46 pm
So permanent under employment is something the middle class would prefer?
November 14th, 2007 at 7:32 am
“All of these people create new and fresh artistic work for film and television and make far less money than any writer working for the networks or writing theatrical movies.”
Really? I’d like to see a claim like this backed up with specific numbers. How much does a TV writer get from writing one primetime episode? And how much does a guy working on special FX make (aren’t those types of jobs hourly rate, with higher rates for overtime)? It would seem like it would largely depend on how much work you get, and I’d bet a halfway decent FX guy could stay pretty busy a lot of the time.
November 14th, 2007 at 8:09 am
Sorry but I beg to differ. An author or song writer usually writes their product on speculation. They take a risk and royalties reward the risk. However, any screen writer on staff – i.e. they get paid whether the product is a hit or not – doesn’t take a risk and thus doesn’t deserve royalties (er, residuals). It is work for hire. If the screen writer does the work on speculation, then they should participate in the upside and the mechanism should be no different from an author’s or song writer’s – a contract. I have always found the guild concept to archaic.
November 14th, 2007 at 9:57 am
Pete,
If writers on staff do not deserve residuals, then what about music artists or authors who are not writing their stuff on spec? Do they not deserve residuals, either? What if the writer is only on staff for a few months, then the show gets canceled? Even if a writer is staffed, there is very little security. Less than in almost any other profession.
Damian,
Again, it comes down to copyright. A set designer cannot copyright their work. A costume designer is not transferring authorship to the studio when selling their work to them. And a costume designer or set designer is not really risking anything. If the movie is a complete flop, the below the line people will not be blamed in the least. They will simply move onto the next project. Even if it was not the screenwriter’s fault, a couple of bad movies can really hurt a screenwriter’s career. I’ve never heard of a creature designer being hurt by bad box office if his designs were good.
November 14th, 2007 at 10:36 am
@Tim W. The comparison of screenwriters to book authors and songwriters doesn’t work because the business arrangement with the distributors is night-and-day different.
As stated, the screenwriter—because of what his union negotiated for him on the collective’s behalf—gives up his ownership of the work in exchange for the protection and stability of a guaranteed price (and a really freaking good one, at that). This doesn’t entitle the writer to additional money just for having written a script that sold.
If the union can negotiate for back end… great! Take it and smile. I certainly won’t begrudge you, or anyone else, that outcome. (As for intellectual property, if the writer sold a script outright—after willingly entering a work-for-hire agreement—how can that writer stake any claim to the property at some future date? It doesn’t make sense.)
Book authors and songwriters, who retain their ownership of their work, an important distinction, take money up front as an advance on future earnings. If the work doesn’t earn out—not only on the advance, but also on the other costs associated with producing and selling the finished product—then royalties don’t kick in. Ever.
Royalties for these people are deserved… because the author still owns the work. If a distributor wants to sell something I own for their own profit, I should be paid for that work for as long as they continue to sell it.
November 14th, 2007 at 12:31 pm
“However, any screen writer on staff – i.e. they get paid whether the product is a hit or not – doesn’t take a risk and thus doesn’t deserve royalties (er, residuals).”
Of course they take a risk. Their upfront payment is relatively small, so the amount they get paid can vary greatly depending on whether it’s a hit. Taking away residuals would take away that risk…but doing so would require paying writers more upfront (which moves more risk to the studios).
And authors and songwriters who get published do get paid some upfront as well, you really think an author gets zero when a book is first published? It’s called an advance.
“As stated, the screenwriter—because of what his union negotiated for him on the collective’s behalf—gives up his ownership of the work in exchange for the protection and stability of a guaranteed price (and a really freaking good one, at that).”
So what is the “really freaking good” guaranteed price a writer gets for a script of an episode of TV? I keep hearing claims like this thrown around, Rob if you know it’s good, give an example number.
Writers generally don’t agree to give up authorship for a flat fee, it’s in exchange for an upfront payment plus residuals. That’s what they’ve negotiated, so that’s why they stake claim on the profits.
November 14th, 2007 at 1:03 pm
I don’t have time to read all of these replies, but writers get residuals as authors (morally if not legally) of the screenplay; directors get residuals as authors (again, morally if not legally) of the film which was made based on the screenplay.
Or co-authors, if you prefer. The screenplay and the film are legally distinct entities. The film is a derivative work derived from the script.
November 14th, 2007 at 2:07 pm
Rob in Denver:
You appear to be confused on (at least) two points.
“As stated, the screenwriter—because of what his union negotiated for him on the collective’s behalf—gives up his ownership of the work in exchange for the protection and stability of a guaranteed price (and a really freaking good one, at that). This doesn’t entitle the writer to additional money just for having written a script that sold.”
In actuality, the screenwriter gives up his ownership of the work in exchange for a guaranteed price in addition to a royalty rate. And this actually makes sense. Under the model you are proposing, writers would have no motivation to write well. The screenwriter of ‘Waterworld’ would make the same as the screenwriter of ‘Titanic’. The screenwriter of ‘Titan A.E.’ would make the same as the screenwriter of ‘Charlie and the Chocolate Factory’. It is in the studio’s best interest to pay the writers some extra money based on how well the movie sells; this is not the same as profit participation (which would be unfair because of the lack of control over the final product which most writers have), but it’s at least analagous.
“(As for intellectual property, if the writer sold a script outright—after willingly entering a work-for-hire agreement—how can that writer stake any claim to the property at some future date? It doesn’t make sense.)”
The reason it doesn’t make sense is that you are failing to recognize that, under U.S. law for intellectual property, there is a distinction between being the creator and being the owner. At first, the writer is both; screenwriters sell their ownership rights, but they have certain rights based on the exploitation of their creations. Novel writers own both.
I don’t dispute the idea that, if the writers had a weaker union, like programmers or creature designers, their creations would be easier to exploit, but I don’t agree that this means that it would be good if they were weaker.
November 14th, 2007 at 2:08 pm
Just a note — I said “royalty” in the above post, but meant “residual”. (Though the difference is largely semantic.)
November 14th, 2007 at 3:47 pm
@cory I haven’t the foggiest idea for TV writers. But the number I’ve seen associated for film is $100k, minimum and guaranteed. That’s decent scratch. Two apologies, though, are in order from me: 1. My use of “screenwriter” was directed only at those who write for film… I wasn’t clear enough; 2. I can’t find the link where I got that dollar figure… I thought it appeared somewhere on this page. It must be in the browser history of my box at home. I’ll post it when I find it. I apoligize for not coming correct.
I said it before… I have no issues with what your union negotiates for and gets on your behalf. I say, “get all you can.” The things I disagree with are:
That your union has negotiated them previously isn’t basis for entitlement, either. You’re paid a royalty because someone agreed to pay you one at some point. They didn’t have to. Don’t get me wrong… I actually think it’s good that the WGA has gotten back end for its members. I just disagree that you’re entitled to them… which is something several people here either have said or implied.
Your union changes the game for you dramatically, so comparsons of your business arrangement with your distributor to the ones used in other forms of professional writing aren’t necessarily valid (as is the case with book authors and songwriters).
And, again, the up front money book authors and songwriters get paid is in advance of future earnings… they don’t get a penny from royalties until the product has earned back the advance and the costs of production (marketing, shipping, warehousing, cardboard boxes, printing, etc). My understanding of your situation—at least as it’s outlined above by JA—is quite different.
@Sean I willingly plead ignorance when it comes to intellectual property law. Thanks for drawing the distinction. I’m still not clear on how it entitles you to any back end money.
I also disagree that the absence of royalties removes the motivation to create higher quality work (a term that’s entirely subjective, no?). Most of the writers I know—myself included—want to write high quality stuff regardless of how much they’re paid… and that’s a good thing. (I assume it’s safe to say that you can say the same.)
No, royalties provide motivation for creating works that lots of people want to consume (and that’s a good thing, too). We both know that writing something that lots of people want to consume doesn’t necessarily intersect with high quality. Same goes for the opposite.
You mentioned moral entitlement before. I’m inclined to agree with you on that point. Though where law is concerned, there’s a process and structure in place to evaluate and appraise the differences between parties. Settling moral differences, and what that means in terms of value, at least in my opinion and experience, is considerably more difficult to handle.
November 14th, 2007 at 4:07 pm
D’oh! The top part of my last comment was directed @Mike. Not sure where I got @Cory.
November 14th, 2007 at 8:33 pm
This is to Mike. WGA minimum for a primetime show is $5,000.00 a week, which is basically one episode. That’s Min. I know a few effects artist that work at big companies and yes they stay busy and it is on an hourly basis but that hourly rate is between $20.00 an hour and $30.00 and hour, maybe if you are really good $35.00 an hour but that is rare. So on a weekly basis you could make anywhere from $800 to $1400.00. That’s a big difference.
As far as a staff writer risk, there is none. They are on staff they have a contract and usually these writers are damn good at what they do. Most television is far better than any film anyway these days. And the minimum for a feature over 1.2 million is $90,000. That’s for one 90-120 page script no matter how crappy it is. Most of the writers on those films get a tremendous amount more.
Like I said before everything is screwed up. Studios make billions but claim they make no profits, Directors make millions, Big Name actors are paid way to much. Usually for crappy performances and the really good actors get very little in comparison.
Movie making should be a fair and reasonable industry, there is plenty of money to go around. Everyone should stop being so GREEDY.
November 15th, 2007 at 6:35 am
What I think needs to happen is that studios need to open their accouting books, and negotiate with the WGA, the DGA and the Actors all at the same table and the same time.
The studios are going going to budge, but they’re afraid if they budge too much, it’s going to severely impact their negotiations next year with the directors and actors guilds.
November 15th, 2007 at 7:15 am
@anaonymous #37, uh, no, the argument being made here does not justify your getting paid continually for your computer work. It’s not the job of Mr. August or any other writer to explain the whole reasoning for the centuries’ old concept of copyright which extends to creative works. So many people’s argument against the strike boils down to: I don’t get paid more than once for my work, so neither should you. Gee, I don’t get paid $20 million a year, so neither should the CEO of my company. Not a convincing argument, huh? It’s a different kind of work and the compensation structure is different. It’s as simple as that. If it seems like such a sweetheart deal, quit IT and become a writer.
November 16th, 2007 at 10:24 pm
I thought this was one of the best explanations of the writer strike I have seen thus far.
As for some of our contemporaries comments, I may not agree with them but I can understand them to a certain degree.
The analogy of similar professions to the writers makes me pause….
Wouldn’t you think a similar argument could be made for an inventor?
An inventor has an idea, draws it up, makes a prototype and markets it. Many times at their own cost and sometimes they find a company that is willing to take the risk for them by manufacturing, packaging and advertising for the product… much like the writers.
They negotiate for a contract that is suitable for both parties. Some inventors sell their idea outright whether for a small or large sum of money and some opt for a payment that includes residual payments.
I think it’s very wise of the writers to raise the issue of the internet. Technology is evolving rapidly and every day we see newer, better, faster etc. Better to negotiate as progress forges forward.
If they don’t then today’s internet debate might be obsolete while we watch the worlds first intercranial telecasts…..
Hey… it could happen… lol
November 17th, 2007 at 8:41 pm
Thanks for taking the time to write this. So many people don’t seem to understand what is going on.
November 18th, 2007 at 5:54 am
John
Informative piece, and I do have sympathy for the WGA and their residual predicament, yet, my problem with this whole situation is that writers appear to get preferential support and treatment when such a situation looms. I see no such support for say… concept designers and artists who, now more than ever, are flagrantly abused regarding their work and third-party usage of their work. Concept designers and storyboard artist’s output are the life-support for tie-in toys, video games, books and DVD’s, but what rights do these artists get? Sure you can blame their own union – who are an embarrassment to the members they are supposed to support – but shouldn’t the residual matter be one shared by the entire entertainment industry and not by one selective – albeit important – branch? I suspect that writers, because they trade in a highly intellectualised profession, live under the subdued belief that they inherently possess a superior status in the world of creativity – they may never admit to it, but still, have little regard for…say…musicians who score films, designers who give Darth Vader his appearance, or cinematographers who make stars glow in the Hollywood glitter…What of it, then? As for the Gaffer Brigade, they do not get residuals because technical knowledge eludes most everyone who casually looks at the movie world – Gaffers, after all, paint the light that gives Nicole Kidman that “Bigger than Life, godly, movie lustreâ€? is that not as important as a clever quip? Isn’t the reality that Hollywood is simply abusive, and that secretly, writers just wish they could play racquetball in the same club as the Zanucks? Come this Christmas when many writer’s families will be playing their Beowolf game or watching how Harry Potter was designed how many will be thinking “we should be picketing for these guysâ€?. Don’t you feel that the writer’s current action should be looking outside of their own personal box and making a statement for everyone? I mean we’re all in this together right? Or is that “rightsâ€??
SJ
November 18th, 2007 at 8:58 am
Hi John,
I agree with SJ’s last comments; indeed, what seems to happen in such strikes is that the class gap that separates movie industry professionals gets exposed a little, and the rulers of that class simply try to elevate their own status a little more. The premise of your introduction – that we should take for granted that Novelists and Song Writers get residuals, therefore Screenwriters in the Entertainment Industry should also get them, is probably true, but not “certainly” true. Why? Because Entertainment fundamentally exercises the principle of “Work For Hireâ€? – for those who don’t know, it means: “We pay you, and you never see your work again…â€? This may be atrocious, despicable, even, but it is common practice through and through in film: Artists, Designers, Musicians, and countless other “creatorsâ€? are subjected to this indignity and have no Class-based opportunity to complain about it. Novelists write books – their work is standalone…No significant creative window dressing takes place in novels, beyond the Cover Art ( But let’s allow artists to rot in their own hell for a minute… ) Song Writing is also a different ball game – the standards of the music industry are in place for their own reasons – The real problem in talking about film in this sound-bite reality is that most people understand very little about what happens on films and who does what ( This is why film criticism usually confines itself to discussing plot points and performance – those are the only things people can talk about without embarrassing themselves and displaying their utter lack of immense technical knowledge required to speak about film intelligently… ) I am not saying that Royalties for Actors and Writers in film and TV are not justified conveniences – they probably are – but I am simply saying, as the case has been made already in other comments, that the de facto assumption that Writers are the sad Beasts of Burden of the film business is insulting to the hordes of unsung Industry Workers ( Some greatly creative in their contributions – some of these contributions as essential to the film’s success as — say — the 8th re-write was…) who are now out of work in Hollywood. The truth is that The WGA and SAG are by far the only unions that count enough members to be able to make noise, and that is why only actors and writers can strike. When they do, however, you cannot usually count on them to mention the thousands of “little insignificant folksâ€? that they put out of work and could not care less about. I once heard and Star and a Writer talk about how they’d mistakenly entered an Art Department on a big film, and were stunned to discover the little elves that were painstakingly creating all the creatures and sets – Both apparently did not even know that this went on… keep that story in mind next time you feel sorry for the people who are lucky enough to stand on a picket line. I guess it is important to remind everyone that no issue is as simple as the “victimsâ€? paint it, and ultimately, Hollywood and its people are all perversely hypocritical in their claims, as they race for the top. For fun, here is where the Royalties Argument gets tricky even among the writers themselves: A writer is brought in on a film to do rewrites -– typically this writer will make a point of tweaking every other word already in the script from his predecessor precisely in order to be able to claim a larger contribution to the new version than was even asked of him – he does so in order to get a larger share of Royalties to himself, thus attempting to deprive the previous writer of his royalties (and credit) – this usually ends up in arbitration. I wonder if they discuss this among themselves at the picket lines…
November 18th, 2007 at 10:30 pm
I am not sure I agree with cvcobb01’s (#16) comparison of residuals to stock options. They’re more like a straight grant of stock.
Cvcobb01 says: “Stock options represent the bet a worker makes against of the real value of the work that he/she puts into a company.”
Exactly — the employee pays to exercise the options, pays alternative minimum tax on the difference between the option price and the trading price of the company’s stock, and only then is it really a bet: the employee has some wood in the game.
Many Silicon Valley types paid tens of thousands of dollars of AMT on the exercise of pre-IPO stock options only to see our employers stock price drop anywhere from 90% to 100%: those were real losses. Real losing bets made by real people with mortgages to pay.
Residuals/Royalties, on the other hand, are actually like grants of stock: there actually isn’t any bet, because the writer doesn’t have to plunk down anywhere up to 80-90% of the current value of a film’s “stock price” in order to reap the rewards of a success.
Understand that I have no beef with writers striking to get what they think they’re worth, but I think that the arguments for or against it need to be accurate as well as compelling.
November 19th, 2007 at 4:29 am
Thank you. This was well-put and informative for those of us outside the industry. While I have always supported residuals, I never quite knew how to articulate the reasons to other people.
November 20th, 2007 at 4:08 pm
Lewis, while the typographer does design the look of a book, it is usually to the specs of the managing or production editor of the publishing company. For example, a book’s design might be required to match the house style while reflecting the tone of the book. While the result is kind of nice, or ought to be, it’s not an especially creative job. Mostly it consists of picking type, selecting dingbats, and making sure that the cover type doesn’t obscure the cover art. (The cover art that the artist is paid for, by the way, because it is a creative work, usually commissioned for the book.) It’s fun, sure. But worth a royalty? I don’t think so. Nor could a typesetter reasonably expect a royalty. Stuffing text into running heads, fixing bad breaks, making sure pages are the right length–sure, it all makes the pages pretty and contributes to the overall look of the book. So does the work of the copy editor, the proofreader, the editor, the managing editor. There are a lot of people between the writer and the physical book who contribute in some way to the final product. These people are represented by the publisher’s colophon. None of them have made what can be considered a significant creative contribution to the work. None of them are entitled in any way to royalties. That’s my belief–and I’ve worked most of those jobs. They paid salary, or hourly or per page if under freelance contract, and fairly poorly, but still better than what the writer made. And they wouldn’t have paid anything at all if the writer hadn’t written the book.
At this point someone is going to say, “Well, some other writer would have written another book.” If there were no writers, there wouldn’t be publishing companies and I wouldn’t have had any of those jobs. I don’t begrudge the writers any royalties they manage to get past their advances.
December 7th, 2007 at 8:55 pm
Your apologia for the status quo is misleading, though facile. Legally, yes, screenwriters surrender their authorial perogatives for the sake of practicalities, but, in reality, the situation is more complex. Few movie or television shows are written by one writer, fewer still spawned from the inspiration of a lone scribe. More often, an idea is hatched through some corporate process (which, yes, may involve writers hired as independent contractors but who are, nevertheless, a cog in the machinery) and independent contracts, including writers, are brought in to take concept to the next stage. Really, it’s no different then, say, engineers at Motorola developing a new cell phone technology, which spawns a product line that brings hundreds of millions of dollars to shareholders. These engineers get paid, and they may well receive a bonus. But residuals? They don’t get them. Why should screenwriters?
If the answer is, “because novelists and playwrights get them,” then you have no argument. Putting aside the obvious rejoinder — “Go become a novelist or playwright” — consider the fact that novelists and playwrights are the authors of the product that is being marketed. A novelist writes a book. The book is the product sold. A playwright writes a play. The play is the product that is offered — unabridged — to the paying public. A screenwriter produces something that no one (for the most part) buys — a screenplay. It is the blueprint of a product that is sold to the public, one that could not come to market without the logistic AND creative efforts of hundreds of other people. (Don’t muddle the issue by talking of book jacket designers and stage lighting technicians — as they say, those who can’t make such distinctions are incapable of making distinctions.) So, again, the question is, “Why should screenwriters be treated differently than cell phone engineers at Motorola?”
The answer is, they shouldn’t be. And, as diversified conglomerates like GE impose their compensation cultures on all their divisions, they won’t be. That is one reason why the WGA is destined to fail in this fight. Fortunately, those screenwriters who find the thought of equal treatment to be intolerable will have options. They can become playwrights!
December 9th, 2007 at 5:33 am
Thank you, Jeremy #96 , for a cogent and well written comment. Again, in response to John August’s ( respectfully ) simplistic contention that we should take the screenwriter’s plight for granted, in the context of film and TV, I would suggest this simple experiment: Bring 300 movie-goers into a movie theater, hand them all a script to read, a flash-light, and wish them good luck for the next 2 hours as you dim the lights. See how they like it. And see how screenwriters like it. The true status of screenwriting craft is revealed in such a light, as is the true status of the contributions of other players in film and TV, such as Cinematographers, Composers, Art Directors, Designers, Editors, and so on…All artists, all creative, and often all able to “cover� for insufficient writing with their skill… I am suggesting that most screenwriters typically view their craft with a complete and utter disregard for the true nature of other jobs in their business. As the wind of support begins to shift, when more and more employees lose their jobs over the holiday, this strike may serve to humble writers more than anything else. Should the spoils be shared among creative participants? Sure! But should this union cripple an entire industry and cause so much pain for what is ultimately their own selfish agenda? Is this truly an issue of brotherly justice for the meek, or simply a matter of writers trying to further distance themselves from other creative types? The bottom line is that everyone in show business gets screwed, and when screenwriters ask for “support� they would like us all to pitch in for their private chastity belt…
January 2nd, 2008 at 10:43 pm
Dear John,
I LOVE your blog, you are giving a lot of people insight into the innerworkings of a Professional Screenwriter in Hollywood. And you are helping “those Screenwriters who want to help themselves” improve their odds on making Screenwriting a career. Most of the people who blame Hollywood for their failure “gave up on themselves long ago”.
There is a natural weeding out process in Hollywood and the Film Industry in general that is very sensible and quite neccessary. You have to prove that you fit in and deserve to work in films. Hollywood doesn’t have to open the studio gates so every lazy, talentless, egomaniac mannabe can waltz in effortlessly.
If you write a Great Script, it will SELL. PERIOD. It doesn’t matter what you look like, act like or think like. Hollywood needs Writers so that everyone else can have something to work with and from.
Get over yourselves and go out and write a Great Script that is worthy of being made into a Film. OOPS, we’ve just lost more that 98% of our readers.
How come these people complain about their jobs not being rewarded like Screenwriters? If you don’t like your job and the benefits, go out and find one that does.
Writers deserve better treatment in Hollywood because without writers no one else has a JOB. Period. Save your agendas, frustrations, jealousies & personal problems for your friends not this column.
Write On.
January 11th, 2008 at 1:29 am
I can say this with total authority: When bad-ass song writers don’t get royalties for their film score… guess what they do… they go read John August and write screenplays. -Synthian
January 28th, 2008 at 3:50 pm
“By this time your wife has left you, you HAVE become a plumber, and you’ve burned those other nascent novels of yours like THE STAND and THE SHINING, because if there’s one thing you’ve learned from all this it’s that it is impossible to make any kind of profit in novels.
“That sound like a good deal to you?�
No, but thats the deal most people get when they go to work everday, why should writers have it any better? I grew up with people in the entertainment indusrty (not all successful, mind you) but they all earned at least a comfortable living working no more than 9 months out of the year. I still don’t undertand why big companies gave in and paid them residuals, why not treat them like the rest of employees on earth?