With royalties, the risk is shared. Without them, it’s not. The whole point is that the producer isn’t willing to pay the writer for all of his time at full value up front, but the writer isn’t willing to hand over all rights for the upfront price that the producer is willing to pay. Hence, royalties to fill the gap between the two.
I’ve never understood why people (other than company executives) dislike unions. Unions can only exist when managers and employees are adversaries. They are a symptom. Treat your employees fairly, pay them a fair wage, and the union will disappear. (Or become non-adversarial, in which case it might as well disappear.)
OK, I’m starting to wonder if you’re just arguing for the sake of it, now. I find it hard to believe anyone on this forum could say that with a straight face.
But on the offchance you’re serious - you’re writing a novel at the moment, if I recall correctly. Say a publisher buys your manuscript for $5000 (itself a middle-to-high sum for a first novel) and the book goes on to sell ten million copies. Will you be happy not to share in the revenue from those enormous sales because it was just a “plain, workman job”?
But are you a fan of what unions have accomplished?
The 40 hour week, health insurance, social security and pensions, the ability to keep the worksite safe and keep the job; this the just the tip of the iceberg of what unions have done.
If you want to stand on principle, give those up.
Make your way in the world with even less recipriocity than the serf in medieval times.
40 Hour work week? I work about 80 hours a week, I would do more if I could, but life interferes with writing. Health insurance? I pay my doctors when I see them, but also carry a rudimentary health insurance for catastrophic needs. Social Security, your kidding, right? Pensions? I invest the money I am allowed to keep myself, I am averaging a tidy 12%, much better than SS ever would. I am happy with that. My worksite is as safe as I make it, sometimes I get crazy and leave the window open, which I guess could lead to me getting a cold, but I accept that risk. As to keeping my job, as long as I am willing to work, I will have a job.
I guess I really started to fear unions 15 years or so ago, I lived up the street from the NY Times (When they were printing in lower manhattan), daily I would walk by and see the union members, sitting in their lawn chairs, playing poker or watching the portable T.V.s they woudl bring in with them. Their job consisted of about 30 minutes of work (For a full days work), and their jobs were taking the pre-bundled and pre-tied newspapers from the neatly stacked piles, cutting the bindings, and handing those stacks off to fellow union workers who would re-tie them, then another union member woudl stack them again. Thats what unions mean to me today.
I wasn’t going to continue commenting in this thread because politics and internet fora mix about as well as… I don’t know, politics and internet fora. But I have to ask:
wmarcy: What’s your remedy for unions and collective bargaining? Are you merely saying that the concepts don’t sit well with you, or do you think they should be actively banned? Are you asking for the state to curtail the right to free association?
I don’t know which ‘state’ you are reffering to, some countries can adopt that kind of legislation, while others, are prohibited from it by their charters.
Would I, if I could? Not at all.I am more of a live my life and not worry too much about what the next guy is doing kinda guy. I do believe strongly in the free market and capitalism though, and unions are the antithesis of that.
I do hope the writers can squeeze every last drop of cash out of the next level up in the food chain, and consequently, I wish those producers good luck in wringing the last bit of money out of their finished product also.
No one makes any money when a strike is going on, which is ultimately the worst part of the whole ordeal. Personally, also, as it seems it is just sitcoms and hollywood movies which are affected, I am hoping that the money stops following the formula, and goes after talent (for once). I don’t see any harm in the current crop of writers, peddling the current drivel to be any real loss. YMMV, and if it does all the better as thats what makes it interesting, no?
Just to clear up terms about major publishers (at least of novels): Manuscripts aren’t bought, per se, the rights to publish them are. And the money handed over is usually an advance against royalties (although there are flat fee publishers ) so I wouldn’t call it a purchase price.
In other words, they are not “buying” the novel, just the right to publish it. It is, therefore, not theirs, and they do not have the right to “do what they want with it.”
(I can’t speak to screenwriting, so I’ll end this here so as to not take it too far off topic.)
Yeah, completely different in screenwriting. Studios do actually buy a screenplay lock, stock & barrel, including all moral and authorship rights. That’s one of the reasons residuals exist - once the script is sold, the screenwriter is no longer legally recognised as the author, and therefore isn’t eligible for the sort of royalties a musician or novelist would receive.
Which goes back to my auto factory worker analogy, the guy who assembled your car, ought not have the right to tell you what you can do with it once you pay the purchase price. Don’t you agree?
Actually, in my mind, the analogy would be more for the car designers, not the assemblers, since the writers are creating something that didn’t exist before, not assembling something that someone else designed. They are the designers.
And as such, I believe they should indeed have a say over their work.
Actually, it’s more like the people who sell books and CDs, and who feel perfectly free to tell you that you can’t make unlimited copies of either.
Intellectual property is not the same as physical property. It doesn’t behave the same in the real world, and it isn’t governed by the same laws. Drawing analogies between the two simply doesn’t work.
I am sorry to disagree Katherine, but your analogy is flawed.
When one buys a CD or a book, one is not buying ownership of the intellectual property in that book or CD, one is purchasing the right to consume that book or CD in a manner prescribed by the publisher.
When a publisher buys the rights form an author, the author is in effect signing over all his ownership rights to the publisher, transferring control to the publisher. The publisher is then the owner of the product, be it a piece of music, or a manuscript. (Which is why the publisher can reserve all rights to other forms of consumption of said property).
This really is not complex and was taught to me in my first year intellectual property rights class, I would be happy to expound further if anyone is truly interested.
Actually, the publisher is buying the rights specified in the contract, subject to whatever limitations are specified in the contract. In this case, those limitations include residuals. I’m not sure why you have a problem with that: publishers are, after all, free to walk away from terms that they find onerous, or to offer an alternative that the writer would accept in lieu of residuals.
I think, in the end, we agree. You yourself agreed up thread that authors are entitled to residuals if they are able to negotiate a contract that includes them. In the current case, the WGA is negotiating that right on behalf of its members. Where’s the issue?
Same thing when you buy a car. Just try setting up a line to produce carbon copy Porsches and see what happens. The number of patents and trademarks incorporated in any moderately complex consumer product is astounding.
Except Katherine, if the person setting up the new assembly line to build carbon copies of Porsches, has bought the rights to make those carbon copies. If so, then all is good and right with the world. If not, it is theft. So, say you want to make Porsches, it is the driving force in your life, you work your deals and gather the money and buy the rights from the parent company of Porsche, effectively transferring the ownership of Porsche, form them to you 9Lets equate it from author to publisher). Now, the parent company that used to own Porsche, has no right to do anything with Porsches, and you, now can make all the Porsches you desire, or cut them in half, or stop production completely, you own them. Once ownership is transfered, the parent company, can not come back and say, oh, we want more money if you plan on adding non-blaupunkt radios to the Porsches you produce. Or, Your putting Michelins on the cars and not pirellis? We need to have a further payment for that.
wmews: No. You’re wrong. Because all previous deals between writers and producers have stipulated that the writer is entitled to residuals when the work is re-sold, unless it’s for promotional purposes. To wit, if the producers make money off of the work, then the writer is entitled to a (meager) percentage of that deal. The issue here is that producers are claiming that the internet is a vehicle for promotion, and not for expressly making money from the work. Which is a lie.
To apply this to your analogy: that sale of Porsche to me* stipulates that the original parent company is entitled to a percentage of my earnings when I sell my Porsches to ancillary markets. Let’s, for the sake of simplicity, say that the primary market is Europe. If I sell Porsches on any continent other than Europe, the original parent company gets residuals. That’s the deal the original parent company made, right from the beginning. It’s the only reason they made the deal – otherwise, why would they sell an entire car company at a price I could afford?
So, we have a deal. We have parameters.
Then, boom: lava, tectonic plates, act of God… there’s suddenly a new continent floating around the ocean. And I want to sell Porsches on that continent. It being new, the inhabitants of that continent aren’t really driving much yet, but they’re going to be soon. They’re building roads and stocking up on fuzzy dice to hang over the rear view mirror. Is the parent company entitled to a percentage of any money I make from that continent? (Yes.) Am I entitled to make all the money off a clearly emerging market, contrary to the spirit – and, in fact, the letter – of our existing deal? Not really, no.
*I dislike your analogy for a lot of reasons, but mostly because I have to be the bad guy in this story.
Enough with the tortured analogies; I just want to know if wmarcy expects royalties from his novel, should he place it with a publisher. He never did answer that one.
I’d also like to know what the hell kind of intellectual property class teaches the rubbish he’s repeating, because he should ask for a refund.
) so I wouldn’t call it a purchase price.