this post was submitted on 12 Aug 2023
1648 points (98.5% liked)

News

35774 readers
1967 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.


Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.


7. No duplicate posts.


If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.


All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

The sorry state of streaming residuals shows why SAG and the WGA are striking.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] lemmyman@lemmy.world 14 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

I think the latent question here is - how were expectations and/or contracts for writers any different from hourly workers who have never expected royalties?

[–] QHC@lemmy.world 28 points 2 years ago (1 children)

The previous comment did most of the work for you. Writers, actors, crew, and generally everyone involved in the entertainment industry does not have a salary gig like office workers. They aren't working consistently--which has only gotten worse in the streaming era--and thus rely on royalties as part of their total compensation.

So, in summary, they are completely different situations that cannot be directly compared.

[–] lemmyman@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children)

I don't think I'm ignorant of the gig-work nature of these things - I am, by choice, a contractor, but in a different field (engineering services). But my contracts specify that the deliverables are "works for hire" and that the client owns all IP, and I am not entitled to residuals or royalties or any other income from the work I've done under such contracts.

I just genuinely don't know if writers thought that they should be getting more. And if so, why?Because there are plenty of analogous (i.e. IP-generating) jobs that don't have such arrangements.

“Works-for-hire” is exactly the key point here.

This is about who holds the IP. Sometimes, depending on the employer and contract, an engineer will get to share in a patent created in the course of the job. Or might have incentives such as Employee Stock Ownership Plans (ESOPs) or options.

So it’s not true that the IT folks are exclusively paid salary. Many share in the risk as well as the returns of their firms.

Let’s unpack that.

Yes, there are ‘writers for hire’ in licenced tie-in fiction and comics. These authors get a flat advance BUT they still get royalties based on the number of books or comics sold. That is - base payment and then returns based on success if the product.

Film and television writers are compensated by residuals in addition to salary. The studio owns the IP but the creators have a stake. It’s a risk and return sharing relationship with the studio. That’s the standard arrangement.

How is this different from an ESOP or options as an incentive remuneration?

How would an IT employee feel if a firm licenced the IP and then excluded its value from the calculation of ESOPs and options due, or the dividends on the nonvoting shares issued to employees?

[–] QHC@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago

I just genuinely don’t know if writers thought that they should be getting more. And if so, why?

What do you mean by "more", and relative to what? The main complaint from writers are that in recent years the trend has been them all getting paid significantly less. Not just a few percentage points, more like 1-10% of what they used to get.

So, they want to get paid the same as they used to, which is more than currently but not "more" when looked at from a longer time frame.