REPRINT: Oh, So That's Why We're Not Treated Like Playwrights
We ain’t himEd. Note: This is a reprint of a post that was first published February 5, 2005. You may click here to view the original comment thread, or feel free to comment under this reprinting.
For as long as I’ve been a working screenwriter (nearly a decade now), I’ve been hearing versions of the following argument: “Playwrights retain copyright! Playwrights can’t get fired! No one can rewrite them or change their words! Why aren’t we screenwriters treated like playwrights?”
And for nearly as long a time, I thought the answer was simply that the typical compensation and employment opportunities for screenwriters were much more substantial than those for playwrights.
Well, I was wrong. While the above is true, it’s not the reason we’re treated differently. No, the real reason goes to that good ole “c” word we like to bandy about here at The Artful Writer.
Yeah, it’s copyright.
Again.
Performance vs. Derivative Works
At the height of the battle against the possessory credit, I recall John Carpenter (a man so enamored of the possessory credit that he routinely features possessory titles like John Carpenter’s Ghosts of Mars) saying something that really pissed me off.
“As a director, I am the author of my movies. I know that’s not a popular view with the writers, but I’m sorry. If the writer thinks he’s an auteur, then let him thread up his screenplay in a projector and we’ll take a look at it.”
Well, as it so happens, I don’t think the “auteur” of a film is either the director or the writer. No one is the auteur of a film. I believe, almost evangelically, that studio films are collaborative. The concept of “film authorship” is prima facie absurd. You can’t thread a screenplay through a projector any more than you can shoot footage without actors, a DP, gaffers, grips, production designers, costumers, etc.
But let’s stick with the relevant point. Carpenter was definitely right about one thing. A script is not a film. It’s a piece of non-film intellectual property. The owner of that intellectual property has certain rights, and one very important one is the right to prepare derivative works.
Federal copyright statute defines a derivative work as:
…a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications, which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a �derivative work�.
In short, if you take a screenplay and recast it or adapt it or use it as the basis for a new work, then you have created a derivative work.
A film is a derivative work.
The important thing to understand about derivative works is that they, too, are also intellectual property. They get their own copyright. In a simple world, a writer writes a script. Copyrighted. The writer prepares a derivative work from his own script, as is his right. The new work, a film, is now also copyrighted, and the screenwriter cum filmmaker owns the copyright.
Note that even in that simple world, the writer must transform the script into a film. After all, the only exploitative value of a screenplay is precisely its ability to be adapted into a derivative motion picture work.
A screenplay is intellectual property created solely to be transformed into new intellectual property.
Now, let’s talk about our playwright friends.
A play, just like a script, is copyrighted intellectual property. However (and this is the crucial distinction), the play is not meant to be transformed into a new intellectual property. With some general exceptions, there are no easily-exploitable derivative works to be made from the play.
The play is meant to be performed.
Remember that in order for something to be considered intellectual property, it must exist in a fixed form. A performance is not a fixed form. When someone struts and frets his hour upon the stage, it’s over when it’s over. It’s gone. You cannot copyright a performance.
As such, financiers of plays allow playwrights to retain the copyright because it’s not of tremendous value. The real prize is the license to perform the play.
Now, let’s return to the screenwriters. In our case, the performance of a screenplay is practically worthless. No one wants to go see actors sit in chairs and read a script. In our case, the primary exploitation of a screenplay can only occur if the studio has the right to prepare derivative works.
As it turns out, the cleanest and most advantageous way to secure exclusive rights to prepare derivative works is to be the author of the original work. This is why studios purchase original works on a “work for hire” basis, which makes them the copyright holder of the intellectual property.
Of course, the film isn’t the only derivative work one can prepare from the script. There’s merchandising, novelizations, theme park rides, songs, and, of course, other screenplays.
Rewrites, in other words.
As it turns out, movie studios are pretty good at exploiting the value from their properties. Much better than individuals generally are. And the commoditization of film and DVD’s makes the marketplace much larger than that for plays.
As such, copyrightless screenwriters have, on the whole, greater job opportunities and higher paychecks and better benefits than screenwriters with copyrights (typically in Europe) or playwrights.
Even if we did retain copyright, its value would be endlessly diluted by licensing arrangments, so it can’t be that the copyright itself is the Holy Grail. What screenwriters really hate is the fact that by selling the very authorship of their screenplay, they are enabling the new author to prepare new works, both revised screenplays and films, without their input or approval.
This, unfortunately, is a byproduct of the incremental nature of the screenplay: a work that, unlike any other fictional literary work in existence, is designed specifically to be transformed into another work.
Does this excuse some of the mistreatment even the best of us receive? Certainly not. Yet, understanding the basis of our current position is the first step towards improving it. Here’s hoping.
Interestingly, Australia has made a kind of pseudo-copyright for performances. ie they have made it an infringement to make ‘unauthorised’ recordings of performances.
“What screenwriters really hate is the fact that by selling the very authorship of their screenplay, they are enabling the new author to prepare new works, both revised screenplays and films, without their input or approval.”
Be careful not to confuse copyright with authorship. They’re not the same thing legally or normatively. You do not sell your authorship, you are selling your copyright. It might feel that there’s not much of a difference, but there is.
In many enlightened countries* there exists Moral Rights, which are exclusive rights of the Author. These rights often amount to the Rights of Attribution (ie getting credit), Rights of Integrity (ie not getting your work fuxored), and Right to Not Have Work Falsely Attributed (ie someone else claiming credit). These rights cannot be assigned and cannot be waivered via contract. The are created in the act of Authorship.
Unsurprisingly, campaigners in the US have had great trouble getting full recognition of Moral Rights within the copyright apparatus.
Stuart:
Under the U.S. work-for-hire doctrine, the copyright holder is also considered the author. Our purchase agreements say so explicitly.
I understand that this is not at all the case in Australia, which does not have work-for-hire doctrine.
I know that the situation may seem glum for us Americans, what with work-for-hire and no droit moral, but the fact is that I believe we are ultimately rewarded more for our efforts than writers in your so-called enlightened countries, and I’ll probably reprint why I think so in a few days. :)
Even if we did retain copyright, its value would be endlessly diluted by licensing arrangments
If I may nuance a little bit by replacing “would” in the above affirmation by “could.”
Yes. A screenplay is made for the sole purpose of being adapted for the screen. I’ll agree to that. But who says it there should be only one screen adaptation of the screenplay? Considering recent and coming changes production and distribution technologies, I can very well see near future where you could have multiple screen interpretation of a screenplay. Then licensing the screenplay would definetely make a lot more sense.
I also agree that studios are great at exploiting the copyrights. Great. They’d be as good at exploiting licenses in addition to the license to produce, exploit and distribute a film based on a screenplay.
Other members of the IAWG recognize that the film is in itself copyrightable. In fact, in Canada the producer owns the copyright to the film that he has bought a license to produce. Still, the writer retains the copyrights to the script and that allows the writer to license sequels, prequels, plays, serialization, etc,.
Now, we also recognize the distinction between the screenplay, as literary material, and its interpretation in the form of a film. There is a difference between author and interpret. Bethoven, Leornard Cohen or Bob Dylan remain the authors of their work regardless of how they are interpreted. The director in that sense is interpret, not an author in the generally and historically accepted definition of the term.
But going back to why studios dictate their acquisition of copyrights, there is really only one and only one reason ( or motiviation ); Corporate greed. It’s that simple.
DL:
What do you mean by, “I can very well see near future where you could have multiple screen interpretations of a screenplay”
I don’t understand in what capacity…
And do you have an example so I can understand what you mean?
You say the real prize is the license to perform the play, as if the playwright takes no part of the real prize. But isn’t the copyright holder—the playwright—the only person who can grant such license? If so, can’t he charge a fee for such license that fairly compensates him for conferring the “real prize”?
Ben:
Well…yeah. Exactly. That’s how playwrights are compensated. Granted, they’re generally not compensated as well as screenwriters are, but that’s right. They receive money in exchange for licensing, or perhaps grant a free license in exchange for a piece of the gate.
What I meant was that the real prize for the producer is the license to perform the play (hence, no need to purchase copyright), whereas for screenplays, the real prize is the copyright.
“What do you mean by, “I can very well see near future where you could have multiple screen interpretations of a screenplay”
I don’t understand in what capacity…”
I’m guessing virtual reality. Just saw a TV ad for a game that allows the players to create action film scenarios. It’s quite primitive now compared to what it will be ten years from now.
Come to think of it, you could do the same thing with a script for an animated film.
If a studio licensed the film rights to your screenplay and spent $100 million making a movie that has its own copyright that the studio owned and could exploit by licensing, they aren’t going to want you running around licensing competing products — particularly since whatever value the other rights in your screenplay may have are due almost entirely to the fact that a studio was willing to spend $100 million making a movie based on it.
So the studio would require, as a term of the film rights licensing agreement, a non-competition clause that prohibited you from exploiting the other rights in your screenplay — especially as another movie or similar product — for as long a period of time as possible (35 years under U.S. copyright law).
You don’t agree to that term, they don’t license the film rights, no $100 million movie gets made … how much are the licenses of your other rights worth?
-
odocoileus:
“I’m guessing virtual reality. Just saw a TV ad for a game that allows the players to create action film scenarios. It’s quite primitive now compared to what it will be ten years from now.”
A video game is not exploiting a LICENSE for a screenplay. It’s exploiting a COPYRIGHT of a screenplay. I also use to be an executive for a video game company named Acclaim. We did have screenplays for our games but the creation of a video game was as a Work-For-Hire. You can however License certain characters for a video game like the Batman titles.
Ted beat me to the punch when he says that with licensing comes restrictions. You cannot license a screenplay for a film and then the same year license it again for a television show.
Again this is completely different than licensing a specific character.
Craig:
Under the U.S. work-for-hire doctrine, the copyright holder is also considered the author. Our purchase agreements say so explicitly.
Wow. I didn’t realise work-for-hire went that far. That (in some way) sucks but, OTH, creates a market where copyright is more valuable.
But on my other other hand (the third one I have), the other reason screenwriters are rewarded more in America than say in Australia is simply an economy of scale. Your film industry is HUGE and spends far more on films than we do - because you have a market where you can recoup costs domestically. Meanwhile, our features cost on average $4 million, and rarely - if ever - break even. Nor are scripts bought outright - e.g. a studio buys a script for X amount of dosh. Rather, they’re suckled through the AFC/FFC/FTO development schemes, where you lurch from $5,000-$10,000 packages of funding until you’re hopefully greenlit. When greenlit, you’ll get paid a percentage of the budget - probably 1-5% (the director and producer get approx 7%). 1% of a $4 million film is a decent salary, but spread over the last, I dunno, 10 years of your life developing the script… its pocket change. 10 years is how long it took Andrew Dominic to get Chopper made, which is a great film and I heartily recommend seeing it. This is what made Eric Bana. Meanwhile, 1% of the average US budget ($40million is what I last hear) is ten times as much. That’s real good coin. But I assume - and I could very well be wrong here again - that scripts are bought outright in the US, regardless of potential or possible budget?
I don’t thinking moving to a US style work-for-hire system would change the economics in Australia - we’re simply too small. The old rule of thumb I’ve heard is that a country should be able to support production of one feature per year per one million people. Thus Australia should, on average, produce around 18 features a year… we usually manage between 12 and 20. c.f. America which produces around 400 films a year per 300 million people (a nice strike rate!).
So yeah, you wanna swap?
Daniel L:
“Considering recent and coming changes production and distribution technologies, I can very well see near future where you could have multiple screen interpretation of a screenplay. “
A number of well-known stories have been countlessly adapted/reinterpreted for the screen over the past 100 years: biblical stories, myths and stories from classical antiquity and 19th century novels, to name the chief examples (Chinese myths are reworked in Chinese and Hong Kong cinema, Indian myths in Bollywood etc etc). But there have never been multiple screen interpretations of a screenplay. I can’t think of a single instance at any rate.
I’m not sure but I assume that you are foreseeing changes in production and distribution technologies that will enable (US) filmmakers to sidestep (Hollywood) studios, i.e. make them less reliant on the studios for either financing and distribution. I guess that’s possible. But even if screenwriters were free to licence their screenplays I don’t think there’d be any demand out there for “used” scripts.
Remakes are made on a regular basic but they’re more like reinterpretations of the films in question than the original screenplays.
“There is a difference between author and interpret. Bethoven, Leornard Cohen or Bob Dylan remain the authors of their work regardless of how they are interpreted. The director in that sense is interpret, not an author in the generally and historically accepted definition of the term.”
It’s accepted the world over that films are co-authored by x many people. Exactly how the authorship should be divvied up, percentage-wise, is impossible to determine. Not that people aren’t attempting to do that all the time, in courts of arbitration even.
You are basically saying that screenwriters are analogous to composers and songwriters. I guess they would be if they created dramatic works of the kind that invite multiple interpretations. They don’t. They create dramatic works that are unique and an inextricable part of the films that are based on them.
The simple dualistic view (author/interpretors) isn’t really applicable to films. Screenwriters are part of a process. I can’t see how it can be to their advantage to identify with playwrights or songwriters. They’re filmmakers.
But there have never been multiple screen interpretations of a screenplay. I can’t think of a single instance at any rate.
There are countless examples only you wouldn’t know from reading the screen credits. Just think of the number of remakes of foreign films that come out of Hollywood every year. Bird Cage, The Man with One Red Shoe, Nikita, Open Your Eyes, etc. If I had a free day, I could easily make a list of hundreds of such examples from memory alone. Hollywood calls them remakes, but they really are interpretations of the original screenplays.
By the way, the writers of the original French screenplays are considered the authors and retain the copyrights to their scripts. I would assume writers of many other countries do as well. Having nothing more than a license didn’t stop Hollywood from making the films so that pretty much counters the entire argument against screenwriters owning copyrights.
The screenplays of remakes are more often than not mere interpretations of the original screenplays even when the screen credits say otherwise. Cameron Crowe, for example, takes screenplay credit for Vanilla Sky but his script is nearly a shot by shot translation of the original.
You don’t agree to that term, they don’t license the film rights, no $100 million movie gets made � how much are the licenses of your other rights worth?
From the above examples, the rights are worth tons of money.
There are screenplays that are of the caliber of Shakespeare, Moliere and Victor Hugo. There have been a great number of films make from each of their stories. Just look at how many films made from The Hunchback of Notre-Dame or Les Miserables. The fact that a story is written in screenplay format doesn’t make it any less universal. The Studios conditioned us to think otherwise but story is story.
Take The Beauty and The Beast. How many films have been produced already from Cocteau’s script? When Disney did its version, they weren’t writing it from the 18th century short by Jeanne-Marie Leprince de Beaumont ( www.chez.com/feeclochette/Beaumont/belle.htm ), they obviously used Cocteau’s screenplay. Incidentally, neither Leprince or Cocteau were credited.
The truth that Ted, Craig, Kevin, Derek and others have express are pretty much absolute within the confines of the Hollywood aquarium but they quickly become relative truths as soon one ventures outside of it. There’s a whole world out there guys. A world that Hollywood prefers not to acknowledge. And for good reasons. Imagine what would happen if Studios were to sign the same kind of deal they do with the writer of original French screenplays they want to remake.
And then there’s the issue of cultural Imperialism.
The truths that Ted, Craig, Kevin, Derek and others have expressed are pretty much absolute within the confines of the Hollywood aquarium, but they become relative truths as soon one ventures outside of it. There’s a whole world out there guys. A world that Hollywood prefers not to acknowledge. And for good reasons. Imagine what would happen if studios were to sign the same kind of deal they do with the writer of original French screenplays they want to remake.
“There are countless examples only you wouldn’t know from reading the screen credits. Just think of the number of remakes of foreign films that come out of Hollywood every year. Bird Cage, The Man with One Red Shoe, Nikita, Open Your Eyes, etc. If I had a free day, I could easily make a list of hundreds of such examples from memory alone. Hollywood calls them remakes, but they really are interpretations of the original screenplays.”
Remakes are not interpretations of an original screenplay. Remakes are interpretations of previous films. The purpose of a screenplay is to be transformed into a derivative work. A film.
A film and a screenplay are not the same thing. At all.
“The Studios conditioned us to think otherwise but story is story.”
You know, I’ve been attacked for bringing a certain sense of realism to these topics but comments like these are just plain silly. Are all employers evil and duplicitous?
Remakes are not interpretations of an original screenplay. Remakes are interpretations of previous films. The purpose of a screenplay is to be transformed into a derivative work. A film.
Then why do they have to buy licensea from the screenwriters? Not the producers, not the directors, but the screenwriters. Not to mention that they are not any of the elements of the films; not the visuals of the films, not the cast, not the DOP, not the producers, not, not, not… but they are using the story. And who created the story? So what are they remaking exactly? The story, not the film.
You know, I�ve been attacked for bringing a certain sense of realism to these topics but comments like these are just plain silly. Are all employers evil and duplicitous?
As exploiters, which is what they are, yes, absolutely. For those versed in sociology and political sciences, this is better known as class struggle. The purpose of the ruling class is to exploit all others for their own benefit. They remain in position of power by monopolizing power and preventing all other classes from accessing it. I hope you don’t buy into the illusion of freedom that they try to pass as the real thing. The only freedom most creators/slaves have is to chose who their master are. Some masters/producers threat their slaves better than others, but slave they remain.
But this situation will change.
Remakes are not interpretations of an original screenplay. Remakes are interpretations of previous films. The purpose of a screenplay is to be transformed into a derivative work. A film.
Then why do they have to buy licenses from the screenwriters? Not the producers, not the directors, but the screenwriters. Not to mention that they are not using any of the elements of the films; not the visuals of the films, not the cast, not the DOP, not the producers, not, not, not… but they are using the story. So what are they remaking exactly? The story, not the film.
You know, I�ve been attacked for bringing a certain sense of realism to these topics but comments like these are just plain silly. Are all employers evil and duplicitous?
As exploiters, which is what they are, yes, absolutely. For those versed in sociology and political sciences, this is better known as class struggle. The purpose of the ruling class is to exploit all others for their own benefit. They remain in position of power by monopolizing power and preventing all other classes from accessing it. I hope you don’t buy into the illusion of freedom that they try to pass as the real thing. The only freedom most creators/slaves have is to chose who their master are. Some masters/producers threat their slaves better than others, but slave they remain.
But this situation will change.
Also, most of my career has been in Independent Film. But it’s still within The Hollywood System. All films made in the United States will eventually fall within The Hollywood System. And no, I don’t mind working within it. They have their needs and I have mine. The trick to the whole thing is having a nice balance and to not expect ANYTHING except financial rewards. They’re not your friends nor should they be. They’re your employers. They sign your check. Like any other employer in the world.
If you’re looking for more creative control, than yes, independent film is the way to go. I love it. It’s a risk and a gamble but it can be rewarding. But other stories I want to tell are just not for the independent circuit. That’s where Studios come in. And you know what? I definitely won’t get the best deal I can get.
Why?
Because I haven’t earned it yet.
I haven’t shown a Studio, that’s investing quite a bit of money in me, that I’m worth the investment. It would be silly of me to think or expect otherwise. But as my career progesses, I will have more and more creative control over my films like the others who have come before me and earned it.
If I take a job at Bank of America I won’t expect the perks and equity of the Sr. Vice President. Maybe I can count the cash pretty good but I also may be a total loon. They won’t know until they’ve worked with me a bit. And I prove myself.
You see, being a working screenwriter entails more than just the ability to write.
Sorry for the double post. I pressed the post button before I had a chance to read myself back.
“Then why do they have to buy licenses from the screenwriters?”
They don’t. Studios can however rent licenses for specific characters.
“As exploiters, which is what they are, yes, absolutely. For those versed in sociology and political sciences, this is better known as class struggle. The purpose of the ruling class is to exploit all others for their own benefit. They remain in position of power by monopolizing power and preventing all other classes from accessing it. I hope you don’t buy into the illusion of freedom that they try to pass as the real thing. The only freedom most creators/slaves have is to chose who their master are. Some masters/producers threat their slaves better than others, but slaves they remain.”
Riiiiiiight. So I’m a slave? Or maybe a slave master, perhaps? So now that I know that you view all Employers as Slave Masters, your posts make a bit more sense.
Do you think maybe, just maybe, you’re a bit off the grid?
They don’t. Studios can however rent licenses for specific characters. When the studios want to do a remake of an French film or Canadian Film, they buy a license from screenwriter. That is how it works and that is what they do. Just check the appropriate documentation on the WGC website ( www.wgc.ca ), the SARTEC site ( www.sartec.qc.ca ) or and the French Guild ( www.ugs-online.org/ ).
They don’t. Studios can however rent licenses for specific characters.
When the studios want to do a remake of an French film or Canadian Film, they buy a license from the screenwriter. That is how it works and that is what they do. Just check the appropriate documentation on the WGC website ( www.wgc.ca ), the SARTEC site ( www.sartec.qc.ca ) or and the French Guild ( www.ugs-online.org ).
As I said, there’s a whole new world outside the boundaries of Hollywood. Ask Logan 5 or Guy Montag.
above post by Daniel L
Stuart wrote:
“But on my other other hand (the third one I have), the other reason screenwriters are rewarded more in America than say in Australia is simply an economy of scale. Your film industry is HUGE and spends far more on films than we do - because you have a market where you can recoup costs domestically. “
Isn’t it possible (probable, even?) that one of the reasons for the economic success of the American film industry is the state of American copyright law? Isn’t it possible (probable, again) that the very copyright statutes that are at first blush bad for American screenwriters enable the industry to succeed and thus pay American screenwriters more than they would be paid if our laws were not so?
Isn’t it possible (probable, even?) that one of the reasons for the economic success of the American film industry is the state of American copyright law? Isn’t it possible (probable, again) that the very copyright statutes that are at first blush bad for American screenwriters enable the industry to succeed and thus pay American screenwriters more than they would be paid if our laws were not so?
It’s not only probable, it’s a strong possibility, Craig. I can’t dispute that. Maybe a change in the copyright laws would hurt the industry. And I know that a number of screenwriters are really very well paid, but aren’t they only a small minority. I thought that the average screenwriter couldn’t even make a living.
Sorry. Forgot to sign the above post again.
Daniel L:
If remakes of foreign films were mere interpretations of the original screenplays, all American producers would have to do was to have them translated, hire a director and charge ahead into preproduction. What they do instead is hire an American screenwriter to rewrite the preexisting work to better fit American culture and sensibilities.
“There’s a whole world out there guys. A world that Hollywood prefers not to acknowledge. And for good reasons. Imagine what would happen if Studios were to sign the same kind of deal they do with the writer of original French screenplays they want to remake.”
Because the US is not a signatory to the Berne Convention myths and misconceptions about the status of screenwriters in other countries seem to abound in the US. At least on screenwriting boards.
Admittedly I don’t know about Australia and Canada and it’s hard to generalize about Europe (twenty something different countries/unions). But everywhere I know screenwriters provide work-for-hire. I don’t think there’s anything in the Berne Convention that precludes this arrangement. Noone would risk going into film production if this weren’t the case.
As for remakes: I know a handful of producers who have sold remake rights (to companies in the US and in one instance GB). Perhaps screenwriters do get paid in such instances, I honestly don’t know, but that’s something that’d be covered in the original Writer/Producer Agreement. Perhaps they do things differently in France but France is by no means typical.
A kind of screenwriter union, Fédération des Scénaristes d’Europe, was founded some years ago. It’s a very low-profile organization (and not much seems to be happening there) and I know of its existence only because an acquaintance attended a meeting. This is what they’re campaigning for, according to the website:
“The priorities of the FSE are to establish the writer as a co-author of the audiovisual work; to end buy-outs of rights and replace them with separate fees for each use of the work; and to campaign for the introduction of non-waivable moral rights.”
Would they be campaigning for the introduction of non-waivable moral rights if said rights were honoured all over Europe as a rule?
Because the US is not a signatory to the Berne Convention myths and misconceptions about the status of screenwriters in other countries seem to abound in the US. At least on screenwriting boards.
Well, sorry to bring you to be the one to bring you the news but the US is a signatory of the myths and misconceptions about the status of screenwriter Berne Convention.
The rest of the argument is a house of cards.
The way France does business is typical of the way most of the world works.
Contrary to beliefs, Hollywood is the one industry that is atypical. Are you telling me that it understands the meaning of copyrights while the rest of the world doesn’t?
Hasn’t it ever occured to you that maybe the world is right in regards to copyrights the same way the world is right on so many other issues. Do you know what cultural imperialism is?
Would they be campaigning for the introduction of non-waivable moral rights if said rights were honoured all over Europe as a rule?
They are campaining against non guild signatory companies who ignore them, that’s all.
There are companies that try that here in Canada as well and the respect for the original writers copyrights is embedded in the law.
Okay, I stand corrected: The US is a signatory to the Berne Convention (but not to the Rome Convention).
“The rest of the argument is a house of cards.”
My post didn’t contain any arguments to speak of, I was merely relaying my experience. Which is limited, admittedly, but I’m sure it’s more than yours.
In his article Craig stated:
“As it turns out, the cleanest and most advantageous way to secure exclusive rights to prepare derivative works is to be the author of the original work. This is why studios purchase original works on a “work for hire” basis, which makes them the copyright holder of the intellectual property.”
He also said that things are different in Europe where screenwriters typically retain copyright.
I’m not sure he’s right.
I think that European screenwriters typically assign the copyright to the production company, either entirely or to a very large extent.
Like I said, I don’t know how things are in Canada but I find it hard to believe that Canadian screenwriters are guaranteed non-waivable moral rights if non-waivable moral rights means what I think it means (i.e. that nothing the writer pens can be changed by somebody else).
“Hasn’t it ever occured to you that maybe the world is right in regards to copyrights the same way the world is right on so many other issues”
I don’t see this as a question of who is right and who is wrong. There are two major legal traditions at play here, and they are somewhat at odds. My contention is that in the European film industries there’s an increased tendency to adopt US practices. Nothing you’ve said has changed my impression.
Craig maintains that the US way offers writers more benefits and he actually comes up with arguments to support his view.
Anna,
Below are excerpts from the WGC industry agreement. You can read the entire agreement at www.wgc.ca .
A701 All rights negotiated under this Agreement or in any individual contract between a Writer and a Producer shall be in the form of a license from the Writer to the Producer for a specific use during a specified term of whatever right is in question. The Writer’s copyright shall not be assigned. The copyright herein referred to is the copyright in the Writer’s Script Material, which is separate and distinct from the copyright in the Feature Film or program.
A715 Rights Licensed.
On payment of the Script Fees as provided herein, the Producer shall acquire, subject to Articles A710 to A712, an exclusive license to produce a single production made from the Script.
A716 On the payment of the Production Fee stipulated in C10 and subject to payment of continuing Distribution Royalties as required by C11 or other payments as set out in C412, C512, C610 or C9 the Producer shall acquire the exclusive license for unlimited world distribution of a Feature Film, and unlimited world distribution, except theatrical distribution of a Television Production.
The writer’s vision is also protected under the same agreement as follow:
B110 Script Changes
The Writer of an original Script shall be consulted in regard to all proposed changes, modifications, additions or deletions affecting meaning, intent, theme, characterization or plot development of the Script, and all editorial changes of a major nature. Any such changes to which the Writer agrees shall be made by the Writer.
It shall not be a breach of this Article for the Producer to make minor Script changes during the production to meet the production needs. Any change that affects the meaning, intent, theme, characterization or plot development of a Script or any editorial change of a major nature shall not under any circumstances be considered �minor Script changes during the production to meet production needs�.
also
No additional Writer(s) may be engaged to work on the Script without the written agreement of the Writer, and where the Writer does agree that an additional Writer or Writers may be engaged, such Writers shall be contracted under terms no more favourable than the first writer.
I’m not going to argue the efficiency with which the Hollywood machinery exploits the copyrights. But I’d really like to know if the writer really gets his fair share. From what I read, and I’m looking forward to get the facts on this,
a) only a small percentage of writers make the kind of money Craig is talking about.
b) Most writers can’t make a decent living from the system.
c) the average revenue per writer in any given year is high enough but doesn’t take into account that half the writers don’t work; which makes the real the average revenue less than half of what is reported.
d) Five percent of the writers make up for 20% to 25% of revenues. A figure that if taken into account would further reduce the real average revenu of 95% of the writers.
Taking all the above into consideration, it’s hard to believe that the system works for the benefit of anyone beyond a tiny minority of writers; the same ones, it seems, who defend the status quo?
I’d be curious to know if there’s any correlation between the ones who benefit form the rewrites and the 5% top paid writers.
“Hasn’t it ever occured to you that maybe the world is right in regards to copyrights the same way the world is right on so many other issues.”
No. But for the sake of argument, what are some of those issues that the world is right about?
I’ve been racking my brain and all I can come up with vis a vis issues “the world is right about” is an aversion to capital punishment.
“Do you know what cultural imperialism is?”
Job security for otherwise unemployable college professors? [Insert rimshot and canned laughter]
And yes, I’ve read Said. And I aced all of the required multicultural courses as an undergraduate. I’m familiar with the theory.
I understand what you’re talking about and I’m simpatico on a lot of it. But it’s impossible to separate art and commerce when you’re dealing with film — particularly huge, ugly, loud Hollywood blockbusters.
It’s hard to call the popularity of Hollywood movies “cultural imperialism” when people in other countries voluntarily shell out their hard-earned euros to consume crass American commercialism.
There’s a reason American movies routinely outperform French movies in France: French people enjoy them and want to see them.
And as hard as it is for you or me to fathom why anyone would actually want to see 80% of Hollywood movies, people vote with their money; there is no gun to anyone’s head.
Just some thoughts from an ugly American…
It’s hard to call the popularity of Hollywood movies “cultural imperialism” when people in other countries voluntarily shell out their hard-earned euros to consume crass American commercialism.
There’s a reason American movies routinely outperform French movies in France: French people enjoy them and want to see them.
I would be great if things were that simple. People vote with their money, but the election is rigged.
Consider this from a recent study ( http://www.pch.gc.ca/progs/ac-ca/pol/cinema-film/pubs/sub68.htm )
Canadian distributors are aware of the important role they have in ensuring a link between producers and exhibitors but they are also aware that they only control less than 15% of revenues generated by the distribution sector in this country. Foreign distributors control more than 85% of revenues.
It is well known, and documented, that Canada has virtually been annexed to the United States for the purposes of the theatrical and home video markets for feature films. The Canadian feature film industry remains but a shadow of the television production and distribution sector in Canada, which in the past few years, has benefited from tremendous regulatory and financial assistance from both the public and private sectors.
And Canada is in a better shape than most other countries. Don’t get me wrong, I love American films they are not competing on fair grounds with other excellent film industries. In fact, many studies show that use any tactics ( and not always legal and/or moral ones ) to hinder the exhibition of films in the very countries that make them.
The practice here is very similar to the known dumping of heavily subsidised agricultural products on the markets of poor countries making it impossible for the local agriculture to compete and for those countries to grow a healthy economy and become independent.
That said, I would like to make it clear that I love the values of the American people. We share in the same principles of equality in rights and opportunities. We share many of the same ideals.
The problem is the impunity with which corporations have polluted pretty much every drop of water in your country and getting close to depleting your fresh water resources. Are you aware that in a few decades you will almost totally depend on importation for your fresh water needs?
And that’s only the tip of the iceberg. I’m outraged at how corporations kill tens of thousands of American workers because they refuse to make their plants safe. Or by the tobacco companies that killed more people than all the wars you have known put together.
Anyway, to go back to the film industry, if people would be in a position to really vote with their money, the American film industry would still dominate ( it’s the best in the world ), but you would a lot more French film in France and Canadian films in Canada.
Hi. Good site! It for you:
[url=http://virtualreality][/url]Best Regards, Klingeltoene http://virtualreality