The AMPTP wants to give nothing.
The WGA wants a percentage of advertising revenue.
There is an alternative.
PAYMENT BY QUARTER
The biggest problem with determining residual payments for internet streaming is that there is no historical precedent for a consumer viewing a TV show or movie for free whenever he feels like it.
Under the existing residual scheme, Writers are paid a residual the first time the show airs, then another residual the second time the show airs (ie, repeat). The Writer then continues to receive payments on a sliding scale for each subsequent airing.
This doesn't work on the internet, because an episode of say, LOST, might air a thousand times in one day, as a thousand individuals view it at separate times.
The Writers' proposal to get a percentage of revenue has no precedent, however. Writer's residuals are, for the most part, known quantities. Yes, Writers get a cut of theatrical box office, but this is not the same as advertising revenue.
So what we need is a method for calculating the internet equivalent of a network "broadcast."
Why not charge a residual for an availability time frame? We propose that this window be a period of three months ("a quarter").
Continuing to use LOST as an example, let's say episode 3 airs on ABC in it's normal time slot. The Writer receives a residual for the broadcast. Now let's say that, the next day, ABC.com begins to make episode 3 available for streaming view on ABC.com.
The Writer would earn another residual. ABC.com continues to make available a stream of the episode, say from November 17 through December 31. That internet stream would count as 4th quarter 2007, and is covered by the Writer's residual.
Now, ABC.com can decide whether to keep LOST available for streaming view in the first quarter of 2008 (Jan 1 - March 31). If they do, it would trigger a second residual payment to the Writer.
Every quarter that the show remains available for free streaming view (presumably with paid advertisements), the Writer would get a residual, paid on a sliding scale similar to repeat broadcasts on traditional network.
This quarterly residual is already tried and tested on the internet for licensing of photographs and other media. It also closely follows the existing paradigm.
This method of calculating residuals is fair to both sides.
Now, AMPTP and WGA, get back to the table and work out what the actual figures would be so we can all get back to work.
4 comments:
Why is fee per re-use not fair?
The precedent for fee per re-use is royalties for broadcast music. Each play or performance of a song triggers a small royalty payment.
It's capitalism at its finest - pay based on market performance. Show with high numbers of downloads generate high residual fees. Shows with low numbers generate little.
When music is broadcast, it reaches hundreds, even thousands, of listeners at a time.
Residuals per broadcast of television shows or movies is not the issue.
Residuals for individual streams over the internet is.
As I mentioned, this residual format I am suggesting is already in use for photographers' work on the internet. You will find license fees for stock photography for internet use that expire after 3 months, 6 months, or longer.
This is a closer parallel to the existing broadcast residual than is a payment based on advertising revenue.
Market performance would still remain in play -- shows that are often streamed will remain on a network's website. Show's that are no longer streamed will be removed.
I can't imaging the WGA union strategists to be that stupid.
The great thing about the internet as a medium, is that it's trackable. Every click-through can be calculated. There are hard numbers.
So, I'm sure the WGA is understanding that they are not asking for a per stream revenue share at the same percentage as they would ask for a revenue share from a broadcast.
Where the hell are the lawyers in this? Why does it seem both sides are green amateur rookies? Are there no professionals in that town?
Thanks for the well written site, albiet if I do not agree on every point.
-IA from another local
Just wanted to stress again that the residual as we've proposed it pays Writers in a manner that is very similar to the current method for computing residuals for television shows.
Currently, Writers are paid per broadcast. The residual is based on a sliding scale per broadcast. It is NOT based on advertising revenue. It is NOT based on ratings (ie, number of viewers).
In labor negotiations, it is important to consider historical precedent when determining a fair payment in the future.
Residual payment for a time window of internet streaming is the simplest and fairest method for computing fees which are historically owed for similar reuse in a medium that is basically brand new.
Post a Comment