on 9/10/01 5:54 AM, Anthony Atkielski squawked from the Olympia of Ignorance
>> If I write a movie and get 5% of producer's net,
>> I get it forever.
>
> Why should you be paid forever for something you did only once? Do you pay
> your
> mechanic forever for a repair on your car that he completed only once?
it's called a contract, Anthony. Both parties enter into it freely.
If the producer says no to the 5%, I would ask for a much larger lump sum up
front. Since the producer has no idea if the movie will make money, it is
safer for him/her to contract to pay me royalties than to 'buy out' my
rights. If all monies had to be paid up front, the risk of making a movie
would be much higher, so fewer would get made, and they would be EVEN WORSE
than they are now.
As it is my payment is highly contingent. For a spec screenplay, a producer
might take out an option for $30,000 for a year. If s/he exercises the
option, they pay another (say) $100,000. If they make the movie, say
$400,000. Then the 2% or 5% of net if it ever goes into profit.
Since hardly any options are exercised, and of those that are exercised,
hardly any are made, and of those that are made, hardly any make money, the
contractual structure makes a lot of sense but few writers get stinking
rich.
Copyright is a simple possessory fact. I write a spec screenplay that no-one
pays me for, I own it. Just like I would own a car. I can sell the
screenplay just like one would sell a car. The contract of sale is where the
royalties are written in: they are part of the consideration.
In the case of a commissioned screenplay -- a 'work written for hire' --
copyright belongs to the producer not the writer. In this case the contract
between the producer and the writer in which the writer undertakes to
provide services contains the royalty clause.
I am interested in how you would go about 'abolishing' royalties. Would you
make it illegal for parties to enter into a contract which included them?
Royalties are basically a contractual amortisation of the worth of the
creative work over the lifetime of the creative work. That's all. The
alternative is that pay you pay more up front. You might as well abolish
mortgages and say everyone should pay for their house in cash.
If it seems unfair to you, that's your problem. Creative works are a scarce
commodity and the creators are free to charge what they want for them and
structure the deal as they see fit. No-one is forcing anyone to enter into
contracts with them.
--
John Brownlow
