Why We’re On Strike

It's interesting how these reply forums become soapboxes/rants for many of the participants. Those that post in all caps or take potshots at the general quality of the industry (ever wonder if all of the great buildings are built already, Gordon?) remind me of the people who don't listen to half of a conversation because they're too busy thinking about what they're going to say next.
Mr. McGrath explained the reason for the strike with the clarity and calmness of a first grade teacher bringing an unruly class to order. Anyone who could read his well reasoned argument and not agree is clearly not paying attention. Those who compare their own business to the writing profession don't get it- every business has a different model for compensation.
As a photographer, I am a member of ASMP. It's not a union, but a trade organization established to encourage good business practices in our industry. Our representatives lobby on issues like copyright protection, and work for fair compensation based on use of our images.
Here is where our business differs from, say, an architects. I'll give an example. Years ago I was hired by an advertising firm to produce a photograph for a point of purchase display in east coast liquor stores. My pricing of that photograph was based on a certain amount of people who would see my creation, stop and admire it, and perhaps be pursueded to purchase said booze.
The useage fee is based on how many people the ad will reach. Imagine my surprise when I traveled to California and spotted a billboard of my photograph. The ad agency paid me fairly for one use- but treated my photograph as if it was work for hire- disregarding our agreement. I sent a letter and an addtional invoice, which was promptly paid. No apology, but a check. I probably should have asked for more- as I'm sure there were more billboards- more people being pursueded by my work. OK, that's my rant on my business. But our business model is similar to writing profession. If I produce a photograph of Gordon's family- I'm not going to come over and collect every time he shows that photo to his aunt Helen. But if an advertising firm sees that picture and wants to use it, and I get Gordons permisson (and pay him fairly) Then I set a different price- as more people will see the work than Gordon's immediate family.
The internet has affected our business - magazines are on line now- and ASMP establishes guidelines for additional electronic useage rates.
The same should apply to writers seeking fair compensation for their work, now reaching a wider audience.
John D

While Gordon's point about the quality of modern tv shows and films is intriguing, I'm fairly certain that doing away with residuals is a fairly simple way to make sure that the "Great days of film and telivision" never return. In just about any other industry, the way to improve the quality is to lure better tradesmen to the industry by offering more money and/or better benefits. There are probably a great many potentially great writers in the world who learn enough about the industry to know just how hard it is to find work and how relatively low the reward is for finding that work and just say "Forget this, I'll go write architechural textbooks or something."
Roger C.

Gordon - The reason the writers want to be paid every time their work is aired is because the studios get paid every time their work is aired. This is the difference between creative goods (like a script) and material goods (like the homes and restaurants you build.) A material good cannot be copied without paying double the material and labor costs to create it again. A creative good can be copied and distributed over and over, without much cost at all, but with substantial profits each time. Writers just want a fair share of that profit.

Suppose you came up with a brilliant idea on how to make your homes completely impervious to earthquakes and floods. You would copyright this idea, and anyone who used your IDEAS would have to pay you for your amazing discovery. What you are proposing would give you no reward for such a feat -- everyone would be able to use your idea over and over, and despite your being a savior for many people in California, Louisiana, and other places, you wouldn't receive one dime because in your mind, 'residiuals' shouldn't exist.

Writing is a trade based off the creation of ideas, and ideas will last far longer than your houses, no matter how study you build them. That is why residuals, royalties, etc. exist, and why Writers should get their fair share of them.

I am an arhitect and interior designer of homes, restaurants, stores, etc. I get no residuals from any of my projects and do not feel that I should. I did my job and got paid a fair price. for it. why do people in the media and hollywoood feel that they should get residuals when not one of them put up the cash for the film or television production. the studios are in the business to make money for their stockholders or owners. they either make money or lose it. I say that those people who want more than what they were paid to do are just a bunch of greedy bastards. all actors ,etc, are paid far more than they are worth and most of them are lousy at their jobs anyway. television and the film industry produces , for the most part, crap. there will be so few tv shows or films that will be watched 100 years from now. the days of great fims and televsion are long gone.

AnsonMage - what you're referencing, with your video-game writing, is called "Work for Hire." A lot of writers dislike work-for-hire, since the standard since before the time of Charles Dickens has been for writers to earn royalties ("residuals," in screen writer talk), and enough people settling for work-for-hire makes it harder on the whole of the writing community. Me, I have no huge problem with it--AS LONG AS THE WRITER KNOWS GOING IN THAT THIS IS THE AGREEMENT. Then writers who value their work more than that can reject the deal, those looking to just get their work and their name out can take it, and all's good.

The TV shows and movies for which WGA members are not being paid residuals were not written as work for hire. They ARE being paid residuals off television showings, syndication, and DVDs (a miniscule residual, but a residual nevertheless). However, the studios want to change horses midstream and say that they get NO residuals on new media.

The works weren't written as work for hire. Hence, they should not be paid as work for hire.

Now I understand what the strike is about. What the WGA wants seems fair and equitable to me. I wish they would start negotiions up again so this season's shows can contiunue. I'm in a mild panic about Scrubs and The Office.

I'm no movie writer, instead I make video games. We make no residuals. I've written video game dialog as well as scenarios, encounters, cutscenes, in-game text, manuals, walk-throughs, FAQs, Post-Mortems, etc and I don't get squat for them. Do you want to know why? Because I, like the Writers from the WGA, were paid to do a job, the job was completed and the writer was paid. Now they want to get paid more for something they already did? Bollocks!
If the man who built your house showed up every year and wanted more money for the time you've been living there you'd tell him to jog on, but the WGA wants MORE money for something they've already been paid for? That seems a little like extortion (or at least a bad mob movie plot).
How's this? If you want to write television and movies then write for the contract rate and stop about not getting paid for stuff you already did last year! If you want more money, work harder and work better.
To the film and television industry: I'm a writer with several screenplays and other various works of example under my belt. I'll write without any residuals.

?

writers are paid to do the job already, assuming its fair market value, why do they then want more money if the "something" they wrote does well? What if it flops? are they going to cough up some money? With risk comes reward.. Networks/studios/etc hire thousands of writers taking chances with all kinds of shows/movies/etc.. Only a few make it.. Its easy to see the risk vs reward here.. Where is the writers risk vs reward? If they have multiple writing opportunities, they weigh the difference, and do the ones they can handle, or falls into their skillset better? Seems to me fair market value.. $ per word that makes it past the editors? would be the easiest/most fair.. Better for studios also if this intangible can be made into a more fixed cost..

I'll skip the irony this time.....I support the idea of the writers strike wholeheartedly, and genuinely hope they get what they are after. Mr. McGrath's stated case on behalf of his compatriots was eloquent and sensible. When people speak of the "rtisk" the studios or production companies assume in turning out content, I'd argue that in terms of real, worrying, fretting, what's my career going to look like five years from now risk, the wiiters have a helluva lot more to worry about than the reverse Rumpelstiltskins who can spin written gold into zero net.....Since writers will never get financial transparency when it comes to discovering what their product actually earns for their employer, they should use this downtime wisely. Maybe do like Fairbanks and Pickford did almost 100 years ago and start their own companies..there's a lot of venture capital up north that might listen to some sensible alternatives..good luck guys...

So, what. I actually have been struggling with what to let my kids, who are both under 6, watch on TV. Everything is sex and violence, and quite frankly, I am tired of it. Stay on stike until the sun refuses to come up for all I care. Get a job doing something else that pays more if you are tired of pennies.

Wow! I'm surprised that we as a society even have to come to this. An employee, that includes writers, should be paid fairly for their work.

I'm a non-fiction writer (not in the movie industry, but in media) and I know firsthand that "creatives" are the last on the list to get paid. Many want writing services free. We have families, bills to pay, and a quality of life to sustain (or even achieve, for that matter).

I support the strike, even though many of my favorite TV shows have stopped production because of it. But I am selfless enough to know that this is not about my needs. It's for the greater good. Stick to your guns, writers. And I support you all 100 percent!

Excuse me for a moment here.
Isn't the internet just a different digital delivery format?
I mean they get residuals for sneaker net, why not internet?
I would also like to see a real and honest breakdown on where the money from a CD or DVD goes.
Unions are no stronger then the need for them created by greedy businessmen.
Let us hope that unions will learn to keep a balance in this instance and not outsource our writers to India or some such as has happened when automotive and other unions priced the American worker out of work.

How has it become so acceptable to completely divorce ethics from business? Of course writers deserve residuals when the networks are making money off their work. OVERHERE must be a studio head to think that it somehow hurts the average American for the writers to get a fair share of the revenue. The fact is that this greediness in corporations is destroying our quality of life. We have more and more "average Americans" thrust deeper into poverty each year, and somehow it is OK for CEOs and studio heads to make tens of millions of dollars a year by ripping off their workers? It is not right for a few people to get obscenely wealthy on the backs of poor people, and unions are the only way to straighten that out. I grew up believing that unions are greedy and lazy and hurt our economy. I have never been in a union. But, it is clear to me that we need some way to balance things out so that the poor workers can get a more fair deal from the wealthy corporate leaders, and unions seem to be the simplest way without upsetting the whole economy. These studio heads can afford to make $19 million a year instead of $20 million so that the writers actors who actually make the shows can get a percentage of ALL the money the network makes by airing it- whether it is on the internet, TV, or DVDs.

They should be ashamed for their greediness, adn we should be ashamed for let it run rampant in our society.

How has it become so acceptable to completely divorce ethics from business? Of course writers deserve residuals when the networks are making money off their work. OVERHERE must be a studio head to think that it somehow hurts the average American for the writers to get a fair share of the revenue. The fact is that this greediness in corporations is destroying our quality of life. We have more and more "average Americans" thrust deeper into poverty each year, and somehow it is OK for CEOs and studio heads to make tens of millions of dollars a year by ripping off their workers? It is not right for a few people to get obscenely wealthy on the backs of poor people, and unions are the only way to straighten that out. I grew up believing that unions are greedy and lazy and hurt our economy. I have never been in a union. But, it is clear to me that we need some way to balance things out so that the poor workers can get a more fair deal from the wealthy corporate leaders, and unions seem to be the simplest way without upsetting the whole economy. These studio heads can afford to make $19 million a year instead of $20 million so that the writers actors who actually make the shows can get a percentage of ALL the money the network makes by airing it- whether it is on the internet, TV, or DVDs.

They should be ashamed for their greediness, adn we should be ashamed for let it run rampant in our society.

It's obvious these pompous writers are self obsessed and greedy,
placing themselves first and foremost , stepping on the needy,
a change of tactic is in order if they must persist,
follow the lead of the studios-and pretend truths don't exist.
THANK GOODNESS THOSE STUDIO HEADS ARE LOOKING OUT FOR THE REST OF US WHILE THOSE WRITERS ARE SENDING JOBS OVERSEAS LIKE THE DICKENS...YOU WOULD HAVE THOUGHT THEY 'D HAD ENOUGH OF THAT ANTI-AMERICAN STUFF IN THE 50'S...