EI
If it were not for residuals, a great many performers and composers and/or their surviving husbands, wives or partners would now be destitute.
tvarksouthwest posted:
the latter because the broadcaster has to pay the performers each time the material is screened.
If it were not for residuals, a great many performers and composers and/or their surviving husbands, wives or partners would now be destitute.
BA
This is one of subjects where one has to think through the "why".
Here's a job for you. Ford are reducing the cost of all their cars by £500 and they need to be sure that everyone is told about it. You start at Lands End, you knock on every door until you reach the northernmost Scottish island. Ford will pay you a a weekly wage until the job is done. How much do you want as a weekly wage? How long will the job take you, you have to visit about 15 million homes? Congratulations you have a job for life!
WAIT A MINUTE....We'll put you in a recording studio for a couple of hours then broadcast the message on network TV. Yes I know that cheats you out of a job for life but £200 for a couple of hours work is a good deal isn't it ? Out of context, yes, in context, no.
Want to listen to some music? Hire a live band for £1,000 or buy a CD for £14.99..... It's ok they're only musicians so it's ok to cheat them out of a live gig. A lot of TV techies thought it was ok until technology meant they only had to turn up for a day, install the automation and go back to the dole office.
Banksey
Founding member
tvarksouthwest posted:
Two organisations which to me are the scourge of broadcasters. The British Musician's Union and Equity. The former for reasons spelt out here, the latter because the broadcaster has to pay the performers each time the material is screened.
This is one of subjects where one has to think through the "why".
Here's a job for you. Ford are reducing the cost of all their cars by £500 and they need to be sure that everyone is told about it. You start at Lands End, you knock on every door until you reach the northernmost Scottish island. Ford will pay you a a weekly wage until the job is done. How much do you want as a weekly wage? How long will the job take you, you have to visit about 15 million homes? Congratulations you have a job for life!
WAIT A MINUTE....We'll put you in a recording studio for a couple of hours then broadcast the message on network TV. Yes I know that cheats you out of a job for life but £200 for a couple of hours work is a good deal isn't it ? Out of context, yes, in context, no.
Want to listen to some music? Hire a live band for £1,000 or buy a CD for £14.99..... It's ok they're only musicians so it's ok to cheat them out of a live gig. A lot of TV techies thought it was ok until technology meant they only had to turn up for a day, install the automation and go back to the dole office.
GS
Simon, your take on life is unbeleivably squewed.
I'm going to make a leap of logic here and suggest that you are displaying these unsightly sour grapes because the plug was pulled on your Grange Hill internet webcasts.
So, perhaps it's just grangehill.net and the Advert Channel who are naive enough to think that they should get it all for free?
Gavin Scott
Founding member
tvarksouthwest posted:
Two organisations which to me are the scourge of broadcasters. The British Musician's Union and Equity. The former for reasons spelt out here, the latter because the broadcaster has to pay the performers each time the material is screened.
Simon, your take on life is unbeleivably squewed.
I'm going to make a leap of logic here and suggest that you are displaying these unsightly sour grapes because the plug was pulled on your Grange Hill internet webcasts.
So, perhaps it's just grangehill.net and the Advert Channel who are naive enough to think that they should get it all for free?
TV
I have held these beliefs for many years now and can assure you they have absolutely nothing to do with GHTV being pulled (and who says it has been anyway?)
The problem I have with actors' repeat fees is that the actual job of work is only done once. Not only that, it stops broadcasters from using material which they own how they wish. Also, it is a very unfair system. David Jason rakes it in whenever Only Fools and Horses is on, which as we know is quite frequently. And the likes of him are rolling in it and don't NEED the money.
Yet I appreciate that for every David Jason there's an unknown nobody who hardly ever gets work and these are the people who are in more genuine need. It sickens me that whenever I've picked up The Stage, someone is always complaining about royalties they haven't been paid and nearly every time the complainant is a heavyweight, ie. George Baker or Richard Briers. In other words, the more they've got the more they want.
A young friend of mine who's just started at Redroofs Theatre School is aware of my views on repeat fees. It would be fairer (not just on the actors but on the majority of workers who get paid for the hours they put in) if actors were given more substantial - but one-off - studio fees.
Gavin Scott posted:
I'm going to make a leap of logic here and suggest that you are displaying these unsightly sour grapes because the plug was pulled on your Grange Hill internet webcasts.
So, perhaps it's just grangehill.net and the Advert Channel who are naive enough to think that they should get it all for free?
So, perhaps it's just grangehill.net and the Advert Channel who are naive enough to think that they should get it all for free?
I have held these beliefs for many years now and can assure you they have absolutely nothing to do with GHTV being pulled (and who says it has been anyway?)
The problem I have with actors' repeat fees is that the actual job of work is only done once. Not only that, it stops broadcasters from using material which they own how they wish. Also, it is a very unfair system. David Jason rakes it in whenever Only Fools and Horses is on, which as we know is quite frequently. And the likes of him are rolling in it and don't NEED the money.
Yet I appreciate that for every David Jason there's an unknown nobody who hardly ever gets work and these are the people who are in more genuine need. It sickens me that whenever I've picked up The Stage, someone is always complaining about royalties they haven't been paid and nearly every time the complainant is a heavyweight, ie. George Baker or Richard Briers. In other words, the more they've got the more they want.
A young friend of mine who's just started at Redroofs Theatre School is aware of my views on repeat fees. It would be fairer (not just on the actors but on the majority of workers who get paid for the hours they put in) if actors were given more substantial - but one-off - studio fees.
GS
But the programme itself (the property) goes on to make money every single time it is shown. TV stations have to pay to broadcast. That's how it works. Whom do you suggest should benefit from that?
No, if a programme is worthy of being rebroadcast, then the performers are entitled to their cut.
Excuse me? Who are you to decide that?
How exactly would stopping royalty payments benefit out of work young actors?
Explain again to me why the people in the programme who make it a success and worthy of repeating should not benefit from it being shown.
Gavin Scott
Founding member
tvarksouthwest posted:
The problem I have with actors' repeat fees is that the actual job of work is only done once.
But the programme itself (the property) goes on to make money every single time it is shown. TV stations have to pay to broadcast. That's how it works. Whom do you suggest should benefit from that?
Quote:
Not only that, it stops broadcasters from using material which
they own how they wish.
they own how they wish.
No, if a programme is worthy of being rebroadcast, then the performers are entitled to their cut.
Quote:
Also, it is a very unfair system. David Jason rakes it in whenever Only Fools and Horses is on, which as we know is quite frequently. And the likes of him are rolling in it and don't NEED the money.
Excuse me? Who are you to decide that?
Quote:
Yet I appreciate that for every David Jason there's an unknown nobody who hardly ever gets work and these are the people who are in more genuine need. It sickens me that whenever I've picked up The Stage, someone is always complaining about royalties they haven't been paid and nearly every time the complainant is a heavyweight, ie. George Baker or Richard Briers. In other words, the more they've got the more they want.
How exactly would stopping royalty payments benefit out of work young actors?
Explain again to me why the people in the programme who make it a success and worthy of repeating should not benefit from it being shown.
TV
But the programme itself (the property) goes on to make money every single time it is shown. TV stations have to pay to broadcast. That's how it works. Whom do you suggest should benefit from that?.
That is certainly true of commercial stations. However we're not just talking about popular prime-time shows but ANYTHING in the schedules which involves professional actors. Even the Panorama trail with a limited shelf life. Money saved could be re-invested into the programme budget and produce more original, quality material.
Excuse me? Who are you to decide that?
The fact is, he does not. He could call it a day tomorrow and would never have to worry about the bills.
If every actor was paid for their studio time it would be much fairer on performers who don't get as much work as others. For everyone enjoying the limelight in Coronation Street there are others who've struggled to get by for years in rep who are no less talented.
It's common knowledge there are many shallow people in showbusiness (and no Gavin, that's not meant as a personal attack) and there are actors for whom the more they get, the more they want. Something like A Touch Of Frost or Inspector Morse can be a cushy little number for those involved; it's easy to see where the egos come from. OK, life's like that, but that doesn't make it right.
We have many talented actors in this country who give a lot of people a lot of pleasure. Yes, they deserve to share in a programme's success. But wouldn't it be better to reflect this in the upfront fee? Sure, the TV companies would shell out a heck of a lot more upfront, but depending on the programme they'd also save long term and re-invest these savings into providing more good programmes.
I admit this could open the floodgates for certain programmes to become cash cows for their producers; with repeats or merchandising being disproportionately increased. But this is a regulatory issue and if we had decent regulation, one which could easily be addressed.
Gavin Scott posted:
tvarksouthwest posted:
The problem I have with actors' repeat fees is that the actual job of work is only done once
But the programme itself (the property) goes on to make money every single time it is shown. TV stations have to pay to broadcast. That's how it works. Whom do you suggest should benefit from that?.
That is certainly true of commercial stations. However we're not just talking about popular prime-time shows but ANYTHING in the schedules which involves professional actors. Even the Panorama trail with a limited shelf life. Money saved could be re-invested into the programme budget and produce more original, quality material.
Quote:
Quote:
Also, it is a very unfair system. David Jason rakes it in whenever Only Fools and Horses is on, which as we know is quite frequently. And the likes of him are rolling in it and don't NEED the money.
Excuse me? Who are you to decide that?
The fact is, he does not. He could call it a day tomorrow and would never have to worry about the bills.
Quote:
How exactly would stopping royalty payments benefit out of work young actors?
Explain again to me why the people in the programme who make it a success and worthy of repeating should not benefit from it being shown
Explain again to me why the people in the programme who make it a success and worthy of repeating should not benefit from it being shown
If every actor was paid for their studio time it would be much fairer on performers who don't get as much work as others. For everyone enjoying the limelight in Coronation Street there are others who've struggled to get by for years in rep who are no less talented.
It's common knowledge there are many shallow people in showbusiness (and no Gavin, that's not meant as a personal attack) and there are actors for whom the more they get, the more they want. Something like A Touch Of Frost or Inspector Morse can be a cushy little number for those involved; it's easy to see where the egos come from. OK, life's like that, but that doesn't make it right.
We have many talented actors in this country who give a lot of people a lot of pleasure. Yes, they deserve to share in a programme's success. But wouldn't it be better to reflect this in the upfront fee? Sure, the TV companies would shell out a heck of a lot more upfront, but depending on the programme they'd also save long term and re-invest these savings into providing more good programmes.
I admit this could open the floodgates for certain programmes to become cash cows for their producers; with repeats or merchandising being disproportionately increased. But this is a regulatory issue and if we had decent regulation, one which could easily be addressed.
GS
Gavin Scott
Founding member
It is impossible to determine the success programmes will go on to have. Some are exported all over the world, whilst others sink without trace. Success is rewarded. As tasteless as that may be to you, it is a fact of life, and the industry.
Conversley to what you suggest, massive up-front payments would cripple new production.
Conversley to what you suggest, massive up-front payments would cripple new production.
TV
As I have indeed acknowledged.
Gavin Scott posted:
Success is rewarded. As tasteless as that may be to you, it is a fact of life, and the industry.
As I have indeed acknowledged.