RSSActors' union threatens to strike over Internet TV
By Jacqueline Emigh | Published November 20, 2008, 4:17 PM
Another work stoppage by SAG could hit by January. Among other things, the TV actors now seek union protection for all Internet-only productions, regardless of budget.
Less than a year after its earlier work stoppage in January, the Screen Actors Guild (SAG) looks likely to go out on strike again, this time strictly over union rights around Internet TV.
The SAG has been negotiating for weeks now with the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers (AMPTP) through "shuttle diplomacy," with a federal mediator meeting with each side separately. The two groups are finally scheduled to meet face-to-face on Thursday.
The 120,000 TV actors in the SAG are threatening to strike unless they obtain union coverage for all Internet-only productions regardless of budget and residual payments for Internet productions replayed online, along with continued actor protections during work stoppages.
Experts are pessimistic that a deal will be struck in time to avert a strike in time for the TV awards season early next year, according to wire service and trade journal reports.
What if software designers charged for every time you ran the program? Or Ford charged you for every time you drove the vehicle?
Heck, make it, and sell it once - cut the crap!
Score: 0
|Except that the market dynamics that existed when most contracts based upon residual income were signed reflected a much different reality than what now exists. And many contracts that did (and were intended to)provide for 'syndicate' residual income based upon subsequent redistribuion do not provide for adequate metrics to guage online redistribution.
Actors do have a choice to take a lump sum or to opt for subsequent residuals over time based upon redistribution metrics - often in lieu of taking a large up front payment. But if you are going to opt for the latter, it only makes sense to demand that the evolving dominant forms of redistribution be addressed and included.
Score: 0
|Sorry but anytime the SAG or Alec Baldwin have anything to say about anything related to strikes or "issues" it brings back memories of Team America and their hillarious take on world events and the Film Actors Guild
Score: 0
|SAG (Screen Actors Guild) has not been on strike at all. SAG has not called a strike in almost ten years.
WGA (Writers Guild of America) was on strike almost a year ago.
SAG has no new contract and is working off the old contract. SAG and AMPTP are NOW negotiating with a government mediator.
WGA is considering walking out again over the now overdue payments of residuals that were agreed upon from the successful negotiations that causes a strike almost a year ago.
The SAG will NOT strike and does not have the authority of its members to do so. Their current step in any negotiaons is to work through this with a mediator. If that fails... (and its too soon to tell as everyone had their first face to face in the same room yesterday) then SAG will take the next step of sending out a vote card asking its members for a STRIKE AUTHORIZATION. 75% of responding members (NOT 75% of total membership) must say YES, STRIKE in order for a strike of any kind to be called. The print, mail out, get respones back and tally them is roughly six weeks. THEN... SAG can pick and choose excatly when it will call for a strike. My prediction is that it will hit during the awards season which did a lot of damage last year when the WGA did it.
UPDATED: After two days of negotiations, SAG has now called for a strike authorization vote. Calrd will be sent out and responses tallied. The results should be in shortly after Christmas. A strike is still NOT a certainty. And even if the members authorize one, its is up to the heads of the union to determine when or IF they will strike. If they get the authorization, it may be all that is needed to finally get AMPTP to negotiate fairly.
IF there was ever a story posted here that managed to get every single "fact" in it WRONG. This would be that story.
Score: 0
|It's a question of licensing model:
Either get paid once and relinquish your rights (as I do as a contractor without whining and very successfully - or what about the factory worker who built your car?) or get a percentage per 'usage' of the artifact (movie, ad, whatever).
With the greater benefit in mind the first obviously works a lot better since it eliminates complex pervasive tracking systems.
What it comes down to is - either you are a good/successful enough actor to negotiate your deal or you are a simple replaceable commodity. In the later case stuff it, be glad you have a job at all and don't waste our time.
Score: 0
|It makes sense that those who participate in the production and creation of material to be fairly compensated for its use.
It's amazing how this basic concept has become so confusing to some, be it management or the consumer.
Score: 0
|And again the arrogant corporate greed machine has reared it's ugly head. If the studio head's and producer's, who are the one's making money off the internet showings, would stop being so greedy and give back to the people who are putting the money into their pockets things like this wouldn't have to happen. After all it is the star's likenesses that draw people in to watch this stuff, not the producer's and director's. When was the last time you saw a pretty studio head? Wasn't there a clause added to the last contract that added 'new media' to the contract, if there was how come the heads aren't abiding by it? Did one of them think they would get away with keeping the cash for themselves instead of having to follow the contract, and colluded with the rest of them? You all seem to forget the studio heads and producers make a helluva lot more than the actors, and you all sound like them. Yet you're too lazy to do anything about it. It takes brains, time and talent to come up with a TV show. When was the last time Hollyweird had any of those around?
Score: 0
|Nothing like a bunch of "actors" who think they are the most important people on the planet. Screw them. I can't stand a quarter of them anyway. Most of the time all they do is spout off something political and ram their head a little further up their arse. The point they miss is that I can get by quite nicely watching shows on Discovery, History, or live sports. Now they will know what it was like on the Titanic.
Score: 0
|Yes, here's a good idea, then even more shows will die...morons...
Even the newer shows are not having the numbers before the strike, if they do this more of the television public will find something else.
Score: 0
|omg, like there is anything worth watching anymore anyhow, i see funnier amature s*** on youtube!
Score: 0
|Exactly!! American TV has been reduced to importing -- and ruining -- great series from overseas. I'm watching the prostitots on Disney and the ever-hot Brooke Burke on 'Dancing with the Has-Beens.' Otherwise, I'm surfing.
Score: 0
|"prostitots "
lol
Score: 0
|Go for it strike.. The AMPTP companies need to break in payroll. Didn't the writers do good with there strike!!
Score: 0
|the agonizing old media (by economic crisis and public preference) fighting to survive against "the enemy" new media instead of using it. the internet is right there for them to use it, just like anybody can use it, not to be seen as a foe just because they are used to do things "the old way". news for them: time is not gonna stop. is not going to go backwards either. why not adapting to the present and be prepared for the future?
they should learn from the dinosaurs: you evolve or you go extinct.
Score: 0
|I think Dr. Horrible scared them.
Score: 0
|Dr. Horrible is the best!
Score: 0
|