Why make continuing payments for a completed, paid job?

Great Debates
21

That depends on the degree of importance that’s assigned to bringing value to the product. The value of the product is irrelevant if there’s no place to broadcast it.

It’s the classic actors/stage thing: without good actors, there’s no point in have a playhouse it’s just an empty building. And without the playhouse, the actors are doing street theatre since they have no stage, production values, marketing, etc. so nobody sees the performances so if a tree falls in the woods and nobody’s around, what difference does it make?

Now in terms of creating value (worth), and not just assessing value to the product itself in artistic terms, it’s just as reasonable to suggest that the networks bring much more value/worth to the end result since the cost of their infrastructure is many times more than the amount of money any writer or group of writers could re-create using their own incomes which of course is the point.

Things like YouTube are mixing that up in terms of smaller scale productions which makes things even more interesting if riding the infrastructure of the Internet costs almost nothing compared to riding the infrastructure of the network’s hardware.

Which, I suspect, is partly why they’re in favor of creating that second tier of Internet traffic that’s faster than the other so they can once again maintain control to the extent that the other would be much slower by comparison.

The network/corporate entity also has to earn more gross revenues since they’re going to perpetually put it back in for future shows and developments in terms of marketing, hardware, staffing, etc. as where the writers don’t have such expenditures to maintain the infrastructure of their mind and body to that extent.

22

**

**

Well, the OP was asking what the moral implications are assuming there are any.

But while it seems reasonable to suggest that there may be absolutely not moral issue at play, I don’t think that’s so clear.

It depends, of course, on what is referred to as ‘morality.’

There’s a good article in October’s Atlantic magazine about the evolution of ‘altruistic’ behavior and in it there’s a game about a hypothetical: one person is the dictator and has $1,000 on the table that belongs to him. The other person is you. The rules are that the dictator can offer you some money if he wants; if he doesn’t do so, he loses nothing. The second game is the same except that the rules are now that the dictator makes you an offer of a certain amount from that $1,000. If you do not accept his offer, then you both get nothing and you both know that going into it.

Economists predicted that in the first case the dictator would offer you nothing and that in the second case the dictator would offer you 50%.

To their surprise, there were many instances – beyond what you’d statistically expect given the assumptions above – where the dictator in the first instance would offer some money and in the second instance there were cases where the dictator would offer 20%. Both seem odd if you consider that in the first case he loses nothing by just offering nothing and in the second that he risks losing everything by offering only 20% if you don’t agree.

The point isn’t to dismiss those that don’t comport to the original prediction as simply stupid, greedy, or naive. The intriguing thing was the degree to which something ‘moral’ like altruism could be at play which, in the case of this example, was posited as one party wanting to do “the right thing” regardless.

I think it’s a reasonable question to ask particularly if the guy that made the post and is himself benefiting from the royalties wonders if he’s really deserving of that money or not.

The actual work/labor of the writer has ended. He’s done.

The actual work/labor of the network to continue to broadcast the show which requires the costs of maintaining the infrastructure with which to do that, market it, and labor costs of producing and editing, etc. are ongoing. Their work isn’t done.

They, of course, are generating revenue from advertisers to offset that and turn a profit. But the acquisition of those advertisers is itself a cost burden that is also not borne by the writer. He’s an artist, the network is an entrepreneur.

Pretty interesting, I think, to look at from different perspectives.

If someone gives you money you feel you aren’t entitled to based on your understanding of the moral equation, is it moral to take it?

23

**

**

Actually, I believe that’s pretty much what they did in the early hierarchical studio days with writers on staff en masse as pretty much regular workers.

Doing that allowed money to accumulate to the studios which therefore continue to exist to this day; without which there would be no industry for writers to work in at all.

If writers, actors, etc. could create, manage, and perpetuate their own networks and keep all the money I’ve no doubt they would. They can’t or aren’t interested in that end of things, so it goes as it goes.

24

One possible argument is that the script was sold to generate money X times; if the play is a huge success and is broadcast Y more times, making money for the buyer, the scritpwriter is entitled to a share of Y.

But the same logic does not apply to paintings and sculptures, at least not in this culture. If my painting is the centre of an exhibition, making profit from entrance fees, why doesn’t the painter get a share? Or if the painting is sold again and again, making more and more profit every time it changes hands, why don’t we think it reasonable that the painter gets percentage? I think the answer is culture and habit, not logic.

Another possible answer is the feeling that a play is more software then hardware. The hardware is just the printed pages; but when a play or a song is performed, it comes to life, it “works” in a way. A painting or sculpture just “is”. Again, the distinction is not logical, but just an emotional, cultural way of looking at it.

25

Another thing to consider is the fact that no one knows how much revenue will be generated from a work, nor the rate at which it will be generated. (E.g., Robert Johnson’s works have generated millions, but most of it was fifty years after his death).

This uncertainty influences how much a producer is willing to pay an artist up front. One way to mitigate this risk is a scheme in which the artist gets some money up front, plus a share of future revenues (if they happen).

IIRC, the striking writers are asking for a share of future DVD sales and downloads.

26

Pretty astute. The terms of the original agreement, as noted in your first paragraph above, would of course obviate the issue if it’s explicitly agreed to; I guess the question is wondering if that’s a moral agreement. (We can contract for slavery, but beyond the fact that it’s illegal and therefore currently moot, it’s debatable if it would be immoral anyway even with agreement – presuming, I guess, economic duress, etc. that aren’t the fault of the buyer.)

The painting example is excellent, given the entrance fees, etc. And the hardware for that is even less than a playhouse.

On the hardware of the playhouse, I’d just point out that for the sake of metaphor the “hardware” (business infrastructure) includes the building itself, it’s purchase or rent, maintenance, utilities, staff, and marketing of the performances through flyers, advertisements, etc. – all of which, taken together, is why they add so much to the player’s work being able to be viewed, and therefore valuable in economic terms (generating income).

27

I have often heard that originality has proper rewards beyond a fixed, up-front price. This might justify including writers, producers, directors, and composers in the royalty class, but I would find it hard to include the grip on the set. Maybe it’s the amount of originality that makes some people feel morally entitled to royalties?

28

That’s probably true insofar as how they may feel about it, particularly if it’s something like a book that they conceived completely on their own and wrote.

The level of that might get watered down as you move to actors, that didn’t conceive the idea but merely executed it. Of course the quality of the performance is based on how originally they interpret the role and their literal originality as a human performer; but it’s not as much of an all-encompassing creation insofar as the total result as an author.

It’s interesting when you look at animation in that regard, for example. If you want to make a funny point – and that’s all that really interests you as the creative force behind a project – and you can draw then you might prefer to do that than to have to hire actors and give them a cut forever if it doesn’t matter to you. A lot of productions are about ideas more than their performance.

I’m reminded of Hitchcock saying he hated working with actors because all he really wanted to do was convey his idea; were there a more direct, less human-reliant way to do that which would credibly fit his genre at the time I wonder if he’d have taken it. Something like dark graphic novel animation.

I’ve worked as an actor and I know that within the industry there’s talk of the move to animation as it relates to the perceived cost/benefit value of actors; one person can do a dozen different voices, like the Simpsons. I wonder what the details of those royalty agreements are like since the specificity of the voice becomes crucial in things like that once it’s established.

When computer-generated voices are suitable substitutes, things will get interesting. I can imagine program operators and designers wanting royalties.

By the time you get to a grip, you’d definitely have to change your moral premise from originality to “contributors to the creation of the product.”
I also wonder if there’s information out there on what Stalin-era philosophies within their ethos says about it. I know that one of the basic tenets of those ideologies that rise up against what they define as capitalism is the idea that it’s offensive for money to be made without physical labor of some kind. Hence, making money on lending money, interest, appreciation, etc. is anathema and immoral in some interpretations of those views.

29

Perhaps one more argument is that plays or novels or music remain subject of interpretation and worry to the writer. Whenever a script is filmed or played out, the writer will likely be worried sick about if it is interpreted right, will want to be involved in the casting, (" that’s not how I envisoned Blanche at all! Blanche is a wilted platinum blonde, not this buxom redhead!" ), and will in general be working up a sweat. And most writers will do so if they are hired as an advisor, but also when they are in no way commercially involved whatsoever. A writer will certainly flinch when he hears or sees his work executed badly. A writer rarely shrugs his shoulders and says: I wrote it, you do what you want with it, it has nothing to do with me anymore.

Painters, on the other hand, are usually mentally “finished” with a work of art once the paint has dried. The painting just is; it can’t be spoiled by somebody interpreting it in a way different from how the painter meant it. A bad or nonsensical review doesn’t change the work itself and can’t really affect how others see it. At most, bad lighting or a hideous frame can spoil the picture, but even those aren’t permanent.

So perhaps why writers and composers want to be paid, is to be compensated for the worry and anguish and involuntary participation everytime some stranger has his way with their work. A sort of compensation for emotional damages, if you will. That would explain why we feel just the writer himself should be paid, and not his heirs. Once a writer is dead, his work is free for the taking; any interpretation can no longer cause hurt.

30

Fascinating, I wouldn’t have thought of that.

In practice, scripts are basically sold on the premise that the writer has no say on how it’s going to be interpreted and just sits in to advise when he’s asked but without any creative control. Which would validate your point about emotional damage.

Were this theory the only moral basis, then actors wouldn’t be entitled right? Emotional damage of re-interpreting work and all being pretty close to nil maybe.

31

There is a big difference in power between drama and film, though. For plays the writer has a large amount of power. While the director has lots of influence, particularly in revivals, the play goes from the page to stage pretty much as written - as evidenced by the stage directions for something like Our Town.

For film it is the director, since cutting can change the feel of the movie so greatly. The are complex WGA rules about who gets credit for a screenplay, and the original idea often gets rewritten multiple times, with final approval lies with the director. Thus the old joke about the starlet so dumb she slept with the writer. Note that Marilyn Monroe slept with Arthur Miller, the best evidence I know of the difference in prestige.

In TV the original writer often has great power as the show creator, but in most cases later scripts get farmed out, so it is a bit of a middle ground.

I think the reason the grip (and the writer of a novelization) don’t get royalties is that any competent grip/writer can do the job. Not so for an original work. Extras don’t get residuals for the same reason.

32

Writers don’t get royalties when a book is sold or lent either. They only get it when a new copy is produced. If an artist did an etching, and another set is produced, I’d guess the artist would get money from it.

The difficulty we are seeing now is that it used to be easy to tell when reproduction was happening, but now it is hard to tell and simple for anyone to do.

33

Exactly. That such paragraphs are a normal part of such contracts indicate that there’s aneed for them in the first place. There is no such legal terms involved in the selling of a painting.

Indeed. If the actors are filmed, there isn’t much interpretation left; that would be why movie actors are usually satisfied with a fixed one-time payment. If they ask a share in the revenues instead, it is usually either because they have a clever business sense or both they and the maker bet on making more profit that way.

My theory also explains why writers of novels and prose don’t insist on revenues as much as writers of plays and scripts and music. A novel or essay, like a painting, is a finished whole; any publication is good, because the work speaks for itself and cannot be " corrupted" by a bad execution. A great novel is still a great novel if printed in a bad font on cheap greay paper.

What my theory does not explain is why photographers want to be paid again and again after the first paid use of their photo by their client. I can hardly spoil a photo by publishing it somewhere else, can I? As long as I name the source of the photo and the name of the photographer, I’ve always thought it a bit unreasonable if the photographer wants money for a non-profit use of his photo, especially if the photo hasn’t taken him that much effort, artistic skill or luck (say, a portrait of somebody who sat still for the photographer, or a photo of a certain landscape or situation I just happen to need a picture of).

34

If you leave employers and unions etc. out of the equation, imagine a writer who is hard at work writing the great American novel. Who is paying him or her? While it is possible for an established writer to get an advance or for a very promising writer to get some kind of stipend we are imagining an unknown writer working in his garret somewhere. He might spend 1 year or two or more on this work. When he is finished if someone wants to publish it the author can agree to the terms or not agree to them, but why should the author not be compensated every time someone reads his work? In fact if someone reads his work in a library there is no way for him to be compensated, as things currently exist. But shouldn’t he be? He has presumably written a masterpiece, is it only the publisher who should be compensated forever? The same scenario would hold true for a musician, a lyricist, all artists of every stripe. They have no idea when they expend effort in creating whether the final product is going to be economically rewarding but when it turns out to be should they not share? If I climb a mountain to get a picture that no one else has ever gotten and I get up there and there is no picture worth taking who compensates me? But if there is a picture worth taking should I not have a right to market it?

35

Would you consider the case of scientists signing contracts surrendering all patents to, say Dupont or UC Berkeley to be part of this discussion? Does it matter that the lab is supplying more resources for the scientists to use, in equipment, materials, clerical and lab salaries, etc.?

36

“They have no idea when they expend effort in creating whether the final product is going to be economically rewarding but when it turns out to be should they not share? If I climb a mountain to get a picture that no one else has ever gotten and I get up there and there is no picture worth taking who compensates me? But if there is a picture worth taking should I not have a right to market it?”

That’s interesting. I think that may be the trend; Zune limits shared music to 3 plays.

In terms of the novel example: The reader, it could be argued, also has no idea if the work is going to be any good i his opinion until after he’s already read it. Critics, sales, yes; but if it’s the reading/experiencing/enjoyment of the piece that’s motivating parting with money then perhaps by that moral logic it would fit to have the reader pay afterwards if he sees fit, and in an amount he sees fit.

This is actually being done right now with Radiohead. They decided to forego the publishing route of their new album and instead decided to release it direct to the public via the Internet and people can pay whatever amount they think is fair.

Some chose to pay nothing; among those that paid the average as $6-$8 depending on whether it’s US or UK where the buyers are. And then, they offer a fancy package version for about $80 for those that really love them, hardcopy.

37

Technically in legal terms it matters partly because of the distinction between an employee and an independent contractor. The work – and even creative ideas/thoughts technically – of an employee belong to the company.

Aside from that legal issue though, I think it’s a reasonable thing to include in the discussion (it’s not my discussion, but just my opinion); I don’t know that the provision of supplies affects the moral equation so clearly that one couldn’t argue the intellectual property value – again, from a moral not legal perspective – of the ideas that are produced by the scientists.
Personally, I’ve had a longstanding goofy theory about physical attractiveness that relates tangentially to this in terms of royalties and perpetual value. At some imagined point in the distant future, when you look at someone attractive that’s noted automatically by the wireless computers monitoring your brain activity that corresponds to your optical ‘behavior’; you are automatically debited electronically a certain amount of money and that’s transferred to the person being watched.

While this would seem, at first blush, to lead to a world of rich attractive people that don’t “do” anything to earn all that money (well, that’s not that terribly far removed from now…lol), the irony is that it might be that people are just as or more likely to look at people they consider so unattractive as to get their attention; like having to stare at a car wreck. LOL

So, they’d get rich too.

Good lord, I’m weird.

38

Wierd, but creative. I’m going to have that stuck in my brain, now.

And you know that there will be software developed so that ad companies can track who’s drawing the attention and that they’ll find a way to use that.

39

The reader does have a chance to sample the novel, either at the bookstore or by a sample page on Amazon. However, since the value of a book goes down dramatically after it is finished, because few are reread, paying after won’t work. Since music is listened to multiple times, it is a better fit for this model.

40

I just read an article about how universities are increasingly cutting professors in on patent licensing deals. For industry, besides the good point about independent contractors, it is often very difficult to value a patent. Only a very few make money by themselves, most, like my four, get tossed into a big pot of company patents. In the old Bell Labs you got a framed certificate for your first and a folder for subsequent ones, since inventing stuff was part of our jobs.