Hi Everybody, I've been a member of SAG and AFTRA for decades, and sometimes serve on committees in preparing for negotiation.
It is my observation that this is a new area for unions, producers, performers and distributors of media. The business models are being disrupted. The union has always been there to protect performers from abusive work conditions, to improve pay and conditions, and has also taken the responsibility for insuring performers. Regarding net video, the union doesn't know what to do yet. There are some plans in place that allow producers of net video to be brought in under AFTRA rules that are not very expensive. They would be similar to lowbudget film deals. Really, it is at what point does the video become professional, and is distributed in a way that makes money. You may always operate outside the union, if you are an independent producer, but there may be limitations in using union members or in distributing videos through union signatories. That is the same in preexisting video and film formats. There are more shared points that the union would have with producers and distributors of content. One in particular is piracy, and the violation of copyright. I have suggested that in the coming negotiation with the networks and producers for the AFTRA contract, that the performer and union retain their right to sue Youtube or another entity that profited illegally from their work and image. This would be an adjustment in language, because the current release transfers copyright to the producer, and it is the producer's responsibility to seek damages. Without drilling down into more specifics, I would like to say that a union can serve performers, creators and producers well. It is the loss of revenue from work that is the biggest threat to all. Just ask people in the music industry. Perhaps there will be an adaptation of the unions to include small producers who perform and create, and the rights for all can be protected. I don't think there is a way to bully anyone out of the sphere now. Not as long as there are video cameras, and places to post videos. What they can do is to help the performer and creator earn some revenue from the further distribution of their work in digital formats, and recover part of that revenue stream be it in paid download, or on a site or format that includes advertising. Ciao! D --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Steve Watkins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Wel I am a fan of unions in general. I just think there will be some > growing pains if they try to apply this stuff to net video > prematurely, especially as there is currently so much hype about > internet video $$ which doesnt match the reality for most. > > So I do look forward to the day when unions get in the way of someone > exploiting people whilst making lots of money, but do not look forward > to the day that some small player with no money gets bullied out of > this sphere by unions. > > Cheers > > Steve Elbow > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Jan McLaughlin" > <jannie.jan@> wrote: > > Is this a 'problem' for indie talent and technician? Or a blessing? > > > > Health insurance, retirement benefits, fiscal protections from > abuse, etc? > > > > There either will or will not come a time when the things you > produce are > > popular enough to sustain real livings for lots and lots of people. When > > that entertainment tipping point happens, why not provide yourself > and the > > people you work with living wages and benefits? > > > > Serious talent wishing to cross over to MSM will be folded into unions; > > those who don't want to play in the MSM sandbox will stand outside, not > > looking in, but looking out to recruit new, hungry talent to feed > the hungry > > long tail of entertainment. > > > > Jan >
