What you say seems ok, but what happens if Google/YouTube, Blip or the other online distribution places sign agreements with the unions that could eventually push out non-union and non-commercial productions?
Currently we have the choice to say "Bugger off, I don't need you." If the online distribution joints are collecting revenue and braking off a piece for the union wouldn't the unions at some point force or make it known that they would "prefer" union talent in as many web based productions as possible? I don't know how to say this correctly but theoretically the union could tell you (Actor McVicar) to stop your production because you (Producer/Vlogger) are not paying union dues as an actor. It goes back to the question what is going to be considered a professional production? Is a one person vlogger exempt but if you have three or more working together that makes it a production company? This could set the precedent that allows the other entertainment unions jump in. I have too many questions about this. Gut feeling it seems like a creativity killer in the making. Gena http://outonthestoop.blogspot.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "danielmcvicar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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" <steve@> 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 > > >
