my rate just went up after watching this
;o)

One quote from the writer's strike that struck me as interesting was when the head of some media company got fired he recieved more severance pay that all the DVD royalties recieved by writers last year.

The big problem is with all the crap that is written and used. In Superman Returns I couldn't believe that those 2 kids took credit for writing the movie by repeating the exact same story line from the 1978 movie and in some case the exact lines! This is what took 10 years? And it is the truth about some one telling you to work for free and it will be good for you. Man I have heard that one a million times.

And they want the interview because it will help make them money. He brings value to the DVD because he is a writer or they wouldn't want it. Pay him!!

Would they let you use their music on your DVD? You could say "but it will help you sell CDs". Tell them that during the law suit they will file on you for $250,000.

...when the head of some media company got fired he recieved more severance pay than all the DVD royalties recieved by writers last year.

Hmmm, I think it was actually more pay than all DVD royalties ever paid.

The DVD royalties (residuals) were set when DVDs were a glimmer in the eye of the future, VHS tapes ruled a shaky home video (mostly rentals, since a feature film VHS tape once cost $90+), but 80% of profits came from box office.

Today 80% of profits come from DVDs, and only 20% from box office.

Yet, still the media companies want to base the compensation on the 20% of the profits that's box office, and DVDs are just for "promotion," even though they bring in 80% of the profits.

It will be the same thing with online distribution.

Calling this guy a writer is like calling Britney Spears a musician.

Whether you like his work or not, Harlan Ellison has been writing (and winning awards for writing) for over forty years.

Rob

He's right -- having his interview on the dvd is an asset to the dvd makers. i'm pretty sure noone buys the dvds only because of the extras but toooons of people buy the ones with extras when comparing the purchase to the ones without.

If he's right then by the same token he should pay the media when they write about him or showcase him because he does make money from the publicity, whether he says so or not. Should book writers share their enormous fees with Opra Winfrey when they gain huge income from exposure on her show?

Or if he's right, should the news media pay him fees when they mention him because people buy magazines to read about interesting people?

Why all the blame? It's a free country (for most people).

If he doesn't want to give an interview without getting paid, that's his personal and/or business decision.

If Warner thinks having his interview on the DVD would be nice but not worth paying for, their decision is made.

I got the sense that he probably would have offered his interview for free if he had just been treated better by Warner. He said he had done DVD interviews before with them, and they hadn't even given him the courtesy of mailing him a copy on release.

No courtesy and no respect for people's work means that they have to pay for what they could have gotten for free.

One reason these companies have been able to pay such breathtaking amounts of money to actors (in excess of $20M per film for top box office pullers) is that they don't have to worry about paying writers more than a token amount.

A long time ago (1919) it was actors who were treated this way, and they formed Universal Artists, as a major studio run by actors.

A typical studio boss response? "The inmates are taking over the asylum."

Paul, your simplistic model of business is like comparing apples and oranges. It all depends on circumstances.

Noone gains exposure by giving interviews on the DVDs, and yet the studio gains if that DVD is bought. Moreover they actively "advertise" why their DVDs are better then the others thanks to all the extras. Psychologically you want to get the most bang for your money so when u see a DVD that has more then just the movie u r more likely to buy it then the one with the movie alone. So someone will be gaining from that interview being there -- he as paid his dues and having done in the past stuff for "exposure" he's learned what exposure one should care about and what shouldn't. He knows that this "exposure" isn't worth it so he want to get paid for it.

In the early 20th, the young studios didn't even want actors to have individual publicity or major credits in films, for fear it would create a "star system." It eventually did.

But even before the actor steps to the mark, if no writer (good or bad writing), no story. No story, no movie / TV show / commercial. Hey, if the stadium owners can make millionaires out of their ballplayers, then studio conglomerates can share a little of the wealth with the writers they hire. As both a writer and lawyer, there's another phrase, common to both professions: Whatever the market will bear.

There is nothing simplistic in what I say. I am adhering to the video, not commenting on how writers should or shouldn't be paid. I still want to know whether Opra should be paid for giving a writer exposure. If a writer enjoys the benefits of free publicity by media outlets, he should be a bit more generous with his permission to have someone benefit from his token contribution to a DVD. It's give and take, not just take when it comes to exposure.

Oprah's production company is already handsomely paid for giving writers exposure.

The writers (authors) on her show provide the content that she sells immense amounts of advertising for because of these visiting authors.

The (*) in the YouTube clip above obviously felt that there was no give from Warner, only take.

the gut already did the interview... hmm what for ?
seems to me someone at warner bros dropped the ball and forgot to get this guy to sign a release at the time of the interview ,or left it out of his contract. .... how ever they would normally handle it