Apparently, there was a time, light years ago and in a parallel world, when directors actually got residuals from music videos. Obviously, this could never happen today. Or how else can one explain this suit by John Landis?

entertainment.timesonline.co.uk

         

I started to write a comment, and it just kept getting longer so I turned it into a post.

         

But they're only loss leaders because someone once waived all the repeat residual rights.

I have a question: an actor who's with Equity or SAG/AFTRA and play in a film or TV show or even a commercial get money when it airs and plays. Does the same actor get money when he/she appears in a MV? And if he/she does, then why the bloody hell doesn't the director?

         

strat, I think you're missing the point. There are no residuals because videos ARE loss leaders. Music Videos (except in super rare cases, like the most famous video of all time) DO NOT generate any income. There is nothing to make a residual of. Fifty percent of nothing is nothing.

Music videos don't make money - they promote. Dave Meyers could have had a contract that states he gets 50% of all the income from every Pink, Jay-Z and Missy video he ever did - but that would make no difference since those clips never earned any money themselves. The videos helped (we assume) sell CDs - but there is no 'music video income stream' to divvy up.

Sorry.

         

I'd argue they do. You by a a DVD with all the artists MV's on - trying to say that we're paying for the music only? How about Director's Label for instance? Or videos on iTunes. Or the ASCAP fees MV channels have to pay?

         

Okay, strat, you 'caught' me. For the rare, rare videos that get collected and sold on DVD in such a manner there is some small sliver of revenue directly from the music video. This is not a factor for the vast majority of directors or videos. You are talking one in ten million - and not a career altering amount of money anyway. Like a lottery ticket that pays off - with a whopping $14.87.

After the first couple months - no one bought videos from iTunes. I have written several posts about that. Negligible money there as well.

The ASCAP fees are for the music, same as when they play the song in a restaurant - that has nothing to do with the video.

These 'revenue generating music videos' are a phantom that exists largely in the mind of MV directors. Rarer than rare. The amount of money generated DIRECTLY by music videos has been/is/will be a drop in the bucket. You can wish it was different (or insist it SHOULD be) but that won't make it so.

AND, even if videos DID make money (and this is quite a fun fantasy, innit?) the hard and fast obstacle to residuals to the director is ...

The contract directors sign with the label. Don't look at the Landis contract. Look at a normal one. Every video that ends up on a Directors Label DVD was done as a work for hire with zero residuals and those directors (as 'famous' as they are to us) all give away their ownership and copyright to the label that pays to make the clip. A director can ask for a different contract and the label will ask for a different director. The labels can hire who they want, and they are not gonna book a video with a director that wants a contract no other director (except, apparently John Landis) has EVER gotten.

Strat, you can gnash your teeth over this and insist that MV directors need to unionize and overthrow the corporate structure or how the whole copyright system needs a ground up re-working but ...

I am tired and I'm headed to bed. Sweet dreams.

         

I know this is the facts of the industry and frankly I don't give a damn as I'm not a director. I just feel a bit sorry for all involved.

What gets me more riled up is the nonexistence of any copyright for DP's work. It really isn't much different than a stills photographers, yet they retain all the copyright forever. Actually I'm fine to sign it away for my fee, but when the stills photographer comes onto the set I've lit, snaps a bit and uses it as a cover for the album AND keeps his copyright (yeah, he is the creator of that image, remember), keeps earning on it from Corbis and Getty archives for the rest of his life, then I do get a bit miffed. Jealousy, I suppose. Nothing I can do about it, but somewhere someone fucked up pretty bad when these contracts were first drawn up.

Maybe there shouldn't be copyright at all for promotional work?

But as a complete aside - isn't it just a bit weird that a music video (key word, right there) channel pays a hefty fee to ASCAP for the music only? I mean, if that's all they're paying for and the visuals have no value, then why aren't we all listening to radio instead?

         

Songwriters have the best ownership royalty deal. Period.

I suspect that is because they actually started that back when there was no recorded music, but they songwriters earned when copies of their sheet music was sold to be performed by live musicians. There was no larger company like a record label involved then, so the actual songwriter got a bigger chunk because they were able to negotiate for it. Once big corporations got involved, they caught on and put pressure on the next new deal (recorded music rights) to swing the percentages in the favor of the money men and away from the creative types.

Screenwriters are in that same under paid boat while playwrights have a much, much better deal than the guys that came along second to write movies. The producer (i.e. movie studio) owns the copyright of a screenplay once they have bought it. Ouch!

I know nothing about it, but I wonder if the stills photographer has that same 'first deal' advantage over directors and DPs.

         

Companies that play video online (legally) or on demand, pay record companies to play them. So video's do make money.