As usual, I so love where you're headed with all of this. The challenge I see is that in order to get us to a place where an Artists' Bill of Rights would be taken seriously, there needs to be a shift in understanding of what artists even do and that they are, in fact, deeply needed. I've often found it ironic that those in society most likely to rail against and make policies against those in society that they label lazy and "entitled", are often the same people who feel completely entitled to help themselves to all the entertainment and art they can gorge on, without feeling an ounce of need for actually supporting the artists who created it. They seem to think, even though we all live in a capitalist society, that artists should just be satisfied with the act of creating, and then should just go away. Never have a complaint. Never use their voice. They don't seem to even be aware of the incredible risks and sacrifices made, the fears and challenges artists face in order to create the art they enjoy. As if it all just happens by magic. I feel like we might need a documentary that explores what this world would be without art, music, comedy, movies and then from there explore the importance of artists who give their lives to such expression and what their rights should be.
Thanks. I am pondering how I would go about such a thing as we speak. But had to say that another point you brought up that I think is so important, is about what drives us. It seems that many that end up in the decision making and/or leadership/government positions, tend to be of the personality type that are driven and motivated by the unlimited opportunity to make money. And many of them have actually done great things with that desire as a driver. But, like you said, it doesn't seem to occur to them that others (for e.g. artists, teachers, healers) might be motivated by something else entirely. Instead they use their power to make the rules/policies to impose solutions to problems in those areas based on what they've always known to work, never seeming to get that their brand of solution/motivation can actually make things much worse. This solution of making it a "competitive environment", forcing these types to compete for money is not necessarily going to create the boon they think it will. All it does is keep the creative/nurturing types spending most of their time on survival, and less time developing their gifts. Basically they get worse at what they're here to provide and be of service with. There seems to be a consensus among the money motivated, that having basic needs met will turn people lazy, "gotta keep them hungry" and while that may be true for some, in the case of those motivated by deep inspiration, they're already hungry for something beyond money, and having basic needs met actually sets them free to become their most productive selves.
There's definitely a documentary to me made about the differing perceptions of artistic value for a society between supporters, consumers, and artists themselves. Could all ever be on the same page?
A lot of what you envision here is contained in the concept recognized by many countries other than the US as Droit Morale, or Moral Rights. The US industries and government has strongly fought against these copyright related rights, even excluding them in multilateral treaties, or giving them such short thrift that they aren't available to US artists. The term has become so toxic that I have come up with another reference for them that is descriptive of what they are to the artist: Reputational Rights.
Being able to control those aspects of creative works that reflect on the creator's reputation are strongly recognized in many other countries. In the US, the courts have relegated them only available as negotiated contractual terms. We do have a few of them ingrained in our contracts, e.g. the credits clauses for the entertainment industry requires recognition for participation of the crew and cast in measure to their contribution to the end work. There are even provisions of removal or credits for works that would reflect badly on the reputation of the participant because of things outside their control, (see the whole, "Alan Smithee" rabbit hole, if you're curious.)
But getting these reputational rights in a regimented way, accessible to all, is a very uphill target, a fight that's been going on for quite some time with very little progress. And even achieving that goal would remove some aspects of our industry that we currently rely heavily on. For example, there is a very strong argument that the reason many countries in Europe don't see many sequels to films is directly tied to the number of rights holders that would have to align in agreement in order to make one. Both copyright and moral rights holders would all have to agree. That can be a lot of cats to herd. Therefore, budgets for those countries' films are invariably lower without the possibility of derivative works adding to the potential till.
As for your other points, right now, there is a relatively new Reversion of Rights Granted term as part of copyright law. But it's not seven years. It's 35. So, perpetuity isn't as long as it used to be. But there's a burdensome formality to follow in order to execute those reversion rights.
And your number 17 is problematic in that it flies directly in the face of already standing precedential court cases about "scraping" for large data bases that would have to be overturned, an unlikely scenario not least of which because of the untenable burden it would impose on all research of the kind. There's not an easy fix for what you seek.
So some of the things you seek are doable, though difficult, and come with limitations and impositions that might be distasteful to many. And it may take a long hall to get to where they're offered ubiquitously. But, as I'm always want to say, "Everything's negotiable." We can start with every contract we negotiate and ask for these things that are important, one contract at a time, one project at a time. If we do it enough, the odd clauses turn into industry standard practice. And we change things little by little and get to a better place in the end.
Those are great. I especially love: "Right of total access to all data and information generated by your work and behavior (creative or not)." We must not create in and for those black boxes and total buyouts should be illegal.
Yes, the market never regulates itself to a degree that it balances the interests of all stakeholders involved, not even through the use of strikes. Regulation is key, and legislation is necessary. However, the Tech Bros are making new moves on the chessboard, and I believe the timing is well chosen to introduce this calmly amidst the deep and loud sigh of relief from the news about the ending strike. https://www.indiewire.com/news/business/streaming-innovation-alliance-netflix-disney-plus-paramount-plus-1234909289/ the angle and framing that this is only in the best interest for the consumer makes me laugh-cry.
I will combine my comment on the Artists Bill of Rights with my comment on Film Finance. I believe Art for Art's Sake in today's world is in the eye of the beholder (one person's art is another's trash). Art for Humanities Sake should be the goal of every creative person. Certainly, they can produce any art in any form they like, to express themselves, but there are different kinds of art, and art that elevates our world situation to make our lives better, more productive and livable, should be rewarded at a different level. As for the economics of making movies, we should realize that the budget is not the important part of making a film, it is more important to make an important film, than an extravagant one. It is more important to make a film that can change the world for the better than just show the way the world is. I feel if you show a way to better this world, funding will come to you, and even those that may not agree with you and your visions, will be tempted to express their own visions for a better world. It could be a funding frenzy to solve the problems of our time.
As usual, I so love where you're headed with all of this. The challenge I see is that in order to get us to a place where an Artists' Bill of Rights would be taken seriously, there needs to be a shift in understanding of what artists even do and that they are, in fact, deeply needed. I've often found it ironic that those in society most likely to rail against and make policies against those in society that they label lazy and "entitled", are often the same people who feel completely entitled to help themselves to all the entertainment and art they can gorge on, without feeling an ounce of need for actually supporting the artists who created it. They seem to think, even though we all live in a capitalist society, that artists should just be satisfied with the act of creating, and then should just go away. Never have a complaint. Never use their voice. They don't seem to even be aware of the incredible risks and sacrifices made, the fears and challenges artists face in order to create the art they enjoy. As if it all just happens by magic. I feel like we might need a documentary that explores what this world would be without art, music, comedy, movies and then from there explore the importance of artists who give their lives to such expression and what their rights should be.
Love it. Do it. I want to see that film!
Thanks. I am pondering how I would go about such a thing as we speak. But had to say that another point you brought up that I think is so important, is about what drives us. It seems that many that end up in the decision making and/or leadership/government positions, tend to be of the personality type that are driven and motivated by the unlimited opportunity to make money. And many of them have actually done great things with that desire as a driver. But, like you said, it doesn't seem to occur to them that others (for e.g. artists, teachers, healers) might be motivated by something else entirely. Instead they use their power to make the rules/policies to impose solutions to problems in those areas based on what they've always known to work, never seeming to get that their brand of solution/motivation can actually make things much worse. This solution of making it a "competitive environment", forcing these types to compete for money is not necessarily going to create the boon they think it will. All it does is keep the creative/nurturing types spending most of their time on survival, and less time developing their gifts. Basically they get worse at what they're here to provide and be of service with. There seems to be a consensus among the money motivated, that having basic needs met will turn people lazy, "gotta keep them hungry" and while that may be true for some, in the case of those motivated by deep inspiration, they're already hungry for something beyond money, and having basic needs met actually sets them free to become their most productive selves.
May my success not limit the opportunities for others. When we build we do not need to destroy. But we have to be attuned to that from the start.
Indeed, Ted. This zero-sum notion of success must evolve.
Thanks for the rights list.
There's definitely a documentary to me made about the differing perceptions of artistic value for a society between supporters, consumers, and artists themselves. Could all ever be on the same page?
A lot of what you envision here is contained in the concept recognized by many countries other than the US as Droit Morale, or Moral Rights. The US industries and government has strongly fought against these copyright related rights, even excluding them in multilateral treaties, or giving them such short thrift that they aren't available to US artists. The term has become so toxic that I have come up with another reference for them that is descriptive of what they are to the artist: Reputational Rights.
Being able to control those aspects of creative works that reflect on the creator's reputation are strongly recognized in many other countries. In the US, the courts have relegated them only available as negotiated contractual terms. We do have a few of them ingrained in our contracts, e.g. the credits clauses for the entertainment industry requires recognition for participation of the crew and cast in measure to their contribution to the end work. There are even provisions of removal or credits for works that would reflect badly on the reputation of the participant because of things outside their control, (see the whole, "Alan Smithee" rabbit hole, if you're curious.)
But getting these reputational rights in a regimented way, accessible to all, is a very uphill target, a fight that's been going on for quite some time with very little progress. And even achieving that goal would remove some aspects of our industry that we currently rely heavily on. For example, there is a very strong argument that the reason many countries in Europe don't see many sequels to films is directly tied to the number of rights holders that would have to align in agreement in order to make one. Both copyright and moral rights holders would all have to agree. That can be a lot of cats to herd. Therefore, budgets for those countries' films are invariably lower without the possibility of derivative works adding to the potential till.
As for your other points, right now, there is a relatively new Reversion of Rights Granted term as part of copyright law. But it's not seven years. It's 35. So, perpetuity isn't as long as it used to be. But there's a burdensome formality to follow in order to execute those reversion rights.
And your number 17 is problematic in that it flies directly in the face of already standing precedential court cases about "scraping" for large data bases that would have to be overturned, an unlikely scenario not least of which because of the untenable burden it would impose on all research of the kind. There's not an easy fix for what you seek.
So some of the things you seek are doable, though difficult, and come with limitations and impositions that might be distasteful to many. And it may take a long hall to get to where they're offered ubiquitously. But, as I'm always want to say, "Everything's negotiable." We can start with every contract we negotiate and ask for these things that are important, one contract at a time, one project at a time. If we do it enough, the odd clauses turn into industry standard practice. And we change things little by little and get to a better place in the end.
“Know Your Rights” by THE CLASH, written by Joe Strummer, the opening track from their Combat Rock LP released in 1982 on Epic Records.
https://youtu.be/lrRLtBGOARU?si=8WldU_sFIUM-6Rts
Those are great. I especially love: "Right of total access to all data and information generated by your work and behavior (creative or not)." We must not create in and for those black boxes and total buyouts should be illegal.
As great as the strides they made were, just imagine what the WGA could have gotten if it had also been backed up by law!
Yes, the market never regulates itself to a degree that it balances the interests of all stakeholders involved, not even through the use of strikes. Regulation is key, and legislation is necessary. However, the Tech Bros are making new moves on the chessboard, and I believe the timing is well chosen to introduce this calmly amidst the deep and loud sigh of relief from the news about the ending strike. https://www.indiewire.com/news/business/streaming-innovation-alliance-netflix-disney-plus-paramount-plus-1234909289/ the angle and framing that this is only in the best interest for the consumer makes me laugh-cry.
Hear! Hear!
Do It .
Hard yes to this. The A.I. one at the end gets a bit more complex, but otherwise, I'm totally with you.
I will combine my comment on the Artists Bill of Rights with my comment on Film Finance. I believe Art for Art's Sake in today's world is in the eye of the beholder (one person's art is another's trash). Art for Humanities Sake should be the goal of every creative person. Certainly, they can produce any art in any form they like, to express themselves, but there are different kinds of art, and art that elevates our world situation to make our lives better, more productive and livable, should be rewarded at a different level. As for the economics of making movies, we should realize that the budget is not the important part of making a film, it is more important to make an important film, than an extravagant one. It is more important to make a film that can change the world for the better than just show the way the world is. I feel if you show a way to better this world, funding will come to you, and even those that may not agree with you and your visions, will be tempted to express their own visions for a better world. It could be a funding frenzy to solve the problems of our time.