Just Checking RE: Rights

All of that goes down to individual contracts and individual writers.

If you hire a writer to write a specific piece and you do your part and they do their part the person doing the hiring has all the rights unless the contract specifies otherwise.

How much would it cost? Depends on what you negotiate.

Some writers to it for free for credit, this of course applying to first time writers, if you have a writer who has already sold work you will be hard pressed to get them to give away their time. There is also back end percentages some negotiate, again if a writer has already sold work it's hard to get them to work for free now and good faith that money might eventually come.

If it's episodic anywhere from $0-4,000 (or more if the show does really well) again experience plays a big part of this.

If it's film anywhere from $0-5 million same as above.

WGA has sample contracts and amounts of what their minimum is, you don't, however, have to pay WGA rates if you are not a guild signatory, but you also won't have access to guild members outside of the financial core ones until you become so.

It all comes down to negotiation.

Hope this helps.

The law states that as soon as someone creates something, they own it. Rights and all. Therefore, in the moment a writer creates something, he or she owns it. Guild registration is just to prove that in court. However, if the writer or creator of anything is enaged to do so as an employee, in other words, he or she is being paid to writer it, then all rights automatically transfer to the employer. The sum to be paid is entirely up to the two of you.

ricetalks said:

The law states that as soon as someone creates something, they own it. Rights and all. Therefore, in the moment a writer creates something, he or she owns it. Guild registration is just to prove that in court. However, if the writer or creator of anything is enaged to do so as an employee, in other words, he or she is being paid to writer it, then all rights automatically transfer to the employer. The sum to be paid is entirely up to the two of you.

Click to expand...

Rice, I'm afraid that you don't quite understand the principle of "work for hire."

When an employer hires someone to write something for them, the employer, from the moment of inception is, in the eyes of the law, the "author" of the underlying work -- even if that author is a great big, anonymous corporation.

This is true in motion pictures (at least in the U.S.) in writing for games, in the area of technical writing -- in many areas where writers are employed to write for other people. Those writers do not own -- and never own -- the work that they write.

This has meaningful ramifications in copyright law because "corporate" copyright is actually longer than that afforded an individual author.

And regarding the WGA -- with a few exceptions (Fox TV being one) the majority of animation writers -- even feature animation writers -- are not covered by the WGA (and as a result traditionally get really lousy deals -- no residuals, no royalties on DVDs, no health care, no pension plans and even for prime time animation they earn substantially less than comparable live action shows that may have significantly lower ratings).

NMS

Like I said, "then the rights AUTOMATICALLY transfer to the employer."

It amounts to exactly the same thing.

My ex-wife was a computer programmer. But did she own the rights to anything she programmed? No. Because the rights to her work AUTOMATICALLY transfer to her employer. And, yes, you're right. Thay are considered the creators of the work.

It is as though they PRE-BOUGHT all the intellectual rights to anything she does. The same is true of writer-for-hire.

I noticed the word "Germany," which makes a discussion of American laws and the WGA somewhat pointless.

I'm pretty sure these conditions still apply because Germany (at least West Germany, unlike China, Russia and other such countries) are signatories to an international copywrite treaty and agreement.

International copyright treaties do not mean that copyright law is identical in every signatory country. And that only covers the copyright. There are many other issues the producer will need to settle with attorneys in Germany and with any applicable guilds.

ricetalks said:

Like I said, "then the rights AUTOMATICALLY transfer to the employer."

It amounts to exactly the same thing.

Click to expand...

It may seem that NM is just being pedantic, but automatically transferring the IP and them being the original author of the IP are not exactly the same thing in many cases.

There are plenty of areas where it makes a huge difference. For a start, there is an obscure clause in copyright law that means that you can't transfer exclusive rights verbally - it has to be in writing. (That's an odd exception in law .. usually most things can be done verbally)

So, if the system was the way you described, it would be impossible to have a verbal agreement for a work-for-hire arrangement, since the 'automatic transfer' of rights can't happen on a verbal agreement.

However, work-for-hire arrangements CAN be verbal (even though it may not be smart).

There are dozens of obscure examples like this that indicate why it is a case of the company being the original author rather than the rights being transferred. NM pointed out that it makes a difference for the date of copyright expiry. Other examples involve tax ... if the IP was being transferred to the company rather than being CREATED by the company then there would be all sorts of odd tax implications ... since the value of the IP may be considered to be taxable.

To the layman it might appear that they have 'transferred' the rights .. but there are good reasons why in legal terms they have 'created' the content rather than have it 'transferred' to them automatically.

There are some good discussions at 'The Artful Writer' on the differences between the two in the case of US labour law - another area where it makes a significant difference.

Mac

I admit I don't really understand all of the in's and out's of copywrite law, but if the copywrite law allows that my copywrite is automatic in the moment of it's creation, then there has to be some sort of legal mechanism or vehicle by which this right of copywrite is transfered from me to the employer or payee automatically. Does this make sense?

And if so, what is the mechanism?

"Copyright." As in Copyright Law and Copyright Attorneys, the existence of which should indicate that it is more complicated than that and the producer needs a good attorney in the company in which he is doing business to handle his contract and copyright issues.

ricetalks said:

I admit I don't really understand all of the in's and out's of copywrite law, but if the copywrite law allows that my copywrite is automatic in the moment of it's creation, then there has to be some sort of legal mechanism or vehicle by which this right of copywrite is transfered from me to the employer or payee automatically. Does this make sense?

Click to expand...

The misunderstanding is that you say that 'my copyright is automatic at the moment of its creation'.

That isn't technically correct - in copyright law, it is the AUTHOR'S copyright that is automatic, not yours.

Copyright law has a section explaining what their technical definition of the 'author' is, and it doesn't match the plain English definition that most people use. If you use the 'copyright law' definition of author, you'll realise that under a work-for-hire agreement the 'author' is NOT you - it is the entity employing you.

This means that you don't need to transfer the copyright to the employer, because under copyright law you never HAD the copyright in the first place.

In the field where I work, we often have a 'boots and braces' approach and also have a 'transfer of IP' as well in case there is a later dispute over whether it really was a work-for-hire. However, if it truly is a work-for-hire then the original author who held the copyright was ALWAYS the employer.

Does that make sense ?

Mac

Yeah, I guess it does. As always, the law is important shades of grey.