... the big labels got pretty smart. If you're a rights holder to a popular song and it's played on the radio, TV, used in a movie or a commercial, then the rights you get are worth having. But the big labels pulled a bit of a "fast one" when it came to streaming, arguing that because streaming was somehow different, the artist needed either a different contract, or got a small percentage of the rate they would have received for say a CD sale.
It looks as though something similar is happening in the world of Film and TV - the rates paid to performers for streaming consumption is less than the rates paid via traditional theater and/or disc sales.
Johansson is likely arguing that "income is income" but the studio are going to disagree, saying that it all hinges on the contracts.
Seems sensible to avoid the temptation to predict who has the truth on their side in this particular dispute, since it would make it easier to observe that this looks, on the face of it, to be fundamentally wrong. The studio - who get to be the ultimate rights owner for the performance - are using an iniquitous arrangement for their financial gain.
Even if Johansson loses the case, it's going to cost Disney more in the long run. They are telegraphing to every actor they might want to cast in a role that they are untrustworthy slime; they are warning every agency and actor's law firm to be extra careful with contracts, as a result of which they're just going to turn away A-listers who might otherwise have worked with them.
I'm sure that there will be a "contractually and legally accurate winner" in this dispute... but there will also be a "long term moral winner" - and so far that second one doesn't look to be Disney. They have made billions from the MCU franchise to date. And they're quibbling over this?
With Music Artists... (Score:2)
It looks as though something similar is happening in the world of Film and TV - the rates paid to performers for streaming consumption is less than the rates paid via traditional theater and/or disc sales.
Johansson is likely arguing that "income is income" but the studio are going to disagree, saying that it all hinges on the contracts.
Seems sensible to avoid the temptation to predict who has the truth on their side in this particular dispute, since it would make it easier to observe that this looks, on the face of it, to be fundamentally wrong. The studio - who get to be the ultimate rights owner for the performance - are using an iniquitous arrangement for their financial gain.
Even if Johansson loses the case, it's going to cost Disney more in the long run. They are telegraphing to every actor they might want to cast in a role that they are untrustworthy slime; they are warning every agency and actor's law firm to be extra careful with contracts, as a result of which they're just going to turn away A-listers who might otherwise have worked with them.
I'm sure that there will be a "contractually and legally accurate winner" in this dispute... but there will also be a "long term moral winner" - and so far that second one doesn't look to be Disney. They have made billions from the MCU franchise to date. And they're quibbling over this?
Idiots.