Post by: Iain_Macdonald on November 24, 2010, 05:26:12 PM
http://w2.eff.org/patent/wanted/patent.php?p=clearchannel
Post by: John Sulek on November 24, 2010, 05:49:52 PM
The touring record guy used to do a multi usb stick burn at the end of each show and run them up to merch as folks were leaving. The merch guy sold pre-paid wristbands that could be exchanged for a usb stick at the end.
Post by: Jonathan 'JP' Peirce on November 24, 2010, 07:13:32 PM
| John Sulek wrote on Wed, 24 November 2010 17:49 |
Not yet...and my main client has a shelf full of archived shows on ProTools drives. The touring record guy used to do a multi usb stick burn at the end of each show and run them up to merch as folks were leaving. The merch guy sold pre-paid wristbands that could be exchanged for a usb stick at the end. |
What's the problem? CC 'owns' these venues.
-No other venue lets artists sell merchandise without getting a cut.
-No other venue (if they know what they are doing) allows bands to sell the recording of their show (whether right after the show or later) without getting a cut.
-This doesn't even mention the stagehands cut.
JP
Post by: John Sulek on November 24, 2010, 10:45:59 PM
| Jonathan 'JP' Peirce wrote on Wed, 24 November 2010 19:13 | ||
What's the problem? CC 'owns' these venues. -No other venue lets artists sell merchandise without getting a cut. -No other venue (if they know what they are doing) allows bands to sell the recording of their show (whether right after the show or later) without getting a cut. -This doesn't even mention the stagehands cut. JP |
Agreed.
It was always treated as part of the merch deal.
I should have been clearer in saying that we already had this in place so it was just part of our merch sales.
And, yes we paid all the venue/stagehand premiums too.
I find the whole "patent" part a bit of a stretch as lots of folks have been doing this for a while now. But their is always an angle if you have enough money for lawyers.
Happy turkey day!
Post by: Charlotte Evans on November 25, 2010, 06:06:57 AM
Have a happy and safe Thanksgiving!
Post by: Jonathan 'JP' Peirce on November 25, 2010, 09:17:50 AM
| Charlotte Evans wrote on Thu, 25 November 2010 06:06 |
Can someone explain what the "stagehands' cut" is? Haven't heard of that. Have a happy and safe Thanksgiving! |
Standard IATSE contracts have clauses for recording rates. If the band is recording the show for sale, the stagehands will get an increased rate.
JP
Post by: Larry Robbins on November 25, 2010, 10:06:04 AM
| Jonathan 'JP' Peirce wrote on Thu, 25 November 2010 09:17 | ||
Standard IATSE contracts have clauses for recording rates. If the band is recording the show for sale, the stagehands will get an increased rate. JP |
A recording "buy out" can significantly increase production costs with a sizable stagehand crew.
Post by: Tim McCulloch on November 25, 2010, 10:46:28 AM
The most common things are professional sports, live or recorded, but many IATSE Locals found out that souvenir recordings were becoming big sales items and invoked the clause.
There was an attempt to circumvent the Clear Channel/LiveNation patent by use of off-site vision editing and internet streaming delivery (recordable by the buyer), but the combination of higher labor bills and threats from LiveNation have slowed this considerably.
PM me if you'd like to know more.
Have fun, Happy Holidays!
Tim Mc
Post by: Charlotte Evans on November 25, 2010, 12:18:28 PM
As a member of BECTU here in the UK there is a paper on their website about "rate agreements between Live Nation/BECTU"......but I cannot access it because I have forgotten my password! DOH!
Have to wait until tomorrow now and phone them for a reset.
Post by: Andrew Broughton on November 25, 2010, 12:31:30 PM
| Jonathan 'JP' Peirce wrote on Thu, 25 November 2010 07:17 |
Standard IATSE contracts have clauses for recording rates. If the band is recording the show for sale, the stagehands will get an increased rate. JP |
Post by: James Drake on November 25, 2010, 12:42:07 PM
| Andrew Broughton wrote on Thu, 25 November 2010 17:31 | ||
|
yeah,
what one person charges should be based on things like how many hours they work, theirs costs to do the job, their experience, going market rate etc.
asking things like double rates on new years eve etc. i think is fair also.
it is of course nice to get tipped after a job, or to get offered more than you asked.
but to EXPECT more based on the results of your work, or the income generated for your client based on your work, is not fair. i think.
by the same logic you should be paid less if you worked all day for a show where nobody turned up. watch the unions shout about that one.
my collegue's dad works for a global super-union for unions and their arguments annoy me.
Post by: Charlotte Evans on November 25, 2010, 01:45:44 PM
| James Drake wrote on Thu, 25 November 2010 17:42 |
....but to EXPECT more based on the results of your work, or the income generated for your client based on your work, is not fair. i think. by the same logic you should be paid less if you worked all day for a show where nobody turned up. watch the unions shout about that one. |
My bold.
Oh come on! If I work a full day I expect to be paid, it is not my problem if the show is a sell-out or two men and a dog watching from the rear stalls.....I still get paid as per what I agreed with the band's management.
Post by: Andrew Broughton on November 25, 2010, 02:03:30 PM
| Charlotte Evans wrote on Thu, 25 November 2010 11:45 |
Oh come on! If I work a full day I expect to be paid, it is not my problem if the show is a sell-out or two men and a dog watching from the rear stalls.....I still get paid as per what I agreed with the band's management. |
I think you REALLY missed the point.
Post by: James Drake on November 25, 2010, 02:14:25 PM
| Charlotte Evans wrote on Thu, 25 November 2010 18:45 | ||
My bold. Oh come on! If I work a full day I expect to be paid, it is not my problem if the show is a sell-out or two men and a dog watching from the rear stalls.....I still get paid as per what I agreed with the band's management. |
Hahaha!
Feels like I'm at work.
[hint: we're on the same side. and my boss never reads and/or comprehends my emails]
And I thought I wrote clearly and concisely....
I have a degree you know........
Post by: Larry Robbins on November 25, 2010, 02:33:16 PM
An interesting aspect of this is that IA has different contracts with each venue or producer.
Some gigs pay well and others do not. The degree of difficulty and required skill level often has little bearing on pay.
In general, industrials at convention centers are the highest paid calls.
Live Nation is one of the lowest.
The senior hands (augmenting house crew) are the ones brought in on calls where there is a recording or TV rate. I've yet to have that privilege.
Regardless of the pay, a dedication to doing a good job and catching things that might fall thru the cracks adversely effecting the event is what works and gets one requested on jobs.
Post by: Jonathan 'JP' Peirce on November 25, 2010, 02:46:23 PM
JP
Post by: Andy Peters on November 25, 2010, 03:08:25 PM
| Jonathan 'JP' Peirce wrote on Thu, 25 November 2010 12:46 |
SO.... I mix a show, for which I get paid. Someone records it, sells it and because I did 'no extra work' I don't deserve a dime more? |
Assuming you know in advance that your show is being recorded, you should then discuss terms with whoever hired you. This is likely true if you know CDs of the show are to be sold 15 minutes after closing curtain.
If the show is being recorded without your knowledge, find out why.
-a
Post by: Andy Peters on November 25, 2010, 03:12:03 PM
| Tim McCulloch wrote on Thu, 25 November 2010 08:46 |
In contracts with the venue, it is usually called a "commercial use" clause. It applies when the performance derives income outside of ticket sales, typically television/radio/pay per view broadcasting or video/film recording for non-archival use (i.e. selling a DVD or audio recording which includes that individual performance or inclusion of the performance in a theatrical release). |
OK, so consider this not-hypothetical situation. I recorded a show, multitracking console direct outs to my laptop. I did this mainly for archiving reasons but I knew that the band might wish to release bonus tracks.
So three of these tracks were in fact used as bonus tracks on the recent reissues of the band's first two records, and they are advertised as "recorded live at that great club in DC." Now this club is independent (no Live Nation involvement) so this might be different than with what you're talking about, but if it WAS a LN venue, does this mean that I should not have even recorded it?
-a
Post by: Tim McCulloch on November 25, 2010, 04:16:26 PM
| Andy Peters wrote on Thu, 25 November 2010 14:12 | ||
OK, so consider this not-hypothetical situation. I recorded a show, multitracking console direct outs to my laptop. I did this mainly for archiving reasons but I knew that the band might wish to release bonus tracks. So three of these tracks were in fact used as bonus tracks on the recent reissues of the band's first two records, and they are advertised as "recorded live at that great club in DC." Now this club is independent (no Live Nation involvement) so this might be different than with what you're talking about, but if it WAS a LN venue, does this mean that I should not have even recorded it? -a |
You'd have to ask LiveNation about that.
FWIW, the reason the stagehands get a commercial rate is because the other production workers do, and they get additional wages up front; some get residuals. Since there's no way to distribute residuals to the stagehands, they get theirs up front. In our Local's contracts that amounts to a $5/hr gross bonus. After the payroll service fees and taxes, that means most workers get about $3/hr more. Considering that only about 18%-22% of workers are on a call for more than 8 hours, the typical worker makes an extra $24 for their day. That might buy pizza and sodas for a small family.
Also note that facilities charge more rent when the venue is used for television, film or other broadcasting. The workers aren't the only entities seeking/deserving additional compensation.
Have fun, good luck.
Tim Mc
Post by: Tim McCulloch on November 25, 2010, 04:22:19 PM
| James Drake wrote on Thu, 25 November 2010 11:42 | ||||
yeah, what one person charges should be based on things like how many hours they work, theirs costs to do the job, their experience, going market rate etc. asking things like double rates on new years eve etc. i think is fair also. it is of course nice to get tipped after a job, or to get offered more than you asked. but to EXPECT more based on the results of your work, or the income generated for your client based on your work, is not fair. i think. by the same logic you should be paid less if you worked all day for a show where nobody turned up. watch the unions shout about that one. my collegue's dad works for a global super-union for unions and their arguments annoy me. |
The revenue potential for such events increases the value of the work provided. That IS the market at work, or your idea that double rates on New Years is invalid.
This is probably the thread locker, because I see nothing but politics and social class comments coming from this discussion.
You're free to devalue your own worth as you see fit, but you won't be doing so where trade unionism is still alive, and in the USA and Canada, that is 110,000 folks making entertainment magic happen every day.
Tim McCulloch, Secretary-Treasurer
IATSE Local 190
Wichita - Hutchinson - El Dorado Kansas, USA
Post by: Tony "T" Tissot on November 25, 2010, 04:40:47 PM
| Andy Peters wrote on Thu, 25 November 2010 12:12 | ||
OK, so consider this not-hypothetical situation. I recorded a show, multitracking console direct outs to my laptop. I did this mainly for archiving reasons but I knew that the band might wish to release bonus tracks. So three of these tracks were in fact used as bonus tracks on the recent reissues of the band's first two records, and they are advertised as "recorded live at that great club in DC." Now this club is independent (no Live Nation involvement) so this might be different than with what you're talking about, but if it WAS a LN venue, does this mean that I should not have even recorded it? -a |
No (IMHO) for the CC / Live Nation "invention." That's a stretch far beyond the wording of their claimed invention.
But, as these are civil actions, LN / Clear Channel could (although incorrectly in my opinion) bring an action claiming infringement because you used their "method."
Inconceivable. That patent is as absurd (IMHO) as the famous "one-click" patent.
As far as the recording itself and the use of same, the agreement with anyone involved with the live performance would normally be spelled out in a contract like Tim mentioned, before or after the recording was done.
Ignoring the patent; Let's say you recorded it, the artists released your work without your knowledge or consent, or without a contract that specified same. You might conceivably have a course of action, as might anyone else associated with the recording, including the venue.
As for anyone else making a claim, it quickly devolves to a rat's nest of claims. "I placed the mics, and acted as the recording technician, no one ever paid me for that work," is a conceivable civil claim. As is a claim by the venue; "they used our facilities..."
- The counter-claim is that the artists already paid them for their work and all the fruits of that work.
- I only know of musicians making claims (successfully) in that regard. I have not found cases of techs or venues making these claims.. (no LexisNexis access)
Damages? The fruits of the infringement, i.e. revenues gained, would likely be the remedy.
Post by: Charlie Zureki on November 25, 2010, 05:09:09 PM
I have a problem with LN, CC, or any other Venue getting an extra share of the Entertainment's income from recordings sold as Merch the night of the show.... whether the Act records and sells that night's performance or a previously recorded Studio recording.
The Act OWNS that performance, and possibly all rights to the music and lyrics. The Act also owns their own likeness.
These Corporate owned Venues place this condition of selling the Performance as a condition for performing at their Venue.
Sounds like extortion to me.
During the production of a "Recorded Live" event, the small premium in pay for the "working" hands and Production Techs is, and always has been part of the compensation, probably starting with the first Televison Broadcasts. (As Mr.McCulloch posted, it's not very much of a bump)
Also, I have seen an increase in the neglecting of posting the production staff in the credits of these live, Taped Events. These credits are not only a written acknowledgement of "Thanks", but, it can also be a measure of their work experience.
I'd encourage young Entertainers and Acts to NOT agree to any condition via a contract that gives their rights to their performance away.
Some of these Large Corporate Venue Owners already demonstrate too large a presence in whether an Act can achieve it's complete level of success.
Hammer
Post by: Joe Breher on November 25, 2010, 05:54:52 PM
| Charlie Zureki wrote on Thu, 25 November 2010 15:09 |
Sounds like extortion to me. |
I dunno - you accept whatever contract management can negotiate, or you walk. Where's the extortion?
Post by: John Roberts {JR} on November 25, 2010, 06:07:40 PM
| James Drake wrote on Thu, 25 November 2010 11:42 |
--clip--- what one person charges should be based on things like how many hours they work, theirs costs to do the job, their experience, going market rate etc. ---clip---- but to EXPECT more based on the results of your work, or the income generated for your client based on your work, is not fair. i think. by the same logic you should be paid less if you worked all day for a show where nobody turned up. watch the unions shout about that one. |
If I hear you correctly the performer should only be paid for singing one time, and should not profit from the sale of copies.
Being paid based on results is the real world for business owners... I don't get paid for showing up, or working hard, or what I know. I get paid for what I accomplish.
Compensation that isn't based on results does not encourage better outcomes.
JR
PS I am not commenting on the CC patent... as an inventor I find that embarrassing. It looks more like the work of a lawyer than a design engineer.
It smells like bidness... like Willie Sutton said, that must be where the money is, or at least enough marginal revenue for them to pursue.
Post by: Tim McCulloch on November 25, 2010, 06:10:02 PM
| Joe Breher wrote on Thu, 25 November 2010 16:54 | ||
I dunno - you accept whatever contract management can negotiate, or you walk. Where's the extortion? |
The vertical integration... Live Nation own the venue (or manages it), is the concert promoter, and their Clear Channel brothers own the radio & TV stations and the outdoor billboard companies. While not extortion in the traditional blackmail sense, they hold the vast majority of the cards.
We're not looking at the workers in this case, but the Artists. If they don't want to comply with a venue's policies, they're off the tour, and that's the issue. With Live Nation doing a significant chunk of tour promotion, it IS extortion if there is no viable alternative.
I'm a bit surprised you seem to see nothing wrong with monopolistic vertical integration. That's what got the big movie studios/theaters broken apart 90 years ago.
Have fun, good luck.
Tim Mc
Post by: Matt Collins on November 25, 2010, 09:51:13 PM
| Tony "T" Tissot wrote on Thu, 25 November 2010 15:40 |
Ignoring the patent; Let's say you recorded it, the artists released your work without your knowledge or consent, or without a contract that specified same. You might conceivably have a course of action, as might anyone else associated with the recording, including the venue. |
| Charlie Zureki wrote on Thu, 25 November 2010 16:09 |
The Act OWNS that performance, and possibly all rights to the music and lyrics. The Act also owns their own likeness. These Corporate owned Venues place this condition of selling the Performance as a condition for performing at their Venue. Sounds like extortion to me. |
Post by: Tony "T" Tissot on November 25, 2010, 10:59:09 PM
| Matt Collins wrote on Thu, 25 November 2010 18:51 | ||
|
BTW "Own(ership)" requires a specific use.
Post by: KeithBroughton on November 26, 2010, 06:31:03 AM
| Quote: |
I don't get paid for showing up, or working hard, or what I know. I get paid for what I accomplish. |
So a union hand sets up mics for a live performance at a certain rate of pay. That performance happens to get recorded. And what, exactly, has the hand "accomplished" to get more money? At the end of the day, as previously posted, it probably doesn't amount to all that much money to just pay it but it is an interesting point.
| Quote: |
The revenue potential for such events increases the value of the work provided |
It's like saying that the assembly workers in a car plant should be paid more if the sale of that particular vehicle is high and the manufacturer is making a higher profit.
| Quote: |
You're free to devalue your own worth |
No one is suggesting that the work be devalued. The point here is increasing the value for the same work.
Post by: Larry Robbins on November 26, 2010, 07:51:44 AM
| KeithBroughton wrote on Fri, 26 November 2010 06:31 | ||||||
So a union hand sets up mics for a live performance at a certain rate of pay. That performance happens to get recorded. And what, exactly, has the hand "accomplished" to get more money? At the end of the day, as previously posted, it probably doesn't amount to all that much money to just pay it but it is an interesting point.
It's like saying that the assembly workers in a car plant should be paid more if the sale of that particular vehicle is high and the manufacturer is making a higher profit.
No one is suggesting that the work be devalued. The point here is increasing the value for the same work. |
I bring a set of skills to work. I deploy these to the best of my ability on a job. At times, I do work that utilizes and challenges my skill set, and other times, I simply show up and follow direction doing simple tasks. Compensation varies significantly - not always following the skill level brought to bear.
This is typical in union labor.
In a freelance marketplace, a worker is free to set minimum pay requirements, and to lower the threshold when needed...
I think most people would like to be paid "as much as the market will bear".
This was discussed in a LAB thread: http://srforums.prosoundweb.com/index.php?t=rview&th=357 64&rid=6639.
Post by: Charlie Zureki on November 26, 2010, 08:06:18 AM
| KeithBroughton wrote on Fri, 26 November 2010 05:31 | ||||||
So a union hand sets up mics for a live performance at a certain rate of pay. That performance happens to get recorded. And what, exactly, has the hand "accomplished" to get more money? At the end of the day, as previously posted, it probably doesn't amount to all that much money to just pay it but it is an interesting point.
It's like saying that the assembly workers in a car plant should be paid more if the sale of that particular vehicle is high and the manufacturer is making a higher profit.
No one is suggesting that the work be devalued. The point here is increasing the value for the same work. |
Keith,
After reading your responses, it's clear that you don't understand where and when these agreements for a pay premium originated.
Before Recording Technologies and Broadcasting were invented... everything was a "live" performance. When Recording Technologies and Broadcasting were developed and implemented, there was a undelying fear as to how these new Technologies would affect those (Actors, Musicians, Techicians, Hands, Venues, Producers, etc...) that made their living in the Entertainment Arts.
EVERYONE (Actors, Hands, Technicians, Producers, Makeup, Wardrobe,etc..) involved, being worried of the unknown, insisted on a bump in pay to off-set the possibility that the technologies may (would) take away, or lessen the amount of work they were getting.
Putting a live performance on the Radio or Televison reaches more people ...and may lessen the ability to sell tickets to live performances at a traditional Venue.
When the Recording Technologies became reliable, it was easy (and less labor costs) to replay or re-Broadcast, (re-Project in the case of Movies) these recordings. Again, these Actors, Technicians, Hands, Producers, etc.. were sitting out, not being needed, while those that controlled (or owned) the performance made money.
In the case of these premiums, the Stagehand's premium was small in comparison to Actors, or the Producer's bump.(and was the least of their concerns)
They continue these premiums, especially in "Live to Tape", or Televised events because of the possibility of the WORKING hand accidentally or intentionally being Video taped or Filmed.
These Hands that work on these Events, have basically given up any right to residuals, and have given permission to use their likeness in the Recording.
While you say this Premium may be an unjustified, added cost; to the Producers of the Event, it's a small amount of money, less paperwork, and less possible legal wrangling if specific footage (scenes) may be used.
Hammer
Post by: Charlie Zureki on November 26, 2010, 09:03:42 AM
| KeithBroughton wrote on Fri, 26 November 2010 05:31 |
| Quote: |
So a union hand sets up mics for a live performance at a certain rate of pay. That performance happens to get recorded. And what, exactly, has the hand "accomplished" to get more money? At the end of the day, as previously posted, it probably doesn't amount to all that much money to just pay it but it is an interesting point. |
Not knowing your position/function....Do you get paid the same amount of money for every gig? Or, do you charge some clients more than others? The same amount whether you're behind the Console or pulling cable? Do you make more money than you did 10 years ago? If so...why? Are you not doing the same job that you did 10 years ago?
People are generally paid by their experience. If the powers that be, know they're going to record, would they hire some dolt to set-up the Mics, or hire someone that has proven experience?
(more than likely, a local Hand would only assist a Band Tech or Recording Engineer, and not handle critical tasks)
In a Recorded Event, the Show Producers do everything possible to minimize the possibilities of something going wrong. They know they get one chance to do this RIGHT. So, they hire the best they have at the time, and they pay them appropriately.
What don't you understand?
See JR's quote:
| Quote: |
The revenue potential for such events increases the value of the work provided |
| Quote: |
It's like saying that the assembly workers in a car plant should be paid more if the sale of that particular vehicle is high and the manufacturer is making a higher profit. |
Depending on the Contract...sometimes they are. (or at least have been in the past) But, those determining factors as to "bonuses" are more complicated and not really a good model for the above subject .
| Quote: |
No one is suggesting that the work be devalued. The point here is increasing the value for the same work. |
By hiring EXPERIENCED Hands with all of the Technical Capabilities of handling the work required (or more if needed) they have demonstrated an increased value in their labor.
Which of these Surgeons would you want to operate on your Heart? Both are licensed Surgeons, but, one has successfully operated on 300 heart patients and is a Heart Specialist and the other has only completed 12 operations and is a general Surgeon...
When it comes to something critical, like a one time shot at recording a live tape (or Heart Surgery), it doesn't pay to argue about a few bucks.
Hammer
Post by: Iain_Macdonald on November 26, 2010, 02:33:15 PM
Some interesting replies. Hopefully artists, management and suppliers will look more carefully at their contracts with promoters, venues and agents.
I wonder if any you saw similar articles to this one quoting Michael Rapino CEO & President of Live Nation. Quite naturally he wants to maintain their previous levels of profitability. Paying lesser artists less money, because they sell less tickets, makes some sense. So what's the problem? The traditional record company model is fast disappearing. Artists and their management, are viewing touring as the only way to pay for their existence. Will artists who suffer a cut in their performance fees be altruistic enough to continue paying the current production rates, or will they seek to make savings? We already know the answer. The problem is that over the last few decades, audio has slipped down the list of production priorities, and budgets. But lighting, video etc seems to have less of a problem justifying their budgets. So who is going to get squeezed on pricing? More importantly what are people going to do about it? I think we are either near to, or have reached a tipping point. With so many companies racing to the bottom, when it comes to pricing, there have to be some that will crash. But it also means that earnings for freelancers will likely reduce. I am continually frustrated that people in pro audio fail to properly sell themselves, the technology, and their art to gain a better financial return for their efforts. Lighting and video people seem to have no problem selling themselves. But audio folks behave like an episode of Beavis and Butthead.
With these large conglomerates like Live Nation, it's not too much of stretch to think that they might end up having their own PA systems. Because "hey! all those black boxes are the same, and whats the difference between one provider and another". '360' deals could easily include provision of some elements of the production. Especially if venues are being used in reduced capacity format. Already there are some larger venues with in-house PA. Either you rent it, or you pay for it's removal. The house wins either way.
Live Nation Annual report.
Just to make it clear. This is not an attack on Live Nation. They are a very professional operation. It's directed at those who seem to be asleep at the wheel.
Iain.
Post by: Randy Gartner on November 26, 2010, 04:28:14 PM
I also don't understand why a stage hand would get a cut.It would be like I wire a commercial building for electric.I am paid to do that work,but I then demand a cut of any profits made by that commercial establishment.
Post by: Charlie Zureki on November 26, 2010, 06:38:14 PM
| Randy Gartner wrote on Fri, 26 November 2010 15:28 |
I also don't understand why a stage hand would get a cut.It would be like I wire a commercial building for electric.I am paid to do that work,but I then demand a cut of any profits made by that commercial establishment. |
The Stagehand(s) doesn't get a Cut. If the Stagehand is working on a gig that is intentionally going to be recorded for release, they will get a slight bump in pay per hour.
How much of a bump, is negotiated before the show. This bump only includes those Stagehands that actually "work" the show and not those involved in the Load-in and Load-out.
Many Unions have differing Contracts from Client to Client,and "job" to "job" for example: SAG, Iron Workers, IBEW, CWA, NABET, etc..., and this bump is part of the Stagehands Contract.
Airline Pilots get a bump in pay for Over-seas flights vs. Domestic flights. Over the road Drivers, get a bump in pay for hauling hazardous loads or flammable materials. Iron Workers get a bump in pay for working at heights vs working the ground. Many factory workers get a bump for working the afternoon or midnight shift. Soldiers get combat pay.
Hammer
Post by: Jamie Taylor on November 26, 2010, 07:55:21 PM
We're talking about an additional pay increase for Union hands actually doing the show that's being recorded, while it's being recorded....not the Union hands loading in-loading out before the cameras are rolling?
If it's the former, then that's pretty standard with venue crew over here as well, and I totally agree with it. If it's the latter, then that's rediculous.
Also, 10% of the merch revenue going to the house is also pretty standard.
Post by: R. Malcolm Boyce on November 26, 2010, 08:04:24 PM
I also agree with the sentiment of being on the receiving end of clients that think that a recording feed of a mix is a given, without any consideration of compensation. It has crept up on us in such a way that most asking are shocked that it is even an issue. I personally have had mixes end up on commercial videos without credit or compensation. This after being told my feed was just for "archive" use. I have learned to be very specific about my offerings and what they will become down the line.
Those who don't understand wanting to be compensated for a recording date must not understand different rates for anything, and especially must have difficulty understanding things such as musicians having different scales for live or recording dates, as well as recording dates for demo or commercial release. I mean, all they're doing is playing their instrument... It's not like they're doing more work!
Sorry if I'm too far off topic.
Post by: Randy Gartner on November 27, 2010, 12:29:46 AM
| Charlie Zureki wrote on Fri, 26 November 2010 23:38 | ||
The Stagehand(s) doesn't get a Cut. If the Stagehand is working on a gig that is intentionally going to be recorded for release, they will get a slight bump in pay per hour. How much of a bump, is negotiated before the show. This bump only includes those Stagehands that actually "work" the show and not those involved in the Load-in and Load-out. Many Unions have differing Contracts from Client to Client,and "job" to "job" for example: SAG, Iron Workers, IBEW, CWA, NABET, etc..., and this bump is part of the Stagehands Contract. Airline Pilots get a bump in pay for Over-seas flights vs. Domestic flights. Over the road Drivers, get a bump in pay for hauling hazardous loads or flammable materials. Iron Workers get a bump in pay for working at heights vs working the ground. Many factory workers get a bump for working the afternoon or midnight shift. Soldiers get combat pay. Hammer |
Charlie,
many of the situations you mentioned make sense.The iron workers working at heights,the driver hauling flamable loads,combat pay etc.They're getting paid extra because of the hazards involved. There are no hazards or extra work involved making a recording.
Randy
Post by: Adam Whetham on November 27, 2010, 02:35:01 AM
Post by: Charlie Zureki on November 27, 2010, 07:20:19 AM
| Adam Whetham wrote on Sat, 27 November 2010 01:35 |
Randy, I'm understanding it as you are getting paid more because you are not going to get a cut of the distribution sales and licensing. Not because you are/aren't doing extra work. |
Hello,
Yes, and some of which is on the same reasoning as to why Actors, Actresses, Recording Artists get those "residual" checks. It is because they, in a sense are being put out of work in that role, while others are still making money off of them.
Randy keeps saying he doesn't understand....I can't make him understand . There are things in this Entertainment business that are JUST the conditions of the job.
Why do some Entertainers have all of these bizarre or extravegant Riders? ... and why are these Rider demands the responsibility of the Promoter? Because its the CONDITION of the work.....
Some would say..."well, surely the Entertainer could provide these ammenities for themselves, they make a lot of money, and they probably have runners or personal assistants that could fetch these items?"
The reason is BECAUSE THEY CAN DEMAND these conditions in their Contract. It's a negotiation between the Entertainers and the Promoter ...and the Promoter deems these things of least consequence in order to get the Entertainer(s) to perform.
So too, with the bump in Stagehand's pay....its a condition of the work. Either pay it, or find another day to record the Event.
Hammer
Post by: Charlie Zureki on November 27, 2010, 07:25:36 AM
| Randy Gartner wrote on Fri, 26 November 2010 23:29 | ||||
Charlie, many of the situations you mentioned make sense.The iron workers working at heights,the driver hauling flamable loads,combat pay etc.They're getting paid extra because of the hazards involved. There are no hazards or extra work involved making a recording. Randy |
NO. The Drivers and Iron Workers, get higher pay because they're more experienced workers and not necessarily because of any hazards.
Hammer
Post by: KeithBroughton on November 27, 2010, 09:06:24 AM
| Quote: |
ot knowing your position/function....Do you get paid the same amount of money for every gig? Or, do you charge some clients more than others? The same amount whether you're behind the Console or pulling cable? Do you make more money than you did 10 years ago? If so...why? Are you not doing the same job that you did 10 years ago? People are generally paid by their experience. If the powers that be, know they're going to record, would they hire some dolt to set-up the Mics, or hire someone that has proven experience? (more than likely, a local Hand would only assist a Band Tech or Recording Engineer, and not handle critical tasks) In a Recorded Event, the Show Producers do everything possible to minimize the possibilities of something going wrong. They know they get one chance to do this RIGHT. So, they hire the best they have at the time, and they pay them appropriately. What don't you understand? |
This isn't about what I did or do or have been paid or what I charge to whom.
It's about union workers, not me so you point seems lost by bringing my work into the discussion.
Of course you don't hire a "dolt" to work a high end show.At least I understand that.
The question that is being asked here is if you hire a union worker to do a non recorded show and then hire that same person to do a recorded show, why does that person get paid more if doing the same job.
| Quote: |
After reading your responses, it's clear that you don't understand where and when these agreements for a pay premium originated. |
The explanation following this comment makes sense. I wasn't aware of the history.
Thanks for the insight.
This is a discussion of the rules not a personal attack on anyone. It's good to review and understand rules like this that are in place.
Just because 'it's the way things have been done' doesn't mean it's the way it should continue to be done.
Sometimes, revision might be in order and if we don't question the rules how can we keep them applicable to current situations?
Post by: Charlie Zureki on November 27, 2010, 11:48:04 AM
| KeithBroughton wrote on Sat, 27 November 2010 08:06 |
It's good to review and understand rules like this that are in place. Just because 'it's the way things have been done' doesn't mean it's the way it should continue to be done. Sometimes, revision might be in order and if we don't question the rules how can we keep them applicable to current situations? |
Ok, But, not to attack you or your logic... Just because you've made $200 per gig (or whatever), why, even though you've gained experience and knowledge, should anyone continue to pay your asking price?
In a twist of "logic",... with your experience, you now know the responsibilities and functions of the job, and you're better and faster at getting results...so...the job is now easier for you. So...in conclusion... you're not working as hard....which means, I should pay you less money for the same job?
Hammer
Post by: Rob Spence on November 27, 2010, 12:43:23 PM
| KeithBroughton wrote on Sat, 27 November 2010 09:06 |
The question that is being asked here is if you hire a union worker to do a non recorded show and then hire that same person to do a recorded show, why does that person get paid more if doing the same job. |
It seems that the simple answer isn't being obvious..
They get paid more because they negotiated the increase into their contract.
Now, the history that Charlie explained is interesting for sure. but today, it is simply because it has been agreed to.
Post by: Tim McCulloch on November 27, 2010, 01:01:55 PM
| Rob Spence wrote on Sat, 27 November 2010 11:43 | ||
It seems that the simple answer isn't being obvious.. They get paid more because they negotiated the increase into their contract. Now, the history that Charlie explained is interesting for sure. but today, it is simply because it has been agreed to. |
I find it a bit alarming that other technicians seem to take an interest in the financial affairs of others, and it's not "a rising tide lifts all boats" sort of interest.
Personally, if someone wants to save a client some money they can lay their own earnings on the sacrificial altar, but leave my negotiated wages alone.
Tim Mc
Post by: Mac Kerr on November 27, 2010, 01:06:09 PM
| Rob Spence wrote on Sat, 27 November 2010 12:43 | ||
It seems that the simple answer isn't being obvious.. They get paid more because they negotiated the increase into their contract. Now, the history that Charlie explained is interesting for sure. but today, it is simply because it has been agreed to. |
Part of the reason it has been agreed to is that the normal rate that has been contractually agreed to with the venue is for an event that has certain limits on profit due to venue size. When the event also includes future profit from media sales (CDs, DVD, broadcast) the basis of that original contract is changed. In light of the higher revenue stream, everyone involved in the production gets to benefit from that greater profit potential. The local crew who worked the show only have a 1 time opportunity to profit from this, and it comes in the form of higher hourly rates, or additional flat fees. The production can continue to profit for as long as they can sell the media.
Mac
Post by: Jonathan 'JP' Peirce on November 27, 2010, 02:21:52 PM
| Tim McCulloch wrote on Sat, 27 November 2010 13:01 |
I find it a bit alarming that other technicians seem to take an interest in the financial affairs of others, and it's not "a rising tide lifts all boats" sort of interest. Personally, if someone wants to save a client some money they can lay their own earnings on the sacrificial altar, but leave my negotiated wages alone. Tim Mc |
Well said Tim.
Post by: Dave Stevens on November 28, 2010, 03:48:15 AM
| Mac Kerr wrote on Sat, 27 November 2010 10:06 |
[ Part of the reason it has been agreed to is that the normal rate that has been contractually agreed to with the venue is for an event that has certain limits on profit due to venue size. When the event also includes future profit from media sales (CDs, DVD, broadcast) the basis of that original contract is changed. In light of the higher revenue stream, everyone involved in the production gets to benefit from that greater profit potential. The local crew who worked the show only have a 1 time opportunity to profit from this, and it comes in the form of higher hourly rates, or additional flat fees. The production can continue to profit for as long as they can sell the media. |
That is a great explanation. I think those questioning don't have the experience in that realm of production where this is a normal thing. For example, prior to me "working for the man", I would charge a 10hr day rate of $450. If it was film or video the 10hr rate increased to $650. It's standard industry practice. It's a normal thing, guys. Even working for the man we're able to do better, but in the form of more overtime. A couple weeks ago we wrapped principal photography on a motion picture that involved several of our productions. We don't have a broadcast rate but with the OT involved it worked out to almost the same as if we did, not including the benefit package on top of that I didn't get as an independent.
You full timers that have been doing this for a decade or more, don't sell yourself short. You have a specialized skill that not everyone that buys a PA at Guitar Center can do. Maximize your earning potential with your experience and skill.
Post by: Rob Spence on November 28, 2010, 11:37:42 PM
Post by: Jay Pemberton on February 08, 2011, 05:20:04 PM
That which was recorded for the station was only intended for broadcast once or twice, but a couple of times a local big band took some of the recordings I made for broadcast, and released them themselves.
The first instance was released on a cassette, and the station's chief engineer insisted on making the DAT master of it for the band, cutting me out of having any say on the sound quality of the end product. (He didn't do anything to mess it up, to his credit, but that also got his name on the tape's credits as a recording engineer when he'd only run FOH sound at the concert.)
One year later, the band played another concert I was to record, but such circumstances as not having a sound check on the day to determine and solve potential technical problems in advance meant I got a very substandard recording.
I made my frustrations known to the station's personnel; the material was broadcast over my objections but I wasn't given on-air credit for it.
If only that were the end of the story. Now the band were going to produce a CD from whatever recordings. The station were behind me to the extent of telling the band I wanted to have a say as to what parts of the concert recording I'd be comfortable with having out on a release, and also that I'd want to do the mastering thereof.
The band's leader (well on in years, long retired even then) did what he was going to do....I was not in the loop. What he used for a source was a poor cassette copy of the concert, and four songs from it ended up on the CD. How do they sound? As you'd expect: fuzzy and swimmy, from a combination of undecoded Dolby B, gross azimuth misalignment and transfers from the tape at too high a level so the sound is also a distorted mess in the digital domain. At least they're on speed.
No engineering credits on the CD though, just typically 'Songs xxx recorded (date) at Kilgore College by KTPB Radio.'.
Post by: Charlie Zureki on February 08, 2011, 06:36:37 PM
The time to negotiate your recording credit (and fee)is BEFORE the recording date.
Because you were working for, and being compensated by the Station, and since the Radio Station had been granted permission by the Act for you to record on behalf of the Station for the Station's programming, the Act owes you nothing. (and the Station had already agreed to your "terms" via your compensation)
It was the Station that gave the Act a copy of your work. It is almost written in stone, that when such recording events occur, that the Act will get a copy (if not the Master Copy) of the performance.
More than likely, the Radio Station gave up all rights to ownership of the recording when the deal to record the Act was first negotiated.
There are plenty of Attorneys that write contracts for the Entertainment Industry. Seek an Attorney's advice if you are a free-lance Recording Engineer. Have them drawn up a boiler-plate contract for your future use.
In your example case... you probably have no recourse.
Hammer