Bill to address television performers and actors remuneration 01 28 2012
Television Works: Rights with regard to royalty income of television performances should revert to the actors after 5 years. Such actors are to then be included in the royalty stream of the rights of such television productions.
All future television programs are to be stipulated that those who appear on that program get a percentage of the future proceeds of that programs annuity stream upon rebroadcast.
The writer will receive triple the percentage of the actors. The producer will receive double the percentage of the actors. Crew members will receive 20% share of the actors share. Proceeds to be received are to be allocated based on the gross income of the rebroadcast. That figure forms the basis for the participant’s share of income. The more participants the less each share would receive of such total.
Why am I being so hard on the writers and producers in terms of comparison to their rights now? It is very simple there have been very few written works that can be considered classics today in my point of view. What we see presented on television was not written into literary from and published in literary form first. Therefore I would question the merit of its literary quality. Literary quality should indeed be the standard by which television programs should be produced upon instead of the standard of “what appeals to the lowest human denominator and will sell well because people like to believe in reinforcement of all their faults.”
What I have been told it that writers “Channel” American citizens to obtain their material for their productions. “Channeling” is indeed a form of witchcraft and the early Americans hung such people!
Also to be included in such bill of rights sharing would be this; if an American can make a valid and provable assertion that they were indeed “channeled” for the creation of a television broadcasted program they too get a percentage of the gross proceeds going forward.
Initially all that is required to share in the gross proceeds going forward is proof of a diagnosis of schizophrenia and a documented family history of the disease. Such individuals are to receive the same percentage as the actors.
The share allotment is to be standardized whereby any person can apply to share in the rights on a government maintained website.
A party subject to the rights can at any specific time chose to forfeit his share or transfer it to another member of the group.
The name of the bill might be entitled the, “Why was Shakespeare mad at the scribes bill.”
Opponents of the bill will proclaim that they are protecting the interest of the trade name. I would assert that opponents, who are likely current beneficiaries of the royalty stream, have no idea what the person believes in; in the case of rights to the works of others that they own. I would indeed assert that their interest is in most cases contrary to that of the original writers, actors and performers. I would then clearly state that current owners of such revenue streams do not represent the original work. How can you claim to be consistent with someone whose stardom and life was ended shortly by drugs or tragedy? There is no way that you can because you were not there for them to effectively prevent it!
Opponents to the bill would proclaim that I have no evidence with regard to my assertions. Sometimes the best evidence to be considered is indeed what is termed Empirical Evidence. Prima Fascia real world evidence supports my assertions in every way!
All recipients are to state what they intend to do with the money and how they will spend the monthly royalty check, they must itemize how it will be spent. However those participants who have been deemed to fall under the channeled provision can make light of how they intend to spend the money, whereas those who are not must be very serious in there descriptions and not make a parody out of how they spend it.
So therefore each program would have a list of royalty beneficiaries. And next to each name would include the status of such beneficiaries. The third column would be their constantly updated percent of gross royalty. A fourth column would then be for how they intend to spend it. A fifth column would indicate their age and if they are available for acting positions if they are an actor.
Automatically to be included in the list are the names of the “Channeled” members. They are to be included on every list by default.
Thomas Paul Murphy
Copyright 2012 Thomas Paul Murphy
No comments:
Post a Comment