From tfw2005.com, Anne Bryant composer of various cartoon themes from the 80s including Tranformers, JEM, and other Hasbro properties, is suing for payment and royalties of her work from Sunbow Productions. She is hoping to recover millions for the sales of those themes (especially Transformers) from CDs, VHS, DVDs, and any other license that used those themes. She is also hoping she can get professional screen credit in case her theme is used in the new Transformers movie.
The trivia bit, knowing the name of the composer of the famous theme is nice, but this litigation could effect the music used in the movie. The only reason to really care about professional credits in the context of the money is for the money that credit brings. It wouldn't just be a matter of throwing her name on the screen. There would be a cost attached to using the theme as a result of this litigation. While its possible the film producers could work something out, there really isn't a reason for them to when they can just avoid using the theme entirely. Which is a shame considering the hint of it used for the teaser trailer showed some great potential.
This also highlights something I will never understand about the Hollywood system. At any of other job function under the sun, work for hire usually means that if you create something under the employ of someone else, they own it lock stock and barrel. If they choose to throw some money your way for it, lucky you but they don't have to. Do you really think the team that invented the iPod is getting kickbacks for every device sold? Or the family of the inventors of the TV? Or the Radio? Or any other piece of technology and idea out there? The company may be but rarely the mind that created them.
In Hollywood, usually the actors, producers, directors, singers, composers, etc get kickbacks for everything sold. It could be a half penny per or a percentage of the profits. Many different ways of doing it but it all comes down to them getting a little something for every object sold. This is why the RIAA, the MPAA, singers, actors etc are hammering pirating so much. Because most of the figures used assume a 1 to 1 ratio of every item pirated is one less item sold (nonsense btw) then that is literally money being taken away from them. All this is on top of a negotiated salary, be it $1000 for a movie or the $20 million that some actors get (more nonsense). For the real world, the negotiated salary is it and if your company is kind you might get a bonus.
I bet it must be galling to be apart of the crew of these movies and so forth to create (say the costumes, sets, lightning) basically everything that makes the movie what it is and get no money for it. They get their salary and that's it. They can't sue for that extra bit of money even though their work is on screen just as much as the work of the directors, producers and especially the actors. They get treated like everyone else in the "real" world, while the "talent" gets treated in La-La Land way.
Its just strikes me as odd that Hollywood, music industry etc are all about the business at the end of the day, yet it doesn't run like any business I have ever heard of. I wish the company I worked for operated the way they do, then I might be able to afford a new car with all the kickbacks I would "deserve".
So back to Anne Bryant, probably a minority opinion, but she deserves credit for creating her various themes, but going by the classic definition of work for hire as nearly every business under the sun but Hollywood has, she was hired to create these themes for Sunbow, therefore they are owned by Sunbow and that's it. She doesn't deserve extra money just because their marketing machine was able to make hay out of it. If she wanted to make money for every copy used, then she should have created a contract where she lends them a license to the themes that she owns (say the family that owns "Happy Birthday").
Maybe not fair but then neither are her assumptions of money owed just because others where able to make the theme famous. Do those marketers deserve a kickback to by that argument since she wouldn't be owed millions if they hadn't done their job well?
The lesson is if you want a bit for every piece sold, own it outright, otherwise its work for hire and out of your hands. Unless you work for Hollywood.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
If the contract said it was a work for hire and she signed it, she's agreed to it. I don't think her argument will hold up in court. It will be interesting to see how it all turns out. My prediction, though, is that she'll loose.
ReplyDeleteBeing a musician myself, I know how work for hire works, and I know how contracts work. I may not know as much as a lawyer, but I know the basics.
two things to consider:
ReplyDelete1. depending on the contract, she may have written the theme simply for the television broadcast of these shows, regardless of whether the contract was "work for hire" or not. The fact that the theme was then used in video games, CDs, DVDs, etc., would thus be usage outside the scope of her original contract and she would be entitled to money for this additional use. But of course, any argument on this point would be entirely speculative without seeing the contract itself.
2. union contracts... the reason that actors, directors, writers, composers, etc. get royalties for their work (or "kickbacks" as you call them) years after the work is performed is because they're written into the contracts negotiated between the unions and the studios (or in the individual actor/director contracts themselves... backend deals, merchandise, etc.). Each union, such as the Screen Actors Guild (SAG), Directors Guild (DGA) or Writers Guild (WGA), has its own lengthy and detailed agreement with the signatory studios (most of the big-name studios in the industry) that outlines everything from the order in which names must appear in the credits (ever wonder why the "Directed by:" credit is always last on the slate when credits are shown before a film? that's no accident), to how many assistant directors need to be on set in a domestic production vs. foreign production, to-- yep, you guessed it-- royalty payments for guild members. If this composer was a member of some sort of Composer's Union that had a negotiated contractual agreement with the studios, then she may be entitled to this additional money based on the rate schedule in the agreement itself.
Good point there. We really haven't seen the details of the contract.
ReplyDeleteMy apologies for posting anonymously but I just came accross this blog and felt very strongly about the opinions put forward in the article. Although the composer in question did sign a contract and that's fair enough she dug her own grave, I do object to the opinion that "creative types" should be paid the same way as anyone else. It makes no sense, since for one thing people in creative fields often work from job to job and so have less stable income, meaning that royalties and the like make a difference. Also, someone is going to make or save money from the theme tune anyway, it's not going to be redirected to the cinema goer so why shouldn't it go the the composer as opposed to the studio "fatcats". Finally I can't speak for anyone else but I certainly hate it when others rip off my work, the intellectual copyright laws protect small creative types (or at least try to) from monolithic corporations and small time free-loaders who would quite happily use their work as a money making venture. Sorry for the rant but that's just the way I feel...
ReplyDeleteP.S. look into the case of H. R. Giger who was completely screwed over by Twentieth Century Fox after his work on Alien...
Responding to the above:
ReplyDelete1) If your concerned about steady pay, find a job with steady pay. I'm all for following your dream, but be prepared for the reasonable consequences of said dream (IE if you really want to be a garbageman, be prepared for the smell of garbage.) Everyone needs income, I myself am learning the in and outs of paycheck to paycheck, but still, if you need more money, find more or different work. In the words of Jane Cobb "My daddy always said, if you can't find work, you ain't looking hard enough."
2) "If someone else is going to make money off of it, why shouldn't it go to the composer?" This is drug dealer logic. "If others are going to make money off of the pain and suffering of my fellow human beings, why shouldn't I?"
3) The third point is the one I actually agree with. Piracy is an issue, especially for intellectual properties, however it returns back to what was said before. It all depends on who actually owns the property in question. If I commission an artist to paint me a picture, he may have created it, but I paid asked for it and paid for it and it is mine. I could burn it as kindling for all I wanted and the artist really doesn't have a say in it.
All said and done, I just hope this doesn't screw up the music for the film seeing as scheduled release is 7 or so months away.
Hi. Being a 9-to-5er, I can appreciate the points well made and taken about income. I have had the pleasure to work with artists and their creative capital must be honored and respected as such. I do believe a contract is a contract and must be honored as written and agreed upon. They can't change the rules in the middle just because a fortune is at stake. I am sure all TF parties are aware and their lawyers and all making huge bucks on this case. - pay them to whittle it down and then pay pennies on the dollar for the monies owed. I am sure they are doing a stand up job taking this artist for as much as they can.
ReplyDeleteVery sad & I hope the judge does the right this on this one and sees that Anne Bryant is paid every penny they agreed to pay her!
The PRODUCTION fees were very small. The royalties were licensed back part of my compensation as a writer. That is how it's done in music publishing. Professional composers and songwriters write for royalties and do not relinquish them. I am simply trying to enforce my agreements and claim my royalties.
ReplyDeleteThanks,
Anne Bryant, composer
An Open Letter from Anne Bryant
ReplyDeleteDear Transformers Fans,
Thank you for your support of the Transformers over the years, and thank you for your support of my original Theme Music, which has become associated with the Transformers products and properties. Because of your support, "The Transformers" has truly reached a pop culture status.
I also write to thank you for your many kind and supportive remarks regarding my exhausting, six-year litigation process. The blogs have been favorable, in the main, and I can tell you that your support means much to me in my David versus Goliath struggle to claim the royalties long due to me.
To clear up any confusion here as to my motives and timing, I can say that my investigation into my pathetically negligible royalties for the TF theme began in 1994, six years prior to filing a formal lawsuit in 2000; including that in 1998, I contacted BMI, and then, as instructed, I repeatedly followed their formal inquiry procedures to the letter [for two years], without a single response from them. These big organizations have all of the records, so it is difficult for a composer to unravel problems, or perhaps even to identify honest mistakes, without their help; without their cooperation. As such, frustrated with the lack of response from BMI, I packed up all of my correspondence, proofs, contract numbers, original registrations and payment forms and went to see my attorney. He also tried to get satisfactory information from BMI for several months, but lacking any serious help, we moved to file a formal claim so that we could demand records from them. Concurrent with this, it became evident that my themes and songs [Transformers and others] were being used on a multiplicity of recording products licensed by Sunbow without any accounting statements or royalty payments to me, hence, the scope of this legal action.
As indicated above, in no way was this lawsuit motivated by the new DreamWorks live action movie; the movie was not even a glimmer on the horizon when all of this began. I don’t know whether they plan to use my theme in the new movie, and of course, I would love it if they do, but this litigation is first and foremost about the past and present royalties due; the future for Transformers, Jem, ML Pony and GI Joe and the other themes, if there is one, can be handled when the case is decided or settled.
Additionally, I can tell you that I have no rights to claim royalties for music composed by Ford Kinder, my former partner in our production company, except in any instances that our interests may overlap. We were separate writers -- not collaborators -- who jointly owned a production company we formed to take responsibility for all aspects of the full and final production of music that either he or I composed. As such, we credited any music that we produced through our company to both of us. This we did in order to build our company name. Ford and I wrote and produced several hundred pieces of music each year; this was our profession. Basic fees were paid to our companies for our services as producers, arrangers, *musicians and singers. And always, we were to be compensated, personally, as composers solely through our royalty payments. This is standard in the Commercial Music Business: writers write for royalties; professional writers always retain their royalties. So, this is what I am demanding in my court action: account for and pay the past and present royalties as agreed, and correct the records for the future.
I sincerely hope this will clear up any misunderstandings any of you may have; and I hope you will continue to support my efforts to be fully compensated as I face this well-financed, brutal opponent that would rather pay millions in legal fees, than pay to settle this matter.
See you at the movies: 7-4-7.
With all good wishes,
Anne
* Additionally, you may be interested to know that no "Secondary Market Payments" have been made to union musicians and singers for the use of their performances on TF, JEM and other television themes originally produced for Sunbow and GBI. Sunbow simply lifted these performances onto recording products and licensed them to distributors without making those payments required in their Union Contracts. The Screen Actors Guild and the American Federation of Musicians are working to recover payment to the performers in actions separate from my lawsuit.