Posts by Jaymax
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Graham, you could also upload it to a site like
http://www.pdf-archive.com/This will give you a public link to share it.
(Without going through any OCR)
-
Timing wise - at theatreview there is a post with the Canadian statement, which includes: "at the spring meeting of the Executive of the International Federation of Actors (FIA) in Copenhagen, a motion was passed supporting our colleagues".
That meeting was presumably FIA Executive Meeting Copenhagen, June 26-27
-
Jackson seems to have been at least partially the meat in the sandwich, and on telly last week he hardly looked like a confident arch-manipulator of global big business as some old-left ninnies have been painting him.
I doubt he even knew for certain what WB were thinking - after all, it might be in their interests to play up the 'gonna move offshore' angle to PJ, if what they really wanted was to force a rapid union backdown and film it here. Impossible to know.
-
Respectful letter requesting a conversation:
http://www.alliance.org.au/documents/letter1.pdfOn a closer reading, the letter doesn't even allude to any earlier contact with 3'7 on the matter - not even some failure to respond to an email or something.
-
Sacha, not under Creative Commons, no. If the work is in the commons, it's in the commons. Just like a novel, or a photograph, or whatever. But sometimes artists choose to put their work into the commons.
So I guess it is about residuals, in that it's a specific statement that for this novel and groundbreaking work, there won't be any, ever (at least within the scope of the original performance - it's possible to reserve rights - no commercial reuse is mentioned - or like say creating merchandise in the likeness of a character).
-
With the residuals you would not want the unions involved in collecting and distributing these
Residuals, as part of the contract financials, shoud be handled (I would think) by the actors' agents - they have a justified financial interest in making sure it gets paid. I agree the union needs to be separate from it so they can properly wield clout when there are problems.
-
They resign and add their names to the formation of a new union.
How is that different to re-reforming AE as a NZ union under different leadership? Serious question. The number of people expressing interest in a new guild would likely be sufficient to make the necessary changes, even without the support of disgruntled AE members.
One possible track: We see a new guild formed; a few months down the track, AE dump MEAA and some time subsequent the two merge, under the 'brand' AE. In the meantime, SPADA is frustrated at having to deal with two entities, and actors are put in opposition to each other by being forced to choose sides.
-
Actor's Equity starting to make the right kind of noises now:
After listening to that, it really sounds like Robyn Malcolm is finding her feet after a very steep learning curve. I'm still a concerned over the 'police escort' nonsense, but I do wonder if she might not actually become a very effective AE leader (For an AE divorced from MEAA) in the near future.
I get the impression she volunteered to be thrown in the deep end, and couldn't swim as well as she thought - but has pretty much got it right by the time she reached the shallows. If I'm right, I hope she can recover what has been lost from the early flailing.
In particular, (reading between the lines) she seems to recognise now that standardisation is what they need, and that standardisation means working with SPADA, not productions. To me that strongly suggests she also understands WHY the strategy was poor; and I'm pretty sure she's better informed than most of us about how that strategy came to be.
The other thing that struck me (in the latter part of the recording) is that, despite the deep mutual respect, techs still don't get actors, and actors still don't get techs (I know this is a very gross generalisation) - they have very different needs, and aspects on life - and comparing their contractual expectations is going to be a bit futile. Again, acknowledging the deep mutual respect, and the co-dependence that exists between the two sides.
----
Side note: Where have the agents been in all of this? Have I missed something? In a fracas over actors contracts and contract negotiations I would have thought there'd have been something - or do they still miss the point that they solely represent their actors, and not whoever happens to be currently hiring? Maybe it was just a case of keeping heads low to avoid flying objects.
-
@Nick - Ta. I did not know. (Also guessing not the only one here who didn't)
-
So, I've just been through the lengthy debate at:
http://www.theatreview.org.nz/forum/topic.php?id=899 (Hat tip to Sacha)I pulled out some points as I came across them that don't seem to have been covered here. Apologies if I missed something already dealt with. Summarising, so including names and timestamps so you can find the post there if interested. All statements are per the posts, not mine.
----
Wellington meeting: The motion (from the floor) was not to include non-AE members, but to exclude them. Voted down by AE members.
4 Oct 2010, 06:04 PM - John Smythe----
Numbers: ~450 in Auckland; ~40 in Wellington. 598 AE members at the time; more since.
4 Oct 2010, 06:30 PM - Pete Coates (also 4 Oct 2010, 06:30 PM)----
Wellington meeting, from attendee: Wlgn actors' agents not informed, short notice. Actor reading PJ statement 'slammed down by union members before he could finish'. Motion to exclude non-union members came only as non-union members voted to oppose resolution; non-union actors felt uncomfortable.
5 Oct 2010, 04:14 PM - Zelda Edwards----
Miller movie (Justice League Mortal): Prior run-in between WB and MEAA. "It feels to me like I'm not fighting for this film. I'm fighting for the Australian film industry. " - Miller
... an American story that will be performed in American accents. "For the public, both in Australia and outside of Australia, it will be seen as an American film," Simon Whipphttp://www.smh.com.au/news/film/mega-miller-movie-refused-rebate/2008/03/18/1205602383792.html
----
Finally, a thought (mine) that developed during the debate over the Weta contractor/employee discussion. There is a firm distinction between someone engaged with an uncertain, but definite end-date, after the engagement objective is achieved -vs- no definite end-date, and new objectives coming down the line. Haven't read up on the case, so not sure how relevant. But clearly there is something about a 'contractor' who is engaged because of who they are is an intrinsic part of their 'product', that makes them special compared to a 'contractor' who is engaged for their skill, or even artistry, at producing the 'product' they are engaged to produce.
The law needs to acknowledge this.
----
Finally finally - Russell, I listened to your radio segment on the panel - I would urge you to get the story re AE and MEAA integration from someone who wasn't an actors' agent. No disrespect to RB (not you, the one you referenced) but as I understand it, there's a very important other side to that story.