Artistic integrity - music clearance etc (1 Viewer)

[Glenn Curtis]

The Fugitive fiasco has highlighted yet again the serious problem with music clearances for DVD releases.

What I don't understand is why the production staff at all levels are not up in arms about their work being altered. I know there is an argument that these people have been paid to do a job but surely these people also regard themselves as artists and as such are proud of the work they have done. If I had created something and done the best job I could, I certainly wouldn't want someone who had nothing to do with it to come forward years later and change it. After all, my name is still on it; not theirs.

In this respect, shouldn't the studios and all the craft unions be pressing the music publishers for some sort of compromise so that a set fee is paid for all music for all TV material pre the home video age. I am not sure what year that would be but would have thought 1980 a simple cut-off point.

Shouldn't all the various unions be uniting on this one to bash some collective heads together and come up with a sensible agreement to protect the integrity of their members work?

 

[Mark Talmadge]

This again? Music rights? Until studios start deciding to pay the licensing fees for including original music there is nothing that consumers can do about it. Consumers can't even sue a studio if they decided not to include a notice that the music has been edited or replaced.

This is just a way of doing businesses. You don't see the pharmaceutical companies indicating all of the side effects of their prescription drugs and you won't see studios doing this for DVD releases.

They did all they needed to do, just place a warning on the package that some of the episodes have been edited and some music replaced. After all, these studios are in the business of making money not losing it.

You don't see studios placing quotes on their DVD's indicating a bad review do you? No, they only place good reviewed quotes on their DVD's.

 

[John L]

Well, it would be marketing stupidity if they did the former

 

[Elena S]

The original poster makes some valid points, IMO.

Due to the never ending power struggle of "possession," this argument will continue to go on and on until someone with common sense steps in and makes a definitive decision as to who owns the product.

The whole issue of residuals is ridiculous to me. I have long been of the mind that once a studio has a program "in the can," it is the sole possession of the studio that produced it. That means NO residuals for actors (do you get paid over and over for a job you've only done once?), and no more compensation for music used in the show aside from the original payment for it. Of course, none of the principals involved in the work would ever agree with me because they want money, money, money.

 

[paste]

During the writers' strike, someone pointed out that if residuals were cut off, the initial costs for writers, actors, musicians would be much higher because most deals figure in potential residuals from reruns, home video releases, etc..., which might mean that certain projects never get off the ground because of the cost

Here's the link.