Enjoying the golden age of film and TV franchises? Fast-moving legislation in Sacramento could dramatically stop all of that.
Movies, TV, and streaming have never given us a lot of content that we love. In 2021 alone, nearly 950 films went into production and 560 original series written were released to American audiences – an all-time high. Many have been created here in California.
But these projects are only possible when complex production schedules involving hundreds – or sometimes thousands – of people can be synchronized with talent. If producers can’t solve this Rubik’s Cube scheduling, audiences will lose out on captivating, enduring stories, putting California’s creative economy (which supports roughly 570,000 jobs each year) at risk.
And that’s exactly what the proposal being quickly brought through the legislature, AB 437 by Assembly member Ash Kalra, would do. By effectively banning the exclusive employment agreements used today as the basis for film, television, and broadcast productions, this bill would jeopardize countless productions in this state. While sold as a “pro-artist” labor fix, AB 437 will practically tie the hands of performers and studios as they work to negotiate creative deals that push forward exciting new projects.
Exclusivity agreements provide performers with the necessary certainty for producers to fund, secure, plan, and complete major film, television, and broadcast projects, particularly those involving long-term story arcs. They assure writers and opponents that characters developed in one season can be traced back to later storylines. When fans, talent, and crew demand a second or third season, the tailored and customary exclusivity agreements for the main cast allow everyone working on or watching a production to benefit from continued play. In other words, they provide the foundation upon which to build large-scale, long-term productions – laying the economic bedrock for everyone from screenwriters to theater workers.
Today, exclusive agreements are meticulously negotiated, and producers pay well for them – not just for top talent but for supporting actors and character roles. While the term “exclusivity” implies that actors cannot take on other projects, this is not the case. With the carefully designed exclusive deals used in today’s productions, actors can do a great deal of extra work and not be left out of the market. For example, actors working in a streaming show can still appear in feature films, commercials, live theater, voice work, animation projects, and even guest appearances on other shows.
Banning such agreements would permeate the industry, jeopardizing the livelihoods of thousands of creative professionals (including those with well-paid, high-quality, production-backed union jobs) whose earnings depend on the certainty that these agreements provide. Without assurances that talent will be available, producers won’t risk investing in and creating characters or stories that span several seasons. Many series may not make it past the first season. In addition, under AB 437, there is no amount of compensation that can be paid by the producer, which the performers can accept in exchange for exclusive services. This proposal would unnecessarily tie the hands of actors and performers and prevent them from negotiating self-serving deals while jeopardizing thousands of jobs and California’s cultural and creative leadership.
The studios are a good partner. In fact, through the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers (AMPTP), they are only now negotiating the matter, about a year before the current collective bargaining agreement expires. This bill is an entirely unnecessary invasion of negotiations and bargaining between performers and studios, including agreements that would be bypassed by law.
Two previous versions of this legislation have already failed to advance through the California Assembly over the past two years. The bill’s sponsors are now seeking a new change in the Senate, but three strikes are sure to end this bad idea for good. It simply puts too much at risk.
Film, television, and live broadcasts boost California’s economy, providing thousands of high-skilled, high-paying jobs across the state, and enhancing our cultural and creative leadership around the world.
The California Senate must reject this effort to undermine the foundations of this great success.
Charles Rifkin is the Chairman and CEO of the Motion Picture Association.
[ad_2]
