Umm, because the industry is generally pretty stupid and self-serving?

The auto union does this, sort of, which is that they target the weakest of the Big 3 – or the most dependent upon labor at the time – to negotiate the new UAW contract when it renews. The outcome then sets the stage for the contract with the other two.

Where the analogy falls apart is that the UAW is already established as are benefits – and, its a negotiation and not a legal action.

In the case of a legal action that would impact the entire industry, especially those production houses with deep pockets on a relative basis, there is no way that a Vivid or Wicked would sit on the sidelines because the outcome would impact them. They would either seek to join the suit, or put their resources behind the defense of the action. For the life of me, I cannot imagine that the major players in the industry would put their futures in the hands of an under-capitalized competitor that couldn’t afford to defend itself.

My idea would that they are likely not to contest or would only fight it with limited resources, and thus might end up setting a precedent with a ruling in favor of the union.

Taking on Vivid, as an example, would be painful. They would face Steven and a fairly solid list of lawyers who could easily tie this whole thing up for months (if not years) in legal motions, depositions, change of venue requests, and 100 other things. Unless the union has deep, deep, deep pockets they are likely to get outspent and out timed.

PS, Mike: Nothing is easy, so please don’t think I’m minimizing this. That said, I think porn talent has a much better case in arguing for residuals than porn producers have in arguing against it. I cannot think of another artistic field in which talent is not compensated when their work is republished or rebroadcast. If you’re a magazine writer – my primary job for low these many years – you are paid a one-time publication right; if anyone wants to republish it, including the magazine that originally hired you, they have to pay you a republication fee, which can be quite lucrative. I’ve had any number of $5,000 assignments turn into $15,000 paydays after reprints. If you’re a photographer, the magazine that hires you for a shoot only contracts for 1 time publication rights – if they or any other publication wants to publish those same images there’s another fee. If the radio plays your tune or its used in a movie, television program or ad campaign, there are fees. If you’re an actor or director and your television show or movie is rebroadcast, you get a fee. A playwright or a choreographer gets a fee every time their play is produced or their original dance movement is used by another company.

Only in porn is the talent paid once and tossed aside.

Frankly, I think residuals/royalties would be a good thing for porn in the long run. Yes, there may be fewer production houses, which means less work and for fewer talent, but it could weed out the scum bags and bring professionalism back because only the strongest producers would survive.

If this were mainstream, directors would certainly be part of it. They get residuals when the product they directed is rebroadcast.

In mainstream, at least, producers typically own the product they produce. That’s who would be making good on residuals.

I’m also surprised that talent agencies haven’t taken a position, since its in the best interest of their clients, which is what they’re trying to promote. And yes, I don’t imagine that you can recoup from past releases, but I think they can argue for future agreements.

Bingo Karmafan! We are not looking to sue Porn Companies, they are barely surving as it is, they would never survive the hit. We need more companies to work with not less!

The only way to sign up for the union, is by going to the website, entertainmentadultunion.com
If you sign up, you can sign on to the class action law suit, if you would like too.

Bear in mind Brenda, that Directors/Producers may well become a part of this class, as most of them don’t own the product when it hits the market. And as I pointed out this move may not be so much to recoup money from past releases as it is to make royalties/residuals a part of future agreements.

One thing I have noticed about prop 60 and the royalty thing is the absence of talent agency thoughts/position. Presumably they would be very much against it but the FSC involvement may well have backed them into a corner they dont wish to be in.

Sorry, Jamie, but you are mixing apples and oranges. Royalties, or residuals, are not the same as getting a percentage of the gross or profit.

Royalties – which is what musicians and book authors receive – or residuals – which is what actors, directors and script writers receive – is a payment that is paid every time a book is sold, a song is played on the air or in public, or a television show, radio show, or movie is re-aired or re-released in theaters. They are not tied in any way to whether a project made or lost money for the production company or the broadcaster. As an example, as a television script writer, I received a $25,000 fee every time a TV movie I wrote was re-broadcast after the original air date. It did not matter whether my producer made or lost money on the project. That’s what porn talent is seeking: You pay me $1,000 for a scene, but I get a small fee every time someone downloads my scene as a royalty. By the way, in mainstream, royalties/residuals are standard to the contract and are non-negotiable unless you’re a really in demand writer and can command a bigger royalty than the standard. That’s what the union accomplished.

What you’re referring to is in addition to the standard, non-negotiable residual. That is giving the actor, writer or director a piece of the action. Today, it is generally tied to the gross receipts and not the profitability of the project. That way it is not subject to accounting. But again, that is outside the scope of royalties/residuals and has nothing to do with the union. That’s what agents do.

“The Guild was founded in 1933 in an effort to eliminate exploitation of actors in Hollywood who were being forced into oppressive multi-year contracts with the major movie studios that did not include restrictions on work hours or minimum rest periods, and often had clauses that automatically renewed at the studios’ discretion. These contracts were notorious for allowing the studios to dictate the public and private lives of the performers who signed them, and most did not have provisions to allow the performer to end the deal”
Very different than the free lance porn world.