Mad about the shelving of Coyote VS Acme? Then push for Congress to pass Zaslav’s Law. If a film is shelved solely for a tax write off, it becomes the property of the cast & crew. They can then do whatever they want with it, & keep whatever money it makes. - ThreadSky

duncanwriter.bsky.social • 474 days ago

Mad about the shelving of Coyote VS Acme?

Then push for Congress to pass Zaslav’s Law.

If a film is shelved solely for a tax write off, it becomes the property of the cast & crew. They can then do whatever they want with it, & keep whatever money it makes.

Comments

duncanwriter.bsky.social•474 days ago

This is my first viral Bluesky post.

Let me shill my mystery trilogy.

Also available at Amazon.

HACK
https://fahrenheit-press.myshopify.com/products/hack-duncan-macmaster?sca_ref=3922671.h8Cod6btwV

HACKED
https://fahrenheit-press.myshopify.com/products/hacked-duncan-macmaster?sca_ref=3922671.h8Cod6btwV

HACKER
https://fahrenheit-press.myshopify.com/products/hacker-duncan-macmaster?sca_ref=3922671.h8Cod6btwV

raymanwithaplan.bsky.social•473 days ago

Hack, Hacked, Hacker on Hacking's door. Hey, hey hey hey!

lizbethfriedman.bsky.social•474 days ago

Interesting.
But Disney is corporate all the way... this is what happens when one makes art for the corporation. Employee doesn't get to keep it as it was made for the bottom line. As artists... we know this when signing the contract.

danjohnson.bsky.social•474 days ago

I'm not sure what you're saying here. Isn't the point of the proposed law that it would change that?

lizbethfriedman.bsky.social•470 days ago

First ... can't fin anything on the proposed law. Please point me to info. I'm interested.

Re my point: when an artist is engaged as an employee for a corp that "makes things" (tangible or intangible), they know what they are signing up for: Corp has final say if something goes to market or not 1/

duncanwriter.bsky.social•470 days ago

I made it up on the spot. I’m the only source.

For now.

lizbethfriedman.bsky.social•470 days ago

....that is to say employee is aware they don't have any right to the "thing" they've made as they have no legal ownership in the product. The company has every (sole) right to do what they want with that product. Thus, employee should have no expectation to have a decision as to what happens to it.

danjohnson.bsky.social•470 days ago

Right, but if a law was passed giving the crew ownership of shelved projects, they'd be aware of that too.

Are you saying that such a law would be bad?

"People know what they're agreeing to" isn't, by itself, an argument against such a law any more than it would be against minimum wage laws.

lizbethfriedman.bsky.social•470 days ago

Not saying such a law would be bad or good. I need more info to evaluate as the devil is in the details and such decision making amongst creative people can be organized chaos with a variety of pitfalls (and benefits). Thus, the request for more info. That's really it.

hannah.guardian-bs.fun•474 days ago

I also like the proposal that tax write offs mean the film must be entered into the library of congress, and become public domain. Cast & crew being able to profit of it would be *ideal* but logistically seems difficult.

reverendjesus.com•473 days ago

This is my vote, right here.

dougclose.bsky.social•474 days ago

willemdafomo.bsky.social•473 days ago

Before he can write off & bury another finished film, David Zaslav should have to eat one entire physical print of it.

dreigon.bsky.social•474 days ago

Source?

soulamami.bsky.social•474 days ago

They did..what?!?

tlsmith63.bsky.social•474 days ago

I am sick of studios doing this!!!

cmdrsue.bsky.social•474 days ago

That's not a thing yet, right? But it should be.

ecarney.bsky.social•474 days ago

Isn't there a chance this would incentivize companies to write of MORE projects? If they lose faith in one, they can recoup part of the budget but not risk burning as many bridges with creators. Those creators may then own the project, but they probably don't have studio money to market it.

thunderbuck.bsky.social•474 days ago

Lol... you think the studios actually CARE about maintaining the relationship?

ecarney.bsky.social•474 days ago

To the extent that it allows them to continue making projects which in turn make them MONEY, yes I sure do.

I don't think Zaslav cares because HE wants Warner-Discovery to eventually make only unscripted content, but that's a different issue.

unchi.org•474 days ago

I don’t see any evidence that “preserving relationships with creators” is a significant factor here. After all, that should be an incentive to release the film in the first place, but it clearly isn’t. No reason to believe that it would tip the scales if this change went into effect.

ecarney.bsky.social•474 days ago

It's not at all clear that Warner Bros *didn't* consider the impact on creator relationships, only that they decided the value of the write-off outweighed it. But that impact will become greater if the company dies this a lot more and sends the message that creators' work will likely be for naught.

thunderbuck.bsky.social•473 days ago

I firmly believe that WB shelved a likely-profitable movie as a deliberate message. They wanted to be clear that they don't HAVE to release movies to make a profit. Zaslav is garbage.

tanek.bsky.social•474 days ago

The trend is just starting and, if it works, there will be plenty of incentive as it is. Plus, does anything say the studios can't shelve these projects *now* for the write-off, then release them down the line as a special event or some nonsense to make money off of them anyway?

duncanwriter.bsky.social•474 days ago

Doing that would get all the top executives charged with corporate tax fraud.

tanek.bsky.social•473 days ago

I'd be more reassured by that if I didn't suspect money can always find or make a loophole.

jonpennington.bsky.social•474 days ago

That or put the film immediately in the public domain. There has to be some disincentive for suppressing creative work.

Comments

Posting Rules

Reply