Deadline: SAG-AFTRA and Actors’ Equity Association are locked in a jurisdictional dispute over the taping of live theatrical presentations. SAG-AFTRA has long held that jurisdiction, but says that it’s offered AEA a waiver to help out their fellow actors during the coronavirus shutdown of live theaters across the country. According to SAG-AFTRA, Actors’ Equity has rejected the terms of the waiver.
9 comments:
I’ve had many conversations/been a part of many conversations asking the question of why AEA didn’t elect to join SAG-AFTRA. I know in 2012, SAG and AFTRA joined together and in 2016 AEA made a statement how they wouldn’t cross the jurisdictional lines between SAG-AFTRA and AEA but I feel like AEA would gain a lot more strength if it merged with SAG-AFTRA (regardless of if COVID-19 was a thing or not). What is even more frustrating is that during this pandemic SAG-AFTRA has offered a waiver to allow their members to cross jurisdictional lines but AEA has rejected the terms. It is really great hearing the leaders of SAG-AFTRA present a message that AEA and SAG-AFTRA need to work together during this time. It seems like AEA is really creating us vs them mentality when the two organizations are sister unions who should care more about one another. It seems like AEA’s financial issues of not having anyone pay into their health insurance or pension fund (the same fund with multiple purposes) is clouding their ability to negotiate as I’m sure AEA is worried about going into bankruptcy especially if their contracts all pay into SAG-AFTRA.
In my opinion, we are in a time where people across all industries must come together, as workers and as humans. This is a time to unite, not divide, especially when Covid-19 is dividing us already. I understand that filming is under SAG-AFTRA’s domain, but I do not understand how this necessarily gives them jurisdiction over what the Actor’s Equity Association decides to do, especially in a pandemic where seemingly, all bets are off. I did enjoy how this article attached the draft of the Screen Actors Guild waiver that they offered to the AEA. It is interesting that they determined the Pandemic Period to be through April 30th, 2021 and that Broadway is closed now through the end of May 2021. It seems like a very arbitrary number, especially with Covid being difficult to predict and handle. I was intrigued by the clause that would limit the amount of editing done to the production, especially as I would assume this includes editing in multiple camera angles. I wonder how Hamilton went through when this draft, while not having been passed, does not allow streaming onto services like Disney+. I understand that SAG-AFTRA likely does not want to deal with the competition on the same platforms, but I do see why AEA would decline their offer.
-Ariel Bernhard
I do not know much about the history of the relationship between Actors’ Equity Association and SAG-AFTRA, but I can imagine that over the years, individual cases have come up that resulted in a clear distinction between their jurisdictions. In recent years, there has been an (probably exponential) increase in media that falls under SAG-AFTRA’s jurisdiction, and it is easy to see how the current mode of production relates to that media. Although theatremakers have been pushing to develop a new type of theatre that still counts as theatre, I have not heard of many productions that are not comparable to one form or another of pre-pandemic broadcast media. It seems that the real losers here are the stage managers, whose transition to SAG-AFTRA seems complicated or impossible . In this article, while SAG-AFTRA is defending its territory (probably justly so), AEA is defending its people (probably justly so). I am curious to find out more about the theatre institutions that are negotiating with both unions.
Before reading this article, I hadn’t considered the overlap of AEA and SAG-AFTRA with filming live theater. We’ve seen many musicals, such as Hamilton, Newsies, and Jesus Christ Superstar, filmed for audience viewing at home; it is now clear to me that the process for unions and their specific jurisdictions plays a huge part in those projects. I would agree with Ariel, at a certain point the back and forth between AEA and SAG needs to be resolved for the benefit of the union members. They need work, fair pay, and protections in a safe work environment. I do however understand that contracts and waivers can be extremely tricky, and every group has their own goals, points of interest, and things they are worried about. But, especially during the pandemic when the entire entertainment industry is struggling, I hope to see this resolve soon and in a way that allows people to continue sharing their art in a COVID-19 friendly way.
Ahh yes, we knew this day would come. I remember talking about whether taped theatre performances and showing of taped performance on TV fall in with AEA or SAG-AFTRA and how that topic is always a little contentious. The complicated nature of union contract negotiations is made incredibly clear with the situation explained in this article. In Sean’s class, we have talked a lot about union contract verbiage is really important because different interpretations can make working conditions very different, and it seems that that may be in play here. I might take the time to read the waiver and see for myself. I don’t know anything really about SAG-AFTRA and their historic beef, but having read a lot of the history of IATSE and the disputes they have had with other unions over the past 100 or so years, I’m not surprised that this conflict exists. I think that the rumor mill and the internet probably have not helped with the relationship between these two unions, and for this pandemic isn’t making it any easier.
Before this article I wasn't even aware of the fact that there are 2 different unions for actors, one for the stage and one for the screen. Now that I think about it, it definitely makes sense as both types of actors demand such different needs for their safety and integrity of their work. I think that it is good that the pandemic is bringing up a good conversation about which union should cover the actors that are performing on the stage and having those performances be recorded. Personally I believe that the AEA should cover all actors on the stage, including the ones that get recorded, as the way actors perform on the stage is vastly different from the way they perform on screen. I think this dispute does need to get resolved and fast as actors are desperately in need of work during this pandemic and the faster they can get opportunities that are safe and for fair pay, the faster the entertainment industry can recover. These unions are vital in ensuring that actor's get treated fairly as the entertainment industry is struggling and I imagine producers will try to cut costs as much as possible when productions resume, which can lead to unsafe working conditions and the exploitation of all labour in the entertainment industry.
This article really opened my eyes to a lot of things - the fact that two such unions even existed and that such a problem about taping shows existed in relation to acting contracts. For me, I had always only looked at the problem from the perspective that the rights-owning company/playwright did not want their work taped/streamed, but I hadn't even stopped to think about how actors' unions have a lot to do with it as well. Since big Broadway musicals like Hamilton and Newsies have been taped and uploaded to Disney+ successfully before, I hadn't been concerned with this idea of protecting jurisdiction vs. protecting actors and their contracts. Obviously, their are a lot of details to the contracts and a lot of nuances that need to be considered before any waivers could be signed, but this is something that truly affects all of the active artists waiting for their main source of income to come back in as well as the state of theater as a whole.
I found this article confusing yet interesting. I think during the covid pandemic part of the confusion and uncertainty comes from the fact that we don't know how long this will last. I think that SAG is willing to have live theatre broadcast but they want to make sure that they have the control over it. I think that Actors Equity Association is hesitant to do this because they don't know how long they are going to have to give up some of their power and they don't have full protection over actors in AEA if SAG takes over the live broadcasting part. Its very ahrd to combine two different contracts that have always been separate and developed for different purposes. Its not as easy as just applying all of SAGs rules to broadway shows and letting go of everything that AEA has put in place. I hope they are able to come up with some type of solution.
Ahh we have a day of reckoning and bickering over who gets to control certain content. After reading this article, I am a little less sympathetic to SAG-AFTRA than I am to Equity. I understand SAGs position and their wanting to protect their members but at the same time, Equity is Broadway and if Broadway wants to live stream, they should be able to without interference from SAG. Broadway is a different world from a film or television set and while many actors belong to both unions, there really does need to be a clear separation of control over what each gets. SAG wants to defend what it feels is its territory and Equity wants to defend the rights of its members, especially where safety comes into being. I’m not so sure that SAG has a right here because until recently (within the last few years) did any type of streaming of a theatre show become a thing. Waiting to see how this plays out.
Post a Comment