For Composers…
/
Over the years I have advocated a lot for my composer community. My SCOREcast podcast with Deane Ogden was a platform to take on a lot of industry insider issues for iver a decade. I also have directly lobbied CA legislators to exempt composers from the CA AB5 law dealing with independent contractors. And I have been teaching in UCLA Extension’s The Business Of Film Music course (which I developed for them) for over a decade talking about composer business issues. I continue to this day in many lobbying efforts. Which leads me to a hot topic in the composer community today. A composer union.
In 2024, a composer union has a large amount of hurdles to overcome. I have spoken on the web in the past about the NLRB decisions setting precedent for us. They led to us NOT being eligible to unionize.
Some brief summary of that:
Elmer Bernstein et al v. Universal Pictures argued for more copyright control by composers over the IP of the compositions they create. Because they were in a union at the time (a relic of the days when they were employees with offices on lots and a steady flow of studio pipeline movies coming to them), the Supreme Court said their case was really a union dispute. So their fate was to be an NLRB decision. The NLRB as you know is basically the “Supreme Court” of labor disputes.
Follow that case by The SCL v. Aaron Spelling Productions which went before the NLRB and argued that the way composers worked had changed. We were no longer employees because of how we worked. Our employers do not control the means of production. And controlling the outcome with approval or feedback is not controlling the means. Every composer works differently. Different software. Different creation processes. Some write every note. Some project manage a team. Anyway….composers WON their case. And thus their independence. They convinced the NLRB, the top labor entity that we were not employees. And thus the composer union at the time was broken up. Because only employees can unionize. That is the National Labor Relations Act of 1935.
Ok…that is where we are. So…what are the other hurdles?
1. The truly successful composers today don’t really want a union. Their business model works for them. They don’t want a union entity of mostly non-working composers telling them how to conduct their business. If you were at all at the WGA / Teamster composers meeting in the early 2000’s this was made very clear by some heavyweight composers there. Mike Post for example. They don’t want a fledgling composer with a vote telling them what to charge, how to work, or how to operate their already successful business. So what does that mean? It means in any scenario where composers happen to legislatively change things, the big names are going to make sure whatever union exists again is going to be in their favor in terms of its bylaws. They will likely have minimum credit requirements to even join. And the one’s who will qualify are likely already on studio films where the basic minimum protections a union purports to enforce are not really an issue. Those composers are doing fairly well even to this day. Believe me. And they are NOT going to support changing the status quo. They have found a way to be successful in the current system as an independent contractor.
2. There will also be minimum requirements for benefits IF a union were to ever happen again. A significant number of actors don’t qualify for their health benefits. They simply don’t work enough. A composer union will be no different. The people who need these benefits the most, frankly don’t work enough on union productions to earn the dues money necessary to earn the benefit. Remember, union rules and conditions affect zero percent of the productions that are not a signatory. This is why some want to try to unionize under other existing unions. IATSE for example. Because IATSE would already have productions committed to “IATSE crew” so the hope would be that production commitment would extend to Post-Production composers. But like the Teamster attempt before the AMPTP argued nothing has changed in how composers work and frankly, they are not wrong. So legal precedent matters.
3. Union productions (for the other entertainment unions) are not the norm for composers. They are the exception. There is no law and never will be to force a production to be union. There is only a union signatory contract agreement to do so that is voluntary to sign. Most productions won’t sign it. Some sign an actor one but not a crew one. Etc…So there is nothing to make that “union film” comply with any potential composer union conditions. Similar to how a SAG, ISTSE and TEAMSTER film here can avoid being an AFM film by recording music oversees. So for composers, working on these indie projects doesn’t earn you credit to join either. And certainly doesn’t provide any conditions, minimums or protections.
4. There would have to be a specific case brought up through the NLRB system (since the decision is theirs to redefine composers as qualifying for employee status). That case would need to show a specific example of a composer qualifying as an employee in how they work, but currently not being so per the NLRA. It would take years and cost millions. Who’s ready to fund it? And frankly the way we composers work over the decades since the decision has only leaned IN to us being independent businesses competing with each other rather than production company employees. IP ownership issues aside. So I don’t see that happening quickly.
5. The arguments Elmer and the SCL made to earn composer Independent contractor status for composers are still valid. We should absolutely have more control over the copyright of what we create. We have copyright law on our side UNTIL we sign it away in these work-for-hire agreements. More on WFH later. But remember, employees do NOT own the copyright of what they create by default. The law in that scenario is in favor of the employer being the author and owner. That includes royalty collection. Remember, union members don’t get royalties. They get begotistes residuals. That money is coming from a different pile to replace royalties. This is what Elmer et al was fighting over and won. Do composers really want to be giving that IP ownership potential up? Are you ready to potentially give up your royalties and not be on cue sheets? Because that is where this will go.
So….in a nutshell…the composers who need a composer union the most don’t have the support of the big name composers who have the leverage and power to get studios to listen. And the indie work young composers do likely wouldn’t qualify them for the benefits they are seeking anyway. The union has no money except for the dues and percentage take out of union work. The benefits you want come from those dues and paycheck contributions. If you are not on a union film, you are not paying into the system with your pay check.
So what does all this mean for us as composers?
Well…on my next post…I will go into that future foggy unknown road. So…what do we do? The approach I would like to see to strengthen composer’s leverage and position to make things better for EVERYONE. Not just the “studio level” composers already getting paid decently. And more on that Work-For-Hire thing. Because it is a big part of a solution to improving our leverage.
