Video game actor strike

[[KFKAS]Death-Speak]

Ooooo.... bad example. That voice over job went to a LucasFilm employee, not a professional voice actor.

Exactly.

 

[LoneWolf]

About laziness... you are entitled to your opinion. It's an uninformed opinion, but an opinion the same. I wadger you don't know anyone who does acting for a living.

Irrelevant? How many times have you watched a movie with a date? How many times have you watched a funny TV show or movie and laughed your head off? How many times after seeing a good movie have you walked away and felt "damn that was awsome"? What about all the shows that Bob Hope used to do for the troops overseas? You think THAT is irrelevant?

Jon...in arguments like this, I recall an old saying:

"Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig."

If HikeSkool doesn't use any entertainment involving actors at all, I can understand his viewpoint. But people like this are going to be contrary no matter what evidence you provide. They've got a set opinion, and nothing you can do, facts, evidence, etc. will change it.

My opinion? I think residuals in most cases are ridiculous. I don't see an issue with the raise offered to the VO actors, I think it's a good thing (and those calling the raise ridiculous don't get it, many of them haven't been in the workforce that long if at all, but some don't understand what cost of living is like at that level or the expenses involved vs. the money you get paid). I think a lot of people forget that in many cases, a poor voice-over job in a game isn't necessarily due to the actor either, but could be entirely due to what was asked of them in the studio by the person producing that portion of the game.

There are a few games that wouldn't be quite what they are without the right voices (Chronicles of Riddick without Vin Diesel). There are other games where big name acting or voices were worthless (Wing Commander 3/4/5 were great, but would have done fine without Mark Hamil or Malcolm McDowell). Either way, people deserve a fair wage for work performed, no more, no less.

 

[magoo]

I think you're mixing your legal debates. Voice overs have been an established form of intellectual property for decades, since well into the golden age of television and commercials. So, the precident exists that voices ARE a property that can be exchanged, regardless of the medium.

But, now you're saying an actor cannot be paid for work they didn't do, which isn't the issue at hand. The actors are trying to get residuals for THEIR work. I don't know why you brought up the issue of actors trying to get residuals for other people's work because that's not what the actors are complaining about.

now let me get this straight,you go to an interview,the employer says "you have the job. Here are the details and a contract. I will pay you to do this work. It is unique work but its MY work and if you desire to do it these are the conditions.
You sign the contract and do the work. Plain and simple. If you dont like the conditions of the contract then dont do the work. Its so silly, its like me saying...well I came to work yesterday and the company was profitable yesterday, so please pay me my share of that profit now for the work I did. (thats called owning stock in your business, not RESIDUALS)

 

[Zorro]

Having someone do a specific voice for a specific product is one thing but saying that "you used your real voice in game X so you can't ever talk again" is BS.

Don't blame me for the "BS." Those are the contracts that game developers are making voice actors sign. And since we both agree that's it BS, you're already on the side of the voice actors.

BTW, according to your definition the IP laws don't apply. Voices are not products of human intellect...

Um, dude... it's common knowledge that the voice qualities and similarities that make up Tony the Tiger, Bugs Bunny, Simpsons etc... are characterizations owned by their respective companies. And, did you not read that last bit at the end where it says "and more." That's because the crafters of that specific law recognize that IP will evolve as new ideas are introduced into the industry. It never used to be that programming code was IP. Programmers had to fight tooth and nail for that right. Actors have had it for decades and it's why they're so angry about not having all of the financial privileges of voice IP in the gaming industry.

 

[wfalcon]

Probably because they have to "apply" to a high number of "jobs" in a given year. Or at least thats my guess.

Perhaps. But then, that's the career that they chose for themselves. If someone makes pizzas for a living, who should get the blame for their desire to settle for a low-paying job?

If someone is doing this stuff on the side for extra cash, then bravo. If not, then they need to evaluate their priorities. There are simply some jobs that are not high-paying careers. They should have known this before entering said field.

 

[jon_k]

What is to stop an actor from getting a second job, or a job between acting gigs ?

You know like the rest of us do ?

Well you are right, and that is what most actors do. It is very very rare that an actor is able to fully support himself on acting alone. The ones that can generally become famous.

But think about it, would you rather have a career that you love, or a career that you did just for money? That's why they are complaining. My personal opinion? If you don't have the talent to work full time in acting then so be it, but I can certainly understand why they are complaining.

 

[LoneWolf]

What is to stop an actor from getting a second job, or a job between acting gigs ?

You know like the rest of us do ?

You think they don't? If so, you're incredibly naive. Many do, however, that means a whole other can of worms. It requires maintaining at least two skillsets in an area of the US where parking your car might cost several hundred dollars a month and apartment rent could be $2,000+ a month on its own. Cost of living in the appropriate area to get work as an actor (often the US west coast) can be insanely high. A job waiting tables might cover it if you live with six of your closest friends.

It's so easy to spout "Get a job!" I think very few of us here understand everything going on in this situation. I don't know that the actors are entirely right...But I certainly think that plenty of the knee-jerk responses in this thread are wrong.

 

[pwnx]

Again, based on your comments it's clear that you have no idea how the acting industry works. Also, your comments look suspiciously like you didn't read the whole of my responses. First of all, those voice actors aren't doing one or two gigs and then sitting on their laurels. They're out there finding many gigs, often one right after the other. Because they don't have steady income, they are constantly having to find work. A thing like a head cold can mean the difference between fame and famine when you're living from paycheck to paycheck as most actors do. You say the actors have nothing to lose, that's patently false. The next 3 hour gig for $278/hr can mean they get to live in their apartment for another month, let alone having enough money to feed themselves or pay for health insurance of which they have none. I'm sure you can recognize the stress that can cause, so it's not like having to work 10+ hours a day is all that bad because you can be sure that you're going to have a home and food on the table. Plus, with a 6-digit job you can put aside money for a rainy day. Voice actors need their entire paycheck just to stay alive.

You're not going to understand this looking from the outside. I may be an actor, but I'm also a techie and the biggest difference between me and all of my acting friends is that I was never a starving artist. 10+ hours a day you say? Boo hoo hoo.

I don't think you understood my post either. VO actors and developers get paid for the worth they are on projects.

With a similar comparison for you, pretend you're a developer looking for jobs just like a voice actor. In the industry today, it is just as hard to get a position making 6 figures, like your friend, as it is finding voice work. I know some people who cannot get any programming work, least of all game development work, for months and months at a time. Are these people starving artists too? No, because even though they are out there everyday trying to find employment and at the same time trying to learn more to actually be considered, they get another job that will help them live. What you're comparing is an already established employee to a not so established voice actor. Many people would be happy doing code for 15/hr, working hours at a time, just to have a job. You're also assuming all companies will actually give their employees health insurance, which some don't. I'm not saying voice acting is easy, but game development isn't easy either.

And a 10+/hr a day job IS all that bad. They have a lot to lose like getting fired if they don't make deadline just like anyone else including voice actors. They will get fired if the game tanks and the company cannot reap enough profits to continue employing so many people. With these hours, I'm including just working at the office time. Most of the time, work is also done at home when people get off work, lasting till 2am in the morning.

Ok, like some others have said, if you know you will not be getting work often, get another job. Do as actors do and work as a waiter or something. I don't see the point in raising salaries to a living wage for people who only do 3 hour gigs. Next thing you know, they'll want more because now that they have a pay increase, they think they can work less and they want more money so they can live off of that. How about just becoming really good at your craft and try and make yourself indispensable like any good employee should. If you're that good and voice is as important to the game as some think, then it should be no problem finding a gig.

 

[Zorro]

now let me get this straight,you go to an interview,the employer says "you have the job. Here are the details and a contract. I will pay you to do this work. It is unique work but its MY work and if you desire to do it these are the conditions.
You sign the contract and do the work. Plain and simple. If you dont like the conditions of the contract then dont do the work. Its so silly, its like me saying...well I came to work yesterday and the company was profitable yesterday, so please pay me my share of that profit now for the work I did. (thats called owning stock in your business, not RESIDUALS)

It's silly? Your argument above is the same argument used by programmers to have IP rights to their programming code, and hence have the right to the subsequent residuals stemming from those programming code successes.

I'm glad you're beginning to see things my way, even if you won't admit it.

 

[obs]

now let me get this straight,you go to an interview,the employer says "you have the job. Here are the details and a contract. I will pay you to do this work. It is unique work but its MY work and if you desire to do it these are the conditions.
You sign the contract and do the work. Plain and simple. If you dont like the conditions of the contract then dont do the work. Its so silly, its like me saying...well I came to work yesterday and the company was profitable yesterday, so please pay me my share of that profit now for the work I did. (thats called owning stock in your business, not RESIDUALS)

Then the voice actors would go hungry because pretty much every contract has that clause in it. If you noticed, this is NOT why the actors are complaining about. That is part of the business. It is merely being used to show you that voice acting is more than just talking into a microphone. All you are doing here is introducing an argument that no one is arguing over.

 

[bonkrowave]

You think they don't? If so, you're incredibly naive. Many do, however, that means a whole other can of worms. It requires maintaining at least two skillsets in an area of the US where parking your car might cost several hundred dollars a month and apartment rent could be $2,000+ a month on its own. Cost of living in the appropriate area to get work as an actor (often the US west coast) can be insanely high. A job waiting tables might cover it if you live with six of your closest friends.

It's so easy to spout "Get a job!" I think very few of us here understand everything going on in this situation. I don't know that the actors are entirely right...But I certainly think that plenty of the knee-jerk responses in this thread are wrong.

If they cant afford the acting lifestyle, then they shouldn't be acting. I dont complain about not being able to afford to live in the Hamptons in California, because thats where the best networking is for industrial design.

We all go through sacrifices to get our dream job. Hell I did two years of militray service to pay for school then five years of being dead broke at school, living in the ghetto. I didn't bitch and moan that it was too hard. I bucked up and did it, because I realized that was what was required.

You have to pay a price to get where you want to go.

 

[Zorro]

I don't think you understood my post either. VO actors and developers get paid for the worth they are on projects.

I'm of the opinion that based on what I know of the crap that programmers are faced with, that they should strike as well.

 

[Ryland]

Don't blame me for the "BS." Those are the contracts that game developers are making voice actors sign. And since we both agree that's it BS, you're already on the side of the voice actors..

Don't put words in my mouth that I didn't say. Im not on the side of the VA's for getting residuals. If they need AND deserve a raise, which I think was the counterproposal, than give it to them. They do not deserve residuals just because they did a voice. Thats like saying that the guy who played McGyver shouldn't be in SG1 because he has the same voice.

Um, dude... it's common knowledge that the voice qualities and similarities that make up Tony the Tiger, Bugs Bunny, Simpsons etc... are characterizations owned by their respective companies. And, did you not read that last bit at the end where it says "and more." That's because the crafters of that specific law recognize that IP will evolve as new ideas are introduced into the industry. It never used to be that programming code was IP. Programmers had to fight tooth and nail for that right. Actors have had it for decades and it's why they're so angry about not having all of the financial privileges of voice IP in the gaming industry.

If its common knowledge (like the sun is going to come up in the morning) than why doesn't everybody know about it. No official law ends with "and more" because it wouldnt' hold up in court for its openendedness. That was as definition you linked to, not a law. We don't fight tooth and nail for code that we wrote on company time since we were paid to write it. What you find programmers fighting for is code that was written on personal time that the company is trying to claim ownership for.

 

[Ryland]

I'm of the opinion that based on what I know of the crap that programmers are faced with, that they should strike as well.

Only Unionized members can strike/walkout. What you are stating is that all programmers should either sickout or quit...riiiight.

 

[magoo]

Um... I'm also techie (like a career actor would be reading HardOCP) and I already have a job. But, it's nice of you to make assumptions due to your inability to make an argument more intelligent than "get a job."

on the contrary, I dont think that most of what you have said requires an intelligent reply. The whining has drown out most of the conversation. I think if you read most of my replies here there is one theme that stands out, if you dont like the conditions change them; dont be a pussy and cry FOUL because you "got a bum deal." its the same as taking your ball and going home because your team is losing. As ive said, if youre a big boy you read and sign the contracts to WORK FOR SOMEONE. THEY created the work not you (the techie/actor).
Like ive said before I went to school,studied hard,have a nice job,have a family,can read a contract, and work very hard at what i do. I feel for the game programmers at EA but I think most people can answer questionaires about work in the same way. Were all stressed. Dont you DARE cry to me about how you have to audition and travel and sweat and practice to do your job. Ive been there more that you could ever imagine. Its all part of the job. If you want more WORK more, work harder. Dont WHINE about being underpaid and all stressed and sweaty. While Im still ranting Im going to say one last very unintellegent thing.....you can shove your intellectual property .....well up somewhere that someone with no obvious intellegence would shove it.

 

[astuben]

The world of an actor is fairly shallow and the world revolves around them. They are getting plenty o money and besides that, before too long we should be able to generate a good voice programmatically without their help.

 

[magoo]

It's silly? Your argument above is the same argument used by programmers to have IP rights to their programming code, and hence have the right to the subsequent residuals stemming from those programming code successes.

I'm glad you're beginning to see things my way, even if you won't admit it.

No that is not true....if you own stock in you company you work hard for success. You dont whine about something you did in the past and expect more than your salary that you are given for the work you perform.

 

[S1nF1xx]

They want a bigger cut.....

They provide a voice for a game. Wow. Maybe after they get huge raises, we should nominate them all for Nobel prizes and make them king for a day.

Greedy bastards.

 

[magoo]

Then the voice actors would go hungry because pretty much every contract has that clause in it. If you noticed, this is NOT why the actors are complaining about. That is part of the business. It is merely being used to show you that voice acting is more than just talking into a microphone. All you are doing here is introducing an argument that no one is arguing over.

please enlighten me....what beside more money for the same contractual work is the basis of this discussion????? I seem to understand precisely what this is about...."money for nothing" you too my friend can get a job.

 

[EchoMatrix]

screw actors, get a real job.
get better working conditions for programmers, even though the market is flooded with them and they should find another line of work and let the market take over

 

[matcauth]

Lollerskates @ this thread, My two cents or whatever, the voice actors better get a grip with reality and realize that if the programmers, artists, whathaveyou, don't get thier share of the same that they themselves will be auditioning for something else in the mean time. And speaking of which, why don't they demand the same thing? I believe it's the passion and love that goes with game making that you don't hear about, that drives them, not just a contract job for a finite period.

Look, for example, at that guy who's older gentleman, does all those voice-overs for movie trailers and such, and I know you know who i'm talking about, that ominous sounding, deep voice. He does nothing but movies trailers afaik. I could be wrong, but, yet again, I also kinda side w/ them, the throw out your concerns and let the chips fall where they may sort of thing. LOL But, damn, these petty things for game studios, i'm sure they consider them petty with all the stuff they have to worry about, which doesn't excuse all the effort the voice actors go through to accomplish their commitments.

 

[Zorro]

The intellectual property you define is the UNIQUE character ie. logo that is merely represented by the voice behind it.

That's not how entertainment law works. You may disagree, but my arguments are based on decades of established practices in the business. The voice and logo are seperate, and each is also seperate IP of their respective creators.

The creator of the character has the property rights not the voice over.

Again, you don't know how entertainment law works. The creator retains the rights only if it is stipulated in the contract, which rarely ever happens, even for major character voices.

The voice does add to the uniqueness of the character but is a part of that whole and cannot be separated.

Why do you keep insisting that? That isn't how contracts for voice actors work. You need to either sit through a contract negotiation like I have, or ask someone you trust that is a lawyer with a specialty in entertainment law.

what are your dues each and every month? if you could negotiate seperately would you do better???

First you have to pay an initiation fee of $1,356 + the $100 yearly due. Right now they're talking about raising the initiation fee to $2,085 + $130 yearly dues. Along with the dues, you have to pay a percentage of your income to the union. Currenlty those rates are as follows:

$1-$200,000 = 1.85%
$200,000 -$500,000 = 0.5%

 

[Zorro]

I understood the "point" that he was trying to make, I just didn't agree with it.

It doesn't matter if you agree with my point, which is less a point than it is an observation of established entertainment law and the way things are done in Hollywood. You can disagree with me all you like, but the fact this is I'm merely telling you what is going on, right now, in Hollywood, everyday. You're trying to debate reality, dude.

 

[Zorro]

What is to stop an actor from getting a second job, or a job between acting gigs ?

You know like the rest of us do ?

This is where the lazyness comes into play.

You have no idea what you're talking about. Every actor has a story about some crap job they had do while in between gigs. I understand you may disagree about certain things, but creating misconceptions about how actors are won't make you right, just insane. Take a trip to Studio City and see just how many of the 200,000+ actors living in LA are working as waiters, repairmen, movers, bouncers, etc... I happen to work as a techie, and make good cash doing so. Most of the people I know work at video stores or restaurants. All of us work, all of us try to make auditions. Lazy my ass.

 

[Zorro]

Don't put words in my mouth that I didn't say.

And which words would those be?

Thats like saying that the guy who played McGyver shouldn't be in SG1 because he has the same voice.

Actually, it's not. That's a seperate area of entertainment law and I believe the legal term for it is "character."

If its common knowledge (like the sun is going to come up in the morning) than why doesn't everybody know about it.

Typo. Common Hollywood knowledge is what it should have said. Ah, well.

No official law ends with "and more" because it wouldnt' hold up in court for its openendedness.

More opinion on your part. The law can be as vague as lawyers and judges allow it to be. Check out the ACLU website for information on that: http://www.aclu.org/Privacy/PrivacyMain.cfm

We don't fight tooth and nail for code that we wrote on company time since we were paid to write it.

How old are you? The big hubbub during the early part of the software industry boom was the establishment of patent and copyrights for programming code. I'm guessing you're not older than 30 or you would know that copyrights was a BIG deal back in the day. The courts were tied up for years by programmers trying establish that code was intellectual property and thus subject to patent law. And, before you respond to this with more of your random gibberish, try picking up a book that discusses the finer points of computer law and tort. Everything I've said here can be verified.

 

[jon_k]

You have no idea what you're talking about. Every actor has a story about some crap job they had do while in between gigs. I understand you may disagree about certain things, but creating misconceptions about how actors are won't make you right, just insane. Take a trip to Studio City and see just how many of the 200,000+ actors living in LA are working as waiters, repairmen, movers, bouncers, etc... I happen to work as a techie, and make good cash doing so. Most of the people I know work at video stores or restaurants. All of us work, all of us try to make auditions. Lazy my ass.

you know something Zorro, the way that article was written, our point of view was doomed from the very start. It's amazing how when someone write something down and calls it "professional journalism" people just gobbel it up before even thinking. All people saw was "$290/hour" and "want a raise" and immediatly "OMG GREEDY LAZY." When you look at how it works in the real world though, most working actors are far from being greedy and lazy. In fact they rarely do it for the money. But no one's gonna believe that regardless becasue of how this article was written.

 

[Operadragon]

OK...after reading 13+ pages of this discussion, I had to chime in.

There are obviously some universal truths derived from observing the banter on this topic.

*tongue firmly into cheek*
1) Everything posted on the internet *must* be true (in reference to the ill-written Yahoo news post).
2) The all-enveloping term "Gameplay," and the "Oooh...Shiny!" factor are way more important than story, character development, and above all else, voice acting.

*tongue out of cheek*

3) The vast majority of people who post here have no clue as to the way the process of casting, direction, and anything else to do with recording the voice-overs for (the correct term) "interactive media."
4) Nobody really knows what voice actors are getting paid now, let alone under each proposed plans by each the Publishers, and the SAG/AFTRA negotiation committee.
5) A lot of people call voice actors a lot of things, ignoring the old adage, "never judge someone until you've walked a mile in their shoes."
6) The focus of this "discussion" has been on people (namely "A-List" motion picture talent) who will not be affected one iota by the SAG/AFTRA proposition.


Anyways, folks...there is much confusion over this topic, and I have a great interest in it as a professional non-union voice actor. There. With that out of the way, let's really get to the meat of this debacle.

There is one place that many of us would agree a good amount of rage should be vented, and that's the publishers. The publishers are the controlling factor in all this. they're the people who front the money, so ultimately, they're the ones who have a hand in everything from marketing to casting voice talent, to pressuring those poor coders into working 80+ hours a week in those freaking cubes. It's their money that is to be made or lost in the end, so it always amusing to hear people blather on about piracy taking money from the software developers. Only if the developer and the publisher are the same entity. The same goes for VO artists. The publishers stand to lose *some* money if they are to cave in to SAG/AFTRA's demands. For an insider look as to who is *really* going to be affected, I'm giving you all this link. It's to a news post on a site called the SAG Watchdog. I will say now that this guy is a SAG actor, but has no love for the leadership. Just read other news on the site to find out to what degree. Anyway, here's the site.
SAG Watchdog

Now, folks, actually READ this material and wrap your brains around it. If you don't have the patience to do this, then you don't deserve an opinion in the first place. I have an opinion on this issue, but I always attempt to look from all sides before jumping to conclusions.

If you look at the issue at hand, there are only a handful of games that would "qualify" for residuals in the first place. There is a very telling number on this issue, and it is: 85 out of 4,371. That is the number of games (85) that would've been required to pay their voice actors residuals out of the total number of games produced (4,371). There is another number that is floating around here: $278.10. If you look, that is the amount paid to one voice actor *if* they have only one character, and work for only one hour. Imagine that was the only gig you got that week as an actor...one hour, one voice. Now all of a sudden that doesn't look so "lazy" and "overpaid," does it? If you figure a week's salary at 40 hours a week, that is $6.95 an hour. That's the very reason "rank and file VO artists" have supplementary jobs, as was mentioned before.

I know that isn't necessarily an apples-to-apples comparison, it is only to put things in perspective. I currently make a certain amount for every event I am a part of when I do voice-over of any kind. It isn't nearly as much as the SAG scale. That's why I'm also the Sports Information Director at a small NAIA college. It funds the improvement of my project studio, and very much qualifies as a "real" job. I resent it a great deal when people act like Sophists of old and wax intellegently about things they have no true understanding.

My opinion on this matter is that if there's a strike, some projects will suffer, others will not. If there is a strike, I doubt it will affect my work, unless I get a huge break. If not, the little guys will be hurt most, not those familiar-named screen actors.

Don't think I don't understand the plight of game developers. Just allow yourselves to think outside the box for a moment. If a residual policy was put into effect for voice actors, it would stand to reason that the developers now have precedence to negotiate for their own residuals.

On Intellectual Property:
This area of law is the most nebulous of any other simply because of the lack of the amount of case law, relatively speaking, of course. This part of the video game industry is literally changing weekly.

On likeness rights:
Sean Connery played 007 for many years. In order to have a licenced game based on "From Russia With Love," his permission had to be secured to transfer his likeness from one medium (film) to another (game). This negotation is completely separate from his pay for voice over. That's just another clarification.

On using scabs in licensed games:
If SAG were to strike, and Sean Connery doesn't cross picket lines, he would *still* have to give his permission to the publisher to have someone mimic his voice. That's the truth.

Final thoughts:
I hope this helps. I know that some people are not going to be swayed, and others don't care, "as long as they get to frag" realistic models of humans...see my above "Ooh, Shiny" comments for those. I respect others that have differing opinions. Just don't say "because" and expect that to win any respect from anyone.

Regards to all and happy gaming,
Brad Venable

P.S. How in the world can someone from the University of Tulsa be so shallow and bitter...whose trust fund is paying for that $15,000 tuition, and which frat are you in? BDV
(I'm just kidding...just lighten up a bit, will you?)

 

[ashmedai]

2) The all-enveloping term "Gameplay," and the "Oooh...Shiny!" factor are way more important than story, character development, and above all else, voice acting.

My measuring stick has been Final Fantasy 7 for years, and before that much more low-tech. The widespread use of voice acting is a relatively recent trend that I can more or less take or leave. I've seen it done well, and I've seen it done very badly. Maybe it's just because I started out on text games and then moved to ones with ASCII art and then sprites...but voice acting really isn't a critical part of the game to me. It's nice if it's there and done well, but I probably still have the subtitles on, and "sorry Mario, but our princess is in another castle!" still managed to do quite well for cut scenes between levels. Voice acting is over-used and often just tossed in there after the fact because everyone else has it so (I assume) they're afraid it will hurt sales if they don't pad their feature list.

I may not know much about what goes on behind the scenes in the industry, but I know that how enjoyable the game is for me to play, and the story/character development that you lumped in with voice acting, are most important to me by far. I can read just fine, thanks, and I rather miss when they'd move the story along using actual text. Voice is more difficult to deal with and can very easily detract from the story instead of adding to it.

So, apologies if I seem insensitive to the issues involved, but I don't care much as I find the frequent use of voice acting for the sake of having voice acting to be highly annoying.

Your $6.95 figure is completely artificial. And as far as the people that as you point out would only have one hour's work in that week, how is this different from say someone that does substitute teaching, or for that matter anyone that doesn't hold a full time position?

$278 isn't exactly all that excessive in light that it's contract work, people that are hired to perform a task and then leave are frequently paid more than a regular employee would expect for the same time period because they are not a regular employee. So I'm not trying to compare one to the other, and you probably shouldn't either. On the other hand they don't have any basis to expect job security of any kind, they probably don't retain any rights to the work they produced unless their contract states otherwise, and so forth. They're contractors, not employees, and only coincidentally performers. Hiring an outside graphic artist would work much the same way, they pay once for the work to be done, at rates that would seem excessive if they were a full-time employee, and then the relationship is over. If they wanted to liscense a previously existing work, then again the model is different because the rights to that material are not owned by the company that wants to use it.

If there's something major I'm missing here, feel free to point it out to me, but as stated I don't feel their work is essential, and I don't feel they're getting screwed. If they can negotiate for residuals or whatever, good for them, but that will be a step outside what would otherwise be considered typical.

 

[Ryland]

And which words would those be?



Actually, it's not. That's a seperate area of entertainment law and I believe the legal term for it is "character."



Typo. Common Hollywood knowledge is what it should have said. Ah, well.



More opinion on your part. The law can be as vague as lawyers and judges allow it to be. Check out the ACLU website for information on that: http://www.aclu.org/Privacy/PrivacyMain.cfm



How old are you? The big hubbub during the early part of the software industry boom was the establishment of patent and copyrights for programming code. I'm guessing you're not older than 30 or you would know that copyrights was a BIG deal back in the day. The courts were tied up for years by programmers trying establish that code was intellectual property and thus subject to patent law. And, before you respond to this with more of your random gibberish, try picking up a book that discusses the finer points of computer law and tort. Everything I've said here can be verified.

Those "words" would be where I agree with you, I don't. So far each of the various links you have posted don't actually "prove" anything. You might want to look up the words Definition and Law and you will notice that they have different meanings.

I obviously don't work in Hollywood, I have a real job but thats just me.

Actually Im 34 and have been a professional coder for the last 17 years (13 if you don't count when I worked on programming projects which were later sold to other universities during college).

 

[Ryland]

Maybe the discussion should be "Why should the Voice Actors get residuals when the programmers/artists do not?". Can anybody actually give a relevant answer to that question? It doesn't matter that only 85 out of 4371 games would get residuals, the point is why should they get them and nobody else. Is it because they are in a union that makes them so special???

 

[Frangible]

They can protest all they want, but in the end, they put in less than 1% of the work of the programmers and artists. They don't deserve more compensation than people who work a lot harder. Yes, I enjoy hearing good voice acting, but in the end voice acting isn't terribly difficult nor does it take much time. Good luck guys! You put in less work and are more replacable than the janitor.

 

[doublejbass]

Man, this forum is getting stupider by the day.

Here is my contribution.

"The lasth metroid isth in capthivity. The galathy ith at peath."

 

[magoo]

I should apologize to all the actors. I am not a lawyer and do not have appreciation of intellectual property rights. Ok, that being said. First of all,why do you expect something for nothing???? Again and again, you sign a contract to do work and then expect to be paid differently than everyone else. Your union really does you no service if you continue to pay them and receive no benefit, you guys need to reform that right now. Why do you pay dues and then kick back a percertage of your reward for working??? I thought that went out with prohibition. Please refer to the example of Sean Connery. He basically owned 007 rights BECAUSE he manufactured a deal and a contract. You need to do the same. My line of work does not afford me these same benefits. If I want to do better I have to work more, and I dont bemoan that fact or go on strike. I dont live in your world or walk in your shoes, I dont want to. I dont understand residual payments, I dont want to. I do understand stock and the basic principles behind investing in your work. Why does everyone always have to blame somebody??? You actor guys whine and blame the video publisher or developer....You can read, correct. If you dont like the conditions dont take the job, nobody made you choose your line of work did they???Didnt you know it was hard work??? I guess Im really old school....my Dad told me to appreciate hard work and choose wisely....choice being the operative word here.

 

[kpedge]

Today i was listening to the radio and heard John Madden do a 30 second "Ace Hardware" commercial. He sounded practically exhausted by the end of his 30 second monologue! I was really worried about him and his health- it sounded like his toungue was swelling and he was about to faint.

Maybe these game voice actors have a point- talking is hard work.

 

[bonkrowave]

Today i was listening to the radio and heard John Madden do a 30 second "Ace Hardware" commercial. He sounded practically exhausted by the end of his 30 second monologue! I was really worried about him and his health- it sounded like his toungue was swelling and he was about to faint.

Maybe these game voice actors have a point- talking is hard work.

Anyone who eats a Tur-duck-in for thanks giving is a slob and is lucky to not be exhausted from just eating. For those of you who dont know what a Tur-duck-in is ... well it is Maddens thanksgiving meal. It is a chicken stuffed inside a duck, which is then stuffed into a turkey. Oh yeah, and three different stuffings/dressings stuffed into the mess.

I think he may have gotten the recipe from Gabe.

 

[kpedge]

...It is a chicken stuffed inside a duck, which is then stuffed into a turkey. Oh yeah, and three different stuffings/dressings stuffed into the mess.

That's...just...incredible.

I was being sarcastic in my last post. Man, I just can't get over the tur-stuff.

...

 

[bonkrowave]

That's...just...incredible.

I was being sarcastic in my last post. Man, I just can't get over the tur-stuff.

...

It honestly makes me ill just thinking about it.

 

[Torgo]

3) The vast majority of people who post here have no clue as to the way the process of casting, direction, and anything else to do with recording the voice-overs for (the correct term) "interactive media."

Lucky for you that I don't fit in that catagory since I've actually made one of those 85 money making games and know a little more than just about everyone here in the forum on how a video game is made. Did you just skip over my posts on this issue? You've got some holes that I've already covered.

...so it always amusing to hear people blather on about piracy taking money from the software developers.

Piracy? You're the first to mention piracy in the context of voice overs and games.

For an insider look as to who is *really* going to be affected, I'm giving you all this link. It's to a news post on a site called the SAG Watchdog.

That's funny. I posted earlier a lengthy quote from a SAG voice over actor who confronted her follow SAG members at E3 and said they were basically out of their mind. There's disention in the ranks.

Okay, then you go on about hourly salary that SAG currently gets. Again, already covered. Nothing new to the argument. In fact, I don't see anyone disagreeing that SAG should charge more per hour. They want 30% more as offered by the publishers, then let 'em have it.

My opinion on this matter is that if there's a strike, some projects will suffer, others will not. If there is a strike, I doubt it will affect my work, unless I get a huge break. If not, the little guys will be hurt most, not those familiar-named screen actors.

Truth be known, no projects will suffer. The publishers are the ones holding all the cards. They'll just go with non-union talent, which is what they mostly do anyway and have been doing for over 20 years.

Don't think I don't understand the plight of game developers. Just allow yourselves to think outside the box for a moment. If a residual policy was put into effect for voice actors, it would stand to reason that the developers now have precedence to negotiate for their own residuals.

HA! Plueeeze. We would have to have a union first, which we don't. You really don't have any concept of how a game is made do you? If you did, you'd know that developers have little to no bargaining power.

On Intellectual Property:

This area of law is the most nebulous of any other simply because of the lack of the amount of case law, relatively speaking, of course. This part of the video game industry is literally changing weekly.

Huh? No it isn't. It's quite established. In fact, at our last IGDA meeting, we had a IP lawyer come and talk for over an hour about IP rights, laws and current cases. There's plenty of case law established. Again, you speak of what you know little of.

On likeness rights:
Sean Connery played 007 for many years. In order to have a licenced game based on "From Russia With Love," his permission had to be secured to transfer his likeness from one medium (film) to another (game). This negotation is completely separate from his pay for voice over. That's just another clarification.

Connery is actually the exception to the rule. In general, when an actor merely popularizes a given character and the character is not synonymous with that actor, then the character is not part of the "persona" property of that actor. However, some courts have held that an actor can have a right of publicity claim in a characterization if the actor has become so "inextricably identified" with the character that the actor’s own identity is invoked by commercial use that identifies the character.

Connery, for most people, *IS* James Bond. Connery could probably bring a case against the game publisher for violating his Publicity Rights (not Copyright) for not using him as Bond. For the most part game developers go out of their way to get the actual actors to do the voices for their characters, but when they aren't available, they go ahead and get a replacement. A great example is when a different actress was used for Seven of Nine in the Voyager video game and was later replaced with Jeri Ryan when her schedule opened up.

On using scabs in licensed games:
If SAG were to strike, and Sean Connery doesn't cross picket lines, he would *still* have to give his permission to the publisher to have someone mimic his voice. That's the truth.

True, but again done through Privacy Rights. The limitation doesn't extend to satire though, as it's been done in the No One Lives Forever series.

Just don't say "because" and expect that to win any respect from anyone.

Exactly, which is why I've always given more than enough facts to sway any opinion. Residuals for video games just ain't going to happen. Strike or no strike. There is no argument that exists in the world that makes a convincing case for it. That is just a cold hard truth.

On a side note, what does it say when a video game developer knows more about copyright, voice-overs and this entire issue than a person that does voice overs? Is this indictative of what all voice actors really think? Good grief, y'all need to get seriously educated on this issue. Sorry, if I'm a bit condensending on this, but the voice actors need to fight some real battles.

 

[Operadragon]

Lucky for you that I don't fit in that catagory since I've actually made one of those 85 money making games and know a little more than just about everyone here in the forum on how a video game is made. Did you just skip over my posts on this issue? You've got some holes that I've already covered.

You know, last I checked, I said the vast majority had no clue. Did you think I meant you specifically? You're one of the few people on this topic that I've bothered to read since your responses were morre intelligible than "I don't like you," or more vebose than, "F%#@ 'em."
And I also know that I never claimed to know more about how a video game is made. I do wonder, however how many points youre trying to make with the above quote. I only offered varying opinions on the possible strike. I really don't have any "holes," as I never intended on educating people about anything involving how a video game is made, nor was there ever an argument in which to poke holes. You're the obvious expert on game development, and I would never attempt to claim otherwise.

Piracy? You're the first to mention piracy in the context of voice overs and games.

I suppose I let that dangle a bit, so I'll dig just a little deeper. It's not such a stretch, because many of the responses to the possible voice actor strike have been that it would be getting something for nothing, or taking profit-sharing from where it "should" be going (to the developers).
I would like some help clarifying the structure of how you, as a developer, get paid in the grand scheme of things. I would assume that you are a salaried employee of the development company/studio, and that you get a paycheck every regular pay period. So when I hear people claim that piracy hurts the developers (much like the same argument of how voice-over residuals would hurt the developers), doesn't piracy (and by the other side of the coin, VO residuals) only directly hurt the publishers? I understand that the trickle-down effect of widespread piracy would hurt the developers, but piracy isn't taking money out of your paycheck, right? If I'm wrong, I'm sorry for drawing the comparison.

The reason I brought it up in the first place, is that most people act under the assumption that cause-and-effect are so tightly related. Like that idiotic PSA movie trailer that shows a carpenter that works as a contractor on a movie set, and says to the camera that movie piracy takes work from him. That is such a lie. The only thing that takes work from him is if he does shoddy work. If some pimple-faced kid rips a movie and posts it on the internet, that carpenter still gets paid to construct sets.

On a (semi)related subject, I really do want to know if piracy hurts the developers more directly than in the movie business.

That's funny. I posted earlier a lengthy quote from a SAG voice over actor who confronted her follow SAG members at E3 and said they were basically out of their mind. There's [sic] disention in the ranks.

Okay, then you go on about hourly salary that SAG currently gets. Again, already covered. Nothing new to the argument. In fact, I don't see anyone disagreeing that SAG should charge more per hour. They want 30% more as offered by the publishers, then let 'em have it.

I never said there wasn't dissention in the ranks...that's why I posted the URL to the news post about the letters that some of the SAG members got this week. With the letter, there are position papers that illustrate the pros and cons of striking. That was the reason I posted the link, to show that not everybody's happy with the idea, even amongst Guild members. Like I said, I always want to gather as much information as possible before making a decision on matters such as these.

Again, it's not an argument, and if something is already covered, if it's worth mentioning again, it should be said. Truth be told, there's only so many ways that people can attack these actors: "They're greedy." "They're lazy." "Blah." "Moan." The fact is, the general negative response has been covered, too. I also never said that a 30% raise wasn't a good thing...

Truth be known, no projects will suffer. The publishers are the ones holding all the cards. They'll just go with non-union talent, which is what they mostly do anyway and have been doing for over 20 years.
True, but again done through Privacy Rights. The limitation doesn't extend to satire though, as it's been done in the No One Lives Forever series.

I put these quotes together for a reason...Maybe the projects won't suffer. You're right about the publishers, except what about movie tie-ins? Like if the strike happens soon, some summer blockbuster movie for next year will suffer, right? There's no way to use that A-List actor from the movie because of the strike towards video games, and any member of SAG (which it will be) will be pressured never allow the use of his (for lack of a better word) "voice likeness" through his Privacy Rights, so what is the only solution? The game will be made with non-union talent, and not mimicing the voice of the movie actor, right? I don't find a problem with that solution at all as it's more work for me, but what if the studio execs don't think outside the box? The studio guys might just be under the haze of star power=instant $ on games and pull the plug. Then, the strike may effect the industry...maybe.

HA! Plueeeze. We would have to have a union first, which we don't. You really don't have any concept of how a game is made do you? If you did, you'd know that developers have little to no bargaining power.

There's no reason to react that way. If there were a precedent for residuals, the developers *would* have leverage to bargain for profit-sharing in future publishing agreements. I agree that developers do not have any bargaining power NOW, but what if residuals then become implemented? Precedence is a very strong tool. I really don't think that you can pull out the Magic 8 Ball on this issue. We'll never know how strong a bargaining chip it really is unless SAG is successful in getting residuals for voice actors. Have you ever thought that this may be the only reason the publishers rejecting that facet of the negotiations, even to the point of giving that 30% increase in scale all of a sudden after no progress in 4 months? Maybe the publishers are simply the ones who are really greedy here, and the true thing they fear is that if one agreement happens, then another happens, and another. It's not so far-fetched, is it?

Please don't belittle my knowledge of "how games are made." You've already demonstrated how much you know. There's no good reason to mention how little everyone else knows. I don't have an insider's view, nor claim to...it does the industry a great disservice to dangle knowledge over someone's head like a Sisyphean carrot, just to imply that outsiders are stupid, and would never grasp as advanced a "concept" as "how a game is made" must actually be.

Huh? No it isn't. It's quite established. In fact, at our last IGDA meeting, we had a IP lawyer come and talk for over an hour about IP rights, laws and current cases. There's plenty of case law established. Again, you speak of what you know little of.

Maybe it's quite established in your state, but not in mine. My statement is straight from my best friend, who *is* an IP attorney. I suppose it's my fault for painting with such broad strokes. Again, don't attempt to place more distance between your level of knowledge and mine by making another statement like you do.

For the most part game developers go out of their way to get the actual actors to do the voices for their characters, but when they aren't available, they go ahead and get a replacement.

So the "game developers" pursue voice actors? I haven't seen any job postings for "Voice-Over Casting Director" on any developers' websites lately...perhaps those jobs are internal hires... I'm only kidding. I know what you mean. I agree with the rest of what you said on likeness rights and such before and after this statement.

Exactly, which is why I've always given more than enough facts to sway any opinion. Residuals for video games just ain't going to happen. Strike or no strike. There is no argument that exists in the world that makes a convincing case for it. That is just a cold hard truth.

This isn't a contest to see how many followers one can amass. Maybe people will listen, maybe not. I'm convinced that most people don't have the patience to discuss something with another person with whom they are at odds. Most are likely to comment without thought, with the occasional obscenity thrown in for lack of an intelligible response.
I, on the other hand, love to talk about things in which there's a good chance that I'll learn something, but only when I'm not treated as an idiot. If you care to discuss other things, I would love to do that.

On a side note, what does it say when a video game developer knows more about copyright, voice-overs and this entire issue than a person that does voice overs? Is this indictative of what all voice actors really think? Good grief, y'all need to get seriously educated on this issue. Sorry, if I'm a bit [sic] condensending on this, but the voice actors need to fight some real battles.

This is the only thing I won't respond to in kind. What thread of logic are you using to say you know more about something that I? Is it not enough that you've beat that dead horse of "how a game is made?"
Now you're equating Copyright Law and IP Law, claiming to be an expert? Now who gets to say Puhleese?
You knew that someone not named Jeri Ryan was in a Star Trek: Voyager game temporarily due to scheduling conflicts? That's grand.
Non-union voice talent for 20 years? Duh. That's why I'm doing what I do.
Neither of those things make you an expert on voice-over.
You'll have to do better than make two random statements, one which most people that care already knows, and the other something that very few care about in the first place.
"I know these two things that you don't know, and that means I know more than you about everything else that involves." No, it doesn't...that's a "Slippery Slope Fallacy."

If that's all you know about voice-over, you're not even worthy to hold my jockstrap when it comes right down to it.

You ignore the news post that has direct bearing on the possible strike, and your post about one voice-over artist calling the picketers stupid at E3, and THAT makes you an expert on this issue? Don't try to pull that. That's bad form in debate, and ANOTHER fallacy! It's called a "Post Hoc Fallacy." Just because you are an expert on "how games are made," then you must be an expert on everything that is even remotely connected to the game industry, just because you say so. Yeah right. Therein lies the fallacy.

Another thing...you can't make unsupported assertions and claim to "have covered" anything. "I talked about that once 5 pages ago, and I'm an expert, and if you forget...don't worry, I'll beat you over the head with that claim...oh yeah, I covered that, so there's absolutely NO NEED to talk about it anymore, because...you guessed it! I'm an expert!"
There's another fallacy: the "Ad Hominem Fallacy." The way you like to beat others over the head with the claim that you are superior to them is a personal attack that is meant to distract from actual evidence presented, so much that you're willing to extend the gap in your own level of intelligence to another so as to discourage people from forulating their own ideas, and blindly follow you just because you're an "expert."

You know, I hope I am indictative of the way other voice actors think, insofar as I search for knowledge, always learn from my experiences, use my talent to help others, and pass on the knowledge I gain to other people so that they may also benefit from it, not just me.

You ARE condescending to me personally more than a handful of times in your response post, and yet you apologize, not to me, who you *have* offended, but to all voice actors because you claim to know so much, and they so little. That is a piss-poor apology issued to people who aren't even the subject of your aristocratic disdain, and a lame attempt to keep from apologizing to me personally.

I still respect the fact that you have a great handle from one of the worst movies of all time, and if you are willing to talk with me about the industry, I'd love to know more about the inner workings of the system, but don't treat me like someone who could never attain your knowledge. By the way, are you a coder?

Regards,
Brad Venable

 

[magoo]

I continue to be drawn to this conversation, and have very much enjoyed this thread since its inception. Although I've been called unintellegent and illinformed and an "outsider" therefore not felt to be able to contribute meaningfully. The last two posts have been good reading. Sometimes passionate, and full of 50 cent words. The thing I guess I dont understand and over 14 pages has yet to be discussed is how much is this residual really going to be worth??? Will it bring more to the "actor" than a straight salary??? do you want both??? would you be willing to work for just a percentage??? I still am of the impression that it is a poor way to do business.
Mr operadradon....i enjoy your posts and they are good reading. I love to discuss things and would like to hear all sides of the argument....but my life is so far from yours that I really cant help you learn anything you dont already seem to know.....
Mr torgo...you have a very interesting investment in this whole deal and I too would love to have more insight into the mechanics of how games and other electronic endevors are brought to fruition.
I have said many things in the last several days that were based in my perspective and may have seemed illformed or uninformed ....but at any rate I have enjoyed the opinions and do feel I understand the positions of both sides much better. Thanks for your opinions and time to express them.