Forbes Magazine posts a think-piece on how animation writers get short shrift when their work is transferred to live-action and no further compensation is forthcoming ...
The recent trend of live action remakes of animated Disney classic shows no signs of slowing down with this week’s news that The Hunchback of Notre Dame is now in development. This year alone will see Dumbo released in March, followed by Aladdin in May, and then photo-realistic CGI hybrid The Lion King in July. ...
Beauty and the Beast released in 1991 was the third most successful film of the year having grossed over $600 million theatrically and another $220 million on home video. Linda Woolverton the screenwriter of the film received no residuals and did not participate nor was she credited as a writer on the 2017 live action remake. The simplest answer to this jaw-dropping puzzle that will provide little to no comfort is that feature animation is a different union than the Writers Guild of America (WGA) ...
[I]n the 1950s feature animation writers ... ended up joining what’s now The Animation Guild (TAG) under I.A.T.S.E Local 839. ... [M]ost feature animation is still through TAG which does not have language about residuals or separated rights. ...
Because [animated features] were written outside the jurisdiction of the WGA the original films and their underlying scripts are considered source material and treated as if they were a book or article when it comes time to do the remake. ...
The unions representing animation writers have, over the years, proposed and pushed for residuals on multiple occasions, but without result. Elsewhere in the world, this is less of a problem since many countries recognize creators' rights. This is why in Australia, France, and various other geographical locations, money is collected and remitted to directors and writers considered the authors of features and television shows.
In E. Pluribus Unum, however, the Supreme Court has ruled that creative work done on salary for a corporation can be construed a "work for hire," with rights held by the company and not the actual creator.
Crappy, but when the Supreme Court speaks, the losers are stuck with the justices decision. Even if angels strumming golden harps are on the losers' side.
And there are other complications. Most live-action scripts written under WGA jurisdiction have multiple authors. Yet only one or two writers are generally credited, so writers who worked for, say a year on the project early on, but didn't get their names up on screen are out of luck, residual-wise. (Writers Guild arbitrators decide who gets credit and who doesn't.)
As regards animated features, there are teams of creators known as storyboard artists. One or two writers might earn screenplay credit, but most long-form cartoons have a story supervisor and multiple board artists who make sizable continuity and dialogue contributions. Would they receive additional payments when the credited writer did, or are they cut out because their credit is "storyboard artist"?
As regards television product, supervising directors receive foreign levies, while directors credited as "timers" do not.
There is no formula in existence that will make all parties happy. And the fact that animation unions have been unable to achieve re-use residuals for writers who create scripts, and board artists who write dialogue and story in visual form, has been a source of continuing frustration.
