Payment For Playwrights
by Walter Vail
posted: 2010-07-11 05:43:25
There's no doubt in my mind that anyone who writes a producible script for the stage deserves to be paid something, when that script is chosen for production by a theatre company. The playwright deserves to be paid as much as any theatre personnel, be it actor, director, or technician. However, my mind is the mind of a playwright--that's what I am now, although in the past, I have been an actor, director, and a theatre technician. But let's think about this: In today's theatre, at all levels, a mindset has developed that doesn't believe that the playwright deserves to be paid. Is that because of "play development?" Is the new, unproven playwright seen as one who must be trained by people of the theatre? It's true in many cases, not true in others--and I think the reason might be that no one, in or out of the theatre, can read a script and predict whether or not it will work onstage. It might be the powerful, funny thing one thinks it is, or it might not.
Think about casting actors. If one doesn't know the work of an actor, having never seen it, the actor is also an unknown quantity--but seeing the actor audition often gives the director or producer a feeling that the actor should be hired, cast, and paid--even when the theatre company is small and can afford only a token payment. The actor who is cast will spend three weeks rehearsing, and a week or more performing, so just in terms of time, that worker deserves payment. (The playwright has also spent much time working on the script, but the playwright chose to do that on his own.) The actor also has a resume', containing training and theatre experience; the beginning playwright has one, too--with training and previous readings, etc.--but is not represented by any audition process--unless the theatre company has staged a reading and an interview. So actors, technicians, and directors tend to be seen as deserving to be paid, but playwrights--well, they are in a different category.
Is it a matter of supply and demand? Today there are many, many persons writing plays, whether trained to do so or not. There are many, many scripts floating around in space from theatre to theatre--and there are many less production slots for these scripts to fill. So the beginning playwright is certainly lucky to find a production--is that why a theatre company feels that the playwright doesn't need to be paid? Does the company feel that the beginning playwright is being given experience as pay? That certainly could be true--the experience can be valuable, if the experience is a good one. It could also be destructive of a playwrights reputation, if the experience is a bad one.
Of course, many theatre companies work with the playwright on the basis of a written contract--today, usually a contract that offers payment, but demands payment back on future productions. Having chosen a script expected to be successful, a production is seen as adding value to the script--although if the play fails for any reason, (Bad acting, bad staging, bad directing?) the production might detract value from the script--the process is like giving payment with one hand, and taking it away with the other.
Then, too, there's the business of maing the playwright an employee of the theatre company--so that the whole effort is "collaborative," and the playwright "works with actors and director to create the script." This, of course, makes the playwright no longer an independent entrepreneur, no longer a writer who owns the copyright of the play, but a writer "for hire." And the copyright law says that writing "for hire" makes the script the property of the person or entity who "hires." This is the Hollywood model, and it results in a loss of ownership for playwrights for which we fought desperately in the past. Go back into the history of American Theatre, and discover how plays were sold outright for a pittance.
So, what do you think? If a beginning playwright writes a good, producible playscript that is chosen for production, should the playwright be paid a royalty on par with payment to theatre personnel? Even without a contract? Please, whatever you think, tell us why you think so! Walt Vail
Comments:
Felicia Rivers said on 2010-07-12:
In this capitalistic society, we must all understand that all products have a price. Those who buy will pursue the lowest price, and those who produce, the highest. If we, as playwrights, allow theaters and producers to float the argument that we should provide our work for free or at a lower cost or against future earnings because we lack a track record or our work is unproven (specious arguments to be sure) we certainly cannot blame the producers. They are doing their job. The question is: how do we do ours? How do we gain satisfactory compensation for our work when we are the seller and have fewer resources (and less clout)than the buyer?
One playwright - especially the neophyte mentioned in your post - has little leverage. But an organization of playwrights like PDC or the Dramatists Guild of America has a great deal more. Recently, the DG persuaded the NY Musical Theater Festival to stop seeking subsidiary rights (only one problem in that contract, but one foot in front of the other). The DG also provides sample contracts and advocates for playwrights. It is in our best interest to support the organizations (power in numbers, etc.).
We also must decide what we want. Do we find writing for a pittance a romantic circumstance of theater? Unlike screenwriters who sign away their work and earn more, we retain our rights and earn much, much less (and even less when we sign away future earnings). Are we OK with that? If not, what to do about it?
One thing is certain: we must look out for ourselves and each other. Those who buy our work will seek the smallest outlay and largest income possible. That is their job. No matter how supportive of playwrights and new plays theaters and producers are, it is not their job to protect our interests. It is ours.