As expected, the addition of music videos sales to the iTunes music video store has set off lots of chatter and some action about director compensation.
Practically all music videos are done as works for hire. Directors retain no rights to their ideas and footage, and they receive no compensation beyond an agreed upon director's fee. Traditionally, music videos have been used primarily as promotional tools, so the absence of back-end or royalty rights was never viewed as egregious. Videos weren't meant to be bought and sold; They were meant to act as commercials to inspire sales of albums and music. That has now changed, however. Music videos are included on DualDiscs, compiled onto retail DVDs and, with the latest version of the iTunes Music Store and certain mobile phone networks, they are even available as individual paid downloads.
Fatboy Slim's "Weapon Of Choice," directed by Spike Jonze, has been ranked the number one selling music video more often than not since music videos became an official product on iTunes. Today, in fact, it's number two, second only to Michael Jackson's "Thriller," which is presumably experiencing a Halloween sales boost. "Weapon Of Choice" is actually a near perfect example to use when directors state their case for a change in the current financial paradigm. "Weapon Of Choice" doesn't rely upon the charisma and performance of the recording artist at all, since Fatboy Slim isn't in the video. And, while the music video is a best seller, the song itself isn't even in iTunes' Top 100. I'd be willing to wager that the song itself has never cracked the iTunes Top 100 since the online store's inception. But, yet, the video is a relative blockbuster.
The "Weapon of Choice" iTunes phenomenon finally proves something that has long been obvious: Some music videos are popular for reasons that have very little to do with the song or artist. Fatboy Slim's "Weapon of Choice" is a top seller because of Spike Jonze's brilliant concept and direction, not to mention the performance of the video's star, Christopher Walken. It rightfully strikes most directors as more than a little unfair that the people most responsible for this popular work of art have been cut out of the financial equation.
Directors have a right to be appropriately compensated for their ideas and work. That doesn't mean that they are automatically entitled to the back end profits (if there are any), but it also doesn't mean that the issue should be automatically dismissed. A petition has been posted online under the banner of the Music Video Directors Alliance that asks Directors Guild of America President Michael Apted to convene an investigative panel and open dialogue with record labels and other involved entities. It's a commendable start, but if directors truly want a change they will probably need to do more than just an anonymous petition to an organization that doesn't represent some of the more prolific video directors and actually singles out music videos as the only type of film work not subject to their agreements.
Comments