The Backstory

For the past 4½ years, addressing the problem of runaway film and television production has been the Guild's top legislative priority. We have been working on this issue as part of a broadly based Alliance that is active at the federal, multistate and local level. That Alliance includes the MPAA and individual studios, the other guilds and unions, the independent and commercial producers, post-production and equipment rental associations, and all the state and local Film Commissioners. The first step we had to undertake at the federal level was to educate elected officials about the "real" face of our industry — to dispel the People Magazine image of red carpets and boxoffice grosses and underscore that this is also an industry of working men and women and small businesses throughout the United States. The success of that effort was fully realized when our supporters in the House and Senate introduced our first runaway production bill, The United States Independent Film and Television Act of 2001, in the 107th Congress and again this year in the 108th Congress. The bill had large and broad bipartisan support from Representatives across the country who recognized the impact of runaway production on their own communities.

Legislation in Pre-Production

In September, we made an important first step when the Senate and the House began work on legislation that gave us an ideal opportunity to get our issue addressed and attached to a bill. That bill is S.1637, the Jumpstart Our Business Strength Act (JOBS), introduced by Senators Grassley (R-IA) and Baucus (DMT) on September 18, 2003. This bill replaces existing export subsidy rules with a favorable tax rate deduction for U.S. manufacturers (which includes films and television productions).

The DGA, along with our co-sponsors, Senators Lincoln (D-AR) and Snowe (RME), and with the support of Senators Baucus and Daschle (D-SD), worked out an alternative approach to dealing with the runaway problem: an immediate write-off of all production costs (similar in part to the current UK and German subsidy programs) for projects costing less than $15 million and a three-year write-off for projects in excess of $15 million. Having vetted this idea with AFMA and a number of producers who were positive about its potential impact, and knowing that this approach was more acceptable to all members of the Senate Finance Committee, our supporters worked closely with Chairman Grassley's staff to secure his support.

The Greenlight?

On October 1, 2003, the Senate Finance Committee included our runaway production proposal in S.1637 and favorably voted the bill out of Committee. This legislation will now go to the Senate Floor at a date yet to be scheduled and then into a joint Senate-House Conference Committee which will create the final House-Senate legislation.

On October 28, the House Ways and Means Committee met to "mark up" Chairman Bill Thomas' (R-CA) international export subsidy/domestic manufacturing bill, HR 2896, the American Jobs Creation Act of 2003. Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-IL) and Congressman David Dreier (R-CA) have been working closely with the Ways and Means staff on the inclusion of our proposal in their bill as well. Our Ways and Means supporters, Congressmen Mark Foley (RFL) and Jerry Weller (R-IL), have also been heavily involved. Chairman Thomas made the decision to include no provisions, including our runaway proposal, that appear in the Senate bill in the House legislation, knowing that those provisions would be included in the House-Senate Conference Committee where negotiations on the final bill take place.

However, other anti-runaway production provisions were put in the House bill. Most significantly, Congressman Jim McCrery (R-LA) added an amendment to a special provision applying to income earned by studios outside the U.S. For producers to qualify for reduced foreign sales benefits, a 50% domestic content rule is applied. In other words, "50% or more of the total compensation related to the production of a film must constitute compensation for services performed in the United States by actors, production personnel, directors and producers."

For more information visit the Runaway Production page in the Legislation section of the DGA website

top of page

The late scripts issue is of concern to agents because: (1) These potential problems can lead to the diminution of your client's value, and (2) The problems associated with late scripts can ultimately hinder you from doing your job.

The consequences of late script delivery in episodic television are costly and far ranging. When shows are not properly prepared and scheduled, the negative outcome can include problems such as: cost overruns due to production inefficiency; the inability to get the desired cast and obtain good locations; loss of necessary prep time for designing shots; inadequate rehearsal time; stress on actors and crew (often resulting in compromised performances); lower quality of the production; and the premature cancellation of a show. All this, in turn, can have a tremendously negative impact on a director's contribution, value, status and reputation.

The late scripts issue is of concern to agents because: (1) These potential problems can lead to the diminution of your client's value, and (2) The problems associated with late scripts can ultimately hinder you from doing your job. Your ability as agents to secure future employment for your director clients diminishes when their work suffers due to circumstances beyond their control. Your ability to ensure that your client can make their maximum contribution to a production also suffers. And since producers are not inclined to throw less seasoned directors into situations where schedules are behind and scripts are delivered in pieces, new directors don't get hired. This serves as yet another barrier to opportunities for new talent and for women and minority directors, in particular.

In 2002, the DGA began an industry- wide campaign to stop the proliferation of late scripts in one-hour episodic television, first by uncovering the severity of the issue and then by putting pressure on showrunners, networks and studios to do something about it. Thus far this season, the Guild's efforts seem to be meeting with success. According to the results of our script delivery tracking program, studios and networks appear to be taking the matter seriously by delivering timelier scripts.

At the mid-season mark, CBS had a perfect record, with all 30 of its one-hour episodic TV scripts delivered on time — a 32% improvement over last season. Universal delivered 40 out of 41 scripts on time, a 27% improvement over last season; Sony was timely 27 out of 28 times, a 23% improvement; Fox delivered 52 out of 57 scripts on time, 53% better than last season; and Warner Bros. delivered 65 out of 96 scripts on time, approximately 25% better than last season.

"Scripts can come in on time when studios, networks and showrunners take the deadline seriously," states Rod Holcomb, chair of the DGA's Single-Camera Television Creative Rights Committee. "A number of networks and studios are setting an example that others should follow. And while the Guild recognizes that timely scripts increase creative quality, one thing everyone agrees upon is this: It's impossible to have on-budget seasons without on-time scripts."

During the last round of negotiations, The Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers (AMPTP) agreed to work with the DGA to help solve the late scripts dilemma. In June of 2003, the DGA and eight of its director members met with top studio and network executives to forge an even deeper commitment. Among those attending the meeting were DreamWorks' Jeffrey Katzenberg and CBS' Leslie Moonves as representatives of the AMPTP and director Steven Soderbergh, Chair of DGA's Creative Rights Committee.

"We appreciate the efforts of our writers and producers in addressing this issue in such a collaborative manner," said CBS Chairman and CEO Moonves. "We all have the same goal — to create an environment in which writers, directors, actors and everyone involved in a production can put forth their best work."

The DGA Basic Agreement requires producers to provide episodic television directors with a completed shooting script no later than the day before the preparation period begins. Despite this contractual requirement, late script delivery was becoming a widespread problem, with scripts sometimes being delivered well into the prep period. In spring 2002, the Guild sent questionnaires to 500 of its members who had directed in the single-camera genre during the past two television seasons. Of the 199 respondents, 80% said they had received at least one tardy script and estimated that half of the scripts they had directed arrived late. The DGA then began tracking script delivery in the last quarter of 2002 — and that data proved the directors' earlier estimate to be on the mark. Nearly half of the scripts (49%) in one-hour television were delivered late; and 20% of these late scripts were late by as many as 7 to 15 days.

"The change in script delivery performance is promising," said DGA President Michael Apted. "I hope that the results will remain strong through the second half of the season. But if this is any indication of what's to come, we may see a change in the culture and practices in episodic television. And that would be a tremendously positive thing for us all.

For more information see these stories in the News section of the DGA website: DGA Late Scripts Campaign Yields Results - December 11, 2003 DGA meets with Studios and Networks to resolve Late Scripts Problem in Episodic Television - June 2003 Episodic Television Directors on Late Script Delivery - July 2002 Letter from the President - May 2002

 top of page

There seems to be some confusion around the rules governing "presentation programs" and "pilots." With pilot season upon us, we thought it would be helpful to remind you of some of the contractual differences between the two.

I. Presentations

Presentations Are Not Pilots
A presentation program is a "dramatic" program, not more than thirty (30) minutes in length, produced for the purpose of selling a proposed series, but not intended for broadcast. Minimum Rates for Presentations The minimum rate for the director of a "presentation program" is as follows:

• 0-15 minutes in length:
  $19,082, which includes no more than 10 days of work, of which 4 must be consecutive.
  
• 16-30 minutes in length:
  $38,169 (or the applicable pilot fee, if less, but in no event less than $19,082), which includes no more than 14 days of work, of which 6 must be consecutive.
  

The director of a presentation will receive additional compensation so that his or her initial compensation is no less than the minimum pilot rate (based on the length of the presentation) if:

1. The presentation leads directly to the sale of the series (i.e. there is no subsequent presentation or pilot produced);
   
2. Footage in excess of 2 minutes (not including "stock shots" or establishing shots) from the presentation is used in a subsequent presentation or pilot program which does sell the series; or
   
3. More than 10 minutes of footage from the presentation is used in any episode of the series. If 2 minutes or less of footage from the presentation (not including "stock shots" or establishing shots) is used in a subsequent pilot or presentation, or if less than 10 minutes is used in any other program, the applicable excerpt fee must be paid to the director of the presentation from which the footage or excerpt is taken.
   

II. Pilots

Minimum Rates for Pilots
In connection with pilots for Network Prime Time or FBC Prime Time, the director's minimums and guarantees are as follows:

• 30 minutes in length:
  $53,461, which includes no more than 14 days of work.
  
• 1 hour in length:
  $71,279, which includes no more than 24 days of work.
  
• 1½ hours in length:
  $89,094, which includes no more than 34 days of work.
  
• 2 hours in length:
  $124,737, which includes no more than 50 days of work.
  

For each additional hour over two (2) hours, the applicable Network Prime Time or FBC Prime Time minimum rate, based on the hour rate or fractions thereof, will be payable.

Days in excess of maximum will be prorated to actual salary but in no event at a rate of less than $2,237 per day.

For non-network or network other than Prime Time (excluding FBC Prime Time) pilots, the applicable amount will be sixty percent (60%) of the applicable Network Prime Time amount.

For more information on presentations and pilots, please see Article 10-103 (pp 104-107) of the DGA 2002 Basic Agreement, or feel free to call the DGA Contracts Department at (310) 289-2010.

 top of page

February 8, 2004

Dear Member:

The possessory credit has stood as a trademark of the very best in film direction since the birth of the American film industry. Over the years, this worthy credit has been accorded to those directors whose particular contributions to their films entitled them to it, and afforded them recognition among movie-goers.

For more than a year now, the DGA Creative Rights Committee, faced with what we all know is occasional abuse in the awarding of dubious credits, has been looking within with one goal in mind – maintaining the integrity of the possessory credit. This credit is rich with history and, as we took on our task, we went back again and again to a time nearly forty years ago when some of the giants of our craft – Alfred Hitchcock, David Lean, King Vidor, and Frank Capra – successfully defended an all-out attack on the possessory credit.

The founders of the Guild and many of the greatest practitioners of the craft had a vision of the possessory that, frankly, has been diminished in this era of questionable credits. And while we certainly don't think that unmerited possessory credits are the worst abuse of credits to be found today, our Guild has never been one to wait for others to clean house before it picks up its broom.

The dilemma faced by the Guild is how to preserve the significance of the possessory credit without sacrificing the basic principle that individual possessory credits should be determined in the negotiation between a director and Employer, and not by some external authority. After much debate, your colleagues on the Committee concluded that the Guild should take some action to insure that the possessory credit continues to signify that what appears on the screen should be identified with its director. Ultimately, the National Board unanimously agreed with the Creative Rights Committee's recommendations on the necessary steps to take, resulting in a new possessory credit sideletter. Let me share with you its key provisions:

• Possessory credits in any form will not be given to a first-time director unless that director brought the property that was the basis for the film to the studio and provided substantial services to its development. This is a limited, carefully crafted exception to the principle that the possessory credit should be freely negotiated, in order to eliminate the most flagrant abuses of the credit.
  
  
• The mandate to use a "film by" credit in outdoor advertising when there are 6 or more personal credits to other people has been dropped. This provision was negotiated more than twenty years ago, as an effort to encourage the studios to limit the number of credits on billboards. It has clearly not achieved its purpose of discouraging the proliferation of billboard credits, and its mandatory aspect is inconsistent with the DGA's principled approach to possessory credits.
  
  
• In addition, we have also included several non-binding guidelines for the Employers to consider when they are weighing whether to grant the possessory credit. The guidelines suggest the criteria should be whether a director has established a marketable name or a signature style of filmmaking, or received critical acclaim, or possesses a substantial body of work consisting of 3 or more films, or has received a possessory credit on a previous film.
  

We feel comfortable in proceeding this way because the industry knows that the Directors Guild will continue to fight to insure that the right of directors to earn a possessory credit is free from encroachments imposed against our will and our best interests.

In developing this new approach, the members of the Creative Rights Committee and National Board often returned to the words of our founders, searching for a roadmap that would guide us in correcting our course. I am proud of the hard work and creative thinking that scores of directors have given to this important endeavor.

Please feel free to drop me a note or send me an email with any questions or comments you have on this matter.

My best regards,

Michael Apted
President, Directors Guild of America

For more information see this story in the DGA Magazine section of the DGA website: Possessory Credit Timeline - DGA Magazine February 2004

 top of page