# AFM vs. Austin Wintory



## The Darris (Jan 12, 2015)

Austin posted this on his facebook page.



> Given the events in my personal life, the last thing on Earth I wanted to be dealing with right now is the ongoing issue with the AFM, regarding the charges they pressed against me for the score of The Banner Saga. Well, this story is nearing its culmination and will be over soon one way or another.



REF LINK: http://variety.com/2015/music/news/...ted-video-game-composer-exclusive-1201400889/

I really believe Austin has a valid point, especially with how the AFM has been handling video game scores. It should mean something to them when scores are being outsourced overseas. No offense to those musicians but our US musicians need to make a living too.


----------



## Marius Masalar (Jan 13, 2015)

Can someone in the know shed some light on the other side of this?

I'm coming at it from the admittedly biased perspective of a game composer, and I'd love to have a more nuanced understanding of what's going on.

Why would the AFM be so determined to press charges, despite the obvious bad press it's bringing them to be throwing a well-respected composer under the bus?

Is it a problem of management or is the entire AFM somehow failing to recognize that their contract isn't appealing, and that failure to react and adjust it is a major contributing factor to publishers taking their recording elsewhere?

Does the AFM even have a leg to stand on here, as far as charging him? Given the state laws, I'm not entirely sure how they're still able to fine him.

Lastly: is Austin losing his membership a major problem for him if it comes to that? I'm unclear on what value that would be bringing him, given the way the union seems to be treating him and the clients he works for—why not say good riddance and be done with it?


----------



## composeradrian (Jan 13, 2015)

Also for reference:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqvraGNfKVY


----------



## marclawsonmusic (Jan 13, 2015)

Marius Masalar @ Tue Jan 13 said:


> Why would the AFM be so determined to press charges, despite the obvious bad press it's bringing them to be throwing a well-respected composer under the bus?


Because (a) this is how unions work, and (b) he did sign a contract and is likely in breach of that contract.

I'm not saying whether he is right or wrong, but this fight was doomed from the start. You can't take on a 500lb gorilla unless you have a 750lb gorilla yourself. The AFM has more legal muscle and ultimately that's what this will come down to - not who is morally right or wrong.


----------



## Marius Masalar (Jan 13, 2015)

Okay, but their previous article states:

"Texas is a right-to-work state, meaning even union musicians can’t be stopped from working under non-union auspices."

So was he in breach of his contract?


----------



## marclawsonmusic (Jan 13, 2015)

I am not an attorney, but my understanding is that when you sign up with the union, you are agreeing to use only union musicians for your projects (while in the US at least).

Going outside the union is a breach of contract, yes. Punishable by a fine, which he is evidently refusing to pay.

Paying the $2,500 is likely cheaper than hiring an attorney to defend the case. If it were me, I would just take the slap on the wrist and move on.

But I am sure it is more complex than this. This is just my layman's view of it.


----------



## JohnG (Jan 13, 2015)

I left the union, but you don't "sign a contract." However, you do enter into an obligation to uphold the union's rules.

It is a complicated situation.

What is NOT complicated, however, is that a number of kinds of recording, including library and games, are rendered virtually impossible in Los Angeles. People go elsewhere, even though it actually costs more in some places, such as London.

Although it is debated by some, I believe that union policies have caused many recording stages to close in LA.


----------



## chibear (Jan 13, 2015)

Longtime AF of M member here with a few observations.

1. You join a union, you agree to pay the dues abide by it's rules. If you violate the rules or you get fined or expelled. Rules are usually changed at conventions not at the whim of individuals.

2. Even in the so-called 'right to work' States #1 applies. To be specific the union cannot stop them from accepting under scale work but can fine or expel them from the union. 

All that being said, the AF of M reaction to these situations (and there are many more than this) has come about 30 years too late to have much effect as much of the work has already left N. America. The international has had ample time to adjust rates and conditions to make the marketplace more competitive and instead has chosen to protect a few high priced players on the West Coast who have now priced themselves out of the market and taken the rest of the continent with them.


----------



## gsilbers (Jan 13, 2015)

Interesting stuff. 

I really don't dig unions. the idea behind it and what they have done is great. but in cases like this , imo it is hurting more than helping. I understand they want to keep wages up but the whole world is changing around them. for example, being able to record in eastern Europe or other music centric places. 
I guess their point would be valid if every composer would join. the issue is that composers also need to get hired by companies. these studios need to watch costs as well. 
the union could very well look into streaming royalties and fight for this and other new media. with the deeper pockets they can see more into real deals and vertical integration with composers, studios, distributors and broadcaster as well as techy companies. seems they just see there is money so they say they need to charge more and enforce it so they can keep their wages. every other vendor type entity is lowering costs.


----------



## Mike Greene (Jan 13, 2015)

marclawsonmusic @ Tue Jan 13 said:


> Paying the $2,500 is likely cheaper than hiring an attorney to defend the case. If it were me, I would just take the slap on the wrist and move on.


Me, too.

The Musicians' Union is in a tough situation, and no matter what policies they decide, people are going to criticize. I'm a member myself, and I disagree with plenty. But I do believe that the leadership is honestly trying to make decisions that are best for the overall membership.

These aren't easy decisions, especially in an world where competition is willing to work for almost nothing. Not just worldwide, but even in places which were formerly union strongholds, like Los Angeles. Sure, we can all complain that scale is too high, but exactly how low should they go? Because if Local 47 lowers their rates, then other cities will do the same. And so it goes.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the Musicians' Union gets everything right. But we all know what the final situation will be. Musicians worldwide will be working for minimum wage. The union can't prevent that. Rather, their goal is to try and slow it as much as they can.


----------



## stonzthro (Jan 13, 2015)

Watch the youtube vid - interesting.

At this point in the game, I'm not sure why a composer would want to join the union? What are they doing to attract the younger crowd?


----------



## Marius Masalar (Jan 13, 2015)

stonzthro @ Tue Jan 13 said:


> At this point in the game, I'm not sure why a composer would want to join the union? What are they doing to attract the younger crowd?


That's exactly what I'm trying to understand, and from there why it's important to Austin that he remain a member.

The simplest solution here doesn't seem to be "pay the fine and move on", it seems to be "let them expel him and move on", but there must be some sort of compelling reason why he doesn't want to do that...what's the value?


----------



## gsilbers (Jan 13, 2015)

Marius Masalar @ Tue Jan 13 said:


> stonzthro @ Tue Jan 13 said:
> 
> 
> > At this point in the game, I'm not sure why a composer would want to join the union? What are they doing to attract the younger crowd?
> ...



with the fine its just more money for the union and they say.. damn right we rule. 
challenging it in court is saying... oh.. something's going on here we might have to pay attention. 
and in a way one composer is the voice of many saying.. hey musicians , your union is the problem. hey everyone, im trying to work here and the union is not working out. 
bringing attention to the flight of work going on in Los angeles. runaway production is massive in LA. to the point of the major and city officials saying wtf!? we need people to have jobs here so they can pay taxes. and unions keep not helping. 
we all want to be in a union so we are safe and protected... now its the opposite, being in a union means you might not get the work.


----------



## chibear (Jan 13, 2015)

To underline Mike Greene's post and amplify mine:

The one thing worse than having a union to deal with is to have no union at all.

I've dealt mainly with orchestras during my career. Before musicians' unions began exerting power in the 50's musicians made the same as janitors and could be instantly dismissed by a crotchety conductor with no recourse. My teachers lived through that era. Missing one note on one concert could end your career.

When I retired we were already back to the point where I made less as a principal player in a 'B' orchestra than my carpenter, plumber, or electrician. So what have my successors to look forward to by the end of their careers? This is not the fault of unions' greed but the union busters that are treated like heroes in an ever more right-leaning society.

Even in the free-lance arena, minimum fees are set and enforced by unions, not the generosity of recording companies. Who would you bet on getting you a better deal?

So, if you kill unions and their influence you will relegate yourself and musicians who have practiced for decades to a minimum wage job, as Mike suggested, which will eventually affect the entire industry and still not stem the outflow of work to those areas of the world who can and will work for less.


----------



## gsilbers (Jan 13, 2015)

that's why I said its good to be in an union and it helps to have one to fight for everyone. 
getting minimum wage or below is not cool but you cant realistically expect, with so many changes n technology that a union player gets 3x more than a London player. 
I think there is lee way and discussion. but expecting the rates to stay the same with such massive changes in global competition and technology is not going to work. more and more composers will go elsewhere. 
plus big studios are trying to release fewer big time releases which are union but more and more are starting to be adquisitions... from places that don't hire unions. 
there could be other ways of negotiating via the new platform models like svod, avod, est, etc


----------



## JohnG (Jan 13, 2015)

Hi chibear,

I hear you. I used to love being in the union.

The issue is simple in LA -- no buyout rate and no workable game contract. No buyout means no library music and also no practical way to do games. 

In London, Seattle, Eastern Europe, Nashville -- you can opt to pay once and you're done. In London, you can hire a large orchestra at a name venue (Abbey Road, Air, whatever) and have the best players in town show up happy. They get their benefits and pension, and conductors and producers have to follow normal union rules, which prohibit the kind of petty abuse and tyranny that chibear described.

In London, the buyout rate is really high, higher than normal, and much higher (in dollars) than rates in LA, but as a practical matter, it's a good option if one wants both top players and a buyout.

I would gladly pay a 50% premium in a buyout to get the best players in LA but it's not allowed. Why 50%? Top players have told me that they get a third of their income from Special Payments, new use, and reuse. So a 50% up front premium would take care of that.

The union doesn't want a buyout in LA and the result is that many, many dates are dark, far more than formerly. And far, far fewer dates.

I have heard union supporters say that there are just as many gigs as before, but the evidence I see suggests otherwise. Four or more major stages closed, very well known players showing up at dark dates they never would have considered 10 years ago.

I wish it were different.


----------



## Mike Greene (Jan 13, 2015)

Just to play devil's advocate on the games buyout issue, the notion of a "buyout" is more a matter of the game industry being greedy and somewhat unethical than it is of the union being stubborn. For a working musician, a buyout is akin to a composer giving up royalties. Do we really want to align ourselves that way?

If music from a game is re-used in another medium, shouldn't the musicians be paid for it? For that matter, why is the game industry opposed to working with the AFM on the issue? If they don't re-use the music somewhere else, they wouldn't have to pay anything. If they _do_ re-use the music somewhere, then they _would _pay. Why is that not agreed to? Ethically, isn't that what we should really be looking at? Why is all the blame in this thread aimed at the AFM instead?


----------



## gsilbers (Jan 13, 2015)

good points. I think the video games score is in the same field as streaming royalties... the big tech companies are now in the entertainment field and they don't want to pay up all these fees they don't think should be paid since they didn't go through the same history as the big studios. 
therefore having unions to help out on this would be ideal... but not by simple saying no to gigs. 
maybe lobbying congressmen for new laws against buyouts or ways of pressuring - other than stifling workers gigs- into not having buyouts. 
at least we are discussing it.


----------



## JohnG (Jan 14, 2015)

Mike Greene @ 13th January 2015 said:


> Just to play devil's advocate on the games buyout issue, the notion of a "buyout" is more a matter of the game industry being greedy and somewhat unethical than it is of the union being stubborn. For a working musician, a buyout is akin to a composer giving up royalties. Do we really want to align ourselves that way?
> 
> If music from a game is re-used in another medium, shouldn't the musicians be paid for it? For that matter, why is the game industry opposed to working with the AFM on the issue? If they don't re-use the music somewhere else, they wouldn't have to pay anything. If they _do_ re-use the music somewhere, then they _would _pay. Why is that not agreed to? Ethically, isn't that what we should really be looking at? Why is all the blame in this thread aimed at the AFM instead?



Hi Mike,

I've heard arguments like this. I am not proposing that the union surrender _anything_ in the way of money or work conditions. In the end, it is those two things that matter to me as an orchestrator or performer. 

If you were to get a 50% bump for a buyout, that would do three things for the players:

1. Fully compensate players for the loss of income from new use / reuse and special payments;

2. Provide the players (and orchestrators and copyists) their health and welfare benefits, plus hours toward qualifying for the union's medical plan and pension; and

3. Relieve them of the uncertainty about whether or not they will actually get any of those extra payments. After all, those payments are not guaranteed.

As it is, these dates are being done dark, so players don't get H&W, pension, or other benefits, plus work conditions vary, especially for orchestrators and copyists.

As I see it, it's not a choice between "paid the old way" and "give up something for nothing." A buyout with a steep premium would benefit players because it would keep work in town, provide players with benefits, and give producers (and players) zero excuse for dark dates.

That's what London has done. And the players in Eastern Europe are getting better quickly.

How many more stages are going to close in LA?


----------



## stonzthro (Jan 14, 2015)

Coming from a game dev standpoint - artists do not get paid (again) for the 3d models that are re-used (at least not typically, unless it is a licensed model) so I'm sure that is a VERY hard sell on the music side. No?

That's the real trick going forward - to keep getting royalties when other disciplines regularly do not. Along with the re-use issue, we claim that since we are not in-house and do not have benefits, the royalties make up for some of that. But the games industry has changed significantly and often artists are just contract, and if not, they are let go once the game is finished, and hired back on when there is another game to work on. There are exceptions to this, but this is quickly becoming the norm.

So from a developer standpoint, I can see exactly why they are resistant - why should composers get preferential treatment where others do not? That is a painful question to ask, because it hurt me too. 

Now to my first question - if a developer refuses to work with the AFM, does an AFM composer just have to turn the job down because they belong to the AFM? I am not a AFM member - what compelling reason is there to join today?


----------

