Do TV Writers Have A Fiduciary Duty To Their Audiences?

@Setanta,

fi·du·ci·ar·y [fi-doo-shee-er-ee, -dyoo-] Show IPA noun, plural fi·du·ci·ar·ies, adjective
noun
1. Law. a person to whom property or power is entrusted for the benefit of another.

adjective
2. Law. of or pertaining to the relation between a fiduciary and his or her principal:
a fiduciary capacity; a fiduciary duty.

3. of, based on, or in the nature of trust and confidence,
as in public affairs: a fiduciary obligation of government employees.

4. depending on public confidence for value or currency, as fiat money.
Origin:
1585–95; < Latin fīdūciārius of something held in trust, equivalent to fīdūci ( a ) trust + -ārius -ary

My reference was to a fiduciary relationship;
i.e., one of trust and confidence.

Its not a big mystery.

David

0 Replies

There is certainly no mystery in your obsessive attempts to dress all of your posts up in some phony-baloney mantle of legalistic jargon. Authors are not in a position of trust with an audience. It's a simple case of sink or swim. Either an author produces a product which sells, or they don't. Either the audience is pleased with a product or they are not. The author has no responsibility to the audience. Their responsibility is to their own bank balance, or, as is the case with screen writers, to their employers. If what an author writes doesn't sell, they either need to write something more commercially appealing, or they need to find a different profession.

This is just another typical case of you making up a case which actually isn't there, so that you can strut around spewing your pompous, bombastic and completely ludicrous (and hilarious) high-priced language.

It is ludicrous to use fiduciary in this context.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

As usual, Mr. Mensa shows a profound ignorance of language.

As usual, Mr. Setanta shows obsessive jealousy.
If u behave yourself (decently), then maybe some day
I 'll let u go to the Annual Gathering; maybe buy u a hot dog.

Setanta wrote:

It is ludicrous to use fiduciary in this context.

Did u see my dictionary quotation ?

Setanta wrote:

Not only is it an inappropriate use of fiduciary, it is predicated on an idiotic contention that authors have some responsibility to their readers. They don't.

I re-iterate (since u took no known cognizance of my first iteration)
that if u buy a putative can of beans, with a bean label on it,
then u rightfully expect to find beans inside.
If u respond to billboards n posters of "Gone With The Wind"
in relation to a touted movie and then u find no similarities
between the movie n the book, then u 've been cheated,
albeit for a minute amount of money and some
of your viewing time.

Even so, u were still the victim of a fraud.
If I wrote a successful book, suitable for a movie,
and if my services were engaged to write the screenplay
and direct the movie bearing the same name as the successful book, then
I 'd make a very sincere, earnest effort to put that book conscientiously intact
up on the movie screen, insofar as it is reasonably possible.
Admittedly, there might be some matters that do not lend
themselves to representation in cinema, so adaptations might become
necessary, but I 'd do my best to keep them few and far between,
to keep good faith with the potential attenders of that movie,
considering that thay 'll trust me to put the book up on the movie
screen, with no excuses (or anyway, as few as reasonably possible).

Setanta wrote:

If what they write is popular, they will be successful. If it's not, they will either not be successful, or will cease to be successful. There is no relationship between an author (especially screen writers, the original subjects of this silly thread) and a potential or even an existing audience which requires performance of the author.

Maybe u r denying privity of contract.
I see some problems (in theory) qua joining a conspiracy to bait & switch,
but "lex non curat de minimis", i.e., it is a non-justiciable controversy,
if the disputed value is too little.

Setanta wrote:

As was pointed out quite early in this thread,
any such relationship would only exist between the writer
and his employer. It is for the employer that writers must perform.

Do u feel the same way about books
and how thay are advertized ?

If I offer for sale a book purportedly on astro-physics
and upon opening it, there is found a book on
the jurisprudential history of the right to bear arms,
u think that 's OK? I believe in very close fidelity, perfect fidelity
insofar as it is possible to conform what is touted for sale
and what is actually delivered. To my mind, that shud not
be deemed controversial. Its honesty.

David

2 Replies

There is no contract between an author and a reader, nor a screen writer and a viewer. The only contracts in operation are with publishers or with production companies. Writers who don't produce salable books or screen plays don't get more work--but they will have fulfilled their contract with the publisher or production company. If a viewer of a motion picture or a television program feels they didn't get what they expected, their beef is with the production company who sold it to them. The screen writer fulfilled his or her contract with their employer--which was not a fiduciary relationship.

It is ludicrous to use fiduciary in this context.

0 Replies

You really don't know how the world works. People who pay to see motion pictures pay the theater. The theater then hands over the lion's share of the ticket sales to the distribution company. Often, the theaters are owned by the distribution companies. The distribution company then hands over the lion's share of their gross revenues to the studio which produced the motion picture. After taking out the bloated salaries of the executives of the corporation which owns the studio, a hefty portion of what remains goes to the production company or companies. They then hand over a portion of their revenue--a little or a lot depending upon who they are--to the actors in the motion picture. The screen writers will have already provided the screen play on contract, subject to acceptance by either the production company or the studio. They may have a contractual right to a share of revenues after the production company or companies and the studio have recouped their costs. The contractual relationship between the screen writers and the production company or companies and/or the studio is not of a fiduciary nature. It's a straight quid pro quo relationship.

It is ludicrous to use the term fiduciary in this context.

1 Reply

This is the oddest thread.

I don't particularly like the ending of Romeo and Juliet, can I get a portion of the cash I paid for "Unabridged Collection of the Plays of William Shakespeare".
I bought it 1964.
But, really, I didn't like the ending then when I tried reading it again later, I still didn't like it.

Hey, what about M.A.S.H. ? They killed off Henry Blake !

I didn't like that at all.

Oh, and hey, what ever happened to the dog in Rocky I ? That's a loose end that I need fixed or, or, or....

Joe(I'm hiring David to sue everybody)Nation

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

I believe in very close fidelity, perfect fidelity

you've got your own square box of reality - no one else fits into it

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

If I offer for sale a book purportedly on astro-physics
and upon opening it, there is found a book on
the jurisprudential history of the right to bear arms,
u think that 's OK?

Technical books are either invited or are proposed. The publisher develops a contract with the authors and usually pays (should it be a hot timely topic) an advance. The book would not get past the outline tage to the publisher so your analogy isn't valid at all.
WHO would publish a book not having vetted, edited and edited it again

0 Replies

I am going to sue the makers of Crisco.

I bought a can on Wednesday and when I opened it yesterday ..... NO PIE !!

http://preparednessadvice.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Crisco-72664341.jpg

Joe(I was ready salivating. Am I damaged?? )Nation

0 Replies

That never bothered me . . . i don't care for cherry pie . . . now, if it were a blueberry pie . . .

0 Replies

Quote:

Joe Nation said: Hey, what about M.A.S.H. ? They killed off Henry Blake !

I wish they'd killed that creep Klinger off.. Wink

PS- the word on the google street is that Blake wanted to be killed off-
WIKI- "Stevenson later admitted that leaving M*A*S*H was a mistake, and he was also upset by the fact that his character's death prevented him from returning to the show"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McLean_Stevenson

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

You really don't know how the world works. People who pay to see motion pictures pay the theater. The theater then hands over the lion's share of the ticket sales to the distribution company. Often, the theaters are owned by the distribution companies. The distribution company then hands over the lion's share of their gross revenues to the studio which produced the motion picture. After taking out the bloated salaries of the executives of the corporation which owns the studio, a hefty portion of what remains goes to the production company or companies. They then hand over a portion of their revenue--a little or a lot depending upon who they are--to the actors in the motion picture. The screen writers will have already provided the screen play on contract, subject to acceptance by either the production company or the studio. They may have a contractual right to a share of revenues after the production company or companies and the studio have recouped their costs. The contractual relationship between the screen writers and the production company or companies and/or the studio is not of a fiduciary nature. It's a straight quid pro quo relationship.

It is ludicrous to use the term fiduciary in this context.

iron workers get paid by a construction company, who get paid by a general contractor, who get paid by the building owner, so it is ludicrous to say that the guys laying down a skyscraper skeleton have any fiduciary duty to do their best to build something that will not spontaneously fall down. so long as the construction company bosses are happy with their days work all is good, to hell with the people who might die because they happened to be in the building on that day. *sarcasm*

1 Reply

Another TV series that stepped over the line of credibility was "Mission Impossible"; it was fairly okay at first as they used new gadgets and technology in the stories, but then in later shows the gadgets (and plotlines) got too ridiculous to swallow so I stopped watching.

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

Quote:

iron workers get paid by a construction company, who get paid by a general contractor, who get paid by the building owner, so it is ludicrous to say that the guys laying down a skyscraper skeleton have any fiduciary duty to do their best to build something that will not spontaneously fall down. so long as the construction company bosses are happy with their days work all is good, to hell with the people who might die because they happened to be in the building on that day.

You've taken an example that is heavily monitored and legislated for performance standards. Whether a bunch of workers come in totally hung over and unable o unwilling to do a proper job, they are guided by a set of plans that the construction company has bound itself to by contract. Plans and specs are to be folloed to the letter and if any deviations are made, these are usually caught by daily monitoring by a construction manager who is an agent of the several tiers of "ownership'
States govern construction by safety standards and construction standards clearly written down in commercial license and professional license requirements. Architects and engineers are LICENSED by the state's several agencies that oversee such projects and , there are departmenst of professional licensing ad nauseum. Also, there are standards of construction from agencies like "licensing and Inspection' Depts of State", "fire Marshalls" Insurance institutes" Etc Etc. AND, at the end, several local agencies (Planning Commissions, city govt, various departments, EACH have a lick at reviewing and APPROVING the overall plans to make sure they meet minimum codes of construction and OCCUPATION)
One who constructs, may be a total idiot but he will construct his project in accordance with his own Commercial (and depending upon the state)-PROFESSIONAL LICENSE. The Constructor has voluntarily BID his job performance on putting up the building. If any construction shortcomings are discovered, either now or at a time of failure, people will GO TO JAIL .
We had a case in Lancaster Pa several years ago just about this issue. A school, constructed by a state licensed and County Licensed company, had fallen down and sever deviations of the plans were discovered (they ddnt reinforce walls , they didn't pour concrete withing cinder block walls and then they failed to insert final rebar) This was found out at time of post failure inspection. The constructor, the principal engineer AND the construction manager , who ,it was found out , was actually being "paid off" by the constructor, ALL WENT TO JAIL, and their respective companies are now out of business and under extreme decisions of restitution . One of the principles of the Construction Company commited suicide to avoid any further hassles.

SO, while you say that theres no fiduciary responsibility, in this case you submit as an example, there is a huge amount of ENFORCED LEGAL CONTRACTUAL responsibility up the line.To construct a building(or road, or mine) such that it later fails in a manner that is NOT AND ACT OF GOD, you are knowingly putting every moment of your future at risk based upon a gamble that YOU WILL HAVE NOT BEEN DETECTED.

We call such acts of professional misconduct--FELONIES

0 Replies

Do TV Writers Have A Fiduciary Duty To Their Audiences?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know