Actually, if an architect and a construction team invented a revolutionary, hyper efficient, beautiful new way to build hotels that caused revenues to skyrocket gazillion %, they would demand royalties or equity. Furthermore, we already have a model for this: profit sharing, bonuses exist for above the line talent because we acknowledge their labour creates the outsized value. There’s no logical reason that shouldn’t extend to the rest of the crew who sacrifice their time and health to make it happen.
Well I’m not talking about creating an invention. I’m talking about building a product for someone else. If an architect creates a hotel for someone (no matter how insane or swaggy its design), they don’t usually get the profits afterwards. They are paid for that construction job alone. That’s more like what happened with this movie.
A movie is not a hotel and the film crew is not following a fixed blueprint.
If a construction crew lays bricks perfectly, the hotel’s value stays the same (unless the architect actually makes a design that helps the property’s value to go up in which case they demand profit sharing and equity). But a film crew is creating a unique project. If the camera operator captures a breathtaking shot, the value of the movie skyrockets. if they mess up, it’s worthless. The crew’s creative labor is what actually generates the outsized profit.
Plus, we already give profit sharing to directors and writers because we acknowledge their labor creates the value. Arguing that the rest of the crew (who sacrifice their health and sleep to execute that vision) don’t deserve a slice isn’t logical.
Architecture is art too. Its not just for functional means. Even the paint strokes on a wall can be considered art (how meticulously its done) and something as simple as paint texture can make people continue choosing that hotel.
You just proved my point. If a painter’s meticulous brushstrokes are so unique that they literally drive recurring revenue and make guests keep choosing that hotel, then that painter isn’t just a labourer anymore but a core value creator.
If their specific, artistic choices are generating perpetual, ongoing profit for the owner every year, then logically, they deserve a piece of that ongoing profit.
Similarly if the producer gets to make passive, recurring income off the crew’s recorded artistry forever, the crew deserves a piece of that recurring success. To argue otherwise is to say, Thank you for creating the magic that makes me rich. now go home while I collect the cheques.
Actually, if an architect and a construction team invented a revolutionary, hyper efficient, beautiful new way to build hotels that caused revenues to skyrocket gazillion %, they would demand royalties or equity. Furthermore, we already have a model for this: profit sharing, bonuses exist for above the line talent because we acknowledge their labour creates the outsized value. There’s no logical reason that shouldn’t extend to the rest of the crew who sacrifice their time and health to make it happen.
Well I’m not talking about creating an invention. I’m talking about building a product for someone else. If an architect creates a hotel for someone (no matter how insane or swaggy its design), they don’t usually get the profits afterwards. They are paid for that construction job alone. That’s more like what happened with this movie.
That is a false equivalence.
A movie is not a hotel and the film crew is not following a fixed blueprint.
If a construction crew lays bricks perfectly, the hotel’s value stays the same (unless the architect actually makes a design that helps the property’s value to go up in which case they demand profit sharing and equity). But a film crew is creating a unique project. If the camera operator captures a breathtaking shot, the value of the movie skyrockets. if they mess up, it’s worthless. The crew’s creative labor is what actually generates the outsized profit.
Plus, we already give profit sharing to directors and writers because we acknowledge their labor creates the value. Arguing that the rest of the crew (who sacrifice their health and sleep to execute that vision) don’t deserve a slice isn’t logical.
Architecture is art too. Its not just for functional means. Even the paint strokes on a wall can be considered art (how meticulously its done) and something as simple as paint texture can make people continue choosing that hotel.
You just proved my point. If a painter’s meticulous brushstrokes are so unique that they literally drive recurring revenue and make guests keep choosing that hotel, then that painter isn’t just a labourer anymore but a core value creator.
If their specific, artistic choices are generating perpetual, ongoing profit for the owner every year, then logically, they deserve a piece of that ongoing profit.
Similarly if the producer gets to make passive, recurring income off the crew’s recorded artistry forever, the crew deserves a piece of that recurring success. To argue otherwise is to say, Thank you for creating the magic that makes me rich. now go home while I collect the cheques.