The case isnât really about Scarlett Johansson. Itâs about setting precedent for the way actors are paid when content is released on screening services going forward, and Scarlett Johansson is pretty unique in her position of both having a valid case for breach of contract and having a large enough platform, following and wealth that suing Disney wonât completely destroy her and her career.
She offered to renegotiate her contract at the point the decision to release on Disney+ was made, and Disney refused, that is what lead to the case.
The overwhelming majority of actors, even actorâs working for Disney are not millionaires, I know that because I am a jobbing actor, and I earn less in a year then either of my siblings, both of whom have office jobs.
When you get a film or television job, in addition to what youâre paid at the time you also get something that in the UK is called royalty fees, and in the US is called residuals. This occurs when the show or film is shown or licensed on another channel or network, almost always for a set period of time, although Netflix has started buying the rights to small indie films outright.
Royalty checks can be hilariously small. A friend I trained with once got one for ÂŁ2.07 because their show had just been licensed to be shown on a Thai TV network, but more often they are a lifeline for actors. Most actors work minimum wage jobs in between acting gigs, and when you also have the cost of Headshots, Self Tape equipment, travel to auditions and lost wages whenever you have to take time off to prep and travel to auditions, you understand why equity wages are so high for individual jobs, because that one episode in a soap you got paid ÂŁ800-ÂŁ1200 for (minus 10-20% for your agent), could be your wage for 2 months and you would be considered a fairly successful working actor, even if it was your only acting job in that time period.
The case isnât about a multimillionaire quibbling over how many millions she is being paid, although itâs likely that had Black Widow had a prepandemic release Scarlett Johansson would have been paid closer to 200 million than the 20 million she is being paid. Although Disney is pushing that angle hard so I fully understand why youâve fallen into their propaganda trap. It is one of the very few opportunities for actors, screenwriters, cinematographers, directors, and all the other hundreds of creatives involved in the filmmaking process to challenge some of the status quo with streaming services and really ask questions about how royalties will work in the future.
There is a reason that the unions are backing the case and thatâs because the other way around, breach of contract is a huge deal, there can be penalties of hundreds of thousands of dollars for contract breaches, often on jobs where you are paid a fraction of that, and believe me, Netflix, Disney, Amazon, Universal all persue those payments, and in certain circumstances even go out of their way to blacklist the artist.
If breach of contract is a big deal when actors and other creatives do it, it should be just as big a deal when studios do it, but it isnât because Capitalism is rarely about rewarding artists and all about bottom line profit.
This case has the potential to really change things and help millions of ordinary, jobbing actors and creatives. I am 100% on Scarlett Johanssonâs side with this and any reasonable person who cares about the well-being of artists should be too.
areudirty
blakekathryn
kianamaiart
