Talk:Directors Guild of America

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the Filmmaking task force.
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

Media Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Media, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MediaWikipedia:WikiProject MediaTemplate:WikiProject MediaMedia articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Media To-do List:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Mackay Radio
Cleanup : Media influence, Video game culture, Sound bite
NPOV : Content (media and publishing)
Verify : Multimedia, Alternative media, Alternative newspaper
Other :
- Answer requests for comments

Legality

Isn't it illegal in the US for a labor union to demand a company only hires union members? What grants the Directors Guild the right to force companies to only use Guild Directors?69.14.85.112 04:13, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many labor unions have contracts with companies, so that if a company wants to be able to hire workers who are part of the union, they have to agree to only hire union workers. The company isn't actually forced into it -- they have signed a contract whereby they agreed to do it. This is common and not at all limited to the Directors Guild.

Equazcion • argue/improves • 04:17, 10/11/2007

Fair use rationale for Image:Dga-logo.gif

Image:Dga-logo.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 02:31, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV paragraph issue: DGA "protects"?

This paragraph-- Other than wages and basic working condition the DGA has a particular role in protecting the creative rights of the film director. Such protections that the guild provides include defining the director's role, guarding the key concept of "one director to a picture" and the right to prepare a director's cut or edit. Generally each of these protections is to help offset the power that producers can have over a director during the filmmaking process.

--via its use of the words "protecting" and "protections" is a POV endorsement of DGA, especially considering the recent Brian de Palma issue with his film, Redacted, viz.: "De Palma lost rights to the film's final cut in recent arbitration with the Directors Guild of America." Source: http://www.reuters.com/article/entertainmentNews/idUSN1846489220071019?feedType=RSS&feedName=entertainmentNews&rpc=22&sp=true

I don't know how best this paragraph should be revised, but it's obvious to me that it ought to be. --76.83.249.234 21:14, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not POV because the fundamental function of labor unions is to provide protection for employees. It may not work sometimes, and there are many things that labor unions don't or can't protect the employee from, but that doesn't make it any less of a protective function.

If you're citing this example to mean that the DGA doesn't actually provide the protections the article is claiming: "Final cut" and "Director's cut" are two different things. The final cut is the version that gets the (initial) theatrical release. Directors have limited control over those, even though the film is generally the result of their own vision -- the producers are still the bosses, and can force a change in the final cut if they choose to. They're the ones who've arranged and financed the distribution for a theatrical release, so they get to decide what they want their final product to look like. This is different from a director's cut, which is the director's own responsibility, and which the union protects his rights to.

Equazcion • argue/improves • 00:04, 10/21/2007

We could get into a lengthy discussion about the nature of rights, but it would be pointless. You claim that the function of labor unions is such protection, unfortunately we can't cite you as a source. If we can find a source that says something along those lines, then the paragraph should read "it is claimed that" such protections are offered by these unions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.83.249.234 (talk) 22:06, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The way I see it, the fact that labor unions exist to provide protection for employees is common knowledge. What would you say is the purpose of labor unions then?

Equazcion • argue/improves • 22:27, 10/21/2007

I also find this wording POV. Equazcion, I don't mean to cause offence, but I find the preceding comment rather naive, see Trade_unionism#Criticism. Godzuki 16:28, 5 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Godzuki (talk • contribs)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Directors Guild of America. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:24, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]