Our 3 convictions

​

First conviction

The act of creation is an act of socialization

 

The act of creation is above all the original expression of one or several personalities (we thus speak of individual works or collaborative works) who, through their works, have a more or less singular view of the world and of society. In return, the work created allows the public to take a stand on this original vision.

 

Authors are essential to the socialization of society, because they contribute to create a link and a social unity by a shared culture, guaranteeing a representation of all the individualities which compose it.

 

From this conviction, we consider as essential that the access to the creative professions is, in fact, made possible to any person, whatever his social origin, in order to assure the biggest possible diversity in the dialectic work/audience, which founds the function of socialization of the artists-authors.

 

Moral rights are therefore an essential and determining element in the exercise of the profession of author, because they guarantee this link between the creator and the public.

​

​

Second conviction

Authors share a common creative tension, regardless of their artistic expression

 

The more singular the expression of originality of the author, that is to say, questioning or even challenging the collective beliefs on which society as a whole, or certain social groups, are based, the more difficult it will be for the work to reach a large audience. It will probably be more difficult for him or her to find distributors likely to contribute to the financing of his or her creation.

 

The more the expression of the originality of the author is in line with collective expectations, the easier it will be for him or her to meet presenters likely to contribute to the financing of his or her creation, and the more likely it will be for him or her to benefit from income for the conception of his or her work and its exploitation.

 

We thus notice that an author who intends to live professionally from the art or arts that he or she practises, is often inhabited by a tension throughout his or her career, namely to express more or less his or her singularity through his or her works, and thus to question more or less openly and/or strongly the collective beliefs of the society.

 

We also note that he or she is led to constitute various professional networks, around the diffusers that he or she considers the best able to exploit his or her work.

 

An author who intends to make an artistic career will probably go through several phases of creation, successive or concomitant, reflecting his or her positioning with regard to this tension.

 

He or she may be led to create more or less singular or consensual works according to his or her personal and professional background.

 

He or she may also be led to invest in other genres of creation according to the purpose and the view he or she intends to express on the world. A novelist may want to write television scripts. A sculptor may want to try his hand at video production. A director may want to write, etc.

 

From this conviction, we postulate the necessity of a legal, social and fiscal protection system, common to all the artists-authors, and which is not articulated around the modes of diffusion of their works as it is the case today, but around this vocation most often pluri artistic.

​

 

Third conviction

Authors should be paid twice: for their creative work and for the success of their work.

 

It is by nature impossible to correlate the amount of work of an author with the value that his or her work, once completed, will be recognized by the public, professionals, markets and institutions.

 

This observation leads to the fact that the right to receive an appropriate and proportional remuneration to the product of the exploitation of the work is an indispensable component of its remuneration. Except for the particular case where his contribution is not essential to the intellectual creation of a work, any “buy out” must be prohibited.

 

Even if it is not possible in itself to correlate the creative work and the value of the work, we consider that a creative work specifically commissioned by an operator must necessarily be the object of a remuneration distinct from its exploitation.

 

Many broadcasters benefit from large subsidies from the public authorities (tax credits, financing by national centers, etc.), which in fact guarantees them a production margin on the works produced or edited, independently of the success of their exploitation. In order to maintain their margin rate, many operators use and abuse the principle of proportional remuneration to deny authors any value to their creative work, and thus minimize their development costs.

 

This situation leads to socially limiting access to the profession of author to people with sufficient resources to wait for a hypothetical success in the exploitation of their works, and to assume alone the time necessary for their recognition.

 

This situation is contrary to the code of intellectual property, which provides to distinguish the exploitation from the commission of a work, which can be done either within the framework of a contract of employment, or within the framework of a contract of enterprise (also called "work made for hire").

 

In the first case, the author performs his or her duties in a subordinate relationship with an employer, and has a salaried status, which may be subject to various collective agreements depending on the sector for which he or she produces the work.

 

In the second case, the author performs his or her duties independently, under a contract with a client.

 

In both cases, the law requires a remuneration separate from the remuneration paid for the work (employee or self-employed) in order for the employer or client to be granted the artist's rights.

 

Of course, authors remain free to create their work without being commissioned to do so, and then to seek to sell it or to transfer the rights of exploitation.