Should there be quotas?

To clarify I'm not saying that there is protectionism in American animation, I'm saying that to impose quotas, the original point of this thread, would be protectionism. And considering the US' economic behaviour on the world stage it would be highly hypocritical too. Just like the implementation of Steel tarifs was in 2002:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/1881821.stm

As far as the animation industry in Britain is concerned I have no sympathy for it. I'm kind of a one man Flash band and don't really have much dealings with the ever decreasing circle of the mainstream animation industry over here.

I say more power to the elbow of producers all over the world and NO to protectionism.

What I'm going to say here might sound wrong, but please bear with me--and understand that I'm just laying out my opinion on the matter ( again). Its not a slight against anyone in the biz.

Let's assume that, by some means, that the US Animation industry manages to get all that outsourced work back to domestic shores--namely being JUST the USA---what then?

Does anyone realistically think it'll be all happiness and songs that all that American talent can now practically pick and choose the productions they work on--that there will be so many cartoons being made?

that was the sound of the bubble just bursting. Wanna inspect the pin?
The very reason why the work gets outsourced in the first place also dictates why passing legislation mandating either quotas, or NO out-sourcing will KILL the industry domestically.
Its just too expensive to do on anything but a limited scale otherwise, if its done domestically.
Outsourcing, like it or not, makes a lot of animation viable AND affordable.
There's no idiot out there that's going to funnel 10's of millions of dollars towards creating cartoons.............just for the love of it.
Let's face it........cartoons are bottom-rung entertainment and children are bottom rung consumers.
And when I say "bottom rung", I'm not meaning dollar value/clout, I'm meaning in terms of the legitmacy of the expense of addressing them as an audience.
Why spend millions and many months or years creating animated works, when a producer and production can slap a video camera in someone hands and have a bunch of real kids dance, sing, fart through their paces. The reasoning is that it'll hold the kids attention just as much as a cartoon would.
The INCENTIVE to take the expense wouldn't be there--because animation has been shown to be risky--and a cheap-ass show is LESS risky.

Add the situation ( if quotas are put in place) and investors in this stuff will dry up because it'll be legislation dictating how people spend their money.
There's also the backlash as well..........because of the foreign deals with out-sourcing, there's also foreign broadcast rights involved. If the expense rises and those foreign folks get shut-out of production--well, reprisals in business are common place-no? Everybody loves a deal, and if there ain't no deal, there ain't much love.
The whole raison-d'etre of the biz has been to remain profitable, and to do that the expense has to be snipped somewhere.

Now, this isn't the old, dry saw about animators cost so much that cartoons are too expensive, that..........pfffft, but.......
Domestic animation means addressing things like the cost of living HERE for the animators.
Who wants to do a show for $25 a foot--with a quota of 20 feet a week.
Anyone know or remember just what a sweat-job 25 feet of animation in a week is?
Do the math? Is animating that much footage worth earning only minimum wage?
Start adding those numbers up some.....and add in the bodies that it'll take to maintain the same kind of production schedules.
200 animators on site producing a single 22 episode.......even at $25 a foot/20 feet a week.....that's $100,000 a week. A WEEK.
Obviously if the rate was higher, or even a salary......then you'd start having problems.

$25 is too little you say? Maybe the Union can help get wages higher, right?
Higher wages means higher costs ( likely even more time spent), means more expense, means less incentive to invest in animation as a form of entertainment. There's no producer or investor ANYWHERE who is bound to commit time and money to something that will bleed dollars. And since they are not bound, where is the incentive to jump into something that will, all of a sudden, cost a lot more?
Were I in their shoes, the idea of quotas or no-outsourcing would scare the piss out of me.

Now......not everyone would bail from the industry....major players would still keep their hands in it. Disney, Dreamworks, some of the studios producing TV stuff.......but a lot of doors would close because it would be too expensive to do stuff. They'd be able to pick and choose from the talent pool ( actually, it'd be a talent OCEAN...) and honestly.......most of us are near the middle and bottom of that pool. They wouldn't hire everyone.
What happens to all those other happy animators then? The work is back home........but what happened to all the work?
And what about all those "other" animators--y'know the ones on the rest of the planet? Since out-sourced work feeds alot of the rest of us, if that stuff dries up--what then? Are we left to our own devices? Anyone with a brain knows that global animation would just shrivel up like a horny stud in a ice-cold shower.
All that unemployed talent would then set its sites............where?
Yea, that's right.....welcome to America!
If you think competition is hard now, add all that other top-drawer talent to your neighbourhood once they go through the immigration hoops.

If talent thinks there's a climate of fear ( about job security) in the industry right NOW--what do you think it would be like then?

I'm doomsaying alot here, I know......and certainly simplifying things too.
Outsourcing is, the "best" of the least-desired of all worlds.
Quite a bit of pre-prod stays here, FLASH productions tend to stay here, 3D to a degree.....so the situation has a kind of balance.
Its not the happiest of situations, certainly not for some.......

Is there room for everyone? I don't know. Should there be? My heart says yes, my head says.........its not my fight.
Callously........I benefit from the situation right now.........and have all my career. The current situation is a fine-line--too much outsourcing ignites protectionist ploys, too little or none starts eating at the biz from both ends.
I think if things change, NO-ONE will benefit.

Its really a damned if ya do, dammned if ya don't thing.

Yup, so we agree that IF there was a quota, it WOULD be protectionism.

I think the US' economic behavior on the world stage simply depends on where you're standing.

Tariffs are a way of adding taxes to even the playing field for domestic industries. Protectionism-light, if you will. Not a lot of countries that don't enforce tariffs that I can think of off hand...

The example mentioned is that the US says Japan is dumping cheap steel, flooding the domestic market. So you up the tariffs. Of course Japan says it's not, and complains. Maybe raises it's own tariffs on the US technologies markets in return. It's been that way for a long time.

Same thing happened with a more recent example of Canadian lumber into the US. Pick your national paper for their side of the story.

Airbus vs. Boeing. Big deal there was government subsidies vs. tax breaks. We could go one forever.

Tit-for-tat. On a huge-money scale. Hence the WTO...which is a whole thread in its self!:rolleyes:

Ken lays out his opinion on the reasons for outsourcing in animation (And that's just ONE industry!). Pretty heavy stuff. Lotsa things to consider, eh?

Looking over the thread, it appears most folks aren't for quotas. It would be protectionism. So what does a government do? They go with tax breaks, incentives, tariffs, quality vs. quality, wages, etc. to try to help your own countries industry stay competitive.

Ever wonder why animation was hot here, then hot over there, then hot way over there?
Because the countries and companies are always looking for the best deals, or ways to offer them. It's often a race to the bottom of who can do what for the least amount. Gads!

What we're experiencing in the animation field is what other world industries are feeling (or have felt) as well.

But I think if we all keep on keepin' on, the cream will eventually rise to the top...even in these times. That's all we can hope for!

Well, that and a paycheck...and a cold frothy one, but I digress.

Cheers!
Splatman:D

Like I said Larry, pretty sure no such subsidies or quotas exist for animation production in the UK. I'm prepared to be proved wrong but what I heard was that UK childrens production companies are going to the wall precisely because of the lack of such help.

I was just throwing the idea out there...the fact is... all those countries I mentioned do subsidize or have quotas or in some other way suppliment their animation industry.

Larry, I'm a little confused by what you mean by quotas. Do you mean a certain percentage of the industry in general kept within borders, or a certain percentage per show? I'm just curious how something like that would work and how one would go about regulating it.

I'm putting together some numbers on a pilot, and one of the big problems is that we have a low budget but a certain standard to match for the show. Should we be forced to scale back our production, pay lower wages, or compromise quality? Or should we have the option of employing an overseas company to fill in some production like cleanup and inbetweening while keeping storyboard, layout, and keys in house?

I personally like to keep everything domestic, preferably under one roof. I think the fellowship and cohesiveness of a single production unit is worth a monetary trade-off, but at some point it just isn't practical.

Bigger productions have other problems and must deal with practical solutions.

If quotes were imposed, in whatever form, I honestly think companies would find a way to deal. Networks and cinemas will still need their content and as long as their are audiences with money in their wallets, there will be a way to produce it.

The consumer is partially responsible for the cutthroat attitude of corporate boardrooms and increasing deregulation and a laissez faire attitude towards unscrupulous business practices.

We are told if any restrictions are mandated they will simply go elsewhere. Perhaps if the consumer voted with their wallets fewer corporations would resort to tactics that leave the very countries and employees responsible for new practices, improved performance, methods and products behind while corporations take advantage of 3rd world economies.

As far as protections and tax breaks for the animation industry in the US. I don't think it's taken seriously as a large employer or power in the realm of the entertainment industry. Does the industry have a lobbying presence in Washington. Disney certainly protected it's interests with the expansion of the copyright law to protect their interests, but I doubt Eisner was concerned with the status of the domestic animator and their futures.

I'll go on the record Larry saying I think yes there should be restrictions and protections for industries that have been developed and created in certain areas. Why not.... corporations protect their trademarks and intellectual material, why not provide protections so that those unique industries can remain where they were envisoned and developed?

And don't feed me "free trade" arguments, we all know they aren't free, and they rarely benefits those who's ingenuity and creativity originated them.

I think I'm confused. Isn't the whole point that the studios that ship out are trying to save money? So a government order would hurt, then? Or what is the situation? Is it that they -can- afford U.S. "prices" and that's the baseline, but they'd rather do it cheaper to make that much extra cash? Or is it that the United States actually does have non-competitive pricing?

How would that be made manifest? Who chooses who gets to be on the "outsource list" and ship out?

(Genuine curiosities, as I didn't know this was even an option.)

This is a pretty difficult thing to assess because the producers of a lot of these projects sign whole production deals with international studios--usually because a similar studio isn't available in the USA, or because they want to get a better price. That "better price" is usually a marginal percentage--ends up being around a 10-20% discount on what it would cost to do it domestically, from what I understand.
Seeking that sounds like an inherent competitive right within the USA, and having the Government impose a quota on that certainly doesn't sound fair to those business folks--who could easily be you or me.

Now, that said, I've spent most of my career working on out-sourced material.
A fair amount of it was never intended for my home country's market, but most of it has been seen up here anyway, if not from local feeds , but feeds from the States or UK.
What usually got those deals in the door was that above discount AND the lower exchange rate working to make it all viable to work on.
If a storyboard ( for example) usually prices out at $10KUSD a show done Stateside, up here in Canadaland, the bidder might be able to do it for $9K USD.
Instantly, a $1000 is saved on that one show at source, and the Canadian production can then still offer the job to talent at $8K-$9K CDN, because the exchange rate for that $9KUSD works out to probably $9.5K to $10KCDN--because of the difference in the dollar.
The Canadian production can pocket the difference to work towards their profit and still offer something competitive.
So the "same" rate can be offered, or one close to it, and people can make some coin on the job and still address things like cost-of-living etc.
That makes a out-sourced project VERY attractive at both ends.

I guess the real crux of this argument is that if the animation business is to be subjected to this kind of thing, then why not all businesses? From foreign call-centres to component manufcaturing, textiles, food products, toys..........you name it--a great deal of what we a buy and are services by ends up being sourced out of the country ( or continent).
If its unreasonable for them, then its unreasonable for the animation biz too.

I've had to audition for jobs, and I've also NOT had to do so, by virtue of my experience.
The nature of the biz IS changing--evolving actually, and as much as outsourcing takes place, I still see a sizable amount of work staying and being developed domestically. I've been busy for the past 4 years--when I expected to NOT be busy--and even "semi-retired", but there's just too much owrk out there needing to be done.
I don't see that changing any time soon.

( What is a beeblebrox any way?)

I'm gonna guess that he's taken it from this. Very funny books, for those who haven't read them.

I'll go on the record Larry saying I think yes there should be restrictions and protections for industries that have been developed and created in certain areas. Why not.... corporations protect their trademarks and intellectual material, why not provide protections so that those unique industries can remain where they were envisoned and developed?

That's just it...........ANY industry can be seen as unique within any given nation. And if one industry is shown preference over another.....is their a fairness issue with that?
That's probably why like benefits and such are not found in the US animation industry--though I do not know if they are or not...
The key thing here is that Animation is a entertainment form, its not a essential industry like steel, oil, or other vital infrastructure industries, that MUST remain viable.
Those kinds of industries obviously have sound reasons within the body of a nation to demand/command assistance if the business playing fields are unlevel.

That's just it...........ANY industry can be seen as unique within any given nation. And if one industry is shown preference over another.....is their a fairness issue with that?
That's probably why like benefits and such are not found in the US animation industry--though I do not know if they are or not...
The key thing here is that Animation is a entertainment form, its not a essential industry like steel, oil, or other vital infrastructure industries, that MUST remain viable.
Those kinds of industries obviously have sound reasons within the body of a nation to demand/command assistance if the business playing fields are unlevel.

Even Steel and lumber like here in my area, were never really protected. Only to a point where the those in power could reap the most benefit from short term protections. Here in my area the mills sold their equipment to Japan, and closed laying off all their workers because of California's restrictions. But guess what we sold our lumber harvesting rights to them also. And they are allowed to harvest and send our lumber overseas.

Intellectual and entertainment areas are actually more unique to this nation than any other except perhaps computers, and hell Bill has monopolized on that to the point where he can be generous...has he outsourced...yes I think he has. Who has benefited from that, not the employees that developed the software. What Industries currently are protected....none, but those that have the shoulder of the administration. And they only want protection in order to protect their assets not their employee base.

We are told we can't impose limits because those in power would take their work elsewhere...guess what they have, and nothing but legislation to protect their corporate butts is being passed currently.

It wasn't until after world war I that the class system in England was reworked and workers rights were enforced.

Well we are in a new war, one that was started by corporate greed, it's now time that the little man stood up and said you want us to fight you treat us respect and respect the result of our toil.

I say lets dismantle copyright and trademark laws and see how understanding corporations are. That's what they have done to worker integrity and effort. Let's see the corporations duke it out on a level playing field.

I for one would be more than willing to protect my own work. Without having to deal with corporate lawyers.

Anyhow....what I mean by quotas is that the governing bodies such as RTE in Ireland had limits on how much foreign product (read that... TV shows) could be shown in their country from the U.S. and/or Asia.

I think I'd be more supportive of protectionism on the production (and outsourcing) side than the importation side. Even supposedly "home grown" content like The Simpsons or the latest Disney sequels are produced partially overseas. That could get tricky and sticky.

In other words, I'd be more for limiting corporate outsourcing and allowing consumers to have all the freedom they want in choosing content. The former is about checking corporate greed and protecting jobs, while the latter is about competition in the market place and consumer choice.

I hope that makes sense.

I say lets dismantle copyright and trademark laws and see how understanding corporations are. That's what they have done to worker integrity and effort. Let's see the corporations duke it out on a level playing field.

But those laws, as they exist right now, also protect YOU and your creations.
The playing field IS indeed level, its just that some of the players are more savvy ( better players??) on the field than others.

I for one would be more than willing to protect my own work. Without having to deal with corporate lawyers.

But without those above laws, HOW would you protect your work? Are you willing to travel across town, across state, across country, to another country or across the world to confront someone toprotect your work?
If if you did, what actions could you take?
The corporate world might seem above and beyond you ( and me) but it exists there to serve a purpose. Its not beyond our reach, its just something that seems removed until someone has to have traffic in it.
I don't fear the corporate world some some folks do--I don't like it, but I understand its got a role to play.

But those laws, as they exist right now, also protect YOU and your creations.
The playing field IS indeed level, its just that some of the players are more savvy ( better players??) on the field than others.

Well that's decidedly untrue. I, as an individual and a citizen, cannot exploit my work for life plus seventy-five years. It's true I could conceivably sell it or pass it on to my heirs, but that is no longer about me and my creations at that point. And by exploiting my work, my heirs are not creating anything of their own.

But the existing law works ENTIRELY differently for corporations who are, by their nature, immortal. They can consistently exploit copyrighted material essentially forever, both financially and by stifling creativity and competition.

If the existing copyright law were around in the 1930's, Walt could not have made half of the wonderful film classics that Disney now seeks to prevent from being made.

Well that's decidedly untrue. I, as an individual and a citizen, cannot exploit my work for life plus seventy-five years. It's true I could conceivably sell it or pass it on to my heirs, but that is no longer about me and my creations at that point. And by exploiting my work, my heirs are not creating anything of their own.

But the existing law works ENTIRELY differently for corporations who are, by their nature, immortal. They can consistently exploit copyrighted material essentially forever, both financially and by stifling creativity and competition.

If the existing copyright law were around in the 1930's, Walt could not have made half of the wonderful film classics that Disney now seeks to prevent from being made.

Untrue??

Check the laws of your land.
Any individual citizen can incorporate and thus enjoy those same "immortal" benefits, if they set it up properly--at least its that way here in Canada.

If you genuinely believe its untrue, then why create at all? Thinking that way makes you mere chattal and anything from your brow is not your own from inception--and THAT is untrue, right?

However this isn't a rights discussion here, its about quotas...
If one wants to enact quotas, then the opposite party can also enact stringent penalties on things like trademark and intellectual property rights.
If both are tied together, then you'd have problems, because so much of trade is dependant on good will, and where good will isn't seen--trade goes to the next person.
This is why the USA does the "kerfuffle and harmuph" with places like China and the rampant video and product piracy there, but doesn;t really push it beyond anything more than mere objections.
China is a HUGE trading partner and pissing them off means they can easily offer what they have to someone else.
Even the USA cannot take that kind of hit to its markets.

So it is with quotas in the entertainment biz, there's a balance of sorts in place--asymmetrical, but a balance nonetheless. If that balance gets upset, as I mentioned a couple of posts ago......suffering is likely to end up be EQUAL on both sides. Just another example that its a complex world.

Any individual citizen can incorporate and thus enjoy those same "immortal" benefits, if they set it up properly--at least its that way here in Canada.

If you genuinely believe its untrue, then why create at all?

You cannot enjoy the fruits of your labor after you're dead. If that sad fact has somehow changed, then please explain.

While the law is the same for individuals and corporations, the inherent nature of the two distorts the playing field.

It's like if I made a law that said that you can invest a minimum of $1 million and get a guaranteed return of $10 million. While that technically applies equally to everyone, obviously some get far more benefit out of it than others, making it inherently uneven.

And copyright law has nothing to do with creation. I create work for myself and for others for fun and for money, but I don't do it because of anything to do with copyright law. Do you? If so, do you imagine that people never created anything before there was a copyright law, or before the law was in its current form of death plus 75 years?

So it is with quotas in the entertainment biz, there's a balance of sorts in place--asymmetrical, but a balance nonetheless. If that balance gets upset, as I mentioned a couple of posts ago......suffering is likely to end up be EQUAL on both sides. Just another example that its a complex world.

Obviously quotas are less than ideal and would unnecessary in an ideal world. I'm kind of a status quo person as of the moment because I'm not sure of the impact of any kind of quota system, good or bad. It's an extremely complicated issue. I think those of us in the US want to see our market protected, as do those across the border and overseas. Like any good compromise on the issue, everyone is likely to feel slighted in some way or another.

phacker

I'll go on the record Larry saying I think yes there should be restrictions and protections for industries that have been developed and created in certain areas. Why not.... corporations protect their trademarks and intellectual material, why not provide protections so that those unique industries can remain where they were envisoned and developed?

It's amazing to me to see Americans being so anti-competition. How many of Animations great innovators and developers were American? Certainly not all.

And by that logic how many things were developed here in Britain that we should have sole control of? Didn't we invent the television?

Didn't the Romans invent the number 0?

Larry L, you got a link to Cartoon Europe?

Actualy, Canada does NOT subsidize its animation industry. This is a myth perpetrated by certain parties and the facts, as I understand them, are otherwise.
The Canadian government DOES offer a tax CREDIT to productions ( live-action and animation)--essentially a rebate offered at tax time off taxes owed, with no money actually changing hands.
This requires that the production have a specific percentage of Canadian involvement to qualify, namely a Canadian source studio, certain percentage of talent etc.
The infamous Cinar fiasco is an example of this tax credit being taken advantage of in the wrong way.
The tax credit has long been seen as a subsidy but those outside, but its not, its an incentive for business, adding to the exchange rate on the dollar to make Canada an attractive place to produce entertainment. There is NO government dole going to animation companies to produce cartoons up here.
Teletoon is a PRIVATE commerical TV cable network( co-owned by Astral Media and Corus Entertainment) that does subsidize productions, or assist them with funds but its not, from what I understand, goverment supported. I was briefly consulted during the formation of Teletoon, back in 1996.

What money does come from the goverment for animation usually comes from National Film Board of Canada grants, intended to promote the ART of film-making--this being to the principal exclusion of purely commerical ventures.
NFB grants tend to be for short films, usually made by small numbers of people.
The films typically are art films, shown mostly at festivals. Their commerical value is low and they are required to be sourced IN Canada to qualify for the grants.

Globalization of Animation and 301 a

[URL=http://www.ftac.net/html/301a-2.html]
Petition 301a [/URL]

Bentos1
It's amazing to me to see Americans being so anti-competition.

Not this Yank! Competition is good for everyone...keeps ya on your toes!

It's when the companies and countries try to hedge their bets, that miffs my muffin.

Test: Name a company or country that doesn't do that...:rolleyes:

Cheers!
Splatman:D

I am not anti competition, but if corporations require nondisclosure and copyright releases, and deem creative talent as work for hire, then perhaps creative talent should also make reasonable and equal demands.

Why should one side have all the protections at the expense of the other?

You cannot enjoy the fruits of your labor after you're dead. If that sad fact has somehow changed, then please explain

I create something, I incorporate and that creation sees me some kind of income or wealth, that corporation survives my passing and continues to provide income to my surviving family and specified people---then I certainly enjoy the fruits of those labours after I'm dead.
I get to take care of people I care about, get to understand that my creation can continue to provide enjoyment for all those interested in it long after I'm gone AND provide for those I love.
As long as that corporation survives, the "fruits of those labors" continue.
Someone like Disney created the theme parks not only for his own family ( his daughters), but for the rest of us too. He got to see them enjoyed in his lifetime and deeply understood that they would exist long after her was gone.

A person can leave this world with a profound sense of peace knowing that something they built will survive. I'd call that "taking it with you".

I am not anti competition, but if corporations require nondisclosure and copyright releases, and deem creative talent as work for hire, then perhaps creative talent should also make reasonable and equal demands.

Why should one side have all the protections at the expense of the other?

We all have the same protections and can make the very same demands.

There's just LESS of them than there are of us so those demands carry very little weight unless the talent is very much IN DEMAND.

They can exercise that kind of "discrimination" because if you don't like their terms, you are indeed quite free to find someone else to work for, and you can discriminate against them for the same reasons.

[QUOTE=Bentos1]

And by that logic how many things were developed here in Britain that we should have sole control of? Didn't we invent the television?

Hi Bentos1,

Actually that one is debatable-
http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae408.cfm

I used to live next door to Ally Pally in London. Right underneath the old BBC transmitter. There's a plague there saying " The world's first regular high definition television service was inaugurated here by the BBC. 2 November 1936." The first owner of my house would have been one of the first people in the world who could watch television! And yet I had the worst tv reception ever there. Someone told me that it was because our house was too close to the transmitter so the signal goes over our heads.

Nothing to do with this thread at all- just feel like saying something! :)

-Paul

I certainly enjoy the fruits of those labours after I'm dead.
I get to take care of people I care about, get to understand that my creation can continue to provide enjoyment for all those in it long after I'm gone AND provide for those I love.

No, your family is enjoying the fruits of your labor, not you. You're dead. That's entirely different from a corporation that, like you, exists as a legal entity, but goes on forever and forever. I'm not talking about warm-and-fuzzy deathbed smiles and memories but actual benefits to you. The only way for you to benefit from the copyright law the way a corporation does is if you could live as long as a corporation does. But you can't. The law, as it stands, is exploitable by corporations in a way that it is not exploitable by you as an individual. That's a FACT. Sorry, but you and Disney are not on a level playing field.

And I'm not even suggesting that copyright be done away with, only that it be sensible, protect creation but also allow for innovation based on prior creation. The way it is now is simply untenable.

You're dead.

and every character youve ever drawn will be reunited with you.. to torture you for eterNITY11!

shouldnt it just be about the art maaaaaaaan..mooneyy..MOONNIEE :rolleyes:

shouldnt it just be about the art maaaaaaaan..mooneyy..MOONNIEE :rolleyes:

Hehe. Certainly that's a legit philosophical argument. Ken suggested that without copyright, there is no reason to create at all. That's kind of like the RIAA line, without the labels there would be no more music.

Artists will create because that is what artists do. And artists need protection for their work. But the current copyright laws are without question skewed to benefit corporations and are LITERALLY written by conglomerates like Disney. The copyright laws as they now exist are draconian, and ironically, would have prevented Disney from creating many of the works in the 1930s that they are now attempting to shield from EVER expiring into the public domain.

As far as I know England certainly DOES NOT have any restrictions on imported animation.

In fact since the Junk Food ad ban homegrown childrens television animation in Britain would appear to be a thing of the past:

http://media.guardian.co.uk/site/story/0,,1950542,00.html

Note:

"Ofcom believes that the total impact on TV advertising will be a loss of £39m.
However, if broadcasters introduce "mitigating" strategies - such as running more repeats or using more cheaper, imported shows, the drop in advertising revenue could be just £23m."

On another note, living in 'The Rest of The World' all we get from the States is the Globalization Gospel; 'Open up your markets,' 'Deregulation'. But when it comes to your own market place the attitude seems to be very different.

Note:
On another note, living in 'The Rest of The World' all we get from the States is the Globalization Gospel; 'Open up your markets,' 'Deregulation'. But when it comes to your own market place the attitude seems to be very different.

Probably because our leaders at all levels of government are not listening to the people who are being disenfranchised. Our leaders are ramming globalism down our throats despite the fact that most of us don't want it. Not looking to start an argument about politics here, but I'm living in Michigan where the economy is still in the toilet (for various factors including outsourcing) despite the fact that the rest of the country is well on the way to economic recovery. IMO most of our politicians are more interested in repaying political cronies who got them (re)elected than doing what is right for the people. Tragically, there's a serious lack of accountability in our government (if there ever was to begin with now that I think about it). There has to be a balance between global community and local community that protects the local producer while at the same time offers opportunity to the overseas producers, but I'll be damned if I know where it is. I wish there were more opportunities for animators here in the States, but I don't want to give up my anime either. It's a quandry with no easy answers. :confused:

I thought this was the land of the free, where you believe in small government, the right to bear arms (bare arms?) and you weren't gonna let them pencil pushers down at City Hall tell you what to do!

I'm joking.

US Protectionism is a very hard pill for the rest of the world to swallow, considering all the crap we get from the WTO and World Bank about Free Trade (note, Free Trade not Fair Trade).

I'm writing from Britain where pretty much everything is owned by foreign money. We're even thinking of selling off our stock exchange to the New York one just so they can shut it down.

The US is the richest, most powerful nation the world has ever seen isn't it?

I thought this was the land of the free, where you believe in small government, the right to bear arms (bare arms?) and you weren't gonna let them pencil pushers down at City Hall tell you what to do!

Heh, so did we.

I'm joking.

Tragically, I'm not.

US Protectionism is a very hard pill for the rest of the world to swallow, considering all the crap we get from the WTO and World Bank about Free Trade (note, Free Trade not Fair Trade).

Make no mistake, when you get past the small number of elitists with most of the power and talk to the REAL Americans walking down mainstreet America, you'll find that we oppose the WTO and the World Bank as well. Problem is, once you get above the level of small, local governments, no one is listening. Amazing how accountable your local representative is when he lives down the street from you and he has to shop at the same grocery store that you do! If you trace our past five presidents all the way back to Jimmy Carter, the one thing that you'll see in every branch of the government (Executive/Congressional/Judicial) is a lack of accountability to the people. It probably goes further back, but hey, I was born in 1970. My memory only goes back so far. I guess in the grand scheme of things, you can say that "we the people" are at fault since we've let it become this ungainly, unaccountable beast. But, I think I'm starting to split hairs at this point (and running dangerously close to the forum guidelines on off-topic discussions). The long and short of it is, the American people need to start holding our elected representatives accountable to the will of the people--just like the residents of every other nation should do for theirs.

I'm writing from Britain where pretty much everything is owned by foreign money. We're even thinking of selling off our stock exchange to the New York one just so they can shut it down.

And that's a tragedy IMO. Britain should be owned by Britons. Just like Canada by the Canadians and China by the Chinese, etc. Personally, I'm a moderate isolationist. I believe in fair trade, but I also believe in not meddling in other nation's economies (damn World Bank). I'm all for promoting economic development in poorer nations, but I have a hard time supporting it when there are ghettos here in America filled with poor people who would work if the opportunities were there. You would've thought that our leaders would've learned their lessons when NAFTA gutted our industries, but then again, they're not the ones punching a time card and struggling to pay a 30-yr mortgage hoping and praying that you can send your kids to college in the vain belief that they will be able to do better than you will. :(

The US is the richest, most powerful nation the world has ever seen isn't it?

Honestly, I thought that was Rome. Course, the European Union is already starting to surpass us economically. The whole "American Empire" is a myth (or soon will be one) with the continual rise of the EU and China.

At least, that's what we're seeing here on the other side of the ocean.

Forum Mods: Sorry if I'm keeping this off topic, it's rare that I get the opportunity to discuss things like this with intelligent people from other countries. May not agree with everything that is said, but it's fascinating to see how we're perceived by the rest of the world on a personal level rather than the usual biased editorials from the managed media outlets. ;)

In animation?

Me no think so!:rolleyes:

Lots of US corporations are whoring out to the cheapest (not always the bestest) studios for work. That's the opposite of protectionism.

Cheers!
Splatman:D

I create something, I incorporate and that creation sees me some kind of income or wealth, that corporation survives my passing and continues to provide income to my surviving family and specified people---then I certainly enjoy the fruits of those labours after I'm dead.
I get to take care of people I care about, get to understand that my creation can continue to provide enjoyment for all those interested in it long after I'm gone AND provide for those I love.
As long as that corporation survives, the "fruits of those labors" continue.
Someone like Disney created the theme parks not only for his own family ( his daughters), but for the rest of us too. He got to see them enjoyed in his lifetime and deeply understood that they would exist long after her was gone.

A person can leave this world with a profound sense of peace knowing that something they built will survive. I'd call that "taking it with you".

Hey, the Pharaohs tried that not sure how well it worked for them either. There is always someone that wants to benefit from the toil of others. And I don't think after death anyone one can prevent grave robbers. I don't think incorporating is any more beneficial than building a pyramid. And I think it can be just as expensive as moving all that rock.

The scope of the them parks and media that Disney envisonaged in his lifetime I am sure is quite a bit different from the corporate junk turned out by Eisner. So I am not so sure about old Walt's divinity or legacy.

Hell, if you think about it Walt's legacy is responsible for the farce that is Britney Spears and Justin Timberlake. Wonder what sort of relationship the mouse had with that girl, or the new upcoming young fems Disney turns out. I am sure Walt is super proud of that accomplishment.

A quota on home-made animation would be protectionism, and the height of hypocrisy.

When I've talked to people who have been involved in overseas outsourcing, especially the far east, it seems to be more trouble than it's worth. Looking at the posts over at Cold Hard Flash it seems one of the advantages of Flash production is being able to keep everything in-house.

I once had to polish a turd that someone in their infinite wisdom had outsourced to a company in Jordan. Now India, China or Korea I'd understand but Jordan?

Yes, the fact that pretty much everything in Britain is foreign owned is crap. And there would need to be major changes to allow large scale television animation production to be worth doing over here again. Odd that CN have set up a new development studio over here. Of course they'll probably outsource the actual animation.

Ironically whenever I've talked with American companies about doing some animation they can't afford me. I live in London and I've got bills to pay, when I mention my daily rate I tend not to hear from them again.

A quota on home-made animation would be protectionism, but the height of hypocrisy? Not quite sure about that one.

In the ad agencies I've worked at in the past, we were forced to use various vendors to finish the jobs...and they were very often sub-standard at best. But they knew they had a chunk of the pie coming their way, by law. What was their motivation to become better? Nothing...

So I'm not for quotas.

I doubt the US would ever be able to impose a quota on animation. A quota on kitty-litter I can see, but I digress...

Now a sweet tax-break sure would help the locals be competitive on the world stage! Yessir.

Cheers!
Splatman:D

[

Now a sweet tax-break sure would help the locals be competitive on the world stage! Yessir.

Cheers!
Splatman:D[/QUOTE]

Hi Splatman,

There're American companies producing films in other countries (UK for example)because they want to get the sweet "tax-break" over there. If everyone is doing that. You'll lose more jobs from here.

Having quota system doesn't seem to be a working solution or even the right thing to do. How far do you want to go to protect your local workers? Lots of animation people working here are not Americans (I'm one of them.)
If you like to look at it that way, we are all taking jobs from people here. But do we want to send Andreas Deja back to Germany or not give James Baxter a work permit? Surly not!

There's no easy answers.

-Paul

The reason the US companies are doing business overseas is because of other sweet tax deals over there. Absolutely.

We gotta beat 'em to the best tax-break! Keep the jobs here!
And mind you, they are over there saying the same things.:o

I could care less if Andreas, James and you are over here making animation. More power to ya! You're over here helping our tax base;) ! But thats not the point we're talking about...

Companies (world-wide), especially now, will beat feet to the cheapest place for them to reap the highest profits. End of story.

They have their $tockholders to answer to.

Sadly, to some...animation is simply business.

I don't have the answers, either...but I do know the world is getting flatter.

Cheers!
Splatman:D

This is so far over my head, I am looking straight up.

The height of hypocrisy in the context of the US' preaching to other nations about opening up their markets and the mystical virtues of deregulation.

Not sure about tax-breaks for production here in the UK. If Britain has had a good year in film this year I'd say it was probably in spite of the system rather than because of it.

Certainly there is no equivelent to the brilliant Canadian system outlined by Ken above for animation production that I know of. Even a successful show like Peskys' the Adrenilinis is only possible because of foreign investment and is animated in Canada.

Childrens' production companies are dropping like flies over here at the moment. Wave goodbye to British animation as it's flushed down the toilet.

Bye-bye.

Hey Bentos1,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deregulation was an interesting read on deregulation.

Your perceptions of the preaching's of the US is your opinion, and if you're anything like me, it's pretty much set in stone already...so I shant waste my breath.

I'd love to have the Canadian (animation) system here in the US, too. But I doubt that'll ever happen anytime soon..

I don't think I need to point out the serious slide in American animation. Been happening for a few decades now.

Again, I hate to quote such a genius as myself :rolleyes: , but (imho) Companies (pick your industry) especially now, will beat feet to the cheapest place for them to reap the highest profits. End of story.

How do you and I change that? Who's to blame? Why are most urinals set so low on the wall?

It's open to debate.

Cheers!
Splatman:D

The height of hypocrisy in the context of the US' preaching to other nations about opening up their markets and the mystical virtues of deregulation.

Not sure about tax-breaks for production here in the UK. If Britain has had a good year in film this year I'd say it was probably in spite of the system rather than because of it.

Certainly there is no equivelent to the brilliant Canadian system outlined by Ken above for animation production that I know of. Even a successful show like Peskys' the Adrenilinis is only possible because of foreign investment and is animated in Canada.

Childrens' production companies are dropping like flies over here at the moment. Wave goodbye to British animation as it's flushed down the toilet.

Bye-bye.

Hi Bentos1.

What I heard was that certain percentage of UK residents have to be employed in the production to get the benefit. I could be wrong but can certainly find out.

Hypocrisy might be too strong a word to use here. I don't really see much protectionism in the US animation industry. If anything, there have always more animation jobs and productions going from the states to UK or other countries than the other way round. Think of all the tv commercials from New York agencies; Valiant; DuckTales; Roger Rabbit; early Beauty and the beast etc... Universal and Warner brothers had productions done in UK too.

I know time is hard but it's the same for everyone. Good luck to your work and I hope things do get better over there.

-Paul:)

Is there any protectionism still left to production and manufacturing in the US? I don't think so. Free Trade only protects the corporate owners. They get the tax breaks the workers/employees receive the cuts in benefits and protections, plus an annual increase in taxation on wages and assets to offset the cuts continually given the corporate sector.