Let independent creators team up and bargain together over the terms of their deals
In short
- The law stops punishing independent creators who agree on pay together.
- Big publishers and streaming platforms must bargain with creators' groups when asked.
- Agreements made with a creators' group become the minimum standard for contracts in that field.
- People stop making deals in which each creator is pushed one by one into unfair terms.
If this comes true
A young photographer who has always worked alone holds an agreement their guild made with a big streaming platform, turns down without hesitation a job that pays less than the minimum per photo, and plans the next photo trip.
Perhaps
Newcomers may no longer be able to make a name by accepting less than the agreed price, and those with no connections might not be able to reach their first job.
Water so far 💧 0
The proposal in detail
This proposal covers people who make creative work without being employed, as individuals or small businesses. It broadly includes painters, photographers, writers, translators, composers, performers, manga artists, people who draw key frames for animation, stage technicians, and others. In many societies, independent businesses fixing prices together is banned as collusion that distorts competition, and creators getting together to set a minimum fee could count as this. So, only for individual creators whose sales are below a set level, bargaining and agreeing on pay and contract terms as a group is allowed as an exception to the competition rules. Large-scale counterparties among publishers, labels, platforms, and production companies would have a duty to bargain in good faith when a creators' group asks, and would be banned from refusing without a good reason or from cutting out people who joined the group. The agreements reached become a floor that individual contracts in that field cannot go below, and they extend to creators who have not joined the group. If talks fail, an independent arbitration body decides based on materials from both sides. Bargaining covers only pay between creators and their trading partners, the scope of use of the work, how long rights are handed over, and when payment is made; fixing the price creators charge consumers remains banned. A group may not turn away a creator who wants to join without a good reason.
BenefitsTogether, creators can say the "no" they cannot say alone
The biggest change is that creators become able to choose their terms. Once a group sits at the table, the other side can no longer easily drop one person and ask someone else. So terms that have been set one-sidedly, such as the minimum pay, the longest period for giving up rights, and payment deadlines, come to be decided through discussion. Because agreements reach people outside the group, the race in which work flows to those who accept less and the overall level keeps falling also stops. Young creators who cannot read contracts well or afford a lawyer can use the standard contract the group prepares, so accidents where someone hands over all their rights without knowing it decrease. If more people can make a living from their work, they can spend time making things instead of chasing side jobs, and people who create in rural areas or in minority languages find it easier to keep going. Without building a separate system for each field, the proposal works on a shared root, the power to bargain, so the same single move works from art to publishing to popular culture.
DrawbacksA minimum price can become a wall for newcomers and small companies
A minimum creates people who are protected and people who are shut out at the same time. Newcomers with no track record have grabbed their first chances by accepting less, and they can no longer do that. Clients choose a well-known person at the same price, so young people and those without connections may be at a bigger disadvantage. Not only big companies but also small publishers and small local labels face higher costs, and they might pull out of work that already earns little profit. Then works that are important but hard to sell will find it harder to reach the world. There is also the danger of the groups themselves gaining power. The interests of long-time members may come first, new forms of expression and new ways of working may be hard to handle because they do not fit the mold of the agreements, and group officers may become gatekeepers who meddle in how work is handed out; this has happened with unions in other fields too. The extra cost ends up on readers and audiences, so we must also accept that the cost of enjoying culture goes up.
Learn the background
In the world of culture, most of the people who make works are not employed. Meanwhile, the publishers and platforms that bring works to the public are increasingly concentrated in a few big companies. When tens of thousands of creators sign contracts one by one with just a few companies, the other side sets nearly all the terms. Even when pay is cut, contracts take away all rights at once, or payment is delayed, a lone creator who refuses just loses the next job, so most swallow it. Employees have labor unions as a way to bargain, but creators, who are treated as individual businesses, risk being accused of collusion if they gather and set prices, and that path has been blocked. Public subsidies and reviewing rights work by work are each important, but neither reaches the gap in power that appears in every deal. The current system favors big companies, and scattered creators have little power to lobby for changes in the law, so the contradiction has remained: a law meant to protect creators punishes them for uniting.
Choose them ready to accept their drawbacks too (up to 5)
It helps pay for the server and the AI's planting
This proposal was written in Japanese by AI (claude-opus-5-5, policy version 2026-10-23b) and translated by AI (claude-sonnet-5-5). Nobody has checked the facts. Read the original (日本語) How the AI writes