Considering that in this case these rights were a bargaining point, I would assume that they’re contractually spelled out.

Singers are well aware of this fact. The current contract addressed this situation fairly clearly at the outset of the HD transmissions, and no one is feeling duped. It was decided at the time that there would be a reevaluation once clearer numbers came in. Now if, of course, it is revealed that millions of DVDs are selling and the profit from the HD transmissions is in the multiple of millions of dollars, artists and AGMA will obviously step in to make claims on those profits, but that’s simply not the case.

The sticking point for any negotiating coming up at the Met is going to have little or nothing to do with the HD transmissions, radio broadcasts, and DVD recordings, and much more to do with the large amounts of money spent on pensions, retirement, health care, and salary justification. I’m going to take the not so wide logical leap that if the board is bringing in Volpe for union meetings, the books must not be looking good. The Met endowment took just as big a hit as everyone else in the recession, and I doubt minor bumps in basically flat ticket sales, donations, and minimal government funding are helping that much.

How does one deal with the risk of a singer having an off day to be seen by the entire world and then that affecting future engagements?

It seems fair to me that everyone involved in the HD’s and Sirius broadcasts should share whatever royalties there are.

I.E: Even if they made money out of ‘media distribution’, who really decides whether to ’share the immediate profits around’ to the particiapants (the various artists and musicians who performed) who made it possible ? OR Who decides….to deprive those logical recipiants…to enable for future ’seed money’ towrds the ‘greater good & future’ of the MET itelf. Does it also constitute ‘free publicity’ to promote an artist’s operatic career at other venues, at a later time as a result?

Should artists be expected as part of their contracts to give ‘free promotional work’ to help the MET? Did they. or do they sign contracts with such a possible clear understanding, already in place? If so does that amount to a form of cohestive negotiation in a work place situation? Questions..and more questions that I do not think will be made public. It just looks messy, when those union negotiatons really start?

One thing is sure to be; The video / sound technicans and recording engineers brought in to record those HD transmissions……I am sure they got paid ‘up front’ to start with.

I’m not sure you quite understand how much money the Met pays out in a year, and how much they actually have available to them. It’s a nonprofit business, and they don’t make any money on ticket sales and haven’t in over fifty years. They barely balance the books, and are generally in the red. It’s a small to medium sized corporation that doesn’t make money, as are most higher art institutions. It functions as a museum.