Article by Ethan Drogin, one of the writers on Netflix’ “Suits” who points out that the residuals he received for the show are minuscule and in no way match the long-lasting success of “Suits”
Article by Ethan Drogin, one of the writers on Netflix’ “Suits” who points out that the residuals he received for the show are minuscule and in no way match the long-lasting success of “Suits”
deleted by creator
It depends on expectations. If the carpenter is paid a good hourly wage to produce tables, regardless of whether the table gets sold, he wouldn’t expect anything.
But if he gets paid a small amount with the promise of more depending on how much the tables sell for at auction, he would certainly be angry if he found out that his tables were very popular, going for hundreds of thousands of dollars per table, and he was given a few extra hundred dollars total.
Though even in the first case, if the carpenter found out his tables were popular and being sold for huge amounts of money, he might not ask for more for previous tables, but wouldn’t be out of line to ask for a raise!
deleted by creator
What “good wage” may be can differ a great deal, but what a “fair wage” is not that much. As it stands Netflix gets to pocket pretty much all of the money by themselves and no matter how you try to argue, it’s not fair that Netflix’ C-suite can reap a huge financial windfall while everybody else involved with a show gets morsels in comparison.
Removed by mod
A fuckload more than $260
Removed by mod
The point is: Nobody knows except Netflix, because they do not share any numbers at all. That is part of the problem.
Removed by mod
A truly terrible analogy in 2023. Everyone knows that there’s a difference between physical products and reproductions. Hell even before the Internet you should know better.
How about this?: Imagine an author receiving money as long as new copies of their book sold.
Ridiculous, right?? The publisher should get all that money! /s
Imagine an author receiving money as long as people but their books…
So you are saying that no-one, including the broadcasters/streamers should make any money from the shows once they have been initially shown? Or is it just the writers that shouldn’t get continued income?
Indeed, the subscription nature of digital media is wrong.
I don’t have an opinion on whether the writers are receiving a fair shake or not, but royalty deals can also apply to physical goods.
If I own a patent and you have a business that would like to produce my invention we can enter into a sale of the patent, enter into a yearly fix rate license, or enter into a deal that includes a lump sum and/or royalty.
It depends on how each party sees the revenue developing and striking a deal that seems to work for both parties. The royalty model doesn’t work for the buyer in the table example, thus the buyer only accepts a one time fee and transfer of ownership.
Mind you, plenty of people enter into other types of contracts: leases, layaways, etc. And they pay a different fee structure than those buying outright. A writer could enter into a lump sum contract, but would likely demand a higher fee to cover future earnings. This isn’t in the best interests of the studio, as they have no idea how successful the show will be.
I’ll also point out that car manufacturers are literally moving to annual fees for certain features. Was it BMW with heated seats? Could pay monthly, yearly, or lifetime access. Same amount of work for BMW, but wildly different payment models.
I’m with you. And no I don’t think authors or songwriters, or any artist should receive payments in perpetuity for a work they were already paid for. I don’t get paid in perpetuity for my work, why should they?
Before you try to explain why, just remember that most artists don’t make any money, they do it because they enjoy it. Making money from it should be a nice side effect, not the entire point.
I think the important factor is how much the episode is making other people who contributed less