Share.

17 Comments

  1. Worf_Of_Wall_St on

    Is this just because contracts in 1987-1995 named specific distribution methods which didn’t include streaming because it didn’t exist yet?

  2. guitarguy1685 on

    Hopefully she saved some money from before streaming. She probably made about $10M during the original run and syndication before streaming. So about more than i will make in 10 lifetimes probably 

  3. It’s just so astounding how much money is in exploiting actual doers in our society. Don’t make art, sell art for people who make it, that’s where 1/10th of the work is, and 99% of the money is. It’s mind blowing.

  4. PocketFlan420 on

    I thought the SAG strike got streaming residuals covered??? Did it only cover stuff made after the strike?

    Edit: Apparently they didn’t get the 2% direct revenue sharing deal and it covers based on a show being added to a streaming platform in the first 90 days and being a top 20% earner. That’s still so fucked.

  5. partiallycylon on

    The cascading effects of this are tragic. Film/TV industry is impossible to live on for full time income without residuals. The work for 90% of the crew is day rate, and if nobody can afford to write, nobody gets days. Union membership also requires a certain number of days to become and remain a member, so nobody is safe. More than just actors make their lives in production, and the majority of them are also paycheck to paycheck.

  6. matthewnelson on

    I k is they just did a SAG restructure of their contracts but this should be addressed.

  7. I can’t believe legally showing it on streaming somehow makes it not count towards royalties.

Leave A Reply