6 ms·
> You have to pay people royalties for broadcasting their work. Might be a dumb question - but is this a contractual thing? Why do people still need to get roy
by umeshunni 4y ago
> You have to pay people royalties for broadcasting their work.
Might be a dumb question - but is this a contractual thing? Why do people still need to get royalties for broadcasts of something made 40 years ago vs just paying them for it back then?
- fncypants 4y agoYes, it's contractual because of copyright. If someone (and many parties in the process) created it back then, there is a web of copyrights that require royalties to the creators. Contracts would control who this obligation is owed to (if anyone) years later.
- shalmanese 4y agoWhat? It has nothing to do with copyright. It's a provision negotiated by unions for the benefit of members which means you can't employ anyone in certain unions without a minimum royalty schedule. Notably, live action productions covered under SAG-AFTRA and WGA get residuals while animated works under IATSE did not until very recently.
- anotherman554 4y agoCopyright law does not require royalties to anyone. People can negotiate for royalties or not negotiate for royalties.
- ghaff 4y ago>is this a contractual thing Yes. In general the content owners (less often so actors, screenwriters, etc.) work on a combination of upfront fees and royalties. This is true of book authors as well who typically get an advance against royalties. Purchasers generally won't pay a fee commensurate with "if this is a big hit" so the content owners are willing to accept a smaller fee in exchange for a cut of the big hit proceeds--even if those often don't come about.
- smelendez 4y agoIt’s similar to startups paying in stock and options. It allows for more speculative projects since the upfront cost is lower.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]