2 ms·
This is silly. You could use the same argument for the writer. And, indeed, this is done. If I'm remembering correctly, Hardy Boys and such were done this way
by taeric 4y ago
This is silly. You could use the same argument for the writer.
And, indeed, this is done. If I'm remembering correctly, Hardy Boys and such were done this way, with the actual writer paid in a different way.
- LegitShady 4y agowhen the writer is not the primary owner of the property it would make sense. When the writer is the primary owner and creator it does not.
- taeric 4y agoThis feels contrived. And is in the face of, for example, how Disney tried to not pay a Star Wars writer. I agree it feels like this could be easy to argue one way or another. I am willing to assert it is often not simple and many of the complications are from pushing simple solutions.
- LegitShady 4y ago>This feels contrived How so? >how Disney tried to not pay a Star Wars writer. the star wars writer is just a contract worker. He doesn't own star wars etc. But he should still get paid according to the agreement disney inherited.
- taeric 4y agoContrived because, "primary owner" of a story is somewhat silly. It kind of works for one off books, but even there has issues. Get into performances and collaborations, and it falls hard. You will quickly get into situations where corporations own things, and then all semblance of personal ownership and control are questionable, at best.