Authors that wrote books from before the Internet still get residuals from digital versions of their books being sold. It's really shitty that studios who hold the rights to shows aren't sharing profits with the artists who made the works they are selling.
this post was submitted on 02 May 2026
165 points (100.0% liked)
Television
2434 readers
135 users here now
Welcome to Television
This community is for discussion of anything related to television or streaming.
Other Communities
- !casualconversation@piefed.social
- !movies@piefed.social
- !animation@piefed.social
- !trailers@lemmy.blahaj.zone
Television Communities
A community for discussion of anything related to Television via broadcast or streaming.
Rules:
- Be respectful and courteous to all members.
- Avoid offensive or discriminatory remarks.
- Avoid spamming or promoting unrelated products/services.
- Avoid personal attacks or engaging in heated arguments.
- Do not engage in any form of illegal activity or promote illegal content.
- Please mask any and all spoilers with spoiler tags.
List of Best Rated TV Series as voted by the Fediverse
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Tolkien's estate still gets huge stacks of cash from a book series he wrote over 75 years ago. It's sickening.
That does really suck, just with the circumstances of the market that were set up by streaming to deprive artists of what they would otherwise be earning.
But at the same time, Full House ended 30 years ago. IMO, were it not for the fucked up copyright standards Disney created, it should be a public domain work at this point.
Noah Webster started it in the 1830s, and then Mark Twain extended it in the 1900s. A quote from him:
"Necessarily I am interested particularly and especially in the part of the bill which concerns my trade. I like that bill, and I like that extension from the present limit of copyright life of forty-two years to the author’s life and fifty years after. I think that will satisfy any reasonable author, because it will take care of his children. Let the grandchildren take care of themselves."
But, I agree we need to go back to the original maximum of 28 years. Fuck Twain's argument that it should last so long it benefits his kids. They can get a goddamn job from the nepotistic connection alone.
But it would benefit his kids anyway, all the excess wealth during his lifetime would accumulate anyway.
Copyright of that length is garbage. 14 years max. Make new work like everyone else.
(Or do basic income for everyone so people's needs are met. That's fine too)
Fuller House, though, ran for five seasons starting in 2016. They hadn't sucked all the nostalgia marrow out of the original so they exhumed it.
Expired copyright means others can make new content, not that the people who made the original content can no longer receive residuals.
It does mean others could copy and distribute the work at their leisure. You can upload Steamboat Willie to YouTube, Wikipedia, or wherever now and there is not a thing* Disney can do to stop you.
The actors could have it in their contract that they get residuals for infinity years, but there's not much of a reason for purchases to earn residuals from once the right of distribution becomes free to all.
*Not legally, at least, but YouTube is bad at checking legality of takedown requests
that sucks. back when she had her contract written, nobody knew streaming would ever be a thing. hell, nobody knew the internet would ever be a thing except for a bunch of geeks at DARPA and ARPA and a handful of universities. although, a really clever lawyer would have made sure her contract included language such as "or any future form of distribution" or something to that effect which might have been able to encapsulate streaming.
but, times change, and, unfortunately, old contracts don't get to change with them. sure, she could try to renegotiate her residuals, but that may not be possible.
edit: ok, so the show ran until 1995, so they definitely had the commercial internet up and running by then. I don't know when her last contract was written, but foreseeing streaming would still have been prophetic and unexpected. I'm sure that nobody else from that time is getting streaming residuals unless they had some sort of renegotiation or (as mentioned before) clever wording in their contracts.
I find it ridiculous that the default legal decision is that because the tech was new all income defaulted to the distributor instead of requiring the residuals to be proportional to broadcast or renegotiated.
I think that's a valid argument. I think another valid argument is that, after 30 years, the rights for this should be in the public domain.
See also every new medium needing to re-litigate 'by buying this object with cash, you've secretly signed a contract we made up.'
Yeah, I wish I was still making money off work I did 30 years ago. Instead I have to keep working, like a chump.
Are people still buying that specific job you did 30 years ago?