This is probably evidence of fraud. They are probably subtracting fixed amounts of money from residuals, Screwed up and went so far you wound up in the negative. I would demand an audit.
I am slowly earning out negative royalties on a book (because returned copies) that will probably never pay more royalties because it’s on Windows 8 and 4c royalties against -$143, I figure they spent more printing the royalty statement let alone paying for the stamp
For anyone just starting in the entertainment business, this is why you have to have an actual lawyer negotiating on your behalf and not just your agent (no offense, Neil)
Yeah, this isn't a problem with the contracts but with Hollywood Accounting, a well-known phenomenon where studios keep two sets of books on a film - one for shareholders showing how much profits they're making, and another showing no film in the history of time has ever made a profit ever.
Two separate books by spinning off a company to distribute/produce the movie, and then charging it unrealistic prices. Parent company makes a shit-ton of profits, child company makes virtually nothing, or even hemorrhages money.
Oh yeah, it's not at all a slight against your folks who I'm sure anticipated and accounted for it. When people are first starting out though, their agents don't always know to look out for things like this and then that lack of transactional knowledge gets taken advantage of in the contracts.
Which is exactly why they should have a lawyer involved, even with the disparity in bargaining power. I've been passed some really bad contracts that agents thought were okay- at least after the review everyone is going into it fully informed, even if it can't be changed
I have a small record label to raise money for various nonprofits and occasionally I’ll have negative months due to returns of physical stuff. Don’t know if that’s what’s happening here?
I was joking, by analogy to book returns :) (Similarly I wonder if media executives will try to figure out a way to decrease streaming residuals by counting the time that viewers rewind against views :)
I think I was joking, but now I feel weird about having had this interaction with someone whose body of work I so revere. Your time could be better spent than having to dispel my misinformation. I love your comics/movies/books/audio, and have planned vacations based on them. I’ll go donate now.
Comments
Not because they're worried it won't make sense.
But because they're afraid it will...
(Cue X-files theme music.)
literally, literally all I remember from the movie was the five minute “hide the penis” action scene.
that movie was…something. not your fault i’m sure.
What? How? What?!
o.O
I suspect the actual reasoning behind that would destroy an important part of my brain.
If they treat you this way, what are they doing to people who aren't known worldwide, who don't already have a huge fan base?
Nielson was fine for broadcast tv, because that was easy(ish), but committees staffed by lawyer/accountants is the only way to kerp them honest
Be careful or they'll tax you on your mammoth earnings.
☹️
It's despicable and should be illegal.
Anyway, we can thank Cliff Robertson for cracking part of that bad practice.
A lawyer can definitely be helpful to flag the unfavorable terms, but we can’t materialize commercial leverage.
I’m not sure if they had caught it whether they’d have been able to change it though.