Don't know about singers and musicians but song writers make a killing in royalties. A hit song nets the writer $100,000 a year for life in royalties. Hit album comes in around a million a year for life. Band members who don't do any writing don't get to share in that. That's why artists are getting hundreds of millions for their song catalogs, whoever buys the music gets the royalties going forward. Chris Squire, bass player for Yes received $600K a year, every year, until his death in royalties for his writing contribution to the 90125 album. Now his estate gets it.
The guy who wrote the MASH theme song, because of royalties, has earned more than any other person ever associated with MASH. The writers, actors, producers, directors, all of them. Even the author of the original novel.

And isn’t that why Gene Roddenberry wrote hokey lyrics to the Star Trek theme, so he could get songwriter royalties?

"Mr. Bogosian" wasn't asking for actors to get paid for auditions. He was merely pointing out one of the many tasks actors have to undertake before they're even considered for a role.

Because actors figured out they were worth something and unionized, and the stars have stuck by that union.

I hope the writers and actors get everything they want. They can keep the strike going as long as they want for all I care. Just looking at my movie shelves the only films that have been made in the last ten years that I cared about were the John Wick movies and The Batman. I don't even have any streaming channels and the the last series I watched on TV was the X-File continuation.

I bet there's a ton of actors trying to get booked on the upcoming season of The Masked Singer now.

That show has writers and employs actors. I doubt that show will continue during the strike.

Yeah I saw an article that said they expect some actors to drop out of the reality shows in solidarity and they will look at athletes and musicians as replacements.

According to Deadline, The Masked Singer should be able to be made. I guess the question is if actors are allowed to appear and which ones would want to. We may end up with a season with even more athletes.
​​​​​​​
https://deadline.com/2023/07/actors-...er-1235438821/

There is writing for those reality shows (intros, etc). I guess they use non-union writers

Hell, the actual shows themselves often use writers, though they are probably all non-union as well.

Most of the hosts and judges are on these types of shows (AGT, Masked Singer) are in the actors' union so they must be allowed to be on these shows because they're not doing any "acting". We should see on Love Island next week when it starts if Sarah Hyland is there hosting since that show is only a few days behind real time.

It's absolute shit. There's this misconception that if you are signed with a record label that "you've made it". More bullshit. During the shutdown, they were absolutely screwed considering most working musicians make their money from merch and touring.... assuming they can after all the expenses associated with touring are covered. If you're an international artist trying to tour in the US it's a small fortune to tour for just a few weeks.

Toni Braxton only made $2,000 in residuals or royalties from her 1st recording contract with LaFace records and she sold hundreds or millions of CDs. She ended up being broke and filing for bankruptcy years later. And now she's doing reality TV so she can pay her bills.

Residuals for TV has been in decline for years. Hardly any shows go into syndication anymore. That's where all the money used to be made. Now shows just drop on a streamer and streamers don't pay anything. Only the studios get rich.

Question: why did the TV Academy announce their Emmy Nominations on Thursday knowing the actors had or were about to have a strike vote, hence making things very difficult for the Emmy show whenever it airs and assuming the issue's not resolved by then? All that was needed was one executive at the Academy to stand up and say, "Guys, there's about to be an actors' strike, let's just wait to see how this whole thing pans out before we make any plans since we basically have no show if the actors don't show up." Delaying even the announcement till they see some light at the end of the tunnel makes more sense to me.

What am I missing here? Just curious.

Seems like they were trying to conduct "business as usual" up until the minute they called for a strike, with the Oppenheimer cast literally leaving during the premier of their movie.

https://variety.com/2023/tv/news/emm...er-1235667092/

I hope they all get livable wages. Entertainment people are just like us!

If you stop paying attention to the strikers, and look at the demands - it's not much. It's almost like this is rooted in hurt feelings somewhere, not logic. You never know what happens behind closed doors. Someone says the wrong thing to the wrong person and this is what happens.

That's pretty much true for all singers who don't write. Sinatra, Elvis, Rod Stewart, Whitney Houston, etc. Diane Warren wrote "Un-Break My Heart" and continues to collect hundreds of thousands in royalties for that song.
Dolly Parton wrote "I Will Always Love You". Whitney sold a zillion copies. Dolly says, "Whitney sings it, I cash the checks."
Harrison Ford only got $10K for Star Wars. He made $25 million from Force Awakens. If a performer can sell millions of records maybe they should charge an upfront fee to record, treat it like a live performance, like a successful actor charges a fee to act in a movie.
Unless they own their own recordings, a performer has no equity/asset to generate future income. Songwriter owns the song. Studio owns the recording. Performer doesn't own anything. Even with higher royalties, which they deserve, they'll still be way down the money totem pole. The best solution, once the original one sided contract is over, is for a performer to use their own money to record an album and have a studio distribute it. Or form their own label. This way they own the recordings.
Not much different from a tenet/landlord relationship. Guy takes out a loan to buy a house, rents it out. Tenet pays the mortgage, taxes, insurance. Owner ends up with a free house that's paid for, that can continue to generate income for a lifetime. Tenet ends up with nothing. The difference is homeowner invested and has an income generating asset. If all you do is show up to sing a song, or actor just stands in a spot and reads a line, you won't make a living unless you become popular enough to make demands. You have to get into ownership of something.

Even one hit wonders can be well off financially because they wrote a hit song and they own an income generating asset. The two guys who wrote "867-5309 Jenny" have raked in around 4 million in royalties over the past 40 years, and it keeps coming in.

That analogy only works if the reason the people want to rent the house is specifically because of the person who lived there before. I'm glad Dolly Parton gets paid for "I Will Always Love You" but it's Whitney's voice and talent that made it the hit it it remains to this day.

I mean, sports is the most obvious analogy. The owners may put up the money for the stadium and salaries for the team but it's the players that people are coming to the stadium to see. They should be compensated accordingly - if all the players left, no one would come to the games. But if the tenant leaves the house, the landlord can just rent it to someone else.

1+ yep, this would only suck had it been 1973, instead.

"I Will Always Love You" was a hit for Dolly Parton twice (once, upon initial release in the 1970s, and again in the early 1980s when it was featured in The Best Little Whorehouse in Texas) before Whitney Houston recorded it for The Bodyguard.

If it hadn't have been a hit for Dolly, then Whitney never would have recorded it.

Not my cup of tea, but I'd say that whatever makes Whitney's version of the song have enduring power comes down to not only Whitney's performance, but also Dolly's song.

Musicians would be wise to write their own music, but many of them don't have the chops to craft the kinds of songs that will earn them crazy bank year after year.

Also, Elvis loved the song and wanted to record it. But Colonel Tom Parker had a rule that Elvis got publishing rights for any song he recorded, and much as she wanted him to, Dolly had to decline. Smart move on her part, but it must have been difficult.
https://www.insider.com/dolly-parton...alties-2021-10

Song rights and ownership has a lot of fucked up variables between the artist, songwriter, publisher, etc. It's a complicated mess.

Established porn stars have over the last few years have had to take control over their likeness rights because they get paid per scene, but porn distributors were using the same scene and licensing them out to providers, whether it be compilation videos or streaming platforms, with none of that going back to the actors. It's why a lot of the big actresses formed their own companies.

That might depend on the size of the house that Nolan purchased with his income from the film.