Ziggy is a top 10 character. Frank is top 5. Season 2 is great.

Agreed. The script sounded like it was written by a chat bot.

Pretty pictures adorned with disjointed platitudes that feel like they were cribbed from a poster in your guidance counselor’s office.

Same.

The interviews I’ve seen with the cast and producers specifically point out the film could never have been made under SAG rules (since they basically were “working” 24 hours per day). So I’d imagine this film was made outside of any union contracts, and if I were a betting man I’d guess they were paid $1000/day as a full buy out.

That doesn’t mean a good lawyer couldn’t claw back some dough for her: but if she wasn’t able to renegotiate at the height of the film popularity I can’t imagine the $$$$ would be worth the legal fees now.

I do my best.

Let me say although I saw Tar, I don’t know the context where this clip was used. If it was just the audio worked into the sound design— it’s possible it was slipped in by an editor without being officially noted (was it the screams she heard in the park?). In which case there could be a lawsuit here.

Also, I have no doubt there IS a copyright covering the sound and visuals of the original film; and they definitely should have paid a licensing fee to the controlling entity for using it in their production.

In the case of a traditional production made under guild agreements; actors, director, composer would be compensated as part of that licensing agreement process (if the clip used involved visuals or the music).

In the case of licensing materials that were produced outside of those guild agreements, there is often no requirement to pay the talent involved. So even if there was money properly paid, there’s a very good chance that none of it would go beyond the corporation owning the rights (Live entertainment?)

As long as they paid to license the material they might not be contractually obligated to provide screen credit. It varies based on company requirement and guild rules.

I mean I’d find it really difficult to believe a large production like Tar didn’t negotiate full worldwide clearances and their E&O insurers didn’t go through the film with a fine tooth comb— but stranger things have happened. In which case it’s up to the controlling entity to seek compensation.

Well, to be clear, the actor didn’t seem to be behind this video— some internet person took upon themselves. I’m sure Heather knows the terms of the agreement she signed; if there was grounds for her to have legal remedy, I’m sure she would have perused them already. But that doesn’t stop an interested internet fan from complaining on her behalf.

Again, all this is a best guess based on my experiences in this field. I have never personally investigated the terms of licensing for the Blair Witch Project.

I would imagine her original performance was non-union and their contracts likely equated to a work-for-hire agreement in which their up front payment represented a whole “buy out” and no further royalties would be paid. (Quick googling of articles written on the topic of their compensation seem to allude that is is true).

In that case I would imagine the production company owns the footage and the performances and so when it is licensed, all the money paid goes to the owner, with no residuals due to the performers.

It’s basically 42. Most networks aren’t lax, it’s outlined to the second for most deliverables and you have to get permission to deviate. (source: I make tv)