I suspect he signed a deal to make the show, get paid for the show once, and ride off into the sunset. Also assume it was probably the best type deal he was going to get at the time. I mean just like he said he had been turned down by HBO and that probably wasn't the only one. He wasn't in a position of strong negotiation.
Back in the early days of TV when reruns weren't seen as much value. Desi Arnaz and Lucille Ball basically made their fortunes from having the foresight to own syndication rights for I Love Lucy. It was worth much more than the original show. The thing is, the TV networks know this now, and if your personal brand doesn't command that value, why would they offer perpetual payments in a contract?
I suspect a lot of this is dramatized, because, well it's an entertainment show, and the rest of it is playing the victim. Chappelle should probably realize he may not even be in the position he was without taking that contract even if he doesn't get paid for it later.
What's really ridiculous is that he's equating instances where he was scammed and stolen from (assuming that actually happened) to a contract he willingly if reluctantly signed. I get that he had reservations about it but it sounds like they told him to take or leave it, and he signed up for the consequences when made his decision. It's also dishonest to say he didn't get paid. He did get paid as agreed, otherwise he would have had cause to sue. It was just a one off payment and didn't include syndication rights. It also kickstarted his career, so he should just write that off as an investment that paid off handsomely.
I think there is something to be said about having your name, face, and likeness owned and sold by someone else with no control over it, regardless of what a piece of paper says. Can really fuck with your head mentally in a lot of ways.
Especially when you are a nobody blind sided by sudden fame you aren't prepped for facing down billion dollar corps with their army of lawyers and contract writers.
That's important, because its the very reasoning why prenups often get thrown out. Because the man has "more power" to maneuver the contract to his benefit, and the very act of being asked to sign one puts it "under duress" (which nobody comedians are likely under a lot of duress given if they don't sign they don't get a career). I don't particular agree with that but the legal precedent is there.
While its old hat to say "its not fair, women get a loophole" its clear legally at least some parts of the system recognize these "contracts" can be used abusively and just because you put your magic pen stroke on it doesn't make it unquestionable.
It's amazing how insane Hollywood types try to control anything. A friend wanted to show his comics to someone and the guy handed him a contract that demanded the rights to everything and anything made in the next ten years.
Same friend met a production company that treated him like family until he saw the contract and realized they would have taken everything from him. There are entertainment lawyers who specialize in Hollywood for a reason. It has been stealing from others for decades.
Until stuff like YouTube, the only way to be seen was to sign those insane contracts. Now that it's not, the same Hollywood types are going broke and trying to use stuff like Mr Top to stay in power.
The more stories you hear about how Hollywood is, the more you understand why all these Hollywood stars think everyone is such a terrible human being who would kill you and rape your corpse if it made them a penny richer.
Because that's the sort of person they're around everyday, so that's how they assume everyone is.
Yeah exactly. I won't fault Dave for this because a "choice" being given like that isn't a choice at all. Its just telling you that if you want a career in the industry, then you sell them your soul and likeness and then you might get lucky enough to blow up into mega stardom to be able to negotiate your way out.
Because its not like you can just say no, and try again elsewhere or renegotiate. These companies will not only shut you out for even daring to speak against them, they will collude together to block you from being in the industry at all. Comedy is especially well known for being an incestuous pit of "anger one of us anger all of us."
Dave still signed it, so he holds a chunk of the responsibility regardless. But I don't think the fact that you can just sign things like that with no restrictions (like time or monetary upper limits) should be the norm either.
You go to work for some company, get paid a salary to create a product, the leave later.
That's selling your labor, once you leave that can't just keep claiming you work there and plaster your face all over the building because people liked you more than them.
Almost like we as people recognize there are limits to what businesses can do with contracts, but only apply it sometimes and other times just say "its what every industry does, so clearly its fair and we must abide by it!"
This isn't a call to action, its simply musing that contracts are given this deified power by people that they are unbreakable and unquestionable and we must simply accept them as the way things must be, when they are often just another tool corporations use to screw us over.
Yeah, I heard stories like that from friends and have read contracts ever since. They really pressure you to take it, and have no problems with tearing your name down to the mud to get what they want. When he talked about how they said he was on drugs and had a mental problem after he walked away, I recognized the story pretty well.
Every time a famous person has their contract up for renewal, tons of dirt pops up about them. Chapelle admits he shouldn't have signed the contract. Now he's using his fame to undo that contract. That is something a few people can actually do, and he's being very honest about it.
It's a deal with the devil, and I don't even mean that rhetorically.
Heck, most of the time the contract is so long and filled with barely comprehensible legalese that even if you try to read it you aren't safe.
They are designed from the top down to trick you and make sure any and all consequences that may arise fall back on you, so they deserve no benefit of the doubt.
While its old hat to say "its not fair, women get a loophole" its clear legally at least some parts of the system recognize these "contracts" can be used abusively and just because you put your magic pen stroke on it doesn't make it unquestionable.
Yup, it's also why EULAs don't always hold up in court either.
Honestly, most of the time they seem to go to court they get smacked down.
Its entirely designed to scare you into compliance without any backing, and then drain your money in court costs if you try to take on the company with coffers multiple times your own.
Except, in the Entertainment Industry its even worse, because they have enough money and connections to influence judges and entire laws to lean in their favor even if its in clear violation. So you can't win even if you try to fight back.
That's fair, and his people committed malpractice if they didn't walk him through these implications.
That's important, because its the very reasoning why prenups often get thrown out. Because the man has "more power" to maneuver the contract to his benefit, and the very act of being asked to sign one puts it "under duress" (which nobody comedians are likely under a lot of duress given if they don't sign they don't get a career).
I know you probably agree with me, so this is just me discussing things rather than contradicting you. The problem with this logic is that it makes it impossible for a contract to accomplish its intended purpose, because it become void the minute it does. That makes the contract worthless under all circumstances. A civil court would probably agree with me in Chappelle's case, and a family court would absolutely disagree with me in the case of a prenup. Family court bias being what it is, they count a refusal to marry in the absence of a prenup coercion that justifies throwing it out, which means it necessarily can't offer protection. I know I'm never going to put myself in a position where my future depends on a family court ruling against a woman.
The problem with this logic is that it makes it impossible for a contract to accomplish its intended purpose, because it become void the minute it does.
My issue with it is the inconsistency. Clearly we are a society recognize that contracts can and will be used abusively, but we only act on that sometimes.
Two regular people entering a room to sign a prenup are making a deal on something that should be upheld. A super rich guy bringing a teenage foreign girl into a room with his 6 lawyers and a 200 page document is something that is not quite as kosher and I think we can all recognize it as a case where the girl, despite having all the agency and responsibility stemming from it, is being screwed. Or guy even, as I'm sure ultra rich homos have done similar.
But that's what the entertainment industry does. Which is telling us that Corporations (who make the majority of contracts) are above the law and questioning, while any Contract us plebs make is under max scrutiny and easily tossed aside for the minorest of infractions. Obvious revelation of course, but not one I'll hold against Dave for falling on the wrong side of.
The entire pay schedule for actors who aren't household names is beyond fucked. For example, every actor who gets an appointment for an audition is supposed to be paid one-half day's wage for making the appointment and showing up. This has been a rule on the SAG books since the Depression.
According to some of the smaller actors, no one has enforced this rule since the 70s. I might hate most film whores, but work demands wages.
Edit to add: look up how Clancy Brown was treated on Highlander. He earns more showing up for one convention than he did for acting as the antagonist in a movie.
I'm okay with Viacom getting bled a little. Mixed feelings about contracts being altered after the fact. I'd rather see him get paid for Viacom knowing his lawyer was in on the game (and more than what they'd part with in residuals) than to allow 50-year-old Dave to negotiate 25-year-old Dave's contract.
I suspect he signed a deal to make the show, get paid for the show once, and ride off into the sunset. Also assume it was probably the best type deal he was going to get at the time. I mean just like he said he had been turned down by HBO and that probably wasn't the only one. He wasn't in a position of strong negotiation.
Back in the early days of TV when reruns weren't seen as much value. Desi Arnaz and Lucille Ball basically made their fortunes from having the foresight to own syndication rights for I Love Lucy. It was worth much more than the original show. The thing is, the TV networks know this now, and if your personal brand doesn't command that value, why would they offer perpetual payments in a contract?
I suspect a lot of this is dramatized, because, well it's an entertainment show, and the rest of it is playing the victim. Chappelle should probably realize he may not even be in the position he was without taking that contract even if he doesn't get paid for it later.
What's really ridiculous is that he's equating instances where he was scammed and stolen from (assuming that actually happened) to a contract he willingly if reluctantly signed. I get that he had reservations about it but it sounds like they told him to take or leave it, and he signed up for the consequences when made his decision. It's also dishonest to say he didn't get paid. He did get paid as agreed, otherwise he would have had cause to sue. It was just a one off payment and didn't include syndication rights. It also kickstarted his career, so he should just write that off as an investment that paid off handsomely.
I think there is something to be said about having your name, face, and likeness owned and sold by someone else with no control over it, regardless of what a piece of paper says. Can really fuck with your head mentally in a lot of ways.
Especially when you are a nobody blind sided by sudden fame you aren't prepped for facing down billion dollar corps with their army of lawyers and contract writers.
That's important, because its the very reasoning why prenups often get thrown out. Because the man has "more power" to maneuver the contract to his benefit, and the very act of being asked to sign one puts it "under duress" (which nobody comedians are likely under a lot of duress given if they don't sign they don't get a career). I don't particular agree with that but the legal precedent is there.
While its old hat to say "its not fair, women get a loophole" its clear legally at least some parts of the system recognize these "contracts" can be used abusively and just because you put your magic pen stroke on it doesn't make it unquestionable.
It's amazing how insane Hollywood types try to control anything. A friend wanted to show his comics to someone and the guy handed him a contract that demanded the rights to everything and anything made in the next ten years.
Same friend met a production company that treated him like family until he saw the contract and realized they would have taken everything from him. There are entertainment lawyers who specialize in Hollywood for a reason. It has been stealing from others for decades.
Until stuff like YouTube, the only way to be seen was to sign those insane contracts. Now that it's not, the same Hollywood types are going broke and trying to use stuff like Mr Top to stay in power.
The more stories you hear about how Hollywood is, the more you understand why all these Hollywood stars think everyone is such a terrible human being who would kill you and rape your corpse if it made them a penny richer.
Because that's the sort of person they're around everyday, so that's how they assume everyone is.
Yeah, most Democrats are the type of businessman they complain about and don't see the irony.
Yeah exactly. I won't fault Dave for this because a "choice" being given like that isn't a choice at all. Its just telling you that if you want a career in the industry, then you sell them your soul and likeness and then you might get lucky enough to blow up into mega stardom to be able to negotiate your way out.
Because its not like you can just say no, and try again elsewhere or renegotiate. These companies will not only shut you out for even daring to speak against them, they will collude together to block you from being in the industry at all. Comedy is especially well known for being an incestuous pit of "anger one of us anger all of us."
Dave still signed it, so he holds a chunk of the responsibility regardless. But I don't think the fact that you can just sign things like that with no restrictions (like time or monetary upper limits) should be the norm either.
That's selling your labor, once you leave that can't just keep claiming you work there and plaster your face all over the building because people liked you more than them.
Almost like we as people recognize there are limits to what businesses can do with contracts, but only apply it sometimes and other times just say "its what every industry does, so clearly its fair and we must abide by it!"
This isn't a call to action, its simply musing that contracts are given this deified power by people that they are unbreakable and unquestionable and we must simply accept them as the way things must be, when they are often just another tool corporations use to screw us over.
Yeah, I heard stories like that from friends and have read contracts ever since. They really pressure you to take it, and have no problems with tearing your name down to the mud to get what they want. When he talked about how they said he was on drugs and had a mental problem after he walked away, I recognized the story pretty well.
Every time a famous person has their contract up for renewal, tons of dirt pops up about them. Chapelle admits he shouldn't have signed the contract. Now he's using his fame to undo that contract. That is something a few people can actually do, and he's being very honest about it.
It's a deal with the devil, and I don't even mean that rhetorically.
Heck, most of the time the contract is so long and filled with barely comprehensible legalese that even if you try to read it you aren't safe.
They are designed from the top down to trick you and make sure any and all consequences that may arise fall back on you, so they deserve no benefit of the doubt.
Yup, it's also why EULAs don't always hold up in court either.
Honestly, most of the time they seem to go to court they get smacked down.
Its entirely designed to scare you into compliance without any backing, and then drain your money in court costs if you try to take on the company with coffers multiple times your own.
Except, in the Entertainment Industry its even worse, because they have enough money and connections to influence judges and entire laws to lean in their favor even if its in clear violation. So you can't win even if you try to fight back.
That's fair, and his people committed malpractice if they didn't walk him through these implications.
I know you probably agree with me, so this is just me discussing things rather than contradicting you. The problem with this logic is that it makes it impossible for a contract to accomplish its intended purpose, because it become void the minute it does. That makes the contract worthless under all circumstances. A civil court would probably agree with me in Chappelle's case, and a family court would absolutely disagree with me in the case of a prenup. Family court bias being what it is, they count a refusal to marry in the absence of a prenup coercion that justifies throwing it out, which means it necessarily can't offer protection. I know I'm never going to put myself in a position where my future depends on a family court ruling against a woman.
My issue with it is the inconsistency. Clearly we are a society recognize that contracts can and will be used abusively, but we only act on that sometimes.
Two regular people entering a room to sign a prenup are making a deal on something that should be upheld. A super rich guy bringing a teenage foreign girl into a room with his 6 lawyers and a 200 page document is something that is not quite as kosher and I think we can all recognize it as a case where the girl, despite having all the agency and responsibility stemming from it, is being screwed. Or guy even, as I'm sure ultra rich homos have done similar.
But that's what the entertainment industry does. Which is telling us that Corporations (who make the majority of contracts) are above the law and questioning, while any Contract us plebs make is under max scrutiny and easily tossed aside for the minorest of infractions. Obvious revelation of course, but not one I'll hold against Dave for falling on the wrong side of.
He is so high on his horse now or so old he forgot that people aren't obligated to kiss his ass and pay him to ramble on.
The entire pay schedule for actors who aren't household names is beyond fucked. For example, every actor who gets an appointment for an audition is supposed to be paid one-half day's wage for making the appointment and showing up. This has been a rule on the SAG books since the Depression.
According to some of the smaller actors, no one has enforced this rule since the 70s. I might hate most film whores, but work demands wages.
Edit to add: look up how Clancy Brown was treated on Highlander. He earns more showing up for one convention than he did for acting as the antagonist in a movie.
The thing is people will do it for free. Yeah it is hard to make a living doing what other people will do for free. Artists have the same issue.
Those monters!
what's a monter?
Nothing, what's a monster with you?
Can you give more context? The video is 18 minutes long.
look at the thumbnail
It's a misspelling of monster.
thank you mcbain
We have some non English speakers here, you never know who ist ein dumpkampf.
Influence is a big thing in places like that.
I'm okay with Viacom getting bled a little. Mixed feelings about contracts being altered after the fact. I'd rather see him get paid for Viacom knowing his lawyer was in on the game (and more than what they'd part with in residuals) than to allow 50-year-old Dave to negotiate 25-year-old Dave's contract.