Why? The model gave her time and got paid just like countless other workers. Does a bricklayer continue to receive payment for every year the house is lived in?
The bricklayer knows what the end result will be, how it's going to be used, and sets the rates accordingly. After a photo shoot you can end up in the bin, or shown probably close to a million times a day to people around the world for decades.
You know the comparison is flawed and the two kinds of work are very different in almost every way. I expect some kinds of work to be measured in different ways than other, in the same way I don't think programmers should be paid per keypress.
Bricklayers aren't paid by the brick either. They are paid usually by the job (e.g. "build this wall") or by the hour, just like programmers and models. It's really not that different.
The bricklayer's wall could become part of a very valuable property in the future (say if the area became highly desirable), or it could be subject to a natural disaster and fall down. Just like the model's pictures could end up everywhere, or in the bin. But they take on none of that risk.
I reckon a model wouldn't do very well at all with taking the risk. A photographer could probably get through a hundred models in a week and bin 99 of them without giving them a penny.
to nitpick your numbers, working a 40 hour week, 100 models is 24 minutes a model, which isn't enough. 3 hours per model working 40 hour weeks has them getting through 13(.3) models, and even 3 hours seems low.
In some imagined utopia, sure. Currently the bar to clear is "stop the production companies from eliminating most actors and destroying the the cinema as it exists" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_SAG-AFTRA_strike
I'm not sure who will want to discuss licensing rather than getting another person who needs money immediately and won't ask so many questions. Assuming they'll even bother with a model rather than an AI setup fixed up by a contracted graphics person.
Correct, that should tell you everything you need to know about the market value, and why they don’t get constant royalties for images. There’s a lot of competition because many people are willing to do it for little money.
I do not understand why people think this is bad though, that’s just how the market value of services is determined.
Perhaps not a bricklayer, but many of the actors in those same films keep getting paid long after the film is done. And I bet "the Columbia logo lady" is more popular than most of them.
It is not a question of popularity, it is a question of negotiating power. Actors have a strong union and the “name” actors are important enough for the success of movies that the studios are willing to accept these conditions.
A leading actor might negotiate a percentage of revenue (profit rarely exists due to Hollywood accounting) but union actors, directors, writers, stunt people, etc receive residuals for reruns, syndication, DVDs, streaming, etc.
Those actors usually exchange some of their up-front payment for a percentage of the film's profit. In other words, they are taking on some of the risk associated with film production and betting on their own appeal being enough to turn a profit and generate income.
It would be like a bricklayer not taking any payment until the house was sold and therefore taking on the risks associated with the housing market. Most probably wouldn't want that. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
