Obviously this isn’t true. The whole point of this thread is that there are some business executives somewhere who are collecting money from a television show made thirty years ago. A television show they had nothing to do with making.
Authors/writers get them too.
A creative work is a unique product. Let’s say, you make hammers for a living. A fine profession. I need hammers in my life occasionally and you make good hammers. I buy one from you. Hammers do last a long time and I may even resell your hammer and, no, you don’t get any of that. Maybe your hammer will be sold a dozen times. Also I may make something using your hammer and you don’t get anything.
Now take an actor on television.
He goes to work and does his job and collects his pay. The nature of the product he makes is that it is ment to be sold many thousand even millions of times. When the product is first being made, (the first season) nobody really knows how successful it will be. So a fair price is very difficult to determine. But if the show takes off, or maybe years later it develops a cult following and maybe foreign distribution goes huge, then, instead of renegotiating it is set up in advance that everyone gets a ‘piece of that action’ so to speak.
That is fair.
Now if you made a hammer and I built a house with that hammer, do you think it is fair that you get a piece of that? No. There is no reason for that. But those actors, the writers of the show, the people who worked on it are the reason that show is still on television today. They are the reason people would want to play the “Happy Days” Slot machine. And if my image was on that machine. A photo of me, in a character that I, as an actor, created was on the machine, drawing in people to play it, you bet your sweet ass I deserve money for that.
Those executives bought the rights to the show. They paid money to prior owners. Even though they didn’t make the show, they purchased the rights to the show so they could license it. Once they purchased the rights they are free to use them to make money. The original cast could have purchased those same rights and then marketed it how ever they wanted.
You never hear the reverse argument–producers demanding money from stars who’s careers they launched. Shouldn’t the producers of Harry Potter get a continual cut of Daniel Radcliff’s future salary since they launched his career? He would be a nobody without Harry Potter. Surely the producers deserve a cut of all the money he ever makes.
Likewise Lucille Ball and Desi Arnaz took a paycut when CBS & Phillip Morris balked at the cost of shooting I Love Lucy on film in LA (as opposed to live in NYC). Ball and Arnaz agreed in exchange for complete ownership rights of the reruns. Guess how that turned out? 
Ball even said something like “We figured we couldn’t loose either way,even if we didn’t make a dime we’d still have the best home movies in the world!” Arnaz actually pioneered alot of stuff that’s been standard for sitcoms ever since (3 camera set-up, live studio audience, reruns).
Writers and directors are also entitled to residuals. It’s the same principle as copywrites. Do you also think authors should just get a lump sum from their publisher, followed by nothing no mater how many times their book get’s reprinted or turned into a film?
What’s surprising to me is what terrible syndication deals many stars had AFTER it was known how lucrative residuals are. The Gilligan’s Island crew, for example, which premiered years after I Love Lucy was airing everyday, only got residuals for 7 reruns, and the kids from The Brady Bunch got none after 3 years (the adults did). I’m surprised their agents weren’t better informed.
I read an interview with Vicki Lawrence back when Mama’s Family was still syndicated in local markets more often than it is now and she said her MF residuals were less than $100 per quarter, which surprised me. Isabel Sanford from The Jeffersons said she used her’s to buy a Coke- she was joking of course but apparently they were very puny. Sally Struthers said she sold her’s for a lump sum which she sometimes regretted but didn’t at the time, and Pernell Roberts said that by not appearing in the final seasons of Bonanza cost him millions in residuals.
Bob Crane and Werner Klemperer from Hogan’s Heroes both had escalating residual scales meaning they got more rather than less a percentage after a certain number of years. It didn’t benefit Crane since he was killed before his share was larger but it did Klemperer, who essentially retired after his residuals kicked in big time. Tony Randall and Jack Klugman also got major back end deals that earned them more from Odd Couple after it was cancelled than they made while it was on the air.
Burt Reynolds major financial problems back in the 1990s were largely because he’d expected a huge syndication deal for Evening Shade, his mostly forgotten sitcom from the late 80s/early 90s. Due to a legal but controversial maneuver somehow Pat Robertson bought the company with a non-profit company he owned and sold syndication rights to a for-profit company he owned (or vice versa) at a loss which made Reynolds lose out on a ton of money. (Of course the fact he’d earned tens of millions already from his movie career and was broke mitigates any sympathy I might have for him.)
It’s apparently an extraordinarily complicated quagmire of entertaintment law and show business and one that includes more than a little Hollywood accounting.
But I think it’s interesting how often you see people who have no direct stake in a debate argue that the position of the corporate executive is completely reasonable and the position of the other person is completely outrageous. Most of us are not corporate executives. So why do so many people take their side in so many debates? Why do we so often say that the position that benefits the executives is the reasonable position?
Think about this. Where do you hear about arguments like this? I’m assuming none of us heard about it personally from the Happy Days cast members or the CBS executives that are directly involved. We all got our information from second hand sources. And who are those sources? Who’s telling you about the argument and presenting what the issues are and what they mean? Is the source unbiased or does it have its own interest in the issue?
I’m sure their agents were aware of the stakes. But what were they going to do about it? Could Bob Denver have realistically threatened not to sign the contract unless he got perpetual residuals? Of course not - they would have just cast a different actor.
And it’s the same thing after the series is over. What do you do if you think the studio isn’t paying you the residuals you’re entitled to? You can’t threaten to quit - the show’s already done.
The only time an actor has any influence is during the production itself.
Gilligan’s Island was a special case. The network HATED it, but it was one of their highest rated shows. The cast members (like Max Baer in the early seasons of Beverly Hillbillies) made more money from personal appearances than they did from the show because they had almost no clout- even when it was cancelled it was getting huge ratings. The other six cast members all had grudges against Tina Louise because she cost them a fortune in personal appearances and commercials from sponsors willing to pay good money for all 7 but not interested in just a few.
The producers of Harry Potter will have income from direct profits, residuals and marketing. Daniel Radcliffe was a successful child actor (David Copperfield and The Tailor of Panama) before they hired him, it’s his agent who is cashing in on the profits of the HP series.
The agent is the one who got Dan the part, he gets the profit. As for launching careers, he could make the alternative argument that it was his performance that ensured the film’s success. How many people go see a film because they love that producer? Lucasfilms,? Maybe. Ron Howard? Maybe. Spielberg? Maybe.
Who produced Harry Potter? Without looking up IMDB.
Free market negotiation, it’s a game.
Back to the OP, if their contract was bought by CBS, then CBS also took on any contractual obligation to pay the actors for merchandising. That seems to be where things have fallen apart.
Though there is an issue, especially for those who were on shows in the 60s - 80s, that these former child actors were plagued with two problems: inadequate education which didn’t prepare them for college or anything else, and parents who plundered the bank accounts, setting up high standards of living leaving the actors in question holding the bag for mortgages and car payments and who knows what else.
It’s hard to go be a bank teller or a hotel clerk (and deal with the endless barage of “aren’t you?” or worse “didn’t you used to be?”) for $10 an hour when you’ve not even graduated from high school and you’ve got a million bucks in financial obligations hanging over your head, made in your name (or on your back) when you weren’t even of age.
New here, found this interesting discussion and wanted to chip in.
Actually Henry Winkler started earning $1,000 per episode (he has mentioned it in some interviews). Erin Moran made $650 per episode (you can find the lawsuit PDF here What's Got the Cast of Happy Days So Damn Sad? - E! Online which has her original contract as Exhibit A), which makes sense since at the beginning she was only in 1 or 2 scenes.
I still wonder why are they suing now when some of the merchandise was made more than 30 years ago, why didn’t they sue earlier? Anson Williams has directed tons of shows and I’ve seen him a couple of times on QVC selling products; Marion Ross has worked steadily, not big star stuff but work is work. Not sure about how Donny Most is doing.
Re: residuals, I think it depends on the actor’s contract; Lisa Whelchel from the “Facts of Life” posted on her Twitter about a few months ago that she received a residual check for 1 dollar.
It’s never been that popular in syndication unless it plays overseas some place (like Growing Pains, which is a major hit in China). I don’t remember the last time it was shown on any basic cable channels. Not surprising: it wasn’t that good the first time and the 80s big hair and fashions make it hopelessly dated.
Another thing to note that residuals at one time may have been defined as being rebroadcast. Not home video, not cable, not VHS, not DVD, not Blue Ray and not having a movie made based on your character.
All of these cash in on the original creative work of the individuals. Now there is usually a ‘any other medium’ clause but not back in those days.