[nordsieck]

> If a actor works for a day on a TV show he may get cheques forever.

Most actors get paid either a fixed fee or hourly. It's only the top talent that can negotiate points. And honestly, that's pretty good for the producers, since that decreases their risk if the TV show or movie doesn't do well.

> If you hire a photographer for a wedding, you will pay him the same rate as a contract developer. But you won't own the rights to the photos and keep having to pay the guy if you want copies.

This part is so weird to me. But I honestly suspect that most photography customers don't care so much about owning the rights to the photograph they pay for, as long as they can use it how they want. And over time, the norm gradually became baked into the industry.

[fl0id]

You can usually get the rights but it costs more. Like in software if you want an exclusive license…

[nordsieck]

> You can usually get the rights but it costs more. Like in software if you want an exclusive license…

Nah - the correct comparison is to an employee/contractor software developer. Copyright assignment is industry standard.

[lucianbr]

> that decreases their risk if the TV show or movie doesn't do well.

The risk is not decreased. The risk is the same, just moved around. Instead of the producers risking not making a certain amount of profit, now you have the risk that the actor only asked and got a paltry sum for a runaway success.

The uncertainty of how a movie will fare cannot be removed from existence through contracts or financial arrangements. But you can make it so some other party suffers instead of you.

...it's possible we have the same opinion. I'm not sure if this is a counter argument or just a rephrasing :)

[netrus]

I think the core idea is to avoid someone actually losing money. The producer might end up with a loss, the actor's profit is strictly positive (not accounting for opportunity costs...).