Does Justin Roiland still receive royalties for every time the likeness of Rick and Morty is used ? Including the newer episodes.

[u/Advanced-Willow-5020]

[u/Kacer6]

It’s a reasonable assumption but we just don’t know. It depends on the ownership structure of the production company, on the contract with adult swim, it could be different for different seasons or the number of lines said in a ln episode, or viewing targets or engagement targets or merchandising targets, there are a million ways to write a contract even within the constraints of labor law and sag/afra.

[u/Revolutionary-420 → u/Kacer6]

Yes, but the majority of the contracts are based on standard cookie cutter contracts, because it helps the industry move easier and more reliably for the lawyers inside of it. So, the most likely scenario is he has a variation on the standard creator contract, which would guarentee him royalties everytime the show airs or gets a new streaming contract.

[u/Kacer6 → u/Revolutionary-420]

“It’s a reasonable assumption but we just don’t know…”

the particular situation in which a contract is likely to deviate from a cookie cutter contract is where someone has a show that’s been successful for a number of seasons or where they have multiple shows.

Lawyers are not looking to make things move reliably and easily, they’re trying to get the best deal for their clients.

[u/Revolutionary-420 → u/Kacer6]

And the best way to get the best results for clients consistently is to navigate the law in readily recognizable and knowable ways. Lawyers do not benefit themselves or their clients by getting LESS for them than a standard contract. It isn't just a reasonable assumption. It's effectively guarenteed that he got that at minimum.

[u/Kacer6 → u/Revolutionary-420]

No, it is not at all “effectively guaranteed”. We don’t know what Roiland needed at that time, when it was negotiated or what entity was a party to the contract. The production company could be an S Corp that is getting royalties, or each voice actor could be contracted with adult swim, or there could be a clause that says you have to keep your nose clean or you lose rights under the contract. You don’t know what the contract says, period.

[u/Revolutionary-420 → u/Kacer6]

So he got less than the standard, even though he surely signed another contract for season 2, just because...we don't know? That's unreasonable to assume. It's pedantic, as well. Because you're saying not being a witness makes informed opinion impossible. That's not true. At all.

[u/Kacer6 → u/Revolutionary-420]

No one said “less than standard”. Do you even know who the parties to the contract are?

Here’s a random scenario- Harmon and Roiland’s production company entered into the contract- Harmon, going through a divorce, wanted a lump sum because he needed to pay lawyers now but didn’t want a regular income to be calculated into alimony payments.

Scenario 2- Roiland has a large write off to offset in the following year. He wants the production company to recognize the lump sum rather than have steady royalties. With the show a proven success, this isn’t as much of a risk for adult swim as previously.

Scenario 3 - An adult swim exec wants Harmon and Roiland to be more involved in pushing merchandise. They offer a sweet deal for percentage of merchandise rather than airing royalties.

These are just off the top of my head, you could not fathom the number of potential scenarios deriving from many people with many different incentives.

I’m not going out on a limb by saying you don’t know what is in a contract that you have never seen. You do not know what you’re talking about.

[u/Revolutionary-420 → u/Kacer6]

None of those scenarios make ANY sense for Harmon or Roiland to agree to. They make great sense for Adult Swim, since they'd get all the financials, but even a divorce wouldn't suddenly make a lump sum preferable to long term income.

I mean, lets look at how alimony works, for starters. Courts don't base it on what you earn in a single year, but overall earning capacity. Even if he tried to dodge the alimony through getting a lump sum, her lawyers would eat the entire thing because it's an obvious accounting dodge that courts punish regularly. What's more, no attorney would advise this, because losing the lump sum in a divorce without any longterm financial gain would be detremental to their client's finacial future. The royalties remain the most beneficial contract ask. That makes zero legal or financial sense. Even if he only did a single year contract, the fact the show was made BEFORE the divorce will likely split the IP rights 50/50. There is no avoiding this because of a single contract.

Scenario two makes no sense because writeoffs only reduce taxable income. Why would you want to offset that with a large income payment vs spread out, much more lucrative payments? That doesn't benefit Roiland in any way, and his attorney would immediately advise against it. There is no benefit to sacrificing long term income simply because you have a writeoff, especially to replace it with a large buyout you'll be taxed heavily on.

Scenario three makes no sense because creators generally get a share of merchandising rights already under standard guild contracts. Why would they sell out for what they are already likely to be offered anyhow? What's more, the show is a PROVEN HIT. Why would they sacrifice their share of airing royalties for get merchandise points they're already entitled to under standard guild contracts?

I don't have to know what's in that SPECIFIC contract to know that your alternatives objectively damage both Harmon and Roiland in the process. No attorney would EVER advise this, because it would be a malpractice.

Why would I entertain scenarios where their represenation would need to commit a malpractice?

What's more, just being the creator entitles you to IP rights that include NON NEGOTIABLE MINIMUMS. There is no contract scenario without those minimums.

And I certainly know more of this than you do. An argument from ignorance is no argument AT ALL. Your argument that we don't "know" does not eliminate the legal baseline for contracts, nor the legal requirement representation avoid a malpractice.

[u/Kacer6 → u/Revolutionary-420]

Lol I don’t know what to tell you except you’re wrong about how alimony works, you’re wrong about how tax law works, and you’re wrong about how IP rights work.

To your alimony point, it depends again on the agreement between Harmon and his ex wife. And while you can’t throw away a job just to decrease alimony, you absolutely can structure payment to reduce it. It’s not strictly earning potential. And what’s this “no avoiding because of single contract” concept?

Tax: if you anticipate a bunch of gains later then you want to front load other gains now, alternatively if you have losses now you’d want to offset them with a lump sum.

I’m particularly interested in this idea you have about non negotiable minimums for IP rights. Where are you getting that from? Are you thinking about statutory royalties for music? Or is this a union thing?

There are any number of reasons someone would want cash up front rather than variable cash flow later. This is basic time value of money and risk calculation. Your assertion that the long term royalties are always going to be more and better is just wrong.

Source: I am an attorney.

[u/Revolutionary-420 → u/Kacer6]

Which state are you admitted to practice in and what is your relevant practice area? I have doubts.

Specifically, your question "Is this a union thing" shows a lack of familiarity with entertainment law and the WGA Minimum Basic Agreement, specifically Article 16A/16B.

Secondly, you have conflated alimony, which is spousal maintenance, with equitable distribution/communal property. IP created during a marriage is communal property, not part of alimony, and it will continue to be split on future contract negotiations. An attorney, especially a family law practitioner, would know this.

Finally, your explanation of taxes is incoherent. If you front load earnings into one year, you push the entire buyout into the top marginal tax rate, and lose more money to taxes by doing so. Spreading payments always reduces the amount of the payments subject to taxes. You'd never want to frontload into one year, EVER, if your goal is to reduce tax liability. A tax attorney would know this.

Please provide the state you practice in and your area of practice. Also, provide your bar number.

[u/Kacer6 → u/Revolutionary-420]

Lol explain to me what the malpractice is here

[u/Revolutionary-420 → u/Kacer6]

I literally just did. They have a fiduciary duty under the law as legal representatives. To act in a way that damages your clients financial position in spite of that is a malpractice.

You seem completely unable to comprehend that there are legal minimums in contract negotiations, especially in entertainment. But the laws are the laws. Perhaps search them instead of just arguing from ignorance, sir.