A prominent group of filmmakers behind some of the United Kingdom’s most successful television exports is demanding that global streaming giants establish a fair system for residuals. In an open letter organized by Directors UK, the copyright management organization, directors are confronting streamers over the slow pace of royalties talks and the lack of a structured payment system for the long-term exploitation of their operate.
The signatories include a high-profile roster of talent from series such as Apple TV+’s Slow Horses, The Crown, and Black Mirror. These creators argue that while they are legally recognized as original owners of the copyright for the programs they direct, they are being excluded from the financial benefits that typically accompany the repeat airing and sale of content—a standard practice in traditional British broadcasting.
The dispute centers on the fundamental difference between the “buyout” models often favored by streamers and the royalty-based systems used by legacy media. For the directors involved, these payments are not merely bonuses for high-earning hits but are described as a “lifeblood” for professionals working in an increasingly volatile industry.
The tension highlights a growing rift in the creative economy: as production shifts from linear television to on-demand platforms, the financial safeguards that once protected creators are disappearing, leaving a gap in how intellectual property is compensated over time.
The Divide Between Linear Broadcasters and Streamers
For more than a quarter-century, a coordinated royalties scheme has existed between the U.K.’s public service broadcasters and Sky. Under this arrangement, directors receive payments when their work is repeated or sold into other markets. While the letter acknowledges that these payments are often “modest by anyone’s standards,” it emphasizes their role as a crucial safety net in a precarious profession.
Streaming platforms, however, have operated in the U.K. For over a decade without signing onto a similar royalty or residual scheme. This has created a two-tier system where a director’s financial security depends less on the success of their work and more on the type of platform that commissioned it.
The letter points to a specific irony in the streamers’ business strategies: the platforms have been quick to utilize U.K. Tax incentive schemes to lower production costs, yet they have been slow to engage in meaningful negotiations regarding the long-term compensation of the talent they employ.
Who is leading the call for change?
The push for transparency and fair pay is backed by directors who have reached the highest levels of commercial and critical success. The signatories include:
- From Slow Horses: Saul Metzstein, James Hawes, and Jeremy Lovering.
- From Black Mirror: Sam Miller, John Crowley, and Colm McCarthy.
- From The Crown: Sam Donovan, Erik Richter Strand, and Jessica Hobbs.
- Other notable names: Dee Koppang o’Leary (Rivals) and Ben Palmer (The Inbetweeners, The Completely Made-Up Adventures of Dick Turpin).
By bringing together talent from diverse genres—from high-budget period dramas to satirical comedies—the group aims to show that the lack of residuals affects the entire directing community, regardless of the prestige of the project.
A Global Precedent for Residuals
The U.K. Directors are not asking for a new invention, but rather for the adoption of standards already present in other major markets. In the United States, residuals are a cornerstone of the guild system, often negotiated through collective bargaining. Similarly, various copyright laws across Europe and Latin America provide mechanisms for directors to receive ongoing payments for the apply of their work.
The letter urges streaming services to treat U.K. Talent with “equal respect” by agreeing to a formal timetable to conclude negotiations with Directors UK. The core of the argument is that the creativity and vision of the director are integral to the commercial success of the platforms’ catalogues; the directors should share in that ongoing value.
| Feature | U.K. Public Service/Sky Model | Typical Streamer Model |
|---|---|---|
| Initial Payment | Standard Fee | Often higher upfront (Buyout) |
| Repeat Airings | Copyright Royalties Paid | Typically no additional payment |
| International Sales | Shared Revenue/Royalties | Platform retains all value |
| Long-term Security | Residual income stream | One-time payment |
The Impact of the ‘Slow Pace’ of Negotiations
The phrase “slow pace” used by the directors refers to years of attempted dialogue between Directors UK and the major platforms. The filmmakers argue that the current environment is unsustainable, as the “precarious world” of freelance directing makes a steady stream of residual income essential for survival between projects.
The demand is not just for money, but for a shift in how streamers view their relationship with creators. By ignoring the established copyright ownership of directors, platforms are seen as bypassing a fundamental tenet of the creative arts: that the creator should benefit when their work continues to generate value for the distributor.
The letter concludes with a direct appeal for a structured timeline to conclude the stalemate. “You know the value we directors bring – now we need you to show it,” the letter states, framing the issue as a matter of professional respect and economic fairness.
As of the latest reports, representatives from Apple TV, Disney+, Netflix, and Amazon Prime Video have been contacted for comment regarding their stance on these royalty demands.
The next critical step in this dispute will be whether the streaming platforms agree to the proposed timetable for negotiations with Directors UK, or if the filmmakers move toward more formal industrial action or legal challenges regarding copyright ownership.
We want to hear from you. Do you believe streaming services should adopt the traditional royalty models of linear television? Share your thoughts in the comments below or join the conversation on our social channels.
