Who Owns the Canadian Story? A Leadership Lens on Streaming, IP, and Sovereignty
I've been watching a lot of TV lately. Reading a lot of books too. And I keep noticing something I can't stop thinking about: Canadian stories are having a moment, and I'm not sure Canadians are the ones who benefit most from it.
This episode is about intellectual property. Specifically, what happens to the value of a Canadian story once it's adapted, licensed, and streamed around the world. That covers original scripts from Canadian showrunners and screenwriters, and it covers adaptations of books and articles by Canadian writers.
I'm a consumer, not an industry expert. These are questions, not conclusions. But I think they're questions we need to be asking out loud.
The Shows I'm Talking About
A few examples to ground this:
- Sterling Point, developed for Prime Video
- Every Year After, based on a Carley Fortune book (with another of her books being adapted next year)
- Heated Rivalry, based on the book series by Rachel Reid, a writer in Nova Scotia. It was developed for Crave and then licensed to HBO.
- Below, a Netflix original starring Josh Hartnett, set in Newfoundland. It's currently number one in 53 countries.
The production of Below has said that $90 million was invested into the Canadian economy. That sounds great, right?
The $90 Million Is the Smallest Piece
Here's what that $90 million actually represents. A lot of it comes from the Canadian government, to make investing in Canada attractive. It funds jobs and tourism. Productions source props locally, hire people to build sets, and spend money in the communities where they film. That's a real local benefit, and I understand why we facilitate it.
But it's the short-term payoff. The true value is the intellectual property.
Look at Rachel Reid. HarperCollins credited the sales of Heated Rivalry and the other books in her series with an 8% rise in its book sales in the first quarter of 2026. If you do the math, that's roughly $40 million. Rachel didn't get all of that, obviously. It depends on her contract, and I have no idea what's in it.
HarperCollins is American. HBO is American.
The reported figures say Heated Rivalry cost about $12 million to produce and HBO paid about $3 million to license it. I can't verify those numbers. They're what's coming up in industry reporting. But the long-term value, with licensing, additional seasons, and everything that follows, has to be much, much higher than the original investment. We're probably looking at hundreds of millions.
So who owns that? Americans do. A Canadian story, written by a Canadian, produced in Canada, and the value of that storytelling now sits south of the border.
I hope Rachel has great agents and lawyers. I hope she can renegotiate as more books come out. I genuinely don't know. And the same logic applies to Below. That $90 million is a fraction of what it's truly worth.
Nobody Reports What a Show Is Worth
Something I noticed while digging into this: industry reporting covers what things cost to make. Actor salaries. How much was invested. How much went back into the local economy.
It doesn't talk about what the project is worth overall.
I couldn't even find a number for Stranger Things. It's been around for roughly a decade. It's Netflix's flagship show. You'd assume it's worth billions at this point. I could find rough reporting that the final season cost somewhere in the range of $400 to $500 million to produce, with all the CGI, the special effects, and the actor salaries by that point. So the profit has to be in the billions. There's no number anywhere to show it.
It's all tied up in non-disclosure agreements. Top secret.
So how are creators supposed to understand the true value of what they're negotiating? And how is a government supposed to know what streamers are earning from Canadian stories if they're never required to disclose it?
Why This Became a Trade Issue
This is where it gets geopolitical.
Canada's Online Streaming Act, passed in 2023, requires streamers to invest 5% of their Canadian revenues back into Canadian content, Indigenous content, and French-language content. The U.S. has named this a trade irritant. They don't want to pay it. They don't want to invest in discoverability for other languages. They preferred the deal as it stood before 2023.
What I find so interesting is the timing. It usually takes 18 months to three years to develop intellectual property. So we're only now starting to see the value of Canadian projects that began filming in 2024, 2025, and 2026, after that legislation came into effect. The pushback is arriving right as the value becomes visible.
The Story Changes on the Way to the Screen
Here's the part that bothers me most.
In some of these adaptations, the story itself changed so that not all of the characters are Canadian.
In Every Year After, one of the main characters comes up for the summer and then leaves. On screen, she's American. In the book, she was Canadian, because Carley Fortune is a Canadian writer writing a Canadian story.
Sterling Point has a similar thread. A character discovers their mother was Canadian, something they never knew. There's an estate issue. They have to come to Canada to resolve it, and they end up owning premier property in Muskoka.
So I have to ask. What's the benefit to a company based in a country that keeps pushing the 51st state narrative, with a history of manifest destiny and American exceptionalism, of selling the value of Canadian real estate and close cross-border relationships?
If we look at five or 10 years' worth of this kind of storytelling, what does it normalize? Does it support a separate and sovereign Canadian identity? Or does it normalize a perception that what's valuable in Canada is there for the taking?
When does storytelling cross the line into propaganda that's used to persuade politically?
Why I Notice This
You may not know this about me. My mom was born in Glasgow, Scotland. My dad was born in Duisburg, Germany, in the 1930s. They were children when World War II started.
So my whole childhood, and really my whole life, has been about understanding the war from different sides. I spent a lot of my childhood watching war movies. In English, obviously. I don't speak German.
A lot of the Hollywood movies about World War II were propaganda after the fact. And honestly, they never presented Germans well at all. To the victor go the spoils. The victors write the history, and they write the story.
Those movies didn't reflect what it was like for an ordinary German family who wasn't supporting Nazism. People trying to survive. Doing what they had to do. I don't know the full story of my own family's experience. But I learned early that there's always nuance. Whatever side you're on, you're telling the story you perceive to be true. And there's always a way to find the story that serves both sides and reach some kind of consensus.
That's why storytelling has always fascinated me. It's a tool of influence. It's a tool of propaganda.
So when I see strategic changes like these made across multiple shows, I start to wonder about the intention at the company level. I'd love to believe these are companies operating separately from government. But we know these billionaires are regularly invited into the White House. It's not out of the realm of possibility that some of this is politically motivated.
I'm speculating. I'm saying that clearly. This is critical thinking. I'm asking questions.
What Would It Take to Do This Ourselves?
The bigger questions I'm sitting with:
- Can we renegotiate how we authorize the licensing of Canadian intellectual property?
- How do we negotiate access to our locations and resources for filming?
- How do we invest in Canadian filmmakers, and in all the artists it takes to make film and TV, in a way that's sustainable after a production leaves?
Because productions come in, and then they go. They come in, and they go. In between, unless you're lucky enough to land the next project right away, it's unemployment. Where's the continuity? Where's the plan for stability?
And ultimately: can we build a film and TV industry that produces world-class content without depending on the United States, in a way that respects our sovereignty?
The Futurist Question
This is where it becomes a scenario exercise for me. What world do we want to wake up in 10 years from now? Twenty years from now? What does it look like if we make different choices and negotiate in different ways?
I think that could be really fascinating to explore.
If you work in the industry, I'd love to hear from you. Tell me what I'm missing. Tell me what you're seeing from the inside.
Get in Touch
- Email me your questions: nola@nolasimon.com
- Leave a comment or review on any podcast platform
- Subscribe on whatever player you're using
That last one is an experiment. I'm told subscriptions drive chart rankings, and I want to test whether charting actually increases visibility. More visibility means more people asking these questions about how we want to live and work in the future.
Anyways, that's it. Thanks for listening.
0:22 Hi, I'm Nola Simon. I'm the host of the Hope and Possibilities podcast. Thank you for tuning in. Like I'm a radio announcer. Listen to that. I wanna talk about intellectual property and the adaptation of Canadian stories. So whether that's individual scripts that are being created by showrunners and screenwriters who are Canadian, or the adaptation of books and articles or whatever who happen to be Canadian. Examples would be, Sterling Point was developed for Prime Video. Every Year After was based on a Carley Fortune book.
1:04 There's another one coming out that's being adapted next year, I think. And then A Heat of Rivalry was an book series that's developed by a, a woman named Rachel Reid in Nova Scotia. Now, there's also a Netflix series, which again, is an original creation called Below. And it's starring Josh Hartnett and set in Newfoundland. It's currently number one in fifty-three countries, and the production has said that ninety million dollars was invested into the Canadian economy as a result of that production.
1:45 So that sounds great, right? What's the true value of the intellectual property involved with that? So the ninety million dollars, a lot of it is actually coming from the Canadian government to stabilize and make the investment in Canada attractive to fund tourism, to fund jobs. We understand that making it easier and facilitating the investment in Canada instead of elsewhere brings jobs and, has that, that short-term payoff in terms of what's getting invested into the Canadian economy and that local area. They're sourcing props, they're hiring people to build sets. It-- it's all a local benefit.
2:28 But that ninety million dollars is the smallest piece of the whole puzzle. The true value is the intellectual property. If you look at the Rachel Reid books, Harper Collins is crediting as of first quarter of twenty twenty-six her-- the sale of her book, Heated Rivalry, plus the other books that she has in the series with a eight percent rise in the sale of books for Harper Collins that quarter. And if you do the math, that's forty million dollars. Now, Rachel Reid didn't get all of that, obviously. It depends on what her contract is that she has.
3:09 I have no idea. But HarperCollins is American, and HBO is American, so it was developed initially, Heat of River was developed for Crave initially, and then it was licensed to HBO. How much has that made? What's the true value of that above and beyond the twelve million dollars that it cost to produce initially and the three million dollars they were paid to license to HBO? These are all the reported figures. I have no idea if they're true or valid. That's just what's coming up in the, the industry reporting. The true value long term in terms of licensing and, additional series and… It has to be higher.
3:58 It has to be much, much higher than the original investment, right? So we're probably looking at hundreds of millions. But who owns that? That's Americans. Even though it's originally a Canadian story produced by a Canadian in Canada, the value of that storytelling is now American. They own it. Now, again, I don't know the details of the contract. I don't know if she can renegotiate this as more and more books come out and, hopefully she's got good agents and lawyers and everybody to support her on that side.
4:38 But same with Below. That ninety million dollars is a fraction of what it's truly worth. I've noticed in the industry reporting they report what things cost to make, what the salaries of the actors are, how much they've invested, how much is going back into the local economy. They do not talk about what the overall arching value of the project is. I can't even find numbers on Stranger Things, which has been around for, what, a decade, and is like the premier flagship Netflix show. You would assume it's in the billions at this point, but there is actually no number. I could find numbers on how much it costs to produce the last season, and it was like f- crazy with all of the CGI and special effects and, the actor salaries at that point.
5:25 It was like four hundred and five hundred million dollars of rough reporting that I could see. So in terms of profit, it has to be in the billions. There is no number to show that. So all of these things are tied up in non-disclosure agreements. It is top secret. So how does that help us understand what the true value is when we're negotiating, right? And even as a government, how are streamers required to actually disclose to the government how much they're earning from these Canadian stories? And this is where it actually has become a trade issue with the current geopolitical situation between the U.S. and Canada.
6:10 The U.S. Has decided that our online streaming legislation, which requires a 5% investment of profits back into Canadian content, Indigenous content, French language content as a trade irritant because they don't wanna have to pay that. They don't want to invest in our discoverability for different languages. They like the deal as it stands currently under the legislation that existed prior to 2023, and that's something that is bothering them. And I find this so interesting because if you look beyond the normal period of 18 months to three years that it takes to actually develop this intellectual property, we're really only now seeing the value of these Canadian things that started being filmed back in 2024, 2025, 2026 since that legislation came into effect.
7:13 And my concern with the other part of the storytelling is, especially like Sterling Point and the Carley Fortune series, they actually changed that story so that not all of the characters were Canadian. There's an aspect of cross-border relationships the, the one character in it every year after comes up for the summer only and then leaves. She's actually American. In the book, she was Canadian 'cause Carley Fortune is a Canadian writer. And Sterling Point has a similar type of thing. It's, s- somebody finds out that, their mother was Canadian. They didn't know she was Canadian, and there ends up being an estate issue. They have to come to Canada to sort… to resolve the estate issue and end up owning premier property in Muskoka.
7:59 So what's the benefit of a company who's based in a country who keeps spewing the 51st state narrative has a history of manifest destiny and American exceptionalism, selling the value of Canadian real estate and close relationships, what is the long-term value of that type of storytelling? And is that something that we need to really address long term if we look at five, 10 years worth of the storytelling to normalize that ongoing perception of the value that exists in Canada Rather than supporting separate and sovereign identity, what does that-- when does that cross the line into propaganda that's used to persuade politically?
9:07 You may not know this about me, but my parents are German and Scottish. My mom was born in Scotland, in Glasgow, and my dad was born in Duisburg in Germany in the 1930s. So they grew up, they were children when the war started, World War II, and so my entire childhood, and life really, has been understanding the perspectives from different sides of the war. And a great deal of my childhood was spent watching war movies. Now, obviously they were in English. I don't speak German. But essentially a lot of those movies that came out of Hollywood about World War II were propaganda after the fact, right?
9:51 And honestly, they never presented Germans well at all. And to the spoils go the… To the victor go the spoils. The victors are the people who actually write the history, the story. It wasn't necessarily reflective of what it was like as a normal German family who wasn't supporting Nazism what their experience was like They were trying to survive. They did what they had to do. I actually don't know the full story. But I do know that what I learned is that there's always nuance, and th- whatever side of the story you happen to be on, there's something that you're talking about that you perceive to be true, and that there's always a way to reach a compromise in terms of w- what story actually serves either side, and how you reach consensus So storytelling has always fascinated me because It's such a tool of influence.
11:02 It's such a tool of propaganda. And when I see this come into play, when I see these strategic changes made in multiple different shows, it starts to make me wonder what the overall intention at the company level of investment it actually is. And I'd love to say that, these are individual companies that are strategically apart from the government, but we know that these billionaires are invited into the White House regularly. It's not out of the realm of possibility that it's politically motivated.
11:45 So again, I'm speculating. This is critical thinking. I'm asking questions. What does this truly mean? And what are the long-term impacts if we allow it to continue? And are we at a stage where we can really renegotiate how we authorize The licensing of Canadian intellectual property, how we negotiate access to our resources to film, how we invest in filmmakers who are Canadian, how we support artists, because there's all kinds of artists involved in making of movie and TV.
12:29 How do we fund those in a way that's sustainable once that company leaves, right? So it's great that they do the individual investment, but those projects come in, and then they go. Projects come in, then they go. So it's unemployment in between there unless you're lucky, and you get onto the next project right away. But what's the continuity? What's the plan for stability? And do we have any kind of government support that is going to allow us to recreate this without involving the United States? So how do we develop a film industry, a TV industry that's developing quality content at world-class level without actual involvement of the United States to respect our sovereignty?
13:23 These are all questions I have. I love to hear from people in the industry. I'm obviously a consumer. I'm not an expert at all. These are just things I've noticed while I'm watching TV and reading books and, everything else that I absorb. The questions are where it really becomes a futurist scenario play, right? What world do we wanna wake up in 10 years from now, 20 years from now? What does this look like if we make different choices and negotiate in different ways? And I think that could be really fascinating. Anyways, thank you for tuning in.
14:05 Again, send me questions, nola@nolasimon.com. You could put a comment or review on any podcast, and you can honestly just subscribe. I'm just testing out what the impact is of having people subscribe. So whatever player you listen on, just subscribe and that, I'm told, actually drives me to the charts. And again, this is an experiment to say, does charting actually increase visibility, which gets more people to ask these questions and to consider how we live our future lives and work?
