Buster Keaton was a victim of the studio system's most predatory era. He signed away ownership of his films to MGM and other studios, receiving salaries while the corporations captured all upside. Even worse, he had zero contractual control—studios could shelve films, edit his work, and pocket the proceeds. Chaplin, by contrast, founded United Artists in 1919 with Mary Pickford and Douglas Fairbanks, which meant he retained ownership of his films and negotiated from a position of power. That single decision—controlling distribution—turned every dollar he earned into equity rather than wage income.

The structural difference is staggering. Keaton's $200M peak-year equivalent went to studios; Chaplin's comparable hits flowed through UA with him as a stakeholder. When 'The Great Dictator' grossed $7.5M globally in 1940 (roughly $150M adjusted), Chaplin kept a meaningful percentage. Keaton, meanwhile, was forced into bankruptcy by the 1930s despite his peak earning power, because he had no asset base—only memory of fat paychecks that were never his to keep.

Longevity sealed the gap. Keaton's genius burned bright but brief under studio contracts; by the 1930s, he was struggling with alcohol and obsolescence. Chaplin, owning his material and controlling his releases, remained relevant and working until 88. He could greenlight projects, time releases, and compound returns over decades. One man had leverage; the other had a signature on a predatory contract. That's the entire $190M difference—and why every working creative should study what went wrong with Keaton.