In January, we ran the poll below. There was record voting and commenting: over 10% of the UK membership participated. The poll is now closed, but the comments section remains open, if you'd like to contribute

On 27 January, Shooting People Creative Director James Mullighan wrote to the British Film Industry, asking for their contribution. The letter went to senior executives of BAFTA, the BFI, the Directors' Guild of Great Britain, the New Producers' Alliance, PACT, Raindance, EM Media, Film London, Northern Media, North West Vision and Media, Screen East, Screen South, Screen West Midlands, Screen Yorkshire, South West Screen, Skillset and the UK Film Council.

The letter says:

Here's how the members voted...

Do you want any unpaid job postings to appear on Shooting People?

Would you personally ever consider working on a film for no pay?

Do you think it is clear which jobs can be advertised as no pay and which cannot under the current minimum wage legislation?

Which of these sentences do you agree with most (please choose only one)

Nikki Joseph says...

I'm not against low no paid work as it is a great place to gain experience but I have major issues with "expenses paid" adverts as a lot of the time you don't see any expenses!

I tend to work either on the art dept or on costume (I took a change of role on my last film) and a lot of time you don't even get all of your budget back let alone expenses meaning you are even more out of pocket as you ended up paying for half the stuff on set out of your own money.

When not being paid, expenses really help you out. I'm not particularly rich and have to work a "real job" to help me pay the bills so working on unpaid films usually gives my finances a bit of a knock! A little bit of financial help toward travel and being fed whilst on set really makes you feel appreciated even if you aren't being paid properly. and also means you are a lot less out of pocket than you could be.

I also often ignore a lot of unpaid postings on shooting people as majority of them are in London when I am based in Wales. I am pretty confident that the "expenses" will not cover my travel and any accommodation expenses that may crop up. it would also mean that what the film would probably never actually go with me if someone from the area applied for the same job as their expenses would be much lower. it would have nothing to do with my skills or who was better for the job but who would cost them less money to have on board.

Humphrey Truman says...

Of all the comments listed, very few refer to the attitudes of financiers and suppliers of finance to the film industry. Too often their attitude is : why pay people if you don't have to ? They are often the true source of any exploitation, not the producers, even when they are acting on a friendly basis with a producer. It is the financial side that presses costs down, little understanding a concept of fair play. Very nasty, but there it is.

james mullighan says...

Hi everyone.

Tom Harvey, Cheif Executive Officer of Northern Film & Media, responded swiftly to the letter I sent around last week. His reply is below.

James.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Hi James

As an agency we do not encourage film makers to ignore the law. Where there are budgets available we encourage film makers to ensure that minimum wage legislation is adhered to.

Making films is not like making cars. Though it can be an industrial process, it is also an art and can be a hugely enjoyable hobby for many. The law is not there to interfere with the creative process and we should not legislate against people wanting to share their stories with the rest of the world. There is a lot of creative work in film that does not relate to the film industry just as there is a lot of art created that never ends up in any gallery.

What an individual chooses to do with their labour is up to them, they can choose to work for pleasure or for pounds or, if they are very lucky, for both. Equally they can choose to defer financial reward in the present in the hopes that more might be available in the future. Deferments have always been a part of our industry and they always will be. This is not confined to the junior ranks of the industry, it happens at the highest level.

Sadly, there will always be unscrupulous people around who will seek to exploit others. It is quite wrong for some to earn significantly out of a project and others, who contribute in a similar way, to earn nothing. We need to ensure that we prevent this approach whenever we can.

I hope this helps and wish you luck in arriving at a sensible view on the dilemma.

Best wishes

Tom Harvey

Andrew Ward says...

Firstly it must be made very clear by Shooting People that results from this survey are not representative of the industry (pastime or hobby if we go down the no-pay route) because shooting people was initially set up to assist the exchange of services and talent within the lo-no budget sphere so unsurprisingly those responding are mostly people who sympathise with free work. This survey would have very different results if carried out by Equity, BAFTA etc whose members are professionals deriving a living from various areas of the media industries.

Secondly there are circumstances where free work is acceptable however there must be very strict guidelines around projects that may allow free work and those that can't. This way a grass roots learning sector in film can exist alongside an industry where paid professionals turn out world class films and creative work.

Thirdly many people say it is there individual right to decide to work for free. A person’s decision to work for free has a massive effect on other people’s ability to make a living from their skills or talent. In other sectors of the economy those who decide to break a picket line and work for worse conditions, lower pay or even for free are called "scabs” a highly derogatory term... These workers actions effect other workers in that sectors ability to make a living. It should NOT be an individuals right to work for free as there actions effect everybody else's ability to make a living in the industry in a negative way.

Without overstating things it is like drugs in sport, if some athletes decide to use drugs it effects all other athletes because you may not want to use drugs but you are forced to use them in order to have any chance of winning, this is one reason amongst many why athletes are NOT given the individual choice to use drugs or not. Your free choice to work for free compromises my free choice to ask for proper remuneration for my skills, talent time etc.

Fourthly and this is from personal experience when I have decided to work for free I have often but not always been treated with minimal respect. when I have been paid my time experience and work are treated with some respect, when I have been paid generously I have been treated with the most respect....something to think about for all those that always give away their talent and skills for free or without any meaningful exchange taking place....

Lastly what are you working towards if nobody in the industry is paid?

You have nothing but a hobby most likely producing lower grade work which is not world class because most of your day is spent working at Tescos stacking shelves not perfecting and refining your skills knowledge and talent in a rewarding career in a world class British Film Industry.

Thank you for giving my points your careful consideration, if your a person with influence I hope you keep them in mind when setting out future policy. Don't hesitate in writing to me directly to discuss this and related issues further.


Andrew Ward

marco allegri says...

is the time to finish with "unpaid" job!!!!!!!! I pay shooting people just for find a real job but is full of unpaid job.....

Anne Stafford says...

I believe that if I offer my time and talent for free it is nobody's business but mine. I welcome the option to choose.

Rob Neal says...

Your website has become a joke amongst many professionals and renamed "Scrounging People". If people want to contribute to a project that is unpaid, then it should not be classified as "work", it is merely a hobby.

Everyone else should at least offer a token remuneration for people's efforts instead of exploiting other people's goodwill.

If I had a quid for every "Unpaid, but would be great on your showreel, and you get an IMDB credit"...

Vivian Paul Thomas says...

anyone has the right to choose whether or not to except lo/no paid work, the problem with this country is that unless you have rich parents or extremely lucky, as i have not been the only way to get ahead and be recognised for your talents is to do low no paid jobs, thats how i have done it, its the only way to gain valuable experience of the workings of a crew/production as you sure as hell wont get it in University, plenty of knowledge, ok if you want to spend your life talking about it, but when it comes down to the nitty gritty, there is no substitute for hard work on set.....always appreciated it and being appreciated...may it continue, we could always go the way of the americans. and go union....this way is better i say as it is a thorough apprenticeship

James Chalmers says...

It was tough enough before the recession, now it is nigh on impossible to raise finance for independent short films/films. Low/no paid projects are the only way that burgeoning writers, directors, film-makers etc. can get a foothold in the industry. I don't feel that they should be penalised by having the unpaid jobs postings removed from Shooting People, which is after all a vital life line in the realisation of these projects. Neither should any one be bullied in to having to pay a minimum wage. Wages are after all the greatest overhead in any industry, and on these small projects whatever meagre finance there is, is best seen on the screen in decent production values.

Anton Russell says...

Sometimes the experience of working on a film is priceless and this option should always be available. True collaboration is about the project not the pay.

Robert McIndoe says...

I think 'collaboration' type jobs on a profitshare basis should be confined to 'learning' or student films for BA and MA courses. Any professional film should pay the crew and actors at minimum wage or Equity rates or above. I am a member of Equity and that is my view. It's a hard line but this is the only way we'll ever grow the British Film Industry, by forcing film makers to find a proper budget or finance for their projects and dispensing that to the personnel supporting them in achieving their vision. This will help everyone to professionalise their practice while earning a living.

Rehan Wasti says...

You cannot prevent people from choosing between invaluable experience over £20/day or so. This choice should be up to the person who wishes to get more experience on his/her resume - or gain contacts - or learn some new valuable skills. Britain should stop being a police state when it comes to our personal lives and choices.

says...

Theres 2 ways of earning. By payment or by gaining experience.

To avoid explotation or misunderstandings, paid expenses, duties, time & terms must be published. E.g: £200 per week, Mon-fri, etc.

Those who do not define their offer's terms shouldn't be published.

Angela Peters says...

I would prefer not to work on unpaid independent films but with the industry as dire as it is right now, I'd rather be out there acting and continuing to develop my craft than not doing any acting at all. As long as the briefs always clearly show which jobs are paid and which are not, then the individual should be allowed to chose if they would like to work on the job or not. And if they chose to, they shouldn't be chastised for it by others. We live in a country that promotes freedom of speech, so we should also promote freedom to chose.

Vince Parenti says...

If every job is required to be a paid job, then the only people who will work are those who already have massive amounts of experience, and you risk losing a large majority of your community. Most people I've met thru IFP don't know what they're doing and NEED a place to find opportunities that will help them expand their resumes.

If it were me making a hiring decision and I have to pay someone, you better believe in this economy that person will be highly qualified. Thus the same people will continue to get jobs, and others needing experience or wanting to add new job skills will have to move to another venue to find what they're looking for.

Anyway, I think you should seriously consider what you're asking... it will effect YOUR business more than it will bother those whining cry babies who have to sift thru the "no pay" stuff. AND if you really evaluate those who are whining, I'll bet you'll learn they really aren't skilled enough to get paying jobs to begin with.

says...

would that the world was different and it was possible to get what we deserved at the point we believed it was fair...definately need to pay / get paid when there is a budget that can accomodate it though

Catherine Campbell says...

As long as it's a win win situation. Doing stuff for free to gain experience for a filmmaker who is making a film out of their own pocket is not exploitation.

However, cutting costs by not paying workers when you have a budget is.

But we should have the right to choose.

Nick Norton-Smith says...

this issue is whether goodwill and mutual respect is maintained, there are serial abusers of this on SP who cynically exploit the community for their own no -pay vanity projects which will never do more than further a selfish aim or interest. Obviously one can always make a valued judgement on the projects you choose to work on but the culture of lo-no is endemic on SP , have you tallied up the PAID jobs?? my guess is the ratio is 9 unpaid to 1 paid at best, what is SP ?? a site for amateur hobbyists or a ladder to better work in the industry??

Adam Comiskey says...

4. running is a shitty job so it should be paid for. it is shitty but essential.

the only jobs for free should be ones which offer showreel material such as animation or editing type stuff. or jobs on features from directors with imdb feature direction credits only.

but here is the important part. there should be a site wide recognition of the crap state of affairs where shootingpeople allow posts from clients promising expenses when they have no intention of honouring what expenses mean.
expenses covers every single thing which costs the employee money to contribute to the project. thats all materials, any rent for space used, costs to cover power usage for running tools, and even food. otherwise the job should be posted under the heading 'fund our film'

thats a real sticking point for me

Jordan Maders says...

I feel that doing stuff for free comes down to the project, if its a great project with a small budget then il help for free. But if it evolves using my own kit then I should be paid. On the runners side of it doing some for free is good as first time workers are not always the best but should still get expenses paid for and treated with a lot of respect, but if its a runner who has lots of experience then they need to be paid a wage.

Mihalis Bourzoukos says...

Nothing that hasn't been said here already.

Adam and Tree Carr says...

A rewrite of film history: only films with money and budgets ever got made? Think about it.

People claiming that only paid work should be given the time of day on Shooting People are electing themselves spokespeople for everyone, in terms if dictating the reason (note singularity there) why people work on film project, and basically they are saying that the only reason someone should work on a film project should be for money. If that's too rash a statement, at the very least least, these people are definitely trying to dictate that unpaid collaboration on a film project for reasons which don't involve money are invalid reasons. That's called moralism, or at least better-than-you-ism. Money is a fine reason to work on a film project, but who says it has to be the only reason? You? Who are you? If you don't want to work on something that might be interesting to do, just because you will get paid nothing or very little, don't do it. Don't decide for everyone. Lobby for an unpaid collaboration posting filter feature on Shooting People bulletins, not the complete obliteration of their listings. If you do, we can all have fun staring at an ocean of bankable, but boring commercial and corporate film industry listings. Just because you've decided to be a careerist (nothing wrong with that, but let's be honest about it) doesn't mean other people who might be interested in making connections with others for the sake of making a film project they might want (for whatever reason) to do should be punished or marginalised.

How about this: a feedback system similar to eBay? Exploitative/taking the piss repeat collaboration requesters can't shit where they sleep for long. People who take repeatedly unfair advantage of others for free sweat should have a quantitative online karmic account. I think this addresses the arguments of people pushing for unpaid or low-paid collaborative work postings to be removed from Shooting People, although, I feel that this is not the real reason for the objection. The real reason is that they are careerists, pure and simple, and bullishly and simplistically think this is the only reason a film is made. The fact that its not the only reason a film gets made, a reality which by the way will be unaffected by whether these postings appearing on Shooting People or not, results in the aforementioned sour grapes.

John Harden says...

SP members are at different levels in skills and careers. For many, myself included, being able to network with like-minded individuals and collaborate is important. Low/no-pay jobs should be allowed, but there should be some organizational system so that those people who are only looking for paid gigs can ignore them.

patricia cunliffe says...

For years now, I have been the person who is not happy with so many student postings - which is why I have not renewed my paid membership.
But, apparently student postings do not seem to bother anyone else, so they should be posted - but labelled as such (student, no pay, etc) - then whoever is not interested can simply move on.

says...

I did my first assisting job the other day on industry standard rates, and the feeling was amazing. I felt someone wanted me there because they appreciated the effort I put into my work and therefore felt I should be paid accordingly. I felt looked after!

If a company thinks someone is good enough and wants to take them on, they should do so because they see potential in them and therefore want to invest in their talents.

This is a tricky argument when it comes to independent film, but I feel the industry needs to start investing in individuals talent.

Dan Styles says...

As an actor I am at a point in my career where I don't need to take unpaid work (for experience/showreel purposes) however, I still look at unpaid posts for something that might just catch my eye, and interesting story, a challenging character and if tehre was something I liked I'd be more than willing to do it for free. I'll be honest and admit I've even 'forgotten' to ask for my expenses when I've worked on a project that I've really enjoyed.

On the other side of the camera I'm also a filmmaker and I've made a few shorts that everyone has voluntarily collaborated on and also benefitted from, and yet I wouldn't have been able to do this and provide a valuable learning experience for my friends and colleagues had I been forced to pay them.
I am currently looking for funding (to be able to pay everyone) for my next film project, for which we already attached some high profile named actors. Becuase of the nature of the film and its subject matter these actors have already stated that if we don't get the budget we're looking for they would be happy to do it for free.

I am a big believer in low budget/unpaid work as this is were we, as actors and filmmakers, make contacts, build a showreel, learn from mistakes that didn't cost someone a fortune. There are many low budget films winning awards that still can't afford to pay their cast and crew.

Having said this, I do believe that efforts should be made to raise/provide a budget and if this can't be done make sure everyone is well fed and comfortable.

We should be intelligent and capable enough to decide whether or not we wish to work for no fee or not.

Timothy Dowd says...

The low-pay or zero-pay job is sometimes the only way to get filmmaking experience -- these jobs are necessary! And what about non-commercial films that are labors of love! Even if a percentage of such situations are sheer exploitation, the low/no-pay job deserves to be posted on ShootinPeople.org.
Thanks,
Timothy Dowd

Terry Wookey says...

Perhaps some sort of Shooting People contract could be signed - offering payment if the film (if a feature) ever made money. Also to make sure at least a DVD is supplied. I have been on a couple of shoots as camera man using my own equipment - got fed but no expenses and not even a copy of the DVD. The lack of a DVD was the most annoying thing to me.

Gabriel Villegas Contreras says...

I think that everybody, must receive a payment, no matter waht is the possition... or if is an independent film

Matt Jamie says...

I think a low / no pay project should be allowed provided everyone is on the same low/no pay. It seems unfair when crew are paid and actors aren't.

Many people have creative projects which are worth making even without funding and those involved should be allowed to work on them by choice. No-one should be exploited though, and I think if someone is able to secure funding for crew but not performers they should not advertise (i.e. they should be seeking funding for the whole project which includes all involved - if they can't secure funding then pay no-one)

I believe there is a contract which exists which states that should a project make money all involved will recieve payment. Should everyone advertising on SP be obliged to use this contract, or a similar one?

Jonathan Brind says...

Film making is inherently a collaborative process and people have the right to collaborate.

Michael Patrick Kelly says...

It should be up to the individual to decide if he or she wants to dedicate their time to doing unpaid work.

arti dillon says...

Its an important debate to be had. We do need to clarify the difference between non-exploitative projects and those that are clearly exploitative. As a BECTU member I am still working out what we could and should do and also how I personally should operate in this situation and climate.

Some avenues I am exploring:
1)I am going to meet up with several other Shooters to discuss collectives.
2)I have just taken part in creating a short film with others in a collaberative way, we crewed for each others film and brought in skilled tutors where needed and paid them (not an ideal amount but something they were also happy with). We will continue to meet up and support each other and our work.
3)I will probably start my part-time MA later this week which will give a framework to develop some projects, find out more about collectives,develop further skills and collaberators.
4)Wider funding issues of film and TV
The list could go on...

I think many of us are trying to look at better ways to work, safely and fairly. With the recession, hand in hand with excessive wages and bonouses for some, life and work is complex.

Working towards ensuring something fairer is in all our interests and will also move this industry from one which is deeply nepotistic with those that survive and thrive often from the more privalaged of backgrounds. It might sound naff, but I live better when I am involved in the creative process and I know most of us feel the same.

Hope to see you at our BECTU meeting on 18th March (Venue TBC) but I will post on here. (Apols for grammar and spelling, its a quick posting on limited time)

Arti Dillon (Rooftop collective...)

Stewart James Barham says...

I have worked over the years on unpaid jobs - in the early days to get some experience and then to build material for my showreel. Now I find it difficult to contemplate unpaid as I am financially unsettled and would only consider if the job was near to where I live and didn't require travel expenses etc..
Of course you have to consider on an unpaid job not only getting to and from the gig but also travel to the audition too - it all adds up!

Gwyn Hemmings says...

It should be up to us to decide if we want to dedicate our time to doing unpaid work. I do a lot of unpaid film and video projects and I have made some fantastic contacts in the process.

Shauna Osborne-Dowle says...

My comment is more important than the limited yes or no options!
Very tricky subject - I'm a Bectu member and I'm glad to have the unions support and pleased that we are pushing for a minimum wage, but I do think this applies to larger funded projects only.

I have been glad to work for little or nothing to gain experience on a worthy low or no budget production at a time when I had no paid work coming in!

Also, although there are media courses everywhere you look now, at the end of the day, everyone knows its how you are 'on the field' that really counts. In my view there is still a place for 'professional developent' which cannot be attained through education, and freedom of choice always wins my vote!

Chris Butler says...

I don't have a problem with zero-pay work appearing on Shooting People, PROVIDED that all cast and crew are treated in the same way. It's then the individual's choice whether to apply for an amateur production or restrict themselves to professional ones.
A problem occurs when certain jobs are treated differently for the same production. If some people are paid whilst others are not, there is an inherent implication that some jobs have 'worth' whilst others are 'worth-less'. This is unfair.

Richard Scrase says...

My initial instinct was for a minimum wage, however, I've worked for no pay for the learning experience and did not feel exploited, but then I'm middle-aged. Posts (as they do) should clearly state paid / unpaid. For unpaid, there should be minimum expenses: lunch / travel - say £20/day and an unwritten (and unenforceable) rule that the amount of unpaid time anybody spends on any one project should be limited to 20 working days, enough to gain skills from the work-experience. More than this and the project smacks of inefficiency or exploitation.

James Owen says...

Cecile Monteyne says...

I think the trick is making sure that if you are working for nothing you are still treated with respect. Professionalism is what is most important. I think people should be reported if they are abusive and disrespectful to any crew/cast that is working for free. There should be a set of hour/food requirements that must be met.

It is important to note that sometimes working for nothing is better than not working at all.

Ghandi El-Chamaa says...

In the UK we have one of the strongest Indie film markets out there - unpaid is a right of way, we've all done it and now we're getting paid. I don't agree with exploitation and I do feel that sometimes there are those out there who do this. We should, however, allow ourselves the opportunity to choose based on the merit of the project itself. It is an opportunity to network and make good friends as well as a good films. We have to put into perspective the topic of discussion with the state of the UK financial market and wonder why it's such a big issue now, which is obvious. It's becoming harder to make money in a suffering industry - it's not wise to make a decision that will effect the industry in the best of times when sat in the mire we're in now.

Phil Knox says...

There is a careful balance between protecting people from exploitation and allowing people to volunteer on a project that they feel passionate about, or because they want to gain experience.

Let's stop establishing the nanny state. I am an experienced camera person with over 10yrs factual and documentary experience, and can charge myself out at an appropriate rate. However if I see a project that I feel has particular value for whatever reason, DO NOT STOP ME from the opportunity to volunteer to work on this. It's my life, my choice to work or volunteer where I want.

We are generally not talking about people with a lack of intelligence who are unable to assess whether or not something is explotative or not - this is not child-labour or exploiting illegal refugees who have no choice. Most people volunteering want to get into the industry but would have the capability to seek paid work in other areas.

Set some guidelines and a degree of self-regulation, but for pity's sake, avoid heavy handed regulation that will choke up and coming filmmakers and hand the advantage to the creatively braindead large corporate executives.

David James says...

How are low to no budget films ever going to be made if everyone insists on being paid. Why would you pay for someone who has never had any experience and will they ever have the chance to gain experience because nobody will hire them.

Ben Tagoe says...

Paul W. Franklin says...

We should be able to work for free if we want. Like I might do my friend's garden for free, or paint their house for gratis, for the experience and to meet new people in the trade, etc.

What needs to be regulated - or at least have guideline for - is distribution of funds. So often i've seen lines like 'We cannot afford to pay the writer' when the rest of the crew, even the runners, are being paid at least something.
Yes the producers (the fund-raisers) are free to do what they like with their money, but they should also have responsibilities to treat - and therefore pay - everybody in a fitting manner.

Graziana Testa says...

Many films would not get made if people didn't work for free. And of course these gigs provide an entry-point for newbies, or an opportunity for people to get a credit up a grade. I guess what cheeses me off is when it starts to become a culture or a profit strategy. Re. Ms Vetta's legal action, I think it's good to flag the situation up but not for people to be able to sue once they have accepted - and are half-way through! - an expenses-only contract....

enrica colusso says...

Is discussion about low paid stuff, like runners, (who can certainly benefit from working experience and therefore should not be stopped from doing so) or is it about not paying editors, camera persons, producers, who have already a competence and should be paid for their work? My feeling is that a lot of 'expenses only' posted are actually not about low paid stuff/runners. It raises a question then if there is an attempt, by certain production companies, to use this argument towards not paying people to make 'their' films. This is not only exploitation, but has a terrible influence on the industry, as broadcasters and kinds can lower their budgets lower and lower with the certainty that there will always been some production company out there willing to deliver the goods. And more people are prepared to work for free, more difficult will be to find payed work. Reading the comments I was stuck that the only one clearly defending the 'no pay policy' came form a production company...

Though I believe the independent sector should be mature and ethical enough to allow people to be left to make their own decision about weather to work for free or not, the reality is that this practice has spiraled out of proportion and has become - in too many instances - exploitative. That's why a law is needed, to regulate those who have bad practices. The law should of course be subtle and capable of taking into account honest independent practice and work experience (while people who already have this experience should get minimum wage or other forms of compensation ( sharing of rights on the film could be a form of payment, or accountable deferral).

John Schwab says...

Does Pat have nothing better to do than look through the SP bulletins and harass (yes, what she does is tantamount to harassment) those that she believes are breaking the law?


Is she now the vigilante superhero of indy films?


What she has done so far is brave and took on some producers who clearly didn't give her what was due.


But what she does now by calling people, e-mailing colleagues and slandering individuals is just as wrong.


At least she has clarified somewhat her position on short films.

Jennifer Armitage says...

The majority of people in the creative industries are paid less than they would be paid for the same level of experience and responsibility in other industries. Exploitation is a serious problem, however, and everyone has to balance the emotional fulfilment of a role with the financial benefit.

Leandro D'Andrea says...

I don't think I'm a particularly radical thinker but I do believe that if you can employ people for nothing, then you will. The responsibility seems to lie with both parties, if no-one worked for free then companies would simply have to find a way of getting the funds to pay the people they need.
So it's up to the employee to say I wont work for nothing because my time, effort and experience are worth more than that and then up to the employer to find a way of sourcing the wages they should be paying. I know it's the harder path but like many wise people have said 'if it's worthwhile then it's never easy'.
Besides I was always told that the difference between amateur and professional art/film is that the people involved are paid and the difference between mainstream and Independent was purely how well recognised the production company was, how risky the material and whether the film was designed for the blockbuster audience or for the thinking man.
I find it very interesting that this poll reflex people's great desire to work for free, to earn their stripes, so to speak. I do think that is admirable but I do wonder when the buck stops, because if I was a producer and people were willing to work long hours for free to build their cv and experience up, I'd find that far to big a carrot to pass up and I would try to get everyone in my production working for free and keep the proceeds, I think that's simply human nature and that's why I believe it's up to the employee to put their foot down, as scary as it maybe and say 'No, I'm worth more than this'.
It needs to be collective or it will have no great effect but I believe it needs to be done.
After all if you're not worth paying that simply means you are not adding profit to the product and therefore the production company should be able to do just as good a job without you, but as we know, without each individual member of a crew and cast there is no product to sell.

Martha Van Der Bly says...

I joined Shooters because I thought it was a professional site. But with all the non-paid and student jobs, I actually have decided to cancel my subscription. Unless your change your policy.

Julie Cipolla says...

I'm a Compulsive Underearner in recovery in the Underearners Anonymous program, but I believe that people should have the choice to work in non-paid gigs to get experience and get a foot in the door and also see how they like it. If they feel unhappy about not being paid, then they can "graduate" to jobs that pay well.

Maximilian Sycamore says...

As a filmmaker on the odd occasion I have relied on unpaid staff to get my films made, they have been aware of this before it auditioned and so there was no false pretenses. I have, however worked in a long term position unpaid and was seriously taken advantage of, why, because I was told that is what all film people must go through. A long term working relationship with someone that is unpaid needs defined boundaries, a person will work in their free time but cannot be expected to jeporadise paid work. There are some really great companies out there but there are some that really give the industry a bad name, and they shouldn't really advertise on hooting people.

bronwyn harvey says...

It leaves a feeling of mistrust in the industry. Whenever I take on a low paid job I never know if they are not paying because they really can't or because it's the norm. If there are unpaid roles, there should maybe be a rule to see books etc...
However no matter what the case, I still hate the fact that there are unpaid jobs around. Yes it may help those get into the industry but when there are more unpaid roles than paid roles then how on earth are we meant to get by? Bring on minimum wage at LEAST! But how will it be governed?

Jonathan Goodman Levitt says...

Separate different types of posts into different sections on the Bulletins, of course; but Shooters is a diverse community, and it would be a real shame if there weren't ways for people to take what they will from it. The level of bitterness that admittedly at times rude / exploitative posts rile on the list is always a surprise to me -- and I would imagine to a large silent majority of Shooters and readers of the list(s) who really don't care too much whether there are several posts that are irrelevant to them. most of us simply scan the daily bulletins and read what we want to in full, no?

Of course Shooting People should use all its power to get people and companies who can afford to do it to pay people what they 'deserve', but especially in the current economy it would be sad if this sort of arguable elitism carried the day. if the majority of the membership were earning a majority of their income from the industry, then perhaps such changes would make sense, but i think we have to look to statistics among members and use that as a guide...

ProjectionPictures.com says...

Minimum wage legislation should not be applied to production [across pre, during & post] job postings on SP. How are people suppose to gain experience, network and get recommendations which they can use to gain further employment on the next job or on the job after that. If the minimum wage legislation is applied regardless I'm sure it will have a detrimental effect on the membership for SP as well. A lot of independent producers, directors, and writers who have the enthusiasm, talent and drive but not necessarily the financial means should not be barred from posting if they can only afford to reimburse expenses for travel, food and consumables. Please allow grown-up people to apply for non-paid jobs if they choose too, stop interfering in the affairs of others – power to the many and not just the few who are lucky to have pockets deep enough to pay people. Don’t forget those postings that don’t offer to pay also have to contend with people not turning up after day 2 or 3 if they feel there not being treated properly as the freelance industry is a huge market, where one can’t pay another will, but are fewer in number.

It might be handy if SP administrations make a clearer distinction between those postings that definitely don’t intend to pay any wage just expenses, from those that will just pay minimum wage p/hour, to those that will pay current BECTU/PACT daily rates which are higher than minimum wage (more experience required, previous broadcast/imdb credits required ?) - Just a suggestion.

Julia Riding says...

In the past I worked on many no-pay jobs learned that I have gained nothing/very little, aside from experience. Useful at the very start, but once I reached a level of competency, I started to feel undervalued. I feel that low budget film makers use the 'it'll be good for your cv' line too often and there are usually no other perks/benefits. Asking for people to work for nothing and supply their kit/edit suites for nothing too, is common and angers me. It devalues the job that people do and is exploitative in my view. We all have accommodation and bills to pay for, and sometime have to sacrifice fully paid job opportunities to work on independently funded films. This needs to be appreciated, acknowledged and compensated for. I would love to work on more creative projects but wouldn't do so for no money. I think that filmmakers should think carefully about their budgets and plan for paying a little something to everyone, instead of simply assuming that they can get everything for free. Thanks.

stacha hicks says...

Whilst I appreciate it was uasually to me whilst learning my craft, I can confirm that I rarely use shootingpeople now. It is for shooting people to decide if it is wirking for those trying to learn and gain experience or for proffessionals who expect to be paid for their services.

Quite simply regardless of who is asking you want my skills you pay for them.

yana yanezic says...

is this poll only directed to crew?????
If you work you get paid!!!!!SIMPLE!!!!! Productions who don't pay crew or actors should be considered as breaking the law!!!!! SIMPLE AND CLEAR!!!!!
What is wrong with you people??????
You work voluntary or for free when you are offering services for charity or international aid, we all know what I am talking about.
Wannabes make this industry cheap and creating the work for free situation!!!
Can not help but leave my angry comments, so wake up!!! When you work in your profession you get paid!!! SIMPLE!!!SO DIFFICULT TO COMPREHEND????
Please don't delete my comment, but post it!!!

Ida Akesson says...

I'm in the process of making a 10 min short film where I've recieved £1500 from a local borough film fund. We've raised another £1000 bringing the total budget to 2500 and on this budget it's impossible to pay even minimum wage. We've shot the film with a lot of favours and goodwill from people we've worked with before (we did not advertise for unpaid crew as this is against the rules), and if any of those people called me to work for free I would obviously be happy to help them out. This is the way it works in my experience.

I've seen posting on shootingpeople from people saying that filmmakers shouldn't shoot their projects until they have enough money to pay people but once we recieved our funding from the borough film fund we had 4 months to deliver a finished film so there simply is no time! If you're expected to deliver a 10 min short for £1500, in 4 months you just have to go ahead and make the film with a lot of help from your friends.

Alexa Seligman says...

Having to pay runners encourages good employment practices such as hiring people with the right skills, for the right amount of time and in the right numbers. Short films nearly always cost money to make so producers should be encouraged to make room in their budget to pay people, particularly those at the bottom. Where runners are not paid their time is often valued at zero and so wasted.

Personally I did about 2 years of intermittent unpaid work and only began to move up the ladder once I started to refuse to work for free. Although this was partly due to an accumulation of experience I think it was largely because when people don't pay you they don't value your contribution to the project (and vice versa).

We have paid at least minimum wage on our last three short film projects and have made savings in other areas of production. The exception to this was a student intern on a placement scheme who was legally exempt from minimum wage laws as I understand them.

Melina Theocharidou says...

Shooting People (and minimum wage legislation) should distinguish between two categories of work posts: I believe that student film-makers should be allowed to post casting calls for unpaid work but that independent professional producers and film directors should only launch a project if they have enough funds to pay all the crew and creatives involved minimum wages.

If the motion for independent film-makers advertising unpaid posts does pass, then I would strongly urge Shooting People to make sure that:

(a) The non-monetary benefits to actors are clearly set out and they include a guarantee of the DVD of the film for all actors. In the case that actors complain that these conditions were not met, Shooting People should ban the individual or company of film-makers from posting casting calls.

(b) That no one from the crew is getting paid either. I am STRONGLY against the practice of paying some people working on the film while not paying others. That is most certainly exploitation and is at best insulting for the actors involved.

Joanna v says...

While for some films it would be impossible for the producer to pay all the staff minimum wage, it would be nice to see more paid work offered as it is frustrating to be always working for free especially when quite often a lot of effort is made to get up very early, go a long way and work all day and I'm sure SOME producers could afford to pay runners etc.

Oliver Semple says...

NMW will be the final nail in the coffin for the British film industry, there isn't the finance available to pay people on such low budget films. We have a choice at the moment, to limit peoples choices seems pointless... no-one is being forced to work for free they are choosing to. Besides if people can't advertise free positions on Shooting People they WILL go elsewhere... be smart!

Rosalind Lonsdale says...

I find the questions above too black & white. There is too much exploitation of people prepared to work with no pay for experience yet it shouldn't be illegal for people to work for free where they believe they are not being exploited. My suggestion:
SP policy that all advertised work is paid within guidelines
eg
- where film is self-funded: payment of expenses plus a minimum fee of £10 per day plus a commitment that if any profit is subsequently made this fee will be topped up to whatever the national minimum wage should have been
- for any commercial work (including "charity"): payment of the national minimum wage or above

That any postings not offering this, be listed under "collaboration" somewhere on the SP website but not sent out in daily bulletins.

Anne Wilkins says...

I made my own film. As I could not afford to pay industry standards, I was too embarrassed to advertise for kind strangers to help me, so I asked a mate to help. I worked some overtime in my day job, and I paid him - it was only £70, for 2 days Photoshop work, but it was better than a poke in the eye. That was on my student film.

I have worked for free on about half a dozen projects. None of them led to paid work, but I was contacted again by almost all of these contacts, asking if I would do more work for free. Maybe I am just bad at picking people to help out, but when I've helped on these unfunded projects, I've not even got £50, or even a £10 bottle of wine to say thank you, and I've done a week's work or sometimes more. I understand there isn't often funding to pay people properly, and I wouldn't like collaboration made illegal, but so many people out there seem to have lost their sense of decency and fairness. Is making your film so important that it's okay to exploit others?

Nirmala Martis says...

Working on no pay projects give you more work experience as well as networking. Who knows if you are a hard worker and if the right person recognises, you could land a position in a big budget movie by working in No pay projects. It's all about networking.

says...

My experience is that working on a freebie doesn't lead to paid jobs only more freebies. Yes working for free might show you to be ambitious but it also shows you to be exploitable, and even perhaps not confident enough to demand a salary.

I find it hard to accept shoots described as professional which don't pay. While many dictionaries accommodate the denigration of the word "professional" to mean aspiring to professional values, I think an unambiguous term such as "professional-like" would be a fairer description.

The most risable ad I saw was asking for volunteers to work on a "fairtrade" documentary. How is getting people to work for nothing "fairtrade"? I really think definitions in the postings have to be cross-checked.

Claudette FLINT says...

Show business is not an industry like the others. It does not generate a product that will definitely sell. Only the very successful group can offer a decent pay. In the meantime, in order to get there, some of us must and are probably ready to work for nothing: that is why so many have a side job. It is most unfair but this is the side effect of Art.You make bread, you know you're going to sell it, so you pay the baker. You paint a picture, you don't know if you're going to sell it. (Ask Van Gogh)
The thing to do is to watch those who abuse the situation and report them.
Claudette Flint

Tom Ludlam says...

This is a very difficult issue, especially in the current financial climate and especially with many filmmakers financing themselves. Any money you get, the priority remains to see as much of that money on the screen - the best quality product will likely make the best impact.

As a runner myself, the advice I have been regularly given to progress in the industry is that you have to get experience on the job. If you can't get a paid job, then you are left with no other option but to bite the bullet and take an unpaid job. So you do this once, twice, OK. BUT...

...ONLY IF YOU LIVE IN LONDON (where the majority of work is available), HAVE NO OTHER FINANCIAL PRESSURES, HAVE UNWAVERING SUPPORT FROM FAMILY/FRIENDS. I have many friends you cannot afford to do this. You can only sleep on friend's floors for so long. It is impossible to continue to work for nothing for a long period - WHATEVER YOUR ROLE.

By guaranteeing minimum wage, at least it's tangible for the time and effort you have put in and can give some security for periods out of work, and searching for further work.

This vote is a very very worthwhile endeavour and I commend SP for setting this platform up for debate and discussion. Kudos

Judith Quin says...

I believe that all people should be treated equally - the big problem as an actor is that we seem to come last on the 'required to pay' list mostly, I believe, because of the volume of people out there (always swolen by those who 'want to be famous' (but that's another debate).

Yes, if I like the script and respect the production team I will work on a film unpaid, and when you're starting out it's a great way to earn your chops...But the time comes after a while when it's harder and harder to see why - if you want a specific DOP because of the skills they have and will pay them do you not want the actors you choose because of their skills too?? Or are these producers saying they'll skimp on the actors they want to pay the tech crew???

Fairness is the issue.

Simon Curtis says...

I'm an established Director of Photography and ex-BBC staff. Your poll questions leave me answering not entirely as I would wish. Yes, I want to see listings of people wanting to genuinely work together and collaborate - not simply jumped up 'producers' demanding showreels and such like as if they were official 'employers'. Yes, I will consider 'collaborating' on a project if I have the time and I like the concept for no pay and might even contribute equipment and/or funding. If I don't get a good vibe I'll walk away and if I get the impression that I would be taking paying work from another colleague I would not continue. I do not want to be told that I can't volunteer my services for free in certain circumstances but there should be a framework in place that stops continued exploitation of professionals by serial wannabee producers/directors massaging their own egos and highly unlikely to ever progress to mainstream established employers. I don't think there is a clear framework in place currently to establish what should be advertised on SP and what should not. Maybe a limit on the number of projects a 'producer/director' can advertise requesting volunteers would be a start in the right direction. Maybe there should be a limit as to length of shoot or project. Maybe all 'workers' on a project should automatically have an equal 'share' and stake. Certainly all 'staff' should be protected from exploitation and no official 'work' should ever legally be below the minimum wage regardless of whether you're a runner or a producer. The choice however, to 'volunteer' your services on a genuinely 'collaborative' venture, should always be the decision of the individual. Simon Curtis GBCT DOP

Rosemary Smith says...

I believe in the power of film, but I also believe we have to eat too! Why should we work for nothing because we happen to enjoy our jobs. When I entered the industry in the late 1970's it was well regulated and well paid. I still work because I love this business, but I do not envy people entering the business now. I worked for the BBC in the '80s when you could start as a T-boy/Floor Assistant and end up through attachments becoming a Producer/Director. Those days are sadly gone when you could learn your job from the bottom up and earn a living wage!

Rosemary Smith

Mike Rymer says...

The way to protect individuals from exploitation is to equip them with information which empowers them to make an informed decision about how and where they distribute their labour. Unpaid engagements should be brief, fulfilling and useful for progression. By all means be vigilant because there are those who will seek to exploit the spirit of collaboration, but the assumption that this is the default position betrays a poisonous perspective on human nature. Shooters are not bankers, hell bent on profit over sustainability, they are passionate and creative people excited about making artistic interventions into our artistic landscape, and to do this they require the support and collaboration of like minded individuals.

John Cartwright says...

Working for free, means only so much loyalty to a project. As long as the film maker realises that its ok.

Deborah Brozina says...

One of the ways we get to move up to new positions at higher levels within crews is by gaining experience by working for free. It takes time to build those skills and the occasional indie film work makes that possible. However, producers and directors should understand that they will only get one or two of those kinds of projects out the door before they should have the experience and resume to raise enough money to cover the project.

Pete Draper says...

I think, at the end of the day, that people simply need to be realistic... and I'm talking about the self-proclaimed producers and directors here who expect the earth (read: big budget production values to a film / vfx / animation etc) for nothing. Here's a message: It ain't gonna happen. What I tend to see, and this is a one-sided view mind, is that all of the budget, even if it is slim, goes on shooting the thing, which leaves nothing for post work. They then expect the post guys to work on the thing for free. Here's a hint: use Excel to work your budget beforehand...

Yes I've worked on things for slim budgets because I believe in the piece, yes I've also worked on the same where the nice guy director / writer / producer / filmmaker (etc) has been charming to start but turns out to be a right dick because, funnily enough, I have to go and work on something that's paid because I have to do something called "pay the rent".

Realism people, realism. Filmmaking 101.

-- pete

Lynne Harvey says...

There are too many people in this - and other entertainment industries chasing too few jobs. To get seen; to prove what you can do; to see if you can do it, to show what you're about, to see if people want to work with you - you must be able to offer your services for free INITIALLY. Skill, talent and experience then, I believe, has to be paid for.

For others coming through the industry who have the creativity but no cash - where do these people start? Where does passion for art and a project come in? If you're churning out the same old rubbish like a machine, yes, it's an industry. If you want do something different, what grant giver, what sponsor, will be interested -and just what do they get in return? As a writer, I worked initially for no money - it cost me to get my work seen. The actors who helped me, I would do anything for. They liked my work enough to work for free. They didn't want to work on boring run of the mill (some paid) projects. I've asked them if they regretted what they did, when living in London is expensive and they were giving their time for free. NO. They did not, as they believed in what they did.
As for the techicnical side, someone who has just learned their craft needs to built a body of work, needs to meet like minded people, to explore their ideas and find what they want to do and how they want to do it - and learn how to work in all sorts of situations along the way. By offering their services free, they get to meet all sorts of people and be in situations that going just the 'pay way or no way' will not get you in. Again I stress, unpaid; INITIALLY. When someone can show what they've been involved in and what they can do, they deserve and need to be paid - as anyone else does - for services rendered. Arts should not be exclusive, and this is one step to making it so. It will be for rich kids only, for people with ideas that are easy (or easier) to sponsor and get a grant for. All these fab independent films that people have put their heart and soul into, that have been made on a shoestring will be no more - I hope you'll all be happy with what you'll be left with. I hope you'll be happy that the people with no money behind them but with the ideas and creativity to make something special and build something worthwhile will be stopped.

Peter Smith says...

Volunteering your services in order to partake in creating a project is your choice. Can i not film and edit a friends wedding for nothing? Indeed when working commercially lower paid staff should be protected. Like most have said, if a project is large enough to need a runner(etc.) it should budget for him/her, however if it is a colaboration where all are working together to share a passion how are they expected to pay one another?

Lorraine McCann says...

let's live in the real world

Shona McWilliams says...

It should be left to the individual what jobs they apply for. Obviously if there is some beneficial elements to a non-paid job, i.e. share of net producer profits then this should be clear and adhered to. You can't force people to pay if they have no money, otherwise the industry will die as no low/no budget films will be able to be made any more.

Susi Arnott says...

The problem is the word 'independent' and its meanings.
You can't legislate over what constitutes 'art' rather than 'commerce', but the postings that make me angry are the ones where money IS in the mix, but people don't bother to budget properly because they assume free pairs of hands are just aching to be working on ANYTHING.
I'm still a Union member; doesn't mean I don't work for nothing on my own and other people's work when its from the heart not the wallet. If its big enough to need runners, then it should be big enough to pay them. If not, then shoot on a mobile phone and make your ideas work simply - sign of a good idea...

Mike Harrison says...

As a composer I have, in the past, worked on several unpaid jobs just to get some recognition, but it has become all too common that musicians are expected to work for nothing, because they are last on the list when it comes to budgeting. I think it is acceptable for film students to ask for people to work for them with no pay but anyone else should not be seen as a charity - if you want high quality production, you need to pay for it.

Catriona Craig says...

Question 4 is utterly misconceived. The issue does not change or arise because someone is a low paid runner. Anyone should be able to choose to work unpaid on an independent film if they decide that's what they want to do. Whether they are low paid runners or high-paid professionals the choice is still theirs. Everyone, both low and high paid should also be protected by legislation so that when they choose to work for money the rules surrounding payment, honoring contracts etc. are met by their employers. But if Johnny Depp or a penniless graduate decide to work for me for no pay, both should be allowed to do so, and the issue does not change because one often works for millions and the other for minimum wage.

Cian Daly says...

Applying a minimnum wage enforces a certain standard and professionalism. Too many unpaid jobs promise the opportunity to make good contacts or gain good material for a showreel and fail to live up to these promises. Enthusiasm and dedication are not enough to make a film, it also requires money, and if an independant film-maker has enough dedication and enthusiasm for his or her projectg, they should be able to secure finance to pay even the lowliest runner.

Tony Oldham says...

I think if the film has any kind of funding/ grant, that it should pay minimum wage, but where the film is a no/low budget and often funded by the filmmaker, it is effectively a non-commercial film, often with no real chance of making money. Both filmmaker and crew can benefit from collaborating on such projects and without these opportunities, how would either forge a way forward in teh film industry. For want of better words, many of these films are hobbies with higher intentions. I do, however, feel that it should be made clear whether films have received funding above a certain amount, and also agree to meet minimum terms if teh film makes money.

scott parker says...

If a film has funding, it ought to pay NMW. But there is never enough money.. Contrary to another posting here, if its a choice between getting decent equipment, or shooting on mini DV and paying NMW, I think producers ought to (and probably should) be able to chose the former.

Imposing NMW on the indie micro budget sector will only serve to stifle production and opportunities for newbies and up and comers, meaning less work for actors.

The effect would be a smaller production slate of this type of film because I dont think subsidy and funding is going to fill the void.

Mark Normandy says...

Are we missing something fundamental here, correct me if I am wrong but are we not all freelance people? Self employed? If you are then the minimum wage does not apply as you are responsible for negotiating your own fees. That's the whole point in self employment. There is no set minimum fee what ever the unions may say or want to impose when it comes to this point. If you want to work for expenses only that is your RIGHT! This whole argument is therefore redundant. Ignore the gripers and leave them to deal with their own inadequacies. I always think that to engage in futile arguments like this is to validate them. Don't do it! Get on with making those films.

says...

The industry is complex and it is unbelievably tough to get a break in but perhaps the biggest warning should not be about low or no pay but about the number of people out there who get jobs that they aren't capable of doing. Rather than focus on minium wage we should focus on people's merit not only those looking to employ but those to be employed.

Kristina Hughes says...

Thank you for offering this pole.

I've never understood why in all places Student Films do not pay. They should pay. Their universities should pay the actors through the tuition as WE are also teaching THEM and more likely than not the project is really not going to futrther our demo or our careers.

I will always consider no/low budget projects when the producers & crew have experience as then I'll be able to walk away with something to leverage and promote an actually track in PerformerTrack.

It's funny that no matter where we live (I'm in Los Angeles at the moment) everyone seems to want us to work for free or no/low pay gigs. And yes, it's sad when the crew is "getting their experience" and getting paid and we are not.

I do ask for mileage, transportation fees, dry cleaning etc. and I add all these expenses in my PerformerTrack account and then print up the invoice to send to the producers. This is in all occasions, even when I have done student films which I have stopped doing b/c I have my reel. I'm done.

Please take advantage of this free form to get that promised copy http://www.copyprovided.com. When you submit for it you'll see words from others who have had success at it.

PRODUCERS: Why not mention in your casting notice that you'll sign the form? Ads a little faith to us.

PRODUCERS: Why not agree to transportation and dry cleaning fees? It's not unreal and helps us not have a chip on our shoulders knowing at minimum we'll get our copy and we won't b out of pocket.

This podcast that I was interviewed for is great for explaining some other thing to do while working as an indie actor (Just click on our photo): http://www.everythingactingpodcast.com/?p=95

This article series titled Going Indie is really great for those of you doing no/low budget gigs: http://www.holdonlog.com/pages/AN-IA-1005.html



Be BOLD,
Kristina
KristinaHughes.com

Lindsay Gossling says...

I think people should be able to choose whether they want to work for free on a collaborative project that has virtually no budget (like student films or where everyone on it is working for free - producer and director included). If a film has any real funding attached the production should be legally bound to pay minimum wage.

Camila Fiori says...

I believe that the 'low pay' and 'no pay' is abused, however I think it is important to keep collaborations going that aren't just about the money but about genuinely interesting high quality projects.

Penny Woolcock says...

I have worked for nothing many times - at the beginning of my career because often it is the only way to either make things oneself or gain experience. We all do it. Actually it is working for love not for nothing.
I still do it - I am making something for a friend next month and we are all giving our services for nothing and I am excited about doing it.
Of course if there is a budget people should be paid fairly.

Faye Wilkinson says...

But I believe that NO ONE should EVER have to pay expenses for a film they are not producing themselves.

Joe Golby says...

I find the example of runner in the poll misleading as the majority of debate is on actors being paid expenses for productions. I would compare runners/actors in a skilled/unskilled labourer comparison.

"Runners are the most junior members of a television crew. They are responsible for fetching and carrying and doing most of the donkey-work of a production. Their role is usually to support anyone who needs help in a variety of ways, until such time as they have learned enough to assume more responsibilities." (wikipedia): I would class this as an unskilled labourer role.

An actor who has attended a CDS drama school has committed a large amount of time and finance to training in this area and therefor I would class as a skilled labourer.

Unless a production provides considerable benefit (working with established director/writer or screening at large festival/venue) I would argue that an actor should be entitled to minimum wage whereas a runner should be able to choose to work for expenses only.

Nikki Gray says...

No one would ever expect a plummer or dentist or any other skilled labor to work for free, so why should equally skilled filmmakers be exploited. There are plenty of student films that newbies can cut their teeth on and build their resumes with. Anyone other than a student making a film and hiring a crew should be required to pay those people at least minimum wage as dictated by state law.

Deb Richardson says...

Anyone should be able to choose an unpaid job not just runners. I've just directed a film and been happy to take minimal expenses. That's my choice and I had reasons for doing so. There's a community of filmmakers where I am based and they will often help each other out in return for help on their film. When there's a budget it is expected that we get paid.

Andy McCoy says...

It should be down to the individual to chose if they want to work for free or not. Working for free can allow you to gain experience but it can also lead toexploitation.

What perhaps is more important is that posts are clear and honest about what the situation is.

Sharonda Harris says...

Some people that possibly could afford it (such as mid-level to large studios and production companies) tend to use this to some advantage, and not because they want the staff to learn more about the position. I believe the industry should enforce the difference between a "volunteer" position vs. a paid position a little more, such as setting film budget limits, making all volunteers sign wavers and/or releases, and stating the position is unpaid in advance. I support free work for anyone with a budget under $750k, if the volunteers know well in advance it's free work and agree to the set terms. You should also compensate them in some other way, if you are not going to pay them. For example, only accept "free" work from college interns, who get school credit in return. Beyond $750k, you need to start paying people to work for you. Don't be a cheapskate. It'll up the professionalism and the production value of your film.

Andrew Rowe says...

If it's not paid, then it's not a "job". But there's nothing wrong with making films as a hobby. Unpaid 'work' leads to more unpaid work, never to paid work - it is NOT a foot on the ladder.

Personally I feel that it is unacceptable to make a film where some crew members are being paid and others are unpaid. But the worst thing is when an unnecessary amount of money is spent on, for example, camera equipment and lights, at the expense of those working on the film: people come first. If you're going to shoot on Red or 35mm, you have to pay your crew properly (after all, there clearly IS a budget in this case). Better to shoot on miniDV and pay the people making your film NMW.

Arye Michael Bender says...

Chances are that if a film's budget is too low to even pay minimum wage, that it will not be seen. The only exception should be student films. And only those student films that are being made under the auspices of a credited school.

Richard Russo says...

At some point I would like to move to London and volunteer to help out in film making. Since I have very little experience or training in the field I would like to be able to gain this by voluntary work. I also believe though that if filmmakers require trained and/or experienced people they should find the budget to pay them a fair rate. To sum up: voluntary work would only be for basic jobs that requre no experience or training.

che broadnax says...

I think that this deserves enormous debate. It's true that many independent films rely on unpaid interns and PAs, and rely on paying even the paid crew an insultingly low amount. I've been on gigs that paid, but were paying what amounted to below minimum wage. And I know that without people willing to work at that level, these films couldn't be made. However, we still need some sort of protection for low- and unpaid filmmakers. I would like to see overtime taken seriously, and applied at an appropriate time and rate, rather than as a sweet bonus on the occasional gig. I would like to see unpaid employees qualify for OT (not at 1.5x or 2x zero, though) at a rate comparable to their paid counterparts. Meal penalties, 2nd meals, turn around... everything that is standard on union pics should still be in some way worked into low-budget pictures -- particularly if people are being paid peanuts or a big handful of air.

The fact of the matter is, there are far easier ways to make money or to make a living than working in independent film. We do this because we love it. So, if we're working 12 hour days at what breaks down to just above minimum wage, it's because we don't want to be in a cubicle. So, is it exploitative? Sure, that's the nature of our economic system -- you got no loot, somebody else has loot, they won't give it to you unless you do something for them. But when those days creep up to 14 with an additional 1.5 hours in transpo to and from set, and another hour in transpo from pickup/dropoff to our homes, and we don't have protections on the turnaround or meals or any OT, then the level exploitation has really gone too far.

In theory, unpaid jobs ought to lead to paid jobs, and in my experience they always have. It's a problem when there is no room for advancement.

Mrinalini Kamath says...

A lot of times, artists work for no pay on their projects because the vision is more important. Occasionally, you will find other folks also willing to work for nothing because they want to be part of making that vision happen. People should be given the choice.

John Frisbie says...

It's easy to fall into the long-held belief that film has to run on free labor. But too many fall into that entrenchment. Too new people in the business, I would advise working on a very limited number of films without pay. To filmmakers, I would advise doing the additional legwork to find funding for everyone on your job. I do agree that nothing should stop people from volunteering, but I also believe that there are legal minimums in place for a good reason, including overtime protections, that should not be violated so that one or a few people can 'realize their artistic vision'.

NICK SHERARD says...

It's hard enough getting a business off the ground and sustaining it, it's probably harder to get a film made and sold, however, if its in your blood and you are in it for the long haul then you will persevere and take all of the highs with the lows. We would all like to live in an ideal world and every one of us be paid for the job we love but the simple and plain fact is we don't. I would say that at least a third of my career was unpaid.....and of course out of choice. I appreciated every single one for the opportunities that were presented to me. If I didn't do the jobs, I would have lost out on some great friends, like minded film makers, valuable skills, Technicians that now work with me, investors who have gone to fund some of my projects and more. It's part and parcel of the industry - If you have been told otherwise then you have been misled. There are tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of people for every job going. That's the industry we live in. It's not much of an industry but nonetheless we all strive to make it work for us in some way, whether you are a writer, director, technician actor and so on. Please forgive me if I am telling you what you already know and stating the obvious, but the debate is not rocket science. I'm sure we would all just like to get back to work without the disruptions that have been ocurring recently. The ignorant few that are going about harassing and abusing fellow colleagues don't live in the real world and their comments and allegations are not only false, defamatory but now libel. They have stepped over the mark and their childish behaviour along with their abusive language and breach of copyright will be stopped. They simply haven't a clue and obviously don't like our industry....move on, do something else!

And for the record If any project is commercial and fully funded then naturally every crew member that has been recruited should be paid quite rightly in line with their position. That goes without saying.

For the majority of the films that are made in this country with small budgets and sometimes no budgets and for all of the tens of thousands of actors, writers technicians and all who help on the periphery that that collaborate with each other to further each others careers, I applaud you for your determination, passion, creativity and common sense. Without you all persevering, our fabulous and innovative independent industry would simply disappear. Continue the good work and I am sure all of our collaborations will be pay off one day and hopefully fruitful times are ahead. For all like minded film makers and fellow industry workers who have been harassed and abused, let us collaborate and kick these irritants into touch and get on with the real job.

rob curry says...

if shooting people ceased to advertise unpaid jobs it would seek to have a purpose. members are members BECAUSE of the unpaid jobs! mandy.com etc infinitely better for established industry professionals.

Caesar Mendez says...

Most forms of un-paid work should be considered as a form of internship. And this depends on the budget of the project. The lower the buget the more 'volunteers' there are & that should/would include the producer & the director. But the higher the budget of course becomes more proplematic. Who should be paid? Surely any form of 'Go-for' postion would be considered up-paid; but it should also be concidered as a student-intern position. The person working for free is part of & respected as part of the team; and they should be showed
& taught as mush of the work & process of film making as possible; Always! And also if there is a delema as to who should be paid in a low-budget indie well I think not also the lowest rung of the staff but also the highest; that means the above named director, producer. They should be 'paid' with the success of thier feature; whatever it's length.

Anthony Dinham says...

This poll is basically worthless because it doesn’t make a distinction between collaboration projects and fully funded projects looking to get away with not paying when they should.

Seth Ward says...

There should be a minimum budget and income level below which the regulations and minimum costs should not apply. Anything else would result in the destruction of innovation in the UK film industry and prevent anyone other than the rich from breaking into film making.

Daniel Gennis says...

We all want to get on but in the end, those who want to be film makers, have to realise money is an important factor in getting any production off the ground. If you want to produce or direct, you have to realise capital has to be raised. You will need to do it as some stage. There is no better way of knowing how could your script is until you shop it around. If you have a story to tell and people share your vision, it will happen.

If you are good at something, you don't do it for free.

Andrew Johnstone says...

The film business has been taking advantage of keen young filmmakers for years and I can't see how that is sustainable in the UK and the US where the cost of living is so high.

I do think working for free to get "work experience" (ie as an "intern") is acceptable, but when there is a paying job on the table with a budget, I think everyone should get paid. Collaborations between people should be encouraged, these projects are were many creative working relationships are forged and where many people cut their teeth. It is daft to say that no one can work unless they are paid. But producer trousering the cash rather than paying someone is not right either. A minimum wage might be acceptable for a runner in a film company, but for most productions freelance rates need to be respected.

The real industry wide problem is that budgets are getting smaller and smaller and there are more and more filmmakers looking for money, so a lot of corners have to be cut on a lot of productions to make the budget stretch. Also much content is so often given away and demanded for no fee. I was recently negotiating with a UK government department to re-edit some material for their website - but they told me that they had no budget for content. What's that all about?

Steve Lennon says...

Working for free is part and parcel of the industry and I imagine, it's how most of us started out. Working for free has allowed me to build up contacts that have led to paid employment, and certainly in the early days, helped me to stand out from other people with little or no experience.

Sometimes, however, being happy to get experience can leave you open to exploitation. I trained as an actor, and whilst I now work on both sides of the camera, unlike my film/video work, unpaid acting jobs have seldom led to paid work. What irks me the most is that ‘low-budget’ has, in some cases, become an excuse rather than a reality. For example, last year I worked on a ‘low-budget’ short film. When I turned up, there were more crew than actors (this including the 20 extras); we were shooting on Red; 8 Kino’s were suspended from the ceiling with a massive HMI outside: clearly there was a budget and it didn’t go on the actors or the catering – sandwiches in Winter don’t cut it!

Maybe there could be some sort of trade-off of skills? When I lived Canada, there was an organization called LIFT (The Liaison of Independent Filmmakers Toronto). LIFT offered training, equipment hire and workshops for anyone interested in making films. To become a member you paid a fee (think it was $50 for the year), which meant you could hire equipment, etc. However, if you wanted to take advantage of all the benefits of LIFT, you’d have to become a full member. How? By volunteering on LIFT accredited shoots for a set amount of time. The advantage was, you could then hire equipment for peanuts, e.g $25 for a 4ft Kino! I’ve often thought about how brilliant a UK version of LIFT would be and its existence might help iron out the problem - even though you’re working for free, you’re technically saving money off kit hire for future work!

I sincerely don’t believe that working for free should be outlawed or regulated to demand a minimum wage, but I would say that everyone should be committed to ensuring that if you can’t pay, at least make some small concession to make the experience pleasurable for all. Whether it’s providing a decent HOT meal on set, or reimbursing travel, small gestures count.

Right, now back to (thankfully, paid) work.

Jason Moffat says...

So long as the post is clear i have no problem with it. What I do have a problem with is posters using the insecurity of those who do not know better by saying things like: "This would be great for your Showreel/CV"... Or they advertise the position as no-pay, but then enter into an absurd selection process where those who would like to work on the project are obliged to travel far for an interview, instead of the poster making an effort for what he/she is basically getting for free.

I think it's fine in conjunction with common sense by the talent and courtesy by htose who require it.

says...

I think people are missing the point. If shootingpeople was a website for professional actors, then it should only offer paid work as fitting for professional actors.

No true professional would do unpaid work for a bunch of strangers with scant credentials (which is pretty much all the work on SP).

But as shooting people will take money from ANYONE and don't vet that people who are joining have any acting credits, shootingpeople's greed is to blame.

Shootingpeople could either:
- make this a website for professionals and vet actors have acting credentials, then only offer professional paid work. And lose £10000's in subscriptions - no chance!
- Have pointless debates and allow anyones willing to pay them £30 to call themselves an actor or filmmaker. And rake in £300k a year - yes!

The debate is pointless.

CCP/Equity/Spotlight have cornered the professional paid acting casting.
Maybe not for filmmakers, (as there is a lot of technical information passed around in their bulletin), but for actors shootingpeople is a sophisticated swiz, like the sham agencies who take your money, say there is loads of opportunities and then once they have your money you find there is nothing but students looking for actors to use in their school projects.

For actors to have to pay for that is disgusting. shootingpeople should be a free website if it doesn't offer paid work.

Nigel Glasgow says...

People train to develop there skills and it is only in the creative and media environment that it is seen as acceptable to get someone to work as hard if not harder than many people higher up the food chain for no money.

Part of the job of producing the film should be raising the funds to shoot a picture that has more going for it than the possibility of a festival in the next 2 years.

Everyone should get paid and granted that we all need to gain experience while doing so, but it is much harder to gain the skills needed to sound design an entire 30min film than it is to pull a pint, but bet your local barman didn't work in 10 bars for free for a year before he was offered travel and a ploughman's lunch!!

Larry Brangwyn says...

Having had this debate, worked both sides, and been involved in a dispute on this matter, I'd simply like to add the following, in the event that anyone will read it:

• There are many laws in the UK that require a little qualification, and usually not by legislators, but rather by organisations like Shooting People that deal in the relevant areas. Having said this, the unpaid work law is less open to debate than some others, such as reasonable force in self defence, or assisted suicide. I am glad to see that Shooting People is going to have an official policy on this.

• It is my opinion that without the networking opportunities you get on unpaid or VOLUNTARY projects, you will have far less chance to make the contacts you need to become successful enough to work on funded projects/be eligible for pay. As long as there is a choice and everything is clearly laid out beforehand, I actually find it hard to see what the problem is. If you don't want to work voluntarily, don't volunteer.

• This is a similar issue to school theatre or amateur theatre - no-one forces these people to pay cast or crew for their time as they understand it is a voluntary role. Forcing Shooting People to adopt a 'paid roles only' approach alienates and in fact excludes non-professionals from the community.

Thanks for the poll.

Akua Obeng-Frimpong says...

Many independent film makers are self-starters who get by on good-will vested in them through inkind advice and resources.

In creating their projects they attract like-minded individuals willing to share their vision and do what it takes to achieve that.

I should think that anyone over the age of 30 knows what its like to have done workplacements for little more than the experience and acknowledgement whilst still at the bottom rung of the ladder.

There are individuals out there who don't want to explot, don't want to take or be taken advantage of, however, most people know that if they're going to involve themselves in an indie production chances are they will be extremely lucky if they receive money in exchange for their services.

We all have to start somewhere. We all have to give something of ourselves before we can begin to reap the rewards of having done so.

Let's focus on creating quality work as means to gain recognition (and then maybe suffiencient funding - to pay wages - down the line) shall we? Let's just focus on doing something worthwhile which may or may not provide us with the renumeration in the short/ long-term.

Look at a budget for any project or production. Wages take up a huge percentage of income against what is paid towards direct project costs. Good independent film makers focus on doing a good job creatively so that their team can reap rewards through a polished and well-receive product. Concerns about paying wages will severely hinder this.

Having to pay minimum wage will prohibit people from even starting to make a film. This industry is pretty inaccessible to people from low/no wage backgrounds as it is. Do we really want to prevent burgeoning talent from having a platform simply because it can't afford minimum wages?

Blue Bliss says...

I'm for freedom of choice, that is for projects that are labors of love for beginning filmmakers or collaborations for fun. I can see the danger of all this undercutting pay for crew on "real" projects though.

Mike Morrison says...

Exploitation from production companies should not be allowed and I support this issue being discussed and focussed on by the industry. However we must not let it go the other way which I fear is happening.

We are going to take away peoples right to choose what they want to do and when they want to do it. This website may as well shut down if the option to take part in no budget creative work is removed. It also encourages new relationships to be formed without restrictions and does not hinder creative material being produced.

If people are not happy with this option remaining open then they do not need to respond to adverts or even be members of this site. Choice is an important part of our society and we must not let the people who have abused it ruin future opportunities for others.

Rachael Swindale says...

I think it is completely unreasonable for a commercial project like a TV programme or a feature film to expect anyone to work for free and they should be pursued by whatever legal means are available. HOWEVER, I think it is absurd and ridiculously pedantic to impose minimum wage rules on shorts and other non-commercial projects that have micro budgets. It's like hounding a band who have put an ad in NME for a guitarist (I doubt they can pay the minimum wage until they're signed or become known). Filmmaking is expensive. A minimum budget for producing a short in which everyone got paid would run into at least tens of thousands. Those who dogmatically apply the MW rules to independent filmmaking suggest you should wait until you have funding in place before making anything yourself. No funder is going to give you a bean until you've proved yourself as a filmmaker. And how do you prove yourself? By making the very micro budget films that this legislation threatens to stamp out. If the NMW rules are applied so strictly to the kind of low budget filmmaking that Shooting People promotes, then what will inevitably happen is that filmmaking will become even more closed. Rich people will fund their own projects. Film councils will only fund a select few people who can either prove talent through expensive self-funded projects or have been to the NFTS (or another major film school). And the very runners and low-level staff that campaigners want to protect will find themselves stuck as runners with little opportunity to prove their own filmmaking abilities on smaller projects.

I am neither a newbie nor an established filmmaker. I am also not wealthy, but I have chosen to do projects for no pay because I believed in the film and felt it would be useful for my own career advancement. I can't do them all the time, as like everyone else, I have bills to pay. But getting involved in no-pay projects has given me opportunities that I simply wouldn't have had any other way.

I also think of filmmaking and the arts as more than just jobs (in that way, i think comparisons with plumbers for example, are inaccurate). I think film is an important part of the cultural life of a community/ country. It would be a huge shame to restrict that artistic expression to just a few 'commercial' projects- lots of Notting Hills and Bridget Jones, but few inventive shorts or intelligent documentaries about important but less 'entertaining' subjects. Unfortunately (or perhaps fortunately as it's nice to work with people), making films is a collaborative endevour. Unlike, writing a novel or sculpting, you can't just do it yourself. Which is why it's great to have a filmmaking community like Shooting People that allows you to find like-minded people with which to collaborate on an artistic project.

I've stepped off the podium now! (sorry, this subject does get me rather animated).

Priscila Lima says...

I reckon what lacks is good sense. Yes, unpaid work should be a way to get experience. I prefer taking an unpaid job, meeting new people and keeping my skills sharp than staying home bored. What is unhelpful and unfair is that employers take advantage of that to budget their films considering that they will always be able to have high qualified, experienced crew working for almost nothing. I myself decided I ain't doing unpaid work anymore, (1) because I can't sell myself for 0 Ponds/day after a BA, an MA and 4 years of industry experience and (2) because I have had traumatic experiences doing unpaid work for unprofessional people that didn't treat me fairly. It's worth saying that I did have terrific experiences indeed, working for no money but for amazing people and projects, it is indeed an alternative to expand the network, but unfortunately, due to lack of good sense, and due to those bad experiences I had, I ain't doing that no more, no, no. I'm sure there will always be people prepared to do that though, which is good and bad.

richard dunkley says...

Most low budgets can be made with very few people. Motorcycle Diaries had a crew of 6 (including the 2 actors!) for much of the production. So it is hard to believe that anyone making a film cannot find £60 or so a day to pay complete strangers, especially people like runners to whom credits are useless. It is different if friends collaborate, as a DOP or lead actor can have much to gain from what is effectively a 'test' shoot. 'Something' for your efforts, however small, completely changes the attitude to the work? One also has to wonder what kind of films are being made sometimes, when you see these postings of the 'Does anyone know where I can hire a camera' or 'has anyone got a script I can direct' variety!
Richard Dunkley

Sean Conway says...

If everyone was paid on a low budget short, I wouldn't be able to make any or be seriously in debt, as I and friends self finance them.
It's up to the individual, if they won't to bolster there CV or like the script.

Robert Messer says...

I think sometimes new film makers may need to use unpaid workers as they have no budget. What I think is wrong is feature films & commercials sometimes advertising on shooting people (or other similar sites). If you're making a short film for a festival fair enough but a feature film should have a budget. If you can pay the crew then the actors also should be paid. I've done some unpaid roles for students but then they've not continued in the film industry so its been little help.

Phil Meachem says...

I am a filmmaker and make film aswell as collaberate with filmmakers as camera man, dop etc. I believe i should be allowed to choose which films i would like to work on. If it is unpaid i dont care it is the experience i need to build my cv up to so i can apply for the paid jobs afterwards. without the unpaid expenses only job i have worked on so far i would be half the filmmaker i would be today so leave it as it is!!!

William Mager says...

Many UK Film Council shorts would never get made if everyone had to be paid minimum wage. That's the rub.

says...

Whilst minimum wage does protect against some forms of exploitation, it makes us less free, free to make choices which might be to our advantage. It would undoubtedly make it even harder for low budget films to be made, and about the only source of funding for low-budgets would be through government grants giving the government an even bigger role. And also increase the strength of Big Business. Government or Big Business as the only means of making films doesn't equal a very thrilling prospect. But that is the likely consequence of preventing people from choosing to work for no money if that is what they consider it to be in their interests to do.

But it's an interesting dilemma and seems to boil down to whether people need to be protected from their own desperation. I still lean towards liberty but being in somewhat desperate straits myself right now I appreciate the protective arms of the state.

Jonny Horne says...

I gained lots of experience that eventually got me fulltime and full paid work in the television industry. At the same time I've produced low budget shorts and the only way to make them is have people work for free. One short I produced we had a larger budget so we offered every crew member £50pd to cover any expenses. I think the system relies on honesty on both sides.

Veronique Doumbe says...

unpaid gig should be listed separately as internship.

Fiona Howe says...

I have followed this debate with interest. Personally I feel if the terms and conditions are clear from the outset, and that there are two mutually consenting signatory parties to a no/low-pay agreement then there should be no objection in law. I'm concerned that this kind of union pressure/intervention will work against independent filmmakers seeking to produce no-budget films as a way to building a profile for themselves, and I would be very concerned if the bottom line became the minimum wage for staff including juniors. For lottery funded and otherwise subsidised projects, this is a different matter, but independent film needs the freedom to maintain the rules that allow it to create product. This is greatly to the benefit of the industry when these careers develop and it would be immensely shortsighted to close the no-pay option down in law. Incidentally, I (any many others like me I'm sure) have worked at the BBC as a volunteer as far back as the 80s, in order to get a foot on the production rung. It's nothing new, even in our national broadcast networks.
Thanks for all you're doing, Fiona Howe

says...

I think Shooting People should create a code of conduct for producer's/film makers posting for actor's jobs.
I think it's ok to advertise unpaid jobs but it should only be allowed if everyone working on the job is unpaid. Shooting People should make it 'illegal' to post jobs where some people are being paid and others (the actor's) are not. I also think you should encourage job postings to be concise and to the point. it's often when people drivvle on and how their film is going to change your life/career that it starts to get offensive and patronising. Shooting People should also encourage/demand that copies of the film are given to actors as soon as possible. This is usually the main reason actor's have chosen to do an unpaid/low budget film, to get some footage for a reel.

and in response to Julian's comment "actor's are lucky top have their expenses paid". Comments like that are really unhelpful. Why should any actor be out of pocket in order to work? Of course I knew what I was letting myself in for when I decided to go into this career but that's exactly what it is, a career, it's not a hobby.

Thank you Shooting People for taking this matter seriously.

Laura Stevely

Rowland Jobson says...

It's a big problem. Almost every week without fail I get asked to make a free film or for expenses only. I am very bored of it indeed and it seems to be a growing trend.

I think we are in a very dangerous position at the moment especially in this recession where many filmmakers and crew are finding it very hard. The problem is so many people are offering real services to companies and people who should find the money to pay for zero or for a crazy deals just to get the work or name/job on their CV.

I found myself only a month or so ago pitching for a job for a charity who used to pay us regularly for work only to lose the job against someone who said they would do it for free. This charity used to pay us the going rate and we did do the odd film at low rates for them when we could.

I was asked to make a commercial for £1000 yesterday and in a private members club there is a "The fantastic opportunity" to make a pop video for £1000 for a well known band. £1000! These are great opportunities for those starting out in the industry and they should be there, but I'd rather see the opportunities in the form cash offered to support those stating out. I think this has all gone way too far. I have over 15 years in the industry and I just think that the for free, expenses culture is now like a virus that is now becoming out of control, and something must be done. A really talented friend of mine is making pop video for big bands but the fees are so low she has had to live in a tent. These are big names and labels now what is going on I ask myself as I hear these stories and get asked to do free work more and more and the fees get lower and lower? We have to stand up and do something or end up with an industry of people who make crap for free.

However I do believe in the odd job/project it is worthwhile and valuable to work for expenses so we can develop our work or reel and to be frank most of the work I have undertaken like this has been very enjoyable creatively. It always has taken me and other crew members on to the next stage of careers in some way, I've learn more and met great people who I wan to work with again. The films did well some people work with amazing talent and award were won and I'll take those great people with me and pay them back on nice jobs in the future as I think it is important to do.

But the culture of free has become very dangerous indeed and should be monitored and not abused as it increasingly is. This culture puts pressure on producers and production companies in the commercial sector to lower costs all the time and then making a living becomes very tough for all so there has to be a point where people have to stand together and say no. I even had one nameless advertising agency this year asking if I could shoot for expenses only that I had never shot for before!

Also when recently why I would not make a commercial for free/expenses for a small brand I was told well "so and so" company will and it is normal we got the last one for free and this was a company making money marketing its product through a film. They now expect free marketing! I was stunned at their tone.

That said I think it is bonkers to have to pay someone the minimum wage on your Film London, Boroughs Fund or Film Council Digital short if the budgets stay the same. The budget we had would not have covered the true hours the core team put in let alone the whole crew if they were on minimum wage. This is really paying lip service to the rules and not really applying the rules as they should and making it harder for the producer and team to make the film. The hours we put in with the crew would have wiped the budget out very quickly before any kit had been hired. We never got a penny from those budgets oursleves and everything went on the screen and I would loved to have been paid the minimum wage for all the hours I did but it's just a bit pointless on a £12K short. You just need to see what you are competing against in major festivals like Berlin and Venice and the budgets on those short films that win how much time and money goes in that is not accounted for even with some costing over £40or £50K.

However I do feel on a low budget features or for a commercial project of any type you should be paying people the minimum wage. The film is intend to make money or make money for someone.

I too have had PAT on the phone and numerous emails and I had to get my lawyers on it and threaten to issue cease and decist order and to suggest if they called again I would call the police report what I considered was continual harrasment. We were making a film for a charity for expenses as a charitable act! Now people like PAT drive me nuts. Doing something for charity and donating your time for a charitable cause I think is good thing. However Bectu and other unions / organisations should take up the mantle on issues like this not vigilante activists. But PAT doing this alone really shows I think the state we are in and the discrepancy and creep from free or expenses work on tiny shorts moving to budgeted paid films.

Expenses only / free work on something really special that is going to grow me and my career is something I'll consider but there has to be a stop to this other free work as it I believe it is ruining the industry

I do think Shooting People and it's member should make a stand and NOT work for free on for profit projects. WE SHOULD STAND TOGETHER IN THIS AS IT IS IN MY OPINION VITAL TO THE SURVIVAL OF OUR INDUSTRY. FREE WORK for OTHERS PROFIT IS A REAL NO!

Julian Boote says...

I think choice should be allowed. After all any of us might wish to do something just for the fun of it, and if we get paid one day, great.

When people start out, it is hard to get any paid work, and the unpaid arena at least allows one the chance to grow and learn... if anything from one's and others' mistakes!

I wish these questions could be re-phrased, as I think there are two aspects to consider; no pay for one's work, and no reimbursement even for expenses one incurs doing the project. If anything, that is where the minimum protection ought to be put in place by SP. NO project should be allowed to be posted which does not at least guarantee repayment of cast/crew expenses. No-one should be out of pocket as a result of working on a project - having to pay their own travel and food costs. That is abuse, plain and simple.

At the same time, I wonder what the government - and filmmakers' - position is with regards cast and crew treating the film project like a cash investment? If an investor can put in cash, why can't cast and crew choose to put in their time, as long as it is properly reflected in cash investment terms, based on appropriate (minimum) union pay scales, and with a percentage on-top reflecting this commitment to the project? The (unpaid) wages aspect of the film's budget counts as the purchase of shares in the project, to be reimbursed as part of the revenue disbursement schedule, drafted by the producer and agreed by all parties. I believe this "investment" should be different from "deferred fees" as we know them, but a clearly defined share ownership of the project. I think this would clarify the filmmakers' thinking in regards their financial responsibilites to their cast and crew. Having said this, such an arrangement would be difficult to apply to short films, which, by their nature, have limited commercial value.

Any such investment/agreement must exclude expenses. These should be repaid regardless, as they are an immediate out-of-pocket expenditure and shouldn't be treated as speculative, unlike an investment (of value-defined time as outlined above) in the film project itself... the recoupment of which isn't guaranteed.

Does SP need to consider its own legal position on posting such "no-pay" roles?

Sidney Kean says...

It has been a debate for as long as I can remember. There has always been some form of exploitation withing the industry, now it seems to be growing again. The arguement is do I pay or not. If you are paying your crew, the most certainly YES you should pay the actors. If you intend to make a profit from your film then yes you should pay the crew and actors. If you have a feature where no one gets any money until dependent on future revenue then, and we all understand deffered payment should be put in place. For students at film schools, which actor would not want to help future talent as long as the actor is treated with some form of respect. Not left waiting in corridors, not met at the appropriate time, not told whether or not they have the job, not thanked for attending. These things do go on! They have to stop!! If you applied the minimum wage to all productions you would in the end be possbly shooting yourself in the foot but, it might just stop the idiots who think they can do what they like, doing whatever they like.

Julian Lamoral-Roberts says...

My view on this coincides more or less with that of Ben Blaine and Barry Latchford. While we'd all like to be paid for everything we do, that is not how the world of independent films is right now. Most of the acting work I do is unpaid, though often presented as profit share. But if I didn't do it, I'd be missing out on excellent projects. I did a cameo in a no-budget feature last week. The writer-director told me that he could have scratched around for money for two or three years and maybe got it - but he wanted to make the film NOW. It's a terrific script and, if he manages to sell it, we'll very likely all make a bit of money and probably work together again. If he doesn't manage to sell it, well, that's tough but it was a great experience anyway. And we shouldn't forget that a Vincent van Gogh show is opening at the Royal Academy (or is it the National Gallery?). He never sold a picture except to his brother Theo. Should he have thrown in the towel? And what about the poets? None of them make money. Money isn't everything. The big name stand-up comedians make money at the Edinburgh Fringe but almost nobody else does. Actors are lucky to have their expenses paid. Should the Edinburgh Fringe be abolished?

Keep up the good work!

Julian

Jimina Sabadu says...

I think it's OK as long as it's clearly indicated, and as long as is something that really can't be paid. What is unadmissible is asking for non-payed staff in medium bugdet stuff just to save money. I

tom walters says...

I think work on Shooting People productions tend to fall into 3 categories, all of which have slightly different criteria:
- Corporate or profit-making productions with funding: all crew should be paid acceptable rates.
- Low-budget productions that aim to be profit-making: Producers should be allowed to offer unpaid work, but there must be a profit-participation scheme in place should the film be successful. Crew are then investors in the film and will share in any success the film has.
- Low-budget, self-funded productions (usually shorts): these are often labours-of-love paid for out of the pocket of the producer/director, usually without a production company, and with little hope of ever making money. These should be allowed to offer unpaid work on the basis that it is a collaboration and learning experience for all involved. The Producer should be obliged to look after cast and crew - food, travel and copy of film at minimum. Most people who apply for these jobs are just starting out, and the experience is very useful. If the producer had to pay everyone, many of these would not get made.

The most important thing is consistency. Either everyone is getting paid or no-one is. I don't think it is right to exploit runners by not paying them if other crew are getting paid. On a collaboration, I would be more inclined to pay the runner than any other crew member as they have no creative input and so often get the least out of it.

sonal sachdeva says...

I think its become fashionable to say I made a film with 'low/no pay' crew. I think more funding needs to be generated so film crews can get at least a minimum wage rather than nothing.If crews are'nt available for working for no pay then automatically the producers will feel compelled to get some amount of funds available. And hopefully the whole funding structure will gear towards it.

Max Devere says...

why should someone on a project make money and others get zero? its exploitative when a producer hires crew for nothing, and especially so where HOD is concerned. All projects should be subject to either a) watertight profit share or b) min wage, ideally both. The current lack of system is being totally abused rotten. By putting rules in place which suit new entrants legal rights we can build an industry to be proud of.

Dee Mocilnikar says...

Too many people take advantage of people willing to work for nothing. I think it's gotten out of control. It's no way this situation of undermining professionalisam can create good and strong UK film industry.

David Cambridge says...

I've seen requests for animators offering say, £150 for ten minutes to be done within a week. You could add 000's to that figure and expect the delivery date to be the following year! It's starting to undermine the whole point of a bulletin board, since most of the messages just aren't sensible requests. However, it's up to each individual whether to reply to a request for services when little or no pay is offered. Production companies that can genuinely offer valuable work experience could have an internship section on the bulletin page. Also, individuals can offer to work for free, for experience – but it's better coming from the individual than being an assumption on the part of the producer.
Why are there so many requests from students and film schools – shouldn't they be doing their own work?

Robert Sproul-Cran says...

I would always attempt to get a full budget and pay appropriate rates. But I've also worked on a production where young people with mental health problems were given the chance to be mentored in making their own film, unpaid, assisted by some more experienced paid helpers. Are we saying that the young people should be barred from this? You cannot ban access to the process of artistic expression and demand that every short and feature must be a corporate business enterprise.

The lines between professional and hobbyist have been blurred as never before, with amateurs and aspiring pros being able to access cheap high quality kit. Those wanting to gain experience will always work without pay to gain experience in order to command fees in future. So if there was a strict policy of BECTU rates only, in effect this would be saying that projects to gain training experience and aspiring professional productions would be illegal, which is nonsensical. It would be equivalent to saying that short films could only be made if they had a budget of tens of thousands, which would make illegal the vast majority of productions. If the law is unclear or unenforceable then it will be ignored and fall into disrepute. So let's accept that there is a spectrum between fully amateur and fully professional productions, and wish good luck to those experienced and capable enough to command fees for their work.

Maria Parra says...

Why the creative industry uses "passion for creative work" as an excuse for exploitation?
This must stop. I have been a freelance for a few years, and it’s almost impossible to live just from "creative" work. (So I do other jobs too and sometimes have to do a "normal" full-time job too. This is just killing my creativity and I am loosing faith in the industry)

Simon Buckingham says...

There should be no restrictions on wages or minimum wage. This is part of the drastic avalanche of bureaucracy we are suffering from due to government and European legislation. Some legislation - especially from Europe - is good, but in this case is not relevant. The key issue is that the terms of the job position should be clearly advertised. So if there is no pay or low pay or expenses only it should be stated clearly. The biggest problems and disputes in this area come over a confusion of contract, pay or not being payed the expected amount. If the employee fully understands there is no pay then there is no expectation of pay. Employers run the usual risks of people dropping out and non-comittment which is the burden they pay for employing someone in this way. If people did not work for no pay/low pay in the film industry it would kill it dead and we would be left with Hollywood blockbusters only and who wants that!

Paul Williams says...

I have used Shooting People to gather cast and crew for shorts that I have filmed. I wish that every project I produced had a budget, and that I could pay everyone for the amazing and hard work that they have invested in the film. But if I wasn't able to collaborate with shooters for expenses only or a reduced fee then the films would simply never have been made.

As long as the terms are made clear in the ad and when you talk to the shooter about the job then I don't have a problem with working for free. The filmmaker and shooter can always draw up a 'letter of agreement' about the reduced fee before production starts if shooters are worried about not being paid at all at the end of a job.

Film making is a collaborative art and shooting people has made this a lot easier. I think if the rules are clear and all shooters abide by those rules then it shouldn't be a problem. Paid and unpaid work is clearly marked in the bulletins and if people want to work for free on a project they feel is worthwhile that is their choice.

Jonathan Howells says...

I've agreed to offer my services free-of-charge a few times over the past 3 years (via Shooting People), and several of the relationships that I've formed as a result of those choices, have come back with proper, paying jobs, or have paid off in other ways.
Therefore, I don't regret not having been paid for those early projects, and will likely continue to offer myself to projects that I find interesting, or may add to my reel, or I think the relationship my be fruitful later on.
I would, however, suggest that there be more formal commitments made between those asking for, and those offering unpaid services, in the form of contracts describing deferred payment if, for example, projects are picked up or gain full financing.
Perhaps Shooting People could offer some basic contract templates for its members, such that our choices to work in an unpaid capacity are at least formalized and both parties are clear about what they are getting/offering and the value of said work.

Martin Thornton says...

It's up to the individual to decide whether to volunteer their time for free or not. The government have no place in deciding this for us. I think it's despicable that profit-making commercial productions with a healthy budget are getting workers for free and I think SP should refuse to post no-wage ads when this is the case, but most of the ads that appear on SP are lo-no budget productions being made for the love of it, and with a collaborative spirit that is intended to benefit all parties, and if we insist on a minimum wage for all the film making community will soon only consist of those who can afford it, which basically makes it a rich kid's hobby.

Andrew Rainnie says...

While I agree that everyone should be rewarded for their efforts on a film, over the last two years I've shot a 20 minute short video, a 25 minute comedy sketch pilot, and a few music videos, all of which had little or no money save what was in my own bank account. If actors were not willing to work for little or nothing, or if we were not able to get equipment at highly discounted rates, we would never be able to make them. While I understand the argument that everyone should be paid, if I'm making something out of my own pocket, is it a business venture or artistic creation? I stand to make no return on these.

John Faria says...

I know a lot of film-makers (myself included) who could never have made their first zero-budget short films without unpaid crews. In every case the crews had a great time making the films - they often look at working on a film as a great way of getting experience on their CV as well as a fun way of spending a weekend. If we had to pay every crew on a zero-budget short film we would never get the films made, the crews would never get the experience they want, and new film-making voices would never get heard. Let people decide for themselves if they want to work for free.

Pat Garrett says...

I think that if anyone is being paid then everyone on a shoot should be paid. I would only work unpaid on a project that I thought was potentially brilliant. If the script is great I will work for no money provided that no-one is being paid. Unfortunately great scripts are very, very rare! BUT I think having a choice is important and if people aren't being paid they should be treated very, very well.

Clive Gehle says...

There are far too many companies now who will exploit people desperate to break into working in the media, and advertising unpaid work on SP plays along with it. "the labourer is worthy of his hire!"

Isabel Tang says...

We should be free to collaborate as we choose.

Danny Braunstein says...

Too many people take advantage of people willing to work for nothing. I'm not against working for no money on worthwhile projects or for people starting out in the industry - But I think it's gotten out of control. And their needs to be some limits set.

says...

Thanks to our wonderful government for thirteen most unfortunate years of total mismanagement, overlegislation and bullying tactics. who do they represent exactly?

Adam Oldfield says...

Individuals can easily make up their mind when it comes to being paid or not for work. And with the extreme number of people now working and coming into the industry not everything will be paid, its as simple as that. It comes down to how devoted and passionate some is, if they choose to work for no pay. I would certainly continue to work on projects for nothing.

Martin Wallace says...

Freedom

Eric Young says...

Question 4 is too black and white - if directors, producers and heads of departments are being paid, so should the runners. If no one is being paid, everyone should still be offered expenses. The lead positions being likely in higher paid jobs on funded projects can choose to waive their expenses to help the lower paid staff on micro/no budget productions. I would include self-funded projects in micro/no budget productions, unless the budget is over say £10K-£15K.

Martina Silcock says...

I think it is pretty easy for people to be taken advantage of in TV and film production but unpaid work is a necessary tool in gaining experience and knowledge in the industry. There are many free jobs I have undertaken (via Shooting People, Mandy etc) which have gone on to help me in later roles, through contacts and experience, and I wouldn't want to be deprived of finding out about these opportunities. With a little guidance, you can usually figure out which roles are worth taking for free or low-pay and which aren't.

Jon Moore says...

I am a self employed creative professional and I have worked in the industry for over 10 years. I have worked for free both in the past and as recently as last year. These are my choices based on the quality of the scripts etc. but if I find that a company is paying some people but not other departments then I could not consider working for them.

What has to be realised today is that companies are exploiting the fact that people will work for free, by posting unpaid/expensed only positions when they actually have funds available, but are doing it 'on the cheap'. Under no circumstances should one employee/group be deemed worthy of payment and another not. If one person is allocated funds, then so should all. End of. It is that black and white.

Kathy Stannard says...

I think working on a short film with a friend is great. But all too often short films expect complete strangers to work on their films, in bad working conditions, with no insurance and little thanks. I don't think you gain much from this "experience" and it rarely leads to paid work. You hardly ever get a copy of the work back, the films hardly ever get finished or shown anywhere, so really a runner is not gaining much from the experience.

says...

I would prefer to see paid work advertised as opposed to unpaid work... The latter should have compensatory or decent expenses. Far too many exploiters undermine SP attempting to make films with no budget. Or have a budget but don't want to pay the so-called "minor" members of crew.

SP have been really slow to shake these exploiters out. I've even seen sponsored organizations requesting the making of films without offering a single iota of funding or assistance. The recent "Cutty Sark" project was one particularly blatant example.

The above, much to my annoyance, irks me greatly, and I'm seriously considering ending my membership because of it.

Everyone deserves paying, even when they are learning. If a production can't pay it's crew "nominally," then its not a production, and younger people should be protected from such operators and practices. Such projects never do any good for any crew stupid enough to get involved, especially at the unpaid level...

SP does it's reputation no favours when it lets several of these so-called voluntary/Intern/unpaid jobs be advertised.... You need to get your act together, and stop being passive or censoral when shooters like myself either complain or raise particular issues. It isn't difficult... You seem scared of upsetting these people who are undermining both the industry and your site.

BTW, Question 2 is great example of a loaded poll. I would work for a friend for no pay if asked, but not a stranger...

James Coe says...

I think the main problem with a lot of the films that get made via shootingpeople is that they are no-budget short films. There are so many getting made, not by producers, but by the filmmakers themselves. Solitary filmmakers/writers/directors on the whole, once conceiving and organising a project, do not have the resources, let alone any remaining effort, to fund the projects properly. Producers do not want to work on most short films, there are too many being made / there are not enough producers to secure financing for these short projects.

What i'd like to see is more classification in the shootingpeople mail-outs, so it's easier to pick projects to work on. Instead of one 'filmmaking' mail out there should be different types - 'no-budget mailout (£0-£1,000), 'low-budget mailout' (£1,000-£10,000), and 'fully financed mailout', or something. I basically think the SP mailouts should be better - why are they so resistant to text like the '£' symbol and whatnot? At least they should be colour coded for ease of browsing. The SP mailouts are so archaic it's ridiculous.

Anyway, the main problem is a lack of producers, and that isn't going to change unless either SP needs to attract more producers to their site instead of more amateurs with camcorders, or clearer division/categorisation in the mailouts representing which 'level' the projects are at - even related to what stage people are in their careers. "Under 21s, 21-30's, fledgling production companies, established production companies, hobbyists, etc." The mailouts should represent, through their structure, the development of filmmaker's careers. Good point!

Jaya Gibson says...

Question 4 is too black and white - it really depends on the situation.

Alexander Leiffheidt says...

Find it hard to understand what the all the fuzz is about. Isn't there an easy solution to all this? Independent film with no budget - no minim wage policy. Commercial film - minimum wage policy applies. Anything inbetween: people vote with their feet. You pay nothing, you get inexperienced people.

peter strickland says...

Unpaid work is OK for a self financed project, or when the production team is also unpaid.

It's not OK for juniors to be unpaid if senior staff will get paid or a share of profits.

Craig Birt says...

When I first started out in the film and TV industry, all I could get was unpaid work, and without it I don't think I could have moved up at all.

Laura Jane Sessions (NASMAH) says...

I started working in this industry by working on no-paid jobs (never without expenses!) and in doing so built up a good CV, however, I do think that too many "employers" take advantage of this and exploit others.

Too many people use the "no-pay" badge to get away with simply not paying people even when they have funding or budgets. Student films are an exception to this rule as the students do have to fund their own films as well as trying to survive on limited incomes.

Unless the project is clearly a student production I believe that minimum wage should be paid.

Joe Steel says...

I think that a distinction should be made between 'work' and 'recreation'. I will happily work on a short film for a group of individuals for free if I like the people in the crew as ultimately I see this as a recreational activity, I enjoy filmmaking. If however I am approached by a LTD Production Company with an expensive Soho office that are making a music video for an international recording company then I will not work for free, this I see as 'work'.

Tanya Kuruvilla says...

I do agree that you should have the option of choosing something unpaid under 2 circumstances only.
1- That you are starting off in the industry and need experience so that you have something more to give once you are paid.
2- That you want to work on a low budget film for free simply because its an honest project that you feel you would gain something from for working on whether it be satisfaction or contacts.

Jeremy Biggs says...

Whilst i can understand the sentiment that film making staff need to be paid whilst working on a project that turns a profit - simple profit sharing agreements can be made where future profits are made if nesc, but minimum wage legislation will stifle cinema and make it harder to churn out cutting edge / arthouse / experimental cinema.

Stupid legislation, ill thought out and probably unenforcable.

Eleanor White says...

This is such a hard dilemma, and I understand that the purpose of Shooting People is to put film-makers and actors in contact which is a great thing. We all have to start somewhere and this is a great site to make that start.

On the one hand how do inexperienced actors, directors, crew etc learn their craft without a lot of practice, and the way they will get that practice is through student and low/no budget independent films. Let's face it, actual experience is invaluable and more useful in a lot of ways than training even; you will learn far more on the job than you ever did at drama school, and look at the old Repertory theatres where you learned your craft on the job. I know that many of these projects will just vanish if minimum wage is applied.

However, you could go on for years and years working unpaid jobs and there is no guarantee that any of these jobs will necessarily lead to other work. When do you draw the line? As a working, professional, trained actor I cannot support unpaid positions. Acting is my chosen profession, that means I have chosen acting as the profession by which I make my living. I didn't go into it for the money, I went into it for the love of it, but I do not expect to be taken advantage of. Every time I decide to take a job I have to take into account how many days earnings I will lose from my temp job and how much further in debt that unpaid week will put me.

I believe that if there is a budget for crew and equipment then the actors should absolutely be paid too and this cost should be figured into that budget. We are not there to be used - we are there to work and make the vision of the director come to life. Where would the film be without the actors? However, if there is no budget at all and equipment is begged borrowed or stolen and none of the crew are being paid then it would seem unfair that the actors are the only ones getting money. In that case it should be down to the actor to make an informed decision about whether to take the job or not.

I would say that in every case where there is no budget, a professionally drawn up contract detailing deferred payment plans should be given to every actor and promises of DVD footage should be delivered promptly. That is just basic respect and compensation for time given with goodwill.

As an actor I want to be treated fairly and respectfully, and although I am happy to get experience by working on unpaid projects to a point, as soon as the money is there I would like a share to be able to pay my rent and massive overdraft please.

Louis Grant says...

I feel that as it stands it is not very clear who the new legislation affects, how much, and in exactly what way. My comment here is based on the situation as I understand it... please correct me if I have this utterly wrong! As a student (and reading many of the replies here) I know that many (those who are new to the industry in particular) often find it difficult to find paid work (often due to lack of experience as employers are unlikely to offer pay for any position without a strong CV and guaruntee of return), but in turn it is almost impossible to gain experience due to lack of experience in the first place - a catch-22 situation - even if one offers one's services on a voluntary, unpaid or informal basis. Although I can understand and agree with the need to protect individuals working in the industry from explotation, I feel that clarification of the legislation and its ramifications is urgently needed - for the good of everyone involved. I feel we should certainly be able to choose to work for free if we wish, especially if this makes makes it easier to find work! Making it illegal to work for free does not mean prospective employers are more likely to pay minimum wage to those with little or no weighty experience.

Angelina Baker-Smith says...

My mindset is that experience is key. We are all free to make choices and if a runner chooses to take on board an unpaid job to gain experience that is his / her choice. A CV full of experience is better than no experience at all. Most independent film productions have such restricted budgets that everyone is in the same boat but the value of being on a film set or on a production is priceless.

Andrew Robertson says...

I feel that it's important that people can choose to collaborate on creative projects, even if this might be considered unpaid work. I've acted in both high profile jobs where I was paid well and in others (one recently by the same director - see e.g. www.breathewith.me) where everybody pitched in to make the project happen and the producer funded it selling half his art collection. Many projects will find it difficult to make the budget back, back but they are valuable in other ways - both for what they are and for the experience. The only thing to watch out for is exploitation whereby people are profiting from the unpaid work of others. I like to think that as a community, we would not be complicit in this.

Andrew

Alan Deacon says...

Working on non paying jobs through Shooting People has allowed me to gain experience, build a CV/showreel and, more importantly, meet people, who, as they progress in their film/TV careers have started to reward me for my previous services with paying gigs that I wouldn't have got any other way. I now am fortunate to be kept busy enough that I will only consider a non paying job if I find it particularly interesting/stimulating; and if I have time.

That is still my free choice; I don't think that anyone should be denied that choice, and with it the kind of opportunities that have helped me.

Guy Henderson says...

... if some on set were paid while others weren't, that would bother me...

Liz Jadav says...

If I am free to stage a (no-pay-unless-we're-very-lucky) fringe production with fellow actors in order to boost my profile, add to my CV, and fill a gap in work, why shouldn't a film-maker be allowed to get a film together on a similar basis? Only like-minded professionals need apply. However, I'd want to know that everyone on the team was on the same financial footing; that we were all taking the same risk. That is collaboration.

David O'Sullivan says...

People need to break in and this is the value of low budget filmmaking for everyone. Everyone has the choice to make that decision about whether an unpaid or lowly paid job will help get them to where they want to go. It is not ideal but so long as people make informed choices the freedom to set pay rates should remain with producers.

Sherill Turner says...

As an actor, some of the best work I've done has been from unpaid projects advertised on Shooting People. My training was in theatre and I've very much learnt on the job from SP projects. I've got two reels that I'm really proud of and continue to get feedback from those in the industry who can't afford to pay me, and also, those who can. I think it's up to the individual to choose whether to accept unpaid work if they think it's going to challenge them creatively. If my gut says something or someone seems dodgy, then I just try to avoid those projects.

Douglas Grannell says...

As so many film industry professionals get their first pro experience from working on independent low/no budget projects during which many a productive and long-lasting working relationship has been formed, to legislate a minimum wage requirement would effectively prevent these films from being made at all. It is up the unions to make sure people are not exploited beyond reason, but ultimately the individual has a right to choose whether or not to work for free.

Richard Unger says...

Three years ago I decided to have a carrier change and work in film, I was told by experienced people in the business that I would need to get on-set experience, I'm now 52 and have 30 years experience as a journalist/stills photographer. I was told then about Shootingpeople, in the last three years I have worked on 34 productions some paid some not, I don't regret that decision and would recommend it to anyone entering this industry. I have now gained many new contacts and several directors have told me I have more actual experience than most and that I would never have got this experience had I attended a training establishment, there is no price on getting your hands dirty, It should be left to the individual to work for nothing or not and not be guided by those who have no business in other personal lives or decisions, I for one do not believe in supporting unions and never will. We in the UK have the best support network for the worlds film industry, ask yourself why. If I want to work on a film for nothing, low pay or any other remuneration that is my business and no one else’s. However I also believe that there are positions like runners or trainees that should be volunteers, to be paid you must contribute to your income like any business, trainees do not contribute financially, so should be categorised as such, in some industries the trainee pays for the privilege of being trained, I worked on the Volvo around the world Race in 2004 and some of the young sailors, paid thousands of pounds to sail in these yachts, and be trained by the best sailors in the world, The film industry could think about this and help the films budget.

Matias Basso says...

As far as I have experienced, 'paid' and 'unpaid' are two different worlds and both are necessary for the development of the industry and its professionals. The paid jobs are prestiged by the amount of unpaid jobs out there, but it doesn't mean there would be more paid jobs if unpaid ones couldn't be advertised. The big majority of jobs should of course be paid and a minimum wage should be respected. But as we know, there are films which would never see the light of day if producers had to pay everyone to make it. I believe people (producers and workers) should have the freedom to chose.

Ben Neale says...

It is important to be able to collaborate with or without a budget. SP enables this.
Any shooter can always say no if they're not interested.

Gigi Berardi says...

We live in a democratic country and we need to encourage creativity. If we would only be allowed to work on short films that pays there won't be many to be made.

Adam Greenwood says...

Micro budget filmmaking is usually a collaborative effort and provides opportunities for inexperienced yet enthusiastic people to work together and learn more about the craft.

I'm sure there are those who COULD afford to pay their cast and crew who don't - and that is a shame - but those cast and crew are never coerced into those jobs, they take them because they feel they will benefit regardless.

If filmmakers are not allowed to advertise unpaid/collaborative work, then a lot of films won't get made because the production lacks the extra funds to pay their cast and crew.

If the only jobs advertised are paying ones, then only the applicants with previous experience will ever get hired.

If you take away this facility for poor or inexperienced filmmakers, you take away their gateway into filmmaking.

It would be a terrible shame for filmmaking and for Shooting People if the right for people to choose to work together for free was taken away from us.

Bayu Prasetyo says...

Angus Watts says...

It is completely up to the individual, no matter what position, to decide to work for free or not. It is an essential part of a creative industry, and is a form of training, building skills and relationships. Everyone retains the right to leave projects if they feel they are being exploitated. Unfortunately there are too many people in the industry trying to make too much material with less and less money to make it.

Tom Hasler says...

The minimum wage is an externally imposed bottom line of "don't take the piss" - which is what this comes down to. Minimum wage is a very blunt instrument, intended for profit-making enterprises who would otherwise treat their staff badly. The film business is a bit odd at this end of the scale, however, and the same arguments against the minimum wage for small and very small businesses apply here too.

It's unclear to me whether it is Shooting People's job to judge when minimum wage should apply. Not without a reliable solution to the facts of a production's circumstances. If everyone is working for expenses, paid out of pocket by one or more of the key figures, then is there scope for an third party to manage the film's finances such as to ensure everyone gets paid as they should? Superficially, yes, but practicality is a more fraught question, and therefore should be address among Shooters...!

Iain Ward says...

As an Actor I would say that unpaid collaborative work will always have a place within our industry. It allows new Film Makers and Actors to gain experience and without it many hundreds of small/no budget films would never get made. It is after all our own choice whether we are willing to give our time to such films for free.

However, what really annoys me is to find myself working on a supposedly no budget film for free only to find out that the Crew IS being paid!!! This is exploitation. If any one person is being paid then EVERYONE must also be paid. Likewise if any one person has been hired on an expenses only deal, then EVERYONE must also work for expenses only. TREAT ALL FAIRLEY AND EVENLEY.

I have to say though that the route of this problem starts at the Film Schools. I have spoken with many student film makers who openly admit that their schools have told them that they can get Actors for free by offering expenses only and a DVD, but should expect to have to pay their crew!!!

Film Schools need to teach their students fair even treatment of everyone so that new Film Makers know where they stand and stricter penalties need to be laid against those that flout this by paying some people and not others.

Also job advertising sites like Shooting People etc that charge a subscription need to be more on the ball when accepting adds for their bulletins. If someone is posting for paid crew but for unpaid Actors, or vice versa, then these posts should be pulled, the person in question contacted and reported to the appropriate union, i.e. Equity etc, on grounds of unfair practice.

Michael Davies says...

The choices are too black and white. Of course people should be entitled to work voluntarily (i.e. for no pay) if they want to, but this should not be a licence for filmmakers to exploit naivety. Just don't ask me what the solution is...

Daniel Dresner says...

Your site used to have a good share of paid work but no longer has. The ridiculous debates and slagging off of those behind the camera does not help. But essentially you have let too much crap slip in.

Sandy Knight says...

I do believe there is a problem with pinpointing the guidelines and I think there should be something definate in place so that people are not abused in the way they currently are.
One simple ruling such as Students can offer unpaid jobs while they learn, but once out of the learning structure (school/college/uni)there should be some sort of minimum wage offer for everyone working on a project.

Well done on taking a step forward to help this debate...lets hope that the outcome will benefit everyone, and that other sites follow suit, to help stop some people abusing those desperate to get a foot into the door of this industry.

Rolland DeGard says...

I am a musician besides a photographer,and the same situation exists in the music industry.Example/ The bands who open up a show for a big name act,usually are not paid,they are getting exposure and something to fill out there resume.If you have a chance to be on stage with a big name you take it with the hope it will lead to other work.Musicians call it paying your dues!

Marcus Relton says...

If someone is working for no pay it should be part of a Bectu-sanctioned cooperative agreement so they have a stake in the success of the film that is made. This is particularly so if they are not getting a key credit like the director, producer or DoP. Having a Bectu, workshop-agreement style sanction for unpaid working would free those who want to collaborate to do so and those who genuinely can't afford to make something they are willing to give time to a chance to do so. If agreement was needed and criteria had to be checked this would keep the professional exploiters of low or unpaid labour excluded but allow genuinely cooperative projects through, while ensuring subsequent success would be shared by all those responsible for making it happen. This would provide protection for those who need it and freedom for those who want it.

Emma O'Shea says...

As an actor, i have worked on a few expenses only films,as i have found it a good way to build my skills, network and buils my C.V,if i take unpaid work near to me i get my expenses and keep learning and it looks much better on my C.V. which shows i am good enough to apppear in films and helps film-makers cast me as well as they can see i have experience and commitment.a director saw me in a friends short film and sought me out to audition for him, pay is great and i want it , but unpaid work lets me do what i love and improve

Adam Dahrouge says...

Small Chinese children making shoes for Nike get paid more than some actors. A skill is a skill. If the benevolence of film makers to release some funds for actors and staff no longer exists, then as an industry we should protect our trade. We have lost integrity under the guise of low-budget and guerilla and if we don't take action, before soon we will lose our talent to exploitation and neglect.

(With regards to people having the choice to choose no pay, i think this should be done at the efforts of production - through networking. Not on a site we all pay for!)

Helen Heaslip says...

I think that you should have the choice to accept or not the job offered. Ideally you'd be paid, but it is much better that films keep getting made. Having a low budget is often a creative gift.

Martin Nicholls says...

The cult of the Amateur has created a culture of quantity, not quality. Start investing in your people and you might raise yourself above the dross. Why should professional people be expected to fund your project? Find the money for ALL parts of your production. I have.
Some argue that it is our own choice to take these jobs. Some people DO NOT have the luxury of choice. Some people have bills to pay. This industry will dissolve into a middle class hobby if it carries on. Where are those lofty ideals of "anyone should be able to make a film" when no-one but the wealthy will be able to work for you?

Ron Aberdeen says...

The problem is resolved if the advertiser uses the words “Unpaid Volunteers Required”.

diane moules says...

Surely the choice is with the individual?

One may use one skills and join a non paying project for the pleasure of working with new people, increasing one's experience, and see a film developed, and keeps one's skills honed, or simply walk away.

But as my AC who worked like a dream with my slick D of P told me on the Sunday, when we wrapped the four day shoot, for my film 'FOXY'.

'My wages today would have paid for your whole film...'

DANIEL NORTON says...

Experience is essential to learn on the job and to prove oneself. Small projects are where people start and they have no money. This is not the same a minimum wage debate as these jobs are highly unlikely to be seen as a source of income, promary or otherwise. IE people have day jobs to support them.

Rick L. Winters says...

As an Independent filmmaker and artist I believe it is a choice that each individual must make for themselves. Filmmaking is an art and art should not be bound by bureaucratic bulls@*!.

If someone has a vision and others want to be a part of that vision it is their right. In America everyone interns on at least one movie and most on two or three before they ever see a paid position. It is a right of passage thing, and accepted in American Independent film.

If there was a restirction on minimum wage most Independent films in America would never get maid. I mean this is a bad example but lets look at Paranormal Activity, the actors got paid only $500 and the rest differed and that movie made over 100 million in the theaters.

Now lets look at the other side of the coin.
Imagine you work on a movie on a voluntary basis because it's the only way the film can be made and it is not expected to make any money.
You do not get a contract for differed payment because the law says it is not allowed.
The film ends up being the next Paranormal Activity.
Now that is the government laws exploiting everyone who made the film.

Come on Independent filmmakers stand up and fight for your right as an artist to work how you want.

Nathan Thompson says...

I believe everyone has the right to choose and people have the right to advertise for jobs that are expenses only, otherwise only corporations or people with a decent investment behind them can produce media, which is unfair.

I will however campagne against people advertising for actors on an 'expenses only' job when the crew are being paid for their role on the project, which has happened in a lot of circumstances and is the case with the post that started the most recent debate.

DANIEL ELIAS DE LA TORRE says...

THE PROBLEM DOES NOT RESIDE IN CREATIVE ALLIANCES OF LIKEMINDED PEOPLE WHO CHOOSE TO HELP EACH OTHER FOR FREE. THE ISSUE IS THAT THE INDUSTRY HAS STOLEN THIS WILLINGNESS TO COLLABORATE IN PROJECTS THAT ARE INSPIRING AT A PERSONAL LEVEL AND HAS TRANSFORMED IT INTO A DOGMA WHEREBY IF YOU HAVE NONE OF THIS "WILLINGNESS" TO START WORKING FOR FREE IN ANY TYPE OF COMMERCIAL PROJECT YOU WILL FIND IT DIFFICULT TO REACH ANY PAID JOB. LEAVE ALONE THE INDEPENDENT COMMUNITY AND LOOK AT THE MIDDLE TO LARGE COMPANIES. THERE IS WHERE A LINE SHOULD BE DRAWN.

claudia lee says...

I agree , publish a code of practice for unpaid shoots; for example

Paying expenses should be a miniumum, as someone who has worked for free, you should be guarenteed some kind of reference or feedback afterwards, and you should be credited and kept in touch with afterwards, re: the project and be given a copy of the final product as some kind of evidence on having working on it.

When I finished my degree, i had a fairly lowbrow 4 day a week job which enabled me to pay my rent and gave me time to work on unpaid film projects for free in different areas that interested me. Through these I learnt the basics in art direction, sound recording, camera and editing, because as an unpaid volunteer I was seen as keen and eager to pick up new skills. i now work professionally as a filmmaker who self shoots, interviews and edits all my own documentaries.

I think that working for free should be a choice for people who are interested in working in film, Not just students, what about people who are interested in a career change and have some free time on their hands. You can make good contacts and can get lots of experience in different areas of the industry.

What i have very little time for are the occassional job adverts on SP where there is a clear ask for entire crews works for free and also asking for people who own high end cameras working for nothing or a pitiful wage.. surely this is a blatant example for only those with resources getting experience. Surely the least a producer/ director who is arranging their own shoot, can do is source their own kit! I'd like to see no more adverts like these appearing on SP!

Geoff Harris says...

Working for lo or no pay must surely be a matter for personal choice. Certainly for the sort of lo budget films generally made by members of SP, which are made primarily for the experience and maybe as a calling card. Though as regards the latter, one must raise the question of who benefits?

However, any production which could be regarded as commercial or of having commercial potential should pay cast and crew at a level commensurate to the budget and use. People new to the business will always be attracted by the lure of working on a professional production and producers will look for ways to spread their thin-ish budgets.

The rise of apparently low budget films, like virals, films for the web and music videos, have brought pleas from their producers that they're, 'working with very low budgets', when their clients are multi-nationals. It may be a tricky choice for anyone offered a low paying role in a short for big name brand, whether cast or crew, which would look good on their CV, but less so on their bank statement. For the producer of course, they have to cut back somewhere....

So people should be free to choose if they want to work on a project for the experience only, and it's clear from some of the postings below, that a lot of SP films would be burdened with higher costs if they had to pay min wage to everyone involved. If people feel they're likely to be exploited in doing so, that needs to be weighed-up against any potential benefits.

Jon Abraham says...

We are all grown ups and able to make our own choices as to what we would like to do or not do. Just say yes or no its that simple.
If you are making a film on no budget and lets face it most of us are then it simply cannot be made without those who want to get involved for whatever reason, experience, showreels, cv's etc. As a company we always make sure that any paid work that comes in goes to our actors and crew that have helped us out in the past.
We too have been harassed by names that never what to have a telephone conversation about their views on the matter, who have no idea of who or what we are and assume we are exploiting anyone who comes near us, this could not be further from the truth. If any money is ever made (still waiting for that time) then crew come first .

Sibylle Meder says...

I think forcing minimum wages on starting out film-makers on a pre-professional level will effectively minimize their chances of ever getting their work done (let alone finished, seen, etc). That's not creative but bureaucratic. At the same time, an open payment policy should be very much encouraged and producers working on the low budget level (which is decidedly more than NO money) should make sure that the wages are "fair". Of course, that's a matter of perspective. But people should definitely be allowed to choose whether or not to work for no money. I am sure that as this discussion continues, paid work according to minimum wages will be a "brand" in itself, attracting those who find they need a certain pay and regard themselves qualified enough to ask for it. But the others who still do it for experience, love, enthusiasm, whatever... should still have a chance to support none paid films.

Richard Hollingworth says...

If you have people funding a project, they will want a say in what goes on, but often we get funding from people who only know about money, not art. That way, you get paid but only after having to bend your performance or work to the funder's desire. Yes, you may get to pay your rent etc, but why not take the funded job AND do projects where money isn't contested (or even involved)? Most unfunded projects are employing people because they know their stuff, whether actor, director or runner. Besides, isn't Shooting People here to help out the little guy? This isn't the jobcentre website, it's a communal website devoted to giving evryone a chance to be involved, money or not. I'd work with a director for a bag of cheese and onion McCoys if I knew they had a great idea and knew what they were talking about... probably don't even need the crisps.

Elliot Kew says...

I myself have recruited unpaid crew from SP and in turn worked for free (a number of years ago now) on half a dozen jobs. I have also worked in the industry for free I think there do need to be clearer guidelines such as you can only work for free for 2 weeks for a production company who is fully funded by a broadcaster. However the rules should be different for an independent zero budget company who needs to get something done whatever the duration. If people are willing to work on this kind of production for zero money or expenses only then they should be allowed to. They may gain invaluable experience and actually enjoy it (shock horror) and make some good solid connections. So to sum up I think people should be allowed to choose. The regulation has to come with large companies who take advantage of people starting out not small indie companies with a staff of one making a low budget film.

says...

I think that unpaid positions are great for crew members to cut their teeth into another aspect of a job that they would like to get into, and gain more expereience. I would love to work on a short film for example, as a lighting cameraman, my background is heavily music based and my original love was to work on films. So I would consider doing the odd freeby in order to gain more experience.
However, I was once a member with Shooting People years ago, but left because of some of the absurd advertising for little or unpaid positions. For instance an advert for a camera op at £50 and then a soundman for free for the same job?! I thought this is insulting! Either offer something equally as balanced or don't offer anything at all.
I think that it is fine to collaberate for a common goal in order to make a personal project come to life, I don't think it's right if it's in any way taking advantage of honest people trying to get their foot in the door or further their careers in another area. Working people 16/18 hours for free for example with little or no breaks should be a complete no no. Or indeed working people for free when there is indeed a financial backing somewhere.

sarah dixon says...

Runners are doing important work and are proper employees and should be treated as such. I have worked for free when making creative input on projects that are non-commercial and are effectively, a form of personal artistic expression and allow me to build a portfolio. I think there is an important distinction to be made to prevent exploitation. Certainly a profit sharing arrangement should always be in place (could shooters provide a standard contract form?) even for 'free' work, and any kind of 'industry job', like running, should offer minimum wage. if you have to make tea for people, you should get paid!

Geoffrey Alexander says...

Is 'Shooting People' for amateurs, professionals or both?
The net needs to be thrown wide embracing trainees, wannabees, employees and 'let me sees' but it would help if the boundaries were clearly defined.
'Amateur' (no pay) 'Speculative' (profit share) 'Professional' (standard rates apply / open to negotiation).
Posts could be marked with one of the above headings and maybe also a flag or symbol to make it immediately clear to readers. This could help prevent confusion and disappointment.
If it is an Amateur production no one should make any money out of it. If it is Speculative EVERYONE should be on minimum wage at the very least, with profit share offered to casting agent, composer, writer, stars, editor, producer and director.
After all, equipment and stock are paid for, why not talent?

Rob Cox says...

I think it comes down to the job your doing. I run my own production company and so when I get jobs in through my company from outside clients and need crew I pay them as good a wage as I can based on the job, and budget in that I will need a cameraman for e.g. £250. However in my spare time when I'm writing my short films and trying to make them out of my own pocket because they are calling cards and not going to make me or anyone else rich I hope and try to ask for favors whenever possible, and hope that whomever chooses to help out with the short film is doing so because they can gain something from it as well.

Nadia Cameron-Blakey says...

There really should be two sections with regard to advertised projects. Paid and Unpaid, and Shooting People should vet the submissions and the backgrounds of those submitting, accordingly.

Independent filmmaking survives because people (including me) are willing to give their time, commitment and experience to new writers and filmmakers, that goodwill deserves at least some protection from those who would and do, seek to exploit it.

Larry Cowan says...

It's ok to work for free to gain experience, but it should be transparent from the start in a contract. Also a good point is to make sure the film is insured.

Ed Griffiths says...

I believe SHOOTING PEOPLE needs to reflect the independent marketplace as it is, rather than as we'd necessarily like it to be. Excluding anything diminishes the choices of the prospective candidate - crew, writer, producer, director or whatever. The right forums to address legitimate and fair payscales are industry bodies like SKILLSET and unions like BECTU in close consultation with the DCMS. We're all adults making adult decisions and a noticeboard is only as good as the volume of notices it carries without arbitrary censorship.

Webster Forrest says...

How is it anyone's right to tell me not to do something without pay? Or to ask someone else to do something without pay? It's totally retarded.

David Liddell says...

I do feel that individuals should be free to work for nothing where they wouldn't otherwise get a look in or where an artistic shoot or treatment would not happen if it had be be fully paid. However, I also believe that there is exploitation in the system. An example is where indies ask for runners with cars (as, presumably they then expect the runner's insurance to cover the shoot, which it won't).
I have also had a strong suspicion on occasion of advertising agencies/funded shoots trying to masquerade as low budget to try and get crewed for nothing. There should be a process to identify and blacklist established those who try and muscle in on the low budget artistic licence.

benjamin kent says...

Making short films is a money pit. On the whole it's not a commercial enterprise - nobody's making anything from it and we all do it for the experience so that we can get those paid jobs in our subsequent careers.

I've self financed short films on which the majority of the crew were only paid expenses. They took the positions because they got something out of it - experience - material for their showreel etc.

If I'd been paying minimum wage the budgets for the films would have doubled. In which case either the films wouldn't have been made (no experience for anybody), the crew would have been considerably smaller (less people getting experience) and/or the quality of the production would have had to be reduced (worse showreel material for everyone concerned).

To enforce minimum wage will KILL the short film community.

Kirsty Squibb says...

Although I feel that it is up to the individual to make the decision to work for free, I agree that people within the industry should to be protected from exploitation.

Instead of focusing on pay, there should be individual guidelines or rules which are put in place for both paid and free job positions. For example if a person is working for free,they can only work up to (X)amount of hours a day with a proper lunch break. In addition a person can only pay up to £XX.XX in expenses before the production company have to pay towards them. These guidelines should also be altered but also apply to paid work, and both should ensure that the role of the particular person is credited on the film/tv commercial etc.

Although I do feel strongly about people not being exploited, we need to remember that if every crew member or person were getting minimum wage, a large number of these small budget films wouldn't be made. We need to remember that we are collaborating and working on these projects because we enjoy being in the industry and creating work together.

Many students leaving university need this no/low paid jobs to generate experience in their field and wouldn't be taken seriously by prospective employers if we didn't have jobs from shooting people to fill out our CV's.

I also agree with Roger Stotesbury it depends on the intention of the project, for profit minimum wage - for a learning experience we should except them for being unpaid.

Yo-Yo Tayler says...

I'm not particularly against non-paid work as long as fair material & expenses cost are covered.
I rather am upset that there are so many filmmakers post "First time trial for no pay, but it leads to next paid work", however, they never come back to the same crew. Instead, they keep looking for new people everytime they film, so they can use new faces each time for free by conning the hope for future paid work.
I've done a trailer last year under a condition of fully paid position for a feature filming if the trailer was successful. It was very successful and they got proper fund. As soon as they realised they could afford high-class crew, they betrayed the crew who worked for the trailer and employed totally different people which was absolutely against the original condition. This is what I call real exploitation!
Sorry this is not the actual subject of this voting, but I just wanted you to know.

Adam Watkins says...

Any worker in any position should have the right to choose to take work for free if they like. The huge benefit of an organisation like Shooting People is in helping introduce collaborators to each other, and by the nature of this industry this is going to include some work that may be unpaid. Shooting People would be doing a great disservice by not allowing these kinds of collaborations from being brought about under their umbrella. It also seems to go against the natural ethos of Shooting People.
As long as all parties are fully aware of the financial arrangement (or lack of) beforehand then it should not be necessary for any other person or organisation to censor or involve themselves.

Matthew Lawrence says...

Everyone should have the right to choose to work on unpaid films if they want to. For me, the key difference is that on an unpaid job you are a volunteer.

Stopping unpaid feature films from advertising for cast and crew will do nothing to increase the number of paid vacancies available. It will simply reduce the number of independent films being made and stop lots of us from getting vital experience on our CV.

George Chan says...

People should be able to work on low/no budget films if they want to. There definitely needs to be protection against companies with access to decent production budgets from exploiting people. This is different from people making short films because they love the medium, or are trying to get experience as a calling card. If you feel like you're being exploited, don't sign up.

Apart from the hundreds of people who have told me that they got a huge amount out of working on short films (unpaid), there have also been lots and lots of very experienced professionals (e.g. Feature film DOPs, editors, etc) who give their time for free because they remember that they needed help at one stage too, and because they love making films.

Anyway, how many people on here complaining about exploitation and minimum wage are still happy to buy clothes and products produced in sweatshops overseas. There is a ton of hypocrisy being spouted, but fortunately, the polls are showing that most people on this site are sensible.

lisa HOWELLS says...

the fact is many low budget films are financed bu the director / producer out of their own pockets. If minimum wages apply, these films will never get made. people should be able to decide for themselves what experience they want and for what price - its not exploitation if people freely choose, its part of a collaborative process made on faith with the hope that rewards will be made later down the line. We're all adults - dont take away our capacity to make decisions for ourselves, i personally would feel I wasnt getting what I signed up for if avenues such as these became closed because some people dont like them and some do.

Kate Madison says...

At the end of 2009 I released a feature film for free on the internet bornofhope.com. Born of Hope was crewed and cast almost exclusively through SP. Nobody who worked on the film got paid. The film was not a commercial project and was extirely funded by myself and fans (through donations) who were eventually going to watch it. The film was made for about £25,000. Over 350 people worked on the film at various levels and commitments, gaining CV credits and experience. Paying them all would have made funding the film impossible. This film would not have been made without people volunteering their time and skills.

I do think that there should not be one rule for one and one for another. As an Actor/Director/Producer I see all sides of the coin. I do not think that paying a DOP but not an actor or costumer is fair. One job/person is not more important than another. No pay should mean no pay for all. If the film has the potential to make money for someone then deferred payments or bonuses should really be paid if profit is made and producers are getting fat. However this could be greedy producers and like anything, putting rules in place can hurt others more than the ones it is mean for. I hope to pay people, even a minimal fee, on my next venture but feel the choice should be left to the people. A short film being made for experience or fun, shot over a weekend, cannot hope to pay cast and crew. If SP don't advertise unpaid work, there will be hardly anything to advertise at all. Paided work often goes to insiders who have worked together before, maybe even on an unpaid film. It's hard enough to break into the industry without further restrictions.

Dan Johnson says...

I think if people want to get together and collaborate on projects, then they should, and can. A few people getting together and making a piece of art for nothing is a good thing. But there's a crumbling difference between a small, no-budget thing done for the love of it, and some production company who pay runners nothing but the director and producer get a few thousand in their back pockets, that kind of thing is wrong.

Is shooting people a community for people to collaborate on projects, or is it a jobs board? I guess that just needs to be defined. If shooting people want to make it all about the money, the wages, then fine - I mean, we will all find somewhere else to go. With social networking like Facebook and Twitter and Linked In -- there are other options.

I think some more successful people, financially, think there shouldn't be unpaid positions here - but they are coming from a position of privilege that I don't think is really a part of the argument here. If people want to get together in a living room and film a scene with a camera, it shouldn't be illegal to do it without people getting paid loads of money.

The bottom line for me, though, is that you are worth what you're worth. If you have value, you'll earn that value. If you're the best screenwriter ever, you'll get paid. If you're the best production assistant ever, you'll get work. But in terms of 'the debate' - it's not really important to me, because I think people will always find somewhere else if Shooting People changes.

Adore Films says...

For what it's worth, I now work in the media in post (although I'm now wondering what other non-media careers I could do!). At the beginning I did loads of free work, and although I'm not sure that it actually got me into the company that I work for now, I am sure that I did have fun, exhausting, insightful experiences.

Roger Stotesbury says...

Its all about the project's intention. If the intention is for the film to make a profit and others are taking salary then minimum wage should apply.

If the intention is to simply raise profile and skills (and there is no hope of profit) then it should be up to individuals to choose.

One is a job, the other a learning opportunity. Shooting People should, to my mind, continue to cover both.

Dominic Frisby says...

If you pay peanuts, you get monkeys. But it is for the market - not regulators - to sort this out. Regulators will just turn it into an even bigger problem. See banking and economic crisis for more details.

Rachael BernSousa says...

I made my first feature without paying anything except expenses. From three of our pockets, we bought and hired equipment, fed people and drove them around, but had no money for any more than that. This was clear right from the outset and all those involved understood this. We had a range of experience on board - from absolutely none, to Hollywood blockbusters - all of whom agreed to work for expenses and costs because they loved the script and the team behind it.

This film got picked up for US distribution, and although has yet to recoup it's costs, taught me A LOT about making films and lead many of the other up-and-comers into paid positions. Too old and experienced to be a runner, not enough credit to get a proper job, it was the only way to actually make something.

I think it's essential that aspiring filmmakers are not looked down upon by waged professionals for making films that utilise the skills of people just out of film school, design college, etc. I spent years trying to 'break in' to the industry and found it virtually a closed club. Once you have a bit of experience in the unpaid world, you make contacts and move forward into the paid world - if you're talented and lucky!

It's not as though all these people want to work for free - they don't - and most of us can hardly afford to do it, but if you're chasing your dream, then you're willing to do what it takes. I once met a crane operator on a short funded by the BBC (where most people STILL had to work for free - check out my profile to find out the film...) who said he liked to do 1-2 free jobs a month just to practice and stay on top of his game. This guy had no end of paid work!

Without wanting to bang on too much, maybe those who don't want Expenses Only work can just skip that section in the newsletter? Allow people the choice - it doesn't threaten the waged professionals AT ALL, there are plenty of paid gigs around once you're off and running in the field you've chosen.

Tara Jaffar says...

I see working for free on independent (and usually amateur-type films) as a way of practising for the bigger fish of professional films. I apply the same effort and dedication to both, but I'd rather learn on the former before tackling the latter. Besides, so far, my professional work has been rather uninspiring, and the independent films are much closer to my drama school ambitions. I recently was paid a (very) small amount for a theatre production, but the pay was a token, and that meant a lot to me.

Jon-Paul Washington says...

I feel these questions do not really explore the issue that I have with 'no pay' hence my answers will seem contradictory.

I wish some people would take a step out of their bubble and TRY and SEE it from other less fortunate peoples point of view....

The issue I have with 'no pay' is that those that can AFFORD to work for free are probably in the MINORITY.

Using the NMW as a guideline and the minimum to pay people, will benefit the MAJORITY of people who wish to try and break into the industry but at the moment CANNOT AFFORD to because they are UNABLE to work for free. Many of which i feel WOULD work for FREE if they COULD AFFORD to do so.

Being UNABLE is completely different to being UNWILLING.

Those that are WILLING and DO work for free CAN AFFORD too. But there are those, whom I feel who are in the MAJORITY, that WOULD work for FREE if they COULD AFFORD to but they simply CANNOT afford to.

Therefore they are immediately restricted in what they can apply for, which in turn lessens their chances of ever breaking into the industry.

Introducing the NMW WILL LEVEL THE PLAYING FIELD.

I'm looking at this from the point of view of someone like a college leaver or graduating student for instance, who wishes to start from the bottom up, gain experience, gain contacts, find there footing, what area of the industry they want to focus on and progress.....but they find it almost impossible to get on that first rung of the ladder because they may be in a situation where they CANNOT AFFORD to work for free therefore those that CAN AFFORD have a huge advantage over them before they have even started out.

It really alarms me how many postings for runners and trainees, that appear on Shooting People, are 'expenses only'. If this is a microcosm of how things are in the industry, can people not see how UNFAIR this is on those that simply CANNOT AFFORD to work for free??

What this creates is a CLOSED SHOP. OPEN only to the SELECT FEW that can afford to enter.

Introducing the NMW and banning expenses only postings will give so many more people the opportunity to persue their dream of working in the industry simply because they will be able to AFFORD TO.

HOW IS THIS A BAD THING???????? , apart from, for those that wish the industry to remain a CLOSED SHOP in order to LESSEN the amount of competiton for positions, funding, etc.

HOWEVER.....perhaps shooting people could have "expenses/no pay" postings for STUDENT PRODUCTIONS, and for PRODUCTIONS that offer positions for those who wish to gain EXPERIENCE WHILST STUDYING which in turn could perhaps help them to gain additional marks towards their coursework units.

So in effect.... how about this for a suggestion.

A production may employ ONLY STUDENTS for NO PAY/EXPENSES ONLY POSITIONS.

This would mean that students would get more chances of gaining invaluable experience over a 1-4/5 year period whilst in education (1 year being Foundation Degree level; 4/5 years being 2 year at HND then 2/3 years at DEGREE level).

By the time they leave education they would have some experience and be ready to take the next step on their career ladder....PAYED WORK as a runner/trainee, etc, etc.

"But this would be exploiting students..." i hear some cry. Well, in my opinion that would not entirely be the case. As some who currently works in education i believe having such an option open to students will be of great use to them. Of course there will still be those that CANNOT afford to work for free even as a student, but at least this would be some kind of compromise to the current situation that we have.

I've seen many students work that rivals a professionals if not better, so many productions may actually benefit from having such an option open to them and at the same time the levels of exploitation will be greatly reduced.

MARK KEMPNER has posted on here the following:

"If you as a producer/director cannot raise enough money, I say you are running before you can walk...and something is not right somewhere. Either the project is to big/complicated/to be viable on this occasion - or maybe your script is not as good as you think....you need to scale it down and achive what you can achive brilliantly rather than tackle something you cannot aford...and not just do for the sake of it - under the assumprion I can get crew and actors for nothing! That is hardly a professional attitude!!"

I was going to add something along the lines of what Mark has written but he sums it up perfectly.

john horabin says...

im afraid i feel some people are completely abusing the system- and for that reason alone i think it should stop- also each morning i'd prefer to see no postings than more 'expenses only'- i'm particularly concerned about members who seem to be trying to assemble an entire crew at expenses only- i first noticed this a few months ago when a serial offender advertised for an animator- approx 3 months work- £150 flat fee- i think posts like this should simply be not allowed.

Kristof Deak says...

It should be made very clear when a job can be advertised as no pay.
There should be an industry agreement and/or guidelines on what 'expenses' mean. It doesn't mean the same to everyone...

Damien Beaton says...

By brnging in a minimum wage legislation you are actually punishing those filmmakers who struggle to get funding for their projects. People who are passionate about a film project and believe in its creative merits, will want to be involved regardless of money. Many well known directors started out in this way, with a crew working for free because they were excited about the film. I would definately work for free if the project shows great potential - not financially but creatively.

ben richards says...

I learned more on a film I worked on for free than the training courses I paid for. Thats my experience as well as enjoying it more. Same with a band I wouldnt pay for musicians to create music with. And of course if the project makes money then its shared out.

Philip Wood says...

I would say that where budgets allow, any crew member no matter how lowly should receive a minimum wage.
However, in any industry internships and work experience are a recognised and useful method and should not be banned.

jim allen says...

Although I think working for nothing sucks I also think that many projects would never go ahead with forcing pay packets out of Productions. I do though think that REASONABLE expenses are a must i.e. 40p a mile fuel, money for kit etc. If this is the only way of getting money out of a job then it should be accepeted. I also believe some sort of fee whether it be anywhere near minimum wage or not would be a good thing. Directors/producers should really attempt to get a good budget together for any production rather than doing it on the cheap but if doing it on the cheap is the only option then accept you won't be getting the best people out there. Stopping freebies?? - not sure thats the best idea but something needs to change.

I accept a few days on a short film or a quick shoot can go down as expenses only but when 4 week features are being shot paying nothing to crew- that isn't right. It really depends on the production, the budget and what is happening to it once finished. These are the issues. Its not black and white.

Paying nothing will long term only damage the industry in my opinion and mean only an elite people make any money out of the work.

lola mezquita says...

No one should work for no money, especially when others are getting paid for it. There should be other ways to get experience

Nick Ewans says...

I have worked unpaid on many short films where I'm confident the producers aren't making a profit, and are in fact sinking a £1000's of their own money for no financial return.

I would never work for no money where I believe the film would make a profit.

Short films do not make a profit, or virtually never, even ones that end up on Channel 4 late at night. The producers are doing it to get on in the industry, like us. It is career development.

Note that working unpaid is not the same as working for nothing. I receive the DVD for my showreel, as well as acting experience.

On features I will except a deferred payment. I had a very small role in "London to Brighton". I trust the producers. To date, despite showing on BBC1, I have received less than Equity minimum. I don't regret doing that - it shows how little money there is in filmaking for many.

I've also done fully paid acting jobs in TV/film. Those producers don't use Shooting People. There aren't lots of postings on Shooting People by producers with lots of money pretending to be making short films. Take away the low-budget work and there wouldn't be much on the bulletins.

I'm fed up with the periodic debate about this subject on SP. If you don't want to do them, don't apply. If you find that Shooting People is full of them, leave. Getting rid of them won't bring a flood of paid work instead.

We're all frustrated at the lack of good paid work, but there's no conspiracy, so don't take it out on fledging filmakers.

White Night Films says...

Treat people like adults and allow us to chose how we work. Banning unpaid job posts will just push filmmakers to another forum.

says...

For me the biggest question is should low/no ads be allowed for jobs on commercial or funded projects? It doesn't bother me at all if new entrants at junior grades want to work for no/lo on an unfunded short or a student project. But features/TV series/projects receiving film council money etc. should be paying everyone involved - and those in junior grades should certainly get minimum wage.

Wot Fanar says...

I believe that professionals should not work for under minimum wage in there own area (e.g. a professional 2nd AD shouldn’t be doing free 2nd work but should be allowed to direct or camera operation for expenses if they wish.)

I also believe there should be a cap on the budget of a production that counts as semi-pro (has expenses only positions) before it is forced to count as professional. (e.g. a terrestrial TV channel should never have an expenses only position.)

Emma Deegan says...

I don't really like the use of the word 'JOB' in these questions. I think all jobs should be paid, but collaborative projects, where all the cast are crew are treated the same, are vital to this industry, and often at the beginning of their careers people have no funds.

I think it's the responsibility of both 'Shooting People' and the individual to try to ensure they are not being exploited. Unfortunately there will always be individuals/companys who take advantage of peoples eagerness to work - we must do all that is resonable to prevent this.

I don't think companies who will pay crew but expect the actor to work for free should be allowed to post on 'Shooting People', nor should those who are working for big name companies - those companies have money to paid and should not receive anything for free.

Many Thanks
Emma Deegan

Jack Suckling says...

People should be allowed to choose for themselves if they want to work for free. Gaining experience on low or no pay jobs is a great way to learn about the industry and get your first contacts, that normally lead on to paid work in the future.

John Harper says...

I am willing to work for free on worthy productions but why are so many postings expecting to get my hard earned equipment for free too?! I would like to see those type of listings dropped.

Gwenhyver Davies says...

Shooting People is a great resource that allows filmmakers to make films: sometimes, particularly at the beginning of careers - though not exclusively - this means working for low or no pay. How many people do 'work experience' and don't get paid? In an ideal world of course everyone would get paid, but it would be a shame to oust the 'no pay' listings as it's really up to the individual whether or not they apply. If someone doesn't like it, they should just not apply.

Abbe Robinson says...

If a group of people want to get together and make a film where no-one is paid then that is up to them. However, when bigger companies, or those where some people are being paid, try to get away with paying other crew less than the minimum wage, then that is exploitative and illegal. I have known this happen even on big budget films. Perhaps the way around it for those who are happy to work on something for free is to create a filming co-operative for a project? If you are a registered company and making a film with a decent budget then you have to pay your crew at least minumim wage, and Shooting People should ask for those details and decide how to advertise the posts.

Penny Sharp says...

For me, the main problem for professionals is that the introduction of minimum wage means that may be all they ever get paid by some companies.

And at the other end, the main problem for new entrants is that they may not get any 'useful experience' if they work for free and the professionals are all on NMW. Or, if companies use new entrants to do work for free they are taking a job opportunity away from a professional. Many very large companies go through a huge amount of runners and work experience people in order to keep their budgets low on commercial projects, and this definitely means less paid work for professionals and no real 'useful experience' for the runners and work experience people as the time is far too short to gain any new real employable skills.

Melanie Gray says...

In an ideal world every job would be paid. Wherever possible I think producers should make an effort to raise some money to pay cast and crew even if it is only a token amount. However, I appreciate that this is not always possible. What is unacceptable, however, is producers paying the crew but not the talent. Either everyone should be unpaid or everyone should be paid.

Rachel Seely says...

I totally believe in someone being paid fairly for the work they do, but we have to remember the industry we work in and how most of us started. What is great about Shooting People is that it embraces that entrepreneurial spirit that is so needed to keep this industry going. Also the creative freedom that comes from non commissioned work.

Unfortunately there is often a lack of integrity in Producers at all levels of the industry. People often exploit this but when people are trying to get started film making often requires a commitment, both financially and time wise, that does not follow the conventional rules of employment.

For me it depends on where you are in your career, what you are doing and if there is a reasonable budget. No-one is putting a gun to your head to work on a film. The Producers concerned must be totally transparent and hopefully honest about their situation and if that's the case the choice is down to the individual whether they work for free or not.

Jennifer Moylan-Taylor says...

I have worked on several none paid short films, for the experience and material. It's difficult because probably about 2 3rds of this work has been poor quality and very unprofessional or I haven't received the material and this is very defeating but the other 3rd has worked out well. Personally I feel I have gained what I need from this so will not be wanting to work on any more none paid shorts. I now wish to put a value to my service and it is very annoying when you see that even corporate films are advertising as expenses only, it does feel as though some people are taking huge advantage, why shouldn't a corporate film pay? However it's extremely hard to make a short film on a low budget and we have to remember these short films are our outlet for expression and what we love to do and unfortunately the most creative writers and directors are also struggiling to make ends meet! It would be good if there was some way to filter the good and the genuine from the bad and the uncaring but that's not likely, so we just have to learn from experience!

Esteban Frost says...

It would certainly be nice to see more paid projects and opportunities. The reality though is that many people cut their creative teeth on projects that are not commercially viable and therefore will not attract funding. Should these films therefore not be made? If people could only make films which were appropriately budgeted few people could learn to make films.
I for one am employed full time in production. I collaborate on unpaid projects outside of work to meet more filmmakers and expand my showreel into areas I might not often encounter professionally such as narrative work.
I feel exploitation is a real and present risk that individuals need to weigh up. In my opinion long-term unpaid positions leave themselves open to the charge of exploitation, as do roles where the person offering the position stands to make money from the project. Short term non-commercial project involvement seems fine to me. I would not feel comfortable asking someone to contribute more than a couple of days of their time for no pay.

says...

I think that clear guidelines need to be drawn up, to clarify and distinguish between commercial projects (which then should be subject to NMW laws) and collaborations- projects designed with no intention of making a profit, providing opportunities for all crew to learn/ develop skills, with limits on the amount of time crew can be asked to work etc.

Jonathan Stewart says...

As many have noted, in any ideal situation, all roles on any project would be paid for - not just to minimum wage, but to a level commensurate with skill etc. However - the whole fabric of the independent industry, and most notably for nearly 100% of short films, is to utilise unpaid labour for short period of time to enable new filmmakers to learn without excessive cost. Since SP is a principal source for such posts, removing them would be inadvisable - we will still need unpaid services, we will just have to look elsewhere.

colin laidlaw says...

I think shooting people should make a distinction and have paid work and collaborations.

If a project is designed to make money then there should be a profit share scheme in place. But as we know most short films will not make any money, but they are a great training ground.

Why do people compare the industry to plumbing. If I wanted to become a plumber I would do so, but I don't.

I am 42 and will still work for free if I feel the project will advance my skillset or add to my showreel.

At the end of the day we are free to choose.

Lubna Gem Arielle says...

In an ideal world, everyone would be paid for what they do. However, the harsh reality is that an environment of no-low budget films seems fairly entrenched. So ... do I participate?

Well ... for now, yes, within certain parameters.

To me, money is not the only thing that has value. At this stage in my career (very early), I am keen to get material for my showreel. There are successful businesses that sell filming and showreel services to actors - I'd rather work on a real production, have fun and make contacts. I also only apply for jobs that are consistent with my values - do the producers / director seem respectful and professional and does the project resonate with and excite me. It is too difficult for me to say what I would do once I do have enough showreel material - having an opportunity to act on something I would love to see made - expenses only - where everyone else is working on that basis - I can't expect I'd say no ...

AND ... I'm starting to get experience of the "other side". I'm producing a short radio play for community radio ... everyone who works there is a volunteer and I'm not being paid. So, 3 actor friends and myself are acting in it ... the "value" being that we are going to hone our skills in some workshopping sessions and also have material for our voice reels ... a director friend is working with us ... honing his skills in directing actors / radio drama ... and again, we will be having fun (I insist!!!) doing what we love to do ...

BUT ... I am writing a feature and right now, my goal is that I would raise a budget for it enabling everyone to be paid. I'll have to see what happens...

Lubna Gem Arielle

Nusrat Isa says...

Yes to freedom of choice - work for free or not.
No to exploitation - eg not giving actors their show reels quickly enough, not giving credits to unpaid crews, not pay when you can afford to etc.

Yes yes yes to persuading Viggo Mortensen to work just for 'the fun of it' ...if he thinks it is fun. But if you then purposely add a scene which requires a full frontal as in Eastern Promises, is that crossing the line? Tough call since he's so hot you cant resist.

ie: keep it fun. Life sucks and then you die. Hopefully its in Viggo arms. Aww...

Maria Antal says...

Low paid stuff like composers should be protected from exploitation by never working for anything less than a minimum wage. Try to get a plumber for free or by offering them a credit and a copy of the DVD! I would prefer to be offered a fee, however minimal it might be, and then simply putting it back into the production if I feel that the film would benefit from it.

Clare Swift says...

I'm about to start filming my first feature which is self-funded. All the cast and crew are working part-time for no pay but I have offered shares so that in the - let's face it - unlikely event this film makes any money then they all receive an equal share. If I had to pay the cast and crew then this film would not be going ahead. We do not need Nanny-state interference on this. If we are forced to pay minimum wage then the result will be that less films are made.

In addition, if you have to pay aren't you going to insist that the crew have experience, even if you're paying minimum wage? This then begs the question where are you supposed to get your experience in the first place? I have worked on several films for no pay and was happy to do so because I was gaining that all-important experience. If you're not able to offer any pay you can at least provide an opportunity for people to gain valuable experience. To me the answer is obvious - be clear about what you're offering or not, as the case may be, and stick to it. Then people can simply choose to accept it or not.

Clare Swift
Writer/Producer/Director of Olivia's Army

Louise Paris says...

The choice of jobs is what we want. If I'm not busy and I can afford to work on an interesting project with no pay then that's up to me. I personally can only afford paid work at the moment but I still like the choice.

Abass Collier says...

I think what might have been over looked is that over 90% of short films made are not economic ventures. It is about passionate people wanting to learn or develop their trade. And it is not only the Director or Producer who needs this. I can remember on this forum a female actor took matters in to her own hands by initiating her own project because there were not enough roles written for female actors. She did this so that she can have an opportunity to learn or develop. I think there are many in other departments who want the chance to develop or learn whatever they might desire. An attempt to impose minimum wage does not only kill personal ninitiatives, but creating a barrier to many with the genuine talent, but for one reason or the other are unable to work in the film industry. In short let people make their own decision (especially as far as short film is concerned) whether they can work for free or not. Everyone has the right to do so. At best, let there be a deferred payment policy in case money is made.

Lucy Patrick Ward says...

As a young filmmaker whose budget is always tighter than tight, and a commitment to ensuring that the minimal budget is spent on kit, transport, expenses, and food I have directed 2 (and worked on many more - mostly returning the favours to me!) shorts where not a single crew member was paid. To be fair at least half were people I knew, and had worked with before- but the other half replied to ad's and knew from the off that they were not getting paid. Both were extraordinary experiences, humbling and rewarding. Whilst I whole-heartedly believe that skills and hard work should be rewarded imposing a minimum wage will undoubtedly deal a savage blow to low budget and independent film making in this country - without a shadow of doubt.

Deanna Dewey says...

I believe everyone should be allowed to make up their own mind on this issue and if they want to give their time freely then go for it. The only problem I have is when the ads expect people to supply their own equipment free of charge. Decent cameras, lighting, sound equipment, editing programmes etc are expensive to buy and some payment should be found to go towards wear and tear of the equipment and insurance.

Julie McIntosh says...

Everyone should have the option to work on unpaid film or tv, or creative jobs, if they wish to - but clearly we need to look at ways to limit exploitation. Some of the worst exploitation seems to come from television and 'official' employers paying ridiculously low wages or giving 'tiny cash prizes' to do big filming and editing jobs.

Although I believe it is vital to compensate people for their time and effort working on films in any way possible, and especially with pay if that is an option; I would not have got paid work and therefore not the experience I have needed to get onto my University courses or the paid jobs that I got last year. I am also finishing my MFA degree for which industry crew and actors worked for expenses only. It would have been impossible to make this film if I had to pay everyone. As it was we have already secured paid work for some of the crew since and will continue to try to do that. The industry crew members do unpaid work when they have finished paid work and working with them has already greatly improved our working practices, which I believe will make us more able to secure and do paid work well.

Rupert Raby says...

Working for free - fine.
People taking the piss - not fine.
It's up to the individual to decide whether getting involved with a project is worth their time and effort. It's usually easy enough to sniff out the bullshitters and wannabe producers who push the limits of what's fair and acceptable but if everyone demanded minimum wage before getting out of bed, the UK independent film industry wouldn't survive. The funding just isn't there for the vast majority of projects that get made through SP. Work on a no-budget project I believe in for free and learn and develop my skills versus not working while I wait for that elusive paid job? I know what I'd choose.

laura sims says...

I think people should have the right to choose whether they wish to gain experience in film-making by working for nothing. Otherwise it can be hard to get the experience.

However, I would suggest that shooting people should only advertise unpaid jobs when they are for unfunded films & programmes. If people are making an advert for a company or a low budget programme which is being funded by some-one they should at least pay minimum wage. I get very annoyed by people who say they are making a low budget programme for channel 4, and then ask people to work for nothing. Budget your programme properly when you pitch for the job.

zahra zomorrodian says...

Enough of a nannying state. Posts on SP are moderated to a set of criteria - yes in an ideal world everyone shuld be paid the scale rate for their position... but this isn't an ideal world.

FNA Films wouldn't exist if people had been barred from working for free - at the same time the dozens (yes you read that correctly - dozens) of careers that we have launched would never have happened.

Overheard an RSA bigwig say this once, "Our ideal first time filmmaker has already made one or two films and worked on others." To be honest that's my main bugbear - tiny amounts of money from RSAs that can't be matched with other money - that is the government itself advocating breaking NMW laws!

Lucia Ashmore says...

Some films can only be made for love because there will never be money to make them...

Toby Bricheno says...

Minimum wage?? As a composer, I dream of a minimum wage!

Sam Knowles says...

There is a fundamental difference between a successful commercial production company not paying people to work on a project so they can produce for the cheapest amount and a production company (old or new) not paying people more than expenses to get a project made as they are not being paid themselves. I worked for a long time for a production company when I was starting out for just travel expenses as an office runner and when I look back at this now, this was exploitation. However if I hadn't done that, I wouldn't have the career I have now. If it is short term and the production company/producer is not being paid for their time either, I do not see why expenses only projects should be illegal and certainly do not agree that postings should be kept away from Shooting People. I joined Shooting People many years ago as it was a way of connecting with other like minded individuals to get projects off the ground that were unlikely to otherwise. Taking away collaboration posts I believe could kill Shooting People.

Alex Snelling says...

I became a kitchen runner in Soho in 1988 on a yearly salary of 4500UKP. My idea was to learn to be an editor in my spare time using the facility's offer of machine down-time, which at the time was like gold dust. This symbiotic relationship went someway to compensating for the low pay and I got to learning in every hour I had.

Back in those days, BECTU was a different beast and held an almost monopoly on industry jobs; you had to join BECTU to receive their weekly list of jobs (even for runners) but you couldn't join BECTU unless you could demonstrate previous experience.

At this time, almost the only other way of getting a trainee job in the industry (aside from at the BBC graduate trainee schemes) was using nepotism - "My Dad's a floor manager for ITV and he got me a job in the studio".

Having done more than several unpaid jobs to hone my editor's skills and to prove to prospective employers my ability to do the job, I started looking around for junior or assitant editor positions.

Being a staunch socialist at heart, I contacted BECTU to ask if I could join the union. The reply was that I needed two broadcast credits in order to become a member.

This was vicious circle. No credits, no union, no job, no credits. How could I get broadcast credits when the union was effectively barring new entrants?

Eventually I got my job - compromising my principles and effectively becoming a blackleg. I have since worked as an editor at the highest industry level and taught around the world. I have never joined the union, not because I didn't believe in the principles of a supportive industry body, but because I was excluded at the very outset of my career by what was effectively a closed shop.

I got "in" to the industry using my own tenacity via the unwritten route that was actually commonplace to those in the know, but which was never officially ackwoledged by BECTU - to work for no pay.

matthew moore says...

I understand it is difficult for people making films to find budgets at the moment, but people need to live. They have rent to pay, mouths to feed. This is not being greedy, this is life.

However, I find it particularly annoying when filmmakers look for people for expenses only projects and add the line "the budget we had has gone on post production" or whatever. Very insulting.

Rhona Hewat says...

I have always been a member of a union and have seen the benefits of the minimum wage. I do however believe that we can all find the time to occasionally do something for no money and gain rewards in other ways, whether it is through passing on our knowledge and experience or just helping out when times are tough. Having read a lot of the adverts the biggest issue I have is the tone of many of the expenses only ads, politeness costs nothing.
I picked this site over others as I feel it has a professionalism that the others do not have but if I cannot advertise for expenses only on it then I shall have to use sites I have little time for. As with most things in life balance is the key, when I can pay for peoples time I shall and I hope to pay more than mimumum wage.

Alex Jacob says...

Many films will only be made if people give their time and expertise for free.
Exploitation does happen but is it a big enough problem to stifle all low budget work?
Working for free is valuable way of gaining real experience.
May be it should be the honesty of producers that should be regulated?

Glenn Marshall says...

It's a difficult one, I have seen very exploitative work posted on the bulletins, but also some genuine
people just trying to get films made. I think it's up to the individual to decide which projects they get involved with.

Ruth Heritage says...

It is crucial that it is left up to the individual. however, there should be guidelines on what sort of independent film could be a valuable experience and what sort constitutes exploitation. Ie - if you're wanting experience, look for quality companies or people with track record offering, agree to do a specific timescale with a real outcome, and leave if it's not what you expect.

Mark Kempner says...

THis year (2010) I intend not to act/work for nothing at all anymore.....I rarely do in any case There is now a law in place....and I belive also...if a serious film maker knows his/her stuff...and has a good product/script/and truely knows what they are doing...and is properly committed to their craft ....they will raise enough to pay everyone something! Not fortunes and poss only the NMW.

Crew have worked very hard to buy thier costly kit - actors have worked hard to achive the level of skill you need - producers need to work hard to put up the dosh....for it to be a sucsess everyone must gain something - then the audience will gain too.

If you as a producer/director cannot raise enough money, I say you are running before you can walk...and something is not right somewhere. Either the project is to big/complicated/to be viable on this occasion - or maybe your script is not as good as you think....you need to scale it down and achive what you can achive brilliantly rather than tackle something you cannot aford...and not just do for the sake of it - under the assumprion I can get crew and actors for nothing! That is hardly a professional attitude!!

Andreas Eigenmann says...

Aspiring filmmakers will always make low/no budget films and they will keep finding people who agree to work on a film just for the experience or the pleasure of doing it. This poll will decide whether SP will keep being a platform for such people to communicate, or whether they'll have to find a new place to go to. I believe that we're all free to make our own decisions on how we want to work and I hope that Shooters will decide that it's everybody's right to choose to work for no/low pay and every wanna-be filmmaker's right to present their film projects to potential collaborators.

George Pursall says...

It is perfectly simple - if you enforce the minimum wage on low to no budget short films, music videos, documentaries etc then a huge number of short films, music videos and documentaries would not be made. For people trying to start out in the industry, whether they are directors, writers, DOPs, production designers, composers, actors, and everything in-between,a mutually beneficial collaboration on a project is usually a must and is vital in gaining experience and forging future collaborations and working relationships.

And come on, people aren't stupid. People who work for no money on a project always know that they are getting something out of it, whether that is a useful credit for their CV, vital experience, and most importantly of all, the opportunity to network. I wouldn't get up at 5 in the morning to stack supermarket shelves or pick up rubbish without getting paid for it, but I would get up at 5 in the morning to work for free on a film knowing that I will gain invaluable experience and networking opportunities. No one really works hard for no reward, and for the vast majority of young people in the industry, when they work for free, they know they are getting something valuable out of the experience, something they can use.

So, again to put it simply, to force film makers to pay minimum wage to all crew members, for low to no budget collaborations, will spell the death of independent film making in this country and will see the careers of countless talented individuals fall by the wayside simply because the people who would have provided them experience before cannot afford to pay them.

Robin Schmidt says...

Well done for opening up the debate. People are arguing both positions with justification on both sides. However very few people are offering solutions. There's no doubt that some sp postings are for less than reputable jobs, others are of massive benefit - how do you tell the difference? SP is a community, and like any community, there are those who've been there longer, are known and contribute. I propose a rankings system, like eBay where Sp members are encouraged to feed back on members and you're quickly able to judge who's reputable and who's not. By encouraging people to partcipate to earn good rankings and therefore the right to post unpaid work as an 'approved' sp member I think you will see a dynic shift in the way SP is used. Those who act honourably will reap the rewards, those who don't will struggle. This also empowers those who do feel they are being exploited to do something about it.

The eBay model isn't perfect but it's a very good example of how to reward good behaviour in a free marketplace

thoughts welcome

robin

James Cooper says...

This debate simply boils down to personal choice. In this competitive industry the only way to gain vital experience in the initial stages of a career is to work for little or no money. If a person is happy and willing to do this, then that is their personal choice. I think this is generally very beneficial - those with little or no experience are able to gain it, and emerging filmmakers are able to self fund and make their own work without having to generate huge funding to do so.

Roland Heap says...

A few points:

SP Should have a clear policy about what can be advertised as an unpaid job and should moderate the postings accordingly.

I personally believe that SP should allow unpaid collaboration, but should draw extremely clear guidelines as to what circumstances allow this. Unpaid work can be a useful way into the industry, but no employer with the ability to pay minimum wage should be able to avoid doing so.

It should be automatically assumed that all jobs include expenses, travel, food (of a good standard) and a DVD of the final product at the very least.

If the respondent is supplying equipment then a fee should be assumed for this.

For any film where there is a chance of eventual revenue it should automatically be assumed that there will be a fair profit share / deferred payment scheme.

There should be a system through SP whereby disreputable employers can be rebuked, even anonymously.

Tom Bowles says...

Unpaid work should be allowed if the total budget of the film is under a certain amount. Not if otherwise. This should help prevent exploitation of participants by producers who should be budgeting properly for their films.

says...

Only HOD positions should be considered for a low wage. As a runner/Third Assistant/Camera Assistant you should be paid. personally I think all positions should be fully paid but understand that to progress in this industry you occasionally need these positions. But with more jobs being pitched on the basis of not paying people the rules now need to be enforced.

Andrew Hill says...

It ought to be illegal to advertise work that is being paid below the NMW unless it is work that is an exception under the act.

SEAN C. HANNON says...

If someone's making a film, whatever its nature, and they don't have the money to pay people, then as long as they are clear and honest about this they should be able to advertize on Shooting People. Let the people going after these positions decide if they are happy to work for free.

When I was making my last short film I used Shooting people to advertise for unpaid positions (music composer) and I was amazed at the positive response that I got, all from very experienced professionals who were happy to help a fledgeling film maker. This is what makes Shooting People such a great place.

David Gosnell says...

It is clear that no/lo paid jobs are a valuable opportunity to develop CVs and add valuable experience and I for one have certainly taken these opportunities. However, I do think that anyone who believes that this is not exploitative is somewhat deluded. People are prepared to take these opportunities because this practice has developed in the industry due to fierce competition for a small number of career paths that result in glory. You don't get no/lo paid plumber's apprentices or car mechanics or salespeople. I can see the logic of charity projects where, as in any other walk of life, professionals give up their time and skills for free to support something they believe in - but I would tend to concur with an earlier contributor to this debate: there is no budget because the producer/director didn't bother to try to raise one - and they didn't do that because they know they will get people from sources like Shooters to do it for free. I don't mind working on these projects, I see it as building my future career - do I feel committed to the producer/director's artistic vision?, no, I feel like an employee - will I still do these projects once I don't need to? Probably not.

ELSPETH WALDIE says...

Our production company is a registered charity making educational and humanitarian films in the developing world. We are only able to operate because of the generosity of our volunteer crews who give their time on an expenses only basis. However, we also know that 99% of our volunteer filmmakers find that working on our films proves to be one of the most rewarding experiences of their lives. Many have told us that they would not have missed it for anything, and that they have learnt an enormous amount - several have gone so far as to describe it a life- changing experience (quotes available). It would be a terrible loss not only to our charity, and more importantly to the disadvantaged people for whom we work, but also to potential volunteers, if SP ceased to take our advertisements for crew. We hope very much that you will not decide to do this. Thank you for all you have done to help us in the past.

robert pratten says...

Does anyone at Shooting People believe that if you stop advertising unpaid jobs then they'll go away? Don't you think those unpaid opportunities will be posted on other social networks?

Unpaid opportunities have been a vital part of Shooting People and removing it will be to succumb to bullying from a minority of angry people who I'd guess have trouble getting paid work because of their attitude.

Paid work for skilled crew and cast comes primarily via agents and personal networking. The unpaid positions are intended for those starting out - who don't yet have the experience to command a salary - and hence there's absolutely no effect on the paid workers.

Nobody is exploited because nobody is obliged to take the gig. All those people complaining about unpaid gigs, just don't it. What on earth has it got to do with you if someone else wants to get experience without being paid? It has zero impact on the paid positions.

Finally, has anyone noticed that the industry is in a crisis? Piracy, YouTube, computer games etc etc are taking the money out of movies. Hundreds more remain unsold than previously and fewer films are being made. Shooting People is for independent movies - movies with producers and directs who themselves are just starting out. Do you think they're getting rich? Wake up and smell the coffee! It's often their personal savings or money from friends that create the opportunity for the unpaid crew without which there would be no movie.

People should be free to choose what right for them. Period. Nobody is forced or obliged to respond to unpaid opportunities posted on Shooting People. Remove these listings and the opportunities will be posted on a new website somewhere.

Come on Shooting People, stand up for yourself. Are you for indie filmmakers or not?

ed hartwell says...

People should only apply for unpaid work if they are a registered freelancer. Freelancers can agree any price they want, working for low wage/free to build contacts is a great way to get future paid freelance work. Non-freelancers looking for full time employment should not be applying for unpaid jobs in the first place.

Emma Milstead says...

It is clear that a blanket rule about the application of min wage is not suitable. Whilst exploitation of many will stop, numerous people be they Runners, DOPs, Directors or wannabe Producers will miss out on valuable experience they may have otherwise acquired through willing, effective collaboration on no-budget films. This restricts knowledge sharing, creativity and ultimately the potential for future profitable film-making within the UK. The practice of engaging someone on a film for no pay when others in the project recieve sizeable financial reward is what needs to stop and the solution needs to distinguish between the 2 extremes not to mention the various scenarios in between. The underlying issue here is respect and any legislation that is introduced must be complemented by a code of conduct and guidance for filmmakers working across the budget spectrum with regards to both payment and working conditions. Development of financing models that allow for different payment methods where budget is nonexistent also needs to be explored. Naturally in the interim SP can take small measures such as clearly separating paid and exp only adverts and accommodate the divesity of opinion but I for one value all the knowledge I've gained through unpaid work experience.

Alan Colegrave says...

Over the years I have made numerous lowish budget television programmes. I had a budget and both the crew and presenters got paid. One presenter has gone on to full time presenting on various premium channels. How much experience did she gain working with me. Was it helpful to her career to be able to include in her showreel the broadcast footage? Initially she worked with me on the pilot for nothing - now 10 years later she is presenting full time on TV.
I also make films for fun and occasionally advertise for actors to work for free. They always get copies of their material. About 50% of the time, I edit their showreel for them. Only today an actress with whom I worked over 3 years ago asked me to transcode her showreel to upload to a website. I will not be charging. The word in collaboration.

Edward Grabczewski says...

The concept of collaboration and who can collaborate needs to be clarified. The distinction between collaborator and employee needs to be clarified in the filmmaking scenario. People should be free to choose whether or not they work for free. The budgets of all productions should be clearly stated on no-budget productions of they should not be allowed to advertise at all.

Marianna Segenhout says...

Although I hate how the industry works these days, with a lot of work unpaid when the producer could choose to pay the crew a small amount for their time, it is up to the crew to decide if they want to work for free.

The issue of working unpaid should be focused on production companies/advertising agencies who take advantage of crew, desperate for work, and don't pay the lower end roles, such as runner or PA. When there is clearly enough funding to accommodate a small payment.

I have discussed this with many people in the last few years but unless there is a dramatic change of attitude and fairer pay distribution within the hierarchical crew structure, this problem will still persist to annoy and frustrate the industries dogsbodies.

Barry Gross says...

In LA, the only no-pay jobs are for friend's projects.
Will we become friends after a job?
Probably.
But the next job you hire me for will be paid, right?

I earn my living from my experience.

If you can pony up for that Red camera with Ultra-primes...
Nuff said.

If you're still reading this, go make a film!

Mike Lash says...

this should apply to actors too on any project where the crew get paid.

Ashley Pollak says...

A more clearer definition for those who can be exploited. Having read the information highlighted in the SP email - I will ensure that at least we as a company will always adhere to the Minimum Wage rules at the very least. However I am always a believer in making people valued contributors and putting those who are more reliant on smaller amounts of cash before myself.

Daniel Jones says...

Creative people are always free to collaborate but I'd prefer if Shooting People was for professionals and I think it is healthier for film makers if we all understand and promote creative people as people who are payed for their skills, equipment and time.

Jordan Cushing says...

Given the recent ruling I believe Shooting People does need to do more to protect itself and its members and hopefully in the process foster a better industry founded on sound working practice. As such I think the bulletins need to be regulated a bit more stringently.
Projects which are clearly commercial endeavours should be required to offer NMW. Obviously, differentiating which those are is a difficult task. I think I've outlined a pretty reasonable starting point...
- Where a production company has been commissioned for the work (a music promo or corporate video for example) pay should be mandatory, regardless of the size of the budget. This includes "my friend's band gave me 200 quid to make a video..."
- Where a company is seeking to expand their portfolio, develop new clientele or produce something on spec, pay should be mandatory as they are aiming to leverage that work for future profit. Every posting that says 'may lead to future paid work' ought to be paying this time around. If it claims to be a business, it should act like one and invest in its own projects. This should also lead to an understanding of what 'future work' will cost and what to charge future clients.
- TV "Pilots", feature films and film teasers made to find investment should all be subject to either NMW or mandatory profit participation/deferred fees. These are commercial properties and if producers aren't willing to expose themselves to the financial risk up front, they should not be entitled to the full financial reward, should it come.
- Shorts, experimental films, art projects, etc, which have minimal commercial value and are typically calling cards or passion projects should be permitted to advertise as expenses only collaborations.

Black Swamp Films says...

I think actors should get a minimum fee if there is no budget for the film..as i'm sure there will be a budget for film stock editing etc..why not pay an actor his travel or food expenses at least !

I'm a filmaker and hate to see the posts that state..film ready, location ready..no fee for actors..etc

Jonathan Braman says...

As freelance editor I choose to work for low or no pay sometimes on low budget productions that I'm interested in as a way of developing my skills, but no-one should have have to work for free or less than minimum wage on anything that turns a profit.

Trevor Davis says...

In answer to Q4 I would prefer to see a more general statement rather than constraining the scope to 'low paid staff'. I generally fit into a 'high paid staff' category (sic), but will consider unpaid work for the right experience or access - it is a risk versus benefit decision for the individual in my opinion.

Michael Egan says...

For most people who want to get into the business withlout any connections working for free is the only way to get the experience and get the contacts for the next gig paid or unpaid. For producers and directors low budget and no budget films can only be made with the help of unpaid workers-if its done right in the right collaborative spirit everyone wins.

Fred Karno says...

I think that some of the people behind this debate are agitating matters more than they should. For a start there are other places that advertise for 'free' workers on films. People are always going to find actors and crew to work on their projects, I don't see why shooters can't advertise for this as long as it is made 100% clear.

Margaret Dickinson says...

There is confusion about working for no pay. It's ok to work for yourself or for a cooperative in which you have a proper legal share. What is exploitative is to ask someone to work for no pay in a situation which is otherwise like that of an ordinary employee, in which the unpaid employee has no control and no ownership.
Your questions do not properly reflect these differences. 04 is almost meaningless without spelling out what you mean by 'independent'. Some very commercial productions can count as 'independent' and there is no reason why producers of such films should be able to augment profits on the back of unpaid labour. And unless a runner on such a production is receiving properly organised training s/he should be getting at least minimum BECTU rate rather than national minimum wage. I'm shocked that you should suggest otherwise. Runners play an important role and are a key part of the team, not optional extras.

Samantha Parry says...

Whilst I cannot at the moment afford to work for no pay for people I don't know, I realise that in this day and age people are finding it difficult to make films and need people who are prepared to gamble a little.

I have in the past worked on short films for no money and have actually learnt a lot from them.

So I think as long as it is clear what, if any, money is available is shown on the posting it is then up to the actor themselves as to whether they apply or not.

Tom Turley says...

I'm a focus puller looking to get more experience operating and lighting - I'm happy to do these jobs for free. I expect my expenses to be covered and to have access to the material at my convenience, and I don't want anymore than that.

I hope that (in the nicest possible way) I don't need to use Shooting People to find these kind of jobs for much longer. But without Shooting People and its ilk, where do I get the chance to improve my skills, whilst also buying into a project I feel is worthwhile and leaving satisfied and even grateful contacts behind me that I can work with again in the future, or simply put the good stuff on my reel and forget about the bad times...

Simply put, I need a cast to film, a camera to film with and lights to light with. Out there is a writer who needs a director and a director who needs a DOP, and none of us are exploiting each other. I can't afford thousands of pounds of hire just to practice, and I can't round up hordes of actors to practice on bebause they'll get nothing from it, but if its a short, then at least we all get a credit to our name and some material for our showreel, even if we only use 4 secs on the reel.

Andrew Garcia says...

The reason the industry is full of white middle/upper class people (mostly from the South of England) is because other people who come from families on low incomes cannot afford to commence a career that has such a no/low starting salary. Why should it be only people with money who able to work in TV?

Daniel Kellingley says...

It would be great if all jobs were paid at a decent rate, but people have to accept a trade off between gaining experience and paid. At the end of the day, any Shooter who doesn't want to take on an unpaid role doesn't have to do so.

Perhaps, it might be worth highlighting or splitting out paid and unpaid roles into two different sections of the daily update.

Joyce Dundas says...

Each case has to be looked at on its merit. If it is a big budget or funded film, then minimum wage should be in place. For a student film maybe expenses are all that can be afforded. But for micro budget indies that people want to use to learn then it is their choice.

Mike Embleton says...

It's a shame that certain people have caused polls like this to exsist!

If people want to work for free then they should be able too!!

Si Collins says...

It's a difficult debate, however, I've been on a lot of films where the quality of production has been bad and unprofessional, and some of the film makers quite rude, (I sometimes fear for the future of the industry), this goes for some film school productions as well as independent. Perhaps pay will separate the good from the bad, I think the Equity minimum for student films should become law.

I produced a short film once where I paid the actors on different scales varying from fifty to one hundred pounds plus all expenses!

Marion Shortt says...

As an actor myself, it is nice to be paid at least something on small projects. However, I feel if minimum wage regulations are applied, then more producers will only pay this, even on commercial productions, as it will become standard and when seeking funding they will only budget on the minimum wage required. This will apply to not only cast but crew as well.

I believe the result will be many paid jobs will slowly scale down to be minimum wage and out of lack of choice the industry will find themselves having to take these jobs. It could even lead to the industry being deserted by highly skilled and experienced crew who don't want to work for minimum wage.

jane foster says...

Trying to make minimum wages mandatory or enforced will kill whatever film industry we have in the Uk, and kill creativity. Films are a high risk, incredibly hard art form to master which takes a lot of training. The best way to get that training is on the job, there is no other way. I teach screenwriting and i have amde a feature film so i know of what I speak. We don't pay young artists the minimum wage to create their first works, so why is film seen as any different? May be its because of the outmoded idea tha there are greedy producers out there who exploit inexperienced newcomers and make money from their free labour. In this climate, this economy and in our particular film industry this is laughable and complete rubbish.Again, i know of what I speak - Iam one of those who made a creative zero budget feature. I'm still paying off the debts I incurred. Please allow people the freedom of democratic choice
- perhaps clearer guidlines should be established like having to state if its your first, labour of love film you are making, whether short or feature.
Perhaps there should be a small bit of legislation passed that everyone is entitled to work for free and collaborate for free for the first couple of times. This is fair and would deter those who are on the edge of exploiting others.
Also, true filmmakers see film making as a vocation because of how difficult it is to make a career out of it - and they do not make films for money, but out of creative impulse. If you go with this nonsense about 'minimum' wage, you will severely hamper any real creative film makers project.

Bill Thomas says...

I am never so busy that my time is so precious I can't give some of it away. I have made a good living from TV and commercials for thirty years, but have rarely any interest in the product. Films that have no budget have provided passion and danger. Even when the experience is appalling, they have nourished me, and usually they are just fun. I would really object if people contrived to prevent me choosing to work for nothing on projects I see fit.

anna mitcham says...

A seperate section on the bulletin for unpaid work would be great so that those that aren't interested in it can avoid it. At the moment some of the postings listed under collaboration pay so I find myself scrolling through all the posts in that section looking through the bit where they mention whether or not they are offering payment. Can be time consuming.

Simon Bolton Gabrielsen says...

Where there is any kind of budget in place then of course pay scales should be applied to everyone working on a shoot, from the lowest to the highest (so to speak). However, for many student, new creative and experimental projects, the person making it is losing money and no one is getting paid. Without the freedom to do this (just as much as getting some friends together for a sing-song or any other artistic pursuit), then the basic creative starting point of filmmaking for so many people is undermined. We all have a choice and as intelligent adults we're able to make those choices. Finally, restricting posting to paid positions won't in any way increase the number of paid productions out there. It will merely push those who aren't yet able to budget films fully further away from any hope of making headway in film.

Joyce van Berkel says...

I agree with both the above mentioned statements. Usually the only way to gain work experience in the film industry is by working for free. I do believe that film makers take advantage of this fact. I also believe that more people would be able to gain more experience in the industry if they do get paid. Not everyone can afford to work for free on a regular basis.

Julie Kinsella says...

if its unpaid then profit share should HAVE to be included - and no professional company should be allowed to pay less than the NMW. But at the end of the day it should be for members to make their own minds up, only they can really decided what is best for them.

Mark Prebble says...

I often worked for free as I broke into the industry and found it an invaluable way to get experience. I have also made a number of films where I have used unpaid collaborators. So long as both parties are upfront about what the arrangement is I believe this is a perfectly reasonable situation. Forcing minimum wage legislation on independent film will benefit no one.

Azeem Khan says...

i'm making a short at the moment for expenses only, and it's great that i can get crew and actors this way, as the film would not be made otherwise. i'm not being funded for this film, it's out of my own pocket...i'm very grateful to Shooters for helping out!

Clare Thwaites says...

I think its fair enough that people can choose to work for free - its a good way to get experience and I did a few freebies when I was starting out. However, its ridiculous how many times I read 'this project is self-funded so no pay' - if its self funded, and they are getting paid in their other job so that they can finance this project they want people to work for free on, thats just not fair. Its the mentality of the people advertising it that pisses me off...I find there are very few genuine people who genuinely are scraping things together to make a project happen - its more people just being tight and stingy and exploiting people who want to get up a rung on the ladder.

martin woodford says...

Give people the option to decide for themselves. If work for free postings are banned, my guess is that a lot of non-commercial stuff will just not get made.

Ivana MacKinnon says...

I think it's a thorny issue - many short films especially by beginners are untenable without unpaid work and people need to be able to make some films, with a small crew, to get started, otherwise no one will ever do anything. But there is a lot of exploitation and the fact that only rich people are able to afford to get the experience on films does make a economic barrier to the industry that is unhealthy for both society and creativity. And feature films should always pay the minimum wage, I feel. I think there's got to be some kind of middle way: films funded by certain bodies should pay the minimum wage (and don't) - maybe any film funded by a non private source should - but who's going to regulate that? You guys could make that a rule for postings though re: sources of funding for films. Or people could get a one/two strike rule - you can post once or twice for free labour and then you've used your free postings. Lots of people would abuse it but it would at least make the issue one that people would consider more.

Adolf El Assal says...

on short films it's acceptable to work for free but on features, at least minimum pay has to be considered.

Michael Donaghy says...

Most people wouldn't be able to enter the film industry at all if there wasn't the opportunity to both create and engage in unpaid work. At the same time people need to be protected from companies who exploit workers and gain profit while not paying workers a fair rate. It's difficult, but I think there are some good suggestions above such as an 'ebay style rating system', where members can rate past transactions with a filmmaker/company' or more transparency, or funding needing to be indicated in the online form so filmmakers know if they are being offered something unfair. Everyone should all be encouraged to be vigilant of rogue companies and should be aware of BECTU and the rules and guidelines that apply for anyone working in film. If everyone understands what is fair and what isn't, we can all be watching out for each other. Companies should be blacklisted if they operate immoral practices. I think that's the only way it can work, as unpaid opportunities is essential to filmmaking.

Christy Meyer says...

As an actor, I think it would be nice to be paid something on every shoot, even if it's a nominal fee of £10 or £20 for all of the work. Then, you feel that your craft, your years of training and professional work aren't all for nought. It shows that someone has recognised your worth, despite not being able to pay you much.

Marcin Knyziak says...

Posts asking for crew with own kit to work for free are not right.
Spending small budget on Red instead of the crew is not right.
Productions with budget not paying even NMW are not right.

Working for free on student or hobby level is fine.

Richard Ridout says...

I have worked for free on a film.

Although I learnt a reasonable bit about independent film production (including that it's very hard to make any money) I think the real winners are the directors/producers. They're in it (mostly) for themselves to move their financially sinking-ship projects forward in a desperate effort to make it themselves. They do indeed exploit people like me who will do anything to work in the film industry. If you can't afford to pay people then find another way of doing things, another way of making it or DON'T make it you self-indulgent sods.

I would work for free again if it was with friends and I was going to learn proportionately to my effort.

Jordan Page says...

I feel we all need to sometimes work for nothing 'if' the budget is a no or low budget. In these circumstances I am really more concerned with how I am treated. Will I be fed properly during a long shoot? If the shoot is a very early one or difficult to get to will an attempt be made to get someone to drive me there? Will the crew behave in a professional manner? (such as arriving on time. on more than one film I was the first to arrive and the crew then arrived late) Will I promptly be given my DVD or whatever agreed upon without having to constantly badger and nag? Will the production understand that in return for my time I would like to have something that looks finished and professional for my showreel? Alot of new directors overlook the fact that a make-up artist and good lighting on your artists is part of an over-all professional look.

However, if the work is for an established production company or ad agency the actor should be paid something.

edwin mingard says...

i think there needs to be clearer demarcation in bulletins between commercial and non-commercial work.

i don't think postings for unpaid work should be allowed if:

it's commercial and can't fairly be called a work experience

it's uncommercial but no 'collaborative' mechanism is in place - eg. there's no profit share/points

Hans Hess says...

I think everyone whos is looking for a composer should come with a minimum wage to pay for the ammount of workload a film composer has to do.

Markus Schroder says...

As an editor, I am just at the point where I reject all collaborations without payment. Nevertheless, I wouldn't mind doing it anyways if it means working on a project which brings me forward.

Christopher Green says...

I think that ALL job adverts on SP should offer some payment or profit share arrangement. There's far too many 'Copy of the finished DVD' offers for my liking. What good is a copy of the film for a runner? Financial Remuneration on top of expenses should be a must!

emma Toft says...

I have never looked into advertising on shooting people and therefore can not comment on if it is clear about which jobs can be advertised.

i started my CV off on shooting people through doing unpaid work. I think jobs should be paid or unpaid - referred is in my opinion a lie - i did 2 'referred' jobs and never heard anything from them. i worry that people use it as an excuse to lure people in who dont understand the wording or havent been stung by it before. Now that i am an established professional i would never work for free again as i think its not ok to do it (even when you are starting out) but unfortunately if you dont do it someone else will and noone will even look at you without something on your CV. Harsh, but true.

Ian Bailey says...

It would be hypocritical of me to vote no to unpaid jobs appearing on Shooting People as I've happily worked for no pay and asked people to work for me without pay. However, I do think two distinctions need to be made. Firstly between people who are learning a film-making craft and will accept unpaid work and those who expect payment for their skills as they are running a business or it is their livelihood. Secondly between film companies who would be unable to produce films without unpaid workers and those who are simply exploiting people who want to work in the industry.

For the majority of us, we have to prove ourselves with very little money, before funding bodies and private investors will show an interest. The flip side of course is that a good producer would get the funding no matter what. No wonder this argument is hard to resolve!

says...

People who don't offer the minimum wages or more should be contacting colleges and universities to employ students.
Shooting people has become a place where producers get cheap labour.

ellen guy says...

voluntary unpaid work is fine in charity work so why not in small films. However I feel there should be a clearer line in the industry for a standard rate of pay r.e. freelance paid work. Badly paid freelance work especially in animation is a real problem for the industry. If you do pay for work it should be above a minimum freelance payment.

Kirk Watson says...

Many sections of different industries have people trying to get into them by volunteering. Like wildlife rangers, mountain rangers,national trust workers and outdoor instructors. It would be great if they could all be paid from day one but there unfortunately isn't the money to do this.

I made my first feature film a few months ago which I directed, filmed and edited. I had 14 actors (mates),a co-director, script and screenplay writer, make up folk (again all mates). I can't afford to pay them and if they had required payment the film would never have been made.

Right enough we all had full time jobs at the time so none of us were skint and we worked on it in our free time. No one was out of pocket apart from using up their free time. The only investment which I already owned was all the camera and computer kit. Everyone had fun making it and we are all proud of what we made. We will have to see how it does in the film festivals later this year once I get the final edit done.

I think making these films with mates is fine with no money involved. If someone had paid me £500000 to make the film then I would definitely be paying the folk that worked on it.

Margaret MacDonald says...

I think sites like Shooting People should exist to share information and to help people network with which people and connect with whichever projects they only choose. The postings and debates regarding work for pay vs for free will help people decide which is right for them. To exclude projects which could not afford funding for staff would not only take away people's right to choose for themselves but would also contribute to making independent film making harder than it already is.

Therese Gray says...

I do think expenses should always be reimbursed. People should not end up out of pocket, effectively financing other peoples' projects!

I find this very interesting. On the one hand there is a longstanding tradition of student and beginner films made on an "expenses only basis" which should not be crushed. Indeed, it's the only reason I subscribe to your site so I expect you will lose a lot of members if you rule those ads out.

BUT there is also increasing exploitation of people desparate to get into the film and TV by professional production companies and other industry "professionals". This DOES need to be stamped out.

A few examples (none from your site, as it happens):

- my screenwriting tutor berated me for years about doing expenses-only shooots. Then one day she phoned up out of the blue trying to get me to do a student shoot (which she was being funded for by LCC!) without getting my expenses refunded! You can imagine what I thought. In the end she agreed my expenses would be repaid and they were refunded - although she was no help at all in that regard and I have not spoken to the person in question since!

- the Channel 4 programme "Demolition" (Kevin McCloud, etc) tried to get people to do their own, self-funded snippets about buildings they disliked. I didn't do one even though it's a subject that interests me. Professional production companies shouldn't be advertising to get members of the public to fill airtime for free!

- I found one of those "pay us money to get put on our books" scams advertising via my local job centre! To be fair, I reported my suspicions to the job centre and did not see that ad again, but I am sure there are plenty of others.

The conclusion I draw from all this is that while you should continue to publish genuine low/no budget ads, you should also publish guidelines about what that means, which should be reposted often, perhaps every week, on your mailing list and - while you can't be expected to have the manpower to check out every ad - you should perhaps have some kind of sampling system, clearly telling people on the list that you will not tolerate this kind of exploitation.

You should also make available a way to report such expoitation and publish those allegations and let people make their own minds up about whether they are prepared to work for certain people/production companies.

Every so often you should do a review of who has (allegedly) been misbehaving.

It's a tricky one - but like I said, if you remove the expenses only section, I'll be cancelling my subscription.

Nina Millns says...

It would be great to encourage the message that resourceful film makers can find SOME funding - enough to pay the people involved for their time, talent and skills. I think this will encourage all budding film makers to take the marketing and budgeting side of their business as seriously as the creative side. This could be a benefit to all involved.

Amanda Atkins says...

I believe that if we lose the opportunity to ask people to collaborate, or indeed to collaborate ourselves in projects we believe in, it will be a huge loss to independent film-making. Nobody is forced to work for nothing, and to me it seems a huge infringement of liberty to force minimum wages on lo/no budget movies (for everybody involved). The legislation protects no-one, all companies would prefer to pay cast and crew - it will just mean that a huge percentage of projects won't even begin. I don't think, as adults, we should be denied the chance to do work we love for pleasure; for experience; for stimulation and potential future reward if the project gets lucky. A true collaboration is a win-win situation; an understanding between consenting adults who share a goal...

Jerome Quiles says...

All of the above comments seem to have a point. My take on it:
1. Student productions are genuinely unable to pay their crew and are, in my view, a valid way of getting started artistically.
2. All other productions should invariably include their crew's wages in the budget. This industry, like all industries, is a business, not a hobby. Unless one is helping out a friend, a student, or a charity, I feel one is owed substantial financial payment for their work.
3. Would the imposition of having to pay the crew minimum wage eventually discourage struggling filmmakers? Probably, and this is where it gets tricky. But what about open negotiation between the producer and the artist/crew? Perhaps the key to this debate, apart from an obvious need to assess our attitudes towards work and remuneration, is to meet the other one half-way. As an actor, i would rather be paid £40 for a day's work, given i like the project, than nothing at all.

David Hawk says...

I, like many other film makers out there do not have trust funds or lottery wins to finance the films i make.
Of course any registered production company that makes its living from producing should be made to pay but upcoming film makers have to work together to pool their talents to make their films otherwise they will not get made, its that simple.
No one forces anyone to take an unpaid job, I've done my fair share and it was my choice.

Geoffrey Sleight says...

If it is a commercial project where the makers are being paid, then everyone involved should be paid. If it is a collaborative work where the makers are not receiving money or any other tangible reward, then it should be left to the individual parties involved to agree terms between themselves. Should money be made from collaborative projects, or self-financed commercial pitches at a later stage, then everyone involved should receive a fair, proportionate share.

Elaine Smithers says...

This is what Dale Murchie said in an earlier post and I totally agree.

- If its a business PAY. If you're a business and can't afford to pay even minimum wage then you're exploiting people.
- If it a student project or a personal project you should be allowed to work for free (but ideally recieve expenses, food etc). IF a student or personal project makes money this should be shared with the people who worked for free.

Some suggestions...

- Could Shooting People provide some paperwork to download that makes it clear what people working for free will receive - be that copies of the film, points on the back end etc. Sort of like a contract.

- Could SP have an eBay-style feedback system for members so if somebody was exploiting people it would be clear to see from their feedback?

says...

I wouldn't have been able to gain the experience i have if i demanded my full rate for every film I've worked on.
Established production companies should have to pay but how are new film makers supposed to raise the budgets needed, it would kill what industry we have left, stone cold dead.

GILLIAN MCIVER says...

If the film is receiving any funding then it should be expected to pay personnel at least NMW.
If it is not funded, then a legal, enforceable expenses system must be in place.
No "internship" should last more than a certain length of time, to prevent the situation of people working for free for months on end. Not only is that exploitation, it serves to keep working class people etc. out of the industry since they have to support themselves.

says...

Paid Work or Volunteer?

I believe in personal choice - so I think they should still be available on the site - but I think people advertising the opportunities should be much clearer in what they are offering.

The term 'working/work/jobs' shouldn’t be used at all if there is no pay attached. The Encarta online English dictionary lists the definition of the word 'work' as: 'paid employment at a job'

The term ‘collaboration’ is a fuzzy one. (Dict. Def.: The act of working together with one or more people in order to achieve something). It implies artistic merit (which I am sure everyone wants to be associated with) but again seems to be a guise for ‘get bods for nothing'.

I think 'volunteer' is a very clear label. It states starkly it will be an unpaid opportunity. People would immediately understand that they were being asked to give their skills and time for nothing but the experience(student, low/no budget, short, feature film, whatever).

It would hopefully make it more difficult to pay some crew whilst enlisting others as volunteer's. (usually: pay the techies don't pay the actors). Can a production be touted around as professional and volunteer status at the same time?

I am just as sick as everyone else about the debate but unfortunately that is the state of the industry. I just urge people (especially actors) to seriously consider how much 'pot and kettle/chicken and egg' is going on when they bemoan the lack of paid work if they do a lot of unpaid films.

Check with agents and CD's - how valuable is an obscure film credit on your cv (especially if there is no showreel to view - an often discussed issue with collaboration work).

Mary Shovelle says...

The most important point is this .. the industry needs to respect ALL its workers from those starting out to those who are well established. It may seem tough but if the industry saw a value in all categories of jobs then it will move the industry forward. I don't think you can complain about screenwriters not getting paid sufficiently or getting recognition and then turn around and not pay a runner. If the industry values every aspect of its business then it will be more successful. This successful atmosphere and culture will then result in more openings for those starting out. They will still be needed but without the exploitation. If a runner or a young work experience person gets the minimum wage, they are more likely to be attracted to the industry, to respect and value what they do, and be motivated to treat others well too. Please help to stop 1) the exploitation and 2) the culture of disrespect that results from this exploitation. Mary

Justin Carr says...

My first experience of film production, while paid, was a runners position which seemed great money at first, but then when the long working day was over and the realiasation as to what you're hourly rate REALLY was, it was peanuts, and didn't even touch the minimum wage.

This has given me the opinion that if you're prepared to do the work, then be paid a fair rate.

Now as a writer, I have recently experienced a 'paid work' posting from a pop promo/television director, with over 20 years experience in the industry, who was looking for a writer. When push came to shove the Director wanted me to do more work with unlimited redrafts,etc, all on the whim of 'if he liked it he'd use it' and pay me 100 quid for the privilege. When I suggested to the Director that we have a contract in place that was more realistic to the Writers Guild Guidelines, I never heard from him again. I did complain about this posting to Shooting People, and never heard anything more on the matter. Then, back in November the same Director had a very similar posting looking for a writer. This seriously p****d me off, as I took the time to bring it to Shooting People's attention, as I felt this Director should be banned from Shooting People, end of. And there he was, similar post, with the payment issue as clear as mud.

For me, I think Shooting People as a whole need to do some collective research on their 'fellow shooters' who look to exploit others through these postings. If you're a newbie and dont have the budget, be upfront about it, yet at the same time, if you have over 20 years experience as a director, and have secured funding for your project, you won't have budgeted for a writer at 50 quid a script, will you?

Just step back and look at the bigger picture people. You can't work for free forever, and by agreeing to work for nothing now, just for experience, this will eventually bite you on the ass when you decide it's time to get paid for your time and effort. As somebody will be given your dream job because they will do if for a lot less or NOTHING.

thomas mccue says...

I have just completed my first low budget feature film. We had a fantastic, dedicated Cast and Crew, all of whom, including myself worked for travel expenses only.

I know for a fact that I would never have got the film made if people weren't willing to do so. Many People want to gain experience working on a film/set, and most times working for free is the only way to get it.

When People work on a lo/no budget film for free, it is by choice, that is exactly how it should be.

Luke Andrews says...

I feel that as long as the person advertising for work is up front about expenses only roles then it should be up to the individual to decide for themself. I recently made a short film with a limited budget, with wages negotiated with the key players (actors, DOP, etc), but there were other roles that I genuinely could not afford to pay for. But I was up-front about this, and the people who worked for expenses only (and I always pay expenses, that is something I am personally a stickler for) were accepting of this fact. They are adults, they made their own choices with the terms clearly laid out before them. Those of us who haven't made it yet are out to get ourselves noticed, and when I personally have living costs to pay and am unable to save a budget to cover minimum wage stipulation for people working on my films, I would like the freedom to advertise for expenses-only gigs, and I would also like the freedom to respond to an advert for an expenses-only gig if it allows me to gain experience and meet like-minded people.

says...

Have a seperate section for non-paid 'work'?

Spike Jefferson says...

It is supply and demand. If I were getting lots of paid work, I would hardly ever consider working free. Now, I'm getting no paid work, and I'd rather act for free than not at all. I'm the same with playing music. Similarly, we know that the big stars work for, what for them is peanuts, if they're interested in the film. It's unfortunately the case that there isn't, and never has been, enough work, and that's because we enjoy doing it.

Ronnie Mackintosh says...

Provided all dealing are open and honest then people should be allowed to make their own decisions.

Grietje Lolita Fortuin says...

As long as the prevailing conditions of work and payment are clear for everyone, each and everyone can make his or her own decision. Everybody knows what is best for him or her self.

Paul Gavin says...

As a junior, I worked for no money on some projects but always saw it as a way of gaining experience and making contacts, you should create a balance between paid and non paid jobs, if you are good people will pay for that knowledge.

Rachel Arnold says...

If people have the money to pay, such as TV companies, they should pay people something. But ordinairy citizens who need to use each other to experiment creates a culture and lets new ideas express themselves. Exchange of skills is important as well as money.

Robert Stein-Rostaing says...

if you take away or make illegal the option for low or no pay then you will kill the indie feature market and the tv development market. how are the majority of graduates going to get a foot in the door if working for experience rather than cash is banned? The individual should have the right to choose to work and be paid with the value of experience gained, and those who allow themselves to be exploited should learn a hard lesson. I agree however that if payment is promised and/or deferred there should be strict laws to protect people in this situation.

Dale Murchie says...

- If its a business PAY. If you're a business and can't afford to pay even minimum wage then you're exploiting people.
- If it a student project or a personal project you should be allowed to work for free (but ideally recieve expenses, food etc). IF a student or personal project makes money this should be shared with the people who worked for free.

Some suggestions...

- Could Shooting People provide some paperwork to download that makes it clear what people working for free will receive - be that copies of the film, points on the back end etc. Sort of like a contract.

- Could SP have an eBay-style feedback system for members so if somebody was exploiting people it would be clear to see from their feedback?

- This has been mentioned elsewhere but it was an excellent point so I will repeat it. Consider publishing a code of practice for unpaid shoots.

says...

Each individual needs to take 100% responsibility for the choice they make and that's it really. It's about taking full responsibility for your life. You read a brief and you make a choice. If people are not paying you enough and you are complaining why are you doing the job in the first place? Be braver and bolder in your outlook. Have enough trust in your own life that you will find something better. You are only exploited if you allow yourself to be. If you agree to do a job for no pay then remember YOU made that choice so create as much value as you can from it.

Christopher Hood says...

Everyone should have the freedom to volunteer their services. I love making films for pure enjoyment and love meeting people who feel the same.

Charlie Sanderson says...

At the moment I am an actor looking to get a showreel together so working on an expenses only project is fine for me if I get a reel out of it. I think that people should be allowed to choose what work they take on. I did one project though where it took two years to get a copy of the film, when the students had promised to get it to me within two weeks and if there was a way for you help people attempting to get their promised showreels that might be a help.

janus avivson says...

The problem is that in the UK and in the film business it became a habit to have people doing things for free. This is not an issue for people doing artistic or personal projects, which will always be done without money changing hands. However I think that people working on commercially viable filming project should be paid for their time and work. If you have no money for the film, go and get a job, save up a couple of thousands, and then make a film.

Paul Milham says...

All the projects I have worked on and created myself involved everyone, including myself, working for free. The experience has always been so positive as everyone has been building up their portfolios in their repective fields. As a result of us creating these projects we all have moved on to paid work and the next generation are now coming together to do the same. Of course, no one should have to work for free but if all parties want to and are passionate and enthusiastic then the current system is working and so beneficial for trying to crack the industry.

Kevin Potton says...

Working for free is a personal choice. I am an unknown actor yet have been through a very solid, expensive training at a good drama school. The problem with freebies is that it is much easier if you already have a pot of money to sustain you and, sadly, that is why most wealthy people get on in acting while the rest of us, who would love to commit to the freebie projects, are hampered by having to occupy our time just to pay our day-to-day expenses.

Louise Brown says...

I loathe SOME of the expectations of postings requesting experienced crew to work for free, with unrealistic expectations and deadlines.

Nonetheless, I believe it is still in our community's favour to maintain posting for free/low pay collaborative or working opportunities, as in and amongst the rough, there are some interesting projects to work on and ideas to be shared.

As much as I recoil in horror at the inconsiderate and quite frankly ludicrous postings, I move on further down the page. If I don't like what I read, I don't have to work on it!

Ash Bhalla says...

If you CAN pay, you SHOULD pay.

Pay scales should be directly related to the film's budget:
Exploitation is a problem but we should not penalize "no-budget" filmmakers because better-financed operations CHOOSE not to pay minimum wage, even when their budget would allow for it.

es bailey says...

Whilst I understand the financial constraints faced by many low-budget productions, I feel that many such productions (including most shamefully, established production companies) gravitate towards the no-pay option as a matter of course, without even bothering to consider that they could include even a modicum level of paid expenses (at £30-25 per day) within their budget - albeit slim - for people who choose, of their own free will, to contribute their time and effort towards working on their productions. While I understand that people are entitle to choose whether they want to work as an unpaid member of a production or not, I feel that this entrenched no-paid/lo-paid financial production model has in the past - and continues to do so - exclude - many people from all walks of life from even considering a career in the the British Film and Television Industry. Whilst I do not believe that filmmakers and programme makers should necessarily be penalised for the dire straits in which the industry currently finds itself, particularly working as they do under such extreme financial constraints, I do believe that the Government should be looking at ways in which they can contribute to the industry financially - or more preferably, raise finance for the industry - in order to actively - and more importantly, financially - support and encourage burgeoning filmmakers / programme makers, so that they do not have to constantly be trying to produce a creative endeavour on a shoestring budget; so that they can offer some type of paid employment to those willing to offer their time to working on their productions, and in this way the industry could become properly regulated, with the sharks kept on the borders, and therefore new entrants could gain productive paid work experiences in a regulated and mutually beneficial environment.

Margaret Milner Schmueck says...

Filmmaking is a craft that needs to be learned by doing and low/no paid work offers an opportunity for prospective crew to get valid experience, learn, progress and grow their contacts and ultimately decide what it is they want to do if they are to seek a career within the industry. Someone who has never worked on a film set or in a production office will always be up against someone who has more experience so will never get a paid entry level job. The UKFC needs to work with the Government to draft new legislation that allows more flexibility within the industry. I have produced UKFC funded shorts (6,500 to 9,000 GBP) that allow hardly anything in the budget to pay crew. If the current legislation stands then the UKFC needs to ensure that budgets for the films they commission allow for proper crew payments such as in other European countries like Ireland and Germany where state funded short film budgets are 70,000 to 150,000 EUR. I've been to the festivals and seen the films and discussed the budgets with the filmmakers. Producers here in the UK are villified for low budgets but the UKFC who is at the heart of the industry is also partly responsible for such practices as the tiny budgets are simply not realistic.

Chris Barnett says...

People should only be asked to work for free on a film (when I say free I mean for something other than money) if the film has gone over budget by mistake or accident or unforeseen circumstances. If you work your budget out properly you should be able to afford to pay everyone who works on it. your film should be worked out around the budget. That's how things work in the real world. if you have less money you scale down the production. Come on people, please lets build an industry that works around people being able to make a living out of the work that is there. Pay your staff first. Lets create an industry that is based in the real world. We should feel that when we are offered a job or looking for work that when we find it we can rest assured that we will be paid and that we may be able to pay our rent and bills this month. I work in the community video sector and we always always pay our workers. I have once had someone work on a film for nothing when she said that she would be ok with it when I had to grovel to her that I had over spent the budget, and due to a mistake of mine could not afford to pay her. i was mortally embarrassed and am currently saving up my own money to pay her.

Thanks

Chris

hugh brune says...

I subscribe only to the writers' bulletin and have made several useful contacts through postings for unpaid work, resulting in two short films and a feature. I very much hope therefore SP will continue to accept postings like this, provided the poster makes their background and proposal clear.

I guess it's different for runners and perhaps other crew, who are more vulnerable to exploitation. The kind of films I'm talking about didn't have runners - everyone else chipped in.

cheers
Hugh

Patrick Griffiths says...

*Collaboration* is clear and very different than "Work for *me* for nothing." Isn't this simple? You can't force people to pay for collaborations.

Caz Kennedy says...

I have worked for low / no pay in the past because I wanted the experience and I wanted to learn. This was a choice I happily made. If I didn't, how else would I have been given the chance to learn on set? Is anyone really going to pay someone with little or no set experience over someone who has? I don't really think so. Let people choose what they do and how they do it. Not everyone has the money to pay for all positions on a production but sometimes just being a part of something that is worthwhile in terms of learning and getting that all important credit is worth taking on a low or no paid position.

Let's make sure we do not exploit each other and keep our right to choose what we do just that - our choice.

I don't want to see anyone exploited but at the same time, I don't want to see people not making films because they can't afford to pay everyone. If I like a project and want to be involved, I'll volunteer and do what I can because I want to. Of course, I am not rich and I do need to earn a living so I cannot afford to do this all the time but when I can, I do and so do a lot of other people I know.

They answer is simple - if you can afford to pay people a wage - pay it. If you can't - be honest about it and understand that you may have people applying who want the experience (not those with loads of experience). Treat people right, feed them, water them, give travel expenses at least, let them learn and give them the credit they deserve. If the film does well - remember the people who made it happen - those paid and not paid.

Anthony Holt says...

I've recently joined shooting people purely for extra networking, collaboration and expenses only work. I have a full time job within the film industry and perhaps that's a blessing, but I also do freelance work and aim to go completely freelance in the near future. It's true I have the benefit of a relevant full time job gaining me experience whilst building up contacts, but this is just one of many ways into the industry. If it wasn't for unpaid work I wouldn't have earned half the contacts I now have, nor a lot of my London based friends. That's on a personal level. On a professional level I firmly believe that filmmaking requires people of a mindset that would be happy to work for free at various stages of their career if they want to be taken seriously as passionate professionals. You have to stand out from the crowd and show you have a good work ethic to be good at any filmmaking job. If it's just about the money then you're in the wrong industry. Now that's not to say you should be exploited but it's very clear on shootingpeople when people have a low budget expenses only shoot. Personally I think working on a feature or anything more than a couple of days for free is ludicrous but good luck to those producers trying to shoot expenses only features. I like to think that people are smart enough to realise that those jobs are a waste of time and you are wasting a lot of your time on one project and putting yourself at financial risk. I'm rambling, I know, but I think it's important that this choice remains. I still do free work occasionally and I'm not even a creative role, I enjoy working and creating and meeting new people. It's my choice ultimately. One final point I feel is very valid - please take a note of the American and UK responses. I strongly believe that the union mentality is one that has come over from the states and I know no working professionals here in the UK that would frown upon free work at some stage in their career, at the very least at the beginning.

Jared Kelly says...

Let’s all champion morally juicy collaboration contracts where individuals’ free time and effort is exchanged for industry learning, support and encouragement, plus a profit share for all, relative to contribution, for those rare collaborations that do achieve commercial success. Yes. Let's do that.

Ekow Armah says...

So long as the project requirements are clear and accurate, it should be up to the individual to choose whether they want to work for free or not

Michael Dines says...

Expenses only postings should be restricted to short films. If someone wants to make a feature (which gives them kudos on their cv) they should pay everyone involved. If they want to make a feature and not pay (or promise deferred pay) they should find somewhere else to recruit their crew. Film is showbusiness and showbusiness is all about networking.
The whole business of making films on a shoestring is reminiscent of the old 8mm amateur film clubs - but they called themselves amateurs and at least knew the people they were asking to operate the camera, sound recorder, or do the editing.

Sylvia Seymour says...

Top actors are now prepared to work for free to "help the industry". This is heading only one way...this misguided generosity will mean that actors will never be paid. I personally have worked for students for expenses only to find them handing out cash to their mates to be "extras" in pub scenes. Training organisations should be badgered to make sure that actors are paid a minimum wage, student films after all are not for profit. Not paying actors is immoral. There are no zero budget productions. Again I have worked on a film where I was told that so many people had worked for free they could afford a better camera! In other words, there is always some money but the mugs don't get paid.

Michael Walton says...

As a fledgling filmmaker hungry for knowledge and experience, I’ve done some short courses and found them ok but very expensive. On the other hand I’ve learnt an enormous amount from working for free on other peoples productions.

Theory is certainly useful, but arriving on set at some ungodly hour and having to work with a whole bunch of new people is the best way to learn. We are all able to assess these unpaid jobs and make a decision, no one forces us to work for nothing. But for me these jobs are free learning. Please, please don’t stop advertising unpaid work

john baker says...

If Shooters do not wish to work for Free then that is their decision but please do not allow the noisy minority force their decision on others by taking away freedom of choice.

For some working for free is the only way of learning the ropes and getting into the industry - we can't all afford to go to film school.

Sonya Raymond says...

I agree this is a very thorny problem. We have to balance freedom of choice with exploitation, and getting experience with people being paid as professionals. I have not heard of footballers playing professionally for free... Unfortunately we do not prize the arts in this country as much as they do elsewhere and so we are where we are. On a practical level, if SP only advertised paid jobs there would be virtually no listings and since there is very little money for funding the arts then many projects just would not happen without no pay/deferred payment and we would all be in a poorer situation - artistically and financially (as oppose to just financially!) I think fairness is the key. Either pay the actors etc if others are paid, or all do it for free, with people deciding whether they wish to or can afford to take part for no money. If it makes money, share it out etc. And I think the distinction people are making between shorts and feature films is very valid too. I also think that when adverts for established brands or TV companies are being made, these should be paid at proper rates, not as sometimes happens...

Antonio Austoni says...

All adults have the right to make their own choice.
As long as its clear that there is no or low pay, then everyone can make an informed decision.
It would help to know who the producers are, is it really a no budget short for a student graduation film or is it a production company who actually could afford to pay minimum wage?
Is there a way to check who's behind each posting?

Peter Davis says...

Some of us financing our own films with practically no budget would never be able to get a crew together if we had to pay everyone minimum wage.

Julien Bernard-Grau says...

Unfortunately here in the UK we do not have the support network for our industry as there is in France...We should be looking into that...

...This industry constantly exploits the little person, in fact it seems survive of it, as do most industries in our capitalist state, take the job at your own risk. Life's to short for 'Maybe if I'd tried to work for free I'd be further...' and '...its not fair, I deserved to be payed.' Of course you do, but that is not the nature of this particular beast.

Blue Monkey Television HD Production Truck says...

You are ALL going to find one big problem –
Once you have done 1 or maybe 2 years of free work after leaving collage or university, you are going to run into the age old problem that most people do. You won’t get that paid post, as someone else is willing to do it for free.

I know it very hard to say no, caus you really want to work in film work; but if you not being paid for your skills you’re not really working, your just playing. To work in the film industry ‘full time’ you have to be paid. Otherwise, it won’t pay the rent and is just a hobby!
You are never going to get off the bottom of the ladder as PAID crew if there are always people underneath you who are willing to do your job for nothing.

The film industry is an industry, just like any other; and as such should pay all of its employee’s at least national minimum wage.

You may well be able to work your way up the ladder of unpaid work roles, however when you want to make that step into the real world and start getting paid for your time and efforts, so you can pay for simple things in life like food and rent, or your mortgage; you will find the unscrupulous employer will then circumnavigate you, and go for the cheaper option.
(Don’t fall for the line – It will look great on your CV, people can see right thou this)

Remember –
Good employees pay you because you are GOOD (This shines thou on a CV)
Bad employees use you for free, because you are free, and not because of your skill level.

Ric Swift (MD)
Blue Monkey Television Ltd.

Glenn Robinson says...

If push comes to shove I believe you will find the Government legislation takes precedence over private contracts. There was a court case some years back which proved that. So, even though Socialism thinks I am stupid, and treats me as such, I still like to think that I make the best choices and, sometimes, working for free can be a good choice.

Poppie Sköld says...

I don't think anyone should work for free.

Mainly because it generates a disrespect for "work". And if a middle class white westerner who has a degree doesn't get paid for work, then someone outside of that description has no hope in hell.

The exploitative nature of working for free in this industry stimulates the corporate and the capitalistic.

Everyone should get paid. It should be a given, so you can get on with the creative.

lawrence says...

There has been a growing number of small production companies that have exploited low end staff for years and now more skilled rolls are under threat as well.

Ula Pontikos says...

your recent layout for job postings is very unclear and difficult to read. You should reformat the posting.

I think you should encourage more paid jobs to appear in SP. I'm not opposed to unpaid work but there should be a balance. I'd love SP to engage more people with paid jobs to put adverts on.

Regards,

Miranda Harrison says...

Student film really don't have any budget, and I think cast and crew should have the freedom to choose whether or not to do them.

However, I think all other projects should be minimum wage - there are so many people out there who think they can cut corners on cast and crew, when they have funding (albeit often minimum). I'd rather get paid and be asked to bring a pack lunch!

mark playne says...

I could never have made my recent short without the incredible free help I received. I made great contacts and hope to work with the crew again in various ways. The crew were all happy and I hoped gained from it in the same way I did. The film simply would not have been made without this help.

Monica Kendall says...

The above questions are not helpful. For me the situation is: (1) if anyone working on the film is paid, then all should be paid, and this should be made clear. (2) Film makers should give contracts to all the people who work on it, giving profit-share to all involved if there is no payment. Postings that just say 'expenses only', with no mention of a contract, should therefore be banned.

Oliver Gray says...

Legislation will fail - you can't force us to not work for free if we want to. This is a storm in a teacup.

john edginton says...

SP should be more rigorous in policing the collaborations/free work posts to weed out the obviously expolitative eg a broadcast-commissioned programme seeking lo-to-no pay staff!
The other side of the coin is that free work can be a way in for young people but it's not the only way in!

Emma Shane says...

I feel that there should be very specific circumstances in which low or rather no pay is acceptable, a lot depends on how a project is being financed, and whether anyone is actually going to make money out of it.

If a group of friends (particularly students) are financing the thing themselves on a shoestring, and are not intending to make any money out of the finished piece, then I can see the value in agreeing to work for nothing. I.e. basically they are making it as an excercise in learning how to make it. Yes fair enough.

If a friend asked me to act, be an extra or a runner on their showreel, I would also consider doing it for nothing.
Likewise if it were for a charity.

However, what I feel is very wrong, is when companies plead poverty as an excuse not to pay people, just because they can get away with it. When actually they are intending to make money out of the piece. And perhaps some members of the crew are paid but those lower down are not.

I think with regards to the statement there needs to be a third way. Generally I think low paid staff should be protected from exploitation. However, I think one can make exceptions for instances where "no one else is getting paid".
Personally I would only agree to work for nothing under threecircumstances
i) I was sure the piece genuinely couldn't pay, but was a worthwhile piece to work on.
ii) I felt it was genuinely to benefit a charity.
iii) I was asked by a friend to do it as a favour.

In general I think unpaid jobs should only be advertised when there is a genuinely good reason for them to be unpaid. (such as a charity, or possibly students). Other than that I think unpaid jobs should be discouraged, if they can't give a good enough reason for not paying, then they ought to at least pay the minimum wage, and preferably Union rates (the union rates are now stated on BECTU and Equity's websites respectively).
I think anyone signing up to a website helping them find work, should be strongly warned about the possibility that they may be exploited on a job that is unpaid (and also strongly advised to find out what proper professional rates ie Union rates actually are, so that they can compare the rate offered to that).

Emma Shane

Simon Hargreaves says...

It's a complex issue, but there should be a basic minimum to pay people considering they have no stake in the intellectual property that is produced.

says...

My responses are based on the assumption that most productions for which advertisement is made are commercial ventures with a reasonable budget and/or a likely source of financial recompense. In cases of a genuinely speculative nature with neither of the above, or where the project is entirely non-profit driven, I acknowledge that energy and skills may well be asked for, and supplied, for nothing. In these instances, all participants should have some agreed share of any subsequent success.

MJ Simpson says...

Writers, if you calculate an hourly rate, rarely get minimum wage even if they're quite well paid. And not just in films - that applies to most forms of professional writing.

Edgar Dubrovskiy says...

At least minimum wage, please.
Every director or producer hiring people to work for free is just using the situation.

There must be no such situation, as SOMEONE WORKING FOR FREE!!!
This will, at least, bring the working standards up. I saw way to many silly mistakes on sets, just because people get fairly high positions with no experience (hence - no pay), and then make very stupid and disastrous health and safety mistakes.
STOP THIS, PLEASE!!!

gail fear says...

there is nothing like work experience and in these hard times if someone wants to work and is prepared to do so for nothing they should be given the opportunity to learn - but they should NEVER be exploited for so doing.

Miguel Fernández says...

I understand what independent film means but what I do not understand is the "small" production companies which post offers in Shooting people getting them some benefits which are not fairly divided between the crew.
I had been working in some projects found in your website, I worked hard as my mates and we never received that famous call back, finding in these bulletins, days or weeks after, more posts from those mentioned production co. asking for member for the crew. That means slavery, modern slavery. They are getting benefits in each projets, now increased by unpaid positions.

You will receive a DVD with the final video. You will appear in the credits. This is just work experience. In one year you will see your benefits.
I AM TIRED OF ALL THAT. I AM TIRED OF NO HONEST PEOPLE. Come on guys! we are in the same place, working hard for the same aim but we are destroying dreams!!

www.dcpfoundry. co.uk says...

If you had to pay your entire crew even a minimum wage, you'd end up eating water with water and living in the forest even if you were reasonably well-off to start with. For the majority of filmmakers this is simply not an option. Forcing the minimum-wage laws onto indie filmmakers would leave two avenues for the not-rich: either stop making films or apply for funding (and we all know what kind of films the funding panels like). The rich would not notice the difference. In the end the independent filmmakers commnity will become heavily financially-dependent, which can not be a good thing.
It goes without saying that those who can afford to pay have to be legally obliged to fork out but situations like this are clearly obvious most of the time - if a post house advertises an unpaid position it's got to be bullshit.
But in any event, it's down to every individual and banning advertising is not going solve anything. If you're dumb enough to work 12-hour shifts for no pay making tea for a high-earning editor, you deserve to be exploited and no legal mechanisms in the world would make you cleverer.

Peter Hastie says...

I have spent about £60,000 over ten years pursuing my fruitless dreams of making properly budgeted films to no avail and with no return. If I had to pay everyone who worked on any of my future projects, there would be no future projects and I can assure you that I and a great many others would be forced to leave Shooting People for a more democratic (and hopefully free) forum. This "issue" has almost certainly been brought to bear by those lucky enough to have secured paid work in the industry and fair enough, if you're working on a fully budgeted project, yes, everyone should be paid, but as most people here work out of their own pocket for artistic ends on very small productions, to cull all posts asking for help from fellow filmmakers - who we must assume are sentient and able to make up their own minds - is nothing short of fascism and I hope this "debate" is put to bed for good immediately! Absolute bullshit! Peter Hastie

Jonny Whiting says...

question 3 is confusing as it requires someone to have read AND understood current legislation.

I Jon Whiting want to be VERY clear that I DO NOT think it is acceptable to change your policy on whether or not you should allow people to post unpaid work ads, as a lot creative ventures can begin with little or no funding. If you choose to only accept professionally paid rates of pay for your postings, I think you need to completely rethink who you are to this community of film makers actor writers etc. ANYONE with any common sense is able to choose if they wish to take on unpaid work. It is there choice, and anyone without any common sense would probably find it very difficult surviving in this industry.

regards

Jonny

Kevin O'Connor says...

It should be up to the individual as to whether they work for nothing. However, individuals should take care not to be involved in work which has no relevance to their future and merely exploits them.

Jake Whitelee says...

I don't think the issue is whether people do freebees.
But I DO think the issue is that people want unrealistic things what for they offer.
Naturally there is a sliding scale of both experience and kit that any shooter can offer so one guideline for all is to restrictive and also potentially defeats the whole point of this sort of forum.
But the words "must have own kit" should be outlawed.
IF a shooter has kit they are willing to donate the use of on a one off basis this is one thing and can be discussed as part of an expenses only job, not a "paid" one but the idea that equipment should be considered part of an over all fee is not acceptable.

If shooters are working for minimum wage then THEY SHOULD GET minimum wage or whatever they have agreed.

Kit costs money and investing in it only provides a return or even allow the shooter to break even if the kit is paid for when its used.

Anyone can provide kit and services for nothing but all that leads to is people with real skills and professional standard kit having to compete with the various chancers out there who are willing to undercut just to get a job and this is good neither for those of us who have some respect for our craft nor the other film makers who have to pick up the pieces when they come to post.

Posts that ask for a shooter to work for expenses are fine if kit is covered and posts offering minimum wage are likewise fine but posts that ask people to make a loss are not okay because they give producers an unrealistic expectation of what it costs a member of the crew to actually do a job.

Further more NOBODY should ever expect anyone to work if they are not able to cover all expenses and food and that means food not a sandwich with a single slice of Burger cheese in it and a cup of water for 14 hours work THIS IS WRONG and is exactly what will have people talking about exploitation.

Tanya Franks says...

If the posting is made clear that the unpaid job is a suitable position for those without or with very limited experience then I see no reason why people should not have that option to apply for it if they wish to.

Any position requiring skill, experience and expertise should be advertised at minimum wage and above.

tim mills says...

I got into TV 14 years ago by doing unpaid work for MTV, once I'd showed my worth they quickly started paying the going rate for an assistant.
The problem I have is with companies or individuals asking for experienced crew with kit for expenses only! Experience and kit costs and it's those sort of posts that are really a problem not the ones looking for runners or PA's with little experience.

Ed Stradling says...

The survey is too simplistic.

There are certain circumstances under which I think unpaid job adverts should be accepted, just as I think there are certain circumstances under which I would work on such projects.

However, at the moment, I barely even read the advert pages of Shooting People, because the majority of adverts appear to be for unpaid or very low paid work, and I think this needs to change.

Maybe introduce a limit per member - so no member can advertise more than one unpaid project over a set period?

Or maybe introduce two-tier membership, one for pro work and one for unpaid and low paid work?

I don't know - but such a simplistic questionnaire is not particularly helpful in my view.

jon house says...

Alot of filmakers who advertise for free actors can find something to pay them but choose not to. I talk from experience!

Elisabeth Charbonneau says...

As long as the jobs that are unpaid are in the unpaid section, I do not see a problem with it. I do find it annoying when some producers consider expenses as a paid job.

Theo Shaw says...

We should all remember what shooting people is, A Creative Communtiy. People use this site for artistic collaboration. Issues of making a living shouldn't strictly come into this equation, poeple ought not loo at this site for that reason.

Yes there are people who exploit, look at those Soho gin palaces that rotate runners on "work experience". But this site is about people collaborating on creative projects together. I'd say its changed my life in that respect, and when I'm looking for paid work I first look to mandy.com

To take away the opportunity to network, collaborate and create would be criminal. True shooters actually ENJOY what they do and hence ought to have the right to CHOOSE a to work with others doing what they are passionate about.

says...

I think it is wrong for film/ tv production companies that have funds to expect people to work for nothing, in short I am against the exploitation of anyone by the media 'industry' as it is a business. I do however believe that where film makers are clearly receiving no money or very little funding other than from their own pockets, opportunities for low or no paid work should still be offered and advertised. We are able to make choices with regards what work we choose to do. I personally however believe that people who work with / for us should be offered something in return for hard work and there should always be some kind of contract made with people to say so. If the contract is broken - eg no copy of the film ever materializes or food is not made available on shooting days, that the production company should be 'fined'. I have found a committed and professional attitude when a crew is offered something, preferably money where possible, for their participation. This is in part of an 'investment' on both sides, into the work we make. I also think that the film and TV industry at the highest end of the market should be investing some of their wealth in seeking out genuine new talent.

says...

In the under funded world of film making there needs to be space for those wanting to express themselves even if this means no or low pay. To enforce protection for low paid staff will only stop projects happening. As an individual we have make our own judgements about which work we will undertake and for what fee.

Destricted says...

All the creative professions I have worked in, architecture, film, design, graphics, advertising, branding.... I have done a certain amount of unpaid work for experience, contacts and charity. I consider it part of my 'how to get ahead and get noticed' approach. Its not for everyone, I understand that. But I certainly appreciate shooting people advertising these experience opportunities so I can choose for myself. And of course as with all things, I have good and bad experiences but I have those paid too!

Charles West says...

Voluntary work may not always attract the commitment or application one would wish, but it's always a tremendous learning experience. Long may it continue!

Kathryn Worth says...

I'm an 'award winning actress'. A few years back out of nowhere I got the major lead in a low budget art-house feature that got distribution in 2008 and won several prizes, as well as receiving almost ubiquitous four star reviews(the film was recently listed at no 21 in The Guardian's Films of the Decade). But I'm in my 40s and despite this great success my career has not taken off. This being the case I've been happy to work for nothing on a couple of high quality short films that I've applied to through Shooting People in the last year. Of course I'd rather get paid, but if the production genuinely can't afford it then I'd rather work for free doing something genuinely creative than not at all.
(..Though it is true that when my partner and I made a short film, on my insistence we put our hands deep into our pockets and managed to come up with £100 for each of the actors. Whoops, I'm almost about to argue myself out of my 'if it's art it's okay to work for free' position!)

Alison Penton Harper says...

It's not easy to make a living as a writer, but a living it is, nevertheless, and an honorable one at that. Shame on all those who think otherwise.

Carrie Cohen says...

This is a poor survey as it does not distinguish between corporate and non-profit. Student films are the only ones that should be unpaid and even then expenses should be given. I am not a horse who needs to be "fed and watered". I balk at hearing that there is funds for a wrap party there but not for minimum wage for the actors. Low budget films should pay the actors at least the minimum wage; producers need to learn how to budget. They budget for technical equipment so they should save up a little longer to pay the humans. I have enjoyed working on a couple of "deferred payment" films but never been lucky enough to get my fee. It is a question of respect and professionalism. Define amateur. I do not think Shooting People's fee is justified.

Michael Thyx says...

If there is no pay then the minimum should at least be expenses and food to be provided.

Ben Shockley says...

As a Self-Employed professional actor I believe it is up to the individual to decide whether they want to consider working on a film for no pay. I guess you have to trust that the 'film Maker' is being truthful when he says he doesn't have the money up front to pay people, but really wants to make the film anyway. If the 'Film Maker' is loaded and is just trying to get 'free labour', then that is slightly different. I guess the question is "How do you know?" I don't recommend working for no pay all the time of course but if you want to get a track record of having some experience on film, but you can't get payed work to begin with, then doing one or two free jobs is better than no experience at all, and if you find that the 'Film Maker' is exploiting you after all, then don't work for them again and be sure to warn everybody else about them.

Mel Melcer says...

We need the freedom to choose what we want to do, with whom and for how much. While protecting fimmakers from exploitation is a valid concern, enforcing NMW will stifle creativity and kill the industry we are trying to nourish.

Mark Street says...

Members should be able to decide for themselves after reading about the project and checking the filmmaker's profile if it something they want to work on. Film is for everyone and not just those with the money. If we don't accept this fact then we are in danger of alienating some great natural talent. Just look at the forty minute film "Hunt For Gollum" by Chris Bouchard, which would have been impossible under the rules you are proposing. Don't loose touch with the grass roots Shooting People and don't listen to those members that seem so eager to complain about the way you run things. The reason you don't hear from the thousands that benefit from your site is because they are too busy trying to make their films and not sitting at their computers looking for things to complain about.

steve dineen says...

With such fierce competition in the filmmaking world, a minimum wage ruling would mean a large reduction in opportunities for experience on independent films - we all know that's what we do it for, experience. Less experience means fewer opportunities.
As has been said, we are grown-ups. We have to be. We can make our own decisions about when to work for free and when to stop. And if a director wants to shell out for a DOP with a good CV, then why would you argue? Who wants to work for free and then find out the footage is useless?

Jon Sadleir says...

Every production is different. I have taken pay cuts on jobs where at the end of the job I have delivered paperwork to find the producers & director quaffing crystal. I have hired shooters at the Southbank, where my complete budget has been £300 for a 3 camera shoot plus edit, then I get lectured about 'my day rate is...'.
Anyways; all production is different, it's business, if you can get paid, great! If not don't do it or make the most of the experience & contacts you make. How much did the crew make on 'Blair Witch' or 'Paranormal Activity?', were they paid after? This is a crap business where everyone is after gold, good luck if you can get it!

Matty Groves says...

A very difficult argument. While I feel the no one should exploited under any circumstance. There should be opportunities for people to gain experience and to learn to from other filmmakers. I've worked for free and people have worked for me for free and both worked well because we knew the deal. However, I'm sure there are people want to use other people out there just like in any industry. So if feel there should regulations in place for people working for no pay. Like only a set number of hours a day with food and water. But how do you regulate that? Very difficult situation.

Danann Breathnach says...

I feel it's essential for the creation of a film making community that there are opportunities advertised on Shooting People that are both 'paid' and 'unpaid'. No creative should have to work for free. Working for the 'love of art' holds no water for me (although I have done it, as a director, time and time again, unfortunately). But, I feel most people using Shooting People use it more as a 'creative social networking' site. Shooting People is more about introductions between filmmaking creatives rather than finding huge financial reward.

I don't know of many people who have made money on a production advertised on Shooting People, but I do know of people, who, having worked on a Shooting People advertised production that have, through recommendations, gone on to paid work. It's up to the individual to decide.

However, at this stage, I feel the subscription fee for Shooting People is not justified for the service provided. It's a bit high. Many of the posts can be found elsewhere for free.

I think much of the problem, with this point, is that Shooting People now needs to decide, as a site proud of its championing of filmmakers, how it sees itself and the service it's willing to provide for the nurturing of the indie filmmaking community.

Having grown to its present size, due in many ways to the loyalty of filmmakers, it now has a responsibility to those very filmmakers to provide the highest service it can.

* filmmakers = all people involved in the making of films.

Carol Younghusband says...

This site can help new, enthusiastic, people break into the industry. If it was purely to advertise 'paid-for' opportunities, this community would simply find another avenue, on another website to find 'expenses only' opportunities anyway. There is an argument for and against, but I think it should be left for people to make their own decision as to whether they want to work for experience only or pay only.

says...

In an ideally world it would be lovely to pay (I am a Producer) and to be paid however, many competitive jobs now require you to take unpaid work placements. It is hard enough to break into the media industries with unpaid experience and I do not know how you would did it without. We would be left with an even more inclusive industry than it already is.

There just isn't enough money in the funding pot already, if we remove the choice to work unpaid it will only be ourselves who suffer. How do you get into the industry without unpaid experience and not knowing any professionals?

Jackie Kane says...

We all have to start somewhere and by offering our services for free, we get to learn on the job. It also means like minds can feel free to look for collaborators. We have a choice then. Yes, sometimes people take the piss - big companies take the piss - but by removing the option of asking and offering work for no pay, I think you'll be setting limits and reducing choice and culling some of your community. Many many little gems are made on pocketmoney budgets and with goodwill. Goodwill is a commodity when you are starting out and many Shooters are... starting out. Don't make things even more difficult than they are for motivated people. We can say no if it doesn't suit us and Shooters will be quick to tear shreds off someone taking advantage. x

steve rehman says...

I've been working the TV industry for over 10 years as a TV director. To get to that situation I've worked countless times for free-to learn, make contacts etc-and still do now. I think this has always been the way of the film/tv business. Whilst I can see how this system can and will be abused, people should the right to chose.

Heather Rome says...

As an actor I'm willing to work on some projects for expenses only like student productions as I know that nobody is getting paid. However, it does irk me when the DOP gets paid and then actors have practically beg for travel money. If people like runners are employed for more than a few days then they should get the minimum wage, as should everyone else. It's one thing to film for a couple of days here and there and juggle survival work, quite another to commit to a project for more than a week or two and still pay the rent and eat.

Tom Mitchell says...

Often people starting out will accept taking no pay as they have no leg to stand on to negotiates a pay. I found this myself when i was starting out asking for payment and getting the response 'well will just get some one else'.

whether a production is for profit or not, if your offering expenses only or minam wage. there should be a deferred contract and/or points on the net of the film.

I'm all for productions being able to be made because they can't raise the finds to pay people. some of are great indy films would not have been made if it wasn't for people for working for free.

But often it is producers or companies setting realy low budgets and not paying people the full or any rate at all and then making a profit. This needs to a law! and not a written guide lines to protect all parties involved.

If you work you get paid. If your being trained (trainee) you get paid. and if you work for free you are only working under agreement that if the project makes any money you get paid, with interest for the risk you took. after all you are impart funding the project, and entitled to the same investment rights as any outer investor.

Graham Bowe says...

If minimum wage legislation is applied to every project there will be few projects. It will then be difficult for emerging actors to gain experience or exposure. (This might just work towards eliminating the untrained and talentless actors who presently clog up the 'profession').
One simple rule should apply - if anybody is paid everybody must be paid.

Ashleigh Drew says...

Unfortunately I feel like the issue isn't black and white. But I feel like this because I have heard that is still such an industry norm (even BBC runners sometimes work for free for months!) that people don't get paid and it is some kind of initial period of dedication to the job that you need to put in, if you are going to make it in the industry. Having said that, and excuse my ranting, this site is full of wannabe professionals as well as professionals right? And as the professional hopers would probably be the only people who would take unpaid work, to gain experience or whatever, there is a problem with deciding one way or the other! Hope this helps, just my view!

says...

I haven't been following this debate as i am somewhat out of the loop... but if given the chance to work on something of experiential value to me, or a cause/idea i find appealing, i should certainly have the right to do so without pay rather than not at all. Films should be driven by passion rather than salary. The only thing i have a problem with is when a contributor's enthusiasm is taken advantage of. There is a fine line between 'experience' and 'exploitation'. Nobody deserves to be considered 'expendable'.

I apologise if i have been ignorant to the facts, i intend to read more into this now...

Jesse Thompson says...

SP should feature more about how to avoid exploitation. There should also be very clear suggestions on how to avoid enraging members with unrealistic requests. But aside from that, people who want to make no/lo budget films should not be chastised for wanting to do so! There's a difference between ripping people off, and trying to make a movie for little money.

SP can be a very difficult place to find creative partners who want to do more than just work on one project and haggle about their rate.

says...

I have worked for free on a number of low budget productions over the years and I was happy to do so. I don't think that there can be many film makers who advertise vacancies merely to exploit people.

Alex Horsfall says...

I would much rather have the opportunity to work on a film (even if it is for no money) rather than not at all. The only way to crack into the film industry is to work as a runner or in a similar position, and if shooting people no longer advertise the unpaid positions, it does not mean that companies will suddenly be able to cough up money to pay staff. Instead, they will simply do without, meaning people like me trying to get as much experience as possible, regardless of money issues, will simply stop having access to any positions like that at all, leaving us nowhere.

Anyone can choose not to apply for a job. Nobody is being forced to take an unpaid job. If they do it willingly and in full knowledge that it will be unpaid, they cannot complain. So there. Hmph.

Andrew Forbes says...

Legally, there is no contract if no pay is being offered, therefore there is no commitment whatsoever - it doesn't matter even if someone has signed something to say there is: there isn't. Therefore, employers are fools unto themselves to offer no pay, as they risk getting let down even at the very last moment.

From an employee/freelancer's point of view: no-one is going to treat us as professionals if we don't treat ourselves as such.

Harald Schwarzmann says...

I think we´re all grown ups and can decide for ourselves wheter to work for free or not. At last it all comes down to honesty: if there´s money for a project, share it with all people involved. Since filmmaking is a team effort, everyone you need ist needed (no matter how "important" the job he does may seem).

Ed Parnell says...

There's a double edged sword here. People normally don't get anywhere without experience, which these positions can provide; however, the opportunities and theorem there is obviously open to abuse. Taking into account the current employment situation generally. Given that these are businesses, it could be seen as advantagious to an unscrupulous individual to employ people with no outlay meaning they get teh same services for nothing which would cost them considerably more. This is something which is becoming more and more attractive to many companies, regardless of motive, and therefore open to abuse.

So, I am in favour of REAL, VALUABLE experience, on either a intern type basis or training plan. this would need to be enforced and maintained, therefore costing money, so I can't see it happening anytime soon. Sadly.

Ian Rixon says...

Independant and low budget films can be a useful resource for experience and other work and can also be used as showcase material as well as adding to a CV

MARK ECKERSLEY says...

I think with some small films the budget is low and so people get together to help make the film and work for no pay as its a passion and they want to get the project off the ground - any film where the budget allows for fees to be paid should be - im for both sides of the coin as independant film-making varies from project to project - cheers Mark

Torkjell Stromme says...

I gained much valuable experience by working for just expenses on film shoots. Current economic circumstances, government legislation and court rulings seem to be reducing not only paid opportunities related to filmmaking, but following on from that also the opportunity for people to work for expenses and so gain valuable experience and contacts. My own conviction is that people should be able to decide for themselves whether they work for pay or collaborate on another basis. I'm also worried that the current trend won't stop me from making films on a collaborative basis, but that the means of reaching people with whom to work - namely through email bulletins and websites such as Shooting People - will be one invaluable resource taken away. Thank you for the chance to have my say on this.

Gareth Evans says...

ideally everyone should get a fair pay, hard when there is zero budget though. people do these jobs for experience and it's up to the individual whether to do a job. only a problem when people are taking the piss and abusing the system so to speak by constantly sourcing free labour when there is budget, also the goodwill and keen nature of runners. expenses should be covered as an absolute minimum.

Harly Quin says...

I think that experience can be more valuable than money.

Tim Prescott says...

Everyone "should" get paid but everyone should also have the opportunity to choose to collaborate on a low/no-pay project if they see it as worthy for their career.

Vote low/no paid jobs off Shooting People and you'll considerably reduce the amount of opportunities available. Not all are great opportunities, but some can be.

Bill Hayes says...

Question 4 is a problem. Runners should be protected from exploitation from producers who pay top end staff but not the runners. They should be protected and also free to work for free should they chose - BUT that should not be used by producers to advertise jobs that exploit newcomers but saying it's the runner's choice to work for free!

Another issue with runners is nwhen a posting asks for runners with cars! If a runner has an accident whilst working on a film paid or not, they will not be insured on a normal driver's policy. I was on a film a couple years ago - through SP - and a runner fell asleep at traffic lights because he was picking up an actor at 5.30am and delivering them home after 10pm at night. This MUST be pointed out in the T&Cs of postings I belive.

bob palmer says...

In my experience, many people currently working in creative industries have at some time worked for little or no financial reward. It has always been like this. However, the more you work, the more experience of craft you pick up, and the more likely you are to climb your particular career ladder. It is vital that people are allowed to make up their own minds on whether they should participate on a project or not.

Alexandra Maringer says...

there is many reasons why i would still work for free: experience, new contacts, new countries, new prospects, broadening of my horizon, .. but i have to say that i am happy enough to earn enough in my life already for being able to live this luxury.

i think on low budget films it is important to equally part the wealth, as in: don't give an actor 100 per day and a runner 100 for 3 weeks, but find a key that is good for everyone, like: pay all expenses, good food for everyone, rather secure the surroundings to be WELL and have good work conditions then fidget with 2 or 5 UKP more for a person that you are already not paying correctly, or offer other goods (like parties to meet other people, connections, job links afterwards, recommendations, ...)

and yes: it is true that you have to aim high to get only half as far, but film-producers should also always seek to be realistic and not exploiting, because after all, it is also the energy of the runner that helps making the crew-machinery run smoothly.

Gareth Bennett-Ryan says...

It's simple. If one person gets paid, so should the others. If no one else gets paid, i'm happy to do the same.

What's not fair is people thinking certain job descriptions deserve money while others don't. If i was working on a film and found this to be the case i'd walk.

I can only speak from an actors point of view here though.

I also think casting breakdowns need looking at. "Needs to be able to display a range of emotions"... i mean come on. "Male - 24"... that's not a casting breakdown.

We deserve to know all confirmed dates, estimated completion time, what camera/s are being used etc. Personally i want to gauge whether or not I can get good quality footage out of the job. Is it worth me doing? It may sound a bit pompus but it costs me money to do unpaid work, even with expenses being paid, so I need to choose carefully.

Heather Darcy says...

I think it's okay to advertise for a no-pay job if no one working on the film is making any money from it, but if certain people working on the film are being paid more than expenses, but the actors aren't (as is often the case) then that is totally unfair.

Perhaps if people feel very strongly about this issue there could be an option in the bulletins only to receive paid work jobs and no collaboration. In addition it might be worth asking all people posting jobs to give as many details as possible about the film, such as who is and isn't getting paid on their film, so that everyone feels like the conditions are transparent and they can make a judgement themselves about whether they want to get involved.

Andrew Wright says...

Its ridiculous that we're still debating this. I see so many 'actors' on places like Facebook, bemoaning all these non-paying jobs. The simple answer is, if you're not happy about it, don't take these jobs. Having dealt with a lot of actors, its a small minority that have the option to work for free or not. A lot of actors may class themselves as 'professional', but are unfortunately lacking in professional attributes (i.e. time keeping, good at acting etc).

When I was starting out, I did a LOT of jobs for free or expenses only: There simply is not enough money to go round on low budget films to pay everyone. There has to be a love of wanting to be a part of the process, which again seems to be lacking in some. Of course its not fair to spend your entire life working for peanuts, but the idea is that as you learn, gain skills and progress, you move into the arena of paying work.

I've made films where everyone has worked for free. I would love to pay everybody, but there simply isn't enough funding for films to do this. Hopefully one day this will change. We all have a choice to work for free or not, and for those who can't stop moaning about it - get used to it or go do something else!

MJ Lee says...

No-one wants to see exploitation, but getting work experience in the film industry (and the Arts in general) in whatever capacity at the start of your career can only be a good thing - even if it is initially unpaid. It doesn't have to be unpaid, but if you don't have the experience to get your foot in the door it can become an endless Catch 22. Let the individual choose, but have guidelines to stop the worse abuses.

Nadaav Soudry says...

I recently produced and directed my first zero budget short film via shooting people. The process of crewing via SP was generally very good. I put up a few postings, was very specific about what I was looking for and what was in it for those taking part (and what was not). I made it very clear what I could and could not cover financially.

I didn't receive tons or responses, just a few, but then my timescale was very tight. Nonetheless I crewed up all roles with very talented people. I made sure to offer travel expenses for anyone who wanted/needed, especially the runner. I bought lunch for everyone, and made sure tea, coffee, biscuits, fruit and soft drinks were available for the entire duration. I covered material costs for everyone who had them. And I will be buying everyone a drink at the wrap party. (It was a onoe day shoot).

I think this is the bare minimum that must be offered - the crew must be kept fed, warm and happy. Working on a low paid or unpaid job should be fun and pleasant.

The skills and experience of the core crew should also be made clear in postings so that people understand if the position is worthwhile for networking. The ultimate aim of the film, the timescale and the liklihood of completion should also be clear. This will help people make an educated choice.

In terms of the people I recruited through shooting people, most of them were very talented, experienced and very professional. I did not advertise for a runner but one contacted me anyway and I offered him the position (expenses only) - which he took. He was great.

I did experience one problem in relation to this issue. I engaged a sound recordist/designer through Shooting People, again expenses only. He dropped out at the 11th hour and left me in a very tricky situation. He did this not because he had another job but because he resented accepting an unpaid position. This is obviously completely unprofessional. People need to understand that even when accepted unpaid positions, they are making a commitment to the project and cancelling that late with no good reason puts the project in jeopardy. I think the application process via the site should state this.

Several members of my crew though, were friends, colleagues, and their friends. If the film crew were made up of people who knew each other exclusively this way, and no one was getting paid, even if they ended up0 making an award winning film, I dont think you could consider it a professional job - it is a group of friends doing what they love doing - the same way as if they had taken the day off to play football in the part or go camping or hill walking. In this case there can be no issue of NMW etc. So you will always have unpaid film shoots. And since you cannot stop this, it would be much better to develop A CODE OF PRACTICE around unpaid shoots. (eg hours, expenses, meals etc).

Finally, one other issue I can see emerging is where some crew are paid and others are not. this is to be avoided in my opinion. If there is the money to pay some crew members, the others should all get NMW at least.

Amiram Bukowski says...

It is a tough call, and a tough reality. But I think the winning argument is the freedom to choose. And we must allow that to people willing to participate in non-paying jobs.

Natalia Andreadis says...

This is a difficult one. Of course no one should ever be exploited but a majority of independent films, especially shorts, really wouldn't ever get made if everyone were to be paid.

Where I feel strongly is if the director and producer are getting paid, then so should everyone else. I'm a director myself and what is unfair is when certain members are remunerated but smaller jobs are considered less worthy of pay.
Similarly, if a film is receiving funding from a government body, then all crew should definitely be paid.

However, if a film is being made as a big collaboration for the sake of reels and/or the project, then as long as that's clear, it's up to the people if they wanna come on board or not.

mal hartley says...

There is a main difference to offering your services to a charity, collaboration with a peer or student, and working for nothing.

Gaining experience while learning is a good thing, and observing or helping out on a production can be beneficial to both parties.
However if a professional service is offered which contributes to the finished article, then I believe the person should be paid the going rate for their efforts, especially if their work is used for a profit based commercial production.
In the past I have seen on Shooting people,producers advertising for animators to contribute work on BBC and commercial productions for free. One can only assume these producers have messed up their budget or undervalue animation so much, as to be not worth budgeting for in the first place.
I notice these types are normally quite 'well off' by most standards, and when the say they 'have no money', they don't mean personally, just that they didn't budget appropriately for it. When most animators, editors and crew say they, 'don't have any money', the usually mean they are genuinely worried about paying their rent or mortgage on their home.
'Producers' or wannabe producers working on their own projects assume their idea is superior to anything anybody else has, so it will be worth working on for nothing. The normally are so untalented so as to not be in a position to actually contribute anything worthwhile to the production themselves, except 'vanity script writing' and an ego.
Subsequently they are usually highly demanding, unrealistic about workloads and time-scales of individual tasks, and often ultimately rude. At best they are delusional fantasists.

If people want to boost their portfolios or learn new skills, I suggest they make their own films, or enter into a genuine, skill sharing collaboration, with a like minded professional, where they can equally benefit from the results, should they be good enough to be a success.

From over 25 years experience in the animation industry I would say if a genuine producer can't raise the funds or has insufficient knowledge of the industry to budget appropriately then they perhaps should find another profession. Often their end products are poorer, and they give genuinely talented producers a bad name, along with the hard working members of this industry in the UK.
Make amateur films by all means if you want to play, and post them on You Tube. But please don't come unprepared and mess with this industry.
These cheapskates are responsible for driving wages down even lower as they promise the likes of the BBC work for low fees, before consulting those workers they need to complete it first. No wonder they end up on sites like these, in a panic begging freelancers and students to work for nothing.
Also their ads on this site make it look amateurish and non-serious, among animation professionals, 'Shooting People' is regarded as a joke,
especially as a site to find genuine paid work. The quality of the job ads is the main reason I have yet not upgraded to being a paid member!

Students and those starting out are vulnerable because their keenness and desperation to get a foot in the door make them so. They are open to flattery as to their skill level, and producers who care more for profit than quality will throw whole jobs in their direction for free.
The greedy, impoverished networks will actually broadcast some of these results, making the practise seem acceptable and driving down quality.

My advice is to be patient, there are still, good reputable companies and producers out there willing to pay for your talents, (and ensuring your health and safety at work too). Work on your own stuff in the mean time, or collaborate with your peers.
If a job sounds like a it is going to be a great success, yet the producer has no budget for it, ask yourself why nobody even the producer themselves have thought to invest in it. Paying the union recommended minimum is not difficult if you genuinely anticipate a success, (and are qualified to make such a judgement).

Tomás Sheridan says...

I always pay something though it often seems like too little when I'm dealing with professionals. On the other hand I got a lot out of working for free on films at the beginning.
People are free to decide for themselves. Some people need free support and some people are willing to give it. Fair enough...

Darren Lovell says...

I expect as a skilled and trained person to be paid for my services, just like every other craft should, be it a plumber, electrician or cameraman - it is my career and how I choose to make a living. I can't AFFORD to work for free.

By all means offer unpaid internships and training placements with free learning opportunities to those that require and request it. I have used them and they should remain in place.

Just don't expect those of us that know what we're doing to bring all our kit and work a 12 hour day for free to increase your own profit margin, that's not the way to do it and causes situations like this.

Olga Ruocco Daley says...

People should not be exploited, but unfortunately if you want experience it is often necessary to work on something for little financial gain. Expenses, food, copy of the film etc should always be given. People should be able to make up their own minds! Very little of this is allowed these days!!

Steve Moles says...

Sure, it would be great if everyone could get paid for all we do but the reality of the situation is completely different. At the lo-budget end no-one can afford to pay all their cast and crew, but of course there are lots of people who want to work in the business. The regional film bodies and the film council know this and use it ruthlessly in the way they award grants.

For a long time the way in to the film business has been unpaid work and in fact, this is now becoming a norm in many industries -just look at the increase in the use of interns in all walks of life. Don't like it but don't think we have much choice at the moment. Perhaps one day when the word is perfect...

Also, how would we work a system of paying runners but not skilled technicians and artists?!?

Robert Ager says...

To remove unpaid work postings would kill off a lot of independent low budget films that people need to build experience and contacts. If Shooting People were to ban unpaid work postings I would cancel my subscription and request my money back.

Pete Wild says...

We pay NMW on our shorts, but see no reason why everyone has to... film-making is an artistic endeavour, and any free work should be capable of providing a career boost to all involved...

I know some people get exploited, but we're in a 'babies n bath-waters' situation if you look to stop people asking for free collaborative help...

.. and let's be honest, it's not as if those who get explpoited are working in some sub-continent sweat-shop from the age of 14 until they die... at worst it's a few long days for a few weeks!!

Stephen Cavanagh says...

I am in favour of unpaid job postings, if and only if their terms are made crystal clear in the text. Frequently they are not. Unpaid job postings tend to lack clarity and courtesy. ALL job postings (paid or unpaid) should be obliged to sign up to the Protecting Actors agreement (http://www.protectingactors.org/index.php) as the main reason actors choose to work on unpaid films is for footage for their showreel, which frequently never materialises. This is what angers me more than offers of unpaid work.

Roy Hanney says...

At one end of the scale there are people like me who make films becasue we enjoy it and not for any commercial gain. I am always happy to work on films for free if I have time and feel the project is worthwhile. However I always insist on my own and other peoples projects that there is significant CPD for all involved. For example I will always try to give opportunities to students and young people to work with junior grades (who may be working up a grade) and for the whole shebang to be supervised by experienced professional filmmakers. If the CPD is recognised, and is a formal part of the process then surely this has a cash value to participants? Of course running on commercial projects is a completly different ball game and I always insist on minimum wage for everyone involved. I think we should be able to decide for ourselves!

Hannah Madsen says...

There is no way I would be where I am today if I hadn't learned my lessons by working for free for the first few films I offered to help on.

I shouldn't have been paid - I didn't know what I was doing and was completely new, and I gained invaluable experience and insight that no 'course' could offer me. It was training.

I went on to do a mix of paid and unpaid work and it was a great balance.
This experience is invaluable to the industry. Every industry has unpaid interns and work-experience placements.

What is unfair is that some large budget films that could feasibly re-jig their budget to pay for runners. This is I think people's main issue, the unfair-ness of pay.

If everyone on the production is working for free and the film is no- or low-budget, then there is absolutely no question that should be allowed to advertise on SP, and SP is the place for people to collaborate. I am shocked if people are against this.

SP will really have a huge loss and undermine its own purpose if it stops advertising unpaid jobs.

Gina Langton says...

Not paying runners is a pernicious and cynical way of introducing young people to the industry - it's SLAVE LABOUR! Also it does not help future careers - if you're prepared to work for nothing, then you are probably prepared to work for less than average pay when you do get offered paid work. People should not kid themselves that being unpaid is the only way to get into the industry. It takes strength in numbers to support paying runners - I'm not sure you should make your decision based on what the majority think - this is a very underhand and exploitative evil that is going on, and at the moment from what I understand the general consensus is that it's okay to misuse people in this way - I am a consultant in the music industry and it's disgraceful the exploitation that is going on - I can tell you that the major record labels are the biggest offenders and they should know better.

david l. williams says...

Good luck!

FIONA SPREADBOROUGH says...

Everyone one deserves to earn a days money for a days work.

Kate Terence says...

As a professional actress for more than 20 years I am fed up with how the cast always end up lowest on the pecking order in terms of respect re pay. A line must be drawn. Most crew, except possibly very young runners will not work for free, why on earth should the cast.It is important to be strong on this.

Bobb Strongman says...

If a film has a budget that COULD feasibly offer payment to all its crew then they should offer something no matter how small. If the film has absolutely no budget the film maker should contract to offer an agreed sum IF the film ever raises funding or makes a profit. I don't think there's anything wrong with unpaid work in essence, but I don't agree with film makers who, for example, have £2,000 to pay the caterers and nothing for the amazing sci-fi VFX sequence that's going to define their film. Ultimately, however, I think you have to give the choice to the person who's doing the work.

Torya Winters says...

As an actor, I am fed up with being treated as a commodity which can be used with no payment in return. I am a professional, and this is my career - I have a family to support and can't afford to work for free. I am prepared to do the odd student film if I think it will be good for my showreel, but I can't commit to unpaid projects that last longer than a day.

Douglas M Ray says...

Lo/no paid - for those after experience
Paid - for those with experience

A 19 year old with a production company based in his bedroom is never going to be offering paid work in the near future... but people might want to help them out for fun.

A large production company making something may have more to offer by way of future employment, but they should still nearly always pay people...

Peter Bond says...

I have worked in production for over 30 years and always there has been a chance for beginners. or those wishing to learn. to play a nominal role with the team.

The real reward for them is the learning experience plus, most importantly, the opportunity to add the production to their CV / list of credits.

By closing out this option we risk disillusioning many fine people who are more intrested in the career than this weeks wages

Jessica Levick says...

People should be able to choose for themselves if they work for expenses only on a project. But use common sense. A 2 day shoot which can be done on leave from a day job is doable (and this means not only rich people can get jobs in the media industry). If its going to give you work for a showreel/CV, or contacts with an up and coming director or production company, or lead to future work through recommendations, or even if its going to feed you and keep you busy for 2 days when you are on the dole and hungry, there is more value to working unpaid than straight up cash.

Ana Garcia says...

As painful as low paid work is, and despite the inevitable risk of exploitation - film making is an over subscribed Art form and without the low pay opportunities, many would miss out on the opportunity to gain valuable work experience. I would hope that those of us who go through the experience will be more giving when / if we are ever in the position to offer younger hopefuls an opportunity.

I think asking experienced professionals to work for nothing is counter productive, unless of course in the case of a worthy project that could not be made otherwise . . .

It's a grey area. Good luck!

Liam Corson says...

To get along in film you need to have experience, to have experience you need a job, to get a job you need experience. We have the right to choose what we do with our time. I've taken unpaid work on a feature before and as a result am in a stronger, and more importantly, a more informed position when it comes to the industry, not to mention the various contacts and references I now have. Do not ban unpaid work, it's the first step a lot of us need.

Matti Beramsingh says...

Free Will.

Tom Janson says...

For gods sake, people aren't idiots - if they are prepared to work for free that should be up to them. Why let the government decide whether you can work or not?

Daniel Grixti says...

Personally I have worked on a number of film sets unpaid in roles as high as 1st AD. I think there should always be the option for shooters to work for free.

It is a nice thought to be paid minimum wage on all these small sets but the reality is if the filmmakers had to pay all the staff those films wouldnt get made in the first place.

Even though I havnt been payed on the films I have worked on through shooting people I have got so much out of them. So much knowledge, experience and something for my portfolio.

Dan

Daphne Franks says...

There are SO many unpaid jobs appearing on casting breakdowns these days that it seems a rarity to spot a paid one. I don't think we should be training directors, film schools etc in the thinking that actors don't need to be paid.

Sylvia Robson says...

It would help if actors could have some sort of guarantee of receiving showreel material if working for free.

Nick Swinglehurst says...

I have always regarded SP is an invaluable way for people to get experience and make contacts for free and without obligation. I have never seen it as a source of income or a means to professional employment. Understanding the difference is a big part of getting the best out of SP.

A fundamental rule in a zero-budget economy is that unpaid workers must be equally respected and also equally as dedicated as paid workers.

We are here to make films, not money. The vast majority of these films wouldn't get made if everyone involved had to be paid. Furthermore they are rarely made for commercial gain which is why filmmakers often risk their financial livelihoods to get their films made.

Unpaid work helps you gain recognition, contacts and experience and in these three areas SP excels.

marion eaton says...

I want to retain the right to choose!

Natalie Barker says...

Much as I dislike the fact that so many films are being made with zero budget, even though they expect cast and crew to give their all to the project for little or no remuneration, it isn't practical to rule them out completely. I'd love to only put myself forward for paid jobs, but then I would rarely be seen for anything and I would stop gaining showreel material to give me a tiny opportunity to even be seen by the 'big boys' for said paid work. It's a catch 22, but so long as it's clearly marked as unpaid, and the people casting aren't taking the mick and not paying because they can't rather than because they want to save money, then they should still be part of the breakdowns.

Avone Keene says...

I agree that people shouldnt be exploited but i also believe that its an individuals right to choose what they do. If you can afford or want to work for free then that should be your choice. Normally 'work experience' is work done for free and that is what it normally is on no/low budget films and if your are experienced crew/actor it is your decision to work on an expenses project.

I know proffesional experienced crew who can have periods of downtime where they are willing to partake in unpaid projects, (as long as it doesnt interfere with paid jobs) if they believe they can bring something to the project or believe in the project or filmmaker, or do to something more creative or different to their day to day jobs.

I would expect higher budget productions and producers should not to be exploitative i.e. 100,000s and wouldnt expect staff like runners etc be expected to be unpaid on higher budget films and TV productions. I've worked as a runner for the BBC which has been a great experience and was fully paid, however i never got to pick a camera up, but i have on a no budget production where i have worked for free. If i had never done that i wouldnt have furthered my skills and experience which has helped fill my CV with valuable experience.

So my view is that unpaid work should still be advertised for no/low budget productions, for those that want it, for those that want to further their skills or work on projects that may interest or excite them and if YOU dont want to work unpaid, just skip that section and let people be!!

Mark van Klaveren Harris says...

A minimum wage policy would force vast majority of small, local creative projects to never happen. I agree that people should never be exploited, but as a Producer and film maker, I firmly believe that if you strike an honest and open relationship with each person on your project, then goodwill is something that can not be bought or paid for.

As the vast majority have already said, micro/no budget productions are already crippled by high equipment costs, location fees, insurances, catering and travel etc etc. I think that if a person is happy to take a position voluntarily on a production that is upfront and open as to what will and not be covered or paid for then there is surely no problem?

Rodolfo Coloma says...

There is a big amount of productions in UK, nobody forces you to work for free.

Luke Maloney says...

Sometimes experience is priceless.

hazel chandler says...

some of the best work I have done has been unpaid and could not have been made if minimum wage was compulsary. It would also have been difficult to find the right people if not for Shooting People. Surely we must have the right to choose on this. No-one forces you to work for nothing. Exploitation more often happens on funded projects that dont pay people properly or projects that have a budget but choose only to pay certain roles. Whether its paid, low pay or unpaid, it should be the same for all involved.

mark drake says...

I like many people agree with the minimum wage regulations. However many short film, music video and zero budget films would not be able to survive without collaboration projects. Although this leaves a grey area it is up to people within the industry to make a personal decision whether they apply for an advertised job or not. Resolution cannot be found in restricting peoples options but giving them the opportunity to make a informed decision.

Polis Loizou says...

There's freedom of choice. As a film-maker without a local film council, I'm entirely self-funded and would like to be able to hire crew on a "you scratch my back, I scratch yours" basis.

Armin Ruede says...

The important difference is between the type of productions people get to work on, not whether or not the positions being offered is paid/unpaid. An unpaid position on a production with a decent budget is exploitation. But so very many productions - particularly those advertised here on Shooting People - have a micro budget. The people organising the project not only do not get paid, they lose money on the project. In that case and unpaid position is not exploitation. It is an opportunity that is very welcome.

Jenny Collins says...

This is the nature of our industry. Every individual has the right to choose projects. Some budget's will just not allow for paid staff. This is fine so long as it is clear what you are/ not getting from the start of a project.

Catherine Peakin says...

Not-for-profit productions like student projects often rely on people willing to work for free or expenses only. I'm currently a student and, in reply to some comments on here, despite paying my over £3000 per year in tuition fees, the university recently allocated me (and my peers) a budget of £0 for my final year project.

I am incredibly grateful to actors who are either building their portfolios or can afford to work for free (who sometimes refuse expenses when offered).

I have done a lot of work unpaid in order to build up my CV, and certainly don't expect to be getting paid work straight from graduation.
I feel that I have common sense enough to distinguish between gaining valuable work experience and getting fleeced.

Of course I agree with the minimum wage, but it should not be applied to projects made for educational or charitable purposes only.

Ian Dewhirst says...

I think most of the people tha complain about the advertising of unpaid jobs have already found there way into the industry and perhaps need to remember that practicle work experiance is essntial for many of us to build usable skills and a track record and ultimatly find paid work.

Of course there are people that exolpoit the number of people wanting to get into the industry or perhaps don't have genuin opprrtunities in the future but your policies guard againt this and it's upto the individual to make a decision beyond this

corey robinson says...

There are some people on here who have been in the industry for a long time trying to make a living getting upset with all the unpaid work, well i guess if your good enough, then you will get paid work. Simple as that.

We are all adults here and if we choose to work for nothing then its our OWN CHOICE!

says...

I have personally worked on films for pay and no pay. The jobs have always been the same, requiring the same amount of work, sometimes even more for the no pay, but the rewards (monetary and non monetary) were always much higher on the paid work.

I feel that some people are taking advantage of new comers to the industry by promising loads of credits/opportunities in exchange for free labour, promises which they never keep.

There is no problem in my book with low pay and half wages, but no pay is completely unfair to some people who end up paying up from their own pockets to work for someone else.

Jeni Hatton says...

I work on lo or no pay jobs if I like the look of the project/if I think it's a worthwhile enterprise/if I like the script. I don't do many. but I like to have the choice. In an ideal world we'd all be paid squillions for everything, but we all know that ain't gonna happen.

Simon Wood says...

Too many independent film makers get ahead of themselves and their projects are far too ambitious. Do something within your means and stop expecting others to pay for your calling card.

Natalie Guest says...

Well, here is my 2p worth, but I do not think the issue is as clear cut as these questions.
I have not been in London long and although i'd love to be paid for everything I do, it's just simply not the case. In fact most things I do are unpaid, and I do them for one reason only. If I don't do them, someone else will, and you never know what useful person you might meet on a low budget project that might lead to work on something bigger with any kind of budget.
I dream of a day that this vicious circle is not the reality and people who slave away on a 12 shoot actually get paid money for it, but don't see how it can end when people like me are forced into a position of taking the jobs for the chances they might bring, because let's face it, we're not all doing it for the 'experience'. I've got lots of that and it doesn't pay my bills or buy me groceries!

Jack Jones says...

As a full time runner for a large London post production facility I feel that it is essential to have to opportunity to work for free. Without it I'll always be a runner, as no-one is willing to take a money risk on someone unproven.

I'm setting up a short at the moment with a £4k budget. That might sound a reasonable amount but with 20+ people on set, camera hire, post hire before we even get to travel expenses there is no way that budget will stretch!

If you don't want to work day and night. 7 days a week for next to nothing (or nothing) then you clearly don't want it badly enough... Others do!

Chris Loughlin says...

I've worked at a senior level in broadcast TV and am now freelance - but there are still jobs I will do for nothing if a) it's interesting as an experience for me or b) it's worthwhile enough. I'm savvy enough to tell the difference between voluntary work and exploitation. It's my choice in the end to say "yes" or "no". I don't want the judiciary or a union constraining what I can do in my own time.

Vicki Jung says...

Ideally every job should be paid at or above the minimum wage but unpaid work provides an opportunity for new entrants in the film industry to gain experience, which then increases their chances of gaining paid work in the future. It is up to individuals to decide for themselves if they are willing to work for no pay. Many new film makers would also not be able to get their projects of the ground if they were forced to pay their employees. The important thing is that it is clear up front that the position is unpaid.
I personally did a lot of unpaid work at the start of my career, gaining valuable experience and credits on my CV which then led to paid employment. Having been in the indurty for over 10 years, I would now not be willing to work for no money, but that is my personal choice.

ruth posner says...

in an ideal world actors like anyone else should be paid for what they do, but in reality there are young drama school leavers who might wish to gain experience and I imagine some of them would rather work than not work at all.

It should be left to the individual's choice.

ian maddison says...

Let the volunteer decide

Greg McColl says...

Mmmm, difficult......

If Shooting don't advertise the low/no pay jobs, all that will happen is a new bulletin board on a site somewhere will spring up and the low/no pay jobs will be listed there instead.

However, the old adage " never do anything your good at for free..." really should hold true.

As a sound designer/composer it amazes me how much money and time is spent on shooting a film and how little is spent on all those involved in post production.

We all need to start somewhere so the low/no pay jobs do have a place, BUT, if we all keep working for free (or just for the copy of the film that invariably never shows up!) not only do we devalue our skills and time but also the industry as a whole.

Quality work requires quality people. If film producers and directors truly and passionately believe in their projects finding funding, either personally or from elsewhere really shouldn't be an issue.

Greg McColl

Davoud Rastgou says...

Did you know many "nobodies" start even their very first work as paid, just because they have got connection? How can some expect us to work for nothing. I thought Thacherism was burried ages ago.

Olivia Pavey says...

I think it is unfair when certain positions in a production are paid, but runners are expected to work for free. People are taking advantage of people trying to make progress in their careers.
I have worked for free, from shooting people adverts, I didnt mind so long as my expenses were covered. However, some jobs are advertised as expenses only but it can be difficult to claim expenses back, so sometimes you end up working for free and being out of pocket.

Andrew Pengilley says...

It wouldn't be possible for me to make my films if it weren't for the generosity of people agreeing to work for expenses only. I believe people should be able to choose for themselves. I'd love to be able to pay people but that is unrealistic at the moment. Finding collaborators willing to work just for the love of doing it, was the reason I joined shootingpeople in the first place.

sara santos says...

Some people seem under the impression that all film/ tv production students get budgets from their universities

It varies from course to course and the courses that do get budgets, often is very little

We rely on people who volunteer to work for free or expenses/ meals in order to get our projects made

I think it should be up to the person applying whether they want to do it paid or not and should not be enforced on students to pay £64 a day for extras for example!

Some students who pay their fees like everyone else, do not get budgets from that for films that they have to make as projects... That means they have to spend money meant for food, rent, etc instead!!

Also with the current economic situation, some courses have lost funding that they would usually give to students and some people do not seem to realise this!

Another point is that if I want to get experience on a film and it's unpaid then that should be MY choice to do so and not anyone else's!

Thomas McDaniel says...

Having worked on low budget television programs for little money I would say there needs to be certain measures about pay put into place.

Because it's a creative industry, work days can overun, fair enough.
BUT when companies regularly expect runners to work where days consistantly overun is not on.

This is what forced me out of the TV industry as I found that there is little protection for workers experienced or new.

There is an expectation in the TV business that because there are so many people looking to get jobs that companies can do what they like, as there is always another eager runner prepared to put themselves out.

BECTU is right to flag up these issues but sadly few people are joining the unions as they have misinformed views about what they actually provide.
Young graduates need to understand that joining a union is the only way to safeguard pay and conditions - why are so many people against joining? They helped me when I had to take a company to small claims court.

Tom Werber says...

This is a very tricky area. If it were protected by law then the bar would be raised, as it were, and everyone would benefit. You can't make a film with no money, full stop. If there's a budget then people should get paid.

However, since BECTU has no power (as other creative unions like Equity do), we all have to cope as best we can and balance no-pay jobs with paying work. The situation is getting worse though, I feel.

that said, even though Equity has more power than BECTU, a lot of actors still work for free.

It's hard to overhaul a system that doesn't really exist.

Unless there's a total, top down government control on this, there's nothing to be done. If there was, a lot of people would resent it.

The current situation means that only rich kids get to work in the media because only they can afford to. The alternative would mean that only rich kids (or those with funding) would get to make anything, because only they could afford to front up the cash. Since this basically is the situation already, maybe the second option of government / union control is the lesser of two evils.

Just some thoughts.

T

AndBut Films says...

I joined Shooting People because it facilitates collaboration among people with the passion to create, who want to develop and showcase their skills, offering an alternative to waiting for the industry to allow a few of us to work. If such a forum did not exist it would be necessary to invent one.

After 10 great years, please save SP from becoming merely another announcement bulletin for fee-based services and events, and the minority of financed projects that choose to expand recruitment efforts beyond the usual agencies/contacts already proven through years of voluntary work.

Roopinder Bhullar says...

I did a lot of free work to get work exprience - and that's how it should be.

Nicola kelleher says...

I have heard that even film schools and uni's get a budget. If you are employing trained actors (graduates from drama school) and equity members then they should be paid. You would not ask a qualified plummer to fix your sink tap for free because you cant afford it so why ask an actor to work for free. Its thats the case get your wannabe plummer mate to act in your film in return he can fix your sink.

says...

I am personally quite shocked about the large number of unpaid job postings on Shooting People, and considering the effort, time and equipment shooters are expected to contribute for free this can be quite disappointing. On the other hand I think everyone should be allowed to work for free on certain projects, nobody is forced to do so.

Andy Wooding says...

To be honest I, and a lot of people I'm in touch with, can't believe you're buckling under the pressure to even do this poll (99% actors have sparked it no doubt).
The truth is, unpaid work is part and parcel of the industry, it's just an entry-level experience, once you pass through you tend not to go back unless a project is FIRST CLASS, but just because I'm at the stage where I go for paid work now, doesn't mean I feel like stopping all the other people just starting out from being able to do what I once did.

The people who post up unpaid work are just going to go and use another website to find the people they need, because their financial situation won't have altered.
Independent cinema and Television often starts with unpaid jobs, internships, it's just a rite of passage. Once you feel you don't want to do it anymore then you just stop.

Actors (and I am one)and other creative types, for the most part can't handle rejection and not getting what they want. It is difficult for one to come to terms with how thin on the ground either paid work or good stimulating work can be, so they spend all day and all night complaining, as I noticed at the screenwriter's festival in Cheltenham, and many big producers will testify to that!!

The truth is there is always the same amount of work about, there's just an excruciating filtration system to get the paid work.
By blindly begging for a blanket ban on unpaid postings, these people obviously think that an abundance of paid postings will just magically sprout up in their place.
If they don't want to do unpaid work, then they should just ignore the collaboration section and spend more time training and getting good and finding other ways into getting regular work instead of coming on to Shooting People and debating and venting...to be honest I'd rather you got rid of the debate section, which is utterly boring and I never read it (but then that's my choice not to, so it doesn't need to be scrapped, I can just NOT read it!)
I know I'm going off on one now...but if you change this, it actually affects people.

I have done some paid work through your great networking site and some unpaid, and I have enjoyed both, any projects that didn't seem professional enough, I just said NO to.

I also got half of my experience THROUGH unpaid work, and THEN had enough to get the paid work, so it's kind of swings and roundabouts. Without the unpaid opportunities a lot of people will not be able to gain enough experience to ever get paid work

I also think it is discouraging to future talent, when almost every Guru is saying get up there and do it, make it on the cheap, if they have support like this taken away

Basically you work hard, life is easy, you work easy, life is hard.
A little less conversation, a little more action.
Complaining shouldn't be tolerated, it's just a baby who wants some candy

ALL in all I think your site it great and I wouldn't change a thing
Film as a career isn't an easy life, and making it even more exclusive than it already is, isn't going to help anyone.

Patrick Campbell says...

While nobody wants to work for 'free' I really don't see how it would be possible for the vast majority of short films to get made without the use of expenses only collaborators. This would severely limit to the amount of opportunities available for emerging film makers and stifle the emergence of new talent in this country. In my opinion the best rule is that when a production can pay it should pay, otherwise people can choose to do it for whatever reason they like, or not...

Alice Powell says...

I should point out that I rarely work for nothing, but I think that as long as the posters are clear about what they are offering then they should be allowed to ask. If I really like the sound of a project and feel that I will get something out of it despite not being paid, then if I can afford to I will.

However I do think that there are some people who take the piss when asking people to work for nothing and expecting shooters to provide experience/equipment/time in an unjust manner. What worries me is that these requests will be ignored by most people, but could risk taking advantage of inexperienced shooters who want to work on anything and have not yet gained the ability to realise when they are being exploited. It is this kind of post which needs to be addressed in my opinion and anyone found posting unreasonable requests ought to be cautioned by the site administrators.

Just as a side note, I find that if you can even just cover a nominal fee rather than no pay at all, it does make people take you more seriously and in the end you'll get more respect from people collaborating on your film. It doesn't have to be a lot, but will be worth it in the long run!

L. Sabia Byrne says...

This is a knife to the throat of the Indie world. Hasnt the government done enough damage to our industry already?

If you dont like seeing the posts advertising unpaid work, dont read them... and of course struggle a hell of a lot harder in this country to get something done!

Until this country starts developing Producers that know what they are doing in the Indie world we are all facing an uphill struggle. It doesnt need to be made harder than it already is!

MICHAEL AUDRESON says...

If you don't want to do it, you don't have to! Those angry at people working for nothing don't seem to be the ones being exploited themselves but are presuming to speak for them. This is how we all get started. If I'm inexperienced I would rather do a few days without pay on a movie than go on an expensive film course

Tanera Dawkins says...

People requiring a composer's services should not be allowed to advertise the creativity of showreel material as a payment benefit - it counts for very little in the real world.
also when they require an 'extremely talented composer' they should make it clearer who they are and why and 'extremely talented composer' would want to work for them for no money, even if self-funded.
(needless to say, I don't go for unpaid work!)
It would be great if Shooting People can advise a minimum fee structure.

del wilson says...

please don't cut out newbies. It's one way to get in to film making. Without it several people I know would be unhappy not to be in film

neill crawford says...

This is a very difficult and emotive issue - I am torn between what i think is right and respecting the rights and wishes of others. For what it's worth I would never be happy about working for free, nor am I happy when I see people advertising for unpaid positions. There is a fine line between opportunity and exploitation and I think often that line is crossed, intentionally or not is, for me, an irrelevance.

I realise my answers to the poll contradict my true feelings, this is because I believe it is up to the individual as to whether or not they work for free. No budget filmmaking should mean exactly that, producers with a budget who do not pay NMW need to have a long hard look at themselves.

says...

I'm 30 and work as a Promo Producer for most of the major broadcasters. Like most of my colleagues I bust my a*** for not much money to end up in the job I love. And you know what? I'd do it all over again.

That said employers should be straight up from day one, then as you say, its the employees choice.

Frank O'Keeffe says...

I know our poor graduates are so under-educated these days that they probably find it difficult to even SPELL employment legislation, I DON'T believe that most are are so vulnerable that they need saving from themselves. If I want to donate my time as a volunteer at a local youth club, THEY don't have to pay me. If I want to work as a volunteer at a local charity shop, or as a collector for them on the street THEY don't have to pay me.

So why should some passionate bird brain (I know, but I'm exactly the same)be forced to pay somebody if

A) they don't have the readies, but do have the passion
B) I'm not dependant on the money and enjoy sharing the passion.

If I need to be working, then I won't have the time for freebies anyhow. But here's a suggestion - how about all ads having to state how many times they have advertised for no budget, lo-budget or properly funded professional ventures on Shooters in the past.

Students and enthusiasts - obviously no dosh, and fair enough to see lots of no budget.

Corporates/"Production Companies" - you probably wouldn't want to see many no pay/lo pay jobs without getting a bit suspicious.

But at then end of the day, unless we really ARE going to have a nanny state that decides on what we can/can't do all our waking hours, then carry on applying for those co-operations, collaberations, and any other kind of "ation" you may wish for.

And if it's no fun AND no pay - what the hell would you want to do it for in the first place?

I'm a one-man band myself, doing everything from scripting to lighting, sound, csmera, edit, burn and duplicate. Because I can't afford to pay anybody else and still make a reasonable profit from my time. But I have employed professionals in the past, and willingly paid a sensible daily rate, while I was trying to learn the ropes, and wouldn't dream of using anybody on a paid job without paying them the going rate. But I'd happily spend hours/days/weeks working for free with another enthusiast for the pure fun and enjoyment of a good project.

Belle Mundi says...

I think it is okay to work for free on student no/low budget short films in order to gain experience but not on other non-student projects such as a director's first feature. I have recently worked for expenses only as an art director (student film) and production designer (non-student short film), and these jobs obviously involve a lot more hours than if you are just a runner on a shoot. So even though I needed the experience and the credit on my CV, it did feel like exploitation and I was technically investing (financially) in the film, but not getting credit for such. The trouble is, if several designers apply for a job on a low budget film that doesn't want to pay wages, it makes the application process all about whether you can afford to work for free for several weeks, and not about what skills you have as a designer. I think that is very wrong.

The minimum wage should be imposed on non-student short films and low budget features, as if you are a professional film maker you need to employ professional colleagues, who need to earn a living. However, many film makers would have a problem with even raising the funds for the minimum wage. Basically there just isn't enough funding for the number of films that are being made at this level. So even though I am for the minmum wage, I don't see how it can be imposed in reality without stifling independent film making.

simon foster says...

People should be free to chose what they work on. However, I do object to postings asking shooters (whether they are directors, crew, actors, composers etc) to work for free when these postings are productions that have links to established companies or where other people on the project have already been paid. This includes short film funding schemes that only provide budgets of a few thousand pounds. They should allow for all members of the production to receive a minimum wage.

Ray Brady says...

If you prevent people from connecting to each other to collaborate on independent films you will destroy everything that "Shooting People" stands for. People who collaborate are looking for experience and credits on their C.V.'s so that they will eventually be able to get paid work, for if you don't have any relevent experience and a long list of contacts, then it's nearly impossible to get paid work in the film industry. Genuine profit share collaboration will always happen, with or without Shooting People, the only difference is that if people are no longer allowed to post request for unpaid collaborators on Shooting People, then they will simply find alternative sites and methods to connect to each other i.e. social networking websites. Of coarse, if a production has funding from a broadcaster or the film council, then wages should and must be paid to prevent explotation. Regards Ray Brady

says...

Although the distinction between independent collaborative projects and projects that should be fully paid is vauge and can often lead to exploitation, i think it would damage an already weak film industry too much to completely ban unpaid collaboration. It is companies like the BBC who continue to employ people for nothing, calling it "work experience", and other professional companies who are making adverts and TV series who should be targeted by these laws.

victoria howell says...

The issue of payment for arts professionals is something which I feel very strongly about as I agree that no one should have to work for free in a profession for which they have been trained and at which they are skilled - it's that old question, which is always trotted out in this debate, of 'would you ask a plumber to work for free? or a doctor?... exactly.'

There does seem to be a mindset in this country that creative artists will work for free because of the love of the art - maybe this goes back to the starving artist in the garret myth, who knows. Whatever the reason, it is perpetuated precisely because people will continue to work for free and a firm stand is not taken across the whole industry.

However, at present there is not the funding infrastructure in this country to support small-scale film and theatre work to the level which would allow those producing it to pay everyone working on it to minimum wage level. At times it is hard enough to find enough funding even to pay expenses and therefore many projects end up being self financed making paying everyone an impossible task.
As a result, if a law is introduced which forces everyone to be paid to minimum wage level without at the same time instigating a system of funding which enables producers to find the money to be able to comply with that law, the damage to British film and theatre will be immense. Basically it will prevent hundreds of innovative and original projects from being produced and deprive us of new creative talent.

Yes I know there is the Arts Council, The Lottery, UK Film Council etc etc etc, but try getting funding from them if you are not a) well known on a national scale, b) have already produced work and are therefore seen as a safe bet or c) running a community project working with young people/refugees/senior citizens etc and therefore seen as in some way worthy. Yes there are competitions for young filmmakers, first time projects and so forth, but again these are very limited and seasonal. Any business approached for sponsorship is going to want to see evidence of your past work to establish that your work is of sufficient quality to support, but how are you supposed to produce the work that will get you the funding if you can't get the funding in the first place...

It is precisely because of this problem that projects are produced by people working for free because, for some, money is not the be all and end all. If it is for you then fine, don't do unpaid work, but don't belittle those who do and don't remove their ability to make that choice. It is naive to say that any project without a budget is going to be worthless - money is not an indicator of quality... just look at some of the garbage that is flung at us every year by people who think that just because they have money they have talent.

Maybe another way to look at it would be to accept that unpaid work is necessary for those wishing to gain experience and evidence of past work whatever profession you choose - after all many businesses have unpaid internships for this very reason and nobody seems to complain about that!

I think that raising the issue of unpaid work is great, but it only addresses the very personal issue of workers feeling that their talents are not being rewarded highly enough - and I'm not diminishing the importance of that at all - but surely alongside this there should also be a campaign to make that money available. Improve the availability of funding for independent producers, instigate a government funded programme to support low budget filmmaking and ultimately create a British film industry... which is really the central problem here because there isn't one - at least not on the scale there should be considering the amount of talent that deserts us as soon as possible for countries where the powers that be respect and nurture their creative talent and take filmmaking a whole lot more seriously.

But that's probably a bit too much to ask isn't it...

Pat Wintersgill says...

It's upsetting that some people seek to expoit unpaid labour to make a profit but banning collaborations is not the way to address this. I've made several films that were great fun, benefitted everyone involved and and not one of them would have been possible without some kind of collaboration.

The fact is if you don't pay people they may well not turn up to the shoot - which is a big disincentive against people who have a budget and choose not to use it. As opposed to the vast majority who have a choice between not paying people and not making a film.

Charles Salem says...

The industry has always worked on the need to be some unpaid work.SP should encourage collaboration without resorting to implimenting a terms related to the min. wage AS LONG AS the terms of collaboration are CLEARLY stated on the postion.

Jaime Taylor says...

The biggest issue is that no or low pay is a boundary to inclusion. This might sound very 'right on' but it is obvious who can afford to work on a film for free, and whilst this continues, many people will be excluded from the industry.

Until unpaid internship / no / low pay "opportunities" are stopped, companies will continue to cut costs by recruiting in this way. They may believe that the pay off is evident in the long run, but not for people like myself who can't afford to take them.

Lesley Coburn says...

There will always been a need for expenses only productions where there is no real profit and we do all have a choice whether to participate. However, the practice of presuming that it is ok to embark on a feature without securing the necessary funding should be stopped. Too many filmmakers just don't even try. That goes for independent TV as well. We are living with a work ethos of 'I can get someone to do it for nothing so why should I employ you?'
I've found that what was once a means to get on the ladder is now filtering up the ladder to bigger and more commercial productions, which is BAD for us all. We've all worked for nothing to gain experience, hoping one day to get paid... by who though? Who is paying when there are so many who will work for virtually nothing.

Nerina Villa says...

I personally have worked on some projects for expenses only when I was starting out and it really helped me to progress. Of course it's wrong to do that for a long time, but for a short time it can be very useful.

Leslie Csuth says...

Posters of unpaid jobs should be asked to state if anyone else on the production is being paid or not. Like many experienced professional actors I have been happy to contribute my skills to the team on unfinanced films, but I haven't liked feeling exploited when I discovered that the crew was being paid but the cast was not.

SP could also instigate an Employers Feedback system similar to the one on CastNet so that dodgy or exploitative producers can be publicly named, shamed, and, if necessary, banned from posting on SP.

says...

Because of the competition in the industry and the fact that there will always be people willing to work for free, it just leaves actors completely vulnerable to exploitation.

Also, considering the amount of 'cowboy' film makers I came across during my time auditioning for low-budget films on Shotters, who were sometimes nothing short of idiots who thought that a hand held camcorder was all they need to make the film of their dreams, I think a minimum wage would be an exptremely good way of cutting down on these people.

francesco caradonna says...

Sadly it's up to our consciousness.
The market is full of sharks. I come from a country where art is sometimes considered as a hobby, so you've to be an acrobat in order to realize/produce something in an independent way.
If posting unpaid jobs means reducing the professionalism of a job itself I'd prefer not to work for free; but I know also that they are bad times for this economy, as well as I know that I can work for free if I really love the project and if my fridge is full of food of course.
I think people should respect the work of other people; I think also that this network (SP) is amazing and you/we should keep the quality of the adverts the highest we can. There are a lot of websites where you can look for a job, that's why I think that the strength of SP is not there.
By the way I think that SP should try to keep its high quality standard avoiding as much as possible unpaid jobs ads; then it's true that it's up to you/me/us to decide when and why work on a project rather than on another.

Simon Aldous says...

If people are making money off the backs of getting people to work for free that's wrong and also gives people from wealthier backgrounds a huge advantage in gaining experience.

This is a world away from a self-funded project that would never take place if crew and actors had to be paid.

Brady Hood says...

When you are working on budgets from your own pocket in order to break into this difficult industry paying for your team (family) adds a lot more to the budget when you also have to pay for locations, props, make up etc.... If you take this off the site it will make it a lot more difficult to arrange this and get people together.

But I do understand people should be paid, so if the budget can stretch to that they will be paid, as long as its made clear I dont see the problem. In my limited experience anyway when you dont pay for talent you suffer problems. BUT... if your in film to make money then you shouldnt be in it. Film is about the story and the art not about the pay cheque, if you find something that challenges you and builds you as a person or worker, if you love the story and want to be a part of it, surely you would do it for free, payment is a bonus. That's my opinion anyway. Sorry if that upsets anyone.

James Custance says...

When first starting out in the industry it is useful to get some experience on very low budget films and a good kick start to a CV showing your capabilities as a runner/production assistant etc. I certainly took advantage of such positions when I started out but after a while for some of us it is difficult to survive without pay and sometimes you feel some projects take advantage of newcomers to the industry. Choice to work for expenses only should be there only on low budget films; a film's budget should have a clear line shown where they should then be obliged to pay according to experience even if that experience is limited.

Liam Tully says...

If a production has financial backing then those who work on it should get paid. For non paid work there should be a contract attached to it that adds if the production generates money in the future then peole who were not paid should be paid. In the whole tv and film industry there is a lot of work done for free or because it is expected. Most tv production companies have PACT contracts which are exploitative ie complete buy out clauses and unlimited hours. I expect sites such as shooters; mandy and talent circle to run adds looking for free workers. But each person who decides to go for that should make sure they get a contract - to cover for insurance and health and safety , as well as clauses which say if the production makes money etc etc.

Phil Jenkins says...

I think there is a key difference between creative, collaborative roles, and support work such as running or assisting. I'd say creative collaborations should be supported by Shooting People. However, WORK (like running, assisting etc) should always be payed at least minimum wage.

As a side note, I am regularly annoyed by ads for low/no payed work on films where the 'producer' asks for a CV / showreel and even a covering letter, as though candidates are applying for work. If a role is not paid - it's a collaboration, not a job - and the 'producer' needs to prove that their project is worth the effort, just as much as the 'candidate' needs to prove their skills. I would appreciate some kind of etiquette being drawn up for such ads.

Perhaps this is off the point - but I wanted to let you know my thoughts,
Best wishes.

Rory Gordon says...

There should be some budgetary threshold like how the tax system works. We should develop a new pay scheme which takes into account the amount of money spent on a production in other areas. Then we could calculate a minimum wage for different positions uniquely tailored to the productions size and budget. This could at least stop people being taken advantage of when working on well funded projects.

Amy Dowling says...

I think low/no paid jobs help people get into the industry and create networks. It's a bit of a double edged sword though as once you've got some experience you'd hope to get paid for it but many will not agree that a runner, for example, in a low budget film should be paid. I do think it's good to have a choice though. If you want to get paid you dont need to apply for the job.

Rhian White says...

People should have the choice, but there should be more pressure on producers to feel like they should pay. Not paying devalues what we do.

Alexandra Batiste says...

It seems to me that pay rates for cast and crew alike should be affected by nothing but overall budget. In other words, if a student has, say, £50 to complete a short film, it would be reasonable to expect that the actor will receive payment in the form of an egg mayo sandwhich and a copy of the film. It is the actor's choice whether or not to accept the job. I feel the main issue is when a production obviously has a budget and the producers CHOOSE not to pay the actors or pay them unfairly.

Producers with a more substantial budget have no excuse:

Actors fees should not be considered somewhere you can cut corners!!!!!

Producers need to set aside percentages of the budget to pay cast and crew fairly, whether the budget it £250 or £2500000.
The problem is not whether actors should be given the opportunity to work for nothing, it is how the productions send out casting calls. Producers should be open with the total budget, and how much the actors will be paid. If they can't be open about this, then one can assume they have something to hide.

Duncan Barrett says...

I think the most important thing is that there is parity between different people. If everyone is working for free and no money is being made, fair enough - but I don't think it's fair to pay some people and not others, even if some have more experience. Nor is it fair to make something intended to generate profit without including those working for free in the potential returns.

Olivia Chappell says...

I think it is completely dependant on your experience. BUT if the film makers are serious about creating a high standard of product then you do get what you pay for. Pay peanuts - get monkeys, as they say. I am a skilled trained and experienced actress and think the amount of people who think it is acceptable to get actors to work for expenses only is shocking. I can understand saving money by paying runners or extras expenses only, but lead roles?! That's not fair when we are all trying to create a high standard of work. If the film makers don't have the commitment to raise funds and be clear of budget and funding, then the chances of the work ending up as anything worthwhile are slim to none.

anna fiertag says...

I am a professional actress and I would like to be treated as such by employers who pay professionals according to the law of the land.

Marcel Garbi says...

I would love to see a double formula.

If there's money everybody gets paid.
If there isn't everybody price his/her work and owns the film on that percentage when benefits may arise.

Ulas Yigit Ulker says...

As long as the most of the advertised jobs are only expenses i guess there is nothing to do with shootingpeople.Cause the sector is going in such deep shit that probably we will not be able to find any paid job for the next years.Its same at everywhere like mandy.com, filmcrewpro.But yes too much unpaid jobs are irritating.Sometimes its better to find nothing then read 20 post of unpaid jobs.

Best

Ulas

Leila Steed says...

I am just starting out in the film industry and really need to gain experience. Of course I would prefer to be paid but, if a filmmaker is able to pay, or has to pay at least minimum wage, then they're going to hire someone with more experience. Thus people such as myself would have no chance of securing positions. With regard to exploitation, which is obviously a serious concern, I ultimately believe that if an employee does feel as though they are being taken advantage of, that it is up to them to make a complaint - to shootingpeople.com to prevent the filmmaker from posting. Or to an outside body - and of course they are always free to walk away from the project.

Pete Noakes says...

I'm an actor and I have a mortgage. I need money and a showreel. I have done the odd job for no pay but that was for a speaking parts in an a couple of shorts. What I strongly disagree with is when you have people from different agencies, doing the same work but with some getting paid one amount, others another and some for no pay. I am a member of Equity and have been encouraged by other actors to report productions that grey the wage line whenever I encounter it. Minimum wage is not a lot and could easily be factored into a production.

craig rihoy says...

I think this survey was far too black and white with its yes/no answers when there are so many points in between. I think it would be far better if all positions on all films advertised were paid at at least minimum wage, and I think the current policy allows for a culture of laziness among producers who figure they don't have to do their job ie raising sufficient funds if they can get other people to do theirs for free.
However as someone who cut my teeth working for free on jobs I found through SP I feel a little hypocritical giving a no answer to some of the questions.
In the end a minimum wage policy would benefit everyone so can only be a good thing.

Miriam Rowe says...

I have worked for free as an editor between jobs. If I can fit it in amongst my paid work I find it a good way to meet people, exchange ideas and explore different genres in editing. If you don't want to work for free don't do it.

Jack Marshall says...

It is a fact that I'm sure nobody will deny that a vast amount of projects would not get made if not for crew and cast choosing to work unpaid. People simply do not have funds available to pay everyone.
Are we suggesting that people are incapable of making a decision for themselves as to what projects they should work on and for what fee? I have worked on projects for free and would rather do so than to not be involved at all. If you don't want to work for free or a specified amount then say no. Why stop others from doing so. Some people are doing it for the love of it rather than profit.

Alex Mcilhiney says...

I think its acceptable for a production that is a 'labour of love' for all concerned to ask for unpaid help, and is something I would personally consider.I think for a commercial production it is exploitative not to offer a wage, but individuals should have the right to make their own minds up.

says...

There should not be any unpaid job postings whichh expect experienced and qualified co-workers. How can you achieve it though?

Louise Larchbourne says...

It's a time-honoured way of getting experience --- OR, like those who worked for free on The Hunt for Gollum, supporting a director you believe will be commercially successful when the resulting work goes public.

says...

No-one is compelled to take the jobs. Productions still need to pay for food, accommodation and other expenses, so why eliminate the entry-level jobs? Productions can't afford to hire so they just won't hire and that's the upshot of it all, regardless of what BECTU thinks.

lisa davies says...

While I do understand how difficult it is to get started, I think Shooting People should not facilate filmamers working for free. Perhaps SP could have another area of subscription encouraging "work placements" where people can advertise. In america where I started out not having any connections what-s0-ever at a time when it was very difficult for women in the industry, there were no work placements or working for free productions. Everything is unionized for a reason there...to provide medical insurance, unemployment benefits etc! I worked really really hard to get my first job and then to maintain the relationship with the production company so I kept being called back. I was not "used" and then cast aside for another freebie crew member. I have always been a single parent and I NEED to earn. It's not fair when all these other folk can just work for free taking up jobs that should pay. Also...there is no real protection for people who do these freebies. I do agree that there is a difference in collaborative works. I do believe that these can be a positive platform for film making and that it is ok for people to work for free but should get some kind of cut in profits according to their skill/role. Working unpaid for nothing in return is not on.

Kushal Joshi says...

Requiring productions to pay minimum wage will stifle independent creativity.

John Babb says...

I have never been paid to work on any project and the reason is quite simple, I don't have any experience in the field and have no relevant qualifications. I want to learn and meet new people who are as passionate about film making as I am and in order to do so I am more than prepared to work for nothing.

Moreover, I made my first short film with the help of Shooting People and a crew that were prepared to work for nothing. I am not a fully fledged production company with a budget of thousands of pounds, I am one bloke with a camera and consequently I can't afford to pay minimum wage for 2 actors and 3 crew over several days. Often finances are such that all I can afford to offer are accommodation, 3 good meals a day and travel costs. Those are the only three things I expect to be offered when I myself work for free.

To put it simply all the films I have taken part in or made myself have been expenses only and not a single one of them would have been made if the requirement to pay a wage was introduced.

My heart sinks when I hear people cry that its a business, not every film maker goes into it with such a blinkered view. Some films, and I would dare say quite a few, are made with the knowledge that they will never be commercially viable. They are made for the fun and joy of simply producing something yourself, they are made to meet new people and make future contacts, they are made so that people can learn and hone their craft so that one day in the future they might, might, just be able to work on a bigger film with a proper budget and get paid.

says...

I don't think unpaid work should be banned from being advertised. The reason for this is that many films would not get made otherwise - films or projects that made people's careers by giving them the opportunity to make work in a team/crew environment and add to their showreels and CVs. It is better to give people the choice the work for free - and for everyone to be clear about the expectations involved - than to remove the opportunity to grow your body of work.

Stephen Price says...

Working for low or no pay is vital to the film industry and in many cases is a rights of passage for starting out crew members. It is an excellent way to meet contacts and learn on the job skills. In this industry, with no official ways in, opptunities from low paid work are vital. Exploitation should not be condoned, but it should be an individuals choice whether to take on such a job.

Liz Adams says...

Although I do agree that it should ultimately be your own choice if you're happy to work for free, I do think that the culture of 'lo/no pay' can lead to companies / filmmakers choosing not to offer pay because they know there will always be people who'll work for free because they're desperate for any experience.

I don't see any answer to this debate because some projects have no funding and rely on people donating their time to get made at all.

However the amount of times I have seen postings along the lines of "Skilled editor/DOP(etc) required, minimum 3 years experience - EXPENSES ONLY" makes me think there maybe should be a minimum wage for all; no skilled proffessional with 3 years experience should have to work for free.

Maybe there should be a limit on the hours you can ask someone to donate for free and if they really want to go over that its up to them.

says...

Unless it is an internship, which other industry has positions available for 'no pay' or 'expenses only'. The film and television industry has been over-subscribed for years; NO reason to not pay.
Everything on my CV was paid work, there are even a couple of, "I can only afford £50 a day, that OK Stu?"
Yes, it is OK by me. Thank you for asking and respect to you for cobbling together some dosh.
If you can create dosh for your cast and crew, I feel you can create.

Adrian Hume Robinson says...

This stuff about exploitation is nonsense. I suppose paying out a couple of hundred quid to be put in a 'directory' and paying ten times the whack of a normal University tuition fee, having a closed shop union and agents taking 15-20% of your wages... none of that is exploitation, huh?

Stop. Take a deep breath. Remember what the difference is between film-makers on the lovely Shooting People and, say, a Hollywood based conglomorate.

If people who like to moan win this debate and put everybody's budgets up by a few grand, less films will be made at the independent end of film-making. Simple.

Trevor Hardy says...

I think it is all to easy for people to expect others to work for nothing on a film. I cannot think of any other industry where this would be exceptable. Try calling a plumber out and getting him to fix your broken pipes for nothing.." Sorry mate I can't pay you but there is a cup of tea and a kit-kat init for ya"!..what do you think the responce would be? If someone wants to turn up at a shoot and do some work experience or running, then that should be that persons wish, that's fair enough. However, it is a different ball game when you look at the shooters page and there are people on there wanting animators to animate title sequences for them for naff all...sorry but that is an enormous amount of work....again, try asking Aardman to do it for nothing. I think, if you budget to make a film with animated front and end titles and you are stupid enough not to bother budgeting for an animator to make the front and end titles, then you shouldn't be allowed to make the film...go back to film school and learn ALL the elements of film making. I think it is a damn cheek for people to ask others to do stuff for nothing, after all, I have spent 13 years getting me and my animation studio off the ground, buying all the kit, learning how to use it all, learning to animate, edit, set build, model make, pay the bills etc etc...why is it right that someone should be allowed to say, " Oh, brilliant...you have loads of kit and can animate, can you animate my Zombie film for me please..for naff all, but you can get a copy of the film and it will tour the festivals...I think?...Well some of them?...Well..hopefully anyway?"....!!!

I have once allowed myself to be stupid enough to do some work for nothing, and I am telling you the truth when I say, the person who wanted me to work for nothing was a bigger pain in the arse then the companies PAYING me to do work for them.

If you pay nothing, expect nothing..that's the truth of it.

Thanks for reading my rant.

Trev

Foolhardy Films.

Brian Lavery says...

I am not completely sure of the details of thew new law but my opinion is that if a film is a true collaboration then having upaid work positions is fine. When a film makes profit, however, then I think it unfair that someone should have worked for free to benefit someone else.

Caroline Boulton says...

It's extremely hard to understand why you would allow a job posting for a paid DOP/Crew on the filmmakers' board and yet allow the same company to post for unpaid actors for the same project on the casting board! Surely you can see the total unfairness and explotation of this and yet you allow it to continue.

A vote agreeing to allow unpaid work on the board is sidestepping that issue which needs to be addressed. If SP members want continued access to unpaid jobs surely its then fully your responsibility to ensure the postings are fair across the board and EVERYONE on board a project is either paid or unpaid. Surely the simple unfairness of letting a company advertise for paid crew then advertise for unpaid actors for the same project is ridiculous and is something you COULD and SHOULD be cracking down on??? I don't think you need any vote on that do you?

Refuge In Films says...

I think if you believe on a cause, film or idea it is very probable that you will work for it with or without a salary; and you should be free to do so, and also shooting ppl should be a place where is possible to find out about such projects.
Advertisement of work with no pay should be just allowed for low/no budget independent productions, no by business-production companies; a company that is making films comercially should not be able to hire a student with no pay for "the experience"; this should be illegal.
If a low budget independent production want a camera, sound person with own equipement they should at least hire the equipement from the person and insure it, and be soooo interesting that someone will love to do it for no salary even if they do not have money for wages.

Justin Brown says...

the problem is ads saying they will pay and end up not paying, at least you know what you are getting yourself into if you get the unpaid job.

Vicki Lesley says...

I think the issue is exploitation of people at the bottom rung of the ladder. If more experienced production staff/crew are willing to work unpaid on a specific project (and can afford to make that choice) I don't see a problem with that..

Alexis Jayne Defoe says...

I think this is a very tricky issue.

Whilst I appreciate that many film-makers cannot afford to do anything but "collaborations" I have also met a few directors/producers who will raise money for every part of the production but the actors. Yes, there are plenty of us around, but it shows a complete disrespect for the actor and I think overall is bad for the acting profession and getting the most from the acting talent out there.

I don't expect to be paid for low/no budget features as it it seems to be the norm and if Shooting people didn't post them at all I wouldn't have many auditions to go to. In the past I have done them for the experience and for showreel material. But there is only so long you can go on doing unpaid work. Especially when they don't even pay you expenses, or a token fee. It is not so much that I want the money - but I actually can't afford to take the time off work to do an unpaid project.

In then end for Q4 I chose that we should be able to choose unpaid work. But I am not sure that this is good for the industry in the long run.

Mario Cavalli says...

Clearly, exploitation is wrong but as long as the producer/employer makes a clear and honest distinction between a project that is properly budgeted commercial and one that is being made for experience, showreel or love, I see no reason why someone should not voluntarily work on a project for no or low pay. How else is one to gain experience in the industry? After a certain point, experience and/or talent pays off anyway and market laws apply, creating a opens for new blood to enter the industry and so on.

Ashok Gazula says...

There are lot of filmmakers out there, who are exploiting the situation that there are people who are willing to work for free. This practice will continue, as opposed to them making an effort to offer the genuine contributors like

Pre-Production team members: Producers, AD's

Production team members: Cinematographers, Lighting Technicians, Sound Recordists

Post Production team members: Editors, Sound Designers, Composers, Audio Post-Production

&

Cast

Their due, through a small token payment, for spending hours and hours of their time, equipment, and training at the disposal of the filmmakers (who usually never get back regarding any progress on the project) and the film.

Everyone is in the industry for the love of filmmaking, but this should not be taken advantage of to realize films.

Respect other people's time and contribution towards films. It is unreasonable for any Feature length productions to expect people to work for expenses only (5 to 6 weeks for expenses? Does that mean the crew's expenses are included like: rent, utility bills, council taxes, while they are working towards realizing the film?)

If filmmakers feel that the budget is beyond these basic token payments, then probably they should not want to immediately make the film, or make it when they have sufficient funding to cover it. Or get in touch with people they have worked with in the past to call in on a favour.

It becomes exploitation when you move on to the next bunch of eager filmmakers, who want to do something with their time. Many established productions have used this method, and have done it repeatedly with me and other colleagues of mine, unaware that people are scrutinizing such exploitative practices.

Hope this those who take advantage realize their actions and change them, and those who are taken advantage from being used in the future.

All the best...

Cathy Conneff says...

I agree that if the crew are paid, then the cast should be paid.

However, I do think that you have a choice whether or not to apply for a job and I have been frankly embarrassed by the uppity ramblings of some of the actors, who clearly have no idea how the industry works.

We're having to take a pay cut these days and if I can't afford to do an unpaid role,I won't apply for it. If I can I will.

Shai Hussain says...

It all comes down to what kinds of subscribers you mainly want to target. I personally would prefer just to receive paid job ads, but having both paid and unpaid jobs would open up opportunities for both those who are experienced and beginners.

Anthony Bairstow says...

Nothing should change. Crafty and dodgy people will ALWAYS exist and rip off low paid or unskilled workers in this current economic structure. Thats capitalism!

There is little or no protection for low paid or non-paid workers, thats part of the law of our country. Try changing that!

Alyn Gwyndaf says...

It speaks to SPs positioning in the market what level of pay its adverts carry - restricting listing to jobs paying at least minimum wage would give SP higher industry status than 'no-pay' listings sites. On the other hand, this could disenfranchise startup filmmakers, so probably does go against SPs core raison d'etre.

It's not just about pay, and most union contracts also focus on wider terms and conditions, such as breaks, meals, insurance and health & safety. Some of these can be achieved at negligible financial cost, and a little consideration for others involved in the project. This helps foster an attitude of responsibility towards other participants, especially with new filmmakers who might otherwise get carried away with simply realising their own vision.

Whether union or not, encouraging filmmakers to work with contracts fosters a more professional way of thinking and working, and gives greater peer respect for everyone's contribution.

Personally, my level of commitment to a project often comes down largely to time. If there's no money I'll consider it if I've got free time and it looks like a good script/team; if it involves a large time commitment I can't afford to commit unless there's some recompense for my time.

The guidance is a great idea. I do believe most non-professional (in pay, conditions or conduct) projects are the result of ignorance or failure to think, so anything that makes 'no pay' the result of a considered process, rather than a working assumption, is a good thing.

Tom Lock Griffiths says...

It is a really tricky issue - I am a free lance sound engineer and have and probably will take certain jobs on for free or low pay to cement new relationships with clients and to build up CV/Show reel - etc.

However I do believe in the statement that everybody should protected from exploitation, and in a previous life I was a trade union representative so I know exactly what I'd say to my members about fair pay, working conditions and the like and yet there is something about this industry - the same applies to the music industry which I also work in too - where work can be advertised or asked for nothing - it has become part of the culture and in some senses understandably so (there is a degree to which I agree with Keir Black says below) and if we consider ourselves artists rather than skilled workers that's one thing - however in this trade the line between artist and skilled worker is very blurred indeed...

I think we need to come to some sort of consensus if only within the shooting people community about what we allow here and am inclined to suggest that we go the protectionist route despite some reservations - and always offer minimum wage at least for skilled work - there wouldn't and should never be a rule that prevents people from forming their own creative, non paid, collaborative teams outside of shooting people but perhaps what we allow here should change. I know that this will take consensus as I say and I applaud shooting people for undertaking the poll.

Hopefully the members of this online community will take, together, a brave step towards fairer working practices to protect our selves, our livelihood and of course our craft. Without consensus for change we leave ourselves in a strange limbo world of self exploitation - a situation which of course already favors the already solvent or part time workers and that surely this is detrimental to both our trade and our art.

Damien Cullen says...

Whilst I do understand the frustrations of people who feel their profession is being cheapened either by lesser qualified people working for free in their place or exploited that the only work they can get on SP is free, my understanding is that by advertising an ad for free there is a certain agreement that you may get what you pay for in terms of quality and commitment and the person placing that ad (unless they are a fool) should know this. I also believe SP to be a great way to collaborate and forge creative relationships without spending an arm and a leg.

This has been a discussion on many a set and whilst I appreciate all the cast and crew are working for expenses only/low pay, at least they do get paid. The filmmaker themself not only doesn't even get expenses, but can often pay thousands just to get the film made as the funding budgets have been cut drastically in recent years. If there were no 'expenses only' ads, a lot of these films would never made.

You can't ask people not to try their luck and get the most for what little money they have for a project and I think ultimately it is down to the individual, if you do not want to work for free, then don't. You also shouldn't deny people who want to get a foot in, who are not qualified or confident enough to go for paid work.

Mark Stein says...

I believe that if you are hiring someone, and there time and effort to do a job, whether its to run rushes back, or direct a movie, everyone deserves the right to earn something. We all have to pay the rent and eat.

Terry Comer says...

What do you think would be more beneficial to a person's career, working on a Stephen Spielberg film for nothing or on Jo Blow's first film for the minimum wage (or even more)? I know where I'd be. Terry Comer.

Mark Allen says...

As an actor and occasional film maker, I have no objections to postings for unpaid jobs appearing on Shooting People. I think the key issue here is not about asking people to work for free, but about some people being asked to work for free when others on the same production aren't. Surely, either everyone should get paid or no-one should. To offer crew payment when the cast get nothing is disrespectful not only to the actor, but to the entire acting profession. It's this point that I feel has caused the recent resentment towards unpaid jobs. By all means offer them, but make sure it's equal across the board.

Alan Andrew Taylor says...

I think anyone working on any any project should be entitled to the minimum pay. I think it helps everyone involved in a project work to their best ability and you have to remember that people are giving up their time time which could be spent working so they should be entitled to some pay. This problem is huge and is a vicious circle, film producers can't find the funding and therefore can't pay the crew. The result if we're not careful is huge reductions in production which could destroy the industry. We need more investment and better distribution for return profit. It's a mess at the moment, ask anyone how their doing at the moment financially.

Alan Andrew Taylor, Edinburgh, Scotland

Teja Hudson says...

There is a huge difference between independent/guerrilla productions, who should be allowed to offer unpaid positions because everyone is working unpaid, and professional productions that are properly budgeted and should have to pay at least minimum wage.

I think the legislation is a good thing, and we should protect our industry from exploitation that is clearly taking place; every person who takes an unpaid/underpaid position is undermining all those who won't. The whole industry suffers.

BUT guerrilla productions below a certain budget threshold, that offer deferred payment and profit share to all crew, should be exempt from having to pay crew up front as this is not exploitation but collaboration, and this is also very necessary to our industry.

Perhaps stronger guidelines about what constitutes Collaboration are needed. The legal requirement for it to be an uncontracted relationship is unworkable because these productions are trying to run as professionally as possible, even without the money behind them, and ensuring Chain of Title is also vital.

I think the questions we should be asking about such productions are:
*What is the total budget?
*What percentage of the budget is going to cast & crew fees? (ie. is ANYONE on the production getting paid?)
*Is there the possibility of financial benefit for all crew members on the back end (eg. profit share and/or deferred payment)?
*Are there pre-sales or distribution deals already in place (these would indicate professional production and the need to pay fully)?

If these answers are satisfactory, the production should legally qualify as a Collaboration and be allowed to go ahead without paying cast & crew up front.

It will soon become clear who is looking to exploit and who isn't...

Evan Pugh says...

It is vital that people be allowed to work unpaid to get experience and work creatively on projects that might not otherwise happe. I personally would not currently be working as I television director if I hadn't been allowed to learn through unpaid work. I could not afford film school. Shooting People should be for unpaid/low budgets jobs, it's a creative site, people should use productionbase for paid work

Nicola Howard says...

I have done unpaid work in the past, to build my showreel and get experience, however in my current situation it is not financially possible for me to take unpaid work. Perhaps there could be a seperate email option for those wishing to do unpaid work.

says...

It is up to the individual responding to the ad, not the 'nanny state'

Tamsin Lyons says...

There are many jobs websites already out there. Shooting People offers people an opportunity to meet and work with like-minded people. Often by necessity its free work to start with, or not even work - just discussion and planning, assembling a team together. I know so many directors and writers who have ideas and want to find people to help realise these. By forcing them to advertise and pay for collaborators, it not only becomes unviable but also potentially sets up the wrong framework for a collaboration, turning the creative process into an employer / employee situation which isn't what they were looking for.
While there will always be people taking advantage of the opportunity, in my experience Shooting People is fairly rigid in its policy enforcement and the opportunities that appear on the bulletin are generally interesting and more credible than those posted on other sites like Talent Circle.

I can't think how anyone could get started in this competitive market without some free work experience at some point. Everyone I know in the industry has done it, and everyone who worked hard and did a great job, is now working solidly on paid work, and often still choose to do unpaid jobs in their spare time to experiment and try new things, because they are passionate about what they do. What a shame if that passion was stifled.

Jamie Phillips says...

to be honest i feel this whole debate is a little crazy, surly it's obvious that it's up to the individual whether they work for free or not, what about people who are quite far on in their film career but just like the sound of an independent film are they expected to still insist on being paid, small independent filmmakers rely on unpaid volunteers and it would be a catastrophe if shooting people stopped them from advertising there stuff.

The one thing i would say is that it should be made clear to unpaid workers that they have the power, by working for nothing or just expenses they are basically working for the love of film and for the experience. If they feel they are being taken advantage of, being asked to do too much or are not being paid simply because the production wanted to save some money where they could probably have afforded to pay them then there should be a way that these workers can raise there problems without being black listed as unreliable or lazy.

armando da rita says...

it seems that there are paid jobs and collaborations. if a group of people come together to make a film with agreed share of any profits then thats fine. everybody has a stake.
if a person wants to hold on to complete control of their film then everybody else is an employee, so should be paid, the going rate would be best or minimum wage at worst.
in certain jobs it might be acceptable to accept a token payment plus expenses. at the end of the day, dont start filming until you have raised all the money for a days filming. if you haven't raised it, save up then film.
if i work on a film for free then i want an input to the process.
it is never acceptable for production companies to get free labour so they can lower their production costs to undercut other production companies and increase profits.
having too choose just one of the above statements is not on. there is no reason why both can be true.

Graham Lester George says...

If everyone, but everyone is working for nothing then that's fine, but paying some members of the crew and not others is unfair and potentially divisive. Most shorts attract little or no revenue, but if they do, and go into profit, then those profits should be shared according to the contribution made by each individual. A low budget feature can conceivably earn a lot of money. PARANORMAL ACTIVITY has become an unexpected massive earner, and one wonders if the cast and crew are benefitting from that success. So I think the rule here should be that everyone should have the right to choose to work for no or low pay, but that they also have a contract with a "Best Seller" clause which allows for them to share in any unexpected commercial success.

Graham Lester George, Writer of the award winning and BIFA nominated short WASHDAYS

Omar Sattaur says...

Unpaid work on commercial projects is exploitation. Unpaid work on short films and similar projects that will never turn a profit is not remotely exploitative - From Keir Black, I agree.

Although I'm sure there are a few complexities around this notion too...

Julian Darley says...

Though the issue is complex and there will always be people who will exploit the magnetic draw of the movie business, nonetheless, it's so hard to get in for many people, that if there are extra rules about pay, it may ironically further reinforce the nepotistic and in-crowd tendencies of film-making in Britain. To get into the movie business both in the UK and in Hollywood, I had to work for nothing on several protracted occasions. Not ideal, but at least I was able to get in.

Kimberly Buikema says...

The only way to get experience is to work on 'expenses only' gigs for a while; in the past those have been known as internships and apprenticeships and worked reasonably well. It is the person's choice to work for expenses only, and if they ever feel exploited, they can leave the shoot, quit the job, etc.

On the flip side, the 'employer' (or the person/people in charge of the shoot) is responsible for ensuring everyone who is working for free does not feel exploited and is well taken care of (i.e., working in comfortable situations, days of reasonable length, well-fed, etc.)

I would imagine most collaborations work on this basis of mutual respect. Shooting people provides opportunities for people to network and work together based on this model and hopefully 95% of these situations successfully work.

If you are offended by 'expenses only' postings, then skim over them or ignore them. If you ever feel exploited, inform the people you are working for and if you still feel exploited quit that job. It's a matter of choice and decency between the two parties.

How about an option of deferred payment with a signed contract? Most filmmakers I know (including myself) feel that if they ever earn ANY money from a film, that money will go to the cast and crew who were not paid for their time and effort.

Karen Hope says...

People can vote with their feet regarding unpaid work. If the project/personnel seem dodgy/unprofessional, don't do it. I'm prepared to work for basic expenses (travel/food) if I think a specific project could enhance my chances of getting paid work e.g. if it will enable me to learn or improve my professional skills, and - importantly - providing everyone else involved is working on the same basis (probably because it's a director/producer self-funded project). I'm also in the process of developing a self-funded short of my own and would like to be able to ask other Shooters to collaborate with me on the same basis. However,when projects ARE funded, I would like to see minimum wage apply. This is where I think funding bodies like the Film Council should be held more accountable. If the industry is going to seriously push for minimum wage on every project, then funding bodies are going to have to substantially increase their funding. The way it stands at the moment, the people who create/work on funded films tend to be at the bottom of the queue for being paid, after the technical costs such as equipment hire, insurance etc have been covered, otherwise it wouldn't be possible to complete the project. I know a number of producers/directors of Film Council funded films who have spent months working on their films for the grand sum of a couple of hundred quid.

blanca pena says...

Hi there, I don't think anyone should work for free. The level of experience should be reflected on the wages. By doing so we are all protecting our profession and our livelihoods. Thanks

John Mawson says...

The many comments posted on this can perhaps be distilled into the following.
a) Pay no-one or everyone and b) have a percentage/deferred agreement in place for all participants on all projects. It doesn't matter if you are making a 5 minute art short with a couple of mates: have those two principals in place, in writing. Then when you start out on your first feature which might actually get a distribution deal you and everyone else will know what the standard is, abide by it and have the potential benefit. SP could help this happen by providing a suitable wording for the agreement which has to be accepted anyone submitting a posting and which is deemed to be adopted by anyone replying. There we are: sorted!

My own beef, and I wonder if it isn't at the heart of the current surge of debate, is the appalling lack of reputable projects showing up on the SP UK Casting Network bulletin. Plus I have a good C.V. and get a lot of profile "hits" but haven't been contacted for a casting since I can't remember when. All my work is coming through CCP, personal contacts built up or my agent. I am definitely wondering whether it's worth keeping up my S.P. membership.

John M (actor)

Samuel Marlow says...

I felt my hand was forced on Q4. I don't actually agree with either statement. As someone who has worked for free and recruited people to work for me for expenses, I have seen this argument from both sides of the table.

I agree with the NMW, as I think it is vital to protect workers from unscrupulous employers, but I also think people should be allowed to choose whether or not they donate their time to a project or undertaking (AmDram, for example) without government getting involved.

I still think unpaid collaboration between people who are all starting out is fine and necessary, but I disagree with larger productions choosing to pay some but not others. Work experience is a separate issue, but there is plenty of legislation on what does and what does not count as work experience. I have been and relied on collaborative work to gain experience, but I am now paying the people who work for me. I couldn't have got to this stage without the collaboration, though.

In short if some people are going to object, I suggest a separate newsletter for people looking to collaborate. By signing up they are aware that they have the right to be paid if they choose to, but are waiving that right on this occasion, and all workers (including above the line) are all unpaid collaborators. It's not perfect, but it is the fairest way I can think of.

Clare Cahill says...

In many ways independent low-budget film-making faces the same challenges that other entrepreneurial ventures have - raising finance for an innovation or to create new intellectual property is sometimes impossible and so the choice is to shelve the idea, or to assess the financial risk by working on the idea for no immmediate monetary reward.

I have been part of ventures which have relied on "sweat-equity" to actually bring the project to the market, at which time risk-averse investors finally come to the party - gee thanks guys!

I have worked for "deferred" wages on film projects because I need the experience and track record. I regard myself as working freelance and have to find other ways to pay my bills and living expenses until I have sufficient credit to successfully compete for paid work in the industry that I want to work in.

"Deferred wages" is, for me, a meaningless concept - the contracts that I have been offered make it clear that I have no reasonable hope of ever being paid.

My view is that if wages can't be paid at the time that the work is performed, then people working on a project can't in any real sense be considered employees, and it seems to me that we should instead be considered as investor/co-owners of the production, who are not paid deferred wages, but are paid dividends on our invested labour.

Bill McCallum says...

There should be clear guidance on which projects are "low Budget" or "no budget" or "commercial projects"... I mean that in the sense that where a project is non-commercial (a charitable/community project; student film; or a speculative film) then low/no pay can be reasonable if the project provides skills and experience for those involved and all participants are working at the same level.

where there is clear commercialism involved (low budget film or a commercial project)then its reasonable to work for low/no pay if everyone works at the same level and takes a share of the returns generated.

where a project is commercial or low budget and most of the cast & crew are rewarded by standard rates, then its unreasonable to expect others to work for free or just for expenses.

in the end, its up to the individuals involved to decide if they want to work for nothing to gain experience.

BEN HYLAND says...

I have been reading this debate raging over the last few weeks. As a filmmaker I find it hard to make maybe 2 short films a year. I hold down a full time job, I pay for all film costs myself. If I was put in a position where I have to pay everyone involved I wouldn't be able to make films. In regards to whom I pay the answer is no-one, not a select few that are runners. Over the course of a few year I have built up a network of crew (largely thanks to shotting people) that want to work on my projects. That said I have never used any of the films I have made for financial gain. If my regular crew or any actors I've worked with were asked I'm sure they would say they got loads out of it plus they would (and most have) worked with me again.

Surely this has to be a decision by each individual. As a struggling filmmaker trying to get my work out there. Saying miniumum wage is a must on all low budget films will kill this and a huge portion of this community will stop being able to make film full stop.

Maike Freitag says...

lets face it, we are working for an industry that is exploiting people and we should not be supporting this. Nevertheless, for most of us - me definitely included! - paid work only started after doing unpaid work, we all need to get our experiences so why not collaborate??? The problem only comes when production companier start taking advantage of this, keeping their budget down in the belief that you dont NEED to pay for certain services as theres always someone there desperate enuff to take on the job. Well, everyone needs to choose for him or herself, and in the end, people get what they pay for and if they want experienced staff, they just will have to pay...

Pete Dean says...

I think people who say that we should have the right to choose whether we can work on unpaid projects are really missing the point. People starting out in the business shouldn't be forced to take unpaid jobs because that's all there is.

The more people work for free, the more employers expect certain positions to be filled by people working for free. The situation will spiral, getting worse and worse, with more people having to work for free because it is expected, whilst people higher up are well paid.

You also have to ask - who can afford to work for free? The film industry is increasingly becoming something for people from wealthy backgrounds. Is that really who we want our films to be made by?

The government introduced the NMW to stop workers being exploited. Why do people in film have the right to think the law doesn't apply to them?

It seems to me that this debate is a political one - left vs right.

Elizabeth Pencavel says...

I think that all roles should be paid wherever possible, but more often than not this is not possible. Although I think it's unfair the amount of work that I've done for no money, equally I have gained some fantastic experience that I may not otherwise have been able to gain. It feels like an unfair business and I'm personally struggling with the dilemna of leaving a paid TV support role to move into production, but with the fear that most jobs are unpaid...

Ivo Marloh says...

As with a lot of other jobs, working in the film industry and getting paid properly for it requires a certain amount of learning on the job – i.e. apprenticeships or internships – and as such will always be very lowly or not at all paid. This will never go away. If there were a legislation prohibiting all free work on anything film-related (per instance) people would either turn away from Britain as a film location, or would ask for free collaborations without any employment status to get around it. It will never go away because the demand far outweighs the supply, and will always do so.

David Johnson says...

The first work I got, and the valuable experience that came with it was as an unpaid runner. Since then I have been involved in a number of self-financed short films, alongside my career as a freelance producer/director, which have been unpaid. Essentially they are pieces of work made for love, few if any of which have gone on to make any money. There should always be room for this kind of work to be made lest we restrict the realm of short film-making to the very rich.
Where the situation changes is when there is money in the production, either from a broadcaster or a regional film fund etc. Then I think there is a duty to pay people something, even if the rates are reduced substantially. Then it becomes a choice for the individual concerned.

Finally when it comes to work placements - they should never last more than two weeks. More than that without paying some-one is exploitation.

Lothar Spree says...

I like to insist that unpaid jobs should be possible and should be possible to be advertised. However, eventually the habit of thinking in unpaid jobs as closely related to independent film making seems to make the independent scene appear so poor and seems to keep it poor. Unpaid jobs should be an extreme exception for film projects that have clearly reasons for needing those - e.g. projects that are so controversial or so fundamentally experimental that there is no support from any side. But artistic quality, genius or high flying reasons like that are unacceptable. Struggling for decent pay for all participants will eventually enhance the chances and the quality of independent film making.

Simon Dales says...

It is all to do with situation and most important common sense on part of the individual! If everyone on the project is working for nothing then that's one thing, but if there is a budget and they are cutting corners by not paying people then that is something completely different

Tom Kerevan says...

I don't have my first screenwriting credit. If the working conditions were right, I trusted the people etc etc and I used good judgement, I would work on a film for nothing because, for me, it would be an investment. The writing credit could lead to paid work.

Saying that, the industry has a duty to nurture talent and passion. If you don't pay people then there will inevitibly come a point when you have to give up to support your family. How many Orson Welles' never got the chance because they couldn't afford to work for nothing?

On the flip side again, the industry is what it is. Accept it and don't bother if you're not going to see it through. Have a plan to survive for ten years without a dime from what you love. "Success seems to be largely a matter of hanging on when others have let go."

Sasha Andrews says...

Filmmakers calling on crew/actors/musicians etc to take unpaid jobs should make out a contract with a deferred fee so that should the film make money their collaborators eventually get paid.

Jay Sutherland says...

It's a difficult issue. However, I think the problem isn't unpaid work per se. I think the problem is when things are advertised as 'paid' when there is never any intention of the production company paying the actors. I also think it is wrong for some cast and crew to be offered payment and others not to.

royal luo says...

thanks for all ur help. its a great website.

Ruth Curtis says...

would have been nice if 'low paid staff like runners' had been amended to include 'actors' (who should never be low paid!)

keir black says...

Unpaid work on commercial projects is exploitaion. Unpaid work on short films and similar projects that will never turn a profit is not remotely exploitative - and BECTU's pursuit of those wishing to make such projects is unjust and harmful to the development of talent in this country.

james keaton says...

I have been a runner in the industry and I now produce my own low-budget shorts. I have worked for free and I have employed people for expenses only. If a ban on unpaid work was put in place it is my view that it would cripple entire sections of the industry and stifle creativity.
Working for free is sometimes a neccesary evil. I didn't particularly like not getting paid for a job but I went in with my eyes open and I learned from the experience which is all anyone can hope for.
As a low-budget producer I spent almost a year trying to get funding for my current project through various short film schemes (of which there are few), and in the end I decided to self-fund the project. I have poured everything I have into it but I could still not afford to pay everyone properly. This time I had a token payment to offer but it was still a huge chunk of the budget.
My point is this. I would not have any short films at all if there was a minimum wage enforcement. Some projects just can not afford to pay properly. And I believe that some of these struggling projects are far more worthy to see the light of day that some of the properly funded films and programmes that do receive funding.
As far as I am concerned, Shooting People is there to help the small-scale film-maker. Long may it continue to do so and let's put a stop to this debate.

James Keaton

Anthony Styles says...

A lot of people have learnt their trade by working for next to nothing and then if they are good they will be noticed and offered better paid contracts.

A lot of films would just not get made if everyone had to be on their minimum wage.

If people do not think it is worth it they will not do it.

says...

I've worked on many productions where I haven't been paid that led to paid work, and I think it is a necessary evil sometimes to have to work unpaid. My own rule of thumb is that if I direct a project where I am paid then everyone should get paid. If I'm not being paid to direct then I am comfortable asking others to get involved for expenses only.

says...

Question 3 rather assumes everyone responding to this poll has read the legislation. There should be a "don't know" answer.

Let's give people the chance to pick and choose the work they do. Some people simply cannot afford, at least when starting out, to provide a wage for their shoot. They've paid for (or begged and borrowed) equipment, access to locations and transport. They do it because they love film. Why stop them from posting on SP? If I don't want to work for expenses only, or even for free, that's my choice. Nobody compels me to work unpaid.

Surely the important issue here is that of being treated fairly. If a cast and crew is looked after, fed and watered, and feel they've got something out of a shoot, then they can be satisfied without monetary payment. Perhaps there are those who would expect everyone to work for free, under unreasonable conditions. They would soon be found out. However, restricting postings in the proposed manner would be an unreasonable punishment for many enthusiastic amateurs. And let's not forget, SP is a place for the amateur and professional alike. Should they not wish to mix, they have the option.

We'd all prefer to be paid for our efforts, but if a project came along that was rewarding for the experience it gives, the opportunity for further work, or a well-made addition to our showreel, surely we'd want to make up our own minds.

Give Shooters access to as much work as possible. Let them decide for themselves.

Zoe Hinks says...

Every professional needs to learn what they are prepared to do for free for creative satisfaction. If learning how not to be abused is part of that journey, so be it. I don't think a lack of funds should prevent talented film makers from creating, so long as they are honest about their situation.

Sarah Steel says...

For some, unpaid work is the only way to get on-set experience, although this does leave unscrupulous Producers with an option to exploit.

For a short, independent film with lo-no budget, it's closing a lot of doors if unpaid cast & crew are not able to be used!

Anina Carl says...

As an employee on films, I would obviously rather get paid, but unpaid work also enables me to move up, as it could take a long time before any bosses would decide to move me up without proof of experience on unpaid jobs.

As a filmmaker, making my own films, it would be impossible for me to make my own films and hope for a career as a director if I didn't get help from fellow filmmakers in exchange of a credit and a DVD or expenses.

The problem isn't that there are unpaid film jobs, but that there aren't enough sources of funding to pay people with. The problem isn't with the community of low-budget film makers with just enough budget to cover the equipment hire costs, but with the community who do get a budget and try to get away with not paying the crew evenly or use the crisis as an excuse to fire or not pay people.

I get both paid and unpaid work and need to continue to do both to progress in the field.

David Allain says...

In an ideal world everyone would get paid.

But in an ideal world there would also be (adequate) funding for every creative project.

Collaboration is a key part of working in creative industries and is something that should be encouraged along with other dying virtues like Loyalty, Long Term Rewards and Investment in people's careers, and Risk-Taking.

Every adult is capable of deciding how they want to spend their time - paid or unpaid. Work experience, internships, and traineeships are great ways of giving genuinely helpful experience to fledgling creatives.

Nevertheless, therein remains a grey area. Established production companies 'hiring' work experience interns for 3 months or more with only their travel costs covered is unacceptable in my book. But the recession encouraged a lot of companies to excuse their unfair payment schemes in the name of keeping afloat.

But the bottom line remains: Every adult is capable of deciding how they want to spend their time - paid or unpaid.

It is hard to correct those exploiting keen interns without making it impossible for young directors, dops, art directors, and producers falling prey to the same rules.

All in all, I think things should continue as they are. Nobody is being forced to do anything they disagree with. I would like to see Production companies encouraged to be fairer and to set a good example. I would also like to see young creatives encouraged to know their value and worth, and so encouraged to take less rewarding projects so often. But this will only come from generally advising producers how to treat their crew and staff with respect, but that could take some time.

It would be good to see any project that can be traced back to affiliation with any established brand or artist (ie. major record label, conglomerate brand, government body, and maybe any promo / ad for any Ltd company) should be required by law provide a budget ample to cover minimuim wage fees for every member of crew / production (from Runners and Production Assistants to Editors and Colourists).

At the moment it is a Buyers' market and their are too many good deals from keen creatives on offer. There needs to be a shift back to when creatives were respected and valued. This will only happen if those with money are required by law to part with it instead of exploiting artists.

Independent collaborations should be strictly for Independent collaborators.

What would the world be like where everybody only worked for at least minimal wage?
I doubt we'll see a lot less interesting work being made by tomorrow's big creative minds on zero budget shoestrings.
More likely, I predict a hell of a lot of law-breaking that is impossible to regulate, because you can't stop creativity, passion, and talent.

Steve Dolton says...

As a rule of thumb, I will always be willing to work unpaid for students. They are the future and deserve our support if we have time available.

As an actor I have to keep my show reel fresh, so I have to consider unpaid work with 'professional' production companies if I don't have anything else. What frustrates me most is finding that all other professionals on a shoot are being paid at least min. wage, which is often the case at the moment. This is intrinsically unfair and exploitative. I'd like to avoid such companies completely, but I'd be shooting myself in the foot if I did.

To conclude. I'd be really happy for you to help draw a line between student film, by students on recognised courses and small businesses who are exploiting professional actors.

More power to your elbow!! Steve Dolton.

Jordan Barrett says...

As a young filmmaker who's bursting onto the business I need as much experience as I can get and if that's an unpaid expenses only job i'm going to go for it. I think it should be up to the crew member. If it's clearly advertised as expenses only then that's what it should be.

I recently filmed a shoot and it all started on this website Shooting People. I had wrote a script and wanted to get it off the ground. I put out a call for collaboration back in September and got some good responses. It was all for expenses only as we had no funding. The film was shot in December and it's going great. If the film had to be given as minimum wage the film would simply of not been made. The funding was not available.

Dave Sohanpal says...

There is no other job were it demands people to work for free so why should it be any different to the film industry. It is about time we stop killing the british film industry and people exploiting other people. Treat it like a proper business.

Steve Hammal says...

Unpaid or expenses only collaborations between independent filmmakers should be exempt from the National Minimum Wage policy. We're all grown ups and should have the right to make up our own minds if we want to work on worthwhile creative endeavors for expenses only etc.

Duncan McIntosh says...

One of the major strengths of low to no budget productions is the fact that contacts and experience is gained from participation. As a writer and film maker, I personally would not be able to get my work made without like minded individuals working for no wage. I will and have happily worked for free and will continue to exercise my right to do so. Although the minority of companies or individuals that exploit unpaid work, forcing everyone to pay minimum wage would cripple emerging film makers and discourage new talent from even attempting to make films.

Olga-Mila Gots says...

Having unpaid job posts doesn't force people to apply for them if they don't want to work for free (simply don't hit the reply button, right?) And by getting rid of the unpaid posts you're not actually going to suddenly create hundreds of paid ones... or are you?

Nicholas Hughes says...

We cannot kill independent low budget film making in this country and we certainly cannot block the opportunities for talented people who don't have access to large amounts of money or high placecd contacts.

Chris Bates says...

Some great films just don't have the budget to pay all crew at least minimum wage - so by forcing this legislation forward on all projects, many would be strangled at an early stage.

I have both worked unpaid, and run my own projects with people who are working for expenses only, and both of these situations have greatly helped me progress as a filmmaker.

My last project, which I crewed through SP, simply wouldn't have happened if I'd had to pay minimum wage to all involved, and everyone involved understood this. They, like me, were doing it in a collaborative spirit, and for their own advancement. I think this is an important part of career development in the creative industries.

Tim Willrich says...

I would love to be able to see this debate in black and white but I just can't! I agree with people should have the choice to work on projects unpaid and I agree with the mentality that a lot of good creative ideas would never get off the ground otherwise. It is such a tough industry to get in to an already narrowing amount of films being made and getting that vital experience. Having said this it might flush out all the wannabes and leave us with the hardcore passionate people that really really want to make a career out of this.
I do a lot of free work to gain more experience and network and I'm happy doing that. What chafs my ass is when people take it for granted that you will work for free and take the piss (i.e. free equipment) and just generally treat you like you don't matter when you are donating time,sweat and blood to them. Not all of the projects I have worked on have been like that but a fair few have.
I'd sooner see some peoples attitude change before I saw laws like this being brought in.

David Keeling says...

Bottom Line:
Without unpaid labour, a vast amount of low-budget independent film projects simply wouldn't and couldn't be made. The money just isn't available for independent filmmakers.

It's a pain in the ass for those of us who do have to work unpaid, and yeah, I'd love to have been paid for all the free work I've done in the past, but I don't think the independent filmmaking community could sustain itself without free labour.

It sucks, but that's the way it is. Don't worry, we'll all be rich someday.

says...

As an actress I would like the option to choose whether I take unpaid work or not, although it generally means not. I think if anyone on the set is being paid then all should be paid. I think if there is potential for profit then it should be shared under a contractural arrangement.

I think students especially need to respect the talent they use and paying them does just that. Something over and above expenses. Set a precedent.

Charlie Whately-Smith says...

I think it's also about time. Whilst many new runners would be happy to work for a day or two for the experience, some people seem to expect too much from people doing them a favour. It's a tricky one, but I think if you want to make a film, you have to go to the effort of rounding up a few quid to make sure everyone gets paid something. It's one thing to help out a friend for free - quite another to expect someone you don't know to be happy about doing so.

Sid Merrett says...

I have been a member of Shooting people for a couple of years or so.
I am in a position to work for free, but doubt that doing so is likely to.

1. Progress my career as a composer
2. Progress the film/TV industry in the UK as a whole.

My experience of using Shooting people has not been good.
There are a lot of people who seem to think it is acceptable to justify not paying for things, simply by stating that theirs is a "low/no budget" project.
Which may simply mean that their budget has already been spent on a "research" trip to Hollywood.

I believe that film projects, however small or indeed ambitious should be funded properly and that there are many "film-makers" who are simply wannabees and that their "projects" are perhaps not funded because they simply aren't good enough to warrant any investment from film bodies or anywhere else.

I don't suggest that NO requests for free help should be posted on Shooting People, but it is my view that Shooting People is gaining a negative repuation for hosting this plethora of unpaid job adverts rather than being known as a legitimate industry resource.

I recognise that this may simply be "sour-grapes" on my part as Shooting People has introduced me to zero work or opportunity.
I don't doubt my abilty as a musician, but I do doubt the attitude and approach of what appears to be a large proportion of your film-making members.

Thanks for your efforts to round this matter up, one way or another,


Sid Merrett

Andrew Morgan says...

Wee need to allow people to continue to collaborate, meaning people with very low budget, self funded or even student films can find collaborators who also want to learn their craft through such non professional gigs.

However, companies that do have budgets and are looking to exploit free work should be required to pay their workers, just like any other company. There is a difference between a registered company that is in the money making business of film, and a student who is enthusiastically learning the ropes.

As a composer, I have enjoyed working on a number of projects that were low or expense only pay. However, I have also decided against working on films that are obviously well enough made to have a good budget but were looking for free music, as it is insulting and a waste of time.

So let´s keep the unpaid work in order to foster new creativity and gorilla style film making going, but let´s also call out any company who is looking to exploit this energy!!

Drew Morgan
My site www.andrewmorgan.org/film has a number of SP projects on it, many low budget. Cheers!

Frank Morris says...

If there's funding on a project then I believe everyone should get paid something, no matter how small. If there isn't any funding, people should be free to work for nothing if they want to. I know many of the projects I work on wouldn't happen without people giving their time gratis and it would be a great shame if this was taken away.

Samantha Ritchie says...

I am a professional and professionally trained actress of many years' standing. I adore my job, as a job, but as a creative art, I agree entirely with those who say that there's no point setting out to be an actor, director, film-maker, writer or any other position within this industry if you intend to make money. Most of us won't. BUT... I do expect to be treated as a professional. Therefore, if other members of the crew are being paid, then I expect to be paid; I will not take a job if the producers are paying the sound and lighting, but not the actors. I WILL collaborate on a student film (many more of them do offer a minimum fee these days) because I feel that if I wanted to be treated well by employers it's good to 'catch them young' and by collaborating with them, in effect 'teach' them how to treat actors (and everybody else on a shoot). I feel I am volunteering my experience in the same way as when I go into my son's class at school to help with reading. But that is my choice, and I feel it is imperative to be able to keep that choice. But when it comes to a fee, if a film-maker is offering a fee to other crew, then he/she should re-distribute that production budget to pay the actors. Otherwise the message is clear: you don't value your cast as professionals. And I don't want to work for anyone who does not value me as a professional.

Frederic Perraut says...

It's supply and demand, module 1. It's also brilliantly summarized by Soulwax's slice of belgian popular music at its very best "Too Many DJ's".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6xHYuuYdoM

Isla Gray says...

I believe in some (not all) cases people feel that because they have the option of advertising unpaid jobs on job sites such as shooting people, and see other people doing so, they take advantage of people with limited experience by not offering any payment at all. The most difficult working period of someone's career is at the beginning when they're trying to get the experience they need to progress up the ladder, and this is made all the more difficult by lack of money. I would prefer to see people offering at least a small fee if they're looking for people to work on a low budget project, and in turn encourage new talent to stay within the industry.

Matt Wenham says...

If a film is non profit or being made on a micro budget it is impossible to pay minimum wage to all crew. These films would not get made without volunteers who do it through good will and because they love to make films and want to learn. This would be a disaster.

That said - all film makers have a moral responsibility not to exploit low / no paid crew. It should be clear and agreed from the outset what is expected and what expenses will be paid. If the intention is to later make money from a film, an agreement should be drawn up in advance incorporating deferred fees etc.

charles harris says...

Everyone needs money, and at the same time they want to establish a solid career. The more important issue is what other kind of recompense is being offered to the crew member, other than financial. I have worked for no money, yet gained experience, credits, contacts, etc, that are way beyond the money I might have gained. I have also been ripped off.

I also have employed many crew members for no money. I always ensure that it is clear what they will earn in return. For example, I tell heads of department that part of their job is to help teach those who are working for them for no money. I ensure they get a good credit. In return, I also make it clear that they should treat the job as seriously as a paying job - they must turn up on time, put in 100% effort, and be totally professional.

In most cases, I have found that dealing with such contracts in such an open and ethical way has worked tremendously well for both sides. The employer gets a larger and often more committed crew than they would normally be able to afford, and the crew member gets an entree into the industry which you could not put a price on. In some cases, they have gone on to a paid industry career based on the experience and the contacts made.

Anastacia Tohill says...

I think that all jobs in the creative industry should be paid something for their artictic talent, even if it only covers costs. I think if you work for nothing that can have a knock on effect – making it harder for people to get paid work. You shouldn't have to work for nothing even if you want experience.

jacqueline rice says...

I am a small independent film-maker. I also work in theatre. I often get the chance to work with great directors on incredible plays with great actors but the position is usually unpaid (or with a small expenses contribution). This invaluable but unpaid work directly feeds into my development as a film-maker. I have worked as an unpaid runner on other film projects for the same reason and I make myself indispensable and often that person thinks of me later on down the line when something paid comes along. If you are not paying people, adore them, collaborate with them, feed them well and respect wholeheartedly that they give so much of their time and themselves to the great good of art. ALWAYS give them as many copies of the film they need. Be clear and straight with them from the outset. I do the same with my team, many of whom work for nothing, or very little. It is my sincerest hope that one day I'll be able to pay crew and actors alike - we should all be working towards this - however - please don't take away mine and others right to choose how and when we want to work.

Robin Laine says...

Expecting cast and/or crew to work without payment should always be as a last resort and on the basis of a written deferral contract - ie if the project is successful in terms of advancing the career and earning potential of the film maker he/she should be obliged to honour the deferral contract and pay those without whom his/her success would not have been possible a fee reflecting his/her enhanced ability to pay.

A deferred fee should be stipulated in the deferral contract. SP should draw up such a contract and make it binding upon individuals posting requests for others to work for free that that they sign up to such a contract.

Alice Fiorica says...

I think it's ok to work on expenses on short movies and people need to be able to decide for themselves if do it or not.

When it come to feature though, there is always a budget available and every person working on it should receive minimum wage.

Enrique Rovira says...

Interestingly it is no only about making the films but about getting that door-opening experience and this certainly does not apply for runners only. Just one example: a guy who has been working as focus-puller or camera assistant for years wants to get some credit as DOP, because this is the next step that sounds not only appealing to him, but logic! Unfortunately he cannot get any paid jobs because he has no experience as DOP, so he gets together with a 1st AD friend of his who wants to get experience as a Director, they scratch their pockets and put few ads for crew... who’d have thought? more than a 100 people replies for each single role, it seems they are all in the same situation: no experience, no paid work…

Elias Millward says...

I definitely think people should have the option to apply for unpaid positions, otherwise making films, which is already incredibly difficult, would be almost impossible, especially for self-funded projects.
Some people like myself make films in their spare time alongside a full-time job. I take a serious and professional approach to these projects but they are not money making enterprise but creative collaborations. Hopefully with time as I build a showreel I will receive funding and be able to compensate my collaborator, but until then why deny those the pleasure of working on a project if they are happy with not receiving a wage? Eliasx

André Marques says...

I did all my shorts so far by not paying or receiving any monetary compensation so far. It's shit, I know, I wish I could have helped my collaborators by paying them, as paying myself, but the way things are and work, independent shorts being hard to finance, it's this or nothing. Just don't trick people with "this is a free one, the next is paid or you'll start working for us after a try-out" bullshit. If it's true, fair enough. If not, just be honest.

says...

I think that Film Schools should pay actors a minimum wage.

lou birks says...

I've never managed to employ anyone of any significant skill level via shooting people.

People need to appreciate that if jobs are to be paid - they need a bloody good showreel/cv.

Different sections for paid and unpaid jobs would be good.

Mike Parish says...

Student films are different,we should suport the students. as they have no funds.
It is different with people making Low Budget or No budget, they make a name for them selves whilste the unpaid get nothing.
I as an actor do do freeb's but most of them are student films. I have had this year quite a few of the established producers asking me to appear in there films, FOR NOUT. My answer has been, on your Bikes.
No Way.
The industry has been going down hill, thanks to a the people who think they can get away with freeb's

Cally Lawrence says...

It should never be expected that people will work for nothing just because they NEED the experience. I have worked in the industry for over 14 years, I don't need things on my CV but certain projects appeal to me and I am happy to work for expenses only. Payment should always be made where possible. The important thing is to have agreements in writing regardless of pay structure, to ensure that people work reasonable hours, in good conditions and get the credits and copies promised to them for show reel purposes etc. Anyone "exploiting" workers should be named and shamed and blacklisted by everyone

Jamie Serafi says...

People are offering their SERVICES!! Would a plumber install a bathroom for free? Would an electrician rewire your house for free? NO!! Point made!!

Dympna Jardine says...

I have been an unpaid runner in the past. A minimum wage may help reduce the hours runners work, then again it may not as runners would be keen to earn as much as possible! Long hours are certainly a problem for runners as often they are having to drive for long periods - lorry driver rules are not applied!

Alistair Briggs says...

It has to be a question of choice. There is no compulsion for anyone to take unpaid work. To take extremely low or unpaid work when starting out is often the only way to gain experience. Of course people may well exploit this (and any serial no pay posters may be viewed with some contempt), but again, this is all part of gaining experience. We are not talking about slavery here, we are talking about a learning curve. You have to realise there are far more people wanting to be part of the industry than there are actual jobs, let alone careers. Almost without exception, the 'jobs' advertised are very short term, no one is being locked into penury. Let the individual, with caution, make their own decision. And, whatever the experience, learn from it

Louise Taylor says...

I think that this is a very important issue. I think if people are getting paid on a film everyone should get paid.

Matt Choules says...

While I have worked on low and no paying jobs, I have the choice to take them or not based on my interest of the project.

However, the new entrants into the industry are definately taken advantage of and so perhaps there should be some sort of hierarchy set out that says:

Project Type 1: This work will never be sent to competitions and is for personal work or showreel - No pay.

Project Type 2: This work is for competitions, and minor distribution - Low pay.

Project Type 3: This work is for broadcast, distribution, competition entry etc - Paid.

Then at least if the person posting the advert says its Type 1 and he/she enters it into a competition or sells it to for distribution then the people in involved that worked for free would be able to try and claim something back for the work they did in good faith for free.

The Film Hive says...

Early in my career as a runner I worked for free on commercials to get my foot in the door to prove what I can do. However, the work came from me cold calling the top 1st AD's, PM's and production companies to help out for free in return for experience. From there I managed to secure paid work after the first 4 or 5 free jobs. I just think that there's an abundance of experienced runners out there that have the experience, I think it should be part of your game plan to allow yourself a few days work for free just to get in and meet the right people. In my eyes it was well worth doing. I just think new starters need to be savvy enough to know what jobs are worth working for free on, and what jobs are down right exploitation, with no future return.




I am also a believer that work experience in production houses does work. Most of my paid work in through inhouse work, all of which I worked for free for a couple of days and soon after, paid work followed.

A martin says...

As a professional who has worked in the business for nearly 20 years I still take positions on interesting projects and work for free.

It is a nonsense to read some of the comments that have been listed over the past weeks on this issue that state that if you cannot pay minimum wage because you haven't raised the budget this proves that your film is not worth making....utter nonsense.

Are volunteers who work in charity shops or man CAB phone lines etc etc now all going to demand minimum wage?

I believe that there is a considerable amount of reciprocation that exists for the benefit of all film makers and that ultimately it is down to choice. We made a film last year - to inexperienced crew (not the mentoring professionals who worked alongside them) expenses were paid, three meals provided everyday and travel/phone allowances paid. The film got made and went on to be incredibly successful. Each 'trainee/intern' crew member has since then been given the benefit of not only having a credit on the film which acts as a significant calling card but also many of them have been found paying jobs by us, been given help writing CV's, leant very expensive camera equipment for their projects etc etc etc....That bartering, reciprocation, quid quo pro is what independent film making is all about. Incidentally when we made another film all the trainees were offered first option on roles in the crew and were paid NMW or more. It should be noted that the benefits that the crew derived from a successful film by association and experience have all been appreciated by them - their time on the project was less than 3 weeks over a summer yet the producer/writer/director/editor have all worked on the film for nothing to make it successful for everyone for over 2 years now.

Those who berate and denigrate producers on here over this debate need to wake and not compare producers of indie features with those of 'studio' backed indies which are financed in the millions.

I do not know the case that BECTU fought but from my experience on rate paid films even when the production pushes into overtime (usually unpaid) or infringes in other areas - late payments or runs out of money - BECTU rarely has done anything. To threaten the foundation of creativity that is independent film is extremely worrisome and counterproductive.

No one has mentioned back end - again many independent films pay expenses and cut a back-end to crew in return for low/no wages - is this to be outlawed as well?

If the NMW debaters win the argument and listings are removed then perhaps SP can consider listings based on budget size. Anything under £100,000 budget (perhaps) should be allowed to crew for expenses or negotiated rates below industry norm or NMW based on the assumption that there is the principle that there has to be a reciprocal arrangement on offer inherent within a film falling below that budget.

If I charged for my time to every young person that contacted me for advice on script/career/production etc I would have a nice little pot of cash accrued by now - even at NMW rate! No new entrant can afford to pay me for advice and I wouldn't want to charge for it but if this debate is taken to it's logical conclusion then I would have to stop being generous with my time and the whole industry/technicians and creatives alike would grind to a halt.

By way of one more example - we had a professional full rate charging DoP who filled in for our DoP for 4 days on our last film. His rate is £250 a day. We couldn't afford that. I bartered for his time for free in return for my time helping him with his feature film project. Under the proposed changes to SP I wouldn't have been able to have even found this person to be able to barter and get my film shot. It was a fair exchange and everyone was happy.

Frankly I find the whole thing alarming.

John Keedwell says...

It is a film BUSINESS. Not a hobby

Andrew Ryland says...

If a group of people come together and want to work on a project for whatever reason, then they should be able to set their own rate and work for the amount they personally choose. Whilst I agree established companies should not exploit people, particularly over periods for longer than a few weeks, collaborative work is entirely a matter of personal choice.

Richard Cosgrove says...

I think that Talent Circle has a good, clear policy on this matter. To quote their guidelines (http://www.talentcircle.org/job-posting-guidelines-c.aspx):

"We feel, if you have commercial intentions for your production or project (eg sell it) or run a company, even if not profit-making, for positions that are not freelance, at least national minimum wage law applies, or industry rates.

"However, we make an exception for student, charity and low budget productions, which may include short films and other work that requires a team to collaborate working with each other, rather than for a specific person or company. We class this as collaboration rather than employment and we strongly appreciate that benefits that these type of productions offer, providing experience that would otherwise be not possible."

So, for non-commercial projects - such as films for showreels, student projects, and no-budget shorts (say, films with a production budget under £500) - posting adverts for cast and crew where there's no pay and the offer of expenses being covered, should be allowed.

However, it should not be allowed for any commercial projects where the intent is to make money from the film (directly through distribution or indirectly). This would include any features, documentaries or TV programmes, and any material made for broadcast on TV, online (web serials), and cinematic or straight-to-DVD releases.

That said, if a self-employed crew member or performer is willing to work for free, they should not be stopped from advertising or offering their services and offer - if they're classed as freelancers by BECTU and HMRC (I believe this means heads of departments - or crew who manage other crew - like directors, DoPs, editors, special effects supervisors etc).

Charles Wood says...

The problem is big organisations like the Arts Council and The BBc taking the piss with these regulations: They either put the work out to companies who then flout the rules, or they fix the contract so that even if it meets the requirements of the law , unless you are rich and seperately able to live from your earnings, there is no way you could take the job.

As an individual, working with other like minded people money is not always the PRIME factor in an arrangement. I think individuals should have to sign a contracted out of minimium wagr form which fully explains the inmplicationsof doing so, and given a copy signed by both company and individual. Then both sides can clearly present their case in court, if it comes to that.

No one should HAVE to be paid to do something. Even if the are really good at what they do.

vasco de sousa says...

What about student films? I think there should be an "amateur and student" or "volunteer and student" bulletin for unpaid work.

Unpaid is amateur and student, not professional. Students may need unpaid assistance.

Mofilm is also unpaid work. Many producers and directors are giving their time up without pay, in the hope of pay "if they win". It is not an ordinary contest in that the "losers" cannot take their film elsewhere. (try reselling a film for AT&T to a skateboard company.) Compare this to sundance, where rejected films are still usable for other markets.

As far as things like sitcoms go, anything intended for television should be paid. If the end market is paid, the work should be paid.

I worked for the PTA for free, selling food to children and parents to raise money for a good cause. I would not enjoy doing the same work for free for a for-profit restaurant like McDonalds, they'd have to pay.

In my view, anyone who works for free should have a degree of creative input and a share in the profits (if it's not a charity raising money for a good cause).

I support a separate bulletin for "amateur and student" films, so that those who just want any kind of experience can get it, and those looking for work aren't angered by being deceived in thinking there are real jobs available.

Crazy idea: After the first week, in order to post an advert asking for volunteers on such a bulletin, a producer must first spend a week doing unpaid work (like moderating the bulletin or working on someone else's student film).

However it comes about, the separate bulletin would be welcome. It would bring about a separation that would satisfy both professionals and students.

D Dylan Gray says...

Freedom of choice is sacrosanct, BUT I think the real question is whether SP should be facilitating exploitative practices...

There is also the issue of whether the bulletins are in danger of being "taken over" by "offers" of unpaid work.

Marinella Setti says...

I welcome the legislation if it applies ONLY to properly financed productions(this would include ANY BBC production - the BBC has been hiring trainees for very little money over the last 2 years,at the expense of properly trained professionals,just to save money which probably goes back to producers),but I do not support it if it applies to self-financed work,for example,or to productions with very little grants from Film Funds.

But runners are a different thing - almost the necessary starting point of any film career - and I think they should not be lumped together with other professionals.

Nathan Connolly says...

Barry Latchford says...

The questions suggest only answers that are misleading.
I believe that all 'jobs' advertised should be with pay.
I also believe that people should be able to 'collaborate' without a fee when they choose.
The big difference is in the term 'collaboration' which is distinct from a commercial enterprise. It also means that no one gets paid.

Julia Effertz says...

Actors need to be paid, this should be non-negotiable.

Andy Lowe says...

I think that without new filmmakers having the choice of working for free or for less than minimum wage a lot of experimental and innovative films will not get made. Perhaps we need to switch to the American way of having union and non-union jobs. I'm all for a stronger union.

Ally Branley says...

It's about respect and gratitude. Plenty of people do 'money jobs' and then help with something they believe strongly in or that gives them a bit more experience to help them 'step up' on an 'unpaid project'. So it would be wrong to interfere with this activity as it fosters creativity, can bring in new contacts for paid work, and/or simply make you feel good! I've volunteered on some brilliant projects and been well credited, fed and appreciated! BUT what I think is wrong is the culture of overselling a project to the inexperienced for an experience that may leave them out of pocket. Be honest, be enthusiastic and have respect for those gifting you their time.

Open Book says...

As a company working in the often unfunded world of animation, we have had to look for artists often based on experience only criteria, which is far from ideal and not how we would prefer to operate. But the reality of the UK film and animation industry is that there is little funding out there to be had on non-commercial projects (increasingly more so since 2012 has reared it's head) and if we were to stop working on low budget/expenses only projects then barely any work would get made.

The choice has to be down to the individual artist, and like with everything there needs to be a balance - you need to be aware of what's being asked of you and what you're willing to do for no money. Naturally people do push it, asking for unrealistic involvement, and so as an employer of said freelancer/artist you should consider what really is fair to ask of someone, especially if it's going to have a knock-on effect on insurance/health/time. For example we're crewing for an animated short film with very limited budget and so have asked for part-time artists to work 2-3 days a week for 2-3 weeks, meaning our schedule is longer but it keeps involvement fair.

As an editor I have also worked on expenses only productions which interest me, or add to my portfolio. But there are always boundaries! If SP stopped posting these jobs then it limits personal choice but perhaps there should be more realistic criteria which people have to fulfill when posting an expenses/free job to keep it transparent how much is being asked of someone..

Bill Hutchens says...

I was torn between answers, as I dont think its that simple. I am an actor, and now very rarely respond to unpaid positions. But when you are new and looking for experience it may be the only way you get cast. Its impossible to live as an actor if you do unpaid jobs, you have to get paid something.

Samantha McNern says...

If there is any expectation of commercial profit then minimum fees should apply even if these are deferred.

Sian Fever says...

Through working unpaid jobs as a runner, spark, and gaffer after university I was given paid opportunities and made the right contacts to step up the ladder.

Now as a full-time editor looking to move into directing I would be looking to offer unpaid/expenses only positions on future short films. I believe that shooters have the right to decide for themselves whether they are being exploited or not. How is this a good thing for filmmakers starting out?

David Moss says...

I depend on working for free and having others do so for me, to ensure the filmmaking community can support itself without financial aid. Independent projects should be just that - if there is no money to pay people, it should be perfectly acceptable to work together for something more than financial gain - the film itself. That is why they are independent - the televisual and cinematic industries have their systems for payment to ensure no-one gets exploited, but we can choose to emulate those conventions or disregard them on a project to project basis. I would never have got started in the filmmaking world had I not been able to get great experience on sets in return for my time and effort. Expecting to be paid carries with it it's own caveats: when people are not happy they tend to get on with the job, earn their money, and leave without putting their heart and soul into what they are doing. Those who are working without pay are doing it because they want to. If they are worried about supporting themselves on a filmmakers wage, welcome to the real world - get a different job.

says...

I think it is the individual's choice to work unpaid or not. Very low budget/ student films can be extremely good work experience for people, but they can take or leave these. A lot of films being made on a low budget / aren't paying anyone are often being made out of love anyway and people should understand that before accepting unpaid work on them.

Emily Kate Stephens says...

It would be a huge loss to the UK film industry to lose Shooting People as a resource for fledgling film makers to find and advertise positions. As the debate has raged numerous films have been given as examples of great work that would not have been produced if all crew and cast were paid, more than this I believe that many filmmakers would never have progressed to where they currently are without opportunies only available because they were not paid.

Those who don't want to take unpaid work don't have to, but SP should keep advertising it for those of us that are prepared to. I don't think that people should have to work for no money, but that's the point - they don't HAVE TO, some people choose to do it to assist with career development or because they really believe in a project.

In a perfect world we would all be paid the industry standard. This isn't a perfect world and these stipulations would reduce the number of films that are produced which would a huge loss.

David Barrett says...

There's butchers, bakers and candlestick makers out there working for nothing in the hope that it'll lead to a paid job offer. What makes the film industry any different? We've all had to do an unpaid stint in the past, it's what you do. If they don't want to work unpaid on something that has little or no budget itself, that's up to them. Speculate to accumulate is the saying I believe.

Georgie Smith says...

Whilst i think there are some people/companies who are exploiting actors and the likes of shooting peoples casting service (by not entering the spirit of collaboration), and i do get annoyed when i find out crew are being paid and actors are not, but i also think there are many talented people starting out making films who collaborating with for no pay has its benefits. (We're all climbing the ladder together).
However what i think should be encouraged with regards to UNPAID work is two things:
1) the TIMELY return of material for showreels.
Actors need that to gain PAID work, and too many people hang onto it after promising to give it to you. One person even decided i needed to pay for it. Perhaps a contract for unpaid actors that agrees to return showreel material within a given time frame.
2) People need to really think carefully when auditioning actors and holding recalls for unpaid actors.
Its becoming more and more common that i am being called into film schools where students keep asking me back to do recalls forgetting i am paying nearly £10 in travel card costs every time i come in. We should not be auditioning for film school scene exercises, only graduation films. And should certainly not be called in for an 'audtition' when they are actually just using actors to develop the script.

I can only speak from my own experience but working on films with talented up and coming film makers has been a great experience. And ive met some truely talented people. It would be a shame if they are removed from shooting people so we no longer have the choice to collaborate with each other.

Georgie Smith

Mazin Power says...

I'm a big believe in employee rights, and I do believe that you deserve to earn what you work for. People SHOULD be legally protected. I also understand that it can be difficult for someone to break into the industry if they are EXPECTED to work for free. An established company can and should pay at least minimum wage.

That said, I disagree with sweeping legislation that doesn't recognize a small, independent filmmakers' need to employ people on a volunteer basis. Without talented volunteers, some films just frankly wouldn't get made.

Any ruling needs to be fair to all parties, and go at the situation with a sharp tool and a light touch, rather than a meat cleaver.

John Lubran says...

People should be free to choose whether or not an unpaid or low paid job is something that suites their unique individual circumstances. People who offer such should be absolutely clear in their adverts that they are genuinely low budget (below normal levels for wages) and have absolutely no business arrangements with a commercial or public sector broadcaster or any other viably funded body. If applicants feel that their contribution to a project is so valuable as to warrant some sort of agreement in the event any future commercial success they should make it a provision from the outset. Producers using free or low paid crews should really make some provision for the potential of such deferments.

The preposterously rude and arrogantly worded adverts that some of these film makers write, whilst sufficient to raise laudably derogatory and amusingly lampooning comments from other members, do not need any sort of nanny state legislation on Shooting Peoples part to control. Transparency is all that's required.

As far as Law is concerned, only the knee jerk, cap doffing of the establishments automatons belive in its actual let alone moral authority. The Law is, always has been and shows no sign of not continuing to be so, an ass. Even though I’ve said this perhaps too often in these parts; the Law is all about the naming of things. So if you call something a wage, the laws relating to wages apply. If you call something an honorarium for a voluntary contribution then wage law does not apply. A similar by-passing of wages law arises when an individual assumes the status of a business; does not need to be a corporate entity, just needing a letter headed invoice and a ‘trading as’ bank account. What could be simpler?

Oliver Smith says...

I think private individuals & non-profit making bodies should be able to advertise for like minded people/volunteers to make films with unpaid but commercial companies should only be able to advertise for paid positions. There aren't many industries where a commercial enterprise would expect free labour. Some profit share arrangements might be ok but there would need to be a realistic potential to actually be paid.

Gary Delaney says...

At the end of the day, nobody is forced to take an unpaid job.

Henry A Winkler says...

Generally speaking, I believe in a fair days pay for a fair days work. Before I was an actor, I was an employer in a small retail business. There were unions which protected employees against exploitative employers, and government legislation dictated terms to small employers like myself, which sometimes made it very hard for us to operate successfully.
Now I'm on the other side of the fence, so to speak. But where are the unions to protect people like myself? The union is still there, but quite powerless at times. Therefore, yes we do need legislation to make potential employers think again before they advertise 'expenses only' when they are making a 'commercial'

Alex Papakyriacou says...

I think its different for runners etc where the wish to get get into a popular industry can easily be exploited, to genuine free collaborative work between those who have a stake in developing their reputation through carrying out work (e.g. producers, writers, directors). Working for free on a collaboration may be necessary for producers etc to get some profile, but I'm not sure that the same could be said for runners and crew.

helen bell says...

i started work in the industry on a no-budget short, from there progressed to paid work running on a feature and never looked back.

it's important to give people the opportunity to make films for a tiny budget without minimum wage considerations.

says...

I think everyone has the right to decide whether or not to work for nothing (i.e. for the fun of it or to gain experience) and I object, in the strongest possible terms, to anyone telling me (or the person who might be organising such an opportunity) that I can't do that because it's not fair to me!!!!!

NICHOLAS PROSSER says...

As a freelance director and one who is now independently conducting my own workshops plus performer show-reel service, I need as much help as is available. Restictions in communication should be discouraged. Allow people to make up their own minds, provided the wording in advertisements are clear and this is up to editorial scrutiny.

Igor Van Ditzhuizjen says...

There are far too many unpaid jobs in the film industry at the moment and this leads to not only abuse of people working within this industry but also independent filmmakers who choose to use funding for bigger team, better and more equipment so as to make a better film rather than go with what they have and include a small pay for workers.

Jamie Nuttgens says...

keep it free, no rules, no regulations

Like the comment below I think question 3 is unintelligible

Mo Thomas says...

Unless people are given the freedom of choice to work for low/no pay(and we are supposed to live in a 'freedom of choice' country)many films would never be made. The reason why people don't get paid is because the are very little funds but the instigators want to get on with ideas and being experimental.If you think its wrong to work for no pay then who the hell is forcing you to do it?
But don't stop me if I want to! That is not your right to do so!

Libby Wattis says...

Many people work on lo/no budget projects to gain experience, build confidence, get footage for a showreel - and a host of other reasons.
Surely, such arrangements, entered into freely, are a form of collaboration which should not be prevented by legislation.
However we also have to look out for ourselves.
I would regard a weekend working unpaid with someone funding their own short film as collaboration. I would regard a week working unpaid for a big television company as exploitation.

Chris Jack says...

If someone is unpaid - they are mostly being exploited if the film brings in significantly more than it cost to make.

A possible policy might therefore be that, if someone is unpaid for work on a film, they should get paid (possibly on a sliding scale) when a certain gross income from the film is received.

Also, when people are not being paid for work - there should be complete transparency about whether other people on the film are being paid.

Lara Marsden says...

I think it's ridiculous that people think minimum wage legislation should be applied to every job. If people want to gain experience within the film industry but haven't had much experience before an unpaid independent film is a great opportunity for that. I do understand this idea that if it isn't paid is exploitation, but if everyone is in the same boat and nobody is getting paid then is a fair deal. The person who applies for the position is aware it is expenses only it's their decision if they are alright with it or not! I create short film and have expenses only crew - but I treat them very well. I make sure they have food ALL the time, drinks whenever they want it and also travel and even accommodation is catered for. Let people decide for themselves - if you don't want to work on an expenses only shoot DONT APPLY FOR ONE!

Sarah Hoare says...

I am an actor, really just starting out so to speak. I have little experience in the film world and am hungrury for the oppourtunity to learn, meet people and enjoy what I love doing. I need the experience, I need footage of me for showreel purposes, I see no problem in lending your services for free if you are working on a project that some one has lovingly developed and is funding out of a pure desire to just make their film. The shoots I have worked on through Shooting People although, no pay or low paid, I have always been well looked after, everyone is in the same boat on a tight budget but at the end of the day we're all there to make something and because we enjoy the process. If you have a problem with not being paid, just don't apply for the jobs. I don't really understand why people get quite so irrate about this.

james mcpherson says...

if i hadnt been able to work for free i wouldve never been able to build up a cv and portfolio to get my first break in the film industry. i am now an employed VFX artist .

Wayne Russell says...

Nobody is forced to work for nothing. I am against exploitation but sometimes unpaid work is the only way to get into acting and providing everybody is up front then the choice should be left to the individual. If people have a budget that means they could afford to pay cast and crew they should always do so using the minimum wage as a guide. I believe that the vast majority of no budget films are exactly that and if such films were no longer allowed to be made then getting into our wonderful industry would be even hard than it is.

Heinrich Dahms says...

Some films will never be made if creatives are not allowed to choose like adults whether to work for free or not. It is a very important training ground for beginners, and a very important creative alternative to doing sometimes dull mainstream work. In addition, it is a 'self-nurturing platform' for new talent in every field. Finally, it is a matter of freedom of choice. No one can force anyone (in a democracy) to work for nothing. We should be left to make our own personal creative decisions. Creativity is NOT a 'committee issue' - it is a personal right as long as it is practiced with discretion. "Failure of personal discretion" is covered by more appropriate legislation.

Alice Petit says...

I don't really understand question 3.
I think there is a difference between jobs offered by a production company which ideally should pay their staff and "jobs" offered by individuals making their independant film with no budget and no registered company behind them...
However if very small production company had to pay everyone on a film, there wouldn't be any film made anymore... tricky problem!!

michael wray says...

Prohibiting unpaid work marks a return to the closed shop industry of the 70's, no experience no work, catch 22. I agree with Mark Insoll though that seeing unpaid ads' is very devaluing and it would be better if producers had to contact direct. Then they'd have to pick you & sell it, good skills to learn for a producer! they'd value who they picked too.

Colin McLeod says...

This industry isn't like engineering or accountancy; Creative people are driven by passion and this doesn't give them access to big budgets, especially when they're just starting out. I've done lots of films/shows for free and have made some brilliant contacts as a result. Plus working for free is usually the only way a person can gain valuable experience, and for me this is often priceless.

Tulio Campregher says...

Save British film, let the workers decide.

nick white says...

How would this ever work for short filmmakers? You can't ignore the fact that some films are made without the intention of ever making a profit.

At the end of the day it all depends on the funds available to the filmmakers, and absolutely - if the film is at all likely to be profitable, the crew should be paid a fair wage. The current situation is not sustainable - it is abused by people who see a way to squeeze more bang for their buck, and the bottom is dropping out of the crewing market.

But deciding where to draw the line is hard. Perhaps at least, the participation of a major fund. e.g Film Council, should guarantee minimum wage, and they should make contingency for this when they set up the fund. Or perhaps transparency on budget and source of funding should be enforced (at least on the shooting people bulletin) - so that crew have a better idea what to expect.

In any case it's clear that there is a problem. Some people seem to be ignorant of the fact that a major part the industry is based on the training that is possible through ultra-low-budget filmmaking, and that without this, many of today's up and coming filmmakers would have had an even harder time breaking through. And other people, who could easily afford to pay minimum wage, seem to be ignorant of how much damage they are doing to the industry by setting the bar for crew pay so low.

Peter Thorneycroft says...

I understand it is competitive out there. However unfortunately I see more and more postings offering expenses paid positions, and darn this is a brilliant opportunity for your showreel!!! That's all well and good and I believe it is a great opportunity for young animators, but when the only jobs open to junior animators is unpaid or expenses how are you supposed to survive, while working a full time job on the side practising your animation in any spare hour of the day, I also find a lot of the people who expect the animation done have no understanding of the amount of work that goes into good quality animation. Modelling a character, texturing a character, rigging a character and animating the character in the industry is a team of people. Yet more and more postings are expecting an individual to do this for peanuts but the experience, and the opportunity to work on a 'great creative endeavour' where the animator rarely has any creative input.
A lot of people I have spoken to about work previously have given me a brief said it is no/expenses only pay, and expected the world animated within a week! But you wouldn't expect a junior plumber to fix your taps and say its unpaid but great experience!
That said I am working on two pieces for free, one for a friend and another for a friend of a friend. It has only been through already established friendship that there has been mutual respect. Sadly my previous experiences have been through shooters or the internet and also unfortunately free of respect from the person expecting me to work for free.
Sorry that turned into a rant.

norbert schoerner says...

the key phrasing under item 04 is : "...if they want to." ! it's their choice. if they feel exploited on one gig they should think twice before accepting another.

alex chandon says...

I am currently doing free work on a mate's feature film, although I am skint. It's my choice. I'm about to start a feature film where we can't afford to pay minimums across the board so I will rely on other's generosity or I have to cancel the filming... which can't be the solution.
I think it is a minority who cynically exploit runners etc. and most people have no other option.
I really think, as adults, we should be allowed to make choices as to whether or not we work for free.
Good luck fellow Shooters
Alex Chandon

Charlie&Emma Wood says...

It's hard enough trying to find like minded people to work with in the first place. All I personally want is a director looking for a composer - but one that's actually prepared to have a spotting meeting or some kind of human contact before engaging to save wasted time. I don't know how else you're supposed to build a showreel.

Tricia Stewart says...

In productions where some members of the team get paid, they should not be allowed to ask actors or runners etc to work for free. This is slave labour and completely unfair. However, in projects that truely have no budget and everyone is agreed to work for free, the actors / runners etc should accept this and decide whether they want to provide their services as such.

Never more should actors be forced to work for free in fear of loosing work to the next person who is able financially to take the free work in a production which has enough budget to seemingly pay every other man and his dog.

I have been forced to work for around 9 months with around 80% of jobs being unpaid just to get material for my showreel. I don't complain, as without this I cannot progress to better paid jobs. I learn on set, hopefully have something invaluable at the end of it and that is my payment. However, if this had been illegal, and I had been paid at least minimum wage (which isn't a lot, let's face it), I wouldn't be constantly worried about my finances and could commit more time to gaining ground in the profession.

Merlyn Haycraft says...

There are too many rules and this seems like another one that limits my freedom to express myself. If I can't get any paid work, then I at least want to be able to get unpaid work. As if there are less films made because people can't afford to pay minimum wages, or any wages at all, then I prefer the option to work for free. Having said that, who wouldn't prefer to work for something. But quite simply that is an ideal not a reality. So let free work prevail.

Ceiren Bell says...

I pondered a long time about how to answer these questions. I'm an animator, and it pisses me off no end to see hundreds of requests for unpaid animators in the mailouts, mainly because those posting often have no idea of the amount of work they're asking people to do for free (and often with very short deadlines).

I'd only consider working for no pay on something that shows real flair and promise, which doesn't appear exploitative (difficult to judge) and where it will most likely lead to paid work in the future. Having said all that -- I'm 40 with a mortgage to pay. I know from experience that actually DOING the work is the only way to get paid for it, and when you're starting out, the links you make working with other filmmakers is worth doing a few days for free, as long as there is mutual respect. How do you guarantee this? Perhaps, rather than discussing minimum wages, there should be closer attention paid to the agreements made between people who have decided to collaborate; a set of rules whereby its agreed upfront that if money can't be exchanged, then specific experiences and exchanges of talents can. If agreements are broken (by either side) then perhaps a body like BECTU could provide a mediation service that would protect all parties.

We are living in a world where the rules relating to creative practices are changing daily, and perhaps we have to think creatively about changing with them...

Clara Harle says...

I believe that those that are serious in making films and making good films should pay the price. If you want to recruit people you should never take them for granted and expect crew members/cast to work for free. To many films are being made and no pay, there has to be a time when this must end.

Barry Newton says...

The definition of proffesional is being Paid for the job,Anything else is amiture.The moral of this is DO YOU WISH TO BE PROFFESIONAL?

Mark Potter says...

I don't understand. If a job is unpaid then people don't have to do these jobs if they don't want to... Im a director and pay for music video work but if I was making a no budget short film clearly there wouldn't be any money to pay anyone, it would be a team working together on something creative. I personally think it will be the end of shooting people if unpaid jobs are not advertised. Websites such as production base etc has plenty of work.

Ross & Mike Took says...

If you don't accept unpaid postings then what's the point of being a member of SP? It's grass roots stuff, which is where many of us are, and where almost all of us started.

David Brown says...

Richard South says...

It would be difficult to administer, but rather than trying to force the issue of (minimum) payment, fees should be linked to sliding scale of how well established a production company is. For example, if you've received specific funding (UKFC etc.) or are an established production company with investment, then their should be a standard minimum allocation (% of budget, not amount) that you give to ALL staff. If you're working alone, just trying to get a project off the ground, then this shouldn't be applicable.

There should also be an industry-standard agreement to defer any profits made from a film to those who have worked on it, if they did not receive payment. However, in most cases, for SP projects, this won't be applicable.

Marc Specter says...

the main problem is transparency of what is being offered. All expenses incurred should be assumed, which includes travel, consumables (tape, batteries, etc), and most importantly GEAR. I dont mind working for expenses only, but not when i actually lose money because of the cost of gear hire and maintenance. Some low budget filmmakers seem to ignore this.

says...

Short Films / Not for profit projects should be allowed to seek unpaid crew otherwise they won't survive as a medium.

Oliver Warren says...

Some of the best work I did last year was unpaid - this in turn has demonstrated my abilities to new clients from whom I am now receiving paid work. If these rules had prevented me from completing said unpaid work, I would have had no opportunity to prove my capabilities within a professional environment, which really has been essential to my career progression.

says...

We are all adults, it should be up to us to decide if we are prepared to work for free. I agree with a previous comment that if a project is a commercial success all 'collaborators' should benefit. But working for 'free' is worth it when you have an opportunity to work on excellent projects and build up contacts in the industry.

Alastair Clark says...

Work on feature films should always be paid, or at the very least, on micro budget projects, agreed up front that defered fees will be paid if and when the film makes money. As one of the producers on LONDON TO BRIGHTON, which took this approach (before the legislation), I can assure you that cast and crew have received payments.

Shorts should be treated differently. It is very rare to be able to fund shorts outside of the UK Film Council's Digital Shorts scheme. The UK industry needs to have shorts made outside of this scheme - the UKFC, despite doing an excellent job, cannot be relied upon to find ALL the new talent in the country. These shorts will almost always have to be self funded and therefore unable to pay people.

New entrants will struggle to get paid positions if they have not had experience on set - it is they who will be truly penalised if producers are forced to pay everyone on shorts, and that is if the shorts get made at all.

Roi Frey says...

A runner's job a simply a hand on set. They need not posses any skill or great experience in the trade and therefore I wouldn't expect to pay runners on a very very tight budget. It is their chance to learn other trades and see if they want to continue and develop in the industry. All other trades, DoP's, Sparks, Gaffers, Sound, post, 1st AD etc, bring a certain experience and skill to the set and therefore should be entitled to minimum wage, at the bear minimum...

Benjamin Lille says...

For the sake of young film makers like me and future ones lets keep no pay work on shooting people.

Nicholas Kyriakides says...

I believe it's a great stepping stone to work on flims even if it's unpaid for small roles, however if a large commitment is there for the film such as a video editor working 3 weeks on a film UNPAID, that is unacceptable. Even for Independent films and the editor is starting out, there should be some kind of fee as this is time spent that could be worked on a paid job.

Hope that helps shootingpeople,
Best,
Nick
www.nicholask.co.uk

Ngozi Nzekwue says...

It is hard getting your foot into the door and already I have gotten two production gigs as they were expenses only. This helps me build up my profolio and credits and to move into paid roles one I have a strong body of work behind me. However, this is only for the initial period- I'm sure when I get to the stage where I should get paid and all of the job advertised are non- paid roles I'll soon be singing something very different from this!

Jim Watters says...

I personally would not work on any production for no money. End of!

Daya Dodds says...

I feel that many of the short films made by shooters wouldn't get crewed/cast if isn't wasn't for low/no pay/exspencers only. I for one are finding that making this Poi documentary no one is going to get paid including me. I am going to release the film on pay to download and DVD to make back the costs or even a profit!

There does seem to be a demand but getting back to the post, in a fare world sure producers shouldn't use other people for no money. I have heard some horror storys about runners getting no money and been asked to work 60 hour weeks. There should be a law to pretect runners and make producers think twice. However ultimaty I know in my heart I wouldn't think twice about working long hours for no money to work on a feature film because I want to get into the film/tv.

It is a very hard question to answer, one reason being film is passion not a normal job and people like me will go to end of the world in order to suseed in it money or no money. I don't think producers will ever change and if a law was past saying you have to pay this would damage our independent film seen.

Good luck all with your own projects!

Gil Kolirin says...

I think there needs to be a close look at the CASTING area too as actors get over looked regularly - and there are many productions who are paying absolutely nothing and word it like they do actors a favour. I don't know who looks at the casting breakdowns but as an actor i am happy to help out and vet the situation if required....

Luther Bhogal-Jones says...

Already posting in a bulletin regarding my feelings on this before (and nicely got some praise back directly) but I would like to feel that any adult who can register for Shooting People obviously has enough braincells to make an informed decision of whether they are happy to be involved in a production which has little money.

Sarah Brownrigg says...

I agree that runners should be able to work unpaid but not higher positions.

Andrew Goodman says...

Experienced is gained through working (d'uh!) but if non-pay films continue to exploit that attitude then the currennt predicament will not change. Paying minimum wage may mean fewer productions, but will start to change the attitude of production companies/individuals to fall in line with almost every other profession out there.
Let's be professional and pay people what they're worth.

Stewart Read says...

I have done many jobs for free - and happily ! If the project furthers my skills and helps establish a professional relationship allow me the option of choosing 'free' if I want to!

Thomas Thoroe says...

My personal policy on working for free is:

I will never work for free on a feature film, but I will accept deferred payment contract if I believe in the project.

I will work for expenses on student film, or on low budget short films, if I believe the result will serve me as a promotional tool, and the standard of work is very high. How ever I will only work for expenses if that is the condition for every member of the cast and production team. And if there really is no budget for payment.

Nicholas Crum says...

As a Producer I have often sacrificed my own pay in order to pay others, and I have no problem with that, its my choice. While I will always do my best to pay anyone who gets involved with my projects it just sometimes isn't possible. It would have been impossible to make several of my short films had I been constrained by having to pay everyone minimum wage. To instigate those rules on first time no-budget projects would almost certainly stop the growth of the UK film industry dead. Everyone deserves a chance to make their films, and if there are people our there who are passionate enough to work for free (which there are!!!) then all power to them.

says...

Surely people can decide on their own if they want to work for free. It's ridicules if short films should be included under minimum wage rule as they are not made for profit.
When you are getting in to feature film or TV work it's a completely different thing and if you can't pay minimum wage then you shouldn't be making the film/TV/whatever.

Claire Duffy says...

I would have preferred this poll differentiated between shorts and features.

I have no problem working on a short for no money (or advertising for others to work on mine) as I feel that the point of shorts is to learn, get experience and showcase your work -- all things of more value, to me, than the minimum wage. As no one is likely to make (or even probably planning on making) a profit from a short, I don't consider it exploitative to invite others to also donate their time.

Features on the other hand, are generally at least intended for a commercial market and therefore should be considered professional (i.e. paid) projects in my opinion. Possibly even more importantly, the sheer amount of time required in any capacity to work on a feature also makes working for nothing impractical to say the least and so tends to be a recipe for disaster!

That said, I wouldn't stop others from choosing to try to make, or to work on a feature for nothing, each to their own and all that.

Daniel Outram says...

Some films by filmmakers trying to get started simply couldn't get made if they had to pay anyone. It makes the whole system of filmmakers trying to get started that much more dependent of funding bodies. And that means that the most interesting film makers won't be able to get off the ground.

Also, I started as a runner. I learnt an enormous amount by working on films made by established filmmakers as well as new filmmakers. Observing differences, and also being involved in the challenge of someone else trying to make a film with no money, was intergral to my learning process.

Apart from anything, shootingpeople is all about supporting filmmakers with no money. By saying people can't work for free you are basically saying that shooters can't make films. So if you understand the value of shootingpeople, you should understand the value of people trying to get films made with eachother while working for free.

Musicians can form a band and make music together without paying each other. They have to before they get good enough to succeed. So why shouldn't filmmakers be allowed to. It's ludicrous. It should be our right to choose what we do. For some people it's not about the money. And the controlling bodies should try to see it from the point of view of the people they are supposed to be representing.

says...

The Film & TV Industry is not Excepted from NMW and Thank God.

Legally SP, CCP, Mandy + will all be challenged sooner or later if postings for expenses continue. The Law is very clear.

In the interests of SP Please stop expenses postings they don't stifle creativity they just encourage all the wannabes.

Jay Simon says...

People pay a lot of money to get the training required to work both sides of the camera , so why not pay them for their expertise..after all you wouldn't want just anyone to fix your boiler or repair your roof..so why do people think any old person can do an actors' job?

Peter Davies says...

I'm in favour of working for free on a production, as long as my travel expenses can be covered. I think making short films and independent films is about doing it for the love of filmmaking. At our level no production ever has enough money as it is, everyone is working on the film out of passion. If everyone has to be paid minimum wage on a short film then how can anyone ever get a short film made? The budgets will go up to an absurd amount.

Working for no wage, just for travel expenses, is a good way for people to gain work experience and make contacts in the industry with other like-minded people.

Robyn Chys says...

Quite simply, the reason there is demand for unpaid work is because there isn't enough paid work in the film industry. People take unpaid work for all sorts of reasons, usually to gain much needed experience and contacts. If you impose a strict minimum wage rule, film makers will simply go somewhere else. SP's strength is that it acts as a facilitator for film makers to collaborate. If it becomes merely a jobs website, it will be as soulless as mandy. I've recently produced a low budget feature, and everyone worked on it for free. I was very clear with them what I could afford, and have given everyone agreements on distribution of profits. They all worked unbelievably hard, and I couldn't have done it without them. If I would have had to pay minimum wage, it wouldn't have happened. If feel that, although they weren't paid, they have all gained great experience and contacts by working on the film. People should be free to decide how they trade their labour.

DAVID LEWIS says...

Unpaid helps no one and and only makes things worse people should realise they should have money in the budget to pay people or face concequences ie laws to stop this.A lot of indie filmmakers have cash and advertise for asking for free crew and should be stopped.

Francesca Silveri says...

I think it would be helpful to have separate bulletins for paid and unpaid. A section for unpaid jobs clearly separated from the paid ones. Maybe one could subscribe to receive bulletins on "paid-only" or "unpaid and paid" ones.

Personally, I'm an independent filmmaker struggling to make short films due to lack of funding, or very limited budgets. I have found that actors and crew are often willing to participate for free (but with expenses reimbursed at least) to a shoot if they believe in the project. I strongly believe that people should be given a chance to work on an array of shoots and decide if they are happy to work unpaid for a few hours if the project is likely to pay off with good exposure.

thank you

Damian Rafferty says...

All creative industries tend to work on the basis that people are hired and paid because they know what they are doing. How do we know someone is capable? We look at their most recent work. The only way to break into film for many people will be to do things for free. Stopping that will not mean that all the people who were doing something for nothing will get paid, it will mean that many things will not get made and those things that are made will be done by the same old crowd.

If a bunch of people do something not for immediate gain but for creative expression and perhaps career advancement down the road, it is not exploitation.

If however, that film should (in the unlikely scenario) make some money, then there is a case for a framework that enables everyone to benefit. It then follows that some effort could be usefully expended in creating a fair template for filmmakers to use that splits profits instead of making payments.

Matthew Hoad-Robson says...

There's a difference between working collaboratively to make a piece of art and being exploited to make someone else money.

John Harrigan says...

It's ridiculous that people are even discussing taking the choice out of an individuals hands.

Many of the films (Cult and otherwise) that we hold in such high regard would never have been made if this rule for minimum wage was applied.

Totally against Shooters stopping no paid job listings, you will be cutting yourself off from a major area where innovation takes place.

Andy Thompson says...

the 1st rung of the ladder should always be about commitment, passion and training. The individual should have the choice as to whether he/she is being exploited or not.

Scott Jaworski says...

If you can't afford to pay at least NMW, you can't afford to make a movie. That should be the mantra of the site!

Simon Lord says...

People will always be trying to make films for as low a budget as possible, inevitably involving someone at some point working for free. If SP ceases to become a forum for this, then these people will simply go elsewhere. Possibly somewhere worse. To extend the prostitution metaphor that has been bandied around so much, it is better for filmmakers to prostitute themselves in a safe environment than out on the mean streets of the internet.

Linda Taimre says...

By enforcing minimum wage on low budget projects, you're destroying the chances of thousands of creative workers. As we all know, whether you're an actor, director or member of the crew, it is close to impossible to get paid work without years of experience. The way to get this experience is to be willing to work for free or very little pay. If we enforce minimum wage, not only will the number of creative projects coming out of the UK be severely stemmed causing creative thinking to suffer, but the projects that CAN afford to pay minimum wage then will (rightly so) limit who they choose to employ to those with experience who have, for lack of a better term, "earned the right/paid their dues" to work for money. Thus, new creatives just starting out in the industry will find it even MORE impossible to get a start than it currently is, and the future of the industry will SUFFER. The UK is already miles behind countries such as the US when it comes to filmmaking - don't let it come to a complete standstill by stemming the undercurrent of exciting new work.

Rob Speranza says...

If you want to work and gain experience on a film because you don't have any, that should indeed be a choice. Most runners I have hired in the past on a voluntary basis have gone on to get paid work with my company and others. But when you are first starting out, or when you are looking for new job roles, the expenses-only option is a sensible one from both ends.

Jo Coombes says...

In an ideal world, it would be great if budgets allowed for everyone to be paid at least minimum wage, but sometimes everyone will agree that with a smaller budget, it's better to get more money onto the screen, and then have people who don't mind working for free (nobody actually likes it), who are enthusiastic and want to help make a great project for their showreel.

Personally I've worked on some great projects which I haven't been paid for, including one I picked up through the bulletin. Working unpaid goes with the territory in film/tv, and I think people should be allowed to decide for themselves what they're happy with. I will only advertise for unpaid jobs if i'm working for free on the project myself (as the producer). I think people who want to make great work but have minimal budgets and need willing volunteers to help get it made are different to people who have healthy budgets but see staff such as runners and production assistants as free labour - this is what needs to be stopped.

katy vans says...

your poll has some omissions - you should ask "do you think it is fair that crew get offered pay and cast do not?" this happens a lot

Harry Clegg says...

I think it's a mistake to lump all kinds of independent film together. Many people on Shooting People are taking their first baby steps and by banning unpaid work you'd be preventing them from embarking on the small productions which teach people so much about filmmaking.

Kathrein Guenther says...

Tricky. On the one hand people should get paid for their work, on the other hand we will never live in an ideal world where all films will pay a living for those who make them - but are still worth getting made. Not only as means of artistic expression but also as an area where people can gain experience and confidence.

There is a difference maybe between films that are getting made for a profit - incl. commercials, corporates, most music videos/promos but also work that gets funding from say UKFC or the regional screen agencies, or is commissioned by a national or international broadcaster - and films that are made for festivals or not-for-profit exhibition/ distribution, incl. most short films, artists' film and video, experimental films etc.

In a situation where lots of producers and filmmakers are not making money, it is unrealistic, and sometimes hypocritical, to be asking that they pay fees for everyone. There are certain standards in place such as paying for expenses, providing food if at all possible, supplying staff with copies, very important: credits and deferred payment. Although the latter hardly every pays off, it is only a fair gesture. I produced an animated short a few years ago which then won a money award at a film festival, which was shared between contributors at a previously agreed percentage - they didn't get much, but every little counts!

Richard Marshall says...

On a low budget film, either the producers should raise money to pay everyone that does not have ownership of the end product, or publish openly the finances of the project, (there is nothing worse than working for free on someone's film and suspecting that they are paying other people), and draw up contracts with everyone involved giving them a percentage of any money earned from the film and share of it's ownership.
This would make everyone happy, as they still work for free, but crucially are on the same footing as everyone else and potentially could earn something from it down the line.
Film makers seem to want their cake and eat it, they want people to work for free, and they want to keep ownership and any potential profits. You can not have both, if you want to work with the best people.

EMILY MAGUIRE says...

Providing expenses and a copy of the film are provided and the actor etc doesn't lose anything (money for travel, food etc)then independent films are ok, everyone needs to start somewhere and if we don't work together how can some films ever get off the ground. For those that do have a budget of sorts why can't they pay minimum wage? What does annoy me is postings were they ask for nudity etc and don't even pay, now its films like that, that look to exploiate actors in my oppinion!

Lisa Mitton says...

I don't think unpaid positions should stop being advertised on sp. I've done them myself, although I now do more paid work - but the free stuff led to this.
I do however think that adverts need to be much clearer and any paid positions need to be decently paid - I remember one ad for a stylist which was advertised as paid, although this turned out to be at a rate of £30 per day, out of which travel expenses were also to be paid. I also think some of them ask a huge amount from people who are working for nothing - skills and experience, (sometimes years of specified) which are usually obtained by doing such work.

says...

I think you need to draw a distinction between actual production companies that should pay and people who are making films to gain experience/credits with a view to eventually becoming production companies

Christopher Barnett says...

I think it's important that people are free to decide for themselves whether they work for salary or whether there is some other gain for them asides money.

However, I do find that there are a certain number of film-makers who appear to take advantage of the situation. I've seen quite a few jobs advertised for televised campaigns where no pay is provided.

The ability to budget, find finance and sell is just as important a skill for any true film-maker as the creative side and I find too many film-makers completely lacking and unrealistic in this area.

Graham Rathlin says...

We're not cleaning floors here. I couldn't have made any of my films if people weren't willing to work for free or expenses. I work on other people's films because I enjoy it and I get to meet people with the same interest. I don't want Bectu telling me I can't. I'm a grown-up and it's my choice. The vast majority of film-makers are not making any money from this. If they were it would be a different matter. If the BBC or big film companies were being allowed to advertise for staff on shooting people then I'd feel differently.

Ewen Glass says...

I have worked for payment, for free and for deferred (read: free) and can safely say that the treatment of a writer, starting from the absolute grass roots right up to a surprisingly high level, is poor. I think in order to get the writer the credit - and the financial rewards that go with this, which should, incidentally, match those of the producer and director - we must seek to foster a new culture, payment from the get go, from the earliest stages of one's career. A producer or wannabe producer (who, let's say works another job for 60k a year) should have to pay the writer, even if it has to be out of his own pocket. A struggling writer, scraping together 10k a year, and doing a difficult talent-required job deserves that much.

Alex James says...

I'd like to choose for myself. You could have a section for paid and one for unpaid jobs in the listing, so those who expect money know where to look. I need the free stuff for experience.

James Martin says...

People looking for these jobs are the ones that need the pay most. Making unpaid/expenses only positions normal means that production which could afford to pay a wage are less inclined to do so. These productions often pay thousands for camera equipment, as a cinematographer I would trade my camera for a lesser one at the gain of a better crewmember any day.

says...

If a shoot is paid then EVERYONE should be paid, runners as well. If the shoot is deferred then EVERYONE should be deferred.

People have the right to chose if they work for free or not as we all need to start somewhere. Look at the debut films of Christopher Nolan and Peter Jackson, these were UNPAID shoots. The difference is that when they had a budget for successive films they then paid people.

I was recently offered a job on a film with a £200k shoot budget that was only willing to pay £50 a day for a main actor (and maintaining that this was generous on their part), whilst simultaneously courting a name for the lead. That is exploitation. I rejected the offer. However, I have worked on deferred fee films and been paid out in the end, but on those films everyone was on a deferment.

Yes we need to protect exploitation and inequality but to blanket ban all non-paying films will kill the next generation of the industry at birth.

Mary Robinson says...

Although I do feel that there should be an element of choice and this is reflected in my answers, all independent films DO have a budget, however small. I, therefore, think it is only fair that actors and runners should be paid SOMETHING, in order to avoid exploitation.

Howard Rayner says...

As a writer of course I would love to get paid for all my work, but at the start of a career when one has no track record I don't think that's possible. Within two years of writing I have now had several short films made, got a book deal and also quite a few other gigs, all from replying to Shooting People ads. A couple of these jobs have paid me (not very much admittedly, but paid nonetheless) but this work has paved the way for me to make a real breakthrough into the industry, as I now have a body of work and have also formed working relationships with the directors/prodcuers of these films which may lead to more work. If the directors/producers hadn't advertised on this site I would not have had these chances. I think as long it's clear what the deal is then people are adult enough to make their own decisions about whether they are willing to work on the terms offered.

Andrew Gwynne says...

Some low budget films rely on not paying people, simply because the budget doesn't allow it. If this is taken away then its only the films that will suffer.

Katherine King says...

Maybe there should be a budget limit for collaboration, and deferred fee agreements for shorts and features.

Stuart Drummond says...

The problem is distinguishing what is professional activity and what is not. I think that all commercial and corporate for-profit work should be privvy to minimum wage regulations. Collaborative not-for-profit work such as a short film should be allowed to set their own payment or non-payment methods. Films such as low-budget features, with any direct potential commercial gain, should have to provide contracts for the deffered payment of at least minimum wage.

Patricia Leventon says...

Film students pay tuition fees, they get a budget allowance for their graduation and show films and I am particularly concerned about the no pay/culture which has arisen implying actors either need the experience or want to keep active plus the myuth that they will end up with a showreel. Often the showreels don't materialise or are not good enough to use. British Equity have a film school contract and I believe that should be adhered to. Technicians should also be paid and usually are. Low budget films should adhere to some union payment structure. Equity should be contacted if producers, teachers etc are doubtful about payment or contracts. Tim Gale is film organiser. I am an actor, Equity member and as a professional I don't know why I should be expected to work for nothing.

Heon Irving-Black says...

Its only fair they we have a choice and leave it up to the individual to decide if they wanna give up there free time to gain experience or not then it helps everyone.

Kristen Gibson says...

It should be up to the individual as to whether they should consider a job (regardless of length) that does not pay adequetely. When I first started 10 years ago the only experience I could get was as unpaid crew on shooters postings. This experience helped make me a professional videographer running my own company and though I would never work unpaid now the fact is most low budget filmmakers cannot afford minimum wage as much as they'd like to. If we wanted to kill the industry then by all means force minimum wage rles on your postings.

Simon Gross says...

I think it all depends on the budget available. Although I think the reality is that on films with high budgets, people are being exploited because they are looking to get their foot in the door - this is what needs addressing.

Laws and legislation should be there to help the exploited and not to box in creative minds.

OLIVER HICKEY says...

I believe that runners should be able to make a choice as to whether they work for free or not.
However the current situation is getting out of hand as every department is being asked to work low or no pay and this is not acceptable.
For the industry to flourish it sometimes requires favours and freebies but I now think it has gone the other way and people are expected to work for nothing or the price of travel and food.

allen o'leary says...

Everyone should be able to choose an unpaid position. However everyone should get something. This might be money or a deferred cut of profits. Ideally there would be TWO sets of law: Paid for fully commercial products, Deferred for Indies/Zero budgets. Then people should be free to bargain money/percentages as they see fit with a minimum wage or minimum percentage as floor. This is how it traditionally works in theatre (is that under attack to?).

But you MUST advertise these position or people will just go elsewhere and you will cease to be relevant!

Si Wall says...

The experience gained from working with more-experienced crew, Directors, writers is never mentioned. It is possible to achieve a great professional education in film-making by working for expenses only. I am now an award winning Director, with my first feature being considered for major finance, my film education has come from working on-set for expenses only and learning my craft over several years. This is never taken into account when talking about minimum wage and exploitation. If anything, I exploited seasoned cinematographers, sound guys, Directors, etc to get a thorough hands on education in the world of film making.
Si Wall
Director 'Resistance'.

Michael Noller says...

I would prefer to be paid to help make a film. But I would rather do it for free than not at all.

says...

I don't think you really have grasped the issue! You have framed the question in a very misleading way.

I am strongly in favour of NMW, however it would be absurd for me to say that I do not want 'any unpaid job postings to appear on Shooting People', or that NMW should be applied to 'every posting', or that runners should 'never' work for less than NMW.

What about, for example, jobs with voluntary charities? Or jobs with co-ops where a wage is replaced by a genuine stake in the company? Or jobs where the budget is completely transparent and nobody, including the producer, is getting paid? I therefore feel that whichever option I choose, I will be misrepresented.

You can't reduce this to such a clearcut issue, I'm afraid, and you're going to have to take a bit more personal responsibility rather than this abnegation by 'consultation'. If the editorial line of shooting people doesn't improve then I will vote with my wallet.

Thanks.

nigel steer says...

Most people working on productions are working free because there is no budget and they need experience. Increasingly it's the director/writer that wants to make a film and has little or no budget but believes in the project.

By restricting the ability for people to work on low budget productions you strangle the talent trying hard to emerge in a hugely difficult industry.

I employ 10 ful-time production staff and use freelancers. My rule has always been clear. "If I'm getting paid, then so are the staff". I also fund many of my own productions and it's at that point where it changes. I couldn't have made the personal productions I have if I were forced to pay everyone.

My films usually use about 5-10 production staff and 5-10 actors paying just £100 per day for each would put filming days at £2000 this is without spending money on pre/post production. The total would make a normal film cost £10k. Not going to happen! and if it did, it would happen regularly.

Why is it actors want money but directors, writers, producers etc are expected to work for free?

says...

I worked unpaid for 13 months as a runner on various productions, and thanks to that experience, it led to me getting a full time job at DNA Films. I got it over everyone else who applied because of that experience I had, which would have been impossible to get if I demanded pay every time. Unpaid work is a blessing in disguise for those trying to break in. It all comes down to passion at the end of the day.

Peter Halpin says...

Pay is, of course, very important, especially in the current economic climate. However, experience is priceless. The majority of no-low budget film makers are paying for productions out of their own pocket, and are after that all important experience as well.

In modelling there is the TFP/CD type of shoot whereby photographers take photos of models for a day and they each have material to improve their respective portfolios. I see this as much the same in film. The director/writer/whoever needs footage to sell themselves and the actor does likewise. If all parties are in agreement and the production really is paper-thin on budget, thereby not ripping anyone off, then why not?

It is a completely different story, however, if the production company has the money to pay but doesn't offer it. That is unacceptable. The pay for commercials and the buyouts has plummeted in recent years, but we're powerless to it - we say no the fee, they find someone who will say yes. But if a production has the funds to hire actors it should do so, not exploit them. Experience is priceless, but we need to be alive to get it! Rent, food and bills need to be paid for somehow and working 8hrs/day, 5 days a week in a temp job isn't going to improve an actor's career!

Job postings need to, somehow, be vetted. I am no technological bod, so have no insight as to how that could be done, but there are too many unpaid or unnecessarily low paid jobs being advertised that exploit the fact they know actors need the experience and exposure.

Yes, sure I would look at unpaid work. Just an hour ago I applied through SP for a collaborative project with a film maker who has good experience. However, it is self-funded, he needs to make short films quickly, cheaply and easily. I on the other hand need good quality film footage for my showreel and to connect with up-coming film makers. Deal. Had he been from Film Four or Tiger Aspect, someone clearly with a budget, I would have been outraged if they weren't offering at least the minimum Equity rates.

So, fair's fair - we need to stick together and get paid what we can, where & when we can, but sticking together also means actors help directors/writers/etc and vice versa. Easy... in theory!

Alison Mulford says...

The subject of low/no pay is a difficult one but ultimately I think it's up to the individual's choice. Yes-in an ideal world noone would work for no money and noone would exploit anyone. However, if unpaid roles were banned then many short films would not get made and many people would not get the experience they need.

I think there should be a maximum time period that anyone can hire someone unpaid. Say 2 weeks or 4 weeks. Noone should be working unpaid for months.

I now work full time in the industry but I know I got the level of experience needed to break into paid work through voluntary unpaid work. If I refused to work unless I was paid, I would not have got my foot in the door.

Paul Boore says...

We are all free to choose what jobs we take and what terms we consider acceptable. Experience can be just as valuable as cash, even more so in fact for someone wanting to start a career and this should not be ignored.

sonya sier says...

I think most film productions whether independant or not can afford a small amount for actors, even if it is only a £50 token thank you amount and that this would ensure an actor felt appreciated and not taken for granted without burdening the production by asking for a huge amount. Ideally I would say that every production should offer this amount but if push came to shove I would rather have the choice of working for free if I like a project than not hearing about it at all.

Richard J. Wood says...

I think people trying to break into the industry (as runners) should be able to volunteer their services on low-budget indie projects. But if that project can afford to pay then obviously it should. They should also be paid something if the project they volunteered on becomes a commercial success. Once that person has a valid skillset, i.e. has picked up enough whilst running to earn a place as a trainee in a particular department, they should be getting paid. I've no problem with people volunteering on a few projects to get a start in the industry (ha! what industry?), but this should preferably be a couple of non-commercial shorts rather than a feature or TV - and reasonable expenses should always be covered. In an ideal world a day's work is rewarded with a day's pay, but filmmaking is an exclusive, very competitive industry so I can understand why people are prepared to work for free to get a foot in the door - I did it myself for several months and was only too happy to do so. However, what I'm starting to resent more and more is constantly being asked to work (and supply kit) for free on commercial projects, despite having 5+ years of experience and numerous credits! Once you get to a certain level (in my opinion trainee and above) you have something to offer to the production and should therefore get paid NMW at the very least.

Stuart Williams says...

doing 'freebies' is an integral part of the film industry
it's one way of getting your foot in the door to prove your worth

Phil Mountford says...

Although I would consider working on the right film unpaid (I have in the past) I feel, particularly with the proliferation of low cost equpiment and therefore the mentality that everyone can "have a go" making a film, that it's got to the point where it is the norm to not be paid anything and that we are expected to work for nothing.

Quite frankly I've just about had enough of all of those Shooters looking for something for nothing and I strongly support the idea that only those serious enough to allocate some payment should be included in SP. However, I don't agree with the minimum wage argument - I believe something should be paid but not necessarily as much as Minimum Wage.

Jason Young says...

If your script is turned down by all production companies, literary agencies, actors agencies, UK Film Council, local borough funding and public funding schemes then you have no choice but to make your film on an expenses only basis. Short films are unlikely to get funding so they should automatically be exempted because they don't make money.

If feature films are sold at festivals and make money then the cast and crew should be paid.

Mark Insoll says...

This debate is about freedom of choice (the right to work for nothing) versus the dangers of exploitation (the right of others to work for nothing reduces the value of everybody else's services). My view is that Shooting People should prohibit postings for unpaid work and yet continue to allow producers to contact individual members directly (where those members have stated they are interested in working unpaid) via the SP website. This would facilitate a responsible exercise of the freedom of choice and eliminate the devaluing effect of seeing "unpaid" postings. Furthermore it would encourage members (crew, actors and producers) to make better use of their Shooting People profiles.

Alex Valls says...

It really is a double edged sword, on one hand I really feel like companies are exploiting people but on the other it can really help people get started in a difficult industry. So I don't think it can ever really be sorted out properly....

Jennifer Essex says...

Performers love to perform and will take any opportunity to do so. As a result they are often the last to be paid. We are professionals just as the lighting, costume and set designers are professionals. We have studied our craft and should be paid for the work we are doing.

Michael Colman says...

It would be very helpful to Producers and Writers to be able to download a basic collaboration agreement that details ownership of the project in percentage terms. These terms can be negotiable by the parties concerned.

If a writer develops an idea with a producer or director then it is on a speculative basis and in this aspect the writer is partly working as a producer. It is all a collaborative process but if no one is getting paid at the outset then ownership of the property/project should be agreed between each and/or all parties.

Lindsey Dryden says...

It's a complex issue, but I see Shooting People as a network for film lovers as well as the highest-skilled film professionals, so there is space for both paid work ads for pros, and unpaid collaboration ads for less experienced folks, or for pros who feel they can and want to offer skills unpaid. I'm a reasonably experienced doc-maker and have taken on one unpaid job from SP in the years I've been a member - because the subject matter was fascinating, and I had a brilliantly interesting experience.

Some of the best relationships begin in un- or low-paid collaborations, and even though I wouldn't personally ask anyone to work for nothing, that's because I'm lucky to be working with small budgets for my projects in development and production.

I think production companies and projects with funding should always offer some payment, even if it's less than standard rates (we all have to do this when working with development budgets, after all), but individuals should be free to crew up unpaid for their passion projects, and everyone, professional and otherwise, should be free to work unpaid if they want to.

Some ads are blatantly asking too much ("Come and run our production company in exchange for a copy of a DVD we might make, if we're any good!") but we all have to use our own judgement to determine where that line is, rather than asking someone to draw it for us.

I believe stopping unpaid job postings wouldn't stop exploitation of folks wanting and needing to get experience before they can get better paid jobs - it happens for reasons beyond whether they're advertised here or not.

But I do think it'd be an interesting experiment to see what would happen to all the films being made with no budget if SP didn't allow them to crew up here... Would they continue and find crew elsewhere? Would they not get made? Would they get made only by those better at seeking funding? Would their quality improve or deteriorate generally?

SP is not a job ad website like Production Base or Broadcast Freelancer, and I don't think people generally ask for unpaid crew because they're mean or stingy - it's because they don't have any funding, and why that may be is a whole different debate.

I think what's important is allowing people to choose, and not taking that choice away. We must have confidence in our skills and experience, as that's the only way to make others value us and our industry. But removing unpaid ads would not tackle the causes of exploitation, or the reasons that creative industries aren't as well funded or valued as we feel they should be.

Nicole Eveleigh says...

I definitely think that people should be able to decide themselves whether they want to work for free. No-one is forced into unpaid work, many people feel that by doing unpaid work they are broadening their experience to add to their CV, exploring new areas of production or simply think a project is a good cause and worth giving up their time for.

I do think that there are companies out there that exploit this, but I agree it's difficult to out them and set out guidelines that mean a lot of other people dont also get affected.. Maybe if the company posting has a certain level or turnover, or by their website and client list you can see that in fact they are more than capable of paying at least minimum wage? But its a bit of a mine-field. Companies/individuals that actually exploit, I imagine are minimal, in comparison with a genuine need/desire for unpaid positions.

I think that many independent, creative and worthwhile projects will suffer if everyone is bound to pay min wage.

Luke Varley says...

Creative industries tend to be over-subscribed and the only way for some people to break in and rise up is to start out working on films financed on a credit card. I'm a photographer and want to do film/telly/theatre stills and one way to start doing that is working for people at the beginning of their careers so they know you when hopefully they are established. In these instances I don't mind shooting production stills for free as long as everyone is on the same deal. I will also only offer my services on films which sound like the makers have a clue what they're on about, (ie, not five minute "noir thrillers" about "renegade hit-men"). Hopefully, if people post for cast and crew on crappy projects they will get no response and their films will not get made and no-one has wasted their time/money. I think to a certain extent Shooters have a reponsibility to quietly, (we don't need a broohaha each time someone posts a witless/exploitative project), boycott such projects as I don't think it's soley for the mods to decide which postings make it through.

Chris Cook says...

The spirit of Shooters should be to pay if you can and pay back if you ever make money - other than that we get our films made by any means necessary. Chris Cook writer-director The Penalty King

Andy Pandini says...

The poll could have been more detailed. For example, would I want to work for free if all the crew were being paid? I believe that what actors are looking for is some equality amongst roles - if no-one is getting paid, or is on a deferred payment, fine. But if some are getting paid, then that raises questions. Unfortunately, the issues is not, and will never be, black and white, and I would welcome a much more detailed questionnaire on the subject.

Faith Hanstater says...

I think we all have a right to choose to do unpaid work - sometimes, like it or not, that is the only work available. I suspect that if you were to stop posting unpaid work the listings will be few and far between. Obviously it is unacceptable if actors are the only people on a project not to be paid, and I suppose one has to rely on the integrity of the advertiser with regard to their budget. If an advertiser can't pay their actors they need to be very clear why. Even student films seem to have a budget for expenses so why not for a nominal fee for actors on top of travel expenses?

Ian Powell says...

I think when you are making your first film on a very limited budget (which you have raised) and it is the difference between making it and not making it, you need a bit of leeway. I think the guiding principle is that you should be fair, pay deferments and not be a serial underpayer. On your second film, you should hopefully be in a position to pay a bit more, and hopefully to re-employ the same crew

Benjamin Greenacre says...

Working for free when everyone is working for free is fine. I feel strongly that equality within the production is the essential ingredient - either all crew on appropriate rates, all on minimum wage or all for free. In the end though, as long as the production is honest with the crew member from the start, it should be up to the individual whether they work or not.

Nathan Cubitt says...

Personally I've worked on several shorts (as editor) unpaid - because I believed in the project and like the idea of giving something back - plus it can lead to paid work down the road - helps with networking.
However some postings are exploitative - asking a runner to provide a car for example (insurance nightmare looms) without pay.
I think that low budget independant shorts etc should be allowable i.e. one where the film maker is funding it themselves. However if there is a budget (funding scheme) then there should be some pay. If it is for a commissioned piece for a broadcaster then unpaid is unacceptable - and sadly there have been cases of postings like that on Shooters - and I'd include the make a viral ad competition in this category as well.

What does concern me is that the industry seems to thrive, at the low end, by employing people who are rich enough to afford to work on the low wages that some companies are paying (this is not directly related to Shooters but to the industry as a whole). I've worked with runners, secretarys etc who can afford to do these low paid positions due to trust funds/rich parents. This makes the industry almost a closed shop - I certainly couldn't afford to start out as a runner now what with the cost of living in London. It means that a diversity of social classes is missing from the next generation - which I think will be of detriment to the industry as a whole. But I see low paid/no paid work as a way out of this - as it can be fitted around a normal job whilst allowing you to build networks/experience and a CV. The biggest exploitation is the low wages and 'real' companies trying to get work for nothing - not the low budget film maker.

Added to this the stupidity of the tax system that recognises only certain jobs as self-employed for tax purposes is beyond belief. When I edit my exenses are tax deductable - when I assist they are not. Yet on both types of work I have agency fees, kit fees etc. I'd also like to see Bectu (yep I'm a member) try again to win the holiday pay issue - now that it's part of the salary (instead of on top of the salary) it means in real terms I'm earning less - that the companies are getting my holiday days for 'free' - coz I can't take a holiday during a production. Basically there's many things that are more pressing than stopping guerilla film making.

There's an interesting mindset as well developing - I've heard a production asst complain that the working time directive, when eventually it gets enforced, is wrong. No longer will he be able to do an 80hr plus week (for no extra pay mind) - and instead the company will have to employ two people to do the hours. I've heard accountants say it means productions won't happen due to the cost - and the production assistant think it's unfair that he can't work 80hrs - that it's unfair he will only be allowed to work 48! There's a mindset developing where people seem to think its ok to be exploited on fully funded high end productions - stop that exploitation first instead of beating up on the short film folk.

We're all sensible, we know when we're being exploited by the fat cats - but if we choose to do a project for love, then that should be our choice. But once a project is funded beyond a certain amount (for arguments sake lets say 50K) then there should be at least minimum wage.

Keith Friday says...

Very difficult as I have in the past worked for no fee! but mainly for students!

In all sincereity - the minimum wage should ALWAYS be paid - with the proviso that if the film has success with an income - then the fee should be the BECTU rate!

Asking crew to work for nothing these days encourages producers who can pay to ask for crew without pay and not always with expences offered!

Keith D Friday

Robert Stern says...

There will never be a foolproof system, but the next best thing is clear and honest labeling of voluntary/pro bono/creatice work, and some kind of blacklisting system to deter exploitative production companies who can afford to pay, but try not to, for commercial productions.

David Platt says...

No problem not getting paid for student films. However I believe that universities and film schools should be ultimately responsible for providing actors with copies of dvd's of student films even if it is only a rough cut. I have recently done a film for Salford University where no dvd's were produced, the film was not edited and yet I understand the director got a first class degree. How does that work? Its like submitting an unfinished essay in your finals.

Chris Atkins says...

We keep seeing the same pathetic arguments. The entire film industry thrives off people doing work for no money, and if we banned it the business really would be on it's knees. I'm a semi established producer and director and would not be where I was now if I hadn't been willing to do jobs for free to get experience and contacts when I started out. Even though I've been in the business 12 years, last week I went and did 3 days filming for a friend for free - does this mean we should call the Unions because I've been exploited? I have several people working for us right now for no money, and we had to sift through god knows how many CV's of people desperate to get into the business to whittle the candidates down. The "runners are being exploited" lobby generally tend to be older and bitter professionals who haven't had any work for ages, so sit at home filling up message boards with misinformed rants. If they don't like please go and work somewhere else, as it is patronising in the extreme to tell people they can't apply for unpaid work if it's the only way t get their foot in the door of an extremely competitive and cut throat industry.

Christopher Presswell says...

I would love to be able to pay everybody at least the minimum wage on my projects, but it's a sad fact of life that it just isn't possible.

If the budget is big enough, then of course everybody should get paid something. It's unfair to exploit people when you've got a alot of cash to play with, but there's just no way that smaller indie films can do it. It's hard enough trying to raise any sort of funding in the current climate, and having to pay anywhere between 10 and 25 members of crew is likely to cost you well over £1000 a day.

So long as people know that they're working for free, and are happy to do it for the experience, I don't really see what the problem is. If anything it adds to the sense of community on set.

Rohan Tully says...

let's not become nanny state on shooting people, people's time belongs to them. if they want to work for free, then they have the right to do so.

Mike Fitzsimons says...

The law on minimum wage is unequivocal. The employment of someone for no pay is illegal. The fact that it is a 'creative industry job' makes no difference. In cases where there is an opportunity to collaborate on productions, but without pay, those collaborators could be given a legal share of the film rights, that is they become stockholders in the film or directors of a limited company. They can then be considered as investors or owners of the business. The risks associated with payment are shared with other investors and directors as are the profits. This is also legal. This would provide a legal and moral framework that would deliver a compensation model. it might not go down too well with those who want people to work for nothing while they retain 100% of the rights to the production – broadly the exploitation model used by slave owners in the 18th and 19th century.

Stephen Timewell says...

Personal freedom of choice is disappearing from this country faster than MPs expenses

David Wigram says...

Make the law clear, and choice free.

Stephen Homewood says...

I have worked as a professional actor and on film production - I think if EVERYBODY on the production is on low pay/expenses only, and there's not going to be any profit involved, then we should be able to make a chhoice whether to work or not. Micro/no budget films and shorts are a great way of gaining experience and contacts, particularly if you cannot afford formal training. I think if anybody is getting paid, then everybody should get paid. I have no objection to a low pay-deferred payment scheme, again as long as everybody on the production is involved. I also think that there are plenty of companies out there willing to exploit actors/runners, who are understandably looking for a credit and experience, by offering no pay/expenses only, whilst others are getting full remuneration. I also think actors who get paid, or paid more, out of the savings made by not paying lesser known actors or runners etc. are also exploiting others.

gwillym hewetson says...

Of course people should have the right to choose! We don't want to exploit people but there should be an option.

Leo Enticknap says...

As a lecturer on a university degree programme in cinema and photography, I can see both sides in this debate. On balance, I'm against further regulation in this area because the industry is now so overwhelmingly freelance, self-employed and entrepreneurial that new entrants have to take a 'caveat emptor' approach - and develop the skills needed to do so - from day one.

When contemplating unpaid work, you have to weigh up factors such as the kudos or prominence of the project and/or employer as a whole (will it look good on my CV to have worked with these people?), its relevance to your own career aspirations (e.g. will it give me hard experience working with kit I want to gain experience with?) and the sort of contacts it will help you to make.

If I hadn't done unpaid work experience, notably at the Museum of the Moving Image and the BBC in the early '90s, I'd never have made it to where I am today. I also did one or two other stints that in the short term I ended up regretting, as the 'employer' came away with some free labour and I didn't come away with any useful training, CV entries or contacts. But in the long term I learnt from the mistakes. The point is that the experience of making them enabled me to do so, and anyone trying to break into the film, TV or multimedia industries or sectors now is going to need those sort of skills of critical judgement. If a site such as this one simply bans adverts for unpaid work, people trying to establish their careers will lose an opportunity to do that, including the opportunity to make useful mistakes.

Adam Jennings says...

For goodness sake this is rediculous - paid and unpaid adverts should be posted and clearly worded. If a member doesn't want to work unpaid then they don't reply to the posting and look only for the paid work. As a meercat might say, "simples!"

Brian Croucher says...

Every time it depends,is the project in the short term for financial or for showcase gain.Collaboration means everybody on the project, so it would always be the decision of the individual.You cannot legislate for creativity. Brian Croucher

tansy huws says...

The bulk of a technician's work is not only laborious and mundane but also requires a great deal of knowledge.
And, ironically, the smaller the production, the more this is true (the editor having to sync the rushes and output EDLs, in addition to cutting the film, for example).

There is absolutely no reason why film technicians ought to be expected to work for less than, say, a shelf stacker in a supermarket particularly if it is not only their time and hard-earned knowledge they are contributing but often equipment, too.

Shooting People has made a wonderful contribution to independent cinema in this county by creating a film community .
Now it is time for it to pioneer the next wave of innovation: making that community sustainable.

Remi Aiyela says...

I believe it should be free to the individual to decide whether they feel they are being exploited or not. If only paid work is advertised then those with no experience will never get a look in. Unpaid work creates the oppurtunity for people to get some good quality work experience on their CV thus putting them in a better position to bid for paid work. I have advertised paid work in Shooting People and always receive more CVs than I can possibly look at. I am not likely to look twice at the CV of the person who has no real experience because there are so many with experience. Those people who sit on their high horse and shout "exploitation" should speak to real people out there who are looking for the oppurtunity to work on good productions which will give them an entry to paid work.

Rebecca Adams says...

What has to be established is the difference between shorts from new directors with no budget and feature films with have a commercial purpose which most do. Anything with a commercial purpose must pay minimum wage in my opinion, regardless, unless everyone is a Producer, I suppose.

Simon Furness says...

I am an actor and would like to have the choice to work on low/no-pay ventures if I choose. I would encourage employers in this category, though, to at least sign the Protecting Actors Casting Agreement which guarantees delivery of a DVD of the finished product within 6 months. I also feel that all travel/accommodation and meal expenses should be met in a timely manner in lieu of pay, if there is not even the minimum wage to be had.

mike muschamp says...

the trouble with allowing producers to offer work for esxperience only ..NO PAY is it leaves all of us exploited,and undercut,s what the union is trying to do.

I,ve been a d.o.p.now for 20 yrs,and I,ve sen the daily camera rate,drop rather than go up*9as in other jobs)alot of that is led by:
"d.o.p.needed with own equipment"..then they offer a rate that would barely cover the camera hire.you are course told "take it or leave it".
IF THAT AVENUE DID NOT ECIST ..Via I,m sorry to say sites like yours,then they would HAVE to pay fair rates,the exploitation and underpaying of skilled technichians(I have been a D.O.P.now for 20 yrs),is killing the british film industry,to the extent that I am writing this from Malaysia(where I now work as a D.O.P.-HAD ENOUGH of the U.K.)where amazingly given it is 3 times cheaper to live here,they pay better rates than the average U.K.indi movie.

Your site allows further and further exploitation of the over qualified and over saturated crew base in the U.K.--iiI have been with shooting peole now I think for around 2-3 yrs,but have only after all that time got ONE decent job,meanwhile producers happily get camera and kit WITH a talented d.o.p.for the cost of the kit hire ...if they had hired it from a kit company.HAVE TO SAY IT MAKES ME SO SO ANGRY.

So the isuue is not just about peole not been paid,it,s about undercutting all the union rates,and believe me(having worked in the THai film industry for almost 9 years)once the union is broken..then well the flood gates are opened..and all is lost.

All ad,s should conform to B.E.C.T.U.rates.and runners jobs should conform MOST CErtainly MINIMUM WAGE..you can get "experience"working at mc.donanlds..but at least they pay you.

I know..don,t worry ..yes i am on all those "other"hollywood sites!

Matt Lloyd says...

Presenting the range of opportunities available, providing best practice advice and encouraging responsible posting is surely the best way forward for Shooting People, as an inclusive and accessible service intended for both entry-level and advanced practitioners. It is up to the individual to make their choice of who to work for, and for what reward, based on information provided by SP and other organisations, and on the individual's own research into the outfit offering the work. We have all worked for nothing at some point, and at an early stage in one's career the benefits usually outweigh the disadvantages. The important thing is for each individual to make the decision as to when in their own career development to stop saying yes to unpaid or underpaid work. It's a risk, but unless you make that decision and stick to it you are doing yourself and the industry a disservice.

Tracy Bargate says...

It is an individual choice to work for no money. For me, it doesn't have to be a lot of money, but some pay shows respect for the fact that as an actor you rely on this work to live. It is not a hobby and I already have a showreel.

sebastian michael says...

the minimum wage legislation is there to protect people in low-paid jobs ('macjobs') from being exploited by big corporations and/or ruthless employers. it's not there to stifle creative work or to prevent people from gaining invaluable experience that will move them on in their career.

also, as a freelancer and independent artist i don't want to be told by some bureaucrats how much or how little i should ask for my time and my contribution to a creative process. it's nobody's business but mine and the people i work with or for.

let people be grown-ups and decide for themselves what they want to do and what they expect in return.

Matteo Pizzarello says...

We are all in this dream business of filmmaking and as much we should not be exploited we should be left free to see if we like a project and do it for free or only expenses depending on what we choose to do .

So I guess Freedom is the way.

so many of the films we make are made collaborating together and I don't want this to stop because of policies.

No one guarantee us any work therefore we should be left free.

Jason Bradbury says...

Unpaid work on low-no budget films, especially SHORT films when finance is rarely available - keeps the film industry growing and is essential to the development of talent. If unpaid jobs were removed from Shooting People I would be forced to reconsider the necessity of my membership.

Melissa Advani says...

Look - we are all working in an over saturated market and exploitation is therefore bound to occur. However, most of the films advertising for unpaid positions are student or new film makers who really don't have a budget but need to keep practicing their art - just as us actors do. Having recently graduated from Drama School I am struggling to get my first job. If an unpaid role comes up in a project that I am attracted to - and I am doing nothing else - I will go for it, because I want to be working. As actors, runners, any crew members - we need to be vigilant about who is genuine and who is not and it is our own hands. If I turn down the unpaid role, there are 1000 behind me ready to take it. That is the problem.

Robin Bailes says...

As long as it is clear which jobs are paid and which are not, and the posters stick to what they promise, then why does it matter? People are not being exploited if they volunteer for an unpaid job.
That said, I have done work that was advertised as paid and not been paid for it. I think Shooting People should have a feedback procedure similar to Ebay, so untrustworthy people can be highlighted in future.

Lesley Rowan says...

I think ensuring that all members of a film making team get paid something for their work will raise standards.

Currently it's almost accepted that runners and actors will be prepared to work for no money and I believe that if there is an expectation that all members of the team need to be paid then the required budget will be found if the filmmaker is professional and serious about seeing his/her project through to completion.

Guy Fee says...

No one ever got rich making a low budget short. People who work on this type of short film don't make money from them. The more red tape you put in place, the less interesting films get made due to people who would make a film not bothering for fear they are breaking some employment law. While I am all for an end to exploitation, valuable experience working on low budget productions provides a good grounding for people in the role of their choosing within the film industry. By implementing a minimum wage, it means people who make short films will find their options limited. Nobody makes money at the low end. Directors have to pay to submit films to festivals - it's normally a labour of love and a financial loss for them. People are not forced into being involved in a film. If they don't want to be involved for nothing, that's fine but I have to say, as a writer, I've written for no money and for good money, but essentially the amount I'm paid depends on the overall production budget not whether or not someone decides to exploit me or not. The most important part of the process is not the cash but the creation of good work and, while I am not suggesting people should be exploited, people should be realistic about the fact that there is no pot of cash being kept in a secret cupboard by the director. I've never worked with a director on ANY short who was able to make a living out of making shorts as a result of paying his crew nothing or just expenses. Low budget film making and being involved in it is about the love of the game and not about earning a buck. More regulation will just deter people who could make interesting work from bothering. And that can't be good for anybody.

Barbara-Ann Brown says...

I would only consider working on a no paid film if it was extremely high profile and an excellent role and I was guaranteed a share of the profits. In which case, the film would probably have a budget anyway. I would absolutely never consider doing a student film or any low budget independent film unless I was being paid.

Unfortunately many inexperienced amateurs manage to get hold of film equipment, call themselves filmmakers and persuade professional actors and crew to work for them for nothing, on low budget micro films which never see the light of day.

Filmmakers, if you are serious about filmmaking and professional about it, then get funding for your film so that you can hire professional actors and crew to work with you.

This is the only industry in which amateurs manage to engage the services of professional actors and crew to work on their low budget projects for no money. They only get away with it, because desperate people will work for nothing. DON'T DO IT!! Any worthwhile, reputable film project will have a budget of some kind.

Laura Phillips says...

It's very much up to the individual whether they work on a project for no or low pay. Also some film makers are working with literally no budget at all so are not expoilting others, simply trying to get there film made.

Julian Field says...

Forcing all film productions to pay the minimum wage would ultimately by counter-productive, and mean student film makers (and many indie-short producers) would only be able to use their fellow students as actors. Many people use such productions to gain experience and acquire material for their showreels, which can, in some cases, help to kickstart their acting careers. This needs to remain unchanged, I feel. However, if an established broadcaster is trying to get actors for nothing, by pleading poverty due to their production being 'in house on a low budget', this is clearly not acceptable and needs to stopped. I also feel that there needs to be solidarity among actors; nobody is forcing you to take an unpaid job, which in your heart, you know you should be paid for. As John Lennon once said:

“If everyone demanded peace instead of another television set, then there’d be peace.”

Enough said, I think!

Paddy Robinson-Griffin says...

Perhaps a cap on the amount of unpaid work of say 2 weeks would sort the genuine volunteers and collaborators from the unpaid slaves?

David Abbott says...

It's one thing to offer your services (or ask people to offer their services) for free to bolster ones CV/Showreel, but there seem to be far to many people taking advantage of young people who are trying to get a break in the media industry. Many companies appear to invite people in as runners on a trial no-pay basis and when their week/two weeks is up, they simply move on to the next person on their list. This is just wrong!

Christopher Clayton says...

I do believe, were possible, every member of the cast and crew should be paid but many careers are started by gaining experience by either working on or producing unpaid production(s). Stopping unpaid productions will limit the number of opportunities available and therefore there will be less experienced film makers in the job market. I believe it should be left to the individual to decide if they should accept unpaid work (aka work experience - where full travel expenses, food and where relevant, accommodation is given) but they should have their duties, responsibilities, hours and days made clear before starting work. When I started out, I worked on a number of unpaid productions and now the people I worked with (who where also unpaid at the time) are offering me paid work and I do the same for them. I feel the British Film Industry would be 'shooting themselves in the foot' if we did away with unpaid positions/productions.

Grant Gilchrist says...

I have worked for nothing & have employed people on "showreel pieces" they have benefited my career & the careers of people who have worked for me.

Emily Renshaw-Smith says...

People are perfectly able to decide for themselves whether they want to work for nothing. If the project is going to help them gain invaluable experience and therefore help them get into the industry then I don't see it's a problem for them to choose that. Restricting the postings isn't going to force low budget films to pay crew, it's just going to stop them posting the opportunities on Shooting People. The counter argument to this I suppose is that allowing these postings normalises the idea of unpaid jobs but people should be able to make a judgement for themselves about whether the decision not to pay is reasonable or not.

Chris Elwyn says...

While I recognise that people need to be protected from exploitation, I also think that indie film makers have a tough enough time as it is trying to create work without additional legal holes to jump through.

If someone wishes to work for no pay, that's their decision. Educating people so that they can protect themselves from exploitation is a better option than slapping down legal requirements on filmmakers.

Jamie Sims says...

i do think that it boils down to communication and manners. If filmmakers want to collaborate then they should be allowed to collaborate with crew and Actors. If Actors and crew don't want to be exploited then they have every right to write up there own contract and debate this to their new filmmaker collaborators. or they can just ignore the collaborating section of the site.

After being on shooting people for over two years now i have seen a range of different jobs and it appears to me that the majority of this 'scandal' of posting an inappropriate casting and offending us as actors is by filmmakers who have literally decided the day before that they want to make a film and don't know the first thing about communicating or how to write a breakdown. Of course there is nothing wrong with wanting to make a film so....

could SP play with the idea of having a breakdown 'wizard' or template that filmmakers HAVE to follow to give clearer breakdowns to us actors and crew.

Darren Berry says...

My thoughts are simply these, there should be legislation to protect low paid workers as within any industry, however I feel a person should have the right to choose if they would like to do something for free or not. The government does precious little as it is for the Film Industry and I've never met an altruistic distributor or sales agent. It's always the creative, the filmmaker that gets ripped off. As a country we make precious little as it is so to remove even an option to decide for yourself if you want work for free or not sound really stupid.

To give a couple of poignant examples even Job Centre Plus is advocating a work scheme where you volunteer to do a job for free for up to eight weeks to gain experience and to see if you and the employer fit together plus the continual radio ads in my area asking for unpaid volunteers to help in the local community. How is it any different?

We have enough of a nanny state as it is and I believe we should have the choice to do free work if we want.

Tonto Papadopoulos says...

Please, regardless of this poll, NO CENSORSHIP! Let Shooters post away and debate away all they like. Individuals are FREE TO CHOOSE whether or not to work on a project for free, without interference from the Nanny State. If the debate is heated, so be it, it's all good and healthy. I wouldn't call it a 'crisis'.

This is not a legislative issue, it's an economic one: too much supply. Trying to enforce a balance in a dynamic equilibrium only creates greater problems.

For one, if you begin to take action I think you would drive traffic away to sites that allow non-paid postings.

... And what about all the people who actually DO WANT TO WORK FOR FREE in order to gain experience? Where would this leave them?

I think the SP staff are doing a FINE job as is, love the site, keep up the good work!

Love,
Tonto

Adrian Le Grand says...

I think the answer is a separate newsletter dedicated to requests for (and even offers of) free work.
I personally am not interested in unpaid work, but other people might be. There's nothing in current legislation that stops like-minded volunteers getting in touch with each other, and many people starting out in acting, screenwriting, directing, producing etc relish the opportunity of experience regardless of pay.
But including the more disrespectful and dismally implausible requests in the main newsletters irritates people who are trying to make a living, and can make the whole thing look a bit amateurish.
Since you asked :)

David Carney says...

It is simple - actors and technitians may well want to help a financially challenged up and coming director / producer but on projects that are good but not immeadiately commercial, any funds should be shared out in equal measure! It is NOT rocket science!!!!

In no other area of life would things be treated in the same way.

Also, if it is a good project, have the balls and courage to do the right and equitable thing!

Get real - you may be creative but (generous and giving) people also have to live!!

Deckchair Dave

Henry Scholfield says...

I do not support exploitation on any level within the industry. However, it is through finding like minded people to crew and collaborate with on early projects that allowed us to produce some great work pushing all of us forward into the employable/paid arena.
This said there are people out there that do take advantage of people on no paid projects either by misrepresenting what the job entails, or worse by not paying people on project budgets that could offer some renumeration. These shooters should be blackballed or not allowed to post if feedback on their production shows this kind of consistent behavior.

dan hartley says...

I've been on Shooting People for over ten years. I've sourced crew for many short films and have gained collaborators that I still use today, more often than not in paid positions or on projects that are mutually beneficial. People should be FREE to choose. We're independents, so let's not adopt the nanny state temperament.

The fact is if folk are eager to break into the industry, there will be a degree of free work required. That's been the experience of myself and every one I know who started as a runner. It's not ideal but then the industry is massively over-subscribed. Free work, for better or worse, is one way to illustrate that you're serious and committed. If it feels like exploitation, then don't take the gig or walk away!

kate braithwaite says...

I think that to be asked to work for free is only really acceptable on pure collaboration projects where nobody is profiting apart from all gaining a credit or possibly make money if it does well in competitions or festivals.

Samantha Waddilove says...

However there need to be protection that means that the job for no pay is worhtwhile and not exploitation; for actors working for no pay ensureing that rush/footage promised is delivered and in a timely maanner; and either everyone crew/actors/all are on no pay/profit share or all are paid something/the same amount. We do need to ban pay crew and not actors; or pay some but no others. A film needs everyone not just a few to make it work.

Grain Media says...

As an owner of a small production company, keen work exeperience / un-paid runners are completely invaluable on small projects that we do not have any budget for. We always try to ensure that when the bigger jobs come in we hire in the people who have worked for us for free in the past. It's important to keep an eye on the favour bank. Without working for each other for free, a lot of creative work wouldn't happen.

Roland Moore says...

It's a grey area - I'd consider working for free on the right project, but I know the best way of stamping out the small percentage of exploitative postings (and it is small) would be to encourage a minimum fee. Even if it was fifty pounds (with half on delivery of the first draft, half on delivery of the final draft) it would discourage the producers who might not be so committed to their project and ensure that only serious individuals advertised jobs on SP.

Wilfried Rimensberger says...

I know of several talented people who left the movie industry after 2-3 years working on unpaid or expences only jobs, which was almost all they were offered to start a desired career in the business. But I know also from my own experience how many years of sticking to a difficult situation it can take to find finances and right project partners. So where there is a (strong) will there is a way.

Keith Manning says...

I am a long established Key Grip and I have done many favours and seen many people abused in this industry, including myself. Runners and gerneral helpers, carriers whatever you would like to call unskilled workers are usually very ambitious. If they are asked to come and do a bit of carrying or tea making "for the experience" that is all well and good but we all know that it goes much further than that. They are often asked to do many more jobs that they do not have the experience and skills to do and because they do not want to be seen as awkward, they oblige. Unfortunately in many cases this can be pre-planned by the producers to do away with another person, sometimes with dangerous consequences. I have seen numerous postings on SP and other media asking for an unpaid runner whose "duties" will include tracking a dolly or setting up a "few" lights.

I worked on a short, for free this year. I had my reasons. But I was doing my normal job and nobody elses.

There is a big difference between "features" and shorts for no money as well. A short, for up to a week is one thing, but when producers are asking for 3 months without pay that is quite another. Just out of interest, where do they think the money to pay for my food and mortgage etc is going to come from. I think that there is never a reason to ask for somebody to work unpaid for that length of time.

To qualify comments in this poll, people should also state their occupation.

Kevin Boyd says...

Often the phrase "expenses only" is a mask for people to avoide paying anything at all for your work and never come back years later and pay you once they have profited from it.

Alan Fleet says...

Somtimes working for free is the only way to gain experience. The individual should have the right to choose what they wish to do with their own time. How many more constraints do we need in our lives?

David Alamouti says...

If we did not pay expenses only and had to pay everyone minimum wage then many of the filmmakers that are keeping the shit uk industry afloat would have never made it through. Company owners are not even getting minimum wage to make their productions, let alone the staff. This is not the case that greedy companies are making massive profits by exploiting free labour. For many like me i have to have two jobs to keep my hobby alive! I think the big boys who end up spending ridiculous amounts of money on shit films should give some of those funds to help the independent trying to make ends meet!

Lisa James says...

I think its very important to draw the members attention to a minority group of individuals who are now harassing people for posting for expenses only crew. After posting last week for a very low budget art project with the artist Mark Lewis, we received a number of unsolicited emails from someone called Pat Digance. Pat claimed that we had broken minimum wage legislation and is now on some kind of personal hate campaign against Mark and has written to an array of people connected and working with him, internationally, funding bodies, galleries and colleges.
Fortunately Mark is very well respected and known for not exploiting people so no real damage can be done but the fact this person/ people are going to these lengths is very disturbing. I wonder how all the people who are involved in projects on an expenses only basis feel about being 'represented' by someone who is a bully and operating such malicious tactics. I think its important that people speak out if they have had this happen to them – I’m sure I’m not alone.

I've used Shooting People for years and its an invaluable service for independent film makers, so many of the projects i've work on have been made possible by collaboration and people working for expenses only. I've placed many postings over the years for a variety of crew members, some of these postings have been for expenses only crew positions because budgets have been extremely low, a lot of films would not get to the production stage without this facility. The people who respond to these ads are always enthusiastic and can see the benefit of gaining experience and building their CV's, they are keen to get on in the industry and never have an issue with being paid expenses only. These are all intelligent well educated people who are not being asked to do anything they do not actually want to do themselves. There is no exploitation, its a simple exchange where everyone is gaining something. I worked myself on expenses only films to gain experience, working as a Runner, Locations and as a Production Manager.

I think its vital that the members get behind and support expenses only postings as so many projects depend on this, low budget and student, importantly it provides people the opportunity to gain experience and explore what they would like to do and work on some amazing films and as we know some of the best films are made for next to nothing.

Oliver Cohen says...

For answer 2 - only if it was for a charity or a simple fun project

For answer 4 - only it it's a student project

martin percy says...

Thanks for this -- only thought: please could you have a "don't know" option for "Do you think it is clear which jobs can be advertised as no pay and which cannot under the current minimum wage legislation?" as my answer is "don't know"!

I believe shooting people should be free as a place for people to choose and talk as they see fit.

Richard Harrison says...

I am in the final stages of post production of my first feature film, UNSTOPPABLE.

The whole of this movie has been made on expenses only in production and post production. It could not have been made otherwise and it is something we are all very proud of. It's commercial, entertaining and the antithesis of the Britflick. Twenty eight people have got their names carved on it.

The financing possibilities in this country are dire as you know: the UK Film Council will not only finance 'jobs for their friends, the in-crowd, and a films with dubious political bias', they're also a borderline corrupt and redundant institution. Other small funding bodies waste their money on short films which are pretty much obsolete everywhere in the world except the UK, and even micro-budget funding bodies like Film London fund established 'top draw' commercial and pop video directors like Eran Crevy for films like 'Shifty'. It stinks all the way through.

Without the passion and efforts of determined and hungry filmmakers, hundreds of projects will never see the light of day. Fuck BECTU and the mimimum wage legislation. That's not the industry in the UK because the industry doesn't exist.

Richard Harrison
Writer/Director - UNSTOPPABLE
www.razorfilms.co.uk

Mike Todd says...

As much as many people would like it to be, this isn't like other industries or jobs. There is an over supply of people wanting to make films and a lack of revenue to pay for them. The problem (or not, depending on your perspective) is that people will do it anyway, just as many bands record albums never to be heard, writers write books that are never to be read: being creative has an appeal to many that means it is not driven by the same financial considerations as, for example, taking a job digging ditches or counting beans. Film making is collaborative but so is much music and art, no-one is compelled to work together. Don't get me wrong, I believe in organised labour and worker's rights but if there is no money for an independent production, then it would never get made if people didn't work for free. And if no-one sees the value of commiting their time to it, then it will never get made. People should have the right to make the choice for themselves but if commercial revenue does ever come, then a retrospective/ deferred payment agreement should be in place. The clearer things are from the outset re intent, the better. It may be difficult to enshrine in legislation but it's all about what's fair.

Andy Lee says...

I think it that if a film is being made with a view to broadcast or sale there should be at least a minimum wage paid to everyone who works on it. If this can't be provided immediately it should be formally agreed (in writing) as a deferred payment to be made as a share from the first sale of the project onwards. A profit share "after expenses" or "when it makes money" is open to abuse as the definition of profit on productions can be vague.

Tom Canning says...

Speaking as someone who makes independent projects and helps others, I feel it should be up to the individual, but people should get something in writing first, perhaps, to keep things clear.

Ok, booming could be done under direction, but you waste a crew member by taking up their time with directing the boomer, then.

You need skilled people if you want to get the best result. Which, as a filmmaker, you do. You don't want to waste time and money on people who mess things up. Similarly, if people want to work for free to boost their cv/they like the material/like the filmmaker, they should be allowed to do so.

We just need to establish something that still protects the individual, but doesn't inhibit productions. I would not be able to produce a film if I had to pay that (and I only have the crew I need, i.e. hod's and a couple of runners)

The minimum wage is a good suggestion, but it is not the answer.

INDIVISION FILMS says...

If a project is made without any backing or funding it is okay to offer collaborations to people who might want to take part in the experiance.
sometimes working on a film can be the best film school and also a great way to expand ones resume. I dont understand whats all the fuss about?! poeple can choose for themselves if they want to work for free, it is not for anyone elses to decide!

Alessio Valori says...

The problem is not about you are free to work for free or not, the think is that it is becoming very much annoying to understand that a profession is now treated in this way. I understand this is the way it is going, every one got a camera everyone can say to be a cinematographer or an editor or a director but I really hope that when people write a post do keep in their mind that this is a profession, a job it s not just a passion.
The worst these days is for my opinion ( i am a cinematographer ) when people post camera works for no money and ask for equipment, generally RED, ( cannot understand why RED should be consider as a different skill to ask to a cinematographer, this could be something to be discussed ) , people do not have a penny to pay sometimes not even food on set but want to shoot RED. WHY? If we re talking of low budget you can shoot with other cameras and still obtain a great look. It depends on people you re working with. Sorry to be long.
Alessio Valori

ian attfield says...

Film makers often make films for no money. Cast and Crew often work on films for expenses only knowing that they are gaining experience, contacts and possible showreel material.
Those that work under these conditions are fully aware of the agreement. Many wonderful films, short and feature length, have been created on this principle. If the law changes to insist minimum wage payments then many film makers will be forced to reconsider their film-making aspirations. This can only be a bad thing.

Tom Dean says...

Everyone should be free to be exploited if they so wish. Producers rightly want to put as much of the budget on the screen as possible, and film makers often make valuable contacts and cultivate working relationships with other crew members through no-budget projects. It is often these penurious projects that yield the most interesting work.

Having said that, terminology such as 'deferred payment' are misleading and vague, and new-comers to the industry have to learn hard lessons. There are unscrupulous operators around, as in any industry, but someone working for free should not feel any hesitation about walking out on a project where they are being treated badly.

Personally, the runners are the first people I would want to pay on a no-budget project, as they have the least to gain professionally. This is not always possible, especially as some sectors of the industry really do stand up for themselves - ever tried to persuade a spark to work for nothing? And more power to them.

Sebastian Smith says...

It is vital for the growth of independent film that people can get experience on a role which may not be open to them if it was paid.

Yes, fully-funded films should pay their crew - but if all films have to pay their cast and crew, many films will not get made.

Look at 'Colin'. An indie film made for nothing. Everyone happily gave up their time to work on it for free. It gets released. Everyone is happy.

On the release of 'Dead Wood' we divided the share of the profits between everyone who had worked on it. If we'd had to pay everyone, the film would not have been made. But no-one was exploited, they were all involved because they wanted to be.

Rick Mcleod says...

It appears we have nonsense red tape that also create a very grey area. Me ;like most others, whether actors or part of a crew are all out for the same thing, recognition for what we can do. I would love to be able to pay the cast and crew on my short films, but at the end of the day, the funding isn't there, so we go and prove the point that a good film can be made without the cash, not always easy!

The cast and crew should have the option, if they know from the very beginning that the job is unpaid or expenses only and they agree that this is ok, then that should be the end of it.

Phillip Perry says...

If this legislation is brought in, it'll completely destroy the already fragile independent filmmaking community. It is near impossible to raise funding for short films and people need to make and work on short films to gain experience and a showreel. People can choose whether or not they want to work on the unpaid projects. The whole point of Shooting People is its a filmmaking community, where everyone helps eachother out. Whoever's dreamed up this crap legislation is obviously a non creative, money obsessed jerk off who probably has a rich daddy and can't understand how difficult it is to raise funds for independent films.

Damian Swarbrick says...

I agree with Edwin Thomas, quote:

"If somebody's making money, everyone should get their fair share. If no-one's making money, people should have a free choice as to whether they want to be involved. There are so many reasons to make a film besides the money - for experience, for art, for fun, whatever - and Shooting People should facilitate them all.

Film-making is almost unique as an art-form in the money and personnel it requires. By advertising no-budget films, Shooting People democratises the art by letting people with nothing more than time and talent make their films. Do we really want a world where only people with money can get their films made?"

Also, i wish to emphasise that professional production companies that sell to broadcasters and commercially release films should pay a minimum wage.

Jason Porthouse says...

Treading the line between exploitation and gaining experience is a tricky one; I think that ensuring that wage levels, expenses payments and any other remuneration is clearly signposted, and maybe providing people with a guide as to how best to aviod exploitation, recognising that it will never be foolproof, is the way forward.

Piers Sanderson says...

I think that low and no paid jobs should exist and be posted for those who are genuinely making films for no money, this is one way to make a start in the business. You get together with others of similar (in)ability and try and make something you feel passionate about. SP is one way to get together like this. However the postings should be banned by companies or individuals who have managed to get some budget and are unwilling to pay for what they see as the menial jobs.That is just being mean and maintains the film industry as white and middle class.

Nick Hill says...

Unpaid work is often (unfortunately or not) the foundation this industry is built on: we've all had to do unpaid jobs at some point, just to gain experience. However, exploitation can be a problem where unpaid work is concerned, so the clearer and more specific the post is, the better position people will be in to decide if they want to apply or not. It's a free country and it should ultimately be up to people to make their own choices.

Jack Laurance says...

The bottom line here is CHOICE. Let people make their own decisions.

It goes without saying that Independent short film makers would not be able to fund most films without the help of in kind support.

As long as these projects are wholly independent people should be allowed to decide for themselves whether or not they want to work for free.

Div Williams says...

I am happy to work for free on a good script. My line in the sand is that I will only work for free if everybody else works for free. If you pay the crew and not the actors, I'm out.

katrin Magrowitz says...

you want to turn into a nanny agency? people have a right (and a brain) to choose for themselves. By stopping to support the no to micro budget film making you trying to destroy the very seeds of new and original film makers breaking through, film makers daring to make a film against all odds. I should be damn if I support that. Not in my name. I will certainly quitt my membership if you do.

David Sandercock says...

shooters does an excellent job promoting indie films and unpaid work is a vital component to have at your disposal to promote short filmmaking.

Jacob Proctor says...

My thoughts on low paid/unpaid work is that the production has to stick strictly to work hours. On a paid job if you run over then fine you're likely to get overtime but on a low paid job your taking it to help a production so the least they can do is stick to the hours they have stated on a schedule. There could be an area on shooting people for people to post when a production has really taken the micky and asked them to work say 16hours so that other shooting can be made aware of this. I've made several low budget shoots where a very professional crew has worked for expenses only and try to stick to schedule and if we need to run over by half an hour everyone is asked if they mind. If they need to go then that is fine, this is how you have to work.

Helena Astbury says...

Of course I am not at all for exploitation - however, I myself gained some valuable experience doing unpaid/expenses work at the beginning of my career. I think it is a shared responsibility between the advertisers AND the prospective employees to make decisions on whether they are happy to do expenses only work. Not only by commenting and polling but by actually being to decide for themselves whether they can do/want to do a bit of 'sweat equity' as coined below!

Harvey Salmon says...

Personally as a professional actor of twenty years standing I think it is acceptable that actors work for small or no fees on certain projects. I think, however, that certain film makers and television companies who used to paid the going rate for working on their projects now try to get people to work for nothing. Sites like "Star Now' are stuffed with ads for actors to work for television and film companies for no fee suggesting that they should be happy to work with "big names". This type of cynical practice aimed at wannabees is severely compromising professional actors who are forced to scrape around for a living. The law needs to be tweaked to stop this exploitation.

Albert Clack says...

As an actor, I am prepared to work for no pay on, for instance, student graduation films, charity projects and independent films if, and only if, NOBODY is getting paid and NOBODY is expecting to make a profit.

I am NOT prepared to work free on a pilot where, even though the pilot itself will not make a profit, the film-maker hopes it will produce a profit-making commission. It is no use saying that actors who take part in the pilot will be considered for the actual production, since that it likely to be decided by who ever puts up the funding.

Anton Califano says...

I would like to see wages payment be in some kind of reflection of the budget of the production. So for example the difference between a £1000 short film, and a £10,000 short film would be that the crew get paid better, not that the crew get paid the same, and the money gets spent on other things! We need a sustainable industry and a long-term view for the industry. Too much unpaid work creates a precedent where a whole bunch of people are generally working for free, whilst others are enjoying good industry rates. People joke about the minimum wage being low in standard jobs, so its amazing that we can't even pay the minimum wage to everyone working on a film. I think paid jobs should be the standard, and the unpaid jobs should be the exception. I'd like to see the government subsidise Unpaid positions on films. So, for e.g. if the filmmaker doesn't have the budget, at least the government could make sure that each crew member is topped up to the national minimum wage.

Dean Fisher says...

I would never have got the experience in filmmaking without working on low or non paid productions. The experience was invaluable and I wouldn't be able to become a producer without the opportunities. I do believe that filmmakers sometimes take advantage of the situation and choose not to pay people when they possibly can. When you are starting out in shorts you certainly do not always have the budget to pay people as most of your money is spent on screen and production. Micro budget features also have similar issues where they need to spend most money on screen. What is the help to anyone with a film that doesn't see the light of day.

Jon Mortimer says...

I believe no paid posts are very valuable to both the people who apply for them as this is a wonderful way to get experience they would otherwise not be qualified for and it is also enables new filmmakers to make their films and establish a name for themselves when if they had to pay people to help make their films they would be unable to afford to make them. A lot of short films and first time features don't have budgets never mind big budgets so to have a bunch of people who like the idea so much that they would generously give their time to help is a massive boost to creating new films and new talents. We must not forget that we are a community and people in a community should be free to help each other.
The one time I disagree with work for free positions is when they are for corporate films and anything that is making money. That is just taking the piss.

Arivind Abraham says...

The no pay situation is only acceptable should it be a non-commercial endeavour without a budget or if it's for charity.

Anything with a budget and for commercial purposes should always be subject to minimum wage rules.

Paul Leather says...

The skill and passion of shooters should not be devalued. If basic standards of pay are not protected then exploitation will be rife. Exploitation doesn't promote creativity it kills it.

Edwin Thomas says...

If somebody's making money, everyone should get their fair share. If no-one's making money, people should have a free choice as to whether they want to be involved. There are so many reasons to make a film besides the money - for experience, for art, for fun, whatever - and Shooting People should facilitate them all.

Film-making is almost unique as an art-form in the money and personnel it requires. By advertising no-budget films, Shooting People democratises the art by letting people with nothing more than time and talent make their films. Do we really want a world where only people with money can get their films made?

ged cleugh says...

if you cant afford minimum wage, you cant afford the project. Do you need all that crew? Any friend can hold a boom pole under direction. Get inventive on raising a budget for minimum wage and pay people who are necessary to get the job done.

Richard Nash says...

There's a big difference between asking someone to work for free on a well-funded TV production where they are likely to learn little and asking someone to collaborate for free on a small-scale indie project driven by non-commercial criteria.

William Bridges says...

If you dont want to work for free, then dont.

Antoine Dixon-Bellot says...

I AM BEMUSED BY THIS SITUATION.

THIS INDUSTRY IS FULL OF WEIRD PEOPLE THAT ARE 100% ANAL.

IT IS A DEMOCRACY WHERE YOU HAVE FREEDOM OF CHOICE TO DO WHAT YOU WANT TO DO OR NOT.

WHY ARE PEOPLE OFFENDED ABOUT THIS MATTER. IF YOU DONT WANT TO DO IT FOR FREE , THEN DONT!!!!

THERE ARE SOME PEOPLE THAT NEED THIS FREE JOB EXPERIENCE TO GET THEM PAID WORK IN THE FUTURE AS IF THEY ARE UNTESTED IN A CERTAIN DOMAIN AN EMPLOYER WOULD NOT LOOK AT THEM WITHOUT A CERTAIN TYPE OF EXPERIENCE.

THIS IS SURELY ONLY AFFECTING PEOPLE THAT ARE FRUSTRATED BECAUSE THEY CANT GET ANY WORK OF THERE OWN.

IF IT BENEFITED ME, I WOULD WORK FOR FREE!!!

Rebecca Ramsden says...

No Pay work is part of getting experience - similar to that of doing a unpaid work experience placement in any industry.
Also, if film makers were made to pay all crew then the film may not get made as the film makers would not be able to afford to produce it.(which would be a real shame and at the end of the day these films are mainly used for EVERYONE involved to develop skills, meet people, get stuff for a showreel etc...) I believe that if there is a small budget then it should be used at least to pay for food and travel and getting that essential location or prop that will make the film work.
Inforcing payment is, in my eyes, going against what low budget film making is all about - and at the end of the day no body is forcing that person to work for free. I did loads of unpaid work until I got my first paid industry job yet i still make films for free now.

Harold Gasnier says...

People should be free to choose paid or non-paid work. No one is putting a gun to anyones head. We all have a choice. I would prefer paid work but sometimes I like the choice to accept non-paid work if the subject matter, cast or crew make it an exciting prospect.

says...

This has always been an industry that has depended on exploitation to some extent and this is becoming ever more apparent on SPs pages. As the opportunities become more over-subscibed, so producers and directors will be able to get away with making ever more ridiculous requests from both inexperienced and experienced members. It remains up to the individual to spot the projects that are best avoided from those that have real potential. It's often in their unrealistic and insulting demands that people reveal themselves. People worth working with will treat their collaborators with respect, it's just a question sorting the wheat from the chaff. Perhaps SPs editors could do more of this for us? For example, people expecting experience, time AND equipment for free (be it cars or cameras) should be bundled into a section all of their own.

kathinka Minthe says...

Only short films and perhaps some charity projects should be allowed to ask for unpaid work as they really have No. Way. of ever making any winning margin (Although the office staff of a charity does get paid, so I am not 100% sure about the charity projects)

Anything else is at least aiming to go a commercail route and should pay Minimum Wage to everybody. The systematic exploitation of the endless stream of still-living-with-parents-people needs to stop or we all be completely out of work soon.

Thanks for this poll, it's important.
Kathinka

Heronimo Sehmi says...

Actors should only work for No Pay when involved with charity organizations,-appeals.

Raindance Film Festival says...

Britain doesn't really have an appreticeship system where newcomers can learn the ropes. UK film training programmes are either exclusive or inappropriate to today's marketplace.

So how can one learn, and how can one establish the contcts needed to break in?

Contributing sweat equity to a mate's film is probably the best way to gain experience. Most of the established filmmakers who have gone through Raindance's doors, people like Edgar Wright, Guy Ritchie, Chris Nolan, and Mathew Vaughn all worked for free on their first projects.

Raindance is firmly against exploitation, and Raindance believes that filmmakers should be paid for their work. However, it would seem that common sense should prevail.

Elliot Grove
Founder
Raindance Film Festival
British Independent Film Awards

Rita Wheeler says...

When starting out, often you have to take non paid jobs to get experience as well as build up some work for your CV. I think the main point is that the people making the project should not profit from free labour.

Fletcher Rob says...

Ideally everyone should be paid for work done of course! Also of course we don't all have lots of or any budget at all for all of our productions. I have employed people gainfully on productions and also "exploited" people by having them willfully work for free... I find the latter situation very helpful for finding new crew that I and my existing crew like to work with and the appropriate candidates often manage to achieve gainful employment with me and frequently with the more established crew they meet on the freebies. The choice should always be there for the individual.

Antonio Ribeiro says...

This debate has also been raging within theatre circles. The choice is simple: if we are to be strict about minimum wages in low to no budget films, then emerging talent will be severely undermined, as only the funded few will get an opportunity to create new work. A simple fact. the minimum wage, although it is a great thing to stop the few exploiting people out there, it can kill all those pushing boundaries outside the status quo.

Juliet Plumptre says...

IF I Do a unpaid job as a Sound Recordist....I will charge for my equipment no matter what as its my own!! But at the end of the day its my choice whether i go for that job or not!!

But it disapoints me when i see Employers looking for people and they insist that they must be experienced and must have equipment, but yet the payment is very low and quiet insulting really!!

Steve Turnbull says...

The issue, to my mind, is not whether "no-pay jobs" can be advertised - if it's "no-pay" then it *isn't* a job, it's a collaboration.

I also don't really think it's a crisis: There are a some people who shout a lot. They aren't "everybody".

Besides, if SP prevented it, they'd just be advertised elsewhere. And are.

If I had to pay for everybody I wouldn't have been able to make my TV mini-pilot. Hopefully it's good enough that everybody who participated can use it for their own promotion.

Likewise I have web serial coming up, I *have* to make it for nothing - but everyone will have a contract, if we make any money then it will be profit-shared between everyone who helped.

It would be far more useful for SP to be responsible for the definition of a contractual structure for "no-pay" productions. If it's no-pay all contributors to the project must be contracted in such a way that the "producers" have certain obligations, including profit-share if it makes money, proper acknowledgement of all contributors and so on.

A clear contract prevents collaborators getting ripped off, or gives them a way of claiming if they have been.

Some people will *always* complain loudly, that doesn't mean they are right.

I am a writer, not a producer. But I have a lot of business experience.

Don't be reactive - be proactive.

Steve Turnbull

(I'm including my name because I am not concerned whether anyone knows how I voted - and in case you might want to contact me on this.)

Matthew Ogborn says...

I think that the current tight funding in the British film industry is such that people might have to work for no money in return for experience. If you don't want to work for free, don't apply for the project as long as the organisers make it clear what the project entails. Hopefully, the British film industry will receive more funding after the 2012 Olympics and everyone will be paid across the board.

Ann Monks says...

Most of the film work I have been engaged in has been very low budget and what budget there was had to be spent on equipment and production. No-one got paid. In order to be completely fair, either everyone should receive something or nothing. Where there is no money, then a share in the copyright of the film should be issued.

The only way to get training and experience in this industry is to work for nothing, most of the time. The hours put in by the writer before anything even makes it as far as the producer or director are never taken into account and on independent films I've never expected or received a penny. My payment was the finished film and the learning curve.

Owen Frost says...

If the crew aren't getting paid, I would do expenses-only work. If any part of the crew/production company earn 1 penny, then I would demand to get paid also. This needs to be clear in the breakdown of castings.

Yen Rickeard says...

This is a complex issue. Most Shooters aspire to commercially viable projects. Short films rarely if ever make money. There are few outlets for independent features and the VOR bill means that all DVD sales must now be rated- an expensive process. So investors cannot see a profit in funding films.
While there are some unscrupulous people who want something for nothing, most of us would like to pay our talent/crew well. There just isn't the money.
The big issue is not pay but income stream. We need income from theatrical release, DVD release, club showings etc, and a platform where viewers can find our films and pay to view, by whatever means.
With money coming in, we can pay out.

Nigel Winder says...

Despite the artistic implications that could be contested, "ACTING" is a job! The individual is trained and should be expected to be employed at a fair basic rate, like any other job!

Suzanna Rickman says...

When starting out in the film industry it is essential to gain experience due to the amount of competition in the industry. Often the only way to obtain this is to work for free to get a CV and showreel together. To work for free is not desirable but a necessary fact in the industry today unless you get very lucky. I worked for free to get my showreel together but now only consider paid work.

Zara Waldeback says...

I think there is a DISTINCT DIFFERENCE between working for a production company with proper resources and planned future, than it is working for projects which are short-term and where there may be other gains than monetary ones. Working on low-budget shorts and possibly micro-budget features should be allowed where the team is attempting to create product mainly as stepping stones in a career. For me, anywhere where is not much chance of making any money, people should be allowed to work for free should they choose to do so. Where there is ANY CLEAR ATTEMPT to make money off a film, all crew should be paid something - whether this is by wages upfront or by being offered a share of the profits. This feels very obvious. But this is a different situation from those where the filmmaking is unlikely to make any money (not profit but any return) and those "stepping stone" situations should be allowed to continue. So how to create clear categories?

Paul Olding says...

What I would find useful is soemthing like 'self funded' vs 'funded'. Now 'funded' could be anything where money comes from an outside source, and no materr how little it is, then I feel everyone should get some pro rata payment (unless of course all the cash is needed for kit hire or locatiosn etc). But something that is self funded should have NO payment obligations attached to it. As long as it is clearly labelled, this is then just a group of interested people getting together and being creative. Do it, don't do it. If you feel it is an exploitation then don't do it, but I feel angered when Shooting People appears to impede a creative soul who is trying to get something fun off the ground with no cash.

Ben Craig says...

I'd also like to see the distinction between shorts and features made here. Obviously working for free on a short to get experience, show-reel, credits etc is one thing, particularly if it amounts to a couple of days of someone's time. Working for free on a feature for weeks at a time is something else, particularly because features are "commercial enterprises"(and definitely for established production companies!) That said, I think people should still be able to choose to work for free if they want.

It's also not SP's job to police minimum wage laws - that is a matter between the employee, the employer, and the government. Provide guidance and advice, by all means, but leave the ultimate decision up to the individual and resist the shrill calls for SP to move into becoming an employment law intermediary!

Jim Parsons says...

In the UK some independent films have next to no budgets, where nobody is being paid. If a minimum wage is introduced on these projects then they will just disappear. Of course if the film has a proper budget people should be paid but the short films I have made would never have got done if people had to receive wages. I thought the understanding was that you get paid in experience and contacts. Certainly that's how I started out in the industry.

Stephen Webb says...

If it became mandatory that people MUST be paid for working on films, then you can wave most of the projects that Shooters work on goodbye. There are many projects that are made for goodwill and the hope that it may lead to something better. To essentially ban them would be suicidal.

BUT

If people are being paid, they should be paid properly, and those doing entry-level jobs should not be exploited.

marvin ayres says...

'Film makers' don't expect to get their cameras and films free from stores on the basis
that they're making a low/no budget movie.

says...

I have made several films with no budget with the help of cast and crew on shooting people, and I am grateful for it. I think people should be allowed to choose whether they want to work for free or not, and if it is clearly posted than it should be fine. It is important for new filmmakers to be able to make very low budget films, or to be able to learn by volunteering on other people's films. taking away the right to post or respond to no pay jobs is crazy and will discourage people from making films.

charlie phillips says...

SP can't be held responsible for the lack of money in the industry. The problem isn't whether these jobs should be advertised or not - the job postings are the symptom not the illness. The problem is that there is hardly any other way to get into the industry because there isn't enough money to go round. So attack that, not SP jobs listings. A ridiculous target.

jude campbell says...

It's very simple - if Shooting People is ever to be taken at a more serious level and respected by the wider film-making community in the future - you need to do one thing.
STOP BEING ONLY KNOWN AS THE WEBSITE THAT ADVERTISES NO MONEY JOBS.
It really is a joke and an insult.
Don't get me wrong it can and will still go on but please don't let your site be the one that pretty much encourges it to still happen and is a green light for people considering it.
NO MORE UNPAID JOBS TO BE ADVERTISED.
I used to resepect what you do - BUT because of this one reason above - I have lost that respect.
Shooters could be so much better if you just started dealing with people who want to make Films professionally.
NO MONEY is not PROFESSIONAL.
Shooters needs to move up in the world, please.
Stop it now.
Thanks
Jude

Peter Corley says...

I think for a Short people should expect to work for no wages, but must be fed properly and get travel expenses.It's only for one or two days.. For Features, people have been exploited for years, I've been on Feature shoots where diferent people have been paid at different rates,[notably DOP's] or not atall [most of the rest of the crew]. There should be some sort of mimimum wage structure in force,people mustn't be expected to work for 6 weeks, nights etc. for nothing..Deffered payments, of course, are a joke..

Clayton Fussell says...

If you ban no pay films from the site people will just post them elsewhere and the site will become redundant. Its a matter of choice and about learning what warning signs to look for. Just because your getting minimum wage, doesn't mean it will be a worthwhile project, minimum wage is an insult to the profession especially to pros who are used to working for 100's or 1000's of pounds/day. Having seen it from both sides I have come across professional crew who would rather the budget be spent on good catering that on an insultingly low wage. I have also worked as an actor on paid projects and they have been terrible and vice versa on unpaid projects. It should be about choice and creativity. If you want paid work, and only paid work that's fine, don't apply for unpaid jobs. If a film-maker is offering to pay the crew and not the cast steer clear as their priorities are clearly wrong and it demonstrates their naivety. Forcing a 'law' onto it will do nothing.

Katy Segrove says...

Working for no pay can be a good first step in an industry that's difficult to break into, it can give you vital experience and something for your CV. It is up to the individual to decide how much (if any) unpaid work they are willing to do.

Dave Herman says...

If you don't allow people to advertise their DIY, no-budget projects on Shooting People, they will find other places to do so. Sure, in an ideal world no one should have to do any work for no pay, but sometimes the reward for collaborating on a film project for nothing is the credit and the experience which enables you to get your foot on the ladder. No ideology here please, just pragmatism.

Jeremy Riggall says...

No one is forcing you to work for free! let's move on...this is such a boring tired negative debate...stop talking, start doing

Simon Ardizzone says...

There is a huge difference between working for free on a fully funded commercial production for broadcast or theatrical exhibition and working with independent film-makers on minimally funded productions. I got my first jobs working for expenses only back in the 1990s. Not only did I learn a huge amount, but I also made invaluable contacts. That work laid the foundations for me to go on to a very successful career in broadcast and the independent sector. I now have an Emmy nomination and BAFTA nomination and my films have been shown all over the world.

Jo Southwell says...

I think far too many companies are exploiting actors; runners and no doubt other areas of film production. They still think it is ok to say - its a film - and we should do it for nothing ! If the quality is then poor OR we dont recieve a showreel or a screening - it is not on !
Actors area always willing towork for nothing but they shouldnt be - In what other industry is it ok to ask a trained, 3o year old professional to work for nothing ???

Ross Aitken says...

Pretty much every film I've made has been self-funded. Without the help and collaboration of cast and crew (some of which I've been able to turn on to paid work) they wouldn't have happened.
Shooting People can be like a group of mates getting together to make a film, for the love and belief in it. Enforcing minimum wage regulations intended for commercial projects would kill these films.

Gary Stevens says...

All to often the thrill of working on a production means "no pay" but food and showreel seem to be added as an incentive and this seems to be the norm now with many films being made by the artistes for nothing. Often the makers disapearing once the work is done or when their media assignment completed.

Chris Mackenzie-Thorpe says...

You don't have to work for nothing or low pay if you don't want to. It is a personal choice.

Andrés Borda says...

People should make their own minds, period.

Jake Auerbach says...

People should be allowed to make up their own minds while being fully aware of employment law.

Olivia Corrie says...

I will except no money for jobs at the moment as i am trying to get back into work, however i would love it if all jobs adhered to a minimum wage

Gavin Boyter says...

The industry is difficult enough to get into without destroying the feasibility of the microbudget end of the spectrum and making unavailable the "entry level" opportunities which currently happily coexist with fully-financed productions. So long as the filmmakers are upfront about their budgets, the roles and opportunities they are offering, and are courteous and reasonable in dealing with their employees, I can see no harm in allowing those who want unpaid work experience to pursue such opportunities.

Daniel Cormack says...

It's a simple question of freedom of choice. If you don't want to volunteer unpaid, then don't. If you don't want to read ads for unpaid roles, then skip that section of the bulletin.

Volunteering unpaid is not illegal, contrary to misleading reports of implications of the recent Employment Tribunal taken up on behalf of the Claimant by BECTU.

Jonathan Pembroke says...

Students especially have no excuse - their course fees should fund their projects including paying talent.

Deferred payment is OK by me as long as wages come out of turnover rather than profits.

The best/most talented filmmakers I've worked with insist on paying actors, at least on deferred terms. The worst/least talented don't.

Mark Jacobs says...

why is this slanted towards runners, actors are statistically 4 times more exploited.

Leo Mumford says...

Film making in the UK is turning into a fast food culture. There are many films being made that are of low quality and low financial commitment and are undermining the craft of film making. Our industry is like monetary inflation, we see the amount of films go up while the craft and care goes down. If we were to make fewer films and pay a little more for them the money and productivity from “fast food films” would be soaked up into films that are more craft orientated and where the crew are realised to be more important in the craft of making a film then they currently are today. The modern film industry is a nightmare for many people because unpaid work has encouraged inflation and the result is that everyone is underpaid, not just those starting out in the industry!

Brek Taylor says...

The individual should be able to choose what rate they work for, however, they should be protected and rewarded if a profit is made from their participation in a project.

Phil Hobden says...

Free choice... I have produced four films all of which would never have been made without help like this. More so alot of those guys who worked with me went on to bigger and much better things and were all done right by us.

THERE needs to be an agreed code of practice around this is all...

Alisa Arnah says...

Often the only way low-budget film projects can be achieved is if everyone involved volunteers. No is obligated to undertake this work and people should be trusted to make their own choices of when and for what they are willing to work.

Gary Thomas says...

Ibelieve that people can work as an unpaid volunteer if they are in higher eductation, and this should be suffient for those films that are 'no/low budget'.