Here are the results...
Linda Lowell says...
Something should be in place to make sure that not 'part of staff' are being paid. Either no one is paid and it's called a 'collaboration' or All are paid and then we can lable it a 'job'. I have had enough of actors working for free and others like make-up and lighting people have been paid or at least been paid a lot more. This has happened to me now a few times now and I have only found out afterwards!
A very fed up part of me have now started to think: If you're professional, want to make a film, you should also be professional enough to know how to draw up a budget. Let's be honest: This is part of filmmaking.
Heather Rome says...
If you are a serious filmaker, beginner, amateur or struggling professional, then accept that you have certain responsibilities if you want to be respected. Insurance is common sense. So is expenses except perhaps for close friends. The rest would be nice, but is probably best left to individuals to decide for themselves, although newbies will often get burned a few times until they learn.
This debate is about making SP more relevant. There are a proliferation of competing sites that "can help you do it for less". That's not going to change. But if SP ups its game and people feel that business is conducted more fairly and professionally, then it becomes more important and hopefully like-minded people find each other more easily. And for anyone who thinks that this isn't about business, as in trying to do things properly and with respect to all parties, not just professional aspirations, just stop whining and go play on all those other less serious sites. There are no lack of wannabes who are willing and able to learn the ropes, even with "restrictions". You're not likely to be missed.
Tom Lassu says...
The guidelines are not clear yet, the issue needs a lot more work and clarification similar to the MOFTB NYC permit rules debate. Currently people would just click on anything to get through.
Projection Pictures.com says...
I think productions even low budget ones should at least have insurance in place to cover against accidents to crew and members of the public. It's irresponsible to shoot without insurance cover of some form even if no ones getting paid for their contribution just some food, expenses and a DVD.
Given a music videos short duration surely the maximum budget for unpaid cap should be £5000. I've selected the minimum £10,000 for music videos but that's still too much. Whereas the short film £15,000 is reasonable given that a good 10 minute piece may take 4 days to shoot. If your shooting a short film that's 10 pages long, why are you spending more than £15,000 in total - its just a short, a calling card nothing more.
Michael Patrick Kelly says...
If you adopt these corporate measures I will quit my membership!
John Mawson says...
I believe your budgets are too high for shorts and music videos. If someone wants to make a short or video for nothing, then they can do it with their mates and get their friends or family to hold the cameras and stand in front of them. If they want a professional product, needing proper equipment and a trained cast and crew then there needs to be a willingness to pay for them. Seemples, yiss?
Oh and there needs to be agreement for a deferred payment deal on all low budget/pay features.
Nick Black says...
I know it seems harsh, but the fact is that without people making low budget pieces a lot of crew and cast will never get any sort of opportunity to get experience. That's no excuse for exploiting people, but if we make it impossible to find crew and cast on low budget I think it will lead to a diminution of opportunity.
Tom Turley says...
I just wrote/directed a short that I self-funded. I was over budget by about 40%. Some things such as locations simply don't come for free, no matter what you try. And when your film relies on a location which you simply can't get for less than e.g. £1,500 then you don't have a choice, pay up or don't make the film. You can always get a deal on kit, make the food yourself, ask for favours etc. but when none of your friends own a bingo hall/zoo/westminster abbey and they're not receptive to your pleas you've got less wiggle room and this pushes the budget up... For this reason I think it's fair for short films to be expenses only with budgets of up to 10-15K, but really beyond 15K there must be money coming from somewhere- so pay people.
I think 50K is fair for a feature, maybe even 100K but I'd draw the line there for the same reasons.
And as for music videos, I've got no sympathy here if they are comissioned.
Quite often the record company ends up benefiting because they offer a young director or producer £500 or some pittance to make a promo and because the Producer wants to impress he gets on board a whole bunch of people with claims of 'the next one will be paid' and quite probably naively thinking this video will be so good he'll get £15000 for the next one. OF course the record company now knows it can get asurprisingly good music video for £500 and will never pay more.
Mark Raeburn says...
A production co with £1 million turnover allowed to ask people to work for free and not have to insure them either? Oh come on!
Jennifer Hegarty says...
I think the budget caps are too high for many projects, reasons are covered well in other comments.
On micro shoots (Under £5k) where there isn't a budget to pay NMW, it's up to the Shooter if the script/experience is worthy of working for free.
When not getting paid, I'd like to have a better idea of the food on offer. May sound silly, but showing up for a 12 hour day to be offered a £1.99 sandwich as the only meal isn't an experience I want to repeat.
Kathrein Guenther says...
I support BECTU's suggestion of forming film co-operatives. If people are asking others to work for them for free then they shouldn't hesitate to offer them a stake in the product that has been created together, nor should they shy away from the "additional" work of creating a co-operative. Film making is hard work anyway and if you really want to make your film, and you want to make it in a fair way, then it shouldn't be too much.
I also don't quite see why SP are pushing for this poll without talking further to BECTU about the co-operative suggestion??
Jonathan Pembroke says...
Student films, where the project is part of a course, should be funded by the Film School(and indirectly therefore by the fees the Film School receives). So, the students themselves should be given a budget for fees/expenses, or if the Film School budget cannot stretch to fees, then the Students should at least be shown how to use the PACT Deferred Payment forms of contract and hire actors through that. This would normally be a simple exercise in using industry agreements, as so few Student Films recoup any money at all. However, it would be beneficial to future film-makers to experience using the agreements that are out there.
No-one's here to make money, but we are all here I hope to encourage more clarity and respect.
says...
I WOULD like guidelines to be adopted, but with amendment:
For the first box, I think it should only be the first two options; i.e. charity or family and friends.
I think the second set of criteria should be an AND rather than an or; ie it is not a TV commission or a corporate commission and the budget is capped. I think that it would be helpful to clarify the criteria of the turnover of the production company - I think that is ok if we are saying that a production company with a higher turnover CANNOT get free/cheap services but not if we are saying a production company with a lower turnover can - if that makes sense.
Regarding "expense agreements for out of pocket costs" - I'd like to see this pinned down i.e "expenses" rather than "expense agreements." Regarding copy of the final film - I'd like to see a deadline on this; and also (especially for actors) for an agreement to supply a copy of rushes of the actor within 3 months of the last day of main filming (ie excluding pick ups) if post-production has not been completed by then (which it probably won't have been). Both Shooters films I have been in - which were with lovely lovely people (fun, respectful and professional) were more than happy to do this, as well as paying me expenses.
I think that the budgets should be at the low end - because producers / production companies should be thinking ahead in putting together budgets that involve paying for all the essential elements!!
I'd like to see production companies disclose how much the individual producers are being paid where there is any external budget; as I get a sense that perhaps production companies pitch low to get a job, because they think they can get around it by getting the work for themselves and getting paid but not paying actors!! Whereas, if a client or organisation only has a higher quotes because these include actors, they would have to go for these - and then actors could get paid too!
Tony Randle says...
Seems to me we are all getting a bit confused about what Shooters is for.
My experience of acting in a flick posted on SP was that it was a student production which ultimately suffered badly on the technical side. Artistically interesting but not the 'calling card' I was hoping for. But no way should they have had to pay me. They did cover my out of pocket which I now feel bad about accepting.
I may well make a short in the near, and would want to be able to put it together without tight time constraints, which means a non-commercial footing. So can't SP help with a spirit of artisitic community where talented people on both sides on the lens can come together to make movies which allow us all to learn and hone our skills in a safe environment free of hassles like 5.40 an hour, equity rates(!) or insurance. I like your guidelines in that they come from a good place, they're just a bit prescriptive. Would the sort of creative commune I mentioned qualify to be posted? What about other guidlines and codes of conduct to ensure the highest ideals and that only 'professional' quality work is done? I am a musician too and although not my job, I would never do a poor gig. Why should anyone record poor sound or go to pieces under the lights? What we need is a community of committed amatuers, on their way maybe to a career, or just for fun, but not held back by a cadre of 'those who think they can act' demanding paid work.
Ah what do I know...
Maybe you should only allow a post if it is pitched well!
Enrique Rovira says...
I agree that the budget cap for both Short and Music Video should be lower. 10k and 7k respectively is enough.
Insurance should not be a problem either, it needs a bit of research and talk to several insurers and anyone should be able to keep it very low. I just did a short film for 2k which included insurance for up to 49 people on the set and all hired equipment valued: 34,500 GBP, got it for 230 GBP. And believe me I did not cut it on food either... maybe it is because I'm Spanish but food comes first in my productions! ;)
Many may think it is not possible to do a quality work with this kind of budget... well if you think so or are in doubt please contact me and I will gladly show you the results.
Fat Rat Films says...
I've ticked no, solely on the basis of Insurance, as others have said it is very expensive and for those looking to produce any of the films that these guidelines would otherwise allow, it would be prohibitive.
Without the need for insurance I think these guidelines prevent the exploitation of filmmakers and allow collaboration. With it they will prevent a lot of people getting the experience they need.
Laura Jane Sessions (NASMAH) says...
As someone who has worked in the industry for 13 years, shooting commercials, corporates, low-budget feature, music videos and short films I think your figures are very generous.
Whilst I agree with a budget cap of £50,000 for an unpaid feature posting, the short and music video categories really should have lower budget caps.
Anyone who can afford to budget £15,000 for a short film (an essentially non-commercial medium) should be paying the crew - even if they cannot approach a Bectu minimum rate. It is perfectly feasible to make a good quality short film for less than £15,000, and producers should not be encouraged to budget this high and still escape wage implications. I would suggest £5000 as a more sensible cap. Numerous award winning shorts have been completed for less than this.
As to music videos, record companies are only too happy to exploit low budget filmmakers to their own ends. This is not the 1980s - music videos are generally made quite cheaply these days. If a production company has £10,000 to spend on a pop promo, it is likely to be for an established band - this is a mid-budget production. Once again, a better cap would be £5000, and this is being generous considering that most shoot in a day or two.
Nilesh Vasave says...
I strongly believe that these kind of enforced guideline will harm the small film makers/new comers and film industry in general. The UK film industry is not big enough like hollywood, or indian film industry where people have lots of oppertunities to work, here the opportunities are really less and by enforcing rules like this we are reducing the oppertunities even more. Personally, I didn't like when you rejected my posting of DoP, on the basis of that my film doesn't have insurance! For first time film maker/film school students/hobbiest the film insurance is too much money [in my case more than half of my budget as cheapest one was some £900!] it's too much for total film budget of £1500. This was one opportunity lost for a telented new/experience Shooter as I was willing to Pay upto £100 per day and if she/he has his own equipment then £200. I hired a DoP by advertising in Starnow.com for £200 per day with his own Kit.
So, my question here is, is shooter only for already established film makers, or people with millions [or hunderd of thousands atleast], as unfortunately I am not finding it much helpful for first time/no budget film makers, and certainly, rejecting a well paid DoP ad[according to me as this is the maximum I was paying to anybody in my film] did not helped me or any shooter who was looking for paid job.
So, stop coming up with this kind of crazy rules and start helping the first time/no budget film makers, as they are the future Tim burtons, Speilburgs and if they can't get help in their first/initial films then Shootingpeople is failed to achieve it's purpose.
Cally Lawrence says...
With those amounts of money there is no excuse not to offer something in payment over and above expenses. In my early days as an actor I accepted a cash in hand payment of £100 for a "low budget" tv job, when I arrived on set they had a full catering van, two make up artists as well as a full crew...not what I would call low budget..... I think the term is "shafted".... I have made sure that has never happened to me since
Michael Walton says...
We are all adults. If we want to work for free that's our business and no one elses. Stop being a nanny. It's pathetic and you should be ashamed.
jane foster says...
I count myself as a radical realist. The fact is that it is far more important to support low budget feature makers than short film makers. This is for several reasons - it is far harder to get a zero budget feature funded and off the ground because there is practically zero help out there for these projects apart from friends , families and the odd guradian and bsuiness angel. yet without these entrepeneural types, we wouldn't really have a shot at any paid low budget film making industry in this country, which it desperately needs if there is to be athe chance of one.
Also, there is heaps of funding for shorts, we are drowning under the weight of funding for shorts in comparison for low budget features. also, the experience gained ona short, and the prestige attached to a short film credit is FAR FAR less than that attached to work experience and a credit ona feature, even if the crew member only collaborates for a few days fo the feature film shoot, they get a credit far more useful than that gained froma short film. If more attention was made to paying epole on shorts , it would also stop the wanna bee film makers who take the funding, then never go any further. As a result we have lots of short films not really helping the film industry as a whole or progressing anyones career.If the short film makers had to pay crew, they would really think about whether or not they were serious about being a director or producer.
In short, it needs to be easier to make a feature, but slightly harder to make a short. This will lead to amore healthy work place in the future full of creative proejcts that we get paid for!
In as far as how one defines budget size, thats easy. All projects have to be registered by the producer before being let onto the website. That way above the line crew and and below the line crew can just leave it up to the producers, which is how it should be.
martin nicholson says...
Good ideas but the film makers in SP may not wish to display financial information to one and all. These bulletins cover all spectrums of the discipline, changes should bring some advantage to everyone. Will script pitchers have to classify the work by budget aswell as genre in future? I wouldn't know where to start.
Leilani Holmes says...
Music Video's and other forms of Commercials should not, in my opinion be unpaid at all.
says...
The caps need lowering. Directors at this level should be imaginatively creatively working within their means, not having delusions of grandeur and competing with Hollywood, at the crews expense. This will only result in work of use to one.If they are good enough they will work on larger budgets eventually.
'Charity' needs clarifying that everyone is working for free, and that it is not a fully funded piece from a larger charity, where the agency, and production company are paid a budget.
Rita Wheeler says...
This is a great forum for bringing people together who want to be creative and make a film but who may not, ever, get the money to do so. Consider the experience of being involved in making a film and not being paid for it as free training. Although, of course, everyone should be credited and given a copy of the film. Sometimes you have to move sideways (doing something for no pay) in order to move upwards. You can put your experience on your CV and at least show that you have shown some initiative to get involved in a film project even though it may not have been with a professional company. People are capable of making their own choices, get involved and volunteer their services for the experience, or sit around waiting for their big break.
Roy Hanney says...
As someone who makes short films as a semi-professional hobby the ability to get people onboard who will work for free is essential. Our budgets rarely extend beyond a few thousand pounds so paying even minimum wage would close us down. We do ensure that everyone gets a good experience, that everyone gains CPD from particpation, everyone gets a copy of the film. We take care of people because we want them to work with us agai, we are passionate about filmmaking and want to encourage new talent to enter the industry. The professional experience of myself and the heads of department help to contribute to this approach as do my own skills in training and education. Furthermore we are committed to developing a AV culture in Portsmouth where we are based and since the council, governement or anyone with some money is activily not doing this we feel we are making a contribution to this development that should not be counted purely in monetary terms. Hopefully in the long run everyone we are involved will make money though just not directly through working on one of our films.
Quentin Brown says...
I would add student project to the first list of acceptable production types for advertising for unpaid work.
I feel that the above represents a very reasonable balance to allow for unpaid work where appropriate and just puts in restrictions to prevent gigs which really ought to be paid from getting away with unpaid.
It would be really difficult to set budget caps too precisely, the budgetary needs of certain productions will depend greatly on the need for paid facilities, equipment, set building etc. and other project requirements. Some projects may be able to shoot in a friends house, some may need a large set built at great expense etc. (though these would beg the question - if you can raise the budget for such things why can't you find a budget for paying the crew?)
My real question with all of this is how will it be enforced? If the producers never provide the credit, copy of the finished film or expenses what could actually be done about it?
What we need are some basic legal agreements set up the Shooters can sign when they accept the job and have that included as part of the process & agreement for posting a job on the site that these forms will be used.
David Sandercock says...
I do not want to see any regulation at all. I just think that pertinent information should be given about each production so that everyone can make an informed choice. How many potential relationships and breaks come from non paid gigs? A lot, so lets do all we can to keep them emerging......
Olga-Mila Gots says...
There is obviously room for unpaid and collaborative work - how else would you put together, for example, your first short film, funded entirely out of your own bank account savings? However, I do believe that (recession or no recession), film companies with a decent production record and annual turnaround should always pay the crew and cast they're engaging for their projects
Andy McCoy says...
I think these guidelines would be too much of a straight jacket.
says...
Appreciate the above provides a guide for producers/directors as to how small a production has to be for them to be professionally and morally able to ask crew to give up their time and resources for free, however on the other hand, there is NOTHING in your material which enforces posters to reimburse any 'expenses' incurred by collaborators, when this is clearly understood from the ad and they agree to work on the project as a result.
It's really appalling that your members can successfully crew up for a professional shoot free of charge, promising expenses or a fee, a budget for each department and a copy of the film, only to go under ground when it's in the can, leaving your members out of pocket and hopping mad! Yes, I do have the experience of this!
Couldn't the budgets, no matter what the size, advertised through your site be held in an eskrow account, until everyone expecting to get paid, is actually paid? Otherwise, I do see this poll as pretty pointless!
Naomi Wright says...
I think it should be compltely free and open and left up to members whether they want to apply for a job or not. If people are adults they should be free to decide what they want to do and which ads they want to read, without these filters. It's not because I support exploitation but I would be worried that even these carefully worked out guidelines might hamper filmmaking somehow, in unforeseen ways.
Ed Parnell says...
Although unpaid work can be advantageous, we have to remember some corporate entities can make a LOT of money through the effective volunteering of individuals, who can sometimes get little or no credit.
Unpaid work is also often difficult to establish as the creators' own.
While it is acceptable for someone genuinely working on a low budget or charity project to offer expenses only or exposure benefit, I am aware less scrupulous entities can and are taking advantage.
Mel Melcer says...
Agree that the caps are too high. WOuldn't go above 5,000 for music video and 10,000 for a short.
Gavin Ricketts says...
Big bands still expect a music video to be delivered for £4k now, so drop the levels down much lower.
Roland Moore says...
The caps are far too high. I'd bring them all way down - a short film should have a cap of say 2000 UKP, above which the writer should get something.
Steve Hammal says...
The caps are far too high
Jordan Cushing says...
If the goal in this is appeasing BECTU and avoiding a potential lawsuit then these guidelines are definitely worthwhile. However, I would agree with all those who point out that it's largely academic. Very, very few postings in recent memory would have fallen outside of these parameters (no matter the budget levels we settle on) and this is just some extra box ticking to protect Shooting People itself.
Obviously that's important if we all want to enjoy the great community that's here and the opportunity to collaborate, but let's accept that it doesn't actually offer members any real protection from exploitation. Shooting People doesn't have the resources to verify any of these claims nor any recourse of consequence against violators, leaving the burden on all of us to make our own judgment about postings. I'm fine with that.
alan thompson says...
If crew & production team receive pay&expenses.Then imperitive that artistes(actors/actresses)get the same deal,ideally they should be professional(i.e.Equity members)
Melissa De Mol says...
Whilst I agree that it is good to have a place for aspiring artists crew and directors. I do not agree that shooting people should not be a pro site! I have been a member for some years and have seen the number of paid jobs drop exponentially! I have had a number of professional jobs but like most of us am still awaiting the "big break". In these times, my continuing to pay the fees to shooting people when it is becoming impossible to ever gain paid employment from the site, is unlikely. I feel that this will be the case for many members in my position and would hate to see the site disappear as it becomes more of an amateur forum than a portal to a variety of work and opportunities to those of different stages in their career! Because remember folks this is what we are talking about here careers not hobies!
Sabina Arthur says...
I too think the music video cap should be a lot lower as videos are a marketing tool for record companies. Also the first option, which allows work for "a charity / community project / voluntary organisation" should probably be clarified - larger charities often hire professional production teams to film their projects and I've noticed in the past, these teams go on to advertise the actors' roles as 'charity work' when in fact they are getting paid, I hope this type of production with be exempt from that category.
And to everyone who is against these guidelines - as actors we have a right to be respected in this industry and that includes receiving a fair wage for our work. These guidelines seem pretty reasonable to me - asking for minimum wage for projects with a budget is hardly a demanding request! There is money in a lot of these productions but when assigning budgets, I can see that it's very tempting for some to see what they can get away with and they know that there will always be an actor who will accept nothing in return for their work. It's about priorities and at the moment we're last on the list, which just isn't fair. If there are no guidelines, things will get worse for all of us.
Jennifer Jane Hooker says...
Equity has just backed an actor who claimed pay even though she applied for an "unpaid" position, saying that unpaid work is illegal and that the minimum wage should apply. I agree. There are far too many postings for "unpaid/expenses only" productions and most times actors never even get their tube fare reimbursed when travelling can cost easily £7 or more. If you divide the minimum wage by 7 they pay per day is very small but at least it's something. It is time actors were respected for their time and commitment. I know that I, for one, am heartily sick of having to take unpaid acting work just to keep working.
Tonto Papadopoulos says...
Dear SP,
Please don't let a few disgruntled souls who seem to enjoy kvetching about administrative issues more than filmmaking get you all tied up in red tape. There are many sites where one can find unpaid collaboration with out any hassles or interference.
Even if you adopt these guidelines, who is going to check if the details submitted are correct? Are these 'guidelines' voluntary, or will you be enforcing them? If they are voluntary, I for one shall completely ignore them.
Pay or no pay is negotiated between the collaborator and the producer. Period. If I like a project and have a chance to contribute on either side of the camera, what I earn or don't earn from it is absolutely nobody else's business!
Peace and happy shooting,
Tonto
Andrew Ryland says...
This debate revolves heavily around money but why not a debate about "can only post if the script isn't complete rubbish" or "can only post if the director is not a deluded arsehole". Should SP not also check these and many other vital factors? No, you can't because accepting any kind of position involves an element of risk and each of us making the best judgement we can. Just talk to people for a few minutes and you can tell who knows what they are doing. That can be more important than money.
I worked with an actor recently who turns down professional work if it doesn't offer the sizeable fee he feels he is worth - good for him, he has 30 years experience. But he will also work for lunch on a short if he likes the script and feels the people are worth working with. Another actor with little experience leapt at an unpaid role because he knew it offered him chance to show what he could do. To these 2 actors at different points in their career, one doing very well and one broke, script was far more important than money in determining their choice of project.
The professional and the "collaborative" are generally different worlds anyway. As a writer/director starting out I use SP etc to collaborate on projects I am passionate about. As a location manager on TV/film shoots I expect to get properly paid, and I work with crew members who tend not have even heard of SP.
I started in 2007, applying for a Location Assistant role through SP, expenses-only for a 6 week feature. I told the Production Manager I could only afford to work for 3 weeks unpaid and was eventually paid the same rate as runners if I agreed to do the whole shoot. As a result I have worked professionally in the locations dept on and off ever since, but those jobs have not come through SP.
With the proposed caps I wouldn't have had that opportunity in the first place. I accepted being exploited for a short period and it paid off. There was an element of luck, of course, but I don't feel people starting out today should be denied the same choice.
Raquel Azevedo says...
I personally think that for music videos the cap should be even lower then £10,000. There is comercial value to a music video.
MARCIO DELGADO says...
I really think that production companies even the small ones, should be completely barred from looking for non-paid staff. If you are running a company, you should be able to pay all your staff.
Thomas Stark Holland says...
My key concern is that a filmmaker's lack of budget shouldn't be the reason why they do not get to make their film. Shooting People is a unique community of people who are interested in making films for the hell of it and not for big financial returns. Shooting People could provide more info on the people posting jobs including testimonials from other members, their frequency of posting paid compared with unpaid jobs, merit marks for good behavior, lack of production insurance etc. Plus, we certainly need clearer guidance in the bulletins and protection from exploitative companies.
The truth is that without Shooting People my life as a 'professional director' working in TV and corporates would intolerable, Why so? because being creative for money is inherently full of restrictions whereas being creative with a team of like-minded people not bound together by cash is an experience full of surprise and joy. So why make SP go Pro? Surely if you think you deserve to be treated like 'pro film crew' then you can join one of the many diary services or get an agent and enjoy freelancing but, if you want to make regular cash and have job security then please apply for a job working for an undertaker.
Alexander Leiffheidt says...
The distinction between "running a company" on one hand and "self-funded films" on the other doesn't quite work in this context. It's based in the assumption that one generates a pofit by definition, whereas the other one doesn't. That's not the case.
Running a company allows you to access business insurance and better hire rates, protect your personal finances and limit your public and financial liability. I know a few people starting up in theatre or film who run their own limited companies for exactly these reasons, including myself. As long as you can find someone to do your accounts once a year it makes good sense. The vast majority of projects going through these companies are self-funded and don't generate a profit.
The opposite example - a self-funded, privately produced film that does generate a profit - will be harder to find. My point is, however, that the fact whether there is a company behind a film or not is not a sufficiently distinguishing criterion in order to differentiate between those who are allowed to advertise unpaid word and those who are not.
Alexander Leiffheidt says...
The distinction between "running a company" on one hand and "self-funded films" on the other doesn't quite work in this context. It's based in the assumption that one generates a pofit by definition, whereas the other one doesn't. That's not the case.
Running a company allows you to access business insurance and better hire rates, protect your personal finances and limit your public and financial liability. I know a few people starting up in theatre or film who run their own limited companies for exactly these reasons, including myself. As long as you can find someone to do your accounts once a year it makes good sense. The vast majority of projects going through these companies are self-funded and don't generate a profit.
The opposite example - a self-funded, privately produced film that does generate a profit - will be harder to find. My point is, however, that the fact whether there is a company behind a film or not is not a sufficiently distinguishing criterion in order to differentiate between those who are allowed to advertise unpaid word and those who are not.
Daniel Kellingley says...
I have a limited amount of experience within the industry and I do not wish to be exploited or see someone take advantage of other people.
However, I believe that Shooting People provides an opportunity for people to learn new skills and gain real hands on experience. People should be free to post unpaid roles, if people do not want to work for free then no one is forcing them to do so. If unpaid roles stop being advertised on the site, three things will happen:
1. There will be less opportunities for people to get first hand knowledge of working within the industry and therefore obtaining the experience necessary to get a paid role.
2. Fewer independent films will be made.
3. Someone will establish an alternative website/facebook group/twitter feed that will cater for people who advertise non paying roles and those that are prepared to accept them.
It would be better to encourage people to recognise and reward people that are prepared to work for free. For example requiring people who do not pay their crew to submit a review/report of the crew members work. This could be made available to all Shooters when looking to recruit staff for future productions or used as a reference for future paid work.
says...
I think its very funny how people are getting all upset about shooting people not being a 'Pro' website. Pro I'm taking to mean professional right?? The minute you loose sight of the fact that a subscription to shooting people is part and parcel of a transitional process, a process of going from being a joe blow who knows jack s**t TOWARDS being a professional. 'TOWARDS' is perhaps the key word here. Consummate, Kick ass, Oscar winning, experienced professionals don't use shooting people. Period. I'm sure the people in the SP office would love you to believe otherwise but come on. Really.
There is no denying we all want to be professionals, that's what we're aiming for and that is what, in a small number of cases, we will become. But is takes years and years and years of hard work to get there, or complete brilliance, perhaps even good luck... There are no quick fix's.
There are two ways to leave shooting people, the way you came in with your tail between your legs, or out through the top into a place where shooting people serves no purpose- a place where people will pay you for what you do because you are a professional, because you can do the job they ask you to and because you have the experience and skills to do it well.
However, If you are stuck in SP low budget/no pay hell re-branding the site as 'Pro' ain't going to help. Believe it or not, paying 30 quid a year to be a member of a 'Pro' site does not mean you are a 'Pro'. Having a MA from the NFTS does not mean you are a 'Pro'- You'll know when you are 'Pro' because you wont give a damn about what goes on with SP.
In the meantime, regardless of whether they are low/no or full pay there are countless opportunities for experience on SP- recently I've taken a few and have met some wonderful people all of whom were working hard towards becoming a 'pro'. Nobody forced me to do these jobs, i evaluated the prospects and made the CHOICE. SP are right to make it even clearer what is and isn't paid - what the budgets are etc. But at the end of the day its all academic. One crazy Italian can shoot for a month on 15k some Directors in the world of commercials get that for a 12 hour day... The question is - do you email and apply for the job or do you delete the post and get on with your life. SP is a forum for low/no budget film makers- people on the way up- the people with real money to spend on crews go to Agencies. Should they post on SP anyway- attempting to get crew on the cheap then, radical as this may sound guys, don't take the job. Again, despite what they tell you, SP is an amateur forum, a way to substitute your career, gain new skills. If there are people who are stupid enough to believe that they can reliably build a lucrative paying career on the back of shooting people bulletins then more fool them- I think they deserve everything they don't get.
Emma Shane says...
I think one of the biggest problems is going to be with the "profit share", and also to a lesser extent "self funded family and friends". There is a need to devise suitable mechanisms. Pro forma rules, to make sure that these two statuses are not abused. In principal it's a great idea.
I am particularly thinking about the matter of profit share. If a "profit share" is to be allowed then Perhaps some rules along the following lines could be considered: ALL persons involved with the shoot MUST be allowed to see the full accounts, and know exactly how much money has been spent on what on the shoot, and how much money was put into it in the first place. Also the way in which any profits would be shared (assuming any is made), must be written down on paper, signed by all those involved, and all must be given a copy of this to keep for their personal records.
A great deal of abuse happens in our industry with a complete lack of any written records being kept.
I agree with the idea that SP could insist on seeing the budget before allowing the posting. Also if a "company" is operating the shoot, then SP could considering knowing who the company directors are, and skeeping a note of this for future reference. Also I think SP needs to consider having a system in place for people to report shoots (particular low budget ones) where they encountered problems and felt themselves to be exploited, so that SP can in future consider banning any company from advertising on the site unpaid work if it has previously been reported in this way.
Scarlett Marshall says...
I agree with all guidelines although as long as expenses are being provided I don't think the budget is important
Dave Sohanpal says...
Again SP have opened the door for people to deiberty use a reason not to advertise for paid job. All the budget cap is too high. I would agree with what Guy wrote- why haven't SP upgraded to a pro site after all we are paying good money but the service is crap and becoming worst. Most want SP to be a professional site but SP themselves want to keep it for hobbyist. Take a look at the advert these days all of it is unpaid?? Have SP have become a joke??
If you haven't got the money then don't think of making your film yet, go and get the money. If you believe in yourself as a filmmaker, you'll find the money and put your money where your mouth is. How do you we tech were able to buy all our equipment?? WE SAVED UP!!! or put on the CARD.
SP should insist on seeing the budget before posting any adverts to avoid or promote any illegal posting that would exploit cast/crew.
The preposterously rude and arrogantly worded adverts that some of these film makers write, SP need to explain to new filmmaker not to take the piss by asking for experienced DOP, SOUND, GRIP,ETC with kit wanted to work for expenses. They need to be told that equipment cost money and they need to pay for the hire of it.
OR on Profit share it doesn't work and never worked!! Name one film that made it???
Tomás Sheridan says...
These caps DO seem pretty high, I shot a film for 10k in Italy with transport, rental, accommodation and food for a month for the whole crew and managed to pay everyone, sure, it wasn't BECTU rates but I pride myself of always finding a few hundred quid for professionals to work for me. Of course a £1000 first short can be advertised as expenses only but in most cases I think shooters are just taking liberties.
Thanks for poll though.
Alan Andrew Taylor says...
I think there should be more options available for the Producer in their posting to target the correct crew member. I think the cap should be lowest one as a responsible Producer will be more than willing to pay their crew. There will always be a place for low budget filmmaking but for larger budget productions, paying the crew shouldn't even be considered as being non paid projects. For projects with a budget of 10,000 and more, insurance should be adopted. The idea of percentages is a great idea but not so much for a larger film project with a large team involved. I like the idea of lower paid projects sharing distribution rights which I think could be put to good use.
Alan Andrew Taylor, Edinburgh Scotland
says...
From a composers point of view i think the newsletters can be missleading in terms of positions and i always see the same stock companies touting their library.
If the role is unpaid which being a composer is always touted about, there should be some consideration for future work or paid projects.
I am more than happy to support start up projects with no or limited funding.
Like earlier messages , i agree that if there is a budget and the project is profitable for the makers then it shoudl get passed back to all those involved.
There are always those desperate to do work for free which devalues it for the rest of us (actors,writers,composers etc)and those willing to take advantage of it.
Honesty is the best policy and everything is negotiable (deferred payment etc)
Unlike the previous post my experience has been limited but provided some exciting work and new friends...but i do agree the site needs some work to split the production areas (composers,actors,Production,SFX,fx etc etc) so that people can cross network and match up..
Federico Forcolini says...
an alternative to 'unpaid' should be 'low paid' where a goodwill gesture sum is agreed which might fall under the minimum wage rate but still covers living costs eg. £30/day for a runner on a micro budget feature.
says...
I'm leaving Shooting People when my subscription comes up for renewal.
I consider SP a TOTAL waste of money. Having been a member in the early days as an actor and now renewed this year as an NFTS Grad I look at you with total amazement- SP hasn't moved forward at all. You are nothing more than a Hobbyist site that charges. You haven't developed or become Pro in the slightest! God knows why Bectu bothered to talk with you.
The Site may look good but your professional credibility is at best questionable.
As a Pro Producer / Director I won't advertise through you. Nor will many People with proper Paid jobs.
Lucy Garner says...
I can only comment on the subjects I'm aware of - I'm not being biased in anyway, I'm just giving my opinion.
If a film has no budget, as an actor I don't expect to be paid. I do expect expenses and a copy of the final film, and getting fed is always welcomed.
Personally I think the caps are far too high. The first feature I did had a budget of £1600 and he managed to pay all his crew and actors.
As for student films, I used to be more than happy to give my time and experience freely to help out, but the lack of respect for actors once they've been cast is so ludicrous I've decided to stop doing it. More often than not I don't get re-imbursed expenses, there is no food or drinks provided, then I have to spend hours chasing them up trying to get hold of a copy of the film... sometimes unsuccessfully. You never can judge this from the start.
With the exception of one student who after completion gave me a copy of the dvd together with a £20 voucher. This is all it needs to say thank you when you don't have funds.
Of course everybody has the right to choose whether or not to apply for these unpaid positions. I don't mind collaborating if it's a fair collaboration and nobody is getting paid, or a deferred payment / profit share basis; but to some exent actors will get exploited and they allow themselves to because there is no alternative. It's either act for nothing, or don't act.
If crew are getting paid, why can't the actors be paid also?
The majority of castings on here include "Unfortunately we cannot pay actors as all the budget has gone towards decent cameras/crew/room hire etc etc the list goes on..." WHY? Because its too easy to get actors for nothing - why pay if you don't have to?
I'd just like to say:
WITHOUT ACTORS, YOU HAVE NO FILM!
This is teamwork. If there is a budget EVERYBODY should be recognised for their work and paid accordingly.
"As for unpaid cast/crew being paid expenses, credits and getting a copy of the final film, that should be extended to all of the cast and crew - paid and unpaid" - this should absolutely go without saying!
Rant over.
James Martin says...
I believe all productions have a responsibility to be insured, be they student, charitable or otherwise. Being unpaid is one thing, being injured and not compensated is quite another....
charles harris says...
I agree with the overall guidelines and while I appreciate the reasons for a cap, I don't agree with a cap. If a (say) 500k movie can offer a useful unpaid job then it's more valuable to our members than working on a 50k movie!
del wilson says...
I think if you can organised enough to create these parameters then you should be able to tell posters why their posts are rejected. There are clearly more rules than just these paid/unpaid ones you are creating now
says...
I thought SP was supposed to help low/no budget shooters get films made. Each posting is different and shooters should decide whether they are interested or not and go in to an agreement with eyes open.
I am interested in collaborating with shooters with skills other than my own, for no money, in order to progress my career. I feel that if all projects have to fit certain criteria and be insured this will be a hurdle that can't always be overcome and will therefore stunt creativity and some innovative projects.
I make films for myself first and for the market second. If I can't pursue ideas with like-minded shooters via this website, for no money, for the sake of art, then SP has lost its appeal.
As for insurance, I have public liability and have never insured any work I do as budgets have never allowed this. If only insured projects are allowed less speculative films would be made.
All this said, I would not expect anyone to work for nothing on commissioned work with a reasonable budget.
anna fiertag says...
I totally disagree with postings for unpaid work on Shooting People. Amateur films are of no interest to me. Acting should be a profession for those who wish to earn a living. Actors should not be exploited.
Robin King says...
I can't believe anyone on here believes it's possible to pay crew with a feature budget of £20,000. I think 80-100k is a workable maximum for unpaid work, but not as low as 50k.
says...
If productions are making a profit a percentage should definitely be shared among the crew.
Steve Ackhurst says...
This is all too rigid and too politically correct. I'm a socialist at heart but I don't sign up to this nonsense, if people want to further their career by taking unpaid work it is truly up to them, end of...
simon foster says...
I think the cap on 'music video' and 'short' is too high. I've done music vids with a £2.5K budget and everyone got paid the same - min wage. Short films should be capped at £5k unless the UKFC is involved, in that case it should not be an unpaid posting.
Tanera Dawkins says...
It would be great if in the 'you must agree....' section to include 'use of the film for advertisement of skills, eg. on a website'
I also think the amounts are too high.
Davin Jeayes says...
I would like to see more explanation as to when an uninsured production is allowed to post. Surely the vast majority of self funded short films are likely to be uninsured - so is the question about whether there is insurance a valid question in these cases and what reasons for having no insurance are acceptable ?
Chris Pinches says...
I think the cast and crew should be paid on any project that the producer(s) anticipate making money from.
sebastian michael says...
this seems fairly reasonable and workable to me, as a set of guidelines (impossible to police, of course, but that's just as well, since the point of shootingpeople is not to be the independent film makers controlling body).
i do feel strongly though: regulate and stipulate as little as possible. people are adults and they can make their own decisions as to whether they're interested in a project or not. so i would ordinarily vote against this proposal. but i can see the point people are making who are fed up with being asked to work for nothing on projects where there is no good reason why it shouldn't be funded and i'm also aware that people's willingness to work for the sake of experience and getting a foothold in the industry is open to exploitation. so very reluctantly i'm voting in favour of these guidelines (with the highest possible caps, by the way, not lower!), in the hope that should they get accepted, this will bring this debate to a constructive conclusion, and very much hoping also that common sense and the spirit of shooters to exist so work can get done, not so that busybodies can police other people's projects, stays alive and well, well into the future...
make films, people, not rules!
Ralph Reinle says...
I find it great to have guidelines for this type of work. Although I find the budget caps way too high. I've worked for projects way below these budgets and still got paid.
Jemma Gray says...
Even with such guidelines in place people low down the ladder could still experience exploitation, and people with money further up the ladder can still abuse their position. I don't believe every ad for work unpaid work should be subject to suspicion and policing either, it's a really tough debate, pros and con's every way we look at it. Perhaps if the consequences of abusing the "system" or peoples goodwill were more severely punished, perhaps naming and shaming the employers which have failed to fulfill their side of the contract in good time, or simply treated people horrendously and unprofessionally, they would surely have a harder time in future finding willing and affordable crew? I think its great shooting people are so committed to this.
Martin Wallace says...
Individuals should be smart enough to find the opportunities that are right for them. SP has more important things to do than police this kind of thing. If SP does try to police it, then it's very likely they'll be expected to get embroiled in solving disputes. Instead, let's just all be a bit more honest and see fairness as something to be proud of.
Jerome Quiles says...
Thank you for doing this. However the caps are much too high. I suggest £2,000 for music videos, £5,000 for shorts, and £20,000 for features.
Ben Calvert says...
Let's be realistic-Rent and food come at a price, so why should actors be called upon to give their resources for free? If it means that films can't be made, then so be it. If you believe in yourself as a filmmaker, you'll find the money and put your money where your mouth is.
Part of my work is being a singer songwriter and although I have no budget as such, I always pay people for their services, whether it be for recording me, working on musical arrangements, playing in my band etc.
I find it strange that students automatically assume that they are so much poorer than everyone else that they can't afford to pay actors!!!
Bradley Gray says...
I think these guidelines sound reasonable, however I don't want to see it made more difficult for people and groups who are just starting out to get into the industry.
Andy Pandini says...
Budget cap values are too high.
says...
If the job is unpaid, PLEASE protect actors'/actress' safety by stressing NO NUDITY. And any nudity in paid jobs to be advertised with caution! Thank you.
says...
Really encouraging to see people doing something about people being taken for granted just because employers know they can get away with it. I wish this would happen in other industries!
Mike Parish says...
It is very important that we suport student films as some of them are our future employers, also 50years ago I was a student.
Remember most of you have needed help in the past.
Amanda Atkins says...
I feel so strongly we should have freedom to choose what we do for whom - and I think these guidlines would give clarity and still guard that freedom
Paddy Robinson-Griffin says...
Music video budgets keep dropping, but you can still expect a profitable professional production for £10k - and as such that should be the cap for freebies. Indeed I'd have set it lower.
If you can raise £15k to make a short, you can afford to pay people.
Features are much much more work - over years - and a £250k feature is still very unlikely to secure distribution and become profitable
Lucy Fenton says...
Thanks for this Shooting People.
I suspect that, with most of these budgets, there is someone who is getting paid something. It seems sensible to me to accord cast and crew the same degree of importance as equipment hire etc. and budget for that accordingly. Presumably the projects can't be made without any of these elements and to treat cast and crew differently strikes me as lacking respect for your team and devaluing people's time and talents. Our time is a pretty valuable asset.
I feel differently about genuinely small budget productions, people just starting out in the industry and helping out your friends & family. However, I know very few of those that have a £15,000 for a short film.
James Barber says...
I believe the caps should be as low as possible. I don't agree with this practise that has been going on for years where the producer says "all the budget is going to equipment and film-stock". That's completely unacceptable.
It's an unfortunate slippery-slide that people eager to get into the industry would carry boxes for free for a few gigs, then get noticed and invited to work on more shoots if they pull their weight. Unscrupulous producers and indie directors now think it's fair to assume they can blow their entire budget on cranes and booms and stock and not pay the very people that are needed to use said gear.
Now someone just mentioned not being able to pay runners minimum wage on a £10k budget, but could do it with a £15k budget. All things being equal, what would you need 70 runners for? Or 35 runners for two days? If your production needs this many crew members, it should be a much higher cost anyway. Seriously, on a £10k shoot, if you can't find £200 for runners, you need to reassess priorities. I know film is all about the shot. But people are the capital that make it all work. This never-ending freebeeism wouldn't be tolerated in any other industry.
"Come and carry bricks for a week for free, then we'll see how you do on building... and the NEXT house we build, we'll pay you."
"OK, we'll get you to develop a program for our business. If we like it, there might be a chance for future paid programming work."
Chris Hutchins says...
I have to say I agree with Mark Street's views, I shot a self financed micro budget feature several years when SP was a lot more flexible, I doubt I could do the same now, even with these guidlines. Yes we need to protect one another, but if no one can make anything it all seems a little pointless.
Jessica Levick says...
I think unpaid postings below those amounts on all HOD level and experienced roles is fine, but I think crew with limited experience should be allowed to work for low pay or expenses only up to the next level of budgets. i.e. I wouldn't be able to hire a DOP or sound designer for less than minimum wage on budgets above the ticked levels, but paying runners and assistants £70 for the day on a £10K music video is virtually impossible. I'd need at least £15K to manage it. The point is, as a producer I'm happy to pay for experience, or provide experience, but if I have to pay a runner or assistant £70 for the day, I'd expect them to have some experience under their belts, so you'd be cutting out complete newcomers into the industry.
Jason Porthouse says...
One point regarding the first two criteria; any project that ticks the box of Charity/Community/Voluntary org and/or unpaid staff offered profit share, what's to stop a broadcast commission offering the latter? Profit can easily be 'lost' along the way. I think that 'Not Broadcast' and 'Not Corporate' should be key criteria for posting in the first place!
Caps are tricky, but I can see the principle of them. However, I think that on balance they would be good - but how do you police them?
Mark Street says...
I think that people should have a choice whether they work on a paid or unpaid job. Give us some credit. Yes there will be some people who try to take advantage but lets not over react! If someone puts an add on Shooting People and I like the sound of the job I will then ask for the script, research the filmmaker, ask questions of the project etc. You can tell soon enough whether the project is something you want to work on or the people are the type you want to work with.
The big problem with Shooting People at the moment is it is no longer a place where new filmmakers, producers, writers, Cinematographers etc can meet. Everyone is so obsessed with money that we can no longer just discuss a project with another person. I would like to put on an add that says "Hey I am a filmmaker that lives in London, I have some great scripts I am developing and would anyone like to meet for a coffee and discuss?" Shooting people would not even air it. They would write back with one of there annoying emails saying how much are you going to pay "AND READ OUR GUIDELINES". I JUST WANT TO TALK! I put out a character breakdown for a role in a short film I will be shooting soon on Shooting People's casting sections. Basically it got turned down because I was asking for a woman in her late thirties. Not only that but the author of the email commented on the film's synopsis, implied I was ageist and sent me a sixteenth century poem about a prostitute advising me to read it. I've been in the business for over ten years, I started out as an actor and I know how to write a breakdown. I used Castnet, posted the same advert and found my actors.
It is good Shooting People are doing this but really use your common sense and think back to the days when you where starting out: no money, a story you want to tell, unsure of where to start and hoping to meet some like minded people who could help you on your way. Remember why you started the site in the first place and get a grip!
Philip Harvey says...
Transparency is vital for all items posted.
I think your budget caps are too high - if you are going down this route.
Many Charities can and should pay.
Simon Aldous says...
Would Shooting People be able to produce a standard contract for profit-share. I think it's existence would encourage producers to comply with such a stipulation.
Christopher Hauke says...
The budget values you quote seem high. When there is any money funding a project, after hire costs (of gear. location, costume, props etc. and insurance), are not wages the next budget item eating up a lot of what is left? I make shorts for under £750, with the great goodwill of friends and colleagues who collaborate for free. I would love to have another £14,249 to pay people yet this proposed schedule would allow me not to do so legitimately!
If I had £14,999 for a short (under 15 mins) I would certainly budget to pay people at least at min. wage level.
Christopher Hauke
Nicholas Hughes says...
It's all a fair compromise. I feel glad that my idea of having a budget cap for unpaid films has chimed in with others and that it's been included in the poll.
says...
How can clarifying the nature/budget of the project be such a terrifying prospect?
Full disclosure as suggested by SP is a baseline of respect towards actors/technicians. It also avoids time wasting because people who don't want exploited won't take part and those who do apply will have the full facts.
What is the ratio of performers/techies to producers/film makers in SP? If the majority are film makers you can bet that they are going to resist any attempt to reveal this kind of information.
The guidelines allow people to see if they are being actively exploited or simply volunteering for a project they fancy - knowing it pays zilch. Being ‘forced’ to agree to give people their out of pocket expenses, a copy of the film and be insured whilst filming - is that really too much to ask if you don't have to pay for their professional services and are working on your ‘important project...’?
I understand that film makers want to get their projects made but the accepted casual exploitation of actors/technicians has to be addressed somewhere. If SP is for the up and coming film makers then it is important that at least attempt to set out some baselines for them.
If people shift to Mandy then it tells performers /techies just how low down the food chain they are considered to be and makes clear their value to some film makers – only useful as a free, exploitable commodity. If SP becomes the ‘quality board’ – there may be less of it but you know that the people on it are determined to be professional.
Tito Sacchi says...
It's a great initiative by SP and I am glad this is finally happening. Although I have always been for a free market and I do believe in self-regulation I appreciate the fact that SP really needs to remain a community that facilitates the interacion of honest people, dedicated to good quality film productions. At the same time hindering the chances of a bunch of cowboys making profits from those all too willing to gain experience. There is really no excuse for lack of insurance. Carlo Ortu's idea of an agreement between SP and an insurer would be fantastic. I agree also that, as it has been stated here already, the caps set are way too high for what I have experienced. Maybe not so much the ones for feature length but I would definitely lower the caps for short and music videos. I think that if you have a budget of £2000+ and a filming for one day with a crew of 5+ you can afford to pay minimal wages.
Alessio Valori says...
I think as Rob is saying below the cap is too high. We need to regulate more the all thing. We re not talking about freedom here, in a philosofical way, as someone seems to do , we have to regulate it somehow, it's becoming just annoying and not more usefull web site where everyone is struggling and fighting. People are posting such ridiculus request that I cannot believe my eyes, I am reffering to the ones that request a dop with his own RED camera to work for only expenses on a music video for instance. I mean think about what you re asking.
I thing the idea of Shooting people is a magnificent one but it is really becoming dull, and it s a pity.
Ron Aberdeen says...
Why not create bulletin boards for
Paid Work
And
Unpaid Work
Then it is the choice of the member to receive the bulletins or not.
Daya Dodds says...
Its a very hard one to pin down. A production company really should pay there runners something, I have heard really bad storyies about runners getting nothing not even costs covered. It isn't on to use young passionate people as slave labour!
I think if it was up to some producers they would want actors, gaffers e.g. to work for at least a cut rate however if there is the money they should pay out it just isn't fare. Then again I guess life isn't fare in many ways.
Regarding insurance, I was quite taken aback at the quotes I got for a short production. In all honestly I can't afford it. This is where uni students win out since there uni can cover them, well thats what we did at uni. I can't remember how much the cover was worth.
As for paying min wage, well again if the money is there it should be done. People really work hard for something they want to do, if it be directing, producing, acting, set design e.g. I know no one really gets interested in filmmaking purely for the money but if money can be paid it should!
For self funded projects spending x (x been 2K) you can't pay people it just doesn't work. 2K is what I am making shorts for with my own money and I can tell you its very tight! If I was to start paying people, I would have nothing on screen.
I will sum up by saying-
we all love making films, why else would we do it! But if there is money involved, enough money it should be a paid job. Also I would like to say music promos are been made for 5K a cameramen told me, he has stopped doing them because there is no money in them. But I bet someone who is looking to build there reel would jump at the chance! So there you have it, maybe just the way things are.
Daya Dodds
Director
Gary Thomas says...
Some Charities have quite high budgets. Who's going to check, what's the criteria for posting something that says 'this is a self funded film?'
Andrew Wright says...
Try and get, say a painter and decorator to spruce up your house before you put it on the market and then say to him "well if I get any money left over when I sell it, I'll be in touch and pay you, OK?". Its about time this unpaid b/s was well and truly addressed.
Elias Millward says...
As an industry professional who has worked literally from the ground up and persevered in order to carve out a career in the British film industry I know very well the argument of unpaid vs. paid work from a first-hand perspective. I have worked for some of the most independent yet renowned of British filmmakers (Sally Potter), as well as for large studios (Paramount Pictures) and understand that independent production companies such as Adventure Pictures do rely heavily on the support of budding talent (usually on an expense-only or a nominal salary) in order to be able to continue making films which push the envelope without interference from studios. I also know that sometimes producers or production companies can take the piss.
However, I strongly believe that we should maintain a free market no matter the type of project or the type of company - for many unpaid jobs is a great way to cut their teeth and gain some insight into an industry in which, for many, it is difficult to subsist. Even at a large corporation there usually is no budget in place to pay for work experience; however, what a great thing for someone just starting out to gain an insight into an industry which is, for many, impenetrable.
We must all forge our own paths and it is up to the individual to accept or disregard unpaid work - this applies to self-funded shorts, to more established production companies, many of which do not make profits.
rob curry says...
I think all those caps are too high! To me those are all 'financed' projects, whether the money comes from mummy's pocket or the film council. Whenever I've made shorts with budgets of more than £2000 (and sometimes even then) I've managed to pay people. I'd suggest a cap of £30,000 for features, £5,000 for shorts, and £3,000 for music videos. If music videos are for signed bands they should not be allowed to use free staff at all!
john-christian bateman says...
It's a step in the right direction. Education is always preferable to legislation ; these guidelines may need to be reviewed as we learn from their effects in the future.
John Lubran says...
We don't need to treat people like fools even if some of them believe we're blithering idiots. This whole debate is an unnecessary histrionic initiated by police state cap doffers. No one is being forced to do anything here. I repeat my usual mantra; 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?
David Grey says...
SP is a broad church, a hybrid. At one end there are experienced pros and profit-making production companies. At the other end are amateurs, students, and volunteers. Some aspiring to work up to the other end, but many not.
I like these guidelines as drafted because I think they are a good attempt to accommodate the whole of that spectrum while trying to set standards for different places along it.
I disagree with Richard Cosgrove when he wants "production companies completely barred from looking for non-paid staff". How is a "production company" defined? His statement comes form the pro / commercial end of the SP spectrum. I am at the other.
I have a production company. I am the only shareholder and only director. We have no staff, no office and almost always no money. In 6 years only one production ever had external funding - £3000. We are a vehicle for students and volunteers and amateurs to come together to make films and learn in the process. We make campaign films and promos for charities. Thus we are doing good, both via the output and via the production process. Search for us on YouTube and see what we do.
Under Richard's suggestion we would be banned from recruiting volunteers via Shooting People. Which means SP members at the low end would lose the opportunity to get experience with us.
I have over 20 years' experience running volunteer schemes. I have volunteered myself. I am registered with a volunteer bureau as a provider of what are called "volunteer opportunities". Richard and the many others are right to be angry when successful, commercial companies rip people off as "interns". But what I do is a million miles from that. "Opportunities" because people get experience, learn skills, get credits, build confidence and have fun. Under modern properly run volunteering, unlike the big media rip offs, there are clear written agreements with volunteers as to what they will get out of it and what is expected of them.
Please, please, please can we do more in SP to let the whole membership understand what people like me do?
I want Richard and the others to be happy. So it is important to get these guidelines right. And if anyone wants a campaign video about conditions in the pro industry, give me a call!
White Night Films says...
these budget caps start too low. £15k for a short is tiny.
Rick Mcleod says...
This seems to go against what Shooting People was originally meant to help towards, creating film opportunities to get quality films made, if the film has substantial backing, then surely positions would be paid anyway or at least some form of profit share, this has been achieved before with feature films, and starring A list actors, but you cannot even attempt to put short films into the same category.
Hundreds of short films are made without any funding attached, I am no exception, but I always offer expenses, and have even achieved to gain a great top actor on a short film, unpaid, but my expenses for him were less than the other actors involved and he came the furthest distance too.
We do need guidelines, but not on short films, I don't want to make a feature film unless I am in a position where we have investment attached to pay for cast and crew unless on a deferred/profit share aspect.
What goes heavily in my favor is that I provide full catering, literally no one ever goes hungry on my shoots (my partner is a former catering manager which helps), but I know some won't even get you a sandwich, now that aspect should be stopped, you cannot expect cast or crew to work on your film and you not be bothered to feed them properly.
At the end of the day, I agree with the like of Gary, as long as you advertise what is, then the decision is down to the individual, as long as it is made clear. I have found top people through shooter this way, so lets keep it as is!
JC Crissey says...
Thanks for the chance to vote. all the best.
carlo ortu says...
As insurance is often an area worryingly overlooked on low budget shoots it would be great if ShootingPeople could hook up in some way with an insurance company (like Bectu do I think?) so that when you join Shootingpeople you automatically get all the necessary insurance or at least a discount as this does cost a lot of money. Everyone appreciates its importance but economics dictate that it is often ignored.
Gary Stevens says...
My concern in all of these changes is that many will just try and find another service to post and where the "red tape" will be less. I think we all should get paid for sure but the choice should be down to individuals to decide on that much like what occurs on Castcall Pro
Geoffrey Alexander says...
I agree with Harry Clegg, Benetta Adamson, Timothy Dowd, Richard Cosgrove and Ben Blaine (among others).
To my mind, the above options look unduly complicated.
It seems to me the divisions are:
1) amateur: purely for fun, no intention to earn.
2) educational: the result matters less than the lessons gained.
3) charity / community project / v.o.: fighting a cause, every penny is needed for the message.
4) speculative: if the film comes out well it will hopefully one day turn a profit.
5) commercial: marketing has already been carried out and some form of distribution may already be in place.
If a film project has a £250,000 budget, surely priority should be given to those who contribute their talent and experience to making the film a success? Where is the logic in paying hire companies and stock manufacturers but not those who do the work? Why reward the non-involved and penalise the dedicated?
For speculative productions it would be reasonable to insist that everyone receive the minimum wage. Could it not be made the norm that key players are offered shares in the company that has been set up to make the film? At the very least these could be sold on as with shares in any other business. Is that really too complicated?
ed hartwell says...
I'm not sure this is the right approach. You can't shelve all projects into these categories just to then make them sound acceptable. If a project is unpaid (or paid) then agreements have to be drawn up for crew members which will differ from project to project. I would prefer it if my membership fee went towards more support and advice in drawing up crew contracts.
Shooting people members want support, not barriers.
If crew are not freelancers, then they are only in a position to apply for minimum wage upwards work. Freelancers should be free to sign whatever contract they want, be that working for monkey nuts or gold bullion.
Yen Rickeard says...
I understand why people want this; some of the past postings, expecting everything and giving nothing, were awful. But there is no way to legislate for respect of other people.
I don't have any answers, so i guess we will go with this. More damned red tape.
Harry Clegg says...
You need to distinguish between work where someone stands to make a profit and the very many projects where this isn't the case. If even a small amount of money is to be made on a project, part of this should be distributed to cast and crew.
I'm glad that you seem to be moving to a position where insurance is encouraged but not obligatory because there are many people on Shooting People who are students or taking their first baby steps in film production and it would be a pity to drive them away by imposing onderous conditions.
Alice Arnold says...
Thanks for addressing this issue and for the participatory spirit. This is an important issue and I glad to see Shooting People taking a leadership role in it.
Michael Swiskay says...
As a highly visible forum for the independent film community, ShootingPeople must exercise judgement over the pending submissions that seek un-paid creative or technical support. Said judgement must insure that these unpaid 'gigs' allow tangible, non-monetary compensation such as significant upside and visibility. Thus these non-paying 'gigs' be leveraged. The great scourge of human history known as slavery is anathema to civilized and enlightened thinking, something that film artists know something about, or at least pay lip service to. But economic realities are economic realities, although they must not compel filmmakers to devolve such that we become driven by a rapacious need to get something for nothing.
Bruce M. Foster says...
Of course, there needs to be a deadline for when the copy, IMDB listing will be done. I would suggest that three months is not an outrageous period of time. If I am dead by the time the listing on IMDB goes up, doesn't do me a whole hell of a lot of good, now does it? Oh, and can there be a penalty if someone attempts to suggest that doing something for free will be a "good experience"?
Katherine Reilly says...
I think SP is trying hard to address some quite long standing issues. I think the efforts to clarify should be welcomed by all. I would hope everyone on SP would be happy to know that SP is trying to set some standards that include respect and knowledge of what kind of a project is being posted.
I think it will require further work to address standards for collaborative projects but well done for making these guidelines a very clear start.
In response to those who have disagreed with these guidelines: all the filmmakers, crew and actors I have worked with over the years have considered these the minimum foundation for the credibility of a project. It is very helpful for SP to have made it clear. These are guidelines for a professionalism that I hope all here would aspire to.
I would however like to see lower options for the budget caps: as has already been raised often, spending budget on actors and crew is considered a low priority by some filmmakers who wish all of their budget to go on cameras/location etc. I recognise that budget caps wouldn't solve this problem but as this about setting some guidelines it might help.
Again, a thank you to SP for moving this along from the debate and keeping opportunities available while setting standards.
Benetta Adamson says...
Not surprisingly I agree with Mikey. Anyway, budget caps will be impossible to police - what happens when a project wins some extra funding which takes it over mid-production?
I honestly think what is needed is a test of whether something is genuinely collaborative in nature, not some arbitrary financial measure.
Mike Busson says...
I've voted no simply because none of the above actually addresses the core issue and that's whether the people involved on the project are due National Minimum Wage or not.
HMRC makes no distinction between a £15k project or a £150k project so nor should we.
Personally I'd rather Shooting People sat back at the table with BECTU and looked at the co-op or collaborative models because I can see us having to go back over this again.
As Mazin says below, a website was set up after the recent debate specifically to discuss these issues, to look at the impact on low budget filmmakers and to try to find ways to continue to make films within the realms of UK law.
http://forum.indiefilmuk.org/
neill crawford says...
Congratulations for your ongoing work on this issue. It is a difficult and sensitive situation we all find ourselves in. Hopefully through continued work, we will begin to understand the problem and in time may even be able to offer solutions
Chris Stone says...
Could you post, blog or otherwise offer some kind of guide to negotiating profit-share arrangements?
Timothy Dowd says...
I think the guidelines up for a vote are well-conceived. We all want our piece of the pie, and yet we don't want to quell opportunities, either for us to make films that must necessarily be low-budget, or for those whose best education in film is to work and observe.
Anthony Lanson says...
There should be a low cap on company turnover and productuion budget.
Shooters should not be the option for companies to hire cast and crew on the cheap.
Mal Woolford says...
Insurance is essential.
charlie phillips says...
Very good recommendations - well done. I think a further note could be that SP has a discretionary right to reject any unpaid posts that it suspects for any reason of being exploitative in case any naughty prod cos try to get round this for whatever reason.
Carrie Cohen says...
All productions must have insurance.
Profit share contracts are a bit of a joke for the actors as they are always the last to be paid after the producer's auntie! However if the role is interesting and the production company professional then a deferred payment contract is at least a pretty piece of paper to put in your portfolio!
says...
I think these guidelines look fair and well thought out. I am very happy that the team at Shooting People have recognised the obvious difference between working on a short film or low budget feature, and corporate work or TV commissions. It is on the latter jobs that people really get exploited.
I am particularly pleased to see and amendment to the insurance question. I recently attempted to post for a sound designer for my short film. The position was paid, but I didn’t have insurance for post-production work. It took a day for me to find out that my post was rejected, and another two days for SP to reply to my email, and tell me that I could repost and it would be accepted. By then I had to advertise on Mandy, as I needed someone quickly.
Richard Cosgrove says...
I think these guidelines are workable, although I want lower budget caps and production companies completely barred from looking for non-paid staff. If you are running a company, you should pay all your staff.
As for unpaid cast/crew being paid expenses, credits and getting a copy of the final film, that should be extended to all of the cast and crew - paid and unpaid.
I want to know exactly what reasons will be accepted for a film to lack insurance.
Brian Croucher says...
Because of the dodgy nature of a number of projects, insurance is a must.That would make an initial cull.The rest is down to the individuals own instinct an valuation of what is a good and worthy script and what is not. Money or no money, you know if you can afford to be part of it,putting your talent on the line or not, as the case may be, simple as that.
Brian Croucher.
Kathryn Worth says...
I'm sorry, I don't know enough about film funding to answer this poll. But on the face of it these are all proper, if low, budgets and I would expect to be paid SOMETHING (for God's sake). But of course an actor is rarely aware of the budget.
I played the lead in a low-budget feature four years ago. The budget was £250,000 and all eight cast members were paid £3,000 for a seven week shoot in Italy, which I thought was very fair.
Ed Griffiths says...
I believe in responsibility in the indie sector, but responsibility should be self-initiated as well as imposed by regulation. For that reason I'm not in favour of heavily censoring who and what can advertise in SHOOTING PEOPLE which is meant to let people who otherwise might never meet to contact each other. Sometimes unpromising projects and individuals get lucky, make good and bring in an unexpected success, and this is what communities like SHOOTING PEOPLE can best help to bring about. Ultimately those responding to posts have to remember the 'caveat emptor' - buyer beware, and make their own decisions. No amount of censorship criteria will stop the unscrupulous from doing what the unscrupulous do - outright lying.
Ben Blaine says...
I do wish people would take a moment to really consider what these rules are asking us to agree to.
The 'either/or' structure gives a great deal of freedom.
Charles, you don't have to offer profit share. If your project is for a community or charity group, or entirely self funded, or uncommissioned and low budget then you don't need to share your profit with the people who help you make it. If it doesn't fall into these groups then surely you should be paying people! Granted the BBC will laugh at you if you suggest a profit share... but the BBC will employ you with a wage.
Similarly, Vasco, why are you expecting someone to fly round the world to work on your unpaid film? No one is going to force you to employ someone who has impossible expenses, that's just the sort of rational thing that adults work out in advance... and a copy of the final film given to the cast and crew is not going to damage the distribution opportunities of your project, in the same way that giving the workers in a chocolate factory free crunchies didn't bring Cadbury's to its knees...
And Adrian, these proposals are on the table chiefly to protect actors who for many years have been seen as a free commodity and have been offered a very raw deal by businesses and employers who should know better. If signing up to these flexible guidelines saves the rest of us from being tarred with the same brush then it's a long due step.
This debate has raged for far longer than the last seven months and I for one am truly grateful that at last the two sides are doing more than try to ignore each other.
vasco de sousa says...
Two problems here.
One is "expenses". If you're doing a student film, locals don't have to pay hotel fees. If someone flies in from Las Vegas to Wales, their expenses bill is going to be huge. I think one could agree to pay all expenses for locals, but not for people from halfway around the world. (But yes, I'd love a free trip to Indonesia or where ever.)
Two is copy of the final film. One could be given a partial copy for showreel purposes. Many films become unmarketable once a full copy is distributed. Even student film festivals can ask for a "first look".
I also find it strange that a 10k music video is compared to a 50k feature. Making a feature for 50k is a huge stretch. I wish I had 10k for every music video that someone wanted me to do.
I would hesistate in offering profit share because unpaid staff don't understand expenses, gross and net.
I suppose self funded includes student films, which is my real concern.
Mazin Power says...
Adrian: I believe you can find more about the debate here: http://forum.indiefilmuk.org/
Charles Wood says...
I don't agree with the profit share bit. Directors and writers/producers often spend years devising ways to get their ideas onto film. Profit sharing should account for all that time, at that point many others (particularly the actors) would then be unhappy with their profit share. It is not just that moment on set as anyone with any experience of real film projects knows.
I think that an extra option could be "I opt not to be paid for this project, except for my out of pocket expenses" so it is very clear on low or no budget projects what is going on. No one has to take those jobs if they choose not to. It should be VERY clear though.
I still think this is an attempt by the unions to legitamise their work...some of which I would suggest is not even worth what you would pay an amateur of no experience (like the coverage of Haiti).
Finally: try suggesting a profit share to the BBC and notice the short sharp reaction that would follow. Those in power will not go along with it...so why should low budget projects. Oh! so we don't live in a fair and reasonable society after all...suprise!
Adrian Hume Robinson says...
This is getting ridiculous and I think it's about time we - the members who fund Shooting People - were given the REAL explanation of the total genesis of this entire debate.
My first short was recruited on Shooting People. If this nonsense keeps carrying on, my second short definitely will not be.
I also act. If the number of shorts being made and advertised here reduces and I find there is nothing at all to apply for, my membership will end, too.
So, whoever is responsible for this several months long debate and rule creation really will be cutting off everybody's nose to spite... errr... well, that bit hasn't been explained to the membership. We were just told some nonsense about a minimum wage.
