ASK & DISCUSS INDEX

6 years, 3 months ago - Marlom Tander

Possible hot water here. A limited company suggests commercial ambition, which implies that this isn't a hobby project and so therefore you could be sued for minimum wage whether you want to pay them or not.

Yes, you def want a release. Without it an awkward squad person could claim input and thus rights and thus kill any possible deal with investors. The release should detail all the benefits you have promised (because they are contractual consideration, even if there is no actual money) and that no rights will accrue re any creative input. If there is a straight line to be drawn between the short and the funded feature, consider adding a bonus clause "in the event of a funded feature arising, 1% will be assigned to a pool to pay wages to cast and crew, up to a max of BECTU/Equity rates".

Plain english should do, but proper lawyer if you can afford it AND have reason to believe a fully funded feature is more than just dreaming.

6 years, 3 months ago - Buppha Wittaya-Amponpunt

Thank you Marlom for your useful advice. What if I change my company status to dormant? The reason why I registered a company is because I plan to use the short film to pitch for fund on Kickstarter for example. Then, it would be good to have a company to receive fund to make film. I don't know if that's the right thing to do?

In terms of the release form, I think that's a good idea.

6 years, 3 months ago - Buppha Wittaya-Amponpunt

Do you know where can I get a release form template?

6 years, 3 months ago - John Lubran

Damn these legal issues raise my iconoclasm to the point that I'm just about to write any essay on the true context of the issue, backed up by case law and constitutional empiricalism. But then it's going to exhaust me again.

I'll suffice by reminding everyone especially those souls who have invested their credulity into believing everything that lawyers who major in the notion that any and all statutory legislation together with any policies or rules flowing from them, represent the authority of law. Despite quasilly qualified assertions to the contrary, we are still living under a well defined Common Law constitution. Common Law is unsurprisingly closely related to common sense. In the matter of any obligation that one may have to another and for the avoidance of any doubt, it's all about evidence of intent. Making that as clear and simple as possible in plain language is enough.

6 years, 3 months ago - Marlom Tander

Release form.

No idea where a template is, and using them can backfire in Uk courts. UK courts like to see non experts dealing with each other in plain English. And using lawyer drafted docs when appropriate.

A template can mean you end up using a doc that not only do you not understand, but a court then throws out because it's clear you just grabbed a template.

Write your own document, reflecting the situation at hand, including that you hope for bigger success and if that happens, carefully defined but reasonable rewards will come back down the chain. If you then end up in dispute you haven't started off with a pissed judge.

Ltd co - I think you have started so you should continue - dormant then not dormant starts to look like a cunning plan....and at least it means the costs become a valid business expense. But I am not an accountant.

6 years, 3 months ago - Buppha Wittaya-Amponpunt

But if I have a company and don't pay people, then it doesn't look good. I don't know what is the best thing to do then? I don't have money to pay people at the moment although I have a company which I just started a month ago, to receive fund to make my film. So, making an unpaid short film is the aim to use the short film to pitch for fund and send to film festivals, to get noticed by producers, studios, and the like. In return, the people who work for me will receive IMDb credits, a copy of the project, and get lots of exposure themselves when I send the film to film festivals. So, it's a good form of payment in itself.

6 years, 3 months ago - Buppha Wittaya-Amponpunt

And as you mentioned earlier in your post Marlom that I could be sued for minimum wage whether I want to pay them or not. So I have to be careful here with a limited company. Therefore, it's best to make it a dormant first. When I actually do get the fund to make the feature film, I can reactivate the company again.

6 years, 3 months ago - NICHOLAS PROSSER

Hi Buppha,
I just want to thank you for raising this question. I too have a limited company and am seeking sufficient funding to produce a short film and your question with the answers has alerted me to the potential problems of engaging voluntary artists or crew on expenses only.with a limited company..I wonder what the situation would be if you didn't use the limited company for the project and created another unlimited company, specifically to produce just this film. I should be interested to read the replies to this suggestion.

6 years, 3 months ago - Ketan Majmudar

You should be able to receive funds as a sole trader or by funds from crowdfunding directly into a personal account. I don’t think there is any stipulation for having a LTD company account to raise funds.

6 years, 3 months ago - Buppha Wittaya-Amponpunt

Thanks Ketan for your answer. I just think an Ltd. company sounds more professional and legit. But, I'll keep that in mind whether or not I should have an Ltd company.

6 years, 3 months ago - John Lubran

Minimum wage legislation only relates to employees, whether PAYE or casual. Do not employ anyone. There's other relationships available, which ought best be clarified by written mutual agreement. For example an artist may be contracted to deliver a specific product or service that's not defined by time other than delivery requirements. Perhaps more useful in this instance people can agree to collaborate without expectations of payment. An honourarium does not constitute a wage or a time based reward. It's an unconditional gift. With statutes and law the naming of things is of the essence. A singular thing can be defined in two or more ways with each having different statutory or lawful position. It's very much what they've been getting away with for ever. To put it in biblical terms; let him with an eye see and him with an ear listen.

6 years, 3 months ago - Marlom Tander

John - minimum wage applies to workers. (Thus "but they are not employees" is not a loophole). People involved in a project may choose to argue, at tribunal, after the fact, that they were in fact workers, and the tribunal will decide on the facts. These rules are flexible so that the tribunal has a quite a lot of freedom to decide on the case, but the more professional/commercial the project, the more likely they are to rule for the worker.

6 years, 3 months ago - John Lubran

It's true that a worker, whose status and relationship with the entity paying for that work has not been clarified by of one or more of the several entirely lawful circumstances that might determine otherwise, may be deemed employed by default and consequently entitled to National Minimum Wage and other statutory benefits. However those benefits are for the employed only. Whilst there's been test cases that have determined that certain classes of self employed are actually employees by default, such as was the case of the Plimlico Plumbers who worked exclusively for that company and fulfilled a number of other obligations that "together" constituted their employee status. It's utterly untrue that a self employed person or a sole trader, whether incorporated or not, who does not work solely over a longer period of time for a single regular entity, is an employee subject to NMW or any other legislation applicable to employees other than common protections such as health and safety, human rights and some other requirements broadly applicable to all. If it was not so it would threaten the fundamental business model that our rigged market economy currently operates; the flexible supply and demand of capitalism.

It's worth remembering that despite being administered under the auspices of HM Courts and Tribunals Service, tribunals together with County Courts and non criminal Magistrates courts acting as debtors courts, are not actually courts of law and niether are their decisions binding in law if challenged. They are, as defined in Halsbury's Laws of England, "unlawful administrative hearings"; one could hardly make it up. It's astonishing just how often this falsely pseudo authoritative presumption is trashed in the higher courts. Sadly many victims are either unable to argue their cases or have fallen foul of those lawyers who pretend to be competent. After losing six out of some seventy cases since the 70's, typically against lawyers, sometimes teams of them, I'm not impressed.

Even though HMRC have some extraordinary police powers, they don't have judicial powers. Such statutory authority that they exercise must stand the test of actual law when challenged, they're not keen on being challenged in the High Court because they lose too often and cause awkward precidents to be created. For every significant case reported in the media there's many more that don't.

6 years, 3 months ago - George Brian Glennon

Short films that are sent to film festivals that get lots of exposure to producers etc. are usually funded proof of concept shorts with significant money behind them, and a professional team involved in the first place. Particularly if anyone expects that the property can become a funded feature film with commercial potential. In this case there is no reason to not pay people. It's also highly unlikely that a film like I've just described would crowdfund. Most professional actors are going to know the difference. The point being, promising lots of exposure as payment, is a slippery slope.

6 years, 3 months ago - Glyn Carter

And back to Buppha's original question... As a producer, you definitely don't want a disgruntled actor saying you don't have his or her permission to use their image, either in the film or in publicity material. That stops your film dead in its tracks, after all that effort. The same applies to your DP and sound recordist, althought there might be an argument that the recordings are yours if you provided the equipment.

For a no-budget film they would be naive to have high expectations, but they'd be within their rights to expect an agreement in which you commit to covering their expenses, and grant them the right to have material for showreels.

In the same way that a registered company looks more professional, so too do release forms and agreements. They are good practice for when you go on to bigger projects. If you can find a template, use the "heads of terms" to show the areas that need to be covered. Then use your own words in plain English. It doesn't have to be legally watertight (as John says, there's no such thing)... No-one's likely to sue if there's no money at stake anyway. (But if they do, better for it all to be done under a company's name).

If you want too see the heads of terms I have used, feel free to contact me directly.