ASK & DISCUSS INDEX

10 years, 3 months ago - John Lubran

Best way to take down these specimens is to lampoon them mercilessly. Before comments were redirected to these community spots people could comment directly beneath the original post for everyone to take notice of. Instant Kama worked better then.

10 years, 3 months ago - Mark Wiggins

Nice to see the advert for a gaffer has been reposted as a paid job. Although as a proper promo for a company like Warner Music, they should be paying £300 for a gaffer for the day, not £100.

10 years, 3 months ago - Nicholas Hughes

I've been a staunch defender of the expenses only job over the years as a way of enabling the genuinely less well off film makers and artists to make their projects happen but once you have the backing of a well known and wealthy patron then you should pay up. Warner Bros. could sneeze a couple of million and not notice so there's no excuse for them to not pay for a crew.

10 years, 3 months ago - Kelie Petterssen

Hi Mark,

Thank you for your post. We appreciate you sharing your concerns. 'Warner Music' did flag red, but we had reason to believe that it was not the official Warner Music company. However, after looking into this job more thoroughly, we have removed it from the site - sometimes stuff does slip through, and we apologise for not spotting this sooner.

The Time Warner apprenticeship scheme is within the HMRC guidelines. Apprenticeships are for over 16 year olds, who have completed their GCSEs and want to work towards a qualification in a certain field and learn a craft. An alternative to studying in a school environment.

You can view the current guidelines and payment details of apprenticeships here: https://www.gov.uk/apprenticeships-guide/pay-and-conditions

Best,

Kelie

10 years, 3 months ago - Vasco de Sousa

I think part of the problem is the death of the co-op acting troop. In the old days, a few artists would band together, get a creative vibe together, have a company where everyone had a good share of the profits and the risks, and then sell the stuff they made collaboratively.

These may have become limited companies, but bands used to be formed in a grass roots way, not put together by agents. The same went, in many cases, for acting troops.

The economics of film, especially sound film, changed that. However, in the old days, producers were taught how to raise money, not how to get people to work for free.

Once producers learnt to make micro-budget films, they didn't have to sell them for as much money. So, the distributors saw an opportunity to exploit.

Of course, "vanity publishing" has existed for generations. It's just that, in the old days, they were often denied the same level of legitimacy they have now.

I have nothing against the freedom to do a hobby (expenses only is basically a hobbiest pursuit.) In amateur theatre, the actors don't even get expenses paid.

However, considering that 1/12 of the working population is in the creative industries, the economic impact of making "expenses only" the norm, even for small productions, has been catastrophic.

Big companies like the Guardian, Huffington Post, Google, and others get rich over free content. Yes, that includes established companies that once paid well. Journalism has suffered, music has suffered, and film is beginning to suffer.

If more artists took their finances into their own hands, this mess wouldn't be so bad. There's too much dependence these days on someone else hiring, on "getting a job" or "finding a client", and not enough on determining how to make a living.

10 years, 3 months ago - Marlom Tander

Actually, re the other discussion about improving SP, people love to comment under posts, it's ALL community :-)

10 years, 3 months ago - Paddy Robinson-Griffin

I substantially agree, every one of us has and will take low paid gigs if we like a project for whatever reasons. I think what's happening here is the 'democratisation' promised by cheap tech has meant a lot more entrants to the field desperate to make a name as a creative. The record companies sense cheap labour. There are companies, in fact, whose entire business model is getting aspirant directors to tender for music video 'opportunities' where applicants subsidise major artists. A few grand goes nowhere on a professional, legal shoot, but this way they get to distance themselves from direct exploitation.

There used to be real money in pop promos/music videos, there used to be MTV looping then, exposure was a real thing compared with now. Now, ads asking professionals to subsidise professional projects seem to be the new order. Refusal to participate doesn't help, there's an industry in aspiration (we all know it), 'make and sell a feature in a fortnight' classes perpetuate the dream, which encourages the dreamers, the reality only hits later.

But yes, I agree that music Cid's for signed artists, no matter what their signing deal is, should not be taking the mickey.

10 years, 3 months ago - Mark Wiggins

Hi Kelie

Thanks for your post. I appreciate what you say about the apprenticeship. I understand that things can slip through.