ASK & DISCUSS INDEX

10 years, 10 months ago - John Lubran

Transparency and honesty is the key. Tricksters, cheats and fraudsters who knowingly intend to exploit unfairly have always existed and always will. It's up to individuals to develop a basic level of common sense when dealing with others. There never will be any remedy for foolishness except for acquiring wisdom. Some losses consequential to poor judgement are actually valuable lessons. The trouble with those who would like to police us even more is that they too often have their own agendas, have personal issues (chips on their shoulders) and rarely have the wholesome oversight required to ensure a Utopian outcome to their campaigns. What might be gained on the roundabouts can be list on the swings. Spare us from those in whose mouths butter doesn't melt.

10 years, 10 months ago - John Lubran

@Peter Proniewicz-Brooks I think it hardly matters whether or not the quote is actually from a real person or not. I stand to be corrected if it's not; it does however come from a very common reiteration. The sentiment is nevertheless valid. Over regulation is a blunt instrument that gathers under its presumption too many circumstances that it ought not. I stand by the point of view that those who choose over regulation above freedom deserve neither.

10 years, 7 months ago - cath le couteur

This debate is really important.
And thank you to all who have contributed.

The question of whether we should take expenses only posts, comes up each year and we are driven by the overall response from members. We put on a direct, feisty debate with Bectu - which some people may not have attended. You can read about here: https://shootingpeople.org/blog/2010/03/the-bectu-minimum-wage-debate/

We polled the membership as well and over 80% of members who responded wanted us to continue to accept these posts. For pretty much the same reasons as those stated above.

At the same time, here at SP we believe we do have a vital role to play in terms of safety, in terms of transparency and in terms of encouraging best practice. Our editors rejects many posts if people are not being clear or transparent enough on financing, they reject any unpaid intern roles from production companies (which is also illegal), they continually encourage best practice and insist on people’s transparency on whether they are insured or not. But we also believe in the membership itself to self-regulate and believe in members making up their own minds if a project is worth it to them to apply for, or not.

I want to reiterate thanks again though to all the people contributing. It’s an important debate and one that through your contributions, helps guide us in the policies we put in place.

Finally, in terms of the sucesses of filmmakers joining SP?! Just last week we posted a very brief summary of congrats to some of the feature and short filmmakers on SP who you might like to check out for future collaborations or inspiration. Sadly we didn't have room in the newsletter to add the writers who had scripts options, nor actors who burst out in theatrically released features. I’ll add that summary now here too:

‘Congratulations to the 6 members announced as Screen International’s Stars of Tomorrow in 2014, to Orlando Von Einsidel for picking up a 2015 Oscar nomination for Best Documentary, to the 102 members’ films screened at the London Short Film Festival in January, to the 13 members who have achieved BAFTA nominations (including second-time nominee Ainslie Henderson), to the 21 Shooters who screened features and shorts at Sundance last year and to another 16 members screening films in this year’s festival, to all the Film of the Month winners, South by Southwesters, Berlin screeners and to everybody who got involved in a production. It ain’t easy. Congrats to you all.

Thank you too, to the industry folk and filmmakers who have answered member questions directly and reviewed their short films: Ben Roberts (BFI), Chris Moll (CreativeEngland), Carol Morley (The Falling), Imogen Heap (Reverb), Katie Metcalf (Sundance), David Mackenzie (Starred Up), Will Massa (British Council), Lone Scherfig (An Education), Robin Gutch (Warp), Paul Greengrass (Captain Phillips), Kevin MacDonald (Last King of Scotland) and many more.

10 years, 10 months ago - Andrew Wright

I think 'Industry' is too general a word. The 'Industry' i.e. film/media companies - big organisations that can afford to pay staff - SHOULD pay minimum wage for, say, runners.

As for individuals who may or may not have any money, but own/have access to a camera and have the enthusiasm and drive to make a no-budget film - sure, why not? Providing nobody is getting paid, they're doing it 'for love' i.e. experience, then fine. That's not destroying anything.

Most film makers have to start somewhere, and most do not have the means to pay - and it's up to you whether you want to get involved or not. When I made my first couple of no budget films, I made it very clearly that nobody would be paid, and that it was mostly my money that I was spending (I received a small financial 'grant' from Terry Gilliam after sending out begging letters to cover cost of film processing/telecine).

What I do not agree with is how I started out - working as a runner on a youth training scheme. I was paid £40 per week, half of which was spent on travel into London. £20 per week was pitiful given that I was working for a large tv/film equipment hire company. There were no opportunities/incentives offered to compensate for the lack of salary i.e. no networking, no career development opportunities etc. That, to me, is wrong and exploits young people hoping to have a career beyond dragging their arses all over town for the glory of working for a large established company.

10 years, 10 months ago - Allan (Mac) McKenna

Am I the only one to notice the drastic reduction in opportunities since SP (I gather) ceased giving students any perks? Someone suggested this as an explanation for the sharp drop in positions paid or otherwise on SP. Shouldn't we rather be discussing this? Casting is hardly worth looking at these days. I can't remember the last position I got from these columns. Is a 'casting' column the appropriate place for the discussions such as above? They're pretty sterile in any case and unlikely to achieve anything other than the satisfaction of the poster concerned. That's OK too of course but not the primary function of this column.

10 years, 10 months ago - Dan Selakovich

I tend to agree with everybody here. Each project is its own beast. John is spot on with "Tricksters, cheats and fraudsters who knowingly intend to exploit unfairly have always existed and always will."

But there are those who are sincere, and just trying to get something made without the money to do it properly. I personally couldn't do it that way. I'm just too fucking old. Something I think I would try if funds were at a minimum is paying everyone equally. So each crew member, no matter their level of experience, would get, say, $600 a week. Then defer the rest, just incase the film hit.

Shorts are a different matter altogether. I'll still work for free for friends if I like the project. Then if I do something, there are people I can call on. A trade of labor if you will.

To Paddy's point, when I edited on actual film, I usually had some USC or UCLA film school student as an intern. Their pay was school credit. Some got paid by the school under "work/study". But I can promise you this: each intern learned assistant editing. From working the coding machine, to marking up dailies, to syncing, to breaking down reels... they did every job, and I made sure the learned. Nowadays, internships at the studios seem to be making copies and coffee. So much for learning ANYTHING.

SP should certainly give a hefty student discount (I thought that they did). Heck, and maybe a free membership to those of us who have been at it for awhile and donate our advice--even though Ben thinks they shouldn't listen to us. ;) What do you think, Paddy et al? hehehehehe...

10 years, 10 months ago - Paddy Robinson-Griffin

You've summed it up - it's not fair, not a meritocracy at all. Doesn't really matter what industry a bunch of small fry on a website want!

10 years, 10 months ago - D. James Newton

My sincere apologies for dragging you back into a conversation that you had some time ago. Forgive my ignorance in not trawling the archives before asking the question. People like me must be a tedious inconvenience to yourself.

10 years, 10 months ago - Ivo Marloh

I had a rant about this very recently to a poor SP staffer (and felt awful about it after). You have to decide what you want SP to be, a sort of union/talent agent that safeguards payments and contracts and becomes a forum for people that feel hard done by by "the industry", or a place where people find like-minded others so they can realize projects together. I've so far always paid everyone really fairly on all project that I initiated, but having said that, people with very little experience are also paid amply by gaining experience. I personally like to stick to at least minimum wage, but there are tons of people who are just as keen to work for experience/expenses only, and that is the very point of SP.

10 years, 10 months ago - Bill Hayes

Whether people are paid or not - people should be reminded that insurance is something that is a minefield when something goes wrong.

When people call for a "runner with a car" 9 times out of 10, that car owner is breaking the terms of his/her insurance because they are selling (giving) their services for business purposes. In the event of an accident - no one is covered.

On a low budget production some time ago, a runner was being so over worked that he fell asleep at the traffic lights. Sitting in the back was a reasonably well known actor - who immediately got out of the car and demanded a fresh taxi every day.

Had that runner fallen asleep on the move and had seriously injured that actor - no insurance company would have paid up. The actor's people would have hung that producer out to dry.

10 years, 9 months ago - Vasco de Sousa

Did BBC ever advertise a job here? Did Disney? Did Fox? If so, I missed it. The only name I noticed was a university looking for a lecturer.

Shooting People is not representative of the Industry, and I doubt many of the 1 million Brits who work (i.e. make a living) in the media and publishing are here (or on any competing board.) I don't think any of them found their jobs here. (Maybe I count as one now that I have a film out and have a few clients.)

The free jobs make the quality of talent look limited, and it scares away a lot of the big names from advertising jobs here. Manchester United needed an editor recently, and they went to Prospects.ac.uk. BBC advertises sometimes in the Guardian or other newspapers. I haven't seen anyone of that calibre here. They think of Shooting People as a place for amateurs who shoot on cheap DSLRs or iPhones and edit in iMovie or Windows MovieMaker.

Shooting People has chosen to be a place where crowdfunding films, self-declared gurus and student filmmakers can meet, and sometimes you find undiscovered talent here. (Even for those I personally found Facebook more useful, but that may be because I'm geographically isolated.) However, it's hard to find work or talent here, as it's an anything goes forum all the wannabes crowd them out. Kind of like Craig's list for filmmakers.

It can be useful if you want to discuss bugs in the latest update of Final Cut Pro, or other software and hardware concerns. It's a great place for retirees to talk to newbies and discuss the basics that you really should be taught in the first month of film school (or read in any basic filmmaking book.) However, it's not really the best place to get jobs.

That said, there are two talented people I met here over the years who I may hire in the future. One isn't on the board anymore, but oh well.

So, I'm here to network, and maybe have a conversation. I was here to look for work once, but it's not really the place for that.
We can give each other words of encouragement and congratulations when we find jobs elsewhere.

And for the encouragement, maybe it's worth it.

Happy Shooting,
Vasco

10 years, 10 months ago - Nick Hilton

I can't afford to make the films that I want to make, unless some people are willing to take a hit on payment. That's the reality of my position as a narrative filmmaker – the funding opportunities, at this stage in my career, mean that I have to scrimp and save to make any sort of film, and the more favours people are willing to do me, the better chance I have of success.

That said, I think it's important that this comes from a position of collaboration, rather than exploitation.

I think everyone agrees that projects which are adequately funded shouldn't use so-called 'free labour' as a means of economising. If the Director is getting paid, and the actors are getting paid, and the grips are getting paid, then you need to pay the runners. Even if that means that everyone gets paid a little less, it's the only fair and suitable model.

When I ask people to work for free on my projects, I make it clear that I'm not 'employing' them. We collaborate on the film and they get their input and I take their schedule and needs into account. That's the minimum I can do for people who are giving up their time for free.

I also subscribe to the principle that, because I'm working with people on a volunteer basis, I should do what I can to volunteer for other people. That's maybe the bit that I find hardest about the UK indie film industry – people don't seem to be wild about reciprocity. If you are taking other people's labour for free, the least you can do is occasionally make your labour available for free.

But, as ever, it's important to recognise that free labour benefits those who can afford it. The UK film industry already veers too heavily towards rich kids who don't have pressing financial demands, and I think that if that is to ever be levelled out, we do need to present people with reasonable rates for internships and low-level pay. People who are paying £500pcm for rent + electric/gas + food + the occasional pint with friends, can't afford to work for free two weeks of the month. We need to respect that and not discriminate on the those bounds.

But I think it's an incredibly tricky subject and the worst thing that could come out of it is to stifle potential or creativity by making it even harder to make a £0 film.

10 years, 10 months ago - Simon Wood

There's a great discussion about this on YouTube. Go to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJANs3rg_PY

10 years, 10 months ago - Sarah Chorley

Thanks for bringing that up Tony - we did indeed have a really wide ranging NMW debate, which you can still read on our blog: https://shootingpeople.org/blog/2010/03/the-bectu-minimum-wage-debate/

We also do offer discounted student membership, and have lots of great relationships with Universities, students and other youth organisations. We want the best new talent in our ranks too!

10 years, 10 months ago - Daniel Cormack

The question seems, on the surface, too broad to answer definitively one way or the other. Clearly, there are exploitative productions, but that doesn't mean all or even most are.

Having laid out that caveat, I'm going to answer the question in a general sense: no, I don't think Shooting People allowing 'expenses-only' productions to advertise is exploitative.

On pragmatic level, this is the only way most people are able to prove their abilities.

The people who campaign on this issue often try and set up a highly disingenuous false dichotomy between "naive and vulnerable youngsters / new entrants" and the evil people who "exploit" them.

In fact, most of the people making these requests are young, new entrants - quite possibly working in a junior capacity such as a runner, but who want to progress their careers. Often they've done their fair share of expenses-only productions for other people.

You could argue that perhaps the campaigners don't realise that this is the case and that through their actions they are actually alienating the very people whose behalf they claim to speak. However, the evidence speaks of something rather more cynical.

These "naive and vulnerable youngsters" are routinely derided on private forums as KIBWADs - Kids in a Bedroom with a Dream. The idea that the industry campaigners might feel their own jobs and careers are threatened by the KIDWADs is treated as "laughable" - in which case, you have to wonder why they put so much time and effort in trying to stop the KIBWADs if they really are irrelevant to 'the industry proper'.

Those who have been around for while may remember that I was at the heart of the debate and sat on various boards of the organisations involved, including the trade union, BECTU.

Tom Bell, the National Supervisory Official at BECTU, once said to me, about another industry body that "they don't understand the PROBLEM of all the young people entering the industry". At the time the significance of the comment didn't quite sink in: for BECTU, the volume of aspiring filmmakers on sites like Shooting People IS a problem. If the supply of labour increases, that threatens the terms and conditions of their members. Basic supply and demand - it's not rocket science - but I admit for a while I was taken in by BECTU's talk of sticking up for new young entrants (as I was at the time).

Indeed, I was something of a poster boy for their campaigning and I don't mind admitting I derived some personal benefit from it. I was even invited to meet a load of bigwig directors at IASEDO (where the DGA and all the other international directors organisations meet up to set the world to rights).

As such, it was only a matter of time before BECTU ended up at loggerheads. However, they couldn't lay out the naked self-interest of their protectionist case and so it all had to be dressed up in the language of helping people enter the industry the RIGHT way, when in fact it was more about restricting the number of people entering and thereby addressing the "problem of all the young people entering the industry."

I once asked a member of the DGGB why they all left BECTU and set up the DGGB. He explained that the union had a load of ridiculous rules that were designed to keep people in well-paid underemployed roles and gave as an example that he was not allowed to shoot without having at least four people in the sound department.

The fact is freebies have always existed, but all that has changed is the accessiblity of digital filmmaking equipment and the advent of the internet and sites like Shooting People which allows people to make connections.

I've caught out a number of people who've used freebies on their personal projects whilst also campaigning against other people doing the same thing. The response is always the same: "these were people who I knew and have worked with before and were happy to do me a favour - that's completely different from asking strangers on a website to give you a freebie". Personally, I think the charge of hypocrisy still sticks.

The internet and sites like this disrupt these kind of cosy relationships and staid working practices and open up opportunities to talent regardless of who you know, how much funding you have (or don't have), how long you've worked in the industry, etc. The pace of change has been so immense and so fast that it caught BECTU and their allied campaigners on the hop and they are now trying to close the door after the horse has bolted with a draconian misapplication of the law.

10 years, 10 months ago - Paddy Robinson-Griffin

This is an email I wrote to someone who asked me the same question for their uni course - I've redacted a few names and identifiable details but I think a lot of it still stands...

---

Employment exploitation in film? Such a good question. I don't believe in exploitation, but there's often a balance to low/unpaid work. Work is often unpaid at the lower rungs only - fresh graduates looking for experience. Experience is worth a lot - it's more valuable in many ways than academic knowledge. For instance, I'd bring (them) back on a reasonable wage after (they) did lowish paid work, because 1) (they) have some experience and 2) we got to see (they) were good. People tend to go to people they've worked with before for this reason, so unpaid work can be a 'loss-leader' for paid work.

Some companies will pay nothing, but in return they will provide training and exposure to candidates. A friend worked as an intern (effectively unpaid) for (big TV entertainments company who've done jobs in the tens-to-hundreds of millions of dollars range), did a good job, came to the Middle East (modest pay) for an event, did a good job, stayed for the (massive event) logging tapes, and now is the video operator on tour with (very popular pop act currently touring internationally). She wouldn't have had the job if she hadn't done her apprenticeship at lower levels.

Some companies will take fresh graduates unpaid for a term, give them work, and then just get the next intake 6 months later, to avoid paying junior roles. It all depends on the role, company and individual.

I like to pay what we can afford to pay - I don't want anyone starving, but if we can't give them much cash at least I can make sure they gain experience and contacts. As (they) saw, the discrepancy between the movie public and actual cash budget is often sizeable - maybe even (x) times difference. Because something is billed as a $3M project doesn't mean there's $3M cash to spend. Not by a long straw!

The other thing to consider is the economics of supply and demand, no matter how shitty they are. The perceived glamour means there's a lot more people wanting to enter the industry than jobs, so there has to be some sort of filtering mechanism. If the industry was less popular (eg mining), we'd have to pay a lot more to attract people into it.

So - unpaid labour in the film industry - it's not all bad, but it varies by production. Is it ideal? No. Is it the way things just are, because they are? Alas, yes. There's no money left in TV, and film is heading the same way. The glory days are over, so in a free labour market, people with experience and references come out on top - and if that means doing a gig or two as freebies to get onto the ladder (plus get free training on the job), it's a necessary evil. I still do freebies and low-pay gigs now and again, against future work possibilities. For instance I'm out in Prague sorting out stuff for (last film). I'm not getting 'industry' rates for doing so, but in exchange I'm doing deals with orchestras and people, in the hope I can set up a strand of business that'll pay off in the future. It's exactly the same, just at a slightly different level.
---

I think that should be the pigeons catted again, in reverse!

10 years, 9 months ago - Alève Mine

Indeed I've seen a so-called fully funded theatrical feature ask for unpaid - not even expenses!

10 years, 10 months ago - Peter Proniewicz-Brooks

Except he didn't say that, and misquotes like that are remove the essence of what he meant... Without the words essential and temporary, the things that warns against are so broad as to be useless.....

On the actual topic, it depends entirely on the situation if the use of expenses only positions is valid, and on the actual position itself.

The film industry does have a lot of problems in this regard but the unpaid jobs on SP are often not part of it.

10 years, 10 months ago - John Lubran

Exactly whose 'industry' are we talking about?

‘Have to agree with Andrew and Paddy who have laid out very neatly the practical and reality issues. The very notion that someone else's narrow political views on the world should be enshrined in 'private legislation', even if only affecting Shooting People, is anathema to me. There is no one size fits all with this issue. There are already very clear statutes and Laws that cover employment, contract and a whole host of other things concerning people working with other people.

As a great American founding father said, “those who would sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither.”

10 years, 9 months ago - Marlom Tander

Disgree - if you have a limited budget then spending it on a good MUA and a great DOP and a guy with a crane might make a lot of sense and deliver great showreel for all those involved for free.

What "expenses only" people have to do is very simple - convince people that the overall payoff will make it worthwhile, which means that they need to sow themselves as totally organised, because the one thing no one wants to do is work on someones project and for it to be shit, or for the footage to vanish when the editor gets bored of working for free.

Most people posting "expenses only" do not cross that bar, not for getting a writer anyway, from whom they want a huge slug of time.

10 years, 10 months ago - Dan Selakovich

Come on, Nicholas, that's really not fair. There are new members all the time and old threads that need revisiting. And often, there are new insights to old conversations. Lord knows, I've learned a thing or two (and I think I know everything!) on revisited issues.

Plus, I tend to want to hear what Paddy, John, Marlom, Daniel and a few others have to say on just about any subject. Often I'll discover a new way to look at an issue because of one of them.

10 years, 10 months ago - GILLIAN MCIVER

I don't know what 'the answer' is but I think it's not really SP's problem. SP is a resource for film makers and is better off without too many rules and regulations. Still I'd love to know what any of yiu thinkabout this scenario:
2 film school grads, both talented. The most talented one, BME, no family support in fact is supporting their own family. The next one, not BME, also talented but maybe not so creative, has lots of support from well to do Southeast based family who bought them a flat among other perks.
The first one is still occupying the edges of the industry, doing stellar work but still holding down a f/t day job. The second is already in demand on features after a solid leg-up in TV. Both are very deserving, have a lot of contribute. But one just isn't gonna get the breaks unless they can work for free and it's hard if nobody's paying your rent.
So what kind of 'industry' do we want - and does it matter?

10 years, 10 months ago - Marlom Tander

Working for free on hobby projects where NO ONE gets paid (unless it's a success) is fine.

And genuine short term work experience, likewise. But the law takes the view that work experience roles are ones where the workie brings no value, it's basically a charitable offer by the organisation to let people see what it's like.

But a lot of interns in proper organisations are actually doing a proper job, albeit at modest levels of expertise, and companies that fail to pay them are clearly in breach of the law and interns can get full minimum wage back pay if they ask for it.

10 years, 10 months ago - Andrew Morgan

It's a nice thought (after all, which of us *doesn't* want to get paid?) but the Production section would be a ghost-town if Shooting People took that route. No-one's putting a gun to anyone's head and making them work for free.

Without people willing to volunteer their time and energy to make these low/no-budget films, all that'd happen is less films would get made. It's not like only advertising paid work would magically give filmmakers a budget to pay people.

That's there's so many people looking for expenses-only cast and crew suggests it's more a case of filmmakers lacking the finances they need to get their films made, which personally I think is a terrible shame.

10 years, 10 months ago - Nicholas Hughes

Groan, not this again. Some time ago a compromise solution was agreed on by most parties whereby the really low budget projects made by individuals or collectives could advertise for expenses only jobs. Just leave it be...the system works, it's not perfect but it at least stops all film production being the sole preserve of rich kids and those with moneyed connections. Leave the little guys and girls who have talent but few resources alone.

10 years, 10 months ago - Peter Ward

It's fine if the projects true collaboration. But when the DP is paid and the PAs aren't... That's not cool.

10 years, 10 months ago - Tony Oldham

There was a whole debate about this on SP a while ago & I think they came up with a general policy?

I think if a producer is funded, then the money should be fairly distributed, but often, producer/directors are self funding with zero expectation of profit. If self funding is the case, then it really becomes a matter of collaboration where all involved should benefit in some way; either by gaining experience or knowledge. If profit is made in these situations, then it would only be fair that profits are distributed according to the level of contribution.

And consider a scenario where a producer self funds and makes zero money. The producer/ director probably puts in the most time on that project, as well as risk. If a crew member is paid, and then goes onto benefit from the exposure,and increased reputation, it could be argued that it's only the producer who loses out. And that feels unfair in many ways...

Simply put - if it's Commissioned, Sponsored, Grant Aided, Funded etc, then it should be paid & at Union Rates. If it ain't funded or paid for in any way, then it should be a collaboration/ profit share/ or Union rates if a viable commercial deal is struck to distribute the film further down the line.

Without Collaborations, many of us will never get the opportunity to play at a higher level. If the industry wants more respectability and value for its talent, then it needs to open up and make entry possible for all. The truth is we can all try to find funding via the correct commercial and funding channels, but in reality, many producers/ directors have little alternative than to create their own opportunities; in turn, these projects create opportunities and possibilities for others. Ultimately, it's a personal decision for crew & talent to pick and choose their projects and terms.

10 years, 9 months ago - Darren Brade

Probably better guidelines. I don't think "expenses only" posting should be allowed on projects that do have a budget for some crew members and not for others.

10 years, 10 months ago - Tom Green

Much of the problem is that while it's accepted that 'private' projects may only get made if no one gets paid, the precedent this sets results in quite a number of commercial enterprises trying the same thing, though admittedly not on SP, that often. It also means entrants to the industry had better have a private income to fund their no-cash 'employment' for a couple of years, which in any major city effectively rules out doing this for any talented youngster without private means. So the doctrine of 'free' tends to end up with an industry full of well heeled, but not necessarily that talented people. It's tricky. Personally, I very rarely work for free (can't afford to) and given the paucity of paid work on SP will probably not renew my sub next time..,

10 years, 10 months ago - sabina jay

It is an individuals choice if they work for free. I learnt how to make films by working for free on short films and really enjoyed the experience. I then made some shorts myself paying expenses and a small fee, all thanks to shooting people.
Thanks Shooting People !