ASK & DISCUSS INDEX

12 years, 2 months ago - Daniel Jefferson

hi again,good debating here and a classic example of, 'frustration of talent' v 'the sharp end',nice to see apologies and hey lets stay cool,its a challenge and one I innocently took on,back in 06' and 07'(lol),bear with me (my secondary education did not make me an English scholar or a typist) there is a lot more I would like to say but as (apparently) I upset 'peeps' sometimes ?,I would simply say stay very flexible,you are so young and have a good base to work from,the reality of the sharp end is,its their dosh!,so keep flexible,leave these postings facilities alone (however tempting), oh and by all means cast your eyes on my eccentric style of marketing,you have 1 friend in life (apart from mum) YOU! good luck Dave/Daniel/Mikhail etal

12 years, 2 months ago - Daniel Jefferson

Hi Daniel from Thailand here,this topic did raise its head a good 18 months ago,from memory,and Daniel's answer was very thorough as you would expect with his profile depth etc,Peter's also was very positive and well done on the award.To you Melissa,hi again,my advice would be to add/use the SP community as an ally,a potentially valuable additional source of work and keep your sights on all the other avenues out there,the subscription fee 30/35 pounds is small beer and who knows what can come along.For example from 2006 to 2008 I sourced a few projects which gave me experience,Spotlight and indeed IMDB credits,the more recent gem being the part in the Musical Comedy, Me Me Me as Marshall Artes,the fee was modest but what experience and exposure,take a 3-5 year view stay flexible.
I agree with you on one point: it is bad form for people to seek to pay for crew but not cast,the industry is oversupplied with talent so be entrepreneurial and keep your eyes open,good luck
best Daniel

12 years, 2 months ago - cath le couteur

Hi Melissa.
Thanks for the post. Cath here from Shooters. We absolutely support the ability for creatives to collaborate with each other and get films made and seen. At the same time, we want to also encourage Best Practice amongst all shooters. Meaning; if you have budget for your film, then value your acting talent, and value your crew, and value your script. And think about whether you really really need that crane shot, over and above paying the wonderful talent you are working with. We don't dictate how people should post for collaborations. We also believe that how people post in and articulate what they are looking for, helps cast and crew to determine which films they'd be interested to join.

At the same time, it's discussions like these that are so vital because they open out debate, discussion and reminders on best practice. Ultimately, many films will be operating with minimal funding. But its crazy for filmmakers not to realise that if you build great creative relationships, these are relationships can continue throughout a film career. And that includes how directors/producers look for other collaborators (mutual respect), as well as considerations of pay.

In sum, think this is a fairly long way of saying - thanks for bringing this up. Much appreciated and v.helpful.

Best
Cath

12 years, 1 month ago - Daniel Cormack

"Any unpaid work is illegal".

I'm sorry but this is complete bunk.

The National Minimum Wage does not apply to charities or voluntary groups - they are specifically exempted under Section 44.

Futhermore, many of the roles advertised on SP would not count as "work", but would count as volunteering as there is no contractual obligation to provide work or services.

There is also some doubt as to the eligibility of actors regarding the National Minimum Wage due to their being self-employed. Actors are self-employed for income tax purposes, but employed for National Insurance purposes. However, they do not no have most employment rights, so there is some ambiguity as to their status. In all honesty, the system is a nonsense as how can government say with one mouth that an actor is both an employee and self-employed? The anomaly resulted from some very shrewd special pleading which allows actors to claim the dole when other creative professionals in similar circumstances are not afforded that luxury. On the other hand, Sam West and another actor won a tax tribunal allowing actors to deduct their expenses from tax. Talk about having your cake and eating it (remember this before you start moaning about how hard actors have it).

The self-employed angle has never been tested at tribunal, mainly because Equity target the low-hanging fruit and the the Respondents almost always end up having to represent themselves, rather poorly in my opinion, having read the extant cases at the Employment Tribunal Service HQ in Bury-St-Edmunds.

None of them have yet had the wit to argue that an actor is self-employed and therefore not eligible for the NMW in a court of law. I have personally assisted a filmmaker in fighting off an employment tribunal based on this argument. And that tribunal was (somewhat foolishly in my opinion) backed by Equity, so I've no doubt the union are greatly fearful of setting a precedent at tribunal that would suggest actors are self-employed as defined under the National Minimum Wage Act and therefore not due the minimum wage. In a way, it's a shame that one didn't go to court as the Claimant was such a capricious liar that it would have been enormous fun to destroy her testimony and reputation in front of a tribunal judge.

12 years, 2 months ago - Daniel Cormack

That is an impression, not evidence.

12 years, 2 months ago - Daniel Cormack

If that was directed at me, then I think you've got the wrong end of the stick.

I admire the commitment of someone who is prepared to make sacrifices to achieve their goal. A lot of these acting 'day jobs'' have, of necessity, to be flexible and so they're not strictly speaking careers or even 'day' jobs, but rather shift work at unsociable hours, which is often low paid.

What I admire less is people who have come into the industry with unrealistic expectations of what a struggle it is and rather than knuckling down, moan about things on public forums and try and scapegoat people who for the most part are in the same position as they are.

12 years, 2 months ago - Daniel Cormack

According to Equity, the average earnings of an actor from acting alone are (as I recall) 12k.

Most actors have other jobs; usually flexible ones which allow them to disappear for a few months and then come back. I know because I've worked with lots of actors when they were doing them.

So rather than it being a full time occupation, for most actors, it is an enjoyable supplement to their day job, which may, with the right talent and attitude, one day lead to something which they are able to do as a full time career.

My comments were not personal, as they related to general observations and not to you personally, but maybe a reality check is in order: the world does not owe you a living, you are not 'special' until you have proved yourself to be so, and you have chosen possibly one of the most competitive professions going.

Once again: what evidence do you have for the "increasing" number of commercials asking for free actors?

12 years, 2 months ago - Daniel Cormack

Adopting this approach will do you no credit whatsoever.

12 years, 2 months ago - Tom Green

It's a market like any other- and an over supplied one. I see a fair amount of posts looking for composers/music for free, also using the 'good for your showreel' angle but paying the crew. I just ignore them all, not worth getting fussed over, happens throughout all the creative industries. I've spent about £25k on gear and software just in the past three years, have 25 years experience, and you'll have to be VERY persuasive to get me to work for free. Yet I will do it sometimes if the project looks interesting enough. But the reality is that ALL this creative stuff is a punt,a gamble. I've gambled on buying the tools, you've gambled on the training. But NONE of that guarantees a living. These are hard professions in hard times. You either roll with that or you don't. But don't get mad at the chancers, just ignore them or take the freebie deal cos there's something else you'll get out of it, if not money.

12 years, 2 months ago - SP User

Melissa, don't expect too much in the way of paid work from sites like this...that really isn't their function. You will only (hopefully) get quality paid work through your agent. However, I might apply for an unpaid job on here purely because the premise of the story or a character looks appealing to me. Otherwise, I'm prepared to compromise my artistic integrity for whatever commercial, paid work my agent sends me up for :)

12 years, 2 months ago - Paddy Robinson-Griffin

Just another angle on the paid crew/unpaid creatives/talent part of this...

Creatives and talent have the intengible benefit of exposure, maybe being 'spotted', etc., whereas crew are just doing their day job. Nobody watches a film and says 'wow, the second electrician was brilliant in that, I must get him on my film', so crew have no real incentive beyond goodwill and cash. For cast, directors, DoP, etc., it may lead to bigger things. And if that actor *does* get lucky, their fees will go up and up - No electrician is ever going to get $1M for a movie, ever.

Not arguing the case for or against it, just noting how it's not a straight comparison.

12 years, 2 months ago - Daniel Cormack

I love the way you assert your professionalism and yet manage to spell the word profession and its derivatives wrong no less than three times! If you have a problem with spelling, then it's just lazy not to use a spell checker before addressing your professional peers.

Actually, acting is a hobby to some people - it's called amateur dramatics.

I've noticed a lot of actors in particular are keen to draw a hard and fast distinction between amateur/hobby activity and professional, where in fact none exists. It's a rather more fluid than that - a spectrum if you like.

I can understand the desire of someone who is pretty much bottom of the heap to try and elevate themselves in a small way (if only in their own mind), but the reality is there is no such clear cut distinction. For example, relatively high profile actors who are normally handsomely remunerated for their work will perform roles for free on things such as short films, charity / good cause films or even fringe theatre or no-budget features.

I think it is seen as a way of giving something back and no doubt these actors were themselves helped in the earlier stages of their career by people giving up their time and experience for free to help them develop their careers.

Granted on Shooting People, it is often people working together who are on roughly the same level of experience (or inexperience), but is this not just a way of two people helping each other out? A filmmaker needs actors for their film and an actor needs a film for their showreel. Having a film for your showreel is a tangible benefit - some people even pay money to professional showreel creation services to film them in a variety of roles. It may be that an actor isn't always pleased with the end result, but sometimes you learn more when things go wrong then when they go right.

Personally, I see Shooting People as a network to meet like-minded people to make films with rather than a jobs service.

I agree with you on one point: it is bad form for people to seek to cast or crew commercials for free, but personally I rarely if ever see ads like this and I certainly haven't noticed them increasing. Where is your evidence that this is the case?

In terms of the solution you propose (to a problem I don't actually agree exists), I think for a strike to work you would have to compel other people to adopt your stance and many would see this as unfair restriction on their freedom to chose for themselves.

Strikes by their very nature rely on coercive and intimidatory tactics to ensure that the entirety (or at least the majority) of the workforce conform and withdraw their labour.

The nature of the industry means you'd find it hard to form a picket line and shout "scab" at every single production location or studio, assuming you even knew where they were.

Some have tried to do a sort of unofficial online equivalent of picket line, but rather than target fellow actors who are performing they tend to attack the filmmakers (who tend just to ignore them).

Personally, I think actors are better off focussing their energies on and redoubling their efforts in finding work higher up the foodchain which is paid, rather than scapegoating filmmakers, many of whom are only just starting out, for their lack of success.

At the end of the day, if you don't like unpaid roles being advertise and don't think they are appropriate for you, you should simply skip that section, rather than trying impose your views on others.

12 years, 2 months ago - Melissa De Mol

You know Tom, I fully agree with you. Thanks for the catharsis.

12 years, 2 months ago - Mark Jacobs

Equity won a case against a film maker recently.

If you want to be paid. Take 'em to an employment tribunal.

Union defends
film actor
filmmake r who refused to
pay ac tor’s wages is take n
to employment tribunal
Employment Tribunal
proceedings were initiated against Mr
Deene Naz, also known as Deene Naseem,
of Summertime Pictures A Moving Picture
Company that culminated in a tribunal hearing
in late November 2012.
Our member, Thomas Ingham, was
represented by Equity who took proceedings
under the National Minimum Wage Act 1998
for payment for work on a project titled The Blur.
This case began when Thomas responded
to a casting notice for actors to appear in a film
project in Manchester. When they met, Naz was
immediately interested in employing our
member and showed him pilot footage of the
overall project. He mentioned wages in the
region of £90,000 and Naz offered him a part in
the film. Naz then emailed a contract, a
confidentiality agreement, a shooting schedule
and location maps. Thomas was reassured by
the level of detail that this was a genuine
project. The shoot quickly became fraught with
problems, but Thomas tirelessly stuck by his
contract and completed what was required. In
the months after the shoot it became apparent
that Naz had no intention of paying his salary.
The tribunal found in favour of our member’s
case and awarded him a national minimum
wage payment for the 170 of hours work he
committed to this project. This case serves as
an excellent reminder that the union is fully
resourced to pursue further claims for the
national minimum wage in the future. For more
information on low pay and no pay issues visit:
www.equity.org.uk/lowpay

12 years, 2 months ago - Ryan Murphy

This is just to make you smile http://professionallyresting.blogspot.co.uk/2013/03/the-hand-biting-princess.html .

12 years, 2 months ago - sarah sharman

Any unpaid work is illegal.
I know equity are currently in full support with a new dancers strike at wiping out low pay no pay. And having a clear distinction with clients and agents.

I read that some quoted the equity min pay for each actor, yearly.
If every actor hot that, that would be great, but in reality performance jobs are few and far between.

As for 'day jobs' they are aken up to fund living- not so that we can act as a hobby. Professional performer pay up to £12,000 per year to train. If acting job paid properly, there will be no need for day jobs and full focus and time could be spent on te production.
If you see unpaid work being advertised you are within your rights to report it to equity.
Or ignore it and look for things that so pay.

As also mentioned , shooting people is great for compiling a showreel without spending money...if you fit the bill for the casting.

12 years, 2 months ago - Peter Butler

Hi Melissa, I agree with your points. Especially if the crew are getting paid, I see know reason why it should be looked upon that actors shouldn't.

I'm in the process of creating my first live action film (my last was an animation) and although we only have funds for equipment at the moment we will be doing a kickstarter campaign and any money from that will go straight to the crew and cast.

For my animation I had no money but promised the people that helped me out that if it was to make money at any festivals I would pass this on to everyone involved. Which is exactly what I've done after it won at the St Albans Festival.

I think the reality is that Shooting people is a great film networking site for the independent film makers, which inherently means there isn't much money.

12 years, 2 months ago - Melissa De Mol

Ryan thanks for the link. Very funny and indeed relevant.

I think there has been a lot of interesting discussion here on both sides of the argument and after all what better place for an industry discussion than an industry discussion forum. I hope that open debate and discussion will continue in this industry as elsewhere.

12 years, 2 months ago - Nicola Quilter

Hi There,

Its a sad state of affairs but it's about supply and demand unfortunately. For the most part, I was a well paid actor and am now on the other side of the fence. It didn't mean that I didn't work on 'Love' projects and that is still the case.

In a perfect world with proper funding everyone gets paid. When you are dealing with micro budgets there are things you have to pay for and things that you can get around. Whenever I post on Mandy for an actor I get at least 200 responses even for a non-speaking role. Ever tried to post something like 'who has 20 grands worth of light and is willing to get them to location, set up and not get paid' - Just won't happen.

Actors also have to understand that while making a short, for example, is time out of their lives, that they need to be treated with respect and consideration, there is a whole bigger machine that is a whole lot more time and money operating around them.

Unfortunately it's supply and demand. You get show reel material and the chance to be spotted. Much harder for the crew in this regards. It's a select few that will be looking for their names.

Warmest

Nicola

12 years, 2 months ago - Melissa De Mol

My "evidence" is simply having seen more and more castings for commercials in the collaboration section of this and other websites. Good to know you were not being personal.

12 years, 2 months ago - Melissa De Mol

Hi everyone and thank you for your responses.

Daniel thank you for so eloquently pointing out my typos that unfortunately and amusingly occurred three times in the word professional and its derivatives. This is a very good example of why not to write something when you are particularly upset. The reason for my upset was having come across another job with unpaid actors and paid crew.

I feel that my points have been misunderstood somewhat. I am not saying that using Shooters as a place to meet like minded and talented individuals for collaboration, enabling projects to get off the ground is a bad thing. In fact I was very careful to say that “I value collaboration and profit sharing”. I have worked with many people on this basis that I met through SP and found it an extremely valuable experience. I feel that I was very clear in saying that what I object to is, uhum, professional, projects such as commercials and films that pay everyone except the actors.

Peter, I completely agree with the value of Shooting People as a networking site, and thank you for your comments. Indeed I dont often see commercials but I have seen far more than expected and I wrote my comments having just learnt that a project I was about to collaborate on were planning to pay everyone except for the actors.

Daniel C, you seem very angry indeed. In fact far angrier than I could have expected from my comments. Perhaps you misunderstood me, or are just really incensed by poor spelling. Either way I will do my best to answer your points and clarify my position so as not to cause unnecessary offence. I will not, however, answer your, to be frank, rather rude personal comments. Indeed for some acting is a hobby but Shooting People is not a site for hobbyists, or perhaps you feel it is? Perhaps this is why this problem has arisen, people thinking that the actors on here are just wanting to act as a hobby?? I certainly do not and did not advocate a strike. Your straw man argument is indeed easy to pull down but that was not my argument. I just wonder if there is some way to help reduce the castings with pay for all apart from the cast.

Daniel J thank you for your comments, I agree with Shooters as a great place for collaboration and I hope that I have not lost some potential allies through a combination of poor spelling and my points being misunderstood.

Again I would like to say that I value Shooting People as a place to meet collaborators and get advice and projects off the ground. I have worked on many such projects that have gone on to be very mutually fruitful relationships and long may that continue. I just find it distressing when I agree to collaborate and find that the cast will be the only ones doing so.

Best of luck to you all in your careers.

12 years, 2 months ago - Miranda Harrison

I feel rather sick at the thought that there's someone out there who think actors are hobbyists, flouncing around and playing at it while they earn their keep with a 'proper job'. Perhaps not everyone is aware of the huge costs of training (not always borne by Bank of Mummy and Daddy, but paid for by crazy hours, night-shifts, shitty jobs etc. etc.). Perhaps not everyone is aware that actors have agents with whom they build a mutual business relationship to generate and provide work. Everyone knows that work is hard to come by in the creative professions; fewer are constantly asked to work for free as if it's a perfectly acceptable state-of-affairs.

12 years, 2 months ago - Melissa De Mol

I see what you mean and its true that the disparity is huge and the other way around at the top end. It is just hard for those for whom acting is your the job. I guess there is a lot that isn't standard in this business.

12 years, 2 months ago - Miranda Harrison

Melissa: Here's a copy of a recent post I placed in an actors' forum, which you might find interesting:
...I see ad after ad where actors are wanted for unpaid work, but very, very few where it occurs to the person posting the ad to apologise for this. If every actor out there replied to such ads with a note along the following lines, perhaps this culture of assuming it's okay to ask people to work for nothing might start to change: 'Dear xxxx. I see that your ad is for actors to work unpaid, yet you don't explain why. It is totally understood that work in this field is often low budget, and it is of course up to the individual actor to decide if they want to do the job unpaid, but it would be much appreciated if your posting apologised for the lack of fee and thereby expressed an understanding that it's far from ideal. And, of course, we need to be reassured that everyone involved in the project is unpaid, not just the cast.'