National Minimum Wage To Kill UK Low Budget Films

Well said

Colin wasn’t made for £45 though really was it? I know why you’ve used it as an example but, did they have any insurance for example? If not, why not? If they did, I bet it cost more than £45!

If they found money for insurance, why not for actors or crew? Why should actors and crew be worth less than other elements of the budget? If it’s not a professional set up looking for distribution and has no commercial intentions, and everyone involved has a deferred payment or profit share agreement signed at the outset, then I doubt that HMRC is likely to get involved or that anyone will be interested in pursuing the company. There are plenty of others who just use people though, that’s the point, that’s why NMW and the principle of it is important.

You could compare this to the local amateur dramatics group if you like. I can’t see that there would be anything to stop film makers setting up an amateur film making company with a proper constitution and a committee responsible for running it,which clearly states what happens to all the money and how that money is raised and used. If you’re making films for fun or as a hobby as an alternative to scratching your arse, then go ahead and do so and don’t pay anyone involved; though you have to raise some money from somewhere - no production can be made from thin air, amateur dramatic societies have to have insurance and facilities too. If you want to make a film and you’re hoping that it will have some commercial future, then I think you should include NMW in your budget!

Well ok, yes, it might mean there are fewer “low-budget” films made if film makers are going to start following the Minimum Wage regulations which many have, to date, ignored. Is that such a bad thing - well no.

It’s high time the British film industry grew up and ran its business like every other one and followed the regulations which bind all other employers in all other walks of life. There seems to be no conceivable reason why a young person who seeks to make a career in this business should have any fewer rights rights than any other in any other industry, including the right to be paid a paltry £5.80 an hour (not even a living wage in London).

So congratulations BECTU, well done that claimant and here’s to the new world of realism and honesty in the way film production employers carry on their business.

ok, I’m in the US and not familiar with the legislation, but from what I’m reading this sounds like they’re mandating that it’s not possible for an artist to exempt his-or-herself from this legislation voluntarily. Is that correct? An actor who wants to donate time and talent to a passion project CAN’T? Payroll is mandatory regardless, even if everyone involved is a working professional, doesn’t need the full pay & is happy to work for credit or deeply discounted rates (whether those rates fall below NMW or not)? I don’t get it - why can’t artists dictate their own terms?

If that’s NOT the case, and voluntary exceptions CAN be made, then I don’t see what the fuss is about. But if the artist’s right to choose HOW they are compensated is taken away then that’s dire straits for the arts, indeed.

Die, commies - this is the ‘Free’ Market. You have to pay to get in…

The answer is no Elliot. For the simple reason that you will be truly self employed and therefore excepted under the regulations. As such the example has no relevance in terms of the case that this tribunal decided.

What if my mum helps me type up the notes and calls around and does a bit of research? Can she be self employed too?

Cant all independent filmmakers be self employed as well then too?

Moronic Mark!

Elliot, if an employment tribunal looked at the working relationship between you and your mum they would quickly and rightly reject her case. Not because she is “self employed” but because the regulations clearly aren’t relevant. The law isn’t actually an ass, these scenarios are considered.

And yes, many people on a film set are “truly self employed” but assistants, runners etc are not, and cannot be excepted on that basis.

Sadly you don’t seem to have the strength of argument to brook any other opinion but your own. Oh dear!

Fair enough! Good luck. It would be good to be able to have a debate.

I’m currently at university, and I’ve been lucky enough to work with passionate and generous professionals; without whom I wouldn’t have learnt as much as I did from those experiences.

Ok Mark I see I am going to have to spoon feed you here sir! You take a room full of talented “student”, complete newcomers who are learning on a film. Would a student get a NMW? No! Is a feature film the best place to learn, more so than a college? Yes! If I had to pay those students, they would not be used.

Am I exploiting them? Nope! They are learning and I am taking a huge risk! I am using the best people again from that student group on a “paid” project now, and I will probably take the best with me for the rest of my life, to UK and USA. Its black and white! On top of that, they have contracts where they own an equity stake in my movie

You force new filmmakers too only create if they can pay, you get no new talent. Only the film council supported tiny few, who make films nobody sees, and they spend fortunes. They never even help Chris Nolan. (The Following £10,000 self funded. The Dark Knight) Anyway, who cares, its easy to see why we dont have an industry, brits still cant get the hang of making successful go at it. Wonder why! Duhhh!

<blockquote cite=”In effect a filmmaker takes a gamble (a £100k in the example above) that he’s exempt from paying NMW because all cast and crew are registered as self-employed and, therefore, not subject to NMW.”

Not so, actors are freelance for tax purposes only (they are one of the rare exceptions) but for the purposes of the NMW they are regarded as workers and therefore subject to the legislation. I think the same is true for crew.

<blockquote cite=”I think it’s very important to make a distinction between an endeavour between equals where everyone is learning and/or experimenting and where everyone is on a profit-share deal, and something like the London Dreams enterprise…”

again, not so, this is a matter of employment law, not perception. The law is clear, if you are using workers (and actors and crew are workers) then they must be paid.
Everyone is ‘learning’ on a student film and they NEVER pay actors. This’ll certainly bring them into line.

People have got to own up and I mean morally, the only truly collaborative work without pay is AMATEUR, but no ‘professional’ wants to be called that.

Understood Ben,

I think you need to clearly define the boundaries of your moral stance ie. whats in and what out?
Amateur Film Clubs?
After school clubs
University film clubs who have access to large budgets to make films eg. Oxford University
A showcase for professional actors where everyone works ‘collaboratively’ to get an agent
A showcase for professional actors where there is a paid producer (who is a srana student and doing it part time) and everyone works collaboratively
A showcase for professional actors where there is a paid producer who’s no long out of drama school and owns a Merc
A showcase for professional actors where there is a paid producer who owns a Merc
A showcase in the form of a competition
A showcase in the form of a competition that charges a fee to enter
A showcase on stage
A showcase that is on ITV1 (X Factor)

The problem with the morality is it seems easy in theory but in practice one cant spot the rogues from those with kind hearts, and at the end of the day if everyone is legally entitled to be paid then you should be. Voluntary work is clearly defined by the law.

This makes my blood boil but in the opposite direction. A film maker is basically getting a piece of team crafted intellectual property, which is theirs to exploit for their own personal gain, based on the work of others. The ability to exploit this production is not available for anyone else who worked on the film unless given by contract.
It seems reasonable to me that those who worked on the film should be able to gain from that intellectual property.
This is by:
- A one off payment as defined in minimum wage.
- Training, with a defined scope, goals and assessment (not that unreasonable, time consuming or costly just has to be taken into account).
- Volunteering where they are not required to undertake business critical roles or regular hours. Aimed at commercial exploitation of volunteers, but most applicable to actors in key roles.
- A part ownership of revenues after cost as defined by contract, the most favourable low budget route for engaging key actors.

The whole ruling is reasonably about a commercial company exploiting people to make commercial productions at a fraction of the real cost with no benefit going to the “expenses only” de facto employees. How many of you commenting (or even writing these articles) have actually read the guidelines on this (linked to via the article) or the BECTU documents covering roughly the same territory.
The guidelines are written as carefully as possible to allow low budget production but also make it as hard as possible for commercial companies to routinely employ the privately subsidised rich middle class kids from dominating the industry. It’s a fine line for them to follow and extremely tricky to get right so give them a break.

It may seem a harsh reality but those film makers complaining about having to give something equitable back to the people making their film, which they own, really have to start living in the real world.
Equitable doesn’t have to mean minimum wage and the guidelines don’t say it does, it just has to be fair.

It appears my comments are still being removed as spam which is a little tiresome.

A very quick response to Mikey to this

“@ d0kk - In theory all participants in the project can agree to waive their fees. However if one person ‘blows the whistle’ as in the case reported, the whole house of cards can come tumbling down.”

This page from the National Council for Work Experiene sets out pretty clearly the law regarding the NMW and the impossibility of waiving the right to it. Googling will produce many similar results.

In the London Dreams case it wasn’t that one unreasonable person decided to blow the whistle, it was that one person realised that she along with everyone else was being exploited and looked for ways to redress the balance. Many the people who had been suckered into working on “Coulda Woulda Shoulda” would also have been due the NMW but making a back claim is not for the faint hearted and only one person stayed the course. I gather that some are now attempting to make claims through HMRC rather than through the tribunal system.

It should be noted that quite apart from the large number of people who were not paid as prescribed by law, there were reportedly also people who hired kit on their own accounts who were never reimbursed. In some cases this amounted to large sums of money, and it suggests to observers like me that the producers of this film were actively seeking a lot for nothing. These weren’t talented young filmmakers hoping to create something with like-minded folk, these were people hoping to take advantage of keen new entrants to an exploitative industry.

A big part of the problem surrounding the whole work experience debate is that the legislation is relatively new (ten years old but untried at least in our sector). It’s also (uniquely?) unwelcome among the people it seeks to protect, and that’s because they’ve been brainwashed into believing that the only way to found a career in filmmaking is to spend extended periods of time working for nothing. IMO what we have here is a poisonous mix of vast oversupply of labour and a very oversubscribed industry which unscrupulous employers are using to their own profitable ends. The TV-WRAP campaign (of which I was a proud founder member) exposed the problem in television a few years ago and the worst excesses there have now been stamped out, but the UK film industry is deep in the mire. That’s why the BECTU employment tribunal case result is important, representing as it does the first successful prosecution of an employer in breach of the NMW legislation. An industry with no sustainable entry level and no proper training frankly has no viable future. I worry sometimes that we’ve actually arrived at that future.

@Jules: I think Mark’s already addressed your point about NMW status and self-employed status so I won’t elaborate except to say that it’s the job you’re actually doing that counts. So someone who earns a living as an office junior but takes the role of DoP on a microbudget feature would be assessed as being self-employed on that feature.

The “helplines” are shockingly badly informed and often give conflicting advice. Sadly, attempting to get HMRC to enforce the bloody law is maddening and generally doomed to failure. Again, that’s why the London Dreams case is important: at last we have a clear ruling on a clear case.

NOTE: I’m still being gobbled up by the Spam monster so I’m giving up. Jules (and everyone else) you’ll be more than welcome to continue this debate over at The Watercooler , where the TV-WRAP campaign still plods on.

@ Mikey re “enforcement”

My understanding is that there are two routes to claiming pay due under the NMW. The first is via the employment tribunal route, and that is the one BECTU chose to use. If you have the legal backup (as of course the union does) then this is independent of the system. The second is by submitting a claim through the NMW enforcement unit which has proven to be extraordinarily unsatisfactory. Claims aren’t properly investigated and officers seem insanely keen to accept the assurances of employers that the rules have been followed. The Sweat Team has knowledge of two or three cast iron cases which were dismissed simply on the basis of a single contradictory call - no follow up, nothing. I think it would be fair to say that the HMRC NMW unit is just window dressing.

As far as choosing to work for nothing goes, I’d have thought it was immaterial whether the “offence” is discovered, if it’s against the law it’s still an offence. It’s an offence to do 33mph in a 30mph limit, or to pee in your neighbour’s front garden; the fact that you can do it with impunity most of the time is irrelevant. And at the moment the fact is that you cannot waive your right to the national minimum wage, and if an employer fails to pay you he is in breach of the legislation however much you as the worker don’t want that to be the case. It is not an offence for the worker to attempt to waive his rights; the offence lies in the employer failing to pay.

I was at a meeting with Tim Gale recently, talking about precisely this issue, and my recollection is that actors do have a slightly different tax status to the rest of the population, and fall between being truly self-employed and being on (the old) schedule E. I’m sorry that I can’t remember the details but I’m sure Tim would clarify if asked by an Equity member! It certainly seems to fit with the “special status” of theatrical performers as cited in that quote.

@Mikey. Here’s an example of a case that was spuriously thrown out. Someone did “an intewrnship” for a certain music company. At the time they had graduated and this was their first position in the field. They stayed for three months and did a full time worker’s job for them. A year later she claimed, telling them all the relevant details. HMRC contacted the employer who told them she was a full time student. HMRC closed teh case and wrote to tell he that she had no case.

This despite the fact that she had even sent them her graduation certificate as part of her claim! Needless to say, she got herself back on track, told them she was not a student and the claim was taken up again.

HMRC’s investigation unit are slow and useless. It is hard enough for someone to screw up the courage to claim against a big company in the fiurst place, even without these dullards making it even more difficult. They need a hard kick into shape.

No a contract is legally binding if verbal or written.
The problem with the acting profession is that so many people rely on this ‘opportunity’ tag. Its proved fruitless for so many and we are awash with unpaid work. Instead of trying to look for loopholes, look for the positives - better professionalism and a healthier industry.
It may have worked for you but there are plenty it didn’t and doesn’t work for, they casting sites are awash with ‘I worked for nothing and didn’t even get my DVD’. Why don’t you want to improve things for youngsters, why didn’t you think your work was worth pay? Shouldn’t we try and improve things for those that come after us so that they can feed themselves and their families?
Every time you work for nothing you are undermining others value.

“Presumably this means that NMW is only applicable if a contract is issued. No contract=no NMW? The cast or crew member can walk at any time and the production company doesn’t have to pay them a penny?”

Afraid not…! A contract can exist between two parties without there being anything in writing at all: a single call giving someone a time and place to turn up together with a description of their role is a contract, for instance. Essentially, giving someone set times and set tasks creates a contract.

In an ideal world everyone would get paid but it’s not an ideal world. Some production companies don’t pay actors or crew because they’re scum sucking maggots who should be hung from London Bridge by their testicles. Others don’t pay because they simply don’t have the money to do so.

But the problem with you scenario is that the ’scum sucking agents’ are using the same argument - ‘we don’t have the money to do so’. Why so soft on one and not the other. We don’t have the budget means the same thing, whether they are good or bad, you as a professional aren’t getting paid. Why do you consider your work valueless?

re; Low budget publicly funded films…

There is a UK Film Council Film London Borough Film Funds initiative….

The LBFFC Film London in 90 Seconds is a competition offering £300 for the best film from each borough. Barnet, Havering, Hounslow, Richmond-upon-Thames, Merton, Islington and Sutton will be opening the competition later this year and we hope to announce even more boroughs soon.

There comes a point when the grant you are offering simply isn’t viable enough to pay professionals - or anyone and perhaps isn’t even realistic enough to make a meaningful film with.

Should we be supporting this kind of low budget film making?

Agree with what you say Ben, bit confused though as to why we should be moving from a living wage downwards towards a minimum wage. Its not a good thing.

I don’t think you can have it both ways, on the one hand people want everyone to be paid, preferably a realistic living wage. On the other hand they say its ok to work for less, that’s called undercutting and long term it doesn’t improve wages it degrades them. It degrades them so much that vulnerable professions are exploited.

My point is If you’re making a feature film, and really have no money…and 16/17/18 years old and over … independent thinking people, responsable for your own decisions and you help/ join in participate..get involve help your friend be part of the journey …and this action is your own free free will ..and you want part of it…no mater what..so as a free men/women.. should be granted that right and no have a Nanny Estate over your shoulders …I want donate your kidney you do it.. you don’t people to knock in your door yank it from you…
…and We don’t have a film industry here ( unless you’re rich kid like Jones Moon ;), well connected middle class like MacDonald Brothers Kevin and Andrew ..How much money Mr Andrew Macdonald got from the Film Council to start his film company almost £20 million wow) …so for the poor working class kid.. there is not and industry like in America …with proper pipe line all the way to the cinemas/dvds … here we have fewer, tiny companies ..with not a lot money..( all administrated by white middle class) and government organisation ( al ladmistrated by white middle class) …
Low to now budget should a free ground..a place where ..a farming/incubator ground for the future generation …very democratic..where should have a playing field …
That’s is my point

My point is : THIS IS A CLASS WAR ;–)

If you’re making a feature film, and really have no money…and are 16/17/18 years old and over … independent thinking kind of people, rational agents exercise control over their actions, responsable for your own decisions and you want to help/ join in, participate, get involved, want help your friend, be part of the film making journey …and this action is your own came from your free free will ..and you really want be part of it…no mater what..so as a free men/women… YOU should be granted that right and not have a Nanny Estate over your shoulders

…If you want to donate your kidney you do it.. you don’t want people to knocking on your door yanking your kidneys from you…like a a crazy Monty Pitton moment

…and We don’t have a film industry here … unless you’re rich kid like Jones Moon ;), well connected middle class like MacDonald Brothers (Kevin and Andrew) …How much money Mr Andrew Macdonald got from the Film Council to start his film company???? ….Almost £20 million …wow

…so for the poor working class kid… there is not a industry like in America …with proper pipe line all the way to the cinemas/dvds … here we have fewer, tiny companies ..with not a lot money..( all administrated by white middle class) and government organisation … all ladmistrated by white middle class middle age ;–) …

I think Low to now budget should a free ground..a place where you can make mistakes …a farming/incubator ground for the future generation of film makers …very democratic..where we should have a level playing field …

That’s is my point ! again …I hope you can understand it ;-P

Technically in life, many things are illegal. Technically it is illegal for a producer to take on crew for a film and not pay the NMW to those who are entitled to it. ie: the grades who cannot be classed as “self employed” (runners, make-up assistants etc) as opposed to HODs who can be classed as self-employed un the tax laws (as I am).

The prupose of this legislation is NOT to stop us working together and making films, it’s to stop established companies from taking on “work experience” staff and not paying them. There are many companies in Film Tv PR and other media who do this habitually.

Over the last 15 years I have worked on many low/no budget films and some of them - not all of them -but some have treated the free staff abismally. Runners (who are expected to bring their own cars) have to pick up actors (who are paid)at 6am, then do a long day of shopping, lifting, blocking off streets, sweeping up after the crew, running back to Clapham to pick up the director’s mobile phone charger and so on. Then they have to take the actors home afterwards. One production I was on, a runner fell asleep at the wheel of his car with the actor on board. Where were the producer and Director? Sipping wine back at Soho house!

It will be quite safe for eveyone to carry on collaborating, but not safe to exploit people.

And, as an after thought, what do these “work experience” people learn? They learn that you can make movies for free. So when these people become line producers in the mainstream industry they place adverts on Production base and Mandy expecting a researcher to be able to shoot, edit, produce, write, bring their own kit at a quarter of the industry rate. That’s what they learn.

Janus,

if as a 16/17/18 year old you are going to get a grant and use a professional to perform in your film and maybe that professional is over 20 years of age and has a family - shouldn’t you be paying them to help them feed their kids?

Dear Jules ..this is crap ” what if..”
BUT maybe YOUR professional actor/actress over 20 years of age with a family should be knocking at Jones ” Moon” door … or Mr Andrew Macdonald’s auditions door ( remember he got £20 million of your money from the Film Council ) not a low to no budget door..
We don’t have money…We’re young just want make a feature film…your 20 years old actor in despair should be looking for stable employment to feed his family and not auditioning for low to no budget acting role .unless re really want to do it for no money…
The problem is one of distribution ..a minority of white middle class boarding school /private educated get access to funding…meet the right people in the right members only clubs… and get access to the the the best funding… and the majority of poor working class kids have access to nothing…
So Jules … your fantasy actor …desperate to feed his kids… is knocking at the wrong door…or probably he just go and get a job ;–)

I got off my arse, stopped moaning, got a job in a shitty burger bar, made a cheap movie, wrote great parts for all the actors, gave them all an equity cut of the movie, so if it does make money they get more than they would have on an equity contract.

They worked a 8 days I am putting about 300 days into this, 7 days a week. Still broke in a shitty flat, but now I am attracting investment because groups of investors can now see my potential. So now I can pay my actors for a sequel, remake, next project I will take them best people with me, and be involved with some of them until I die. I would even fly most of them to the states for a project because they were there for me at the start too.

“I got of my arse and stopped moaning” - you sure - what do you call that then??

“So now I can pay my actors for a sequel” - Aha, the promise made by all moguls out there. No doubt you are also printing the invites to the poolside parties at a Hollywood mansion..

Heard it all, and I mean ALL. Before.
Promise lots, deliver nothing. and such a shame you had to go through all that shit to realise morality, wouldn’t it have been nicer to be paid for your inherent integrity and professionalism from the outset?

HAHAHA! Jules whos talking Hollywood! I live in the real world! Some people in this biz dont! My sequel, and next project is already solid you stupid fuck” So dont give me your fantasy hollywood parties horseshit! Thats what Dreamers think of, not Doers!

The problem here is simple. A lot of the acting profession, as I did too, have just realised that, Ohhh bo hoo, I picked a really difficult fucking profession that does not pay much for most of us!

You are planning a family, getting a mortage, putting a deposit down on that holiday home. What do you do? I’m an actor! What!!! What the fuck are you doing risking your families life in a job where most peoiple are out of work! Thats a great life plan!

All the actors support themselves with REAL work too! So dont give me fucking sob stories! Our industry has burnt up multi millions on films that bring nothing back to this country. Like I said, the real injustice is all the money that has been pissed up the wall in this biz!

I’m done! Enough objective points of here to see who is full of it and who is not. Boring now!
bye!

Mr Baker is right..just think about it… that 6K feature film …The Following ( BUT WAS IT LEGAL ? ) …LATER BROUGHT MILLIONS IN TAX AND EMPLOYMENT FOR THE UK … The Following WAS Mr Nolan’s incubator…THAT WAS THE SEED … since then MR Nolan shoot big films here… .. .ALL BECAUSE Mr Nolan have create his on opportunity… with a no budget feature film… and he wasn’t put in jail for it

..Some times it will be a director that make it , get recognised… with a no budget..sometimes will be a actor/actress …another will be a DOP that just learned a new thing…and from that gig got an ad gig… some will call for dad and ask to be taken back home and others will just discover that he really wants to be a banker and makes lots easy money …other times nobody will get nowhere…but will take home some crazy memories of that journey …something to tell the grandchildren..YES I was in that crap DRACULA NIHILIST FEATURE NO BUDGET FILM..

THAT’S LIFE…BUT YOU’VE GOT TO DO IT ( AT THIS LOW TO NO BUDGET LEVEL )ONLY BECAUSE YOUR ARE PASSIONATE ABOUT THE PROCESS..OR BECAUSE YOU REALLY WANT TO DO IT…BECAUSE YOU LOVE FILM …CINEMA,,..STORY TELLING…BEING PART OF THAT EXPERIENCE, GROUP …OF THAT PROCESS…OR BECAUSE YOU IN LOVE WITH THAT DIRECTOR HEHEHE… BUT NEVER ( IN THAT LOW TO NO BUDGET LEVEL ) FOR THE MONEY…
Again UK is killing the most precious delicate thing that we have here…that possibility of greatness just around the corner… that sense of free spirit … creativity…This is a great commodity…This is future of this country…There are no more heavy industries in uk… the country is dying…but we have some great future writers, actors, producers, directors…we just need to let play … the creative industry could be the future of UK….
Here …Just took one lone woman writing a little kids writing a book in a cafe, jk Rowling Have you heard about her ?:-) …using that CAFE as a office wow WAS THAT LEGAL ? … a first novel written by a mother living on unemployment benefits WAS THAT LEGAL ? JUST THINK HOW MUCH she generated for this country..wow

UK film industry link. Where we have went wrong!
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=144701784697&ref=mf#/topic.php?uid=144701784697&topic=10658

David, I am struck, reading your post, by the fact that all through this you have held down “a day job”, and it’s that day job that has financed your epic struggle.

Consider if you will for a moment the position of everyone on the other side of the camera. It doesn’t work that way for crew and production, certainly not once you’ve scrambled up the greasy pole a little. You simply can’t run your career as if it were a hobby - and that’s what you’re describing. You either commit to working all the hours god sends or you pack it in - and without production and crew you’ll struggle. Unless, that is, you’re intending to do it all yourself - and maybe you are.

The logical conclusion of what you and Janus are arguing for is indeed a completely amateur film industry. The certain result of what Janus is advocating is actually that this brave new world of hobby filmmaking will be for ever closed to anyone except the moneyed classes, which is I think exactly what he was trying to avoid. I think.

Yep, that’s all you have to give. Well wishes. Promises of payment feed no one.

Dear Ben We’re all amateurs..hehehe …look What good £20 million from the UK Film Council to DNA films have done ( it would be interesting to see where all the money went…how much the producers got paid … if The UK parliament is transparent with their expenditure so should be all the producers that TAKE HOME million from the Film Council ) …how they lost the money ( what bunch amateurs huum ?) …All that waste …what for? You should invest that money in building new schools …

OK here for you Ben … what I was trying to tell you is this …The logical conclusion of what I’m freaking trying to say is this…Are you with me here hehehe..OK… If you’re are
Leave the indie producers alone… they’re are all starting out…if you’re that hot shit actor, that good..money I’m sure will follow ..will find you…you have that extra zing… hehehe .. .Or alternatively know on the door of big time producers directors ( I will suggest for you to move to the L.A. and get an agent let your agent take that” looking for well paid” job stress out of your mind hehehe … get an agent.. you should not worry about this… )

Ben when I said it’s a class war ..is because if you are an actor and the only reason you want to make films is because you want to get paid…you have to go to wealth side and pitch your self there..the poor working class indie filmmalers DO NOT HAVE MONEY !! But they could became on the the next Scott brothers ( Ridley & Tony ), the next John Cassavetes ( made films with friends and family no money ) The next Nolan …

Mark you silly silly silly …SILLY
Yes… of course it was entirely legal for JK Rowling to write her book in a Cafe …WHF!!! I was just making a point …WHAT IS NEXT? STOP PEOPLE FROM WRITING IN CAFES …AND TAX THEM FOR USE AS A OFFICE …YEAAH OUT MONTY PITTON..”SCUSE ME MY DEAR LADY IS THAT NOVEL YOU SCRIBING DOWN..COULD I HAVE YOUR PAPERS PLEASE ?”
” YOU KNOW THAT NOVEL YOU’VE WROTE IN THAT CAFE ..WELL WELL ..NOW … YOU HAVE TO PAY SOME BACK TAX FOR USING THE CAFE AS AN OFFICE…

Okay, Janus. I’ve had a long and actually quite successful career making documentaries, so thanks for the advice but I’ll pass if you don’t mind. I bring to this discussion no self-interest whatsoever, merely some useful experience both as a professional who has made a living in broadcast television and as a campaigner against exploitation in film and television.

I don’t know what your complaint is about DNA except that they apparently received a grant. (It’s sometimes difficult to penetrate the surface passion of your posts to the underlying message) They have produced some of the most successful British films, employing British crew and British on-screen talent, in the last decade. They’ve offered a stable training ground for aspiring filmmakers and they’ve made some very good medium budget films.

The creative industries are a very important part of the UK economy, but they won’t have a chance if there is no training and no stability for the skilled people they need. A bunch of anarchic, untrained “filmmakers” running around with Red cameras just ain’t going to cut it, I’m afraid.

Anyway I’ve repeatedly said that I’m not interested in pursuing “enthusiasts”, and neither is anyone else really. Let’s get a workshop agreement sorted out and no-one will bother you ever again. Just don’t expect to make a living doing it, because to do that you need to be paid at some point.

“That´s what all we are. Amateurs. We don´t live long enough to be anything else.”
Charlie Chaplin

BEN AGAIN WE’RE ALL AMATEURS …SORRY “enthusiasts” AS YOU MENTIONED, SOME CAN MILK THE SYSTEM, SOME CAN GET BY, SOME JUST DO IT WITH NO MONEY … UK FILM INDUSTRY IS NOT EVEN A COTTAGE INDUSTRY..IT’S SHED … BIG SHED …BUT STILL A SHED INDUSTRY…YOU SEE ALL AMATEURS IN THE NICE POSSIBLE WAY…

DNA…NOTHING WRONG WITH DNA FILMS… THEY ASKED FOR MONEY ( WHAT? ALMOST £20 FROM THE TAX PAYERS MONEY …AND THEY GOT IT WOW!!! …YEAAH THEY MADE SOME OK ( 28 DAYS LATER ) FILMS SOME REALLY REALLY BORING FILMS…I WAS JUST MENTIONING THEM JUST TO SHOW HOW LAYERS OF THE CAKE ARE DIVIDED HERE…IT’S BY COLOURS OF YOUR TIE… IN THAT LEVEL ..NOBODY FROM THE FILM COUNCIL WILL OFFER £20 MILLION TO A BLACK, DARK SINNED MIX RACE OR EVEN A POOR WHITE WORKING CLASS PRODUCER FROM A STATE TO START A FILM STUDIO…OR WHATEVER

RIDLEY AND TONY SCOTT THEY ARE PRO..THE REST OF US? WE ALL A BUNCH OF AMATEURS

M.

Does anyone know of a massive ‘Box Office Hit which netted millions but the crew and cast were signed on the basis of no pay?

The Full Monty, Leon the Pig Farmer - v. low pay for the actors.

M your position doesn’t help the process, all it does is it says to producers there are plenty out there who are exploitable. You ensure that more and more youngsters who need to be paid are not able to get pay simply because you can afford to work for nothing. That’s hardly benevolent - reinforcing a situation where only the rich can afford to act. How do you expect our industry to survive long term?

What may be a hobby for you is a living for others and it ought to be a living if we weren’t undermined by those who think they are doing producers a favour by offering their hard earnt skills for nothing.

@M :I thought your comments were interesting concerning apprenticeships. There is a very important distinction which you have made yourself: apprentices had wages. They had low wages, but they were paid. That’s what NMW is. A low wage for people starting out.

@ MikeyB: In terms of training for actors: wouldn’t it be better for the actors and the industry not to expect students to have to wait until they graduate to learn about screen acting? It might be better to make waves and insist on better film and TV training at drama schools. I would agree entirely that it needs improving. Why not ask film students to use drama school students in their films? That way everyone wins - and they wouldn’t have to pay them because they’re students!

Didn’t have chance to catch up on the most recent discussion since yesterday so excuse this if it repeats some of the lengthy discussion above.

My take on min-wage killing Independent UK Film is this: People are being exploited again and again and this is wrong. I am also a low-budget filmmaker and need to make films at low cost until the film makes money.

It is all about formal agreements and honesty. All too often people are promised a share of the profits when there is no intention of that ever happening. If there is transparency and a fully collaborative team with a legal structure that allows for profit share then there can be no argument that somebody may or not have been an employee and is due min-wage. With a legal structure and agreements in place nobody is exploited and they can rightfully claim their share of any profits.

So it works both ways - it protects the rest of the team from unexpected claims and fines and also protects the team members from dishonest exploitation.

This does not require lawyers and massive additional expense (maybe £30-£50). Just form a company together and keep documentation.

Any endeavour that expects to make money should be run as a business and is no different from opening a shop with volunteers to raise charity money - there is still money involved and all kinds of insurance/health and safety issues. It cannot claim to have no responsibilities just because it is a charity. If you are just a group of friends playing about then that is different but I would always suggest documentation and agreements. My inspiration in these matters is The Smiths famous verbal partnership agreement…

@richardhartley

The Shooting People document you refer to is clearly dated 2007 and does not cover many, many aspects that have been established including, the provisioin of benefits and the payment of expenses which mean that cast would be covered by NMW.
Helen has already dealt with the issue of ‘training’ and drama schools.

Route to market or not, my view is that workers should be paid or otherwise be part of the management team and expect a profit share where there is ultimately an intention to distribute a work for profit.

The rules on workers and minimum wage protect the UK from a devalued wage market where employees are priced out of their jobs by cheaper (possibly illegal) alternatives. Protecting the UK employment market is positive and something that we should applaud especially in the arts where big business exploits the talent mountain. It has nothing to do with the so-called Nanny State. It is about protecting the interests of the voting majority who rightly should expect to earn a living without being priced out of their jobs. The Labour government is protecting your labour.

Where people want to form a company with little money and work towards experience and possibly making a profit then that is still allowed and as non-employees you have no minimum wage requirement.

If you genuinely have no intention whatsoever of making the big time then Charities and voluntary organisations can have volunteer workers who are exempt from national minimum wage and be paid expenses only. More below.

@richardhartley

http://www.businesslink.gov.uk/bdotg/action/detail?type=RESOURCES&itemId=1081674285
edited:

‘Voluntary worker’
The term ‘voluntary worker’ has a specific meaning for NMW purposes.

A voluntary worker is a type of worker (see above) who is exempt from qualifying for the NMW. Voluntary workers must work for a charity, voluntary organisation, associated fund raising body or statutory body. The benefits in kind and expenses they can receive are limited, and certain conditions must be met to ensure that the voluntary worker does not qualify for the NMW.

A voluntary organisation is a body of persons, or the trustees of a trust, which is established only for charitable purposes - whether or not those purposes are charitable within the meaning of any rule of law - benevolent purposes or philanthropic purposes, but which is not a charity, such as a local community group.

Volunteers
Volunteers do not qualify for the national minimum wage (NMW) because they are not workers. Volunteers can volunteer for anybody, not just organisations in the not-for-profit sector.

The job title or label an individual is given is not conclusive in determining whether someone is a volunteer or a worker. An individual who considered themselves a volunteer may in fact be a worker if the arrangements under which they provide their services amount to a contract of employment or a contract to personally perform work or services.

If such a person is a worker, they will qualify for the NMW unless a specific exemption applies, such as the exemption for voluntary workers.

Volunteers and expenses
Reimbursement of reasonable out of pocket expenses alone is unlikely to change an individual’s status to one of a worker. Each case would be considered on its individual facts.

Care should always be taken to ensure that the provision of expenses does not suggest that an individual is a worker. Should this happen, a worker would be entitled to the NMW unless a specific exemption applied, such as the voluntary worker exemption.

Volunteer agreements
You may have written agreements with your volunteers or may have written to them with confirmation letters, for instance outlining:

the ethos of your organisation
opening hours or attendance expectations
what is expected of them
your organisation’s rules and procedures
insurance indemnity provisions for them
As long as these agreements are intended to clarify the reasonable expectations of the volunteer and your organisation and are clearly not intended to amount to a contract of employment or a contract to personally perform work or services, they will not make the individual a worker and entitled to be paid the NMW.

Should such a document become a legally binding contract of employment then the individual would be entitled to the NMW, unless a specific exemption applied.

Imposing a requirement on an individual undertaking to comply with a mandatory statutory obligation such as health and safety, or providing health and safety training would not on its own result in the individual being classed as a worker and entitled to the NMW.

Voluntary workers
Voluntary worker is a term which is used in the National Minimum Wage Act 1998. It has a specific meaning for NMW purposes.

Voluntary workers are a class of workers who have an exemption from qualifying for the NMW. The exemption is at Section 44 of the National Minimum Wage Act 1998.

Voluntary workers may not be called such by the organisation who engages them. They may be people who consider themselves ‘volunteers’ but who are in fact workers due to the arrangements under which they work.

However, if such individuals meet the conditions of the voluntary worker exemption, they do not qualify for the NMW. This exemption is designed to allow people who genuinely wish to work without profit for good causes to continue to do so without fear of qualifying for the NMW.

Although the fact that individuals are voluntary workers is not always known, the distinction is particularly relevant when you are considering whether the individuals that you engage may qualify for the NMW, or in the event of a dispute over eligibility for the NMW.

In these circumstances, if a ‘volunteer’ turned out to be a worker, the voluntary worker exemption would act as a safety net as long as the conditions were met, ensuring that the individual still did not qualify for the NMW.

Who can employ a voluntary worker?
Voluntary workers can only be engaged by a charity, voluntary organisation, an associated fund-raising body or statutory body. Community Amateur Sports Clubs registered with HMRC under the Finance Act 2002, schedule 18 are treated as being charities for the purposes of NMW enforcement.

Record keeping
There is no obligation on organisations that employ volunteers to keep specific records for NMW purposes. However, in the event of a disputed claim, you may find it useful to have basic details such as the names of volunteers, hours volunteered and any payments given to individuals (such as expenses). You should always be able to explain how you arrived at the level of any estimated expenses reimbursed.

My point about forming a company:

Lets say a group of people work on a project for free with the intention of getting a future project commissioned and, as suggested earlier, the project is eventually commissioned but with a new crew. Unless the original crew owned the project by having formed the company together, maybe only the producer, writer and director would profit from the talents and hard work of the original unpaid team.

Having a fully collaborative agreement with a legal profit-share company structure allows everybody to work for free on the basis that if the project is commissioned they could still profit from the investment of their time (and usually money). Because they are all business owners and not employers - they are also, crucially, not employees and so no minimum wage can be applied.

When they have the funding in place they will employ people (above minimum wage) who will not own the company and that will enrich the employment market.

This has to be better than the exploitation we currently see with people repeatedly working for free and being left by the wayside.

@richardhartley

No Mikey, my point about teh two projects is that the first clearly wants workers, te second clearly wants people to volunteer to help people do a job. If the latter didn’t turn up I would guess that the job would be done anyway. teh fact that the first is clearly a commercial venture and the second not is just extenuating circumstances which shows the nature of the project.

In terms of this pilot, there will be no money if it is not picked up but this is beside the point. To say - as many do - that we aren’t paying because we can’t afford to, or it may not make money is no justification at all. If you don’t have the wherewithall to make a proper, workable budget or have such a crap idea that it won’t stand a chance of making any, that is hardly the business of the people who are being used as workers on it who simply deserve a fair day’s pay for their work.

Equity publish a very informative guide to low/no pay.
http://www.equity.org.uk/login/members/AreaOfWork/FilmTVRadio/FAQsGuides/lowpaynopay.pdf
I am not sure if you have to be a member to have access to it.

In response to the all the guff currently on Shooting People website - they were invited to a number of meetings with unions - Equity in particular, held a low pay/no pay symposium in 2006. Neither Shooting People nor any of the casting websites showed up.
They haven’t held a vote amonsgst their paying subscribers on the subject of no pay for at least 6 years.
Its a funny kind of democracy when you can make your own rules up, interpret them as you wish and also have the power to censor those who are paying for your service.

Don’t belive all you read on these commercial websites, many of them censor.

Sorry: didn’t mean to post that yet! … continued…

Anyway, the TV-WRAP group started uncovering endless tales of woe both in television and film (and indeed the wider entertainment industry) and a lot of these cases were referred to BECTU who - to their enormous credit - have seen the value of pursuing a lot of them in spite of there being no initial complaint by a member. After five or so year it’s become a very mature and quite powerful relationship: there’s a group of undemocratic anonymous agit-proppers on one side and a legally constituted trades union on the other, and together we’ve achieved a surprising amount. I suppose I’m the main link between the two: an active BECTU members with excellent contacts in the organisation and a noisy campaigner on the other. I’m probably the only named member of the TV-WRAP group, being regularly trotted out to appear on discussion panels about the campaign.

My main interest has been on the effect of a no/low pay culture on new entrants and how the financial constraints prevent youngsters from anything except a very narrow socio-economic background from making a career in television. I also have very considerable concerns about the lack of proper training which I am quite sure will lead to serious de-skilling. Somehow we’ve managed to devolve the responsibility for training and onward development onto the individual, whether it’s through some totally crap media studies degree or through random two day courses in “dv directing”. TV, like everyone else, is going through a tough time at the moment, but you really wouldn’t know it at the most senior levels. (Mark Thompson actually justified his ENORMOUS salary the other day by claiming that it was actually 58% less than he’d be worth on the open market. Yeah, right) It’s at the jobbing freelance level that the strain is really showing, and in five or ten years time you will have no-one with any sustained experience actually making programmes. That will knock on and viewers will notice.

Maybe, in five or ten years time, it will all be completely irrelevant, because the internet will have taken over. However, until someone devises a way of monetising media over the internet we all have a big problem, and we have a generation reaching adulthood who honestly believe that all media are free for them to pirate. I sincerely doubt that hounding them through the courts for downloading torrents is going to achieve anything at all except moral panic among Daily Mail readers when they’re accidentally targeted. However I have absolutely no idea how to translate internet viewers into revenue - and neither does anyone else…

Just wanted to be clear that I have nothing to do with: TV-WRAP, Bectu, Watercooler

There is no closed door to Independent Film Production in the UK as a result of minimum wage. Small companies do not have to produce costly audited accounts or have lawyers and accountants involved - especially if they have no money. Groups of people are open to form companies together for profit and this is encouraged. There are plenty of books available to help anybody who is interested.

Yes, I think that people should be paid for the work they do but I think that taking somebody to court because you completed your unpaid internship and now demand payment is not going to help your cv. I do not agree with taking former employers to tribunal and effectively moving the goalposts on a former unpaid, albeit currently illegal, agreement. Whatever the current law says, it was an agreement between two parties at the time it was made, and both parties should honour that.

I think that the work that is being done to educate employers as to minimum wage responsibilities is good because I do not want to see the film industry legislated into the ground in the future and, with general employment law in place, things really do have to change on all future and current placements. Unfortunately there is no defence of ignorance and this is going to cost the film industry for past mistakes which I do not think is good. Promoting minimum wage and current legality is one thing - unions destructively taking the film industry to the cleaners for past internships is another altogether.

A lot of people make a lot of great points here, but many sound like religious fundimentalists. No matter what you tell them, they have their own personal agenda, they will NEVER get the valid points for having a sensible solution to all this. So my comment is not for them. They wont change their stance.

I have a paid feature going into production next year. A few main leads, but also about 12 speaking roles for actors. It’s a big cast, so I can’t afford NMW. Just under that figure. After I read this, Ok, fair enough, It means I just have to restructure my story, and I will lose 6 of them so I can do NMW. Thats already solid after seeing this.

Nobody will tell me I can’t make my film. Its sad that 6 of these roles could have went to acting students who are looking to get work on film to build their portfolio. They would have been paid, had a great experience on a film, and if some of them stood out as really talented, I would have taken them to another project.

Don’t forget, directors HATE sitting through auditions, so they want to take the past actors, crew with them. If the film does well, makes a little profit, I get double the budget the next time. Not all filmmakers are out to “stiff people” But there is no money out there!!

A lot of people here suggest, we all shut down shop if we can’t come up with “proper budgets”. What is a “proper film? What is a “proper budget?” The latest $100m global blockbuster “Paranormal Activity” is not a proper film because it cost $10,000? Thats an amatuer film?

Most of the industry funded brit films that have tanked over the years are proper films? Most have made ZERO profits! So cut this crap where mirco budget filmmakers are “amatuers” If you took the box office of most Brit films that failed, and USA films that failed, the industry is FULL of amatuers with BUDGETS! They have no excuses, they have money, fully funded crews, cast, stars, distribution, and the level of quality filmaking on a whole is still appauling. Latest one that springs to mind is Martin Freemans “Nativity”

Ok Paranormal Activity had a small cast. As far as I know the director paid them. No idea if it was national minimum wage levels, but I know their laws are different there. I am sure those actors will be getting offers beyound their wildest dreams now. Anyway, my point is. Here is the solution to new filmmakers. Taking Paranormal Activity as an example and switch genres.

If you need to show what you can do but find it hard to raise a budget. Simply write a film with a small cast, a two hander road movie. Write the most orignal two hander you can think of, and shoot in 10 days, and that way you can afford to pay NMW. Everybody is happy! If your film makes a profit, move up the ladder bit by bit. To a bigger budget, ect. Problem solved for filmmakers!

It sadly means less work for actors, but no law should stop new talent getting their creativity out there. Some of the people that have commented here, really come across anti indie filmmaking. The truth is, it’s the low budget indie filmmakers who are some of the biggest directors on the planet today. Know your filmmaking history if you are going to get on a soap box

We all know there are crooks out there. But not every filmmaker is out too stiff their talent, get cheap labour. Its simply a catch 22 situation. Even if we were in the best economic times, securing investment for a brit films is incredibly difficult. Ricky Gervais is not the only person who bursts into laughter when you mention “Brit Film”. About 30 rich entreprenuers laughed in my face when approached them after I mention “Brit film”

The industry is a mess. You mention “British Film” to the biz angel network in the UK, and the phone goes dead, the door gets slammed. It has an appauling track record. And even the ones that win awards, usually dont recoup their investments. These angels have also done their research, and know most of the US indie companies have shut down, and know piracy means films are free now.

Please wake up to the reality of the industry we are now in. And lets all work together on a fair rational plan. Filmmakers wont stop making films, and god forbid if they do. Especially ironic if creative industries die, when we have access to all this low cost technology. Lets just all sit at home!

Filmmakers, go make 2 handers and pay NMW! And go for the best acotrs in the country. If you have to pay NMW, then obviously us filmmakers are going to be extremely selective. Is that not what we would do anyway? No. I have found greate actors with very little experience, but my investors will now demand that if we have to pay NMW, we want to go to the top agents, casting directors. I hope all the actors here are at the top of their game, as I won’t be seeing you if you are not.

Rob

Are we not concerned here with low/no budget Independent Productions that could easily unintentionally fall foul of the regulations?

I agree that there is a lot of exploitation in the workplace and that is what minimum wage aims to stop. HMRC did our regular audit recently and they leave no stone unturned on minimum wage and employment regulations without the involvement of unions. We do not exploit and so we have never had a problem with this legislation. However, it was previously generally regarded in the industry that interns could be unpaid and interns would seek and accept these jobs for experience. Educating the industry is good but using the current legislation to rewrite previous agreements is opportunistic in my opinion and the recent case demonstrated that this is now possible not only with rogue employers. Whether or not they are likely to be under the radar, Independent FIlmmakers must still comply with the legislation and also protect themselves.

I agree that publicising current legislation and enforcing for current employment contracts will improve the film industry job market and need not impact honest, non-expoitative Independent Film Production.

I hope that this forum continues with positive ways to encourage the small players and avoids creating an environment of fear.

“the recent case demonstrated that this is now possible not only with rogue employers”

I’m not sure it does. London Dreams certainly were rogue employers and it took a great deal of graft on the part of the claimant, the union and their legal representatives to win a favourable judgement. What the London Dreams case absolutely does demonstrate is that if you, as an employer, actively set out to cheat your workforce then you may well suffer the legal and financial consequences. The crucial part of the legislation is that employees are not able to waive their entitlement to the NMW, and it surely is incumbent upon the employer to ensure that they comply with existing employment law. This bunch did not.

My point is that the status/use of “interns” has not changed from the day the law was framed till now. The actual regulations have not changed, merely the enforcement of them.

No we’re not all doom. Yes, it is possible to find the regulations overpowering at times but surely that is why we are participating in discussions like this - encouraging the Independent Film Industry and avoiding pitfalls through knowledge transfer.

Can I just point out - inter alia - that it really doesn’t help when Jess Search from Shooting People makes postings on this issue which are entirely inaccurate. On the bulletin today she says that:

“The law says that people can agree to work unpaid if they are registered freelancers”

That is entirely incorrect and misleading. “Freelancer” means absolutely nothing in these terms, and is often used by people to mean “moves from job to job” or “non-staff”. The proper thing to say is that “The law says that people can agree to work unpaid if they are truly self employed”: something entirely different in meaning and, as has been observed earlier on this page, self employed does not man the same for Minimum Wage purposes as for tax purposes.

Jess Search also claims that they turn back adverts which they think infringe the regulations: if that is the case, maybe she should consider the case of the precise film in question at the heart of this court case. In 2007, this precise position was advertised as a piece of unpaid work on that site: unpaid and clearly illegal. Despite being told about this, Shooting People did nothing to address the situation and left the advert up.

I don’t have a Shooting People membership but if a member who has seen this on here would like to post this on that site (I’d be interested to see if it gets through the censor!) then I’d be very grateful. If not, then maybe they could refer Jess Search to this page.

Bloody nonsense.

“I know there’s quite a bit of support for this in our branch of BECTU, so perhaps what we need to do is hold an open meeting and invite the people who’ve contributed to this discussion, together with the Shooting People and the other guerilla networks.? What say you all?”

Its been tried, Equity invited all of the unpaid work casting sites to the ‘Low Pay/No Pay symposium’ in 2006, none of the showed up. Equity have meet SP and others in the past, they aint interested. If you try and disagree with the policies on those so called egalitarian jobsite sites they simply don’t publish it.
SP have had 10 years to better educated its readers, the NMW has been in place all that time, its had 3 years to update the current document it us directing people to. It could advise all advertisers of the NMW law with a ‘pop-up’ immediately they place an advert.
SP could ask its advertisers if they want to continue paying for a site full of unpaid work. SP could choose to delete members who flout its own rules but instead of asking its paying subscribers, it unilaterally decides “We currently have no plans to delete members for infringing the minimum wage rules because, quite simply,I DON’T BELIEVE it’s what the majority of Shooters want.” Forgetting conveniently that the advert that triggered its defensiveness orginated on its very pages.

The bottom line is that for 10 years been using a somewhat morally corrupt business model that relies on flooding the market with unpaid work and it now finds this is legally challengeable and probably unsustainable. Plenty of people have been telling them that for year, but like they say “Control the communicatioin medium and you control the masses”.

Er…in case you hadn’t noticed Mikey, the Minimum Wage exists in most countries in the rest of the world as well, so I wouldn’t fret too much about someone else getting your amazing web series away (which anyway no-one has yet figured out how to make money from so isn’t really an economic proposition in any way and so can’t pay its way even if it was really really good).

@ Mikey, don’t attack me, its tiresome, ad hominem arguements aren’t the issue, they solve nothing. Let us both attack the issue.

if we can get all the casting websites to up their game and educate the posters AT THE POINT OF POSTING. Then that’ll raise the benchmark for everyone.

If we can get film schools to teach contract law, H&S, insurance, nudity and working with children as well as some of the arty farty stuff then that’ll raise the benchmark for everyone.

If we can get all the media courses to realise that film teach contract law, H&S, insurance, nudity and working with children as well as some of the arty farty stuff then that’ll raise the benchmark for everyone. Trouble is they aren’t focussed on producing those who will have a long term career in film.

If we can get UKFC to stop issuing grants of £300 and pretending you can make a realically quality film with professionals then that might help raise the level of professionalism.

I might be wrong but I think I am talking about REPONSIBILITY and OWNERSHIP.

“UK web series sponsored by…ermm…lemme come back to you on that one.”

Yes indeed. How that has any significance in terms of whether makers of web series should be able to use illegal unpaid workers beats me. And I haven’t said not to embrace it, and I do know it’s 2009. And ditto on the don’t fucking patronise me front.

@ Jules - How are they denying you payment if you don’t apply for the job in the first place?

If you flood the market with unpaid work, sooner or later those that could afford to pay you decide to join in and not pay you also. That point has long since been passed.

PS. Please see my post time 20.05
PPS. CCP seem very quiet on the issue, anyone contacted them? They also state that all adverts on their site must comply with UK law.

What exactly do you do within the film industry?

@Mikey - Its not the point is it? You asked the question on plenty of websites and sought people who would discuss the issue. You aked a very loaded question, alright not a question but a loaded statement. “National Minimum Wage to kill UK Low Budget Film” To which my initial response is “Low Budget Film is currently killing mine and other’s ability to earn a decent living ” - its also hugely discriminatory attracting in the main young performers. Plenty of people say well “Don’t take the job then” but that doesn’t solve the problem for those who continue to be exploited - its simply ignoring the issue and to some extent allowing low pay work to creep more and more insidiously into work that would otherwise pay better wages.

However, to answer your question. I work in the film industry and as such I, like you, have a vested interest in its long term sustainability. There are plenty of people on these web based forums hiding under an alias trying to defend the indefensible. I don’t accuse anyone here of being that, neither do I accuse Mikey of censorship but it does happen.

I do know why those websites with the ability to sharpen this industry up in the last 10 years haven’t done so, and its not out of benevolence. I don’t really see why I should throw them a ladder to escape from the hole they dug themselves, especially if their business model was knowingly unsound from Day1.

Harsh or merely pragmatic?

“I genuinely do feel that you and Mark are attacking me, on my own blog, for having the audacity to have a marginally different opinion to you.”

And you appear to be falling back to aggression because people dare to come onto “your space” and challenge what you are saying. (And frankly I don’t care if there are people who don’t agree if they’re not prepared to actually debate the issue but lurk behind other portals with their thoughts, if indeed there are any).

“@ Mark - I’m not going to respond to you any further regarding SP until you agree that the ruling in Reading was a landmark case. With regards how commercial sponsorship/branding of web series affects things, perhaps if you take your head out of your arse you might have a clearer view.”

Well frankly I don’t give a flying fuck whether you respond to me or not, I don’t have the slightest interest in any set of rules you may wish to throw up - if you’re unprepared to discuss the issue without preconditions then it’s not vsomething I’m going to lose a huge amount of sleep over. And in terms of the arse comment cf the agression thing above.

Yet again the aggression. So much for your “would just ask that we leave the personal attacks out”.

@ Mark/Jules/Ben - I’m going to ask you all a direct question. What exactly do you do within the film industry? Some of you have alluded to it but, for newcomers, please explain. Let’s be honest, the three of you have come here and made your views well known so please explain, in the same way that every other contributor has, exactly where you fit in the picture.

I explained probably at excessive length above why I care about this subject. What I do in the industry I think is largely irrelevant but I’ve nothing to hide: my name’s Benetta Adamson and my website is here. I make documentaries for television. As I said before I’m the identifiable one, while others are a sight more circumspect (and quite right too).

@ To the trio/duo/etc - I am not, and have never been talking about, large corporations in glass buildings making films. I am not talking about the scum who exploit people for their own financial gain. I am talking about people with a passion to make films, who understand that in 2009 that cheaper kit and the Internet provide them with a distribution method to tell their story.

I *am* talking about the scum. And we (the tv-wrappers) know about them because we’ve been monitoring it for a long time and we know that there are an awful lot of people feeding off the enthusiasm and the desperation of others. This is a group who’ve been fleeced of thousands of pounds in tuition fees for a degree which is often not much more than toilet paper, they’ve been told that the only way to succeed is to work for free and they’ve had their heads filled with totally unattainable dreams. Very often they don’t even have any really marketable skills. There *are* laws which are designed to prevent this exploitation, but instead we have exploited and exploiters working in league. London Dreams was as good an example of this as you’ll find and yes it was a landmark case, where for the first time the scum got their comeuppance.

We are entering a brave new world. The problem is that at the moment it’s clear that it’s just not capable of sustaining all the people who want to work within it and that is stifling the market at entry level. If there were no-one willing to work their arses off, in their own uninsured vehicles, then quite a few of the projects which get posted on our board would rethink.

Of course a distinction needs to be made between the exploitative scum and the genuine collaborators; I’ve been saying that since post one. I’m pretty clear in my own mind where that line needs to be drawn, but I imagine that others will have a different opinion. The thing is that I don’t really think that any of us posting on this board over the last couple of days are actually that far apart, because we all know that there is a moral difference even if the legal one isn’t so clear. So let’s clarify it.

@ Rob: christ, you complain of people ranting and making attacks. I profoundly object to being called a Nazi.

I have one simple question for you: do you defend the people behind the London Dreams project? Can you not see that by sounding off hysterically about us “killing independent film” without making any distinction between the genuine collaborators and the vanity producers that you’re doing your cause no good whatsoever?

And as to your mates: what a bunch of cowards. Pretty bloody pathetic really.

Of course I disagree with that london dreams project. None of this is rocket science. It’s been argued out here enough. It doesnt take a city council meeting to articulate what is fair and what is not. I am not going to articulate how we should work it, because it’s been talked enough on here.

But when I hear ranting that more or less says indie film from “enthusiasts” should be discouraged, that is very very nasty! It’s almost like saying we should burn books! Thats where the Nazi came from. Its called “Heat of the moment” Ben.

The whole tone of the attacks towards mike and filmmakers leaves a bad taste. We are in a time where filmmakers have to resign to the fact that their film will be taken for free, and we have, but we are adapting with the reality of the times. We don’t want to run on a rampage and demonize file sharers like people here want to demonise filmmakers.

Fairness and equality should be the norm, you have been talking about crooks with London Dreams. We are not all from that world. And we ALL have to adapt and come to fair agreements or we are all screwed.

You continue posting away here like a scratched record, I have a date with a life. As for my friends being cowards! lol! Who are you people! My friends could see valid points were made from both sides, so they didn’t feel they needed make the same points over again, but this small group do. It’s almost hilarious now. You have your own little angry show here. It’s almost amusing now. Its gone from the topic into a boxing match.

Let it rest for christsake people, the points have been made!

Goodnight.

Ahem,

I came up with positives, they were ignored.

Its no good continuing to use ad hominem arguments when you’ve read what it means, that kinda shows a lack of learning. My qualifications or standing in the industry for this debate are not the issue, they’ll ony give you more excuses to attack me the person and not focus on addressing the issue.

I’ll reiterate my positives…..

If we can get all the casting websites to up their game and educate the posters AT THE POINT OF POSTING. Then that’ll raise the benchmark for everyone.

If we can get film schools to teach contract law, H&S, insurance, nudity and working with children as well as some of the arty farty stuff then that’ll raise the benchmark for everyone.

If we can get all the media courses to realise that film teach contract law, H&S, insurance, nudity and working with children as well as some of the arty farty stuff then that’ll raise the benchmark for everyone. Trouble is they aren’t focussed on producing those who will have a long term career in film. There’s a real problem with these media schools how do we deal with them. Do they have any interest or bearing on our industry?

If we can get UKFC to stop issuing grants of £300 and pretending you can make a realically quality film with professionals then that might help raise the level of professionalism.

If we can get the ‘hobbyists’ and ‘enthusiasts’ that are making films to realise that there is a division between hobby and employment, amateurishness and industry then that might be a start.

Equity already have a low/no budget agreement, only one employer seems to use it. The solutions are around, no one wants put in the time (professionalism) to use them.

I might be wrong but I think I am talking about REPONSIBILITY and OWNERSHIP.

@Mikey Bee,

You asked people to ‘comment’. I’m doing just that.

Would you be so kind as to explain your value system to me? On the one hand you advocate “educating CCP etc” but in the same breath you pay them a subscriptioin and are on their own website pleading for them to join in your efforts here. You can’t have it both ways, I just seems as though its not thought through enough can you please explain how on the one hand you appear to disagree with them yet appear to want to get into bed with them when it suits to win an argument?

It’s all well and good in saying NMW has been around for 10 years. Yes, it has but the tribunal in Reading has only been around for 4-5 days. This is what I was referencing earlier to Mark. Technically low budget filmmakers who didn’t pay NMW were breaking the law BUT there was no benchmark case. Now there is.

My personal feeling is that it will take several more of these cases before a significant change will take place and probably a change in law to make it illegal to post jobs that don’t conform to NMW. I know that’s something Clive Hurst has tried, and failed, in the past to achieve. My feeling is that you’d probably support this change of law

Well there was hardly need for a bnenchmark case when all the regulations and a detailed guide to them was online, as well as clear advice from many quarters. And this isn’t a “techincal” result - all it is confirming is that if you take someone on and use them as a worker and they must be paid.

I agree with Jules that sites need to be a lot firmer when they post adverts and be prepared to reject a lot more than they do at present. That won’t happen as these advertisers are the life blood of fundamentally corrupt sites like mandy.com. Nor will a change of the law happen - it can’t because it would mean that the cuplability or otherwise of an owner of a site would be in the hands of the actions of a third party; clearly neither practical nor acceptable.

The issue is not and has never been about true collaborations which are the province of hobbbyist film makers, it’s about the manufacture of feature films with a view to a commercial end. On the SWEAT board we never take issue with short film makers (unless they have public funds) and very rarely with those who have bothered to put a profit share scheme in place (however pointless they are). Sites like mandy.com, Shooting Pople, Talent Circle, Star Now etc have to be forced to clean up their act, and HMRC needs to be far more proactive in seeking out companies that do this kind of thing to their (usually yong) workers. That goes for film making, TV production, PR, politics, fashion, journalism and, increasingly, other industries which are using unpaid workers.

There is a head of steam now, not only as a result of this ruling but also with the arrival oif new campaigning websites, politicians being forced to address the issue and more and more stories appearing about this exploitative business, that eventually HMRC and the Low Pay Commission will be forced to do something. And not before time.

Rob:

Of course I disagree with that london dreams project. None of this is rocket science. It’s been argued out here enough.

Finally. Good. You see, this whole discussion began because the London Dream judgement was hailed as presaging the death of independent filmmaking. It does nothing of the kind. It merely signals that exploitative employers should be watching their arses.

It doesnt take a city council meeting to articulate what is fair and what is not. I am not going to articulate how we should work it, because it’s been talked enough on here.

That’s a shame. Particularly since you’ve spent a lot of time shrieking at me and others about how we’re trying to stop you doing your thing, while actually - if you could be bothered actually to read my posts - I have been advocating doing something about ensuring that you can go on doing your thing to your heart’s content. So have several others. A passing stranger might very well think that you prefer to play the angry maverick rather than address an issue and find a solution. Let’s just say that I know whose mind is closed here - and it certainly isn’t mine.

Okay. I give up, Rob.

To everyone else (and even Rob if he can manage to disengage shriek mode), this has just been posted on the Sweat board. I have no idea who Laura is, but I can see that she’s sufficiently unhappy with her experience to want to change things for her successors. Sincerely, what do you guys think of it?

http://tvwatercooler.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=sweat&action=display&thread=10298

I agree, Mikey.

As it happens there is probably a bit of a complication in that this company appears to be a registered charity, and charities are exempt under the legislation. I’m certain there are caveats which oblige the employer to be fulfilling some kind of charitable purpose and I’m equally certain that a wannabe feature film director furthering her own career at the expense of new entrants doesn’t count, but it is nonetheless a complication.

I certainly agree that the hybrid (paid/unpaid) nature of the project sets alarm bells ringing, and I’m also disturbed by the hours they were expected to work. We’ll do some digging around…

“Mikey Bee 11.30.09 at 7:03 pm
@ Mark - Apologies for getting a little heated over the weekend. I think I adopted something of a siege mentality ”

Ha, no worry mate! I can understand what it’s like to be bombarded from all sides, and apologies if I was too “strident”! We actually do agree on much on this subject when it comes down to what we would like to achieve. Trouble is the law is a bludgeony stick rather than a razor blade which is what is really needed.

Equity already have a low/no budget agreement, only one employer seems to use it. The solutions are around, no one wants put in the time (professionalism) to use them.

The only agreement I was aware of for low budget referred to films < £2m. Still sounds like a pretty big budget to me. If there’s another one out there then can you please forward me a link as I’d like to see it

I was posting in response to this reference on the 29th

I like the idea that a meeting of minds might come up with a way of addressing this problem, and it is absolutely critical (obviously) that HMRC comes on board and plays a part as well. They are extremely slow in moving on anything at all and like to stay well away from committing themselves in saying “this is OK but this isn’t”. That’s why, if you call their helpline, the response is never any damn help at all, they simply quote the usual phrases at you and will never offer any interpretation.

Having said that they have expanded on the issue of sports clubs and the NMW, as well as (recently) addressing the issue of voluntary workers so who knows? I’m sure it would be possible for interested parties to come up with something that would be taken into accont if a case ever did go to a tribunal, ie if a film was made under a particular defined aggreeement then that would have some sway in persuading a tribunal that the NMW would not be due.

“I don’t know who would administer it.”

I don’t think anything would need to be administered. The Skillset guidelines issued after TV-WRAP were the result of consultation between PACT, Skillset and BECTU (I think - was there any government agency input???) but are now there to offer a model for good (or at least acceptable) practice, simply because various parts of the industry representing employers and employees agreed them. I truly think the guidelines have made a huge difference in television: companies and individuals can now simply refer to them and not overstep the line. Most, perhaps virtually all, PACT companies of good standing would now not dream of not following them.

I know, and so does everyone else, that indie filmmakers working way below the industry radar will go on making films for £50/£500/£5000/£50000. As I have said time and time again, no-one wants to stop that, but what absolutely is needed is an understanding of the legal obligations which affect everyone. That ranges from ensuring that runners with their own cars are properly insured, having proper public and employee liability cover, doing risk assessments, the working time directive (proper rest breaks blah blah) and of course the national minimum wage. Just because you’re making a no budget movie does not absolve you from ensuring that your activities harm no-one else.

Guidelines which set out these obligations as well as establishing the framework for a co-op/profit share might actually be useful. Lecturers can at least tell their students about them, even if that’s the only legal grounding they get in their degree. And anyone who draws up agreements between him/herself and the rest of the collaborators will know that they’re legally - and ethically - clean as a whistle.

@ Jules: The problem, IMHO, is that there is little communication at member level between Equity and BECTU. I don’t suppose most filmmakers have the first clue that there is an Equity agreement governing low budget movies, but I have a suspicion that guidelines which are actually the result of consultation between the different parties might be different. I think it’s worth a try, and I do think there’s an appetite for it at BECTU.

(Yes, Mikey, I’ve been a member for most of my life one way or another. I am presently deputy chair of the Writers Producers and Directors branch, although obviously everything I’ve posted here is my opinion)

“why would you as a performer or crew member sign up to any other deal?”

Because the website advertising the job didn’t inform them or educate the advertiser when they posted the job.

Unions are caught between a rock and a hard place with this whole topic, to be fair. On the one hand they have to offer a service to their membership which makes it beneficial to be a member, so that, frankly, their members are likely to be better paid and work under better conditions than their non-members. That is the whole point of a union, after all.

It’s a big ask to get them to see that making the workplace fairer for everyone, whether or not they’re members, is good for their membership. It’s effectively the altruistic vs the selfish, and at first glance they seem completely opposed.

To BECTU’s great credit they have understood that to stick in a 70s/80s state of mind was not going to work any more. No-one in the entertainment industries is going to go on strike, and frankly the new entrants barely know what a union is let alone understand the notion of solidarity. So union membership has to offer something different: a real, visceral understanding of just how fucking hard it is to make a living in the entertainment industry, a capable shoulder to cry on when things go wrong and you get screwed (again), a way of getting people with common interests to talk to one another and understand each other better - all sorts of things. We are a lot stronger together than we are as a bunch of individuals shouting at each other.

All the questions are hard, and none of the answers are easy. All you can do, I think, is work out what is fair for you, and also whether you think the offer will ultimately benefit you. To do that you have to have a better view of the landscape that the square metre you stand in now, and we get that by talking to one another.

“Any ‘non licensed’ agreement falls outside of the scope and, therefore, is liable to prosecution under not only the NMW guidelines”

I don’t know if this is intended to have the stamp of approval of HMRC but, while they will happily reiterate the general rules to any group seeking to write “good practice guidelines” they would never endorse any agreement that would suggest that by following it you would avoid any threat of prosecution.

I think the best you will get from HMRC is to hope that, if people did sign up to and adhere to any agreememt, that they would look favourably at it as a sign of your intentions as a filmmaker (and that a tribunal would to). I think that might happen (contrary to what you say Richard, HMRC are very reluctant to actually enforce their own NMW regulations) but it’s only a hopeful guess until it happens in practice!

Richard eloquently explains why these need to be guidelines and not an agreement and why there can’t be an “administrator” as such.

I think the work experience guidelines are a good model. They set out what is legal and acceptable and they are the result of consultation between various interested bodies, including the unions and the employers. They are published by Skillset on behalf of those people and they are constantly referred to when people are unsure. They are completely passive: there isn’t anyone linked directly to them to consult if you’re not sure whether your scheme falls outside the guidelines, for instance. If you want specific guidance you need to contact an employment lawyer, PACT, the union (for instance).

My idea of the role of any guidelines we might eventually produce governing lo/no budget films would be to act as a source of information about the law, the issues it raises and how to go about producing a film which is fair to everyone involved and remains lawful. I suppose I’m describing a one-size fits all approach which will suit the vast majority of projects and will also serve to provoke those which don’t comply to seek further advice. I would have thought that would work.

@ Mikey: I’m curious about your idea of what constitutes a profit share.

I like my flat and it’s somewhat tired furnishings. I’m not prepared to risk them all on a contractually binding opportunity to pay you some additional money if the project ever makes profit

The percentage payable would only be of the profits made after expenses etc, and only a previously agreed percentage at that. I’m not at all sure that the tired furnishings would be at risk under that scenario. OTOH you’d have honour entirely satisfied…

Re; Don’t call back - the movie referred to above in the example…

Film will eventually be able to buy on DVD….so much for altruism.

PS. the actors aren’t paid.

See box on bottom right here….
http://dontcallbackthemovie.com/#/origins-of-dcb/4536295494

That’s great, Ben. At the moment we can only gauge the depth of feeling from those (on both sides!) that shout the loudest. I would love to get a good mixture of opinions in the same room at the same time. I’m sure we can listen as well as speak!
Have a good Christmas everybody.

Who’s the Jess martin Spence is referring to?

If its Jess off Shooting People they could go a long way by showing some contrition to the damage they’ve done over the last 10 years, even now they are still not educating their paying subscribers sufficiently.
Casting sites must own up to their responsibilities and the part the play in the proliferation of the notion that its ok to push out unpaid work day in, day out - especially if they want to create a sustainable industry.

Given that the websites aren’t contributing and don’t want to contribute, when/if we succeed should we then try and find a mechanism to create our own ‘jobsites’ offering our own work.
I really don’t want them profitting when they have done bugger all to solve the problem or participate.
What about a union jobsite offering work on union terms only? It would need to be run commercially and efficiently.

What if every film was registered as a charity and all the actors were employed as volunteers.Would the charity still be made to pay them Minimum Wage?

Julie if you are an actress then surely you have an agent or agency who only get paid jobs for you.If you havent then you really arn’t in the position to make comments.If you are behind the camera then surely you have to get a name for yourself and if your good at your job then production companies will pay you for your expertise.All in all its down to the person who wants to do it for nothing and doesnt mind doing it for nothing the goverment and any do gooders will not be able to do nothing about it..

Colin - firstly there is no reason why someone cannot have a valid opinion about this, whichever part of the industry (or outside) they come from. The issue is that young people entering the industry have no real choice about working unpaid or not - they have to in order to progress. When that is the case, the whole notion of this being “voluntary” is rendered somewhat suspect.

And whether or not you happen to be good/experienced at a particular job is irrelevant; if you’re working you should be paid - and the government (or more correctly the taxman) can do somnething about it - and clearly has, in this case.

Thanks to Mark for the clarification on the workshop agreement. Mikey, the old agreement dates back to the closed shop days of the ACTT and will be out of date in many ways. I think as much as anything it’s the spirit of the thing which counts. There is a long way to go to establish a new model, but I think everyone knows that we can’t go on as we are.

I haven’t personally posted any comments on that poll (although I did vote). My objection to it is largely that the questions are so badly designed as to be completely pointless. For instance, the question “Would you personally ever consider working on a film for no pay?” completely ignores the fact that there are two types of jobs - the HoD who can set his own rate and the worker who must by law be paid at least the NMW. Having both groups answer the same question largely nullifies its value.

I am struck by one thing though, and that is that the comments posted bear very little resemblance to the tone of the debate in the bulletin, where we heard a lot of noise from the usual suspects. I am pleasantly surprised that so many people understand that working for free on countless projects is undermining the industry, and what’s more are willing to say so. The poll doesn’t get close to exposing those faultlines, and that’s a real pity and a waste of a good opportunity.