Protecting actors casting aggreement

Location > Networking > Forum > Protecting actors casting aggreement

	Topic: Protecting actors casting aggreement
Posted : 06/11/09 / Views : 851 / Replies : 9 /
ollie_squires1 59 posts last on: 28/01/12 send private reply	Just a thought, Why doesn't CCP make all unpaid/lowpaid film/tv productions sign up to the 'protecting actors casting aggreement'? (which guarantees a copy of the finished production) And if they refuse to sign up, do not allow them to post a casting on the site. Lets get tough with these cow boys!

[add comments | all topics]

	Reply #1
Posted : 05/11/09
Sophiae007 102 posts last on: 30/01/12 send private reply	This is a great idea! How about it CCP? It would certainly help to weed out any rogue companies/students who try to get out of what was agreed with the actors they hire. I personally wouldn't do unpaid work anymore, but I have done in the past. I would get them to sign a contract agreeing to both our terms. But this would be an added protection for those still agreeing to unpaid or low paid work. So I concur - it should be mandatory! Equity won't take a stand or help to protect us when it comes to unpaid/low paid work. So CCP, why don't you be the first out there to protect your subscribers when it comes to unpaid/low paid work?

Reply #1

Posted : 05/11/09

Sophiae007
102 posts
last on: 30/01/12
send private reply

This is a great idea! How about it CCP?
It would certainly help to weed out any rogue companies/students who try to get out of what was agreed with the actors they hire.

I personally wouldn't do unpaid work anymore, but I have done in the past. I would get them to sign a contract agreeing to both our terms. But this would be an added protection for those still agreeing to unpaid or low paid work.

So I concur - it should be mandatory!

Equity won't take a stand or help to protect us when it comes to unpaid/low paid work.
So CCP, why don't you be the first out there to protect your subscribers when it comes to unpaid/low paid work?

	Reply #2
Posted : 05/11/09
Annie22 557 posts last on: 24/01/12 send private reply	Erm, Sophia, your comment about Equity is actually not true. Equity's stance on unpaid work is DON'T TAKE IT, and if you do, on your own head be it. And they will protect you if you have a problem after the event and feel you should have been paid at least NMW.

	Reply #3
Posted : 05/11/09
Sophiae007 102 posts last on: 30/01/12 send private reply	Yes, I am fully aware of their stance on it. My point being CCP should be the first to protect people who choose to take unpaid work, because as you pointed out, Equity won't help when it comes to unpaid/low paid work. Unfortunately in my experience, they are reluctant to help unless it involves a large sum of money owed. I have contacted them a few times for help/information and their response has always been....look on the website. Which when you are out and about and not attached to your laptop, is not exactly helpful. I pay their subscription fees and yet they can't spare me 2 mins when I call them for help and just refer me to the website. A friend of mine was never paid by her agent for a high profile job. He took her money and ran. They were not interested in helping her either because the fee wasn't 'worth persuing' And this was a guest lead in a BBC prime time show. She never did get her money. I'm going off topic here... Anyway my point was that Equity won't protect/help actors who choose to take unpaid work. And until a time comes where everyone stops doing unpaid work, which let's face it ain't gonna happen anytime soon! CCP are at least starting to do something and Ollie's idea is a great one. If they make it mandatory it would make CCP the first to protect it's subscibers should they choose to take unpaid/low paid work.

Reply #3

Posted : 05/11/09

Sophiae007
102 posts
last on: 30/01/12
send private reply

Yes, I am fully aware of their stance on it. My point being CCP should be the first to protect people who choose to take unpaid work, because as you pointed out, Equity won't help when it comes to unpaid/low paid work.

Unfortunately in my experience, they are reluctant to help unless it involves a large sum of money owed. I have contacted them a few times for help/information and their response has always been....look on the website. Which when you are out and about and not attached to your laptop, is not exactly helpful. I pay their subscription fees and yet they can't spare me 2 mins when I call them for help and just refer me to the website. A friend of mine was never paid by her agent for a high profile job. He took her money and ran. They were not interested in helping her either because the fee wasn't 'worth persuing' And this was a guest lead in a BBC prime time show. She never did get her money. I'm going off topic here...

Anyway my point was that Equity won't protect/help actors who choose to take unpaid work. And until a time comes where everyone stops doing unpaid work, which let's face it ain't gonna happen anytime soon! CCP are at least starting to do something and Ollie's idea is a great one. If they make it mandatory it would make CCP the first to protect it's subscibers should they choose to take unpaid/low paid work.

	Reply #4
Posted : 06/11/09
David Corden 140 posts last on: 08/02/12 send private reply	Ollie has brought up a very valid question with why don't CCP make companies sign up to the Sheild agreement. The only problem with this is the enforcing and policing of it - if a company has signed up and breaks the agreement, their details go onto the 'Blacklist' page of the website. If a company has not signed up to the agreement (which will probably be in the majority) everything will still continue pretty much as it has done, in the same way Equity contracts are used and, rarely, abused in the paying actors for acting end of the market. The only names that can appear on a list are the ones that are or have been in breach of the agreement. Equity have had a 'Special Attention' list in the back of the Journal for decades... it's called that because it's apparently against the law to publish a 'blacklist' and call it that. It's even more illegal to draw special attention to companies with whom you have no agreement - and, usually, they are the ones we all need protection from. CCP, can't even allow its members to answer questions via the forum along the lines of, "I've been offered a role with XXXXX Company, has anyone worked with them and are they any good?". This is because, as forum moderators, they will be held legally responsible for any potentially libelous comments...however true. Mind you, nothing stops members from asking the question and receiving PM's from people who may have had previous experiences with companies. As for CCP making companies sign up to the agreement in the first instance that could present huge legal problems for them in implementing it, under the same law that prevents companies advertising acting jobs as "Equity Members Only Need Apply". So sadly, Sophia, no mandatory first line of protection is likely to happen unless employment laws are changed in the UK and Europe to legislate acting as a qualified professional status and skilled profession; therby allowing those with professional degrees and current professional union status and/ or credentials only to be employable. Now, obviously, I'm all for this change in the legal perception of our profession - but now the rot has been well and truly set in for nearly 20 years, it would be a little like bolting the stable door after the horse has bolted. On the subject of the old 'Equity won't do anything' mantra, Annie is partially correct. It is a professionals trade union, so is bound to advise its members to consider not to undertake work unless it is paid. However, to expand, due to the way the business has mutated since the days of the closed shop Equity has had to adopt a number of approaches in order to represent its members more efficiently, especially in the greyer and more precarious areas of Low/ No Pay work, covering fringe and festival theatre and student and emerging idependent film...amongst others. The agreements exist and will be fought through the courts if it comes to that - in low/ no pay theatre this has been particularly successful with Equity winning NMW payments for members in non-paying shows on a number of occasions. You don't have to be working on an Equity approved contract to be protected by the union and the law and they will fight for you. Regarding student films, there is an Equity agreement that LEA's, universties and courses can use which ensures actors are paid engagement fees, but Equity can't legally make them sign up to those contracts. Also, Sophia, I was very surprised that your friend was unable to be successfully represented by Equity, until I re-read the line which stated, "He took her money and ran". If that is literally the case, then how are the Equity solicitors supposed to find the rougue agent in order to take him to court. Alternatively, if his company went into liquidation any creditors would be hard pressed to get any monies owed to them after the lawyers, the tax office and the court (in that order) have left anything to pick over. I know this one only too well as it happened to me, albeit with a production company not an agent. Lastly, a tip. If you have a look in your Equity diary before you phone Equity, you will be able to find the direct number for the department relevant to your query and the name(s) of the person(s) in that department. Call them.

Reply #4

Posted : 06/11/09

David Corden
140 posts
last on: 08/02/12
send private reply

Ollie has brought up a very valid question with why don't CCP make companies sign up to the Sheild agreement.

The only problem with this is the enforcing and policing of it - if a company has signed up and breaks the agreement, their details go onto the 'Blacklist' page of the website. If a company has not signed up to the agreement (which will probably be in the majority) everything will still continue pretty much as it has done, in the same way Equity contracts are used and, rarely, abused in the paying actors for acting end of the market. The only names that can appear on a list are the ones that are or have been in breach of the agreement.

Equity have had a 'Special Attention' list in the back of the Journal for decades... it's called that because it's apparently against the law to publish a 'blacklist' and call it that. It's even more illegal to draw special attention to companies with whom you have no agreement - and, usually, they are the ones we all need protection from.

CCP, can't even allow its members to answer questions via the forum along the lines of, "I've been offered a role with XXXXX Company, has anyone worked with them and are they any good?". This is because, as forum moderators, they will be held legally responsible for any potentially libelous comments...however true.

Mind you, nothing stops members from asking the question and receiving PM's from people who may have had previous experiences with companies.

As for CCP making companies sign up to the agreement in the first instance that could present huge legal problems for them in implementing it, under the same law that prevents companies advertising acting jobs as "Equity Members Only Need Apply". So sadly, Sophia, no mandatory first line of protection is likely to happen unless employment laws are changed in the UK and Europe to legislate acting as a qualified professional status and skilled profession; therby allowing those with professional degrees and current professional union status and/ or credentials only to be employable.

Now, obviously, I'm all for this change in the legal perception of our profession - but now the rot has been well and truly set in for nearly 20 years, it would be a little like bolting the stable door after the horse has bolted.

On the subject of the old 'Equity won't do anything' mantra, Annie is partially correct. It is a professionals trade union, so is bound to advise its members to consider not to undertake work unless it is paid. However, to expand, due to the way the business has mutated since the days of the closed shop Equity has had to adopt a number of approaches in order to represent its members more efficiently, especially in the greyer and more precarious areas of Low/ No Pay work, covering fringe and festival theatre and student and emerging idependent film...amongst others. The agreements exist and will be fought through the courts if it comes to that - in low/ no pay theatre this has been particularly successful with Equity winning NMW payments for members in non-paying shows on a number of occasions. You don't have to be working on an Equity approved contract to be protected by the union and the law and they will fight for you.

Regarding student films, there is an Equity agreement that LEA's, universties and courses can use which ensures actors are paid engagement fees, but Equity can't legally make them sign up to those contracts.

Also, Sophia, I was very surprised that your friend was unable to be successfully represented by Equity, until I re-read the line which stated, "He took her money and ran". If that is literally the case, then how are the Equity solicitors supposed to find the rougue agent in order to take him to court. Alternatively, if his company went into liquidation any creditors would be hard pressed to get any monies owed to them after the lawyers, the tax office and the court (in that order) have left anything to pick over. I know this one only too well as it happened to me, albeit with a production company not an agent.

Lastly, a tip. If you have a look in your Equity diary before you phone Equity, you will be able to find the direct number for the department relevant to your query and the name(s) of the person(s) in that department. Call them.

	Reply #5
Posted : 06/11/09
Sophiae007 102 posts last on: 30/01/12 send private reply	Hi David, Some excellent points and you are correct regarding my friend. Although if we were able to find him, I'm sure Equity could have. We had all the evidence ready so all they had to do was take on the case. But sadly they chose not to help and she lost out big time. With regards to the Equity diary. That's exactly what I have done, quite a few times. I always use it to make sure I have the right department before talking to them about anything. So I was talking to the right people when they just refered me to the website. Although there are flaws, as with any union, SAG over in the US have got things right. Doing unpaid work is a huge no-no. It's a shame the same is not adopted here. Anyway it's great that CCP have adopted this protection scheme. I can understand now why it can't be mandatory but it's still good that it's there and being utilised. ;)

Reply #5

Posted : 06/11/09

Sophiae007
102 posts
last on: 30/01/12
send private reply

Hi David,

Some excellent points and you are correct regarding my friend. Although if we were able to find him, I'm sure Equity could have. We had all the evidence ready so all they had to do was take on the case. But sadly they chose not to help and she lost out big time.

With regards to the Equity diary. That's exactly what I have done, quite a few times. I always use it to make sure I have the right department before talking to them about anything. So I was talking to the right people when they just refered me to the website.

Although there are flaws, as with any union, SAG over in the US have got things right. Doing unpaid work is a huge no-no. It's a shame the same is not adopted here.

Anyway it's great that CCP have adopted this protection scheme. I can understand now why it can't be mandatory but it's still good that it's there and being utilised.

;)

	Reply #6
Posted : 06/11/09
ollie_squires1 59 posts last on: 28/01/12 send private reply	David, I just think that the process needs to start somewhere. I am not suggesting that CCP has to police it, or even fight for a subscriber when they don't receive a copy of work/expenses etc, but surely by making all companies sign up to the agreement, it is us, the actors, fighting back. Letting all these employers know that, yes, we are willing to work on your production for free (whether it be for showreel material, experience, whatever) and in exchange, all we require is a finished copy/travel money. CCP is at the forefront of the online casting websites (I love this website)So I feel they could/should lead by example and only allow castings to be posted if they sign up. If they refuse. Fine. Post the casting somewhere else. But hopefully, and ideally, other sites will follow suite, and bit by bit, trickle by trickle, it is becoming known in our industry that we the actors, will not stand for this. With regards to policing it: Obviously not expecting CCP to do this, but if we can collate a list of employers that haven't adhered to the agreement (not in black list format!) but still waiting on material/material delivered etc we can then begin to filter out companies not to work for. At this point, just want to apologise, I'm not the most eloquent (spelt wrong?!?!) of writers but bare with me.... If all these student productions learn from a young age, 1st year of study that they have to stick to some certain (VERY simple agreements) it is only going to filter through to all of their future projects and their peers, thus making them really appreciate the actors services and realise that a copy as payment should come as standard instead of constantly fighting for it.

Reply #6

Posted : 06/11/09

ollie_squires1
59 posts
last on: 28/01/12
send private reply

David,

I just think that the process needs to start somewhere. I am not suggesting that CCP has to police it, or even fight for a subscriber when they don't receive a copy of work/expenses etc, but surely by making all companies sign up to the agreement, it is us, the actors, fighting back. Letting all these employers know that, yes, we are willing to work on your production for free (whether it be for showreel material, experience, whatever) and in exchange, all we require is a finished copy/travel money.

CCP is at the forefront of the online casting websites (I love this website)So I feel they could/should lead by example and only allow castings to be posted if they sign up.

If they refuse. Fine. Post the casting somewhere else. But hopefully, and ideally, other sites will follow suite, and bit by bit, trickle by trickle, it is becoming known in our industry that we the actors, will not stand for this.

With regards to policing it: Obviously not expecting CCP to do this, but if we can collate a list of employers that haven't adhered to the agreement (not in black list format!) but still waiting on material/material delivered etc we can then begin to filter out companies not to work for.

At this point, just want to apologise, I'm not the most eloquent (spelt wrong?!?!) of writers but bare with me....

If all these student productions learn from a young age, 1st year of study that they have to stick to some certain (VERY simple agreements) it is only going to filter through to all of their future projects and their peers, thus making them really appreciate the actors services and realise that a copy as payment should come as standard instead of constantly fighting for it.

	Reply #7
Posted : 06/11/09
David Corden 140 posts last on: 08/02/12 send private reply	Again Sophia, I'm surprised and very concerned that you had the brush off/ "look at the website" response from Equity's specialist department staff members - even more so as you have indicated it has happened more than once. So, if you wish to PM me with any further info on this, I will try to investigate it via my Equity branch, area committee and as an Equity Ambassador. And you are right, unions are flawed which is why some members are struggling to drag Equity into a more member involved union, which wouldn't have happened if UK and European employment laws had imposed such restrictions on the industry regarding truly professional employment. SAG therefore seems so much better and to have all the answers - but they don't have to contend with the balderdash that is current employment legislation over here; their film industry is recognised, encouraged and developed with huge government investments - albeit usually in the form of zero tax breaks, etc. But SAG is seen also by a growing number of its members as stifling the production of creative independent film shot on low, or "below-minimum" budgets... which roughly equates to a rate that is still a higher daily BSF than doing a UK TV drama. By its absolute policy on non-paid projects, it is taking creative choice away from its members in favour of totalitarian capitalism. Go to Sundance and ask a few people what they think of SAG nowadays. Also, the question has got to be asked about SAGs continued turning of the blind eye when films are made in the UK and Europe and have American and local cast on different contracts from the same American studio, but do not recognise those contracts as qualifying for SAG, as they are usually at a lower rate of pay than the SAG minimum - which they easily justify as "they're not SAG members (or US citizens), so we don't have to seek SAG minimums for them" - so much for union solidarity and the respect for International Artists. A UK production, however, using Equity contracts and employing non-British nationals will recognise those performers and the contracts under which they are employed and in most cases will grant the performer(s) Equity membership... god help them. I think one of the main problems that lies behind the spawning of this thread is that we do not have a specific union approved film contract in this country which is required and enforceable by employment laws - if such a thing were to happen, then we would all be protected. But the only way to do this is to put pressure on UK and European Parliaments. I feel another letter to my MP coming on... how about you?

Reply #7

Posted : 06/11/09

David Corden
140 posts
last on: 08/02/12
send private reply

Again Sophia, I'm surprised and very concerned that you had the brush off/ "look at the website" response from Equity's specialist department staff members - even more so as you have indicated it has happened more than once. So, if you wish to PM me with any further info on this, I will try to investigate it via my Equity branch, area committee and as an Equity Ambassador.

And you are right, unions are flawed which is why some members are struggling to drag Equity into a more member involved union, which wouldn't have happened if UK and European employment laws had imposed such restrictions on the industry regarding truly professional employment.

SAG therefore seems so much better and to have all the answers - but they don't have to contend with the balderdash that is current employment legislation over here; their film industry is recognised, encouraged and developed with huge government investments - albeit usually in the form of zero tax breaks, etc.

But SAG is seen also by a growing number of its members as stifling the production of creative independent film shot on low, or "below-minimum" budgets... which roughly equates to a rate that is still a higher daily BSF than doing a UK TV drama. By its absolute policy on non-paid projects, it is taking creative choice away from its members in favour of totalitarian capitalism.

Go to Sundance and ask a few people what they think of SAG nowadays. Also, the question has got to be asked about SAGs continued turning of the blind eye when films are made in the UK and Europe and have American and local cast on different contracts from the same American studio, but do not recognise those contracts as qualifying for SAG, as they are usually at a lower rate of pay than the SAG minimum - which they easily justify as "they're not SAG members (or US citizens), so we don't have to seek SAG minimums for them" - so much for union solidarity and the respect for International Artists.

A UK production, however, using Equity contracts and employing non-British nationals will recognise those performers and the contracts under which they are employed and in most cases will grant the performer(s) Equity membership... god help them.

I think one of the main problems that lies behind the spawning of this thread is that we do not have a specific union approved film contract in this country which is required and enforceable by employment laws - if such a thing were to happen, then we would all be protected. But the only way to do this is to put pressure on UK and European Parliaments.

I feel another letter to my MP coming on... how about you?

	Reply #8
Posted : 06/11/09
leeravitz 1544 posts last on: 37 min send private reply	I, too, am an enthusiastic proponent of many things CCP, which is I why continue to utilise the site, the forums etc., support CCP sponsered endeavours and so on. It is certainly an industry leader in terms of its use of layout, accessibility and user friendliness, especially when compared to e.g. the format of the Equity website. I think that ultimately David has made some extremely valid points in respect of CCP's hand being tied by current legislation that outlaws 'closed shop' policies, or indeed, any implemented policies which can be seen as smacking of free market restriction. If lines like this could still be drawn free of consequences then Equity itself would be in a much stronger position to police the market in the first instance. On the other hand, what travels hand in glove with this tendency towards the legalising of the free market is the right to make revenue without legal restriction. With the best will in the world, CCP remains a site that was set up, and is maintained, in order to generate revenue for its creators - and much of that revenue is generated through the payments made in order to advertise on site (yes, the rest, it is true, is received from the actor subscribers, so their opinions are regularly canvassed and acknowledged). Nonetheless, enforcing limiting agreements (even if it were legally uncontestable, which it isn't) would likely reduce the number of enthuasiastic advertisers - I would agree that this form of 'self-limiting' is beneficial to the actor because, after all, it would serve to root out wheat from chaff, which is the whole point of advocating its root and branch adoption! - but let us just assume it is likely to reduce the number who sign up to advertise. From a CCP point of view, this is bad news, because it means revenue is dropping. As far as I can recollect from most of the admin team's comments to this effect (and I do not wish to misquote them, so hope they will clarify if I have this wrong), they feel that continuing to generate solid revenues is neccessarily beneficial to maintaining the site as a resource (which I have no doubt it is), that they offer 'freedom of choice' to subscribers, that subscribers are under no obligation to apply for jobs they do not feel they can trust, and that CCP has no legal remit to prevent the advertisement of any jobs, and are under no responsibility for the consequences of any employment contracted between an inidvidual job provider and an actor. From this point of view, the context within which the shield agreement was adopted makes sense - it is a guarantee from an individual employer that they will respect the actors working on their project. As such, it is an initiative that has been welcomed by CCP, who want their subscribers to feel protected in the jobs they undertake. But it is a very different thing to implement a limiting clause that insists all advertisers must be bound by a specific agreement that is not a matter of choice. Excellent though such policing would be for the actors, I just don't see why CCP would alter policy over this issue - I am not certain it is in the site's interests. Perhaps the admins can prove me wrong?

Reply #8

Posted : 06/11/09

leeravitz
1544 posts
last on: 37 min
send private reply

I, too, am an enthusiastic proponent of many things CCP, which is I why continue to utilise the site, the forums etc., support CCP sponsered endeavours and so on.

It is certainly an industry leader in terms of its use of layout, accessibility and user friendliness, especially when compared to e.g. the format of the Equity website.

I think that ultimately David has made some extremely valid points in respect of CCP's hand being tied by current legislation that outlaws 'closed shop' policies, or indeed, any implemented policies which can be seen as smacking of free market restriction. If lines like this could still be drawn free of consequences then Equity itself would be in a much stronger position to police the market in the first instance.

On the other hand, what travels hand in glove with this tendency towards the legalising of the free market is the right to make revenue without legal restriction. With the best will in the world, CCP remains a site that was set up, and is maintained, in order to generate revenue for its creators - and much of that revenue is generated through the payments made in order to advertise on site (yes, the rest, it is true, is received from the actor subscribers, so their opinions are regularly canvassed and acknowledged). Nonetheless, enforcing limiting agreements (even if it were legally uncontestable, which it isn't) would likely reduce the number of enthuasiastic advertisers - I would agree that this form of 'self-limiting' is beneficial to the actor because, after all, it would serve to root out wheat from chaff, which is the whole point of advocating its root and branch adoption! - but let us just assume it is likely to reduce the number who sign up to advertise. From a CCP point of view, this is bad news, because it means revenue is dropping.

As far as I can recollect from most of the admin team's comments to this effect (and I do not wish to misquote them, so hope they will clarify if I have this wrong), they feel that continuing to generate solid revenues is neccessarily beneficial to maintaining the site as a resource (which I have no doubt it is), that they offer 'freedom of choice' to subscribers, that subscribers are under no obligation to apply for jobs they do not feel they can trust, and that CCP has no legal remit to prevent the advertisement of any jobs, and are under no responsibility for the consequences of any employment contracted between an inidvidual job provider and an actor.

From this point of view, the context within which the shield agreement was adopted makes sense - it is a guarantee from an individual employer that they will respect the actors working on their project. As such, it is an initiative that has been welcomed by CCP, who want their subscribers to feel protected in the jobs they undertake. But it is a very different thing to implement a limiting clause that insists all advertisers must be bound by a specific agreement that is not a matter of choice. Excellent though such policing would be for the actors, I just don't see why CCP would alter policy over this issue - I am not certain it is in the site's interests. Perhaps the admins can prove me wrong?

	Reply #9
Posted : 06/11/09
David Corden 140 posts last on: 08/02/12 send private reply	Hi Ollie, We write at the same time it appears. I agree completely with your points, especially the last paragraph. The students must be educated in the ways of the world and the industry - maybe they should be asked the question, "Are you here to graduate as a film-maker and get paid for making films when you leave?" and if the answer is yes, then they should be told that there are actors at the drama school down the road intending to be treated with the same consideration when they graduate. But it isn't all the students fault - it is their course leaders, tutors, lecturers, deans and bursars that allow this to dreadful situation to be perpetuated. How many times have you heard, "We'd like to pay the actors, but the budget won't allow it"? Tell them to look up the word 'budget'. The sad truth is that there are a lot of 'educators' on media courses who tell their students that actors will do anything for nothing on the promise of a bit of showreel footage. The only way to combat this is to organise, petition and fight for our profession and our place in it. Take a pro-active stance - get involved with an Equity branch, stand for election - even try voting in an Equity election; because if you look at the most recent voting figures, it makes for poor reading...less than 3,000 out of a 38,000+ membership. Then people moan about the same old (in some cases, very) people being elected. I used to liken Equity and the way it is run to Yes, Minister, an eternally funny and poignant comedy from the 80's. Now jumble up that last sentence a bit and you get the idea. There's little or no point to any of us sitting at our computers moaning to each other about things we know very well are wrong with our world and then not doing anything about it - we have to own our moans and take the responsibility to change things ourselves by force majeure. So, right then - if you want to start a ball rolling and add numbers to get some petition actions out there taken seriously, start by PMing me with contact details (including Facebook, if possible) and let's fight for some rights, starting with a cross-platform petition to MPs, LEAs, univerities and colleges stating the current situation and demanding change. What am I letting myself in for???

Reply #9

Posted : 06/11/09

David Corden
140 posts
last on: 08/02/12
send private reply

Hi Ollie,

We write at the same time it appears.

I agree completely with your points, especially the last paragraph.

The students must be educated in the ways of the world and the industry - maybe they should be asked the question, "Are you here to graduate as a film-maker and get paid for making films when you leave?" and if the answer is yes, then they should be told that there are actors at the drama school down the road intending to be treated with the same consideration when they graduate.

But it isn't all the students fault - it is their course leaders, tutors, lecturers, deans and bursars that allow this to dreadful situation to be perpetuated. How many times have you heard, "We'd like to pay the actors, but the budget won't allow it"? Tell them to look up the word 'budget'.

The sad truth is that there are a lot of 'educators' on media courses who tell their students that actors will do anything for nothing on the promise of a bit of showreel footage.

The only way to combat this is to organise, petition and fight for our profession and our place in it. Take a pro-active stance - get involved with an Equity branch, stand for election - even try voting in an Equity election; because if you look at the most recent voting figures, it makes for poor reading...less than 3,000 out of a 38,000+ membership. Then people moan about the same old (in some cases, very) people being elected.

I used to liken Equity and the way it is run to Yes, Minister, an eternally funny and poignant comedy from the 80's.

Now jumble up that last sentence a bit and you get the idea.

There's little or no point to any of us sitting at our computers moaning to each other about things we know very well are wrong with our world and then not doing anything about it - we have to own our moans and take the responsibility to change things ourselves by force majeure.

So, right then - if you want to start a ball rolling and add numbers to get some petition actions out there taken seriously, start by PMing me with contact details (including Facebook, if possible) and let's fight for some rights, starting with a cross-platform petition to MPs, LEAs, univerities and colleges stating the current situation and demanding change.

What am I letting myself in for???

[add comments | all topics]

Please note: Messages written in the forum do not represent the views of Casting Call Pro, nor have they been vetted by Casting Call Pro staff. If you read something which you believe to be offensive or defamatory, please contact us and we will take the appropriate action.