I'm with SAG/AFTRA and I have a feature film I want to do myself (i.e. write, direct, and produce it), I also want to have a starring role in it. Obviously, this would be a non-union project, but I'm with a union.. So by acting in my own non-union project, would that get me in trouble with SAG/AFTRA? Or would this be considered an exception somehow?
Can a SAG member act in a non-SAG film if its his/her OWN film?
- Thread starter sb2012
- Start date
keylight
Veteran
Depending on your budget, why not do it under contract? Films under $200K can be produced using both union and non-union performers, and have more relaxed rules. Might be an option.... http://www.sagindie.org/resources/contracts
I see, I'm a bit confused though. How does one go about making their own independent low budget film (and by low budget, I mean less than $10k) a SAGAFTRA project if it is in no way affiliated with any studio or production company?
In other words, I'm a SAGAFTRA member, I'm in charge of the project, I wrote it, I'm directing it, I'm putting up the money for it, and I also have an acting role in it. It's not with any company or anything like that. Oh yeah and I guess that means I would be paying myself, so... ?
keylight
Veteran
+1 on "call the union" - but I don't think you can get a waiver.
Last edited:
J Davis
Veteran
waiver? I've never heard of that, here is the page for SAG rule number one. Its states no exceptions
http://www.sag.org/content/global-rule-one
To the original poster - you can get a signatory packet for a low budget or ultra low budget
http://www.sag.org/production-center/theatrical/signatory-information
and you as producer would create the contract between yourself, sag and and all actors (including non-sag).
You will probably want to explore deferred payment options.
http://www.sag.org/content/global-rule-one
To the original poster - you can get a signatory packet for a low budget or ultra low budget
http://www.sag.org/production-center/theatrical/signatory-information
and you as producer would create the contract between yourself, sag and and all actors (including non-sag).
You will probably want to explore deferred payment options.
keylight
Veteran
FYI:
http://www.sagindie.org/about/faq#film6
And further down, in the section on Actor Questions:
So, if you're SAG, you've got to use a SAG contract. SAG waivers are not so you can use SAG actors on non-SAG contract films. They are the opposite - so you can use non-SAG actors on SAG contract films (employing them under the terms of the SAG contract). SAG issues waivers for films that don't or can't meet the minimum SAG hiring requirements. My understanding is that once a non-SAG actor has received 3 waivers (specifically Taft Hartley waiver), they can join SAG.
I don't believe you can, as a member of SAG, get a waiver to act on a non-union film.
Having said that....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Screen_Actors_Guild_rules#Global_Rule_One:
http://www.sagindie.org/about/faq#film6
And further down, in the section on Actor Questions:
So, if you're SAG, you've got to use a SAG contract. SAG waivers are not so you can use SAG actors on non-SAG contract films. They are the opposite - so you can use non-SAG actors on SAG contract films (employing them under the terms of the SAG contract). SAG issues waivers for films that don't or can't meet the minimum SAG hiring requirements. My understanding is that once a non-SAG actor has received 3 waivers (specifically Taft Hartley waiver), they can join SAG.
I don't believe you can, as a member of SAG, get a waiver to act on a non-union film.
Having said that....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Screen_Actors_Guild_rules#Global_Rule_One:
Last edited:
j1clark@ucsd.edu
Veteran
Technically you can't. What is also not clear, since I live in California, this can't happen here... is in a so called 'right to work' state, whether a union member can be censured by the union for working in a non-union production.
In California it would be clear. A union member can not work in a production that does not have the approval of the union, even if the production is the actor's own production. There is a 'low budget' program as I recall it's called SAGIndie or some such. But basically it says that the production will pay to scale, just some amount may be deferred. Further a SAG actor can only work on a limited number of such productions per year.
In a few words, the union 'screws' you if you want to run with the lo/no budget crowd... so, you end up not working at all, even on your own stuff.
There's also issues about travel and payment for accommodations if the filming is outside of the actors normal residence area... So, no going to Georgia or wherever the hell...
SAG and AFTRA have now merged, and there was some mention of problems with Rule Number 1 relative to AFTRA. I don't know the details but my presumption is that unless there's specifics, most members of AFTRA are now required to observe Rule Number 1.
I don't mind unions when it is The Studios who are the employers, or mega producters. But the whole concept falls completely apart at the lo/no budget level, and I think it is the actors who get 'f*kt" on this.
I personally would not hire a SAG/AFTRA member for any foreseeable production I'd do, because I can't 'guarantee' any deferred compensation. I can give 'points' away... but that's pretty much vapor money... and everyone should know that signing on... Then there's the paper work and auditing which I have no interest in performing 'just for SAG/AFTRA' compliance... taxes sure... unions... no.
A long time ago Mr. Gun-Lobbyist Charlton Heston went Fi-Core in protest over SAG's approach to things... Perhaps for similar reasons... perhaps not. But the main thing is a Fi-Core dues payer can work on union jobs, and is paid union scale, and received union benefits related to work, but is not technically a member of 'the union' and so make work on projects as they wish, regardless of the union's regulations regarding employment, etc. The 'dues' of Fi-Core payers are different from 'members', and are to be used specifically and only for the process of collective bargaining, and administration of contracts.
Last edited:
j1clark@ucsd.edu
Veteran
There is 'Financial Core' status, which means you discontinue being a union member, but still pay the requisite dues, but you can work on non-union projects as well as union. One does not have voting rights... but then... is that so bad... in fact Fi-Core could be seen as sort of 'vote'... like illegal immigrants 'vote' with their feet...
I'm also pretty sure that if there's a strike, the Fi-Core worker could not work on a union signed production... but could work on other non-union projects.
When I was a kid, the local defense contractors would have massive layoffs, and so while a worker in a 'machine' shop could be kicked out of the union if they worked in a 'machine shop' outside of the union... but if they were also plumbers... well, that wasn't controlled by the machinist union... so all is well..
With that in mind, I think actors, screen writers, and other entertainment workers should think about taking up plumbing for those lean times that the union can't get enough jobs going... wait... they don't make any jobs in the first place...
Last edited:
keylight
Veteran
http://www.sag.org/getthefacts/ficore2.html
I'm probably in the minority on these boards, but given the choice, I'd rather run a production under contract so I have access to the best actors. Nothing in the old SAG or AFTRA contracts were unreasonable and paying scale is perfectly reasonable if you consider the number of days most actors work annually.
As for unions getting actors jobs... Rule One is there to get more productions to work under contract, which in turn increases the amount of work that's available for members.
I'm probably in the minority on these boards, but given the choice, I'd rather run a production under contract so I have access to the best actors. Nothing in the old SAG or AFTRA contracts were unreasonable and paying scale is perfectly reasonable if you consider the number of days most actors work annually.
As for unions getting actors jobs... Rule One is there to get more productions to work under contract, which in turn increases the amount of work that's available for members.
Barry_Green
Moderator
That is your opinion, and maybe for studios it is a reasonable opinion, but for no-budget indie producers there were many things in the old SAG contract that were not only unreasonable, they were egregious.
http://www.easy-budget.com/articles/articles.asp?article=ultralow
Paying actors is perfectly reasonable, although it is of course not my responsibility to be concerned with the number of days most actors work. My concern as a producer is that people who perform work should be paid.
What's unreasonable is putting liens on the film and demanding payment of royalties that I, as the producer, never received. What's unreasonable is enforcing rules that effectively prevent me from being able to sell the film at all. Those are profoundly unreasonable and in fact egregious limitations which make the SAG contracts basically pointless for no-budget producers.
When the SAG contracts are revised to reflect the reality of distribution in today's no-budget world, I would love to use SAG contracts all the time. Until that happens, I cannot use a SAG contract at all. Hopefully in all the change coming about due to the merger, they will revisit and revise the contracts to have a more realistic understanding of today's production (and more importantly, today's distribution) world.
gonzo_entertainment
Veteran
Yep, it's not paying union scale that makes me shudder at the thought of going down rthat road it's the work rules and the mountains of paperwork.
j1clark@ucsd.edu
Veteran
While I'm sure there are shysters in film production... I'm also pretty sure that many lo/no budget filmmakers would love to pay people something... but often times the choice is $15K-20K for 'hard costs' just to shoot the film, such as camera rental, transportation, location fees, etc. Unless one has an awful lot of chips to call in, are total barriers that must be paid. And in the olden days, film stock and processing was the other high non-avoidable cost of making film.
These days, digital does spare that expense, but then there is the computer system one uses to edit... etc...
'Rule One' does not get more productions. It just makes productions more expensive, and these days, that makes productions harder to sell.
'Rule One' does work for certain industries and certain eras, but in the modern era, it has become a millstone more than a 'work enhancement'.
I think Fi-Core for an actor these days is a reasonable compromise. It allows the actor to 'act' whereever they can get a gig, whether it is to scale or not, but does allow them to work on union contracts, at scale...
As far as I know acting is one of those skills that one must 'use or lose'... so if an actor is not acting, they are not keeping up or worse, not getting better...
keylight
Veteran
I do agree with you to some extent. Of course, you can't shoot a film without a camera, lights, audio. At the same time, shooting an empty set doesn't get you anywhere either. So there is always give and take. But there is also a SAG contract for budgets under $50K (and under 35 minutes) that allows you to defer salaries. Trying to shoot an AMAZING feature for under $10,000 is an exercise in futility really. A 35 minute film for under $50K? Much more doable, especially since you have the option to hire skilled actors with deferred compensation. I'm not saying Rule One is without it's problems, or that the options out there are good enough and SAG-AFTRA doesn't need to make changes. Times change and so too must unions. What I am saying is that if you've got a decent budget ($50,000 to $200,000) it is completely reasonable to pay your actors $100/day.
Let's say you have a 30 day shoot with 2 lead actors and a 3 supporting actors. Assume you have both leads on set together for 20 days, and separately for 5 days each. And your supporting actors are on set for a total of 10 days. At $100/day under a Ultra-Low Budget Agreement, you would have to pay your 5 actors a total of $8000. What are you spending on camera, lights, audio, grip, permits, insurance, locations, transportation, food? What are you spending on a director, audio guy, DP, grip? $8,000 is 8% of a $100,000 budget - it's like paying sales tax. In my view, if you can afford the to pay rental costs on equipment but can't afford to pay your actors $100/day (and pay your crew of course), then you aren't ready to make a film.
I don't disagree, but that's what happens when you don't have a seat at the table. Frankly, the big studios would LOVE to do away with SAG-AFTRA all together. But they can't, so they work it the best way they can - to give themselves advantages over the smaller guys. I bet that if SAG could strike up an agreement that works well for independents, they would. But the problem is the studios have the muscle, indies don't. If we want better agreements for small productions, then we need a seat at the table.
The article you link to is interesting, but I disagree in a big way with something he wrote:
Of course SAG WOULD do that if they had the leverage to use against the studio. It would mean more work for their members on more projects. It would also mean more competition for talent and could end up costing studios more money. IMO, Independent producers who fight against SAG aren't doing themselves any favors, they're helping the studios more than they help themselves.
j1clark@ucsd.edu
Veteran
While I did use the example of 'rental' as 'fixed cost', or 'barrier cost', if I was a 'fast talker', perhaps I could get the rental house to 1) rent lower than the average local daily rate, or 2) special week long (what I did in fact take advantage of, over a long weekend rate). 3) get so excited about participating in "My Movie"(2015), just pee their pants and 'donate' the equipment I request.
This is between me and the rental house owner. No one else, the entire LA rental business would not fine the rental house, or exclude them from ever 'doing business in this town, again'.
This is absolutely in contrast to a case were an actor, understanding that I don't have the option of 'paying them and someone else' decided they can't do without working on my project, and as an independent person, sign up for none, small fee, large points of vacuousness, whatever.
That's the point. SAG eliminates any independent choice of a member, and as such, limits an individuals choice on work.
But back to more 'real money'... if the 5 SAG actors cost $8K, and the 'works' for equipment for "My Movie", $8K, and I get the operators for said equipment to sign on 'for free'... that's $16K I would have to raise.
On the other hand if I 'sell' the project as costing $8K 'hard costs', and those that participate 'sign up' for no compensation now.
Which do you think it may be likely that I can raise... $8K, or $16K...
Given that a 'under 100K film will never 'make it''... by the same token, SAG regulations regard member participation should 'cut off' at that point as well... And then between 100K and 1M, some sort of sliding scale, which is not related to 'deferred' compensation, and some sort of owership points, should the lo/no budget indie go like wildfire...
I would even sign a contract and pay up to $100 for 'auditing' of the 'lo/no' budget film... if SAG would 'come my way a lot more than it does now'.
Here's the thing... I do believe in a sense of 'ownership' about a project, and just based on that attitude work with people who own percentages of the end result, than someone who comes in for their 5 hours, gets paid, and leaves.
This is an anathema concept to the 'employee/employer' model that unions necessary must have because they can only represent 'employees', who have NO OWNERSHIP in the final product or company.
Perhaps that's to philosophical at the moment...
Barry_Green
Moderator
Independent producers aren't fighting against SAG. We're ignoring them. Until they come up with a contract that makes sense for us, we just don't bother with them.
I have no interest in the big-stakes royalties battles that SAG and the studios wage amongst themselves, I don't fight against SAG at all. I'd love to use SAG actors on every production I do. They just make it punitive and prohibitive, so I don't bother. I have gone SAG on no-budget productions where I absolutely did not ever expect to make a penny in sales, and that was okay because the SAG contract basically prohibited me from selling it. But I'm not really in a position to go making donations like that over and over; occasionally you have to have a project pay itself off. SAG doesn't let me do that. So I am left no choice but to inform the actors applying for roles that it is a non-union production, and if they choose to participate it will not be under any form of SAG contract.
Wish it could be. Maybe they will adapt. Or maybe they'll continue to think that low-budget producers aren't worth their time or effort, and we will continue to think that they think we're not worth their time or effort and not bother with them.
Barry_Green
Moderator
Absolutely 100% agree. No question, no argument.
What's UNreasonable is to sign an agreement with an organization that prevents or limits your distribution options to the point where it's extremely unlikely that not only won't you make your budget back, you won't be able to sell it to ANYone. That's unreasonable.
Again -- it's not the wages that are a problem. The problem is the restrictions on distribution, it's the assumption of responsibility for paying royalties that you may never receive, it's the ability of SAG to just make up a number out of thin air that they think you probably should have received by now and assess you royalties on that number (which in many cases could vastly exceed the ACTUAL revenues you really received) -- in effect bankrupting you, all because you chose to sign the SAG agreement.
So you have a choice -- pay $100/day to good actors and have the ability to sell your film when you're done, or sign the SAG agreement and pay $100/day to SAG actors and then be handcuffed on how you can sell the film now or ever.
Agreed 100%. Of course, your crew and your rental equipment don't require you to sign contracts that obligate you to pay royalties on money that YOU NEVER RECEIVED, putting you in a position where selling the film may result in you actually having to write a check to SAG over and above and beyond any money you got, and furthermore obligate you to pay royalties for years and years on phantom money that you never received.
I've spent lots of money on crews and on rental equipment, and not one of those payments has ever resulted in liens against the film that could bankrupt me. For SAG, on the other hand, that's standard operating procedure. And that's the reason that it's pretty much insane for a no-budget (and I consider a film up to $200k to be "no-budget") producer to sign the SAG agreements as they stand now. Eliminate the royalties provisions or limit them to a percentage of money actually received and I will gladly sign up with them.
I don't think producers should be penalized, bankrupted, or prohibited from selling their film, all just because they tried to do the right thing and sign the SAG low-budget agreements.
Yet again, though, I disagree. The "independents" we're discussing here are guys who are going to scrape up $50k at most to make a film. They are not, in any way whatsoever, competition for the studios. SAG could produce a contract that says "On budgets under $100k, no royalties are due now or ever" and we'd all sign those contracts, and it would never make the slightest impact, slightest dent, or have any other effect on the studios, whatsoever. And if SAG were to make that suggestion to the studios, along the lines of ("on the ultra-low-budget agreement we've already lowered payments to $100 and done away with consecutive employment, now we're going to do away with the royalty and DAG requirements) I would be really surprised if SAG received any pushback from the studios at all.
keylight
Veteran
This is my BIG problem with a lot of the stuff I read on the boards. Why should your cast and crew get no/deferred compensation IF you money on the project but the rental houses get paid up front? You can ask your cast/crew to make a high risk/low return investment but you can't ask the same of the rental houses?
"Loan me the equipment and if I make money I'll pay you later." Or even, "Loan me the equipment for your amortized cost and I'll give you your profit later IF I make money." Sure, you might get a little discount, but nothing in comparison to what you're asking your cast/crew to give up.
It goes right back to that thread on shooting an AMAZING feature for under $10,000.
Isn't that counter-productive? SAG is more likely to come up with a contract that makes sense if indies organized together.