If you suspended your SAG/AFTRA membership, would their rules still apply to you?

S

sb2012

Member
I started out with AFTRA (before the SAG/AFTRA merge) but I had suspended (not terminated, just suspended) my membership for a few years because I had to focus on other things outside of acting/filmmaking and did not want to pay anymore dues if I wasn't looking for work anyway (just didn't make sense, a waste of money in that respect)....

Here's the thing... I just started making short films last year and I plan to attempt my first feature a year from now (for about $10k or less, hopefully)... obviously, my SAG/AFTRA will still be inactive during this time period so could I still get away with deferring actor salaries and such if my membership is currently inactive?

Mind you, if my film or any film I do becomes successful, then I guess I will have to reactivate my membership eventually. But my question is will I be penalized by the union for what I did without their permission DURING my inactivity period?
 
I think you have two separate concerns: what the suspension means for you as an actor, and what your responsibilities as a producer for a feature. Do you plan on using SAG actors in your micro budget film?

It is my understanding that SAG does not provide for 'deferred payment" for their ultra low budget agreement in any case. So even if you weren't a member and you wanted to use SAG actors you'd have to abide by that as a producer.

Give them a call. I've found that they're pretty nice about answering questions at least here in NY. Good luck with your project
 
sb2012 said:
I started out with AFTRA (before the SAG/AFTRA merge) but I had suspended (not terminated, just suspended) my membership for a few years because I had to focus on other things outside of acting/filmmaking and did not want to pay anymore dues if I wasn't looking for work anyway (just didn't make sense, a waste of money in that respect)....

Here's the thing... I just started making short films last year and I plan to attempt my first feature a year from now (for about $10k or less, hopefully)... obviously, my SAG/AFTRA will still be inactive during this time period so could I still get away with deferring actor salaries and such if my membership is currently inactive?

Mind you, if my film or any film I do becomes successful, then I guess I will have to reactivate my membership eventually. But my question is will I be penalized by the union for what I did without their permission DURING my inactivity period?
Click to expand...

Go FiCore and if enough people do that, perhaps SAG will 'rethink their approach to nolo budget film'. I've not looked at it recently, but when I did, I decided to no use and SAG and now AFTRA actors, mainly for the hassle required to conform to SAG requirements.

As I recall, one had to pay actors, I think something like $100 a day, even if there was 'deferred' payment for more if and when the movie sold.

I can see the point of collective bargaining between the 'individual' and a large corporation, or production which has a large budget... but under $100K (or heck even $1M these days...)... there should be no real reason why an actor can't make their own deal independent of 'collective bargaining'.

I would imagine if you 'worked as an actor' during your period of 'inactive dues paying memebership', that would probably be a violation of the terms of membership. AFTRA did have a different approach than SAG, but I don't know what has happened since the merger.

If you 'hired' SAG/AFTRA actors to work outside the union requirements, that is their problem. There could be ramifications for you being a member, but you'd have look at the various rules on what members can or can not do...

FiCore... and 'problem solved'...
 
Considering that "deferred" payment almost never means anything in real money, I think $100 per day for an actor is a decent rate for low/no budget. That's not a whole lot more than minimum wage.
 
Gary Huff said:
Considering that "deferred" payment almost never means anything in real money, I think $100 per day for an actor is a decent rate for low/no budget. That's not a whole lot more than minimum wage.
Click to expand...

The point is, when the 'budget', and perhaps your definition of 'no budget' is higher than mine, has the choice between renting 'lights' at $100 for the day (actually pick them up on Friday night, and return on Monday morning so one can get 2 days of 'work' out of the lights for 1 day rental'... and paying an actor $100 for a setup with no lights, because the actor is getting the 'budget'...

The choice is obvious... find an actor who can make their own deal, and if they want to work 'for free', or close to it... so be it. It's not like every nolo budget film will turn into a viral video that brings in millions to the producer...

And no I don't agree that someone should not make a film if they have no money.
 
Or perhaps you actually do all due diligence up front so that you're not required to make choices like that? Not every movie needs to get made, after all. Perhaps if the business side of the filmmaking business is eluding someone, they'd be better off writing a book instead?
 
Gary Huff said:
Considering that "deferred" payment almost never means anything in real money, I think $100 per day for an actor is a decent rate for low/no budget. That's not a whole lot more than minimum wage.
Click to expand...
I agree. If my budget can swing $150 for a grip, $250 for makeup, then why not? I also know a lot of SAG actors and go through the trouble with SAG on their behalf when I'm producing. I don't consider it "their problem."

I think it's fine to do any production with non-union actors and I think it's fine not to pay actors who want to be in your film for their own reasons, reel, experience, friendship, fun whatever, especially shorts because you can shoot them with "available" time.

However a feature is a long commitment, at least 15 days. I draw the line here: if I'm shooting during the week, then that's professional. I have to pay everyone and play by the rules because the people that can be here can be here only because it's their livelihood. Otherwise they're off on their jobs during the week and if we want to get together to shoot something on the weekends, or an extended weekend, then that's something else.

That to me, is the difference between a short and a feature. Shorts... have fun, knock yourself out, learn something and do nice things. A feature is a job.
 
Last edited:
Well, as far as acting goes, I am planning on taking up one of the roles in the film myself. So I guess my concern is if I direct and star in a low-budget (under $100k) feature while being an *inactive* AFTRA (while now I'm SAG-AFTRA obviously) member who is *not* paying any dues (because I suspended the membership), would any of this negatively affect my standing with the union when I reactivate the membership?

Maybe suspension is the wrong word to use... "Freeze" is more like it.

Oh and about the deferred payment... I'm planning to provide food and transportation, I know that's not the same as money but thats the least i can do for the time being.
 
Last edited:
The problem with using SAG actors for a no-budget film is not money (well, it is for some filmmakers) - almost anyone can squeeze $120 a day or so per actor. A bigger problem is pre-paying all of it. But even that is not the main problem. The biggest problem with any contract even the ultra low budget one is what happens should you get distribution. Basically, you are responsible for paying fictitious profits regardless of the film making a penny - Barry Green wrote about this, if you can find the posts. Mostly it never comes up, because the vast majority of these films never come up for distribution. But should it, you're screwed. Until SAG writes a contract no-budget filmmakers can actually live with, it will continue to be the best option not to get involved with SAG contracts. Proceed at your own risk.
 
OldCorpse said:
The problem with using SAG actors for a no-budget film is not money (well, it is for some filmmakers) - almost anyone can squeeze $120 a day or so per actor. A bigger problem is pre-paying all of it. But even that is not the main problem. The biggest problem with any contract even the ultra low budget one is what happens should you get distribution. Basically, you are responsible for paying fictitious profits regardless of the film making a penny - Barry Green wrote about this, if you can find the posts. Mostly it never comes up, because the vast majority of these films never come up for distribution. But should it, you're screwed. Until SAG writes a contract no-budget filmmakers can actually live with, it will continue to be the best option not to get involved with SAG contracts. Proceed at your own risk.
Click to expand...

OldCorpse,

I see. So basically, you're saying that if I stick with a non-union cast/crew, I will be fine then? I mean I have no issue doing that, but I'm just concerned because *I* am part of SAG-AFTRA even though my membership is frozen and I'm not currently paying any dues, I will have a role in this movie of mine.
 
That's a good point. Is this the provision you're referring to?

Exhibition Rights

Producer shall have the right to exhibit the Picture theatrically. Should the initial release not be in
the theatrical market, the picture shall remain a “theatrical motion picture” for all purposes of the
Basic Agreement, as modified herein, and shall not be reclassified as a “Made for Pay” or “Free
Television” motion picture. If the Picture is distributed outside of the theatrical market, residuals
will be payable in accordance with General Provisions, Sections 5 and 5.2 and Sideletter 22 of
the Basic Agreement
 
How about this... I choose not to star in the movie and all I do is simply direct/write/produce? And I'll use non-union actors. Because this union only covers *actors* right? So if I, the only SAG/AFTRA member in the cast, am not acting in the film and just simply direct/etc., and not use any union actors, would I be in the clear then?

If that still won't work... then perhaps I should just leave the union? I don't know what the process would be like to get back in though. I wasn't really doing anything with that membership to begin with due to my job, life, etc. It seemed the only thing I had time for was writing. So it sounds like my only options are:

a) The above... Stay in union, just don't star in my own film and only use non-union actors for it... if this is even possible (?).
b) Stay in the union and stick to screenwriting instead.
c) Leave the union and be free to pay the actors whatever and do whatever with the finished film, distribution-wise that is.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top