legal dealings with SAG actors

K

kyle_doris

Well-known member
i remember a long time ago someone on this forum linked some companies that are good to go through for protecting youself legally from using SAG actors.

i'm in that position now and anyone who is more savvy with either the search engine here or just knows off hand this info it would be greatly appreciated.

thanks

-kd
 
Re: legal dealings with SAG actors

yes, i'll be dealing with one SAG actor.

i fortunately was able to sift though and find the thread that barry answered some of my questions.

just want to make sure i protect myself from anything shady.
 
Re: legal dealings with SAG actors

www.SAGIndie.org was established by SAG to help people work directly with SAG while supposedly understanding the concerns of independent producers.

If you're never going to release the project for any type of paying distribution, it's fairly easy to work with them.  If you intend to try to sell your project, things get much more sticky.
 
Re: legal dealings with SAG actors

i intend to make money off my project... selling it i don't know, but it's definately going to be pushed on the film festival ciruit
 
Re: legal dealings with SAG actors

Don't sign any S.A.G. contracts with the actor. Let him/her worry about there union. 8)
 
Re: legal dealings with SAG actors

so you'd advise just using the actor and if the SAG goes after somone it'll be him/her?

Barry i'd kinda like to talk to you about this one on one...

do you have an email adress?
my email is kyle.doris@dementropy.com

i only have one SAG guy in this thing, and i wanna make sure i don't screw myself over.
 
Re: legal dealings with SAG actors

If you have even one SAG actor, you're a SAG film. And unless you have a contract with the union, the actor can NOT be in your film.

What you'll probably want to look into is the SAG experimental agreement (for budgets under $75K). It will allow you to negotiate an affordable rate with your actor, even deferred if you want, under the condition that you pay the actor full SAG rates with the first money you make from the film.
 
Re: legal dealings with SAG actors

[quote author=Beeblebrox link=board=Offtopic;num=1083612291;start=0#7 date=05/04/04 at 22:48:26]If you have even one SAG actor, you're a SAG film.  And unless you have a contract with the union, the actor can NOT be in your film.

[/quote]

It's a free country.  An actor can do what he wants.  SAG does not OWN him.  He may get in trouble with his union, and as such may not WANT to do it, but the blanket statement that he "can NOT be in your film" without a SAG contract is simply false.  You make it sound like it's a crime and that the government will come in and shut you down.

And, simply having a SAG actor in your film doesn't automatically make you a SAG operation -- UNLESS you actually have a contract with SAG.

It doesn't mean there aren't real practical business considerations to playing nice with SAG, but that's another issue entirely.  
 
Re: legal dealings with SAG actors

He may get in trouble with his union, and as such may not WANT to do it, but the blanket statement that he "can NOT be in your film" without a SAG contract is simply false. You make it sound like it's a crime and that the government will come in and shut you down.
Click to expand...

I suggest you read up on collective bargaining agreements and the National Labor Relations Act, which requires producers to negotiate with the unions when hiring union actors. There are very strict rules and yes, they have the weight of law behind them.

So, no, he can't just decide to be in your film, free country or not.

True, the most severe repercussions he's likely to face are from the union, who will either fine him or kick him out, but that basically means he has no choice but to comply. So he can violate union rules and appear in a non-union movie, but he's not going to. If he gets kicked out of SAG, he can no longer appear in union films, and he's not going to face fines or penalties just for you unless you're you save his life in 'Nam or something.
 
Re: legal dealings with SAG actors

This issue was handled by the Supreme Court many years ago, and led to the creation of a class of union membership called "financial core." I'm sketchy on the details, but basically the US Supreme Court declared that union membership cannot be used to prevent someone from finding work. If being in the union means you cannot work on non-union productions, and there are no union productions to work on (such that you would have to take non-union work) then you can do so. The union cannot prevent you from making a living.

SAG *hates* financial core, because it undermines the whole point of there being a union in the first place: a non-divided collective bargaining voice that the producers would have no choice but to work with. However, it's the way things are. If an actor notifies the union that they elect "financial core" status, then they are free to work on union or non-union projects at their discretion. However, they give up the right to vote on union matters, or to ever hold office in the union. But producers are not penalized for hiring "financial core" members for either union or non-union work.

I know this hasn't been brought up yet and wasn't what you were referring to, but it's another angle on the argument. The union can most definitely not prevent someone from working, according to the U.S. Supreme Court. For anyone considering union actors, a google search on "SAG Financial Core" is required reading.

Also, keep in mind that I'm writing this from a "right-to-work" state. As I understand it, other states that are not "right-to-work" may indeed involve some sort of restrictions on hiring union members or, more specifically, in not allowing someone to hire non-union members. But someone who knows what they're talking about would have to step in here.
 
Re: legal dealings with SAG actors

Thanks, Barry -- a little bit off point but still good info. That, of course, deals with the contractual relationship between the laborer and the union.

The NLRA, of course, does not say that the mere act of hiring a union member automatically makes a place a union shop. Indeed, to demand such a thing on the part of the union would probably be in violation of section 8(b) of the act. Such a thing would require all the other actors in the production to become SAG members, or be fired. This is simply not the case.

Think about it, even based on Barry's example -- if it did, there would never be a need for a financial core, because there would be no non-union shops for union members to be hired to -- SAG wouldn't have to hate it because every SAG member hired into a production would automatically become a SAG production. In fact, I daresay they'd encourage it.

If that were in fact the law (any union member hired making it a union shop), it would be an astonishing monopoly power. But it isn't. Section 8(b) was enacted in 1959 to prevent such a thing.
 
Re: legal dealings with SAG actors

What Barry's referring to applies to right-to-work states, so if Kyle is in a right-to-work state, different rules apply. But right-to-work only means that unions cannot make union membership a criteria for employment. However, an agreement between a producer and a union, such as SAG, superceces the right-to-work, forcing the producer to abide by union rules.

And in any case, Kyle's actor would have to be willing to risk the penalties for working on a non-union shoot with no SAG contract.

Such a thing would require all the other actors in the production to become SAG members, or be fired. This is simply not the case.
Click to expand...

Actually that is the case for SAG productions in California, unless the production signs one of the SAG alternative agreements, like the experimental agreement, or unless you're dealing with background extras. But in all other cases, union productions that hire non-SAG actors must pay a fine. And non-union productions cannot hire SAG actors unless they sign a SAG contract.
 
Re: legal dealings with SAG actors

Well, then you've significantly backed away from your absolute position, which is all I wanted you to do. You're talking about producers which have contracts with the union, and that's a "union shop." If you don't have a contract with the union, the union has no authority over you. Your shop does not automatically become a union shop just because you've hired a union actor.

Whatever CA's laws are (don't know; not licensed there, though I'd be surprised if there's a legally enforced fine payable to SAG if a non-union shop hires a SAG actor -- what a racket that would be), that's nothing to do with the NLRA or federal (read: applicable to the whole country) labor law.

And yes, Kyle's actors would risk penalties. But that's not Kyle's problem. Kyle's problem could be later problems with the union if he DOES want to open a union shop.

(LLCs are wonderful things.)
 
Re: legal dealings with SAG actors

some good info here...

from what i've gathered, the best plan of attack would be to first see if this actor is willing to deal with possible repercussions of not signing an agreement with me and form an LLC to protect my interests.

ethically i'm not sure if i'd do it, but if i'm "looking out for #1" as barry says, i guess that would be the route.

on the other hand, if i do feel some type of obligation to making sure nothing awful happens to this person i suppose entering into an experimental agreement with him wouldn't be so bad.

i guess the follow up question would be (i did look on www.sagindie.org) ... what are my requirements then if i did enter into some type of agreement with this person? because, let truth be told, i can't exactly live up to the stringent rules that i know SAG productions need to abide by. as i'm sure many can attest, this is one of those things being produced with savings of 5-10 people... money goes to equipment and supplies.
 
Re: legal dealings with SAG actors

You don't really enter into an agreement with HIM, you enter into an agreement with SAG.

So you'll have to look at the SAG agreements and see if you can live with them. And, keep in mind, the "contract summary" you see is NOT the whole contract. There are many, many, many other provisions (first class airfare, first class accomodations, a separate dressing room, meal penalties, all sorts of stuff) that you need to abide by as well.

It's not impossible, it's just an additional burden. If the actor has a future (or even a present) it would be kind of you to do what you can to make sure he doesn't bear the burden of "scabbing". But if it's going to kill you and your production, then you have to figure out what's best for all parties, and if that means scabbing, then maybe that's what you do.
 
Re: legal dealings with SAG actors

yea, most of the stuff you note there is really impossible for me to comply with. not so much as impossible... but i'd be more interested in replacing him then adhering to those types of guidelines.

thanks again guys!
 
Re: legal dealings with SAG actors

Its not only the single SAG actor you gotta do that for to.. they will push to make you pay all top talent in your production even if they are not SAG the same provisions.

I have worked many productions where there where union actors working "undercover" for no Credits but just for the work. It really can be a huge pain in the ass, specially since Little house on the Praire girl pushed even Extras to be in Sag.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top