Oscar nominee 'Beasts' - 85 of 120 VFX shots created with free labor

[hscully]

Read my whole post, I am aware of the law.



They are not in violation of #3, since if they hadn't had the interns, money would not have suddenly appeared to pay employees, the film would have simply gone without the effects. No paid employees were displaced.

And as stated and explained in my previous post which you apparently didn't read, I believe #4 is an outdated and wrong law that, if strictly followed (which I contend few, if any, desirable technical industries do) would handicap the entire industry and those hoping to work in it, resulting in far fewer skilled workers.

So again, enough bitching - what are the solutions? How do you train skilled workers in an industry based largely on short-term freelance projects, without using unpaid internships?

I read you posts. I just disagree with you on number 4. It doesn't matter that you think it's outdated and wrong. If you read that NY Times article they admit that if they enforced it then very few intern users would get away with it. Look, I'm an actor. I'm in a play right now that I'm not getting paid for. I'm doing it for a friend who's a playwright who I like. It's a showcase. There are rules. I don't get paid when I direct my own stuff but I pay everyone else or barter. The difference is I'm not being exploited and this intern labor in this case shows that they were because the producers profited. It's just technically illegal.

How do you know there would be no special effects if they couldn't the them for free? They gathered 1.5 million. That wasn't Avatar! They would just have to figure it out.

Anyway, how's it working for the industry? The "industry" is flawed if it needs to live off this race to the bottom. It's not OK in my opinion and the letter of the law. Follow Gort T on this thread. In that case they were losing jobs to interns.

 

[groveChuck]

Gary, even in your role as Class Contrarian, your busboy is a specious argument.

• Having/not having a busboy is not a make or break factor (nor paying/not paying said busboy).
• Nobody's lining up willing to bus for free as a way of advancing their career.The
• The internship schedules I'm aware of are like weekly class schedules- two 3 hour days, three 2 hour days, something like that, and allow plenty of time to have a job also. No need for trust funds (or hyperbole, for that matter).

That said, I don't know what the "Beasts" schedule was...

Now even though I think the students got a good deal working on "Beasts", I think it's far from a perfect situation.

And in an attempt of fairness and to show I can see both sides of the argument, here's a critical argument from The Atlantic... that still sees both sides of the argument!

The Paradox of the Unpaid Internship

By Derek Thompson

Are the vast majority of unpaid internships illegal? A raft of lawsuits brought by unpaid interns claiming minimum-wage violations against big media companies this year might answer the question. In the first settlement among these cases, Charlie Rose's production company agreed to pay back wages of $110-per-week to nearly 200 former interns.

The ethics of unpaid internships are as murky as the economics are clear. Hundreds of thousands of young (and not so young) Americans are willing to work for nothing in exchange for the experience to take part in the daily thrum of a company. And I trust you'll conceal your shock to learn that some businesses will not refuse young workers at the price of $0.00 per hour.

We might conclude our analysis right there -- indeed, some people do -- but the morality of unpaid internships is not as pat as that evergreen excuse, "... but we can pay you with experience!" There is a law in this country that says that internships must resemble an education and that interns cannot work in the place of paid employees, nor be of "immediate benefit" to an employer. If you have ever held an unpaid internship, you know just how routinely flouted that rule is.

Last year, we hosted a reader-editor debate about the morality and economics of unpaid internships. The upshot of our drawn-out back-and-forth polemic: It's complicated!

Is it true that unpaid internships offer invaluable experience that can be worth more than a college education? Yes.

Is it true that unpaid internships offer advantages to higher-income students who can afford to work for free, implicitly locking out low-income youths from important opportunities? Yes.

Is it true that life is unfair and low-income people are priced out of all sorts of educational opportunities, like tutors and expensive private schools, which are perfectly legal? Yes.

Is it true that interns are doing the work of low-wage workers? Yes.

Is it true that the Labor Department has the power to enforce laws that would find hundreds of thousands of unpaid internships to be illegal because interns are doing the work of low-wage workers? Yes.

Is it true that if the Labor Department cracked down on these internships and forced companies to pay the minimum wage, there would be fewer unpaid internships and students would be deprived of an invaluable experience that, as we established, can be worth more than a college education? Yes.

So, as you can see, the answer is fairly straightforward. Unpaid internships: Good for many students, but bad for some students, good for the economy, but bad for low-wage workers, but good for early-career mobility, but bad for social equality, and illegal, but widely accepted, so practically legal.

I hope the next class action lawsuit goes to trial. It'll take a judge to sort this stuff out.

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/01/the-paradox-of-the-unpaid-internship/266964/

~~~
Well, on that note, instead if intern, I will turn in...

 

[hscully]

So again, enough bitching - what are the solutions? How do you train skilled workers in an industry based largely on short-term freelance projects, without using unpaid internships?

I'm not bitching. I feel strongly that something is wrong here and I am enjoying the debate. Good question. I think the solution is to follow the spirit of the first and second criteria. Thus, "1.The training, even though it includes actual operation of the facilities of the employer, is similar to what would be given in a vocational school or academic educational instruction;
2. to the benefit of the trainee.

OR

Pay them something - $10 an hour... something.

The unpaid intern should be in a mentoring situation where he or she are being trained, apprenticed for a limited time. Not figuring it out for a well connected indy darling that can't figure out themselves or figure out how to get the extra dough to do some routine compositing. Nobody in there community of film school buddies work on this type of stuff?

Specifically, the thing that really gets me is that Cinereach pimps this "service." There's something wrong with the spirit of it. I don't know. If it were a local college where they were shooting with whom the filmmakers had a relationship that would be better but to have the "services" brokered to them... I don't know. Something ain't right with that.

 

[Doc Bernard]

I guess it comes down to what side of the fence you reside on. I look at things from a business point of view, so I see the internship model as being helpful to both the business and to the intern. There has to be a benefit to both parties, not just one side or the other. And a person is not forced to take a internship if they do not like the terms.

I will agree it is abused. But despite that abuse, it still serves a valuable function.

Awesome article, groveChuck!

 

[Gary Huff]

Gary, even in your role as Class Contrarian, your busboy is a specious argument.

Yes, my restaurant example isn't the best on second thought. A better on would be someone employing interns to develop a "gadget", some interns developing and/or building key components. The gadget goes on to be a modest success, bringing in a profit for the owner and the company, but the student interns don't see a dime.

That said, I don't know what the "Beasts" schedule was...

From the WSJ article:

A handful of students camped out with film producers at a Marin county hotel working 15-hour days in the two-weeks before the film’s premier at the 2012 Sundance Film Festival, where it earned the Grand Jury Prize.

Not the entire schedule, but that's a hell of a lot of work at crunch time to be doing while not getting paid.

 

[David W. Richardson]

I can't afford to pay people to operate a restaurant business. Will you come and bus tables for me for free? It'll be a great networking opportunity!

Why does it always have to be sooooo sarcastic and condescending???

Actually, if I thought busing tables at your restaurant would put me in close contact with people who could employ me later on, and I had no paying opportunities on the horizon, then I might just decide that working for you for free was a smart move. If my goal was a career in the restaurant business, and I wanted to learn it from the ground up, then it might well be worth the investment of my time -- especially if there are no paying jobs available at the time.

I would rather be working for free in the industry that I love, rather than sitting at home doing nothing and getting nowhere.

 

[Jawa Ex Machina]

Historically speaking, art has never really been a paying job. Some successful artists made money by selling their paintings, or were paid to perform at a venue, etc, but it wasn't until recorded music / movies / tv that art became a big business.

Art was also never as expensive to produce until movies / tv (excluding the creation of buildings & bridges etc, which serve a functional purpose beyond their artistic value).

You can't expect to make money being an artists, as most artists don't make money, but if you are laboring on something that is being used by a business to make a profit, you should be paid for your work.

Unfortunately, the very thing that is allowing more people to make movies (decreasing cost of production) will probably be the main reason movies stop being a paying job for most people. The market is too saturated with content. Not just professional movies, but reality tv, youtube, vimeo, etc.

I agree.

Also, going into this business expecting to be an artist is very dangerous. Being a filmmaker is not like being a painter, or a photographer, or a novelist or a musician.

The number of people required to make a film (any film), the time it takes, and the amount of money it costs prevents this medium from being a single person's work of art.

We live in a time too, where the consumers are unwilling to pay for our services and is not forced to, although they don't mind snarking online about films or giving bad amateur blog reviews. The market is flooded with too many new independent films and too many used DVD copies released all the way back in 1997 that can still be played on a brand new Blu-ray player (remember the VHS/DVD transition didn't have that issue), and a bad economy on top of all that.

Personally I'm considdering turning my current screenplay into a novel instead. The book industry might have serious problems too and getting into that is hard, but at least I won't spend three years and all my money trying to get it published. I could do it for a few months and then get on with my next one.

 

[David W. Richardson]

I agree.

Also, going into this business expecting to be an artist is very dangerous. Being a filmmaker is not like being a painter, or a photographer, or a novelist or a musician.

The number of people required to make a film (any film), the time it takes, and the amount of money it costs prevents this medium from being a single person's work of art.

We live in a time too, where the consumers are unwilling to pay for our services and is not forced to, although they don't mind snarking online about films or giving bad amateur blog reviews. The market is flooded with too many new independent films and too many used DVD copies released all the way back in 1997 that can still be played on a brand new Blu-ray player (remember the VHS/DVD transition didn't have that issue), and a bad economy on top of all that.

Personally I'm considdering turning my current screenplay into a novel instead. The book industry might have serious problems too and getting into that is hard, but at least I won't spend three years and all my money trying to get it published. I could do it for a few months and then get on with my next one.

Do what you love.

Best wishes for your book!

 

[Batutta]

Do what you love.

What if you love heroin?

 

[David W. Richardson]

What if you love heroin?

You know what I meant.

 

[j1clark@ucsd.edu]

What if you love heroin?

Given the amount of drugs used by celebrities... perhaps one can 'love heroin' and 'make millions... for a while... and then be in the news for the rest of one's life'...

But I think heroin addicts in training actually pay for the training rather than get free internships...

 

[Gillvane]

For most employees there is never any 'backend, percentage points, etc.'. One gets a salary offering, and that's about it... perhaps a few stock options, perhaps a few bonuses throughout the years of employment, but that's it.

Only the top 'few' either founders or VP/P/CEO/CFO get any 'benefit' from 'beyond our wildest dreams' result of the efforts of the employees of a company. In fact, if the bad management of these people leads to the demise of the company altogether... often the top management can flee to other companies, provided the law is not chasing them..., perhaps even relocate, which often is not an option for the employees lower down on the totem pole.

It seems that only in Hollywood does the 'shop boy or girl' dream of percentage points on the product... everyone else of the lower employee class in 'industry' takes their paycheck as it is... and hope it doesn't bounce...

I know. I"m simply saying the fair thing to do would be pay the interns on the backend if they work for free and the production makes bank. It's easy to do and doesn't have to cost a lot.

You could pay an intern a basic daily rate if the production makes a ton o' money by putting a simple cap on the amount received in the contract.

I'm not saying an intern would receive a portion of the gross like a top producer or actor might. I'm saying you could pay them 500 bucks (or whatever the daily rate x number of days worked is for their position ) if the production makes 10 mill and only cost 1.5 mil to make, or whatever the case may be.

if the production costs 1.5 mil to make and only returns nothing, or 1.4 mil, or 2 mill, you get nothing, oh well you got an intern position and some experience. You wouldn't feel screwed working for free while the producers made a ton o' money on your free labor, because at least you'd get your daily rate if they did well.

 

[j1clark@ucsd.edu]

I'm not bitching. I feel strongly that something is wrong here and I am enjoying the debate. Good question. I think the solution is to follow the spirit of the first and second criteria. Thus, "1.The training, even though it includes actual operation of the facilities of the employer, is similar to what would be given in a vocational school or academic educational instruction;
2. to the benefit of the trainee.

The entire system of graduate studies is largely 'unpaid internship'. Some brighter undergrads may also have the 'opportunity' to serve for the cause as well... even post-doc work is often 'unpaid', as the 'grant money' never seems to be enough to pass around to all...

I don't think an 'internship' should consist of 'make work' or of 'no benefit' for a company offering the intern an opportunity to work in an area they are training for. I think such laws and the enforcement thereof will shrink the availability of internships and would defeat the intent of the activity altogether.

There are many aspects of 'labor law' I don't like... and ignore as an employee...

Any further comment would probably lead to pit of the dreaded 'political discussion'...

 

[Gary Huff]

The problem is that so many people are willing to work for free because they see it as an opportunity, but I don't see it really paying off in the long wrong. I think it's a misnomer. Sure, it works for some people, but exceptions don't prove any rule. And if you don't happen to like it, well, that's fine, plenty of others are waiting in the wings to work 15 hour days for 2 weeks straight for no pay. I, frankly, don't see an end to that.

But, once it's all over, where are they going? With VFX houses declaring bankruptcy and downsizing, exactly which jobs are these people going to use their mad interning resume building portfolios to get?

 

[Chris Adler]

If a VFX house can't pay the bills then they don't have a viable and sustainable business model and it needs to change. If a studio can get acceptable quality results by hiring overseas firms, then that's the reality of the market and we have to adapt. If domestically we can't do something essential in a better way than a studio can achieve with overseas talent, then we evolve. This isn't the first industry that's been pinched by competition.

 

[j1clark@ucsd.edu]

I know. I"m simply saying the fair thing to do would be pay the interns on the backend if they work for free and the production makes bank. It's easy to do and doesn't have to cost a lot.

You could pay an intern a basic daily rate if the production makes a ton o' money by putting a simple cap on the amount received in the contract.

I'm not saying an intern would receive a portion of the gross like a top producer or actor might. I'm saying you could pay them 500 bucks (or whatever the daily rate x number of days worked is for their position ) if the production makes 10 mill and only cost 1.5 mil to make, or whatever the case may be.

if the production costs 1.5 mil to make and only returns nothing, or 1.4 mil, or 2 mill, you get nothing, oh well you got an intern position and some experience. You wouldn't feel screwed working for free while the producers made a ton o' money on your free labor, because at least you'd get your daily rate if they did well.

Here's a news flash... while you are discussion 'unpaid interms'... every single no/lo budget film that uses the 'free' work of anyone, is potentially in violation of current Federal Labor Law.

A 'for profit' company can not 'accept' free work done by anyone, neither employees nor non-employees. Unless a filmmaker creates a non-profit organization, they would be classed as a 'for profit' business, despite 99.99999% never making a dime...

One would have to 'spend money' on lawyering to come up with a complete understanding of what can or can not be done with using 'services provided for 'free''...

 

[j1clark@ucsd.edu]

The problem is that so many people are willing to work for free because they see it as an opportunity, but I don't see it really paying off in the long wrong. I think it's a misnomer. Sure, it works for some people, but exceptions don't prove any rule. And if you don't happen to like it, well, that's fine, plenty of others are waiting in the wings to work 15 hour days for 2 weeks straight for no pay. I, frankly, don't see an end to that.

But, once it's all over, where are they going? With VFX houses declaring bankruptcy and downsizing, exactly which jobs are these people going to use their mad interning resume building portfolios to get?

I suspect that the VFX houses going bust is most likely not due to use of 'free labor', but competition with large pools of 'cheap' labor elsewhere. Somewhere in the back of my mind, I recall reading how someone had to go to North Korea to do 'graphics' work on some film... can't really google it to refresh the details... but I'm would bet that India or other regions where the 'support services' industry has relocated, probably are far more 'competitive' on labor costs...

 

[j1clark@ucsd.edu]

If a VFX house can't pay the bills then they don't have a viable and sustainable business model and it needs to change. If a studio can get acceptable quality results by hiring overseas firms, then that's the reality of the market and we have to adapt. If domestically we can't do something essential in a better way than a studio can achieve with overseas talent, then we evolve. This isn't the first industry that's been pinched by competition.

Yes, the evolution is to a highly stratified work environment. Management and concept design here in the US, actual 'work' done elsewhere... this process has been going on for the last 40 or so years, hitting the 'heavy' industries of the US first, and moving on to almost everywhere else.

This is probably why over the last 15-20 years most 'grads' that I've interviewed for 'entry level' positions in my dayjob work activity often say the position they seek is in 'management', rather than 'work'. I of course pass on hiring them, because I'm looking for people who can actually do something...

 

[Doc Bernard]

This is probably why over the last 15-20 years most 'grads' that I've interviewed for 'entry level' positions in my dayjob work activity often say the position they seek is in 'management', rather than 'work'. I of course pass on hiring them, because I'm looking for people who can actually do something...

Excellent criteria! I have managed many people and fairly large budgets, and it's not about "managing". It's about getting the work/job done. And that involves getting your hands dirty too, sometimes. I used to catch flack by my co-managers for "strapping on the tools" occasionally, but my projects rarely went past deadline or budget. Always felt that the best managers come from the field they manage, i.e, promote from below.

 

[Gary Huff]

I suspect that the VFX houses going bust is most likely not due to use of 'free labor', but competition with large pools of 'cheap' labor elsewhere.

I didn't mean to imply that was the issue. I completely agree that the competition with overseas labor is the issue. But the fact still remains that these interns have worked for free for a resume, though impressive as it might be ultimately, may not have much opportunity for paid work anyway.