C200: Two camera C200 interview

Run&Gun said:
Working hard has nothing to do with it. Most of us work hard.

Eric, you talk out of both sides of your mouth. In the last few years you have gone from this guy that thought the little two minute pieces he was shooting on Clergy were documentaries and acted like there was no reason to shoot on anything except their C300 or C100 to now having taken on this "I'm better than you, because I shoot an Arri with cine glass" attitude and saying that you charge higher rates than most and you want to buy more ultra high-end equipment, not to necessarily make your product better, but just to charge more, and to be a high-end commercial DP, but then you turn around and brag about how proud you are of, essentially doing what you can to deprive others of work and working like a low budget shooter, hauling all of their equipment around, by themself down the sidewalk in a major metropolitan city, all in the name of saving a few bucks. And you think that this makes you sound like a genius.

We've butted heads numerous times over the years on here, but there have been times where we are on the same page and I have "given the devil his due", but honestly you've been coming across as a braggadocios kid who just wants attention, lately. Why else come onto a camera forum and post a listing for a 5K-6k sq ft house you're wanting to buy or mention that you're driving around the country in a $100K RV, when "hey, I drive around and stay in my own RV instead of hotels", would serve the same point? But not mentioning the six figure price tag wouldn't serve your goal of trying to establish your "superiority" via spending money. Or as it's otherwise sometimes know, "Conspicuous Consumption".

Your math may be correct, but I'd agree that the totals are probably exaggerated. You're making these claims based on actually doing these things 100 times a year to arrive at these fantastical sounding "savings".

Maybe you do have clients that just say, "here's $3K, make the shoot happen" and they don't care how you accomplish it, but mine(and a lot of others) don't. When they hire a two man crew, there better be a two-man crew show up. When they fork out the two man crew rate, it's for a two man crew. You show up by yourself, they're not paying you all of it and letting you pocket the audio portion. You're gonna get paid less, because the other portion was for another crew member. I've also been around enough corporate shoots to know that a lot of those hiring know what to expect when doling out money for a shoot and if they're paying those kinds of rates, and someone shows up solo, they know it's not for the good of the end product. If I was hiring a crew and I was quoted $3300 for a crew, I'm expecting at the bare minimum a two man crew, but possibly three. There are variables at play, though.

Bottom line, it's your business and you can run it however you want and see fit to, but as a veteran of this industry, and if I don't know you and I hear this story, I'm thinking this guy is more worried about just making a buck off of me instead of taking care of my projects needs.
Click to expand...

I shoot for many foreign clients. Most of the large clients already know how much work it takes and budget accordingly. I am the single point of contact and I bring along the team as per requirements. For some corporate clients you need to give the names of crew beforehand for security reasons. And often there is someone from the client to talk. It is difficult to interact with the client and set up equipment. Here in India, most of the corporates have small rooms and big rooms are often cluttered. So it takes me a lot of time to setup.

I travel throughout India and shoot. At times there are some local PAs for the shoot. I have women in my team. So am extra cautious. Except for any local PAs all stay with me in the same hotel if we are traveling. Safety and security is more important for me than anything else. And I always remind myself that I have left a high paying job to get into this filming field. So I am not in this for money. If I had to skimp on basic things like staying in hotel or grabbing a burger instead of a healthy meal to save money then I shouldn't be in this business. There are enough avenues to earn a decent livelihood if you do your job well.

Greed is the stepping stone for disaster. I would prefer to avoid it at any cost.

As of now in many productions I bill 3-4k per day but that is along with my small crew and equipment. Solely for myself 3k billing rate? That would be f***ing awesome. My respects to whoever gets 3k USD per day DP rate. Hopefully I continue moving up and someday I can bill such numbers.

I was recently talking with someone who is setting up premium boutique hotels in some remote corners of India in some breathtaking landscapes. Someone had told him that I shoot for high end clients and so he had not approached me. Now I am shooting for him. The point is if you brag your rates or if somehow a perception is created that you only shoot if there is lot of money on the table, then some creative assignments may not come your way. This is just an observation and may or may not hold true for you.

PS: There is a wise saying in India. A tree laden with fruits bend down - which means wise men are humble. Most of the successful men that I have seen are humble and talk well. It is the upstarts who feel that they have arrived in life and hence talk brash.
 
Although I don't like going that route myself, DIY'ing as much as possible might actually become the thing to do in California. Starting January 1, that $200/day PA will now have to be hired as an employee and you'll need to pay an additional 15% of their labor rate in taxes & workers comp fees as well as another 2% or so to pay for payroll services. On top of that you'll need to carry workers comp insurance to cover that PA as well. Oh, and make sure they get a 10 minute break within the first four hours and a paid lunch before the first 5 hours of a full day shoot - basically all shoots in California are becoming union gigs.

As unpopular as Eric's approach is, he may be ahead of the times.....(I type that in half jest)
 
chris f said:
Although I don't like going that route myself, DIY'ing as much as possible might actually become the thing to do in California. Starting January 1, that $200/day PA will now have to be hired as an employee and you'll need to pay an additional 15% of their labor rate in taxes & workers comp fees as well as another 2% or so to pay for payroll services. On top of that you'll need to carry workers comp insurance to cover that PA as well. Oh, and make sure they get a 10 minute break within the first four hours and a paid lunch before the first 5 hours of a full day shoot - basically all shoots in California are becoming union gigs.

As unpopular as Eric's approach is, he may be ahead of the times.....(I type that in half jest)
Click to expand...

Nope.

See: Category 2: Certain contracts for "professional services."

https://www.hklaw.com/en/insights/publications/2019/09/new-california-law-codifies-and-expands-strict-abc-test
 
Nice interviews, Rob. Thanks for sharing them and the setup.
I too prefer multi cameras spread out and not side by side, though to each his own.

Thanks Run & Gun for calling it as you see it...

indiawilds said:
A tree laden with fruits bend down - which means wise men are humble.
Click to expand...
'Nuff said, thanks Saby. :thumbsup:
 
Seanik said:
Nope.

See: Category 2: Certain contracts for "professional services."

https://www.hklaw.com/en/insights/publications/2019/09/new-california-law-codifies-and-expands-strict-abc-test
Click to expand...

I'm terrible at parsing legalese but this document is actually written in plain English, which is good. So are you saying if I, as a producer, hire crew (PA, hair & makeup, sound mixer, grips/gaffers), as long as they meet these specific criteria, I can pay them directly without
going through a payroll service and providing workers comp? I'm on the LA Producers Group and the consensus over there is that we MUST hire any and all crew through a payroll service and pay workers comp.

For those too lazy to click on Seanik's link and read the document, here is Category 2

Category 2: Certain contracts for "professional services." This exemption includes certain contractual services related to marketing, human resources, travel agents, graphic design, grant writers, fine artists, agents practicing before the Internal Revenue Service, payment processing agents, still photographers, photojournalists, freelance writers, editors, newspaper cartoonists, estheticians, electrologists, manicurists, barbers and cosmetologists. It is crucial to note that the majority these listed professional services contain specific qualifiers. In addition to those qualifiers, the exemption for this category will apply only if the hiring entity demonstrates that all of the following six conditions are satisfied:

a. the individual maintains a business location, which may include the individual's residence, that is separate from the hiring entity's business location; nothing in this subdivision prohibits an individual from choosing to perform services at the location of the hiring entity

b. if work is performed more than six months after the Jan. 1, 2020, effective date of this section, the individual must have a business license, in addition to any required professional licenses or permits for the individual to practice in their profession

c. the individual has the ability to set or negotiate their own rates for the services performed

d. outside of project completion dates and reasonable business hours, the individual has the ability to set the individual's own hours

e. the individual is customarily engaged in the same type of work performed under contract with another hiring entity or holds themselves out to other potential customers as available to perform the same type of work

f. the individual customarily and regularly exercises discretion and independent judgment in the performance of the services
 
Last edited:
puredrifting said:
I'm terrible at parsing legalese but this document is actually written in plain English, which is good. So are you saying if I, as a producer, hire crew (PA, hair & makeup, sound mixer, grips/gaffers), as long as they meet these specific criteria, I can pay them directly without
going through a payroll service and providing workers comp? I'm on the LA Producers Group and the consensus over there is that we MUST hire any and all crew through a payroll service and pay workers comp.

For those too lazy to click on Seanik's kink and read the document, here is Category 2

Category 2: Certain contracts for "professional services." This exemption includes certain contractual services related to marketing, human resources, travel agents, graphic design, grant writers, fine artists, agents practicing before the Internal Revenue Service, payment processing agents, still photographers, photojournalists, freelance writers, editors, newspaper cartoonists, estheticians, electrologists, manicurists, barbers and cosmetologists. It is crucial to note that the majority these listed professional services contain specific qualifiers. In addition to those qualifiers, the exemption for this category will apply only if the hiring entity demonstrates that all of the following six conditions are satisfied:

a. the individual maintains a business location, which may include the individual's residence, that is separate from the hiring entity's business location; nothing in this subdivision prohibits an individual from choosing to perform services at the location of the hiring entity

b. if work is performed more than six months after the Jan. 1, 2020, effective date of this section, the individual must have a business license, in addition to any required professional licenses or permits for the individual to practice in their profession

c. the individual has the ability to set or negotiate their own rates for the services performed

d. outside of project completion dates and reasonable business hours, the individual has the ability to set the individual's own hours

e. the individual is customarily engaged in the same type of work performed under contract with another hiring entity or holds themselves out to other potential customers as available to perform the same type of work

f. the individual customarily and regularly exercises discretion and independent judgment in the performance of the services
Click to expand...

I was just reading about this last night. My understanding is that anyone you hire, even if I hire a $200 camera assistant for the day to help with a wedding shoot, they now have to go through payroll, because i'm directly supervising them, and the work they are doing is the same thing my business is doing. Photographers were exempted, but motion picture/video jobs were not. Really irritating. Why the industry didn't raise hell about this is beyond me.
 
Airwolf said:
I was just reading about this last night. My understanding is that anyone you hire, even if I hire a $200 camera assistant for the day to help with a wedding shoot, they now have to go through payroll, because i'm directly supervising them, and the work they are doing is the same thing my business is doing. Photographers were exempted, but motion picture/video jobs were not. Really irritating. Why the industry didn't raise hell about this is beyond me.
Click to expand...

Yep... hold the phones! It seemed to me that as long as your crew person had a business license, you're pretty much OK. However, in my initial interpretation, I had not yet come across THIS specific exception to the exception for our industry yet:

"Exceptions to AB 5 and Labor Code Section 2750.3

One of the primary exemptions from the new AB 5 comes in defining certain occupations as “professions” which are exempt from the protections of the new Labor Provisions. However, anyone looking for a film and television specific exemption to AB 5 is going to get an unpleasant surprise in Section (a)(2)(B)(ix), where film and television crew are specifically not included in an exemption for photographers:

(ix) Services provided by a still photographer or photojournalist who do not license content submissions to the putative employer more than 35 times per year. This clause is not applicable to an individual who works on motion pictures, which includes, but is not limited to, projects produced for theatrical, television, internet streaming for any device, commercial productions, broadcast news, music videos, and live shows, whether distributed live or recorded for later broadcast, regardless of the distribution platform.

What does that mean? It means that one of the only possible exemptions for film and television professionals was specifically removed by the legislative action, to make clear that film and television crew must now be considered employees and not independent contractors."

- By Brandon Blake, Entertainment Lawyer
https://filmtvlaw.com/blog/2019/10/1/california-ab-5-ends-entertainment-loan-outs-amp-contractors


But what does this mean for the small LLC/Sole Proprietor who's business doesn't even do payroll? No idea yet... sorry for the (probable) false-alarm! I need to do more research/chat with a lawyer, etc.

** However, there still might be a difference when it comes to hiring a gaffer, audio tech, editor, etc. with their own gear and specialization vs. a PA who is an un/low-skilled generalist. (Although, you might just designate that person as a "producer" and no one could tell the difference on-set, lol).
 
Last edited:
Seanik said:
Yep... hold the phones! It seemed to me that as long as your crew person had a business license, you're pretty much OK. However, in my initial interpretation, I had not yet come across THIS specific exception to the exception for our industry yet:

"Exceptions to AB 5 and Labor Code Section 2750.3

One of the primary exemptions from the new AB 5 comes in defining certain occupations as “professions” which are exempt from the protections of the new Labor Provisions. However, anyone looking for a film and television specific exemption to AB 5 is going to get an unpleasant surprise in Section (a)(2)(B)(ix), where film and television crew are specifically not included in an exemption for photographers:

(ix) Services provided by a still photographer or photojournalist who do not license content submissions to the putative employer more than 35 times per year. This clause is not applicable to an individual who works on motion pictures, which includes, but is not limited to, projects produced for theatrical, television, internet streaming for any device, commercial productions, broadcast news, music videos, and live shows, whether distributed live or recorded for later broadcast, regardless of the distribution platform.

What does that mean? It means that one of the only possible exemptions for film and television professionals was specifically removed by the legislative action, to make clear that film and television crew must now be considered employees and not independent contractors."

- By Brandon Blake, Entertainment Lawyer
https://filmtvlaw.com/blog/2019/10/1/california-ab-5-ends-entertainment-loan-outs-amp-contractors


But what does this mean for the small LLC/Sole Proprietor who's business doesn't even do payroll? No idea yet... sorry for the (probable) false-alarm! I need to do more research/chat with a lawyer, etc.

** However, there still might be a difference when it comes to hiring a gaffer, audio tech, editor, etc. with their own gear and specialization vs. a PA who is an un/low-skilled generalist. (Although, you might just designate that person as a "producer" and no one could tell the difference on-set, lol).
Click to expand...

What this tells me is that small budget to medium budget clients are going to have to spend about a third more on productions to be legally compliant. Or just hire us all as one man bands and the video/film business will splinter into
large, well financed productions and OMB productions with nothing in between, which is insane. I did two productions this year where I had cast and crews of between 5 and 15 people and did everything through payroll.

The paperwork requirements, as the producer, was almost a full time gig in itself. I told both clients, who were medium sized corporations, that they could hire all of the cast and crew as employees and give them Workers Comp insurance and go through their own
payroll departments, or they could pay my little company the 32% premium and I would sub contract out the Workers Comp Insurance and Payroll to www.npipyaroll.com who can handle all of that. The 32% was a pass through, meaning essentially all of the hours I spent
above and beyond normal producing to handle the reams of forms, signatures, copies and verifications were performed by myself uncompensated.

This really makes me ponder just shutting down my corporation and becoming ONLY a single freelance employee and let other entities hire me and mess with all of this BS.
Per usual, California always finds a way to drive business out of state or to shut it down, it's what this state does.
 
I can see folks setting up production facilities just across the state border in Nevada and/or Arizona. It's a 3 1/2 to 4 hour drive from Hollywood.
 
...Or just hire us all as one man bands and the video/film business will splinter into
large, well financed productions and OMB productions with nothing in between, which is insane.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I was just going to add that one workaround, albeit not without it's issues, would be for the crew to invoice the client individually. So, instead of adding "gaffer" or "audio" crew as a line item, just collect their invoices and submit them as a package to the client. It's not as simple as before, but for "one-offs" or very intermittent clients, this might be the easiest way to do it.

The advantage this has for yourself/crew (vs. the "employment" route) is that we can maintain status as a business, and thus continue to benefit from the ability to deduct expenses, contribute to Solo 401k, etc.

(BTW, I also have a feeling this topic might be deserving of it's own thread).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top