I'm sure, like many of you I operate on a low-budget/low-budget productions. I'm wondering if this happens only to me, or is it common, and your suggestions on how to avoid such people.

The Scenario:
I'm the producer of a low-budget movie/short. I put up an ad clearly stating "for credit only" and people contact me with services because they want exposure. I find someone I want to work with and contact them to discuss what they are willing to do for the project given that is "for credit only". They explain that they would do x, y, z (such as provide 1 pre-made song, or a few hours of their time to help with editing, etc). Then we get to the written agreement stage (basically to cover each others behinds) and suddenly they stop talking "for credit only" and start demanding extra renumeration, such as: Cash up front, cash on completion, percentage of revenue (where by their percentage is far and excess the amount their work actually represents in the movie), royalty fees, etc.

One Example:
Talked to a local about writing a script for me, they have written a few small unpublished books and a few plays etc. But they are unpublished and have never had something turned into a motion picture. I start talking to them about the possibility they could help me with my next project and they seem very on-board (again for credit only - it would be their first story made into a movie so that is actually worth something to a newcomer vs. seasoned writer) and once I send them my list of available resources, cast number, etc, they turn around and ask for $5000 - far more than I had budgeted for the movie (capital equipment aside). Thats just aggravating...

What gives? This has happen to me quite a number of times in various production tasks. I know I'm asking for something for as close to "free" as possible, but I tend to be very clear from the beginning that there will be no cash in the transaction. Yet I'm still getting people who think they can smile and talk nice to me about my project, seem to go along with the idea but as soon as you get to the written agreement stage they suddenly want cold hard cash, and often more than I would pay for, if I was paying!

Do you have suggestions? Or am I just barking up the wrong tree thinking that credit means something to anyone?

If they agreed in the beginning for 'credit only' and then get to the table and demand more, you kindly remind them of the original deal. If they continue with demanding more you tell them to go screw.

I agree Micheal, but the number of people I have told them to forget it far exceeds the number who I end up working with, and there are several parts of the film I'm now doing solo because I can't find what I need.

Bill them for your wasted producer's time... call it even and get them to work for credit only ;)

That will happen with no budget films. I've had hard heads respond to ads I posted for zero/no budget films with no upfront money and ask what is the budget to my face. They don't grasp the concept of zero and no and won't even look it up in the dictionary.

One other thing to do is show you will take on newbies with no experience for screen credit. Don't respond to the ones with 20 years experience. The newbies may be lazy. And, you will have to push them to work sometimes. You will also need eyes in back of your head if you have too many newbies. Because they will need direction and guidance on what to do to work as a team for a shoot.

It happens to me often.

The moment someone starts talking about money I politely remind
them there is no money for the work. If they bring it up again, I
thank them for their time and move on.

There is nothing that you can do (no way to post a “better”
notice) to control how people respond.


One other thing to do is show you will take on newbies with no experience for screen credit. Don't respond to the ones with 20 years experience.
Not really the best plan. I very often donate my time and I know
many experienced people who do, too. If you post a notice and
someone like me with 20 years of experience replies you might be
doing yourself a favor by responding. You might risk meeting
someone who then asks for money, but you might meet someone who is
an asset to your project.

Spend some time networking. Work on other people's projects. Find some people you trust.

Or -- pay people.

Preferably both.

I agree with Rik...it's not the amount of experience you have...it's who the person is, what they believe in, and sometimes it's also their desperation for a role.

One of the problems is that there is no such thing as zero budget. It's really just a phrase used to get people to work for free. Just because money wasn't budgeted does not mean that money was not spent.

Cameras use tape=$
Audio uses batteries=$
cameras cost money=$$$
audio gear costs money=$$$
gas to get to the shoot=$
electricity to run the editing gear=$
rent/mortgage to pay for the place where editing/equipment storage takes place=$
editing software=$$
DVDs for handouts=$

I have yet to see anyone start without any equipment, decide to make a film, and have a finished film without spending ANY money. It cannot be done.

Here's how I handle people who are looking for audio support for free. I want 10% OWNERSHIP in the finished product. It does not go anywhere without my permission. It cannot be sold, marketed, or viewed without my consent. ANY distribution includes my name as an owner.

Or, you can just pay my low budget rate for location sound recording.

That will happen with no budget films. I've had hard heads respond to ads I posted for zero/no budget films with no upfront money and ask what is the budget to my face. They don't grasp the concept of zero and no and won't even look it up in the dictionary.

One other thing to do is show you will take on newbies with no experience for screen credit. Don't respond to the ones with 20 years experience. The newbies may be lazy. And, you will have to push them to work sometimes. You will also need eyes in back of your head if you have too many newbies. Because they will need direction and guidance on what to do to work as a team for a shoot.

What helps me is a later return. If I help someone in my area for free they will usually bring me on for a paid gig soon after. Then the word gets around that John Smith will ask you to work for free but get you with a paid gig later. This helps as far as getting great workers and not having them ask for money because they know they will eventually get it later on from you. Maybe start hiring the people who work for free on some pay gigs and get a good reputation going. That can really snow ball.

Yes, there is no such thing as a no-budget film...

Basically it means the bare essentials, and this does not include paying individuals.

Here's how I handle people who are looking for audio support for free. I want 10% OWNERSHIP in the finished product. It does not go anywhere without my permission. It cannot be sold, marketed, or viewed without my consent. ANY distribution includes my name as an owner.

10% ownership in a production. I know as a producer I
wouldn’t offer that. Do you get that often?

Back to the topic; would you respond to a notice or ad that
offers "credit only" and then make this counter offer?

I have yet to see anyone start without any equipment, decide to make a film, and have a finished film without spending ANY money. It cannot be done.


You must assume the obvious conclusion that most posts would be met by collaboration. As M1chae1 said, bare essentials.

No, I do not respond to "credit only" postings. I respond to "back-end compensation negotiable postings only to find that most will not commit anything to writing.

To the postings that do offer some type of future compensation, but are unwilling to commit in writing, sometimes we can agree on a rate, and sometimes we cannot.

I have not, and would not blind-side a production after an agreement has been made.

And I have, on several occassions volunteered to help with projects if I thought the project was something worthwhile, or I knew the producer as someone who reciprocates.

10% ownership in a production. I know as a producer I
wouldn’t offer that. Do you get that often?

Back to the topic; would you respond to a notice or ad that
offers "credit only" and then make this counter offer?

Here's how I handle people who are looking for audio support for free. I want 10% OWNERSHIP in the finished product. It does not go anywhere without my permission. It cannot be sold, marketed, or viewed without my consent. ANY distribution includes my name as an owner.



Firstly, this is kind of ludicrous. If they posted an ad needed support for free, than why would you come to them with this offer? That's just wrong on so many levels.

Why do you think this is even a fair idea? I wouldn't agree to this in a million years. Especially with someone that replied to my ad with this come back.

I've worked on dozens of pictures, and I still do it pro-bono in a lot of cases (east coast). I couldn't imagine coming forth with this 'offer'...I'd be laughed at. I think you're treating it like an actual investment...and if you invested a fair chunk of change in the picture, then go for it, make these demands. But putting up time and talent is not the same thing.

It just seems like bullying also. Poor young filmmakers trying to get something done, and they get hit with these demands? Sheesh.

I understand the idea of collaboration, but only if the the ownership is collaberative as well.

As a location sound person, I find myself not quite in the same position as filmmakers. I do not write, I do not produce, I do not create. I own equipment, that, with my skillset, provides a service to a production. Think of a steadicam operator, who has invested $30k+ in a rig. This weekend I worked with one who actually was volunteering as part of a local filmmaking team who share the ownership of their work. He doesn't need the copy or credit, his rig is paid for by those who pay him to work.

So, in regards to bare essentials, where does location sound fall? Is it considered a luxury? If so, then shoot with the camera mic, or buy some low cost gear and find a friend to hold the pole. You'll record something. Of course, I suspect you'll also be shooting on some inexpensive SD consumer camcorder, right? After all, we're talking bare essentials.

I'm not trying to pick a fight, but pointing out that for every film made, money is spent, and it can be spent on gear, food, rental, or people, or some mix there-of.

You must assume the obvious conclusion that most posts would be met by collaboration. As M1chae1 said, bare essentials.

If the project is indeed no budget, and I'm carrying $15K worth of audio gear in my bag and arm, and giving away my rate for free, then I'd say that I'm making as big an investment as the producer.

I do treat my work as an investment.

And the clear things up a bit. I'm not talking about my time. If you have all the gear, and I'm not booked, I may well spend a day or two with you making your film. But typically, I see these copy and credit adds accompanied by the request for providing gear as well.

Firstly, this is kind of ludicrous. If they posted an ad needed support for free, than why would you come to them with this offer? That's just wrong on so many levels.

Why do you think this is even a fair idea? I wouldn't agree to this in a million years. Especially with someone that replied to my ad with this come back.

I've worked on dozens of pictures, and I still do it pro-bono in a lot of cases (east coast). I couldn't imagine coming forth with this 'offer'...I'd be laughed at. I think you're treating it like an actual investment...and if you invested a fair chunk of change in the picture, then go for it, make these demands. But putting up time and talent is not the same thing.

It just seems like bullying also. Poor young filmmakers trying to get something done, and they get hit with these demands? Sheesh.

Bare essentials are bare essentials. Equipment of any quality are can be deemed bare essentials (hopefully this comes with an operator).

I typically wouldn't call a full sound setup shooting on a prosumer camera with a full light kit and grip equipment to be 'no budget.' Typically that automatically will fall to micro-budget or low-budget.

Sometimes micro and low will pay outside parties like sound, camera, etc...sometimes they will get this expertise and equipment for free. It depends on who they know, and where they live.

But coming to a meeting that mentioned 'deferred pay' and demanding ownership (as a sound guy) is unorthodox and highly questionable.

I completely agree with everything you just said. Oh, and there is no demands made, ever. Deferred pay, at least to me, implies that there is an agreed to amount, to be paid on an agreed to date. The payment is deferred. I do these all the time for producers who I have a track record with, and I know they are good for the money, but may be having a hard time with cash flow, but need the shoot on a day prior to when they can pay me. That, to me, is deferred pay.

Saying that the producer will throw me a bone when, and if, they ever make money on the project I consider to be spec work, and I don't do spec work without a share in ownership. In fact, I'm working on a travel show now where were are shooting several episodes before shopping it to networks. I am on contract with part ownership. If it sells, I get a fixed percentage + costs. If it's picked up by a larger production company, my share is bought out by the producer.

Do you see anything unethical about this?

Bare essentials are bare essentials. Equipment of any quality are can be deemed bare essentials (hopefully this comes with an operator).

I typically wouldn't call a full sound setup shooting on a prosumer camera with a full light kit and grip equipment to be 'no budget.' Typically that automatically will fall to micro-budget or low-budget.

Sometimes micro and low will pay outside parties like sound, camera, etc...sometimes they will get this expertise and equipment for free. It depends on who they know, and where they live.

But coming to a meeting that mentioned 'deferred pay' and demanding ownership (as a sound guy) is unorthodox and highly questionable.

Can't say I've come across anyone, yet, who's tried to change an agreement after the *fact*. I will say that for my future projects, I will do my best to secure monies for every talent. It's a bitch trying to stay on a dedicated schedule when your crew ( of one other, in my case) is, essentially, working in-kind. The worse thing is when peeps work on credit, you feel like your abusing the situation simply by asking for updates. To me, that's an extra stress I don't think needs to be added to anyone's production. Caught between a rock and hard place on credit, sometimes.

Everyone in the business knows that 'deferred pay' is to work for free...pro bono. And maybe you'll get lucky and work on the next Evil Dead for free, and then you'll be glad you worked the film pro bono because you'll definitely see a return--not just in terms of money, but recognition and your network as well.

Deferred pay doesn't mean I'll pay ya later when I have the money. It means if the production makes money, you'll see a percentage (or a set payment).

There's nothing unethical about what you last said gpforet...just a little misguided in the standard terms I've come to know in indie film.

Everyone in the business knows that 'deferred pay' is to work for free...pro bono. And maybe you'll get lucky and work on the next Evil Dead for free, and then you'll be glad you worked the film pro bono because you'll definitely see a return--not just in terms of money, but recognition and your network as well.

Deferred pay doesn't mean I'll pay ya later when I have the money. It means if the production makes money, you'll see a percentage (or a set payment).

There's nothing unethical about what you last said gpforet...just a little misguided in the standard terms I've come to know in indie film.

WHAT?!! Deferred pay means the pay is deferred to a later date. I think you might need to look up the meaning of the word defer. I would never jump on to a shoot where it says deferred payment and not expect to be paid ever. That is just silly.

Just for the record I think that everything that gpforet001 has said to be absolutely true. I operate the same way he does. This is how you start to get noticed as a true professional, and then in turn get paid work as well. Just my two cents.

I have yet to see anyone start without any equipment, decide to make a film, and have a finished film without spending ANY money. It cannot be done.

Yes, it can. :huh:

WHAT?!! Deferred pay means the pay is deferred to a later date. I think you might need to look up the meaning of the word defer. I would never jump on to a shoot where it says deferred payment and not expect to be paid ever. That is just silly.

Just for the record I think that everything that gpforet001 has said to be absolutely true. I operate the same way he does. This is how you start to get noticed as a true professional, and then in turn get paid work as well. Just my two cents.

Well, we live in different universes, because most of the films I've worked on are 'deferred' and I've never been paid on them. It's become an obvious way to say, 'we can't pay you but we'll use legal jargon to make things sound appealing.' It's only if the film makes money do we get paid, and most of the time, the films never make money.

It's usually based on a percentage of the profit that you gain residuals (ie. deferred payment).

But like I said, it's such common place now to use the term, it probably has changed technical meanings through the evolution of the medium.

Deferred pay = food, DVD of movie

Yes, it can. :huh:

If everything is donated...then it can. But that's cheating.

Like the zombie feature COLIN, that cost $70 to make, and made it into Cannes. All donated. Cheating. Not the same.

All donated. Cheating. Not the same.

It's the art of spending someone else's money.

How is that different from producing by using money from "investors"?

It's the art of spending someone else's money.

How is that different from producing by using money from "investors"?

Hahah. True true. The difference is, a lot less paperwork, responsibility, and sweating.

"The art of spending someone else's money", I like that!

"But coming to a meeting that mentioned 'deferred pay' and demanding ownership (as a sound guy) is unorthodox and highly questionable."


This statement is ludicrous.

The "sound guy" already "owns" his sound, by law, by copyright. If he records it, he owns it.

Your position that he does NOT "own" it is unorthodox and highly questionable.

If you didn't need him, he wouldn't be there. Why won't you share ownership? The percentage is negotiable, and best negotiated up front (as he apparently was there to do). He is a producer, of the sound component of the project, and should be treated accordingly.

You should hope word doesn't get around how you demanded full ownership and control. What's in it for them to ever help you again?

It happens to me often.

The moment someone starts talking about money I politely remind
them there is no money for the work. If they bring it up again, I
thank them for their time and move on.

There is nothing that you can do (no way to post a “better”
notice) to control how people respond.


Not really the best plan. I very often donate my time and I know
many experienced people who do, too. If you post a notice and
someone like me with 20 years of experience replies you might be
doing yourself a favor by responding. You might risk meeting
someone who then asks for money, but you might meet someone who is
an asset to your project.

You may be right. But, anyone with any considerable experience I've come into contact with want to be paid for their time.

One of the problems is that there is no such thing as zero budget. It's really just a phrase used to get people to work for free. Just because money wasn't budgeted does not mean that money was not spent.

Cameras use tape=$
Audio uses batteries=$
cameras cost money=$$$
audio gear costs money=$$$
gas to get to the shoot=$
electricity to run the editing gear=$
rent/mortgage to pay for the place where editing/equipment storage takes place=$
editing software=$$
DVDs for handouts=$

I have yet to see anyone start without any equipment, decide to make a film, and have a finished film without spending ANY money. It cannot be done.

Here's how I handle people who are looking for audio support for free. I want 10% OWNERSHIP in the finished product. It does not go anywhere without my permission. It cannot be sold, marketed, or viewed without my consent. ANY distribution includes my name as an owner.

Or, you can just pay my low budget rate for location sound recording.

True, a no budget movie can be made for as little as $2,000 to cover the consumables cost. I know a filmmaker in Austrailia who makes $2,000 productions. And, his work is good. He also has 20 years experience in the television industry.

By the way, I was in contact with the copyright office. If there is a signed "work-for-hire" agreement, The producer owns the copyrights-- not the crew or help.

Any producer with experience will have cast, crew, and post people sign a "work-for-hire" agreement.

Actually, shorts don't make money--PERIOD. I've attached one of my shorts, VERY SPECIAL AGENTS to my I, Creator DVD box set because at least more people will see it that way.

Features can make money. But there are more failures than stories of success. So, if you want any percentage of profits, that's good. Get to know what it is like to be a producer always looking for money to make their next production.

The IRS classifies a movie company as a HIGH risk business.

That's why I can see producers only offering screen credit with no money because they don't have money. And, they have yet to make money. There's no magic money tree that they can shake.

My goal still remains the same: Make a production that can turn a profit. Most people are on these forums because they are still on a quest to make something that makes money.

"But coming to a meeting that mentioned 'deferred pay' and demanding ownership (as a sound guy) is unorthodox and highly questionable."


This statement is ludicrous.

The "sound guy" already "owns" his sound, by law, by copyright. If he records it, he owns it.

Your position that he does NOT "own" it is unorthodox and highly questionable.

If you didn't need him, he wouldn't be there. Why won't you share ownership? The percentage is negotiable, and best negotiated up front (as he apparently was there to do). He is a producer, of the sound component of the project, and should be treated accordingly.

You should hope word doesn't get around how you demanded full ownership and control. What's in it for them to ever help you again?

Whoa whoa whoa...

Firstly, what if the equipment isn't his dude? What then? I didn't say that the equipment was always the hired sound persons. Does that instantly change things? What, because it's his equipment, he owns the sound? That's ludicrous.

He has been hired on a project. He will be signing a contract.

If we hire a composer, and they write music FOR the movie...that music is not THEIR music. It then becomes the movies music.


You said: ...and best negotiated up front (as he apparently was there to do)

I think we're talking about putting an ad out for pro bono work...there IS NO NEGOTIATION. Unless the 'deferred' payment option lists future profit percentages. But usually the list of 'deferred' payment options are food, credit, and a copy of the film.

We work with legit sound designers and composers...none of these problems arise. We respect all of the individuals who work on our projects. Not a SINGLE one of them demanded a percentage in ownership of the film. If they were hired to do the sound, and the ad said for free, they should not come to the table later (or even at the first meeting) and say, OK, let's talk about my percentages. BS. Nor do they OWN the rights to their sound. They get a payment up front, and that's it. We're not getting rich off our film, and if we did off a fluke, we'd find a way to pay all the major players a percentage. But they'd never 'own' a part of the film.

Can a Hollywood sound guy take the sound he recorded for a movie and do what he wants with it? What, he can't? But I thought he owned it?

I don't see where you're confused. This is out of left field. There are contracts. And not a single contract have I seen that states a sound guy or a DP or a grip, has ownership percentage of a film.

Damn dude. Get all attitudy with me. lol. :) Are you a sound guy by chance? :)

I didn't say anything wrong here.

I don't think anyone said anything wrong.

In my opinion, a sound guy, or a DP, or anyone who is bringing equipment along with them is absolutely deserving of "producer" credit, considering the cost of that equipment. So, if-and-when any profit ever arises from this venture, that co-producer is very deserving of a share of the profit, based on the financial investment they have made.

As far as money is concerned, a co-producer credit is entirely different from somebody working camera or a boom. You should get credit for both, and you should get fair money for both (defered, or spec, or up-front, whatever you agree on).

HOWEVER, there is absolutely no way in hell I would let hired-help have equal ownership of my project. Look, we're talking a very low budget-level, right? As the REAL producer, you can't imagine how much time I've invested in this project. It's mine. I am the head cracker in charge. I own it, period. If I want to sell it, I'm selling it. If I want to self-distribute, I'm self-distributing. You, as sound-guy, will have absolutely no say in this respect.

Fair-share of money? Absolutely. But no control over what happens with the product.

Just because someone is using their equipment, it doesn't make them a co-producer. I'm not sure how you set up your above and below the line...but that guy with the boom and nagra is the sound and/or boom guy. That's it. They sign a contract just like everyone else.

I invested my body in the picture as an actor...do I get part ownership? The camera guy brought his camera, does he get ownership? Where do you draw the line? Is everyone a producer if they bring equipment to the set?

Come on people.

Now, if you all go in on this before hand, and create a deal before hand...that's different. I can see how all the major players get ownership of the film. Yes! Absolutely. But if I hire a cam op (pro bono or for a $100 a day), and have them sign a contract, they will not have any say over where the production goes or how it's filmed...nor will they receive profits in the future (unless stated by the contract). This is standard practice. Nothing unusual about this.

Your body isn't a financial investment. To the best of my understanding, the producer is the person who's bringing the money. You can't shoot a movie without a camera. You probably will want some good audio equipment. That costs money. The person who brings that expensive equipment is the person who has made a financial investment in the picture. That's a producer.

Then again, there is the aspect of ultra-low-budget producing that requires a shit-ton of phone-calls and constant headaches. And that producer deserves a little more recognition than the person bringing equipment. So, maybe we use the words "producer", vs. "executive producer".

No, everyone volunteering their time isn't a "producer". But really, this conversation is about money, no? As far as money is concerned, at this ultra-low-budget level, it is my opinion that EVERYONE deserves their fair share of the potential pie, should a profit ever be turned.

I paid my actors, for my most recent shoot (but it was chump-change). If we're fortunate enough to make a profit, they will each get a share of the money, based on how much time they put into the project. Same thing goes for my B-cam/boom-op, all my extras, etc. Don't get me wrong -- I keep the lion's share, but a point-system for shared potential profit is only fair.

So......tell me again why I should drag my gear and my ass out to your shoot?

I called B&H and they said they will not accept screen credit, a copy of the DVD, and two slices of pizza in exchange for $2,500/channel lectronic wireless set, or even for the $600/channel entry level sennheiser.

Crackerfunk, I get where you're coming from, and I use this when talking with producers to make a point. It's not my film, it's yours. You want to do with it whatever you want. Understood. And it's a great way for a newbie to cut their teeth provided the production is supplying the gear. But give a newbie a shotgun on a stick, no way to monitor the mic, and tell him/her to go for it and what you'll get is worth every penny you spent.

And it doesn't take that long for a sound guy who's serious about his craft to acquire thousands and thousands of dollars in mics, mixer, recorder, and all the crap that carries it and ties it together. Along with that gear, they are slowly building a catalog of credits, and improving skills, and getting paid a little each time they go out, and put that money back into the gear. At least that's how it worked for me.

So when I see an ad for a filmmaker looking for a location sound guy with recorder, mixer, a couple of channels of wireless, boom, shotgun (they don't even know what a hyper is), and then say credit and food, I know two things:

1. If they had to rent all that gear they'd be paying more than if they hired me at my regular rate.
2. They're not getting me.

Crackerfunk, I get where you're coming from, and I use this when talking with producers to make a point. It's not my film, it's yours. You want to do with it whatever you want. Understood. And it's a great way for a newbie to cut their teeth provided the production is supplying the gear. But give a newbie a shotgun on a stick, no way to monitor the mic, and tell him/her to go for it and what you'll get is worth every penny you spent.

Dude, I'm with you, all the way. Totally seeing eye-to-eye. This is why I never bothered putting out a craigslist ad. I secured some really cheap equipment, and hired a newbie to hold a shotgun on a stick. I wish I could've afforded to hire a true pro, but I feel fortunate in that my newbie performed admirably under these circumstances.

The time and money you've invested is practically incalculable. IF you were to ever volunteer your services and equipment, you better damn-well get a piece of the pie, if ever there is one.

I can see your reasoning. That's why producers need to supply their own equipment. It lowers the cost of the production now and future productions. The insurance will be much lower too.

Second hand equipment can be found on lots of site for filmmakers boards and Ebay.

Just because someone is using their equipment, it doesn't make them a co-producer. I'm not sure how you set up your above and below the line...but that guy with the boom and nagra is the sound and/or boom guy. That's it. They sign a contract just like everyone else.

I invested my body in the picture as an actor...do I get part ownership? The camera guy brought his camera, does he get ownership? Where do you draw the line? Is everyone a producer if they bring equipment to the set?

Come on people.

Now, if you all go in on this before hand, and create a deal before hand...that's different. I can see how all the major players get ownership of the film. Yes! Absolutely. But if I hire a cam op (pro bono or for a $100 a day), and have them sign a contract, they will not have any say over where the production goes or how it's filmed...nor will they receive profits in the future (unless stated by the contract). This is standard practice. Nothing unusual about this.

I guessing you sign a lot of contracts and don't make very much money. That's too bad. You seem to have a pretty good head on you, and some talent. If you start acting professional you could probably make some decent money in this business.

I am for doing some free work every now and then but to say yes to everything that comes my way is going to make me look like a recent college grad that doesn't know any better. The ability to say "No" is what really makes the difference between a someone trying and an actual professional.

The ability to say "No" is what really makes the difference between a someone trying and an actual professional.

But that's not what Graeme (the OP) is talking about.

He's talking about people who agree to do things for free (or credit, which is essentially the same)... and who change their mind when it's time to deliver.

There's nothing wrong with straight up declining work, or trying to negotiate a better deal when first responding to requests. That's very different from agreeing to volunteer time/gear/skill for free, and then stickin' it to the production when one gets the chance.

Good point Zensteve. I clearly got a little side tracked. Sorry.

Wow that is an interesting discussion that broke out. I agree with the sentiment that if your a sound guy / DP / Guy with Grip Truck and I'm asking you to help me out with your equipment, free doesn't cut it (at least pay them what it would cost to rent the equipment). That is why I purchased all the equipment I use in my movies (and yes I know what hypercardoid means). And it would be "work-for-hire" as I need to own the movie 100%, if I can I would pay out pre-defined deferred honorariums for a feature, when and if I can get some positive cash flow out of this.

That said my issue is that people will give me soft commitments saying they will do something (for credit/free) but when I want them to sign a piece of paper they get all complicated and start demanding terms we never discussed or lots of money (this has been a major issue in getting music). So end result is I do it myself, I am capable of it (not the same quality) and it does take more time, but it does get done... eventually.

Things that I had hoped not to have to do for my movie which I'm doing:
Music
Editing
CGI
DP
Foley

Things it looks like I will be doing for my next movie that I would really like to out-source:
All of the Above
Script
Costumes
All Post Work

There are some great opportunities (or at least I think so) for people to get experience and get some recognition, but people don't seem interested, and those who do keep yanking my chain when it comes to the bottom line.

But that's not what Graeme (the OP) is talking about.

He's talking about people who agree to do things for free (or credit, which is essentially the same)... and who change their mind when it's time to deliver.

There's nothing wrong with straight up declining work, or trying to negotiate a better deal when first responding to requests. That's very different from agreeing to volunteer time/gear/skill for free, and then stickin' it to the production when one gets the chance.

Flaking out?

When someone develops that reputation, finding work is hard to do.

Wow that is an interesting discussion that broke out. I agree with the sentiment that if your a sound guy / DP / Guy with Grip Truck and I'm asking you to help me out with your equipment, free doesn't cut it (at least pay them what it would cost to rent the equipment). That is why I purchased all the equipment I use in my movies (and yes I know what hypercardoid means). And it would be "work-for-hire" as I need to own the movie 100%, if I can I would pay out pre-defined deferred honorariums for a feature, when and if I can get some positive cash flow out of this.

That said my issue is that people will give me soft commitments saying they will do something (for credit/free) but when I want them to sign a piece of paper they get all complicated and start demanding terms we never discussed or lots of money (this has been a major issue in getting music). So end result is I do it myself, I am capable of it (not the same quality) and it does take more time, but it does get done... eventually.

Things that I had hoped not to have to do for my movie which I'm doing:
Music
Editing
CGI
DP
Foley

Things it looks like I will be doing for my next movie that I would really like to out-source:
All of the Above
Script
Costumes
All Post Work

There are some great opportunities (or at least I think so) for people to get experience and get some recognition, but people don't seem interested, and those who do keep yanking my chain when it comes to the bottom line.


You may want to learn how to write your own scripts.

A writer has the right to copyright their own spec scripts. In which case, you will have to pay a fee to obtain the rights to the script.

Costumes: Everyday wear you can have the actors bring in from home.

Special costumes, they will cost to be:

a) designed

b) constructed

Post work?

If your takes aren't slated and logged, your script does not have scene numbers and storyboards that correspond to the footage, and your tapes, hard drives, and material is all disorganized with no or bad labeling, incomplete, and not in standard formats, no one will do post for you. NEVER waste an editors time. Indie editors get paid $600 to $2,000 a day. A post audio editing house can charge $20,000 to edit 10 minutes of footage. So, don't waste any post people's time.

The more you can help yourself in post, the better.

You may want to see if you can find any entry level work in a post house. Even logging in footage for editors is a good learning experience to appreciate the importance of being organized for an editor and post people.

You may want to learn how to write your own scripts.

I wrote the first short on Celtx. I wrote/produced/directed/DP the whole thing, got one of the actors to do 1/2 the sound and the rest was people acting out the movie.


The more you can help yourself in post, the better.
You may want to see if you can find any entry level work in a post house.

Yeah I have a day job so I'm learning as I go in After Effects and Premier, so far so good, it just takes time.


So my free time is spent between writing the script to my next movie and working on the post for the last one.

I wrote the first short on Celtx. I wrote/produced/directed/DP the whole thing, got one of the actors to do 1/2 the sound and the rest was people acting out the movie.



Yeah I have a day job so I'm learning as I go in After Effects and Premier, so far so good, it just takes time.


So my free time is spent between writing the script to my next movie and working on the post for the last one.

Excellent! You're ahead of other producers just starting out.

People always get confused with what a producer is. Producers aren't about money they are about making sure the film is getting finished. That's to say that on a no-budget film he's the guy that is making sure every single bit of the film happens logistically, and that has nothing to do with MONEY he personally may put NOTHING into this film. Executive producers source money, co-producers invest the money, associate producers are married to one of these people or may have introduced one of these folks to the producer. :P Directors are in this tier as well... Actors are above the line as well as long as they're not extras.

There is no place in Hollywood nor in Chicago that you're going to get a piece of this work unless you are above the line. That's to say one of the people I mentioned above. You can be the best sound guy or editor there is whatever there is, but if you are below the line you are not getting dibs on anything. Why? You don't risk a damn thing really... your rep isn't on the line if this bellies up, and you aren't losing cash or face...

If ANYONE asks me for a piece on a film I'm working on and their not performing the roles above they're immediately out. They know what they get even if it's credit, and if they accept the deal then I'm not going to argue with them. I try to be fair, but if someone is truly experienced they know they don't normally get parts of the action for what they do so why are they asking? To rip me off? Ahh... Yep, that's it.

Why worry about it? If you're even talking with the low-budget or no budget guy you know what is in his wallet... aka nothing... so you want a screen credit? Are you going to do your best work or cripe about the loot? Get your resume and be cool with people and the money will come.

I’m with you 100% gpforet. I see exactly where you’re coming from
and I see nothing wrong with the way you approach your jobs. I
understand that donating time to a project is very similar to
being a producer.
I respond to "back-end compensation negotiable postings only to find that most will not commit anything to writing.
How many movies do you own 10% of? I'm curious how many producers
go for this deal.

People always get confused with what a producer is. Producers aren't about money they are about making sure the film is getting finished. That's to say that on a no-budget film he's the guy that is making sure every single bit of the film happens logistically, and that has nothing to do with MONEY he personally may put NOTHING into this film. Executive producers source money, co-producers invest the money, associate producers are married to one of these people or may have introduced one of these folks to the producer. :P Directors are in this tier as well... Actors are above the line as well as long as they're not extras.

There is no place in Hollywood nor in Chicago that you're going to get a piece of this work unless you are above the line. That's to say one of the people I mentioned above. You can be the best sound guy or editor there is whatever there is, but if you are below the line you are not getting dibs on anything. Why? You don't risk a damn thing really... your rep isn't on the line if this bellies up, and you aren't losing cash or face...

If ANYONE asks me for a piece on a film I'm working on and their not performing the roles above they're immediately out. They know what they get even if it's credit, and if they accept the deal then I'm not going to argue with them. I try to be fair, but if someone is truly experienced they know they don't normally get parts of the action for what they do so why are they asking? To rip me off? Ahh... Yep, that's it.

Why worry about it? If you're even talking with the low-budget or no budget guy you know what is in his wallet... aka nothing... so you want a screen credit? Are you going to do your best work or cripe about the loot? Get your resume and be cool with people and the money will come.

I like a lot of what you're saying. However, I feel like you're forgetting about the fact that we're talking about people working for no pay upfront. You don't really expect an experienced sound-guy, bringing his/her own equipment to work completely for free, do you? If the film profits, doesn't this person deserve to be rewarded for their time?

You say that they aren't risking anything -- I beg to differ. Time is money. For many people, this euphemism is quite literal. If I'm volunteering my time to your project, when I could've invested my time elsewhere (say, maybe in my own project), I'm definitely risking something. Time ain't free. And everybody who offers their time deserves a piece of the pie.

You may be right. But, anyone with any considerable experience I've come into contact with want to be paid for their time.
That's too bad. I have run into dozens of people
with considerable experience who are willing to
donate their time. But I can understand why you
won't even ask anymore and why you advise others
not to ask.

I'm going to continue to suggest that filmmakers
ask even people with considerable experience. You
never know when you'll come into contact with those
who will volunteer.

I like a lot of what you're saying. However, I feel like you're forgetting about the fact that we're talking about people working for no pay upfront. You don't really expect an experienced sound-guy, bringing his/her own equipment to work completely for free, do you? If the film profits, doesn't this person deserve to be rewarded for their time?

You say that they aren't risking anything -- I beg to differ. Time is money. For many people, this euphemism is quite literal. If I'm volunteering my time to your project, when I could've invested my time elsewhere (say, maybe in my own project), I'm definitely risking something. Time ain't free. And everybody who offers their time deserves a piece of the pie.

Since I won't beat around the bush: People deserve money when they prove they do. A new sound guy might think his time is worth $100 but the new director doesn't see any worth to his time any more than the directors time (who isn't getting paid either). And, the equipment isn't free but did he buy the stuff for my film or his or geeking? Generally, he'll have the stuff whether I'm standing there or not. If he's already getting a reliable stream of cash out of this he's out of my league anyway.

What exactly are the profits of these low budget films? Say you make 50k on something through some home video deal... Is there profit or is that a starter for the next production? You need to make 3-5 productions before you have the money to really pay anyone as if you have much less than 100k you are really damaging the films chances of being able to hit a movie screen. Go ask around for a the prices on a single 35mm transfer for a 90min movie. Anyone have a concept of how much film costs itself? The people initially have to understand that you are creating a company. Don't take any pay yourself (other than the expenses) and fold the cash into the next film. Neither you or your company is making money at that juncture, but you are positioning yourself for the big leagues. If you take all the money out of the kitty everyone (including the lovely people you want to keep on the pay roll) are screwed. You are also done in film at this point because your bad rep will precede you.

Everyone wants to hit at the producers take basically, and what you don't realize is that is the kitty that will make you a new job and build the resume for others. So what if you don't get a piece of an accidental $25 million dollar film? You didn't miss nothing, you got a credit on a major flick and now can get any damn job you want probably. All decisions to pay people are based on budgets and starting films have no budget so 20% of nothing is nothing. You want to take 10% from the producer so when he makes the next film he has 10% less to fund the next project. See the difference is producer guy is putting money in the kitty, but all the help is taking it and running. I don't see why you get a cut when you never give anything back. The producer doesn't want to screw you, but he's a business person and if he actually wants to pay you regularly at some date he knows there is only one way... from the bottom up.. Say our $25 million guy ends up with $5 million in cash profits.. well what you think he's doing next? He's going to start hiring people and getting together the next blockbuster while the iron is hot and the hype machine is going. He wants to time his next release with rewards so that after he gets a couple of lines on the marquee. First thing he's going to do is tap all his associates, and one of those is YOU. At this point though he is big leagues, has all the guild memberships and pays all the standard rates. Are you crying now?

People argue about a buck when they don't realize it costs them hundreds or thousands. Your time is worth money only if you put down a money gig for a non-money gig otherwise you're expanding your horizons and launching a career. Don't expect anyone to foot the bill for your education. Be grateful at every turn that you even have an opportunity, and be thankful that someone will work with you and get it done. Do your best at every turn, and don't whine about anything! Seriously, pro's don't whine!

You've basically just made an argument as to why it's okay for a producer to F everybody in the ass. It's all about the future of the production company, you see. Any profit should be spent on the next production.

That's great. For you. The producer. But what about all those other people? They don't have a share in the production company. Only you do. So, you're justifying not paying people by saying that it's okay, because their investment will reap benefits for YOU in the future.

The biggest mistake I think you're making is assuming that everybody who associates with you is lending themselves to the success of your production company. No, they are lending themselves to the success of a specific production. If someone offers work on one film, they are offering work on THAT FILM, not every film in the potential future of your production company.

If a single film turns profit, then the people who put in work on that film are deserving of a share of the profit. And the bigger picture that you're trying to communicate has nothing to do with it. When people volunteer for a film, they're not volunteering their services forever and ever, to the success of a production company; they're volunteering their services to the end of a single, specific production.

Honestly, never. That's kinda the point. The producer will be quick to say in the advertisement that they are offering some kind of "back-end" compensation, but when pressed, they do not have any formal idea about what they would be wiling to give up, and in most cases, as depicted in this discussion, they're not willing to give up ANYTHING, at least, not contractually. This is why I approach them in this way. This discussion has indicated that some will use the phrase "deferred pay" and think that it means "no pay". It doesn't. Why even use the word "deferred" if you really mean "no pay"?

So, I respond to ads with the word "deferred" and when I ask for specifics about the deferment I get the kind of gripping the OP mentions. I discuss this with them rationally, and about 50% of the time, I've wasted my time meeting with the producer, and 50% of the time, I get a low budget rate, sometimes deferred for a few weeks after the shoot to give them time to raise the cash. I will say that, so far, I've never been burned and all who have agreed to deferred pay have mailed the check in the time agreed to.

I have signed agreements with up to a 10% share for speculation work, specifically pilots for potential series.

I’m with you 100% gpforet. I see exactly where you’re coming from
and I see nothing wrong with the way you approach your jobs. I
understand that donating time to a project is very similar to
being a producer.

How many movies do you own 10% of? I'm curious how many producers
go for this deal.

I called B&H and they said they will not accept screen credit, a copy of the DVD, and two slices of pizza in exchange for $2,500/channel lectronic wireless set, or even for the $600/channel entry level sennheiser.



Then don't take the job if you don't like the terms.


But give a newbie a shotgun on a stick, no way to monitor the mic, and tell him/her to go for it and what you'll get is worth every penny you spent.



Why does it instantly go to hiring a noob who has no way of monitoring the sound? They don't have headphones also? Well, look if your project can't even give the boom op or DP headphones for monitoring, of course you're going to have sound issues. That's a bit extreme though. Typically, even micro-budgets will have headphones.

I had no boom experience...I was handed a boom three features ago on an indie project (I was also one of the leads) and I boomed. Because of the quality of my booming, I have since boomed on two other features. One of which are seeing national distro, and one premiering next month. I didn't boom the entire time obviously...but when I wasn't on screen I did. This was a shotgun mic XLR right into the camera. The sound quality is good. The dialog is clean and clear. The reviews say the sound is good enough...which is fine for our $8K movie. It's a non-issue.

My point is, you don't have to hire an expensive sound guy with expensive equipment to work on your movie--especially one that is going to make demands about part ownership of the film. Just get a steady hand, and someone who understands how sound in film works. It's not hard to monitor levels. Do some sound checks and look at the levels and then listen carefully while the scene plays out. And before anyone jumps on my ass...I'm not demeaning the job of a solid sound guy or boom op. I know it takes more than a monkey to record good audio. My point is, it's not rocket science, and a person can quickly be taught how to capture good audio on an indie set.


The finer details are only needed when you're shooting larger budgets, or have an external rig that has bells and whistles--this will take a little time to learn.

If you have a solid sound designer and a steady hand intelligent boom op...you'll be fine without a 'pro.' I seriously am not trying to be an ass here...I just think it's silly how some of you think an indie feature is suppose to run. I take it those of you who are telling me my methods are inappropriate have a few features under belt? Maybe a few seeing distribution? Everyone is telling me, basically, that my methods and ideals suck...but honestly, it's all I've seen and known, and I've worked on dozens of indie projects. So, how are all of my past experience wrong?

We're not out to screw anyone here. And we work with solid talent...none of which have asked for a 'percentage' of ownership. Yes, to be clear, as I said before, if we made a lot of money on a picture, the major players would see some cash (especially those investing equipment). But it's just not an issue, and never even brought up.

Thank you. I'm a little annoyed at my own life this morning...forgive my candor.

I guessing you sign a lot of contracts and don't make very much money. That's too bad. You seem to have a pretty good head on you, and some talent. If you start acting professional you could probably make some decent money in this business.

I am for doing some free work every now and then but to say yes to everything that comes my way is going to make me look like a recent college grad that doesn't know any better. The ability to say "No" is what really makes the difference between a someone trying and an actual professional.

I've done the brunt of my work on the east coast...no matter how good I am, I'm not going to make 'good money.' Trust me, I say 'no' all the time. And I don't always work for free, don't get me wrong. I'm also very picky about who I work with now'adays...so if I'm working pro bono, I want to be there.

Now, of course I'll play my cards differently when I move out to LA in March. But right now, New England doesn't have a 'day rate' for talent. Most of the work is pro bono. There are only a few people (DPs and such) who get paid decently out here. The rest of us suck it up.

Which is fine by me, because due to the myriad work I've done out here, I'll be able to go to LA with a stronger day rate than the average guy, and a confidence to ask for it.

But that's not what Graeme (the OP) is talking about.

He's talking about people who agree to do things for free (or credit, which is essentially the same)... and who change their mind when it's time to deliver.

There's nothing wrong with straight up declining work, or trying to negotiate a better deal when first responding to requests. That's very different from agreeing to volunteer time/gear/skill for free, and then stickin' it to the production when one gets the chance.

Exactly.

Indie editors get paid $600 to $2,000 a day. A post audio editing house can charge $20,000 to edit 10 minutes of footage.

I'm sorry, but where are you getting your numbers? Clearly you're talking about LA-based editors, working on low budget (not micro) budget films.

Because I've *never* heard of an editor getting paid that much for an 'indie' project out here. Most editors of indie projects work pro bono.

What exactly are the profits of these low budget films? Say you make 50k on something through some home video deal... Is there profit or is that a starter for the next production? You need to make 3-5 productions before you have the money to really pay anyone as if you have much less than 100k you are really damaging the films chances of being able to hit a movie screen. Go ask around for a the prices on a single 35mm transfer for a 90min movie. Anyone have a concept of how much film costs itself? The people initially have to understand that you are creating a company. Don't take any pay yourself (other than the expenses) and fold the cash into the next film. Neither you or your company is making money at that juncture, but you are positioning yourself for the big leagues. If you take all the money out of the kitty everyone (including the lovely people you want to keep on the pay roll) are screwed. You are also done in film at this point because your bad rep will precede you.



Bingo. And no Cracker, this isn't an excuse to F talent in the ass. I do *not* feel F'ed when I'm sitting at the premiere of our film and proud of my product. I do not feel F'ed when I hear we got picked up for national distro. I do not feel F'ed when I hear we got picked up for VOD. All my pro bono contribution pays itself off.

Most of the indies I work on (especially the one that always sees distro) fold any profits they make into the next project. If you were the sound guy on the previous project, were good, and professional...you will be asked to come back for the next feature.

We all hope that we are on a team that gets recognition. You pick your pro-bono work wisely. You never know who your working with and where they are going. And will they seek *you* out when they are offered a hefty budget to shoot a picture. If you told them to 'go screw' when they said I can't pay you, and I don't have a profit-bearing contract for you, then you might be screwing yourself out of future gigs and opportunity.

But while working for the good teams for free (in the beginning) you start making a name for yourself as a solid boom guy, and you have a resume. Then, you can start asking for money.

You also have to remember where you are...east coast ethics are *way* different than west.

Quick story. True story. LA film guy comes to New England after having working PA on big movies, a grip job here, a grip job there...he's got LA experience, and he comes out here demanding to get paid all the time. He thinks he's entitled to a day rate on every project. He can't seem to get hired on any films. It pisses him off. He publicly rants about this (on local forum, etc). Know what happened? He won't get hired by *any* one now. Not a single person will touch this douche bag. He started calling us 'hacks' and 'wannabes' because we couldn't pay him. He kept bringing up his 'LA experience'...know where that got him? Stuck in his moms basement, jobless, with zero prospects and a bad rep.

This discussion has indicated that some will use the phrase "deferred pay" and think that it means "no pay". It doesn't. Why even use the word "deferred" if you really mean "no pay"

Look, man, I'm just telling you like it is on the east coast. The term 'deferred' is used for food, credit, and copy of the DVD. It also will state somewhere that *if* the movie profits, you will see some money. Whether there is a future outlook in profit, who freakin' cares. You're working on a micro budget film, and will most likely never see any profit. If the contract states that you get a percentage of the profit...that's awesome. Good for you. If you come to them and say, "Well this is listed as a 'deferred' contract, so how much will I be getting paid after the movie, and how long until I get paid?"...most of them will say, "Well, actually, you're not getting paid. That's not what I mean by 'deferred'. What I mean is, IF we see profit, you'll get so and so amount." Fine...sit down with them, and sketch out the details. If you sound like you're going to hold them to it, you may not even get hired. They don't plan on making a profit. And most of them won't.

If you want to jump into the deep contractual workings of a micro budget film, and make sure you definitely receive a percentage. You go right ahead. To me, it's almost a waste of time. The day I start getting paid on a regular basis, is the day I'll start worrying about residuals and profit. But for Jonny's little zombie film...I honestly don't give a hoot about making money off it in the future.

I'M SORRY I PUT ALL THESE BACK-TO-BACK REPLIES IN SEPARATE POSTS.

Look man, I mean, uh, look up the word "defer". Just because it's being used improperly doesn't mean those of us who actually know the meaning of the word accept your mis-use.

Why can't you just say "no pay" and leave the word "deferred" out of it. It's misleading.

Oh, and I like the way you used the term "hired". Look up that word as well.

Why not say, looking for volunteers willing to DONATE their time, talent and gear so I can get recognition for making movies....Geez.

Look, man, I'm just telling you like it is on the east coast. The term 'deferred' is used for food, credit, and copy of the DVD. Whether there is a future outlook in profit, who freakin' cares. You're working on a micro budget film, and will most likely never see any profit. If the contract states that you get a percentage of the profit...that's awesome. Good for you. If you come to them and say, "Well this is listed as a 'deferred' contract, so how much will I be getting paid after the movie, and how long until I get paid?"...most of them will say, "Well, actually, you're not getting paid. That's not what I mean by 'deferred'. What I mean is, IF we see profit, you'll get so and so amount." Fine...sit down with them, and sketch out the details. If you sound like you're going to hold them to it, you may not even get hired. They don't plan on making a profit. And most of them won't.

If you want to jump into the deep contractual workings of a micro budget film, and make sure you definitely receive a percentage. You go right ahead. To me, it's almost a waste of time. The day I start getting paid on a regular basis, is the day I'll start worrying about residuals and profit. But for Jonny's little zombie film...I honestly don't give a hoot about making money off it in the future.

Look, man, I'm just telling you like it is on the east coast. The term 'deferred' is used for food, credit, and copy of the DVD. Whether there is a future outlook in profit, who freakin' cares. You're working on a micro budget film, and will most likely never see any profit. If the contract states that you get a percentage of the profit...that's awesome. Good for you. If you come to them and say, "Well this is listed as a 'deferred' contract, so how much will I be getting paid after the movie, and how long until I get paid?"...most of them will say, "Well, actually, you're not getting paid. That's not what I mean by 'deferred'. What I mean is, IF we see profit, you'll get so and so amount." Fine...sit down with them, and sketch out the details. If you sound like you're going to hold them to it, you may not even get hired. They don't plan on making a profit. And most of them won't.

If you want to jump into the deep contractual workings of a micro budget film, and make sure you definitely receive a percentage. You go right ahead. To me, it's almost a waste of time. The day I start getting paid on a regular basis, is the day I'll start worrying about residuals and profit. But for Jonny's little zombie film...I honestly don't give a hoot about making money off it in the future.

Here's the problem. You keep saying that is how it is on the East Coast. It's not. That may be how things operate in your little town or in your little circle of friends but for the rest of the production world that I work in, things operate differently. I have worked in several different states and I have friends that have been working on the East Coast for years. Myself and they all get paid to do their work. And when we sign up for a deferred pay gig that means that we are going to get paid later and there is an agreed upon price. I don't know what sections of the East Coast your working on but you need to get out quickly. Go start making yourself some money.

I will say that I am not an actor and I am pretty sure you are (and a pretty decent one from what I can piece together). So maybe that makes a difference as far as pay goes. But if you have people using the phrase "deferred pay" and they never have any intentions of paying anyone anything then the better be prepared for a rude awakening when word gets around. Because not only will they start losing members of their crew when people start working on productions that actually pay them but they are setting a really poor standard for the rest of us.

Most of us are out there struggling to make a living in this field. Not that a free gig once in a while isn't great but it doesn't pay the bills. But these people who are saying I need to work for free are setting a standard by saying the production world should be getting free help from people. Now I am not saying we shouldn't all pay our dues but we should all be striving to be able to take home a paycheck from the work we do. Doesn't that just sound lovely? Just my two cents but I hope that others can agree...

Look man, I mean, uh, look up the word "defer". Just because it's being used improperly doesn't mean those of us who actually know the meaning of the word accept your mis-use.

Why can't you just say "no pay" and leave the word "deferred" out of it. It's misleading.

Oh, and I like the way you used the term "hired". Look up that word as well.

Why not say, looking for volunteers willing to DONATE their time, talent and gear so I can get recognition for making movies....Geez.

EDIT

I give up.

Honestly, never. That's kinda the point. The producer will be quick to say in the advertisement that they are offering some kind of "back-end" compensation, but when pressed, they do not have any formal idea about what they would be wiling to give up, and in most cases, as depicted in this discussion, they're not willing to give up ANYTHING, at least, not contractually. This is why I approach them in this way. This discussion has indicated that some will use the phrase "deferred pay" and think that it means "no pay". It doesn't. Why even use the word "deferred" if you really mean "no pay"?
Makes sense. I, too, hate to be offered deferred pay by
producers who don't understand what deferred means.
As we can see in this discussion that's very often the
case with producers and filmmakers.

As a producer of the occasional no budget movie I never
make that offer. I know my movies will never see enough
money on the back end to meet any deferments. I actually
do exactly what mention. I ask for volunteers willing to donate
their time and equipment. And just like Graeme mentions,
I'm surprised how many people contact me asking what
deferments I'm offering or start asking for money after our first
meeting.

That's why I was asking about your 10% ownership offer. I
know I would never agree to that - was wondering if any producer
has. Like you, I do not like it when a producer thinks deferred
means meals, copy and credit. I have offered deferred pay exactly
twice. Both times I was making a movie for a distributor I knew
(from past experience and signed contract) would pay. But my
company had to front the money. So to keep the up front costs
down we offered 10% up front with the rest due no later than a
specific date. Which is why I would never make that offer on a spec
movie.

You've basically just made an argument as to why it's okay for a producer to F everybody in the ass. It's all about the future of the production company, you see. Any profit should be spent on the next production.

That's great. For you. The producer. But what about all those other people? They don't have a share in the production company. Only you do. So, you're justifying not paying people by saying that it's okay, because their investment will reap benefits for YOU in the future.

The biggest mistake I think you're making is assuming that everybody who associates with you is lending themselves to the success of your production company. No, they are lending themselves to the success of a specific production. If someone offers work on one film, they are offering work on THAT FILM, not every film in the potential future of your production company.

If a single film turns profit, then the people who put in work on that film are deserving of a share of the profit. And the bigger picture that you're trying to communicate has nothing to do with it. When people volunteer for a film, they're not volunteering their services forever and ever, to the success of a production company; they're volunteering their services to the end of a single, specific production.


The movie biz has always been trickle down as are most others. Producer makes money so then they can pay everyone else. Nothing stopping the sound guy or editor from being a producer if they want. And, I agree with you that they deserve something but you can share them jobs and references and not the production fund. That still is a great deal of money, and you are giving them even more experience.

Here's the real problem if I cut people into deals:

Say a major studio wants to distribute this film worldwide and is ready to sign the deal. The first thing the distributor needs to know is that I have the right to sign the deal, but now I need sound guy's permission to sign this deal! If sound guy is no where to be found or doesn't answer the phone then we just lost it. If he didn't like my direction he could refuse to sign or decides he needs more money to sign. That's why we don't don't put all these people on. It's hard enough to do with 1-3 people having a say imagine if 10+ do. Imagine having to track all these folks down a year or two later.

The producer's job is hard and they are the first person working and the last to leave. Someone has to get paid first, and it might as well be the guy that hires everyone else. I really don't see the problem.

The movie biz has always been trickle down as are most others. Producer makes money so then they can pay everyone else. Nothing stopping the sound guy or editor from being a producer if they want. And, I agree with you that they deserve something but you can share them jobs and references and not the production fund. That still is a great deal of money, and you are giving them even more experience.

Here's the real problem if I cut people into deals:

Say a major studio wants to distribute this film worldwide and is ready to sign the deal. The first thing the distributor needs to know is that I have the right to sign the deal, but now I need sound guy's permission to sign this deal! If sound guy is no where to be found or doesn't answer the phone then we just lost it. If he didn't like my direction he could refuse to sign or decides he needs more money to sign. That's why we don't don't put all these people on. It's hard enough to do with 1-3 people having a say imagine if 10+ do. Imagine having to track all these folks down a year or two later.

The producer's job is hard and they are the first person working and the last to leave. Someone has to get paid first, and it might as well be the guy that hires everyone else. I really don't see the problem.

Dude, I'm definitely gonna take the lion's share of any potential profit, and I'm definitely gonna re-invest it in the next project. But that doesn't mean I'm morally justified in keeping ALL of it. Also, I guess you didn't read one of my earlier posts -- I will share money, but not ownership; nobody has a say in what happens to this film, but me.

This is sort of related, but reverse-no money was involved, lack of professionalism was:

I had agreed to work with someone on a project. It was giong to be a big project, and I was going to be part of it. Well things fell apart, and I mentioned sorry to hear that. They said they still wanted me to help with a smaller scale project the same day, I said sure, made arrangements, ect.

THEN a couple of days before(after avoiding my emails) they said they weren't sure when they'd be at the location. I told them when I would be. THEN they said "well, we're doing something different, somewhere else, but I'll look up next time!"

If I had been semi-pro about this, and was going to get paid, the person would be getting a nice invoice right now. The person is early twenties who is trying to get a portfolio so they can go to school. Good luck trying to pull THAT sort of crap with a pro!


This is part of the reason I get hestiant about getting talent, particulary free talent; they can change their minds about participating, and will particularly if there's no "money" involved-if they don't share you passion, they dont' give a damn unless money is involved. It's sad really.

The biggest mistake I see people making here is thinking there is money in shorts.

How many shorts got BIG distribution deals?

How many people here can list shorts making money--PERIOD?

A smart pro will avoid any job posting to work on a short, if they have business experience. The business of shorts is that it is a one way bank account.

There is no income in shorts. Crew people should not go looking to take money from producers making shorts. Money goes in and it never comes out. Working on a short should be looked at as charity work--REALLY. How can a pro in good conscience take money from someone who is spend their monthly rent, school tuition, mortgage payment, or car loan money to make their short?

I have offered to help a producer who paid me for a script for a shortcfor a previous production. This time, I offered to write for him for free. Why? I know what it is to make a short and end up on the short end of a stick financially. He wanted to reuse my characters in another story and he approached me about it. This time around, I would expect nothing in return either up front or on the back end and only a screen credit and copy of the DVD. He didn't take my offer, saying he didn't have money to pay me. He didn't seem to grasp that fact I'd do it for free because we worked together before. And, I like the fact that he actually got the last short completed and on DVD.

A producer making their first feature is working against GREAT odds to see any income coming in at all too.

The best thing a producer making a feature can do in hook up with a brilliant marketing person. Filmmakers don't make good marketing people. They need help in this area all too often.

First a Comment on Deferred Payment

Deferred Payment is used for a variety of reasons and comes in two forms, lets call them True and Pseudo (yes I just made that up, go with it will you).

In both types the idea is that the producer doesn't have to pay up front for a talent's services in the movie. This is great for the producer because it avoids him having to shell out money early in the production which could effect their cashflow. It also helps because in most "deferred" payment contracts I have seen there is a term within it stating if you don't complete the project (aka you walk out on day 4 or something) you forfeit your whole payment; which is good to avoid having to pay people who douched out on you for a bigger contract, or simply just flaked.

That said here are the differences between the two.

In True form, you are paid a set amount (or percentage) at a set time (or project milestone) where once the time has past you get paid, either a week/month/year later or when the movie is published. Etc, end result is that you eventually (with luck) get paid for services rendered.

In Pseudo form, there is a (good) chance your not going to get paid. Because your payment is linked in some way to the movie making revenue or profit. And as so many films/short etc don't make profit, you don't actually ever get paid. Often there is a threshold of profit (so the producer gets first cut) where a movie needs to make $X amount before the deferred payments are in-fact paid.

So its nice for a Producer to say they are paying "deferred" but you got to be crystal clear on which kind of deferred they are referring too, as many movies have been made for "free" simply because they have never made any money. Now that said, I find that in Ottawa and general discussions in non-LA / non-NY areas more often than not pseudo deferred payments are the majority offered and food and DVD is all you end up with 99% of the time.


Onwards and upwards...

The biggest mistake I see people making here is thinking there is money in shorts.
Personally I hope to make money on my short, will it be a lot? No, but I still hope to get some return even if I do end up losing some money out of the project.


The best thing a producer making a feature can do in hook up with a brilliant marketing person. Filmmakers don't make good marketing people. They need help in this area all too often.

Generally generalizations are not good. I'm also doing the marketing for my films, and although I would not say I'm an expert I have helped out the marketing department in my day-job workplace. I think the issue with filmmakers and marketing is the concept of "if I make it they will come" which isn't true without some form of marketing.

First a Comment on Deferred Payment

Deferred Payment is used for a variety of reasons and comes in two forms, lets call them True and Pseudo (yes I just made that up, go with it will you).

In both types the idea is that the producer doesn't have to pay up front for a talent's services in the movie. This is great for the producer because it avoids him having to shell out money early in the production which could effect their cashflow. It also helps because in most "deferred" payment contracts I have seen there is a term within it stating if you don't complete the project (aka you walk out on day 4 or something) you forfeit your whole payment; which is good to avoid having to pay people who douched out on you for a bigger contract, or simply just flaked.

That said here are the differences between the two.

In True form, you are paid a set amount (or percentage) at a set time (or project milestone) where once the time has past you get paid, either a week/month/year later or when the movie is published. Etc, end result is that you eventually (with luck) get paid for services rendered.

In Pseudo form, there is a (good) chance your not going to get paid. Because your payment is linked in some way to the movie making revenue or profit. And as so many films/short etc don't make profit, you don't actually ever get paid. Often there is a threshold of profit (so the producer gets first cut) where a movie needs to make $X amount before the deferred payments are in-fact paid.

So its nice for a Producer to say they are paying "deferred" but you got to be crystal clear on which kind of deferred they are referring too, as many movies have been made for "free" simply because they have never made any money. Now that said, I find that in Ottawa and general discussions in non-LA / non-NY areas more often than not pseudo deferred payments are the majority offered and food and DVD is all you end up with 99% of the time.


Onwards and upwards...


Personally I hope to make money on my short, will it be a lot? No, but I still hope to get some return even if I do end up losing some money out of the project.



Generally generalizations are not good. I'm also doing the marketing for my films, and although I would not say I'm an expert I have helped out the marketing department in my day-job workplace. I think the issue with filmmakers and marketing is the concept of "if I make it they will come" which isn't true without some form of marketing.

The only chance you have of making any income is getting it attached as a collection of shorts or works in a DVD collection. Or, try selling it on Itunes. With an unknown cast and story you just get a handful of small bites.

I'm doing marketing too. But, I'm no expert. But, I'm learning tips from producers who work for studios in that the first rule is to use material with a known track record of making money. And, use names people know. Example: Vampires, robots, cyborgs have made money for Hollywood. For a sequel, I'm introducing a new character who is from Greek and Roman mythology, Artemis, Goddess of the Amazons and the Hunt.

I've studied how tv series did spots to introduce new characters and TV series. And, I will use those ideas to promote the sequel as we are fund raising.

I wouldn’t use the word, “pseudo”. I would use the word “spec” as
in speculation.

In the legal world a contract that offered deferred pay would have
a date the payment would be received. The cast and crew are
deferring their payment until a latter date. There is no risk in a
true, legal deferred pay contract.

What most producers who offer “deferred pay” are actually offering
is payment in speculation. They are asking the cast and crew to
take the risk along with them.

Exactly what Graeme is saying - I’m just using a different word.


Personally I hope to make money on my short, will it be a lot? No, but I still hope to get some return even if I do end up losing some money out of the project.

How? I’m sure you’ve done the research. Who is buying short films
for distribution these days? I’m not being argumentative; I’m
genuinely interested in how you hope to make money on your short.

Although I agree that "spec" may be a more right term, I tend not to use it as I see speculation work in terms (in other industries)of: do the work, then if we like it will pay you and use it. Which isn't quite what goes on in a film production as they plan to use your work without potentially paying for it.

Although I agree that "spec" may be a more right term, I tend not to use it as I see speculation work in terms (in other industries)of: do the work, then if we like it will pay you and use it. Which isn't quite what goes on in a film production as they plan to use your work without potentially paying for it.

Or you could see it in terms of spec screenwriting. Do the work, then
if the distributor likes it they will pay the producer and you will be paid.
That's exactly what goes on in a film production where cast and crew
are not paid until (if) the project sells.

The writer is risking doing the work that may not pay off. The producer
it taking the same risk. And asking others (cast and crew) to assume the
same risk.

I'm not suggesting you (or anyone) use the term. But writing on spec
and writing for deferred pay are very different. Seems that a (for example)
DP with camera and lights working on spec and working for deferred pay
fall into the same scenario.

Or you could see it in terms of spec screenwriting. Do the work, then
if the distributor likes it they will pay the producer and you will be paid.
That's exactly what goes on in a film production where cast and crew
are not paid until (if) the project sells.

The writer is risking doing the work that may not pay off. The producer
it taking the same risk. And asking others (cast and crew) to assume the
same risk.

I'm not suggesting you (or anyone) use the term. But writing on spec
and writing for deferred pay are very different. Seems that a (for example)
DP with camera and lights working on spec and working for deferred pay
fall into the same scenario.

I'm curious.

Which distributors are looking for shorts?

I know sales agents dealing with distributors looking for features. But, no one looking for shorts.

I'm wondering the same thing. Graeme?

This is an EXCELLENT thread to illustrate why a script should be written with a specific market in mind where it connects to a business plan to recoup money being invested into it.

This is an EXCELLENT thread to illustrate why a script should be written with a specific market in mind where it connects to a business plan to recoup money being invested into it.

I think "should" is a strong word. Different people have different motivations. Some people just want to make an awesome movie, and yeah, they'd like to make money, but that's not their primary goal. Me? I'm not expecting to make a profit off my first feature, at all. Of course I'd like to, and I'm damn well going to try to, but profit was never my primary motivation.

But the OP asked about agreeing to work relatively for free and then trying to get money out of the production.
(so, I'm late to the thread, I'm working on a short :D )

If I am an independent filmmaker, with my own camera, tripod and computer with edit system, and I have an idea for a film, and post for a lo- to no-budget project:
There ain't NO WAY I'm giving my project over to ANYONE for 10% of the final product.

I have and am working on a couple of low budget films. For me to own 10% of something I am for all intensive purposes volunteering for, I wouldn't even begin to ask for that.

I think that maybe gpforet has been working on paid gigs for a long time to even suggest that. When you are, for the most part, considered to be a 'talented amateur', you work for the experience, not what you can squeeze out of a filmmaker who probably is in the same financial boat as you are.

If you volunteer your time, which is what no budget means, then you are a volunteer. You have the right to say you worked on the project and get your name in the credits. You'll probably get fed and a copy of the final product. But that's all you get, and you should have known that going in. If that is not okay with you, then don't agree to work on the project. If you have all that expensive equipment, you probably don't need my little project so what are you even doing here?

Also,
The thing about getting people to do stuff for free, I don't know about contracts. I'm not getting paid so unless its a waiver of some sort... To me, working for free also means you should know the people on your crew. That can be difficult if you don't have a filmmaker group. The I know the people I work with pro bono. We're all trying to scratch out a career in film so we are trying to help each other out so there is commitment there. The problem is people you don't know, who feel that if they aren't being paid, then they don't need to show up.

Indie editors get paid $600 - $2,000 a day? Damn, I live in the wrong city... :P

In closing, I think that the most you get out of short films is experience and if you are lucky, attention. I only know of one short that made any money. The fact is there are no recognizable actors or directors in most independent shorts. People don't want to pay $20 for the latest theatre release. What is going to make them buy yours? Recognition is what you get from a short film and possibly it will be easier to get your next film made...possibly with a budget.

-- spinner :cool:

Sorry

I think "should" is a strong word. Different people have different motivations. Some people just want to make an awesome movie, and yeah, they'd like to make money, but that's not their primary goal. Me? I'm not expecting to make a profit off my first feature, at all. Of course I'd like to, and I'm damn well going to try to, but profit was never my primary motivation.

Self-distribution is a market too.

There are lots of options.

The options should be considered at the stage of making or considering a script.

There is a common confusion with the term "indie".

Just because a movie is produced independently from a
studio (indie) doesn't mean the budget is under a specific
number.

I was being facetious, Rik :D

-- spinner :cool:

I wanna be Tommy Wiseau's editor for $600/day, I mean $60,000/day.