If a S.A.G. actor plays himself his 'acting' is not governed by S.A.G.?
- Thread starter lvlr
- Start date
No.
According to SAG a person appearing in a motion picture is
covered by the Guild agreement. The Guild does not cover
"action"; it is an agreement between producers and the
Guild regarding work hours, payment and working conditions.
The part played does not change the Guild agreement.
However, this word play may be worth trying. If the actor
agrees to appears in a non union film playing himself then
he can do it.
Thanks!
Hey thanks for the detailed answer! That's what I was meaning. I just worded it badly.
You don't happen to know of any film that has done this or 'precedent' that I could look up. I just want to make certain that the actor I'm working with will be 'covered'.
I'm poor, but still look out for the people working with me.
Hey thanks for the detailed answer! That's what I was meaning. I just worded it badly.
You don't happen to know of any film that has done this or 'precedent' that I could look up. I just want to make certain that the actor I'm working with will be 'covered'.
I'm poor, but still look out for the people working with me.
Some actors will work non union. There is no list of films that I know
of that shows SAG members working non union - it's not good for the
actor because they are violating their agreement. That said, some do
it and there is "financial core" - look that up and you may find some
names of actors who have chosen to use this to work non union. I
think that's as close to a 'precedent' as you will find.
What you need to do is contact the actor you want to work with and
ask if he is willing to work on a non union project. Each actor will make
a personal choice.
If your SAG actor signs your contract there is nothing SAG can do about it. Any issues from that is soley between the actor and SAG, not you.
Its thoughtful to be "nice", but the film business is brutal -- nice and polite indie filmmakers are likely to get bulldozed over. If your actor, want to be in the picture, sign him and shoot his parts ASAP and don't look back!
Good luck.
Its thoughtful to be "nice", but the film business is brutal -- nice and polite indie filmmakers are likely to get bulldozed over. If your actor, want to be in the picture, sign him and shoot his parts ASAP and don't look back!
Good luck.
I know someone who went on the Jerry Springer show. He was SAG and automatically got paid more because of it.
As a non-union producer I could care less about SAG rules. SAG doesn't concern me if the actor wants to work for me. That's a contract between SAG and the actor that I have no part of.
As a non-union producer I could care less about SAG rules. SAG doesn't concern me if the actor wants to work for me. That's a contract between SAG and the actor that I have no part of.
This is not true. SAG can affect you and your film because most distributors have deals with SAG. SAG can prevent your film from getting distribution on DVD, BLU RAY, TELEVISION, CABLE, VIDEO ON DEMAND, etc.
SAG can grant your film a WAIVER and allow you to make the movie without paying the entire cast SAG rates.
I have never heard of this. I didn't know SAG has anything to do
with distribution at all. It was my understanding they are a labor
union not a trade union. As I understand it they establish equitable
levels of compensation, benefits, and working conditions and they
make sure residuals are paid.
How do they prevent a distributor from distributing a non signatory
production with a signatory actor? Do they fine a distributor if they
distribute a movie in which a SAG actor worked without their contract?
What about Fi-Core? Does SAG have a deal with most distributors
that prevent them from distributing film made with actors who have
used this law?
Is this a written deal - a contract between each distributor and SAG?
Or is this an industry wide "understanding"? I have spoken to dozens
of distributors in my years running a production company and have
never hear a single person bring this up.
I'm going to research this because I often used SAG actors on my
non Guild shoots. I know we both know people at Lionsgate, do they
have this agreement with SAG?
I could be wrong, if the distributor is SAG signatory, I believe they release accounting information to SAG on payments and they can "complicate" things, especially for television where all the residuals and records get quite extensive.
Financial Core is an entirely different matter, as is getting a waiver from SAG which is far easier now than before. I don't believe LIONSGATE is SAG signatory, at least not exclusively, as they buy a lot of non-union product.
There is the legend of Renee Zellweger and her early horror films done as "SAG Experimental" contracts and when she got famous for JERRY McGUIRE, the producers tried to cash in and get those films released, but SAG intervened and got the deals cancelled because they would owe even the non-SAG actors full wages if they got distribution, and no one would touch these movies.
Financial Core is an entirely different matter, as is getting a waiver from SAG which is far easier now than before. I don't believe LIONSGATE is SAG signatory, at least not exclusively, as they buy a lot of non-union product.
There is the legend of Renee Zellweger and her early horror films done as "SAG Experimental" contracts and when she got famous for JERRY McGUIRE, the producers tried to cash in and get those films released, but SAG intervened and got the deals cancelled because they would owe even the non-SAG actors full wages if they got distribution, and no one would touch these movies.
The contracts can get complicated. But since SAG regulates working
conditions, benefits and compensation I don’t understand how a
distributor can have any agreement with SAG. Distributors don’t have
anything to do with labor. And the compensation agreement is between
the producer and the distributor - not the distributor and SAG. As far
as I know no distributor is a signatory to the SAG agreement between
producers and actors.
This is not legend - it’s fact. I know one of the producers. And it happened
on a movie I directed with Jennifer Garner. The agreement is between the
producer and SAG. When Garner hit it big on “Alias” the producer of course
wanted to cash in - but the original experimental agreement gave Garner
power over the final product. That film still can’t be released - not because
of any agreement between distributors and SAG but because of the
experimental agreement of the 1990’s.
Similar to Zellweger. The Experimental Agreement stated that if the picture
were to get wide release on DVD or a theatrical release the producer would
pay full SAG wages. The producer didn’t have the money. Distributors were
not prohibited from distributing but they were not obligated to pay anything
up front either.
If any of what sonnyboo said is true then one has two choices:
1) A film with a name actor and SAG is pissed.
or
2) A film without a name actor and you're a nobody as far as SAG is concerned.
Hmm . . . decisions, decisions . . .
1) A film with a name actor and SAG is pissed.
or
2) A film without a name actor and you're a nobody as far as SAG is concerned.
Hmm . . . decisions, decisions . . .
If any of what sonnyboo said is true then one has two choices:
1) A film with a name actor and SAG is pissed.
or
2) A film without a name actor and you're a nobody as far as SAG is concerned.
Hmm . . . decisions, decisions . . .
Or get a waiver from SAG... as already mentioned twice.
Is this something they'll do after the fact?
I say this because the landing of a name actor is a long shot and should one sign the release I would rush him/her to the set and shoot the footage I need faster than you can say "I change my mind."
No. You do not get a waiver after the fact. SAG is a lot easier to work with than you think, especially outside of LA and NYC.
First of all how is SAG gonna find out about your film? The actor sure doesn't want anyone to know or he'll lose his benefits. Usually SAG actors use alias names other than their SAG name.
Honestly that's gotta be against the law for SAG to tell a distributor not to distribute your film or else. Interference with commerce or something.
I don’t believe it is. I’ve never heard of this until sonnyboo
mentioned it and I have been involved in many contracts with
prodCo’s, SAG and distributors. I think sonny is incorrect on
this.
If a producer does not have an agreement with SAG then SAG can do
nothing. If a producer has an agreement and does not follow that
agreement, then SAG can sue the producer.
If an actor were not paid correctly SAG may sue the prodCo. If a
distributor felt they would get involved in a suit between a
prodCo and SAG they may not distribute, but the distributor has
no contract or agreement with SAG. And SAG cannot sue a prodCo
that has no agreement with SAG.
SAG cannot stop distribution of a movie that was not made under
their agreement. So in the example the OP brought up, there is
nothing SAG can do to the producer and there is nothing SAG can
do to the distributor.
A SAG actor told me that SAG can effect the distribution of a film. I didn't believe it at the time. I imagine most of the distributors picking the small indie films aren't heavily effected by SAG. Who at SAG is watching all these thousands of films being released. Any thoughts?
You are correct. SAG does not have anything at all to do with
distribution - how can they know of and watch every single film
distributed and then know what contract the producer had with
them? SAG covers working conditions, benefits and payment for
it's members. A producer must sign their agreement to be bound
by those rules. A producer who does not agree to the SAG contract
cannot be held to their rules.
A SAG member who violates the SAG rules may face sanctions up
to and including expulsion from the guild. In my experience that is
very, very rare. But even that does not affect the producer, the
prodCo or the distribution of the movie.
In the case where a producer who has signed an agreement with
SAG and then violates that agreement, then SAG can put pressure
on the producer. If the producer uses the "Ultra Low" agreement
which allows for deferred pay but no distribution unless payment
to the actors are made, and then violates that agreement, SAG can
sue the producer. But the distributor has made no agreement with
SAG so SAG cannot stop distribution.
If a producer does not sign an agreement with SAG, does not pay
the SAG actor and gets distribution, SAG cannot do anything to the
producer or the distributor. They can only deal with the SAG member.
All the risk is on the actor.
Several distributors DO have an agreement with SAG. Distribution companies that are also production companies for their own produced films. Things get messy when they have crossover like Paramount-Vantage (although they no longer exist) being owned by Paramount which is SAG signatory as a production company.
I do not think SAG watches all movies released, but if your film is distributed by a company they do a lot of business with (IE Sony, Paramount, Warner Bros, Universal or their subsidiaries), then they are more likely to see it or know about it, AND have some clout as to how to deal with the SAG actor and their rights to compensation, etc. They could at least make things inconvenient during a crucial time to go over paperwork and verify that the actor signed off on the contracts behind SAG's back. Who is a studio more worried about, SAG or an indie filmmaker? - This is all conjecture and not verified.
Again, I'm big enough to admit that I am most likely wrong in this scenario. Reading Rik's comments throughout has cast a great deal of doubt on how I feel about my own opinion. I have never personally experienced this, so I am NOT an expert on this.
My real point is more to say that producers/directors in smaller markets are far more likely to get a waiver from SAG to use a SAG actor in their film and avoid conflicts overall. The other option is if the actor is willing to become FINANCIAL CORE, a non-voting member of SAG that allows them to do non-union shoots without a waiver.
I would defer to Rik's opinion overall, as he has a lot more direct experience.