Shady SAG actor

G

GusChiggins

Hi guys,
New here but excited to join the community. I'm dealing with a shady actor and I need some legal advice. SO, to make a long story short, I got hired to make a short web series and the financier wanted to use this one actor who he knew personally... however the financier wasn't providing a big enough budget to pay SAG rates for all of the talent in the series... and we made that clear that this was a non-union production... BUT this financier said his actor friend who was SAG, would scab for us and violate his union to be in the series because he wanted more speaking lines, yadda yadda... so we said, okay, but we still need a paper contract. The actor acted a bit squirrelly, but eventually, he signed something with the financier. Flash forward to 4 months later and a big name media company wants to BUY the web series, but they want us to re-edit it and make sure we get everyone papered. This actor is REFUSING to sign a contract, and claims he never signed a contract in the first place and that he could sue us... and he's asking for SAG rates and a limited usage term (not perpetuity like we had originally)... and we don't want to look like idiots to the media company that wants to buy our series— but we also don't want to have this super shady actor come after us.

What do we do? Should we just go ahead and know that he's bluffing since he would get kicked out of SAG for doing a non-union project? I hate shady people... I also take full responsibility for using a SAG actor on a non-union project.

Help please!

Thanks,
Gus
 
Sort by date Sort by votes
GusChiggins said:
and we made that clear that this was a non-union production... BUT this financier said his actor friend who was SAG, would scab for us and violate his union to be in the series because he wanted more speaking lines, yadda yadda... so we said, okay, but we still need a paper contract. The actor acted a bit squirrelly, but eventually, he signed something with the financier.

What do we do? Should we just go ahead and know that he's bluffing since he would get kicked out of SAG for doing a non-union project? I hate shady people... I also take full responsibility for using a SAG actor on a non-union project.

Help please!

Thanks,
Gus
Click to expand...

Why not tell him you're going to contact SAG and ask them how you should handle it. And then contact SAG and ask them how to handle it. If there's a contractual problem with a SAG member, it's possible the " big name media company" is going to back out of the whole deal rather than take a bite out of what's going to turn into a big old shit sandwich. And if this SAG dooshbag went rogue on the Union, THEY might not look too kindly on his actions. I don't see this working out positively for you (sorry), and my philosophy has always been to go down swinging. If I'm going down in a ball of flames, my place in hell is going to be determined by the number of assholes I take with me. Take THIS asshole with you for being an unethical little puke. And next time, GET IT IT WRITING.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Dreadylocks said:
Not necessarily, it depends on the state. H44 is talking about "one party" laws. You can Google a list of states that allow it.

Not that I recommend such a convoluted solution to what is va simple (though unfortunate) problem.
Click to expand...

Ah, well it is illegal in my state. I know that for sure.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I would like to again point out that the issue in not how
to get the actor on board. He has already stated what he
wants to get on board. Those requests are are unacceptable
to Gus.

If the financier is recorded saying there is a contract the
media company will want to see the contract. Without a
contract that face a lawsuit. They may win but they still
face an expensive lawsuit. If Gus calls the actors bluff and
contacts SAG-AFTA the guild may punish the actor. But
without a contract the media company still faces a lawsuit.
They may win but they still face an expensive lawsuit.

I don't understand why this actor doesn't want to be the
star of a series picked up by a big name media company. But
there is no way to make this work without a written contract
with him.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
So it's OP who's being the stubborn one, then...

The actor has him/her over a barrel. That blows, but it seems there is a way they can move forward. And if it's OP's only option, I say take it.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Dreadylocks said:
So it's OP who's being the stubborn one, then...

The actor has him/her over a barrel. That blows, but it seems there is a way they can move forward. And if it's OP's only option, I say take it.
Click to expand...

I think it's the limited usage that might be causing problems, the media company probably doesn't want those terms.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
sfoster said:
I think it's the limited usage that might be causing problems, the media company probably doesn't want those terms.
Click to expand...

This. The media company wants to buy it outright, and those were the terms we had in everyone's contract to start, so we've already suggested this would be no problem... which as it turns out, has become a major problem.

Guys thanks so much again for all of your thoughts. We're hung up at this juncture because he won't accept a term longer than 18 months. And you'r right, what actor wouldn't want another payday (which he would get) on something he did for very little money to begin with? It's already done, no skin off his back. The issue is that the actor doesn't want what he thought was just a little web series to blow up so big that he gets in trouble with SAG and his agent who I've now learned he went around to do the project. He also thinks he can hold the project ransom for more money, which to some extent, he might now succeed in doing.

I take full responsibility being the leader of the project to not make sure everyone was papered... I am pretty upset that the Producer dropped the ball, but I'm more upset that I wasn't more diligent.

So my takeaway from all of this is, we're pretty screwed. I think we're going to just be straight with the media company and see if we can just find a resolution... they really want it, so hopefully we can make it work. It sucks. But lesson learned.

If anyone has additional thoughts or ideas, I'm all ears. Again, thank you all so much for taking time to respond.

-Gus
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You haven't clarified what your deal was with the Financier. That could restrict what you can or can't do. As somebody mentioned, you might be able to reshoot without the actor. The media company might be willing to pay for it, but they could want a bigger slice of the pie.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
4 months later and a big name media company wants to BUY the web series, but they want us to re-edit it and make sure we get everyone papered.
Click to expand...
I agree with DirectorRik that it doesn't matter what is legal and what is not. If they want more than the agreement that he signed with the financier then that's the end of that. You're out of luck.

As far as distributing it yourself I think you're fine. What was the original intent? To distribute it on the web only and everywhere else without limitation? Is this memorialized in writing in the agreement or in an email? Are there any clues as to the intent of the written or verbal agreement? You obviously have some sort of verbal contract otherwise this actor would not have showed up on set with lights and cameras.

I would read him the riot act. It's his SAG benefits that are on the line. By any chance does this actor's first name start with a "D". PM me and I'll give the last name initial. I once dealt with someone like this when a producer botched a release.

Also if you are faced with having to reshoot, you could threaten to sue this actor for damages for doing a bait and switch.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top