'Ethics' in the movie industry

I'm comfortable with doing stuff for free to learn my way up. The way I see it, this is a helluva lot cheaper than going to a British film school and film school is not for everyone. For example, I have met one too many UK film school graduates who have shot less than 3 short films during their 3 years at film school and considering tuition fees are $40,000 USD for 3 years, I have done more than this in the last year and held down a full time job.

However, as relaxed as I am about doing this, I am also mildly uncomfortable with the general ethical stance within the documentary film-making industry. Recently, one poster mentioned 'ethics' in relation to volunteers doing something for free and sure, this is fine, but it is also as unethical as it gets.

The reason I mention this is I have been in touch with a documentary film maker about to go on a 3 month shoot in another country (let's say, for example, France) who is breaking the local country's laws in their remuneration methods.

All of this stems from the attitude that they don't see why they should be paying people, even though they will be making money from the doc. They have six shooters on site, none of whom are being paid as camera operators (they get a little bit of cash plus food, accomodation etc...), all of whom will be shooting with the latest Canon kit (C100s or 300s) and all who are desperate to drive their careers forward. In addition, the production company is breaking quite a number of local labour laws by simply not making the relevant financial and human-resource related declarations and simply operating illegally.

Without giving too many details about the doc, the individuals at the top will be taking the lion's share and the people doing the work are the slave labour, putting in serious hours in the hope of advancing their careers. In the industry I work in, this would be unnacceptable and the company I work for would instantly fire any manager for this type of proposition.

The film making business is not only illegal but unethical and I see this more and more often in the docu business. It is a question of seeing how many local laws can be broken, how little people can be paid and how much cash the bosses can pocket, all because the industry is potentially 'enjoyable.'

How the h@ll did we get here and where are the safeguards? Do you care? Do you find this ethical?

I see where you're coming from. I know that my opinion isn't going to be the popular opinion. I believe that if you don't like the situation, don't get involved. It's as simple as that.

There are people who both want and need the opportunity to get involved with projects that will in turn make a profit.

I find the whole situation that you describe as ethical. (Just because it's not legal, doesn't necessarily make it unethical). If the people in charge are up front, don't misrepresent the situation and deliver what they promise, I find that to be as ethical as you can get.

Litmus test time. If the project doesn't make a profit, would that make it ethical? If it changes your opinion of the project to ethical, I don't see the logic behind it.

It's up to the individuals to determine whether the project is a win-win for them or not. So long as no one working against their will and no one has been tricked into doing it and given what was agreed upon, I don't have a problem with it.

Usually non paying productions make a delayed payment agreement,which rarely pays,but is "ethical". However, production company which expects to make a profit and doesn't pay crew or make any deferred contracts is unlikely to produce anything good,simply because it will attract only inexperienced and unreliable/unmotivated crew.

I agree with Sweetie that anyone who has any sort of understanding on how industry works will not be tricked into such projects and given fierce competition it might be good for beginners/students to get at least some work

baoliun said:

Usually non paying productions make a delayed payment agreement,which rarely pays,but is "ethical". However, production company which expects to make a profit and doesn't pay crew or make any deferred contracts is unlikely to produce anything good,simply because it will attract only inexperienced and unreliable/unmotivated crew.

I agree with Sweetie that anyone who has any sort of understanding on how industry works will not be tricked into such projects and given fierce competition it might be good for beginners/students to get at least some work

Click to expand...

This is not a non-paying production. This is a production commissioned by a major TV network with a ton of very expensive kit and no official DoP, camera operator etc... They are based on site for 3 months where the hotel room costs are minimal and the guys putting it together are making money.

They are blatently breaking a number of different laws around tax, payroll, wages, working conditions and are blatently undercutting local camera operators by using people from 'out of town.'

Rather, it is an extension of habits picked up from 'no budget' productions where ethics go out of the window.

In general I agree with everyone else - I don't think it's 'unethical' in the sense that as long as everyone is in agreement on what they're getting paid (or not paid) for their work then it's fine. Each individual has to make the call on when working for free has enough benefit to offset the loss of income. I don't think it's a good strategy from the producer's perspective; if they're blatantly violating labor laws it's likely to bite them later if the movie does prove to be successful.

That said, it does go against my personal ethics. I generally don't work for free within a commercial context or do spec work, and I wouldn't ask someone else to either. If I didn't have the budget to pay someone and expected to actually turn a profit I would at least work out some sort of deferred payment, and even then I'd lean towards trying to at least pay a small rate up front. The only exception would be in the case of someone with very little experience who was specifically asking for the opportunity to learn on the job, in which case they wouldn't be put in a key production position anyway but rather assisting someone else who had experience.

For non-commercial projects, or at least projects with little real commercial potential, I don't see much issue with it.

gorillaonabike said:

However, as relaxed as I am about doing this, I am also mildly uncomfortable with the general ethical stance within the documentary film-making industry. Recently, one poster mentioned 'ethics' in relation to volunteers doing something for free and sure, this is fine, but it is also as unethical as it gets.

Click to expand...

I think it's apparent from this post that my project is the target here.

Your comparison is massively unsound. It's the difference between volunteering with a community program and working in a sweatshop. Clearly, the people making that documentary are breaking the law: if the production is financed by a TV company, is making money and has a large enough production budget for travel and equipment, then they should be paying their crew. The fact that they're breaking other local laws as well only compounds the issue. That isn't an issue about ethics, it's an issue about legality.

My project is being entirely financed by myself. I am not going to make any money of it (I don't think, and if that were ever the case, the money would go equally to the refugee community and remunerating the crew). I am asking others to invest their time, whilst I invest my time and money. It is a volunteer situation where we will be working with refugee groups and charities in order to produce a piece of work that sheds light on a specific problem.

I think the difference between the productions speaks for itself. If my project has a change in fortunes - like accumulating a proper budget - then the first thing I'd do would be to invest it in paid crew. But whilst that's not possible, I cannot see anything unethical in asking people to volunteer their time and expertise. If they can't afford it, they don't have to get involved.

NickClapper said:

I think it's apparent from this post that my project is the target here.

Your comparison is massively unsound. It's the difference between volunteering with a community program and working in a sweatshop. Clearly, the people making that documentary are breaking the law: if the production is financed by a TV company, is making money and has a large enough production budget for travel and equipment, then they should be paying their crew. The fact that they're breaking other local laws as well only compounds the issue. That isn't an issue about ethics, it's an issue about legality.

My project is being entirely financed by myself. I am not going to make any money of it (I don't think, and if that were ever the case, the money would go equally to the refugee community and remunerating the crew). I am asking others to invest their time, whilst I invest my time and money. It is a volunteer situation where we will be working with refugee groups and charities in order to produce a piece of work that sheds light on a specific problem.

I think the difference between the productions speaks for itself. If my project has a change in fortunes - like accumulating a proper budget - then the first thing I'd do would be to invest it in paid crew. But whilst that's not possible, I cannot see anything unethical in asking people to volunteer their time and expertise. If they can't afford it, they don't have to get involved.

Click to expand...

Theres a huge debate about it in a Facebook group for actors who complain about the arts industry being mostly illegal in asking for unpaid actors, which infact is illegal and you can be sued for NMW (national minimum wage) hence i was asking you questions about don't you think you should pay your crew, theoretically I could agree to do the work for you, then ask you for payment which would be my right (apparently you can't waive your right to payment but if you don't ask for it then it slips under the radar).

just check out this old article http://www.thestage.co.uk/news/2011/04/unpaid-extra-wins-fight-for-minimum-wage/

Personally if i even thought a project was going to make money i would offer something to the rest of the crew etc, of course you can make friends and help each other out, on the other hand some people higher up than me are still asking for people for free and to me if your going to make £100 then i want £20 from it, if your making £1,000 I want £100 from it, this whole filmmaking business is very expensive and mainly illegal but what is the right way to go about it? I always like to get things for as cheap as possible, but there could be no way I would be able to pay the NMW per person, so should laws be changed for the arts? should people be allowed to be paid on a per project basis and given rights to waive payment below the NMW ? it certainly would stop the criticism and i believe would lead to more people being paid, since offering £20 to someone to work for 8 hours would be illegal technically so instead unpaid is offered, but if the changes i suggested were made then people could be offered £10-30 etc it would be deemed unfair by some but its better than nothing.

Sweetie said:

I believe that if you don't like the situation, don't get involved. It's as simple as that.

Click to expand...

The world would be better off with a whole lot more of that point of view.

NickClapper said:

I think it's apparent from this post that my project is the target here.

Click to expand...

You're completely wrong, no it's not. Funnily enough, I don't think you're quite at the level where you have a team of 6 camera people shooting a doc with C300s in France for 3 months.

I'm talking about professionals shooting for a household name production commissioned by a serious TV channel and significant sums of money being involved.

What is interesting is in my day job for a billion dollar software company, no-one would ever treat anyone else like this. The only person I know treated similarly was building an electric motorbike and he realised he was being taken for a ride and got off quickly.

It's quite an interesting business model - get some young guys, work the cr@p out of them and take a load off the top. Because of the nature of the industry, they are like deer in the headlights, shooting with an almost religious fervour. Unethical but profitable.

If you have the knowledge and expertise that not everyone has - the ability to operate a camera, to pull focus, to record sound, to act etc. why shouldn't you be paid for that?

Have you ever heard of a home owner saving up to build an extension, then asking builders to work for free, so that they can keep their savings?

You've likely spent a number of years at film school - if not, you've likely spent more years doing projects, shooting your own stuf and working on other sets to acquire the skills you have. They're not skills that everyone has. Not everyone can light a scene. Not everyone has intimate knowledge of cameras, not everyone knows the best shots to get, how to frame shots, how to expose etc. etc.

Why should you not get paid for that? Especially if the production is making money.

I'll take a pay cut, and in some instances even work for free if the production is that low budget. I've shot for free in order to allow production to use a better camera, I've focus pulled for cheap because the DP is a friend or someone I want to impress and the budget simply isn't there for my normal day rate.

If the budget's there, I should be getting paid. Otherwise they can expect people who have never used cameras before, or don't have any real credits or experience to work for them.

Those who have the skills but work for free on this kind of production really do not help the industry. If all the Producers could find was people with 0 experience and skills to shoot for them for free, then they would be forced to pay those with experience, or suffer a shitty product.

It sets a bad example, and there are many Producers who are the same - I've known some awesome Producers, and then I've known Producers who will get a budget of say, $500,000, and then make the movie for $350,000 and pocket the difference.


I see what you're saying with the 'don't like the situation don't get involved' viewpoint - but having seen productions like this, I imagine the production was advertised as a 'low-budget' documentary that's going on tv, looking for crew who will do it for free.
There are so many newbies, students etc. looking for their 'big break' that they were probably inundated. It's probably something I would have done at the very beginning of my career. But, the moment I found out there was actual money in it, I'd have walked off, lest I be paid.

The worst part is their next production will likely expect half the crew to work for free as well, and then they pocket more money.

This is not a non-paying production. This is a production commissioned by a major TV network with a ton of very expensive kit and no official DoP, camera operator etc... They are based on site for 3 months where the hotel room costs are minimal and the guys putting it together are making money.

They are blatently breaking a number of different laws around tax, payroll, wages, working conditions and are blatently undercutting local camera operators by using people from 'out of town.'

Click to expand...

The budget and profitability of the production doesn't change the ethics in my view.

Do I think it's right? No.

Do I believe it's ethical, yes.

There's another point to it all. Is it smart? Unlikely. I'll get into it more with the next response...

What is interesting is in my day job for a billion dollar software company, no-one would ever treat anyone else like this. The only person I know treated similarly was building an electric motorbike and he realised he was being taken for a ride and got off quickly.

It's quite an interesting business model - get some young guys, work the cr@p out of them and take a load off the top. Because of the nature of the industry, they are like deer in the headlights, shooting with an almost religious fervour. Unethical but profitable.

Click to expand...

The software industry is in the exact opposite situation the film industry is in. In Software, there is a large shortage of highly qualified, experienced people and there is a lot of competition for those people. It's supply and demand.

In film, there is a glut of under qualified, inexperienced people who need to pay their dues. Productions like these can provide valuable experience to the inexperienced if the production is done correctly (doesn't sound like it will be, anyone say the blind leading the blind?).

Productions need the best people they can afford to get the job done right. Is a bunch of volunteers the best option to pull off a professional production? That's another question, but it's also a good one.

The difference between working in a sweat shop and working on a film set is a matter of circumstance too. If you're given the choice and have an option, the comparison isn't relevant.

I could agree to do the work for you, then ask you for payment which would be my right

Click to expand...

In my mind, this is a prime example of what I'd call legal, though unethical behavior. If you agree to the set of circumstances without following through with the intent of the agreement constitutes unethical behavior in my books.

If it's a for-profit venture, I think it's just right to at least offer deferred pay to anyone who is making a significant contribution of their valuable time. Yeah, you might be able to get young eager volunteers, but that's taking advantage of people who are kinda vulnerable, and I don't like that.

The film industry is absolutely not the only place this takes place. There a PLETHORA of "internships", in pretty much any industry you can imagine, in which the intern is assigned menial task work, without pay, and without really gaining any education (which is what they're supposed to be getting). Heck, at least volunteer filmmakers are gaining actual experience.

So is it unethical? I dunno. Maybe we just say it's not really fair. Do I personally like the wide-spread practice of it? No.

In Dutch there's a saying that can be translated something like this:
"If it's raining on the boss, it should at least drizzle on the crew."
Although this may sound a bit negative, it means:
If the 'boss' is making a profit, everyone who helped should also benefit.

I do help friends out with their projects.
For free is it's no budget. Sometimes for less if there's too little budget.
But for commercial stuff I want to be paid. (Mostly that's corporate stuff.)

With features or shorts it's not easy to tell whether it will make any money.
In that case a deffered payment seems to be the way to go (at least for me).

I don't like the idea of exploiting people.
But sometimes you can also see it like paying less experienced people with knowledge and hands on experience. I assisted a photographer a few times, just to see how he works, how he does set design, how he directs people. I learned a lot

8salacious9 said:

...theoretically I could agree to do the work for you, then ask you for payment which would be my right (apparently you can't waive your right to payment but if you don't ask for it then it slips under the radar).

Click to expand...

This doesn't sound right to me. Does that mean I would have legal grounds to sue if I invited my friends round for dinner, then demanded payment for the time I spent as a chef, and they refused? Or if I give my girlfriend a lift to the shop, then demand payment for working as a taxi driver? Even if I signed a document specifically stating that I wouldn't request payment? It may well be my legal right; if it is, it's one that I don't agree with. Besidea, if I did try to demand payment in those situations, I expect I'd lose friends very quickly. The guy in the article you linked strikes me as a bit of an arsehole. I expect he may struggle for work in the future...

People should be able to make up their own minds about what they choose to do (i.e. when they agree to work for free), then live with the concequenses of those decisions. Nobody should work for free; but they should do whatever they want.

mad_hatter said:

People should be able to make up their own minds about what they choose to do (i.e. when they agree to work for free), then live with the concequenses of those decisions. Nobody should work for free; but they should do whatever they want.

Click to expand...

Sure. In that case, I will bring a load of Chinese into the UK (illegally) as they are cheaper than UK workers. They will then work for me here, illegally, making me money. Naturally, I will not pay taxes on any of this.

Because that is what this producer is doing in, say, France. They are using Brits to travel out there, undercut the locals (paying peanuts), not paying taxes and simply not declaring anything. They have the money, the budget etc... but they are simply making the most out of gullible kids who are willing to work illegally for virtually nothing.

Legality is a good indicator of ethical behaviour and the lack of legality indicates a lack of ethics.

To be honest, I kinda disagree with the whole 'People should be able to make up their own minds about what they choose to do' thing simply because the nature of the business means we're keen to impress, happy to work hard, and we're more about the 'creative goal' and less about seeing it as a job that you clock in and out of, and only do your specified hours.

You could have a Producer ask their crew to do 14 or 16hr days with 8 hr turnarounds. IMO, that's unethical, and dangerous - but many newbies would agree to it, either because they're naiive about their entitlements, or because they think it's a great opportunity for them to prove themselves. They'll probably work for free or a cut rate too.

Producers need to treat their crew like humans - pay people their due payments, and work people no longer than they should be with the correct turnarounds.

If a Producer works a crew member 16 hours and he gets hit by a car on the way home, should we blame the crew member because 'he should have known better' or 'he's living with the consequences of choosing to work on this production'?

If the Producer really needs you, he/she can pay you, otherwise find someone else who will agree to do it for free, likely someone not as experienced.

Working for free only devalues you and your services. The less you're paid, the more you end up being taken advantage of.

jax_rox said:

To be honest, I kinda disagree with the whole 'People should be able to make up their own minds about what they choose to do' thing simply because the nature of the business means we're keen to impress, happy to work hard, and we're more about the 'creative goal' and less about seeing it as a job that you clock in and out of, and only do your specified hours.

You could have a Producer ask their crew to do 14 or 16hr days with 8 hr turnarounds. IMO, that's unethical, and dangerous - but many newbies would agree to it, either because they're naiive about their entitlements, or because they think it's a great opportunity for them to prove themselves. They'll probably work for free or a cut rate too.

Producers need to treat their crew like humans - pay people their due payments, and work people no longer than they should be with the correct turnarounds.

If a Producer works a crew member 16 hours and he gets hit by a car on the way home, should we blame the crew member because 'he should have known better' or 'he's living with the consequences of choosing to work on this production'?

If the Producer really needs you, he/she can pay you, otherwise find someone else who will agree to do it for free, likely someone not as experienced.

Working for free only devalues you and your services. The less you're paid, the more you end up being taken advantage of.

Click to expand...

I'm with you on this. Some of this is mummy and daddy bankrolling kids, other issues are around the flagrant illegality flouting rules and regs and I'm surprised that a well-known production company is happy to break laws which would effectively get them closed down.