Actor refuses to sign release form...What's next?

Hello Everyone,

i'm producing an independent feature in London, a micro micro micro budget, which i'm financing myself. All the actors and crew have signed the release form so far except one, whom the 3rd ad has forgotten while on set. Now that specific actor was happy to accept the part, he's read the script (just 10 seconds screen time), he accepted it and was enthusiastic, he came on set, did his job with nothing going wrong on set (can you believe it?), then when i realized he did not sign the release form i sent him one, alongside with a request of invoice so i could pay him. He now says he does not like the quality of his performance, he will not sign the release form and will not seek any payment for it!!!! I am gutted as he showed no sign of discontent at all, at any time. What can i do? All is documented on email. That little scene has cost me 14 people crew for a day, a posh hotel room rental, equipment and so on... and i don't have a budget to re-do it again. Please tell me what's possible. Thank you.
 
My understanding of getting an actor to sign a release form is so they know their likeness and voice is not only going to be used in this film but will/can be used in promotional and marketing material, which will be distributed via many routes.
Most releases grant this to the prodCo. We can only speculate about
contract what catapalla used. But he DID say that the actor who didn’t
sign the release does not like his performance and will not even
accept payment for his work. If we are to take him at his word (which
I do) the issue isn’t the type of contract, the issue is his AD didn’t do
the job and the actor didn’t like the quality of his work. I speculate that
if the AD had done the job and had the actor sign the release BEFORE
the days work none of this would have happened.
I'm not saying that this is the reason why the actor in this case is refusing to sign but generally speaking it's something that could possibly occur.
I have never seen a likeness release that would allow a producer to
alter the image in a way that would be offensive to an actor. Have you
seen a release like that?
 
Most releases grant this to the prodCo. We can only speculate about
contract what catapalla used. But he DID say that the actor who didn’t
sign the release does not like his performance and will not even
accept payment for his work. If we are to take him at his word (which
I do) the issue isn’t the type of contract, the issue is his AD didn’t do
the job and the actor didn’t like the quality of his work. I speculate that
if the AD had done the job and had the actor sign the release BEFORE
the days work none of this would have happened.

I have never seen a likeness release that would allow a producer to
alter the image in a way that would be offensive to an actor. Have you
seen a release like that?

Absolutely that is in my release. In fact, my release explicitly gives me the right to "subject them to public humiliation". They give up ALL rights. I can have another actor do the voice, I can digitally alter them to give them a second head, anything. They have no rights whatsoever as far as the finished product.
 
I record my auditions and have everyone that tries out sign a release and hold harmless agreement at the time of audition. If they refuse to sign, I tell them to leave.

ETA: The same thing goes for crew.
 
So wait a minute. They showed up, acted, never said a thing, the shoot ended, then a few days later you tried to get him to sign a release and THEN they refused? I believe there's already a valid verbal agreement in place. This is under American law that I'm talking about. Not sure about English law. It's not really normal for an actor to dictate this kind of creative control anyway, but putting that aside, if they were unhappy then they should have spoken up at some point DURING the shoot. I had a similar situation with two actors who I approached to resign releases and they refused. My attorney said there was already an implied verbal agreement.... lights, crew, equipment, they responded to a casting notice, they showed up on the set and acted. It's obvious they are going to be in a movie. In my follow up letter to one of the actors I stated that if their refusal to sign the release required me to reshoot any scenes or ever prevented the movie from getting distribution then I would hold THEM accountable for my monetary damages. That letter worked for one of the actors. I got a signed release right back. The last guy who never signed was just being a douche bag. I released the movie. He certainly would be wasting money to sue me. He was also paid and I have documentation of that.
 
Last edited:
YEAH!!!

split-test-success-kid-meme-300x3001.jpeg
 
Absolutely that is in my release. In fact, my release explicitly gives me the right to "subject them to public humiliation". They give up ALL rights. I can have another actor do the voice, I can digitally alter them to give them a second head, anything. They have no rights whatsoever as far as the finished product.

wouldnt happen to have a copy of somesort of this form do you :)
 
Oy vey. That's ugly. Right, like you said, Rik, I would not be happy with the AD who was responsible for getting the signatures. I guess this might be a lesson for micro budget filmmakers to double check any such AD's work, making sure everyone is signed. Of course, the whole point of delegating that task to someone else is so that they get it done and so that you don't have to do everything yourself.

Oh well, what do you do?

All I could say about the actor is, welcome to my cr*plist. Needless to say, I would not be working with him/her again. I really doubt there's much else you can do. But...unhappy to say, you dropped the ball, you didn't protect yourself. That sure doesn't make you the bad guy. It makes you a victim (...a sucker, even). But a victim who didn't have to be a victim if he'd/she'd been more careful to protect himself/herself and the production. =(

As for the AD, same thing. I couldn't bring myself to rely upon him/her again. How could you? On the other hand, before heaping too much comtempt upon the AD, I have to wonder, since this is micro x 3 budget film, was that AD a friend working for little to no money and who just did not understand how critically important the whole release thing is in filmmaking...if the filmmakers ever want to actually show the film? If they did, then it's a case of their egregiously dropping the ball. If not, then maybe some resposponibility falls upon the producer's shoulders for dropping that ball.

Cracker's anecdote is very interesting. Commenting on something that we can't cite, I'm guessing that it's a case of a judge using common sense and throwing a frivolous case out. But I'm pretty much 100% certain that even if that is the case, it does not mean filmmakers can forget about getting those releases signed --and presumably understood by the signees.

It's my understanding that any good likeness release form includes the right to make alterations that might offend the model or the actor. After all, people can and often do choose to be offended by anything and everything under the Sun. What if in post you decide to change an actor's hair from blonde to purple? What if you change the color of her dress from red to gray? What if she finds these alterations offensive? The point of the release statement is to set down the photographer's, filmmaker's, publisher's right to use the model's/actor's likeness and to use it with whatever alterations they see fit. The model or actor should understand this before signing.

Attorney, Bert P. Krages II, advocates simplicity in model release forms. The very simple release form he recommends includes this statement:

...I further authorize that the photographs may be published for any purpose and in any form.

[The underline is mine.]

Looking at Sunnyboo.com's Actor Contract, it includes a similar, but more elaborate statement:

The Actor hereby authorizes the Production Company to photograph, videotape, film and record (on film, tape, or any other medium), the Performance and audition(s) for the Performance; to edit the same at its discretion and to include it with the performances of others and with sound effects, special effects, digital effects and music; to incorporate the same into the Picture, trailers, posters or other materials or programs related to the Picture; to use and to license others to use such records and photographs in any manner or media whatsoever, including without limitation unrestricted use for purposes of publicity, advertising and sales promotion; and to use my name, likeness, voice, biography or other information concerning me in connection with the Picture and for any other purpose associated with the Picture. The Actor further acknowledges that the Production Company owns all rights to the Picture.

I'm interested to note that it doesn't seem to include a statement just like ...in any form. The closest thing to come to it seems to be ...to edit all the same at its descretion... Hopefully that covers everything, including things the actors might not like or might be offended by?

But, what do I know? Done with my babbling. If I misunderstand any of the above, or just don't know what I'm talking about, I beg pardon. =)
 
Last edited:
Lloyd Kaufman (shocking I know) made his actor furious in Toxic Avenger 4 by replacing his entire dialogue track with another actor's voice. He basically did it out of spite because he could. The actor had gone a little prima donna on him.
 
I had a similar situation with two actors who I approached to resign releases and they refused. My attorney said there was already an implied verbal agreement.... lights, crew, equipment, they responded to a casting notice, they showed up on the set and acted. It's obvious they are going to be in a movie. In my follow up letter to one of the actors I stated that if their refusal to sign the release required me to reshoot any scenes or ever prevented the movie from getting distribution then I would hold THEM accountable for my monetary damages. That letter worked for one of the actors. I got a signed release right back. The last guy who never signed was just being a douche bag. I released the movie. He certainly would be wasting money to sue me. He was also paid and I have documentation of that.

The expectation of being filmed is true. When you go to a talk show and become part of the audience you don't sign anything because you already anticipate being on TV. It's a TV show. That's different than when someone approaches you on the street with a camera. But you will run into issues with distro. They need to make sure they are not liable. So... an attorney may be able to help you sort this all out.
 
The expectation of being filmed is true. When you go to a talk show and become part of the audience you don't sign anything because you already anticipate being on TV. It's a TV show. That's different than when someone approaches you on the street with a camera. But you will run into issues with distro. They need to make sure they are not liable. So... an attorney may be able to help you sort this all out.
That's when you really read the riot act to whoever is holding up distribution.

We've had threads about how in the absence of a release, DP's actually own footage under ponderous English law. I hope there's no similar bass ackwards laws in this case. In America the OP would be in the driver's seat.
 
Back
Top