Pet Peeve - People Can't Understand "For Credit Only" Requests?

Graeme

Graeme

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Talked to a local about writing a script for me, they have written a few small unpublished books and a few plays etc. But they are unpublished and have never had something turned into a motion picture.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?
 
Sort by date Sort by votes
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.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
M1chae1 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Brooksy said:
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0 Downvote
"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?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
directorik said:
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.
Click to expand...

You may be right. But, anyone with any considerable experience I've come into contact with want to be paid for their time.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
gpforet001 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0 Downvote
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.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0 Downvote
polfilmblog said:
"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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0 Downvote
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.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
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.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0 Downvote
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.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
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.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
gpforet001 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
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.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
M1chae1 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top