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

[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Talked to a local about writing a script for me, they have written a few small unpublished books and a few plays etc. But they are unpublished and have never had something turned into a motion picture.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?

 

[gpforet001]

Look man, I mean, uh, look up the word "defer". Just because it's being used improperly doesn't mean those of us who actually know the meaning of the word accept your mis-use.

Why can't you just say "no pay" and leave the word "deferred" out of it. It's misleading.

Oh, and I like the way you used the term "hired". Look up that word as well.

Why not say, looking for volunteers willing to DONATE their time, talent and gear so I can get recognition for making movies....Geez.

Look, man, I'm just telling you like it is on the east coast. The term 'deferred' is used for food, credit, and copy of the DVD. Whether there is a future outlook in profit, who freakin' cares. You're working on a micro budget film, and will most likely never see any profit. If the contract states that you get a percentage of the profit...that's awesome. Good for you. If you come to them and say, "Well this is listed as a 'deferred' contract, so how much will I be getting paid after the movie, and how long until I get paid?"...most of them will say, "Well, actually, you're not getting paid. That's not what I mean by 'deferred'. What I mean is, IF we see profit, you'll get so and so amount." Fine...sit down with them, and sketch out the details. If you sound like you're going to hold them to it, you may not even get hired. They don't plan on making a profit. And most of them won't.

If you want to jump into the deep contractual workings of a micro budget film, and make sure you definitely receive a percentage. You go right ahead. To me, it's almost a waste of time. The day I start getting paid on a regular basis, is the day I'll start worrying about residuals and profit. But for Jonny's little zombie film...I honestly don't give a hoot about making money off it in the future.

 

[Brooksy]

Look, man, I'm just telling you like it is on the east coast. The term 'deferred' is used for food, credit, and copy of the DVD. Whether there is a future outlook in profit, who freakin' cares. You're working on a micro budget film, and will most likely never see any profit. If the contract states that you get a percentage of the profit...that's awesome. Good for you. If you come to them and say, "Well this is listed as a 'deferred' contract, so how much will I be getting paid after the movie, and how long until I get paid?"...most of them will say, "Well, actually, you're not getting paid. That's not what I mean by 'deferred'. What I mean is, IF we see profit, you'll get so and so amount." Fine...sit down with them, and sketch out the details. If you sound like you're going to hold them to it, you may not even get hired. They don't plan on making a profit. And most of them won't.

If you want to jump into the deep contractual workings of a micro budget film, and make sure you definitely receive a percentage. You go right ahead. To me, it's almost a waste of time. The day I start getting paid on a regular basis, is the day I'll start worrying about residuals and profit. But for Jonny's little zombie film...I honestly don't give a hoot about making money off it in the future.

Here's the problem. You keep saying that is how it is on the East Coast. It's not. That may be how things operate in your little town or in your little circle of friends but for the rest of the production world that I work in, things operate differently. I have worked in several different states and I have friends that have been working on the East Coast for years. Myself and they all get paid to do their work. And when we sign up for a deferred pay gig that means that we are going to get paid later and there is an agreed upon price. I don't know what sections of the East Coast your working on but you need to get out quickly. Go start making yourself some money.

I will say that I am not an actor and I am pretty sure you are (and a pretty decent one from what I can piece together). So maybe that makes a difference as far as pay goes. But if you have people using the phrase "deferred pay" and they never have any intentions of paying anyone anything then the better be prepared for a rude awakening when word gets around. Because not only will they start losing members of their crew when people start working on productions that actually pay them but they are setting a really poor standard for the rest of us.

Most of us are out there struggling to make a living in this field. Not that a free gig once in a while isn't great but it doesn't pay the bills. But these people who are saying I need to work for free are setting a standard by saying the production world should be getting free help from people. Now I am not saying we shouldn't all pay our dues but we should all be striving to be able to take home a paycheck from the work we do. Doesn't that just sound lovely? Just my two cents but I hope that others can agree...

 

[M1chae1]

Look man, I mean, uh, look up the word "defer". Just because it's being used improperly doesn't mean those of us who actually know the meaning of the word accept your mis-use.

Why can't you just say "no pay" and leave the word "deferred" out of it. It's misleading.

Oh, and I like the way you used the term "hired". Look up that word as well.

Why not say, looking for volunteers willing to DONATE their time, talent and gear so I can get recognition for making movies....Geez.

EDIT

I give up.

 

[directorik]

Honestly, never. That's kinda the point. The producer will be quick to say in the advertisement that they are offering some kind of "back-end" compensation, but when pressed, they do not have any formal idea about what they would be wiling to give up, and in most cases, as depicted in this discussion, they're not willing to give up ANYTHING, at least, not contractually. This is why I approach them in this way. This discussion has indicated that some will use the phrase "deferred pay" and think that it means "no pay". It doesn't. Why even use the word "deferred" if you really mean "no pay"?

Makes sense. I, too, hate to be offered deferred pay by
producers who don't understand what deferred means.
As we can see in this discussion that's very often the
case with producers and filmmakers.

As a producer of the occasional no budget movie I never
make that offer. I know my movies will never see enough
money on the back end to meet any deferments. I actually
do exactly what mention. I ask for volunteers willing to donate
their time and equipment. And just like Graeme mentions,
I'm surprised how many people contact me asking what
deferments I'm offering or start asking for money after our first
meeting.

That's why I was asking about your 10% ownership offer. I
know I would never agree to that - was wondering if any producer
has. Like you, I do not like it when a producer thinks deferred
means meals, copy and credit. I have offered deferred pay exactly
twice. Both times I was making a movie for a distributor I knew
(from past experience and signed contract) would pay. But my
company had to front the money. So to keep the up front costs
down we offered 10% up front with the rest due no later than a
specific date. Which is why I would never make that offer on a spec
movie.

 

[Mindmaster]

You've basically just made an argument as to why it's okay for a producer to F everybody in the ass. It's all about the future of the production company, you see. Any profit should be spent on the next production.

That's great. For you. The producer. But what about all those other people? They don't have a share in the production company. Only you do. So, you're justifying not paying people by saying that it's okay, because their investment will reap benefits for YOU in the future.

The biggest mistake I think you're making is assuming that everybody who associates with you is lending themselves to the success of your production company. No, they are lending themselves to the success of a specific production. If someone offers work on one film, they are offering work on THAT FILM, not every film in the potential future of your production company.

If a single film turns profit, then the people who put in work on that film are deserving of a share of the profit. And the bigger picture that you're trying to communicate has nothing to do with it. When people volunteer for a film, they're not volunteering their services forever and ever, to the success of a production company; they're volunteering their services to the end of a single, specific production.

The movie biz has always been trickle down as are most others. Producer makes money so then they can pay everyone else. Nothing stopping the sound guy or editor from being a producer if they want. And, I agree with you that they deserve something but you can share them jobs and references and not the production fund. That still is a great deal of money, and you are giving them even more experience.

Here's the real problem if I cut people into deals:

Say a major studio wants to distribute this film worldwide and is ready to sign the deal. The first thing the distributor needs to know is that I have the right to sign the deal, but now I need sound guy's permission to sign this deal! If sound guy is no where to be found or doesn't answer the phone then we just lost it. If he didn't like my direction he could refuse to sign or decides he needs more money to sign. That's why we don't don't put all these people on. It's hard enough to do with 1-3 people having a say imagine if 10+ do. Imagine having to track all these folks down a year or two later.

The producer's job is hard and they are the first person working and the last to leave. Someone has to get paid first, and it might as well be the guy that hires everyone else. I really don't see the problem.

 

[Cracker Funk]

The movie biz has always been trickle down as are most others. Producer makes money so then they can pay everyone else. Nothing stopping the sound guy or editor from being a producer if they want. And, I agree with you that they deserve something but you can share them jobs and references and not the production fund. That still is a great deal of money, and you are giving them even more experience.

Here's the real problem if I cut people into deals:

Say a major studio wants to distribute this film worldwide and is ready to sign the deal. The first thing the distributor needs to know is that I have the right to sign the deal, but now I need sound guy's permission to sign this deal! If sound guy is no where to be found or doesn't answer the phone then we just lost it. If he didn't like my direction he could refuse to sign or decides he needs more money to sign. That's why we don't don't put all these people on. It's hard enough to do with 1-3 people having a say imagine if 10+ do. Imagine having to track all these folks down a year or two later.

The producer's job is hard and they are the first person working and the last to leave. Someone has to get paid first, and it might as well be the guy that hires everyone else. I really don't see the problem.

Dude, I'm definitely gonna take the lion's share of any potential profit, and I'm definitely gonna re-invest it in the next project. But that doesn't mean I'm morally justified in keeping ALL of it. Also, I guess you didn't read one of my earlier posts -- I will share money, but not ownership; nobody has a say in what happens to this film, but me.

 

[Tinalera]

This is sort of related, but reverse-no money was involved, lack of professionalism was:

I had agreed to work with someone on a project. It was giong to be a big project, and I was going to be part of it. Well things fell apart, and I mentioned sorry to hear that. They said they still wanted me to help with a smaller scale project the same day, I said sure, made arrangements, ect.

THEN a couple of days before(after avoiding my emails) they said they weren't sure when they'd be at the location. I told them when I would be. THEN they said "well, we're doing something different, somewhere else, but I'll look up next time!"

If I had been semi-pro about this, and was going to get paid, the person would be getting a nice invoice right now. The person is early twenties who is trying to get a portfolio so they can go to school. Good luck trying to pull THAT sort of crap with a pro!


This is part of the reason I get hestiant about getting talent, particulary free talent; they can change their minds about participating, and will particularly if there's no "money" involved-if they don't share you passion, they dont' give a damn unless money is involved. It's sad really.

 

[Modern Day Myth Prod. LLC]

The biggest mistake I see people making here is thinking there is money in shorts.

How many shorts got BIG distribution deals?

How many people here can list shorts making money--PERIOD?

A smart pro will avoid any job posting to work on a short, if they have business experience. The business of shorts is that it is a one way bank account.

There is no income in shorts. Crew people should not go looking to take money from producers making shorts. Money goes in and it never comes out. Working on a short should be looked at as charity work--REALLY. How can a pro in good conscience take money from someone who is spend their monthly rent, school tuition, mortgage payment, or car loan money to make their short?

I have offered to help a producer who paid me for a script for a shortcfor a previous production. This time, I offered to write for him for free. Why? I know what it is to make a short and end up on the short end of a stick financially. He wanted to reuse my characters in another story and he approached me about it. This time around, I would expect nothing in return either up front or on the back end and only a screen credit and copy of the DVD. He didn't take my offer, saying he didn't have money to pay me. He didn't seem to grasp that fact I'd do it for free because we worked together before. And, I like the fact that he actually got the last short completed and on DVD.

A producer making their first feature is working against GREAT odds to see any income coming in at all too.

The best thing a producer making a feature can do in hook up with a brilliant marketing person. Filmmakers don't make good marketing people. They need help in this area all too often.

 

[Graeme]

First a Comment on Deferred Payment

Deferred Payment is used for a variety of reasons and comes in two forms, lets call them True and Pseudo (yes I just made that up, go with it will you).

In both types the idea is that the producer doesn't have to pay up front for a talent's services in the movie. This is great for the producer because it avoids him having to shell out money early in the production which could effect their cashflow. It also helps because in most "deferred" payment contracts I have seen there is a term within it stating if you don't complete the project (aka you walk out on day 4 or something) you forfeit your whole payment; which is good to avoid having to pay people who douched out on you for a bigger contract, or simply just flaked.

That said here are the differences between the two.

In True form, you are paid a set amount (or percentage) at a set time (or project milestone) where once the time has past you get paid, either a week/month/year later or when the movie is published. Etc, end result is that you eventually (with luck) get paid for services rendered.

In Pseudo form, there is a (good) chance your not going to get paid. Because your payment is linked in some way to the movie making revenue or profit. And as so many films/short etc don't make profit, you don't actually ever get paid. Often there is a threshold of profit (so the producer gets first cut) where a movie needs to make $X amount before the deferred payments are in-fact paid.

So its nice for a Producer to say they are paying "deferred" but you got to be crystal clear on which kind of deferred they are referring too, as many movies have been made for "free" simply because they have never made any money. Now that said, I find that in Ottawa and general discussions in non-LA / non-NY areas more often than not pseudo deferred payments are the majority offered and food and DVD is all you end up with 99% of the time.


Onwards and upwards...

The biggest mistake I see people making here is thinking there is money in shorts.

Personally I hope to make money on my short, will it be a lot? No, but I still hope to get some return even if I do end up losing some money out of the project.

The best thing a producer making a feature can do in hook up with a brilliant marketing person. Filmmakers don't make good marketing people. They need help in this area all too often.

Generally generalizations are not good. I'm also doing the marketing for my films, and although I would not say I'm an expert I have helped out the marketing department in my day-job workplace. I think the issue with filmmakers and marketing is the concept of "if I make it they will come" which isn't true without some form of marketing.

 

[Modern Day Myth Prod. LLC]

First a Comment on Deferred Payment

Deferred Payment is used for a variety of reasons and comes in two forms, lets call them True and Pseudo (yes I just made that up, go with it will you).

In both types the idea is that the producer doesn't have to pay up front for a talent's services in the movie. This is great for the producer because it avoids him having to shell out money early in the production which could effect their cashflow. It also helps because in most "deferred" payment contracts I have seen there is a term within it stating if you don't complete the project (aka you walk out on day 4 or something) you forfeit your whole payment; which is good to avoid having to pay people who douched out on you for a bigger contract, or simply just flaked.

That said here are the differences between the two.

In True form, you are paid a set amount (or percentage) at a set time (or project milestone) where once the time has past you get paid, either a week/month/year later or when the movie is published. Etc, end result is that you eventually (with luck) get paid for services rendered.

In Pseudo form, there is a (good) chance your not going to get paid. Because your payment is linked in some way to the movie making revenue or profit. And as so many films/short etc don't make profit, you don't actually ever get paid. Often there is a threshold of profit (so the producer gets first cut) where a movie needs to make $X amount before the deferred payments are in-fact paid.

So its nice for a Producer to say they are paying "deferred" but you got to be crystal clear on which kind of deferred they are referring too, as many movies have been made for "free" simply because they have never made any money. Now that said, I find that in Ottawa and general discussions in non-LA / non-NY areas more often than not pseudo deferred payments are the majority offered and food and DVD is all you end up with 99% of the time.


Onwards and upwards...


Personally I hope to make money on my short, will it be a lot? No, but I still hope to get some return even if I do end up losing some money out of the project.



Generally generalizations are not good. I'm also doing the marketing for my films, and although I would not say I'm an expert I have helped out the marketing department in my day-job workplace. I think the issue with filmmakers and marketing is the concept of "if I make it they will come" which isn't true without some form of marketing.

The only chance you have of making any income is getting it attached as a collection of shorts or works in a DVD collection. Or, try selling it on Itunes. With an unknown cast and story you just get a handful of small bites.

I'm doing marketing too. But, I'm no expert. But, I'm learning tips from producers who work for studios in that the first rule is to use material with a known track record of making money. And, use names people know. Example: Vampires, robots, cyborgs have made money for Hollywood. For a sequel, I'm introducing a new character who is from Greek and Roman mythology, Artemis, Goddess of the Amazons and the Hunt.

I've studied how tv series did spots to introduce new characters and TV series. And, I will use those ideas to promote the sequel as we are fund raising.

 

[directorik]

I wouldn’t use the word, “pseudo”. I would use the word “spec” as
in speculation.

In the legal world a contract that offered deferred pay would have
a date the payment would be received. The cast and crew are
deferring their payment until a latter date. There is no risk in a
true, legal deferred pay contract.

What most producers who offer “deferred pay” are actually offering
is payment in speculation. They are asking the cast and crew to
take the risk along with them.

Exactly what Graeme is saying - I’m just using a different word.

Personally I hope to make money on my short, will it be a lot? No, but I still hope to get some return even if I do end up losing some money out of the project.

How? I’m sure you’ve done the research. Who is buying short films
for distribution these days? I’m not being argumentative; I’m
genuinely interested in how you hope to make money on your short.

 

[Graeme]

Although I agree that "spec" may be a more right term, I tend not to use it as I see speculation work in terms (in other industries)of: do the work, then if we like it will pay you and use it. Which isn't quite what goes on in a film production as they plan to use your work without potentially paying for it.

 

[directorik]

Although I agree that "spec" may be a more right term, I tend not to use it as I see speculation work in terms (in other industries)of: do the work, then if we like it will pay you and use it. Which isn't quite what goes on in a film production as they plan to use your work without potentially paying for it.

Or you could see it in terms of spec screenwriting. Do the work, then
if the distributor likes it they will pay the producer and you will be paid.
That's exactly what goes on in a film production where cast and crew
are not paid until (if) the project sells.

The writer is risking doing the work that may not pay off. The producer
it taking the same risk. And asking others (cast and crew) to assume the
same risk.

I'm not suggesting you (or anyone) use the term. But writing on spec
and writing for deferred pay are very different. Seems that a (for example)
DP with camera and lights working on spec and working for deferred pay
fall into the same scenario.

 

[Modern Day Myth Prod. LLC]

Or you could see it in terms of spec screenwriting. Do the work, then
if the distributor likes it they will pay the producer and you will be paid.
That's exactly what goes on in a film production where cast and crew
are not paid until (if) the project sells.

The writer is risking doing the work that may not pay off. The producer
it taking the same risk. And asking others (cast and crew) to assume the
same risk.

I'm not suggesting you (or anyone) use the term. But writing on spec
and writing for deferred pay are very different. Seems that a (for example)
DP with camera and lights working on spec and working for deferred pay
fall into the same scenario.

I'm curious.

Which distributors are looking for shorts?

I know sales agents dealing with distributors looking for features. But, no one looking for shorts.

 

[directorik]

I'm wondering the same thing. Graeme?

 

[Modern Day Myth Prod. LLC]

This is an EXCELLENT thread to illustrate why a script should be written with a specific market in mind where it connects to a business plan to recoup money being invested into it.

 

[Cracker Funk]

This is an EXCELLENT thread to illustrate why a script should be written with a specific market in mind where it connects to a business plan to recoup money being invested into it.

I think "should" is a strong word. Different people have different motivations. Some people just want to make an awesome movie, and yeah, they'd like to make money, but that's not their primary goal. Me? I'm not expecting to make a profit off my first feature, at all. Of course I'd like to, and I'm damn well going to try to, but profit was never my primary motivation.

 

[spinner]

But the OP asked about agreeing to work relatively for free and then trying to get money out of the production.
(so, I'm late to the thread, I'm working on a short )

If I am an independent filmmaker, with my own camera, tripod and computer with edit system, and I have an idea for a film, and post for a lo- to no-budget project:
There ain't NO WAY I'm giving my project over to ANYONE for 10% of the final product.

I have and am working on a couple of low budget films. For me to own 10% of something I am for all intensive purposes volunteering for, I wouldn't even begin to ask for that.

I think that maybe gpforet has been working on paid gigs for a long time to even suggest that. When you are, for the most part, considered to be a 'talented amateur', you work for the experience, not what you can squeeze out of a filmmaker who probably is in the same financial boat as you are.

If you volunteer your time, which is what no budget means, then you are a volunteer. You have the right to say you worked on the project and get your name in the credits. You'll probably get fed and a copy of the final product. But that's all you get, and you should have known that going in. If that is not okay with you, then don't agree to work on the project. If you have all that expensive equipment, you probably don't need my little project so what are you even doing here?

Also,
The thing about getting people to do stuff for free, I don't know about contracts. I'm not getting paid so unless its a waiver of some sort... To me, working for free also means you should know the people on your crew. That can be difficult if you don't have a filmmaker group. The I know the people I work with pro bono. We're all trying to scratch out a career in film so we are trying to help each other out so there is commitment there. The problem is people you don't know, who feel that if they aren't being paid, then they don't need to show up.

Indie editors get paid $600 - $2,000 a day? Damn, I live in the wrong city...

In closing, I think that the most you get out of short films is experience and if you are lucky, attention. I only know of one short that made any money. The fact is there are no recognizable actors or directors in most independent shorts. People don't want to pay $20 for the latest theatre release. What is going to make them buy yours? Recognition is what you get from a short film and possibly it will be easier to get your next film made...possibly with a budget.

-- spinner

 

[directorik]

Sorry

 

[Modern Day Myth Prod. LLC]

I think "should" is a strong word. Different people have different motivations. Some people just want to make an awesome movie, and yeah, they'd like to make money, but that's not their primary goal. Me? I'm not expecting to make a profit off my first feature, at all. Of course I'd like to, and I'm damn well going to try to, but profit was never my primary motivation.

Self-distribution is a market too.

There are lots of options.

The options should be considered at the stage of making or considering a script.