Search form

In the interest of kicking "back-end" and deferral in the NUTS...

3 posts / 0 new
Last post
In the interest of kicking "back-end" and deferral in the NUTS...

In Australia, it is unlikely that we will ever be able to extirpate the tapeworms attempting to rort the talent via "deferral" deals.

However, deferral deals only rort the talent because the contracts allow the shitbags -- oops, sorry, I mean the so-called "writer-directors", ha ha - to write themselves in as a "cost" calculated into the gross expenditures of a project before any net is calculated, often making the "cost" for their services high enough to eat up all monies before BG painters, s'boarders, VO talent, prop-designers etc. get paid.

But a TRUE, TRADITIONAL pari passu contract would not allow for this bullcrap, so...

It occurs to me that if it was passed into law that "deferral deals" HAD to be true pari passu contracts, in which each task performed was an equal part, and share, of an enterprise, and paid equally and at the same time as all other parts and shares, then shitbags would probably not find animation and independent film so attractive.

example of a simple and true pari passu contract:

a short, designed for ferstivals or the (dreaded) Doritos Contest. The shitbag has written a script (hah), "directed" what everyone else has done to bring that script to life (ha bloody ha), sent out e-mails to get everyone on board, and done the paperwork to enter the finished piece into a festival or the new Doritos fiasco-to-come. That's 4 tasks, or 4 shares.

Meanwhile, other people havbe completed:

Prop design
Character design
Alteration of photos
Storyboard cleanup
VO 1
VO 2
Key Animation
Assistant Animation
Sound Editing
(all other) editing
rendering/export/upload of final work for stuff like Doritos, the 180 Project, etc.

This is a bit simplified but it comnes out to 20 tasks/"shares", which makes the proposed math easier, since it means the shitbag can only claim 4 shares since he only performed 4 tasks. Which out of 20 tasks means shitbag would one fifth of any comp-prize money, or development deal, or even viral advertizing monies. Any monies received would have to be paid out amongst all shares equally and at the same time, like a lottery-ticket consortium.

If various funding bodies and grant application bodies and competitions had to adhere to this manner of deal, I think we'd at least see less posts from shitbags posing as "writers" and "comedians" asking for months of free work while thinking they can sell the result to Comedy Central and get "some Matt and Trey" money while being too spineless to animate anything themselves as Matt and Trey did at the beginning.

And I know it's possible to make such changes, since in Oz, it is now illegal for some shitbag Gen Y film student masquerading as a "producer" to apply for funding from Screen Australia, period. This previously was not the case, and was a con job frequently visited upon the unsuspecting animator (or equivalent).

So the door is now open to continue the precept of "no, you little turdling, you don't get top be paid until everyone gets paid, in some way, to some small amount".

And maybe, with the advent of Creative Commons Liscensing (used willy nilly by the Oz Government itself, and also the pommie government ala the Flikrman Project), this could be easier than we might think.

So, what do you think? Ape? B'ini? Ken? Skinny Lizard?

Do any of you know of a FAIR pari passu example that can be used as legal precedent?

Thanks in advance,
all the best,


LoveClassics's picture
[I]I'll work 10 hours a day for $350. Andreas does the photoshop posters for Paramount, gets $700 per day at 7 hours plus an hour off for lunch. You do the math as to which is a better deal.[/I]

[I]I'll work 10 hours a day for $350.

Andreas does the photoshop posters for Paramount, gets $700 per day at 7 hours plus an hour off for lunch.

You do the math as to which is a better deal.[/I]

How do you enforce it?
With any contract, the weight of it is practically in the THREAT of enforcement, far more often than in the actual exercising of enforcement.
The only way a contract can be enforced is if one of the signing parties has the financial clout to bring lawyers into the equation and wring it all through the legal machinery.
Deferred agreements say that there's simply no money for something like that in the first place, so the shitbags are not offering anything of substance and the talent wouldn't have the means to grab the bucks if they get stiffed at the end anyway.
So all the lovely agreements in the world are literally smoke, unless both parties agree they are diamonds instead, or they have said diamonds in a flapjack to smack over the head of the other if it all goes down wrong.

What would work?
I think the only answer is for these folks that claim they can cut deals and make money to actually do so.....instead of fluffing their supposed talents in artists' faces.
Raise the money UP FRONT, have it in hand, have the investors committed to the project, or fuck the hell off.
This kind of approach would apply to almost every other skilled sector, lawyers, plumbers, you name in hand to pay for the work, or go blow.
You do the work, you invoice, and you get paid for the contracted amount.

Sure, deferrals can remain an option, for the folks that have the means to defer pay. Deferrals provide for an interest and investment into a project BUT, the investing parties need to understand the risks involved before signing on.

For inexperienced talent, like new animators etc, voices like ours continuing to educate the unwashed masses about the IDIOCY of deferred pay work is about the biggest safeguard against it happening.

People offering deferrals NOW, because they have NO MONEY now, will likely NEVER have money in the future to pay for work, if its done.
Credits on the project.................pfft........might as well throw in a handjob from Megan Fox as well, right? It means nothing--because the talent can get just as worthwhile a credit working on their own stuff.
( BIG myth dispelled: non-paying credits mean just as much as paying credits early on in your career--so it doesn't matter WHO you work for. Yourself, or someone else. And the bigger laugh is the "portfolio piece" clause........again.....why do you need the shitbag, when you can do that for yourself??))

"We all grow older, we do not have to grow up"--Archie Goodwin ( 1937-1998)

40 views already, a good sign. (I discount my view and yours, Ken, and rounded the figure down from 44)

Later on, I will have to answer your reply, your glorious reply, in dribs and drabs. Because I have to go from "here" in my replies in this thread, and "here" means Oz, which is the "Wild Wild West" in terms of having the freedoms to fuck people over.

Therefore I will apologize in advance for the fact that my replies will be only applicable to The Doritos Contest/the Optus 180 Project (and contests like them, which promised to answer me concerning questions about "scabbing" during the last WGA strike and "are you just using Australia to get around this" questions), Tropfest, Shorts on Screen (formally "Eat Carpet"; yes, a woman who loves the intimate company of women chose THAT name, welcome to the Aussie version of Santa Cruz...),

and of course, so-called "indie" productions that actually suck the uncircumsized SSSSSSSSCHHHHHLLLLLONNNNNNNNNNNNNNNGs of the (barely) regulated funding bodies.

As in films by asswipes that say "sorry, it's all for freeeeeee and the love of film/animation andf none of us get paid" but they apply for funding from ScreenOz and State bodies and THEY get paid but the talent does not.

I will also beg your indulgence for later giving (long) answers in the forms of VO loaded unto youtube because this netbook SHITS ME THE FUCK OFFFFFFF!

(grunt, pant, wheeeeeze)

[I]I'll work 10 hours a day for $350.

Andreas does the photoshop posters for Paramount, gets $700 per day at 7 hours plus an hour off for lunch.

You do the math as to which is a better deal.[/I]