opinion on this "contract" for talent?

Tim O'Connor · March 3, 2008

I got hired to shoot a low budget feature and the producer asked me to look at

this "contract" which a producer no longer with the production had sent to talent

who is being flown to Boston from L.A. and was apparently received agreeably.

I said that I'm not a lawyer but it seemed closer to a memo than a contract and it

also seemed a bit strange compared to what I've seen before.

I suggested that they talk to a lawyer but I'm curious what people think.

*** CONTRACT

2.16.2008

This letter confirms agreement that you will take the part in the film ***. If there is anything about this letter that you do not understand or you wish us to clarify, please do not hesitate to contact us.

1) You agree to be available to work during the filming on March 3rd 2008.

2) You agree that the filming will take place in Massachusetts.

3) You agree that the film *** is the property of *** and ***.

4) We will pay a fee of $1000.00 for your performance in ***, which will be paid on March 3rd 2008.

5)We will aim to ensure that the work day is not longer than 10 hours.

.

7) We will have one million dollars in public liability insurance to cover you during the production.

8) We will provide you with food and refreshments throughout the production.

9) We will pay travel expenses to and from Los Angeles, CA to Boston.

timHealy · March 3, 2008

5)We will aim to ensure that the work day is not longer than 10 hours.

Yeah, sure. And would you like to sell me the Brooklyn Bridge?

Michael Collier · March 4, 2008

5)We will aim to ensure that the work day is not longer than 10 hours.

Thats like saying 'I can't promise we'll try....but we will try to try.'

I think there are some glaring things that should be in there but aren't. First it never specifies that its supposed to be a legal contract. In that regard she could argue that she thought it was a deal memo, not the final contract, and its points would be null in court arguments.

Beyond that....theres one thing I think should be in there that isn't. Where is the likeness usage clause? It seems like for an actors contract there should be something to the effect of 'we are allowed to use your image for any purpose....such as likeness in the film, in advertising and promotions etc' I don't see how you could call that a contract if it never specifies the producers have a right to reproduce her likeness (which would be the main intent of hiring an actress). It also doesn't specify the territory or timetable that her likeness will be exploited in.

There seems to be a lot of holes in that...but also it seems to be a low budget one-day short shoot. I know how ragtag those things can get, especially on the legal side of things, and an informal agreement would be acceptable, as long as she doesn't feel grifted at the end of the day and wants to sue (which if she is made to work more than 10 hours the producers might find themselves in that position.) There has to be a contract that can be adapted somewhere. Most directors I work with have ones made up that they bought out of a kit. Just fill in the names and deal memo points and the basics are already covered.

But I am not a lawyer. Talk to a lawyer and I am sure they could find 20 holes that I missed.

**Edit** I just re-read your post an noticed its a feature not a short. But still the actress apears to be needed only for one day. This contract is all the more worrysome being a feature since that has some chance of backend, where a short is normaly done for someones reel. The more backend, the more legal troubles if the ship isn't water tight.

Edited March 4, 2008 by Michael Collier

Tim O'Connor · March 4, 2008

Thats like saying 'I can't promise we'll try....but we will try to try.'

I think there are some glaring things that should be in there but aren't. First it never specifies that its supposed to be a legal contract. In that regard she could argue that she thought it was a deal memo, not the final contract, and its points would be null in court arguments.

Thanks guys, I agree, which brings me to my next question.

I asked them about the release and they showed it to me, a typical boilerplate one that seemed okay (although again I said

talk to a lawyer.) I did mention that when I've signed releases I've had them adjusted to be more specific because some releases just say you give them permission to use your likeness forever. I ask that that at least be for the scenes

in which I appeared and promotions for the film. Probably unnecessary most of the time but I dislike giving away that type of blanket all encompassing permission.

These folks making this picture are pretty nice and that's why I think that they've been able to get some good people interested in being in their project. That "contract" above was sent out by a member of the production who has been relieved of command I guess and is no longer involved.

Oh yes, my next question is when do people typically sign releases? I sometimes act and it seems I'm usually signing them in the middle of the shoot. Here though, where they're flying somebody from L.A. to Boston for a day (kind of a star cameo to help sell the film I guess) they're investing a lot and yet hypothetically in such a situation they could spend that money and then perhaps have somebody who, if dissatisfied, might not sign a release.

I doubt that will happen but it occurred to me. I've heard that producers have actors sign contracts agreeing to five year commitments if the pilot they shoot gets picked up and have the actors sign before they shoot. Considering the lives of starving actors, and that not all pilots get picked up, it's not surprising that actors would sign but it does seem like they're in a tough spot if that's the only way that they can get to do the job and make some money, even after being cast.

Yeah, that whole we'll see if we can keep it under ten hours is nice but kind of comical. I wouldn't have been surprised if they had received a response requesting some kind of overtime agreement (even if just to motivate the filmmakers to be efficient.) I think that what is helping these people is that they've been described favorably by actors who have already been in this show and who know and are friendly with the next ones to appear, like the one in this discussion.

Have a good night everybody.

Christopher Santucci · March 4, 2008

There are talent contracts and deal memos all over the internet. I don't understand why someone would not use a standard form and rework it as needed rather than come up with something like that. It looks real sketchy and definitely is full of holes legally.

Edited March 4, 2008 by Christopher Santucci

Paul Bruening · March 4, 2008

American contract law requires a specific procedure whether fulfilled orally or in writing. A letter is not a contract. You can't send someone a letter and oblige them to action or result. At most, it could only be considered an offer awaiting a counter offer or other clear reply. As Christopher said, there are contract forms aplenty out there. I scan and OCR some from a popular book on the subject (the name of which I will leave out to avoid copyright problems, a-hem).

Another interesting point to talent contracts is: Actors are farging crazy. Not all, but more than you can even stand. They'll botch up their work and violate that contract as a matter of course. You can be damn sure they'll hound you on your end of the agreement. But, whether you can get them to even show up to the shoot on any given day becomes a constant nightmare. The thing is, if your production isn't big enough it won't have the legal backing to force the actor to fulfill their end. The power it gives you over that nutbag is next to nil. Yet, your whole production can be entangled by that nutbag if they get a predatory attorney after you. What does this mean? That contract is something you have to be fully capable of fulfilling. Yet, it is wise to psychologically prepare yourself that talent can and will walk away from the deal even in the middle of production. Just as commonly, you'll have to fire them. Which is a hard decision to make when half the budget is already spent on their work. You know, sometimes you just have to cut your losses. There's little point in twisting an actor's arm to make them work when they'll just sabotage their performance and leave you with a pile of crap to edit.

If you can get up to a budgetary range high enough, then you can hire actors with experience and known reputations for good and diligent work. That's when that contract starts serving you much better.

Tim O'Connor · March 5, 2008

American contract law requires a specific procedure whether fulfilled orally or in writing. A letter is not a contract. You can't send someone a letter and oblige them to action or result. At most, it could only be considered an offer awaiting a counter offer or other clear reply. As Christopher said, there are contract forms aplenty out there. I scan and OCR some from a popular book on the subject (the name of which I will leave out to avoid copyright problems, a-hem).

Another interesting point to talent contracts is: Actors are farging crazy. Not all, but more than you can even stand. They'll botch up their work and violate that contract as a matter of course. You can be damn sure they'll hound you on your end of the agreement. But, whether you can get them to even show up to the shoot on any given day becomes a constant nightmare. The thing is, if your production isn't big enough it won't have the legal backing to force the actor to fulfill their end. The power it gives you over that nutbag is next to nil. Yet, your whole production can be entangled by that nutbag if they get a predatory attorney after you. What does this mean? That contract is something you have to be fully capable of fulfilling. Yet, it is wise to psychologically prepare yourself that talent can and will walk away from the deal even in the middle of production. Just as commonly, you'll have to fire them. Which is a hard decision to make when half the budget is already spent on their work. You know, sometimes you just have to cut your losses. There's little point in twisting an actor's arm to make them work when they'll just sabotage their performance and leave you with a pile of crap to edit.

If you can get up to a budgetary range high enough, then you can hire actors with experience and known reputations for good and diligent work. That's when that contract starts serving you much better.

I know how can you send somebody a letter and have that constitute an agreement? If so I'm going to send Panavision my

"contract" for leasing a camera for let's say I agree to ten dollars a month.

By the way, I was up over 24 hours ago and I just got in from the ten hour day. I'm not complaining though. Yes, there were delays (talent was late, make-up took a long time) but it was fun and great crew and I got to shoot some cool stuff!