Please advice - bit of a problem

[tikka]

Hi
Just supposing your child applied for a part in a short film, advertised on a little local site, they got the part, spent 2 hours being filmed, then at the end of the session they were given cash for their time. Slight problem with no licence, but you just think of the cash as covering your travelling expenses and chaperone time. Then you discover that the job they did is actually appearing on a big internet site advertising a product (nice, healthy product, nothing to worry about there).

Then you hear the director has been asked to turn it into a tv ad, but nothing comes of it. Phew! Then you get an email saying the company are using the ad and its just been on tv that very evening , and they will send you release forms later, and can you invoice them so you can receive a further payment, but it could take months to arrive as the company are a bit slow?

What would be the best thing to do? Do you worry about the licence, perhaps talk to your licence dept, talk to your new agent about it and see what they say, maybe ask them to sort out the invoice.......or do nothing.

Be lovely to get a few suggestions.

Thanks

[bruno2]

I would speak to Agent before you do anything, sounds complicated but exciting doesnt it and you dont want to loose out so take your time.

[tikka]

Thanks Bruno.

Must have happened to other people. You do 2 hours of film work for 'experience', no pay so no licence....then a year later it apppears on tv and they offer you money for it.

[pg]

Hi there

Yes. I'd agree, talk it over with your agent. This is the kind of thing they can excel at and it will obviously be worth their while to try to negotiate a good deal for you.

I shouldn't worry too much about the licence. It's water under the bridge now. As far as I'm aware, it is the production company's responsibility to get a licence (they should have done so if they were filming and there was ever the possibility that it would have a commercial future). I expect they will want to keep it quiet that they did not do so!

[tikka]

Thanks PG.

I suppose the licence is issued for the actual days of production, rather than what happens in the future. I'll phone the agent on monday and let them sort it out - I'll be happy for them to get the commission in exchange for some piece of mind!

[bcnups]

Forgive my ignorance. But I'm really interested in the answer. Don't the producers/film company have to apply to the local Education Authority for a performing licence for a juvenile, whether work is paid, expenses only,or unpaid, and whether on a school day or weekend?

[pg]

I'm no expert on the legislation but my view is:

In theory, yes. However, different LEA's seem to interpet the rules in all sorts of ways - and of course there are companies/producers who just ignore the rules anyway. In the case quoted I would say there would be very little doubt that they SHOULD have applied for a licence.

The payment/non-payment issue is a complete red herring, although it's often wrongly used as a reason for not applying for a licence. As I understand it, any filming that will be shown in public, or where there is any commercial intent, whether or not the actors are paid, means that a licence is needed. There are times when a licence is not needed for stage performances - though the interpretation of these rules seems to vary from LEA to LEA as well. I've even had different answers from the same LEA depending upon who I've talked to!

The licence isn't needed in order to show the film, as far as I know. The whole idea of the licence - as I understand it - is to prevent children being exploited and/or overworked and to ensure that they are properly chaperoned etc. The regulations are a bit of a mess, but I suspect sorting them out won't happen any time soon as they won't be regarded as a priority.