OT: Rates...

I think it's good that Kevin brought up the concern. I don't think we'll get into trouble for what's been said here, but it's always good to be aware of things. Sprocketz' criticism was a bit harsh. Making sure we're in good legal standing is part of watching out for other editors, isn't it?


www.derekmok.com

Occasionally threads pop up here on the Cafe that delve into legal issues such as this one. Trouble is, none of us are qualified to discuss legal issues beyond what we have heard or read somewhere, which doesn't hold real weight in a argument. So while there is no collusion here and this thread is no where close to crafting some conspiracy agreement on wages, go right ahead and discuss wages all you want. Problem is, the Cafe is a not a good forum to do so. I'm not quite sure what forum is.

Michael Horton
-------------------

Apologies if my comment came off too harsh. It just seems as though the idea that "management" so to speak has extra "force of law" behind them is kind of a self defeating way of looking at things.

Television/film producers basically know what they are going to spend when hiring. Some compensate fairly, some don't. But they really don't need any "law" behind them as it's just you and them. You have to get your skill level up to get the bigger money.

I am in L.A. and was just talking to a freelance editor who was running into a lot of offers at around $15/hr. And they want experienced people, not entry level. If you look around at other "media" related forums like graphic design, photography etc., you will see discussions of rates.

There is little danger on these editing forums of collusion on rates. When these conversations come up most people are reluctant to say what their rates are. So there is no fuel to start a fire.

But why, Kevin? You're preferencing anonymous businesses over the people you talk to, hang out with and help daily. Forcing people to keep things secret is almost never a healthy or helpful thing, IMHO.

What is the wording of the law? I really find it hard to believe that it's illegal to talk about what you earn.

Its not illegal. I believe what Kevin meant was colluding with others to set wages. That is illegal. Course in the independent contractor world that is all but impossible.

Michael Horton
-------------------

So it's agreed then, we'll all charge no less than $70,000/hr

Quote

It is not illegal for individuals to discuss these things.

Actually it depends on the way we discuss it...

...I guess you didn't read the link I provided earlier in the thread:

Quote
Excerpt from Wikipedia on Price Fixing [url
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_fixing[/url]]

In the United States, price fixing can be prosecuted as a criminal felony offense under section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act.

In Canada, it is an indictable criminal offence under section 45 of the Competition Act. Bid rigging is considered a form of price fixing and is illegal in both the United States (s.1 Sherman Act) and Canada (s.47 Competition Act). In the United States, agreements to fix, raise, lower, stabilize, or otherwise set a price are illegal per se.

It does not matter if the price agreed upon is reasonable or for a good or altruistic cause; or if the agreement is explicit and formal or unspoken and tacit. In the United States, price-fixing also includes agreements to hold prices the same, discount prices (even if based on financial need or income), set credit terms, agree on a price schedule or scale, adopt a common formula to figure prices, banning price advertising, or agreeing to adhere to prices that one announces.

Although price fixing usually means sellers agreeing on price, it can also include agreements among buyers to fix the price at which they will buy products.

Under American law, exchanging prices among competitors can also violate the antitrust laws. This includes exchanging prices with either the intent to fix prices or if the exchange affects the prices individual competitors set. Proof that competitors have shared prices can be used as part of the evidence of an illegal price fixing agreement.

Experts generally advise that competitors avoid even the appearance of agreeing on price.

Under U.S. law, price fixing is only illegal if it is intentional and comes about via communication or agreement between firms or individuals. It is not illegal for a firm to copy the price movements of a de facto market leader called price leadership, which has been seen to be the case in markets for breakfast cereals and cigarettes. But informal agreements or unspoken agreements to fix price also can violate the antitrust laws. The price-fixing laws apply to industries and professionals, for-profit concerns and non-profits and charities.

The United States Department of Justice Antitrust Division and United States Federal Trade Commission are responsible for enforcing federal price fixing laws; see also Sherman Antitrust Act. The Department of Justice handles both criminal and civil cases. As of 2004 under US law corporations may be fined up to $100 million for criminal price fixing; individuals can be charged and sentenced to prison sentences of up to 10 years for price-fixing violations. The Federal Trade Commission can prosecute firms for price fixing as a civil matter. Many State Attorneys General also bring antitrust cases and have antitrust offices, such as Virginia, New York, and California. Private individuals or organizations can bring their own lawsuits for triple damages for antitrust violations and also recover attorneys fees.

Two books were published about the Archer Daniels Midland (ADM) price-fixing case, that occurred during the mid-1990s, by authors that conducted several years of extensive investigation.

I think Kevin raised a valid point don't berate him for it. (no pun intended )

Honestly how many of you ever bothered to check where you stand legally on any work issue apart from Pay?

Most editors probably don't even know that legally you are responsible for everything that goes into an edit. For instance - say a director asks you to put something in to the edit that maybe copyrighted, who gets it in the neck if it goes out uncleared? You do. No disclaimer (verbal or written) will absolve you of the infringement either.

Read a bit more on this and other things here: [www.lafcpug.org]


Anyway guys you have been warned - if you wish to discuss it without proper legal council thats fine. However I would advise against it as this is a public forum that is searchable through google, etc...



For instant answers to more than one hundred common FCP questions, check out the LAFCPUG FAQ Wiki here : [www.lafcpug.org]

Quote

Most editors probably don't even know that legally you are responsible for everything that goes into an edit.

I am not an expert in this area of the law (especially my friends' laws in the UK), but I am going to disagree with you my friend. If you are hired by a person or company and that person or company provides you with all the elements to enter into an edit, you are CONTRACTED by that person or company as a "work-for-hire". Unless you supply the elements in question or use something that was not physically given to you to use by the people that contracted you, there's no way the editor gets hung here. Same thing as "don't shoot me - I'm just the messenger".

Contracts are a good thing.

When life gives you dilemmas...make dilemmanade.

I did an edit recently where the producer and I advised the client that he was possibly stepping over the line and could be in the realm of slander. He was adamant that the section we wanted to take out remained, so the producer got her lawyer to make up a document that said that he took responsibility for the content, and got him to sign it.

He got sued by a magnate. The magnate came after both of us, but left us alone the minute he saw the signed document.

So, if you're in a place where you don't feel right about the content and you can't make them change their mind, at the very least, try getting them to officially sign you out of any responsibility.

Yes, Jude...on the money. Sometimes a client asks me to go online to pull a celebrity photo to add to their piece. I immediately remind them that if they don't give it to me, I don't supply it and I remind them of the dangers of adding copyrighted material without clearance. As an editor, it IS your responsibility to AT LEAST bring possible legal issues to the attention of the client and if they insist, GET A SIGNED DOCUMENT that states you are just "following orders" as a contracted "work-for-hire".

When life gives you dilemmas...make dilemmanade.

Joey, as far as I am aware copyright law doesn't work like that - they'll sue all parties involved.

Quote


If I was given the music by the person whom I?m doing the work for, I?m just in the middle and doing what they tell me to do. I?m indemnified. I even have them sign a paper that says I?m indemnified.

FALSE. This is somewhat like a driver saying, ?The bank robber signed a piece of paper that said if we get caught, I?m just an innocent bystander and it?s his responsibility.? In the first place, having a client sign such a paper shows that you are at the least peripherally aware of the laws, and have tried to circumvent your responsibility. That won?t help and might hurt you in a legal forum. Second, if you are party to illegal copying in any way, you can be held liable. (1989 Basic Books, Inc. v. Kinko's Graphics Corp) Fonovisa v Cherry Auction)

Now it might be that you get an Assistant, Producer or Director to get the permission but you ultimately are the creator of the edit and responsible for the content and so must make sure you have the permission to use any copyrighted material.



For instant answers to more than one hundred common FCP questions, check out the LAFCPUG FAQ Wiki here : [www.lafcpug.org]

Quote

He got sued by a magnate. The magnate came after both of us, but left us alone the minute he saw the signed document.

I would guess an edit that might be slanderous using footage that was originated by the producer might be looked at differently compared to using copyrighted media without permission.

Not quite the same but you were right to get the disclaimer.



For instant answers to more than one hundred common FCP questions, check out the LAFCPUG FAQ Wiki here : [www.lafcpug.org]

Quote
Derek
I think it's good that Kevin brought up the concern. I don't think we'll get into trouble for what's been said here, but it's always good to be aware of things. Sprocketz' criticism was a bit harsh. Making sure we're in good legal standing is part of watching out for other editors, isn't it?

Quote
Ben K
I think Kevin raised a valid point don't berate him for it. (no pun intended )

Thanks Ben and Derek. Indeed, it is important. I can also understand why a LAFCPUG colleague might misunderstand my intentions.

My concern over talking about rates is from the perspective of a User Group leader, as I am the founder of SF Cutters--the very first FCPUG of its kind. You, as users have nothing to worry about. It is the leader of the group that is liable for any legal indiscretions.

This post is fairly harmless, of course, but it is just going down the wrong road from the perspective of someone that wants to protect him/herself (as a UG leader, like Mike--BTW, Hi Mike!) from the long arm of the law. My intention was to help Mike out here, not to be a jerk. "What are you guys charging?" "What should we charge?" is language that can be misconstrued (particularly in a trade user group environment), no matter how harmless it sounds.

IMHO, all User Groups should incorporate or find a way to reduce liability to nil. For instance, if someone slips and falls at a SF Cutters meeting--I get sued. We purchased insurance to prevent this from happening. We also have certain policies to prevent other liabilities.

I hope this makes more sense to you now. If not, PM me on the side. I can explain further if you like.

Kevin Monahan
Social Support Lead, DV Products
Adobe
Adobe After Effects
Adobe Premiere Pro
Adobe After Effects and Premiere Pro Community Blog
Follow Me on Twitter!

Don't sellers of products and services freely publish and advertise what they charge? Why ought video editors be barred from doing the same? "Collusion" would apply only if a group of vendors entered into a pact to charge a customer the same amount for their goods or services.

$500 seems to be the minimum per-diem rate for basic FCP editing in my area. Editors who do special effects work are paid considerably more. When using my equipment, I add $300 per day.