|
OT: Rates...Posted by AaronHAL9000
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.
Actually it depends on the way we discuss it... ...I guess you didn't read the link I provided earlier in the thread:
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]
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.
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]
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]
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.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
|
|