|
  |
 |
Book Updates / Industry News |
 |
|
January 2008Chapter 4 in The Business of Acting ("The Business of Talent Representation: Dealing With the Muddy Waters of Association") addresses the issues surrounding the search for, the securing of, and the maintenance required for representation by an agent, a manager or both. The chapter also alerts readers that we live in changing times, where the "landscape" is concerned and that being a well-informed actor on the subject is key to running a successful business. Change is inevitable -- and often that can be a good thing for all concerned. A piece of the "inevitable" just occurred. Some significant changes in the business of talent management became law today (1/29/08), following a California State Supreme Court ruling which has helped to define both the role of a talent manager and the landscape in which we represent clients. As reporter Josh Friedman wrote in today's Los Angeles Times:
The court said the state's labor commissioner could void manager-talent contracts in their entirety over unlicensed procurement -- or decide to sever unlawful acts and partially enforce the deals. Talent managers are integral to guiding the careers of their clients, but they are barred from procuring employment for them. That task is the purview of licensed talent agents. But the differing roles aren't always sharply defined, and the work that managers and agents perform on behalf of their clients can overlap. As a result of the ruling, however, it will be harder for performers to sue managers using the Talent Agencies Act to invalidate their contracts if the manager procured employment. The decision involves a long-running dispute between actress Rosa Blasi of the Lifetime TV series "Strong Medicine" and her former manager, Rick Siegel of Marathon Entertainment. Siegel said Monday that lawyers had been making "a cottage industry" out of using the act to get their artist clients out of paying millions of dollars to their former managers. "This is a huge step forward in correcting an abuse," he said. "On a scale of zero to 100, we were at zero until today, but now we're at 90." Attorney Michael J. Plonsker, whose Santa Monica firm Dreier Stein Kahan Browne Woods George represents Blasi, said he was "disheartened that the court has seen fit to strip the act of the deterrent mechanism -- namely, automatic voiding of the illegal talent agency contract in its entirety -- that has stood for 40 years." But Plonsker said he was pleased that the court, at the same time, rejected Siegel's contention that managers were exempt from the Talent Agencies Act, which states that only licensed agents can secure employment for their clients. If Siegel had prevailed on that point, it could have led to managers competing head-to-head with agents in finding work for entertainers, the attorney said. Plonsker said he hoped that the Legislature would amend the act to establish a "bright-line and harsh deterrent." In its ruling, the court suggested that lawmakers might want to clarify or revise the act. The law, which took effect in 1979, is designed to protect performers from unscrupulous advisors. "In the last 10 years there has been a growing concern about how to keep the fly-by-night types out while recognizing that bona fide managers perform a proper function and should be compensated for it," said Bill Grantham, an entertainment lawyer at Greenberg Traurig in Santa Monica. The Blasi dispute began in 2003 when Marathon sued the actress over unpaid commissions, and she responded by alleging that the manager had acted as an unlicensed talent agent by illegally procuring work for her. Blasi had fired Marathon two years after she became a regular on the show. The Supreme Court determined that the underlying cases contained a "genuine dispute of material facts over whether severability might apply to allow partial enforcement" of the contract. The decision upheld a 2006 appellate court ruling in the case, which found that the court and labor commissioner could sever illegal acts from contracts between a manager and talent. The case will be sent back to the labor commissioner and a lower court for further proceedings. • • • This decision has implications for managers and actors alike. As I wrote in The Business of Acting Blog this morning: This ruling is, indeed, a step in the right direction, (however), as a talent manager for more than 25 years, the issue and ruling currently on the table fail to address one very key issue in the landscape in which many of us conduct business, and that is: what about those actors who either can't find a talent agent to represent them or those who choose to have only a manager represent them? Remember, whether agent or manager, it is the client who hires us. We work for them. With about (roughly) 110,000 members of the Screen Actors Guild, tens of thousands of AFTRA members and countless of other non-union actors, there are simply not enough agents in the business of acting to represent all of the actors who seek representation. It is this imbalance that necessitates that managers do a lot of the same (sales) work previously associated with agents alone, in addition to the 'career development' we allow 'allowed' to do. The truth is that no actor who seeks a manager wants that manager to do anything less than everything they can do to get them and keep them working, whether or not an agent is a part of their bigger picture. The unions and the law ought to embrace our efforts. Whereas the unions earn semi-annual dues based on how much an actor earns during a given reporting period, why should they care who is involved with getting that actor work as long as the actor pays what they owe? We are not a threat to the talent agency community. Many of us do work hand-in-hand in the representation of some clients. But many of us also work with actors who are flying solo. We all need protection on that journey: The actor needs to be secure in the legitimacy of their manager and the manager needs assurance that they will be paid for their work. This isn't really much of an issue when an actor is young, new and/or struggling. It's when that rare commodity of success strikes that, for some of them, things can start to look a little different in that albeit often temporary light that bounces off a contract to work. The landscape will continue to change. Be a responsible, smart actor. Stay top of these issues that directly impact you in the pursuit and growth of your career.
Brad Lemack Los Angeles, California 1/29/08
November 2007Things change in the business of acting daily, particularly in the current landscape in which we do business: Strikes, new technology, changes in industry rules and regulations. No book could be this current. That's one of the reasons behind the creation of our Business of Acting Blog. In between the publication of new editions of the book with material that is as current as possible at the time of publication, I want to suggest that you sign up to receive our free Blog and/or check it out regularly as a visitor to this site. While new postings are not on a daily basis, they are created as-needed or on an "I have something to say now" basis, offering up information and perspective that I hope will be both interesting to read and helpful to you along the process of your career journey. We also publish comments from readers and address specific questions that are send in. So, in between any updates you read hear, please make the Blog one of your go-to resources in the business of acting. Brad Lemack Los Angeles, California 1108/07
December 2005Head shots: When the second printing of The Business of Acting was released in October 2002, I had no idea that advances in technology would impact the lives of actors so dramatically, so quickly. Certainly, I couldn’t have predicted, to my tremendous enthusiasm now, the boon to resources available to actors through such services as Actors Access and L.A. Casting (see our Resources page for links to these services) that have quickly become indispensable tools for the empowered actor. Let me not leave managers and agents out of this discussion, either. The technology has also drastically and dramatically changed the way we conduct business, too. Electronic submissions have taken over the commercial business with rare exception; electronic submissions now make up more than half (or three quarters, depending on the day or time of the year) of theatrical submissions. Soon, all theatrical submissions will, no doubt, be handled electronically and I couldn’t be happier. Since I first wrote Chapter six in the book, “The Art of the Head Shot: A Picture is Worth a Thousand Words … and a Career,” that industry has changed dramatically, as well. When I first wrote in that chapter that the quality of digital photography hadn’t yet proved itself to me as reason to switch from film to digital for a photo session, that was true at that time. Since then, with very little exception, most professional head shot photographers have all but abandoned film for digital – and I couldn’t be happier about that, too. The leaps and bounds in the technology in such a short period of time has been astounding. All of my clients have had new digital photo sessions and the results have been stunning and beneficial. These advances apply, too, to the business of head shot reproductions. I have seen digital lithos with quality and richness equal to the best color film shots I have ever seen. I’m sold. For quality, cost, and ease of use, there is now no other way to go than digital. One of the things I like most about digital photo sessions is that the actor usually leaves the session with a disk containing all of the shots taken. No more waiting with nervous anticipation for a week while your proof sheets are processed from the photographer’s negatives and delivered to you. Quality in reproductions is assured to be as close to the original shot as possible (the processing lab’s quality standards not withstanding) because the reproduction image is made from the digital file, not a copy of the original print. The days of airbrushing and touch-ups are gone now, too, replaced with the careful use of Photoshop where and as appropriate. The same rules apply: only “clean up” a shot and only minimally at that, if at all. Got a pimple the day of your photo session that’s not usually there? It’s okay to have your photographer remove it in Photoshop. But, absolutely never, ever, go for the electronic face-lift by removing anything from your shot that prevents the real you, who you are now, what you look like now, from being instantly recognized from your shot when you walk in for an interview or audition. Unions: Chapter 8, “Unions and Actors,” discusses the requirements necessary to join the unions, including the dues and initiation fees. These fees have risen since the publication of the second edition and significant other changes are in the offing as the unions look for new ways to serve their working members. I encourage you to use this chapter as a jumping off point to seek more current information. It is doubtful that the basics of union membership will drastically change, but a visit to their Web sites (you’ll find links on our Resources page) will guarantee you the latest information when you are ready for it. Resources: Lastly, as any list is created and printed, it quickly can become dated as information changes after publication, Our resources chapter in the book, Chapter 14 (“Helpful Web Sites, Online Services & Other Resources for Actors”) has experienced some of these after-publication changes that will be revised for the next addition of the book. In the meantime, you will find a current, up-to-date listing of resources on our Resources page. If you experience any difficulty with any of these listings, please let us know. Thanks for visiting us and best wishes for success all along your journey in the business of acting. Brad Lemack |