If an actor’s picture appears in a movie as a character, say a shot from a previous movie in the series, but the actor himself does not actually do any acting in the movie, does he normally get paid?
The specific case that I’m thinking of: (minor spoiler for Half Blood Prince)
In the movie there’s a picture of Lucius Malfoy in a newspaper, and Voldemort appears very briefly in Harry’s vision when he touches the ring. Neither character makes any other appearance in the movie. Clearly both those shots were footage from previous films, and neither Jason Isaacs nor Ralph Fiennes appears in the credits. Are they required to be paid anyway by SAG rules, or are the studios in the clear using the previous footage?
I saw Judge Wapner say he got paid for Rainman and he wasn’t in that movie, they just talked about him. Did they show a clip from the People’s Court as well? I can’t recall.
Based on that I would say you get paid if your picture is in the movie.
If you are hired for a film and your scene is cut, you still get paid, since you are paid before the film gets to the editing process. My aunt got paid to perform music in one scene of the film, but it was cut from the final release, so she was never shown (it can be heard faintly in the background of one scene).
As for your image, it depends on the situation. I know cases where clips of movies were shown for no additional payment (like The Terror in Targets, or the clip of Errol Flynn as Robin Hood in a Bugs Bunny cartoon*), but usually the clips were from films owned by the same studio. It also will depend on the contract the actor has signed.
*In neither case would the budget allow for extra payments.
I know a kid whose picture was taken to appear as the child version of the adult actor in the film (no idea why they didn’t just get the actor to provide a photo of himself as a child). Naturally the kid got paid for his time. I don’t know if a famous person whose image happens to appear in frame would be compensated.
There was a movie that came out with Martha Plimpton as a cancer patient in a hospital with Jamie Gertz as her hospital roomie. She referred to her boyfriend a few times and there was a picture of the two of them on her night stand. It was a picture of Plimpton and her then real-life boyfriend, River Phoenix.
I suppose an actor could make the case for his likeness being used, if they wanted to, but in that case I’d expect it was more of an in-joke and no one bothered. I don’t know about shots that have actors posing as family members.
First production compensation: this is getting paid to pose, get photoed, whatever. Certainly if an actor is hired so a photo can be taken of him, then that time is compensated, even if the photo is not used. That is being paid for the work you do when you do it. It’s hourly work.
Second would be residuals. Most actors don’t get residuals, do they? Only whatever their contract covers, which if they aren’t a big star, probably is a one-time wage for production costs. Now writers and production people should get residuals, but I don’t think actors are paid that way.
So using previously filmed footage of an actor in a new movie, probably not grounds for more payment. Using a prior photo the production company owns, probably not grounds. Asking for a new photo, or taking a photo, yes. New work equals new contract.
palindromemordnilap said:
Off the top of my head, the director/producers wanted a specific shot with a specific background. Using real actor photos can be a mixed bag (do you really have a photo of you as a kid wearing a specific ball cap? Jumping rope? Sitting on a log by a campfire?) It allows them control over the costume, props, lighting, etc in the picture to create the exact scene they want. Also, it may be that an actor looks substantially different now. Maybe he was chubby as a kid, but then became a thin adult (Wil Wheaton anyone?). Maybe she got a nose job. Maybe the person had glasses, then got contacts or surgery. Does the character have to have the same history as the actor?
TV shows have paid residuals since the late 60s. Don’t know if that applies to all actors but I know it does for the stars.
When Seinfeld was coming out on DVD the actors other than Seinfeld said they would not promote the DVDs since they were not getting any money. They ended up getting paid so they went on shows to plug the DVDs. Since DVDs are fairly knew I think they are not covered under many contracts.
I can’t give you an exact answer, but I do know that in Hot Fuzz, a picture of Nick Frost as a child was used to create a family picture of the Buttermans, and in Spaced, the pictures of Tim and Daisy as children were pictures of Simon Pegg and Jessica Hynes.
I think it would depend on the quality of the photos and the resemblence. Many people look very different as adults to what they did as children, until I was 7 or 8, I had red hair and my eye colour was light brown, and my hair was much less straight then it is now. Now brown haired, brown eyed, I don’t think anyone would make the connection easily.
So that could well be what decides, if the actors own picture is used or somebody else is.
I don’t know if the use of an existing photo (not one shot especially for the movie) would necessarily require paying the actor, but it is necessary to get the actor’s permission. I don’t know the legal details, but I’ve occasionally heard this issue mentioned in the director’s commentaries on DVDs.
For instance, in Donnie Darko (set in the '80s) there’s a scene where Donnie fantasizes about Christina Applegate, and he has a poster of her in his room. According to director Richard Kelly, the script originally called for the TV starlet to be Alyssa Milano, but she refused permission. Applegate was reportedly happy to allow her name and likeness to be used. Bend it Like Beckham director Gurinder Chadha mentioned in the commentary to that movie that soccer stars David Beckham and Mia Hamm were very nice about allowing the use of their names and photos.
Jason Issacs is a huge Harry Potter fan, and reportedly asked Rowling to bring back Lucius Malfoy for the 7th book so he could be in the movie, so I don’t think he would have a problem with his image being used.
If it’s a throw-a-way shot where the camera is merely scanning the room most likely not. If it’s intentional or integral to the plot probaby yes, and they also probably seek permission.
But not necessarily because they have to. Movies want desperately to make a profit and they won’t do anything that will hinder that. If I put a picture of a living celebrity and he doesn’t like it, chances are if the movie’s a hit, he’ll be asked about it. If he doesn’t like it, he may say “Yeah that movie sucks.” Now no one wants someone integral to the plot to say that.
Fans are often loyal to a fault. Imagine the TV show Night Court, which had a throw-a-way joke of Harry liking Mel Torme. If Torme didn’t like that he coud’ve easily just said “That show sucks,” that would’n’t have went over well and many of Torme’s fans would’ve turned the show off. Obviously whether or not Mel Torme liked the show isn’t relevant, the point is, it was a popular show and great advertising for Torme’s career. Especially for generations who never heard of him. I use Torme as an example 'cause Harry would often have a picture of Mel Torme with him in some form.
It is illegal to profit from someone’s likeness without their permission. This case usually comes up when photographers don’t bother to get model releases, but it would also be applicable here.
In fact, an early plot point in Alien3 included having an alien burst out of the chest of the space marine that survived the previous movie. They planned to use a dummy rather than hire the Michael Biehn to reprise his role. When Biehn found out he threatened to sue the producers for using his likeness without compensation. They also used his picture in a computer sequence, and he was reportedly paid more than he had received for his role in Aliens.
Purely anecdotal, but when me and Mrs. Lebeef were on Trading Spaces, the producers made us take down some photos I hav of Jr. Brown, Steve Martin, The Ramones, The Dead Kennedy’s and Linda Ronstadt.
They claimed they could be sued by the artist is even a picture appeared on screen. Seemed a little overkill to me, but YMMV.
