Tuesday, November 22, 2011
Hollywood Managers Back New Appeal Challenging Talent Agencies Act
Hollywood Reporter: Siegel, as you might recall, is the manager (now former manager--he left the business) whose case against actress Rosa Blasi (Lifetime's Strong Medicine) challenged the Talent Agencies Act, the California law that says only licensed talent agents can "procure" work in the entertainment business. Other representatives, including managers, may only advise clients on their general careers, and if they are caught procuring jobs, their contracts with clients can be voided and commissions disgourged.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I had to look up some information in order to figure out what was going on, so I present the following to aid fellow commenters:
A manager gives an actor personal attention to shape them and their work in order to get better jobs. They take a cut of any wages the actor makes. An agency is primarily focused on booking a larger body of actors into auditions, also taking a cut whenever the actor gets hired. Under the law, only licensed agents are able to directly make the connections to get an actor hired ("procure" work), and one task of a manager may be to find their client an appropriate agent for their kind of work.
In point of fact, what regulating talent agents does is makes casting for any company using the major unions (SAG, AFTRA, etc) into a "closed shop" essentially for a talent agent's union (the Association of Talent Agents). I can see the opposition's objection to this system - a non-agent manager may be better connected with casting directors and producers than an agent might, and part of their job is to build buzz for their client, but because they must submit their client to an agency to be carried into a CD office, it's adding on a middleman that is unnecessary and a hassle. Additionally, joining the ATA is a major cost and mandates participation in the collective bargaining of the Association (much like a union). However, the other side of the coin is that the licensing and tracking of agents means more open casting practices, which protects actors against shady deals between unmonitored managers and CDs.
I'm interested to see what others have to say about this situation, especially if anyone on here has had interaction with the film/TV industry to provide more context.
This law seems a bit ridiculous and it's a wonder that it hasn't been contested/appealed before now. I have friends that work in the film/TV industry who have told me that their managers are often more helpful in exposing and guiding them than their agents. Some agencies just grow too large and lose track of people. Managers typically do not take on as many clients and are therefore able to devote more time and attention to each client. So why shouldn't they be able to send a client to an audition and help them procure work without the middle-man agent? I doubt that people would just stop using agents if managers were able to legally get them auditions and work. Instead this would just provide them another opportunity to find work on top of using an agent. Managers take a special interest in their clients and should be able to help them, and, in turn, receive the resulting benefits.
Post a Comment