For two reasons.

First, the performer seeks to right to be compensated for uses of the Film not specifically agreed at the point of engagement.

The Australia Council undertook a survey of performers earnings in 2003.  This survey indicated average performer incomes in Australia were $10,500 per year-well below the poverty line.  Australia is not alone when it comes to performer poverty.  In Canada average performer incomes are less than $13,000 Canadian per year and the Screen Actors Guild reports in the US their members average incomes are less than $10,000 US per year.

The other often quoted figure on this point is that on any one day 95% of performer will be unemployed.  Nor is Australia alone here.  A vibrant performing arts and audio-visual industry requires a large pool of unemployed performers to be ready and able to audition for work and to commence work often at short notice.

The restrictions agreed with the producers in the Alliance’s standard agreements protect the right of performers to achieve additional compensation for example in the following circumstances:

• A clip of the film in which the performer performed is used in an advertisement for Coca-Cola; or
• A clip of the film in which the performer performed is used in a sequel to the film.

Many other uses obviously are possible.

Just as we don’t see lawyers who earn considerably higher average incomes than performers,  agreeing that the legal precedents they have created should be available for free and for manipulation by third parties similarly performers seek additional payment for additional uses of their work.

It is not unreasonable to expect that a performer should have the right to a living wage and to be compensated fairly where the work in which they have performed has been used in a way not specifically agreed at the time of engagement.

Such uses also have the potential to impact negatively on the ability of the performer to earn income.  There is a common and incorrect assumption that all publicity is good publicity.  In advertising, for example, if a performer’s image is used in one campaign for one client it would be highly unusual for another client to be prepared to use the same performer in its campaign.  The universal practice now is to require the performer to disclose any advertising campaign in which they are involved at the time of audition.

But it is not simply or even primarily about money because the agreement also permits the performer to refuse consent to such uses.

This brings us to the second reason the rights have been sought. The performer demands respect for the professional performance they have delivered. 

For many years performers laboured with the revoicing of Australian films for the US market. There is little interest from professional performers in revisiting these issues.  Similarly the right to have blooper material remain on the cutting room floor.  After all which lawyer amongst us would like every draft letter we have prepared circulated for comment and manipulation by our colleagues.

Again, while not the primary consideration here, where a performer is portrayed in a negative light as a result of such manipulations of the performer’s performance this also has the potentially to impact negatively on the performer’s ability to earn income.