Britain clamps down on fringe and profit share theatre.

"As far as MEAA is concerned"....it's a little bit like the Police containment policy for brothels. They're technically illegal, but everyone realises they exist, and so they try to monitor and manage them as well as they can. Co-ops are the same. Technically, they don't exist under MEAA professional guidelines. The fact that there is now a recommended contract to use doesn't make them any more legitimate; it is simply a best-practise method of dealing with an existing situation. A production does not become professional until, amongst other things, it pays professional rates. If you don't consider your production amateur, it must fall into a gray area. I'm aware that MEAA has a contract template that they recommend for so-called 'theatrical co-ops'...I was on the Equity committee when then WA Secretary Peter Woodward put a lot of effort into creating the documents that were then submitted at a National level. So yes, if you are adhering to these, that is best industry practice under those circumstances. The problem occurs because even though he developed these to try and account for the type of business relationship in theatre that calls itself a co-op (recognising that they existed for members even though nothing in professional Equity contracts allowed for such dealings), in actual fact they are still not legally defined as a co-op (ie an entity owned and democratically controlled equally by its members). Usually these theatrical associations are not formally defined at all, and so by default the best broad legal definition most of them fall under is a 'partnership'. The problems occur not only in the arena of how any profits are divided among its members, but perhaps more importantly, who is liable for any debts and how liability insurance is accounted for. It was discovered that, even without any formal contract, if you were considered a partner in a co-op that suddenly incurred a massive debt, you and your assets could be seized to pay those debts, along with those of all the other partners...poor unsuspecting actors who simply wanted to play a role. So the question was no longer about whether you might not get paid for your efforts (which many were prepared to shrug off) but whether you might lose your house to pay for someone's bad debt or insurance liability (say if someone was critically injured during the run) - a far more sobering financial commitment! The argument I put forward earlier to Mike was in response to his stance of 'Let the buyer beware' when forming a (formal or informal) contract. But it really ought to be extended to 'Let the buyer be AWARE'...there are heaps of serious pitfalls you may unwittingly fall into, without even realising they exist. The British Equity crackdown is I'm sure, not JUST about wages - which, even if inadequate, are usually dealt with up front - but about CONDITIONS, which could potentially be a far more volatile and expensive situation. Good luck. Cheers, Craig ~<8>-/====\---------