King and I reviews?

Lianna wrote:
>
> Thanks for this response - good to hear your experiences. I
> would just like to make the point that "pro/am" in this case
> does not apply to the cast but rather the the support team
> and I believe most of these are expenses only. None of the
> cast are being paid and all accepted their roles as chorus or
> principal knowing that they wouldn't be. The "pro" part of it
> would apply to the professional stature of some cast and crew
> rather than the normal fee attached to such work.



Thanks for clarifying. But I'd suggest "Volunteer" is a much clearer and more accurate (not to mention drawing a more sympathetic response) term to use for all unpaid personnel.

The term 'Pro/Am' gets bandied about a lot, usually in reference to sporting tournaments.
In theatre shows, we hear it used the way you just did, to denote the varied experience status of the cast, or perhaps because some are paid while some are not.

But there is actually no such thing as 'pro/am rights' to a show...you either buy the professional rights, or the (much discounted) amateur rights. There's no in-between. So if a show is not paying most of it's volunteers, and qualifies to pay amateur rights, it's an amateur show...even if you had Hugh Jackman in the cast.

Legally, I was under the impression that volunteer workers for any organization were still covered by an industry code of practice that included things like public liability insurance (technically, as an unpaid volunteer, are you part of the public?). Being required to pay a fee to cover the insurance still sounds to me like an infringement. But then again, insurance laws have gone so crazy the past few years I don't really know what is required.

Can anyone with the full facts please get back to me on my email? Cast, crew, management....your confidentiality will be respected. I'd just like to understand the proper story!


Cheers,
Craig

crgwllms@bigpond.com

[%sig%]