This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/culture/australia-culture-blog/2014/apr/29/the-kylie-minogue-case-underlines-that-creatives-should-be-paid

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
The Kylie Minogue case underlines that creatives should be paid The Kylie Minogue case underlines that creatives should be paid
(4 months later)
A furore A furore has erupted over the pay rates, or lack thereof, offered to dancers working on Kylie Minogue’s new video. According to Arts Hub, a US-based video company sent a request to Australian agents for talent to support the video, I was Gonna Cancel, as follows:
has erupted over the pay rates, or lack thereof, offered to dancers working on We are looking for talent of all ages between 20-60 years with interesting faces, dancers are preferable but not a must. As our budget is constrained there will be no payment however we are looking to feature as many faces as possible. This will be a great opportunity for exposure.
Kylie Minogue’s new video. According to Arts Hub, a US-based video In the ensuing outcry, it seems that payment may have been forthcoming for some of the performers. The Sydney Morning Herald reports that "some dancers were [then] offered $100 for their performance. The union is seeking $200 – which the union said was the legal minimum, but still short of the industry standard of $550". Minogue herself tweeted "OF COURSE all were paid ... contrary to reports" – but didn't specify what the payment was.
company sent a request to Australian agents for talent to support the video, I The use of unpaid or underpaid labour is endemic in the creative industries. While freelance writing rates of $878 a day are listed on the Australian Society of Authors webpage, many outlets do not pay contributors at all. My own experience suggests that, where outlets do pay, rates vary from $60 to $300 for around 800 words. Shared content agreements mean that a writer’s work can be reproduced in other forums, but the writer is paid only once.
was Gonna Cancel, as follows: It’s hard to imagine another industry so audacious in its exploitation of labour. Were I to follow in my father’s footsteps and become a mechanic, you can imagine the response if I asked that my workshop be kitted out for free. So how is it that the arts and media can hum along on unpaid work?
We For all it’s been pilloried, the "exposure business model" thrives in Australian creative industries. Australia, it’s suggested, is an aggressively anti-intellectual country; wary of dance and painting and theatre as elitist and a touch too sexually ambiguous for our liking. Perhaps this accounts for the poor or nonexistent remuneration of our artists.
are looking for talent of all ages between 20-60 years with interesting faces, There’s truth in this, but only up to a point. In fact our national stereotype belies how keen we are on culture. We’re regular users of libraries and prepared to mobilise when they are threatened by government bean-counters. Our writers' festivals are well attended and we have a prospering literary magazine culture.
dancers are preferable but not a must. As our budget is constrained there So why this prevalent reluctance to pay artists? Is it that the last time most of us took crayons and interpretive dance seriously was in primary school so in our hearts we suspect that artists have never really grown up? In the meantime, it’s only fair and reasonable that we indulge their creative pretensions with the equivalent of pocket money: a rider for the band, a reference for the unpaid intern and, above all, the ubiquitous lolly of "exposure".
will be no payment however we are looking to feature as many faces as possible. The promise of exposure assumes that creatives are novices just starting out on their careers. But the fact is that many artists are highly trained, experienced and recognised. One of Australia’s most eminent critics, Kerryn Goldsworthy, is often exhorted to provide free content. And do you think Minogue’s team would have been happy with novices who’d just mastered a clap on the downbeat?
This will be a great opportunity for exposure. Lest it seem I think the blame lies squarely with exploitative companies, I don’t. We creatives have to shoulder some of the responsibility too. We’re snookered by our love of performing. An audience that responds with likes and shares is better than no audience at all. And we tell ourselves that it’s only for a short time. Until, like Angela Meyer whose blog Literary Minded was picked up by Crikey, our (free) brilliance is recognised and finally rewarded with a pay cheque. (And good luck to Meyer. She’s awesome).
In the ensuing outcry, it seems that But while content is available for nothing, why pay for it? Moreover, what effect does freely available content have on our capacity to recognise an informed opinion from an uninformed one? I’ve a deep knowledge in the narrow sea of my own expertise, but when I venture beyond that I want the opinions of people who know vastly more than me. It takes time and patience to sift the expert from the novice, the polemicist from the troll. Most of us look to reputable critics to do the vetting on our behalf. When outlets start undercutting each other by refusing to pay for expertise, how long can the reputable survive?
payment may have been forthcoming for some of the performers. The Sydney Morning Herald reports that "some In writing this I am fully aware of my own hypocrisy. I have, and occasionally still do, contribute content for free. I can give you a well-reasoned and articulate rationale for why I’ve done so but that doesn’t change the fundamental fact that I’m part of the debasement I’m railing against.
dancers were [then] offered $100 for their performance. The union is seeking So no more. If you want me to do the writerly equivalent of gyrate around your hot pants, Kylie, you can bloody well pay me for it.
$200 – which the union said was the legal minimum, but still short of the
industry standard of $550". Minogue herself tweeted "OF COURSE all
were paid ... contrary to reports" – but didn't specify what the payment
was.
The use of unpaid or
underpaid labour is endemic in the creative industries.
While freelance writing rates of $878 a day are listed on the Australian Society of
Authors webpage, many outlets do not pay contributors at all. My own experience suggests that, where outlets do pay, rates vary from $60 to $300 for
around 800 words. Shared content agreements mean that a writer’s work can be
reproduced in other forums, but the writer is paid only once.
It’s hard to imagine another industry so
audacious in its exploitation of labour. Were I to follow in my father’s
footsteps and become a mechanic, you can imagine the response if I asked that my
workshop be kitted out for free. So how is it that the arts and media can hum along
on unpaid work?
For all it’s been
pilloried,
the "exposure business model" thrives in Australian creative industries.
Australia, it’s suggested, is an aggressively
anti-intellectual country; wary of dance and painting and theatre as
elitist and a touch too sexually ambiguous for our liking. Perhaps this accounts for the poor or
nonexistent remuneration of our artists.
There’s truth in this, but only up to a point.
In fact our national stereotype belies how keen we are on culture. We’re regular users
of libraries and prepared
to mobilise when they are threatened by government
bean-counters. Our writers' festivals are well attended and we have a prospering literary
magazine culture.
So why this prevalent reluctance to pay artists? Is it that the last time most of us took crayons and
interpretive dance seriously was in primary school so in our hearts we suspect
that artists have never really grown up? In the meantime, it’s only fair and reasonable that we indulge their
creative pretensions with the equivalent of pocket money: a rider for the band,
a reference for the unpaid intern and, above all, the ubiquitous lolly of "exposure".
The promise of exposure assumes that
creatives are novices just starting out on their careers. But the fact is that many artists are highly trained, experienced
and recognised. One of Australia’s most eminent critics, Kerryn Goldsworthy,
is often exhorted to provide free content. And
do you think Minogue’s team would have been happy with novices who’d just
mastered a clap on the downbeat?
Lest it seem I think the blame lies
squarely with exploitative companies, I
don’t. We creatives have to shoulder some of the responsibility too.
We’re snookered by our love of performing. An audience that responds with likes and shares is better than no
audience at all. And we tell ourselves that it’s only for a short time. Until,
like Angela Meyer whose blog Literary
Minded was picked up by Crikey, our (free) brilliance is recognised and finally
rewarded with a pay cheque. (And good luck to Meyer. She’s awesome).
But while content is available for nothing,
why pay for it? Moreover, what effect does freely available content have on our
capacity to recognise an informed opinion from an uninformed one? I’ve a deep knowledge in the narrow sea of my own
expertise, but when I venture beyond that I want the opinions of people who
know vastly
more than me. It takes time and
patience to sift the expert from the novice, the polemicist from the troll.
Most of us look to reputable critics to do the vetting on our behalf. When outlets start undercutting each
other by refusing to pay for expertise, how long can the reputable survive?
In writing this I am fully aware of my own
hypocrisy. I have, and occasionally still do, contribute content for free. I can give you a well-reasoned and articulate
rationale for why I’ve done so but that doesn’t change the fundamental fact
that I’m part of the debasement I’m railing against.
So no more. If you want me to do the
writerly equivalent of gyrate around your hot pants, Kylie, you can bloody well
pay me for it.
(Until the next time.)(Until the next time.)