Here's something that got me incandescently angry at the weekend, and I can't seem to get over it. Maybe its because its worth getting angry over.

I've heard a couple of stories from artist friends recently about venues offering support in the development of new work (space, a little money perhaps, some tech support), and then asking, in the contract, for a percentage of any money the artist subsequently makes from presenting the show. (I don't know what the percentage asked has been- maybe if anyone reading this has had a similar clause in a contract they could let me know...)

Just to be clear, no venue or producing organisation we have ever recieved support from has even suggested this kind of model to us- but 2 or 3 artists have told me over the last couple of months about different venues trying to get this sort of thing past them in contracts. I'm not going to mention any of those venues by name.

The thing that gets me massively, hugely cross about this is that the venue is essentially asking to own some of the intellectual copyright for the piece, and wants to earn money from the artists work for the rest of the life of that piece. Hang on a sec, I thought- you mean a subsidised venue, whose mission it is to invest in the artform, is trying to claw back its investment by rinsing the artists who work with it? That's not really investment- its a loan. A loan with a lot of interest too, because if the piece tours widely then the artist will be paying a proportion back to the venue that could be far, far in excess of what the venue ever put in to it. So the venue is earning money twice for its 'artist development', once from the Arts Council, and then again from the artist. If I was an artist looking for support for my work, I might as well go to the bank.

In the interests of transparency, I'll be honest about my own money situation. James and I have made a full time living from Action Hero for about 3 years now. We'll earn about £11,000 each before tax this year. Its not a lot, but I can live on it. We tour almost continuously, there are only two of us and our overheads are very low, and most of the money AH earns is from touring, alongside ACE project funding (if we're lucky). I think we're doing OK, as far as a small company can say that. We have a lot of support from brilliant venues and producers. So I can safely say that were one of those supporters to claim intellectual copyright on a piece we made, and try to claim some of the money from each gig we performed, it would effectively stop us being able to work. Getting money for a gig is our main income stream, and for a company of two with a small turnover & no regular funding, its our bread and butter. It is the same for most independent artists. It seems gross to me that an institution with salaried staff & (comparitively) large amouts of subsidy would try to take a slice of that.

The crazy thing is that it kills touring as a way for artists to earn a living, which in turn stops the venues themselves being able to recieve high quality work (because there is less around) and so the very thing the venues are set up to facilitate is strangled by the grabbiness of the commissioning venue. Everyone knows that it fucking hard to make a living as an artist. Why would a venue try to make it harder? I imagine they want a wider range of income streams, and so someone had the bright idea that they could make money off the work they support by taking a cut of its subsequent touring income. That is bullshit. If a venue wants to make money touring, why don't they simply get in a director and some actors, pay them equity minimum rates and make a piece of their own devising in house to tour under the name of the venue? I think we all know why- its expensive, and means you have to pay artists a proper wage. Plus, they want to have a piece of what's 'now' and 'new', so that means going to the independent artists who are making the most exciting work. So, why not offer to support the development of the work, but then take your cut from all future income generated by the artists own distribution of their work? Its cheap- in fact it makes money in the long term, and it builds the 'brand' of the venue as innovative and fresh, thereby ensuring further subsidy, so whats to lose for the venue?

But what does the artist get from this? Sweet fuck all. You get some support upfront, but you'll end up paying it back (and then some) later. Your get the association with a venue with a good reputation, and maybe that will get you some gigs that you wouldn't get otherwise. But in the long run (and maybe even middle-run) this is a shitty way to work. It means you have even less chance of making a living. Better to make a piece with no support and then tour it, keeping all the money from fees to pay yourself and cover the cost of making the show retrospectively than be in some kind of weird bonded labour to a commissioning venue who wants their cut for all perpetuity.

Lots of commissioning venues offer genuine support and real investment. After all, that's what they receive public money to do. They give us some support and some money, we make a piece and then tour it, crediting them as commissioners. It feels like a more equal relationship. That is what real support is.

I am angry because there are young artists who want a break, and who feel they can't argue. As the artist, you are always the little fish. Venues are powerful, they have knowledge and expertise that can be wielded, when necessary, to intimidate and pressure. If you are inexperienced, how would you know that most subsidised venues wouldn't ask for intellectual rights on your work? How do you know that you can challenge the terms of a contract? It was only very recently for example, that someone told us we didn't have to sign a contract we weren't happy with, and that it could be negotiated. It then took us a while to work up the nerve to do it.

We often talk about the money we don't have, but rarely do we talk about the money we do have (or are being offered.) Maybe we feel like it makes us seem moany, or that we should be grateful to be receiving anything at all, no matter how poor the terms. Maybe we think its ugly and vulgar to talk about pay and conditions. This makes us, as artists, weaker, because it means that a climate of secrecy develops, and the little fishes can be exploited. We should be talking about money. We should be talking about contracts. We should be talking about what we're being offered. Venues recieve the bulk of public money in order to facilitate what we make, and we have a responsiblity to hold them accountable. We shouldn't be complicit in a system that effectivly stops us from making a living. If we don't talk to each other, then we'll end up with nothing. And there'll be a whole load of empty buildings with no art to fill them.