A low-budget film production and still fair remuneration

The Amsterdam District Court is hearing a dispute between a film producer and a crew member on a super low-budget feature that went on to become the best-attended Dutch cinema release of the year. What is fair remuneration when the budget simply does not allow it? Roland Wigman on deferment, the solution the film industry has known for years.

The Amsterdam District Court has handed down two interim judgments in a case between a film producer and a crew member about that crew member’s contribution to a Dutch feature film. The feature was “super low-budget”; after release the film proved a success and became the best-attended Dutch cinema release of the year.

What the court could not yet decide

The dispute turns on two points. The first concerns the description (and the valuation) of the work the crew member actually carried out, along with the corresponding credit. The second concerns the remuneration due for that work, which - according to the crew member - was neither appropriate to the work performed nor fair. Two interim judgments have been handed down so far: Amsterdam District Court 21 January 2026, ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2026:1669 and Amsterdam District Court 20 May 2026, ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2026:5771.

The court first sets out the legal framework for its assessment (with which I can broadly agree), only to find that more specific knowledge of the film industry is required before it can rule. In the second interim judgment the court therefore appoints three experts, who will have to answer twenty-two questions formulated by the court.

Professionally, I look forward with keen interest to the answers the experts will give and to the court’s final ruling. In this blog I do not want to go into the dispute itself, nor into the questions the court has formulated.

What if the budget does not allow for fair remuneration?

I want to pick out one aspect of the dispute here: the possible discrepancy between the fair remuneration owed to a maker and the fact that the producer of the film has no more than a “super low budget” available.

That situation is of course far more common, and in my view has been so since the earliest days of film (although back then we may not have discussed whether the remuneration was fair). The film industry has therefore had a suitable solution for many years. In the language of the trade, that solution is called a deferment.

Deferment: postponed payment

A deferment is a postponed payment: part of the remuneration is only paid later, out of the revenues of the film. Deferment is the act of delaying or postponing. In the context of payment, a deferred payment, the Dutch sometimes speak of subordination, although that is not quite right in this case; postponed payment is the better term.

The principle of a deferment is in fact remarkably simple. The producer does not have the money to pay the crew member or the actor what he ought to be paying for the services and rights to be delivered. The crew member or the actor, however, is keen to work on the film. It should not be left unsaid that the person concerned works on the production knowingly and voluntarily, while knowing in advance that they are not being paid enough. The parties then first agree what the appropriate remuneration would be. Suppose the actor is required to be available for six days and his usual fee is €500 per day: the usual remuneration would then come to €3,000. The parties next agree that part of that sum, say €2,000 in this case, is deferred.

For the deferments it is agreed that they are paid out of the revenues in first position. The film’s financiers of course have to agree to that. Payment then takes place pro rata and pari passu, in other words in proportion to the other deferments and with all deferments ranking equally.

In this way a super low-budget film can be made while the financial claims and interests of cast and crew are also done justice.

Pro rata and pari passu
Two terms you will almost always see together in a deferment arrangement. Pari passu means that all deferments rank equally. Nobody takes priority. Pro rata then determines how the money is divided: where there is too little to pay everyone in full, everyone receives the same percentage of their deferred remuneration.

Deferment or profit share?
A deferment is not a profit share. With a deferment you are already owed a fixed amount and are only waiting for payment. A profit share gives you a percentage of what remains once the film has recouped. Deferments are, moreover, paid out of the revenues earlier than profit shares. You can agree both alongside one another.

Why a director defers sooner than a lighting assistant

Distinctions can still be drawn in the extent to which a crew member or actor defers part of their remuneration. A director, screenwriter or director of photography often has an interest beyond the financial one. For them it can be far more important to show what they are capable of, or to build a CV. For a lighting assistant, for instance, that interest will be a good deal smaller.