DOCSLIB.ORG

Guest Artist Guidelines

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Guest Artist Guidelines Employing Actors and Stage Managers Under the Guest Artist Agreement Eastern Region 165 W 46th Street New York, NY 10036 Telephone: 212-869-8530 Central Region 557 W Randolph Street Chicago, IL 60661 Telephone: 312-641-0393 Western Region 5636 Tujunga Ave North Hollywood, CA 91601 Telephone: 323-978-8080 © Actors' Equity Association. All Rights Reserved. The following guideline 5. May Actors be hired as When do I pay the Actor? Salary and independent contractors or on a per diem are paid weekly, no later than the provides an overview of fee basis? No. Actors and Stage evening of the Thursday of that week's work. the Actors’ Equity Guest Managers do not meet state or federal criteria What is an Equity Work Week? The as independent contractors. (If an Actor is Equity work week runs from Monday through Artist Agreement. If you employed via his personal service corporation, Sunday. The first week of rehearsal may be have any questions, feel please contact Equity for further information.) pro-rated, 1/6th of contractual salary for each Thus, federally required employer contribu- day, if the Actor’s first call is late in the week. free to contact an Equity tions to Social Security, Medicare and unem- (The health insurance contribution may not be ployment must be made, as well as state- pro-rated.) Business required contributions to Unemployment and What about pay stubs? Whether paid Workers’ Compensation insurance programs. Representative. We’re by check or by cash, the Actor must be issued These amounts are in addition to the salary a record of gross salary; an itemization of ex- happy to assist you. and pension and health contributions and may traordinary payments (overtime, clothing not be waived. rental, etc.), itemized deductions, and net sal- 1. Who may utilize this contract? Paymasters. In the event you are not set ary for his records. Universities, non-profit community theatres up as an employer and are unable to procure How much are the pension and and non-profit groups operating within an Workers’ Compensation, Unemployment health payments? Contributions on the educational or community framework may Insurance or provide payroll deductions, there Actor’s behalf to the Equity-League Pension secure the services of professional Actors, by are organizations, known as paymasters, and Health Trust Fund are made by the obtaining permission from Equity. through whom you may procure these employer. These contributions are not services. Please call the Equity office for 2. How do I obtain deducted from the Actor's salary, and provide further information. permission? Actors’ Equity endeavors medical insurance and help accrue pension to satisfy requests to employ Guest Artists and Unemployment Insurance. Equity credits for the Artist. For pension contribution does not arbitrarily withhold the granting of requires that Actors employed under Equity and health rates, please see the Tier Structure contract receive the benefits provided by the such permission. However, consideration is Highlights on page 3. (Copies of the plans are given to the nature of your organization, size Unemployment Insurance laws of the state in available upon request.) which the Actor performs, or through the vol- of company, performance schedule, and the What about Working Dues? untary provisions of the New York or New relationship to professional theatrical activities Currently, 2.5% of the Guest Artist’s total Jersey State Unemployment laws. Should it in the area. Please be sure that your appli- gross salary must be deducted and forwarded be impossible to comply with this provision, it cation for the employment of an Actor is ap- to Equity as the Actor’s dues obligation to will be necessary to contact Equity before proved with the appropriate Equity Business Equity. It is not a cost borne by you. Representative before any public an- signing any agreements. A Business Rep can nouncement. Whenever possible, permission discuss procedures that may enable you to 7. How many hours and perfor- secure coverage. will be granted as soon as Equity has had the mances per week are allowed? opportunity to investigate the request. 6. Tell me about salary, pension, Rehearsal Week Hours. Prior to the The granting of permission for an Actor to health and Working Dues. first public performance, the total work week appear on a Guest Artist Agreement is done including performance, rehearsals, costume Salaries. Minimum weekly salaries for the on an individual basis only. It is necessary for calls, photos and classes shall be no more run of the contract are based on the maximum you to make application to Equity each time than 25 hours per week under Tier I, 32 hours number of performances in any one week. For you wish to engage an Actor. The granting of under Tier II, 42 hours under Tier III. (See #6 example, if you have two performances one permission for one Guest Artist can in no way Overtime & Tier Table) be construed as establishing a precedent for week and five performances the next, the Performance Week Hours. After the others. appropriate Tier for the run of the contract, rehearsal and performance, would be Tier 2. first public performance, the total work week 3. How do I contact an Equity In cases where the engagement is one week including performances, rehearsals, costume Actor? Equity can provide assistance or less the applicable minimum is more. (For calls, photos, and classes shall be no more accessing the Equity talent pool or with au- minimum salaries and other rates, please see than 15 hours per week under Tier I, 22 hours ditions, should you need help. If you make the Tier Structure Highlights on page 3.) under Tier II, 32 hours under Tier III. (See #6 Overtime & Tier Table) contact directly with the Actor or the Actor's Equity establishes minimum salaries only and agent, it is still necessary to seek the approval encourages Actors and their employers to How many performances per of Equity to engage the Actor. negotiate above these minimums whenever week are permitted? Tier I allows for a maximum of three per week. Tiers II and III 4. How many Actors may I possible. allow for a maximum of five and eight per employ in my show? Barring special How much do I pay for overtime? week, respectively. (See Tier Table) (One circumstances, no more than three Actors and Overtime is $13 per half hour or part thereof. additional performance per week beyond the one Stage Manager shall be hired in any If the 12-hour rest period is invaded, overtime weekly maximum may be scheduled under production under this agreement. If three or is $22 per half hour or part thereof. (See Tier Tiers I, II, and III, 1/3, 1/5, and 1/8 of con- more Actors are employed, a Stage Manager Table) tractual salary, respectively, must be paid for must also be employed under the Guest Artist How about per diem? Minimum per such additional performance.) In no event Agreement. diem is $28 for all out-of-town Actors. (See may there be more than five performances in Tier Table) any three consecutive days. What is the span of day? The span of and other operations where there is no weekly 16. I’d really like to have an day is 7 out of 8 1/2 consecutive hours under payroll. (See #5 and #6 above.) Actor do another part, but I didn’t Tier I, 7 out of 10 under Tier II, and 7 out of 12 To whom and for what do I make include it on the contract. What under Tier III. (See Tier Table) There may out the checks? We require two (2) do I do? An Actor may not do additional be no less than a 12-hour rest period between checks and copies of the actors’ final two work without agreement between the Actor the end of employment on one day and the paychecks and you, the Producer, and additional beginning of employment on the next day. compensation. Additional work is defined as (1) Actor’s Paychecks. We require (See #6 Overtime & Tier Table) work not specified in the Actor's contract at the copies of the final two paychecks for the Actor, time of its signing. (Additional duties are 8. Days off? Two scheduled full days off with a breakdown of their tax and Equity dues contracted by rider with copies sent to the in each week, which need not be consecutive, deductions. Actor and to Equity.) are required under Tier I, one scheduled full (2) Pension & Health Check. The day off each week is required under Tiers II third check is payable to the Equity-League 17. What about billing in the pro- and III. (A full day off is one which is free of Pension and Health Trust Fund to cover the gram? All Actors provide a biography for rehearsals, performances and/or teaching total pension and health contributions. the program, and changes by the Producer responsibilities and is 24 hours, in addition to must be approved by the Actor before printing. (3) Working Dues Check. The fourth the 12 hours required at the end of each day.) All Actors engaged under the Guest Artist check is payable to Actors' Equity Association, Agreement are listed on the title page or cast 9. Do I provide housing for the in the current amount of 2.5% of the Actor's list page of the theatre’s program with an Actors? Out-of-town Actors are provided total gross salary, to cover the Actor’s working asterisk (*) next to their names. The asterisk housing at no cost to the Actor.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Supreme Court and the New Equity
    Vanderbilt Law Review Volume 68 | Issue 4 Article 1 5-2015 The uprS eme Court and the New Equity Samuel L. Bray Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/vlr Part of the Supreme Court of the United States Commons Recommended Citation Samuel L. Bray, The uS preme Court and the New Equity, 68 Vanderbilt Law Review 997 (2019) Available at: https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/vlr/vol68/iss4/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarship@Vanderbilt Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Vanderbilt Law Review by an authorized editor of Scholarship@Vanderbilt Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. VANDERBILT LAW REVIEW VOLUME 68 MAY 2015 NUMBER 4 ARTICLES The Supreme Court and the New Equity Samuel L. Bray* The line between law and equity has largely faded away. Even in remedies, where the line persists, the conventional scholarly wisdom favors erasing it. Yet something surprisinghas happened. In a series of cases over the last decade and a half, the U.S. Supreme Court has acted directly contrary to this conventional wisdom. These cases range across many areas of substantive law-from commercial contracts and employee benefits to habeas and immigration, from patents and copyright to environmental law and national security. Throughout these disparate areas, the Court has consistently reinforced the line between legal and equitable remedies, and it has treated equitable remedies as having distinctive powers and limitations. This Article describes and begins to evaluate the Court's new equity cases.
    [Show full text]
  • The Restitution Revival and the Ghosts of Equity
    The Restitution Revival and the Ghosts of Equity Caprice L. Roberts∗ Abstract A restitution revival is underway. Restitution and unjust enrichment theory, born in the United States, fell out of favor here while surging in Commonwealth countries and beyond. The American Law Institute’s (ALI) Restatement (Third) of Restitution & Unjust Enrichment streamlines the law of unjust enrichment in a language the modern American lawyer can understand, but it may encounter unintended problems from the law-equity distinction. Restitution is often misinterpreted as always equitable given its focus on fairness. This blurs decision making on the constitutional right to a jury trial, which "preserves" the right to a jury in federal and state cases for "suits at common law" satisfying specified dollar amounts. Restitution originated in law, equity, and sometimes both. The Restatement notably attempts to untangle restitution from the law-equity labels, as well as natural justice roots. It explicitly eschews equity’s irreparable injury prerequisite, which historically commanded that no equitable remedy would lie if an adequate legal remedy existed. Can restitution law resist hearing equity’s call from the grave? Will it avoid the pitfalls of the Supreme Court’s recent injunction cases that return to historical, equitable principles and reanimate equity’s irreparable injury rule? Losing anachronistic, procedural remedy barriers is welcome, but ∗ Professor of Law, West Virginia University College of Law; Visiting Professor of Law, The Catholic University of America Columbus School of Law. Washington & Lee University School of Law, J.D.; Rhodes College, B.A. Sincere thanks to Catholic University for supporting this research and to the following conferences for opportunities to present this work: the American Association of Law Schools, the Sixth Annual International Conference on Contracts at Stetson University College of Law, and the Restitution Rollout Symposium at Washington and Lee University School of Law.
    [Show full text]
  • Equity in the American Courts and in the World Court: Does the End Justify the Means?
    EQUITY IN THE AMERICAN COURTS AND IN THE WORLD COURT: DOES THE END JUSTIFY THE MEANS? I. INTRODUCTION Equity, as a legal concept, has enjoyed sustained acceptance by lawyers throughout history. It has been present in the law of ancient civilizations' and continues to exist in modem legal systems.2 But equity is no longer a concept confined exclusively to local or national adjudication. Today, equity shows itself to be a vital part of international law.' The International Court of Justice--"the most visible, and perhaps hegemonic, tribunal in the sphere of public international law" 4-has made a significant contribution to the delimitation,5 development of equity. Particularly in cases involving maritime 6 equity has frequently been applied by the Court to adjudicate disputes. Equity is prominent in national legal systems and has become increas- ingly important in international law. It is useful, perhaps essential, for the international lawyer to have a proper understanding of it. Yet the meaning of equity remains elusive. "A lawyer asked to define 'equity' will not have an easy time of it; the defimition of equity, let alone the term's application in the field of international law, is notoriously uncertain, though its use is rife."7 Through a comparative analysis, this note seeks to provide a more precise understanding of the legal concept of equity as it relates to two distinct systems oflaw: the American and the international. To compare the equity administered by the American courts with that administered by the World Court, this note 1. See sources cited infra notes 10, 22.
    [Show full text]
  • The Federal Equity Power
    Florida State University College of Law Scholarship Repository Scholarly Publications 1-2018 The Federal Equity Power Michael T. Morley Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.law.fsu.edu/articles Part of the Courts Commons, and the Jurisdiction Commons THE FEDERAL EQUITY POWER MICHAEL T. MORLEY INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................ 219 I. THE ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF EQUITY............................................................................. 224 II. AMERICAN EQUITY PRIOR TO ERIE .......................................................................................... 230 A. Equity Jurisdiction .............................................................................................................. 232 B. Equity Procedure ................................................................................................................ 236 C. Equitable Remedies............................................................................................................. 238 D. Equity and Substantive Rights ............................................................................................. 241 III. EQUITY IN THE POST-ERIE WORLD ......................................................................................... 244 A. Erie and General Law ......................................................................................................... 244 B. Guaranty Trust and Equity .................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Equity Investment Agreement
    Equity Investment Agreement THIS EQUITY INVESTMENT AGREEMENT (the "Agreement") is dated as of DATE (the "Effective Date") by and between ________________________________________________, a Delaware business corporation, having an address at _________________________________________________________________ ("Company") and Cornell University, a non-profit New York corporation, having an address at Day Hall, Ithaca NY, 14850 ("Cornell"). WHEREAS, Company is developing technologies that it represents are consistent with the educational, research and economic development objectives of Cornell; and WHEREAS, Company would benefit from a relationship with Cornell and its Kevin M. McGovern Family Center for Venture Development in the Life Sciences, (the "McGovern Center"), whereby the McGovern Center would provide Company with assistance in accessing elements of the McGovern Center's network of public and private commercialization resources (the "McGovern Center Network"); and WHEREAS, the McGovern Center is willing to provide such assistance, subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements set forth below, the parties covenant and agree as follows: Article 1. Equity Partner Program 1.1 As a part of its equity partnership with Company, the McGovern Center agrees, from time to time upon the request of Company, to: (i) Provide Company with timely information that the McGovern Center reasonably believes to be of benefit to Company including information related to capital
    [Show full text]
  • Mere Equities’
    WHAT IS A MERE EQUITY?: AN INVESTIGATION OF THE NATURE AND FUNCTION OF SO-CALLED ‘MERE EQUITIES’ Jack Wells PhD University of York Law January 2019 Abstract This thesis will examine the type of equitable claim known as a ‘mere equity’. The basic characteristics of a mere equity are well established. A mere equity is ‘proprietary’ in that it can be enforced against certain third parties and is capable of alienation in favour of certain third parties. Despite its proprietary flavour, however, a mere equity does not amount to an interest in any property to which it relates. The main consequence of this is that a mere equity is postponed to any interest, legal or equitable, subsequently purchased for value and without notice of the mere equity. While the core features of mere equities are settled, there is much confusion over the underlying legal nature and practical function of these claims. This confusion has produced the criticism that mere equities are an anomalous category, and brought into question whether mere equities should even exist as a juridical concept. This state of affairs is clearly unsatisfactory, especially given that mere equities are the admitted basis of a sizable body of equitable doctrines, including rescission, rectification and proprietary estoppel. This thesis aims to demystify mere equities. It will show that the existing scholarly literature has not adequately engaged with the concept of a mere equity. It will then look afresh at the primary legal materials in order to fill in the conceptual gaps. In short, the thesis will argue that a mere equity is an equitable right of action: a simple claim to pursue a particular equitable remedy against a particular defendant.
    [Show full text]
  • In Law Or in Equity?
    In law or in equity? By Eric Lindquist, Of Counsel to Fox Horan & Camerini LLP © Eric Lindquist 2020 St. Thomas More, English Chancellor 1529-1532 Lawyers and businesspersons around the world read contracts every day that provide for indemnity against, or the release of, claims “in law or in equity.” Based on my conversations with civil lawyers and with business executives in the US and abroad, it seems that many of them haven’t really thought about what “equity” means in this context. Here are the basics. Equity jurisdiction arose in England during the Middle Ages to balance the excessive rigidity of the common law courts by allowing a royal official, the Lord Chancellor, to decide disputes based on broad concepts of fairness and good conscience. The distinction between law and equity is important because: (a) equitable claims are decided by a judge, not by a jury, (b) claims in equity are subject to different defenses from legal claims (the defenses of “unclean hands,” “laches,” or “undue hardship,” e.g.), (c) equitable relief being viewed as an “extraordinary remedy,” the standards of pleading and proof are generally stricter than for legal claims, requiring greater specificity and clearer evidence, (d) courts can retain jurisdiction over equitable matters long after judgment is entered, allowing them to modify or dissolve injunctions, or to appoint receivers to manage property or special masters to monitor compliance, (e) equitable judgments are enforceable by sanctions for contempt of court, and (f) equitable judgments are discretionary and therefore especially difficult to overturn on appeal. Most claims arising “in equity” ask the court for an injunction, that is, an order that the respondent do something or refrain from doing something.
    [Show full text]
  • Magna Carta and the Law of Nature
    University of Chicago Law School Chicago Unbound Journal Articles Faculty Scholarship 2016 Magna Carta and the Law of Nature Richard H. Helmholz Follow this and additional works at: https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/journal_articles Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Richard. H. Helmholz, "Magna Carta and the Law of Nature," 62 Loyola Law Review 869 (2016). This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at Chicago Unbound. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal Articles by an authorized administrator of Chicago Unbound. For more information, please contact [email protected]. +(,121/,1( Citation: 62 Loy. L. Rev. 869 2016 Provided by: The University of Chicago D'Angelo Law Library Content downloaded/printed from HeinOnline Sat Apr 8 00:43:53 2017 -- Your use of this HeinOnline PDF indicates your acceptance of HeinOnline's Terms and Conditions of the license agreement available at http://heinonline.org/HOL/License -- The search text of this PDF is generated from uncorrected OCR text. -- To obtain permission to use this article beyond the scope of your HeinOnline license, please use: Copyright Information BRENDAN BROWN LECTURE MAGNA CARTA AND THE LAW OF NATURE R. H. Helmholz* INTRODUCTION' My subject is an appropriate one for a lecture series established by Brendan F. Brown. From first to last, he was "an advocate and defender of the natural law and its school of jurisprudence." 2 He sparked an interest in the subject among his students, he wrote books and articles to demonstrate its value, 3 and he compiled an historical survey of the subject that remains useful today.4 Coming to his scholarly maturity in the years immediately following the Second World War, Professor Brown was optimistic about the future of this subject.
    [Show full text]
  • 20191223115738971 18-1501 Liu V SEC Restitution Scholars Brief.Pdf
    No. 18-1501 In the Supreme Court of the United States CHARLES C. LIU et al., Petitioners, v. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, Respondent. __________ ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT __________ BRIEF OF REMEDIES AND RESTITUTION SCHOLARS AS AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF NEITHER SIDE __________ Douglas Laycock Counsel of Record 2406 McBee St. Austin, TX 78723 512-656-1789 [email protected] QUESTIONS PRESENTED This brief addresses two questionss: 1. Whether “equitable relief” in the securities laws includes the longstanding equitable remedy of disgorgement, also known as accounting of profits, and 2. Whether disgorgement in the securities laws should be measured by the longstanding rules of equity, a measure that both petitioners and respondent appear to reject. i TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Authorities .................................................. iv Interest of Amici ..........................................................1 Summary of Argument ...............................................2 Argument .....................................................................5 I. Each Party’s Position Seriously Overreaches ......................................................5 II. Disgorgement, or Accounting for Profits, Is a Long-Established Equitable Remedy That Imposes Liability for the Wrongdoer’s Net Profits—Not Gross Profits or Gross Receipts .............................................................9 A. Disgorgement of a Wrongdoer’s Profits Is a Longstanding Equitable Remedy.
    [Show full text]
  • The Case Against Equity in American Contract Law
    Columbia Law School Scholarship Archive Faculty Scholarship Faculty Publications 2020 The Case Against Equity in American Contract Law Jody S. Kraus Columbia Law School, [email protected] Robert E. Scott Columbia Law School, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/faculty_scholarship Part of the Contracts Commons, Criminal Law Commons, Criminal Procedure Commons, and the Legal Remedies Commons Recommended Citation Jody S. Kraus & Robert E. Scott, The Case Against Equity in American Contract Law, 93 S. CAL. L. REV. 1323 (2020). Available at: https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/faculty_scholarship/2537 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Publications at Scholarship Archive. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Scholarship by an authorized administrator of Scholarship Archive. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE CASE AGAINST EQUITY IN AMERICAN CONTRACT LAW JODY P. KRAUS* & ROBERT E. SCOTT† The American common law of contracts appears to direct courts to decide contract disputes by considering two opposing points of view: the ex ante perspective of the parties’ intent at the time of formation, and the ex post perspective of justice and fairness to the parties at the time of adjudication. Despite the black letter authority for both perspectives, the ex post perspective cannot withstand scrutiny. Contract doctrines taking the ex post perspective—such as the penalty, just compensation, and forfeiture doctrines—were created by equity in the early common law to police against abuses of the then prevalent penal bond. However, when the industrial revolution pushed courts to accommodate fully executory agreements, and parties abandoned the use of penal bonds, the exclusively ex ante focus of the new contract law that emerged rendered the ex post doctrines obsolete.
    [Show full text]
  • Equity: System Or Process?
    The Catholic Lawyer Volume 3 Number 1 Volume 3, January 1957, Number 1 Article 10 Equity: System or Process? Philip A. Ryan Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.stjohns.edu/tcl Part of the Catholic Studies Commons This Reprint is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at St. John's Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in The Catholic Lawyer by an authorized editor of St. John's Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The place of Equity in modern procedure and in the curriculum in present day law schools will be discussed in a series of three articles, of which this is the first. EQUITY: SYSTEM OR PROCESS?* PHILIP A. RYANt T HE NATURE OF EQUITY has troubled legal scholars for many years. It has been viewed as a closed but flexible department of our juris- prudence, and it has been equated with procedure. No matter what the framework of discussion, however, everyone recognizes a value, intangible and compelling, which surpasses strict legal rules. This consensus on the value but disagreement on the nature of Equity invites the effort to obtain a satisfactory personal insight. As pointed out by Professor Chafee, "Equity is a way of looking at the administration of justice."' It is also true that there are different ways - at least three - of looking at Equity. Each may be necessary and useful, depending on the problem to be solved. But distinction and differentiation are important if we are to use the right tools for the right problems.
    [Show full text]
  • 674KB***Accessory Liability in Tort and Equity
    (2015) 27 SAcLJ Accessory Liability in Tort and Equity 853 ACCESSORY LIABILITY IN TORT AND EQUITY Unlike the position in criminal law, there does not currently exist a general doctrine of accessory liability in civil law. Thus, a person may be liable as an accessory in equity for dishonestly assisting with a breach of trust, but there is no tort for dishonest assistance. Rather, one who participates in another’s tort will only be liable if he is a joint tortfeasor acting pursuant to a common design with the primary tortfeasor. This article examines the reasons for this divergence and evaluates the case for their assimilation. It observes that, contrary to common perception, the scope of participatory liability in both spheres does not materially differ. It also concludes that the case for assimilation is not made out if the overarching principle for civil accessory liability is defined principally by reference to criminal concepts of complicity. Such an approach overlooks the fundamental distinctions between civil and criminal processes and threatens to extend civil liability beyond acceptable bounds. LEE Pey Woan* LLB (Hons) (London), BCL (Oxford); Barrister (Middle Temple), Advocate and Solicitor (Singapore); Associate Professor, School of Law, Singapore Management University. 1 In civil as well as criminal law, a person may be liable when he participates in the wrong of another. Such liability is variously described as “accessory”, “secondary” or “derivative” because it is contingent upon a wrong being committed by the primary wrongdoer. In criminal law, a general doctrine of accessory or secondary liability exists which applies uniformly to all crimes.
    [Show full text]