Archive for the ‘Law and Disorder: Performing Arts Division’ Category

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

The Elephant and The Frog

Thursday, May 29th, 2014

By Robyn Guilliams     

Dear Law & Order

I’ve been hearing a lot about a recent U.S. ban on ivory that will prevent string players from transporting their instruments in and out of the country.  However, I recently travelled to Europe and back with my cello (my bow has a small ivory inlay in the frog), with no problem.  What’s the story?

What a great question!  There has been a lot of press lately about the “new” ban on ivory, which will affect musicians whose instruments contain even a tiny amount of ivory.  Although a number of issues related to the ban are yet unresolved, here’s what we know thus far:

The ban is not really new. U.S. law has prohibited items containing ivory, Brazilian rosewood and tortoiseshell from being brought into or taken from the U.S. for a number of years. (Many other countries have similar laws.)  While these laws haven’t been enforced in the past, the U.S. recently signed the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (known as the CITES treaty) with 189 other countries.  The purpose of the CITES treaty is to ensure that international trade in specimens of wild animals and plants does not threaten their survival.  Save the elephants and the sea turtles!

Fortunately, the governments participating in CITES realized that the treaty rules would make it impossible for some musicians to travel internationally with their instruments.  For this reason, CITES provides that musicians may obtain a certificate (or “passport”) that will allow them to transport internationally instruments that contain ivory and/or rosewood, and other banned materials (such as certain types of wood and sea turtle shell).  The passport, which is good for three years and is attached to the person, not the instrument (i.e., it’s not transferable), will allow the musician to travel with his/her instrument throughout the 189 countries without any problems (in theory).

There is no question that, at some point in the future, musicians with instruments containing ivory, rosewood, etc., who wish to travel internationally with their instruments must obtain this passport. However, at this point, there still are serious problems with the passport system:

  • The passport currently is accepted at a very limited number of US ports.  There currently are 18 ports that permit items relating to “endangered species” (ivory and tortoiseshell) to be brought into the country.  There are 15 ports that allow items related to “endangered wild fauna” (rosewood and other banned woods).  Only nine of these ports overlap.  I.e., if your instrument contains both ivory and rosewood, there are only nine ports at which you may enter the U.S.
  • In theory, one may request entry into a non-designated U.S. port.  However, the process for obtaining this permission is a mystery right now, and will vary from port to port.
  • The process for obtaining an instrument passport in the U.S. are still a bit in flux, as this is something quite new that the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Agency is dealing with.  In other words, we are dealing with a government agency working out the kinks of a brand new procedure—which means, if you plan to obtain an instrument passport in the very near future, expect delays and (potentially) other problems.  In fact, if you don’t plan to travel in the near future, you may want to sit back and relax, and concern yourself with obtaining your passport later (after the government has worked out its procedural problems on other poor souls!)

Obviously, one must obtain an instrument passport from their own country, so the rules may be different in various countries.

The great concern at this point is enforcement – when will it begin, and how?  Will there be any sort of grace period?  Unfortunately, these questions remain unanswered by U.S. Fish & Wildlife.  The good news is that, at present, we know of no cases of instruments being confiscated and/or destroyed.  (Let us be grateful for what we have…)

More details on the ban, the instrument passports, and potential enforcement are available at the  League of American Orchestras’ website: http://americanorchestras.org/advocacy-government/travel-with-instruments/endangered-species-material/ivory-ban-impact-on-orchestras.html

So the question for musicians is this:  Do they continue to travel with their instruments internationally with no passport, and hope for the best until enforcement begins?  Or do they go ahead and apply for a passport?  If they choose the first route, there is the risk (though minimal at this point) that their instrument will be confiscated.  If they choose the latter route, they risk enduring extra scrutiny from airport personnel who aren’t yet familiar with the new regulations and procedures.  Each person must weigh the pros and cons, considering their individual circumstances and.

Finally, I want to give a shout out to Heather Noonan at the League of American Orchestras, who has devoted an enormous amount of time an effort to this cause.  Many of you know this already, but Heather has been at the forefront of this issue and others, working tirelessly on behalf of musicians and orchestras.  Whenever I speak to her, she is on the move, on her way to meet with yet another charming legislator to advocate for musicians affected by the ivory ban, or for orchestras and other arts organizations affected by the latest kerfuffle with USCIS, or on other issues that affect our industry.  She works constantly to remind our elected officials that the arts, and artists, matter.  Thank you Heather!

__________________________________________________________________

For additional information and resources on this and other GG_logo_for-facebooklegal and business issues for the performing arts, visit ggartslaw.com

To ask your own question, write to lawanddisorder@musicalamerica.org.

All questions on any topic related to legal and business issues will be welcome. However, please post only general questions or hypotheticals. GG Arts Law reserves the right to alter, edit or, amend questions to focus on specific issues or to avoid names, circumstances, or any information that could be used to identify or embarrass a specific individual or organization. All questions will be posted anonymously and/or posthumously.

__________________________________________________________________

THE OFFICIAL DISCLAIMER:

THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE!

The purpose of this blog is to provide general advice and guidance, not legal advice. Please consult with an attorney familiar with your specific circumstances, facts, challenges, medications, psychiatric disorders, past-lives, karmic debt, and anything else that may impact your situation before drawing any conclusions, deciding upon a course of action, sending a nasty email, filing a lawsuit, or doing anything rash!

 

Tags:, , , , , , ,
Posted in Artist Management, Arts Management, Law and Disorder: Performing Arts Division, Touring | Comments Closed

The Hogwarts School of Contracting and Wizardry

Thursday, May 15th, 2014

By Brian Taylor Goldstein, Esq.   

Dear Law and Disorder

I had a signed agreement with a promoter to present my artist. The contract provided for two deposits and a final payment on the day of the performance. I worked for over a year with this promoter to put this deal together. Not only did he not pay either of the deposits, but one month before the performance, he called to say he hadn’t sold enough tickets and that it was no longer economically feasible. And he is refusing to pay the money he owes. What am I supposed to do? Sue him? Why should I have to spend the time and money to sue him when we have a signed contract? What’s the point of having a contract in the first place if its not going to protect me?

For many years now I have been climbing the stairs to my secret laboratory trying to create the self-enforcing contract. Upon anyone breaching the terms of such a contract, a magical enforcement beast will materialize, forcing the breaching party into compliance. Sadly, my efforts thus far have proven unsuccessful, resulting only in a few sparks, a bit of ectoplasm still dripping from the ceiling, and a hapless paralegal I may have inadvertently turned into a newt. Until I perfect my spells and enchantments, you’ll have to settle for the fact that contracts are only as valuable as the time, effort, and common sense that goes into them. They do not exist in a vacuum. They do not self-enforce.

The point of a contract is not to get signatures on some form or template littered with extraneous terms that everyone believes are “industry standard”, but no one really reads or understands, in the hopes that it will somehow, in and of itself, stalwartly protect you from the other party cancelling your engagement, refusing to pay, or performing any other courser of unpleasantness. Rather, the point of a contract is the opportunity it creates for you to enter into deals, negotiations, collaborations, engagements, and other relationships knowingly and intelligently. Among other things, it allows you to make sure everyone is on the same page (ie: Do you define net profits the same way I define net profits? Can I cancel if I don’t sell enough tickets?). It allows you to create benchmarks by which you can judge performance and good will (ie: Did the other party pay the deposit on time? Did the check clear?). It allows you to “test the waters” before jumping into a new relationship by first seeing if you and the other party can work together to resolve differences and challenges in the creation of the relationship in the first place.

Sometimes, having a contract can also provide you with leverage. If you can point out that the other party clearly did or didn’t do something which they clearly agreed to do or not do, that pressure alone can often be enough to force compliance. However, if the leverage doesn’t work, you are ultimately left with the sobering fact that the only way to enforce a breached contract is though a lawsuit (or arbitration, if your contract provided for that.) Even then, if you win a lawsuit, you still have to collect the money. A judgment does not automatically guarantee payment. (I’m working on a self-paying judgment, too, as soon as figure out how to change lead into gold.)

The key is not to let the situation get to the enforcement stage in the first place. While some contractual breaches are unavoidable, most are the result of one the parties ignoring warning signs or not taking advantage of the contractual process. For example, a recent client of mine negotiated the terms of an engagement which included the standard items such as dates, time, repertoire, and fees. Everyone agreed. However, when she sent the contract to the presenter, the presenter discovered that the artist expected additional costs to be paid for transportation. My client, on the other hand, discovered that the presenter wanted the artist to obtain insurance to cover all the members of his orchestra. Neither of these topics had been discovered during the initial discussions. Fortunately, both my client and the presenter took the time to read the contract. Even more fortunately, both parties scheduled a time to talk about their respective concerns, worked out compromises, re-drafted the contract, and everything worked out great. Similarly, I was recently negotiation a recording contract on behalf of an artist. When I tried to discuss certain contractual discrepancies and concerns with the other party, rather than engage in solutions, they merely insisted I should trust them and enter into the deal based on “good faith.” That made me trust them even less. My artist really wanted this deal, but I convinced them not to take the risk. In the end, we wound up finding a better deal.

In your case, if your contract provided for two deposits, and the promoter didn’t pay either one, at what point did you not realize that this train was going to jump the tracks? That’s like sending off a contract, not getting a response back from the presenter or manager, having the other party  ignore your phone calls and emails, and the pretending to be shocked to find out the deal is being cancelled…you can’t cancel what was never a deal in the first place. At the time the deadline for the first deposit came and went, that was your time to stop and evaluate whether or not to proceed. If, your professional judgment, it was worth waiting until the second deposit was due, great. However, by the time the second deposit deadline came, that should have been the time to bail. If you decided to rely solely on the contract to protect you, then you were also accepting the fact that if the presenter didn’t pay or cancelled at the last minute, you would have to enforce payment by filing a lawsuit. There are many times that rolling the dice makes legitimate business sense, but you have to accept that for what it is—gambling. Unless you want to incur legal fees and court costs, not to mention lost time, if you gamble and lose, move on.

This is inherently a risky business. Contracts allow you evaluate and, in some instances, minimalize risk, but never eliminate it. Only you can protect you. You and a little pixie dust.

_________________________________________________________________

For additional information and resources on this and otherGG_logo_for-facebook legal and business issues for the performing arts, visit ggartslaw.com

To ask your own question, write to lawanddisorder@musicalamerica.org.

All questions on any topic related to legal and business issues will be welcome. However, please post only general questions or hypotheticals. GG Arts Law reserves the right to alter, edit or, amend questions to focus on specific issues or to avoid names, circumstances, or any information that could be used to identify or embarrass a specific individual or organization. All questions will be posted anonymously and/or posthumously.

__________________________________________________________________

THE OFFICIAL DISCLAIMER:

THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE!

The purpose of this blog is to provide general advice and guidance, not legal advice. Please consult with an attorney familiar with your specific circumstances, facts, challenges, medications, psychiatric disorders, past-lives, karmic debt, and anything else that may impact your situation before drawing any conclusions, deciding upon a course of action, sending a nasty email, filing a lawsuit, or doing anything rash!

 

Tags:, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Agents, Artist Management, Arts Management, Contracts, Law and Disorder: Performing Arts Division, Presenters | Comments Closed

The Invasion of the Visa Examiner Body Snatchers Continues! (aka “The Day The Visa Process Stood Still”)

Thursday, May 8th, 2014

By Brian Taylor Goldstein, Esq.   

Dear Law and Disorder:

I recently received an RFE for a group touring the US this summer. The group is represented by a European manager who books their dates, but our US management company has previously filed petitions for them in the past, all of which have been approved without a problem. The RFE claims that I need to prove that we are not only the agent for the artists, but for each of venues on their tour. I provided an itinerary, a letter of agreement between us and the group where we are agreeing to serve as their US representatives, as well as engagement contracts confirming all the dates, including fees. This is what I have always given them before. What do they want?

For those of you who have been lucky enough not to be following along, about four months ago, the US government agency that reviews and approves visa petitions for artists, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), was invaded by aliens…and, by that, I do not mean non-US citizens, but something non-human. It began at the USCIS Vermont Service Center where reports indicate that in early February 2014 the bodies of several unsuspecting USCIS visa examiners spontaneously exploded into a burst of tentacles, multiple glowing eyes, and gaping orifices of dripping fangs. Shortly thereafter, their seedlings were able to infiltrate deliveries of pico de gallo sent to the USCIS California Service Center where they quickly replicated themselves, consuming the bodies of helpless visa examiners there as well. Ever since, these insidious creatures have taken over the review of O and P petitions, resulting in flurry of spurious RFE’s or Requests for Evidence (ie: prove that Lincoln Center is a distinguished venue!) and re-imagined interpretations of regulatory language and requirements (ie: for a role in a production to constitute a “lead or starring role” it must also be performed by an artist whose name alone will demonstrably increase ticket sales!)

Whether these beings are the evil spawn of a far-away galaxy offended by interpretive dance or whether they come from a death star of Blue Meanies, we don’t know. What we do know is that, among other things, USCIS has been seriously scrutinizing petitions filed by agents and managers, as well as itineraries. On a recent national conference call with USCIS representatives, there was a considerable amount of talk about concerns over “speculative” employment and making sure that artists had “confirmed engagements” and were not merely asking for visas in anticipation of future work.

As a result, agents and managers are being asked with greater frequency to provide proof of the agency relationship, including proof that they are authorized to represent both the artist as well as the presenters/venues. This can be either a written (and signed) agency or management agreement with the artists or a letter or other statement signed by the artist confirming that the artist has “appointed” the agent or manager to represent them in the United States. If the agent/manager has also booked all of the engagements (ie: the agent/manager’s name appears on each of the contracts or engagement confirmations), then such a letter of appointment appears to be appeasing the visa beasts…at least for now. However, many times either the artist has booked their own engagements directly with the presenter/venue or the engagements have been booked by a non-US agency and the US agent or manager is merely serving as the petitioner for purposes of filing the visa petition. In such cases, which appears to be your situation, USCIS is asking for proof that the US petitioner has been authorized to file the petition by the artist (or the artist’s non-US agent) as well as by the artist’s non-US agent and, in some cases, by each of the presenters/venues on the artist’s itinerary.

Based on a strict regulatory analysis, I cannot say that this is inappropriate. Rather, its just a very literal reading of certain regulations which have never been strictly enforced until now. Regardless, unless you have booked each of the artist’s engagements yourself, if there are any engagements booked directly between the artist and the venue/presenter, then you also need to include an “appointment form” from those presenters/venues authorizing you to include their engagement on the petition. If the artist has a non-US agent or manager, then you will need (1) proof of the relationship between the artist and the non-US agent and (2) proof that you have been authorized by the non-US agent to file the petition for the artist and on behalf of the engagements booked by the non-US agent. If there are any engagements booked directly by the artists, you will also need proof from the presenter/venue that you are authorized to include their date on your petition. The good news, such as it is, is that such “appointment form” does not need to be anything more elaborate that: “I have engaged [Artist] to perform for me. I hereby appoint [Petitioner] to include this engagement on the visa petition.” That’s it.

We’ve actually been doing this for a while. Whenever our management division acts as petitioner, we include appointment forms from everyone—our theory being: the more paperwork we throw into a petition, the more there’s bound to be something in there a US examiner is looking far. We apply this same theory to reviews, programs, and all other evidence as well. So far, this has worked.

As I mentioned, I have participated on several recent national conference calls with USCIS officials and, on each occasion, they have declared no knowledge of any new practices, rules, requirements, or regulatory interpretations designed to frustrate or scrutinize the O and P visa process. Instead, they claim to have helpfully appointed a panel of “performing arts experts”—three, to be exact, who, near as I can tell, have little, if any, actual practical familiarity with what we do—to help come up with suggestions to solve problems they claim do not exist. In other words, to translate this into government-speak:

There is no problem, but if there is a problem, we have appointed a panel of experts unfamiliar with the problem to help come up with solutions to address the non-existent problem which doesn’t need addressing, because there is no problem, but we promise we will make it better by focusing on fixing things that were not broken in the first place…until they were broken…but not by us.  

On second thought, perhaps these invaders aren’t from another planet after all.

_________________________________________________________________

For additional information and resources on this and otherGG_logo_for-facebook legal and business issues for the performing arts, visit ggartslaw.com

To ask your own question, write to lawanddisorder@musicalamerica.org.

All questions on any topic related to legal and business issues will be welcome. However, please post only general questions or hypotheticals. GG Arts Law reserves the right to alter, edit or, amend questions to focus on specific issues or to avoid names, circumstances, or any information that could be used to identify or embarrass a specific individual or organization. All questions will be posted anonymously and/or posthumously.

__________________________________________________________________

THE OFFICIAL DISCLAIMER:

THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE!

The purpose of this blog is to provide general advice and guidance, not legal advice. Please consult with an attorney familiar with your specific circumstances, facts, challenges, medications, psychiatric disorders, past-lives, karmic debt, and anything else that may impact your situation before drawing any conclusions, deciding upon a course of action, sending a nasty email, filing a lawsuit, or doing anything rash!

 

 

 

Tags:, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Agents, Artist Management, Arts Management, Contracts, Law and Disorder: Performing Arts Division, Touring, Visas | Comments Closed

Hypothetically Speaking About Liability

Thursday, May 1st, 2014

By Brian Taylor Goldstein, Esq.

Dear Law and Disorder:

If a hypothetical rental company is hired, either by a venue or by the client using a venue, to supply the sound and/or video system for a corporate, non-profit or association event; and this hypothetical rental company is asked to provide “top 40” music to be used during “walk in”, dinner, award winner walks up to the stage, etc. where in the liability chain would this rental company be? What if the end client hands the hypothetical rental company a stack of CD’s or worse, a drive full of MP3’s and requests/insists that they be played? If “ultimately” the owner of the venue is responsible of verifying that proper licensing has been obtained but “everyone involved” is at risk of being named in a lawsuit if proper licensing has not been obtained, how does the vendor in the middle point to either the venue or the end client as the responsible parties?  Is it enough to spell out specific language in the rental agreement? <sarcasm> I know that you are, no doubt, shocked to hear that this scenario might be possible.  However, IF it were to become “common practice” among rental companies to happily play whatever they and/or their client wanted without so much as a hesitation, it would be difficult for any hypothetical rental company to compete if they were the one’s constantly harping on usage rights with their clients. </sarcasm> 

In truth, I’m less shocked by the possibility of the scenario you propose than astonished—nay, agog—by your desire to be proactive about it—even hypothetically. It’s a welcome reprieve from the “let’s not call GG Arts Law until we’ve actually been sued by Disney” approach we are more familiar with.

Merely being named in a lawsuit doesn’t mean that you will necessarily be found responsible—or, as lawyers like to say “liable.” Liability requires that you had a duty to do, or not do, something which you did or did not do. In your hypothetical, its not entirely accurate to say that “ultimately the owner of the venue is responsible for verifying that the proper licensing has been obtained.” Rather, if licensing is required, everyone involved in the performance has a duty to make sure that the proper licenses are obtained—not just the owner of the venue, but the hypothetical rental company and the rental company’s client. Its more accurate to say that, while, ultimately, the owner of the venue is more likely to get sued, everyone involved could be held responsible.

However, you are correct that the hypothetical rental company can put language in its rental agreement that says that whomever is hiring the company (either the venue itself or the person renting the venue, or both) agrees to obtain all necessary licenses and, in the event the rental company is sued and found to be liable for copyright infringement, will cover all of its legal costs and expenses, as well as any damages it might be ordered to pay. The technical term for such a clause is “indemnification and hold harmless”, but there’s no need to use magic legal terms so long as the meaning is clear. While having such a clause in its rental agreement will neither protect the hypothetical rental company from getting sued nor protect it from being liable, it will give the company a contractual basis to turn to the party that signed the rental agreement and say “you agreed to take care of this problem. Fix it!”

Even with an indemnification and hold harmless clause in its pocket, whether or not the hypothetical rental company can happily play whatever it and/or its hypothetical client wanted without so much as a hesitation really depends on the venue where the company has been hired to provide services and where such venue lies on what I call the Risk-O-Meter.  On the low end of the meter lies most for-profit venues (hotels, rental halls, restaurants, conference centers, etc) which more often than not will have obtained the necessary blanket licenses from the major performance rights organizations (ASCAP, BMI and SESAC) to permit that stack of CD’s or a drive full of MP3’s to be played. So, no worries. On the high end you will find the non-profit venues, schools, community centers, and social halls which either don’t know they are supposed to get performance licenses or incorrectly believe that because they are non-profit they are also non-commercial and are exempt from the statutes, rules, laws, and other social orders by which the rest of us must abide. (While not all commercial venues are non-profit, almost all non-profit venues are also commercial.) Your need to harp on usage rights is directly proportionate to where you lie on the Risk-O-Meter—hypothetically speaking, of course.

__________________________________________________________________

For additional information and resources on this and otherGG_logo_for-facebook legal and business issues for the performing arts, visit ggartslaw.com

To ask your own question, write to lawanddisorder@musicalamerica.org.

All questions on any topic related to legal and business issues will be welcome. However, please post only general questions or hypotheticals. GG Arts Law reserves the right to alter, edit or, amend questions to focus on specific issues or to avoid names, circumstances, or any information that could be used to identify or embarrass a specific individual or organization. All questions will be posted anonymously and/or posthumously.

__________________________________________________________________

THE OFFICIAL DISCLAIMER:

THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE!

The purpose of this blog is to provide general advice and guidance, not legal advice. Please consult with an attorney familiar with your specific circumstances, facts, challenges, medications, psychiatric disorders, past-lives, karmic debt, and anything else that may impact your situation before drawing any conclusions, deciding upon a course of action, sending a nasty email, filing a lawsuit, or doing anything rash!

 

Tags:, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Artist Management, Arts Management, Contracts, Copyrights, For Profits, Law and Disorder: Performing Arts Division, Liability, Licensing, Music Rights, Non-Profits, Presenters, Publishing, Recordings, Venues | Comments Closed

How Much Is That Artist In The Window?

Thursday, April 24th, 2014

By Brian Taylor Goldstein, Esq.   

Dear Law and Disorder

My ensemble has been approached by a composer/musician who would like them to do two days of recording for music that she is composing for a theater company. My understanding is that this theater company does quite a bit of touring. Do musicians typically get royalties each time the recording is performed or would this just be a buyout situation with the composer?

As, typically, most musicians rarely get paid what they deserve, I’d rather find a better standard.

We don’t often like to think of performing artists as a commodity, but it situations such as this that remind us why show business is a “business.” Like pricing any other product or service, it always comes down to how badly the buyer wants what you’re selling and how badly you want to sell it to them. In this case, you’ve got two things to sell: (1) the time and talent of the artists to show up for two days and perform whilst being recorded and (2) the right to use the recording of their performance. You can sell them together or separately. You can sell all of the rights or only some of the rights. You can also include any restrictions, limitations, or conditions that you feel might be beneficial to the ensemble. Unlike selling used cars, there’s no Blue Book where you can look up pre-determined values.  Nothing is standard.  Figuring out what to charge and how to charge ultimately depends on an analysis of the specific circumstances of how the recording will be used:

Will the recording be used as background music or as a featured part of the theater company’s production? Will there be other recordings by other prominent artists used during the same performances or as part of the same production? Will the theater company be using the recording for performances at commercial venues or PACs? What is the commercial potential of the production? Do they intend to use the recording to produce and sell a soundtrack or just use the recording for performances? Does being associated with this particular composer or the theater company bring any value or heightened exposure to your ensemble? Is your ensemble more interested in the exposure or the money? Would the recording be something the ensemble would like to use for its own purposes?

Personally, some of the terms I’ve negotiated myself in similar situations as yours have included:

  • Granting the rights to use the recording only for live stage performances, but not for soundtracks, CDs, or digital downloads, each of which would require additional fees and payments.
  • Granting the rights to use the recording for live stage performances except for Broadway, Off-Broadway, or 1st class runs.
  • Granting the rights to use the recording only for a specific period of time, after which, if they wanted to continue using it, they have to re-negotiate.
  • Granting the rights to use the recording in exchange for booking the artists to perform live for a specific number of performances.

Such arrangements can include, where warranted, flat fees or royalties, or a combination of both, or even a percentage of box office from each performance. You can also request that the ensemble be credited in all programs or liner notes, or request that the ensemble get the rights to use the recording for its own promotional purposes. Like any negotiation, the other side may refuse, or propose its own terms, but you need to start somewhere–and, like any good auctioneer, you never want to start the bidding too low.

While it’s certainly tempting to keep things simple and just do a buyout where you charge a flat fee consisting of the engagement fee for the performance and a fee for the rights to the recording, you may be missing out on an opportunity to get creative and explore the possibilities to look beyond the fees and maximize the potential of the entire project to benefit your ensemble.

__________________________________________________________________

For additional information and resources on this and otherGG_logo_for-facebook legal and business issues for the performing arts, visit ggartslaw.com

To ask your own question, write to lawanddisorder@musicalamerica.org.

All questions on any topic related to legal and business issues will be welcome. However, please post only general questions or hypotheticals. GG Arts Law reserves the right to alter, edit or, amend questions to focus on specific issues or to avoid names, circumstances, or any information that could be used to identify or embarrass a specific individual or organization. All questions will be posted anonymously.

__________________________________________________________________

THE OFFICIAL DISCLAIMER:

THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE!

The purpose of this blog is to provide general advice and guidance, not legal advice. Please consult with an attorney familiar with your specific circumstances, facts, challenges, medications, psychiatric disorders, past-lives, karmic debt, and anything else that may impact your situation before drawing any conclusions, deciding upon a course of action, sending a nasty email, filing a lawsuit, or doing anything rash!

 

 

Tags:, , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Agents, Artist Management, Arts Management, Contracts, Copyrights, Law and Disorder: Performing Arts Division, Licensing, Music Rights, Recordings | Comments Closed

Beware of Easy Solutions

Thursday, April 17th, 2014

By Brian Taylor Goldstein, Esq.

A conductor we manage has been invited to conduct one of the orchestras of a University in the United States later this year. He has worked there once before when he conducted performances when he had a J-1 visa. On this occasion however due to the short length of the engagement (6 days), they have suggested that he should apply for a B-1/WB Business Status. The advantages of this is that the artist can do it himself, online, up to 72 hours before his departure and that the cost is approximately $4. The person I am dealing with at the University sent me “guidelines” which say that a person can enter the US on B-1/WB Business Status Visa, and receive an honorarium, as well as be reimbursed for travel and a per diem, if they will be a “lecturer or speaker” at a university or academic institution. They also told me that because our conductor is a citizen of a country that participates in the visa waiver program, he doesn’t even need to apply for such a visa and that it will be granted at the airport when he arrives. All he needs to do is register online for ESTA. This sounds too good to be true! I am very worried that this will not work. Otherwise, the university says we will need to get another J-1 visa.

Unfortunately…or, fortunately…your instincts are correct. The process for getting artists approved to perform in the United States can be so daunting to some that it is understandable that they look for easy or simple answers. With any legal issues—not just visas, but taxes, licenses, contracts, insurance, etc.—if something sounds too good to be true, that’s often the case.

B-1/WB Business Status (which, more accurately, is simply referred to as a B-1/B-2) is just the more formal name for “visitor status.” A B-1/B-2 (“visitor”) visa allows individuals to enter to the United States for visitor activities (touring, shopping, etc.) as well as certain business activities (meetings and conferences). B-1/B-2 status also permits an individual to be a lecturer or speaker at a university or academic institution, and receive an honorarium as well as travel reimbursement and a per diem.

A B-1/B-2 (“visitor”) visa can only be issued by a US Consulate. However, if an individual is a citizen of a country that participates in the Visa Waiver Program, then, by registering on-line with ESTA (Electronic System for Travel Authorization), he or she does not need to obtain an actual visa and are allowed to enter the US as visitors with only a valid passport. All of the restrictions applicable to visitors will apply—including the too often overlooked fact that an artist can never perform in visitor status, regardless of whether or not the artist is paid or unpaid.

Contrary to the “guidelines” you were provided by the university, your conductor is NOT a “lecturer or speaker.” If he is being engaged to conduct an orchestra then that is considered a “performance”, not a lecture or speech, and he is required to have an O-1 visa. The school is also wrong about the J-1 visa. This is not applicable. That is for an “exchange” program, which is also inapplicable in the case. Your conductor needs to obtain an O-1 visa.

 

_________________________________________________________________

For additional information and resources on this and other GG_logo_for-facebooklegal and business issues for the performing arts, visit ggartslaw.com

To ask your own question, write to lawanddisorder@musicalamerica.org.

All questions on any topic related to legal and business issues will be welcome. However, please post only general questions or hypotheticals. GG Arts Law reserves the right to alter, edit or, amend questions to focus on specific issues or to avoid names, circumstances, or any information that could be used to identify or embarrass a specific individual or organization. All questions will be posted anonymously.

__________________________________________________________________

THE OFFICIAL DISCLAIMER:

THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE!

The purpose of this blog is to provide general advice and guidance, not legal advice. Please consult with an attorney familiar with your specific circumstances, facts, challenges, medications, psychiatric disorders, past-lives, karmic debt, and anything else that may impact your situation before drawing any conclusions, deciding upon a course of action, sending a nasty email, filing a lawsuit, or doing anything rash!

 

Tags:, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Artist Management, Law and Disorder: Performing Arts Division, Touring, Visas | Comments Closed

Does Background Music Require A Dramatic License?

Thursday, April 3rd, 2014

By Brian Taylor Goldstein, Esq.   

Dear Law and Disorder:

I have written a one-man show. Do I need to get a dramatic license for background music?

Just to make sure we’re all on the same page, let’s review:

In order for music to be “performed” (either live or via a recording) in a public place, there needs to be a “performance license.” Most often, these licenses are obtained from one of the performance rights organizations (ASACP, BMI or SESAC) and, most often, they are obtained by the theater, concert hall, or venue where the performance is taking place.

In order to perform music “dramatically”—that is, to use a composition as an integral part of a story or plot, or to interpret the composition dramatically, such as through the use of movement, costumes, and props—you must obtain a “dramatic license.” Most often, these licenses are obtained by the composer or producer of the dramatic work.

In short, you will always need a performance license to “perform” music. Whether or not you also need to obtain a “dramatic license” depends on the context of how you are using the composition. These contextual distinctions can be articulated as follows: if you plan to stand and perform, you only need a performance license. If, on the other hand, your performance involves sets and costumes and you will be performing the composition to help tell a story, develop a character, or interpret the composition, you will need both a dramatic license as well as a performance license.

In your case, your answer depends on what you mean by “background music.” If the music is being used purely to create a mood or theme and could easily be replaced with other music with a similar mood or theme (ie: “insert disco music here” or “play something peppy here”), then you only need a performance license. If, on the other hand, your show requires a specific work to be performed in the background at a specific time to help you dramatically convey a specific emotion or event in your narrative (ie: “Somewhere Over The Rainbow” plays in the background while you tell the story of the tornado that dropped a house on your sister), and the thought of replacing that work with anything else renders you heartsick and artistically impotent, then you need a dramatic license.

If you plan on re-recording the works (or recording your own performance), changing the orchestrations, or otherwise making any significant changes or adaptations other than those written by the composer, other licenses may be required as well. As a general rule of thumb, when using any creative material you did not create yourself, its always safest to ask first and use later.

_________________________________________________________________

For additional information and resources on this and other GG_logo_for-facebooklegal and business issues for the performing arts, visit ggartslaw.com

To ask your own question, write to lawanddisorder@musicalamerica.org.

All questions on any topic related to legal and business issues will be welcome. However, please post only general questions or hypotheticals. GG Arts Law reserves the right to alter, edit or, amend questions to focus on specific issues or to avoid names, circumstances, or any information that could be used to identify or embarrass a specific individual or organization. All questions will be posted anonymously.

__________________________________________________________________

THE OFFICIAL DISCLAIMER:

THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE!

The purpose of this blog is to provide general advice and guidance, not legal advice. Please consult with an attorney familiar with your specific circumstances, facts, challenges, medications, psychiatric disorders, past-lives, karmic debt, and anything else that may impact your situation before drawing any conclusions, deciding upon a course of action, sending a nasty email, filing a lawsuit, or doing anything rash!

Tags:, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Artist Management, Arts Management, Copyrights, Law and Disorder: Performing Arts Division, Music Rights, Publishing, Venues | Comments Closed

Does An Artist Need An Original Visa Approval Notice?

Thursday, March 27th, 2014

By Brian Taylor Goldstein, Esq.   

Dear Law and Disorder:

Does a conductor who has been approved for an O-1 visa need to bring the original approval notice to the consulate or will a color scan of the original work? We have been getting conflicting information, including a representative at the consulate telling us on the phone that he would also need the original to enter the US. We are also concerned because when we try to schedule his appointment at the consulate we keep getting locked out of the system. Is this because we need the original or a different approval number than the one we have? 

Like any large institution, the various branches and agencies of our government are populated both with dedicated, intelligent employees who do exemplary jobs under stressful and demanding circumstances as well as with lower level invertebrates who slithered in searching for food and mysteriously found themselves employed. Sadly, you appear to have been given information from a fruit fly.

The conductor’s visa petition needs to be approved by the time of his visa appointment, but he does NOT need to bring the original approval notice with him. When a petition is filed, USCIS will issue a petition receipt notice. The receipt notice will contain a receipt number—beginning with “EAC” if it was filed at the Vermont Service Center or beginning with “WAC” if it was filed with the California Service Center.” You can use that receipt number to schedule an appointment at the consulate.

Once the petition is approved, USCIS will issue an approval notice. (As I mentioned in a recent post, be prepared to wait longer for approval notices from both services centers these days. Vermont Service Center is currently taking 30 – 60 days for standard processing of O and P petitions!!!!) The approval notice will contain the same number as the receipt number. At the time of the interview, the Consular Office will use the receipt/approval number to confirm that the petition has been approved. While, in ages past, the consulates used to require the physical approval notice, that system was replaced over 5 years ago with an on-line verification system whereby the consulate can confirm an approval using the receipt/approval number and accessing the USCIS petition approval verification database. However, be forewarned that it can take up to three days between the date of the approval and the approval itself being entered into the database. Bringing a copy of the physical approval notice will not help bridge this gap. Under the new system, the consulate is not allowed to issue a visa until they have confirmed approval in the database. In other words, the physical approval notice has been rendered obsolete.

Although we continue to recommend that an artist bring a copy of the approval notice (or the original, if available) to the appointment for reference, neither the original nor a color print out of the scanned original is necessary. While, occasionally, the folks manning the switchboards and appointment lines of some consulates tell people to bring the original approval notice, the US State Department has repeatedly re-affirmed that this is not mandatory and the Consular Officers themselves are well aware of this. As for being told that the original is required in order to enter the US, that, too, is pure misinformation.

If you are experiencing an error in the on-line system, it has nothing to do with your approval notice. Rather, it is due to the fact that government contracts for software design and maintenance are too often meted out to the lowest bidder. I suspect you are the victim of a software glitch on the consulate’s website, which is not in the least uncommon. Just wait and keep trying.

_________________________________________________________________

For additional information and resources on this and other GG-logo_for-twitterlegal and business issues for the performing arts, visit ggartslaw.com

To ask your own question, write to lawanddisorder@musicalamerica.org.

All questions on any topic related to legal and business issues will be welcome. However, please post only general questions or hypotheticals. GG Arts Law reserves the right to alter, edit or, amend questions to focus on specific issues or to avoid names, circumstances, or any information that could be used to identify or embarrass a specific individual or organization. All questions will be posted anonymously.

__________________________________________________________________

THE OFFICIAL DISCLAIMER:

THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE!

The purpose of this blog is to provide general advice and guidance, not legal advice. Please consult with an attorney familiar with your specific circumstances, facts, challenges, medications, psychiatric disorders, past-lives, karmic debt, and anything else that may impact your situation before drawing any conclusions, deciding upon a course of action, sending a nasty email, filing a lawsuit, or doing anything rash!

 

Tags:, , , , , , ,
Posted in Artist Management, Arts Management, Law and Disorder: Performing Arts Division, Touring, Visas | Comments Closed

What’s The New Normal In Contract Practice?

Thursday, March 20th, 2014

By Brian Taylor Goldstein, Esq.

Dear Law and Disorder:

What’s the new “normal” in reviewing and exchanging contracts? We are receiving an increasing number of contracts that had been issued as PDF files coming back as word files or even revised PDF files which means I have to read every single line of the agreement (along with an original version open beside it) in order to approve what is essentially a new version of the instrument we painstakingly crafted. Isn’t the presenter obligated to sign what we send or at least tell us they are amending our contract? We scratching our heads trying to understand what constitutes the “new normal” in contract practice.

I am the last person to proclaim what is and what is not “normal”. Normal is boring. Normal lacks imagination. Normal is not what the arts are all about. Nonetheless, when it comes to contract practice, many people in our industry continue to look for rigidity in a process that is intended to be quite fluid.

When you send a contract to another party, regardless of how brilliantly or painstakingly crafted the contract may be, you are sending them a “proposal” of the terms for their review. After all, unless you’re working within the structure of a pre-negotiated collective bargaining agreement, negotiating the terms of an engagement is not merely about agreeing on the date, time, and fee.   Everything about the engagement is negotiable as well: insurance, force majeure terms, technical requirements, warranties, licenses, recording rights, approvals, publicity restrictions, exclusivity, cancellation, taxes, visas, etc.

While, as a general rule, a contract should never be presented until both sides have at least agreed to all of the most important terms, there are bound to be additional terms and requirements that were not discussed—and even if they were discussed, chances are the wording or phraseology in the contract may or may not comport with a party’s understanding of what was agreed upon. The contract is the way to present and memorialize all of the additional terms that are important to the engagement, but may not have been clearly discussed at the outset. Many people call all of these additional term “legalese” or “boilerplate” terms, but, remember, nothing is standard…everything is negotiable. Even if you find yourself in the enviable position of being able to say “take it or leave it”, no one is ever obligated to agree to anything. As a result, unless you have somehow managed to discuss and agree upon each and every term ahead of time, the presentation of a contract is often how the negotiation continues, not ends.

Both professional courtesy and common sense would suggest that, before anyone starts making contractual amendments, the party proposing or requesting such changes should bring them to the other party’s attention either by highlighting them or discussing them ahead of time. While marking up a contract with handwritten comments has long been the practice, technology makes it relatively easy to take a PDF, format it into an editable word document, and make changes. However, most word processing programs also allow you to “compare” two documents. So, rather than having to painstakingly read every single line of an agreement, you can just as easily ask your word processing program to compare the old and new versions and it will automatically highlight all of the changes for you.

Personally, because my handwriting often looks like a headless chicken ran through a puddle of ink, I love being able to make changes and edits directly to the text of a contract. However, I then use my word processing program to compare the old version with my version, rename the document, and send it to the other party with all of my proposed changes clearly marked. I also like to add a watermark that says “draft” on each page. Its only when all the terms have been agreed upon by all the parties that is time to remove the watermark, PDF the document, and get everyone to sign it.

________________________________________________________________

For additional information and resources on this and other GG_logo_for-facebooklegal and business issues for the performing arts, visit ggartslaw.com

To ask your own question, write to lawanddisorder@musicalamerica.org.

All questions on any topic related to legal and business issues will be welcome. However, please post only general questions or hypotheticals. GG Arts Law reserves the right to alter, edit or, amend questions to focus on specific issues or to avoid names, circumstances, or any information that could be used to identify or embarrass a specific individual or organization. All questions will be posted anonymously.

__________________________________________________________________

THE OFFICIAL DISCLAIMER:

THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE!

The purpose of this blog is to provide general advice and guidance, not legal advice. Please consult with an attorney familiar with your specific circumstances, facts, challenges, medications, psychiatric disorders, past-lives, karmic debt, and anything else that may impact your situation before drawing any conclusions, deciding upon a course of action, sending a nasty email, filing a lawsuit, or doing anything rash!

 

Tags:, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Agents, Artist Management, Arts Management, Contracts, Law and Disorder: Performing Arts Division, Presenters, Venues | Comments Closed

US VISA WARNING: Beware of the Vermont Service Center! Abandon All Hope Ye Who File There!

Thursday, March 6th, 2014

By Brian Taylor Goldstein, Esq.   

Dear Law and Disorder

We filed P-1 and P-1S visa petitions at the Vermont Service Center for a group we have been touring regularly for the past 5 years. This would have been their sixth P-1 visa. Last year, we were getting petitions approved in about week. This time, after waiting 4 weeks, we got a notice asking us for a copy of our contract with the group, among other items. We’re the agent and never had to provide this before. They also wanted our contract with the group’s tour manager. We don’t have a contract with the group’s tour manager. We explained that and the P-1S petition got denied. But this same tour manager was approved last year and we supplied the same evidence this time that we did last year. What’s going on?

I wish I knew. After a period of uncharacteristic, but welcome, efficiency and competency for almost a year, the USCIS Vermont Service Center has imploded. Whether they were hit by a radioactive meteor, unearthed a demonic spirit living beneath the mail room, or were attacked by brain-eating zombies (who doubtlessly left disappointed and hungry), we may never know. What we do know is that we have been receiving multiple reports from all sectors of the performing arts reporting major problems with the Vermont Service Center, including significant processing delays, inane RFEs (Requests for Evidence), and even outright denials for O and P artists who have previously been approved for O and P visas.

The League of American Orchestras, in collaboration with the broader performing arts community, is submitting a formal complaint, as is AILA (the American Immigration Lawyers Association). In the meantime, here is a list of some of the most serious problems we have encountered and some suggestions on how to address them:

1. Processing Delays.

As many of you may recall, USCIS entered into a voluntary commitment to improve processing times for artist visas and, as recently as December 2013, regular processing times for O and P visa petitions were averaging 2 weeks or less. For the last year, our clients rarely had to pay the extra $1225 for premium processing. However, as most of you know all too well, the problem with anything “voluntary” is that you can’t force a volunteer to do anything. While the USCIS website continues to list an average timeframe of 14 days for regular processing of O and P visa petitions, the reality is that it is currently taking 30 days or longer. In some instances, VSC has taken over two weeks just to issue a receipt notice.

SOLUTION: Do not rely on the projected processing times listed on the USCIS website! File petitions as far in advance as possible or seriously consider premium processing any petition where the artist needs to arrive in less than 2 months from the date of filing.

2. RFEs Asking For What Seems Obvious.  

For example, orchestras have reported receiving RFEs on petitions filed for internationally known conductors (many of whom have been approved for prior O-1 visas) where USCIS asked for further evidence on how a conductor is critical or plays a lead role in an orchestra. USCIS has also been issuing RFEs asking for an explanation of why an Executive Director provides “essential support” to a group on tour or asking for a list of the duties of a Stage Manager or Lighting Designer.

SOLUTION: We have always recommended that, when it comes to preparing visa petitions, never assume that the USCIS examiner has any familiarity with the performing arts. This seems to be the case now more than ever. Always err on the side of over-explaining everything—What does a Concert Master do? Why is a specific award important? Covent Garden is an opera house, not a plant nursery. Etc. USCIS seems to be particularly focused on petitions for P-1S and O-2 support personal. As such, it is no longer sufficient simply to list the names and jobs of support personnel. Provide a brief biography for each person, along with a short, but specific explanation of their duties and experience working with the O-1 artist or P-1 group.

3. RFEs Asking For Employment Contracts For Support Personnel.

In yet a further attempt to thwart O-2 and P-1S petitions, USCIS has been issuing RFEs asking for evidence of who will be employing each support person. For example, if your petition includes engagement letters or contracts from presenters booking the O-1 artist or P-1 group, USCIS also wants to see the employment terms for each O-2 or P-1S support person.

SOLUTION: Provide either a statement from the O-1 artist or P-1 group explaining who will be paying the fees or salaries of each support person or provide a very basic deal memo or term sheet for each O-2 or P-1S support person outlining the fees they will be receiving and who will be paying them.

4. Unsigned Contracts

USCIS has recently been rejecting blank or unsigned contracts. USCIS wants either a signed engagement contract or written summary of the terms of an engagement.

SOLUTION: Do not send USCIS anything with a signature line on it which is not signed, especially contracts. If you have an unsigned contract, either get it signed or don’t send it. Instead, submit a copy of an email confirming the engagement terms, a written summary of the engagement terms, a letter to or from a venue confirming the engagement terms and signed by the sender, or a deal memo listing all the terms, but with no place for anyone to sign anything.

5. Truncated Classification Periods. 

In the past, USCIS has been willing to approve visa petitions to cover additional time before and after a performance to accommodate rehearsals, extra performances, and unanticipated activities. More recently, however, USCIS has been issuing approval notices only for the specific time reflected in the engagement contracts or confirmations. For example, if your petition asks for a classification period of March 1, 2014 through February 28, 2015, but the performance contracts only reflect performances between March 11, 2014 and February 20, 2015, USCIS is issuing the approval notice only for March 11, 2014 through February 20, 2015.

SOLUTION: Make sure that the contracts and written confirmations you supply in support of your classification period reflect the actual dates you need. For example, if the performance is on March 11, 2014, but the artist or group wants to enter on March 6, 2014, make sure that the contract or written confirmation reflects that the artist is required to enter the US on March 6, 2014.

While the bulk of this madness seems to be coming from the Vermont Service Center, there is every reason to believe that the California Service Center will not be far behind. Until this sorts itself out, file early, provide as much supporting documentation and details as you can, and continue to check www.artistsfromabroad.org as well as our own website for further updates.

__________________________________________________________________

For additional information and resources on this and otherGG_logo_for-facebook legal and business issues for the performing arts, visit ggartslaw.com

To ask your own question, write to lawanddisorder@musicalamerica.org.

All questions on any topic related to legal and business issues will be welcome. However, please post only general questions or hypotheticals. GG Arts Law reserves the right to alter, edit or, amend questions to focus on specific issues or to avoid names, circumstances, or any information that could be used to identify or embarrass a specific individual or organization. All questions will be posted anonymously.

__________________________________________________________________

THE OFFICIAL DISCLAIMER:

THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE!

The purpose of this blog is to provide general advice and guidance, not legal advice. Please consult with an attorney familiar with your specific circumstances, facts, challenges, medications, psychiatric disorders, past-lives, karmic debt, and anything else that may impact your situation before drawing any conclusions, deciding upon a course of action, sending a nasty email, filing a lawsuit, or doing anything rash!

 

 

 

Tags:, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Agents, Artist Management, Arts Management, Law and Disorder: Performing Arts Division, Touring, Visas | Comments Closed

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »