contract | Musical America Blogs

Posts Tagged ‘contract’

Never Play Chess With Pigeons

Thursday, October 1st, 2015

By Brian Taylor Goldstein, Esq.

Dear Law and Disorder

I’ve been asked sign a bad performance review with a number of inaccuracies. Can I be fired if I don’t sign it? Or should I insist that it be amended to reflect the truth? Our Executive Director is very emotional and hard to deal with, but I’m thinking that I should at least try and sit down and get her to change her mind rather than just give in.

Unless you have an employment contract—or, in some cases, an employee manual—that specifically sets forth the circumstances and conditions under which you can be terminated, then it probably doesn’t matter whether you sign it or not. Many states, such as the State of New York, are what are referred to as “employment at will” states. You would need to check the laws in your specific state. However, “employment at will” means that an employer can pretty much hire and fire as he or she pleases and a discharged employee usually will have no legal recourse even when the discharge is unfair or unreasonable. The only exceptions would be termination based on statutorily defined discrimination—such as race, religion, gender, age, or disability. (Certain more enlightened jurisdictions, such as New York City, also include sexual orientation and marital status in this list.) Other than that, an employer in an “employment at will” state can walk in one day and fire anyone for any reason. In other words, unless one of the exceptions apply, you can be fired whether you sign the bad review or not.

Ideally, it would great if you could correct the record. A bad review that indicates you failed to follow instructions or disregarded office policies could negatively impact your eligibility for unemployment compensation should you be fired. However, correcting the record may not always be practical or realistic.

If your boss is “very emotional and hard to deal with”, you are not alone. There is no shortage in our industry of exceptionally talented and creative individuals who, nonetheless, should be heavily medicated. Many of these souls find themselves unfettered and autonomously in charge of distinguished arts organizations and businesses.

I am constantly amazed at how many people cling to the belief that a logical argument, persuasive reasoning, or “the right words” will magically transform an otherwise irrational person into Socrates. In fact, whether you are negotiating a contract or trying to mollify an artist, attempting to reason with an emotional or irrational person is like playing chess with a pigeon: it doesn’t matter how brilliant you are, the pigeon is still going to knock over all the pieces and poop on the chess board. Getting such a person to admit he or she is wrong about anything will only be met with defensiveness, paranoia, reminders of how you should be more appreciative of their past largess with regard to your past transgressions (most of which you will have never been told about before), and accusations that you are being argumentative, not a team player, exasperating, and disrespectful.

The best, and only, way to begin any conversation with someone being unreasonable or emotional, and who also happens to be in charge, is to validate, never confront. Assuming you want to remain employed, you need to accept that your boss “owns reality” at the moment and learn to live and work within that fantasy land. You don’t have to admit the facts to admit that your boss’s perception that you have done a poor job or failed to meet expectations is a perception you are enthusiastically willing to correct. Like a bad review of a concert or performance, thank the critic and then move on.

_________________________________________________________________

For additional information and resources on this and other legal, project management, and business issues for the performing arts, visit ggartslaw.com

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

All questions on any topic related to legal, management, 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:contract, exceptions, work
Posted in Arts Management, Employees, Law and Disorder: Performing Arts Division | Comments Closed

Are You Being Served?

Thursday, June 11th, 2015

By Brian Taylor Goldstein, Esq.

Dear Law and Disorder:

You frequently mention that the artists are our clients, but aren’t the presenters our clients, too? If an artist is acting unreasonably or is going to do something which we know will negatively impact the presenter, we can’t afford to alienate or lose a relationship with the presenter over one artist. We will need to work with them in the future.

No one can serve two masters. The artists are your clients. The presenters are your customers. When you are in the business of representing others—whether its in real estate, law, insurance, investment, business transactions, or the performing arts—this is an important distinction to understand: while you need to be polite and professional to your customers, you owe allegiance to your clients.

Think of it this way: I have a friend who manages one of the perfume counters at Saks in New York. He works directly for the perfume distributor and, as such, his job is to sell as much of his products as he can. He knows his product line, represents it well, and offers impeccable customer service. If a shopper wanders by, his job is to turn the shopper into a customer by enticing them with the signs, smells, and quality of his products. However, what if the shopper doesn’t want or like his brand? What if they are allergic to the smell of Eggplant Noir or they find the name “Evening in Hoboken” is less than enticing? My friend smiles and lets them wander over to Guerlain or Jo Malone. He remains true to his products even if it means losing a customer.

As managers and agents, it is in everyone’s interest—both yours and your artist’s—to provide the best customer service possible to presenters and venues. First and foremost, it makes good business sense. A manager’s or agent’s professional relationships are among the most valuable asset he or she provides to an artist. Second, the arts community is quite small and the shoe you step on today may be the one you have to lick tomorrow. Nevertheless, as an artist manager or agent, you legally owe a duty to the artists you represent to act only in the artist’s best interest, not your own, and to take no actions that would advance your own interests at the expense of your artist. These, among other duties—such as fiduciary duties and duties of care—are legally implied in every manager/agent relationship with an artist—even where no formal contract exist. In fact, the law considers these duties so important, that any attempt to have artists waive them in a contract are considered void and unenforceable.

Admittedly, this can often pose some frustrating conundrums for managers and agents—especially in situations where an artist directs you to withhold important information from a presenter or directs you to take action that you know could harm the presenter and harm your own relationship with the presenter. This can include anything from performing without the necessary licenses or visas to intending to skip out on a residency activity they didn’t want to do in the first place by feigning illness. Should such circumstances arise, then your duty is to advise your artist against the foolishness of his or her plans. However, if the artist persists, and you believe that your own professional relationship with the presenter would be imperiled, then your only legal course of action is to drop the artist from your roster. Anything else—such as giving the presenter a “head’s up”—would be a legal breach of duty. If you would prefer a role where you are legally allowed to act in your own best interest at the expense of all others, start a record label or become a producer.

__________________________________________________________________

For additional information and resources on this and other legal, project management, and business issues for the performing arts, visit ggartslaw.com

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

__________________________________________________________________

THE OFFICIAL DISCLAIMER:

THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE!

Tags:agent, artist, artist manager, breach, contract, fiduciary duties, relationships, transaction
Posted in Agents, Artist Management, Law and Disorder: Performing Arts Division, Liability, Presenters | Comments Closed

Understanding Legalese

Thursday, May 28th, 2015

By Brian Taylor Goldstein, Esq.

Dear Law and Disorder:

Every time someone sends us a contract, its always a lengthy document with lots of legalese that no one understands. Is there anything wrong with having a simple, one page agreement that everyone can easily understand and will sign?

A lot of people mistake “legalese” for language and terms they either don’t understand or haven’t considered. They see words on a page and immediately assume they can’t possible understand them.

This is legalese:

The party of the first part, which party has previously and hereinafter shall continue to be referred to as the Presenting Party, in and for the mutual obligations, conveyances, and other considerations contained herein, the sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, does for itself and on behalf of its officers, directors, employees, agents, and assigns (hereinafter the “Presenting Parties”), which the Presenting Party does herein attest, warrant, and represent that it has the authority so to represent and bind under the terms of this agreement, does herein and hereby concur, agree, and consent to prohibit, prevent, proscribe and preclude, so the best of its reasonable ability, the degree and extent of such “reasonability” to be determined herein as the term “reasonable” is defined in this Agreement hereunder, the recording and/or memorialization through any and all visual and/or audio and/or audio-visual means and methodologies now existing or hereinafter discovered, invented, or devised, including, but not limited to photography, analog and digital sound recordings, videotaping, screen captures, and any other human or machine-readable medium, the performance of the party of the second part, which party has previously and hereinafter shall continue to be referred to as the Performing Party, including, but not limited to, the performance or any portion of the performance of the Performing Party, including, but not limited to, excerpts, samplings, moments, movements, scenes, rehearsals, outtakes, or other manifestations of the performance or any portion of the performance of the Performing Party, for any purposes of any kind or nature, including, but not limited to…well, you get the idea.

This is not:

The Presenter agrees to prevent any unauthorized broadcasting, photographing, recording, or any other transmission or reproduction of any performance(s) or residency activity of the Artist, or any part thereof, by any means or media now known or hereafter invented, including, but not limited to audio, visual, or audio-visual means, and including any “archival” recordings, unless the express prior written consent of the Artist has been obtained.

The difference is that the first example uses unnecessary verbiage, poor grammar, and confusing structure. The second example just has a lot of detail. Don’t confuse “legalese” with “detail.” Whereas you don’t want legalese, you do want detail. Why? Because the whole point of a written document memorializing the terms of an agreement (also known as a “written contract”) is to convey information—not just to have a piece of paper that everyone signs.

Too many people want contracts that are “simple” and “brief” so that the parties will sign them, but that’s pointless. Merely having a signed contract does not mean that an engagement won’t get canceled, that commissions will get paid, artists won’t leave, or that any number of nasty things won’t happen to you. Signed contracts are not self-enforcing. If a dispute arises that cannot otherwise be resolved, the only way to enforce the terms of a contract is with a lawsuit. Lawsuits, as you know, achieve nothing other than making trial lawyers ecstatically happy and wealthy. No one in the performing arts can afford that, either personally or professionally. You don’t want to wait until a dispute arises to find out that you and the other party had vastly different assumptions about what was and was not expected and allowed. Instead, you want to make sure that everyone understands all of the aspects of a project or engagement at the outset and, hopefully, can discuss and evaluate the risks, challenges, advantages, obligations, and expectations of the relationship before they agree to it. In other words, you use a contract to educate, not to enforce.

What determines the length of a contract is the complexity of the project or engagement itself. An agreement for a single artist to perform a single recital is going to be shorter than an agreement for an orchestra to perform a world tour. Similarly, an assignment or transfer of all rights is going to be less complex than a recording agreement or an agreement to re-orchestrate an existing work.

Our industry is blessed with amazingly creative and dynamic professionals who are second to none when it comes to creating imaginative collaborations and engaging performances. However, they become slightly less than stellar when it comes to understanding the business and legal arrangements necessary to effectuate these plans. It’s one thing to discuss dates, repertoire, scheduling, and fees. It’s quite another to consider all of the various details, challenges, and misunderstandings that might come into play: will music or other copyrighted materials need to be licensed? If so, whose responsibility is this? Can either party cancel? Under what circumstances? What if someone gets sick or there is a fire at the venue? Who bears the loss of expenses cannot be recovered? Who is responsible if an artist is injured? Who is responsible for someone in the audience gets hurt? Who is responsible if an artist or crew member damages property of the venue? Who is responsible if someone from the venue damages property of the artist or show? Will visas be required for any artist? Whose responsibility is this? Is the engagement fee to be paid in dollars, pound sterling, euros, or other currency? Which exchange rate will apply? Who is responsible for taxes? Are deposits non-refundable?

This is where a contract comes into play. Yes, it takes time to create and read all of this detail. However, a detailed contract can be filled with all sorts of interesting and mutually beneficial revelations. For example, when recently negotiating the terms of an engagement for one of our own artists, I presented our engagement contract to the presenter—which contains a clause, much like the one above, prohibiting any recordings, including archival recordings. The presenter wanted to make an archival recording and assumed, incorrectly, that these were always permitted. We were able to find a workable solution and adjusted the contract accordingly. We also discovered that while the presenter had not factored in meals and transportation into the budget, we had misunderstood when the presenter actually wanted the artist to arrive. We were able to adjust all of these issues, none of which would have been discovered had we not taken the time to think through all of the various details. In the end, it didn’t matter whether or not the contract was even signed because going through the process itself allowed the presenter and I to discuss all of the details. The contract served its purpose.

In short, a more detailed contract that makes people stop and say “wait, I didn’t agree to that” or “what exactly do you mean by this?” is far better than an artificially simplistic one that everyone signs now and then squabbles about later whilst lashing out such cherished and time-worn drivel as “but that’s industry standard” or “that’s the way its always done.”

_________________________________________________________________

For additional information and resources on this and other legal, project management, and business issues for the performing arts, visit ggartslaw.com

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

__________________________________________________________________

THE OFFICIAL DISCLAIMER:

THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE!

Tags:agent, assumptions, attorney, commissions, contract, Contracts, copyright, damages, dispute, engagement contract, excerpts, lawsuit, lawyer, license, presenter, recording, Tour, venue, visas
Posted in Agents, Artist Management, Arts Management, Contracts, Copyrights, Insurance, Law and Disorder: Performing Arts Division, Licensing, Music Rights, Presenters, Touring, Venues | Comments Closed

The Damaging Truth About Cancellation Damages

Thursday, March 12th, 2015

By Brian Taylor Goldstein, Esq.

Dear Law and Disorder:

A presenter wants to breach our engagement contract by cancelling. Our cancellation clause says that, in the event of cancellation, we get 50% of the engagement fee or actual damages. They are offering 50%, but at this stage want the full fee.

If you have an engagement contract that has a cancellation clause, and a presenter cancels, then the presenter is not breaching your contract. A contract breach only occurs when someone fails to do something the contract requires (such as pay a deposit) or does something the contract does not permit (such as record a performance). In this case, if your contract has a cancellation clause, then you have given the presenter the right to cancel. So long as the presenter complies with the terms of your cancellation clause, then they are not in breach. They are merely exercising the right you gave them to cancel. If you don’t want them to cancel, don’t give them the right to do so.

According to your cancellation clause, if a presenter elects to cancel, they have to pay you either 50% of the engagement fee or actual damages. However, your actual damages may or may not be the full engagement fee. To determine whether or not you are entitled to the full engagement fee, you first have to calculate your “actual damages.” Actual damages are simply that: your actual out-of-pocket losses from the cancellation of that particular engagement. No more. No less. Calculating “actual damages” involves taking the full engagement fee and subtracting any costs or amounts you saved or did not incur as a result of not having to perform.

In some instances, the “full engagement fee” might include the performance fee as well as other costs, such as the value of travel and/or hotel that the presenter was covering. However, for the sake of simplicity, let’s assume that the full engagement fee was $5000, of which you needed $2000 to cover costs such as travel and equipment, leaving $3000 for profit. If by cancelling, you did not have to incur the travel and equipment costs, that means you saved $2000, and your “actual damages” are $3000. You would only be entitled to the full fee of $5000 if the engagement were cancelled too late for you to save or recoup any of your costs.

However, “actual damages” can never exceed the total value of the full engagement fee. As we all know, sometimes a single cancellation in a larger tour can also have residual implications. What if you were counting on the travel and hotel from a larger presenter to “underwrite” the costs of a smaller engagement fee from another presenter or run-out? If the larger engagement gets cancelled, that may necessitate the cancellation of the smaller one as well, or even the entire tour. Sadly, those losses are not “actual damages.” That’s just called bad planning.

Just because you were counting on something to make an entire tour break even, does make the loss “actual damages.” If the loss of a single engagement will trigger a domino effect, such as the cancellation of the entire tour, then, in addition to “actual damages”, you have suffered “consequential damages.” I know, that doesn’t make sense, but lawyers came up with these concepts hundreds of years ago and contracts still use the same broken terminology. This is the risk inherent in using contractual language you copy from someone else or don’t fully understand. You may inadvertently be using language that makes sense to you, but has a different legal meaning. The solution is simple: use English and be specific—even if it means (perish the thought!) using more words. For example, rather than write “we get 50% or actual damages” write what you mean:

If you cancel the contract, we get either a minimum of 50% of the engagement fee or all of the damages we actual incur as a result of the cancellation, including the cancellation of other engagements and/or any additional costs we must incur for travel, hotel, or other tour expenses, whichever is greater.

Wordier? Yes. Clearer? Indeed. An even clearer solution? Specify at the outset that the engagement is non-cancellable.

__________________________________________________________________

For additional information and resources on this and other legal, project management, and business issues for the performing arts, visit ggartslaw.com

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

__________________________________________________________________

THE OFFICIAL DISCLAIMER:

THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE!

Tags:breach, cancellation, cancellation clause, contract, Contracts, damages, engagement contract, engagements, losses, presenter, risk, Tour
Posted in Agents, Artist Management, Arts Management, Contracts, Law and Disorder: Performing Arts Division, Liability, Presenters, Touring | Comments Closed

The Divine Right To Cancel

Thursday, February 12th, 2015

By Brian Taylor Goldstein, Esq.

We were in the process of booking one of our singers with an orchestra, when we encountered the following Force Majeure clause in the orchestra’s contract: “If, as a result of any event beyond the control of the Orchestra, including, but not limited to, war, national calamity, strike, labor relations, lack of funds, poor ticket sales, or other Acts of God or force majeure of any kind or nature, Orchestra determines it necessary to suspend, cancel, or terminate the giving of any of the performances specified herein, then the Orchestra, in its sole discretion, shall have the right to do so by giving notice to the Artist. Upon such notice, the Orchestra and Artist shall be relieved from any further obligations under this Agreement without any liability of either party to the other for any damages arising from such suspension, cancelation, or termination.” We asked if they would strike the reference to “lack of funds” and “poor ticket sales”, but we were told that their contracts must be approved by their board of directors and, as such, nothing can be changed. Have you encountered this before? Do you have any advice on how to respond?

Telling someone that a contract cannot be changed because their board of directors says it can’t be changed is the equivalent of a parent telling a child “because I said so.” As I am frequently reminded when faced with the manifest irrationalities of my own parents: do not engage and back away.

I actually don’t doubt that the orchestra’s board of directors did, in fact, suggest and recommend such language. It’s just the type of thing a poorly formed board of wealthy corporate donors with no actual arts experience would come up with. (It brings to mind an occasion when I was called in to consult with a board of directors who was insisting that no season could be planned or programmed unless the artistic director was willing to guarantee exactly how many tickets would be sold to each performance!) Regardless, such language is absurd and quite frankly, insulting and unprofessional.

It is absurd because, as I have previously written, a force majeure clause is supposed to be limited to events truly beyond anyone’s control: floods, snowstorms, terrorist attacks, etc. Ticket sales and funding are not determined either by serendipity or the intervention of divine energies (though I often suspect many strategic plans are based on such notions.) I find it insulting and unprofessional because the orchestra’s board of directors is trying to obfuscate a cancellation provision under the pretext of a force majeure clause. By defining force majeure to include “lack of funds” and “poor ticket sales” the orchestra is attempting to give itself the luxury of being able to cancel at any time for any reason with no liability or consequence. Contractually, this would render the Agreement terminable at will by the orchestra and, thus, meaningless for the Artist.

As a compromise, I would propose amending the force majeure clause and adding to the agreement a proper cancellation clause whereby, if the Orchestra felt that it needed to cancel due to “lack of funds” or “poor ticket sales” then they would have the right to do so by paying a specific, pre-determined cancellation fee. If the orchestra refuses such a reasonable alternative, then I would simply thank the orchestra for its time and walk away.

I realize, of course, that, in practical terms, artists are not always in a position to walk away. Just like good art always requires risk, occasionally this applies to deals and negotiations as well. Perhaps the artist is young and needs engagements. Or perhaps the engagement presents an artistic or resume-building opportunity to the artist. Those might be reasonable reasons to take a risk. However, such risky transactions must be entered into with eyes wide open as opposed to wide shut. As the artist’s manager, it falls to you to make sure the artist understands the risks and that both of you understand that, should the orchestra avail itself of its contractually unfettered right to cancel, you will accept that and, whilst reserving the right to swoon, sway, and cry foul, resist the temptation to threaten a frivolous lawsuit.

_________________________________________________________________

For additional information and resources on this and other 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!

Tags:acts of god, artist, cancellation, cancellation clause, cancellation fee, contract, Contracts, damages, engagements, flood, force majeure, negotiation, poor ticket sales, storms
Posted in Acts of God, Artist Management, Arts Management, Contracts, Law and Disorder: Performing Arts Division, Liability, Non-Profits, Presenters, Venues | Comments Closed

“Leave Here and You Die!” Unenforceable Non-Compete Agreements

Thursday, November 13th, 2014

By Brian Taylor Goldstein, Esq.

Dear Law and Disorder:

The management company where I work has asked me to sign a non-compete agreement saying that, if I ever quit or am fired, I would be prohibited from working as a manager or agent anywhere in the world for one year after I leave. The owner also contends that the names and addresses of all venues belong to him and that I cannot contact any presenters or venue where I booked an artist for him. Do I have to sign this? Is this reasonable?

You never have to sign anything. Can an employer require an employee to sign a non-compete or be fired? Under certain circumstances, yes. Are the terms you describe reasonable? Hardly. More importantly, even if you signed it, I doubt very much that such an agreement would be enforceable.

In most instances, parties can use a contract to negotiate and agree to just about anything: how and when artists are paid, how commission are calculated, how rights are transferred or licensed, who files and pays for visa petitions, how royalties are calculated, whether the artist gets still or sparkling water in the dressing room, liability, insurance, benefits, salaries—the list is practically endless. However, there are certain instances—albeit rare—when a contractual term will be rendered void or unenforceable. Such instances include:

(1) When a contract either requires a party to do something which would be illegal or refrain from doing something which they have a legal obligation to do.

(2) When a contract term violates an existing law or policy which courts have decided cannot be altered.

Contracts are governed by state laws. In this case, most state laws (particularly the State of New York) will not enforce a non-compete agreement which a judge determines to be “unreasonable” or “over-reaching”—even if the parties agree to it. Reams and reams of case law have determined that prohibiting an ex-employee from working with current clients of the employer is reasonable, but only for a reasonable amount of time—such as a year or two (sometimes longer depending upon the specific circumstances.) However, unless an ex-employee was also the CEO or President of the company, prohibiting an ex-employer from being able to work in the industry in which they earn a living is considered inherently un-reasonable and never enforceable. Simply put, no employer ever has the right to force an ex-employee to move to a different state, change careers, or be rendered unemployable. If the situation were otherwise, too many employers could use the threat of termination to induce or force employees to sign unreasonable non-compete agreements.

As far protecting the confidential or propriety information of an employer, a court will enforce such an agreement provided the information was confidential or proprietary to begin with. Under the Law of Agency, when someone represents someone else, all information belongs to the person they represent. With regard to the arts and entertainment field, any information pertaining to an artist—engagement agreements, the names and contact information of any venues or presenters a manager or agent has contacted on behalf of the artist, the terms of any engagements under negotiation or discussion, etc—all belong to the artist, not the artist’s manager or agent. Moreover, names and addresses are never “proprietary.” The term “proprietary” refers to something unique created or invented by an employer and specific to that employer—such as the colonel’s secret chicken recipe, internal operating procedures or budgets, mark ups, etc. Simply because a manager or agent writes down the name and address of a venue does not make it proprietary. To be sure, an employee, much less an ex-employee, is never permitted to take the physical property or download the files of an employer. However, if something such as names and addresses can be found elsewhere—such as on the internet, in a published list, or is otherwise publically available—then you are free to compile your own list of such information.

As for not being able to book or contact any venues or presenters where you booked artists for a former employer, once again, whether or not this would be enforceable would depend on the “reasonability” of the restriction. If were are talking about a prohibition against contacting particular venues in a particular region for a reasonable period of time, that would probably be enforceable. However, if enforcement of such a restriction would prohibit you from being able to book any artists at any venues in the United States or world-wide that would never be enforceable.

It’s frustrating enough when an artist leaves a roster—its even more so when a trusted employee quits and takes an artist with them. In a highly competitive and risky business, its understandable that artist managements and agencies are looking for ways to protect their interests and livelihoods. However, draconian contracts, strong arm tactics, and paranoia, though frequently embraced, are never appropriate or productive solutions.

Just because an agreement may be unenforceable does not mean you should sign it anyway. An angry and emotional ex-employer may still try to enforce it, requiring you to spend legal fees and court costs getting a judge to throw it out of court. You never want to enter into any agreement knowing at the outset that it will lead to a lawsuit—even if it’s a lawsuit you believe you will win. Certainly, if you are ever asked to sign such an agreement as a condition of employment, run away. However, if your current employer is insisting that you either sign or face unemployment, and a calm discussion offering reasonable restrictions and alternatives falls on deaf ears, you may have no choice but to run the red light and tear up the ticket later.

__________________________________________________________________

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

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

__________________________________________________________________

THE OFFICIAL DISCLAIMER:

THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE!

Tags:agent, Agreements, artist, artist management, contract, Contracts, engagements, lawsuit, management company, manager, negotiation, New York, presenter, work
Posted in Agents, Artist Management, Contracts, Employees, Law and Disorder: Performing Arts Division | Comments Closed

The Recipe For Confusion

Thursday, September 11th, 2014

By Brian Taylor Goldstein, Esq.

Dear Law and Disorder:

We obtained a three year O-1 visa for one of our artists. We are the artist’s agent and served as his petitioner. A large venue wants to book the artist, but they are insisting that, according to their finance department, they cannot pay us as the artist’s agent and that they must pay the artist directly as an employee of the venue. While we are willing to agree to this, the venue is also insisting that, because they must pay the artist directly, we either must file an amended petition specifically naming the venue as an employer or file a separate petition just for the venue.

Whether its dealing with visas, taxes, or employment issues, we here at GG Arts Law often find ourselves in loggerheads with CFOs, finance departments, HR directors, and others, especially at large venues and organizations, who seem to use the same recipe when developing policies and directives: Take one very broad workshop which they attended several years ago and is now outdated, add an opinion from a board or volunteer attorney who doesn’t actually specialize in the topic at issue, stir in some research done by an intern, mix well with incorrect anecdotes from peers and colleagues, add a dash of ego, bake well, and insist this is the law.

In your particular situation, the venue appears to be confusing several key concepts: (1) the nature of itinerary based visas for artists; (2) the ability to add additional engagements when an artist is on an itinerary based visa; and (3) the relationship (or lack thereof) between employment law and immigration law.

Itinerary Based Visas:

Most immigration scenarios contemplate a single employer submitting a petition on behalf of a non-US individual whom they wish to hire. In those instances, the employer submits an I-129 petition to USCIS and, once approved, the name of the employer will appear on the I-797 approval notice authorizing the individual to work for the employer. If the individual wants to work for more than one employer, then each employer needs to submit its own I-129 petition.

However, there is an exception for artists: The applicable immigration regulations recognize that O-1 artists of “extraordinary ability” typically come to the US to perform “on tour” and, thus, will have multiple employers who hire them to perform. In such cases, a single petition may be filed with USCIS covering all of the artist’s engagements with multiple employers in the US. These are known as “itinerary-based” O-1 visas because, as opposed to covering a single performance, the petition includes an “itinerary” of performances and engagements with multiple employers.

So, for example, let’s say that an opera singer is hired to perform at the Metropolitan Opera, San Francisco Opera, and Seattle Opera. While each venue could certainly file its own, separate I-129 petition, the Metropolitan Opera could be designated as the singers “agent” and submit a single petition on which it also lists the singer’s engagements at San Francisco Opera and Seattle Opera. As the petitioner, only the Metropolitan Opera’s name would appear on the I-797 approval notice. However, because all three venues were listed on the singer’s “itinerary” the singer would be authorized to perform for all three. Alternatively, if the singer had an actual US agent or manager, the singer’s agent could serve as the petitioner and serve as the petitioner and submit a single I-129 petition to cover all three engagements. Again, as the petitioner, only the agent’s name would appear on the I-797 approval notice. However, because all three venues were listed on the singer’s “itinerary”, the artist would be authorized to perform for all three.

Adding Additional Engagements:

Continuing with this example, let’s suppose that after the singer arrived in the US, the singer was contacted by Washington Opera and asked to replace another singer who fell into the orchestra pit and can no longer perform the role. This last minute engagement would take place between the singer’s engagement with San Francisco Opera and Seattle Opera. Does Washington Opera have to file its own separate I-129 petition? No. Does the petitioner of the singer’s original I-129 petition have to file an amended petition “adding” this new engagement? No. Provided that additional engagements occur within an artist’s approved or existing O-1 classification period, and provided that the engagements or services are consistent with the artist’s O-1 qualifications (ie: performing, teaching, master classes, residencies, etc.), the artist is legally permitted to add and perform such additional engagements without the necessity of anyone filing an amended petition or otherwise notifying USCIS of the additional employers. The triggering factor is whether or not an artist was on an itinerary based visa with multiple employers to begin with. (By contrast, if an artist wants to add an engagement or performance that would take place after the period of the artist’s approved or existing O-1 classification period, that would require a new or amended O-1 petition to be filed.)

The Immigration Implications of the Employment Relationship:

Many people see the word “employer” used throughout US Immigration Law and its applicable regulations and presume that it has the same connotations as when used in the context of a traditional “employer-employee” relationship. It does not—particularly in the context of O and P artist visas. US Immigration Law uses the term “employer”, at least in the context of O and P artist visas, to refer to anyone who hires or engages the services of an artist in any capacity regardless of how the employment relationship is structured. A petitioner is neither presumed nor required to be the artist’s actual employer under any circumstances. Moreover, it doesn’t matter who pays whom or whether the artist is paid as an independent contractor or an employee, or even whether the artist is paid at all. This is because US immigration law does not use payment, or lack thereof, as a determinative factor in whether or not an artist requires an O or P visa. If an artist performs in front of an audience or otherwise provides professional artistic services in the US, such artist is required to have either an O or P visa regardless of whether or not the artist is paid, tickets are sold, or the artist receives any compensation from any source directly or indirectly. Thus, while the petitioner of an itinerary based I-129 O-1 petition can also serve in the dual role of one the artist’s employers, there is no requirement under any aspect of applicable immigration law that the petitioner actually serve as one of the artist’s employers, much less that all employment and payments go through the petitioner, or anyone else for that matter.

In short, so long as the artist is on a valid, itinerary-based O-1 visa, anyone can hire and pay the artist, directly or indirectly. Who pays the artist and how are all contractual issues to be negotiated between the parties and not immigration issues.

__________________________________________________________________

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

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

__________________________________________________________________

THE OFFICIAL DISCLAIMER:

THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE!

Tags:agent, approval notice, artist, Brian Taylor, contract, engagements, Goldstein, immigration, immigration law, independent contractor, manager, payment, petitioner, uscis, venue, visas, work
Posted in Agents, Artist Management, Arts Management, Employees, Law and Disorder: Performing Arts Division, Presenters, Taxes, Touring, Venues, Visas | Comments Closed

Is Ethics Only In The Eye Of The Beholder?

Thursday, July 17th, 2014

By Brian Taylor Goldstein, Esq.

Dear Law and Disorder:

An artist we have been representing for over 10 years just told us that he is leaving our roster and will be joining the roster of another management company. We didn’t have a written agreement, but we’ve never needed one as we’ve always believed that if you act ethically and professionally, others will do the same. While we think the artist is making a mistake, we are not interested in arguing his right to leave and want to make the transition amiable. The artist has agreed to honor our commissions for the dates we have booked. However, the question has come up as to whether we are obligated to give the artist all of the leads and contacts we have been pursuing on his behalf that have not been booked yet. That doesn’t seem fair. We have been working on some presenters for years, have invested a lot of time, and consider that to be our proprietary information. If we turn all of that over to his new manager, that’s just going to be a gift to the new manager who will follow up on all of our work and take the commissions. Are there any laws about this? If I am legally required to turn over all of my work, is there a way I can still refuse unless the artist agrees to pay me?

I’m glad to hear that you are “not interested in arguing his right to leave” as, without a written contract, there is nothing to argue. The artist has the right to leave whenever he wants. As for the issue of the artist’s right to the leads and contacts you have been pursuing on his behalf, even if you had a written agreement, it wouldn’t help you get the outcome you want.

Yes, there are laws that govern this scenario, but be forewarned: you aren’t going to like them.

Legally, anyone who represents someone else (attorneys, realtors, accountants, employees, artist agents and artist managers, etc.) are all considered “agents”. The people they work for are called “principals.” The Law of Agency governs the relationship between agents and principals. While the Law of Agency imposes duties on both agents and principals, for purposes of this discussion, there are four key concepts:

(1) An agent works for the principal and, while the agent can advise the principal, the agent must follow the instructions and directives of the principal.

(2) An agent can never put his or her own interests above that of the principal.

(3) All of the “results and proceeds” of the agent’s work on behalf of the principal belongs to the principal.

(4) Any contractual provision, written or oral, that contravenes rules (1) – (3) is null and void.

In short, when a manager represents an artist, the manager has no proprietary information. In other words, those aren’t your leads and contacts, they are the artist’s. While your leads and contacts may start out as your own, once you contact someone on behalf of an artist, the artist is legally entitled to know anyone you have spoken to on his or her behalf, including the details of such conversation. Moreover, unless there is an agreement to the contrary, the artist is also free to contact anyone directly on his own behalf. While I realize, at the outset, this might seem unfair, bear in mind that the Laws of Agency were designed to protect the agent in that, by complying with such laws, an agent is not liable for the actions of the principal. That’s important if an artist decides to cancel a date or breach a contract you negotiated. It is also important to know that, when entering into a relationship with an artist, the Laws of Agency do not prohibit you from negotiating whatever fees and payment terms you believe will compensation you for your time. You are not limited to seeking commissions on booked dates. Assuming the artist agrees, you can ask for commissions on potential dates as well as confirmed dates, repeat clauses, hourly fees, retainer payments, or any formula or terms that the parties agree to. (Indeed, the time is long overdue to start considering changes to the long standing paradigms and business models between managers and artists that, for many reasons and for all parties, are no longer viable.) However, if all you ask for is commissions based on booked dates, and there is no agreement, written or oral that entitled you to anything else, then there is no right to commissions based on dates “in the works” regardless of how much time and effort you have spent.

Despite a legal requirement to turn all leads and prospective dates over to the artist, you ask whether or not you can nonetheless “refuse unless the artist agrees to pay me.” Sure. You can always just refuse and force the artist either to spend the time and money to sue you, pay you for disclosing the leads and contracts, or sulk away angrily letting you keep what you believe—albeit, incorrectly—is rightfully yours. People refuse to honor legal obligations all the time. In fact, you may yourself be familiar with presenters who cancel dates and refuse to honor full-executed and legally binding engagement contracts claiming such things as “poor ticket sales” or “lack of funding.” Over the years, this blog has been replete with such tales and you can imagine the cries of “unethical” and “unprofessional” that arise from the managers who booked those dates.

You seem to be suggesting that, while you believe in acting ethically and professionally, you are also more than willing to consider acting unethically and unprofessionally if it is to your advantage to do so. I’m all for self-delusion, in fact, its one of my own cherished survival skills, but don’t confuse that with ethics.

_________________________________________________________________

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

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

__________________________________________________________________

THE OFFICIAL DISCLAIMER:

THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE!

Tags:agent, artist, artist manager, attorney, breach, Brian Taylor, commissions, contract, Contracts, contractual provision, engagement contract, Goldstein, lawsuit, legal obligations, Liable, management company, payment, poor ticket sales, presenter
Posted in Agents, Artist Management, Contracts, Law and Disorder: Performing Arts Division | Comments Closed

But I Don’t Want To Be A Producer!

Thursday, June 19th, 2014

By Brian Taylor Goldstein, Esq.

Dear Law and Disorder:

We have booked one of our artists to perform at a venue. As we are the agent, our booking agreements are always between the venue and the artist, and we sign on the artist’s behalf. However, the presenter is insisting that, if we want to sign the contract and receive the engagement fee, as we do, then the contract must be between them and us. Is this correct?

If you are “producing” the artist—that is, you are being paid a fee by a presenter or venue to hire the artist and produce the performance—then, yes, the presenter is correct. However, if, as you say, you are the artist’s agent, then you are absolutely correct and the presenter is…well, confused.

Producers are paid a fee to provide the services of an artist. Typically, the producer will either accept a fee, use a portion of that fee to pay the artist, and pocket the difference; or invest his or her own money to hire the artist, and then keep the box office or other profits from the performance. Either way, a producer accepts a substantial amount of risk in exchange for a greater return. However, merely accepting payment on behalf of an artist, deducting your commission, and then paying the balance to the artist does not make you a producer. It doesn’t matter whether or not you use the word agent or producer in the contract. Rather, it all comes down to how the booking contract is phrased:

X is a Producer:

“Venue X enters into this Agreement with Agent Y to produce and provide the services of Artist Z”

X is an Agent:

“Venue X enters into this Agreement with Artist Z for Artist’s services, by and through Artist’s Agent Y”

Anyone who books a date on behalf of an artist, whether as a manager or as a booking agent, is working for the artist. The artist is your client. In legal parlance, the artist would be referred to as the “Principal” and the agent would be referred to as…get ready for it…the “Agent.” Under the Law of Agency (not to be confused with various state licensing requirements for booking agents—that’s something completely different), agents (ie: someone who acts for and on behalf of someone else) owe a variety of duties to their principals, including duties of loyalty, duties of care, and fiduciary duties. In exchange, agents are not liable for the contractual breaches of their principals, even if the agent negotiated the contract on behalf of the principal. This is important. If the artist decides to cancel at the last minute or otherwise causes damages to the venue or presenter, the agent is not liable whereas a producer would be liable…provided, however, that the agent did not inadvertently make themselves a party to the contract and agree to “present or produce” the artist. A booking contract, then, should always be between the presenter/venue and the artist. As the artist’s agent and representative, you can absolutely sign on behalf of the artist as well as accept money on behalf of the artist. However, the contract is between the presenter/venue and the artist.

I suspect your presenter is either suffering from the “That’s the way we have always done it” disease or the more common affliction of “I don’t know what I am talking about but will insist I am right.” It also could be a fatal case of “We are affiliated with a large university and must abide by arbitrary and inflexible rules that do not apply and no one understands.” Regardless, if they insist on having the artist sign the contract, I really don’t have a problem with that. In fact, in many ways, I actually prefer it as it eliminates the ability of an artist to come back to you later and claim they never approved the terms of the engagement. However, even if the contract is between the venue and the artist, the contract can still provide for you to receive all of the payments on behalf of the artist. Some battles aren’t worth fighting.

_________________________________________________________________

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

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

__________________________________________________________________

THE OFFICIAL DISCLAIMER:

THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE!

Tags:agent, Agreements, artist, booking agreement, breach, breaches, Brian Taylor, contract, damages, fiduciary duties, Goldstein, Liable, manager, payment, presenter, risk, university, venue
Posted in Agents, Artist Management, Arts Management, Contracts, Law and Disorder: Performing Arts Division, Liability, Venues | Comments Closed

The Lost Art of Negotiation

Thursday, June 12th, 2014

By Brian Taylor Goldstein, Esq.

Dear Law and Disorder:

A longtime friend who is also a very successful artist who I greatly respect, asked me to do a project with him. He sent me a contract, but it doesn’t cover things like when and how I get paid. I want to mark up the contract and suggest some language, but I also don’t want to offend him and have him think I am being too difficult to work with and ungrateful for this opportunity. Is there some specific language I can put in the contract that he won’t find offensive, but will still protect me?

I had a client of mine call me today about a contract she had sent to a promoter who then struck out a specific term that my client needed and sent the contract back to her. Frustrated and desperate to make the deal happen, she wanted me to suggest another way to phrase the term in such a way that the promoter would agree to it. Both you and my client are asking very legitimate questions, but the answers have little to do with contracts and everything to do with business and negotiation skills.

Contracts exist to memorialize an agreement. You can’t memorialize something that doesn’t exist yet. That’s like trying to take a photograph of a place you’ve never been. Before a contract can be properly drafted, much less signed, the parties have to discuss all of the key terms. While you can certainly use a contract to begin the discussion, you can’t avoid the discussion by simply crossing out terms you don’t like and inserting the ones you do. More importantly, there are no magic words, standard terms, or compelling phrases that will take the place of the need to discuss and negotiate.

Too many people in our industry try to use a contract to avoid negotiation—most often for the very reasons you mention: they are too scared of offending the other party, of not getting the terms they need, or of losing a deal or opportunity they really want. However, if you approach a negotiation as a game of deception in which the goal is to use illusive or even deceptively simplistic language or aggressive tactics to cajole the other party into agreeing to something unreasonable or something to your advantage which they would not otherwise agree to (ie: Lawyering 101), then you most certainly should expect the other side to be offended and deserve to lose the deal. On the other hand, if the other party is offended by a legitimate expression of your concerns, sincere questions about a specific term, or proposals that would clarify something you find confusing, then its probably either a deal you don’t want in the first place or a party you don’t want to work with. Just as importantly, if someone doesn’t agree with a term you want, they are not going to agree no matter how you phrase it. Phrasing the same thing in a different way isn’t going to help either. Even if you manage to word it in such a way that they can’t tell what they are agreeing to (what a lot of people refer to as “legalese”), then you’ll have to sue them to enforce it. Instead, you’ll either need to negotiate a compromise or evaluate whether or not the deal is equally advantageous to you without that term.

I have been to many purported lectures on negotiation at arts conferences, only to find that the lecture was really just about how to get presenters to book artists. That’s important, of course, but the real art of negotiation involves far more than discussing date, time and fee. Whether it is a commission, a booking, a production, or a recording, you must discuss and negotiate not just the artistic and logistical elements, but all of those nasty and boring business elements as well—such as liability, insurance, rights, licenses, approvals, exclusivity, taxes, visas, etc. If you are unfamiliar with the necessary business elements of a deal, the time to learn them is before you negotiate, not during the process.

A negotiation does not mean you will get what you want. Rather, a negotiation is a process that allows you to evaluate whether or not you will get what you need. Some opportunities are just that—opportunities—and a good opportunity may require you to accept some risk. But without taking the time to talk and discuss, you won’t have the information you need to access that risk properly. In other words, the negotiation process will save you from disappointment and frustration later on.

As for an answer to your specific question, I would say: Protect you from what? If your “longtime friend who is also a very successful artist who [you] greatly respect” breaches your contract, are you prepared to sue him? I thought not. I suggest you call your friend and ask him when and how you get paid. Don’t ever be scared to ask a legitimate question—especially when dealing with a friend. In the bi-polar cocktail of simultaneous love and resentment we call the arts world, doing business with friends demands an even higher degree of mindful discussion than doing business with strangers.

_________________________________________________________________

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

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

__________________________________________________________________

THE OFFICIAL DISCLAIMER:

THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE!

Tags:artist, attorney, breach, breaches, Brian Taylor, contract, Contracts, exclusivity, Goldstein, insurance, lawsuit, lawyer, license, music, negotiation, presenter, promoter, recording, risk, visas, work
Posted in Acts of God, Agents, Artist Management, Arts Management, Contracts, Copyrights, Insurance, Law and Disorder: Performing Arts Division, Liability, Licensing, Music Rights, Presenters, Publishing, Recordings, Taxes, Touring, Venues, Visas | Comments Closed

Musical America Blogs

Posts Tagged ‘contract’

Never Play Chess With Pigeons

Are You Being Served?

Understanding Legalese

The Damaging Truth About Cancellation Damages

The Divine Right To Cancel

“Leave Here and You Die!” Unenforceable Non-Compete Agreements

The Recipe For Confusion

Is Ethics Only In The Eye Of The Beholder?

But I Don’t Want To Be A Producer!

The Lost Art of Negotiation

Blogs

Archives

Meta