Archive for the ‘Licensing’ Category

« Older Entries

• A National Ban on Performance Exclusivity Clauses   • Posting Recordings on Websites • Artist Visa News, Nausea & Updates  • Your Contract Playlist    

Monday, June 24th, 2024

LAW & DISORDER

Performing Arts Division

June 25, 2024  

INSIDE THIS ISSUE:

• A National Ban on Performance Exclusivity Clauses  

• Posting Recordings on Websites

• Artist Visa News, Nausea & Updates 

• Your Contract Playlist    

 

Legal Issue of the Month:

Will a New National Ban on Non-Compete Agreements Also Apply to Performance Exclusivity Clauses? 

 

 

You may recall (or not, that’s ok, too) that in our last newsletter we discussed that on April 23, 2024, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) issued a nation-wide ruling banning non-compete clauses in all employment contracts, regardless whether an individual is hired as an actual “employee” or as an independent contractor, paid or unpaid, an intern, or a sub-contractor hired to provide service to another party’s client or customer. You can read the announcement HERE.

Further review and analysis have shown that this new ruling, should it go into effect, will also prohibit venues and presenters from including any language in their engagement agreements restricting or prohibiting where an artist can perform before or after an artist’s performance. In other words, should the Grunion Run Performing Arts Center engage the Willy Tugger Jazz Band, they could not prohibit the band from performing two days later at the Annual Grunion Run Mayonnaise Festival where admission is free. Of course, regardless of the future contractual enforceability of a performance exclusivity clause, any artist who actually did this would be hammering a nail deep into the coffin of their touring career. 

Whilst the official effective date has yet to be announced, unless the new regulation is pre-empted by a lawsuit or other judicial action, then the ruling will likely go into effect sometime in Fall 2024.

 

 

 

Dear Law and Disorder:

Actual questions we get asked and the answers people actually don’t want

“With thanks, your friendly, neighbourhood car thief”

Dear Law & Disorder:

I want to post a video on my website that I found on the internet that would be perfect for my new project. I will give full credit to the musician, including the musician’s original link, would this be legal? And can you please specify on what full credit means.

A “copyright” is literally the right to make copies. A copyright “infringement” is when you make a copy of something without the owner’s permission. Almost everything you can find on the internet (photos, images, videos, text, etc.) is someone else’s property. Part of the challenge of understanding digital rights is that the ease with which we can download and copy materials on the internet tends to make us forget that copying any materials without permission is still copyright infringement. Without question, many people post pictures, videos, and other materials and are more than happy to have others repost and share them; but that decision is entirely up to the person who owns the materials. In other words, just because a car is parked on the street, doesn’t mean it’s free for the taking. As for giving “full credit,” that’s like stealing a car, but leaving a thank you note on the owner’s door. It doesn’t make it any less a crime.

If you want to get actual permission to post a video, photograph, or any other copyrighted material on your website, then you need to get permission (aka “a license”) from the owner—which may or may not be the artist. The better option would be for you to post a link to the video rather than post the video itself. In other words, you would be inviting your readers to go to YouTube or the artist’s own website to view the video. This way, the owner can control whether or not they want the video to be shared.

And now, the part you’ve all been waiting for……

Artist Visa News, Nausea

& Updates

 

Most of you know by now that between December 2023 and April 2024, USCIS implemented a number of new filing fees and policies purportedly designed to “maintain adequate service.” Please Note: I did not make that part up. This is direct quote from the preamble to the Final Rule issued by USCIS on January 31, 2024 in which it sets out the goals of its new rules and policies: Not to “improve service” or even “increase processing times,” but to aspire to the lofty and inspired goal of “maintain adequate service.” You can read it for yourself HERE. That’s only slightly less disingenuous than a mobile service touting a 6G upgrade of two tin cans and piece of string.

USCIS, far from its delusions of adequacy, instead has taken an already broken system, smashed it into more pieces, glued it back together with spit and crushed graham crackers, and tossed it into a soggy carboard box of berserk cane toads. After two months in the toad box, here’s where we are:

 

1. Standard Processing Times Are Getting Slower 

Processing times are getting longer, slower, and more intense, which is good news only for those of you who fantasize about USCIS visa examiners. Though we have seen a few instances of standard processed petitions taking 4 months or longer, most seem to be taking 2 – 4 months from the date of filing. Whilst the Vermont Service Center appears to be processing more quickly than the California Service, as USCIS is no longer assigning petitions to service centers based on jurisdiction, there is no way to know where your petition will wind up or exactly how long it will take to be processed.

Premium Processing appears to be taking 7 – 15 business days, with, again, Vermont processing more quickly than California.

2. USCIS Is Losing P Petitions

For those of you unfortunately forced to file multiple P petition to cover large groups, such as four P-1 Petitions to cover an orchestra of 80 musicians, USCIS is splitting them up and sending them to different service centers who adjudicate them at different times. Even when a single P-1 Petition is filed concurrently with a single P-1S Petition or an O-1 Petition is filed with an O-2 Petition, USCIS is splitting them up and sending them to different examiners at different service centers. In the interest of further proving that they aren’t even competent enough to trust with scissors, USCIS is also losing a few along the way. In one particular case, three P-1 Petitions for a large group were filed concurrently with premium processing. USCIS approved 2 and lost 1. Eventually, they found it 30 days after it had been filed, emailed the receipt notice with a thoughtful note saying, “thanks for your patience,” and approved it 2 days later. (Yes, USCIS has to refund the premium processing fee for that one.) So, allow even more time when filing petitions for large groups.

TIP: If you do not receive an I-979 Receipt Notice for a filed petition, then go to your bank and see if USCIS cashed the filing fee check. If so, on the back of the cancelled check will be the receipt number for the petition. You can then use this to deride them when they try to claim it was never filed. 

3. USCIS Is Improperly Rejecting Petitions

There have been numerous instances reported of USCIS rejecting petitions for incorrect filing fees even where the filing fees were correct. This appears to be due to the fact the separating the total filing fee of a petition into multiple different fees based on the business status of the petitioner has not worked as seamlessly as they had hoped. USCIS reports that this is a “training issue,” which presumably means this will improve with rolled newspaper and better treats.

TIP: If you are a non-profit of an employer of 1 – 25 employees, then be sure to address this in your cover letter and explain why you qualify for a reduced fee. Also remember to provide the appropriate documentation of your status.

REMINDER: To qualify as a “small employer” you must have at least 1 full-time employee on a payroll and from whose pay checks taxes are withheld. Otherwise, you are a “small business” or “self-employed” and must pay the maximum filing fees.

4. USCIS Is Issuing Barmier RFEs

USCIS has always been renowned for issuing tragically comical Requests for Evidence (RFEs) when it comes to displays of their obliviousness of anything that occurs on a stage—which, of course, always raises the question of whose idea it was to give them the final say on the casting and booking decisions of major opera companies, theatres, and presenters in the first place. Nonetheless, unattended USCIS Examiners have recently been burrowing into new depths of obtusity in their soiled sand box and issuing more preposterous RFEs. In particular, we have seen a disturbing increase in RFEs for P-1S (Essential Support Staff) Petitions in which they are asking for individual employment contracts for each person with specific employment terms and conditions, more information on why the services provided are necessary for a performance, and why the group can’t just hire US workers to do the same thing. To pluck just a few pearls:

  • What do stage managers do and why are they necessary for a performance?
  • Why can’t an orchestra engage a US-based Orchestra Manager to manage their orchestra when they perform in the US?
  • If the group is performing in New York City, will the group’s lighting designer and stage technicians be providing their services at the same venue at the same time?

Other notable RFE’s we have seen over the last few months include USCIS contending that:

  • An “audience prize” given to an artist at a competition does not count as an “award” because he was selected by the audience and not by experts, critics, or judges in his field.
  • Competitions for “Young Artists” do not count as significant awards or competitions because young artists are only competing against other young artists. For such an award to be “significant”, the competition must include older artists.
  • An opera conductor is not in the same field as an orchestral conductor because one conducts orchestras and one conducts operas, thereby requiring two union consultation letters.
  • An artist performing at a festival cannot be a “lead and starring artist” if there are other artists also performing at the same festival. To be a “lead and starring artist,” the artist must be the only artist performing at the festival.

And my personal favourite: a request for “independent, third-party proof” of the formal name and full street address of Carnegie Hall, as well as proof that, just because the artist has been engaged to perform at Carnegie Hall they will physically be performing on-site.

Fortunately, all of these petitions were ultimately approved, but not without extra expense, lost time, and digging ever deeper into the repository of linguistic condescension in responding to the RFEs—including printing out Google Maps driving directions from the address of the California Service Center to the front door of Carnegie Hall.

TIP: Trying to explain or induce USCIS to appreciate the impact of their ineptness on the Performing Arts will produce only slightly less meaningful results than a zip log bag of toenail clippings. Rather, work around them. Know that they are extraordinarily paranoid, as well as painfully literal. Never explain or make them think. Give them what they want to know, regardless of how stupid or rudimentary it may seem, and in the simplest of terms possible. If what they want doesn’t exist, draft simple, specific documents just for USCIS that addresses the specific things they want to know.

 

Want To Listen To More About Contracts?

 

My friend and longtime client, Laura Colby, a performing arts manager based in New York City, hosts a podcast entitled The Middle Woman. In The Middle Woman, Laura discusses best practices for managing, touring, and presenting the performing arts from the lens of a working artist and shares her collected learnings with the new generation of performing arts professionals.

She recently invited me to join her in a discussion about contracts in the performing arts.

Here are the links to access the episode on Spotify, Amazon Music, Audible, and Apple Podcast.

Whilst it may or may not be the best thing to listen to before going to bed, it was a great discussion.

 

 

 

Deep Thoughts

 

“Remember, when you are dead, you do not know you are dead. It is only painful for others. The same applies when you are stupid.”

― Ricky Gervais

 

Send Us Your Questions! 

Let us know what you’d like to hear more about.
Send us an email, post on Facebook, mail us a letter, dispatch a messenger, raise a smoke signal, reach out telepathically, or use whatever method works for you.

OFFICIAL LEGALESE:

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 threatening email, filing a lawsuit, or basically doing anything that may in any way rely upon an assumption that we know what we are talking about or one size fits all!

Tags:, , , , , , ,
Posted in Artist Management, Arts Management, Contracts, Copyrights, Law and Disorder: Performing Arts Division, Licensing, Presenters, Uncategorized, Visas | Comments Closed

Artist Visa Updates, Force Majeure Clauses, Streaming Licenses, and Deep Thoughts

Thursday, December 8th, 2022

 

LAW & DISORDER

Performing Arts Division

December 8, 2022

 

INSIDE THIS ISSUE

> Artist Visa Updates <

> Force Majeure Clauses <

> Streaming Licenses <  

> Congratulations! <

> Deep Thoughts < 

Artist Visa Updates 

• Current USCIS Service Center Processing Times

Vermont Service Center:

Standard Processing: 4 – 6 weeks

Premium Processing: 9 – 10 days

California Service Center:

Standard Processing: 2 – 4 MONTHS!

Premium Processing: 13 – 15 days!

•  Most US Consulates continue to experience significant backlogs with regard to visa stamp appointments. Some have no interview appointments for 60 – 90 days whereas others are granting interview waivers, but with no consistency between one consulate and another. Please factor this in when making bookings and budgets. In other words, if your conductor isn’t performing in the US until April 2023, but has only set aside 2 days in early January when he can make himself available to apply for a visa, start looking for a guest conductor. Specific information for each consulate can be found on that consulate’s website…and except for citizens of certain countries, anyone can apply for a US visa stamp at any US Consulate.

•  As of August 11, 2022, USCIS no longer requires petitioners to submit a duplicate copy of Form I-129 or a duplicate copy of any supporting documentation unless USCIS specifically asks for it. (Whilst I’d like to think this was to diminish the impact of deforestation on climate change, it’s more likely due to the fact that Sauron has discontinued his policy of allowing USCIS to toss its extra paper into Mount Doom.)

•  USCIS has issued a new edition of the I-907 form. Starting January 30, 2023, USCIS will only accept the 11/03/22 edition. There are no changes. It’s the same form with a different date at the bottom. However, accomplishing this critical assurance of national security required two filibusters, three Congressional hearings, and an armed insurrection at the Golden Corral in Bent Fork, Arkansas which dared to close its Sunday buffet an hourly early.

•  Yes, it is still possible to obtain artist visas for Russians. So long as they can get to a U.S. consulate, there are no bans or restrictions on Russians. The challenge is that there are no US Consulates in Russia, some EU countries will not allow Russians to enter, and the EU won’t allow any Russian planes to fly over its airspace. So, they just need to get to a consulate. If they are already in the EU, then they get to face the same visa insanity as everyone else.

Legal Issue of the Month:

Force Majeure Is Not The Same as Cancellation

If an engagement contract contains no option for cancellation or termination, then it cannot be cancelled or terminated without mutual consent. Otherwise, whichever party cancels will be in breach and potentially owe damages to the other party. Parties can always negotiate cancellation clauses under which either party can cancel an engagement under certain circumstances and by paying cancellation fees; but, if they don’t, they remain forcibly conjoined.

However, Force Majeure/Acts of God clauses are something different. These are contract clauses which say that if something happens beyond the control of either party (typically, fire, flood, illness, royal demise, etc.) which makes it impossible for one of them to honour the contract, then that party can void the contract without owing damages or fees to the other. In other words, whereas a cancellation clause may require a party to pay bail to cancel a concert, a Force Majeure/Act of God clause is like a “get out of jail free card.”

Parties can use a contract to define exactly what constitutes Acts of God (ie: a hurricane as opposed to a backed up toilet, illnesses supported by a doctor’s note, etc.). However, because of COVID, the economy, and genera insecurity, we are seeing more and more instances of parties trying to squeeze cancellation penalties or payments into Force Majeure/Act of God clauses. Presenters are claiming that poor ticket sales or lack of funding should be considered God’s fault whereas artists are claiming that if even if the concert hall is overrun by zombies, they are entitled to non-refundable deposits and penalties if the venue cancels. While parties should take every opportunity to explore and negotiate cancellation clauses with as many draconian conditions as they could possibly want, these are not Acts of God/Force Majeure clauses.

Why is this anything other than a miniscule, legalistic subtlety? Because if a party cancels an engagement contract because of a legitimate inability to present the engagement that could not otherwise have been foreseen, a court will not enforce penalties or damages regardless of what the contract says. Moreover, most state and local municipalities (particularly colleges and universities) are prohibited by State Law from having to pay non-refundable deposits or fixed cancellation fees, regardless of the reason for the cancellation. So, like everything else, if you believe the only force that separates your orchestra from insolvency is divine intervention, you’re going to need to talk this one through.

Dear Law & Disorder:

Actual Questions we get asked and the answers people don’t want! 

Streaming Rights & Licenses

Dear Law and Disorder:

We have two questions with regard to live streaming some of our concerts and recitals. We, of course, have paid the ASCAP and BMI licenses/fees to cover the rights for live performances. Does paying those licenses for live performances also cover streaming the concert live? The other issue involves archiving the recordings of the concerts, or leaving them on the website for a time after the concert so patrons (e.g., parents of students or any other interested parties) can view the concert at a later date if they had a conflict the day of the original concert and were unable to watch it live. Would this practice also be covered by the licenses or fees we’ve already paid? Is this a grey area in which the law has not yet caught up with the technology, or would this practice be a violation of copyright?

ASCAP and BMI are two of the many Performing Rights Organizations (PROs) which issue licenses to present live performances. Whilst some licenses for live performances also cover the right to stream the concert live, others do not. As with all rights, you only get what you ask and/or pay for. So, if your license also included the right to stream live concerts, then your license covers that. On the other hand, if you only paid for live concerts, then it does not. You need to check the license terms and agreement you received from ASCAP and BMI. (However, not all composers/songwriters below to ASCAP or BMI, so you may need licenses from other PROs as well.

With regard to the issue of “archiving the recordings of the concerts”, the good news is that it is not a grey area at all. The bad news for you may be that it is not a grey area at all. Making any audio or audio/visual recording of a concert is not covered by PROs at all. Such rights must be obtained from the performers and, unless they are performing their own, original music, the right to record the music must be obtained directly from the composer/songwriter or their publisher. There is no “inherent right” to make a recording of any performance or composition at any time under any circumstances for any purpose without the permission of (a) the composer/songwriter of the music and (b) the performers themselves.

CONGRATULATIONS! 

It is with exhilarating enthusiasm that we congratulate Monica Felkel, a legendary icon of the classical music and performing arts industry, on the establishment of her own boutique management and consulting firm.

Monica Felkel Creative Partners provides Artist Management, Artistic & Strategic Consulting, and Project Management & Development.

 

“Everything we do is guided by a passion for classical music and the performing arts and a commitment to providing each artist and cultural institution with the support, guidance, expertise, and innovation they need to achieve their artistic goals and aspirations.”
Monica J. Felkel, President

We look forward to working with her and her distinguished roster of creative partners in offering her clients a comprehensive range of services and expertise unparalleled in the field.

CLICK HERE LEARN MORE ABOUT MONICA FELKEL CREATIVE PARTNERS

 

Deep Thoughts 

 

 

“Everyone seems normal, until you get to know them.”

 

 

Send Us Your Questions! 

Let us know what you’d like to hear more about.
Send us an email, post on Facebook, mail us a letter, dispatch a messenger, raise a smoke signal, reach out telepathically, or use whatever method works for you.

GG Arts Law provides a comprehensive range of legal services and strategic support for the performing arts, including: Artist Visas, Taxes, and Touring; Rights & Licensing; Negotiations & Representation; Contracts; Business & Non-Profit Organization & Management; Project Management; and Strategic Consulting & Planning.

 

OFFICIAL LEGALESE:

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 threatening email, filing a lawsuit, or basically doing anything that may in any way rely upon an assumption that we know what we are talking about or one size fits all!

 

Tags:, , , , ,
Posted in Contracts, Law and Disorder: Performing Arts Division, Licensing, Music Rights, Uncategorized, Visas | Comments Closed

WE ALL NEED TO STREAM SOMETIME

Monday, June 15th, 2020

(Understanding Streaming Rights)

As we all try to figure out how to cobble the performing arts world together, more and more venues, presenters, and artists are turning to streaming–live streams, virtual performances, and showing archived footage of previously recorded concerts.

For now, these efforts are critical as a means to stay connected with audiences. Soon, these will need to be turned into additional revenue streams as well. Regardless, this is unchartered territory for many, particularly with regard to the rights and licenses necessary to stream performances and recordings.

But first things, first: We need to clear up a few definitions.

“Streaming” is where you upload a recording to a source or platform so that it can be heard or watched by an audience over the Internet. While this can be done through your own website or server, most recordings and videos are viewed through a third party platform such as YouTube, Instagram, FaceBook, Vimeo, SnapChat, Netflix, YouTube, Hulu, Pandora, Spotify, TikTok, RiffRaff, Taffeta, Titipu, KoKo, PishTush, PoohBah, and YumYum, among others.

Don’t be confused by the terms “Streaming” and “Live Streaming.” They mean the same thing. Remember, there is no standard terminology in the performing arts industry. Whether you intend to stream an archival recording of a performance, create and stream a new recording made in a studio or venue, broadcast a live concert to an audience who can watch it in real time as it is taking place, make a recording available for free, or make a recording available on-demand for a fee, these are just various types of “streaming.”

The key distinction is that a streamed recording remains at all times on the platform for the audience to watch only through the platform and cannot be downloaded. Downloading is when you are able to take a recording from the Internet and copy it from the platform to your own computer or phone. Apple I-Tunes, for example, is a downloading platform whereas Apple Music is a streaming platform. Streaming is like listening to the radio in your car. Downloading is like buying the CD. Similarly, Amazon Prime gives you the option of renting a movie to watch for a fixed period of time or buying a copy of a movie to download and watch on your own devices.

Whether using an archival recording or streaming a live concert, Obtaining the necessary rights and licenses to stream a concert or performance essentially involves the same considerations and questions you would ask (hopefully) with regard to presenting any live performance:

  • Do you need a license from the owner of the music to perform the music? 
  • Do you need a license from the owner of the music to use the music as part of a musical, dance performance, or opera?
  • Do you need a license from the owner of the music to make re-orchestrations, new arrangements or significant adaptations?
  • Do you need a license from the owner of the music to record and stream the performance of the music?    
  • Do you need a license from the performers to record and stream their performance?
  • Do you need a license from the owner of the recording of the music to stream the recording?

Essentially, to get permission to record and stream a performance, you will potentially need licenses from three different parties:

  1. The Performer(s)
  2. The owner of the music
  3. The owner of the recording

Licenses From The Performer(s)

If your intent is to stream an archival recording, you will need to ensure that you had the right to make an archival recording in the first place and what you are allowed to do with it. This should have been spelled out in the initial engagement contract for the performance. If not, you will need to go back to the artist(s) and request permission to stream the existing recording.

If you are seeking to create a new recording or record a live concert for streaming, then among the other engagement details you will need to request permission from the artist(s) to record and stream the performance. Certain artists, particularly orchestras, may have union contracts or other restrictions (such as exclusive recording agreements with labels) that will not permit any recordings or streaming without additional licenses and fees.

Even if you get all of the necessary licenses from the artist(s) to record and stream their performance, you are only a third done. Remember, unless an artist is recording her own music, artists do not control the music they perform. So, just because an artist gives you the right to make and stream an archival recording of the artist or the right to record and stream a live performance, you will still need to obtain permission from the owner of the music to perform, record, and stream. 

Licenses From The Owner of The Music

Any time you intend to perform music at a live concert, you need permission to perform it (what I like to call “stand and sing.”) Except for instances of music being used as part of a musical, dance, or opera production, such permissions are most often arranged by purchasing performance licenses through Performing Rights Organizations (PROs) such as ASCAP, BMI, SESAC, GRM, etc., when you purchase a performance license from a PRO, the terms of the license will govern what you can and cannot do with the music as part of the “performance.” Like everything else, nothing is standard. Everything depends on the type and terms of the license you purchased. These will differ from nightclubs to non-profit venues to schools to for-profit theatres, etc, so you will need to read your specific license to see what you can and cannot do and what additional rights you might need. However, here are some generalizations:

  • More often than not, streaming is covered in a performance license as long as the end user is viewing the recording on a platform licensed by the PRO, such as YouTube, Instagram, FaceBook, Vimeo, SnapChat or TikTok. Embedded, proprietary players owned by these licensed platforms (YouTube being the most common example) and embedded into the presenter website are also covered.
  • More often than not, streaming from the websites of colleges and universities (.edu) are also usually covered by the performance license.  
  • More often than not, streaming directly from the website of an artist, venue, or presenter is NOT COVERED without obtaining additional licenses. This is true of live streaming as well as archived videos of past performances. So, when in doubt, always opt to stream through a platform already licensed by the PRO.
  • Downloadable recordings are NOT COVERED. These rights need to be obtained directly from the owners or publishers of the music. Most PRO’s cannot issue such rights.
  • Performance licenses also do not cover the performance of music as part of a musical, dance performance, or opera. Those licenses must be obtained directly from the owner or publisher of the music. Most PROs cannot issue such rights.
  • Most performance licenses do not include the right to make re-orchestrations, new arrangements, or significant adaptations of the music. Those licenses must be obtained directly from the owner or publisher of the music. Most PROs cannot issue such rights.

Licenses From The Owner of The Recording

An oft overlooked concept is that recordings are separately, copyrightable creations. When a recording is made, it is owned by the person or organization that made, edited, and mastered the recording and NOT by the owner of the music which was recorded and NOT by the performer who performed it. (Believe me, this comes as quite a shock to composers and performers who presume that if they are on the recording then it’s also theirs to use.)  So, once you get all of the necessary rights and licenses to record and stream a performance, you will also need to make sure that you obtain permission from the person who recorded it—even if it is a volunteer or a member of your staff. In fact, especially if it is a volunteer. Short of children performing with fire and audience sitting on broken glass, volunteers are often the largest source of grief. (Ok, there’s also the board to consider, but I digress.)

A few final thoughts:

Everyone needs to obtain rights and licenses regardless of whether or not you charge a fee to watch the streaming concert.

  1. If you don’t know what rights you already have or what rights you need, always reach out to the performer(s), the owner of the music, and the owner of the recording. Never assume or just hope that someone else with do the “right thing.” The “right thing” is an extraordinarily subjective concept.
  1. Anyone can charge whatever they want to issue a license, or not charge anything at all, or refuse to issue a license for any reason. Everything is subject to negotiation as influenced by each person’s degree of largesse, munificence, guilt, desperation, fear, uncertainty, pride, greed, wrath, envy, lust, gluttony, and sloth.
  1. There are no special Covid-19 exceptions.
  1. There are no special non-profit or school exceptions.
  1. Everyone is screwed right now. No one is more or less screwed than anyone else. Everyone is going to need to compromise if we are going to survive this.

For additional information and resources on this and other legal, project management, and business issues for the performing arts, as well as to sign up for our newsletters and follow us on social media visit ggartslaw.com

THE OFFICIAL LEGALESE:

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, Licensing, Music Rights, Uncategorized | Comments Closed

THE TRIALS AND TRIBULATIONS OF A TRIBUTE BAND

Wednesday, September 6th, 2017

By Brian Taylor Goldstein, Esq.

We hope everyone had a great summer. Sorry we haven’t posted in a while, but we’ve been a bit “pre-occupied” with in the world of artist visas. It seems something changes every time Trump breaks wind. So, let’s take a break and go address two completely non-visa related questions that came in over the summer—both involving tribute bands.

Dear Law and Disorder:

I am wondering if I could produce a tribute concert for some singers who are no longer alive. I am not trying to copyright anything. Would I need to get approval from the heirs or estates of the respective deceased singers?

First, let’s clarify. I presume you are producing a concert which will be a tribute “to” some dead singers as opposed to being performed “by” some dead singers as that will, indeed, require the approval of the heirs before you can dig up their dead relatives. On the other hand, if you are planning some sort of Thriller tribute performed by actual zombies, go for it.

The answer to your question depends on how you perceive a “tribute” concert. If your singers will simply be performing a concert featuring all the songs of a deceased artist without pretending to imitate or impersonate the artist or without featuring the images of the artist in the concert (or in the promotion of the concert), then so long as either you (as the producer) or the venue where the concert takes place obtains the necessary performance licenses (ASCAP, BMI, etc.) then you need nothing else. Performance licenses are all you need for a singer to perform the works of another artist, dead or alive, in concert. However, doing anything beyond “stand and sing” could require additional licenses either from the deceased artist’s publisher or the artist’s estate. Depending upon the state in which the deceased artist lived, to use the images of the deceased artist to promote your concert will involve obtaining rights of publicity and endorsement of the artist. Regardless of the state in which the artist lived, you will also need to license the images themselves from the owner of the images (which may or may not be the deceased artist’s estate.) To have your singers imitate or impersonate the deceased artist could also involve obtaining trademark and/or copyright licenses depending upon how “iconic” the artists are which are being “tributed.” (I think I just made that word up.) The key issue to remember is that calling a concert a “tribute” does not alieve you of obtaining whatever rights, permissions, and licenses that may be required.

Dear Law and Disorder:

I have a tribute show and an agent hired me to perform at the venue. I have a signed contract. I did the gig and they did pay for the expenses of my band travel and hotel transportation, but the payment of the band was to be made 3 days after the show. The next day they called me and said that the show was a piece of crap that they want their money back. What is the best way to resolve this issue? I have called them and no response? What do you recommend will be the next step for me?

To paraphrase Judge Judy (who also happens to be on my wish list for the U.S. Supreme Court): “Once you eat the steak, you have to pay for it.”

I love the fact that you have a signed contract. Too many artists don’t even have that. In this case, unless your contract made payment contingent on the venue being satisfied with your performance (which I can’t imagine as that would be insane), then the venue is paying for your services, not your quality. If you provide services and a venue accepts those services, then they have to pay regardless of how crappy your performance may or may not have been. (And there are a lot of crappy performances out there!) Even if you did not have a signed contract this would still be the case. Legally, if Person A knowingly allows Person B to perform or provide services, then this creates an “implied contract” whereby Person A is legally required to pay Person B.

The problem with any contract, signed or implied, is enforcement. Just because someone is legally obligated to do something doesn’t mean they will. That’s what a breach of contract is all about. A valid, enforceable contract merely gives you the right to go before a judge, present you case, and, if you win, have the judge enforce it. Short of that, it merely give you the right to enter into a spitting contest.

You don’t indicate in your question whether “they” refers to the agent or the venue. If the agent isn’t returning your calls, call the venue. If it’s the venue, call the agent. In these situations, you also want to do more than call. Send emails. Send letters. Send letters as attachments to emails. Do whatever it takes to make a pest out of yourself. If either the agent or the venue threatens to “ruin your reputation” or other “bad publicity”, ignore them—if either one had that kind of influence they wouldn’t have stiffed you in the first place. Threatening “bad publicity” to resolve an issue is always an act of desperation by people who are actually incapable of doing so.

Whether or not it’ worth filing a lawsuit depends on how much you are owed. Some amounts are just not worth the time and cost. Some courts offer a “small claims” option with less time and cost. Regardless, while it’s not always possible, in the future always try and negotiate a deposit or, at the very least, payment immediately after the concert.

_________________________________________________________________

For additional information and resources on this and other legal, project management, and business issues for the performing arts, as well as to sign up for our newsletters aGG_logo_for-facebooknd follow us on social media visit www.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. Questions will be answered ONLY in future blogs. 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, Contracts, Law and Disorder: Performing Arts Division, Licensing, Music Rights | Comments Closed

Don’t Toss A Banana To A Monkey If You Don’t Want The Monkey To Eat It

Wednesday, June 15th, 2016

By Brian Taylor Goldstein, Esq.   

Dear Law and Disorder:

So, it seems we have ourselves a bit of questionable “inspiration” on our hands. The inventive work of one of our roster artists uses overhead projectors, multiple screens, puppets, actors, live feed cameras, multi-channel sound design, and a live music ensemble, to create shows. And, this technique has been popping up in other artists’ shows after the copy-cat artists have either attended one of our group’s shows or participated in one of their workshops. One person in particular attended a workshop and has now created her own show where she admits that she learned her techniques at one of our workshops. How do we prevent this kind of theft of intellectual property? Do they have any recourse to put a stop to (at a minimum) what seems to be straight-up plagiarism?

So if I understand this correctly, the group is holding workshops where they teach others their techniques, but want to make sure that those techniques are never used. They have two options: (1) make everyone who attends one of their workshops sign a contract that they will immediately forget everything they are taught; or (2) if they don’t want people copying their techniques, stop teaching workshops on how to copy their techniques! That’s like tossing a banana into a cage full of monkeys and expecting them not to eat it!

While copyright infringement is illegal, plagiarism is not. Plagiarism is an academic concept most of us are taught in school and is all about citing sources and giving credit. Plagiarism is not about copying; its about giving attribution to your sources. While similar, copyright infringement means that someone has copied an artist’s specific words, images, pictures, music, or other creative material without permission to do so. (Merely giving credit or attribution is insufficient.) The important concept here is that it’s the “material” being copied, and not the ideas or concepts behind the material.

Copyright infringement requires direct copying of actual scripts, images, pictures, music, etc. Copyright does not protect or prohibit the copying of ideas or concepts. Merely being inspired by another’s work or employing similar techniques and styles is not direct copying. In fact, the copyright laws are designed to discourage copying, but encourage imitation. So, for example, if I see a dance group performing to the music of Phillip Glass while dressed as pigeons, I can create the exact same routine for my own company—provided I do not copy the specific choreography or costumes of the other group. I would have to design my own pigeon costume (and, of course, get my own dramatic license from Mr. Glass’s publisher.) Similarly, if I see a show using overhead projectors, multiple screens, puppets, actors, live feed cameras, multi-channel sound design, and a live music ensemble, I can use the except same concepts and techniques to create my own shows—especially if I was taught how to do so by the original company. I just cannot copy the specific images, sounds, designs, or scripts of the original company. In short, your group cannot be the only one on in the world the uses overhead projectors, multiple screens, puppets, actors, live feed cameras, multi-channel sound design, and a live music ensemble. Your group can be the best. It can be the first. It can be the originator. But it cannot be the “only.”

I would certainly recommend that the group register copyrights for both its scripts and videos of its productions as that would make them easier to protect in the event of an instance of direct copying. That and stop encouraging imitating by teaching others how to imitate!

_________________________________________________________________

For additional information and resources on this and other GG_logo_for-facebooklegal, 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:, , , , , , ,
Posted in Copyrights, Law and Disorder: Performing Arts Division, Licensing | Comments Closed

Who Has To Pay The Likes of ASCAP, BMI, Etc?

Thursday, February 18th, 2016

By Brian Taylor Goldstein, Esq.   

I haven’t found an example that matches the situation of a 501(c)(3) I am familiar with. They throw a once-yearly art festival that spans a weekend (2days). They don’t charge the public any admittance. They raise money by charging fees for booth (10×10) spaces for (visual) arts vendors to sell their merchandise. They raise money for: their operating expenses, student art scholarships, member art scholarships, honoraria for program presenters at meetings, a fund for a permanent “home” for the 501c3 where they can hold meetings and store various gear for the meetings between times. They also have an open air music stage at that festival where local musicians perform. The musicians are paid under $150.00 for a 2 hour performance that includes 5 minutes each for set-up, a break, and stage clear-off. Most, but not all of the pieces performed are written by the performers. The “audience” is anyone who wanders by and stays to listen for a while. So, who, if anyone, has to pay fees to the likes of ASCAP, BMI, etc.?

It sounds like the 501(c)(3) organization in your scenario is trying to raise money for some very admirable and worthy goals: art scholarships, arts education, and even providing a place for local musicians to perform. In fact, these goals sound so worthy that I’m sure you wouldn’t object to the organization using your house for meetings or taking your car whenever they needed it to transport students to art classes, all without your permission and without paying you any fees. While you might be more than willing to donate your home or car on occasion, my suspicion is that you’d at least like to be asked first. As a general rule, the involuntary donation of other’s property without their permission—even if it’s for a really good cause—is also called “stealing.”

A musical composition—just like a home or a car—is considered property. It is no less valuable—indeed, I would argue, it is of greater value—than anything else you are required to pay for that has a physical price tag attached. A musical composition belongs to the composer who wrote it and/or the composer’s publishing company. Under U.S. Copyright Law, whoever owns a musical composition also has the absolute right to control and determine all uses of the property—this includes the right to perform the music live, record the music, play a recording of the music for the public, change the lyrics, make arrangements, or just about anything else you can think of to do with music; including the right to determine whether or not to donate the use of the composition for a worthy cause or project.

This means that any time a musical composition is performed live or a recording of the composition is played—whether it’s at a theater, concert hall, or out-door street festival (for-profit or non-profit)—“someone” needs to obtain the composer’s permission and, in most cases, pay a usage fee called a “Performance License.” ASCAP, BMI and SESAC are not roving bands of brigands waiting to pounce on unsuspecting non-profits who are merely trying to promote the arts. Rather, these organizations are trying to promote the arts too—primarily by reminding people (including other artists) not to take music for granted as a valueless commodity. ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC are organizations that represent composers, issuing performance licenses and collecting fees on their behalf.

If musicians are performing original music they composed themselves, then they can certainly agree to perform their own music for free. That can be a condition of hiring them to perform in the first place. However, if a musician or band is playing (“covering”) music composed by others, then just because the musicians agree to perform for a reduced fee, or even for free, doesn’t mean that the composers have allowed their music to be performed for free as well. A performance requires a performance license.

As for whose responsibility it is to obtain the necessary license, its legally everyone’s responsibility. If an unlicensed song is performed at a festival (even a free festival), then the U.S Copyright Act allows all the parties involved in arranging the performance—the artist as well as the venue or festival, and sometimes even the promoter, producer, or booking agent—to be liable for copyright infringement. So, while you could require the musicians to obtain their own licenses with regard to any music they are performing which they have not composed themselves, in my opinion that is a foolish policy. Why? Because most musicians will simply not bother and elect to take the risk of not getting caught. However, if they do get caught, it is the venue or festival who will be liable as well. It doesn’t matter that the festival may have required another party to obtain the license. That simply entitles the festival to sue the other party. The festival itself will remain liable to the composer.

So, in your case, while there are a number of factors that can determine the cost of obtaining performance licenses—the size of the venue, the price of tickets (or lack thereof), the number of performances, etc.–ultimately, it’s in the festival’s or organization’s best interest to ensure that the necessary permissions and licenses are obtained. While it might be tempting to proceed under the expectation that no one will get caught or the publishers and copyright owners will not sue small artists or struggling non-profits, that’s the same as robbing a bank and hoping the police won’t find you. Not to mention, in an industry where so many purport to operate under the noble purpose of promoting the value of art and artists, I can’t imagine the rationalization of stealing it for any purpose, regardless of how noble.

__________________________________________________________________

For additional information and resources on this and otherGG_logo_for-facebook 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:, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Arts Management, Copyrights, Law and Disorder: Performing Arts Division, Liability, Licensing, Music Rights, Non-Profits, Presenters, Publishing, Venues | Comments Closed

International Touring: A Report From The Front Lines

Thursday, November 19th, 2015

By Brian Taylor Goldstein, Esq.

As the U.S. Legal Advisor to the International Artist Managers’ Association (IAMA), I’ve been asked to prepare an update on a variety of current issues involving international touring at the next membership meeting in London on November 27, 2015. Not only do I adore IAMA, but as this would provide a lovely excuse for my wife and I to avoid having to spend Thanksgiving with either of our families, I was more than happy to agree. Robyn Guilliams and prepared this report, I thought I would share it with all of you…

Visa Stercus

1.  USCIS is presently taking a minimum of 8 – 10 weeks to process visa petitions at both the Vermont and California Service Centers. This means that, as of today, if you need to have an artist enter the U.S. any earlier than March 2016, you need to pay the additional $1225 for premium processing. (The official visa processing times that USCIS posts on its website have always been purely propaganda and should always be disregarded as such.)

    • As a reminder, visa petitions can be filed up to one year in advance of the performance date.

2.  For those of you who have Canadian musicians eligible for P-2 visas, we are receiving reports that Canadian AFM is experiencing a backlog in preparing filing petitions. This is in addition to the current USCIS processing time of 8 – 10 weeks.

3.  I’ve said this before, but the message not getting through, so its worth repeating. ARTISTS CANNOT DO ANYTHING IN THE U.S. ON A TOURIST VISA OR ESTA (Visa waiver) STATUS!!  Please stop listening to the colleges, universities, and festivals that tell you otherwise. They have nothing to lose other than perhaps having to find a replacement artist. On the other hand, I have recently learned of two artists—one from Germany and the other from Spain—who have had their ESTA status permanently revoked because they tried to enter the U.S. in ESTA status to perform in the U.S. Both artists had entered multiple times in the past and one were merely entering to “perform” a master class.

    •  It doesn’t matter whether an artist is paid or unpaid, whether the concert is free, or whether the performance is for educational purposes. They must have an appropriate visa—most often an O or P visa. United States Immigration Officers are taking this very seriously.

4.  In preparing visa petitions, please start collecting and providing the evidence USCIS wants as opposed to giving them what you have lying around in your press package. The days of being able to supply a bio and a few press articles are long gone and we are seeing more and more visa denials and delays because of this.

    •  I recently, and with much regret and sadness, had to advise a client to re-cast a role because the artist’s European management was simply refusing to cooperate in our efforts to obtain a visa for the artist. (In case that manager is reading this…no, USCIS will not “just google the artist to find out how famous he is!”)

Tax Stercus

1.  For those of you waiting to receive a refund check from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) for a non-U.S. artist who has had 30% withheld from their gross engagements fees and are due a tax refund, please be advised: the check is NOT in the mail, and won’t be for the foreseeable future. The IRS has added an extra layer of scrutiny to nonresident tax returns involving refunds. Aside from the usual 2 to 3 month processing time, there is a second review to be sure that everything on the 1042-S form is accurate and complete.  If the IRS senses ANYTHING off, the taxpayer will receive a letter asking for more info. To be fair, the IRS has announced that it will be paying interest on all overdue refund checks. To be practical, it doesn’t matter how much interest they offer to pay if, in fact, they never issue the refund.

    • Bottom Line: There is currently a very good chance that if 30% is withheld from an artist’s engagement fee, the artist will not get that money back…or, at least, not for the foreseeable future. Please plan cash flow accordingly.

2.  A Central Withholding Agreement (CWA) is still the best way of avoiding or reducing the mandatory 30% withholding required from all engagement fees for non-U.S. artists. To be eligible for a CWA, among other requirements, an artist must have filed a U.S. tax return for each prior year in which they have ever performed in the U.S.– even where no tax was owned. If an artist has not filed past U.S. tax returns, he or she will be required to file them as a prerequisite to obtaining a CWA. Unfortunately, we are seeing a sharp increase in the instances where filing such past tax returns is triggering an IRS audit in which they are requesting documents and records from the artist’s world-wide income.

    • In this one particular area, the IRS has displayed a remarkable degree of efficiency in identifying artists who have simultaneously made the least amount of money and kept the least amount of records to prove it.

3.  Obtaining Social Security Numbers (SSNs) and Individual Tax Payer Identification Numbers (ITINs) continue to be a challenge. While SSSs are not any easier for an artist to obtain, they have not become harder. ITINs, on the other hand, have become increasingly difficult, if not impossible, to get. Despite both staffing and budget cutbacks, the IRS has been requested to scrutinize ITIN requests more closely—particularly with regard to proof of identity. For most non-US residents, the most obvious and best proof of identity is a copy of their passport. However, the IRS lacks the resources and training to evaluate how to tell legitimate passports from forged ones. As a result, the IRS is now only accepting copies of passports that have been certified by the actual agency that issued the passport. However, even when this is provided, we are seeing the IRS send notices requesting that the actual, physical passport be sent to them instead. DO NOT DO THIS! You will never see that passport again!

    • There IS one option for some Europeans:  There are IRS offices located in the U.S. Consulates in Paris and London. One can go to these offices and request an ITIN in person (with an original passport, which the IRS will review and return on the spot.)  HOWEVER – one can obtain an ITIN only if one has an “immediate tax need”, such as filing a return. So, if requesting an ITIN in the Paris or London Consulates, one must also bring a completed tax return in hand, ready to file.

4.  We are seeing a large number of U.S. presenters–especially those based at colleges and universities—insisting that non-U.S. artists are legally required to have either a SSN or ITIN in order to perform or get paid in the U.S. Please be advised: There is no such law! While such numbers may make book keeping and accounting easier for the presenter, there is no law that requires an artist to have either one. Not only are SSNs and ITINs not proof of work authorization, but as we addressed above, many artists will be unable to get them in advance—if ever.

5.  Canada requires 15% withholding for gross engagement fees of non-Canadian performers performing there (similar to the 30% withholding requirement in the U,S.) Canada Revenue allows performers to file a waiver/reduction request to reduce/waive the withholding (an R-105 request). On their website, Canada Revenue indicates that the deadline for filing such a request is 30 days prior to the first payment due.  However, it’s taking them MUCH longer to process the requests. So, we are recommending that you file your request with them AT LEAST 60 days prior, or earlier, if possible.

General Travel Stercus 

1.  There is nothing new to report with regard to the ban on bringing musical instruments into the U.S. that contain ivory or other protected materials. United States Customs and Border Patrol isn’t strictly enforcing this with any degree of regularity. However, if any orchestras are touring and don’t want to take the risk, we are recommending that they contact Heather Noonan (hnoonan@americanorchestras.org) at the League of American Orchestras (http://americanorchestras.org) who is among the leading and most effective legislative arts advocates in the U.S. and is happy to talk to them about the “Instrument Passport” process.

    • The League and others are continuing to lobby for specific amendments, including exemptions to the rules for “personal effects” (which would include carry-on musical instruments).

2.  There has been some recent concern about Amtrak, the U.S.’s ersatz rail service, implementing a new policy requiring additional seats to be purchased for oversize musical instruments which cannot fit into overhead compartments. To date, this policy has been posted, but not enforced. We are recommending that artists and ensembles that intend to use Amtrak to travel to engagements within the U.S. check with an Amtrak representative in advance of the tour…and then be prepared for whatever they are told in advance to then be either incorrect or disputed by Amtrak at the actual time of travel.

Other Stercus

1.  When negotiating fees for U.S. engagements, please remember to specify the currency in which the artist is to be paid, including exactly how and when the exchange rate is to be calculated. We are seeing an increased number of misunderstandings over this point.

    • At the same time, use this as an opportunity to clarify any other costs or deductions (such as taxes, visas costs, hotel, travel, etc.) which either are or are not to be included as part of the engagement fee.

2.  Too many people are still relying on general, vague, boilerplate, or unspecific contractual language to take the place of actual negotiation. Do not rely on the misguided belief that there are standard legal terms and procedures that magically govern engagements and bookings when words fail. If you want something, or don’t want something, say something—or, preferably, write it down.

3.  When dealing with performances of new works or contemporary music, bear in mind that licensing laws differ. What’s in the public domain in Europe may not be in the United States. Even a re-arrangement or re-orchestration may not be permissible in certain countries.

__________________________________________________________________

For additional information and resources on this and otherGG_logo_for-facebook 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:, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Artist Management, Arts Management, Law and Disorder: Performing Arts Division, Licensing, Music Rights, Taxes, Touring, Visas | Comments Closed

A Tribute To Copyright Infringement

Wednesday, September 16th, 2015

By Brian Taylor Goldstein, Esq.   

Dear Law and Disorder

Could you please advise how a copyright application would be filed for a tribute musical of deceased popular singer? The show would consist of all of his songs. Would it be better to file it as a compilation or concert? Can all the songs be included in one application? Thank you

Is this, by any chance, the long awaited musical “Indian Love Call”, a tribute to the intoxicating sounds of Slim Whitman? I heard there’s a lost studio recording somewhere featuring Slim Whitman, Tiny Tim, Axl Rose, and Celine Dion performing a cover of “Total Eclipse of the Heart.” It would make a great Act I finale.

For most musicals, a copyright registration application would include the book, music, and lyrics written by the authors. However, tribute musicals such as Mamma Mia, Jersey Boys, All Shook Up and Beautiful, which are also known as “jukebox” musicals, are different in that they typically feature works which has been previously performed and composed by others. The authors and creators of such musicals must license all the music from the original composer or composers. This gives them the rights to use the music and lyrics in the musical, and usually to record a cast album, but gives the creators of the musical no ownership rights in the individual works themselves. You cannot claim copyright ownership, or file a copyright registration, with regard to any material that is not original or which you do not either own or create yourself.

Producing a tribute musical about a singer can pose a number of additional challenges in that, unless the singer also wrote the music he sang, you would need to obtain licenses from the publishers and composers of the songs the singer performed. In addition, the name, appearance, or costume of the deceased singer might be considered trademarks controlled by his estate.

If your production is a scripted musical (ie: with a story, plot and characters), as opposed to a concert, then you could claim a copyright in the book and spoken dialogue, and, perhaps, the order in which the music was performed, but not in the music and lyrics themselves. Even arrangements or orchestrations would need to be licensed from the original composers and could not be included in your copyright registration unless your license agreement permitted you to do so.  If your production is actually more of a tribute concert, then there may actually be very little you can copyright or own.

The whole point of registering a copyright is to claim ownership and stop others from copying or infringing your work. However, in the field of tribute performances, there may actually be more the publishers or composers of the music and the estate of a deceased singer can do to stop you than you can do to stop others. Remember, a “tribute” is not a magic word that means “copyright or license free.” The entertainment field is littered with the carcasses of concerts and performances that were stopped because the subject of a tribute did not like, want, or approve the gesture. In any artistic venture, before investing the time, talent, and energy it takes to create and protect your work, you first want to make sure you are not improperly using the time, talent, and energy of other artists that came before you.

___________________________________________________________________

For additional information and resources on this and other GG_logo_for-facebooklegal, project management, 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, 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:, , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Copyrights, Law and Disorder: Performing Arts Division, Licensing, Music Rights, Publishing, Trademarks | Comments Closed

When Is A Plumber Worth More Than A Violinist?

Thursday, July 9th, 2015

By Brian Taylor Goldstein, Esq.   

We spent a lot of money making a CD to promote our orchestra. Now the composer’s publisher wants mechanical royalties. I just don’t understand why I have to pay mechanical royalties for a CD I am not selling, just giving to donors. Doesn’t the Composer want people to listen to his music?

Does your orchestra sell tickets to its concerts? Why? Don’t you want people to come and listen to the music?

While everyone in the performing arts end of the entertainment industry appreciates the importance of music, not as many appreciate or understand its value. In fact, many don’t like discussing commercial or business concepts like “value” at all. However, an artist’s time and talent is the artist’s service. It’s no less of a commodity that any other service like a plumber or electrician. While many would argue, and I would agree, that an artist is worth even more, when a pipe once burst in my house in the middle of the night, I was far more relieved to see a plumber show up than a violinist!

Whether a musician’s performance is enjoyed live or on a recording, the musician needs to be paid for providing his or her talent. Musicians have bills to pay just like everyone else. For the same reason, when a composer’s composition is performed, either live or on a recording, he or she needs to be paid for providing his or her talent in creating the composition in the first place. While it’s true that some composers receive commissions to create a work, not all do, and a commission fee only pays for the creation of the work itself. Just like an author gets a royalty every time her book is sold and a playwright gets a royalty every time his play is produced, a composer gets a royalty every time her music is performed or a recording made of the performance. When a composition is performed, the performer must pay a performance royalty, most often by obtaining a performance license from ASCAP, BMI, or SESAC. When a composition is recorded, the performer must pay a “mechanical royalty” (an outdated term for a “recording royalty”) directly to the composer or the composer’s publisher. The mechanical royalty is based on the length of the composition and how many copies are made of the recording of the performance of the composition.

I appreciate your frustration in having to pay mechanical royalties for CDs that are given away, but that’s like saying that musicians should be paid less if a concert is free or only based on the number of tickets sold. Whether or not you choose to sell the recordings does not change the fact that you recorded a performance of the composer’s composition. Just because you want to purchase a television to donate to an orphanage doesn’t mean that Best Buy is going to let you walk out of the store with it for free.  While many artists do graciously give freely of their time and talents in promoting the performing arts, that decision is not yours to make for them. Largesse and munificence should be offered, never presumed. If yours is the first recording of this particular work and the composer is not already widely performed and listed to, I bet the composer would consider receiving a number of free CDs in lieu of mechanical royalties.

__________________________________________________________________

For additional information and resources on this and other GG_logo_for-facebooklegal, project management, 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, 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:, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Contracts, Law and Disorder: Performing Arts Division, Licensing, Music Rights, Presenters, Publishing, Recordings | 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 otherGG_logo_for-facebook legal, project management, 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, 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:, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Agents, Artist Management, Arts Management, Contracts, Copyrights, Insurance, Law and Disorder: Performing Arts Division, Licensing, Music Rights, Presenters, Touring, Venues | Comments Closed

« Older Entries