Archive for the ‘Licensing’ Category
Wednesday, March 25th, 2015
By Brian Taylor Goldstein, Esq.
Dear Law and Disorder:
Hypothetical: A theatrical production company would like to produce a tribute musical production to a songwriter using only the songwriter’s music being performed by the cast of the production. The production would be held at a community theater which is not licensed by ASCAP or any licensing authority. The production company is unsure of its legal standing in carrying out this this production, and would like some general guidance. Where could they go to determine the requirements, if any.
If any? There are always requirements. I don’t know anything that doesn’t require something in return.
The production company has no legal standing to carry out this production without first obtaining the necessary licenses. If the songs are being performed as part of a “concert” style performance—that is, being sung without props or costumes and not as part of any plot, story, or narrative—then the producer would merely need to get a performance license from whichever one of the three major performance license agencies the songwriter belongs to: ASCAP, BMI, or SESAC. If the songwriter doesn’t belong to one of these (which is unlikely, but possible), then the licenses would need to be obtained from the songwriter directly.
It doesn’t matter whether or not the performance is being held at a community theater or whether or not the community theater holds a license with ASCAP, BMI, or SESAC. Performance licenses must still be obtained and either you (hypothetically, of course) or the theater must obtain them. There is no legal requirement that the venue be the one to obtain performance licenses. While its probably easier for the venue to obtain the licenses, it is the responsibility of all of the parties involved in a production—from the producer and performers to the venues and agents—to ensure that someone obtains the necessary licenses. Otherwise, everyone will be held responsible and, hypothetically, you don’t want that. Also, if this is a production which the production company envisions producing elsewhere, then it probably makes more sense for the production company to get the licenses itself.
If the production company wants to obtain the licenses, it would simply contact ASCAP, BMI, or SESEC directly. However, there are a few additional issues that could quickly change the simple to the sublimely complex:
1) If what you are “hypothetically” envisioning is not so much a concert “tribute”, but, rather, a “juke box musical” where the songs of one composer are used as the score of an actual musical drama or to tell a story (ie: Mamma Mia, Jersey Boys or Beautiful), then neither ASCAP, BMI or SESAC can help you. You will need dramatic licenses, not performance licenses. Dramatic licenses must be obtained directly from the songwriter or the songwriter’s publisher. If this is the case, you should be prepared for a resounding and thunderous “no.”
2) Even if you are planning a more traditional concert tribute such as Side-by-Side-by-Sondheim or An Evening of Andrew Lloyd Webber, many musical theater and other composers have restrictions preventing more than a specific number of their works from being performed as part of the same concert without obtaining additional rights directly from the publisher.
Nevertheless, contacting ASCAP, BMI and/or SESAC is always the best place to start on any licensing journey. Don’t be shy. They want to have their artists’ works get performed as much as you want to perform them. However, they also want to make sure their artists get paid, just like you do. Assuming, of course, that the production company expects to sell tickets, if any.
__________________________________________________________________
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.
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:ascap, bmi, composer, composers, dramatic license, Licensing, necessary licenses, performance license, performer, sesac, songwriter, venue, work
Posted in Arts Management, Contracts, Copyrights, Law and Disorder: Performing Arts Division, Liability, Licensing, Music Rights, Presenters, Publishing, Venues | Comments Closed
Thursday, November 20th, 2014
By Brian Taylor Goldstein, Esq.
Dear Law and Disorder:
What rights does a translator have? I translated a non-English script into English. All of the prior translations were very bad, which is why I did my own. Everyone agrees mine is the best, even the original author. However, now that I am getting offers to produce my English version, the author and his publisher are insisting that, if I want to proceed, then they will own the translation and just pay me royalties for English productions using my translation. That doesn’t seem fair. The translation is all my work. I thought translators own the copyrights in their translations, so, don’t I already own it?
Robyn always tells me I never met an analogy I didn’t like, and I feel one coming on now.
Let’s assume I own a car which drives well, but is a hideous colour of besmirched baby blue (which, as it happens, was, in fact, the hideous colour of the first car I ever owned—a ’72 Buick Skylark which had belong to my grandfather, but I digress). You believe that you can re-paint my car and make it look like a Ferrari and offer to do so. Assuming I accept your offer, just because you paint my car doesn’t mean you now own the car or have any rights to drive it. I might owe you for your time and materials, but even if you make the car look better, the car itself still belongs to me. More importantly, let’s assume that I decline your offer, but you break into my garage and paint my car anyway. Even if you were somehow successful in turning my Buick into a Ferrari, you would still not have any ownership rights or control. You’d also be guilty of trespassing. (Incidentally, my mother did this very thing, erroneously believing that I would be touched and delighted with her thoughtfulness in having my car repainted, without my knowledge, from besmirched baby blue to her choice of vibrant puce. I was not.)
A copyright is like a car. The owner of a copyright has the exclusive right to determine who uses it and how—including the rights to edit it, make copies of it, perform it, record it, re-arrange it, re-orchestrate it, translate it, or create derivative works from it. A “derivative” work is anything that “derives” from the original work, such as a play or novel made into a film, a composition used to create a toy music box, etc. In short, there is nothing you can do without the owner’s permission and, in exchange for such permission, the owner can set any terms, reasonable or unreasonable, that the owner wants—including the right to refuse permission entirely. (Ok, there are one two minor exceptions, but they don’t apply to your question.)
If you want to translate someone else’s work, you must have the original author’s permission. If you don’t like the terms of the author’s permission, don’t do the translation and move on to another project. You are correct that, if translations contain a sufficient amount of creativity (as opposed to, say, a Google translation), then the translation is, itself, subject to its own copyright owned by the translator. However—and this is a BIG “however”—if you didn’t have the original author’s permission to make the translation in the first place, then your copyright is meaningless. It doesn’t matter how artistically nuanced, sensitive, or authentic it may be. As an unauthorized translation, any use of the translation would constitute an infringement of the original author’s copyright. Owning the copyright in the translation merely gives you the right to stop others, including the original author, from using it, but it doesn’t give you any right to use it without the original author’s permission.
Learn from my Mother—step away from the car!
_________________________________________________________________
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!
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:artist, composition, copy, copyright, copyright infringement, Copyrights, music, ownership, permission, royalties
Posted in Arts Management, Copyrights, Law and Disorder: Performing Arts Division, Liability, Licensing, Music Rights, Publishing | Comments Closed
Thursday, July 10th, 2014
By Brian Taylor Goldstein, Esq.
Dear Law and Disorder:
An orchestra commissioned one of our artists to make an arrangement of a work for them to perform. We agreed that it would be a “work for hire.” Now, the orchestra wants to record their performance of the arrangement and has come to us asking for the artist’s permission. It was my understanding that a “work for hire” meant that the orchestra owned it. Is that not the case? If they own it, why are they asking us for permission? If they record it, can the composer still ask for royalties even though the commission agreement stated it was a “work for hire?” What am I missing?
You’re not missing anything. You are absolutely correct that when a commission agreement expressly states that the commissioned work will be a “work for hire”, then the commissioner owns it. In which case, the composer isn’t entitled to anything beyond the commission fee.
Apparently, however, the orchestra doesn’t understand what a “work for hire” means. The orchestra was either using a commission agreement template they didn’t understand or believed that the term “work for hire” meant they were hiring someone to do work. Regardless, playing with templates and “legalese” is like self-medicating—someone always winds up in the ER.
If the orchestra has come to you of its own volition asking for the artist’s permission, then I would offer to grant permission in exchange for a mechanical license or other appropriate royalty. If they agree, then you have just obtained royalties for your artist that he or she would not otherwise be entitled to. Just because the orchestra legally owns the arrangement doesn’t mean that it can’t make a subsequent and legally binding agreement to pay royalties to your artist even though they are currently under no obligation to do so. Would you be taking advantage of the orchestra’s misunderstanding if the rights it already has? Perhaps, but I would submit that keeping any royalty to the statutory minimum and allowing the artist to obtain what should have been negotiated in the first place mitigates the karmic debt. Besides, rationalization and self-delusion are among the vital cornerstones of the arts industry.
________________________________________________________________
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!
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:artist, Brian Taylor, composer, Goldstein, license, mechanical license, music, orchestra, permission, royalties, royalty, work
Posted in Artist Management, Arts Management, Contracts, Copyrights, Law and Disorder: Performing Arts Division, Licensing, Music Rights, Publishing, Recordings | Comments Closed
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.
All questions on any topic related to legal and business issues will be welcome. However, please post only general questions or hypotheticals. GG Arts Law reserves the right to alter, edit or, amend questions to focus on specific issues or to avoid names, circumstances, or any information that could be used to identify or embarrass a specific individual or organization. All questions will be posted anonymously and/or posthumously.
__________________________________________________________________
THE OFFICIAL DISCLAIMER:
THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE!
The purpose of this blog is to provide general advice and guidance, not legal advice. Please consult with an attorney familiar with your specific circumstances, facts, challenges, medications, psychiatric disorders, past-lives, karmic debt, and anything else that may impact your situation before drawing any conclusions, deciding upon a course of action, sending a nasty email, filing a lawsuit, or doing anything rash!
Tags: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
Thursday, June 5th, 2014
By Brian Taylor Goldstein, Esq.
Dear Law and Disorder:
We are in production of a new “Tribute” show with a video component. We are grappling with what type of media is public domain or where public domain photos or video can be found. None of the video production companies seem to have a definitive answer. I have been searching for pertinent federal statute that address this issue. Any thoughts?
There’s an old joke where a man encounters another man frantically searching for something in the middle of the street. The first man asks: “What are you looking for?” The second man replies: “My keys. I lost them in the dark alley over there.” “Then why are you looking for them out in the street?” “Because the light is better out here!” Ba da boom.
Like the man in the street, you’re looking for the right thing, but in the wrong place. There is no federal statute that addresses your issue…at least, not directly. If you’re producing a “tribute” show with a video component, then any copyrighted material you want to include in your video will need to be licensed. Any material that is not protected by copyright is in the public domain and is free to use. The question you need to ask then is: how do you tell if material is still protected by copyright? The federal copyright statute will give you a formula, but not the answer. The answer depends on when the copyrighted material was first published. Most often, copyright lasts for the life of the owner plus 70 years. But who is the owner?
The challenge with videos is that you are often dealing with multiple copyrights with multiple owners. Let’s say, for example, that you want to include a video of the original artist (since this is a “tribute” show) performing at a concert recorded in the 1960s. There is a copyright in the video itself as well as a copyright in the music being performed on the video. So, even if you were to determine that the video is in the public domain, the music being performed may still be protected by copyright—or vice versa. We once had an orchestra contact us about creating a DVD to celebrate their 50th anniversary using old video clips from past concerts. Not only did we (well, to be fair, Robyn!) have to obtain licenses from publishers of certain contemporary works (as well as arrangements of older works), but we needed to obtain licenses from some of the original videographers who still owned the rights to the video footage. (Side note: ALWAYS take the time to get a written license or assignment from anyone whom you hire to photograph or videotape your or your performance—even volunteers!)
Photographs are similar. In every photograph are two sets of rights: the rights to the photograph itself (ie: the negative) and the person being photographed. The photograph itself may be owned by the photographer, but the photographer may or may not own or control the rights to the image or person in the photograph. While a person does not have a “copyright” in his or her own image, they do own rights of publicity, rights of endorsement, etc. So, for example, if you wanted to use a photograph of the famous artist you are paying “tribute” to, you would need to determine whether or not the photograph itself was in the public domain and whether or not you required any publicity or endorsement rights to use the image of the artist. (To make matters even worse, publicity and endorsement rights are controlled by state, not federal law, and can vary from state to state.)
Determining whether or not a photograph is the public domain is just like determining whether or not a video is in the public domain: when was it made? Who made it? Are they dead or alive? Even if the photograph or video is in the public domain, you still need to do a separate analysis of the contents or images on the photograph or video.
While we’re on the topic of “tribute” shows, its also worth mentioning that even if you are lucky enough to find all the videos and photographs you want, as well as the contents thereof, in the public domain, you still need to be wary of using the name and image of the original artist in the marketing and publicity materials of your tribute show. Things like names and even visual elements such as distinctive costumes or a physical characteristic of the original artist can trigger trademark issues that are entirely different from copyright and other rights. The good news is that with enough advance planning and thoughtful analysis, its entirely possible to create the type of video component you want. Many artists and producers successfully do this all the time, often with the blessing of the original artist.
__________________________________________________________________
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!
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:artist, Brian Taylor, copyright, Copyrights, endorsement, Goldstein, image, images, license, Licensing, marketing, music, orchestra, photo, photograph, photographer, public domain, publicity, video footage, videographer, videotape, volunteer
Posted in Artist Management, Arts Management, Copyrights, Law and Disorder: Performing Arts Division, Licensing, Music Rights, Publishing, Trademarks | Comments Closed
Thursday, May 1st, 2014
By Brian Taylor Goldstein, Esq.
Dear Law and Disorder:
If a hypothetical rental company is hired, either by a venue or by the client using a venue, to supply the sound and/or video system for a corporate, non-profit or association event; and this hypothetical rental company is asked to provide “top 40” music to be used during “walk in”, dinner, award winner walks up to the stage, etc. where in the liability chain would this rental company be? What if the end client hands the hypothetical rental company a stack of CD’s or worse, a drive full of MP3’s and requests/insists that they be played? If “ultimately” the owner of the venue is responsible of verifying that proper licensing has been obtained but “everyone involved” is at risk of being named in a lawsuit if proper licensing has not been obtained, how does the vendor in the middle point to either the venue or the end client as the responsible parties? Is it enough to spell out specific language in the rental agreement? <sarcasm> I know that you are, no doubt, shocked to hear that this scenario might be possible. However, IF it were to become “common practice” among rental companies to happily play whatever they and/or their client wanted without so much as a hesitation, it would be difficult for any hypothetical rental company to compete if they were the one’s constantly harping on usage rights with their clients. </sarcasm>
In truth, I’m less shocked by the possibility of the scenario you propose than astonished—nay, agog—by your desire to be proactive about it—even hypothetically. It’s a welcome reprieve from the “let’s not call GG Arts Law until we’ve actually been sued by Disney” approach we are more familiar with.
Merely being named in a lawsuit doesn’t mean that you will necessarily be found responsible—or, as lawyers like to say “liable.” Liability requires that you had a duty to do, or not do, something which you did or did not do. In your hypothetical, its not entirely accurate to say that “ultimately the owner of the venue is responsible for verifying that the proper licensing has been obtained.” Rather, if licensing is required, everyone involved in the performance has a duty to make sure that the proper licenses are obtained—not just the owner of the venue, but the hypothetical rental company and the rental company’s client. Its more accurate to say that, while, ultimately, the owner of the venue is more likely to get sued, everyone involved could be held responsible.
However, you are correct that the hypothetical rental company can put language in its rental agreement that says that whomever is hiring the company (either the venue itself or the person renting the venue, or both) agrees to obtain all necessary licenses and, in the event the rental company is sued and found to be liable for copyright infringement, will cover all of its legal costs and expenses, as well as any damages it might be ordered to pay. The technical term for such a clause is “indemnification and hold harmless”, but there’s no need to use magic legal terms so long as the meaning is clear. While having such a clause in its rental agreement will neither protect the hypothetical rental company from getting sued nor protect it from being liable, it will give the company a contractual basis to turn to the party that signed the rental agreement and say “you agreed to take care of this problem. Fix it!”
Even with an indemnification and hold harmless clause in its pocket, whether or not the hypothetical rental company can happily play whatever it and/or its hypothetical client wanted without so much as a hesitation really depends on the venue where the company has been hired to provide services and where such venue lies on what I call the Risk-O-Meter. On the low end of the meter lies most for-profit venues (hotels, rental halls, restaurants, conference centers, etc) which more often than not will have obtained the necessary blanket licenses from the major performance rights organizations (ASCAP, BMI and SESAC) to permit that stack of CD’s or a drive full of MP3’s to be played. So, no worries. On the high end you will find the non-profit venues, schools, community centers, and social halls which either don’t know they are supposed to get performance licenses or incorrectly believe that because they are non-profit they are also non-commercial and are exempt from the statutes, rules, laws, and other social orders by which the rest of us must abide. (While not all commercial venues are non-profit, almost all non-profit venues are also commercial.) Your need to harp on usage rights is directly proportionate to where you lie on the Risk-O-Meter—hypothetically speaking, of course.
__________________________________________________________________
For additional information and resources on this and 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!
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:ascap, bmi, Brian Taylor, CD, copyright, copyright infringement, damages, Goldstein, hotels, lawsuit, Liable, license, Licensing, necessary licenses, performance license, performance rights, proper licenses, risk, sesac, venue
Posted in Artist Management, Arts Management, Contracts, Copyrights, For Profits, Law and Disorder: Performing Arts Division, Liability, Licensing, Music Rights, Non-Profits, Presenters, Publishing, Recordings, Venues | Comments Closed
Thursday, April 24th, 2014
By Brian Taylor Goldstein, Esq.
Dear Law and Disorder
My ensemble has been approached by a composer/musician who would like them to do two days of recording for music that she is composing for a theater company. My understanding is that this theater company does quite a bit of touring. Do musicians typically get royalties each time the recording is performed or would this just be a buyout situation with the composer?
As, typically, most musicians rarely get paid what they deserve, I’d rather find a better standard.
We don’t often like to think of performing artists as a commodity, but it situations such as this that remind us why show business is a “business.” Like pricing any other product or service, it always comes down to how badly the buyer wants what you’re selling and how badly you want to sell it to them. In this case, you’ve got two things to sell: (1) the time and talent of the artists to show up for two days and perform whilst being recorded and (2) the right to use the recording of their performance. You can sell them together or separately. You can sell all of the rights or only some of the rights. You can also include any restrictions, limitations, or conditions that you feel might be beneficial to the ensemble. Unlike selling used cars, there’s no Blue Book where you can look up pre-determined values. Nothing is standard. Figuring out what to charge and how to charge ultimately depends on an analysis of the specific circumstances of how the recording will be used:
Will the recording be used as background music or as a featured part of the theater company’s production? Will there be other recordings by other prominent artists used during the same performances or as part of the same production? Will the theater company be using the recording for performances at commercial venues or PACs? What is the commercial potential of the production? Do they intend to use the recording to produce and sell a soundtrack or just use the recording for performances? Does being associated with this particular composer or the theater company bring any value or heightened exposure to your ensemble? Is your ensemble more interested in the exposure or the money? Would the recording be something the ensemble would like to use for its own purposes?
Personally, some of the terms I’ve negotiated myself in similar situations as yours have included:
- Granting the rights to use the recording only for live stage performances, but not for soundtracks, CDs, or digital downloads, each of which would require additional fees and payments.
- Granting the rights to use the recording for live stage performances except for Broadway, Off-Broadway, or 1st class runs.
- Granting the rights to use the recording only for a specific period of time, after which, if they wanted to continue using it, they have to re-negotiate.
- Granting the rights to use the recording in exchange for booking the artists to perform live for a specific number of performances.
Such arrangements can include, where warranted, flat fees or royalties, or a combination of both, or even a percentage of box office from each performance. You can also request that the ensemble be credited in all programs or liner notes, or request that the ensemble get the rights to use the recording for its own promotional purposes. Like any negotiation, the other side may refuse, or propose its own terms, but you need to start somewhere–and, like any good auctioneer, you never want to start the bidding too low.
While it’s certainly tempting to keep things simple and just do a buyout where you charge a flat fee consisting of the engagement fee for the performance and a fee for the rights to the recording, you may be missing out on an opportunity to get creative and explore the possibilities to look beyond the fees and maximize the potential of the entire project to benefit your ensemble.
__________________________________________________________________
For additional information and resources on this and 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.
__________________________________________________________________
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:artist, box office, Brian Taylor, CD, composer, Goldstein, music, musician, negotiation, payment, recording, royalties, Tour, venue
Posted in Agents, Artist Management, Arts Management, Contracts, Copyrights, Law and Disorder: Performing Arts Division, Licensing, Music Rights, Recordings | Comments Closed
Thursday, February 6th, 2014
By Brian Taylor Goldstein, Esq.
Dear Law and Disorder:
A composer has been commissioned to write an ‘original’ work for a particular soloist or specific chamber ensemble. The commission agreement stipulates that the performing artist is granted exclusivity, giving the artist a certain period of time in which he/she has the sole right to perform the new work for a specified length of time. During that period, the composer has an opportunity to expand the work, making certain modifications and reconfiguring the piece for a different and larger group, such as a chamber orchestra or full orchestra. Can the new work, although based on the originally commissioned score, be considered sufficiently different in its new configuration, to be exempt from the exclusivity requirements, outlined in the original commission?
One of the cornerstones of English Common Law is the principal that: Everything which is not forbidden is allowed. However, this presumes that with such freedom comes the wisdom to discern that everything which is permitted is not necessarily advisable. For example, the fact that we are legally entitled to eat as many deep fried twinkies as we wish, does not necessarily mean that we should.
As we’ve discussed before in this blog, when a composer is commissioned to write a new work the mere act of paying for the work to be composed does not in and of itself convey anything to the commissioner—other than the pleasure and fulfillment of facilitating the act of creation. If the commissioner wants the rights to perform or record the work, or wants a specific artist to be able to perform or record the work, such rights must be specified in the commission agreement. Otherwise, all rights to the commissioned work are exclusively owned and controlled by the composer—including the rights to modify, amend, re-arrange, re-configure, re-orchestrate, and do anything else with the work the composer chooses.
If the commission agreement includes the right for a soloist or ensemble to perform the work for a certain period of time, then the commission agreement must also specify exactly what rights are being conveyed. Anything not specified, belongs to the composer. For example, does the soloist or ensemble have the exclusive right to perform the work as titled or can the composer grant permission for other artists to perform it under a different title? More importantly, how is the word “work” defined? Does the artist’s right to perform the “work” include the right to perform modifications, changes, edits, re-orchestrations, re-configurations, or other variations of the work? Can the artist make such changes herself or only with the composer’s permission? Even if the artist has no rights to such changes or variations, does the artist’s rights of exclusivity prohibit the composer from composing variations and re-orchestrations and permitting other artists and ensembles to perform them? It all depends on what is in the commission agreement.
I’m going to go out on a limb here and assume that the commission agreement in your “hypothetical” lacks any specific definition of “exclusivity.” Given the almost visceral fear in the arts industry of any contractual terms longer than a postage stamp, this is a reasonable assumption. That being the case, then the artist or ensemble only has exclusivity with regard to the work exactly as written and the composer is free to make re-orchestrations, variations, derivations, and arrangements and allow other artists to perform them. However, the fact that the composer is free to do so, does not necessarily mean that it is advisable.
It’s an equally reasonable assumption that the commissioner, rightly or wrongly, presumed that the exclusive right for the artist or ensemble to perform the work inherently included anything that sounded like the work. Admittedly, the commissioner should never have entered into a contract, much less allowed money to change hands, based on a presumption. However, taking advantage of either a misplaced presumption or even a contractual oversight or will not only serve to poison the composer’s reputation for future commissions, but add a significant debt to the composer’s karma bank. In short, my contractual analysis notwithstanding, I would strongly urge the composer to discuss his opportunity to expand the work with the artist and the commissioner before he or she starts heading for the twinkie stand.
________________________________________________________________
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.
__________________________________________________________________
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:artist, Brian Taylor, commissions, composer, contract, contractual terms, exclusivity, Goldstein, music, orchestra, orchestrations, permission, Variations
Posted in Agents, Artist Management, Arts Management, Contracts, Copyrights, Law and Disorder: Performing Arts Division, Licensing, Music Rights, Publishing, Recordings | Comments Closed
Thursday, January 23rd, 2014
By Brian Taylor Goldstein, Esq.
Greetings,
I have recently been contacted by ASCAP asking for fees based on music played by live musicians. Are we required to pay if we do not pay the musicians? Any musician who plays at the location is not compensated for their efforts.
Is anyone else who works at or for your location compensated for their “efforts”? Waiters? Staff? Vendors or suppliers? Do you have to pay for liquor if you give it away? Who pays for the electricity or the heat? People can always agree to donate goods and services, and many do. However, as a general rule, society discourages the involuntary donation of other’s property without their permission—even if it’s for a really good cause.
A musical composition—just like a computer, a watch, 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 US 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. Any location where music is performed—whether it’s a theater, concert hall, or other venue (for-profit or non-profit) where music is performed live or whether it’s a restaurant or store that plays recorded music for their patrons’ listening pleasure whilst shopping or eating—needs to obtain the composer’s permission and, in most cases, pay a usage fee called a “Performance License.”
ASCAP, like BMI and SESAC, is an organization that represents composers and helps them by issuing performance licenses and collecting fees on behalf of the composer. It helps locations, too, because, rather than having to contact every composer individually, you can purchase a performance license from ASCAP to cover all of the composers they represent. It’s like one-stop shopping. However, as they don’t represent every composer, most locations need to purchase licenses from BMI and SESAC, as well.
If your musicians are performing original music they composed themselves, then they can certainly agree to perform their own music for free. However, if they are playing (“covering”) music composed by other artists, then just because the musicians agree to perform for free doesn’t mean that the composers have allowed their music to be performed for free as well. If ASCAP contacted you, it’s because music is being performed in your location and ASCAP is trying to ensure that you have obtained permission from each composer they represent to have their music performed. While there are a number of factors that can determine the cost of obtaining performance licenses—the size of your venue, the price of tickets, the number of performances, etc.–ultimately, it’s your responsibility to ensure that the necessary permissions and licenses are obtained.
__________________________________________________________________
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.
__________________________________________________________________
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:artist, ascap, bmi, Brian Taylor, composer, composers, composition, copyright, copyright law, Goldstein, license, music, musical composition, musician, original music, performance license, permission, recording, sesac, venue
Posted in Artist Management, Arts Management, Copyrights, Law and Disorder: Performing Arts Division, Licensing, Music Rights, Publishing, Recordings, Venues | Comments Closed
Thursday, December 12th, 2013
By Brian Taylor Goldstein, Esq.
An orchestra wants to commission a composer we represent to create an arrangement of a piece they want to perform. We were hoping that our composer would retain ownership of the arrangement so that in the future if the orchestra, or anyone else, ever wanted to play his arrangement, he would get a royalty. However, the most important thing is that we want the composer get credit for the arrangement whenever it is performed. In the commission agreement they sent us it says that the orchestra will get the right to perform the arrangement for one year, but it also says that: “Artist agrees that this work stated above shall not generate further monetary remuneration to the Artist (ie: a “work for hire”).” This doesn’t make any sense. If we agree to this, would our composer at least get credit ever time his arrangement is performed?
You’re correct. The commission agreement contains conflicting terms. It’s bad enough when attorneys use “legalese”, but when normal people try to use legal phraseology that they do not understand–or, worse, that they “think” they understand—chaos, rather than clarity, often ensues.
As a general rule, the person who creates something automatically owns it and controls all rights. The mere fact that you pay someone for their services does not inherently mean that you own the work they produce or have any rights to the work. For example, paying someone to design your website does not mean you also purchase ownership of the design or have any rights to use the design. Similarly, commissioning someone to provide creative services (such as composing music) does not mean that you own the material they create or have any rights to perform the composition. All rights remain with the author of the work unless either there is an agreement between the parties specifying rights and ownership or the work constitutes a “work for hire.”
A “work-for-hire” means that the person who paid for the work is considered to be the author and owns all rights to the work. However, under U.S. copyright law, a “work-for-hire” occurs in only one of two very specific scenarios:
1) When an employee creates material for an employer within the scope of the employee’s employment, the employer and not the employee is considered to be the author and the employer automatically holds the copyright. The employee gets nothing but a pay check; or
2) A work is specially ordered or commissioned for use as a contribution to a collective work; a part of a motion picture or other audiovisual work; a translation; a supplementary work; a compilation; an instructional text; a test; answer material for a test; or an atlas AND the parties expressly agree in a written contract signed by both parties that the work shall be considered a work made for hire.
In your case, I am sure that the orchestra believe that merely using the magic words “work for hire” will automatically transfer all rights and ownership in the arrangement to them. It does not. Why? Because although there is a written contract, the arrangement will not be used as a contribution to a collective work; as part of a motion picture or other audiovisual work; a translation; a supplementary work; a compilation; an instructional text; a test; answer material for a test; or an atlas. (Yes, this is a very odd and restrictive list. Blame Congress…while you’re at it, blame the lobbyists for the motion picture industry, text book industry, etc.) Unless both elements are present, it does not create a “work for hire.” If the orchestra wanted to own the arrangement, the commission agreement would need to include an assignment of copyright and a grant of all rights and title. As it doesn’t, if you were to sign the agreement, the orchestra would, in fact, have no rights to the arrangement. However, you’d also be taking advantage of the orchestra’s obvious lack of knowledge of copyright law as, clearly, they believe they would be owning the arrangement. Should they ever attempt to assert their rights, your composer would need to bring a lawsuit to assert his ownership and nullify their claims. This would not only result in needless legal expenses, but probably make any other orchestra think twice about commissioning your composer.
Rather than engage in legal games, if your composer is not willing to transfer ownership to the orchestra, I would strongly advise you to bring that to the orchestra’s attention and discuss the matter. If the orchestra insists on owning the arrangement, then you can decide whether or not to decline the commission or edit the commission agreement to specify the parties’ intentions. Should your composer decide to assign ownership to the orchestra, the parties can always agree that your composer would be given credit as the composer. However, that must also be specified in the contract! Preferably, in English.
__________________________________________________________________
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.
__________________________________________________________________
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:Brian Taylor, composer, composition, conflict, contract, copyright, copyright law, Goldstein, orchestra, royalty, work
Posted in Agents, Artist Management, Arts Management, Contracts, Copyrights, Law and Disorder: Performing Arts Division, Licensing, Music Rights, Presenters, Publishing, Recordings | Comments Closed
legal, project management, and business issues for the performing arts, visit ggartslaw.com