Arts Management | Musical America Blogs

Archive for the ‘Arts Management’ Category

The Divine Right To Cancel

Thursday, February 12th, 2015

By Brian Taylor Goldstein, Esq.

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

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

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

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

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

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

_________________________________________________________________

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

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

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

__________________________________________________________________

THE OFFICIAL DISCLAIMER:

THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE!

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

When Happy Cookies Lead To Bad Decisions!

Thursday, January 22nd, 2015

By Brian Taylor Goldstein, Esq.

We recently had an incident where the Executive Director of an organization that presented one of our artists gave him a cookie with a controlled substance in it at a reception after the performance. Admittedly, the substance was legal in the presenter’s state, but it made the artist (who was young and didn’t think to ask) very ill. The artist recovered and because nothing serious happened, we didn’t want to make too big of a deal out of it because we frequently book artists with this presenter. However, it got us thinking, are we liable if someone injures one of our artists at an engagement?

As you can imagine, while we have the privilege of working with some of the most respected professionals in the arts industry, we are also often confronted with the denizens of the lower fathoms of the gene pool: from the children’s theater who knowingly hired an actor listed on a sexual predator list (because the Artistic Director agreed to “keep an eye on him”!) to a diva who offered an immigration officer sexual favors in exchange for letting her into the US without a visa (cash would have been more prudent!) And now, we can nominate this Executive Director for this year’s award. He or she has demonstrated not merely a lack of judgment, but a lack of common sense at the most basic and rudimentary level, putting everyone at risk.

Offering an artist, or anyone, candy or food containing any substance not reasonably expected to be in food not only constitutes a reckless disregard for safety, but could also constitute criminal negligence. What if the artist had been on medication that interacted with the illegal substance? Or what if the artist had an allergy? Had, God forbid, the artist died as a result, this would have constituted a felony. It has nothing to do about the legality or illegality of the particular substance. Glass is legal, but you can’t put broken glass into a cupcake without a label saying “Warning, this cupcake contains bits of glass.” The fact that the artist was young and didn’t think to ask is also irrelevant. No one, child or adult, is expected to ask: “Excuse me, are their drugs in this cookie?” It’s one thing if someone is allergic to peanuts or is lactose intolerant. More or less, it’s up to them to make the necessary enquiries. However, it’s another scenario entirely if someone is offered aspirin, snake venom, staples, paper clips, or bat wings—all of which are legal substances—masquerading as common baked goods.

It’s great that the artist recovered and was not seriously ill. And I’m not suggesting that you overreact. However, you also can’t simply ignore the situation. Moreover, as an artist representative with a legal, as well as moral and ethical, duty to protect the interests of your artist above all others, which do you think takes precedence: your own, personal and professional relationship with the presenter or the fact that the presenter could have killed your artist? (Don’t answer this. Its rhetorical.)

You are not liable if one of your artists gets injured at an engagement unless you knowingly expose them to a risk, disregard a negligent or dangerous situation, or otherwise fail to exercise a reasonable duty of care. Assuming you or your organization had no reason to suspect that the Executive Director was dabbling in kitchen chemistry, then you would not be liable. However, should you book another artist with this presenter, and should this same Executive Director offer another artist a “happy cookie”, causing another artist to get sick, and you failed to warn your artist in advance not to eat anything, then by disregarding the prior situation, and knowingly exposing your artist to a potentially dangerous encounter, not only would your organization be liable, but you could be personally liable as well.

At the very least, assuming the presenting organization is a non-profit, you should contact the Chairman of the Board and let them know what happened. It would then be the responsibility of the Board of Directors either to fire the Executive Director or take steps to prevent a future occurrence. If the board decides that having an Executive Director who makes terrible decisions is the right person for the post of ultimate decision maker, and this happens again, then not only would the presenting organization be liable, but the individual members of its Board of Directors could be liable as well. Arts organizations, both for-profit and non-profit, should be organizations that foster, encourage, and support the very best and brightest in our industry, not refuges that provide job security to those who simply can’t find employment elsewhere.

_________________________________________________________________

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

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

__________________________________________________________________

THE OFFICIAL DISCLAIMER:

THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE!

Tags:artist, artistic director, judgment, lawsuit, Liable, presenter, risk
Posted in Agents, Artist Management, Arts Management, Insurance, Law and Disorder: Performing Arts Division, Liability, Non-Profits, Presenters | Comments Closed

Presenting: What’s In A Name?

Thursday, December 18th, 2014

By Brian Taylor Goldstein, Esq.

I work for a small performing arts organization which performs each year in a tax-payer funded, non-traditional space. The venue makes itself available for rental as an event space. In the past, we have been allowed to pay them a reduced rental rate in exchange for a full-page ad in our program and recognition as a lead sponsor. Additionally, we regularly receive glowing reviews in local and national media that prominently feature color photos and positive mentions of the venue, which our audiences and reviewers (and we!) view as critical to our work and to our experience. This year they have asked for additional money in order to cover what they claim are increased maintenance costs. This would be a significant burden for us, as we are a small non-profit and we are already cutting expenses. We did not budget or anticipate an increase rental fee. They have suggested that they will waive the fee increase if we agree to bill them as a “presenter.” We are certainly open to the idea, but would like to understand what “presenter” typically means in this context. What would that word represent to our audiences and other organizations? What could we reasonably ask of them, financially or otherwise, in exchange for such billing? The venue does not produce, and rarely hosts other arts performances.

“Presenter” is one of those performing arts industry terms that can take on many different connotations and meanings depending upon the context and whom you ask. Legally, on its own, it is not self-defining. Like terms such as “hold”, “commission”, or “cancellation”, there is no official grimoire of terms or official definitions that are “industry standard.” Contractually, it means whatever the specific parties agree it means.

The better, or, should I say, more meaningful question is what implications listing them as a “presenter” would have in the minds of third parties critical to you and your organization, such as your audience, reviewers, and donors. In this context, the term “presenter” becomes more of a branding or marketing issue than anything else.

For most folks within the performing arts industry, being a “presenter” carries a curatorial implication. A presenter is usually perceived as an individual or organization that has used its own artistic judgment to select a production or performance that reflects its mission, has artistic merit, and meets the standards expected of the presenting venue or institution. However, the general public typically approaches this far differently.

Many venues produce and present performances as well as rent their spaces out to others. Most people do not realize this, much less make a distinction—or even care. Whether the Vienna Philharmonic performs at Carnegie Hall or Applebees, the average audience member, rightly or wrongly, usually assumes that wherever they are physically sitting at the time is the entity that is responsible for producing or presenting the performance they are watching. (Chicken wings and Mozart—what a concept!) Its sort of like blaming the waiter for over-cooking your steak—whoever presents the meal will enjoy the credit or the blame.

If your venue is asking to be billed as a “presenter” then it probably means they want to be seen as having discriminating tastes in deciding whom to allow to pay their rental fee. Perhaps they want to leverage some artistic credibility for marketing purposes or perhaps they are simply trying to justify their public funding by showing that they are more than just a commercial rental space. Either way, they obviously want to ride your coat tails. Fine. You wouldn’t be the first entity to leverage a little artistic integrity in exchange for survival. By acknowledging them as a lead sponsor, your audience has probably been giving the venue credit for the success of your performances anyway. Just make sure that your program, credits, billing, and other marketing materials continue to emphasize that it is you and your artistic team that are responsible for your work. And make sure that your written agreement with them clearly specifies the exact wording of the billing they will receive. Leave nothing to misinterpretation or chance. You might even ask to have approval over any marketing or publicity the venue issues on its own.

As for what you could reasonably ask of them, financially or otherwise, in exchange for such billing: There is nothing to “ask.” They have already set the price. You would agree to credit them as a presenter in exchange for letting you rent the space for a lower fee. Now is not the time for counter offers to try and get further concessions from them. Your immediate goal should be to avoid having to find a new venue or spend money you didn’t budget for, not win a negotiation challenge on “The Apprentice.”

___________________________________________________________________

HAPPY HOLIDAYS

We will be taking a short break from the blog until January 7, 2015.

Please click on the photo to enjoy our gift to you.

Presenting the Dancing GG Arts Law Holiday Elves: Brian, Robyn and Ann

__________________________________________________________________

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

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

__________________________________________________________________

THE OFFICIAL DISCLAIMER:

THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE!

Tags:cancellation, distinction, interpretation, marketing, negotiation, presenter, publicity, venue
Posted in Artist Management, Arts Management, Contracts, Law and Disorder: Performing Arts Division, Presenters | Comments Closed

How Is Copyright Infringement Like An Ugly Car?

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.

__________________________________________________________________

THE OFFICIAL DISCLAIMER:

THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE!

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

Avoiding A Visa Interview…Sometimes…Maybe…

Thursday, November 6th, 2014

By Brian Taylor Goldstein, Esq.

Dear Law and Disorder:

I had a really interesting conversation with a consular officer at a U.S. consulate where we were having one of our groups apply for P visas. Our group has toured the U.S. many times and the officer mentioned that P class petitioners do not need to come back in for interviews if they renew their visas within 48 months of their last visa. They can just mail them in through a courier service associated with a local bank. She said that this was true in other countries as well, though the specifics are slightly different in other countries. Are you familiar with this?

Yes, I am familiar with this. What the officer is talking about is a discretionary policy whereby certain individuals under certain circumstances may not be required to have a visa interview at the U.S. consulate if they are applying for a visa in the same category as a visa previously issued to such person. However, before you get too excited, remember that nothing in the tortured realm of U.S. immigration policies and procedures is ever as simple or as straightforward as it may first seem. There are several pitfalls to be aware of.

First, this has nothing to do with avoiding the petition process. Regardless of how many O or P visas an artist may have previously held, all new O and P visas require a visa petition to be filed with and approved by USCIS (United States Citizenship and Immigration Services.) The policy at issue here is whether or not, after approval, an artist may be able to avoid physically appearing at a U.S. Consulate in order for the visa to be issued.

Second, the “interview waiver” policy is determined on a consulate-by-consulate basis and it is by no means a uniform policy at all U.S. consulates. Some consulates may allow this for O and P visas, while others may allow this only for O visas, and still others may allow this for O-1 and P-1 visas, but not O-2 or P-1S visas. And others may not allow this at all. Even where it is available, a consulate might still require citizens of certain countries to come in for an interview anyway. The only way to determine which consulates do and do not allow for visa interviews to be waived under certain circumstances and, if available, the specific process for obtaining a visa without an interview, is to check the website of the specific consulate where the artist will be applying for the visa.

Third, unless there is enough time to deal with glitches and delays, I always encourage artists to appear personally even if they qualify for an interview waiver. Why? Read on…

A pianist who had multiple O-1 visas in the past did not, understandably, want to go to yet another interview at a U.S. Consulate. So, you can imagine her joy when, upon completing her DS-160 (visa application) form on the website of the U.S. Consulate, she learned that she qualified for an interview waiver. She ecstatically selected the interview waiver option on the DS-160, mailed in her passport using the courier service…and her passport never arrived at the consulate. It was lost. Ultimately, she had to obtain a new passport and apply in person, causing a delay of several weeks and the cancellation of several engagements on her tour.

Similarly, another artist who also met the qualifications for an interview waiver, mailed in his passport and, after three weeks of waiting, was informed that he was being required to schedule an interview anyway. Even where an artist meets the requirements for an interview waiver, a consulate always retains the discretion to require a personal interview under any circumstances. Unfortunately, there’s no particular requirement that they inform you of this in a timely fashion.

As fond as I am of sweeping generalizations, they are never applicable in all circumstances. For every tale of problems or delays, there are just as many positive experiences. Nonetheless, its always safe to assume that when dealing with any situation—immigration related or otherwise—in which the outcome you seek will ultimately depend upon a harmonic convergence of timing, competency, and karma, assume otherwise and plan accordingly.

_________________________________________________________________

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

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

__________________________________________________________________

THE OFFICIAL DISCLAIMER:

THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE!

Tags:artist, engagements, immigration, petitioner, Tour, united states citizenship and immigration services, uscis, visa application, visa interview, visa petition, visas, waiver
Posted in Artist Management, Arts Management, Law and Disorder: Performing Arts Division, Touring, Visas | Comments Closed

Whose Lawsuit Is It Anyway?

Thursday, October 30th, 2014

By Brian Taylor Goldstein, Esq.

Dear Law and Disorder:

I’m dealing with a presenter who wants to cancel two weeks out due to poor ticket sales. While it’s not a huge engagement fee, my artist has already contracted its performers and paid out expenses for the date as its part of a bigger tour. I have a cancelation clause in my contract and I’ve explained what canceling would mean and that the presenter will be on the hook. However, he still wants to cancel. Its been a rough year and I can’t afford legal counsel. Do you have any suggestions?

At least the presenter is not trying to claim that poor ticket sales constitutes an act of God. While I am familiar with many organizations whose strategic plans require some degree of divine intervention to stay operational, God rarely takes an interest in ticket sales.

If you have a cancellation clause in your contract, then that will govern the legal remedies for the situation. Contractually, the presenter either has the option of either proceeding with the engagement or cancelling and abiding by the terms of the cancellation clause (which, I am hoping, spells out how much the artist is owed in the event of cancellation). If the presenter elects to cancel, but refuses to honour the terms of the cancellation clause, that would constitute a breach of contract…which really just gives the artist the right to sue the presenter, obtain a judgment, and, hopefully, collect the judgment. Whether or not attorney fees, interest, or court costs would also be part of the judgment depends on the terms of your contract as a judge has no authority to awards such costs unless the contract requires them. However, regardless of the terms of your contract, a lawsuit should always be the last resort under any circumstances.

Have you tried discussing with the presenter any solutions for increasing ticket sales or promoting the performance? Does your artist’s shows typically sell at the last minute? Has the artist ever performed in this market before? Don’t presume the presenter knows its own market or how to sell your artist in that market better than you do. You may have ideas for selling tickets that the presenter has not considered.

Is the person you are dealing with the final decision maker in the organization? If not, don’t hesitate to go over their head. Don’t threaten—just do it! If the presenter is a non-profit organization, then even the president or executive director reports to the board of directors. Contact the board president or an officer of the board. Often board members are far less cavalier about breaching contracts than an organization’s administrative staff. Its very possible that the board doesn’t even know about the situation as many presidents and CEOs are quite proficient at keeping their boards on a need-to-know basis.

If the presenter refuses to honour the cancellation clause, resist the urge to scream, threaten anyone’s reputation, or toilet paper the venue. While tempting, those options rarely work and will almost always make the situation worse. Ultimately, the decision as to whether or not to file a lawsuit, along with costs and expenses of filing the lawsuit, belong to your artist, not to you. Regardless of whether or not you signed the contract, if the contract is between the presenter and your artist, then all legal claims belong to the artist and only the artist can file a lawsuit and appear in court. You should not be paying or incurring any legal fees out of your own pocket. Unless you, too, are operating as a charitable institution, if the artist wants to pursue a lawsuit, that is their cost burden to bear, not yours.

__________________________________________________________________

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

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

__________________________________________________________________

THE OFFICIAL DISCLAIMER:

THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE!

Tags:act of god, administrative staff, artist, board member, board members, breach, breach of contract, cancellation, cancellation clause, Contracts, judgment, lawsuit, performer, poor ticket sales, presenter, reputation, venue
Posted in Acts of God, Agents, Artist Management, Arts Management, Contracts, Law and Disorder: Performing Arts Division, Liability, Presenters, Venues | Comments Closed

Bring Out Your Dead!

Thursday, October 9th, 2014

By Brian Taylor Goldstein, Esq.

Dear Law and Disorder:

Many years ago I hired an attorney to create an LLC for me, but I wound up never using it. Recently, I was presented with another business opportunity, but I’d like to have an LLC to do this. Can I still use the original LLC even though it would be for an entirely different purpose? I’d hate to have to hire an attorney to create a new one as the last one was very expensive.

When you create a corporate entity, such as a Limited Liability Company (LLC), a C-corporation or S-corporation, its like creating a living creature. It has its own legal identity, pays its own taxes, and can sue and be sued entirely separate from its owners. However, like leaving a fish abandoned in a fishbowl, if you ignore it, don’t feed it, and don’t change the water, it will die.

Corporate entities such as LLCs are created and formed in the state where they are located. Once formed, most states require the payment of a yearly registration fee to keep the entity “alive.” If the fee is not paid, the entity will be listed as “inactive” (ie: put into a medically induced coma.) While you can often pay the past due fees and make it “active” again, if it stays “inactive” for too long it will be removed from life support and you will have to start all over again. Also, even if you could somehow resurrect a dead corporate entity, unless they were originally created to be generic, such entities can’t be used for different purposes than those for which they were originally created. For example, if you created an LLC to represent artists, you can just use the same entity to operate a record company or produce a play.

However, whether you are creating a new corporate entity or resurrecting an old one, the process does not require an attorney and should never be “very expensive.” I have heard of people paying attorneys $5000 – $10,000 for this process which is, quite frankly, insane. Creating an LLC, C-corporation, or S-corporation in most states only requires a simple form or two (most of which can almost always either be downloaded or completed on-line) and the payment of a registration/filing fee. Often, its advisable to consult with an attorney or an accountant (or both) about the various legal and tax implications of different corporate entities, as well as to flag any potential business or legal pitfalls. Also, if your entity will involve more than one owner or partner, then you will want an operating agreement or shareholder agreement, and possibly even some by-laws to make sure everyone knows who’s in charge, how decisions are made, how to bail out, etc. However, unless you are creating an entity which will be involved with complex securities and exchange transactions or plan to do a corporate takeover of Apple or AT&T, the forming of the entity itself is quite simple. If you can complete your name and address (which I do acknowledge is more challenging for some that others), you can create and register an LLC.

___________________________________________________________________

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

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

__________________________________________________________________

THE OFFICIAL DISCLAIMER:

THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE!

Tags:artist, attorney, attorneys, Brian Taylor, corporate entity, corporation, Goldstein, law and disorder, limited liability company
Posted in Arts Management, For Profits, Law and Disorder: Performing Arts Division, Limited Liability Companies, Non-Profits | Comments Closed

Plan On It!

Wednesday, October 1st, 2014

By Brian Taylor Goldstein, Esq.

We booked a tour for a folk/rock group that will be touring the US for the first time. It took a lot longer to get their visas approved because US Immigration kept asking for unreasonable things like background information on venues and festivals and even made us get actual copies of press. They also made us pay a fee to a union even though the artists are not union members. Now, the consulate is refusing to accommodate the group’s travel schedule. Because the group is on tour before coming to the US, there are only 1 or 2 days that will work for them to go to a US consulate and they will need to get the visas back the same day or the next day at the latest. We have already booked all of the flights and those cannot be changed without great cost. Its probably too late now, but, for the future, is there a way we can request a specific date and get the visas back the same day? How do we avoid all of this delay and scrambling in the future?

Unless you just arrived to our fair planet, then you probably know that the process for obtaining visas for foreign artists to perform in the United States has been significantly compromised for the last nine months or so. While there have been some minor improvements in some areas, the process has continued to be mired down with narrower interpretations of old regulations, frustrating Requests for Addition Evidence (RFEs), and stricter scrutiny. So you should expect delays and plan for them. If a visa petition was simple last year, expect it to be more time consuming this year…even if its for the same artist and group.

While both United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and the United States Department of State’s Consulates (which, for the record, are two different agencies) will make accommodation for emergencies, they are loathe to do so…and the emergencies have to be actual emergencies and not just scheduling or planning conflicts. This means, it needs to involve a last minute cancelation, medical emergency, Act of God, or other severe hardship which could not have otherwise been avoided by advanced planning. Otherwise, the process does not accommodate. You must accommodate the process. You simply cannot count on either USCIS or the US Consulates to accommodate an artist’s tight schedule or limited range of availability.

Your best strategy is to make a realistic assessment of the entire visa process before booking a tour or engaging an artist in the first place. While this may sound obvious, its surprising how often we see the very opposite in practice. There is a presumption that if you book or engage an artist, then all of the other logistics will magically sort themselves out. For example, at a recent arts conference, a manager made an appointment for a free consultation. Their question was that they had just taken on a number of young, non-US artists onto their roster, had already booked a number of US engagements for them at that same conference and wanted to know how hard it will be to get visas for them to perform in the US. That’s a great question, but one which should have been addressed before the manager accepted the artists onto their roster in the first place.

Too often, we see a similar scenario in large presenting organizations where the artistic planning department seems to believe that it is their job to dream big and someone’s else’s job to make sure everyone shows up. I have seen entire festivals planned, with artists engaged and travel plans made, before anyone turned to the issue of visas or other more mundane matters. The truth is that both halves need to work together…and at the same time.

Without question, the US visa process is frustrating, illogical, impractical, absurd, arbitrary, unpredictable, and expensive. What it is not is flexible. For managers and agents, its not just about signing artists that you know you can get booked. For presenters, its not just about planning performances that will sell tickets and enthrall audiences. The artists actually need to show up. That means taking into consideration, at the outset, such issues as: have there been any changes or new requirements since the last time you or the artist obtained a visa? Does the artist or group have the necessary background materials and supporting evidence required for a visa petition? Who will be in charge of the process? What are the costs and who will pay for them? What is the timeline?

Its also not enough just to turn the process over to someone else. There have been many instances where we have been brought into help obtain a visa for an artist or group who has been booked to perform in the US, only to discover that no one has bothered to advise the artist or group of the process or the considerable amount of paperwork and documentation they will need to provide. This almost always causes considerable delay and extra costs. You simply cannot book a foreign artist and ask questions later.

__________________________________________________________________

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

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

__________________________________________________________________

THE OFFICIAL DISCLAIMER:

THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE!

Tags:act of god, agent, artist, Brian Taylor, engagements, Festival, Goldstein, immigration, last minute, manager, presenter, rfe, Tour, travel, united states citizenship and immigration services, uscis, venue, visa petition, visas, work
Posted in Agents, Artist Management, Arts Management, Law and Disorder: Performing Arts Division, Touring, Visas | Comments Closed

When Non-Payment Is A Crime

Wednesday, September 24th, 2014

By Brian Taylor Goldstein, Esq.

Dear Law and Disorder

Our group got a bad check from a venue for a performance. We called them and they sent us a new check, but that bounced, too. Now they won’t return our phone calls. Is there anything we can do?

Many venues, especially smaller non-profits, wrongly believe that if they run out of money and can’t pay their debts, then that is simply the unfortunate consequence of “doing the best they can in a difficult economy” and they are “judgment proof.” I once even had an artistic director of a deadbeat presenting organization tell me that, although they were unable to pay the money they owed my artist, the artist had already been paid ten-fold in goodwill and the joy they brought to the audience. Try to pay a landlord with love and goodwill and see how far that gets you!

Almost every state has a statute that allows a person who receives a bad check to sue the issuer of the check and not only receive two to three times the value of the check, but to recover attorneys fees and court costs as well. While its true that suing an organization that has no money is often a waste of time and money, passing a bad check falls into a category of its own. Its bad enough not to pay an artist for a performance (which is always a crime in my book), but most states also makes it a criminal offense to write a bad check. The value of the check will determine whether the crime constitutes a misdemeanor or a felony. You will want to do some research on the laws in your particular state.

Writing a bad check is also considered a personal tort (legalese for “offense” or “a bad thing which you can be liable for doing”) and the person who signed the check is NOT protected from liability or prosecution even if they were acting on behalf of a corporate organization. In other words, the individual who signed the check can be personally sued…or even arrested…even if they were an officer, employee, board member, or volunteer or the organization.

While these can be important tools, your first step should never be to file a lawsuit or run to the police. Besides, both civil and criminal laws require some form of “intent” on the part of the issuer of the check such that there is no liability for inadvertently writing a bad check or where the check merely crossed with the available funds. However, the issuer must immediately provide payment upon notice that the check was returned.

If the venue is not returning your calls, then write them a formal letter. (I am always surprised by the number of artists, agents, and presenters who believe that email—or even text messages—is an appropriate method for conducting business communications of a contentions or delicate nature. Step away from the electronic device!) If necessary, send letters to the Chairman of the Board or to individual officers. You may want to remind them of their exposure to personal as well as criminal liability. If they continue to ignore you or fail to make payment, then you have written proof of their intent not to honour the check. You will now need to consider whether to contact a local attorney, file a claim in smalls claims court, or contact the prosecutors office in the city or town where the venue is located. Also, in the future, especially when dealing with venues with whom you have never worked before, I would urge you to ask for deposits that are at least sufficient to cover your actual costs and out-of-pocket expenses in the event of cancellation or non-payment.

___________________________________________________________________

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

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

__________________________________________________________________

THE OFFICIAL DISCLAIMER:

THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE!

Tags:agent, artist, Brian Taylor, cancellation, debts, Goldstein, judgment, lawsuit, Liable, money, payment
Posted in Agents, Artist Management, Arts Management, Contracts, Law and Disorder: Performing Arts Division, Liability | Comments Closed

The Recipe For Confusion

Thursday, September 11th, 2014

By Brian Taylor Goldstein, Esq.

Dear Law and Disorder:

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

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

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

Itinerary Based Visas:

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

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

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

Adding Additional Engagements:

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

The Immigration Implications of the Employment Relationship:

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

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

__________________________________________________________________

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

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

__________________________________________________________________

THE OFFICIAL DISCLAIMER:

THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE!

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

Musical America Blogs

Archive for the ‘Arts Management’ Category

The Divine Right To Cancel

When Happy Cookies Lead To Bad Decisions!

Presenting: What’s In A Name?

How Is Copyright Infringement Like An Ugly Car?

Avoiding A Visa Interview…Sometimes…Maybe…

Whose Lawsuit Is It Anyway?

Bring Out Your Dead!

Plan On It!

When Non-Payment Is A Crime

The Recipe For Confusion

Blogs

Archives

Meta