Archive for the ‘Arts Management’ Category

Beware of Simple Answers!

Thursday, December 19th, 2013

By Brian Taylor Goldstein, Esq.

Dear Law and Disorder:

I work with an artist whose current US visa expires in January 2014, but he has one engagement in the US on March 8, 2014. The promoters are saying that he won’t need to renew his visa and can just use ESTA, however, we were under the impression that he would need a valid US visa. Is this correct?

You are absolutely correct. He will require an O-1 visa.

ESTA stands for “Electronic System for Travel Authorization.” ESTA is an on-line registration system for citizens of countries who participate in the United States Visa Waiver Program (“VWP”). Citizens of VWP countries are not required to visit a US consulate and apply for physical visitor visa (B-1/B-2) to enter the US as visitors. Instead, they are only required to have a valid passport from a VWP country. However, they are required to register on-line through ESTA and be pre-authorized before they can enter the US.

The key, of course, is that the VWP program only allows citizens of VWP countries to enter the US as “visitors.” As such, they can only engage in visitor permitted activities: shopping, sightseeing, business meetings, etc. Under US Immigration Law (frustrating and circuitous though it may be), professional artists who enter the US as visitors are not permitted to engage in ANY public performances–regardless of whether or not an artist is paid, regardless of whether or not tickets are sold, regardless of whether or not the performances is for a benefit or a gala, regardless of whether or not the performance is for a university or non-profit, regardless of whether or not you can afford the visa process, regardless of whether or not the artist lives 100s of miles from the nearest US consulate, regardless of whether or not the artist has previously performed in the US as a visitor, etc, etc.

While artists frequently do sneak in as visitors and perform, this poses far more risk to the artist than to the venue or promoter. If the artist is caught, the worst that happens to the promoter or venue is that the artist can’t enter the US and the concert may have to be cancelled. However, a fraudulent VWP/ESTA entry can result in the artist having his VWP privileges revoked, or worse.

I am currently working with a prominent artist who wanted to take a last minute engagement, didn’t have time to petition for a visa, much less go to the consulate, and decided to enter the US as a visitor. Unfortunately, his concert had been prominently advertised, he was caught by the one of the few border officers who actually follow classical music, and was refused entry. For the next five years, the artist must now formally request a “waiver” anytime he wants to obtain a proper O-1 visa to perform in the US. As you may imagine, this has caused considerable stress to his management because a “waiver” request adds an additional 3 – 4 week delay in processing the artist’s visa. In addition, his VWP privileges were revoked, meaning that he must go through the time and hassle of applying for a formal B-1/B-2 visitor visa even if he legitimately only wants to enter the US as a visitor.

I doubt seriously that the promoter was intentionally giving bad advice. More than likely, the promoter was ill-informed. Which only underscores the responsibility of each of us to take the time to learn and figure out the correct answers for ourselves rather than rely on hearsay or anecdotal information. Whether you’re dealing with visas, taxes, licenses, or liability, if the answer seems too simple, it probably is.

________________________________________________________________

Hi Everyone! “Law and Disorder: Entertainment Division” will be taking a holiday break. Our next post will be on January 8, 2014. Many thanks for a wonderful year of great questions and challenges. Keep them coming! 

OFFICIAL HOLIDAY WISH CONVEYANCE

From Brian Taylor Goldstein and Robyn Guilliams (collectively, the “Wishor”) to you (“Wishee”):  

Please accept without obligation, implied or implicit, and weather permitting, our non-assignable and non-exclusive best wishes for a sold out, standing room only, royalty abundant, lavishly licensed, critically acclaimed, non-cancelable, infringement free, profusely booked, copiously commissioned, richly funded, tax-exempt, crisis deficient, and artistically inspired celebration of the winter solstice holiday, practiced within the most enjoyable traditions of the religious and/or secular persuasions of your choice, including their choice not to practice any such religious or secular traditions, along with an environmentally conscious, socially responsible, spiritually enlightened, politically correct, low stress, low carb, high HDL, non-addictive, financially successful, personally fulfilling, and medically uncomplicated recognition of the onset of the generally accepted calendar year 2014, but with due respect for the calendars of choice of other cultures or sects, and without regard to the race, creed, color, age, physical ability, religious faith, choice of computer platform or operating system, mental and/or physical incapacities, visa classification period, sexual preferences, political affiliations, and/or dietary preferences of the Wishee.

_________________________________________________________________

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

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

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

__________________________________________________________________

THE OFFICIAL DISCLAIMER:

THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE!

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

 

Is The Term “Work-For-Hire” A Magic Phrase?

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 otherGG_logo_for-facebook legal and business issues for the performing arts, visit ggartslaw.com

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

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

__________________________________________________________________

THE OFFICIAL DISCLAIMER:

THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE!

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

 

Back Away From The Email!

Wednesday, December 4th, 2013

By Brian Taylor Goldstein, Esq.

Dear Law and Disorder

I recently had to cancel an engagement. We had a signed contract with the venue, but circumstances arose where we had no choice. I sent a very cordial and professional email to the venue, but got a very threatening and aggressive response. I wrote back and explained our situation, then I received a nasty email from the venue’s attorney threatening to sue us. This doesn’t seem very professional to me. We could have worked this out and now they are demanding either a written assurance that we will perform or else they will sue us for damages.

In an industry that depends on relationships and communication, email, more often than not, facilitates neither. Too many folks use email as convenient way to avoid what they perceive will be difficult or unpleasant conversations. What you perceived as a “cordial” and “professional” email may have been misread as dismissive and aggressive. Why? Because emails cannot convey tone or emotion or sincerity.

This is yet another example of why everything I needed to learn, I learned in theater. Emails are like scripts. Without an actor or stage directions to assist in interpreting them, they are just words on a page and subject to multiple interpretations and readings. “I loved your performance” can be read equally with deep sincerity or with eye-rolling sarcasm. Even something as simple as “I’ll respond as soon as I can” could be interpreted as “This isn’t important enough to me to demand my immediate attention.” Especially when you are delivering information you know the listener will not be receptive to hear, don’t be surprised when they do not give you the benefit of the doubt. Emails are great tools for confirming information or clarifying understandings, but lousy for any communication that calls for nuance or delicacy at the outset.

In this situation, if you had a signed engagement agreement, then you probably had no right to cancel. Thus, regardless of legitimacy of your circumstances, a cancellation is a breach of contract. Using an email to notify someone that you intend to breach your contract is like texting your wife that you want a divorce. How did you expect them to respond? It was unrealistic to think that your missive would be met with joyous rapture and a “thank you” note.

However, the venue is equally as culpable in the escalation. When the venue received your email, they could just as easily have responded with a phone call rather than respond with their own email. Certainly, when you received the venue’s angry response, you could have used that as an opportunity to reach out to them with a personal phone call rather than yet another email. There is no guarantee that a personal phone call would have resulted in a better outcome, but more often than not the sound of a plaintive voice acknowledging responsibility accompanied by contrite offers of reasonable solutions will offer both parties better odds of avoiding unproductive conflict. You can always follow up with an email after you have had a chance to make a personal connection.

_________________________________________________________________

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

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

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

__________________________________________________________________

THE OFFICIAL DISCLAIMER:

THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE!

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

A “Thank-You” Note Is Not The Same As A License

Thursday, November 21st, 2013

By Brian Taylor Goldstein, Esq.

Dear Law and Disorder:

I was wondering if I have my own blog and post a music video from iTunes in the blog, giving full credit to the musician, including the musician’s original link, would this be legal? And can you please specify on what full credit means.  Further, if I can’t do this, how do you go about getting permission from the musician??  Thank you!

A “copyright” is literally the right to make copies. A copyright “infringement” is when you make a copy of something without the owner’s permission.

Almost everything you can find on the internet (photos, images, videos, text, etc.) is someone else’s property. Part of the challenge of understanding digital rights is that the ease with which we can download and copy materials on the internet tends to make us forget that copying any materials without permission is still copyright infringement.

Without question, many people post pictures, videos, and other materials and are more than happy to have others repost and share them; but that decision is entirely up to the person who owns the materials. In other words, just because a car is parked on the street, doesn’t mean its free for the taking.

Purchasing and downloading a video from itunes only gives you the right to enjoy it. It doesn’t give you the right to re-post or copy the video. As such, posting someone else’s video on your blog would constitute copyright infringement unless you had permission from the owner of the video.

If you are commenting on or reviewing the video or the artist, then, arguably, you might be able to claim that posting the video constitutes “fair use.” However, the more of an item you post, the less “fair use” it becomes. So, an excerpt of a video is more likely to be “fair use” than posting the entire video. The better option would be for you to post a link to the video rather than post the video itself. In other words, you would be inviting your readers to go to itunes or the artist’s own website to view the video. This way, the owner can control whether or not they want the video to be shared.

I know many people who subscribe to the theory that, in practical terms, you should post anything you want until someone tells you to take it down. However, in practical terms, that’s also called “really bad advice.”

As for giving “full credit”, giving an owner credit in any form or manner neither gives you any rights to post materials nor absolves you of copyright infringement. Stealing a car, but leaving a thank you note crediting the owner, doesn’t make it any less a crime. If you want to get actual permission to repost a video, photograph, or any other copyrighted material, then you need to get permission (aka “a license”) from the owner—which may or may not be the artist. More often than not, video rights are controlled by record labels. Nonetheless, when seeking licenses, the best place to start is always the musician’s publisher, manager, or agent.

__________________________________________________________________

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

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

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

__________________________________________________________________

THE OFFICIAL DISCLAIMER:

THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE!

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

 

 

Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam….

Wednesday, November 6th, 2013

By Brian Taylor Goldstein, Esq.

Dear Law and Disorder:

If I am doing a fee split, am I entitled to the emails of the people who purchase tickets? Our group booked a show at a venue where we are supposed to be getting a portion of the ticket sales. We have asked for the names and email addresses of everyone who purchases a ticket, but the presenter says that this is against the law because it’s the presenter’s confidential, proprietary information. But if people are buying tickets to our shows, why aren’t we entitled to their names and contact info?  

Always start with the contract. What does it say? Do you even have one? If the engagement contract states that you are entitled to receive the names and contact information of everyone who purchases a ticket to your performance, then the presenter is contractually required to give it to you. Case closed.

However, assuming that your contract is silent on the subject, then the presenter may be giving you the correct answer, but for the wrong reason. A lot of people toss around the words “confidential” and “proprietary” without really having any idea what they mean. If your interest in having the names and emails is so that you can send out announcements of your future shows (ie: spam), the presenter has a legitimate concern that this may violate the CAN-SPAM Act–which has nothing to do with confidential or proprietary information.

The CAN-SPAM Act is a federal law that governs the sending of unsolicited commercial emails. This law states that anyone who receives an unsolicited commercial email has the right to request that he or she be removed from future mailings and places a number specific requirements on those who send such emails, including requiring the sender to provide an opt-out mechanism, a physical address, and to remove anyone who requests to be removed from the mailing list. It covers all commercial messages, which the law defines as “any electronic mail message the primary purpose of which is the commercial advertisement or promotion of a commercial product or service.” Under the CAN-SPAM Act, anytime you ask someone to “buy” something or spend money, its considered “commercial.” Sending emails to promote an artist or an ensemble is just as “commercial” as sending emails soliciting donations or promoting a concert, a fundraising event, or any program where tickets are sold. (The law makes no exceptions for tax-exempt 501(c)(3) organizations.) As a result, any individual or organization that sends a commercial email to someone who has specifically asked not to be contacted, or sends such emails and fails to provide an opt-out mechanism and/or to remove someone from its email list upon request, can be prosecuted for violating CAN-SPAM.

Individuals and organizations can also violate the CAN-SPAM Act by providing email addresses and contact information to third parties. Very often presenters and venues collect email information for purposes of contacting patrons to verify ticket purchases or to inform them of cancellations, but these same patrons may “opt-out” of receiving solicitations or commercial emails. If the presenter were to disclose such email addresses to a third party knowing that the third party intends to send unsolicited commercial emails, then the presenter would itself be liable for violating the CAN-SPAM Act.

In this case, if the presenter were to give you the data you want, and you violate the CAN-SPAM act, then the presenter could be liable. However, given their inarticulate basis for refusing your request, I don’t believe for a minute that your presenter is actually even aware of the CAN-SPAM act. More likely than not, your presenter simply doesn’t want you to have the ticket list because the presenter wants the names and emails all to itself to promote its own future seasons, subscriptions, donations, etc. Regardless, the bottom line remains the same: without a contract entitling you to this information, you’re at the mercy of the presenter. When performing at a venue, there is neither an inherent nor implicit right to patron names and addresses just because you are the performer and people purchases tickets to your show.

__________________________________________________________________

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

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

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

__________________________________________________________________

THE OFFICIAL DISCLAIMER:

THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE!

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

 

Oh, Canada!

Thursday, October 31st, 2013

By Brian Taylor Goldstein, Esq.

Dear Law and Disorder:

I represent a performance group from Canada who will be touring the United States. Three of the members are Canadians, but two are not. I have applied for a P-1 visa. Because the group is from Canada, can they enter the US just with the approval notice or do they first have to go to the consulate and get actual visas in their passports?  

There more to Canada than just poutine, health care, and HM The Queen on the currency. Canadians are also the only folks who are not required to have physical visas to enter the US.

Canadian artists must still file visa petitions with USCIS and be approved for either O or P visa classification. (Like artists from the rest of the world, Canadian artists cannot perform in the US as visitors—even for free!). However, once the visa petition has been approved, a Canadian artist does not have to go to a US Consulate, pay a visa application fee, and receive a physical visa in his or her passport. Instead, a Canadian artist can enter the US with only their passport and a copy of their USCIS visa approval notice. (Technically, a Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) officer can verify the approval through the USCIS database and does not need a copy of the approval notice. However, for obvious reasons, do NOT rely on this. Artists should always bring a copy of the actual approval notice, as well as a copy of the visa petition itself, just in case.

This unique privilege only applies to Canadian citizens. It does NOT apply to Canadian permanent residents (aka “Canadian landed immigrants”) or anyone who just happens to be passing through Canada en route to the US.

So, in your case, if the three Canadian members of your group are Canadian citizens, then they can proceed directly to the airport or border-crossing and enter the US with only their passport and their visa approval notice. The other 2 members of your group will need to make an appointment at a US Consulate and go through the visa application and issuance process. Apply early…US Consulates in Canada are notoriously backed up!

_________________________________________________________________

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

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

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

__________________________________________________________________

THE OFFICIAL DISCLAIMER:

THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE!

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

 

 

The Band That Stood Up To God…and Lost

Thursday, October 24th, 2013

By Brian Taylor Goldstein, Esq.

Dear Law and Disorder

We recently has a situation where one of our groups showed up at a festival, but just before they were to go on stage, the police shut down the event due to an approaching electrical storm. The presenter had given the group a deposit for 50% prior to the event, but is refusing to pay the balance even though our booking agreements have a specific clause that says that, in the event of cancellation, except for Acts of God, the artist gets the full fee. The presenter signed the agreement. The band showed up and were ready, willing and able to perform. Aren’t they entitled to the full fee? They need this money to cover their costs for flying, driving, and internal costs. Isn’t the presenter supposed to get event insurance to cover these sorts of things?

When you say the band was “ready, willing and able to perform”, are you saying that, had the police not shut down the event, they would have performed anyway? In a lightning storm? Seriously? While I am solidly rooted in the “show must go on” tradition, you’re either representing the industry’s most desperate band or the most reckless—or both. Had lightning struck the stage, injuring either a band member or a member of the audience, the band would have been facing some significant lawsuits and liability for gross negligence.

An “Act of God” is an unexpected event or occurrence that is beyond the control of a party. If a party breaches a contract because of an “Act of God”, then the party is not liable. Concerts cancelled due to severe weather are among the most common “Acts of God.” The fact that, in this case, the police shut down the event as opposed to the actual hand of the almighty descending from the clouds and cancelling the event with a host of celestial trumpets does not change the fact that the presenter did not cause the lightning storm and had no choice but to cancel the event—literally, given that the police ordered the event to be closed. Thus, the presenter is not liable for the cancellation and the band is not entitled to the full fee. In fact, assuming the presenter let the band keep its 50% deposit, the band actually got more than it was entitled to.

As for whether or not the presenter was supposed to get event insurance to cover weather related cancellations, you seem to be under the impression that, had the presenter obtained such insurance, then the band would have been paid its full fee. Not necessarily. Unless your contract obligated the presenter to purchase an insurance policy and name the band as an additional insured, then the presenter’s event cancellation insurance policy would only have covered the presenter’s liabilities and expenses. As the presenter isn’t liable to pay the band its full fee, the insurance policy wouldn’t have paid it either. On the contrary, if the band regularly plays outdoor events and concerts, and wants to “ensure” that it losses are covered in the event a concert is cancelled to due weather, then the band should consider getting its own event cancellation insurance policy. Or you could always just pray.

_________________________________________________________________

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!

The Power of Contractual Silence

Thursday, October 10th, 2013

By Brian Taylor Goldstein, Esq.

Dear Law and Disorder

 

We booked an artist to perform at our theater, but ticket sales have been much lower than we expected. The show is a month away. We are a small venue with a small budget, and can’t afford to present an artist if we can’t sell enough tickets to cover the costs. We signed an engagement contract, but it doesn’t cover cancellations, unless it’s for illness or weather related. As the contract is silent on this, I offered the agent what I thought was a standard buy-out fee (25% of the total fee), but he is insisting on the full amount. That doesn’t seem fair.

 

What doesn’t seem fair? That you signed a contract and the agent is expecting you to live up to your end of the bargain? The whole point of a written contract is to memorialize all of the terms, understandings, conditions, and requirements of a business transaction—even if the transaction is in show business. If a party fails to abide by a term, understanding, condition, or requirement of a written contract, then that party has “breached” the contract.

Just like music is a combination of both sounds and silence, terms and requirements that are not part of a written contract are just as important, if not more important, than the ones that are. This is because only terms, understandings, conditions, and requirements that are actually written down are considered to be part of a legally binding contract. So, for example, if an artist wanted to be paid his fee on the night of the performance, but the engagement contract only states the amount of the fee and not when it is to be paid, then the presenter is not obligated to pay the fee on a specific date. Similarly, if an engagement contract doesn’t have a cancellation clause, then there is no right to cancel and neither party can cancel without the consent of the other. This means that, if the artist gets a better offer, she doesn’t have the right to cancel the engagement. However, it also means that you don’t have the right to cancel, either, just because you’re not selling enough tickets.

I frequently hear both agents and presents talk about “industry standards and customs” as a way to resolve contractual disputes or re-negotiate contracts they didn’t bother to read in the first place. Except in rare circumstances, industry standards and customs are completely and utterly irrelevant. Moreover, if you gathered four arts professionals in a room and asked them to describe industry standards and customs on any given topic, you would get four different answers! If a contract fails to address an issue or condition that is important to you, you cannot presume that you get to resolve the silence in your favor and do what you want. Rather, if the contract is silent on a specific issue, then both parties must agree on a resolution of that issue.

In your case, if your venue’s policy is to cancel an engagement if you can’t sell enough tickets, then you need to make sure that this policy is written into every engagement contract you sign. Otherwise, you have no right to do so. If you cancel, and the artist or the artist’s agent doesn’t agree to accept a lesser amount, you are liable to pay the full amount of the engagement fee—so, assuming there are no other cost savings to you in cancelling and still paying the full fee, you might as well let the show go on.

_________________________________________________________________

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!

Does The Government Shut Down Also Shut Our Doors?

Thursday, October 3rd, 2013

By Brian Taylor Goldstein, Esq.

Dear Law and Disorder:

I have several visa petitions pending as well as applications for Central Withholding Agreements. What impact will the government shutdown have? Do I need to be worried?

That depends on whether or not the lack of an operational government worries you. Granted, it hasn’t been that particularly operational for quite some time. Whenever my computer becomes non-functional, I find that shutting it down and turning it back on again sometimes helps. Perhaps this will have a similar effect. In the meantime, short of accepting the fact that it may be time to consider putting HM The Queen on our stamps and currency, here’s what we’ve got to work with:

Obtaining a visa involves three government agencies: (1) United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), which reviews and (theoretically) approves visa petitions; (2) The United States Department of State which operates the U.S Embassies and Consulates where artists take their petition approvals, are interviewed, and apply for visas; and (3) United States Customs and Border Patrol which monitors all ports of entry and (more often than not) admits artists into the country. Applications for Central Withholding Agreements, on the other hand, are processed by the Internal Revenue Services (IRS).

1.      USCIS:

Because USCIS charges fees for visa petitions, it is not entirely dependent on

Congressional funding. As a result, at least for the immediate future, USCIS will remain open and will continue reviewing visa petitions with the customary unpredictability and quirky efficiency we have all learned to expect. However, visa petition fees do not cover all of USCIS’s operational costs. As a result, if the shutdown continues, you can expect to see increasing delays and slower processing times.

In the category of “every cloud has a silver lining”, a large number of petitions for non-arts related employment visa cannot be processed because they involve other federal agencies, such as the Department of Labor, which are completely closed. As a result, at least in the immediate future, you may actually see speedier processing times for O and P petitions as USCIS examiners find themselves with less petitions to review.

2.      U.S. Department of State (U.S. Consulates and Embassies):

Like visa petitions, visa applications and interviews at U.S. Consulates and Embassies, are “fee-based” and are not entirely dependent on Congressional funding. So the good news, such as it is, is that most U.S. Consulates and Embassies will continue interviewing applicants and processing visas…so long as the buildings remain open. That’s right, while consular services may continue, the longer the shutdown continues, the more likely that that staff support, security and other services will be cut off and the buildings and embassy compounds in which the consulates are located may be forced to close or restrict access.

Another concern is that, even where USCIS has approved a visa petition, citizens from certain countries (and you know who you are) require additional security clearances and background checks before the consulate can issue the visa. As other U.S. agencies are required for such clearances and checks, if these agencies close or shutdown, the visa applications dependent on these clearances cannot be processed.

As each U.S. Consulate maintains its own website, the best advice is to continually visit the website of whichever U.S. consulate you need to determine whether or not that consulate is open and functional. You can link to all consulate from the Department of State’s website: www.state.gov

3.      U.S. Customs and Border Patrol:

As their functions constitute law enforcement, CBP officials are considered “essential personnel.” As result, all borders and ports of entry will remain open and fully operational and there should be no immediate impact on the ability of visa holder to enter the U.S. However, as the shutdown progresses, staffing could may become more limited, resulting in longer lines and grumpier than usual CBP inspectors—especially given that “essential personnel” have the honor of being required to work without the requirement of being paid. Accordingly, you should plan connecting flights accordingly.

One additional note of concern is that the CBP website will not be maintained during the lapse in appropriations. As you may know, since May 1, CBP has no longer been issuing physical I-94 cards to indicate when an individual entered the U.S. and the length of their approved stay. Instead, that information is being entered electronically and, should someone need to verify that they are legally present in the U.S., they can use the CBP website to print out a copy of their “digital” I-94 card. Because approximately 6,000 CBP positions, primarily held by technicians and support staff, are impacted by the shutdown, the website will not be available. You should also expect delays in updating the system once it comes back on-line.

4.      Internal Revenue Service:

It should come as no surprise that the CWA program is considered “non-essential” and, as a result, the program was shut down along with the rest of the government. All processing of applications has stopped and will not resume until the government decides to re-open. At which time, you can expect a delays as the IRS agents attempt to catch up on the backlog. In the interim, engagement fees not covered by a CWA or other applicable withholding exemption, will be subject to 30% withholding.

Obviously, this is an ever changing situation and may have changed already by the time you read this. What has not changed, and is unlikely to change, is that when planning U.S. tours and performances of non-U.S. artists, you should always plan as far in advance as possible and allow as much time as possible. While we will continue to provide updates as they become available, you should also regularly monitor www.artistsfromabroad.org for the latest news.

__________________________________________________________________

For additional information and resources on this and other legal and business issues for the performing arts, visit www.gartslaw.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!

Visas for Recording Artists

Wednesday, September 25th, 2013

By Brian Taylor Goldstein, Esq.

Dear Law and Disorder:

If a foreign singer (who is not a citizen of a country that is eligible for the visa waiver program) gets a record deal in the USA, what kind of visa would they need to apply for? And if the singer is currently living in a different country with a residency permit, can they apply in that country where he or she is living, or would they need to return to their own country to apply for the visa? Thanks.

Thanks. This is an easy one.

To work in the US, which includes entering the US for the purposes of recording an album (regardless of whether or not the singer is paid), the singer would need to apply for an O-1B visa. An O-1B visa is for individual artists of “extraordinary ability.” To obtain the visa, a US-based petitioner (which could be the record label or an appointed agent) would need to prepare and file a visa petition with United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). (Naturally, there are fees and costs to file the petition.)

Once the visa petition is approved, USCIS will issue an “approval notice.” The singer will need that to make an appointment at a US Consulate and schedule a visa interview. He or she will need to complete an on-line application form and pay a visa application fee. However, the singer can go to any US Consulate in the world that is convenient for him or her. He or she does not have to return to their home country or even use the consulate in the country where they are a living. Any consulate in any country with a US flag outside will work. (Just make sure it’s a consulate that issues visas—not all do.) Assuming there are no problems with the background check, and assuming the singer is not from a country the US doesn’t like (which, sadly, is a larger list than you may think), the visa should be issued in 3 or 4 days.

There is a rare exception you should be aware of which may or may not be applicable. An artist is not required to have an artist visa to enter the US for the sole purpose of using a recording studio to record an album that will not be sold or distributed in the US, and provided there will be no public performances or concerts. If this applies, an artist only needs to have a visitor visa (unless they are citizen of a visa waiver country, in which case, they will only need their passport to enter as a visitor for up to 90-days.)

Remember, everything you could possibly want to know about visa and tax issues for foreign artists wishing to perform in the US, including things you didn’t even know you needed to know, can be found on: www.artistsfromabroad.org

__________________________________________________________________

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!