Archive for the ‘Artist Management’ Category

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

THE TRIALS AND TRIBULATIONS OF A TRIBUTE BAND

Wednesday, September 6th, 2017

By Brian Taylor Goldstein, Esq.

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

Dear Law and Disorder:

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

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

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

Dear Law and Disorder:

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

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

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

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

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

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

_________________________________________________________________

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

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

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

THE OFFICIAL DISCLAIMER: THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE!

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

 

 

 

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

WHY ARE ARTISTS BEING DENIED ENTRY INTO THE US? HOW DID IT COME TO THIS AND WHO DO WE BLAME?

Friday, March 17th, 2017

By Brian Taylor Goldstein, Esq.   

By now, you should all be aware that the incidents of artists and performers from a wide range of nationalities arriving in the United States as visitors (either on visitor visas (B-1/B-2) or through the visa waiver/ESTA program) and being refused entry are growing at an alarming rate. These artists are being pulled aside, subjected to hours of questioning, and, in many instances, being handcuffed and held overnight until return flights become available…all without the benefit of being able to contact anyone or seek counsel.

We should all be angry and outraged. However, the value of general cathartic explosions notwithstanding, it is important to know whom to blame and where to focus all of the outrage and anger.

First and foremost, unlike some artists and others have asserted, no laws or regulations have been changed with regard to the visa waiver/ESTA program. To the contrary, ever since the United States immigration laws were overhauled in the 1990s, it has always been the case that artists are not permitted to perform in the US either on visitor visas or through the visa waiver/ESTA program regardless of whether or not artists are paid or whether or not tickets are sold. In order to perform, artists must have an appropriate artist visa—which, in most cases, is going to be either an O visa or a P visa.

Very often, an artist, manager, or presenter will contact our office in situations where there has been a list minute engagement opportunity and there is no time for an artist to obtain an O or P visa. They will almost always ask whether the artist can perform without an O visa or P visa if the artist does not get paid—or, worse, presume that this is the case. No! Payment—or lack thereof—is not the deciding factor. The deciding factor is whether or not there is an audience.

One of the few exceptions to this counter-intuitive restriction is that an artist may enter the US either on a visitor visa or through visa waiver/ESTA provided the artist’s sole purpose is to audition or perform a showcase for the sole purpose of obtaining future work and engagements and provided ALL of the following requirements are met:

(1) The artist is not being paid;

(2) The performance is closed to the public; AND

(3) The performance is restricted to promoters, managers, presenters, bookers or other industry professionals who book or engage artists.

Merely calling a performance a “showcase” does not make it a showcase. Performing, even for free, in the hopes of obtaining future engagements is not sufficient. Rather, the narrow crack in the otherwise strict prohibition against artists performing without an O visa or P visa was created purely to allow artists to attend booking conferences (such as Arts Midwest, PAE, or APAP) or a traditional audition where the artist performs before a few gruff and aloof producers or directors. If at any time the general public is allowed to attend (even if no tickets are sold), then it is not considered an “audition” or “showcase” and the exception does not apply.  Accordingly, promotional and publicity tours do not qualify either. Similarly, if an artist is entering to perform as part of training program and the performance is open to the public, the exception also does not apply.

As to why such onerous restrictions were ever enacted in the first place, the “official” argument is that it was to protect the United States labor market. True as this may be, it reflects an offensive disregard of the fact that artists are unique and all performances, good or bad, are distinctive. Unlike non-US manufacturing labor who arguably may have similar training and experience as their US counterparts, non-US artists cannot merely be substituted or swapped for a US alternative who just happen to have similar technical abilities. If you have seen one artist, you most definitely have not seen them all. However, without in the least defending these regulations, it is worth bearing in mind that the United States has no Ministry of Culture to advocate policy on behalf of arts and artists. Rather, the arts must rely upon a loose coalition of independently funded arts advocates and institutions whose impassionate pleas are shouted from the wastelands of Whoville. While we also have a National Endowment for the Arts titularly funded by the government, it is purely a granting institution which admirably struggles to disburse crumbs and scraps to the artists crowded at the children’s table—and which, as of today, President Trump has proposed to eliminate entirely.

Nevertheless, for many years festivals, presenters, venues, schools, and others have expanded and relied upon the narrow “audition” or “showcase” exception by providing artists with a letter asserting that an artist is entering to perform an “audition” or “showcase”, is not being paid, and that the audience is restricted only to industry professionals. With only the rarest of exceptions, this usually worked. To be fair, it probably shouldn’t have worked as often as it did, but no harm no foul.

Then came President Trump.

Without having to amend or change any existing laws, the recent Executive Orders have imposed immediate “heightened scrutiny” and “extreme vetting” at all levels of the immigration process by mandating strict enforcement of laws and regulations already in place. (Sadly, these particular directives are not amongst those subject to the recent judicial restraining orders and stays.) As a result, we have entered a new era whereby all immigration officers, examiners, and other officials have now been instructed to “believe none” and “suspect all.”

For those of us in the arts and entertainment field, this means that artists who have hitherto had little trouble entering and performing either on a visitor visas or through visa waiver/ESTA—even in those instances where they were never supposed to do so—are now being stopped, questioned, and turned away. Just as bad, artists such as authors, painters, and designers who are legitimately entering the United States as visitors to attend conferences or to attend performances or exhibitions of works they created entirely outside of the US are now at a greater risk of being turned away merely by admitting that they are artists and do not have an artist visas.

As I was once taught by a senior attorney whom, in retrospect, should never really have been mentoring anyone in the first place, solving any problem first requires the assessment of blame. In this case, as frustrating as it is, it is not entirely appropriate to blame immigration or consular officers who, however aggressively, are being instructed to enforce laws that have always been there to enforce. Nor is it reasonable to presume a vast conspiracy focused on artists from specific countries. Rather, a more reasonable assessment of culpability would be as follows:

(1) The immigration laws and regulations that have always been unreasonable and unduly burdensome for decades with regard to artists, but which have gone unchallenged and mostly unnoticed because they were unenforced without any degree of consistency.

(2) The venues, record labels, managers, and others who offhandedly give artists bad advice with the air of authority, but without the burden of accuracy.

(3) The artists who are all too willing to accept without challenge the venues, record labels, and managers so long as they are being told what they want to hear.

(4) The United States government which, as opposed to targeting artists with the explicit intention of thwarting efforts to promote tolerance and understanding through artistic exchange, is oblivious that the arts exist in the first place, much less serve any purpose.

(5) The White House for boastfully implementing a new paradigm whereby all are presumed guilty until proven innocent.

Aside from continuing to shout, scream, and protest through every available platform, what’s to be done?

(1) Whether you believe an artist requires a visa or not, if it is at all possible for an artist to obtain a visa, do so.

  • Having an O or P visa does not guaranty entry as both consulate officers and immigration offers have the unrestricted authority to deny visas or deny entry at any time for any reason. However, having an actual O or P visa in an artist’s passport will go a long way towards ameliorating the immediate presumption of an immigration officer that an artist arriving as a visitor is doing purely to threaten our way of life.

(2) If an artist legitimately meets the narrow “audition” or “showcase” exception, then the artist needs to be properly briefed and prepared as to what to expect and how best to answer invasive and probing questions in an atmosphere of stress and intimidation

  • This means that, in addition to providing a letter from the festival, presenter, or venue, the artist should also be armed with documentation about the booking conference or audition itself—such as a list of attendees, information about the production or entity for whom the artist is auditioning, etc.
  • Make sure there are no press releases, announcements, or other information on either the artist’s or venue’s website (or anywhere on the internet for that matter) suggesting or announcing that that artist is “touring” or “appearing” in the United States, much less providing a schedule of US engagements—particularly since, legally, there can be no US engagements!
  • The artist should have return tickets already booked to establish that the artist will only be staying in the United States for the time necessary to arrive, audition, and leave.

(3) Review an artist’s prior travel to the United States to make sure they have not previously engaged in any un-authorized performances and, if so, be prepared to address this.

(4) Make sure an artist has at least a few materials (such as reviews or CDs) establishing that the artist is, in fact, an artist.

(5) Whether you’re dealing with immigration, royalties, contracts, or licensing, Artists need to be at the forefront of their own business. Don’t presume the people advising you are knowledgeable or even have your best interest in mind. At the end of the day, if you have to cancel a performance or, worse, get deported, the festival, venue, or manager will move on. Its YOUR career on the line!

(6) Lastly, if an artist does get stopped, pulled aside, and faces the possibility of a refused admission, the artist should voluntarily request to withdraw his or her request to enter the United States and voluntarily offer to return home. Voluntarily withdrawing a request to enter does not count as a “denied entry” and will not blemish an artist’s immigration record for future travel. On the other hand, insisting on entry and then being “denied entry” and forcibly returned can have serious implications on future travel.

We are all on a roller coaster that shows no signs of slowing down. As we continue to hold on to the bar, we also continue to recommend that everyone consistently check with reliable sources (ie: not chat rooms or random google searches) for updates and developments before making any travel decisions, applying for visas, booking foreign artists, or entering to perform on visitor visas or through the visa waiver/ESTA program. We recommend:

1) www.artistsfromabroad.org

2) The USCIS website: www.uscis.gov

3) The US Department of State website: www.travel.state.gov

4) The US Customs and Border Patrol website: www.cbp.gov

5) The American Immigration Lawyers Association (www.aila.org)  

And we will continue to update on our blogs, social media, and newsletters as changes occur.

__________________________________________________________________

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

To ask your own question, write to

lawanddisorder@musicalamerica.com

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

__________________________________________________________________

THE OFFICIAL DISCLAIMER:

THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE!

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

 

 

Tags:, , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Artist Management, Law and Disorder: Performing Arts Division, Touring, Visas | Comments Closed

Can A Union Walk Away With My Contract?

Tuesday, November 29th, 2016

By Brian Taylor Goldstein, Esq.    

Dear Law and Disorder: 

Is it legal that a presenter can put “strike, lock-out or other labor controversy (including, without limitation, the picketing on the theater by representatives of any labor union having or claiming to have jurisdiction over theater’s employees” into a force majeure clause? I mean, it doesn’t seem fair that an artist that is ready, willing and able to perform should be held “hostage” to a theatre who cannot strike a deal with its stagehands, right? I can’t believe this is a commonly accepted practice. Surely, holding out for a better contract (on either side) is a willful action and the responsibility of those parties to solve so they can fulfil their commitment to the artist, yes?

When you ask “is it legal” do you mean “is it a crime?” No. Assuming you’re not taking out a contract on someone’s life, then anything two parties negotiate and agree to in a contract is perfectly “legal”

Is it common? Absolutely, particularly with professional theaters or any large presenters or theaters who have collective bargaining agreements with various performing arts unions—such as most major orchestras and large concert halls and performing arts centers. In fact, I’ve never seen an engagement contract with a major orchestra or presenter that didn’t have such a clause.

It is appropriate? In my mind, yes. If union stagehands or artists make unreasonable demands and walk out, that’s not always the theater’s or orchestra’s fault. On the other hand, compromise on the party of either party is not always a reasonable possibility at the outset. Neither party should be held “hostage” to the threat of a breach of contract to compel one side or the other to agree hastily to an ill-advised collective bargaining agreement. Regardless, a union or labor issue is almost always a force majeure event. I even include that in my own contracts.

Another consideration is that if the artists you represent are themselves a member of a union—such as a musician who is a member of AFM—then, as a union member, they will be prohibited from crossing the picket line regardless of what the engagement contract says. Indeed, I had a group that had been hired to perform with a major orchestra last year and tried the same approach you a posited—they presented themselves at the stage door claiming that they were ready, willing, and able to perform. However, it turned out they were also AFM members and AFM said that they may be ready and willing, but were not “able.”

Is it fair? That depends on how you feel about the role of unions in the performing arts. I will say this: I have seen just as many artists shoot themselves in the foot as I have presenters try to pass off the losses of their own mismanagement and poor business planning onto their artists. And I know from my own experience that artists are not always their own best representatives in the marketplace. Nonetheless, I, for one, have never believed that the Arts are well served by the same “winner take all” approach that one finds in other industries.

Do you have to agree to it? No. You never have to agree to anything you think is unfair or unreasonable. If the issue is important enough to you and your artist, you can always either walk away or try and negotiate something all parties can accept. Just like a union.

________________________________________________________________

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

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

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

__________________________________________________________________

THE OFFICIAL DISCLAIMER:

THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE!

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

Tags:, , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Acts of God, Agents, Artist Management, Contracts, Law and Disorder: Performing Arts Division, Unions | Comments Closed

Termination For Convenience

Thursday, April 28th, 2016

By Brian Taylor Goldstein, Esq.

Dear Law and Disorder:

I recently received the following clause from a performing arts venue in a contract they sent:

TERMINATION FOR CONVENIENCE: Either party may terminate this Agreement at any time upon written notice to the other party. If this Agreement is terminated before the performance, the University shall have no obligation to pay Artist. If this Agreement is terminated during the performance for any reason other than the Artist’s breach of this Agreement, the University shall compensate Artist on a prorate basis. 

I told them that, in my mind, this makes the contract virtually worthless.  They came back with this: 

TERMINATION FOR CONVENIENCE:  Either party may terminate this Agreement at any time upon written notice to the other party. If this Agreement is terminated before the performance, the University shall have limited obligations to pay Artist, as defined below. If this Agreement is terminated during the performance for any reason other than the Artist’s breach of this Agreement, the University shall compensate Artist on a prorate basis.  Under no circumstances will either party be liable to the other for indirect, consequential, or incidental damages, including but not limited to anticipatory profits. The University may from time to time, under such terms and conditions as it may prescribe, make partial payments and payments on account against costs incurred by the Artist in connection with the terminated portion of this contract whenever in the opinion of the University the aggregate of such payments shall be within the amount to which the Artist shall be entitled hereunder. 

I feel that I wouldn’t be doing my due diligence as a Manager to sign this, but it’s a very important venue to me and I do quite a bit of business with them.  But I think this is unconscionable. Am I wrong?

“Unconscionability” implies a certain level of moral indignation is generally unwarranted in a simple engagement negotiation. The venue is merely proposing terms that are in its own best interest, not demanding that you sacrifice a sack full of kittens! If acting in one’s own self-interest were unconscionable, then most artists would have an incalculable amount of karmic debt. However, you are quite correct that the terms they are proposing are unfair to your artist. I’ve seen more and more presenters and venues trying to give themselves the unilateral right to cancel. I get it. Times are tough. Tickets are hard to sell. But it’s unreasonable and unfair to expect an artist to bear the entire loss of a cancellation. The venue’s proposed compromise is basically to reimburse the artist for any out-of-pocket costs, but not to pay the artist for the lost performance or the fact that the artist may have turned away other engagements. That’s not exactly what I would call an equitable compromise.

Regardless, the point of a contract is not to provide some false sense of security or protection, but, rather, to enable the parties to identify any issues that need to be negotiated, evaluate the pros and cons of a deal, and determine whether or not to proceed. In this regard, this contract has proven to be extremely valuable in that the venue has made it quite clear that they want to have the right to cancel without consequences. You have done your due diligence in reading and evaluating the contract. Now comes the hard part. What to do? You need to determine whether or not to engage in further negotiations, to accept the venue’s terms and sign the contract, or walk away and find another engagement. Ultimately, the decision is up to your artist. Your job as the Manager is solely to evaluate and advise your artist.

All art requires risk. The performing arts business requires a certain amount of risk as well. As the Manager, its your job to help your artist evaluate reasonable risks from unreasonable risks. Obviously, I don’t know enough about your specific artist or the specific venue to render an opinion. However, I can tell you that what is completely irrelevant to the analysis is whether or not the venue is important to you and whether or not you do “quite a bit of business with them.”  As a Manager, the focus of all managerial decisions must be what is best for your artist, not you. Is the venue particularly prestigious or important to the artist? Is the fee is particularly large? Does the engagement offer your artist a particularly advantageous opportunity? Then it may be worth advising the artist to take the risk. Otherwise, the artist should decline the engagement. The impact of the artist’s decision on your own relationship with the venue, past or future, is beside the point.

If your ongoing relationship with the venue is more important to you than the relationship with your artist, then you should drop the artist. I have often heard Managers say that artists come and go, but venues are forever. However, I don’t necessarily believe this. In my experience, if an artist is popular and in demand, and especially if an artistic director wants the artist, the presenter or venue won’t care if the artist is represented by Satan himself.

_________________________________________________________________

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

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

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

__________________________________________________________________

 

THE OFFICIAL DISCLAIMER:

THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE!

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

 

Tags:, , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Artist Management, Contracts, Law and Disorder: Performing Arts Division, Presenters, Venues | Comments Closed

Dodging A Bullet With A Contract

Thursday, March 31st, 2016

By Brian Taylor Goldstein, Esq.   

Dear Law and Disorder:

I am a classical concert pianist and booking representative for my small ensemble. I just finished the negotiation of a performance contract with a presenter and, unfortunately, we could not reach an agreement. In my three years of working as a self-presenting artist, it was the first time when a contract became an issue. To summarize the situation, I didn’t agree to sign the presenter’s one-page contract because it didn’t have any terms dealing with such things as cancellation or the date we would be paid. So, I provided my own, more detailed, contract. I also provided a technical rider for such things as piano tuning and how much space our group needed to perform. The presenter claimed that their contract was “standard” and that they engage lots of artists and that no manager or artist had ever objected to their one-page standard contract. So, I offered to propose changes to their contract instead, but then withdrew their offer to engage us, saying that we were obviously too hard to work with and that they had dodged a bullet. Quite a number of series send us one-page agreements and some of them react with frustration when I present a more detailed contract. I start to have a feeling that maybe while I am building my network, I have to play by the rules of the presenter and just hope that everything should be OK. However, in some ways it contradicts what I have learned from reading your blog. It also doesn’t help if its true that most managers are happy to sign these simple contracts creating a way out for a presenter to say: “we never had a problem with our one-page contract” before.

I’d like to say that these are the perils of dealing with small, unsophisticated presenters. But, alas, you have stumbled into one of the dark corners of the entire performing arts industry: at all levels it’s a business run by people who prefer to pretend it’s not a business until someone doesn’t get what they want and then they will all pretend to be experts on business contracts.

In your case, the presenter’s claim that other artists or managers may or may not have had a problem with their one page contract should be disregarded for several reasons: (1) it may or may not be true; (2) many artists and their managers are so happy just to get an engagement that they are happy to sign anything; (3) many artists and their managers often know less about contracts than presenters; and, most importantly, (4) nothing is “standard”. As for your suggestion that you have “…to play by the rules of the presenter and just hope that everything should be OK”, I disagree.

A career in the arts and entertainment in inherently based on risk. So, yes, there may be instances where an engagement or an opportunity presents itself and you may just have to take a risk. However, you can’t make this your standard policy. You need to be judicious. The only way to evaluate the risks and advantages of any offer or opportunity—whether it is an engagement or a recording contract—is through the contract process. You may not always be in a bargaining position to get what you want, but the process itself can be vital. Even if someone refuses to agree to a specific request or a contractual you may propose, that information in and of itself can be essential in helping you evaluate whether or not proceed. However, any presenter or venue that won’t even take the time to discuss your concerns should be avoided.

Nevertheless, while its fantastic that you have taken the time to devise your own contract and technical rider, you also need to know your audience. Its very different to negotiate with Carnegie Hall that it is with a group that operates out of a church basement with a broken upright. If you don’t want to unnecessarily scare off unsophisticated presenters and venues, there are things you can do to make sure your concerns are being addressed without having to send a formal contract with a rider. One approach may be just to send an email or a list confirming your specific concerns. Or you can avoid email altogether and have an actual conversation. Remember, a contract does not have to “look” like a contract. At the end of the day, its less about the wording and format than communicating your concerns, expectations, and clarifications. In short, it doesn’t mean you have to be less flexible in what you need, but more flexible in how you communicate it.

Ultimately, I think you were the one who “dodged a bullet” on this.

________________________________________________________________

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

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

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

__________________________________________________________________

THE OFFICIAL DISCLAIMER:

THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE!

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

 

Tags:, , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Agents, Artist Management, Arts Management, Contracts, Law and Disorder: Performing Arts Division, Presenters, Venues | Comments Closed

Gambling With Contracts

Thursday, March 17th, 2016

By Brian Taylor Goldstein, Esq.   

Dear Law and Disorder:

We had an artist leave our roster who is now refusing to reimburse us for expenses we incurred on her behalf. We charge all of our artists a flat monthly fee to cover expenses, but this particular artist refused. So, we agreed to reimburse ourselves out of her engagement fees in addition to our commissions. We do not have any written agreements with our artists, but we never would have agreed to waive our monthly fees if we though she was going to leave and we were not going to get any further commissions. It doesn’t seem fair. Shouldn’t she at least have to pay us the expenses we incurred on her behalf?  

Should she? Yes. Will she? Probably not. Does he legally have to? No. Could you sue her? Sure. Will you win? Probably not. Will you learn from this experience? That remains to be seen.

One of the most frustrating aspects of practicing law within the performing arts is dealing with the fact that people want to have the protection of contractual obligations without the bother of actually entering into contracts. I recall attending an arts conference where someone commented that what the industry needs is for ethical obligations to have “teeth” such that if a colleague or artist acts unethically, there are consequences. While I cannot disagree that there certainly should be professional consequences for unethical behavior, the flaw with enforcing ethics is that ethical obligations with “teeth” are called contracts.

Contractual and legal obligations are very different from ethical and professional expectations and aspirations. If you decide to enter into a business relationship based on trust or expectation, and someone breaches that trust or expectation, you cannot then resort to a legal or contractual solution where there were no contractual obligations to begin with. (Unless, of course, you have the resources to file frivolous lawsuits.) There are many legitimate reasons to dispense with contractual formalities. However, to do so is a business decision and if you make that decision, you have to live with the legal consequences.

If you ask your artists to pay you a monthly fee to cover your expenses and this artist refused, you could have stood your ground and dropped the artist from your roster. The fact that you decided to make an exception for this particular artist suggests that you felt that the value of having her on the roster outweighed the risk of not getting your monthly expense fee. I understand that your decision was based on your expectation that the artist would remain on your roster. That is all very reasonable. However, the fact that you elected not to have a written agreement setting forth your expectations means you felt the risk was worth it. Otherwise, you would have had the artist sign a contract clarifying that he or she would be responsible for all unpaid expenses should they ever leave your roster.

To be fair, even if you had a signed a contract, it doesn’t mean that it would be easy or even cost effective to enforce that contract. More often than not, the money at stake is rarely worth the time and effort of a legal proceeding to enforce a contract. But at least you would have had an argument. The real value of a contract is not in its ability to be enforced, but in its power—assuming people actually take the time to read it—to force the parties into risk assessment, discussion, and self-reflection. Nothing can ever take the place of your own business savvy and acumen. Until someone finds a new model, it is inherent in the performing arts industry that agents and managers risk the investment of their time and money on the expectation of a return on such investment. How you manage and assess such risk is entirely up to you. Like gambling, you never want to risk more than you can afford to lose.

__________________________________________________________________

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

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

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

__________________________________________________________________

THE OFFICIAL DISCLAIMER:

THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE!

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

 

 

Tags:, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Artist Management, Contracts, Law and Disorder: Performing Arts Division | Comments Closed

It’s Time To Set Your People Free!

Wednesday, February 3rd, 2016

By Brian Taylor Goldstein, Esq.   

Dear Law and Disorder:

What would be your response to an artist who re-books themselves in venues that an agent previously booked for them? Is that legally allowed? We booked this particular group to a major venue 2 years back and now they have re-booked themselves at this same venue by contacting the presenter directly. I can’t really justify holding the presenter responsible or expect them to remember who they booked an artist through 2 years ago. I have been told by other managers and agents about respecting a “presenter of record”, but what about an artist having to honor the “agent of record”?  

If you have (or had) a contract with this group that gives you the exclusive right to re-book them at certain venues for a specific period of time, then my response would be that the group is in breach of your contract. If you have (or had) a contract with this group that entitles you to a commission from any re-bookings at venues where you originally booked them, then my response would be that they owe you a commission. On the other hand, if there is no contractual obligation for the group either to re-book through you or to pay you a commission, then my response to the group would be “well done!”

Other than the fiduciary obligations and duties imposed on agents and managers who represent artists, and the obligation for an artist to pay for services knowingly rendered and accepted, there are no other legal obligations inherent in the relationship. An enforceable obligation for an artist to re-book only through the original agent or to pay a commission for re-bookings must either arise contractually or it does not exist at all. In other words, concepts such as either “presenter of record” or “agent of record” have no legal consequence or validity. While some might argue these are, nonetheless, inherently ethical or professional obligations, the whole idea that someone inherently “owns” either a presenter or an artist is more of a quaint feudal concept than a practical one for today’s cultural marketplace.

I appreciate that it can be incredibly time consuming and laborious to sell an artist to a presenter or introduce an artist to a new venue. However, presumably you received a commission for doing so. That was your fee. Charge more next time or move on. If you want to require an artist to book only through you in the future or require a commission if they re-book at a venue where you first booked them, then you need to have a contract with the artist that spells that out. However, be forewarned that no contracts (not even the ones I craft!) are self-enforcing. If an artist elects to breach your contract anyway, you will still need to weigh the pros and cons of enforcement. In many instances, suing an artist only results in an un-collectable judgment and a waste of time that could have been better spent booking other artists.

_________________________________________________________________

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

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

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

__________________________________________________________________

THE OFFICIAL DISCLAIMER:

THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE!

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

 

Tags:, , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Agents, Artist Management, Contracts, Law and Disorder: Performing Arts Division, Presenters, Venues | Comments Closed

International Touring: More Tales From The Front Lines

Thursday, December 10th, 2015

By Brian Taylor Goldstein, Esq.   

I realize there are other equally important issues out there than visas and international touring. However, in the wake of the recent terrorist attack in California, and as U.S. politicians and political candidates roll out a “Keep the Hate Alive” campaign, we are constantly receiving alarming updates from clients as well as from the American Immigration Lawyers Association of artists encountering new obstacles and challenges. Here are the latest changes and challenges you need to be aware of:

1.  A Visa Cannot Be Valid Beyond The Dates In The Approved Visa Petition

When a visa petition is approved by USCIS, it is approved for a specific classification period. When an artist then goes to a U.S. Consulate to apply for her or her visa, the visa issued is supposed to reflect the classification period of the approved petition. For example, if a violinist is approved for an O-1 classification period of August 1, 2015 to July 31, 2016, then the O-1 visa stamped into her passport should reflect an expiration date of July 31, 2016. If you examine an O or P visa, you will most often see the letters “PED” followed by a date. “PED” refers to the “Petition Expiration Date.” The PED date “should” coincide with the expiration date of the visa itself.

Unfortunately, some U.S. Consulates have erroneously been issuing O-1 visas that expire beyond the classification period of the approved petition—in some cases, O-1 visas have been issued for with a validity period of up to five years in the future! If this happens, your artist has not won the immigration jackpot! Under U.S. law, the maximum validity period of an O-1 visa for an artist cannot exceed three years. Moreover, it cannot exceed the classification period of the approved petition.

Recently, a prominent artist was turned away because she attempted to enter the U.S. under just such circumstances. A visa petition had been filed for her in 2014 and the petition was approved for an O-1 classification period of 8 months. However, the U.S. Consulate issued her an O-1 visa that did not expire until 2019. She and her management reasonably presumed that this meant she was free to use her O-1 visa until 2019 and no further visa petitions were required. Indeed, until recently, she had been entering the U.S. on the visa ever since 2014 without any trouble. Her past entries were the result of luck and inadvertence on the part of U.S. Immigration Officers at the port of entry. This will no longer be the case. All U.S. Immigration Officers will be scrutinizing all visas far more closely.

When USCIS approves a visa petition, it issues an I-797 Approval Notice with the specific dates of the approved visa classification period. If you or your artist ever receives a visa from a U.S. Consulate that expires beyond the dates of the classification period or beyond the PED date on the visa, ignore all dates beyond the PED date! Assume the visa expires on the PED date and do not use it for any work or travel beyond that date.

(For those of you who are actually interested in legal minutiae, there ARE, in fact, legitimate categories of 5 year O and P visas—they just don’t apply to artist categories. This is why the consulates can get easily confused.)

2.  All Artists Should Travel With A Copy of Their I-797 Petition Approval Notice

Another artist was recently detained at a U.S. airport for attempting to enter the U.S. on an erroneous “5-year O-1 visa.” Ultimately, he was permitted to enter only because he happened to have a copy of his I-797 O-1 Petition Approval Notice indicating that his upcoming U.S. engagement was within the approved classification period. However, he was reminded not to travel on his O-1 visa after the expiration date of the classification period.

Earlier this week, an artist was actually refused entry on his P visa because a U.S. Immigration Officer claimed that he needed to have a copy of his I-797 approval notice. The U.S. Immigration Officer was wrong. The artist had to fly home and be booked on a return flight to the U.S. the next day. Aggravatingly, but not surprisingly, when the artist flew back to the U.S. the next day with a copy of his approval notice, the U.S. Immigration Officer on that occasion didn’t even ask for a copy of the approval notice and the artist was admitted without any questions.

Also this week, a Canadian artist arrived in the U.S. with a copy of her I-797 approval notice (which is all that is required for Canadians) and was refused entry because the U.S. Immigration Officer claimed that she needed to have the original I-797 approval notice. The U.S. Immigration Officer was wrong on this occasion as well. Fortunately, a supervising officer was able to step in and resolve the matter so that the artist was ultimately able to enter.

Except for Canadians, artists and others are not required to travel with a copy of their I-797 petition approval notices—much less the original I-797 approval notice itself. Nonetheless, given that U.S. Immigration Officers have been placed on high alert (without always knowing exactly what they are looking for), we are recommending that all artists travel with a copy of their I-797 approval notice. Should any artist be asked for an “original” approval notice, he or she should calmly and politely ask to speak with a supervising immigration officer. More often than not, the supervising officers are better trained than the officers assigned to the inspection desks.

3.  Changes To The ESTA/Visa Waiver Program

Congress is in the process of adding additional restrictions to the Visa Waiver Program—the program which permits citizens of 38 countries to travel to the United States for business or tourism for stays of up to 90 days without a visa. This is often erroneously referred to as an “ESTA visa.” The term “ESTA” stands for “Electronic System For Travel Authorization” and is merely the registration process through which an individual indicates their intent to enter the U.S. without a visa. It is not a visa. This is important because artists are required to have a visa whenever they enter the U.S. to perform—even if they perform for free; even if no tickets are sold; even if they are performing for a non-profit; even if they are performing for a festival; or even if they are performing for a college or university. In short, performers can never enter the U.S. to “perform” under the Visa Waiver Program.

While most of the propose changes to the Visa Waiver Program should not have any impact on artists (unless the artist is from or has ever travelled to certain counties in the past 5 years), United States Customs and Border Patrol has already begun significantly seeking out artists who may be registering for ESTA and attempting to enter the U.S. on the visa waiver program with the intention of performing. We are getting almost daily reports of artists being stopped, refused entry, and having their ESTA/Visa Waiver privileges revoked for life!

I cannot emphasize this enough: any artist who attempts to enter the U.S. under the Visa Waiver Program for any purposes that involves actually performing does so at his or her own peril!

The only limited exceptions—and they are very narrowly construed—are competitions, auditions (including non-public showcases at arts conferences) and speaking (but not performing) at a college or university.

4.  There Continue To Be Significant Delays In Processing Visa Petitions  

USCIS is presently taking a minimum of 8 – 10 weeks to process visa petitions at both the Vermont and California Service Centers and there appears to be no end in sight to these delays. This means that, as of today, if you need to have an artist enter the U.S. any earlier than March 2016, you need to pay the additional $1225 for premium processing. (The official visa processing times that USCIS posts on its website have always been purely propaganda and should always be disregarded as such.)

On the bright side, dealing with international touring at the moment makes all those other topics we write about–cancellations, copyright infringement, taxes, commission disputes–a little less daunting.

__________________________________________________________________

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

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

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

__________________________________________________________________

 

THE OFFICIAL DISCLAIMER:

THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE!

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tags:, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Artist Management, Law and Disorder: Performing Arts Division, Touring, Visas | Comments Closed

International Touring: A Report From The Front Lines

Thursday, November 19th, 2015

By Brian Taylor Goldstein, Esq.

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

Visa Stercus

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tax Stercus

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

General Travel Stercus 

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

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

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

Other Stercus

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

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

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

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

__________________________________________________________________

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

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

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

__________________________________________________________________

THE OFFICIAL DISCLAIMER:

THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE!

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

 

Tags:, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Artist Management, Arts Management, Law and Disorder: Performing Arts Division, Licensing, Music Rights, Taxes, Touring, Visas | Comments Closed

Press “Pause” On That Recording

Thursday, October 29th, 2015

By Brian Taylor Goldstein, Esq.   

Dear Law and Disorder

In reviewing an engagement contract for one of my artists, I was surprised to see that the presenter wants the right to record the artist’s performance as a “work-for-hire”. The Presenter says that this is a standard requirement and also that its reasonable because my artist is protected by language in the contract that says: “In no event shall Producer have the right to exploit the recordings and/or an audiovisual program in connection therewith in any other manner other than non-commercial, educational and/or charitable uses or exhibitions without Artist’s prior written approval and without a separate agreement, negotiated in good faith with respect to any such uses or exploitation thereof.” Is this standard these days? Should I advise the artist to agree to this?

Standard for whom? As I have said, and will keep repeating until someone listens, no terms are “standard”—not recording rights, nor commissions, nor exclusivity restrictions, nor unilateral cancellation rights, nor any other nonsense which parties like to throw at one another under the banner of “standard.”

While, ultimately, it’s your artist’s decision, not yours, you should advise your artist not to agree to the language the presenter has proposed. The proposed language reflects a common mistaken belief within the performing arts part of the entertainment industry that so long as you don’t sell a recording, then all other uses are inherently “non-commercial.” However, particularly in the classical world where a classical recording hasn’t actually generated a profit since the release of “Fantasia”, no one really “sells” recordings anymore—at least, not for a profit. This means that, except in limited situations, there really are no practical uses or exhibitions for recordings other than “non-commercial, educational and/or charitable uses or exhibitions.” This further means that if you were to agree to the proposed terms, the presenter could do just about anything they wanted with your artist’s recording. Their proposed “protection” is meaningless.

Just because a recording isn’t sold, is unprofitable, is used for education, or is used by a non-profit organization does not make it inherently “non-commercial” or valueless. A recording still has value. Using a recording to promote the presenter or further a presenter’s mission provides value to the presenter which the presenter has not paid for. Otherwise, why does the presenter want it in the first place? Presenters need to stop believing that just because they engage an artist and pay for the artist’s performance then that also includes the right to record the artist’s performance and “own” the recording. In the real world, you only get what you pay for. When you buy a car, does it come with a chauffeur? It’s not merely presumptuous, but it completely demeans the value of the artist’s work—which, quite frankly, happens all too often these days by the same parties who should know better.

In addition, an artist always needs to be able to control how the artist is seen and heard. A poor recording of a brilliant performance could have devastating impact on an artist—particular a young or developing artist. Even a good recording, if released in its entirety, could limit an artist’s ability to release a recording of the same work in the future if it has already been made available for free.

While I generally have no objection to a recording being made, it’s the uses of and rights to the recording that need to clearly defined—and limited. First and foremost, unless the engagement fee includes an additional fee for “ownership” of the recording or the opportunity to perform with a particularly presenter is of such magnitude as to provide additional value to the artist, then the whole concept of a “work for hire” should be off the table. Instead, if anything, the presenter should only be able to use limited excerpts of the recording for limited purposes. Just as importantly, the artist should be always able to approve any recording to make sure that the artist is pleased both with her performance as well as with the quality of the recording itself. Third, whatever rights are granted to the presenter in an artist’s recording, should be granted to the artist as well. If the presenter gets the right to make and use a recording, then the artist should get a copy for the artist’s own promotional and marketing purposes as well. Any restrictions or approvals should be mutual.

__________________________________________________________________

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

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

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

__________________________________________________________________

THE OFFICIAL DISCLAIMER:

THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE!

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

 

Tags:, , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Artist Management, Contracts, Copyrights, Law and Disorder: Performing Arts Division, Music Rights, Recordings | Comments Closed

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »