Artist Management | Musical America Blogs

Archive for the ‘Artist Management’ Category

Who Needs Legalese?

Thursday, January 30th, 2014

By Brian Taylor Goldstein, Esq.

Dear Law and Disorder:

I need to add language to a contract that says that if we have to reschedule due to snow, we have the right to do so. What language do I need?

You need language that says: “If we have to reschedule due to snow, we have the right to do so”

Seriously, you don’t need legalese. You only need English. There are many people who believe that drafting a contract involves taking something simple, adding a lawyer, and producing something no one can understand. In truth, most legalese is really just bad writing. On the other hand, what people often mistake as “legalese” is really additional details and specificity that they may not have thought of. Whereas lawyers tend to take simple concepts and mangle them into undecipherable run-on sentences and tortured verbiage, normal people, in an effort to avoid legalese, all too often over-simplify complex concepts, leave important terms undefined, or exclude critical clarifications.

The sole point of a contract is to convey the terms that will govern a relationship as accurately and completely as possible so that all the parties can have an opportunity to review and evaluate all the various aspects of their relationship—ideally, before agreeing to enter into the relationship. This should include explanations of nuances and details. Too often, its not help with the language people need, but help sorting through the details. Such details, however, need not be buried beneath piles of arcane and confusing terminology. Rather, they just need to be spelled out. For example, in your case, do only you have the right to cancel due to snow? What if the other party is snowed in? Can they reschedule, too? Is this limited to snow? What if the problem is ice, not snow? Or a flood or storm? Who gets to decide the reschedule date? What if the other party already is booked to do something else on that date? What if you have already booking a flight and will incur a fee to change it? An equally simple way of phrasing your right to reschedule, but which addresses all of these details, might be as follows: “Either party shall have the right to cancel due to inclement weather. In such case, the parties agree to reschedule on a next mutually available date. Each party will bear its own expenses incurred in the event of such rescheduling.”

__________________________________________________________________

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

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

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

__________________________________________________________________

THE OFFICIAL DISCLAIMER:

THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE!

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

Tags:Brian Taylor, clarifications, confusing terminology, contract, Drafting, explanations, flood, Goldstein, specificity
Posted in Acts of God, Artist Management, Arts Management, Contracts, Law and Disorder: Performing Arts Division | Comments Closed

What Do You Mean I Need To PAY For Music?

Thursday, January 23rd, 2014

By Brian Taylor Goldstein, Esq.

Greetings,

I have recently been contacted by ASCAP asking for fees based on music played by live musicians. Are we required to pay if we do not pay the musicians? Any musician who plays at the location is not compensated for their efforts.

Is anyone else who works at or for your location compensated for their “efforts”? Waiters? Staff? Vendors or suppliers? Do you have to pay for liquor if you give it away? Who pays for the electricity or the heat? People can always agree to donate goods and services, and many do. However, as a general rule, society discourages the involuntary donation of other’s property without their permission—even if it’s for a really good cause.

A musical composition—just like a computer, a watch, or a car—is considered property. It is no less valuable—indeed, I would argue, it is of greater value—than anything else you are required to pay for that has a physical price tag attached. A musical composition belongs to the composer who wrote it and/or the composer’s publishing company. Under US Copyright Law, whoever owns a musical composition also has the absolute right to control and determine all uses of the property—this includes the right to perform the music live, record the music, play a recording of the music for the public, change the lyrics, make arrangements, or just about anything else you can think of to do with music. Any location where music is performed—whether it’s a theater, concert hall, or other venue (for-profit or non-profit) where music is performed live or whether it’s a restaurant or store that plays recorded music for their patrons’ listening pleasure whilst shopping or eating—needs to obtain the composer’s permission and, in most cases, pay a usage fee called a “Performance License.”

ASCAP, like BMI and SESAC, is an organization that represents composers and helps them by issuing performance licenses and collecting fees on behalf of the composer. It helps locations, too, because, rather than having to contact every composer individually, you can purchase a performance license from ASCAP to cover all of the composers they represent. It’s like one-stop shopping. However, as they don’t represent every composer, most locations need to purchase licenses from BMI and SESAC, as well.

If your musicians are performing original music they composed themselves, then they can certainly agree to perform their own music for free. However, if they are playing (“covering”) music composed by other artists, then just because the musicians agree to perform for free doesn’t mean that the composers have allowed their music to be performed for free as well. If ASCAP contacted you, it’s because music is being performed in your location and ASCAP is trying to ensure that you have obtained permission from each composer they represent to have their music performed. While there are a number of factors that can determine the cost of obtaining performance licenses—the size of your venue, the price of tickets, the number of performances, etc.–ultimately, it’s your responsibility to ensure that the necessary permissions and licenses are obtained.

__________________________________________________________________

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

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

__________________________________________________________________

THE OFFICIAL DISCLAIMER:

THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE!

Tags:artist, ascap, bmi, Brian Taylor, composer, composers, composition, copyright, copyright law, Goldstein, license, music, musical composition, musician, original music, performance license, permission, recording, sesac, venue
Posted in Artist Management, Arts Management, Copyrights, Law and Disorder: Performing Arts Division, Licensing, Music Rights, Publishing, Recordings, Venues | Comments Closed

Don’t Be Late For Dinner

Thursday, January 16th, 2014

By Brian Taylor Goldstein, Esq.

Dear Law and Disorder,

About six months ago, a venue booked one of my artists and then sent me a signed contract with language requiring the artist to arrive the day before the concert rather than the morning of the concert. The venue was not willing to pay for an extra night of hotel and the artist already has a concert booked the night before, so I struck the language, signed it, and sent it back. The presenter never said anything, but now they are claiming that they never read the contract after I sent it back and are insisting that either the artist arrive the day before or else they will cancel. They claim that this policy is necessary to protect them from a cancellation in case it snows and the artist can’t arrive. The concert is in one month. Are they correct? Do they have the right to cancel?

You had every reason to object to this the language. There are many reasons for an artist to arrive the day before a concert—such as rehearsals, flight schedules, or travel time—but merely allaying the venue’s fears of a weather-related cancellation are not among them. Even if the artist didn’t already have a concert booked for the prior evening, he is being asked to give up what could otherwise be a bookable performance date as well as to incur his own hotel expenses. That’s unreasonable. It’s like inviting someone to dinner, but insisting that they arrive five hours early and wait outside while you cook. However, when you crossed out the language, signed the contract, and sent it back, your actions constituted a counter-offer, potentially rendering the contract null and void.

To make a binding, enforceable contract, all the parties must agree to the same terms at the same time. If one party changes anything in the contract and the other party does not expressly agree to such changes, then the contract is void. This is why, as a general rule, it is unadvisable for one party to send another a signed contract until after all parties have had a chance to discuss and negotiate all the terms. Instead, whoever is drafting or initiating the contract should send an unexecuted draft of the “proposed” contract to the other party. The contract should then be executed only after all discussions, negotiations, and final changes (if any) have been agreed upon.

In this case, you should have contacted the venue and discussed your objections before unilaterally editing the contract or striking the objectionable language. Nonetheless, by not objecting to your changes, by relying on the fact that your artist had scheduled their concert on his calendar, by waiting six months, and, presumably, by advertising and selling tickets to the concert, the venue accepted your counter-offer and the contract became legally binding. As far as their claim that they didn’t notice your changes and just assumed you had signed the contract, that’s their problem. Never assume. Consequently, under the terms of the contract, the artist is not required to arrive the day before, so the presenter has no right to demand that he do so. If the presenter were to cancel at this stage, it would constitute a breach of contract.

While a legal analysis is always only half the analysis, and all reasonable solutions should first be explored, should the venue cancel the engagement, it would be liable for the artist’s full engagement fee. Cancellation insurance would probably have been a simpler and more cost effective alternative.

__________________________________________________________________

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

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

__________________________________________________________________

THE OFFICIAL DISCLAIMER:

THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE!

Tags:artist, breach, breach of contract, Brian Taylor, cancellation, Drafting, enforceable contract, Goldstein, insurance, Liable, negotiation, presenter, reasonable solution, travel, venue
Posted in Acts of God, Agents, Artist Management, Arts Management, Contracts, Law and Disorder: Performing Arts Division, Liability, Presenters, Touring | Comments Closed

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

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

__________________________________________________________________

THE OFFICIAL DISCLAIMER:

THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE!

Tags:artist, Brian Taylor, Goldstein, immigration, immigration law, last minute, travel, university, visa waiver program, visas, visitor, visitor visa, waiver, work
Posted in Artist Management, Arts Management, Law and Disorder: Performing Arts Division, Touring, Visas | Comments Closed

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 other legal and business issues for the performing arts, visit ggartslaw.com

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

__________________________________________________________________

THE OFFICIAL DISCLAIMER:

THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE!

Tags:Brian Taylor, composer, composition, conflict, contract, copyright, copyright law, Goldstein, orchestra, royalty, work
Posted in Agents, Artist Management, Arts Management, Contracts, Copyrights, Law and Disorder: Performing Arts Division, Licensing, Music Rights, Presenters, Publishing, Recordings | Comments Closed

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 other legal and business issues for the performing arts, visit ggartslaw.com

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

__________________________________________________________________

THE OFFICIAL DISCLAIMER:

THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE!

Tags:breach, breach of contract, Brian Taylor, cancellation, conflict, damages, Goldstein, lawsuit, reasonable solution, relationships, venue
Posted in Agents, Artist Management, Arts Management, Contracts, Law and Disorder: Performing Arts Division, Non-Profits, Presenters, Venues | Comments Closed

A Secret About Passports

Thursday, November 14th, 2013

By Brian Taylor Goldstein, Esq.

Dear Law and Disorder:

I have a question about a visa I am working on. This is one of those 0-1/0-2 visa things. The person getting the 0-1 is fine and dandy, but the person who is getting the 0-2 just got French citizenship and is waiting for her passport – hopefully here soon, but I have to get this visa petition in really soon. Can I submit a petition without a copy of her new passport, which she is waiting on? Or does that absolutely have to be in the packet? I think she has the number of the passport that’s coming, but just not the physical booklet so that she can make a copy for me.

You should submit the petition with a copy of the OLD passport. A beneficiary does not need to show up at the consulate with the same passport that was used for the petition. There are many occasions when an artist will get a new passport between the time a petition is submitted and the time they actually go in for their consulate interview. So long as they show up at the consulate with a valid passport (and the name and birth date are the same) that’s all they care about.

I’ll let you in on a little secret: USCIS does not require passport copies to be submitted with a visa petition. So you may be asking yourself: “Then why should I ever bother including a copy of the passport in the first place?” I’ll tell you—to cover your butt! More specifically, as insurance against your mistakes or, more likely, mistakes made by USCIS.

As you are doubtlessly aware, each I-129 visa petition has a section where you enter the personal information of the artist—or, in the case of a group where there are multiple artists, you attach a beneficiary list where you provide the personal information for each member of the group. A clerk in the USCIS office will use this information to prepare the I-797 receipt notice as well as the all-important I-797 approval notice.

There are many opportunities to make typos on I-129 petitions. Most commonly, USCIS requires all birthdates to be entered into the MM/DD/YY format when most other countries around the world write dates in the DD/MM/YY format. Typos can also occur in the case of multiple middle names or unusual or uncommon spellings. If the visa petition includes a copy of the artist’s passport, USCIS will cross-reference the names and personal information listed on the I-129 with the data on the passport. If there are any discrepancies, they will use the information on the passport.

When an artist goes to a U.S. Consulate to apply for his or her visa, the name and birthdate on the artist’s passport must match EXACTLY the name and birthdate written on the I-797 approval notice. While some consulates will make an effort to sort out a discrepancy, others will simply reject the application and require the artist to obtain an amended I-797—which can often mean re-filing the entire visa petition, which includes incurring new filing fees. Providing USCIS with a copy of the artist’s passport can be a critical safety check. Also, in the event USCIS makes a mistake in listing an artist’s name or birthdate on the I-797 approval notice, but was given a copy of the passport with the correct information, USCIS will issue an amended I-797 without requiring you to re-file a new petition.

It doesn’t matter whether or not the passport provided with the visa petition is current or even valid. All that matters is that, at the time the artist appears at the U.S. Consulate, he or she presents a valid passport with the same name and birthdate as on the passport included with the visa petition.

Congratulations! You have just been given a piece of arcane information known only to the highest initiates!

___________________________________________________________________

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

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

__________________________________________________________________

THE OFFICIAL DISCLAIMER:

THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE!

Tags:approval notice, Brian Taylor, Goldstein, passports, petitions, uscis, valid passport, visa petition
Posted in Agents, Artist Management, Law and Disorder: Performing Arts Division, Visas | Comments Closed

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

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

__________________________________________________________________

THE OFFICIAL DISCLAIMER:

THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE!

Tags:Brian Taylor, commercial messages, contract, Goldstein, Liable, patrons, pr, presenter, sending emails, ticket sales, unsolicited commercial emails, venue
Posted in Agents, Artist Management, Arts Management, Contracts, Law and Disorder: Performing Arts Division, Presenters, Venues | Comments Closed

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

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

__________________________________________________________________

THE OFFICIAL DISCLAIMER:

THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE!

Tags:approval notice, Brian Taylor, canada, canadians, citizens, copy, Goldstein, passports, petitions, Tour, uscis, visa application, visa approval, visa petition, visas, visitor
Posted in Agents, Artist Management, Arts Management, Law and Disorder: Performing Arts Division, Touring, Visas | Comments Closed

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.

__________________________________________________________________

THE OFFICIAL DISCLAIMER:

THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE!

Tags:act of god, acts of god, Agreements, artist, booking agreement, breach, breaches, Brian Taylor, cancellation, cancellations, contract, Festival, Goldstein, insurance, Liable, losses, money
Posted in Acts of God, Agents, Artist Management, Arts Management, Contracts, Insurance, Law and Disorder: Performing Arts Division, Liability, Presenters, Touring, Venues | Comments Closed

Musical America Blogs

Archive for the ‘Artist Management’ Category

Who Needs Legalese?

What Do You Mean I Need To PAY For Music?

Don’t Be Late For Dinner

Beware of Simple Answers!

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

Back Away From The Email!

A Secret About Passports

Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam….

Oh, Canada!

The Band That Stood Up To God…and Lost

Blogs

Archives

Meta