Archive for the ‘Agents’ Category

A Manager’s Deposit of Trouble

Wednesday, July 17th, 2013

By Brian Taylor Goldstein, Esq. Dear Law and Disorder: We are a small classical music presenter. Several months ago, I booked an artist for a performance this fall. Recently, I received a phone call from the artist’s manager asking for a deposit. Usually, we don’t pay deposits, although, sometimes we will if it’s an artist or manager with whom we have never worked before. However, we’ve worked with this manager before and she’s never asked for a deposit before. When I asked her about it, she said that she (the manager) was having a slow summer and that she needed the money to give her some cash flow to “tide her over” until the fall. She threatened to cancel if I didn’t agree. Is this legal? As a general rule, I’m a big fan of deposits. They provide artists with some “leverage” in the event of a cancellation and they provide presenters with some assurance that an artist has, in fact, been “booked.” However, once all key terms have been negotiated and agreed upon, whether or not a written booking agreement has been signed, then a manager cannot retroactively “require” a deposit. The requirement of a deposit is a key term which needs to be discussed, negotiated, and agreed upon at the outset of discussions. If the artist were to cancel because you refused to pay a deposit you never agreed to pay in the first place, then the artist would be in breach of the booking agreement. But that’s not really the problem here. The problem is that the manager volunteered that she was asking for the deposit not for the benefit of the artist, but for the benefit of the manager herself. It would be different if the manager wanted the deposit to reserve airline tickets or advance costs to cover the artist’s out-of-pocket expenses. However, according to you, that’s not what the manager said. She said she wanted it to “tide her over” for the manager’s own cash flow purposes. Based on that statement, and her subsequent threat to cancel if you refused to pay the deposit, the manager’s actions are not only unethical and unprofessional, in my opinion, but, more importantly, highly illegal. Managers and agents are legally bound to act only on behalf of and in the best interest of their client (the artist) and not on behalf of themselves or anyone else. In legal terms, these obligations are called “fiduciary duties.” Managers and agents can take no actions which are not authorized by the artist and most certainly cannot treat the artist’s money as if it were their own—including asking for and using deposits to float themselves loans to cover their own cash flow needs. This is why, among other reasons, managers and agents are supposed to keep their own, personal operating accounts separate from their client’s (artist’s) accounts. This should not be confused with legitimate situations where managers and agents sometimes ask presenters to split an engagement fee into two payments and pay a commission fee directly to the manager or agent and the balance to the artist. While I find this to be an ill-advised and awkward business practice, it’s neither illegal nor unethical. While I suppose its entirely possible that, in this case, the manager was acting with her artist’s knowledge and authority, I seriously doubt it. This means that the manager was acting out of her own self-interest and not in the best interest of her artist, is in breach of her fiduciary duties, is no longer acting in her legal capacity as a representative of the artist, and, in the event of a cancellation, would be personally liable for the return of the deposit and any damages. Given the manager’s self-admitted cash flow problems, that’s probably a risk you don’t want to take. I’d like to think that the manager is acting out of a genuine confusion over the duties agents and managers owe to their artists. Sadly, this issue continues to confuse even experienced managers and agents who believe that their artists work for them and not the other way around. Regardless, in terms of red flags, this one is ten feet tall and on fire. Run away! __________________________________________________________________ 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!

Who’s Responsible For Performance Licenses?

Wednesday, June 26th, 2013

By Brian Taylor Goldstein, Esq. Dear Law and Disorder: In all of my artist’s booking contracts, the presenters are required to obtain ASCAP, BMI and SESAC licenses. I recently received a contract back from a venue in which they crossed out that language. They told me that their policy is not to get these licenses and that the artist is responsible for obtaining them. It was my understanding that it was always the venue’s or presenter’s responsibility to obtain the performance licenses from ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC. Am I wrong? You’re not wrong, but you’re not entirely correct either. The truth is that it is the legal responsibility of all parties to make sure that the proper licenses have been obtained for a performance. Which party actually obtains them and who bears the costs is a matter for negotiation. Whether it’s a festival, a school, a nightclub, or a large performing arts center, non-profit or for-profit, it’s the legal responsibility of the owner/operator of a performance space/venue to ensure that the necessary rights and licenses have been obtained with respect to all copyrighted music which is performed at that venue. (Actually, this legal responsibility is not limited to performance rights, but extends to dramatic rights, synchronization rights, broadcast rights, and all other required rights and licenses which pertain to music, images, trademarks, recordings, images, or other protected rights or materials which are used as part of the performance.) However, it’s equally the legal responsibility of the artist, and in some cases, the producer and promoter, to ensure that they have all of the required rights and licenses, including performance licenses from ASCAP, BMI and SESAC. Why? Because if an unlicensed song is performed at a venue, then the US Copyright Act allows all the parties involved in the performance—the artist as well as the venue/presenter, the producer, the promoter, and anyone else involved in the performance—to be sued by the publisher or copyright owner. Stealing a song is like robbing a bank: the entire gang is arrested; regardless of who broke open the safe, who drove the get away car, or who simply served as look out, they all participated in the robbery. I am familiar with many venues which do not want to be burdened with the perceived cost and difficulty of obtaining performance licenses (which, depending upon the specific circumstances, may be neither costly nor particularly difficult), refuse to do so, and insist on the artist obtaining the licenses. However, in my opinion, for reasons I have written about in earlier blogs, this is a foolish policy. In practice, it’s simple easier for venues and presenters to obtain ASCAP, BMI and SESAC licenses than the artist. The venue can purchase a blanket license from each organization that permits all of the music in their catalogs to be performed by any artist at the venue during the license period. These licenses can cover an entire year or just a specific festival or event, and are priced based on numerous factors, including number of performances, ticket prices, size of the venue, etc. With the blanket licenses in place, the artist simply needs to show up. If a venue or presenter prefers not to obtain such licenses, then the artist or performer can certainly do so themselves. However, if no one obtains the licenses, then everyone is liable. Quite simply, whether the venue/presenter requires the artist to obtain the performance licenses or the artist insists that the venue/presenter obtains the performance licenses, passing the responsibility on to another party will not relieve either party from ultimate responsibility if the other party fails to do so. In other words, there is no contract, release, or any other document which will protect you from liability should the necessary licenses not be obtained. This is why, among other reasons, if I operated a venue, I would much rather rely on myself to obtain the licenses than depend upon another party to do so. In your case, if the venue refuses to obtain the ASCAP, BMI or SESAC licenses, then you and your artist have two options: either the artist agrees to obtain the licenses or the artist refuses to perform. Electing to proceed under the expectation that no one will get caught or the publishers and copyright owners will not sue small artists or struggling non-profits is not an option; that’s the same as robbing a bank and hoping the police won’t find you. Not to mention, in an industry where so many purport to operate under the noble purpose of promoting the value of art and artists, I can’t imagine the rationalization of stealing it for any purpose, regardless of how noble. _________________________________________________________________ “Law and Disorder: Performing Arts Division” will be taking a break between July 1 – July 14. Our next post will be on July 17. _________________________________________________________________ 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!

Your Move or Mine?

Wednesday, June 19th, 2013

By Brian Taylor Goldstein, Esq. Dear Law and Disorder: If I am booking an artist, whose job is it to draft the contract? Some venues ask me to send them my contract, but other venues seem to have their own. What’s the normal practice? Since you asked for the “normal” practice, I shall tell you: the normal practice is that some venues will ask you to send them your contract and other venues will have their own. It all depends on the circumstances and the venue. You should always have a basic engagement contract that you can tailor for each artist and send to a venue who wants your contract. However, you should expect larger venues to prefer to use their own contracts just as most venues understand and expect that major artists will insist on using the artist’s contract. It really doesn’t matter as both parties will need to review the proposed contract and, if necessary, proposed changes, additions, and amendments. Its unrealistic to presume that the venue’s contract will address all the issues important to the artist and that artist’s contract will address all the issues important to the venue. Negotiation is not just about date, time, and fee. Negotiations include ALL of the terms which will be in the final contract. What you want to avoid at all costs is a situation where, in lieu of taking the time to review and negotiate a single contract, the manger or agent just attaches the artist’s contract as a rider to the venue’s contract (or visa versa) and the parties proceed. Almost always the two contracts will have conflicting terms which will operate to negate the entire contract, making neither one legally enforceable. (And, no, it doesn’t help to use a rubber stamp that says “in the event of a conflict, mine governs.” That only benefits the folks who sell rubber stamps.) Even more important, regardless of who goes first, is to never ever ever ever ever send anyone a signed contract at the outset. The contract should be signed only after all parties have had a chance to review, make comments, propose changes, attach riders, and agree upon a final version. Otherwise, the party receiving the signed contract will simply strike out or amend the language they don’t like…or, worse, attach a rider…sign it, and return it…which, legally, constitutes a counter-offer and not an enforceable contract. (Actually, it “could” be enforceable, but this gets into complex legal issues which could all be avoided if everyone just sent one another blank contracts and waited until all issues had been resolved before anyone signed anything!) I realize that it takes time to review, negotiate, and amend every contract. However, that’s what contracts are for. It gives each party a chance to make sure that all important issues have been addressed and that there will be no unstated expectations or assumptions. Contracts are not about enforcement…they are about avoiding conflicts and disappointment. Without question, life would be easier if there were standard contracts and terms that worked for every engagement. However, we work in the arts. Nothing is normal and nothing is customary. If you are looking for consistency, go work in a bank. Otherwise, learn to embrace the chaos. __________________________________________________________________ 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!

Pre-Nuptial Management Agreements

Wednesday, June 5th, 2013

By Brian Taylor Goldstein, Esq. Dear Law and Disorder: I just received an email that an artist is leaving my roster for another manger, effective in two weeks. I’ve been working with this artist for over five years. We’ve never had a signed contract because we’ve never needed one. Isn’t it customary to give at least 3 months notice? Also, the new manager is offering to let us keep our commissions on any engagements that are “contracted.” What does that mean? Everyone knows that engagements are often confirmed without their being contracts! Help! Actually, you’ve always needed a signed contract. You just didn’t realize you needed one until now. A contract is your opportunity to memorialize all the terms of a relationship…including how to get out of one. An artist/manager relationship is like a marriage and, when it ends, it’s like a divorce—all too often a bitter and nasty divorce. If there is no pre-nuptial agreement, then any disputes will be resolved by the application of legal rules and concepts. In these situations, such rules are quite basic: what you didn’t negotiate for in advance, you don’t get! Many in our industry like to believe that there exists a magic book of customs, traditions, and rules which govern everything from artist-manager relationships to engagement cancellations, and that, in the absence of a contract, this book will determine how everyone should behave. Nothing can be further from the truth. What may be “customary” for one person or situation may not be “customary” for another. Nor would you want it to be otherwise. The arts and entertainment industry is too diverse, too broad, and too delightfully fluid for that degree of uniformity. To the extent there exists a set of rules which govern relationships in the absence of a contract, such rules consist of the laws of contracts, agency, and a myriad of other legal concepts—all of which are fairly arbitrary and none of which will provide an outcome better than the parties could have devised for themselves through advanced contractual negotiation. Whether its exclusivity, the right to be reimbursed for expenses, the authority of the manager, or the calculation of the manager’s commissions, such issues need to be agreed upon…in advance…and memorialized in a written contract. If you want an artist to be required to give you three months notice before leaving your roster, that needs to be agreed upon and written down as well. (While an agreement does not have to be written to be enforceable, its very hard to prove the terms of any agreement without something in writing—especially when you’re in the midst of a bitter divorce when everyone’s memories will suddenly and conveniently become quite spotty.) In your case, without a written contract setting forth a specific length of time an artist is obligated to remain on your roster (ie: 1 year, 2 years, etc.) and without a requirement that the artist has to give you advance notice before terminating the agreement, then the artist can leave your roster whenever they want with no notice at all. As for the new manager’s offer to let you keep your commissions on any engagements that are “contracted”, this, too, is something that should and could have been defined in an artist management agreement. Otherwise, the definition of “contracted” will be the legal definition: a “contracted” engagement is one where there is an enforceable agreement (either written or oral), which means there has been an offer and an acceptance of that offer and the parties have agreed upon all key terms. While its true that engagements are often confirmed without their being contracts, a confirmation of an engagement may not necessarily constitute a “contracted” engagement. A “hold” may or may not be an enforceable contract. If the parties have agreed upon the date and the fee, it may not be “contracted” if there are other important issues that have not yet been agreed upon—ie: insurance, licensing, technical requirements, etc. In other words, what you consider to be “contracted” may or may not be what the law of contracts considers to be “contracted.” In the absence of a written agreement with defined terms and obligations, your best and most practical course of action is to accept that this is a bit of a mess and enter into a dialogue with your “former” artist and his or her new manager to come up with a mutually agreed upon list of “contracted” engagements on which you will receive your commissions. I can almost guarantee that such a list will have fewer dates that you believe is fair and more dates than your former artist and his/her manager believe is fair. However, if everyone believes they are giving up too much, its probably a fair settlement. Then, focus your time on getting agreements in place for your remaining artists. Pre-nuptial agreements are never sexy, but neither is finding yourself sleeping with the enemy. _________________________________________________________________ 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!

“Fair Use” Just Isn’t Fair!

Wednesday, May 29th, 2013

By Brian Taylor Goldstein, Esq. Dear Law and Disorder: I have read your clearly stated articles about mechanical use and rights.  What about “fair use”? Aren’t there specific scenarios where permission is not needed to use a recording of someone else’s music? Beware of what you ask. You are about to open a box whereupon a thousand nasties will fly out! Now that you have been duly warned…. Copyright Law gives the owner of a copyright the exclusive right to perform, edit, arrange, or reproduce a protected work in copies or recordings, as well as the exclusive right to authorize others to do so. Anyone who copies, performs, or records a protected work without the copyright owner’s permission, even including small excerpts, is guilty of copyright infringement. Fair Use is a legal doctrine whereby certain usages of a particular work “may” be considered permissible without the copyright owner’s permission, if the purpose for which the work was used is determined to be “fair”, such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, research, and parody. As the U.S. Copyright Act is intended, albeit arguably, to afford the maximum protection of copyright owners and the creators of protected works, it does not set forth specific usages that are inherently “fair.” Rather, the analysis and determination of what constitutes Fair Use is left entirely to a judge to decide in her or her sole discretion. In other words, should you decide to use any portion of a protected work without the owner’s permission, you won’t know whether your use is a permissible Fair Use or a prohibited infringement until after the copyright owner files a lawsuit claiming an infringement and everyone goes to court, makes arguments, and the judge decides. The only guidance given by the U.S. Copyright Act is the following four-part test which judges use in making the Fair Use analysis and determining whether or not a particular use is “fair”: (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for non-profit educational purposes; (2) the nature of the copyrighted work; (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. As you may imagine, the application of these factors is both highly fact specific and highly subjective. Any one factor can tip the balance for or against Fair Use. More significantly, just because one judge determines a specific usage to be Fair Use within a specific scenario does not mean that a different judge will determine that a similar usage will be Fair Use in a similar scenario. Determinations can, and do, change from judge to judge. Case law is filled with conflicting examples of recordings where one judge ruled that a specific usage of a melody was a parody (Fair Use) and another judge in another state said a similar use of a different melody was satire (not Fair Use). Similarly, judges have ruled the use of as little as thirty seconds to be an infringement and usage of entire works to be Fair Use. Essentially, this means that Fair Use is an exception, or defense, to a claim of infringement, not a right in and of itself. To be fair, there are many legal scholars who would argue, correctly, that Fair Use is not a mere defense, but is, in fact, an important right that balances copyright law with the First Amendment and that the current system gives far too much power to wealthy copyright owners who can use the mere threat of lawsuits to quash any usage of their works, even usage that might legitimately constitute Fair Use. I don’t necessarily disagree with this position. However, it’s more aspirational than reflective of the current realities that you and I have to deal with. Until Congress comes up with better guidelines (and the likelihood that Congress can “come up” with much of anything these days is slim), we are stuck with the current system and all its inherent flaws and inconsistencies. Despite the distinctions between Fair Use and infringement being uncertain and difficult to define, there are, nonetheless, a few certainties which you can depend upon: There is no specific number of words, lines, or notes that may safely be taken without permission. Acknowledgement of the source of the copyrighted material does not constitute Fair Use and is not a substitute for obtaining permission where permission is required. Just because something is used by a non-profit and/or used for “education” does not mean its “fair.” Materials you find on the Internet is neither inherently public domain nor Fair Use. Just because you do not sell anything, does not make your use of someone else’s work Fair Use. At the very least, when determining whether or not using someone else’s work without permission might be Fair Use, take only the smallest amount of a copyrighted work necessary to accomplish your goal of criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, research, and/or parody. As a general rule, the more you take, the less likely your use will be considered “fair.” It is also reasonable to assume that if you are using any part of a copyrighted work for promoting or marketing your services or performances, or your organization’s services or performances, even if no copies are being sold, it probably IS NOT fair use. Of course, the safest course is always to get permission from the copyright owner before using copyrighted material. __________________________________________________________________ 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!

Student Visas: A School for Scandal?

Wednesday, May 8th, 2013

By Brian Taylor Goldstein, Esq.

Dear Law and Disorder:

May a non-resident alien (Russian) musician here for an advance graduate school degree on an F-1 visa be paid for playing some off-campus recitals? Are they considered “Curricular Practical Training” which is supposed to be allowed, if approved by the Designated School Official? (Of course, 30% of the gross fee would have to be withheld unless a CWA is obtained.) Thanks for your advice!

A lot of schools, universities, and conservatories are all too happy to accept foreign students without really explaining that their ability to “work” in the US during their studies, much less remain long enough after graduation to establish careers in the US, is very limited and restrictive. (Remember, as it applies to artists, the twisted tomes of US immigration law define “work” as any performance in front of an audience regardless of whether or not tickets are sold or the artist is paid.)

While obtaining authorization for a foreign student to perform concerts and recitals on-campus is fairly simple, performing concerts and recitals off-campus can be a bit much trickier. One of the ways foreign students can be granted authorization to perform concerts and recitals off campus is to be approved for Practical Training. Foreign students are eligible for Practical Training once they have been enrolled for at least one academic year (nine months). There are two types of Practical Training: Curricular Practical Training (CPT) and Optional Practical Training (OPT).

CPT includes programs that are an “integral part of an established curriculum.” That is, the off-campus concerts and performances must be associated with the school’s established curriculum and must be an integral part of the student’s degree program. While it is completely within the discretion of the school to determine what qualifies for CPT and what constitutes “an integral part of the student’s degree program,” CPT programs are typically listed in the school’s course catalog with the number of credits included and the name of a responsibility faculty member. CPT programs typically include work/study, internships, or any other type of required internship or practical performance experience which the school believes is necessary for the student’s degree or course of study.

OPT, by contrast, is not tied to the curriculum (though it is supposed to be “related” to the student’s field of study) and can be used for up to a year full time (two years part time) on campus or off campus. OPT can take place either before graduation or in the year following graduation. OPT that takes place before graduation can only be used for up to 20 hours per week during the school year (though full time work is permitted during holidays and vacation periods if the student applies). After graduation, the employment can be full-time. Post-graduation OPT must be completed within 14 months of the student’s graduation. A student can have OPT for a maximum of twelve months after graduation.

A note of caution: while students may take an unlimited amount of Practical Training, if they take more than a year of CPT, they are barred from seeking OPT. This can be critical because the OPT may be a student’s only opportunity to perform professional engagements in the US after graduation. As USCIS discourages students from switching easily from F-1 classification to O-1 classification, any hope of doing so usually rests with what the student is able to do during their year of post-graduation OPT. Total CPT up to 364 days or less will not result in the loss of OPT. However, part time work using CPT for more than a year has been deemed to result in the loss of eligibility for OPT. In short, avoiding the loss of OPT eligibility requires both good record keeping of the time spent performing on CPT as well as a lot of math!

In your case, assuming the Designated School Official (DSO) approves the student’s request to perform the off-campus recitals, the DSO will enter the information in SEVIS and print out an I-20 with the CPT authorization for the student. The DSO is required to sign and date the I-20 prior to returning it to the student. While no employment authorization document from USCIS is needed for curricular practical training, the student may not begin work using CPT until getting the endorsed I-20.

So long as a student is approved for either CPT or OPT, then, yes, the student can be paid. However, while your willingness to acknowledge US tax-withholding obligations is both rare and commendable, it may be premature. First, Russians belong to a small list of countries from whom no withholding is required because all money earned by Russians nationals in the US is tax exempt. However, this changes if the Russian is considered a “resident alien” for tax purposes. Second, just because a student (or anyone, for that matter) is a “non-resident” for immigration purposes, doesn’t mean they are a “non-resident” for tax purposes. It all depends on how much time they spend in the US each year. As with all foreign artist tax matters, it’s a very fact specific analysis. Assuming your student in approved for CPT, then I would strongly recommend you consult with an expert in foreign artist taxation to determine the student’s specific withholding and tax obligations.

__________________________________________________________________

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!

When To Negotiate A Contract

Tuesday, April 30th, 2013

By Brian Taylor Goldstein, Esq.

Dear Law and Disorder:

A successful duo I represent has recorded a CD which is being released by a record company. Although the artist made attempts to obtain a contract, because of time restraints, according to the record company, it was only possible to give a contract AFTER the recording was made. The terms include exclusivity universally for several-year options, and although the company paid for the recording and manufacture of the cd, these costs will come out of the royalties.  The company controls the cd universally with power of attorney from the artists. To obtain copies, the artists buy the cd at a reduced price.  The company insists these are normal terms which are standard practice and always given after the recording is made.  This is news to me.  Can this be true?

In my ideal world, among other things on my wish list, every artist, manager, agent, presenter, producer, arts lawyer, and arts administrator would have a sign above their desks stating: “Nothing is Standard!” While it is true that there are many terms and practices which are more common than others and while it is also true that certain financial arrangements and commitments will necessarily lend themselves to certain expectations in return, everything is negotiable. This does not, of course, mean that you will get everything you want. Rather, depending on the negotiating strengths of the parties, everyone is free to ask and propose whatever they want. Think outside the box. Get creative.

However, while creative proposals may be limitless, the time to propose them is not. The time to negotiate is before services are rendered, significant time is spent, or money changes hands. Thus, the real issue at the heart of your question is your comment that “because of time restraints, according to the record company, it was only possible to give a contract after the recording was made.” In my experience, I have yet to encounter a situation that was so dire and immediate that at least some basic understandings of key terms could not be mutually agreed upon ahead of time.

Sadly, it’s not uncommon in the arts and entertainment world for the artistic aspects of a project to proceed on a completely separate track and pace from the administrative and business details. New works are created or composed before the commission agreements are in place. Recordings are made before the recording contracts are signed. Engagements are scheduled and sometimes even performed with no engagement agreements. I’ve even known artists to collaborate with one another and then try, almost always unsuccessfully, to negotiate a collaboration agreement after the work has been optioned for production.

Of course, some of this is understandable. Contractual terms can be confusing, especially when the parties are unfamiliar with business practices and terminology. Also, it can take such considerable effort just to coordinate the funding, schedules, and parties that no time is left for negotiating contractual terms. Also, its not uncommon for different individuals and departments within a large organization or institution to address artistic planning and scheduling separate and apart from contractual and business planning without communicating or coordinating with one another. But, whatever the reason, this phenomenon is unfortunate because it makes it much harder to negotiate favorable terms or, at the very least, to manage expectations, avoid potential conflicts, and make informed decisions.

The biggest—and, often, only—power an artist has in a negotiation is the power of “no”—that is, the power to say: “I’d rather pause for a moment, even it means losing the deal or opportunity, than enter blindly into a relationship where I may have no control over my creative services.” Of course, it can be equally bad for record companies, producers, and presenters who can find themselves investing both time and money without getting the rights or return they anticipated. While saying “no” or “stop” can sometimes cause a lost opportunity, the alternative is a bad or unfavorable deal that, ultimately, could prove worse.

Without a doubt, legitimate practicalities, including artist availability and opportunity costs, can often make it difficult for a formal contract to be drafted up in advance of every occasion. However, there is rarely a legitimate reason why parties cannot at least mutually agree upon basic terms, with a more formal agreement to follow. Remember, a contract is a written memorialization of an existing agreement. Until an agreement exists, there is nothing to memorialize. Without terms agreed upon ahead of time, there is no contract to draft.

In any situation, if time is of the essence, never wait for the other party to provide a contract or propose terms. You may need to make the first move. In your situation, if the record company refused to provide a contract, then your artists could have proposed their own terms or set out their own requirements for proceeding with the recording. If your artists are truly as “successful” as you indicate then chances are the record company would have agreed to an outline of reasonable terms. When you say that your artists “made attempts”, that should have included writing:

“Dear Record Company, while we are very excited about the prospect of working together, unless we can arrive at a mutual agreement of some basic terms, we will be unable to proceed with the recording as scheduled. Thus, we are proposing the following…..”

Contractual terms do not, and should not be, a confusing quagmire of legalese. Write your proposals in clear, understandable language. The key is to be detailed, not convoluted. As even the most experienced artist managers can find themselves daunted by the prospect of proposing terms for recording contracts and other multi-media deals and transactions, you would be wise to bring in some specialized help.

Ultimately, in your situation, if the record company paid for the recording without negotiating the contract, then they took the risk that no agreement would be reached and that your artists could simply refuse to permit the recordings to be released. That would leave the recording company with a worthless product. Of course, your artists wouldn’t own recordings they didn’t pay for, so they would have nothing to show for their time. Everyone loses. Hopefully, the potential of mutual self-destruction will force the parties into coming up with the reasonable compromise that should have been agreed to ahead of time.

__________________________________________________________________

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

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

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

__________________________________________________________________

THE OFFICIAL DISCLAIMER:

THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE!

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

Does God Serve On Their Board?

Wednesday, March 20th, 2013

By Brian Taylor Goldstein, Esq.

Dear Law and Disorder:

We booked one of our artists to perform at a non-profit venue. The booking agreement was signed by all parties. We just received a phone call from the venue that their board met last night and decided unanimously to cancel the engagement due to poor ticket sales. The contract states that our artist is to be paid a cancellation fee if the date is cancelled for any reason except an act of God. However, the venue is claiming that this is an act of god and they do not have to pay. Any suggestions?

While I am familiar with many board chairs and presidents who erroneously believe they rule with omnipotent powers, their decisions do not constitute “Acts of God.” Moreover, unless there is a specific definition of “Acts of God” in a booking contract that expressly states that ticket sales are subject to divine will and authority or that a recognized deity from an established pantheon is in charge of marketing and sales, poor ticket sales are also not “Acts of God.”

Contrary to myth, non-profits are not exempt from the laws and legal obligations which govern all businesses, for-profit or otherwise. They must license copyrighted materials, pay their employees and independent contractors, and honor contractual obligations just like everyone else. In this case, you would appear to have a fairly straightforward breach of contract situation whereby the venue is contractually obligated to pay your artist the agreed upon cancellation fee.

Regardless of the legal merits of your claim, your first course of action should not be threats or demands. Instead, explore every possibility of a creative and mutually reasonable solution. Non-profits are under a considerable amount of pressure and, more often than not, in situations such as these, they are acting out of fear and self-survival rather than any nefarious intent. Can you reschedule the date? Can you offer to provide additional marketing materials or suggestions? Are there any expenses or costs which can be reduced? Are there any other presenters in the area who might be willing to partner with the venue and share expenses? Assuming your venue is unwilling to budge or consider alternatives, then stating the legal merits of the situation and suggesting mediation or arbitration would certainly be appropriate.

Ultimately, this may be one of those rare instances when filing legal action may be warranted. If your booking agreement does not provide for attorneys fees and costs in the event of a lawsuit, and if the engagement fee is not substantial enough to warrant the time and aggravation, you may be able to file a small claims action in lieu of a more formal trial. Sometimes, merely filing a lawsuit or claim is enough to bring them to the bargaining table. However, always remember that winning a lawsuit doesn’t mean you or your artist will ever see a dime. If the venue refuses to pay, you’ll have to pursue them further with bank liens and property attachments until they either pay or file bankruptcy or close entirely. While not resulting in any damages for you or your artist, this can often be its own form of divine retribution upon the venue.

__________________________________________________________________

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!

You’re Not the Boss of Me!

Wednesday, February 20th, 2013

By Brian Taylor Goldstein, Esq.

Dear Law & Disorder,

 

Our ensemble has recently had friction with its management over weather-related travel concerns. We had concerts scheduled during both Hurricane Sandy and this most recent blizzard in the Northeast, and as both approached, discussed postponing them with our management company. In both instances, they stated that since plane, train, and public transportation travel had been halted, we would need to rent a van and drive to the engagements. They said that due to the nature of our contracts, we would have to make every effort to get there no matter what. We had serious safety concerns about doing this, due to the predicted severity of the storms. In the end, it turned out in both instances that the presenters chose to reschedule the concerts for hopefully sunnier springtime dates, so we did not need to travel after all.

 

I know that our contracts with presenters include an “Act of God” clause, and my question is, who is empowered to make the decision about whether invoking this clause is the right thing to do? The presenter, our management company, or us? What if all three parties do not agree? Can we refuse to travel if we feel conditions are unsafe? Also, our ensemble is a non-profit organization, with the musicians hired as independent contractors. I am concerned that should we ever go ahead and travel to an engagement during bad weather conditions against our better judgment, and should an accident occur, that the individual musicians would have grounds to sue our non-profit for essentially telling them they must go. Would our management company be held responsible at all since they would not allow us to postpone? Help!

 

An “Act of God” clause is purely a creature of contract. It’s the terms of the contract (not God!) that defines what constitutes an “Act of God” and who gets to make the decision as to whether or not to invoke the clause. If the contract merely says something like: “This engagement may be canceled in the event of an Act of God”, it’s fairly meaningless. While I am familiar with lots of artists, managers, and presenters who prefer short and simple contracts, the problem with “short and simple” is that, in cases such as yours, it can also mean “vague and useless.” A good Act of God clause will define what constitutes an Act of God and who can make the determination, as well as address such issues as whether or not deposits need to get returned or engagements re-booked.

In your situation, to determine whether the nature of your contract, in fact, required you to make every effort to get there “no matter what,” I’d need to review your specific contract. However, I can’t image an engagement contract that actually required you to risk personal safely to get to the engagement—especially if planes, trains, and public transportation had all been halted. Even if you had, indeed, signed such a contract, there are always alternatives to risking personal safety merely to comply with a contract—including a legal defense called “impossibility of performance.”

Regardless of what a contract says or doesn’t say, the ultimate decision to cancel or postpone an engagement, whatever the reason, is always yours. Whether you’re canceling or postponing because you feel you cannot travel safely or canceling because you want to pursue a more enticing offer, those decisions are yours to make, not your manager’s.

Similar to Act of God clauses, manager/artist relationships are also defined and determined by contracts. However, unlike Act of God clauses, most state laws impose two legal obligations on all agents and managers which can never be waived or altered by contracts: (1) All managers owe a fiduciary duty to their artists (ie: they must put the artist’s interest above their own) and (2) All managers must follow the instructions and directives of their artists. (There are other obligations, too, but these are the most important.)

Like an attorney, a manager is there to provide advice, counsel, and direction, but not to give orders or commands. Unless a manager is also a producer, the manager works for the artist, not the other way around. Final decisions are always yours to make. Of course, the consequences—including being sued by presenter for breach of contract—are solely yours to bear, as well.

Granted, the manager/artist relationship should always be one of mutual respect, otherwise it doesn’t work for either of you. If a manager feels you are not taking their advice and counsel, and, as a result, you are adversely affecting your career, then the manager may rightly choose to no longer work with you. Likewise, if there comes a point when you believe your manager is putting his or her interest above your own, its time to move on.

As for your liability question, let’s save that for another post. For now, suffice it to say, under our less-than-intuitive legal system, anyone can sue anyone else for just about anything—especially if an artist is injured because you required them to drive in poor weather conditions. Get insurance! Stay tuned.

_________________________________________________________________

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!

Responsibility…Its Not Just About Visas

Wednesday, January 30th, 2013

By Brian Taylor Goldstein, Esq.

Dear Law & Disorder:

We are facing a visa problem for one of our Russian singers.  She is supposed to sing in the United States at the end of February with a US Orchestra. Now it turns out that the orchestra is neither willing to apply nor to pay for the visa fees that would be a total of $1800 ($250 for the AGMA union consultation, plus $325 to USCIS, plus another $1,225 to USCIS to have the approval notice expedited) and the artist does not want to pay this big fee for just one engagement of 8 days. The visa petition is ready to be mailed, but now we are wondering if there is a way of reducing the costs. The singer has been to the US many times to perform, and is a member of AGMA. On the top of the visa petition, she will also have to pay $190 for an interview at the US Embassy in Moscow. Would there be a way of getting her a visa without having to pay all these costs (or at least pay less?) Help!

If the singer is a current AGMA member, AGMA may waive its $250 consult fee, but you’ll need to contact AGMA directly to confirm their current policy. Otherwise, sadly, there is no way to reduce the costs you have listed.

USCIS charges a basic filing fee of $325 for standard processing. USCIS standard processing times can vary wildly, and change without notice. USCIS has recently been processing petitions within 3 – 4 weeks of filing, sometimes even sooner. However, if you can’t take the risk, you will, indeed, need to pay an additional fee of $1225 for premium processing in exchange for which USCIS will guarantee to review the visa petition within 15 days of filing. (Remember, “review” does not guarantee “approval.” USCIS can always review the petition and still return it, asking for more evidence or supporting materials.) While there is a process by which you can ask for an “emergency expedite” and waive the premium processing fee, this is reserved for instances of true “emergencies” (ie: an ill performer requires a last minute replacement). Financial hardship won’t qualify as an “emergency.” There is also no mechanism by which to avoid the $190 visa application fee required to be paid to the consulate. (Some consulates charge even more.)

What makes this situation truly unfortunate is that all of this could have been avoided. When a non-US artist is engaged to perform in the US, who will bear the artist’s visa costs, along with who will take responsibility for preparing and filing the artist’s visa petition, is something that can and should be negotiated at the time of the engagement. I encounter far too many situations where artists are booked and, while fees and travel arrangements are discussed at length, no one discusses any of the other details that are critical to a successful engagement—such as visas and tax withholding. Managers too often assume the opera companies, orchestras, or presenters will handle it, the opera companies, orchestras, and presenters assume the managers will handle it, and the artists assume that they are paying a 20% commission for “someone” to handle it so they don’t have to. Remember, there are no industry standards!

While it won’t necessarily help your current dilemma, the solution in the future is quite simple: if you are a manager or agent, no matter how badly you want to book an engagement for your foreign artist, before you do so, confirm with the presenter or venue whether or not the artist already has a visa, will require a visa, and/or who will pay and petition for the visa. If you are an opera company, orchestra, or presenter, no matter how badly you want to book a particular foreign artist, always ask their manager or agent whether or not the artist already has a visa, will require a visa, and/or who will pay and petition for the visa. While you’re at it, you might as well negotiate and confirm everything else, too: licensing, cancellation terms, recording rights, etc. A lot of angst could be avoided if each party in an engagement contract makes it their responsibility to discuss with the other party all contingencies and potential problems that could arise. Avoiding an empty stage and an unhappy artist is everyone’s responsibility.

_________________________________________________________________

WE WILL BE TAKING A BREAK THE WEEK OF FEBRUARY 4 AS WE RELOCATE OUR OFFICES.

OUR NEXT BLOG POST WILL BE ON FEBRUARY 13.

_________________________________________________________________

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!