Archive for the ‘Non-Profits’ Category

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

We’ve Been Hacked!

Wednesday, September 4th, 2013

By Robyn Guilliams

Dear Law & Disorder: Performing Arts Division,

We are a small presenting organization, and we use an outside company to handle our ticket sales.  The company provides us with cloud-based software, which we use to process both online and box office ticket sales. We were recently informed by the software company that they’d been hacked!  The company told us that all of our patrons’ relevant information may have been compromised, including their credit card information. A lawyer on our board said that we are responsible for notifying all of our patrons of the security breach.  Is this true?  There are over 8,000 patrons in the system, going back quite a few years!  We don’t have the personnel to devote to this type of project.  One of the reasons we out-sourced our ticketing was to avoid handling and storing this type of sensitive information.  If we don’t handle the credit card information, why are we responsible if that information is stolen?

Oy, what a headache!

Unfortunately, I would guess that the terms of your organization’s contract with the ticketing software company require your organization to notify its patrons in the event of this type of security breach.  In fact, the contracts I’ve seen for this type of service require that the presenting organization indemnify the software company in the event of a breach.  This means that you are not only responsible for your own legal expenses and damages should one of your patrons suffer a loss as a result of the breach, but you’ll have to pay the software company’s legal expenses and damages as well!  And usually, these types of provisions are not negotiable.

In addition, you may want to take a look at the website of the PCI (Payment Card Industry) Security Standards Council, which sets the standards for companies who process credit card transactions (like your ticketing software company.)

See: https://www.pcisecuritystandards.org/faq/

Because your organization doesn’t actually handle or store credit card data, it’s not required to be “PCI Compliant.” However, as stated on this site, “it is the responsibility of the merchant to ensure that the data they share with third parties is properly handled and protected – just because a merchant outsources all payment processing does not mean that the merchant won’t be held responsible by their acquirer or payment brand in the event of an account data compromise.”

The good news here (such as it is) is that most states provide a mechanism for an organization like yours to protect itself in the event a third party credit card processor is hacked.  Generally, if you provide timely notice to your patrons of the breach, you can’t be held liable for your patrons’ damages (the theory being that if your patrons know about the breach, they can take steps to protect themselves.)  For instance, in New York (and many other states), your organization is protected from liability if you notify your patrons of the security breach “in the most expedient time possible and without unreasonable delay.”  The notice can be made in writing, electronically, or by phone.

Also, there are insurance policies that cover this type of cyber liability.  These policies usually cover the cost of notifying your patrons, as well as any legal expenses or damages you may have due to the breach.

In short, the volunteer lawyer on your board is correct. (As we don’t often agree with most lawyers, this is a rare occurrence, indeed!) Given the vulnerability of identification fraud and the potential exposure of your organization, you’d be wise to find a way to notify your patrons.

_________________________________________________________________

Brian Goldstein and Robyn Guilliams will be attending the 2013 Midwest Arts Conference in Austin, Texas next week.

Our next blog will be on September 17, 2013.

_________________________________________________________________

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:, , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Arts Management, Insurance, Law and Disorder: Performing Arts Division, Liability, Non-Profits, Presenters, Venues | Comments Closed

Licensing May Not Be Music To Your Ears

Wednesday, August 7th, 2013

By Brian Taylor Goldstein, Esq. Dear Law and Disorder: Since ASCAP does not cover dance or theatrical performances, how does a dance group go about getting the appropriate permissions/ copyright releases needed for their performance? Another word for “permission” or “copyright release” is “license.” Dance performances, like theatrical performances such as opera or theater, as well as any other performance of music other than a concert, most often require two types of licenses for their performances: (1) a “Performance License” which is required for music to be performed (either live or via a recording) and (2) a “Dramatic License” for the music to be interpreted dramatically either through choreography or by performing the music as part of a play, musical, or opera. While ASCAP (as well as BMI and SESAC) does not issue dramatic licenses, they do issue performance licenses. Typically, most venues, theaters, presenters, etc. will obtain yearly blanket performance licenses from ASCAP, BMI and SESAC which allow the music in the ASCAP, BMI and SESAC catalogs to be performed in the venue. In such cases, that means you would only be required to get dramatic licenses for your group’s performances. However, not every venue obtains ASCAP, BMI and SESAC blanket performance licenses. Some erroneously believe that non-profits are somehow exempt from such licenses. Others believe it is the artist’s responsibility while others simply hope they won’t get caught. There are also instances where the music you want to dance to may not be represented by ASCAP, BMI or SESAC. Regardless of the reason, in instances where either the venue doesn’t have a performance license or the performance license doesn’t cover the music you need, you will be required to obtain both performance licenses as well as dramatic licenses. As for how your group actually obtains the necessary licenses, you would need to identify the composer or publisher of each musical work you want to use in your performance and contact the composer or publisher directly. Identifying composers and publishers isn’t actually that hard. ASCAP, BMI and SESAC maintain free, searchable databases, as does the Copyright Office website. You can also search the databases of other licensing organizations such as the Harry Fox Agency (which issues mechanical licenses.) You may have to be persistent and allow for lots of time. Not every composer or publisher will respond right away—or even respond at all. You may need to make repeated requests. If you don’t’ get a response, assume the answer is “no” and select different music. “Silence” is never golden which it comes to licensing. Also, just because you request a license doesn’t mean the composer or publisher will agree. And even if they agree, they can charge whatever they want. Composers and/publishers are free to be as arbitrary as they want when it comes to issuing licenses and setting fees. As I frequently remind everyone, there is no such thing as “industry standard.” If all of this seems daunting, keep in mind that, more often than not, you will be able to get the licenses you need provided you invest the necessary time and attention. Do not leave the licensing process to the last minute and do not assign this task to a volunteer intern helping out at your office. Also, bear in mind that the same rules that may seem to thwart your ability to use the music you want also protect you when it comes to controlling the ability of other dance groups to copy and perform works that you create and control. If all else fails, consider supporting a composer and commissioning your own music. _________________________________________________________________ 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:, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Arts Management, Copyrights, Law and Disorder: Performing Arts Division, Licensing, Non-Profits, Presenters | Comments Closed

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!

Tags:, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Agents, Artist Management, Arts Management, Contracts, Copyrights, Law and Disorder: Performing Arts Division, Liability, Licensing, Music Rights, Non-Profits, Presenters, Publishing, Venues | Comments Closed

Accommodating Audience Members

Wednesday, June 12th, 2013

By Robyn Guilliams Dear Law and Disorder, I run a small nonprofit presenting organization. We recently received an email from a patron who wanted to attend a particular performance, and he asked if we provide accommodations for the deaf.  He indicated that either an American Sign Language interpreter or some sort of close captioning system would suffice.  We responded and told him that we did not provide those sorts of accommodations because we can’t afford it.  We suggested that he reserve a seat towards the front of the venue to enhance his ability to see the performance without any interference.  He then wrote back, stating that he was making a request for a reasonable accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act and asking that we respond with accommodation specifications within 48 hours. I don’t believe that this is a reasonable request for a nonprofit organization.  We don’t have the capability for close captioning, and we would be required to spend $500 to $800 on a sign interpreter.  How should I respond?? You should respond that your organization would be happy to provide a sign interpreter for this gentleman! The Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) requires that all “public accommodations” – that is, virtually any facility that is open to the public – provide auxiliary aids and services to ensure effective communication access to their deaf and hearing-impaired patrons and customers.  This applies to for-profit businesses and nonprofits, both large and small!  For a theater or other performing arts venue, the most appropriate auxiliary aids usually are sign language interpreters and real-time close captioning devices. The idea behind the ADA is to ensure that no one with a disability is excluded, denied services, segregated or otherwise treated differently than others because of barriers or the absence of auxiliary aids. While the cost of a sign interpreter may seem daunting to small organizations, consider it a cost of doing business (yes, nonprofits – you are “doing business” by presenting performing arts presentations to the public!) and factor that cost into your budget. The ADA does provide an exception to the auxiliary aids requirement if providing these aids would result in an “undue burden” (i.e., “significant difficulty or expense”) to the business.  However, this “burden” must be truly significant for the exception to apply. Must every venue install high-tech close-captioning technology to accommodate the deaf and hearing impaired?  No.  Nor must a venue hire an ASL interpreter for every performance.  A patron who arrives at a performance and demands an auxiliary aid with no advance notice may be out of luck.  However, when a patron makes a timely request for a sign language interpreter, the venue must make its best efforts to fulfill that request. A few other notes to keep in mind: The “reasonable accommodations” (e.g., the sign language interpreter) must be paid for by the place of public accommodation. The costs cannot be passed on to the individual with a disability! A place of public accommodation must provide services in an “integrated” setting.  This means that the deaf or hearing-impaired patron cannot be excluded from enjoying a performance along with the rest of the audience.  As an example, it’s not acceptable to set up a close-captioned television feed in an area separate and apart from where the performance is happening.  If close-captioning is offered, it must allow the hearing-impaired patron to enjoy the performance in the same space as the rest of the audience. The deaf or hearing-impaired patron has the choice of which accommodation best fits his or her communication needs; however, an equally effective substitute may be provided if the original request is unreasonable or unfillable. In theory, the ADA codifies what should already be pervasive throughout the performing arts: an embrace of inclusivity. More practically, whether or not you agree with the ADA, the cost of ADA compliance is far less than the costs of non-compliance, which can be excessive. There are grants and foundations which may available to help you offset the costs of accommodating your disabled patrons. This may also be a good time to use this occasion to review your ADA policies and procedures, including how your staff and volunteers respond to ADA compliance requests and patrons with special needs. An insensitive response can send an embarrassed or angry patron directly to an attorney. As with any issue, it’s always easier to address problems and complaints before they arise. ________________________________________________________________ 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:, , , , , , , ,
Posted in Arts Management, For Profits, Law and Disorder: Performing Arts Division, Liability, Non-Profits, Presenters, Venues | Comments Closed

“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!

Tags:, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Agents, Artist Management, Arts Management, Copyrights, Law and Disorder: Performing Arts Division, Liability, Licensing, Music Rights, Non-Profits, Presenters, Publishing, Recordings, Venues | Comments Closed

Board Term Limits–The Kindest Cut of All?

Wednesday, May 15th, 2013

By Brian Taylor Goldstein, Esq.

Dear Law and Disorder:

We are a small non-profit that runs a performing arts center. In up dating our by-laws, its been recommended that we establish term limits for our directors and officers, as well as a formal nominating committee. Do we really need such formalities? We’re very small and don’t have any other committees. Can’t the board itself select its own members and officers? And it seems a mistake to force directors to leave when they are willing to continue to serve on our board. What do you recommend to your clients?

While I am a strong advocate of fixed terms, I never recommend term limits for board members. Why? Because among the most challenging aspects of running a successful non-profit is finding and keeping healthy board members who, whether through wealth, work, or wisdom (or a rare combination of all three), contribute to the success and productivity of the organization. Once you are lucky enough to find then, the last thing you want to do is force them to leave! However, at the same time, you need to have a mechanism through which malignant board members can be removed. Such members, if left to metastasize, can quickly chase all the healthy ones away, burn out the staff, and poison the entire operation. Fixed terms without term limits provide you with the best of both worlds.

Let’s say, for example, that the by-laws provide that each board member serves a term of 2 years. At the end of each board member’s term, the nominating committee is required to review the board member and recommend either that the board member be invited to serve another term or be invited to exit. By having terms, but no term limits, there is no limit to how many terms a board member can serve, but there is also a fixed time after which every board member’s service can be reviewed. While you can pick any term length you want, I usually recommend no longer than 2 – 3 year terms for board membership. (Anything longer and you start losing the effectiveness of early detection and prevention!) There are also ways to stagger terms so that not everyone on the board is up for renewal at the same time.

Term limits for officers, on the other hand, can be more appropriate. Why? Because with no term limit, even a beloved president or board chair can quickly become a feared dictator that no one wants to cross, or, just as worse, a benevolent, but ineffective leader who spurns all attempts at growth or change. At the end of the president’s term, he or she can still serve on the board, but no longer gets to wield the mace of supreme authority. Also, in my experience, I have also found that the people you most want to serve as board president or chair will be those who do not want to serve more than a year whereas those you want to avoid are those who are looking for a life-time appointment.

As for whether or not you need to have a formal nominating committee, its a recommended practice to have the formality of a separate nominating committee—if not at first, then certainly as your board gets bigger. The nominating committee does not make the actual decisions, but, rather, makes recommendations to the board of whether or not to ask existing board members to renew their terms, as well as reviews and makes recommendations for the nomination of new board members. While the board is always able to accept or decline such recommendations, having a nominating committee allows a forum for such discussions to be “hashed out” other than in a full board meeting. This has the advantage of avoiding potentially awkward situations. First, imagine a scenario where a board member has nominated a “close friend” to serve on the board, but who may not be a good choice for the board. Having such a frank discussion is easier “in committee” than in the presence of the board member. Similarly, when reviewing the renewal of existing board members, its usually easier to have a more open and honest assessment, including key staff input, without having the entire board present. Like all committee work, its also a more efficient use of the board’s time to have committees make recommendations and reports rather than bog down the entire board with every decision. Lastly, a separate nominating committee can potentially prevent a small board from evolving into a dictatorship where only a few members dominate everything.

By-laws, like strategic plans and business plans, are not commandments fixed in stone, but, rather, should be approached as living, breathing, and malleable tools that provide structure as well as flexibility. When thinking of by-laws, you not only need to think of current operations, but creating mechanisms for growth. Even though your board may now be small, you want think big. Similarly, even though your board may currently be one big happy family, you want to think of the future when, like all families, everyone inevitably starts to get one everyone else’s nerves.

_________________________________________________________________

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:, , , , , , ,
Posted in Arts Management, Law and Disorder: Performing Arts Division, Non-Profits, Venues | Comments Closed

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!

Tags:, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Agents, Artist Management, Arts Management, Contracts, Copyrights, For Profits, Independent Contractors, Law and Disorder: Performing Arts Division, Licensing, Music Rights, Non-Profits, Presenters, Publishing, Recordings, Touring, Venues | Comments Closed

Independent Contractors or Employees: What’s In A Name?

Wednesday, April 3rd, 2013

By Brian Taylor Goldstein, Esq.

Dear Law and Disorder:

I hire musicians to perform, with me. Are they employees or independent contractors? I do not deduct taxes from what I pay them. Should I also make them sign a contract stating that they are independent contractors?

Contrary to what many believe, the distinction between who is an independent contractor as opposed to an employee is not as simple as merely making them responsible for their own taxes (and issuing them a 1099) or making them sign a contract or other document in which they affirm that they are an independent contractor. Like many legal relationships in the arts, “titles”, while not entirely irrelevant, do not in and of themselves carry any legal significance. Instead, determining whether a hired musician (or anyone you hire to provide services for you) is an employee or an independent contract requires an analysis of both state and federal regulations.

A person is an independent contractor only when free from control and direction in the performance of their services. As independent contractors are not covered by unemployment insurance laws, labor standards, or safety and health regulations, each state, as well as the federal government, have established various “factors” concerning the nature of the relationship between the parties which are used to determine whether or not a person is an employee or an independent contractor. These factors include how a person is paid, the amount of control you have over them, where their services are performed, how their services are performed, whether or not they are part-time or full-time, and even whether or not the person you are hiring is “incorporated” as a business or merely uses a “dba” and is a sole proprietor. All factors concerning the relationship between the two parties must be taken into consideration. No one single factor is controlling, nor do all factors need to be present to establish the nature of the relationship.

Not surprisingly, the “factors” can differ from state-to-state, with some states applying a more liberal analysis than others. Whereas, in some states, its almost impossible for anyone to hire an individual as an independent contractor unless the individual is incorporated as a C-corporation, S-corporation, or a limited liability company, other states afford more discretion to the employer to determine how to classify the people they hire. And the federal government has its own set of factors and guidelines. As a result, its not uncommon for the same person to be classified as an independent contractor for federal purposes (IRS, US Department of Labor, etc.) and an employee for purposes of state unemployment law and state taxes.

While all the various factors must be considered, in almost all cases the most significant factor is whether the party contracting for the services exercises, or has the right to exercise, supervision, direction or control over someone they hire. In the case of musicians and other performers: do you hire them to show up and perform their own music in whatever manner they want? Or do you direct them? Do you require them to attend rehearsals? Can they wear whatever they want or do you require specific costumes or clothing? In general, musicians or other performers who are paid to perform and are told/directed what to perform, how to perform it, where to perform, and what to wear are almost always considered “employees”, if not by the federal government, then by most state governments.

The only way to answer your specific question is to apply the applicable state and federal factors and guidelines to your specific circumstances. However, the New York State Department of Labor actually has specific guidelines and factors for determining whether performers are employees or independent contractors. You can find them at http://www.labor.ny.gov/formsdocs/ui/ia318.17.pdf Whether or not you are in New York, this is a good place to start.

_________________________________________________________________

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:, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Arts Management, Contracts, Employees, For Profits, Independent Contractors, Insurance, Law and Disorder: Performing Arts Division, Liability, Limited Liability Companies, Non-Profits, Venues | Comments Closed

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!

Tags:, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Acts of God, Agents, Artist Management, Arts Management, Contracts, Law and Disorder: Performing Arts Division, Liability, Non-Profits, Presenters, Venues | Comments Closed

Ask, and Ye “May” Receive…or Not

Wednesday, January 9th, 2013

By Brian Taylor Goldstein, Esq.

Dear Law and Disorder,

I am a music professor at a medium-sized state college. We have two questions with regard to live streaming some of our concerts and recitals. We, of course, have paid the ASCAP and BMI licenses/fees to cover the rights for live performances. I believe the licensing agencies base the amount of the fee on the size of the school, and we pay a flat amount each year. Does paying those licenses for live performances also cover streaming the concert live? Our department chair believes this to be the case.

The other issue involves archiving the recordings of the concerts, or leaving them on the website for a time after the concert so patrons (e.g., parents of students or any other interested parties) can view the concert at a later date if they had a conflict the day of the original concert and were unable to watch it live. Would this practice also be covered by the licenses or fees we’ve already paid? Is this a grey area in which the law has not yet caught up with the technology, or would this practice be a violation of copyright?

I know of other schools whose music departments are streaming performances. Any clarification you could give on this subject would be most helpful not only to us but to many schools throughout the country.

Some ASCAP/BMI licenses for live performances also cover the right to stream the concert live. However, as with all rights, you only get what you ask and/or pay for. So, if you paid for the right to stream live concerts, then your license covers that. If you only paid for live concerts, then it does not. You need to check the license terms and agreement you received from ASCAP/BMI.

With regard to the issue of “archiving the recordings of the concerts”, the good news is that it is not a grey area at all. The bad news is that it is not a grey area at all. ASCAP/BMI licenses only cover live performances and, in some instances, streaming a live performance. However, making an audio/visual recording of a concert to be seen or heard at a later a date or…gasp…placed on a website for the whole world to access, is quite another. Such rights are called “synchronization rights” and they must be arranged separately. When you purchase the right to perform music at a live concert, there is no “inherent right” to make an archival recording or a recording for “non-commercial” purposes. There is no “inherent right” to make a recording of any performance at any time under any circumstances without the permission of (a) the composer/publisher of the music (assuming the composition is not in the public domain) and (b) the performers themselves.

As opposed to the law not catching up with technology, this is more of an issue where the performing arts industry has not caught up with the law. I, too, know of many schools and non-profits that regularly make archival recordings and stream concerts. While some of these are licensed, many are not. There is a common misperception that, so long as something is used for educational purposes or no money is charged, then no licenses or permission is required. Nothing could be further from the truth. While many composers and publishers are happy to grant liberal permission, or even turn a blind eye to unauthorized used, others are not. It’s anyone’s guess as to which one you’re dealing with until it’s too late. The safest rule of thumb is: never assume you have permission to do anything you haven’t specifically asked for. Always ask permission. It protects artists, protects your institution, and perpetuates the value of the arts.

________________________________________________________________

Both Robyn Guilliams and Brian Taylor Goldstein will be attending the Association of Performing Arts Presenters Annual Conference in New York, providing both workshops and consultations. Please stop by the 4th Floor of the Hilton and say hello!

_________________________________________________________________

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:, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Arts Management, Copyrights, Law and Disorder: Performing Arts Division, Licensing, Music Rights, Non-Profits, Presenters, Publishing, Recordings | Comments Closed

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »