Archive for the ‘Employees’ Category

« Older Entries

Artist Visa Updates, Non-Compete Agreements, Manager/Agent Trust Accounts, 1st Amendment Poop Jokes

Wednesday, April 5th, 2023

LAW & DISORDER

Performing Arts Division

April 6, 2023 

INSIDE THIS ISSUE:

• Artist Visa Updates

• Non-Compete Agreements

• Manager/Agent Trust Accounts

• Is There A Constitutional Right

To Poop Jokes?

 

Artist Visa News & Nausea 

• The Status of Proposed Petition Fee Increases

Thanks to all of you who took the time to write USCIS and the denizens of Congress to object to USCIS’s loathsome proposal to raise petition fees by 300%. A lot of people have since been asking what happens next and what to expect. It’s hard to say. Typically, when USCIS imposes new rules and policies they give 60 – 90 days advance notice. In this case, should USCIS decide to implement the fee increases, my belief is that various lawsuits will be filed to enjoin them from going into effect while they are challenged in court.

So, while you can expect nothing to change within the immediate future, beyond that is anyone’s guess. I know that the lack of certainly is going to make it hard when budgeting for 2023/2024 tours, but nothing about getting visas for artists to perform in the US has ever been a bedrock of dependability or predictability.

• DOS Increases Visa Stamp Application Fees

Speaking of fee increases, not to be upstaged by its nefarious cousins at USCIS, the US Department of State announced on March 28, 2023 that US Consulates will be raising the minimum fee for visa stamp applications from $190 to $205 effective 5/30/23. I’d like to say that this will allow them to hire additional staff to address the significant backlogs and delays that continue to plague US Consulates around the world, but I would be lying if I said that. Instead, except in rare, dire, and unusual circumstances, no one should expect to submit a visa stamp application at most US Consulates and get the visa stamp back in less than 2 – 3 weeks, or longer. In other words, whilst I do not in the least disagree with the indignant music director who sent me an email complaining about the “iniquitous absurdity” of a US Consulate refusing to accommodate his tight international performance schedule, he nonetheless still had to wrench up his big boy pants and accept the cruel slap of indifferent reality.

• Current USCIS Service Centre Processing Times:

Vermont Service Centre: Standard processing: 6 – 8 weeks

Premium processing: 9 – 10 days

California Service Centre: Standard Processing: 3 – 4 months!

Premium Processing: 13 – 14 days

If some of you have filed petitions at the California Service Centre and receive a notice that your petition is being transferred to another service centre DO NOT PANIC. To deal with backlogs, USCIS is randomly transferring petitions to other service centres.

• Request for Evidence (RFE) Alert:

In circumstances where managers/agents have filed visa petitions in which they have also signed the US engagement contracts on behalf of their artists, we have recently been seeing USCIS issuing RFEs asking for (i) proof that the artist has authorized the manager/agent to sign on their behalf and (ii) proof the both the artist and each presenter have authorized the manager/agent to be the petitioner. While you “could” just provide USCIS with copies of management/agent agreements and include petitioner appointment language in all engagement contracts, that would presume a USCIS examiner will read them much less comprehend multisyllabic words. Its simpler just to have everyone—the artist and each presenter/venue—sign a piece of paper saying “I appoint X to be the Petitioner.”

Legal Issue of the Month:

Are non-compete/non-solicitation agreements a thing of the past?

Whether it’s a management company hiring an associate or a non-profit organization hiring a development director, its not uncommon in the arts and entertainment industry for employment contracts to include non-compete provisions which generally serve to prevent employees from taking jobs with an ex-employer’s competitors or clients for a certain period of time after they leave.

On Jan. 5, 2023, the Federal Trade Commission released a proposed rule that would bar employers from making workers agree to non-competes. The proposed rule is based on a preliminary finding that non-competes constitute a form of unfair competition in the labour market, lowering wages, and stifling innovation, among other issues, and therefore violate Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act. The proposed rule, as written, would apply to independent contractors and unpaid interns as well as employees, and it would make companies retroactively rescind non-competes they’ve already secured.

Non-solicitation agreements, whereby employees are forbidden from soliciting existing clients, customers, or employees of their employers, as well as agreements that prevent ex-employees from using or disclosing the proprietary, non-public information of their ex-employers (such as engagement contracts, books and records, tour budgets, etc.) would continue to be valid provided they are narrow, targeted, and not silly. For example, presenter and venue contact information, or anything that could be found on its own just by asking someone else or through a google search is neither proprietary nor confidential.

As most courts will not enforce broad non-competes and non-solicitation agreements anyway, this new rule would prevent employers from bullying or threatening their employees with frivolous lawsuits by not allowing such provisions to be in a contract in the first place.

Dear Law and Disorder:

Actual questions we get asked and the answers people actually don’t want

“Manager/Agent Trust Accounts”

Dear Law and Disorder:

I am considering working with an agent, but almost every agent I speak with wants to collect my engagement fees on my behalf. Why can’t I collect my fees and just pay the agent? If an agent collects my fees, should I ask for a separate bank account? What about statements? Is it reasonable to ask for monthly accountings? When do I get paid? What’s standard?

First, and foremost, nothing in this business is “standard.” Yes, there are penchants and preferences, but if you took a poll of 50 people in our business and ask what is “standard”, you’d get 50 difference answers—with all 50 basing their definition upon their own self-interest. So, if anyone tries to force you into an arrangement you don’t want by claiming its “standard” or “this is what everyone does”, run away! If parties truly want to work together, everything is negotiable.

All that being said, it’s not uncommon for an agent or manager to prefer to accept fees on behalf of an artist. Among the very legitimate reasons for this, it allows artists to focus on performing and not bookkeeping, especially when on tour, and allows the agent to follow up on contracts, payments, and other logistical issues on an artist’s behalf. It’s also easier for an agent to collect fees, deduct commissions, and send the balance to the artist rather the agent having to issue an invoice or chase down an artist who, again, may be on tour or simply abstains from reading any emails that contain the subject line “balance due.”

Both licensed and un-licensed agents are legally required to keep all collected money in a separate account and issue statements accounting for all money collected and held on behalf of an artist. Keeping money in a separate account not only makes booking and accountings easier, but also helps to ensure than an artist’s money doesn’t accidentally get co-mingled with the agent’s own money. Also, in the event an engagement is cancelled, a deposit may need to be returned. Having the money held in a separate account ensures that the funds are not prematurely dispensed, or used for unrelated purposes, for which both the artist and agent could be liable.

Is There a Constitutional

 

Right To Poop Jokes?

The US Supreme Court is poised to address one of the most epochal issues on everyone’s mind: is there a 1st Amendment right to tell poop jokes?

Currently before the Supreme Court is Jack Daniel’s v. VIP Products wherein VIP Products, the nation’s second-largest maker of dog toys, is accused of infringing upon the whiskey maker’s trademarked bottle shape and label by manufacturing and selling squishy dog toys that resemble a bottle of Jack Daniel’s with the label showing a dog and the by-line “dropping the old No. 2 on your Tennessee carpet.” While traditional parody exceptions already in place would normally support VIP, Jack Daniel’s contends that the value of its trademark will be diminished if people begin to think its product makes dogs poop. So, VIP has responded by arguing that the 1st Amendment supersedes Trademark Law and allows parody to cross any lines or restrictions, regardless of how offensive or objectionable to the party being parodied—which would be a superfluous argument in most cases had not several lower federal courts agreed.

Notwithstanding the fact that so many of its customers apparently serve whiskey to their dogs that Jack Daniel’s is concerned with lost sales, should VIP prevail it would essentially eliminate trademark law when it comes to parody. It’s a classical example of an inane case brought purely because litigators are willing to litigate anything if you pay them enough, the outcome of which could have larger consequences: Does a 1st Amendment claim of parody automatically allow anyone to use another’s name, song title, or logos without restriction and under any circumstances, whether its by association with poop, porn, or politicians, regardless of the owner’s objections or concerns?

For those of you who feel so moved, you can read more about this here:

www.vox.com/politics/23650136/supreme-court-poop-jokes-jack-daniels-vip-dog-toy-trademark-lanham-act

Deep Thoughts

“With enough spizzerinctum, there’s almost nothing you can’t accomplish.”

Cynthia Bowes-Palmer

 

 

 

Send Us Your Questions! 

Let us know what you’d like to hear more about.
Send us an email, post on Facebook, mail us a letter, dispatch a messenger, raise a smoke signal, reach out telepathically, or use whatever method works for you.

GG Arts Law provides a comprehensive range of legal services and strategic support for the performing arts, including: Artist Visas, Taxes, and Touring; Rights & Licensing; Negotiations & Representation; Contracts; Business & Non-Profit Organization & Management; Project Management; and Strategic Consulting & Planning.

 

OFFICIAL LEGALESE:

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 threatening email, filing a lawsuit, or basically doing anything that may in any way rely upon an assumption that we know what we are talking about or one size fits all!

Tags:, , , ,
Posted in Contracts, Employees, Independent Contractors, Law and Disorder: Performing Arts Division, Trademarks, Visas | Comments Closed

USCIS JUST THREW ARTISTS A CRUMB!

Tuesday, April 7th, 2020

Unemployment and the CARES Act For Non-US Artists

April 7, 2020

By Brian Taylor Goldstein

Shocking as it may sound, USCIS has passed a tiny wind of hope in the direction of artist visas during this coronavirus pandemic.

The Department of Homeland Security (which sets the policies for USCIS) has confirmed that applying for unemployment benefits and/or applying for benefits under the recently enacted Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act WILL NOT be taken into consideration as violations of the Public Charge Rule when reviewing petitions for O or P status or green cards. (This does not include Medicaid or any government program (other than unemployment or CARES) which requires a “means test”—ie: programs which require someone to show that they make under a certain level of income.

It remains to be seen as to whether or not applying for or receiving unemployment benefits will later be insidiously used by USCIS as a “gotcha” under the separate rule that if an artist becomes unemployed, they are not authorized to remain in the U.S. and look for work and are required to leave. So, applying for unemployment benefits could “theoretically” still be used by USCIS as an admission by an artist that they have no work. However, as I wrote last week, USCIS has also generally, sorta, kinda, implied that they will be “reasonable” in light of the Covid-19 situation…and that’s about as good as you’re going to get from them until they change their minds.

For now, if any non-US artist finds themselves furloughed or unemployed, which is likely to be most of you, you may now take advantage of whatever unemployment and/or CARES benefits you may be entitled to. So glissando, tap dance, and project your way to those websites and start applying before the airlines and pharmaceutical companies gobble all the funds up. Godspeed.

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

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

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

A CORONAVIRUS VISA ROUNDUP FOR NON-US ARTISTS

Tuesday, March 31st, 2020

Cancelled Engagements, Unemployment, Layoffs, and Visa Renewals

March 31, 2020

By Brian Taylor Goldstein

As the tumbleweeds blow through Times Square and we begin to consider the viability of Easter peeps or even kale to supplement the dwindling toilet paper supplies, there is an understandable amount of angst and confusion on many fronts. Not least among them are non-U.S. artists who find themselves trapped inside the U.S. with no engagements, or with visas about to expire, or, like so many, laid off or unemployed.

There is a lot of conflicting information out there primarily because U.S. immigration policies are determined by the U.S. Government which has provided little or no direction on these issues; they are far too engrossed trying to quell the spread of the Coronavirus through sacrificing chickens, burning witches, assessing blame, and finding new and enthralling ways of praising and consoling Our Dear Beloved Leader and Perfect Incarnation of The Appearance That A Leader Should Have.

So, in no particular order, here is an update of what we know (or sort of know based on what we can surmise from what we know.) Premium Processing

1. Premium Processing
In case you have not already heard, USCIS suspended Premium Processing effective March 20, 2020. Until further notice, any future petitions filed with premium processing will automatically be sent to standard processing and your premium processing fee returned. Current standard processing times are ranging from 3 – 6 months at both of the paradoxically named USCIS “service” centers.

2. Artists Trapped In The U.S.
Due to the quagmire of travel restrictions, cancelled flights, and border closures, there are a number of artists who find themselves stranded in the U.S. with visas about to expire and who are unable to leave. Has USCIS has made any special exceptions or provisions for artists who may be forced to remain in the U.S. beyond the expiration date of their visa until they can fly home? Certainly, they will not be rounded up as enemies of the state? To the contrary, if an artist finds themselves in the U.S. in such situation, then before their current visa expires they will need to file a petition either to extend their current status and extend their stay, or change their current status to a different status and remain.

Here’s a real life question we received on this issue:

My O-1 visa expires in May. I was approved for a new one starting in August. My petitioner did not ask for an extension of stay because I was supposed to fly home for a summer festival, but that has been cancelled and now I want to stay in the U.S. What are my options?

If the artist has some engagements in the U.S. between May and August (which is unlikely, but possible), then prior to May she could file a new I-129 petition (which would basically be the old one re-copied and re-packaged) asking for an extension of stay. However, if she does not have engagements to justify her remaining in the U.S. on an employment visa, then prior to May she will need to file an I-539 petition to change her status from O-1 to visitor (B-1/B-2). Of course, to file a new I-129, she will need to pay the USCIS filing fee of $460. To file an I-539, she will need to pay the USCIS filing fee of $370, plus a biometric fee of $85. Biometrics consist of going to a local USCIS office to be photographed and provide fingerprints. However, all local USCIS office are all closed. So, presumably, the I-539 petitions will just get put on hold—which is probably a good thing as she can stay in the U.S. while the petition is pending. I should point out that in 99.99999% of cases, I-539 petitions are denied, so they are really only useful to buy time.

3. Consulates
Most of the U.S. consulates around the world have closed. London, for example, is currently not taking appointments until July. We do not know when they will re-open. We asked the U.S. Department of State and were told: “April! No, June? Wait! They’re closed? They’ve always been closed. I mean, open. They’re open now, just closed to the public. Temporarily.”

4. What Happens To A Visa If An Artist Is Laid Off?
Here’s another real life scenario:

We are looking for information about the impact of layoff on our O-1 visa holders. The remainder of our performance season has been cancelled. At this time we are continuing to pay our performers as per the schedule that is in their contract. Unfortunately the possibility of a layoff is looming. How would this impact the O-1 visa holders? Are their visa’s invalidated if we have to do layoffs?

Fortunately (sort of), as non-US artists are required to have artist visas to perform in the U.S. regardless of whether or not they are paid, a layoff, per se, does not impact the validity of their O-1 visas. Rather, the issue is whether or not the artist’s services will be required at all. In other words, are we dealing with a cancelled performance or a re-scheduled performance?

If an artist was approved for an O-1visa to perform in a specific engagement or production, and that engagement or production is cancelled, then they are required to leave the U.S. as, unless they were approved for a multi-employer visa, they no longer have a reason to be here. However, if the scheduled performances are merely being re-scheduled for a later date during the validity period of the artist’s existing visa, and the artist’s services will still be needed, then I would argue that they can remain in the U.S. regardless of whether or not they are paid—they just won’t be able to work. In other words, a layoff means they are still employed, just not getting paid.

Whether or not the artist can afford to remain in the U.S. without being paid is another issue entirely…and which leads to the next question.

5. What Is The Impact On A Visa If an Artist Applies for Unemployment or Medicaid?
Here’s a hard one:

As you probably already know, all of my concerts until June have been cancelled, thus putting me into a difficult situation financially. I wanted to consult with you whether it would be a good idea for me to apply for unemployment benefits, or is that going to jeopardize my current O-1 status and future potential status?

Unfortunately, this creates two not insignificant problems:

  • (a) Under Trump’s recently enacted “public charge rule,” applying for any kind of public assistance (unemployment, Medicaid, etc) could be used to deny and/or delay future visas or green cards. When the artist next needs to obtain a new O-1, if he elects to remain in the U.S. and seeks an extension of stay, he would need to disclose that he applied for and/or received public assistance. This will lead to his being required to explain why and seek a waiver. USCIS has indicated that they will be “reasonable” in light of the Covid-19 situation, but we have no idea what that means. I trust USCIS about as much as trust my mother when she asks for my honest opinion. Alternatively, the artist could avoid this question by leaving the U.S. when his current visa expires, applying for a new visa at a U.S. consulate, and then re-entering. However, should at some point in the future he want to apply for a green card, he would need to disclose the public assistance and request a waiver at that time.
  • (b) The other problem is that O and P visas are “employment-based” visas, which means an artist is only authorized to be in the U.S. on such a visa if the artist has employment. If an artist becomes unemployed, they are not authorized to remain in the U.S. and look for work. They are required to leave. So, applying for unemployment benefits equates with admitting the artist is here illegally.

6. Requests for Evidence and Notices of Intent to Deny
USCIS has announced that any petitioner who receives a Request for Evidence (RFE) or Notice of Intent To Deny (NOID) between March 1 and May 1, 2020, will be given an additional 60 calendar days to respond after the response deadline set forth in the RFE or NOID. However, USCIS will continue its policy of employing rabid ferrets to write the RFEs.

7. Can A Visa For A Cancelled Concert Be Reissued?
Here’s a question from a dear soul who believes that if we just clap hard enough, Tinkerbell will grow her wings back:

We got an artist approved to perform for us in June. That date, of course, has now been cancelled. However, we have rescheduled the concert for the 20/21 season. Since we already applied for the visa and got it approved, and given that we only had to cancel because of the coronavirus, will USCIS re-approve the visa for the new date without having to file a new petition and go through the process all over again?

As my mother would say: “Bless his heart,” which, in the South, is the kind of thing one says when Charlene gets her head stuck in the fishbowl again…for the 3rd time. No, he will need prepare and submit an entirely new petition, and pay all of the costs and fees again. Because of all the cancellations due to the Coronavirus, the Performing Arts Visa Task Force (a long established coalition of leading arts organizations throughout the field—from the League of American Orchestras to the Association of Performing Arts Presenters) has asked the U.S. government to consider allowing approved visas to be re-authorized to cover re-scheduled dates without having to pay any new filing fees or costs. However, just to be on the safe side, I have added the same request in my letter to Santa Clause as I have greater faith in him making my wishes come true than I do USCIS.

Ok, folks. That’s all I got. Until everything changes tomorrow. As always, continue to check our website and Musical America for more frequent updates.

Stay safe and well!

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

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

Tags:, , , ,
Posted in Artist Management, Employees, Independent Contractors, Law and Disorder: Performing Arts Division, Uncategorized, Visas | Comments Closed

CAN A U.S. ORCHESTRA REFUSE TO PAY A NON-U.S. MUSICIAN?

Tuesday, February 27th, 2018

By Brian Taylor Goldstein

Dear Law and Disorder:

I am a musician on an O-1 visa that my agent got for me. It covers multiple engagements. Last September, I was hired to be a section musician with an orchestra. They have been paying me up until now, but now they are saying that legally they have to withhold my paycheck and can’t pay me because they just realized my visa does not name them specifically and I have to get another one just with their name on it if I want to get paid for the last two weeks. If I don’t, they say they have to fire me. They checked with their lawyer and he says its because their musician contracts require them to pay me as an employee and that my visa only covers independent contractors, not employees. He says that according the USCIS regulations [8 CFR 214.2(o)], employers must be listed on separate O-1 petitions where it says “employer” on the form. Is this true? I thought the O-1 allowed me to work for whomever I wanted because it was a multiple-employer O-1.

Sadly, we get this question a lot. To be fair, U.S. tax and immigration laws and regulations are a huge, big, stinking pile of insanity. Fortunately, most of the folks in our industry who work regularly with foreign artists make at least a valiant effort to figure out the rules as best they can, either by consulting experts or colleagues or through their own research. Unfortunately, there are others, be they forgotten in the bowels of a hugely complex institution or trapped in their own dark worlds of paranoia, anal retention, and over-simplicity, who do not. These include most, but, by no means all, of the following: (1) the international student officers and offices of most schools and universities; (2) the personnel directors of small orchestras; and (3) any non-profit with a volunteer attorney who only practices insurance law, but claims to be an expert on all subjects.

It appears that you have been dragged into the dark world of numbers (2) and, perhaps (3).

The O-1 visa category is not only available for artists, but also for the field of business, science, education, and athletics. Technically, the sodden-witted pignut at your orchestra is correct that, in most instances, an individual with an O-1 visa who works for more than one employer must file a separate petition for each employer. HOWEVER, he or she is ignoring the fact that USCIS regulations 8 CFR 214.2(o)(2)(iv)(D) provides an exception for artists (and ONLY artists) as follows:

In the case of a petition filed for an artist or entertainer, a petitioner may add additional performances or engagements during the validity period of the petition without filing an amended petition, provided the additional performances or engagements require an alien of O-1 caliber.

Moreover, for purposes of work authorization, USCIS does not make distinctions either between full-time and part-time employment or between employees and independent contractors. Why? Because as we try to remind everyone again and again and again and again and again: U.S. law requires anyone who “provides services” in the U.S. to have work authorization regardless of whether or not they are paid for such services. So, as a work visa is required even if an artist performs for free, the manner in which they are paid is irrelevant for immigration purposes.

Admittedly, what adds to the confusion is that USCIS requires the same USCIS form (i-129) to be completed not just for O-1 visa petitions, but for a whole alphabet of other visa petitions as well: E, H, P, L, M, R and Q, among others. Because of the government’s “one-size-fits-all” mentality, the i-129 form uses the broad term “employer” to cover every possible scenario in which one person can engage the services of another. In other words, USCIS does not use the term “employer” to refer exclusively to an “employer/employee” relationship.

The issue of whether or not an individual performing services for another should be paid as an “employee” or “independent contractor” is determined by various federal and state regulations, laws, and authorities, such as the Department of Labor and the IRS. USCIS is part of the Department of Homeland Security. Once it authorizes someone “to work”, it simply doesn’t care about how, or even if, they are paid. That’s not in its purview. Which means that, so long as your O-1 authorizes you to provide services to more than one entity, then you can be paid either as an employee or independent contractor. Your orchestra is not violating U.S. immigration law by paying you as an employee.

Amusingly, your orchestra is actually finds itself in even greater peril by refusing to pay you for work already performed. The same state federal and state regulations, laws, and authorities that determine whether or not someone is an employee or an independent contractor, also make it explicitly clear that it is illegal to refuse to pay someone for work already performed based on a claim that they violated immigration law. Its perfectly acceptable—nay, required—to refuse employment to or fire someone who is not legally authorized to work in the U.S. However, that does not apply retroactively. If the work has been performed, even illegally, the worker must be paid. Otherwise, unscrupulous employers would just hire foreign workers and then refuse to pay them. Work authorization and payment are to very different things!

So, there’s your answer. However, getting your orchestra to understand or accept this reality may not be easy. People in the aforementioned categories prefer simple answers to complex questions and are often loathe to accept nuance. So, here’s simple suggestion: Are you or your orchestra a member of the American Federation of Musicians? If so, stop reading this and call AFM now. Trust me, they will be more than happy to make this matter very simple for the orchestra indeed!

_________________________________________________________________

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

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

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

__________________________________________________________________

THE OFFICIAL DISCLAIMER:

THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE!

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

 

 

 

 

Tags:, , , , , , ,
Posted in Arts Management, Employees, Independent Contractors, Law and Disorder: Performing Arts Division, Visas | Comments Closed

Never Play Chess With Pigeons

Thursday, October 1st, 2015

By Brian Taylor Goldstein, Esq.   

Dear Law and Disorder

I’ve been asked sign a bad performance review with a number of inaccuracies. Can I be fired if I don’t sign it? Or should I insist that it be amended to reflect the truth? Our Executive Director is very emotional and hard to deal with, but I’m thinking that I should at least try and sit down and get her to change her mind rather than just give in.    

Unless you have an employment contract—or, in some cases, an employee manual—that specifically sets forth the circumstances and conditions under which you can be terminated, then it probably doesn’t matter whether you sign it or not. Many states, such as the State of New York, are what are referred to as “employment at will” states. You would need to check the laws in your specific state. However, “employment at will” means that an employer can pretty much hire and fire as he or she pleases and a discharged employee usually will have no legal recourse even when the discharge is unfair or unreasonable. The only exceptions would be termination based on statutorily defined discrimination—such as race, religion, gender, age, or disability. (Certain more enlightened jurisdictions, such as New York City, also include sexual orientation and marital status in this list.) Other than that, an employer in an “employment at will” state can walk in one day and fire anyone for any reason. In other words, unless one of the exceptions apply, you can be fired whether you sign the bad review or not.

Ideally, it would great if you could correct the record. A bad review that indicates you failed to follow instructions or disregarded office policies could negatively impact your eligibility for unemployment compensation should you be fired. However, correcting the record may not always be practical or realistic.

If your boss is “very emotional and hard to deal with”, you are not alone. There is no shortage in our industry of exceptionally talented and creative individuals who, nonetheless, should be heavily medicated. Many of these souls find themselves unfettered and autonomously in charge of distinguished arts organizations and businesses.

I am constantly amazed at how many people cling to the belief that a logical argument, persuasive reasoning, or “the right words” will magically transform an otherwise irrational person into Socrates. In fact, whether you are negotiating a contract or trying to mollify an artist, attempting to reason with an emotional or irrational person is like playing chess with a pigeon: it doesn’t matter how brilliant you are, the pigeon is still going to knock over all the pieces and poop on the chess board. Getting such a person to admit he or she is wrong about anything will only be met with defensiveness, paranoia, reminders of how you should be more appreciative of their past largess with regard to your past transgressions (most of which you will have never been told about before), and accusations that you are being argumentative, not a team player, exasperating, and disrespectful.

The best, and only, way to begin any conversation with someone being unreasonable or emotional, and who also happens to be in charge, is to validate, never confront. Assuming you want to remain employed, you need to accept that your boss “owns reality” at the moment and learn to live and work within that fantasy land. You don’t have to admit the facts to admit that your boss’s perception that you have done a poor job or failed to meet expectations is a perception you are enthusiastically willing to correct. Like a bad review of a concert or performance, thank the critic and then move on.

_________________________________________________________________

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

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

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

__________________________________________________________________

THE OFFICIAL DISCLAIMER:

THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE!

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

 

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

Advice For The Young and Restless

Thursday, May 14th, 2015

By Robyn Guilliams     

GG Arts Law and GG International are in the process of hiring a new administrative assistant.  As I’ve been reviewing applications, I’m sad to say that I am shocked – shocked! – at the very poor quality of some of the cover letters and resumes we’ve received.

So, as a public service to all of you “young’uns” out there who are searching for a job in the performing arts field, or for those of you who already work in the arts and would like to move up the ladder as quickly as possible, I’d like to offer a bit of advice – some pitfalls to avoid – when submitting a cover letter and resume to a potential employer:

  • Spelling errors:  This is the most prevalent problem, and the one that is most easily remedied.  Do not rely on spell-check, people!  Proof-read your letter and resume, and then proof them again.  I realize we all make the occasional spelling mistake (my own emails are proof of this), but the documents you submit as your job application are the only criteria by which you are judged for a job, at least initially.  If you won’t take the time to proof-read your letter and resume, this tells me everything I need to know about what kind of employee you will be.  When I see these types of errors, the letter and resume immediately go into the recycling bin.
  • Writing Style:  The ability to write well is required for many jobs in our industry.  (And even if not, it’s a great skill to have!)  A number of the cover letters we’ve received, while not being grammatically incorrect, are very awkwardly written.  I highly recommend “The Elements of Style”, by William Strunk and E.B. White, to anyone wishing to improve his or her writing skills.  This book is a great resource for young professionals who want to learn to communicate more effectively through writing.
  • Irrelevant Job Experience:  Tailor your resume to the job for which you’re applying.  There is no reason to include work experience that is completely irrelevant.   For instance, don’t include in your “employment history” your job as a bag-boy at Piggly Wiggly when you were 14 years old.  I don’t care.  Don’t tell me about working as a ball-girl for your college softball team.  Seriously.  Nothing about that work experience is going to make me say, “This is the person we’ve been looking for!”
  • Try to keep your resume to one page.  Unless your professional career began at age eight, you probably don’t have enough relevant content to justify a longer resume.  Keep in mind – there’s no need to write a long narrative describing the responsibilities of each of your jobs.  Bullet points will do.  And, please, please, don’t use an 8-point font in an effort to cram everything on to one page.  I’m old, and I can’t read anything written in an 8-point font unless I hold the page an inch from my face.  I don’t like doing this.  It’s annoying, and it makes me feel old.
  • Don’t include the details of your entire professional life in your cover letter.  This is why you attach a resume.  Pick a few items from your resume that are directly relevant to the job for which you are applying, and include a detail or two about each experience.  Your cover letter should be no more than three paragraphs, and should be concise.  As I’m reviewing 150 letters and resumes, and I come across your two-page, ten-paragraph cover letter, I’ll want to stick a fork in my eye.  I already don’t like you.  (This really isn’t the reaction you’re looking for from your potential employer, is it??)
  • Avoid hyperbole in your cover letter.  Don’t tell me about your “extensive” experience in whatever.  If you are in your early twenties, it’s highly unlikely that you have extensive experience in anything.  (See above regarding the one-page resume.)  Along the same lines, don’t tell me about your “professionalism”, “strong work ethic” or “integrity”.  I see these descriptions so often that they’re virtually meaningless.  And don’t describe yourself as “an ideal fit” or “exceptionally qualified” (particularly when you are not at all qualified).  Your resume will speak for itself in this regard.
  • Don’t describe yourself as “detail-oriented” in your cover letter.  (This goes over especially badly when your letter is riddled with typos.)  When applying for a job, everyone describes themselves as detail-oriented.  Who the heck is going to say “I’m not so great with details”?  I can get an idea of your attention to detail from how carefully you’ve crafted your resume and cover letter, the types of jobs you’ve held in the past, and your responsibilities in those jobs.
  • In your cover letter, there’s no need to write about how “passionate” you are about the arts, how much you love going to the theater, or that Beethoven’s Eroica is your favorite musical work.  This is not your OkCupid profile.  Everyone goes into our field because we feel strongly about the arts, and we wouldn’t be happy working in any other field.  Your education, work history and other relevant experiences will show that you are committed to a career in the arts!

We’re excited about the prospect of bringing on someone new, although we’re sad that our current assistant, Ann, is leaving.  Take care, Ann – we’ll miss you!

_________________________________________________________________

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

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

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

__________________________________________________________________

THE OFFICIAL DISCLAIMER:

THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE!

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

 

 

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

“Leave Here and You Die!” Unenforceable Non-Compete Agreements

Thursday, November 13th, 2014

By Brian Taylor Goldstein, Esq.   

Dear Law and Disorder:

The management company where I work has asked me to sign a non-compete agreement saying that, if I ever quit or am fired, I would be prohibited from working as a manager or agent anywhere in the world for one year after I leave. The owner also contends that the names and addresses of all venues belong to him and that I cannot contact any presenters or venue where I booked an artist for him. Do I have to sign this? Is this reasonable?  

You never have to sign anything. Can an employer require an employee to sign a non-compete or be fired? Under certain circumstances, yes. Are the terms you describe reasonable? Hardly. More importantly, even if you signed it, I doubt very much that such an agreement would be enforceable.  

In most instances, parties can use a contract to negotiate and agree to just about anything: how and when artists are paid, how commission are calculated, how rights are transferred or licensed, who files and pays for visa petitions, how royalties are calculated, whether the artist gets still or sparkling water in the dressing room, liability, insurance, benefits, salaries—the list is practically endless. However, there are certain instances—albeit rare—when a contractual term will be rendered void or unenforceable. Such instances include:

(1) When a contract either requires a party to do something which would be illegal or refrain from doing something which they have a legal obligation to do.

(2) When a contract term violates an existing law or policy which courts have decided cannot be altered.

Contracts are governed by state laws. In this case, most state laws (particularly the State of New York) will not enforce a non-compete agreement which a judge determines to be “unreasonable” or “over-reaching”—even if the parties agree to it. Reams and reams of case law have determined that prohibiting an ex-employee from working with current clients of the employer is reasonable, but only for a reasonable amount of time—such as a year or two (sometimes longer depending upon the specific circumstances.) However, unless an ex-employee was also the CEO or President of the company, prohibiting an ex-employer from being able to work in the industry in which they earn a living is considered inherently un-reasonable and never enforceable. Simply put, no employer ever has the right to force an ex-employee to move to a different state, change careers, or be rendered unemployable. If the situation were otherwise, too many employers could use the threat of termination to induce or force employees to sign unreasonable non-compete agreements.

As far protecting the confidential or propriety information of an employer, a court will enforce such an agreement provided the information was confidential or proprietary to begin with. Under the Law of Agency, when someone represents someone else, all information belongs to the person they represent. With regard to the arts and entertainment field, any information pertaining to an artist—engagement agreements, the names and contact information of any venues or presenters a manager or agent has contacted on behalf of the artist, the terms of any engagements under negotiation or discussion, etc—all belong to the artist, not the artist’s manager or agent. Moreover, names and addresses are never “proprietary.” The term “proprietary” refers to something unique created or invented by an employer and specific to that employer—such as the colonel’s secret chicken recipe, internal operating procedures or budgets, mark ups, etc. Simply because a manager or agent writes down the name and address of a venue does not make it proprietary. To be sure, an employee, much less an ex-employee, is never permitted to take the physical property or download the files of an employer. However, if something such as names and addresses can be found elsewhere—such as on the internet, in a published list, or is otherwise publically available—then you are free to compile your own list of such information.

As for not being able to book or contact any venues or presenters where you booked artists for a former employer, once again, whether or not this would be enforceable would depend on the “reasonability” of the restriction. If were are talking about a prohibition against contacting particular venues in a particular region for a reasonable period of time, that would probably be enforceable. However, if enforcement of such a restriction would prohibit you from being able to book any artists at any venues in the United States or world-wide that would never be enforceable.

It’s frustrating enough when an artist leaves a roster—its even more so when a trusted employee quits and takes an artist with them. In a highly competitive and risky business, its understandable that artist managements and agencies are looking for ways to protect their interests and livelihoods. However, draconian contracts, strong arm tactics, and paranoia, though frequently embraced, are never appropriate or productive solutions.

Just because an agreement may be unenforceable does not mean you should sign it anyway. An angry and emotional ex-employer may still try to enforce it, requiring you to spend legal fees and court costs getting a judge to throw it out of court. You never want to enter into any agreement knowing at the outset that it will lead to a lawsuit—even if it’s a lawsuit you believe you will win. Certainly, if you are ever asked to sign such an agreement as a condition of employment, run away. However, if your current employer is insisting that you either sign or face unemployment, and a calm discussion offering reasonable restrictions and alternatives falls on deaf ears, you may have no choice but to run the red light and tear up the ticket later.

__________________________________________________________________

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

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

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

__________________________________________________________________

THE OFFICIAL DISCLAIMER:

THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE!

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

 

 

 

 

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

The Recipe For Confusion

Thursday, September 11th, 2014

By Brian Taylor Goldstein, Esq.   

Dear Law and Disorder:

We obtained a three year O-1 visa for one of our artists. We are the artist’s agent and served as his petitioner. A large venue wants to book the artist, but they are insisting that, according to their finance department, they cannot pay us as the artist’s agent and that they must pay the artist directly as an employee of the venue. While we are willing to agree to this, the venue is also insisting that, because they must pay the artist directly, we either must file an amended petition specifically naming the venue as an employer or file a separate petition just for the venue.

Whether its dealing with visas, taxes, or employment issues, we here at GG Arts Law often find ourselves in loggerheads with CFOs, finance departments, HR directors, and others, especially at large venues and organizations, who seem to use the same recipe when developing policies and directives: Take one very broad workshop which they attended several years ago and is now outdated, add an opinion from a board or volunteer attorney who doesn’t actually specialize in the topic at issue, stir in some research done by an intern, mix well with incorrect anecdotes from peers and colleagues, add a dash of ego, bake well, and insist this is the law.

In your particular situation, the venue appears to be confusing several key concepts: (1) the nature of itinerary based visas for artists; (2) the ability to add additional engagements when an artist is on an itinerary based visa; and (3) the relationship (or lack thereof) between employment law and immigration law.

Itinerary Based Visas:

Most immigration scenarios contemplate a single employer submitting a petition on behalf of a non-US individual whom they wish to hire. In those instances, the employer submits an I-129 petition to USCIS and, once approved, the name of the employer will appear on the I-797 approval notice authorizing the individual to work for the employer. If the individual wants to work for more than one employer, then each employer needs to submit its own I-129 petition.

However, there is an exception for artists: The applicable immigration regulations recognize that O-1 artists of “extraordinary ability” typically come to the US to perform “on tour” and, thus, will have multiple employers who hire them to perform. In such cases, a single petition may be filed with USCIS covering all of the artist’s engagements with multiple employers in the US. These are known as “itinerary-based” O-1 visas because, as opposed to covering a single performance, the petition includes an “itinerary” of performances and engagements with multiple employers.

So, for example, let’s say that an opera singer is hired to perform at the Metropolitan Opera, San Francisco Opera, and Seattle Opera. While each venue could certainly file its own, separate I-129 petition, the Metropolitan Opera could be designated as the singers “agent” and submit a single petition on which it also lists the singer’s engagements at San Francisco Opera and Seattle Opera. As the petitioner, only the Metropolitan Opera’s name would appear on the I-797 approval notice. However, because all three venues were listed on the singer’s “itinerary” the singer would be authorized to perform for all three. Alternatively, if the singer had an actual US agent or manager, the singer’s agent could serve as the petitioner and serve as the petitioner and submit a single I-129 petition to cover all three engagements. Again, as the petitioner, only the agent’s name would appear on the I-797 approval notice. However, because all three venues were listed on the singer’s “itinerary”, the artist would be authorized to perform for all three.

Adding Additional Engagements:

Continuing with this example, let’s suppose that after the singer arrived in the US, the singer was contacted by Washington Opera and asked to replace another singer who fell into the orchestra pit and can no longer perform the role. This last minute engagement would take place between the singer’s engagement with San Francisco Opera and Seattle Opera. Does Washington Opera have to file its own separate I-129 petition? No. Does the petitioner of the singer’s original I-129 petition have to file an amended petition “adding” this new engagement? No. Provided that additional engagements occur within an artist’s approved or existing O-1 classification period, and provided that the engagements or services are consistent with the artist’s O-1 qualifications (ie: performing, teaching, master classes, residencies, etc.), the artist is legally permitted to add and perform such additional engagements without the necessity of anyone filing an amended petition or otherwise notifying USCIS of the additional employers. The triggering factor is whether or not an artist was on an itinerary based visa with multiple employers to begin with. (By contrast, if an artist wants to add an engagement or performance that would take place after the period of the artist’s approved or existing O-1 classification period, that would require a new or amended O-1 petition to be filed.)

The Immigration Implications of the Employment Relationship:

Many people see the word “employer” used throughout US Immigration Law and its applicable regulations and presume that it has the same connotations as when used in the context of a traditional “employer-employee” relationship. It does not—particularly in the context of O and P artist visas. US Immigration Law uses the term “employer”, at least in the context of O and P artist visas, to refer to anyone who hires or engages the services of an artist in any capacity regardless of how the employment relationship is structured. A petitioner is neither presumed nor required to be the artist’s actual employer under any circumstances. Moreover, it doesn’t matter who pays whom or whether the artist is paid as an independent contractor or an employee, or even whether the artist is paid at all. This is because US immigration law does not use payment, or lack thereof, as a determinative factor in whether or not an artist requires an O or P visa. If an artist performs in front of an audience or otherwise provides professional artistic services in the US, such artist is required to have either an O or P visa regardless of whether or not the artist is paid, tickets are sold, or the artist receives any compensation from any source directly or indirectly. Thus, while the petitioner of an itinerary based I-129 O-1 petition can also serve in the dual role of one the artist’s employers, there is no requirement under any aspect of applicable immigration law that the petitioner actually serve as one of the artist’s employers, much less that all employment and payments go through the petitioner, or anyone else for that matter.

In short, so long as the artist is on a valid, itinerary-based O-1 visa, anyone can hire and pay the artist, directly or indirectly. Who pays the artist and how are all contractual issues to be negotiated between the parties and not immigration issues.

__________________________________________________________________

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

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

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

__________________________________________________________________

THE OFFICIAL DISCLAIMER:

THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE!

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

Tags:, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Agents, Artist Management, Arts Management, Employees, Law and Disorder: Performing Arts Division, Presenters, Taxes, Touring, Venues, Visas | Comments Closed

New I-94 Process for Artists Touring the United States

Wednesday, May 22nd, 2013

By Brian Taylor Goldstein, Esq. Dear Law and Disorder: I heard that US Immigration will no longer be giving foreign artists the little white card they used to get when an artist entered the US. The cards were stamped with the artist’s visa category and the date they had to leave. It was my understanding that we needed to make copies of those cards if we needed to extend an artist’s visa. Are we supposed to use something else instead? Is there a new process? Yes, you heard correctly. The little white card, called a Form I-94, was an artist’s official arrival/departure record. Up until recently, every foreign artist as well as all other foreign travelers entering the U.S. (except, occasionally, Canadians, depending on when and where they entered) was given a Form I-94 to fill out (most often while waiting in an interminably long line at an airport international arrivals hall), the bottom half of which was stamped with their status and departure date and returned to them by a US Customs and Border Patrol Officer (aka the border troll.) This form was also issued to those who adjusted their status while in the U.S. (ie: changed from F to O), or who extended their visas. The I-94 was used to confirm the artist’s individual’s status or visa category (O, P, F, B1/B2, etc.) and the departure date by which they must leave the U.S. When the artist left, they surrendered the I-94 either to the commercial airline carrier or to CBP directly. The I-94 information and the date of departure was then entered into a database to verify that the artist did not overstay the required departure date. As of April 30, 2013, this process became electronically automated. CBP will no longer require artists to fill out a paper Form I-94 upon arrival to the U.S. by air or sea and will no longer issue paper I-94 forms in return. Instead, CBP will gather the arrival/departure information automatically from the foreign artist’s electronic travel records and, upon entry of the artist into the U.S., will enter their status and departure date electronically. (Because advance information is only transmitted for air and sea travelers, CBP will continue to issue a paper form I-94 “at land border ports of entry”—which is government-speak for Canada and Mexico.) Similarly, when the artist leaves the US, the date of their departure will be electronically gathered, as well. Under the new process, the CBP officer will stamp the passport of each arriving artist. The admission stamp will show the date of admission, class of admission, and the departure date by which the traveler must leave. Artists wanting a hard copy or other evidence of their valid admission and immigration status will need to go to a special website (www.cbp.gov/I94) where, using their passport numbers and names, they can access and print as many physical copies of their I-94 as they want. Officially, there is no legal reason for an artist to have a hard copy of the I-94. Officially, the electronic record and the passport stamp will serve as evidence of their valid admission and immigration status. Nevertheless, we are strongly recommending that all artists, or their managers/agents or employers, go to the website and print out a hard copy of the I-94. Why? Simple—we don’t trust CBP not to make mistakes! Plus, while CBP may no longer require a physical I-94, other government agencies still do. Despite what is stamped in an artist’s passport, an artist’s official arrival/departure record will remain the electronic I-94. If a CBP officer makes an error and the required departure date written on the passport does not correspond with the official departure date electronically entered on the I-94, the I-94 will govern. In other words, regardless of what is written on the passport, the artist MUST leave the US by the date stamped on the I-94 despite what was approved by USCIS or written on their visa. Printing out the I-94 will be the only way to verify that the I-94 reflects the correct visa category and the correct period of admission. Furthermore, having a hard copy of the I-94 will also continue to be required by employers and schools who are required by other government agencies to verify immigration status. A hard copy of the I-94 will also facilitate the process of obtaining drivers licenses and social security numbers. An equally important reason for a paper copy of the I-94 is that it would function as a backup document in the event that CBP officers cannot access the electronic record of admission due to a systems failure at the time that an artist seeks re-admission to the US after a short visit to either Canada or Mexico. A hard copy of the I-94 will also continue to be required by USCIS when an artist is currently in the US and files a visa petition to extend their visa. In such cases, the petition must include a copy of the I-94 to show that the artist was validly admitted and is currently “in-status.” CBP has issued a fact sheet that includes frequently asked questions regarding the impact of automation, visa revalidation, passenger processing times, and more. You can access that at: http://www.cbp.gov CBP contends that this automation will streamline the entry process for travelers, facilitate security, and reduce federal costs by saving the agency an estimated $15.5 million a year. That remains to be seen. As CBP implements the I-94 automation process, processing errors and challenges relating to the automated admissions process and accessibility of electronic records are already arising. _________________________________________________________________ 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 Artist Management, Arts Management, Employees, Law and Disorder: Performing Arts Division, Taxes, Touring, Visas | Comments Closed

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!

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

« Older Entries