Venues | Musical America Blogs

Archive for the ‘Venues’ Category

Whose Lawsuit Is It Anyway?

Thursday, October 30th, 2014

By Brian Taylor Goldstein, Esq.

Dear Law and Disorder:

I’m dealing with a presenter who wants to cancel two weeks out due to poor ticket sales. While it’s not a huge engagement fee, my artist has already contracted its performers and paid out expenses for the date as its part of a bigger tour. I have a cancelation clause in my contract and I’ve explained what canceling would mean and that the presenter will be on the hook. However, he still wants to cancel. Its been a rough year and I can’t afford legal counsel. Do you have any suggestions?

At least the presenter is not trying to claim that poor ticket sales constitutes an act of God. While I am familiar with many organizations whose strategic plans require some degree of divine intervention to stay operational, God rarely takes an interest in ticket sales.

If you have a cancellation clause in your contract, then that will govern the legal remedies for the situation. Contractually, the presenter either has the option of either proceeding with the engagement or cancelling and abiding by the terms of the cancellation clause (which, I am hoping, spells out how much the artist is owed in the event of cancellation). If the presenter elects to cancel, but refuses to honour the terms of the cancellation clause, that would constitute a breach of contract…which really just gives the artist the right to sue the presenter, obtain a judgment, and, hopefully, collect the judgment. Whether or not attorney fees, interest, or court costs would also be part of the judgment depends on the terms of your contract as a judge has no authority to awards such costs unless the contract requires them. However, regardless of the terms of your contract, a lawsuit should always be the last resort under any circumstances.

Have you tried discussing with the presenter any solutions for increasing ticket sales or promoting the performance? Does your artist’s shows typically sell at the last minute? Has the artist ever performed in this market before? Don’t presume the presenter knows its own market or how to sell your artist in that market better than you do. You may have ideas for selling tickets that the presenter has not considered.

Is the person you are dealing with the final decision maker in the organization? If not, don’t hesitate to go over their head. Don’t threaten—just do it! If the presenter is a non-profit organization, then even the president or executive director reports to the board of directors. Contact the board president or an officer of the board. Often board members are far less cavalier about breaching contracts than an organization’s administrative staff. Its very possible that the board doesn’t even know about the situation as many presidents and CEOs are quite proficient at keeping their boards on a need-to-know basis.

If the presenter refuses to honour the cancellation clause, resist the urge to scream, threaten anyone’s reputation, or toilet paper the venue. While tempting, those options rarely work and will almost always make the situation worse. Ultimately, the decision as to whether or not to file a lawsuit, along with costs and expenses of filing the lawsuit, belong to your artist, not to you. Regardless of whether or not you signed the contract, if the contract is between the presenter and your artist, then all legal claims belong to the artist and only the artist can file a lawsuit and appear in court. You should not be paying or incurring any legal fees out of your own pocket. Unless you, too, are operating as a charitable institution, if the artist wants to pursue a lawsuit, that is their cost burden to bear, not yours.

__________________________________________________________________

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 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:act of god, administrative staff, artist, board member, board members, breach, breach of contract, cancellation, cancellation clause, Contracts, judgment, lawsuit, performer, poor ticket sales, presenter, reputation, venue
Posted in Acts of God, Agents, Artist Management, Arts Management, Contracts, Law and Disorder: Performing Arts Division, Liability, Presenters, Venues | 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 other legal and business issues for the performing arts, visit ggartslaw.com

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

__________________________________________________________________

THE OFFICIAL DISCLAIMER:

THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE!

Tags:agent, approval notice, artist, Brian Taylor, contract, engagements, Goldstein, immigration, immigration law, independent contractor, manager, payment, petitioner, uscis, venue, visas, work
Posted in Agents, Artist Management, Arts Management, Employees, Law and Disorder: Performing Arts Division, Presenters, Taxes, Touring, Venues, Visas | Comments Closed

But I Don’t Want To Be A Producer!

Thursday, June 19th, 2014

By Brian Taylor Goldstein, Esq.

Dear Law and Disorder:

We have booked one of our artists to perform at a venue. As we are the agent, our booking agreements are always between the venue and the artist, and we sign on the artist’s behalf. However, the presenter is insisting that, if we want to sign the contract and receive the engagement fee, as we do, then the contract must be between them and us. Is this correct?

If you are “producing” the artist—that is, you are being paid a fee by a presenter or venue to hire the artist and produce the performance—then, yes, the presenter is correct. However, if, as you say, you are the artist’s agent, then you are absolutely correct and the presenter is…well, confused.

Producers are paid a fee to provide the services of an artist. Typically, the producer will either accept a fee, use a portion of that fee to pay the artist, and pocket the difference; or invest his or her own money to hire the artist, and then keep the box office or other profits from the performance. Either way, a producer accepts a substantial amount of risk in exchange for a greater return. However, merely accepting payment on behalf of an artist, deducting your commission, and then paying the balance to the artist does not make you a producer. It doesn’t matter whether or not you use the word agent or producer in the contract. Rather, it all comes down to how the booking contract is phrased:

X is a Producer:

“Venue X enters into this Agreement with Agent Y to produce and provide the services of Artist Z”

X is an Agent:

“Venue X enters into this Agreement with Artist Z for Artist’s services, by and through Artist’s Agent Y”

Anyone who books a date on behalf of an artist, whether as a manager or as a booking agent, is working for the artist. The artist is your client. In legal parlance, the artist would be referred to as the “Principal” and the agent would be referred to as…get ready for it…the “Agent.” Under the Law of Agency (not to be confused with various state licensing requirements for booking agents—that’s something completely different), agents (ie: someone who acts for and on behalf of someone else) owe a variety of duties to their principals, including duties of loyalty, duties of care, and fiduciary duties. In exchange, agents are not liable for the contractual breaches of their principals, even if the agent negotiated the contract on behalf of the principal. This is important. If the artist decides to cancel at the last minute or otherwise causes damages to the venue or presenter, the agent is not liable whereas a producer would be liable…provided, however, that the agent did not inadvertently make themselves a party to the contract and agree to “present or produce” the artist. A booking contract, then, should always be between the presenter/venue and the artist. As the artist’s agent and representative, you can absolutely sign on behalf of the artist as well as accept money on behalf of the artist. However, the contract is between the presenter/venue and the artist.

I suspect your presenter is either suffering from the “That’s the way we have always done it” disease or the more common affliction of “I don’t know what I am talking about but will insist I am right.” It also could be a fatal case of “We are affiliated with a large university and must abide by arbitrary and inflexible rules that do not apply and no one understands.” Regardless, if they insist on having the artist sign the contract, I really don’t have a problem with that. In fact, in many ways, I actually prefer it as it eliminates the ability of an artist to come back to you later and claim they never approved the terms of the engagement. However, even if the contract is between the venue and the artist, the contract can still provide for you to receive all of the payments on behalf of the artist. Some battles aren’t worth fighting.

_________________________________________________________________

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

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

__________________________________________________________________

THE OFFICIAL DISCLAIMER:

THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE!

Tags:agent, Agreements, artist, booking agreement, breach, breaches, Brian Taylor, contract, damages, fiduciary duties, Goldstein, Liable, manager, payment, presenter, risk, university, venue
Posted in Agents, Artist Management, Arts Management, Contracts, Law and Disorder: Performing Arts Division, Liability, Venues | Comments Closed

The Lost Art of Negotiation

Thursday, June 12th, 2014

By Brian Taylor Goldstein, Esq.

Dear Law and Disorder:

A longtime friend who is also a very successful artist who I greatly respect, asked me to do a project with him. He sent me a contract, but it doesn’t cover things like when and how I get paid. I want to mark up the contract and suggest some language, but I also don’t want to offend him and have him think I am being too difficult to work with and ungrateful for this opportunity. Is there some specific language I can put in the contract that he won’t find offensive, but will still protect me?

I had a client of mine call me today about a contract she had sent to a promoter who then struck out a specific term that my client needed and sent the contract back to her. Frustrated and desperate to make the deal happen, she wanted me to suggest another way to phrase the term in such a way that the promoter would agree to it. Both you and my client are asking very legitimate questions, but the answers have little to do with contracts and everything to do with business and negotiation skills.

Contracts exist to memorialize an agreement. You can’t memorialize something that doesn’t exist yet. That’s like trying to take a photograph of a place you’ve never been. Before a contract can be properly drafted, much less signed, the parties have to discuss all of the key terms. While you can certainly use a contract to begin the discussion, you can’t avoid the discussion by simply crossing out terms you don’t like and inserting the ones you do. More importantly, there are no magic words, standard terms, or compelling phrases that will take the place of the need to discuss and negotiate.

Too many people in our industry try to use a contract to avoid negotiation—most often for the very reasons you mention: they are too scared of offending the other party, of not getting the terms they need, or of losing a deal or opportunity they really want. However, if you approach a negotiation as a game of deception in which the goal is to use illusive or even deceptively simplistic language or aggressive tactics to cajole the other party into agreeing to something unreasonable or something to your advantage which they would not otherwise agree to (ie: Lawyering 101), then you most certainly should expect the other side to be offended and deserve to lose the deal. On the other hand, if the other party is offended by a legitimate expression of your concerns, sincere questions about a specific term, or proposals that would clarify something you find confusing, then its probably either a deal you don’t want in the first place or a party you don’t want to work with. Just as importantly, if someone doesn’t agree with a term you want, they are not going to agree no matter how you phrase it. Phrasing the same thing in a different way isn’t going to help either. Even if you manage to word it in such a way that they can’t tell what they are agreeing to (what a lot of people refer to as “legalese”), then you’ll have to sue them to enforce it. Instead, you’ll either need to negotiate a compromise or evaluate whether or not the deal is equally advantageous to you without that term.

I have been to many purported lectures on negotiation at arts conferences, only to find that the lecture was really just about how to get presenters to book artists. That’s important, of course, but the real art of negotiation involves far more than discussing date, time and fee. Whether it is a commission, a booking, a production, or a recording, you must discuss and negotiate not just the artistic and logistical elements, but all of those nasty and boring business elements as well—such as liability, insurance, rights, licenses, approvals, exclusivity, taxes, visas, etc. If you are unfamiliar with the necessary business elements of a deal, the time to learn them is before you negotiate, not during the process.

A negotiation does not mean you will get what you want. Rather, a negotiation is a process that allows you to evaluate whether or not you will get what you need. Some opportunities are just that—opportunities—and a good opportunity may require you to accept some risk. But without taking the time to talk and discuss, you won’t have the information you need to access that risk properly. In other words, the negotiation process will save you from disappointment and frustration later on.

As for an answer to your specific question, I would say: Protect you from what? If your “longtime friend who is also a very successful artist who [you] greatly respect” breaches your contract, are you prepared to sue him? I thought not. I suggest you call your friend and ask him when and how you get paid. Don’t ever be scared to ask a legitimate question—especially when dealing with a friend. In the bi-polar cocktail of simultaneous love and resentment we call the arts world, doing business with friends demands an even higher degree of mindful discussion than doing business with strangers.

_________________________________________________________________

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

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

__________________________________________________________________

THE OFFICIAL DISCLAIMER:

THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE!

Tags:artist, attorney, breach, breaches, Brian Taylor, contract, Contracts, exclusivity, Goldstein, insurance, lawsuit, lawyer, license, music, negotiation, presenter, promoter, recording, risk, visas, work
Posted in Acts of God, Agents, Artist Management, Arts Management, Contracts, Copyrights, Insurance, Law and Disorder: Performing Arts Division, Liability, Licensing, Music Rights, Presenters, Publishing, Recordings, Taxes, Touring, Venues, Visas | Comments Closed

Hypothetically Speaking About Liability

Thursday, May 1st, 2014

By Brian Taylor Goldstein, Esq.

Dear Law and Disorder:

If a hypothetical rental company is hired, either by a venue or by the client using a venue, to supply the sound and/or video system for a corporate, non-profit or association event; and this hypothetical rental company is asked to provide “top 40” music to be used during “walk in”, dinner, award winner walks up to the stage, etc. where in the liability chain would this rental company be? What if the end client hands the hypothetical rental company a stack of CD’s or worse, a drive full of MP3’s and requests/insists that they be played? If “ultimately” the owner of the venue is responsible of verifying that proper licensing has been obtained but “everyone involved” is at risk of being named in a lawsuit if proper licensing has not been obtained, how does the vendor in the middle point to either the venue or the end client as the responsible parties? Is it enough to spell out specific language in the rental agreement? <sarcasm> I know that you are, no doubt, shocked to hear that this scenario might be possible. However, IF it were to become “common practice” among rental companies to happily play whatever they and/or their client wanted without so much as a hesitation, it would be difficult for any hypothetical rental company to compete if they were the one’s constantly harping on usage rights with their clients. </sarcasm>

In truth, I’m less shocked by the possibility of the scenario you propose than astonished—nay, agog—by your desire to be proactive about it—even hypothetically. It’s a welcome reprieve from the “let’s not call GG Arts Law until we’ve actually been sued by Disney” approach we are more familiar with.

Merely being named in a lawsuit doesn’t mean that you will necessarily be found responsible—or, as lawyers like to say “liable.” Liability requires that you had a duty to do, or not do, something which you did or did not do. In your hypothetical, its not entirely accurate to say that “ultimately the owner of the venue is responsible for verifying that the proper licensing has been obtained.” Rather, if licensing is required, everyone involved in the performance has a duty to make sure that the proper licenses are obtained—not just the owner of the venue, but the hypothetical rental company and the rental company’s client. Its more accurate to say that, while, ultimately, the owner of the venue is more likely to get sued, everyone involved could be held responsible.

However, you are correct that the hypothetical rental company can put language in its rental agreement that says that whomever is hiring the company (either the venue itself or the person renting the venue, or both) agrees to obtain all necessary licenses and, in the event the rental company is sued and found to be liable for copyright infringement, will cover all of its legal costs and expenses, as well as any damages it might be ordered to pay. The technical term for such a clause is “indemnification and hold harmless”, but there’s no need to use magic legal terms so long as the meaning is clear. While having such a clause in its rental agreement will neither protect the hypothetical rental company from getting sued nor protect it from being liable, it will give the company a contractual basis to turn to the party that signed the rental agreement and say “you agreed to take care of this problem. Fix it!”

Even with an indemnification and hold harmless clause in its pocket, whether or not the hypothetical rental company can happily play whatever it and/or its hypothetical client wanted without so much as a hesitation really depends on the venue where the company has been hired to provide services and where such venue lies on what I call the Risk-O-Meter. On the low end of the meter lies most for-profit venues (hotels, rental halls, restaurants, conference centers, etc) which more often than not will have obtained the necessary blanket licenses from the major performance rights organizations (ASCAP, BMI and SESAC) to permit that stack of CD’s or a drive full of MP3’s to be played. So, no worries. On the high end you will find the non-profit venues, schools, community centers, and social halls which either don’t know they are supposed to get performance licenses or incorrectly believe that because they are non-profit they are also non-commercial and are exempt from the statutes, rules, laws, and other social orders by which the rest of us must abide. (While not all commercial venues are non-profit, almost all non-profit venues are also commercial.) Your need to harp on usage rights is directly proportionate to where you lie on the Risk-O-Meter—hypothetically speaking, of course.

__________________________________________________________________

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

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

__________________________________________________________________

THE OFFICIAL DISCLAIMER:

THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE!

Tags:ascap, bmi, Brian Taylor, CD, copyright, copyright infringement, damages, Goldstein, hotels, lawsuit, Liable, license, Licensing, necessary licenses, performance license, performance rights, proper licenses, risk, sesac, venue
Posted in Artist Management, Arts Management, Contracts, Copyrights, For Profits, Law and Disorder: Performing Arts Division, Liability, Licensing, Music Rights, Non-Profits, Presenters, Publishing, Recordings, Venues | Comments Closed

Does Background Music Require A Dramatic License?

Thursday, April 3rd, 2014

By Brian Taylor Goldstein, Esq.

Dear Law and Disorder:

I have written a one-man show. Do I need to get a dramatic license for background music?

Just to make sure we’re all on the same page, let’s review:

In order for music to be “performed” (either live or via a recording) in a public place, there needs to be a “performance license.” Most often, these licenses are obtained from one of the performance rights organizations (ASACP, BMI or SESAC) and, most often, they are obtained by the theater, concert hall, or venue where the performance is taking place.

In order to perform music “dramatically”—that is, to use a composition as an integral part of a story or plot, or to interpret the composition dramatically, such as through the use of movement, costumes, and props—you must obtain a “dramatic license.” Most often, these licenses are obtained by the composer or producer of the dramatic work.

In short, you will always need a performance license to “perform” music. Whether or not you also need to obtain a “dramatic license” depends on the context of how you are using the composition. These contextual distinctions can be articulated as follows: if you plan to stand and perform, you only need a performance license. If, on the other hand, your performance involves sets and costumes and you will be performing the composition to help tell a story, develop a character, or interpret the composition, you will need both a dramatic license as well as a performance license.

In your case, your answer depends on what you mean by “background music.” If the music is being used purely to create a mood or theme and could easily be replaced with other music with a similar mood or theme (ie: “insert disco music here” or “play something peppy here”), then you only need a performance license. If, on the other hand, your show requires a specific work to be performed in the background at a specific time to help you dramatically convey a specific emotion or event in your narrative (ie: “Somewhere Over The Rainbow” plays in the background while you tell the story of the tornado that dropped a house on your sister), and the thought of replacing that work with anything else renders you heartsick and artistically impotent, then you need a dramatic license.

If you plan on re-recording the works (or recording your own performance), changing the orchestrations, or otherwise making any significant changes or adaptations other than those written by the composer, other licenses may be required as well. As a general rule of thumb, when using any creative material you did not create yourself, its always safest to ask first and use later.

_________________________________________________________________

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

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

__________________________________________________________________

THE OFFICIAL DISCLAIMER:

THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE!

Tags:artist, bmi, Brian Taylor, composer, composition, dance, dramatic license, Goldstein, music, orchestrations, performance license, performance rights, recording, sesac, venue
Posted in Artist Management, Arts Management, Copyrights, Law and Disorder: Performing Arts Division, Music Rights, Publishing, Venues | Comments Closed

What’s The New Normal In Contract Practice?

Thursday, March 20th, 2014

By Brian Taylor Goldstein, Esq.

Dear Law and Disorder:

What’s the new “normal” in reviewing and exchanging contracts? We are receiving an increasing number of contracts that had been issued as PDF files coming back as word files or even revised PDF files which means I have to read every single line of the agreement (along with an original version open beside it) in order to approve what is essentially a new version of the instrument we painstakingly crafted. Isn’t the presenter obligated to sign what we send or at least tell us they are amending our contract? We scratching our heads trying to understand what constitutes the “new normal” in contract practice.

I am the last person to proclaim what is and what is not “normal”. Normal is boring. Normal lacks imagination. Normal is not what the arts are all about. Nonetheless, when it comes to contract practice, many people in our industry continue to look for rigidity in a process that is intended to be quite fluid.

When you send a contract to another party, regardless of how brilliantly or painstakingly crafted the contract may be, you are sending them a “proposal” of the terms for their review. After all, unless you’re working within the structure of a pre-negotiated collective bargaining agreement, negotiating the terms of an engagement is not merely about agreeing on the date, time, and fee. Everything about the engagement is negotiable as well: insurance, force majeure terms, technical requirements, warranties, licenses, recording rights, approvals, publicity restrictions, exclusivity, cancellation, taxes, visas, etc.

While, as a general rule, a contract should never be presented until both sides have at least agreed to all of the most important terms, there are bound to be additional terms and requirements that were not discussed—and even if they were discussed, chances are the wording or phraseology in the contract may or may not comport with a party’s understanding of what was agreed upon. The contract is the way to present and memorialize all of the additional terms that are important to the engagement, but may not have been clearly discussed at the outset. Many people call all of these additional term “legalese” or “boilerplate” terms, but, remember, nothing is standard…everything is negotiable. Even if you find yourself in the enviable position of being able to say “take it or leave it”, no one is ever obligated to agree to anything. As a result, unless you have somehow managed to discuss and agree upon each and every term ahead of time, the presentation of a contract is often how the negotiation continues, not ends.

Both professional courtesy and common sense would suggest that, before anyone starts making contractual amendments, the party proposing or requesting such changes should bring them to the other party’s attention either by highlighting them or discussing them ahead of time. While marking up a contract with handwritten comments has long been the practice, technology makes it relatively easy to take a PDF, format it into an editable word document, and make changes. However, most word processing programs also allow you to “compare” two documents. So, rather than having to painstakingly read every single line of an agreement, you can just as easily ask your word processing program to compare the old and new versions and it will automatically highlight all of the changes for you.

Personally, because my handwriting often looks like a headless chicken ran through a puddle of ink, I love being able to make changes and edits directly to the text of a contract. However, I then use my word processing program to compare the old version with my version, rename the document, and send it to the other party with all of my proposed changes clearly marked. I also like to add a watermark that says “draft” on each page. Its only when all the terms have been agreed upon by all the parties that is time to remove the watermark, PDF the document, and get everyone to sign it.

________________________________________________________________

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

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

__________________________________________________________________

THE OFFICIAL DISCLAIMER:

THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE!

Tags:amendments, boilerplate, Brian Taylor, contract, Contracts, exclusivity, force majeure, Goldstein, insurance, license, music, negotiation, presenter, publicity, Review
Posted in Agents, Artist Management, Arts Management, Contracts, Law and Disorder: Performing Arts Division, Presenters, Venues | Comments Closed

Rattle Sabers, Not Contracts

Thursday, February 27th, 2014

By Brian Taylor Goldstein, Esq.

Dear Law and Disorder

We recently had a presenter call us and cancel an engagement “due to inclement weather” because the company’s flight was canceled and they could not arrive the day before the performance as required. The company offered to fly the next day and arrive on the afternoon of the performance. However, the presenter expressed that they were not comfortable with this because they felt the company would not arrive at the theater in time to run a tech with their team and also had the fear that the company would not arrive in time to perform. The engagement contract has a Force Majeure clause that says:

In the event that the performance of any of the covenants of this agreement on the part of the Company or the Presenter shall be prevented by…act of God, illness, physical disability, acts or regulations of public authorities or labor unions, labor difficulties, strike, war, epidemic, interruption or delay of transportation service, or any other causes beyond the reasonable control of such party, such party shall be relieved of its obligations thereunder with respect to the Performance(s) so prevented on account of such cause. If the Performance(s) shall be prevented due to a Force Majeure event, neither the Company nor the Presenter shall be under any obligation to present the Performance at a different time, except that if the Performance(s) shall be prevented for any of the foregoing causes, the Presenter shall use its best efforts to re-engage the Company within a twenty-four (24) month period on the same terms and conditions set forth herein, subject however to Company’s availability…In the event that the performance is cancelled due to Force Majeure on the Artist’s behalf, all deposit monies will be returned to Presenter. In the event that the Presenter cancels the performance for any reason other than those described in the preceding paragraph, then the Presenter is responsible for the full fee.

Do we have to return the deposit since the company was willing to fly in the next day, but Presenter decided to cancel anyway? Can we ask for the full fee? We have not yet spoken to the Presenter, but wanted to be forearmed before we do so we can stand our ground.

“Forearmed” for what? Has the Presenter asked for the deposit back? Are you planning on initiating this “battle”? A contract is a tool, not a weapon to be rattled like a sabre. If you approach this as a “battle”, here’s how it will likely play out:

Presenter: Great to see you at APAP. Thanks for the drinks. I’m afraid we’re going to need the deposit back because the artists couldn’t get here due to weather. The force majeur was theirs.

Manager: But they were willing and able to come the next day. You didn’t want to take that risk. So, you cancelled. In fact, you owe us the rest of the performance fee. And, thanks for the birthday card. That cat was adorable.

Presenter: It’s industry standard for the deposit to be returned when there is a cancellation due to weather.

Manager: But you cancelled and its industry standard that the artist gets paid if the presenter cancels.

Presenter: The company’s flight was cancelled because of the snow. That’s a force majeur.

Manager: The weather prevented the artist from arriving the day before the concert. They could have arrived on the day of the performance. You didn’t want them, so you cancelled and the contract says if you cancel we get to keep the deposit and you owe the full fee.

Presenter: But that’s not industry standard

Manager: It’s what’s in the contract.

Presenter: We were forced to cancel the performance and refund the tickets, which didn’t sell that well anyway. I just didn’t want to say anything about that earlier because of our good relationship. We can’t take those kinds of losses. We are a non-profit.

Manager: The artist had losses, too. And if you weren’t selling tickets, then you should have told me sooner so I could help with the marketing. If you had marketed better, the show sells itself.

Presenter: No show sells itself. Did I mention we are a non-profit?

Manager: We can’t give the deposit back and the company can’t afford to take a loss on this tour. It’s not their fault it snowed.

Presenter: It’s not our fault either, which is why we need the deposit back.

Manager: I spoke with an attorney and we will have to turn this over to legal counsel if we have to. It not personal.

Presenter: I understand. This isn’t personal on my end either, but we have a free attorney on our board and they will sue you to get our money back…and I won’t ever hire any artist on your roster again.

Manager: Fine

Presenter: Fine

…and scene…

Unless you are dealing with the cancellation of the road tour of “Spiderman”, neither of the parties will…or should…be willing to spend the money, time, and energy necessary to sue each other, so they will just stew over this, avoid each other at conferences, and write nasty things about each other on social platforms.

The point of having an engagement agreement, or any contract, much less as force majeure clause, is to identify problems ahead of time and articulate in advance how disputes will be resolved. In your case, based on the engagement agreement, both parties knew that, in the event of snow or other unforeseeable issues, either could be facing losses they might not be able to recover. A force majeure operates like an “excuse.” It gives each party the right to cancel under certain conditions without having such cancellation become a breach. However, because it isn’t a breach, neither party is going to emerge unscathed. Someone is either going to have lost out-of-pocket costs they can’t recover, or a deposit they can’t get back, or both. However, knowing this, hopefully, allows you to budget and plan for various eventualities.

In this scenario, the phrase “due to Force Majeure on the Artist’s behalf” isn’t really defined. However, a reasonable interpretation is that the cancellation of the artist’s flight constituted a force majeur event on the part of the artists—in other words, it was their flight that was cancelled. The fact that the artists were willing to travel on the day of the performance was a reasonable solution, but it was just as reasonable for the presenter not to want to take that risk. The more important issue is that the engagement agreement requires the presenter to use its “best efforts” to try and re-book the date within the next two years. That’s the first place to start. If you can find a mutually agreeable date, problem solved—you keep the deposit and they presenter pays the balance of the fee after the next performance date. (No, you can’t ask for a higher fee if it’s the same performance!) If you can’t find a date within the next two years, then its reasonable for the artist to keep the deposit, but the presenter not to have to pay the remaining fee. “Reasonable” doesn’t mean that everyone will agree or be happy. “Reasonable” usually means that everyone walks away with less than what they wanted, but more than there were probably entitled to, which, for me, is a much better solution any day than mutually assured self-destruction.

_________________________________________________________________

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

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

__________________________________________________________________

THE OFFICIAL DISCLAIMER:

THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE!

Tags:act of god, artist, attorney, breach, Brian Taylor, cancellation, contract, Contracts, dispute, engagement contract, force majeure, Goldstein, interpretation, lawsuit, losses, manager, marketing, presenter, reasonable solution, risk, Tour, travel
Posted in Agents, Artist Management, Arts Management, Contracts, Law and Disorder: Performing Arts Division, Non-Profits, Presenters, Touring, Venues | Comments Closed

What Do You Mean I Need To PAY For Music?

Thursday, January 23rd, 2014

By Brian Taylor Goldstein, Esq.

Greetings,

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

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

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

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

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

__________________________________________________________________

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

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

__________________________________________________________________

THE OFFICIAL DISCLAIMER:

THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE!

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

Back Away From The Email!

Wednesday, December 4th, 2013

By Brian Taylor Goldstein, Esq.

Dear Law and Disorder

I recently had to cancel an engagement. We had a signed contract with the venue, but circumstances arose where we had no choice. I sent a very cordial and professional email to the venue, but got a very threatening and aggressive response. I wrote back and explained our situation, then I received a nasty email from the venue’s attorney threatening to sue us. This doesn’t seem very professional to me. We could have worked this out and now they are demanding either a written assurance that we will perform or else they will sue us for damages.

In an industry that depends on relationships and communication, email, more often than not, facilitates neither. Too many folks use email as convenient way to avoid what they perceive will be difficult or unpleasant conversations. What you perceived as a “cordial” and “professional” email may have been misread as dismissive and aggressive. Why? Because emails cannot convey tone or emotion or sincerity.

This is yet another example of why everything I needed to learn, I learned in theater. Emails are like scripts. Without an actor or stage directions to assist in interpreting them, they are just words on a page and subject to multiple interpretations and readings. “I loved your performance” can be read equally with deep sincerity or with eye-rolling sarcasm. Even something as simple as “I’ll respond as soon as I can” could be interpreted as “This isn’t important enough to me to demand my immediate attention.” Especially when you are delivering information you know the listener will not be receptive to hear, don’t be surprised when they do not give you the benefit of the doubt. Emails are great tools for confirming information or clarifying understandings, but lousy for any communication that calls for nuance or delicacy at the outset.

In this situation, if you had a signed engagement agreement, then you probably had no right to cancel. Thus, regardless of legitimacy of your circumstances, a cancellation is a breach of contract. Using an email to notify someone that you intend to breach your contract is like texting your wife that you want a divorce. How did you expect them to respond? It was unrealistic to think that your missive would be met with joyous rapture and a “thank you” note.

However, the venue is equally as culpable in the escalation. When the venue received your email, they could just as easily have responded with a phone call rather than respond with their own email. Certainly, when you received the venue’s angry response, you could have used that as an opportunity to reach out to them with a personal phone call rather than yet another email. There is no guarantee that a personal phone call would have resulted in a better outcome, but more often than not the sound of a plaintive voice acknowledging responsibility accompanied by contrite offers of reasonable solutions will offer both parties better odds of avoiding unproductive conflict. You can always follow up with an email after you have had a chance to make a personal connection.

_________________________________________________________________

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

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

__________________________________________________________________

THE OFFICIAL DISCLAIMER:

THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE!

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

Musical America Blogs

Archive for the ‘Venues’ Category

Whose Lawsuit Is It Anyway?

The Recipe For Confusion

But I Don’t Want To Be A Producer!

The Lost Art of Negotiation

Hypothetically Speaking About Liability

Does Background Music Require A Dramatic License?

What’s The New Normal In Contract Practice?

Rattle Sabers, Not Contracts

What Do You Mean I Need To PAY For Music?

Back Away From The Email!

Blogs

Archives

Meta