Posts Tagged ‘excerpts’

Press “Pause” On That Recording

Thursday, October 29th, 2015

By Brian Taylor Goldstein, Esq.   

Dear Law and Disorder

In reviewing an engagement contract for one of my artists, I was surprised to see that the presenter wants the right to record the artist’s performance as a “work-for-hire”. The Presenter says that this is a standard requirement and also that its reasonable because my artist is protected by language in the contract that says: “In no event shall Producer have the right to exploit the recordings and/or an audiovisual program in connection therewith in any other manner other than non-commercial, educational and/or charitable uses or exhibitions without Artist’s prior written approval and without a separate agreement, negotiated in good faith with respect to any such uses or exploitation thereof.” Is this standard these days? Should I advise the artist to agree to this?

Standard for whom? As I have said, and will keep repeating until someone listens, no terms are “standard”—not recording rights, nor commissions, nor exclusivity restrictions, nor unilateral cancellation rights, nor any other nonsense which parties like to throw at one another under the banner of “standard.”

While, ultimately, it’s your artist’s decision, not yours, you should advise your artist not to agree to the language the presenter has proposed. The proposed language reflects a common mistaken belief within the performing arts part of the entertainment industry that so long as you don’t sell a recording, then all other uses are inherently “non-commercial.” However, particularly in the classical world where a classical recording hasn’t actually generated a profit since the release of “Fantasia”, no one really “sells” recordings anymore—at least, not for a profit. This means that, except in limited situations, there really are no practical uses or exhibitions for recordings other than “non-commercial, educational and/or charitable uses or exhibitions.” This further means that if you were to agree to the proposed terms, the presenter could do just about anything they wanted with your artist’s recording. Their proposed “protection” is meaningless.

Just because a recording isn’t sold, is unprofitable, is used for education, or is used by a non-profit organization does not make it inherently “non-commercial” or valueless. A recording still has value. Using a recording to promote the presenter or further a presenter’s mission provides value to the presenter which the presenter has not paid for. Otherwise, why does the presenter want it in the first place? Presenters need to stop believing that just because they engage an artist and pay for the artist’s performance then that also includes the right to record the artist’s performance and “own” the recording. In the real world, you only get what you pay for. When you buy a car, does it come with a chauffeur? It’s not merely presumptuous, but it completely demeans the value of the artist’s work—which, quite frankly, happens all too often these days by the same parties who should know better.

In addition, an artist always needs to be able to control how the artist is seen and heard. A poor recording of a brilliant performance could have devastating impact on an artist—particular a young or developing artist. Even a good recording, if released in its entirety, could limit an artist’s ability to release a recording of the same work in the future if it has already been made available for free.

While I generally have no objection to a recording being made, it’s the uses of and rights to the recording that need to clearly defined—and limited. First and foremost, unless the engagement fee includes an additional fee for “ownership” of the recording or the opportunity to perform with a particularly presenter is of such magnitude as to provide additional value to the artist, then the whole concept of a “work for hire” should be off the table. Instead, if anything, the presenter should only be able to use limited excerpts of the recording for limited purposes. Just as importantly, the artist should be always able to approve any recording to make sure that the artist is pleased both with her performance as well as with the quality of the recording itself. Third, whatever rights are granted to the presenter in an artist’s recording, should be granted to the artist as well. If the presenter gets the right to make and use a recording, then the artist should get a copy for the artist’s own promotional and marketing purposes as well. Any restrictions or approvals should be mutual.

__________________________________________________________________

For additional information and resources on this and otherGG_logo_for-facebook legal, 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 Artist Management, Contracts, Copyrights, Law and Disorder: Performing Arts Division, Music Rights, Recordings | Comments Closed

Understanding Legalese

Thursday, May 28th, 2015

By Brian Taylor Goldstein, Esq.   

Dear Law and Disorder:

Every time someone sends us a contract, its always a lengthy document with lots of legalese that no one understands. Is there anything wrong with having a simple, one page agreement that everyone can easily understand and will sign?

A lot of people mistake “legalese” for language and terms they either don’t understand or haven’t considered. They see words on a page and immediately assume they can’t possible understand them.

This is legalese:

The party of the first part, which party has previously and hereinafter shall continue to be referred to as the Presenting Party, in and for the mutual obligations, conveyances, and other considerations contained herein, the sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, does for itself and on behalf of its officers, directors, employees, agents, and assigns (hereinafter the “Presenting Parties”), which the Presenting Party does herein attest, warrant, and represent that it has the authority so to represent and bind under the terms of this agreement, does herein and hereby concur, agree, and consent to prohibit, prevent, proscribe and preclude, so the best of its reasonable ability, the degree and extent of such “reasonability” to be determined herein as the term “reasonable” is defined in this Agreement hereunder, the recording and/or memorialization through any and all visual and/or audio and/or audio-visual means and methodologies now existing or hereinafter discovered, invented, or devised, including, but not limited to photography, analog and digital sound recordings, videotaping, screen captures, and any other human or machine-readable medium, the performance of the party of the second part, which party has previously and hereinafter shall continue to be referred to as the Performing Party, including, but not limited to, the performance or any portion of the performance of the Performing Party, including, but not limited to, excerpts, samplings, moments, movements, scenes, rehearsals, outtakes, or other manifestations of the performance or any portion of the performance of the Performing Party, for any purposes of any kind or nature, including, but not limited to…well, you get the idea.   

 This is not:

The Presenter agrees to prevent any unauthorized broadcasting, photographing, recording, or any other transmission or reproduction of any performance(s) or residency activity of the Artist, or any part thereof, by any means or media now known or hereafter invented, including, but not limited to audio, visual, or audio-visual means, and including any “archival” recordings, unless the express prior written consent of the Artist has been obtained.

The difference is that the first example uses unnecessary verbiage, poor grammar, and confusing structure. The second example just has a lot of detail. Don’t confuse “legalese” with “detail.” Whereas you don’t want legalese, you do want detail. Why? Because the whole point of a written document memorializing the terms of an agreement (also known as a “written contract”) is to convey information—not just to have a piece of paper that everyone signs.

Too many people want contracts that are “simple” and “brief” so that the parties will sign them, but that’s pointless. Merely having a signed contract does not mean that an engagement won’t get canceled, that commissions will get paid, artists won’t leave, or that any number of nasty things won’t happen to you. Signed contracts are not self-enforcing. If a dispute arises that cannot otherwise be resolved, the only way to enforce the terms of a contract is with a lawsuit. Lawsuits, as you know, achieve nothing other than making trial lawyers ecstatically happy and wealthy. No one in the performing arts can afford that, either personally or professionally. You don’t want to wait until a dispute arises to find out that you and the other party had vastly different assumptions about what was and was not expected and allowed. Instead, you want to make sure that everyone understands all of the aspects of a project or engagement at the outset and, hopefully, can discuss and evaluate the risks, challenges, advantages, obligations, and expectations of the relationship before they agree to it. In other words, you use a contract to educate, not to enforce.

What determines the length of a contract is the complexity of the project or engagement itself. An agreement for a single artist to perform a single recital is going to be shorter than an agreement for an orchestra to perform a world tour. Similarly, an assignment or transfer of all rights is going to be less complex than a recording agreement or an agreement to re-orchestrate an existing work.

Our industry is blessed with amazingly creative and dynamic professionals who are second to none when it comes to creating imaginative collaborations and engaging performances. However, they become slightly less than stellar when it comes to understanding the business and legal arrangements necessary to effectuate these plans. It’s one thing to discuss dates, repertoire, scheduling, and fees. It’s quite another to consider all of the various details, challenges, and misunderstandings that might come into play: will music or other copyrighted materials need to be licensed? If so, whose responsibility is this? Can either party cancel? Under what circumstances? What if someone gets sick or there is a fire at the venue? Who bears the loss of expenses cannot be recovered? Who is responsible if an artist is injured? Who is responsible for someone in the audience gets hurt? Who is responsible if an artist or crew member damages property of the venue? Who is responsible if someone from the venue damages property of the artist or show? Will visas be required for any artist? Whose responsibility is this? Is the engagement fee to be paid in dollars, pound sterling, euros, or other currency? Which exchange rate will apply? Who is responsible for taxes? Are deposits non-refundable?

This is where a contract comes into play. Yes, it takes time to create and read all of this detail. However, a detailed contract can be filled with all sorts of interesting and mutually beneficial revelations. For example, when recently negotiating the terms of an engagement for one of our own artists, I presented our engagement contract to the presenter—which contains a clause, much like the one above, prohibiting any recordings, including archival recordings. The presenter wanted to make an archival recording and assumed, incorrectly, that these were always permitted. We were able to find a workable solution and adjusted the contract accordingly. We also discovered that while the presenter had not factored in meals and transportation into the budget, we had misunderstood when the presenter actually wanted the artist to arrive. We were able to adjust all of these issues, none of which would have been discovered had we not taken the time to think through all of the various details. In the end, it didn’t matter whether or not the contract was even signed because going through the process itself allowed the presenter and I to discuss all of the details. The contract served its purpose.

In short, a more detailed contract that makes people stop and say “wait, I didn’t agree to that” or “what exactly do you mean by this?” is far better than an artificially simplistic one that everyone signs now and then squabbles about later whilst lashing out such cherished and time-worn drivel as “but that’s industry standard” or “that’s the way its always done.”

_________________________________________________________________

For additional information and resources on this and otherGG_logo_for-facebook legal, 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 Agents, Artist Management, Arts Management, Contracts, Copyrights, Insurance, Law and Disorder: Performing Arts Division, Licensing, Music Rights, Presenters, Touring, Venues | Comments Closed

“Fair Use” Just Isn’t Fair!

Wednesday, May 29th, 2013

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

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

Dad, May I Borrow the Car?

Wednesday, February 13th, 2013

By Brian Taylor Goldstein, Esq.

Dear Law and Disorder: May we borrow music for an orchestral performance from another organization that purchased this music, but is currently not using it?

When you write that the other organization “purchased this music”, do you mean that they actually purchased all performance rights to the music or merely purchased the score and parts? Did they actually purchase the score and parts or merely rent them?

When it comes to copyrights and performance rights, “physical” possession of an artistic work does not inherently include any rights to the work other than the right to own it and possess it. For example, when you purchase a copy of Harry Potter, you get the right to read it, enjoy it, and place it on your bookshelf. If you like, you can even lend it to a friend or sell your used copy at a flea market. However, purchasing a copy of the book does not give you the right to perform it, interpret it dramatically, make a movie out it, copy and re-print excerpts, or do anything other than enjoy it. Similarly, when you purchase a painting from a gallery, you are purchasing the right to hang it on your wall and enjoy it. Like a book, you can also lend it to a friend or museum, or even re-sell it—but you do not have the right to make copies of it, alter it, post images on your website, use it as your logo, or do anything other than look at it. Those rights must be obtained separately.

Purchasing music works much the same way. The physical ownership of sheet music does not also give you the rights to perform it. Those rights must be obtained separately from the composer or publisher—or, if the composer is a member of a performing rights society (ASCAP, BMI, or SESAC) then you can obtain licenses through the society. So, in your scenario, assuming the other organization purchased the score and parts, then they have the right to loan you the music, but if you want to perform it, then you will need to obtain your own performance rights and licenses. Assuming they only rented the score and parts, then they don’t have the right to loan it to you in the first place. That would be like an illegal sub-let.

Borrowing music is like borrowing a car. First, you have to make sure that the person loaning you the car actually has the right to loan it to you in the first place. (Just because they have the keys, doesn’t mean they own the car.) Second, even if you are allowed to borrow the car, if you want to drive it, you’ll still have to pay for your own gas.

_________________________________________________________________

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

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

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

__________________________________________________________________

THE OFFICIAL DISCLAIMER:

THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE!

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

Tags:, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Arts Management, Copyrights, Law and Disorder: Performing Arts Division, Licensing, Music Rights, Publishing | Comments Closed