Posts Tagged ‘Festival’

What In The World Is Going On With Artist Visas as of March 7, 2017?

Saturday, March 11th, 2017

By Brian Taylor Goldstein, Esq.

Here we go again…

On March 6, 2017, President Trump issued a new Executive Order regarding US immigration to replace the previous Executive Order of January 27, 2017. The new Order takes effect on March 16, 2017 and expressly revokes the January 27, 2017 Order (which had been subject to a court issued temporary restraining order anyway.) The new Order…

  • Bans immigrant and nonimmigrant entries for citizens of six designated countries – Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen – for at least 90 days beginning on March 16, 2017. The new Order no longer includes Iraqi nationals in the 90-day travel ban.
  • Exempts certain categories of people, including lawful permanent residents (US “Green Card” holders), current US visa holders, and dual nationals traveling on a passport from a country that is not one of the six designated countries.
  • Confirms that no visa issued before March 16, 2017 will be revoked as a result of the Order, and that any individual with a revoked or cancelled visa as a result of the prior, January 27, 2017 Order is entitled to a travel document for travel and entry to the US. After March 16, 2017, nationals from the list of six countries will no longer receive visas, even if they have been approved for visas by USCIS.
  • Allows for exceptions and case-by-case waivers.
  • Provides that after 90 days, the citizens of these countries can be permanently banned.
  • Provides that the Secretary of State, Attorney General or Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security can at any time recommend that additional countries be added to the list or taken off of the list.
  • Immediately suspends the Visa Interview Waiver Program (VIWP) and effectively mandates in-person interviews for all nonimmigrant visa applicants.
  • Mandates heightened vetting and screening procedures at all levels of the immigration process, particularly immigrants and non-immigrants “who seek to enter the United States on a fraudulent basis.”

While there are other portions of the new Order that impact other areas of immigration, our main focus is on how all of this applies to artists and the Performing Arts. In the case of the new Executive Order, its actually the last two provisions which will have the most widespread impact on foreign artists. Here’s what you need to know:

HEIGHTENED VETTING AND SCREENING PROCEDURES AT ALL LEVELS OF THE IMMIGRATION PROCESS:   

It means that when seeking an O or P visa, regardless of the nationality of an artist, artists  may encounter additional scrutiny and delays at each stage of the process—from  petitioning USCIS for visa approval, to consulates issuing visas, to Immigration Officer’s admitting artists at the border. This applies to artists from any country in the world.

Given that the new Order specifically requires heightened vetting and screening of those “who seek to enter the United States on a fraudulent basis”, there is going to be even  more scrutiny and less forgiveness than ever before with regard to artists attempting to enter the US on visitor visas (B-1/B-2) or through the Visa Waiver Program (“ESTA”). We are already receiving reports of artists being held and detained for hours  upon entering the US to determine whether or not they are performing. Even artists  entering as visitors for the purpose of attending a conference or “performing a showcase” are being pulled aside and, in many cases, being refused entry. Artists entering with B- 1/B-2 visas or through the Visa Waiver Program (ESTA) are being pulled aside the  moment they say that they are “entertainers”, “performers”, or “artists.”

When an individual is held and detained, they are subject to interrogation as well as  demands to inspect their cell phones, luggage, and personal items. Any refusals can be groups for a refused entry, which will then stay on an artist’s record impeding future  visas and travel.

Everyone needs to understand and accept that: Artists cannot perform on visitor visas  (B-1/B-2) or through the Visa Waiver Program (“ESTA”) regardless of whether or   not they are being paid and regarding of whether or not tickets are sold. Except in   the most narrowly defined circumstances, US immigration law has always defined  “work” as it pertains to artists, as any kind of performance. Artists denied entry on the basis of fraud, will have a denied entry on their record, impeding future visas and travel.

Some presenters and venues in the US—particularly festivals and academic institutions  continue to advise artists that O and P visas are not required if an artist is not being paid  and/or if the performance is part of a training program. This is incorrect and always has been.

In addition, while artists with O and P visas, on the average, seem to be experiencing less trouble, even O and P visa holders, as well as green card holders, are being held and  detained in instances where an Immigration Officer believes they are citizens of or traveling from ANY country in the world whom they believe could pose a threat to the  US.

In short (I know, too late), an Immigration Officer has the unfettered authority and  discretion to deny entry to any artist from any nationality for any reason. To what   extent this authority will be exercised remains to be seen.

THE SUSPENSION OF THE VISA INTERVIEW WAIVER PROGRAM (VIWP) 

While it has always been subject to the discretion of each consulate, the VIWP allowed consular officers to waive the interview requirement for applicants seeking to renew nonimmigrant O and P visas within 12 months of expiration of the initial visa in the same classification. The VIWP has been used to waive the interview requirement only for travelers who have already been vetted and determined to be a low security risk and who have a demonstrated track record of stable employment and stable travel.

By suspending the program, all artists will be required to have a personal interview in order to receive a new visa regardless of when their last O or P visa was issued or whether or not they were previously allowed to receive a visa under the VIWP.

Until additional consular staff is hired, Order will place enormous burdens on U.S. consulates and embassies – particularly high-volume consulates – by increasing already extended interview wait times and processing times, wasting limited resources, and potentially decreasing the quality of consular interviews.

HOW DOES THE NEW ORDER IMPACT ARTISTS FROM THE 6 BANNED COUNTRIES (IRAN, LIBYA, SOMALIA, SUDAN, SYRIA, AND YEMEN?  

  • If the artist is a citizen of one of those countries, but already has a US visa or Green Card, then “officially” the ban does not apply to them. However, they should still expect “heightened vetting and screening procedures.” Also, once their visas expire, they will need to leave the US and will not be eligible for new ones.
  • If an artist from one of these countries has not yet been issued a visa by March 16, 2017, they are not going to get one. This includes students.
  • If an artist who is citizen of one of these countries is also a citizen of another country not on the list (for example, a citizen of both Iran and Canada), they WILL be allowed to receive visas and travel to the US PROVIDED the visa is stamped into the passport from the non-banned country and they only travel on the passport from the non-banned country. However, they should still expect “heightened vetting and screening procedures.”
  • The Order does not apply to artists who may have been born in one of the banned countries, but who are no longer citizens. However, they should still expect “heightened vetting and screening procedures.”
  • The Order does not apply to artists who may have been merely visited or performed in one of the banned countries. However, they should still expect “heightened vetting and screening procedures.”

WHAT DO WE RECOMMEND?

  •  All artists, regardless of nationality, she travel to the US with copies of their I-797 visa approval notices and maintain such copies, along with copies of their visas, on their person at all times while in the US. In addition to US Immigration Customs and Enforcement (ICE), state and local police can also demand proof of valid immigration status at any time while an artist is in the US.
  • Artists from all countries should not attempt to enter the US on visitor visas (B-1/B-2) or through the Visa Waiver Program (“ESTA”) except in the most narrow of circumstances. For example, performing at a booking conference (Arts Midwest, PAE, APAP, etc.) where only registered attendees are permitted to attend or performing at a competition or non-public audition are still permitted in visitor status. However, whether or not an Immigration Officer will continue to understand and accept these exceptions remains to be seen. In such instances, make sure such an artist is properly advised ahead of time and travels with extensive supporting evidence.
  • Plan well in advance when submitted visa petitions to USCIS and allow for extra time for US consulates to issue visas.
  • Review an artist’s prior travel to the US to make sure they have not engaged in any un-authorized performances and, if so, plan accordingly.
  • Artists should bring snacks when traveling into the US in case they are held or detained as there is no food available. We recommend beef jerky. But not hummus.
  • Plan and prepare, not panic.

As our office continues to address issues and implications on the front lines, we are relying upon the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA), The League of American Orchestras, the US Performing Arts Task Force, and other vital organizations who continue to monitor and report on the situation at all levels. AILA does not believe the new Order will withstand judicial scrutiny since the targeted countries are majority Muslim and the Order fails to provide evidence that nationals of the six countries pose a threat to national security.

As the rules can change at any time, it is critical that you consistently check with reliable sources (ie: not chat rooms or random google searches) for updates and developments before making any travel decisions, applying for visas, or booking foreign artists. We recommend:

1) www.artistsfromabroad.org

2) The USCIS website: www.uscis.gov

3) The US Department of State website: www.travel.state.gov

4) The US Customs and Border Patrol website: www.cbp.gov

5) The American Immigration Lawyers Association (www.aila.org)  

___________________________________________________________________

For additional information and resources on this and other 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. 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 Law and Disorder: Performing Arts Division, Touring, Visas | Comments Closed

Who Has To Pay The Likes of ASCAP, BMI, Etc?

Thursday, February 18th, 2016

By Brian Taylor Goldstein, Esq.   

I haven’t found an example that matches the situation of a 501(c)(3) I am familiar with. They throw a once-yearly art festival that spans a weekend (2days). They don’t charge the public any admittance. They raise money by charging fees for booth (10×10) spaces for (visual) arts vendors to sell their merchandise. They raise money for: their operating expenses, student art scholarships, member art scholarships, honoraria for program presenters at meetings, a fund for a permanent “home” for the 501c3 where they can hold meetings and store various gear for the meetings between times. They also have an open air music stage at that festival where local musicians perform. The musicians are paid under $150.00 for a 2 hour performance that includes 5 minutes each for set-up, a break, and stage clear-off. Most, but not all of the pieces performed are written by the performers. The “audience” is anyone who wanders by and stays to listen for a while. So, who, if anyone, has to pay fees to the likes of ASCAP, BMI, etc.?

It sounds like the 501(c)(3) organization in your scenario is trying to raise money for some very admirable and worthy goals: art scholarships, arts education, and even providing a place for local musicians to perform. In fact, these goals sound so worthy that I’m sure you wouldn’t object to the organization using your house for meetings or taking your car whenever they needed it to transport students to art classes, all without your permission and without paying you any fees. While you might be more than willing to donate your home or car on occasion, my suspicion is that you’d at least like to be asked first. As a general rule, the involuntary donation of other’s property without their permission—even if it’s for a really good cause—is also called “stealing.”

A musical composition—just like a home 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 U.S. 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; including the right to determine whether or not to donate the use of the composition for a worthy cause or project.

This means that any time a musical composition is performed live or a recording of the composition is played—whether it’s at a theater, concert hall, or out-door street festival (for-profit or non-profit)—“someone” needs to obtain the composer’s permission and, in most cases, pay a usage fee called a “Performance License.” ASCAP, BMI and SESAC are not roving bands of brigands waiting to pounce on unsuspecting non-profits who are merely trying to promote the arts. Rather, these organizations are trying to promote the arts too—primarily by reminding people (including other artists) not to take music for granted as a valueless commodity. ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC are organizations that represent composers, issuing performance licenses and collecting fees on their behalf.

If musicians are performing original music they composed themselves, then they can certainly agree to perform their own music for free. That can be a condition of hiring them to perform in the first place. However, if a musician or band is playing (“covering”) music composed by others, then just because the musicians agree to perform for a reduced fee, or even for free, doesn’t mean that the composers have allowed their music to be performed for free as well. A performance requires a performance license.

As for whose responsibility it is to obtain the necessary license, its legally everyone’s responsibility. If an unlicensed song is performed at a festival (even a free festival), then the U.S Copyright Act allows all the parties involved in arranging the performance—the artist as well as the venue or festival, and sometimes even the promoter, producer, or booking agent—to be liable for copyright infringement. So, while you could require the musicians to obtain their own licenses with regard to any music they are performing which they have not composed themselves, in my opinion that is a foolish policy. Why? Because most musicians will simply not bother and elect to take the risk of not getting caught. However, if they do get caught, it is the venue or festival who will be liable as well. It doesn’t matter that the festival may have required another party to obtain the license. That simply entitles the festival to sue the other party. The festival itself will remain liable to the composer.

So, in your case, while there are a number of factors that can determine the cost of obtaining performance licenses—the size of the venue, the price of tickets (or lack thereof), the number of performances, etc.–ultimately, it’s in the festival’s or organization’s best interest to ensure that the necessary permissions and licenses are obtained. While it might be tempting to proceed under the expectation that no one will get caught or the publishers and copyright owners will not sue small artists or struggling non-profits, that’s the same as robbing a bank and hoping the police won’t find you. Not to mention, in an industry where so many purport to operate under the noble purpose of promoting the value of art and artists, I can’t imagine the rationalization of stealing it for any purpose, regardless of how noble.

__________________________________________________________________

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

International Touring: A Report From The Front Lines

Thursday, November 19th, 2015

By Brian Taylor Goldstein, Esq.

As the U.S. Legal Advisor to the International Artist Managers’ Association (IAMA), I’ve been asked to prepare an update on a variety of current issues involving international touring at the next membership meeting in London on November 27, 2015. Not only do I adore IAMA, but as this would provide a lovely excuse for my wife and I to avoid having to spend Thanksgiving with either of our families, I was more than happy to agree. Robyn Guilliams and prepared this report, I thought I would share it with all of you…

Visa Stercus

1.  USCIS is presently taking a minimum of 8 – 10 weeks to process visa petitions at both the Vermont and California Service Centers. This means that, as of today, if you need to have an artist enter the U.S. any earlier than March 2016, you need to pay the additional $1225 for premium processing. (The official visa processing times that USCIS posts on its website have always been purely propaganda and should always be disregarded as such.)

    • As a reminder, visa petitions can be filed up to one year in advance of the performance date.

2.  For those of you who have Canadian musicians eligible for P-2 visas, we are receiving reports that Canadian AFM is experiencing a backlog in preparing filing petitions. This is in addition to the current USCIS processing time of 8 – 10 weeks.

3.  I’ve said this before, but the message not getting through, so its worth repeating. ARTISTS CANNOT DO ANYTHING IN THE U.S. ON A TOURIST VISA OR ESTA (Visa waiver) STATUS!!  Please stop listening to the colleges, universities, and festivals that tell you otherwise. They have nothing to lose other than perhaps having to find a replacement artist. On the other hand, I have recently learned of two artists—one from Germany and the other from Spain—who have had their ESTA status permanently revoked because they tried to enter the U.S. in ESTA status to perform in the U.S. Both artists had entered multiple times in the past and one were merely entering to “perform” a master class.

    •  It doesn’t matter whether an artist is paid or unpaid, whether the concert is free, or whether the performance is for educational purposes. They must have an appropriate visa—most often an O or P visa. United States Immigration Officers are taking this very seriously.

4.  In preparing visa petitions, please start collecting and providing the evidence USCIS wants as opposed to giving them what you have lying around in your press package. The days of being able to supply a bio and a few press articles are long gone and we are seeing more and more visa denials and delays because of this.

    •  I recently, and with much regret and sadness, had to advise a client to re-cast a role because the artist’s European management was simply refusing to cooperate in our efforts to obtain a visa for the artist. (In case that manager is reading this…no, USCIS will not “just google the artist to find out how famous he is!”)

Tax Stercus

1.  For those of you waiting to receive a refund check from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) for a non-U.S. artist who has had 30% withheld from their gross engagements fees and are due a tax refund, please be advised: the check is NOT in the mail, and won’t be for the foreseeable future. The IRS has added an extra layer of scrutiny to nonresident tax returns involving refunds. Aside from the usual 2 to 3 month processing time, there is a second review to be sure that everything on the 1042-S form is accurate and complete.  If the IRS senses ANYTHING off, the taxpayer will receive a letter asking for more info. To be fair, the IRS has announced that it will be paying interest on all overdue refund checks. To be practical, it doesn’t matter how much interest they offer to pay if, in fact, they never issue the refund.

    • Bottom Line: There is currently a very good chance that if 30% is withheld from an artist’s engagement fee, the artist will not get that money back…or, at least, not for the foreseeable future. Please plan cash flow accordingly.

2.  A Central Withholding Agreement (CWA) is still the best way of avoiding or reducing the mandatory 30% withholding required from all engagement fees for non-U.S. artists. To be eligible for a CWA, among other requirements, an artist must have filed a U.S. tax return for each prior year in which they have ever performed in the U.S.– even where no tax was owned. If an artist has not filed past U.S. tax returns, he or she will be required to file them as a prerequisite to obtaining a CWA. Unfortunately, we are seeing a sharp increase in the instances where filing such past tax returns is triggering an IRS audit in which they are requesting documents and records from the artist’s world-wide income.

    • In this one particular area, the IRS has displayed a remarkable degree of efficiency in identifying artists who have simultaneously made the least amount of money and kept the least amount of records to prove it.

3.  Obtaining Social Security Numbers (SSNs) and Individual Tax Payer Identification Numbers (ITINs) continue to be a challenge. While SSSs are not any easier for an artist to obtain, they have not become harder. ITINs, on the other hand, have become increasingly difficult, if not impossible, to get. Despite both staffing and budget cutbacks, the IRS has been requested to scrutinize ITIN requests more closely—particularly with regard to proof of identity. For most non-US residents, the most obvious and best proof of identity is a copy of their passport. However, the IRS lacks the resources and training to evaluate how to tell legitimate passports from forged ones. As a result, the IRS is now only accepting copies of passports that have been certified by the actual agency that issued the passport. However, even when this is provided, we are seeing the IRS send notices requesting that the actual, physical passport be sent to them instead. DO NOT DO THIS! You will never see that passport again!

    • There IS one option for some Europeans:  There are IRS offices located in the U.S. Consulates in Paris and London. One can go to these offices and request an ITIN in person (with an original passport, which the IRS will review and return on the spot.)  HOWEVER – one can obtain an ITIN only if one has an “immediate tax need”, such as filing a return. So, if requesting an ITIN in the Paris or London Consulates, one must also bring a completed tax return in hand, ready to file.

4.  We are seeing a large number of U.S. presenters–especially those based at colleges and universities—insisting that non-U.S. artists are legally required to have either a SSN or ITIN in order to perform or get paid in the U.S. Please be advised: There is no such law! While such numbers may make book keeping and accounting easier for the presenter, there is no law that requires an artist to have either one. Not only are SSNs and ITINs not proof of work authorization, but as we addressed above, many artists will be unable to get them in advance—if ever.

5.  Canada requires 15% withholding for gross engagement fees of non-Canadian performers performing there (similar to the 30% withholding requirement in the U,S.) Canada Revenue allows performers to file a waiver/reduction request to reduce/waive the withholding (an R-105 request). On their website, Canada Revenue indicates that the deadline for filing such a request is 30 days prior to the first payment due.  However, it’s taking them MUCH longer to process the requests. So, we are recommending that you file your request with them AT LEAST 60 days prior, or earlier, if possible.

General Travel Stercus 

1.  There is nothing new to report with regard to the ban on bringing musical instruments into the U.S. that contain ivory or other protected materials. United States Customs and Border Patrol isn’t strictly enforcing this with any degree of regularity. However, if any orchestras are touring and don’t want to take the risk, we are recommending that they contact Heather Noonan (hnoonan@americanorchestras.org) at the League of American Orchestras (http://americanorchestras.org) who is among the leading and most effective legislative arts advocates in the U.S. and is happy to talk to them about the “Instrument Passport” process.

    • The League and others are continuing to lobby for specific amendments, including exemptions to the rules for “personal effects” (which would include carry-on musical instruments).

2.  There has been some recent concern about Amtrak, the U.S.’s ersatz rail service, implementing a new policy requiring additional seats to be purchased for oversize musical instruments which cannot fit into overhead compartments. To date, this policy has been posted, but not enforced. We are recommending that artists and ensembles that intend to use Amtrak to travel to engagements within the U.S. check with an Amtrak representative in advance of the tour…and then be prepared for whatever they are told in advance to then be either incorrect or disputed by Amtrak at the actual time of travel.

Other Stercus

1.  When negotiating fees for U.S. engagements, please remember to specify the currency in which the artist is to be paid, including exactly how and when the exchange rate is to be calculated. We are seeing an increased number of misunderstandings over this point.

    • At the same time, use this as an opportunity to clarify any other costs or deductions (such as taxes, visas costs, hotel, travel, etc.) which either are or are not to be included as part of the engagement fee.

2.  Too many people are still relying on general, vague, boilerplate, or unspecific contractual language to take the place of actual negotiation. Do not rely on the misguided belief that there are standard legal terms and procedures that magically govern engagements and bookings when words fail. If you want something, or don’t want something, say something—or, preferably, write it down.

3.  When dealing with performances of new works or contemporary music, bear in mind that licensing laws differ. What’s in the public domain in Europe may not be in the United States. Even a re-arrangement or re-orchestration may not be permissible in certain countries.

__________________________________________________________________

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, Arts Management, Law and Disorder: Performing Arts Division, Licensing, Music Rights, Taxes, Touring, Visas | Comments Closed

Is It Still Illegal If I Don’t Get Caught?

Thursday, April 9th, 2015

By Brian Taylor Goldstein, Esq.   

Dear Law and Disorder:

Our organization has engaged a foreign musician whose European agent is balking at the artist having to obtain an O-1 visa that we know he needs. We want to do this right, so I’m getting my ducks in line to tell him no and part of making that case is knowing what potential penalties the organization might face for allowing him to work without the proper visa. I hope there is an easy answer that you can give me off the top of your head—or maybe there is something you can refer me to that would provide the answer.

A lot of artists and their managers balk at the U.S. visa process for artists. I understand. It’s illogical, inane, impractical, unpredictable, arbitrary, and expensive…and those are just the high points. Nonetheless, it’s the one we’re stuck with.

The “easy answer” is simply that “it’s illegal.” Artists are not permitted to perform in the U.S. without an artist visa (most often, either an O or P), regardless of whether or not tickets are sold, regardless of whether or not the artist is paid or who pays the artist, regardless of whether or not the performance is for a 501(c)(3), regardless of whether or not the performance constitutes “training” or is “educational”, and regardless of just about any scenario you can conceive of. What you are really asking is: what are the consequences for breaking the law and what are the odds of getting caught?

Both United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and United States Customs and Border Patrol (USCBP) have been increasingly scrutinizing artists over the last year or so. As a result, artists who have previously managed to perform illegally in the U.S. in the past without the proper artist visa are now being caught with ever greater regularity—resulting in significant consequences for both the artists as well as the presenters and venues who allowed them to perform. Last year, a violinist who had been performing in the U.S. for the past five years without a visa was caught and is now banned from the U.S. for three years. I am aware of a conductor who was turned away at the border when the immigration official discovered that he was coming to perform by “googling” his name. Another artist was advised by his management to enter the U.S. on a visitor visa to perform a promotional tour for a new album, was detained at the airport for 5 hours, and then refused entry. His ESTA/Visa Waiver privileges have been revoked and he must now visit a U.S. Consulate any time he wants to enter the US—even as a visitor. Even more significantly, a management company was caught submitting a fraudulent visa petition to USCIS and is no longer allowed to serve as a petitioner for its own artist’s visas. Large presenters, venues, and festivals are being audited with increasing regularity to determine whether or not all artists have proper artist visas.

The consequences for employing an artist illegally are the same as for any employer who employs an illegal alien. Theoretically, this can include anything from fines and economic penalties to criminal prosecution. However, from a practical perspective, the Department of Homeland Security and Department of Justice lack the resources to prosecute and investigate every venue or presenter who facilitates an illegal performance. This is why most enforcement tends to be focused on the artist at the time of entry. After the artist has entered the U.S., it’s much less likely that DHS would discover the performance unless there is an audit or the performance is reported to them. Audits are much more likely to occur either in the case of larger institutions or employers who already employ foreign workers in other capacities or in the case of prominent or significant venues or performances which are more likely to garner media attention.

In short, whenever a venue contemplates employing an artist without a proper visa or an artist contemplates performing with a proper visa, it’s akin to running a red light. It’s illegal under any circumstances. Whether or not you get caught depends on whether or not there is a camera or cop at the intersection. Whether or not it’s advisable depends on the circumstances and how lucky you feel.

If cost and inconvenience is a factor, and the artist has other U.S. engagements, a potential solution might be an itinerary-based visa covering multiple engagements. I am increasingly and puzzlingly seeing artists obtaining multiple visas rather than coordinating them amongst all of the artist’s presenters. There is no reason for this other than the visa process being all too often delegated to the “new kid” in the office.

__________________________________________________________________

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 Artist Management, Arts Management, Law and Disorder: Performing Arts Division, Presenters, Touring, Visas | Comments Closed

Plan On It!

Wednesday, October 1st, 2014

By Brian Taylor Goldstein, Esq.    

We booked a tour for a folk/rock group that will be touring the US for the first time. It took a lot longer to get their visas approved because US Immigration kept asking for unreasonable things like background information on venues and festivals and even made us get actual copies of press. They also made us pay a fee to a union even though the artists are not union members. Now, the consulate is refusing to accommodate the group’s travel schedule. Because the group is on tour before coming to the US, there are only 1 or 2 days that will work for them to go to a US consulate and they will need to get the visas back the same day or the next day at the latest. We have already booked all of the flights and those cannot be changed without great cost. Its probably too late now, but, for the future, is there a way we can request a specific date and get the visas back the same day? How do we avoid all of this delay and scrambling in the future?  

Unless you just arrived to our fair planet, then you probably know that the process for obtaining visas for foreign artists to perform in the United States has been significantly compromised for the last nine months or so. While there have been some minor improvements in some areas, the process has continued to be mired down with narrower interpretations of old regulations, frustrating Requests for Addition Evidence (RFEs), and stricter scrutiny. So you should expect delays and plan for them. If a visa petition was simple last year, expect it to be more time consuming this year…even if its for the same artist and group.

While both United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and the United States Department of State’s Consulates (which, for the record, are two different agencies) will make accommodation for emergencies, they are loathe to do so…and the emergencies have to be actual emergencies and not just scheduling or planning conflicts. This means, it needs to involve a last minute cancelation, medical emergency, Act of God, or other severe hardship which could not have otherwise been avoided by advanced planning. Otherwise, the process does not accommodate. You must accommodate the process. You simply cannot count on either USCIS or the US Consulates to accommodate an artist’s tight schedule or limited range of availability.

Your best strategy is to make a realistic assessment of the entire visa process before booking a tour or engaging an artist in the first place. While this may sound obvious, its surprising how often we see the very opposite in practice. There is a presumption that if you book or engage an artist, then all of the other logistics will magically sort themselves out. For example, at a recent arts conference, a manager made an appointment for a free consultation. Their question was that they had just taken on a number of young, non-US artists onto their roster, had already booked a number of US engagements for them at that same conference and wanted to know how hard it will be to get visas for them to perform in the US. That’s a great question, but one which should have been addressed before the manager accepted the artists onto their roster in the first place.

Too often, we see a similar scenario in large presenting organizations where the artistic planning department seems to believe that it is their job to dream big and someone’s else’s job to make sure everyone shows up. I have seen entire festivals planned, with artists engaged and travel plans made, before anyone turned to the issue of visas or other more mundane matters. The truth is that both halves need to work together…and at the same time.

Without question, the US visa process is frustrating, illogical, impractical, absurd, arbitrary, unpredictable, and expensive. What it is not is flexible. For managers and agents, its not just about signing artists that you know you can get booked. For presenters, its not just about planning performances that will sell tickets and enthrall audiences. The artists actually need to show up. That means taking into consideration, at the outset, such issues as: have there been any changes or new requirements since the last time you or the artist obtained a visa? Does the artist or group have the necessary background materials and supporting evidence required for a visa petition? Who will be in charge of the process? What are the costs and who will pay for them? What is the timeline?

Its also not enough just to turn the process over to someone else. There have been many instances where we have been brought into help obtain a visa for an artist or group who has been booked to perform in the US, only to discover that no one has bothered to advise the artist or group of the process or the considerable amount of paperwork and documentation they will need to provide. This almost always causes considerable delay and extra costs. You simply cannot book a foreign artist and ask questions 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, Arts Management, Law and Disorder: Performing Arts Division, Touring, Visas | Comments Closed

The Band That Stood Up To God…and Lost

Thursday, October 24th, 2013

By Brian Taylor Goldstein, Esq.

Dear Law and Disorder

We recently has a situation where one of our groups showed up at a festival, but just before they were to go on stage, the police shut down the event due to an approaching electrical storm. The presenter had given the group a deposit for 50% prior to the event, but is refusing to pay the balance even though our booking agreements have a specific clause that says that, in the event of cancellation, except for Acts of God, the artist gets the full fee. The presenter signed the agreement. The band showed up and were ready, willing and able to perform. Aren’t they entitled to the full fee? They need this money to cover their costs for flying, driving, and internal costs. Isn’t the presenter supposed to get event insurance to cover these sorts of things?

When you say the band was “ready, willing and able to perform”, are you saying that, had the police not shut down the event, they would have performed anyway? In a lightning storm? Seriously? While I am solidly rooted in the “show must go on” tradition, you’re either representing the industry’s most desperate band or the most reckless—or both. Had lightning struck the stage, injuring either a band member or a member of the audience, the band would have been facing some significant lawsuits and liability for gross negligence.

An “Act of God” is an unexpected event or occurrence that is beyond the control of a party. If a party breaches a contract because of an “Act of God”, then the party is not liable. Concerts cancelled due to severe weather are among the most common “Acts of God.” The fact that, in this case, the police shut down the event as opposed to the actual hand of the almighty descending from the clouds and cancelling the event with a host of celestial trumpets does not change the fact that the presenter did not cause the lightning storm and had no choice but to cancel the event—literally, given that the police ordered the event to be closed. Thus, the presenter is not liable for the cancellation and the band is not entitled to the full fee. In fact, assuming the presenter let the band keep its 50% deposit, the band actually got more than it was entitled to.

As for whether or not the presenter was supposed to get event insurance to cover weather related cancellations, you seem to be under the impression that, had the presenter obtained such insurance, then the band would have been paid its full fee. Not necessarily. Unless your contract obligated the presenter to purchase an insurance policy and name the band as an additional insured, then the presenter’s event cancellation insurance policy would only have covered the presenter’s liabilities and expenses. As the presenter isn’t liable to pay the band its full fee, the insurance policy wouldn’t have paid it either. On the contrary, if the band regularly plays outdoor events and concerts, and wants to “ensure” that it losses are covered in the event a concert is cancelled to due weather, then the band should consider getting its own event cancellation insurance policy. Or you could always just pray.

_________________________________________________________________

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

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

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

__________________________________________________________________

THE OFFICIAL DISCLAIMER:

THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE!

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

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

Who’s Responsible For Performance Licenses?

Wednesday, June 26th, 2013

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

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

Omus in Person

Wednesday, February 1st, 2012

by Sedgwick Clark

I first met Omus Hirshbein in Carnegie Hall’s executive offices, where he worked for a brief time in 1973 between tenures at the Hunter College Concert Bureau and the 92nd Street Y. He was walking out of a planning meeting, saying in frustration to anyone nearby, “They won’t listen to me—they should be emphasizing the sound of Carnegie Hall.” Guess what Carnegie’s subscription campaign was the next season, after Omus left for the Y? There he would create a concert series that for two decades would dominate the chamber-music field in New York (and annoy the hell out of me because it was such a nuisance to get to from my apartment near Lincoln Center).

We became friends over the years, especially after buying one of his pianos several years ago when his upper West Side apartment could no longer house two Steinways. Every time my wife and her four-hands partner, the composer and conductor Victoria Bond, get together to play, we think of Omus and his wife, Jessica.

Omus died on December 31st after a long decline due to Alzheimer’s. It seems especially tragic that one whose mind was so fertile would leave us in such a manner. I’m sorry I took so long to take note of him in this forum. Perhaps I was stymied because Brian Kellow, who worked for Omus at the Y in the 1980s, captured his personality and accomplishments so warmly and vividly in an Opera News piece, as did Allan Kozinn in his New York Times obituary (January 7, 2012). So I decided I would do something different and reprint Omus’s own typically impassioned words from a panel discussion on the programming of classical music, which appeared in the 1995 Musical America Directory. Participants with Omus in the discussion were industry V.I.P.s Deborah Borda, Eugene Carr, Mary Lou Falcone, Christopher Hunt, and Jane Moss. I highly recommend your reading it; check out the Services section on top of the Musicalamerica.com desktop. You may find, as I did when I read it again, that it could have been recorded yesterday.

Omus Hirshbein: “I think there are two reasons why people like to go to concerts these days. One is being addressed by the kind of programming that the American Symphony is doing. Back in 1986 I agreed to put together a series of eight concerts for the Museum of Modern Art exhibition called “Vienna 1900.” It had to do with the years of the Vienna Secession, which are roughly 1898-1918, and the composers were Schoenberg, Berg, Webern, Zemlinsky, Schmidt. And I said to them, “But no one will come.” To my surprise, tickets were being scalped on 53rd Street. I saw virtually none of the usual New York music people at those eight concerts. Audience members were reading, they were seeing the paintings, they were seeing the workshop of Hoffman, and they were hearing a group of composers described by curator Kirk Varnedoe as part and parcel of the Secession, and they went. Okay, that’s one reason.

“The other, of course, is that music is supposed to touch the heart. And it’s supposed to touch the soul. Now, there was a period of 40 or 50 years when what was new was ugly. Sorry, it was mostly ugly. And the legatees of those Viennese geniuses—and I speak of Schoenberg as a genius—made it worse. They became academic, producing a system of writing in this country that was not for the public. Now, there are some young people writing music today who are mobbed by audiences. I’m talking about Aaron Kernis, and Bright Sheng, and there are others. And maybe it signals a reversal of that horrible trend where what was new was impossible to listen to. That’s all I can hope for, because the teaching of music has become of little importance in most of the major cities today as they cope with their social and educational problems.

“Let me just add that money is really an issue. And I’m not talking about balancing budgets. On the wall in my new office is a blowup of an advertisement from 1971, announcing a repeat concert of Victoria de los Angeles and Alicia de Larrocha doing a program of Spanish tonadillas and whatnot. I ask people to look at it because it has tremendous meaning—and finally down at the bottom, they come across what is really disturbing about it. And this is 1971, folks. The top price at the Hunter College Concert Bureau, where this took place, in a 2,200-seat house, was a dollar below Carnegie Hall and a dollar below Lincoln Center: six and a half dollars. A movie was three bucks, or three and a half. A musical event of that magnitude was twice the price of a movie. And that was prevailing.

“Now, I throw down a gauntlet to the commercial interests that have ruined our business. I assure you that Mostly Mozart once was a three- and four-dollar ticket. Commercial interests, and the interests of unions, have hurt us a great deal. This not a high-tech business, this is not the movies, this is not mass media, and we are paying the kind of monies out that would say it’s mass media, and it ain’t anything like that.

“. . . I had a staff of music lovers in my previous job. Music lovers. A couple of them were married, they were in their thirties, and you know what they do? They get together with their friends in a restaurant, and they spend an evening, and that’s all they can afford to do; they are making $23,000 and $24,000 a year, and they cannot afford to go to these concerts.

“. . . There’s another side of the coin. Once the performer becomes recognizable, there is the most extraordinary avarice to get the fees up as fast as possible. And that, for me, is what has wrecked the business. An artist could go on the road and make a decent living at fees somewhere in the $5,000 or $6,000 range and that’s about all that anybody out there in the hinterlands can afford. Now, I think maybe that’s all I have to say.”

Of course, it wasn’t all he had to say. His last professional endeavor was to found, with his former Y colleague Jacqueline Taylor, a series of free public concerts with major artists that they called “Free for All at Town Hall.” They wrote about its genesis in the 2004 edition of Musical America Directory, and we can still look forward to these concerts each spring. Martin Riskin, who is now president and artistic director of the series, tells me that the upcoming concerts will be dedicated to Omus.

Looking Forward

My week’s scheduled concerts:

2/1 Paul Hall. FOCUS! Festival. Cage: Five Songs (1938); Six Melodies for Violin and Keyboard (1950); Imaginary Landscape No. 1 (1939); Etudes Boreales, Nos. 1 & 3 (1978); Sonnekus² (1985); Satie Cabaret Songs; Child of Tree (1975); The Perilous Night (1944).

2/7 Rodgers Theatre. Gershwin: Porgy and Bess. Audra McDonald (Bess), Norm Lewis (Porgy), David Alan Grier (Sportin’ Life).

1/8 Peter Jay Sharp Theater. Gluck: Armide. Juilliard Orchestra/Jane Glover. Emalie Savoy (Armide), Alexander Hajek (Hidraot), David Portillo (Renaud), Alexander Lewis (Artémidore), Luthando Qave (Ubalde), Noah Baetge (Le Chevalier Danois), Wallis Giunta (Phénice), Devon Guthrie (Sidonie), Evan Hughes (Aronte), Renée Tatum (La Haine), Soo Yeon Kim (La Naïade), Pureum Jo (2nd Coryphée), Deanna Breiwick (Une Bergère), Lilla Heinrich-Szász (Lucinde), and Raquel González (Mélisse).

Tags:, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Why I Left Muncie | Comments Closed

When Irish Eyes Are Smiling

Thursday, June 30th, 2011

By Keith Clarke

If the blog sounds a bit louder this week it is probably because it has moved 400 miles in your direction, leaving London for the verdant pastures of the Emerald Isle. The draw is the wonderful West Cork Chamber Music Festival – a full report will appear at the front end of this site in due course.

Ireland has always been a place that likes to put a smile on everyone’s face, largely through its inhabitants’ propensity for lateral thinking. Ask an Irishman how to get to Ballylicky and, in legend, he will always reply: “Well, to be sure, if it was me, I wouldn’t be starting from here now.”

This different way of viewing things has become a marketable commodity. You can buy a postcard showing a rustic door bearing the advice: “This is the back door. The front door is round the back.”

The jokes have been a bit thin on the ground since the Shamrock Economy took a serious dive, but one wonderfully enlivening constant has been the chamber festival. Only in Ireland, you may think, could a dairy farmer start a chamber music festival in a remote rural town and expect an audience to beat a path to his door. Full respect to Francis Humphrys for doing just that, and despite a perilously hand-to-mouth existence, managing to turn the event into something that has become one of the country’s most glittering cultural assets.

>>>

 Another music festival, an event known as the BBC Proms, was out on the promo trail last week, playing a free concert in Europe’s largest urban retail mall, conveniently situated just up the road from the BBC . The event set out to attract new audiences, in the hope that they might be tempted into the Royal Albert Hall during the summer.

It is not the first time the Westfield mall has played host to the concert, but this year there was a new idea to make the BBC Symphony more user-friendly: the players were identified by blue tees, declaring “Sam – Tuba,” “Donald – Double bass,” “Dan – Trombone,” etc. The promo team had managed to round up the entire orchestra with the exception of one young man in the percussion section who clearly didn’t know who he was.

Seeing the happy smiling faces of the children watching Sam, Donald and Dan etc go through their paces, I couldn’t help thinking that this was an idea that could be applied to advantage elsewhere. Think how it could take the sting out of international talks if the US team turned up in natty tees labeled “Barack – President,” “Hillary – Sec of State,” “Bob – Defense Chief,” etc. It has to be worth a try.

Tags:, , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Closed